Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Alexei Navalny has died

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

501–510 of 1001 posts

Re: Alexei Navalny has died

#501

Post by jonwachob91 »

MrDresden wrote: post #414
cglace wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take away is that the US is somehow at fault. The one bill that was blocked by Congress would be more support than Europe as a whole has provided to Ukraine to date. While I agree that European countries should start to take their defense seriously I don't see how you fault US support of Ukraine.

> The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take away is that the US is somehow at fault. There is nothing in the parent post to even hint that they are saying that the US is to blame for what happened. The US cannot be trusted to fulfill it's approved upon role in NATO if and when the push comes to shove (that damage to the US reputation is done). I wan…

>>> The US cannot be trusted to fulfill it's approved upon role in NATO if and when the push comes to shove (that damage to the US reputation is done).

What role as the US failed to fulfill in Ukraine? Ukraine isn't a NATO member, the US had no obligation to come to their support, yet we did anyways.

Meanwhile Germany divested their entire domestic energy security and became subservient to Russia for energy - enabling this entire conflict b/c Russia felt Europe became addicted and depended to Russian fuels and wouldn't oppose their dealers.

Re: Alexei Navalny has died

#502

Post by MrDresden »

cglace wrote: post #240
miroljub wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just something they tell you during your election campaign. The truth is a bit different, USA is good at promissing and forcing other to do, but it did very little, compared to own GDP and military abilities. Money: - EU - 85,0 Mrd. € - USA - 67,7 Mrd. € - Deutschland - 22,1 Mrd. € - Vereinigtes Königreich - 15,7 Mrd. € - Dänemark - 8,8 Mrd. € - EU: nur gemeinsame Hilfe - Quelle: Institut für Weltwirtschaft /…

You cherry-pick tanks as your metric? Why don't we look at the totality of American deliveries, including long-range munitions and artillery, and see who comes ahead? What equivalent of game-changing ordnance, such as the GDSLB, are European countries providing? This is why a large portion of Americans could care less about the defense of Europe. No matter what we do, it's either wrong or not enough. Meanwhile, Europ…

> This is why a large portion of Americans could care less about the defense of Europe. No matter what we do, it's either wrong or not enough. Meanwhile, Europe spent the last few decades enjoying cheap Russian energy and neglecting its defense spending and then turned around and told the US that we don't do enough to stop Russia.

That comment comes off as surpisingly ignorant of the benefits that the US gets by having a buffer zone between it self on either side (Europe on it's eastern flank and the indo pacific on the western flank).

Your whole foreign policy revolves around keeping these areas armed and protected in cooperation with local governments in an effort of keeping conflict from reaching US shores (an evolution of the Monroe doctrine, which started back in the 19th century with keeping European conquest out of the immediate surroundings).

I would highly recommend picking up 'The Grand Chessboard[0]' by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former counselor to Presidents Lyndon B Johnson and Jimmy Carter. It is an excellent light read on the landscape in the mid 90's in regards to US foreign policy and national security. It even forshadows much that has happened recently.

It will truly fill in some gaps.

> Meanwhile, Europe spent the last few decades enjoying cheap Russian energy

Let us not forget that for a long time the US was hooked on foreign imported oil from the middle east, and even in 2021 Russian energy made up a total of 4% of the domestic US energy usage (up since Venezualian sources were not available as readily).

Please don't paint the US as some white knight that does what ever it can to please others on the world stage for altruistic reasons.

At worst it is disingenuous, and at best signals a massive ignorance of the world stage, history and the actors playing on it (again, highly recommend the book[0]).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

edit: spelling.

Re: Alexei Navalny has died

#503

Post by avaika »

seanw444 wrote: post #460

Rest in peace. It's wild to me how everyone has a (very energetic) opinion about a conflict nowhere near their home, helmed by people they don't know, fought by people they don't understand, over problems they don't understand. I wish we could return to when not every conflict between nations was a considered a global emergency.

The war affects everyone. Some people die, some suffer because they are under shelling or occupation, some suffer cause their loved one die. But those outside war zone suffer as well. Due to broken food chains, crazy economic inflation and general political instability. For sure it's as bad as when you're dead because of the random shell hitting your home, but still.

When a man with a nuclear button savagely kills his opponent just because he can, this creates instability inside the country. And increases chances, that once he dies (which eventually will happen), some radical guy might overtake the power and who knows what happens next.

I understand that a lot of events in the world might have potential global effect, but only few of them might hit as bad.

Re: Alexei Navalny has died

#504

Post by arp242 »

rubytubido wrote: post #286

Really sad news. But if you really think that he was killed - why now? He was "under control" in a prison for multiple years, so why kill him now? It worsens Russia's public image even more My assumptions: 1) He was killed, but why now? 2) He died because Russians' prison has a really bad conditions of detention - so his health was declining over time

It's not my impression that Putin overly cares about Russia's public image abroad.

And plausibility seems a good reason for "why now". You need to be very naïve to not strongly suspect foul play here, or in other cases of people falling out windows and whatnot, but you can also never be quite sure. Not really. So there is at least some plausibility that it was "just" an accident, or "just" illness, at least when trying to sell this to the Russian people.

Re: Alexei Navalny has died

#505

Post by data_maan »

infecto wrote: post #207
KingOfCoders wrote: post #93

The (small) upside of all this missery, death and pain is Europe will lose some territory but gain it's own military security after decades of living from the US strategy alignment. Countries like Poland will no longer buy US weapons but increase European defense spending - they fear just like Ukraine that US congress just turns around and will stop delivering parts for F-35s in a conflict [0]. The US lost all it's t…

I get so tired of these sentiments. Without a doubt the US pushes its might around the world BUT in the case of Europe, European countries do not have the willpower to create a military like the US's. How did the US lose all its trust? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Europe was frolicking around for decades, most countries with no real economy and making many mistakes a long the way regarding energy security.

We weren't frolicking, we were peacefully consuming Apple's wonderful technology, cursing at Microsoft's abysmal OS, and other great product from Silicon Valley ;)

Re: Alexei Navalny has died

#506

Post by hackandthink »

KingOfCoders wrote: post #230
odiroot wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Countries like Poland will no longer buy US weapons but increase European defense spending - they fear just like Ukraine that US congress just turns around and will stop delivering parts for F-35s in a conflict That's absolutely not the sentiments among Poles. If anything, there's a belief we can only rely on US when poo hits the fan.

As I've said, when the Suwałki Gap falls and the US stands by - and the US will under Trump - sentiments will turn 180°. Poland hoped the UK would safe them from Germany and Russia and was betrayed. Poland now hopes the US would safe them from Russia, and they will be betrayed.

There is a name for it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_betrayal

Re: Alexei Navalny has died

#507

Post by inglor_cz »

cglace wrote: post #338
Thaxll wrote: post #329

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The US funds their own economy, most of the money they send goes back to the US economy because they produce the weapons that Ukraine purchase.

And the stockpiles of artillery, long-range munitions, armor, ammo, guns, etc sent? The US really can't win. If we didn't support Ukraine we would be blasted. If we do it's because we are just trying to enrich ourselves.

"And the stockpiles of artillery, long-range munitions, armor, ammo, guns, etc sent?"

Quite a lot of those are older weapons that need to be either spent or securely disposed of within a decade or so.

Don't take me wrong, I am happy that the US helped Ukraine and I certainly wish that the next package passes the House, but the economic cost of your help isn't easily calculated in dollars. (Or, for that matter, our in Czech crowns.)

Stockpiles need to be either spent or renewed/replaced. Perhaps you could have used some of that older stuff in training, but not all of it. Military equipment has an expiration date, you would need to refresh your stockpiles anyway.

Re: Alexei Navalny has died

#508

Post by Aerroon »

disgruntledphd2 wrote: post #421
sekai wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The writing is on the wall for a while now, the only problem is that people talking about it are promptly labeled as not worthy of being listened Exactly, did people forget Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014? Let's not be naive here.

Yup, this was the time to arm Ukraine. (or even in 2008 with Georgia).

The US did actually train Ukrainian troops after that. Eg https://www.newsweek.com/us-troops-prepare-ukraine-soldiers-...

Could more have been done? Probably, but effort was definitely put in.

Re: Alexei Navalny has died

#509

Post by terafo »

banku_brougham wrote: post #268

Does anyone know why NATO/US never gave Ukraine what they were asking for! jets, Anti-air systems, ATACMs, etc?

"Escalation management" through "slowly boiling the frog" combined with lack of coherent strategy for the war, partially because some western politicians are afraid of Russia's tantrum in case of Ukrainian victory(using nukes if Crimea is lost, for example), and that are balancing aid so it's enough for Ukraine not loosing, but not enough for Ukraine winning. Equipment that would've been sufficient to win the war in 2022(before Russia constructed massive defensive lines) was delivered in 2023, largely in the second half of 2023. And there's not that many signs that it might change.

Re: Alexei Navalny has died

#510

Post by Agraillo »

picadores wrote: post #297
merpkz wrote: post #41

So in latest news, last opposition figure in Russia dies together with any hope for regime change while Russia's war effort is starting to get some traction with it's overwhelming man power and Ukraine is forced to cede more territory all while west is busy either with it's in-fighting or comparing each others superior GDP and how Russia will crumble just any day now (TM). Man, are we in for a ride next decade in Eur…

It fits very well into the narrative that democracy is ineffective and basically a hot-house flower, that some culprits propell.

What keeps my hope for democracies in the world is an observation I made after reading The Year 2000 by Joseph Goebbels written on 25 February 1945. He more or less said that Stalin wasn't bound by the rules of democracies then he would succeed after all. I like to analyze such predictions because you know the outcome and you can guess what was wrong when someone wrote this. My version is that democracies have values kept while transitioning from a state to a state (after elections) while dictatorships change in many respects. It was visible in the Soviet Union, every new ruler brought a new system despite the fact that they all claimed to fight for the same goals.
Post reply on HN