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

Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

znak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 428 posts

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#291

Post by xtracto »

georgecmu wrote: post #159
lnsru wrote: post #27

There is only way for country’s protection and it’s Israel’s way where whole country is also an army. Especially for countries near unfriendly countries like Russia in this submission. Because all the treaties and documents signed by politicians are absolutely worthless. Ukraine got rid of all the Soviet nuclear weapons and got lots of promises: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum_on_Secur... Now they…

For a much more evenhanded -- and hence rare -- take, you may wish to read this very recent commentary from Jack Matlock, the last US Ambassador to the USSR[1]. He has the advantage of being an observer who is (a) very informed and (b) disinterested. The following paragraphs are worth reading, even if you fundamentally disagree with this viewpoint[2]. Russia is extremely sensitive about foreign military activity adja…

Great read thank you. As someone completely disinterested in any of the affected parties, it sometimes gets annoying how loud is the "pro-American" / "Anti Russian" propaganda in the internet. It's always "America is good, Russia/China/Whoever else is bad" as if the USA was full of saints. Truth is, every country and government is willing to protect their interests, and it has been historically proved that the USA is willing to go the "extra mile" through CIA and other back channels (Pinochet and other South American dirty wars).

I cannot imagine the scandal that it will be if my country (Mexico) would allow Russia or China to place some weapons and troops in say, Tijuana or Cd Juarez. And yet, the USA has bases stationed all around the globe.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#292

Post by hourislate »

For anyone who thinks Europe can challenge Russia on the battle field ......

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nato-runs-short-on-some...

This doesn't mean things can't change but currently Russia could roll over Europe in a week unless the USA intervenes.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#293

Post by bingohbangoh »

qwytw wrote: post #233
jacquesm wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Last I heard the Americans had left. Is there something I have missed?

True, currently Americans seems to be only stationed in Poland (while Germans are mainly in Lithuania, Canadians in Latvia and the UK in Estonia) but I don't see how that fundamentally changes anything.

I was just in Kaunas and ran into American soldiers -- or what I thought were American soldiers? We chatted and they implied this.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#294

Post by lostmsu »

gritzko wrote: post #39

I observe the Ukrainian drama for many years. I strongly suspect that the actual game maybe the opposite of the picture in the media. Ukraine is looted to the bone and the economy is in downward spiral. The beneficiaries of the looting may need a war to write it all off. Meanwhile, if Putin takes Ukraine, he would shoulder a giant pile of debt, plus the responsibility for everything that happens. So the actual game m…

You don't think Russia is looted to the bone and is not in a downward spiral? Just look at the tech sector there. Yandex is barely alive, and VK is now a property of Mail.Ru group.

Outside of tech the economical situation prior to invasion was barely better than Ukraine's.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#295

Post by torstenvl »

sudosysgen wrote: post #288
torstenvl wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The debacle in Afghanistan showed that the US military is incompetent when it comes to actually achieving their goals How so? That's a pretty novel interpretation. Why do you view Afghanistan as a military failure rather than a political one?

It's really not a novel interpretation. The goal of a military operation is to achieve political goals. There is no clear delineation between the two. If the political goals weren't reached then the military failed. A military is only as good as its leadership, is it not? Well, the ultimate leadership is the president.

That is definitely novel, yes. Political success often depends on military success, but I've never heard anyone claim the opposite.

The implication of your position is that the only way the U.S. military could have "succeeded" would have been to mutiny. That seems... odd.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#296

Post by rectang »

w_t_payne wrote: post #290
rectang wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hate to say it but the Afghanistan withdrawal really showed what happens when Americans stop giving a shit, and they probably don't give that much of a shit about Latvia. The US is facing severe internal crises. It's weakening the country's ability to conduct a consistent foreign policy. (I'm deliberately not saying what the crises are, because there is pitched disagreement about that. The point is that no matter…

And when the cause of that internal crisis is the rise of far-right populism (either actively funded or at least tacitly supported by Putin), then it really doesn't take much effort to put two and two together. There are no mysteries here, only evil working in plain sight.

That is one perspective. As an exercise, could you articulate a sympathetic reading of a different perspective, to the extent that someone who holds that perspective would approve of your rendering? Think of it as following Sun Tzu's advice to know your adversary.

Again, the point in this context is that no matter what the crises are, the foreign influence of the US is in decline because of severe domestic distractions.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#297

Post by ivan_gammel »

xxpor wrote: post #258
ivan_gammel wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not looking for expansion outwards. The only real expansion that has happened so far was Crimea, which was part of Russia before, has significant Russian population which at least once voted for independence, but more importantly it is vital for Russian defence on the south.

The Philippines was part of the US back in the day too. Itd also provide a convenient base for countering China. Should the US invade and annex it?

This is not the same. Imagine a different situation: in 1950 USA gives Florida to Mexico. In 2010s as a result of political transformation, Mexico wants to leave trade agreements with USA and join economic and military alliance led by China, opening possibility for Chinese military base in Miami. Would USA invade in this case?

Based on what we know from the history, yes, USA could do it, as they did in the Bay of Pigs. In fact, USA invaded with military forces in Latin America so many times that by now they should have lost any credibility in democratic world.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#298

Post by scottLobster »

qwytw wrote: post #266
scottLobster wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Border security (same reason the Soviets held onto their gains), paranoia, and Putin needing an external enemy to galvanize his power. Plus they've taken the Crimea and effectively a large chunk of Ukraine with little effective pushback. They may believe that Europe and US lack the will for harsh punishments, particularly with Germany (among others) reliant on Russian natural gas. There are also a lot of ethnic Russi…

Has China invaded Taiwan yet? From a more cynical, pragmatic "realpolitik" perspective one can view Russian actions in Ukraine as largely defensive. From the collapse of the Soviet Union Ukraine largely functioned as a semi-protectorate of Russia, even before 2014 Russian probably had significantly more troops stationed in Crimea than Ukrainians themselves since their black sea fleet is stationed there. After the eve…

No, but they want to. Reclaiming Taiwan is linked to the CCP maintaining its power. If the US wasn't around they would have taken it back by now.

What you say about the Russian actions in Ukraine is true, the question is would they prefer full annexation if they knew NATO wouldn't intervene? I'd say they probably would. If the goal is security, not many things more secure than saying "this is our territory now", it would also enable a lot of direct control instead of relying on manipulated chaos that can always blow up in your face.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#299

Post by ericmay »

hguant wrote: post #169
wongarsu wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Russia has a military budget of 60bn, Germany and France spend 52bn each. Within the EU they are on home turf, with existing rail and road infrastructure. The EU isn't equipped to fight in Russia or to fight a nuclear war (even though France has nukes), but I don't see why the EU shouldn't be able to defend it's own territory in a conventional war.

>but I don't see why the EU shouldn't be able to defend it's own territory in a conventional war. Because money spent in an efficient and effective system has more power than money spent in an ineffective and bloated system. One example - Germany doesn't actually have enough helicopters operational to meet their needs, so they used civilian contractor helicopters in Afghanistan. The structures are just so different t…

100% and I think in the case of an actual war, the most likely scenario is that EU member states basically scramble and act independently to defend themselves. The idea of a joint EU military response to Russian aggression is absolutely a fantasy. It's just too big and slow of an organization to do anything on the timescales needed to decisively win a war.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#300

Post by mclightning »

jmacd wrote: post #9

I think we in the west need something like a 'doctrine of the foregone conclusion'. Often things are very obvious, even notorious, but because we do not want to face the eventuality, we do things like negotiate or perseverate our denials all while the situation escalates. If NATO and the west are ready and willing to defend Ukraine (I suspect we are not), in which case a significant increase in our own presence would…

"foregone conclusion" that's a dignifying way to say "walk the walk, as well as talking the talk", or "put one's money where one's mouth is", or "be consistent", "show of will"
Post reply on HN