Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine • Hacker News Board

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#301

Post by fxleach » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 3:53 PM UTC

qwytw wrote: post #221

scottLobster wrote: post #197

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question is less about NATO deployments and more the will of NATO leadership to go to war with Russia over its more minor members. 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. Who's going to step into that gap for NATO? Poland recently ran a military exercise simulating a war with Russia…

What rational reason would Russia have to invade the Baltic States (or even for example Poland)? Even in best case scenario if the west does not directly intervene, they would get an additional few million people almost all of whom absolutely don't want to live in Russia and whom Russia could barely afford to police and a lot of additional economic sanctions. Also we're totally ignoring the internal political fallout…

They already have and the rest of the world just turned away, look at Crimea.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#302

Post by qwytw » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 3:53 PM UTC

retrac wrote: post #278

qwytw wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What rational reason would Russia have to invade the Baltic States (or even for example Poland)? Even in best case scenario if the west does not directly intervene, they would get an additional few million people almost all of whom absolutely don't want to live in Russia and whom Russia could barely afford to police and a lot of additional economic sanctions. Also we're totally ignoring the internal political fallout…

Wars usually seem rational to the people starting them. Conceivably attainable goals for short- or medium- term political purposes. But war has a way of escalating, dragging the participants along to a fate none of them really control. As a hypothetical -- Russia does invade Ukraine and the Western forces offer substantial but indirect military support. Russia strikes at a supporting NATO military installation just m…

Japan was already fighting a massive war in China, after the US oil embargo Japan basically had no choice (besides a completely changing their geopolitical goals) they had to invade Indonesia and other oil rich European colonies in the pacific which would likely result in a war with the US, so yes, they choose relatively rational option of attacking first hoping if not to knock out US out of the Pacific but at least to significantly weaken their presence there. They might have underestimated the industrial capacity of the US, but they hardly had any other options if they wanted to continue their imperialistic expansion.

I don't see how is that relevant in the case of Russia though, they have little to gain and a lot to loose from any war with NATO or invasion of any NATO countries and so far Putin or anyone did not indicate in anyway that they think otherwise.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#303

Post by wayoutthere » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 3:56 PM UTC

jacquesm wrote: post #282

wayoutthere wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of which are pushing 50 years old. Russia has a lot of military assets, and has developed some advanced capabilities, but has not been able to field them in any meaningful quantity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The same story is true with their air superiority / denial capabilities. They have advanced weapons, but not enough of them to go toe-to-toe with NATO and the bulk of their military is obsolete Sovi…

Yes, but they run just fine. Russia can field massive amounts of heavy materials, far more than any other Western European country, and they have plenty of mobile launchers and other annoying hardware that can throw a spanner in the works for a fairly large surface area, and the number of airplanes they can field is quite impressive. It may not be the latest and the greatest, but it's not as if F35s are thick on the…

Totally agree with the last part, and I think Russia is playing a dangerous game of chicken here that risks nuclear WW3 if it goes wrong.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#304

Post by ivan_gammel » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 3:57 PM UTC

scottLobster wrote: post #274

illuminati1911 wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

”The question is less about NATO deployments and more the will of NATO leadership to go to war with Russia over its more minor members.” Not acting on this would completely destroy NATO and also permanently destroy US credibility on the world politics and in terms of military power. Realistically speaking NATO and US could not afford not to go to a war or at least armed conflict with Russia.

Like I said, you're assuming the US gives a shit. The Cold War ended a while ago, the last Cold War generation is aging into retirement. Europe/Russia is now a secondary concern in the US next to China. NATO blowing up would destroy American diplomatic credibility, but we've already kinda done that in multiple ways over the last few years, and our military is still more than potent enough to look after our interests.…

USA will have to give a shit for one reason: the war against Baltics or Poland is the war against whole Europe. Germany will not stay away and observe, as will not do France or Italy. EU is the largest trade partner of USA, the biggest market for its exports etc. Regardless of the strategic games in the Pacific, USA cannot afford to lose it or to allow it to be devastated by a big war.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#305

Post by petre » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 4:00 PM UTC

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…

There is also another way: building a nuclear weapons/ICBM arsenal. That's why there's always the topic of nuclear non proliferation among countries that already have this capability. But if Ukraine had nukes, it wouldn't have been invaded by Russia. Just like how Noth Korea isn't going to be invaded by anyone anytime soon.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#306

Post by sudosysgen » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 4:03 PM UTC

torstenvl wrote: post #295

sudosysgen wrote: post #288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, no. The only way for the U.S. military would have been for it to produce better advice for its commander in chief, and for the commander in chief to follow that advice. It failed at both levels.

This is definitely not novel. I am basically quoting Clausewitz, which is basically as far as you can go from being novel in the military tradition nowadays. For instance:

> We see, therefore, that War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means. All beyond this which is strictly peculiar to War relates merely to the peculiar nature of the means which it uses. ___That the tendencies and views of policy shall not be incompatible with these means, the Art of War in general and the Commander in each particular case may demand___, and this claim is truly not a trifling one. But however powerfully this may react on political views in particular cases, still it must always be regarded as only a modification of them; for ___the political view is the object, War is the means, and the means must always include the object in our conception.___

The U.S. military failed to act in a way that, to borrow Clausewitz's words, always includes the object in their conception. They therefore failed in their goals. Just as a foolish attack doomed to failure is a military failure, so is a foolish operation that could not achieve it's goals.

Also, it's far from true that the military knew that what they were doing would fail. They really did believe just as much as anyone else, in the beginning, that they would be able to make Afghanistan into a perfect American puppet and model in the region, and in being wrong, they failed too.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#307

Post by ericmay » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 4:04 PM UTC

scottLobster wrote: post #197

underscore_ku wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

there are already NATO battalions in Latvia and Lithuania. Albania, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Italy, Montenegro, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia and Spain contribute to the Canadian-led battlegroup in Latvia; Belgium, the Czech Republic, Iceland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Norway provide contributions to the German-led battlegroup in Lithuania; France and Iceland contribute to the UK-led battlegroup in Estonia; an…

The question is less about NATO deployments and more the will of NATO leadership to go to war with Russia over its more minor members. 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. Who's going to step into that gap for NATO? Poland recently ran a military exercise simulating a war with Russia…

> hate to say it but the Afghanistan withdrawal really showed what happens when Americans stop giving a shit

America as a country never really gave a shit about Afghanistan. Nobody was standing in a ration line or anything. The military was at war, and that should actually give you confidence because if America can sustain a 20-year war in Afghanistan which turned out to be completely pointless while also fighting a war in Iraq which they also do not care about imagine if the U.S. did care. Unless you were in the military or knew someone who was if you turned off the news there was absolutely 0 evidence that the United States was at war in Afghanistan or Iraq or even both.

And I'll also say pulling out of Afghanistan was 100% the right call. We spent 20 years there and it collapsed in like a week when we left. That should be all the evidence you need that it was time to get out. It was a money and attention pit and we gained nothing for it strategically. (Not commenting here on the atrocities committed by the Taliban)

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#308

Post by aa-jv » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 4:05 PM UTC

reducesuffering wrote: post #287

aa-jv wrote: post #262

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your analysis is faulty, I've lived in Austria for 15 years and have extensive experience working professionally in the Balkan states - Kosovo, Serbia, Hungary, Croatia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Czech Republic. I've also lived in the USA for many decades prior to moving to Europe, and I don't have a single nationalist bone in my body. I can count the # of pro-NATO/pro-USA bootlickers in my professional circles on one hand…

You 3 months ago: "This is sufficient motivation to abandon my Australian citizenship entirely and move to a country [Germany. Austria]" And you said the Ukrainian and Georgian expats were here in Austria. I'll leave it to others to decide if you're telling the truth. > You seem to be aligned with the "might makes right" theory of geopolitics. Actually I was explicitly saying that Russia annexing Ukraine (might) isn'…

Perhaps your reading comprehension needs work. Abandoning my citizenship doesn't mean I can't already be living in Austria and become a full citizen because of what I perceive to be gross violations by the Australian government .. or want to move to a non-bootlicker nation.

>Russia annexing Ukraine (might) isn't right. ???

Well, that depends if you think fascist Ukraine should have access to ex-Russian nuclear-armed naval bases or not. I personally would rather have Russia have control over the significant population of Russians in Crimea than have fascist Ukraine gain access to those nukes.

But, we peons rarely get what we want. I guess we should learn to wield our democratic power better ..

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#309

Post by torstenvl » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 4:06 PM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #306

torstenvl wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, no. The only way for the U.S. military would have been for it to produce better advice for its commander in chief, and for the commander in chief to follow that advice. It failed at both levels. This is definitely not novel. I am basically quoting Clausewitz, which is basically as far as you can go from being novel in the military tradition nowadays. For instance: > We see, therefore, that War is not merely a p…

No. You're saying the opposite of Clausewitz. Clausewitz says that the goals of war are political; that political success in war relies on military success. I agree with that and think it's nearly self-evident.

You're saying the opposite. You're saying military success relies on political success. That's an entirely different proposition and one I disagree with.

> The only way for the U.S. military [to succeed] would have been for ... the commander in chief to follow that advice

The only way the U.S. military could guarantee such a thing would be a coup. I don't think we should be blaming the military for not carrying out a coup. Not carrying out a coup does not constitute military failure.

Re: Russian court accidentally confirmed Russian military presence in Ukraine

#310

Post by qwytw » Thu, Dec 16, 2021, 4:10 PM UTC

scottLobster wrote: post #298

qwytw wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

I'd say that claiming that they want to "Reclaim" Taiwan is linked to CCP maintaining its power. I'm pretty sure that they don't really want to militarily conquer it even if they were certain it would not result in a full scale war with the US. Any such invasion, assuming Taiwan resists, would result huge damage to the Chinese and the global economies and likely result in China completely losing western markets (at least long-term). They would much rather continue increasing Taiwan's economic reliance on China and eventually peacefully take it over (even without necessarily full integrating it into their state). Any saber rattling it basically to deter foreign government's from recognizing Taiwan in any way which would strengthen the independence movement there and decrease it's reliance on China.

>prefer full annexation if they knew NATO wouldn't intervene

You mean of the entire Ukraine? Because it would cost them more than it's worth. No Russian actions since 1991 have so far indicated that they actually want to conquer any foreign area not inhabited by a Russian speaking majority or whose population would be likely to actively resist such occupation.