President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia • Hacker News Board

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#361

Post by spywaregorilla » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 3:28 PM UTC

homeland221 wrote: post #358

spywaregorilla wrote: post #154

A few months ago analysts were warning of impending collapse of Russia's troops due to poor supplies and poor morale. Russian cheerleaders on HN were doubting it as Western propaganda saying it had been declared for months and not materialized. Well it materialized in the collapse of the Kharkiv front over a week so there's that. In all, I don't think the mobilization is likely to matter. The Russian problem is bad s…

Those bad things you concluded are mostly sourced from Ukrainian MoD. Winter is coming. Mother of all recession is coming to EU and America within nezt 2-3mths. Putin is preparing for overwhelming offensive (read up WW2 Russians modus operandi and you'll understand what Putin is thinking). Chinese side has been pumping resources like manpower and factories to Putin (in return for the EU portion of energy redirected t…

> You are looking at extremely well play chess moves.

Bongcloud opening maybe

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#362

Post by webinvest » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 4:51 PM UTC

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #203

130 points, 3 hours ago, 184 comments Not on the front page or the second page of HN. The comments have been civil, all things considered. These events have been extremely consequential and possibly the root cause of the looming global recession.

That’s the beauty of HN. Being able to talk about important events and still be civil when discussing them.

I didn’t upvote the article because I thought the article was lacking details. Example:

>>>“New concepts were introduced into the Russian Criminal Code: including “voluntary surrender,” “looting,” “mobilization,” “martial law” and “wartime.””

>>>The rulings were passed unanimously.”

In my opinion, the article is lacking for not including the actual new code or sentences from the code.

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#363

Post by spywaregorilla » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 5:25 PM UTC

emptyfile wrote: post #359

spywaregorilla wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Kyiv getting nuked spark all out nuclear war. Would you, as the head of NATO, press the 'Everyone Dies' button if kyiv got nuked?

Yes. Ukraine is in Europe. Nuking Ukraine means the wind will likely carry the fallout radiation into Russia, Belarus and Poland at the least. I doesn't matter if its 1 nuke or a 100 nukes, irradiating NATO citizens is THE red line. If Russia can nuke Europe without fear of reprisal, then NATO is defunct and a new nuclear arms race will probably start in Europe, with unforeseeable consequences. So I would say yes, if…

But... that's stupid. Why would you kill everybody in NATO just because some of them are irradiated by an attack on someone else? It only makes sense to commit to nuclear warfare if they're actively doing the same, and even then it's mostly just out of spite because you're about to be gone.

Letting Russia nuke europe and get away with it does have unforseeable consequences, but the consequences of all out nuclear war is 100% certain and maximally bad. You literally cannot do worse than this.

You could instead, for instance, deploy the troops and just do a straight up invasion with the intent to destroy Russia entirely. Which maybe they do a nuclear response to. But maybe they don't. Because it's still the worst possible option and perhaps they'd like to instead just kill putin, accept a russia fragmentation into tiny vassal states.

I'd also ask then, because you're saying "irradiating NATO citizens is the red line", whether you support killing everyone if there's a russian caused meltdown at the Zaporyzhzhia plant (sp).

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#364

Post by iavael » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 5:27 PM UTC

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #195

vegardx wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people that could realistically move from Russia already have. Just because all flights are fully booked doens't mean millions are willing to or able to move. And what gas? Currently Russia is exporting a negligible amount of gas to western countries. They played that card a long time ago. It's almost comical to talk about foresight and Russia in the same sentence without even acknowledging how blind Putin has ha…

> It's almost comical to talk about foresight and Russia in the same sentence I don't think our benchmark for foresight should be an aging dictator thats probably loosing his mind. > The people that could realistically move from Russia already have. What is the basis for this assertion? You could say 'we don't want them here', at least it would be honest. But let's not pretend they had every opportunity to leave and…

I generally agree with your message expect of this part.

> Hundreds of thousands of people have fled to Georgia because it's one of the very few countries that allow visa-free entry. Many are illegally overstaying, because there is nothing else they can do.

Russian citizens can stay in Georgia up to 360 days without visarun (to nearby Armenia for example), so they are hardly overstaying there yet.

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#365

Post by _visgean » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 8:53 PM UTC

_ph_ wrote: post #209

mjfl wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

touche. I guess I'm stupid. But Sevastopol is important.

It was important. As the Ukraine already attacked targets there, recently Russia moved their submarine base from Sevastopol to some mainland harbor. That means, effectively this harbor has been lost to Russia as a consequence of the war. Never mind that the Bosporus is closed for military vessels.

Yeah i think that would be here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Port_of_Novorossiysk

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#366

Post by tablespoon » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 10:59 PM UTC

spywaregorilla wrote: post #154

A few months ago analysts were warning of impending collapse of Russia's troops due to poor supplies and poor morale. Russian cheerleaders on HN were doubting it as Western propaganda saying it had been declared for months and not materialized. Well it materialized in the collapse of the Kharkiv front over a week so there's that. In all, I don't think the mobilization is likely to matter. The Russian problem is bad s…

> In all, I don't think the mobilization is likely to matter. The Russian problem is bad supplies, bad comms, and bad morale.

The Russians may be suffering from "bad supplies, bad comms, and bad morale," but I've read in several places that they're also suffering from a lack of manpower. Or, more specifically: too much equipment in proportion to their ground troops, and also too many combat troops in proportion to support personnel.

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#367

Post by tablespoon » Thu, Sep 22, 2022, 11:06 PM UTC

emptyfile wrote: post #359

spywaregorilla wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would Kyiv getting nuked spark all out nuclear war. Would you, as the head of NATO, press the 'Everyone Dies' button if kyiv got nuked?

Yes. Ukraine is in Europe. Nuking Ukraine means the wind will likely carry the fallout radiation into Russia, Belarus and Poland at the least. I doesn't matter if its 1 nuke or a 100 nukes, irradiating NATO citizens is THE red line. If Russia can nuke Europe without fear of reprisal, then NATO is defunct and a new nuclear arms race will probably start in Europe, with unforeseeable consequences. So I would say yes, if…

>> Why would Kyiv getting nuked spark all out nuclear war. Would you, as the head of NATO, press the 'Everyone Dies' button if kyiv got nuked?

> Yes.

> Ukraine is in Europe. Nuking Ukraine means the wind will likely carry the fallout radiation into Russia, Belarus and Poland at the least.

> I doesn't matter if its 1 nuke or a 100 nukes, irradiating NATO citizens is THE red line.

You're insane, and I'm glad you're nowhere near the button. An all out nuclear war will carry far, far more than "radiation" to Europe. And by "more" I mean actual warheads. It's like getting into a suicidal gun battle over a papercut.

MAD means you need to maintain an absolutely credible threat of an apocalyptic reprisal, but I think it's arguable that no one should ever actually carry out that threat (though that's information that absolutely must be kept secret). Do you really want to turn a holocaust into an extinction?

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#368

Post by mistermann » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 4:08 PM UTC

mrtksn wrote: post #261

mistermann wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Oh I don’t claim that the old men are the problem, it’s just that some ambitious old men can indeed cause huge destruction.

This seems not quite correct:

>>> On the contrary, they seem to be a century behind. Even China told them they should try to find a diplomatic solution. India told them this is not the time for war. The world has other problems than an old man's ambitions.

>> Apparently not....

This seems to me like disagreement with the parent assertion that "The world has other problems than an old man's ambitions", and then add to that that you continue on at length about the many problems "caused" by old men (which I do not disagree with at least in an absolute sense by the way).

> ...it’s just that some ambitious old men can indeed cause huge destruction

Things like this can be perfectly true, while simultaneously being misinformative, in that it can cause the mind that ingests the idea to assign inaccurate causal weight to the individual phenomenon/variable, form confident non-comprehensive conceptualizations of the system, etc.

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#369

Post by alkyon » Fri, Sep 23, 2022, 11:29 PM UTC

azangru wrote: post #331

alkyon wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is plainly not true. As a Polish native speaker I could observe the same old custom of relating to Ukraine/Belarus/Lithuania as a territory by using similar preposition "na" in Polish. And yes, we also use "na" for islands (Cuba, Manhattan) but it's still deprecating. What happened when your country invaded Ukraine was that practically from Day 1, everyone in Poland switched to "w Ukrainie" - a preposition used…

> This is plainly not true. Which part isn't true? There's an online corpus of the Russian language [0], whose entries of usage of the word Urkaine date back to the 17th century — you can easily see which preposition that word took throughout centuries. If you search through books on Russian grammar on Google Books, you will find examples specifically prescribing the preposition "на" throughout the 20th century. The…

It's not the question of grammar but semantics.

Wrong grammar is when you put the verb before the subject in English. The grammar does not decide whether you say "on a call" or "in a call".

Wrong grammar would be if you used an incorrect case after the preposition, but the very choice of it involves the speaker and what semantics or meaning is meant by them.

Okay - you would find "NA" in the Russian corpus from the 17th century - but it is totally meaningless because East Ukraine was annexed in 17th century by Russia. I would have bet that this particular preposition was preferred.

I don't think any books on Russian grammar recommend a specific preposition - most likely you meant some stylistic compendium, but the style is something more subjective and even political in nature, isn't it?

In a nutshell, it's not a grammatical or historical thing, it's just shameless linguistical colonialism in its purest form.

Re: President Putin has announced a partial mobilization in Russia

#370

Post by megous » Tue, Sep 27, 2022, 10:54 AM UTC

tatersolid wrote: post #350

KptMarchewa wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Ukraine will fail eventually unless they can effectively force-multiply like we've never seen in any other armed conflict. Ukrainian equipment is getting better with western donations while russian one is effectively running out of it. The newly mobilized units won't have anything better than soviet-era versions of T-72 and T-80, BMP-1 and D-20 howitzer, not even talking about T-62M. Ammo, missle and protective equi…

I don’t think any NATO nation will send much in the way of tanks. Tanks are a giant target on a modern battlefield. As superior as the latest Abrams might be to most other tanks, anti-tank weaponry is far better and fairly cheap these days. The Russians are “fighting the last war” again, expecting numerical superiority in armor and artillery to win. It isn’t working.

What? NATO nations already sent hundreds of tanks.