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

Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 165 posts

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#61

Post by bigodbiel »

hef19898 wrote: post #56
javier2 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. While it is still a bit unclear to me at least why Russia sent their seemingly old gear without proper support and young conscripts in first, the terrible parachute attempts still stand out. When you want it to be over quickly, you have to send in the best soldiers with the best gear first to seal the deal? In addition to live NATO intelligence, it is clear to most europeans that US intelligence tried to warn a…

Considering how fast things fell in place within the EU and NATO, those warnings (I doubt it was only the US) weren't in vain. Why send not the best, brightest and most advanced? Because you only jump as high as you need. And using your most sophisticated gear in an area that is most likely covered NATO detection gear and consultants / advisors doesn't sound to smart neither.

Disagree. Shock and awe. Remember that this also should have served as showcase of their military tech for arms sales to the world. Only the fact that they used up all their guided missiles in the first two days without achieving anything (resorting to ballistic missiles by the third) shows how in fact it was always smoke and mirrors.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#62

Post by baybal2 »

0x_rs wrote: post #30
nine_k wrote: post #19

Belarus regime being what it is, I'd not think that the referendum actually reflects people's opinion, and the result was not predetermined. OTOH I suspect that after the events of 2014 and 2022, Ukraine will remain the last country in history to willingly give up nuclear weapons. Many more countries will think about developing an deploying their own nukes, or at least staying one step away from actually producing th…

It's good to remember Ukraine never possessed operational control of them [0], so I'm not sure how much is "willingly giving up own's nuclear weapons" since they never had concrete nuclear deterrence capability, and circumstances (treaties and support from both Russia and NATO) required them to do so. Their decision has been impacting their condition ever since. But this may be the good outcome for all we may ever kn…

> It's good to remember Ukraine never possessed operational control of them [0],

Ukraine had full control, and an operational arsenal for a few years. There was no such thing as a PAL on Soviet nuclear weapons.

Ukraine had a fully functioning nuclear force for these few years.

I will give no credibility to claims of Western think tanks who can't tell apart a tank from an apc.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#63

Post by bigodbiel »

trompetenaccoun wrote: post #36
tasubotadas wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For Russia? Yes. For Putin? No.

That depends entirely - what was the goal of this attack in the first place? Did he think he could quickly take Ukraine and the West wouldn't interfere? It's possible. His soldiers look unmotivated, even unprepared though. Maybe it's part of a larger strategy. We might see more crisis popping up soon.

Liberate the country (well half the country up til Dniepr river).

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#64

Post by bigodbiel »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #50
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends entirely - what was the goal of this attack in the first place? Did he think he could quickly take Ukraine and the West wouldn't interfere? It's possible. His soldiers look unmotivated, even unprepared though. Maybe it's part of a larger strategy. We might see more crisis popping up soon.

I can't help but think there's something else happening in the background, or that this is part of something larger. It feels like a distraction because the "goal" seems ... both unclear and not worth the reputation damage.

A small elite of oligarchs can now completely buy the whole country cheaply using up the dollars they stacked under their mattresses, having all been forewarned of what was to happen.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#65

Post by hef19898 »

bigodbiel wrote: post #61
hef19898 wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering how fast things fell in place within the EU and NATO, those warnings (I doubt it was only the US) weren't in vain. Why send not the best, brightest and most advanced? Because you only jump as high as you need. And using your most sophisticated gear in an area that is most likely covered NATO detection gear and consultants / advisors doesn't sound to smart neither.

Disagree. Shock and awe. Remember that this also should have served as showcase of their military tech for arms sales to the world. Only the fact that they used up all their guided missiles in the first two days without achieving anything (resorting to ballistic missiles by the third) shows how in fact it was always smoke and mirrors.

Tell me one war where shock and awe really worked. If used against a foe that wasn't totally outclassed in every imaginable way.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#66

Post by fsflover »

numlock86 wrote: post #4
endoskeleton wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Care to elaborate before I start giving you double as many counter examples?

One example could be not giving asylum to Snowden, but it's not enough for such a strong claim.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#67

Post by bigodbiel »

hunterb123 wrote: post #48
trompetenaccoun wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That depends entirely - what was the goal of this attack in the first place? Did he think he could quickly take Ukraine and the West wouldn't interfere? It's possible. His soldiers look unmotivated, even unprepared though. Maybe it's part of a larger strategy. We might see more crisis popping up soon.

> Did he think he could quickly take Ukraine and the West wouldn't interfere? No and yes. He's taking it slowly because he knows the West won't interfere. It's not a blitz, it's a siege.

It was always blitz.

They expected capitulation by Sunday, with some ongoing attrition medium term. This is both from US Intel and now confirmation via a deleted, but luckily web archived, article/commentary on one of their major state-media sites, praising the (now impossible) “success” and their resurgence, while also flaunting the west.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#68

Post by dane-pgp »

adrian_b wrote: post #59
0x_rs wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's good to remember Ukraine never possessed operational control of them [0], so I'm not sure how much is "willingly giving up own's nuclear weapons" since they never had concrete nuclear deterrence capability, and circumstances (treaties and support from both Russia and NATO) required them to do so. Their decision has been impacting their condition ever since. But this may be the good outcome for all we may ever kn…

While it is correct that Ukraine did not have operational control over the nuclear weapons, anybody who have nuclear weapons in their possession, and who have the engineering resources of an entire state, would be easily able to disassemble the weapons, reverse engineer the connections to the devices that initiate the detonation and substitute the control units in order to gain operational control. Such an operation…

> Such an operation cannot need more than a few months at most.

But how much would it have cost to keep those warheads and their rocket engines and all the associated infrastructure in good working order, and secure from accidental launch or denotation, for decades up to the present day?

When the decision was made, I suspect it was not at all clear that having the ability to nuke Russia might be an option worth spending billions on, and at the end of the Cold War many Ukrainians might have thought that the real threat would be from the West (so they could rely on Russian nukes to protect them).

The point still stands, though, that nuclear weapons are a powerful (if expensive) insurance policy for a sovereign nation against unforeseeable future geopolitical risks.

Re: Belarus referendum approves proposal to renounce non-nuclear status

#70

Post by kgonza »

hef19898 wrote: post #54
tiahura wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

What the heck are you talking about? Germany also lost WW1 and nobody committed genocide then neither. If you refer to the Morgenthau plan, that lost to the Marschall plan, I think history showed that the world was better of with the latter. The main reason why Germany had so many foreign troops in the former occupation zones was simple: the Cold War. The French held the Ruhr, the British the North and the US the Sou…

Is it deliberate that you don't mention Hitler, Nazism, and WW2?
Post reply on HN