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

U.S. pauses all military aid to Ukraine

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

811–820 of 1001 posts

Re: U.S. pauses all military aid to Ukraine

#811

Post by codedokode »

dlahoda wrote: post #802
codedokode wrote: post #743

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My guess is that it was the decision of Ukraine to pursuit joining EU and potentially NATO (and potentially having US forces there) and Russia understanding that it is out of options to prevent this by peaceful methods like bribing politicians, propaganda, appealing to voters sympathetic to Russia at that moment etc. This happened in 2014. Also, if you remember, before starting the war Putin demanded that NATO stops…

technically, if that was cause, nato thing. were is retoric about 2 north countries joined now? why so inconsistent? so russia not willing to loose sovereign independent country to which it promised to secure it to be so? how one can loose what he does not have nor owns?

By "losing to US" I meant Russia is not willing Ukraine to have pro-US (instead of pro-Russia) government, and potentially having US military there (US for some reason is trying to put its military bases and missiles everywhere around USSR/Russia since WW2).

Re: U.S. pauses all military aid to Ukraine

#812

Post by ed_mercer »

rsynnott wrote: post #121
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They could ally with China. The Chinese are only frenemies with Russia anyways, and they make way much more money trading with the rest of Europe.

Perhaps surprisingly, Europe has more nuclear weapons than China (France: 290 warheads, UK: 225 warheads, China: 500 warheads). China never really bought into the mutually assured destruction doctrine in the same way that the US and Soviet Union did.

Also China has a no first use policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_first_use

Re: U.S. pauses all military aid to Ukraine

#813

Post by _DeadFred_ »

rayiner wrote: post #736
_DeadFred_ wrote: post #523

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How this works is pretty common knowledge. The world has been using peacekeepers for quite a while. But you know that and you know you are just concern trolling.

The pro-Ukraine people I know have been pitching our support as “just sending them old weapons we don’t use anyway.” Even the risk of U.S. soldiers on the ground would be a massive escalation of our commitment.

Wow what a slimy tactic. Those people are taking in regards to 'the amount of dollars sent'. You know you are misrepresenting that in your above statement. Completely disingenuous just like I said about your previously. You are a concern troll.

Re: U.S. pauses all military aid to Ukraine

#814

Post by ponector »

codedokode wrote: post #696
onlypassingthru wrote: post #685

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The West absolutely has more means at its disposal, by arming Ukraine to the teeth. The slow drip of arms has been really effective at degrading Russia (just look at the golf cart brigades and North Korean wave attacks), but an increase in long range capability is what's needed to finish the job.

"arming Ukraine to the teeth" does not guarantee the victory but guarantees more casualties and suffering. To win you also need to have 3x more soldiers which is not the case. West cannot even pay a salary comparable to what Russia pays to its volunteer soldiers.

>West cannot even pay a salary comparable to what Russia pays to its volunteer soldiers

Are you sure west cannot pay monthly salary $2500 like Russia does?

>guarantees more casualties and suffering As well as not sending enough arms.

Re: U.S. pauses all military aid to Ukraine

#815

Post by rayiner »

dctoedt wrote: post #745
rayiner wrote: post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not even about “basic needs.” How much support is there in fat and happy Europe for putting boots on the ground? It sounds like UK and France would go it alone? https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/03/04/which-european... And it’s not lost on me that both Starmer and Macron represent a minority of the electorate in their respective countries—having won due to a deeply fractured electorate.

> both Starmer and Macron represent a minority of the electorate in their respective countries—having won due to a deeply fractured electorate. Yet MAGA types keep claiming that Donald Trump supposedly got an "overwhelming mandate" from the American people even though he got just under 50% of the popular vote.

Starmer’s party won the House by a vote share that in the previous election resulted in a landslide loss. Macron’s party came in third and no longer controls their parliament.

Re: U.S. pauses all military aid to Ukraine

#816

Post by arandomusername »

skissane wrote: post #794
arandomusername wrote: post #691

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Are you sure about that? I mean, didn't Afghanistan forced Russia to retreat in defeat and leave the country? Logistics (Ukraine shares a large border with Russia) and people - the people in currently occupied Ukraine aren't as against Russia as those in Afghanistan may be. Even now, we don't really see much of sabotage. > All the more reason to help Ukraine finish the job and force Russia to leave. And how are you…

> And how are you going to do that? Russia has been gaining land. Currently, Russia is winning. Winning, but winning very slowly. Unless Ukraine collapses, Russian victory is likely years away (depending of course on what Russia decides to consider “victory”) Although Ukraine is outnumbered, the fact they are mostly playing defence not offence gives them an advantage If Ukraine drags this out for long enough, there i…

Russia controls large portions of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson Oblasts. I imagine walking away with those areas would be a huge victory for them.

How long can Ukraine drag this out? They are suffering manpower issues more than Russia. I don't think it's likely that Russia will lose its patience before Ukraine. I wish, but I don't see it. Their economy is somewhat dependent on their military-industrial complex.

Is this the goal? To slowly lose land and lives to Russia, in hopes that they get bored, or that Ukrainians magically get a wonder weapon?

Re: U.S. pauses all military aid to Ukraine

#817

Post by Kim_Bruning »

Aeolun wrote: post #806
rtp4me wrote: post #768

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed 100%. No way should any American soldier be sent to fight in that war. It will be a never ending quagmire - both people and money. Full stop. And, good luck getting any real discussion from anyone here. Most of the Redditors are here now and have brought their "hate on America" flag to HN. Regardless of how much our President does or how much the US gives, it will never be enough. And, the ironic thing is, man…

> No way should any American soldier be sent to fight in that war. It will be a never ending quagmire - both people and money. You have done that for quite literally the past 20 years in a places where no win condition could be established, and now that you have an 'easy' war, with an actual nation-state adversary that you can defeat both militarily and politically, without a need for guerilla warfare and millions of…

I suspect rtp4me has the same view as Rayiner in this same subthread. These past interventions often didn't work out so well, so why would this one, is what they're asking. And I mean, fair point. I partially disagree, but it's a fair point.

* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43261035

That, and there might be a shift going on in the US back from Maritime power thinking to Continental power thinking.

(An essay on the differences)

https://mwi.westpoint.edu/when-maritime-and-continental-powe...

Re: U.S. pauses all military aid to Ukraine

#818

Post by dlahoda »

sgregnt wrote: post #731
arunabha wrote: post #19

It would be one thing if there was a clear policy and adherence to it. In that case, you could discuss and reason in good faith. However there is no such indication that this decision is based on a considered policy. Trump's supporters would say that this is a result of not wanting the US being involved in foreign conflicts. That is a laudable goal, however that is not what is happening here. From the article > On Fr…

Israel is paying for this weapons by its own money.

on what terms?

Re: U.S. pauses all military aid to Ukraine

#819

Post by Aeolun »

Kim_Bruning wrote: post #817
Aeolun wrote: post #806

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No way should any American soldier be sent to fight in that war. It will be a never ending quagmire - both people and money. You have done that for quite literally the past 20 years in a places where no win condition could be established, and now that you have an 'easy' war, with an actual nation-state adversary that you can defeat both militarily and politically, without a need for guerilla warfare and millions of…

I suspect rtp4me has the same view as Rayiner in this same subthread. These past interventions often didn't work out so well, so why would this one, is what they're asking. And I mean, fair point. I partially disagree, but it's a fair point. * https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43261035 That, and there might be a shift going on in the US back from Maritime power thinking to Continental power thinking. (An essay on…

I mean, that was kind of my point. Now that they finally have a 'war' to fight, instead of a dispersed terrorist operation, suddenly it's less appealing, when this is basically a textbook example of a 'winnable' war.

There were no policy objectives in Afghanistan or Iraq, or they were very hard to achieve without decades of sustained presence. Meanwhile they're fairly clear for Ukraine, and arguably easier to achieve, if the Russian military is degraded enough that they pose no threat to Ukraine then the war is won.

Of course that leaves the pesky issue of those nuclear weapons, but I'd find that a much better argument than 'all our previous special military operations were a disaster'.

Re: U.S. pauses all military aid to Ukraine

#820

Post by immibis »

rayiner wrote: post #764
dctoedt wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When Germany reoccupied the Rhineland in 1936, British and French forces could easily have rolled to Berlin and deposed Hitler. They didn't, for domestic political reasons that were no less catastrophic for being understandable (war-weary citizenry, plus wishful thinking about Hitler). The best time to have stood up to Putin was 2014. The next best time is right [expletive] now.

Whats the base rate of dictators being Hitler, and what’s the false positive rate of that approach? That thinking seems like it would’ve gotten us into every late 20th and early 21st war that are widely regarded as mistakes.

100%ish?
Post reply on HN