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

871–880 of 1001 posts

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

#871

Post by giardini »

bluSCALE4 wrote: post #870
giardini wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union but after the USSR fell apart, NATO did not disband. Instead Europeans hired the USA for their defense. The USA enjoyed the status and power of being the dominant military force in Europe. Unfortunately "entangling alliances" such as NATO tend to draw us into remote conflicts where we have nothing to gain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Doctrine_of_Unstabl...

It blows my mind at how so many people think this is unprovoked and think we somehow have a responsibility to resolve this conflict.

Some seem to have forgotten how the neocons/CIA have stirred the pot in Ukraine for at least a decade under Democratic administrations. Some say it was a mistake to do what they (neocons) did but I think it was a good outcome. Russian is now like North Korea, able to "win" (and even that is questionable) only a nuclear conflict.

Furthermore Russia's population of fighting men is down, which will require that they return home to seed a new generation of cannon fodder (not an entirely bad assignment BTW in either Russia or Ukraine) for their czar-like leaders. I feel sorry for the handicapped wounded however.

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

#872

Post by ellis0n »

csomar wrote: post #219
ellis0n wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what’s next? Sleep on the street? Rent is expensive, I’ve already tried and it’s impossible without any income. Sure, thanks for the advice, but I’ll need to work, not just travel. I need the same big monitor for work, a good chair, and usually these things aren’t available, so I end up working in terrible conditions.

I am not saying it's a solution to your housing but a solution not to get hurt or potentially "killed". I don't have a solution to any of them. I am just saying if you really believe your life/safety is at risk, you should move now regardless.

Sure, thanks for your concern. The war started back in 2014 and at that time I didn’t even know what to do. Now, I have some experience which I’m sharing.

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

#873

Post by lern_too_spel »

rayiner wrote: post #719
lern_too_spel wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

American proxy wars propping up illegitimate governments that rule without the consent of the governed have caused problems. The US is supporting a legitimate government against an invading dictatorship. The broad brush you paint with would have had the US not support the allies with weapons in WW2 all the way through 1941.

That was true of Vietnam and South Korea too. And in Iraq we were toppling a brutal dictatorship and in Syria we would’ve been doing that. The U.S. shouldn’t have been getting involved in any of those. Democracy promotion is not a legitimate foreign policy—because for many countries (maybe most countries) authoritarianism is better than a dysfunctional democracy.

Once again, your argument is in favor of not helping the Allies against the Axis powers. This is not about democracy promotion. It's about repelling an invasion from a dictatorship. Invading a nonexpansionist Third Reich is a different proposition from helping other countries fight off an invasion from a Morgen die Welt conqueror. As I said, I agree the US shouldn't install and prop up illegitimate governments like the RVN. The people ruled by the illegitimate government won't appreciate it. That's not what's going on here.

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

#874

Post by lern_too_spel »

ponector wrote: post #733
lern_too_spel wrote: post #378

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The rare earth deal, or "raw earth" as Trump calls it, seems to actually be with Russia instead of Ukraine. Trump has decided he can spend nothing and eventually drop sanctions and in return, Russia will give the US access to Ukraine's mineral wealth.

Only if Ukraine will stop fighting, which they wouldn't. Yes, USA is a major donor. Yes, it will be harder without their support. But without it Ukraine will continue fight. Because if they stop - it means the end of Ukraine. Ukrainians will be new soldiers in Russian army, a fresh cannon fodder against European guns . It is interesting to see Trump's bulling. What if Ukraine will ignore his threats? What a fool trum…

He's applying the same game plan in Gaza. He'll give Israel weapons and look the other way as they clear it out, and then he wants the US to profit. The US has done this before in Iran and various Central American banana republics, leading to the terrorism and migrant crises we still have today, but helping aggressors set up illegitimate governments was becoming more and more unfashionable until Trump came along.

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

#875

Post by nanotuber »

lovich wrote: post #617
nanotuber wrote: post #571

Comments are disappointing for hacker news standard. This pause was predictable (I predicted it in Nov 2024). It's negotiation leverage to steer toward an immediate resolution of the war. An immediate resolution of the war cuts losses: Ukraine loses territory, but keeps its sovereignty. The challenge is that there aren't many other viable paths. An indefinite forever war, with high risk of a Ukraine state collapse, i…

>The Trump Administration will resume military aid after Ukraine is forced to ceasefire talks. Bold claim with little evidence

If it happens come back and read and think about this thread again (read my other comments in it). :) Promise I'll do the same if it doesn't happen.

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

#876

Post by nanotuber »

codedokode wrote: post #720
nanotuber wrote: post #571

Comments are disappointing for hacker news standard. This pause was predictable (I predicted it in Nov 2024). It's negotiation leverage to steer toward an immediate resolution of the war. An immediate resolution of the war cuts losses: Ukraine loses territory, but keeps its sovereignty. The challenge is that there aren't many other viable paths. An indefinite forever war, with high risk of a Ukraine state collapse, i…

Now it is difficult time for negotiations due to Russia being in a favourable position and being able to demand more. While Trump needs to fulfill his promise to "end the war in the first day", Russia doesn't have to hurry although it wants to end the war too (after all, it was supposed to last just several weeks). A good time for negotiations was in 2022, but it is lost. > I doubt any peace negotiated will last deca…

I think you are spot on. In 2022 Russia was pushed back from several areas and debating whether it would commit to a wider war. I think there were some opportunities for negotiation in early 2023 even to get favorable terms.

But yeah in 2024-2025 the tide has turned significantly toward Russia so it will be hard to get favorable terms. The challenge is that 2026 and on isn't likely to be different. Ukrainian Intelligence Head Budanov warned that Ukraine could collapse in 2025 if peace isn't negotiated.

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

#877

Post by nanotuber »

lm28469 wrote: post #729
nanotuber wrote: post #635

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly Russia's economy has difficulties. It has inflation roughly 9-10% and (dangerously low) unemployment around 1%. Russia's Central Bank key rate needs to be extremely high to fight its inflation because it is not as primary a lender as the US Fed for example - there's way more private lending. The inflation is caused by raising labor costs (due to unemployment), supply chain disruptions from sanctions, and we…

> Thus far Russia's economy has grown substantially due to the war A war economy is all fun and games while you have an ongoing war.

I don't disagree. I definitely wouldn't want to be invested (or living) there.

But the point is that "collapse" is very different from "spent a ton of money on stuff that got destroyed."

The economic pain just isn't that high to force capitulation.

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

#878

Post by nanotuber »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #620
nanotuber wrote: post #571

Comments are disappointing for hacker news standard. This pause was predictable (I predicted it in Nov 2024). It's negotiation leverage to steer toward an immediate resolution of the war. An immediate resolution of the war cuts losses: Ukraine loses territory, but keeps its sovereignty. The challenge is that there aren't many other viable paths. An indefinite forever war, with high risk of a Ukraine state collapse, i…

> An immediate resolution of the war cuts losses: Ukraine loses territory, but keeps its sovereignty. Only for a year or so. Without the USA in its corner, Ukraine loses sovereignty before Trump is out of office.

Unless Europe steps in, or a peace is negotiated.

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

#879

Post by nanotuber »

lovich wrote: post #608
nanotuber wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The implication is that nuclear proliferation is linked to the US pausing Ukraine aid. That's a gross mischaracterization. I'll bet you 10 to 1 that Ukraine won't end up with nukes.

How did you move the goalposts in three sentences? Nuclear proliferation occurring does not require Ukraine in particular to be a country with nukes

Responding to what I thought the parent comment was saying.

I'll buy you a beer if a new state (besides Iran) gets nuclear weapons in the next 10 years.

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

#880

Post by johnisgood »

Sabinus wrote: post #857
riehwvfbk wrote: post #808

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Yeah and because no one beggars themselves to solve world hunger, climate change, or malaria no one cares about those things either. /s

We prioritize things.

I care about Malaria but it does not directly affect me, so I do not prioritize it.

Climate change requires more than a single person and their funds, unless you are Bezos, Musk, or whoever. I know there are ways to contribute to it that are not monetary, but it is more complicated than this reductionist view.

I care about world hunger too, and I am against the waste of food, but what can I do if restaurants are even legally obliged to waste food? I do not buy anything from such restaurants, at least, and I try my best to not be wasteful.

Additionally, how much do SWEs earn per month? I do not earn much at all (for reasons not disclosed here), my money would not even be a drop in the bucket, but a small part of that drop. I personally could not donate $500 even if I wanted to, because that would put me pretty close to homelessness (not that anyone cares).

Post reply on HN