I suspect it will be within full Ukrainian control within less than a year. It’s not a strategic priority. And it is costly to try and take inch by inch. So Ukraine is not going to be in any rush to take it back. But I also expect the priorities for Russian troops will be stretched extremely thin. Wagner appears eager to leave and blame the Russian MoD for failing to hold it.
The news today of Russian freedom fighters “liberating” a Russian settlement around Belgorod is the most interesting thing to happen in a while. Keep an eye on that one.
This sounds like outright coping. As far as I can tell (having paid next to no attention to this conflict), the media got the entire invested US population hyped up about some Ukrainian counter-offensive, retaking Bakhmut, Russian army out of ammo...and this is the result? Spinning the loss of the city while realizing the aftermath was near as makes no difference a human woodchipper?
I really hope we have an Iraq-style mea culpa over this conflict very soon, because far too many people are up to their chins in moral hazard by walking straight into the fog of war equipped with only talking-head propaganda and Hollywood-informed notions of how and why wars are fought.
If it would convince you otherwise, I’m happy to provide citations of third party analyses and Ukrainian defense statements stating Bakhmut had little strategic value months prior and that it was being used to pin Russian troops in a costly offensive.
Edit: the Russia being out of ammo thing was an internal politics thing of Prigozhin claiming Russia MoD was not supplying Wagner with enough ammo. It was not a western talking point. Nor was it particularly true.
I'm happy to distrust every source you'll try to cite, and wait 10 years until this is both over and we obtain enough document leaks that we can more closely approximate the truth than we could using anything available now.
Nobody in the US knows what Bakhmut is, let alone where it is, let alone its strategic importance. Whatever the reasoning behind contesting it, none of it ties back to US sentiment.
> Iraq-style mea culpa over this conflict very soon
How exactly? Given that it was chosen and started by Russia, and the initial fightback of the first few days done by Ukraine, what US decision do you want rolled back?
Does our hundreds-of-billions in contributions of armaments and aid, and the open-secret contribution of manpower and expertise, not speak for itself? Or are we all going to make the disingenuous assumption that the US has not involved itself in any way?
A cheery declaration. You definitely seem "invested," and I do mean that pejoratively. For everyone "invested" in this conflict, their first thought is to the first-order effects on Russia. Never mind the disastrous worldwide second- and third-order effects the war (and its proxy involvements) are having on the average person in the rest of the world.
And since I can already hear the response that it's all on Putin's shoulders, I should remind you that we're the ones printing hundreds of billions in USD, sending veritable mountains of arms and aid to spin the woodchipper even faster.
If you ask US Colonel Douglas MacGregor, who has been following this war vary closely, he puts Ukrainian deaths at over 315K with about 5 to 7 dead Ukrainians per every Russian. Russia can not lose this war and will throw everything at this fight which they see as an existential threat.
MacGregor is hopelessly pro-Russian and it's impossible to take what he says seriously. This quote from the beginning of the war did not age well for instance:
> If they don't surrender in the next 24 hours, I suspect Russia will ultimately annihilate them.
Or how to he thought the Russian military was "too gentle" (after the countless reports of rape, torture and murder of the civilian population).
Stop listening to Russian propaganda, or those who repeat it.
He is a colonel of the US military with much combat experience and a PHD in foreign relations. You are telling me not to listen to anyone questioning or disagreeing with neocon NATO propaganda. OK will do..
Does our hundreds-of-billions in contributions of armaments and aid, and the open-secret contribution of manpower and expertise, not speak for itself? Or are we all going to make the disingenuous assumption that the US has not involved itself in any way?
> the media got the entire invested US population hyped up about some Ukrainian counter-offensive
> far too many people are up to their chins in moral hazard by walking straight into the fog of war equipped with only talking-head propaganda
Your comment makes it sound like military aid to Ukraine in the NATO sphere was primarily spurred by short-sighted, media-driven, populist frenzy in the US. My impression, as someone who does pay attention to the war, is that these decisions were made rationally by elected leaders across numerous countries as a direct result of Russia's blatant disregard for international law, and that there was plenty of support in the EU for military aid even without the US's involvement. "The media" is not the causal factor for practically anything in this war.
> sounds like outright coping
Who is coping? Are you under the impression that US/EU/NATO military leadership were certain that Bakhmut would be a piece of cake, and that they're now scrambling to justify Ukraine's commitment when this turned out not to be the case? Moreover, do you believe that whatever the population is "hyped up" about at any given moment has any bearing on their decision-making? I've certainly seen no evidence of any of this; in fact, the majority of public comments from US military leadership regarding the war seem to be on the side of tempering expectations. The only people I see "coping" are war junkies in Reddit discussions, whose opinions have no bearing on... pretty much anything, really.
> I really hope we have an Iraq-style mea culpa over this conflict very soon
(1) there was never a mea culpa over Iraq, though there should have been, and
(2) while it would also be nice for the lying aggressors to admit they were, well, lying aggressors in this war, Putin’s not going to do that any more than Bush the Younger did.
They lost it inch by inch and paid a very high price. Why do you think they sent some of their best units there, like the “Da Vinci Wolves“, and lost good chunks of them, including, incidentally, said unit’s founder and national hero “Da Vinci“? This is not a secret, the obituaries are all public.
So the Ukrainians took heavy losses. For the Russians it was much worse. The Ukrainians has managed to build up an enormous defense around the city and the Russian offense has been effectively halted, and for what? So they can rule the ruins of Bakhmut, for a little while?
The Ukrainians will push back now. My bet is they will encircle what's left of Bakhmut, forcing the Russians to surrender the city(or whats left of it).
A claim that is repeated ad nauseam, but entirely without evidence. Reminder: At the beginning of the year the BBC had a count of 20k. You can double or triple that if you like but it’s never going to be close to what (pro-)Ukrainians claim.
Also: The number of Wagner fighters gets way exaggerated. They were at a numerical disadvantage till the end.
managed to build up an enormous defense around the city
That’s not how it works. They spent years turning Bakhmut into a giant fortress city. (They even wrote that stupid song about it.) They fought tooth and nails over it. They rotated dozens of brigades through it, an untold number of men. But it just was not enough.
This is not their last shot at a defense in the region, but it was their best.
offense has been effectively halted
What offense? Only major Russian operation so far this year was Bakhmut. They are not in a rush.
So they can rule the ruins of Bakhmut, for a little while?
Couple months ago, per Zelensky, Bakhmut was strategically vital and not to be lost. Let me guess, a ruse? “Dumb orcs hehe”
The Ukrainians will push back now.
Oh, they will almost inevitably do something, somewhere. But the fact that they managed to retake a lightly-defended area that one time gives people all kinds of crazy ideas. Sure, they will probably manage an advance somewhere (at great cost, of course), get stuck after a couple days … and then what? Think Putler’s just going to nope out of the war because Twitter NAFOids are in ecstasy?
My bet is they will encircle what's left of Bakhmut
How? With what units? Not only did they send their best units to Bakhmut, they had to send some of their fresh, Western-trained ones too. Which were under strength in the first place.
>What offense? Only major Russian operation so far this year was Bakhmut. They are not in a rush.
a little revisionary take. Bakhmut is the only one they want to talk about out loud, all the other attempts fail so bad its treason even mentioning them in the motherland. One example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Avdiivka_(2022%E2%80... and whatever 10th Tank Regiment was doing around there last month losing another commander and tons of armor for zero progress.
> Oh, they will almost inevitably do something, somewhere. But the fact that they managed to retake a lightly-defended area that one time gives people all kinds of crazy ideas.
So far nothing the Ukrainians have used comes close to the above mentioned brigade. The Russians don’t have anything to match. In addition, they have one massive advantage which is the continuous support of the U.S. intelligence services, nothing the Russians have come close.
I don’t doubt the Russians are continuously improving their strategy and tactics - not hard considering how badly they’ve been doing since the war started.
If this war has shown one thing it’s that the thing that matters most is mass:
Massed artillery fire, millions of shells, thousands of armoured vehicles, and so on.
A couple of glorified regiments, green ones at that? That’s not it. No matter the quality of the gear and training.
The West is not prepared for industrial warfare, and inexplicably to me they are barely trying to change that. Massed hot air but not much to show for it.
(And besides, the fact that in Bakhmut the Ukrainian army with plenty of Western gear and training got beat by Wagner plus artillery support alone should get you to question the notion of qualitative superiority. And I just don’t understand how people can come to the conclusion that the Russian forces in Ukraine are depleted when they’ve at least doubled in size, and gear just keeps pouring in.)
Ultimately, we don’t have to fight here, by all acounts Ukrainians are going to show us in a few days what they can or cannot do. And then we’ll see.
This would be a more compelling summation if you could accompany it with a case for how Bakhmut was more important strategically than Kherson, whose strategic importance seems pretty obvious even to a layperson, which Russia was fiercely committed to holding, and which Ukraine took through a campaign of industrial warfare.
Having failed to turn Nikolaev (and apparently no intent to take it by force), Kherson held little strategic value for Russia at that point.* Promising to never leave Kherson was political folly, something Ukrainians tried to make as costly as possible. However, they largely failed at that.
Those who paid attention saw column after Ukrainian column get mauled by VDV artillery. There was indeed a moment where Ukraine took some land but in the end nothing came of it but pain.
But certainly they did keep on the pressure (plus some other things), and so in the end Russians made the militarily prudent but politically very difficult decision (causing a period of widespread doom and gloom among supporters of Russia) to leave in good order. Ukrainians were apparently as surprised as almost anyone else.
* I know people don’t want hear it but the taking of Odessa and the rest of the coast will very likely still happen, eventually. Probably not via Kherson, preferably without force.
It's easy to find dozens of sources about the strategic importance of Kherson, which is also evident from a glance at a map, and Kherson is also ten times larger than Bakhmut, so this doesn't really respond to my question. Without any expertise in war, or the region, I can still say that it looks like your arguments say that when Ukraine loses territory, it's a strategic disaster, but when Russia loses territory, it never meant to have that territory. If I can defend that argument, weak as my grasp on this subject is, your own position might be pretty flimsy.
> I can still say that it looks like your arguments say that when Ukraine loses territory, it's a strategic disaster, but when Russia loses territory, it never meant to have that territory. If I can defend that argument, weak as my grasp on this subject is, your own position might be pretty flimsy.
It’s because he’s here to try push public opinion about why Ukraine is losing, he is not here to engage in honest arguments. Look through his post history and you will seem summarily dismiss any evidence Russia has worse casualties or is in anyway losing this war.
Let me put this way: It’s not going to happen, that’s not how it’s done, but pulling a bit back and just doing it again wouldn’t be the craziest thing Russia could do at this point.
This is industrial warfare. The primary (not only) goal is to destroy the enemy army. Ideally with short/long supply lines (“Why are the Dnieper bridges still up?”), in favorable territory. Yes, this is as ugly a thing as it gets. Hundreds of thousands of men are dead and hundreds of thousands more will die in all likelihood. That’s how it is. And no side is innocent in this.
And, again, people don’t want to hear it but Russia is doing well enough.
The original, mostly post-soviet Ukrainian army of 24th Feb. is all but gone. More than half of their officers are confirmed dead (obituary and all), most of their original heavy gear is destroyed. Gonna avoid discussing overall casualties here but it’s a lot. People are going to be shocked when/if the numbers ever come out.
This is why in the West it’s all about begging for and donating of gear, and the training of fresh troops. Because Ukrainians need it.
And their “second army”, post-soviet gear from outside is also mostly gone. Willing donors are all but depleted, too.
And this is why, after much reluctance, Western tanks are now in Ukraine. But the West does not have all that much to give. And they are not really producing either.
So, unless things change drastically soon, there will be no “fourth” Ukrainian army.
And then Russia will cross the Dnieper again.
Or maybe not. Because the situation is much more serious than most of us Westerners realize. Our leaders are playing with nuclear fire, whether they know it or not. But not because Russia is losing. Because the West is all but at war with a nuclear power and when/if that threshold is crossed Russia is not going to wait for US forces to deploy in Poland or whatever, or worse. They don’t want this but they are prepared for it. They want to avoid it but they are not bluffing. As they keep warning us.
Finally, given the complexities and constraints of the system, “F-16s for Ukraine”, if it actually happens, will at very least mean even more NATO crews in Ukraine and in fact probably takeoffs from Poland and Romania. It’s not certain that Russia will consider this the threshold crossed, but you bet they’ll give an unambiguous response.
This is a lot of words, but this is also the second time you've tripped over, like, one of the few basic things I think I know and can reasonably research about the conflict: that Ukraine enjoys interior lines, and Russia must defend a long exterior line. Things people have written about interior vs. exterior lines aren't motivated reasoning about Ukraine; they predate Ukraine by decades.
There‘s something to this but I‘m talking about something very basic and obvious: it‘s a long way from Donbas to the comparatively safe western Ukraine and NATO borders, where most of supply comes from and maintenance and training happens these days.
And, I should add, there are some difficulties but for Russia Russia is right there, and mostly safe. Ukrainians talk big and pull the occasional stunt but they know better than to attack Russia proper.
“Pre-war Russia” would have been clearer. They consider Crimea as Russian as Moscow and would respond accordingly to a serious attack. They are apparently more pragmatic about the new territories.
There’s a reason they hide the work of SBU, GUR and also certain Western countries under monikers like “Russian Volunteer Corps”. And why these attacks are, all things considered, rare and their effect negligible. We might, however, see significantly more of that in the near future and Russia could finally be forced to respond overtly.
> “Pre-war Russia” would have been clearer. They consider Crimea as Russian as Moscow and would respond accordingly to a serious attack. They are apparently more pragmatic about the new territories.
Considering that the Crimean bridge exploded, and that many airbases and other military facilities in Crimea keep exploding with no consequence, I take that as Russia would do nothing if Ukraine hit Moscow itself?.
There’s also the multiple attacks that have taken place against Russia proper using either drones helicopters or missiles and nothing happened again.
> There’s a reason they hide the work of SBU, GUR and also certain Western countries under monikers like “Russian Volunteer Corps”.
There are no western countries fighting for Ukraine at this moment just volunteers.
It’s also par for the course to hide things like intelligence activities behind not the regular army, like Russia did in 2014.
> And why these attacks are, all things considered, rare and their effect negligible. We might, however, see significantly more of that in the near future and Russia could finally be forced to respond overtly.
Sure they are negligible mostly but they have also take a lot of aircraft including strategic TU bombers, this outside the fact pro Ukrainian forces currently occupy part of Belgorod at the moment.
I follow what you're saying. What overt response could they offer? Their opening bid was an attempt to take Kiev. Whatever Russia can do, it is trying to do. It's already all on the table. They're doing better now because so many of the incompetent Russians are dead, but they're still limited by what Ukraine allows them to do.
> I follow what you're saying. What overt response could they offer?.
There’s lots they could do but they won’t because they can’t.
* Declare it war instead of a SMO although I think in reality this doesn’t change anything
* Try and take Kyiv again although I don’t think they will because I don’t think they can
* Test a nuclear weapon Russian territory as a warning. No idea why this hasn’t happen but my guess is it just bolsters support for Ukraine.
My point is the exact one you’re making despite multiple hits on Russia proper there’s no response because they are doing everything they can realistically.
Right: it seems like this basically comes down to them using nuclear weapons, or some other major escalation that will generate a coalition response. Otherwise: there really aren't retaliatory options open to them that I see. Every horrible thing you can imagine doing, they've already done or attempted to do, and then left a trail of Russian Armed Forces corpses and burning tanks as Ukraine pushed them back.
Now it seems like the goalposts are moving, because I don't recall anyone talking about Ukraine's outlook in terms of their likelihood of invading Russia.
No, I’m not moving goalposts. I’m telling you why Russia fights where it fights. And Ukraine largely not daring to attack supply lines in Russia proper is of course part of the calculus.
> * I know people don’t want hear it but the taking of Odessa and the rest of the coast will very likely still happen, eventually. Probably not via Kherson, preferably without force.
Genuinly curious, because this is the first time I read this. How do you see the taking of Odessa by Russia as very likely? It's their main port, I don't see how Ukraine would be able to survive without it.
Having failed to turn Nikolaev (and apparently no intent to take it by force),
Not only did they absolutely intend to take Mikolaiv - they were expecting to positively waltz their way through it, on their way to waltzing through Odesa, where their countrymen were surely waiting to welcome them with thronging parades, offering bread, salt and flowers.
The west cleared the floor with massed russian equipment, twice, maintaining 1:100 attrition rate while crossing an ocean.
But the rest of the post is not far off. ukr is on the back footing, and fog of war is very unidirectional, which means we're consuming propaganda, and its best not to form opinion out of it.
> plenty of Western gear
one fact tho remains, which is that we haven't seen yet combat footage from ifv and tanks delivered, so ukr forces are not yet fully committed, which seems positive.
> They lost it inch by inch and paid a very high price. Why do you think they sent some of their best units there, like the “Da Vinci Wolves“, and lost good chunks of them, including, incidentally, said unit’s founder and national hero “Da Vinci“?
To make Russia lose much more forces in the attack. It's a simple gambit — lose 1 soldier to make enemy lose 2 (or more).
Makes sense to lose an unimportant and pretty small piece of territory like that. Doesn't make any sense to retake it with reverse proportion of losses.
I think that was different. Both Hitler and Stalin were emotionally obsessed with the idea of controlling Stalingrad at all cost and didn’t think rationally about it.
The argument here is that Russia is in the same boat, but Ukraine is acting rational and think this is the place where they have the best odds at winning the war. The ratio of “their losses” versus “our losses” is better for them than they can get elsewhere, and at the rate of progress Russia made, they won’t run out of land soon.
Of course, whether they’re right isn’t 100% certain. From what I read, Russia is losing relatively more inexperienced soldiers than Ukraine, and those are relatively easy to replace.
The NYT at least provides a historical record, though their day-to-day reporting involves a lot of historical amnesia. Take a look at this from 2002:
> "President Bush heads to Moscow this week for his first summit meeting there, one that his advisers call a historic start to Russia's integration with the West... By breeding and experience, Mr. Putin may be the most Westernized leader in Russian history... The American view, as espoused this month by one senior Bush administration diplomat, is that the summit meeting 'really puts the Russian-U.S. relationship on a firm course of long-term partnership, even a long-term alliance.'"
It's curious how little interest the media has in examining why this one-promising 'alliance' failed to materialize, and instead broke apart, with arms control treaties torn up by both sides and escalating belligerence as bad as the worst episodes of the Cold War, such that an outbreak of nuclear war is now an ever-present risk. Any cursory news search will reveal that both Russian and American nuclear forces have moved to what looks like a hair-trigger status, as evidenced by various large-scale nuclear drills, public statements, etc.
Some plausible issues are economic conflicts over who gets to sell fossil fuels to European markets (and where that oil money ends up), the general desire of military-industrial interests in both countries to keep military spending intact, and the general political opportunism involved in nationalistic chest-beating and demonizing of the enemy, etc.
I think the one who will be milked by the chinese are the russians, for stupidly making themselves dependent upon the one major power that will deal with them. Chinese government must be drooling.
They were already a demographic black hole (well below replacement birthrates). An entire generation of Ukrainian men are wounded or dead. Millions have left the country and are never coming back after finding new jobs, partners, etc. Their future is dire if they "win"; the whole situation is just cynical and sad.
Yeah it is sad. It is unfortunate the war was dropped on them. At least they've put up one hell of a good fight for their country and freedom. Inspiration for the world; I think they're rebuild pretty strong.
If Ukraine draws a truce, it will be western banks and firms doing the reconstruction. Though I suppose these companies may be partly chinese, if thats what you mean?
> If Ukraine draws a truce, it will be western banks and firms doing the reconstruction
Lend-Lease terms make it near certain they will largely, specifically, be American, since the debt from that can be paid either directly or by hiring US firms for reconstruction, and the latter obviously gets more back for Ukraine.
Looks exactly like Grozny in 1995. As a child, I was told stories about Chechen atrocities that let to first Chechen war. I was led to believe that Chechens are wild, uncivilised, dangerous people who wanted to kill Russians in neighbouring regions. I was 7 years old, so I didn't question it.
After Russia's invasion in Ukraine and completely crazy propaganda which painted LGBT-friendly country with a Jewish president as literal Nazis I don't have any other choice but to confirm that Russia has been doing literal genocides in regions that wanted independence since 1995.
Let's see, in 1994 Ukraine supports military uprisal in Chechnya and aids separatists and their terrorist field commanders arriving from Saudi Arabia and Middle East [1] in a war against Russia on the territory of Russia. Namely, UNA-UNSO (a nationalist “patriotic” [2] organization in Ukraine [3]) leaders Anatoli Lupinos and Dimitro Korchinski led Ukrainian delegations to Grozny to meet with Chechen leaders. Fast forward in 1995, the UNSO fighters organized as the “Viking Brigade” under the command of Oleksandr Muzychko (a man who vowed to fight "communists, Jews and Russians for as long as blood flows in his veins" [4]), are illegally crossing the Russian border in Chechnya and join Mujahideen terrorists in their fight against Russian regulary army.
Twenty years after, when the chickens of the foreign policy had come home to roost in Donbass of 2014, someone nicknamed "golergka" thinks that everything that contradicts his worldview must be a "completely crazy propaganda".
Ukraine SUPPORTS military appraisal in Chechny in 1994?
Do you want to actually read the Wikipedia article about UNA that you linked to?
UNA barely got 0.5% during 1994 elections and that was their best year.
In other words what youre saying is that actions leaders of some nationalistic organization that does not represent 99.985% of Ukrainians is representative of Ukraine? That is absurd!
Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with the Muj in Chechnya -- is equivalent to saying that Ukraine as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.
Which kind of like saying, "Well gosh, a lot of Irish folks in Boston supported the IRA back in the 70s-80s. Which means, you know, the United States supported the IRA!"
> Which kind of like saying, "Well gosh, a lot of Irish folks in Boston supported the IRA. Which means, you know, the United States supported the IRA!"
American support for the IRA was a lot higher, AFAICT, than Ukrainian support for anyone aligned against Russia in Chechnya was.
> Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with the Muj in Chechnya -- is equivalent to saying that Ukraine as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.
Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with Crimea and Donbass in 2014 -- is equivalent to saying that Russia as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.
Yup - they're literally saying that the fact of a tiny fringe group that managed to get involved with the terrorists in Baghdad/Kabul -- is equivalent to saying that Iraq/Afghanistan as a whole (or its government, whatever) supported those folks.
In other words, the person registered "77 days ago" loses their entire awareness of role reversal in an attempt to fit reality into their botched worldview. It would be nice to hear, at least, what Ukraine did do to prosecute the so called fringe group that was threatening foreign relations of the entire state, but that would be too much for you to answer. Especially in the light of knowing that UNA-UNSO got integrated into the governing body of the country [1]. Let me guess: "they are still the minority". Great coping nonetheless.
Are you, or anyone you know, arguing against its actions in any forum that is Russian-operated and overwhelmingly pro-Russian in this war? Few people have a taste for deliberately exposing themselves to overwhelming social disapproval and hostility, and HN is not even primarily a political forum. As a hypothetical pro-Russian user, why would you choose getting yourself dogpiled and possibly risking a ban which would prevent you from using HN to discuss technology, rather than just steering clear of the topic?
As a hypothetical pro-Russian user, why would you ...?
Because as a troll, your goal certainly isn't to be popular. It's to dilute the narrative, and wear people down. For which getting dogpiled is just par for the course.
Any such post is immediately flagged and dissapears. Actually it does not have to be in favor of Russia, it is enough that you contest "facts" as they are presented in the western media.
There's a very large difference between arguing in favor of Russia's actions versus attempting to posit any degree of complexity and nuance in explaining how we reached this point, who shoulders responsibility, what a realistic end to the conflict is likely to look like, etc.
The recent piece in Harper's does a good job of laying out "the other side" i.e. realism and historical context against the "Putin is a delusional Hitlerian madman bent on dominating Europe" theory: https://harpers.org/archive/2023/06/why-are-we-in-ukraine/
On the current trajectory though, the west's belief in its own eschatological hegemony looks like it's already collapsed the "unipolar moment" of the last 30 years and there's a good chance of us continuing to climb the escalation ladder into World War 3, so the narrative that none of the sowing of this conflict was remotely our fault is providing an important psychological bulwark to steel everyone's nerves for what we may reap.
Thanks, I've been looking for an article like this for over a year. Whenever I've requested this perspective in the past, the only reply I've received is that I'm an ignorant, brainwashed American.
Why bother? Surely the community + mods here would crack down on that, and this isn't a site where you can just throw out a load of nonsense and expect that no one will analyze it to find flaws. Add that to the low user count (a few million a month compared to hundreds of millions or more for things like TikTok, Reddit, Twitter and FB) and limited resources are clearly better spent elsewhere.
Plus ideologically the people who support Russia most vocally online are Western tankies, and I don't think those guys would do well here.
I keep Show Dead on, and I often see one or two pro-Russia posts whenever the topic comes up. However, pro-Russia sentiment on this war is corollary to a trollish sarcastic attitude, so they get flagged.
Zelensky now seems to be talking down Bakhmut, describing it as a pile of rubble not worth dying for...so why did so many Ukrainians die in the last few months trying to retake it?
people continue to not understand the way Russia wages war - since the time of Napoleon, Russia has embraced scorched earth and brutal attrition
Ukrainian military and third party analysts have been very clear on this for a long time. Bakhmut had little strategic value. But Russia was hellbent on taking it. So Ukraine was using it as a way to pin down Russian forces and kill them en masse as they used their stupid human wave tactics. It’s worked well.
Russia spent 9 months on this offensive. They got Bakhmut and lost immense combat power. Now Ukraine is readying a counter offensive.
I don't think there was any particularly clever strategic plan. And sadly I don't think any Ukrainian counter-offensive is going to make any particular difference.
Ukraine is the new Syria, the conflict will probably never end.
Western-backed forces in Syria never really got started, nor was there much interest from the West in doing more than a bit of fighting - against ISIS, which was also engaged in Syria.
However, you're right that this is going to be a long war. At least as long as it has been going on already. And then it will probably turn into a frozen conflict like North/South Korea or "Turkish" Cyprus.
The original reason for Russia to take Bakhmut was because it's a useful operational point on the way to Slovyansk and Kramatorsk, and pinching those cities out would have enveloped a decent fraction of skilled Ukrainian troops. However, the rout in Kherson and the Russian evacuation from all the towns there meant that there were no longer any forces pushing Slovyansk from the north, so the resulting operational picture no longer makes much sense.
The continued reason for Russia to take Bakhmut at that point is largely attributed to inter-service rivalry within Russia: Wagner was hell-bent on taking it, to prove greater competence than Russia military (conscript or professional) forces. Ukraine continued fighting to defend it because it gave them such favorable casualty ratios, although it has been suggested that the casualty ratio became unfavorable to Ukraine in the past few months. (Whether or not it was still a good idea for Ukraine to continue contesting Bakhmut rather than withdrawing entirely is a question that has no clear answer right now, and will be hard to properly assess likely until well after the war is over. Fog of war is hard!)
Your inderstanding about the way Russia, and the USSR, wage war seems a bit incomplete and influenced a lot by common, and often repeated, internet memes. Most of which are contain just enough truth, among the complete falsehoods, to be incredibly dangerous.
refute me then, with facts, I'll even accept Wikipedia links
here's an appetizer for you: the Brusilov Offensive in WW1 was only a strategic operation inside a single war and Russia lost more men in that alone than have ever died on behalf of the US in all wars
Deep Battle, the dominant doctrine of the Red Army, is basically one version of mobile warfare, relying heavily on artillery. One that is mich closer to the common conception of Blitzkrieg than the actual thing the Germans applied (which was never called Blitzkrieg by said Germans). As with modern war, of course attrition plays a role.
It is just plain wrong that Russia won by sending more people to the meat grinder than the enemy. Im fact, deep battle, refined during the fighting at the Eastern Front in WW2, is one of the more successful maneuveur warfare doctrines out there, especially in wast territory.
Not that the current Russian army seems to be very good at applying that doctrine at the moment. But that is a different story.
As far as research goes, Wikipedia is free to use for everyone.
> Im fact, deep battle, refined during the fighting at the Eastern Front in WW2, is one of the more successful maneuveur warfare doctrines out there, especially in wast territory.
It is interesting to note that the most successful offensive land operation of the World War II was the Soviet offensive in August 1945 in Manchuria against the Japanese Kwantung army [0]. Within two weeks the Soviets (1.5M soldiers) annihilated Japanese army of about 1M soldiers and conquered the territory of the size of Western Europe. This together with American nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were major factors in Japan finally surrendering (better be occupied by Americans than Russians).
The turning into a pile of rubble was gradual, there was something worth defending not that long ago. But mostly I suspect it is because they have to kill the Russians somewhere. If they have a strategic advantage defending the pile of rubble they will cause more damage to the invaders than they will take themselves. Who ultimately holds the rubble is less important than what the battle cost each side.
It may have been a way to grind down Russian forces. The next few weeks will tell if this was also a trap for the Russians as the Ukrainians look to surround the city.
You seem to be very knowledgable on the Ulrainian plans and overall situation. Either that, in which case shuttimg up would propably be prudent, or it is just forward applied 20/20 hindsight based on incomplete information and a lacl of understanding.
>so why did so many Ukrainians die in the last few months trying to retake it?
It's called fixing. War involves, many times, sending people to certain death in a hopeless situation to provide room for manouvre and force generation.
> Zelensky now seems to be talking down Bakhmut, describing it as a pile of rubble not worth dying for…so why did so many Ukrainians die in the last few months trying to retake it?
They didn’t die trying to retake it (since it hadn’t fallen to need retaking, until arguably very recently, though even that is disputed), they died trying to pin the Russian Army/Wagner down and kill them (and did kill vast numbers of them) to prevent advances elsewhere. Just as the Ukrainian effort now to encircle the Russian forces that are still fighting the Ukrainian forces in and around the citiy is not because control of the rubble matters, but because cutting off and removing from combat the Russian forces in the rubble matters quite a bit.
Awesome. I've got a backlog of programming tasks that I'd love to have completed for free. What's your github repo and email? You can get started right away.
lol, what are you talking about? You think that news sites should all be free?
If you think they do a good job, then I think it's worth the subscription. If you just dislike NYT in general then why are you complaining you can't read it?
No, I am saying do not link to paid sites on a free forum.
If HN is free, and its all LINKS -- then dont link to content which is non-free. Simple.
EDIT: Jeasus Christ. HN is a _GLOBAL_ audience. Do you honestly think that people outside the US are interested in paying the NYT for a few articles that may get posted to HN?
Dont link to paywalls, period. If people ARE PAYING FOR IT then they already have access to said content? Why is this even a discussion.
I'll agree til the end of times regarding the asinine craziness of putting facts and journalism behind a financial barrier. That the most in need of correct information don't have the means to stay informed.
It's the worst of all angles. It's like junk food, the cheap and the easy wins to the detriment of all.
HN is free, and its all LINKS -- then dont link to content which is non-free. Simple.
HN is a _GLOBAL_ audience. Do you honestly think that people outside the US are interested in paying the NYT for a few articles that may get posted to HN?
Dont link to paywalls, period. If people ARE PAYING FOR IT then they already have access to said content? Why is this even a discussion.
This thread stinks of cabbage to high heaven. Can you actually fool even yourselves anymore? Russians have lost the war a long time ago, it's barely a nasty procession that's left.
It's incredible to me how anyone — including Russians — can look at this and decide that Russia is on the right side of anything. Just flatly, what is wrong with you?
This was a real functioning city of 75,000 people. They did nothing except exist. Now it is ruins. What are you bringing to the world? What are you accomplishing? Do you think this city is liberated?
Even if you buy into the full Russian story of Ukraine "shelling Donbas for 8 years", do you see anything in Donetsk that could possibly compare to this? You've destroyed more in a year of war than Ukraine would have shelled in three centuries of skirmishing with the Donbas.
This level of destruction appears to be the outcome of modern urban warfare against an entrenched and motivated defender every time. At https://news.sky.com/story/the-battle-for-mosul-how-the-reca... and https://www.csis.org/analysis/real-lessons-mosul-and-sixteen... you can see similar pictures of Mosul, a city around 50 times the size of Bakhmut, after it was reconquered by a US-led coalition in 2017. Do you have trouble looking at it and deciding that the US is on the right side of anything? If yes, you will run out of "right sides" very fast; if not, your criteria for determining the right side are actually not mostly about the reduction of real functioning cities to rubble.
Well, sure - now apparently we've established that you can in fact turn cities into ruins and remain on the right side, and are just, as they say, haggling over the price. Ask the Russians, and they would tell you that to leave Bakhmut in Ukrainian hands would be to condemn its residents to a cultural genocide, pointing at various laws Ukraine passed prohibiting Russian-language schooling, ethnically Russian political parties being repressed and pro-Russian activists being killed extrajudicially, and most recently supposed pronouncements from members of the current Ukrainian government about eliminating disloyal residents after reconquering Russian-held territory. Do you think that cultural genocide is below the threshold where a reasonable person could support a siege which results in a city's destruction, but an extreme patriarchal regime is above? If yes, are you so certain that this threshold is universally agreed upon (and are you confident that you would not yourself be willing to shift it if someone were to dig up a conflict against a lesser evil than ISIS in which the US pulverised a city)?
(Note that without a critical failure of theory of mind, a retort that the Russian charges against Ukraine are obviously false while the American charges against ISIS are obviously true is not meaningful. Can you say with confidence that growing up in Russia, you wouldn't have the same certainty that the Russian narrative is basically correct while the Americans are spouting self-serving propaganda? Is there some way you can imagine yourself convincing a Russian that American media is to be trusted without making your proposed chain of trust circular?)
My guess is that they aren't happy about the day to day, but they've been sold a narrative that NATO's expansion into Ukraine was an existential threat to them.
You can look at it like the Battle for Fallujah. It was horrible and bloody - but in the global narrative of eliminating islamic extremists that pose a threat to the west the battle was sort of seen as an unavoidable
I'm not trying to make a moral equivalence between the two - just explain how one horrible thing in the context of something bigger might feel inescapable
> but they've been sold a narrative that NATO's expansion into Ukraine was an existential threat to them
When the war started there were no talking what's so ever about NATO expansion to Ukraine. After the war started Finland joined NATO and it is the longest border between NATO and Russia and nobody from Russia said anything about that.
There was plenty of talking about it before the war, you just werent listening to the right channels. No one said anything about Finland joining because the bridges are already burned, it is too late.
>> We reiterate the decision made at the 2008 Bucharest Summit that Ukraine will become a member of the Alliance with the Membership Action Plan (MAP) as an integral part of the process
>> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990)
That statement was made 7 years after the war began in 2014, not before the war, and the 2008 statement it references was made several governments before the Ukrainian one in power at the time the war began, which had disclaimed any interest in joining NATO (thouh after the war started, this changed.)
> and the 2008 statement it references was made several governments before the Ukrainian one in power at the time the war began
Are you suggesting there's no succession of power in Ukraine and, effectively, legitimacy with respect to prior governments and their foreign policy stance?
> Are you suggeting there's no succession of power in Ukraine and, effectively, legitimacy with respect to prior governments and their foreign policy stance?
Specifically between the government in 2008 and the post-Maidan government, during which there was an arguable auto-coup followed by a definite revolution?
Yeah, there is a pretty severe discontinuity, not least of all on policy toward both NATO and Russia. Also, even insofar as the post-Maidan government might be seen as in general continuity of the pre-Yanukovych government that had sought NATO membership, NATO’s decision not to extend a MAP in 2008 in direct response to Putin’s objections, cooled Ukrainian interest, even in the pro-Western faction, because NATO was seen as unwilling to stand up for Ukraine against Russia. Putin had already won on NATO expansion before launching the war.
> > https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/en/55-12#Text
>> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990)
This was superseded by the new constitution that was adopted in 1996 as the Ukrainian SSR no longer exists this document no longer applies.
But I’m curious if you are saying that Ukraine is forced to follow this why isn’t Russia forced to follow the Budapest memorandum in which in pledged along with other nuclear powers at the time not to invade or threaten the territorial integrity of Ukraine.
Somehow I doubt that that understanding between NATO and Ukraine that was 13 years old when Russia invaded is what OP had in mind when they referred to “plenty of talk before the war” and “not listening to the right channels”—13 years going on 100 I might add given all that had transpired during those years. I believe the OP was suggesting that there was current or recent talk of Ukraine joining NATO, which if true, would obviously justify Russia’s attempt to obliterate the country. /s
I had in mind the entire 30 year history since independence during which certain factions have been pushing for NATO presence and eventual membership. The person below who says Putin "had already won on NATO" is wrong, from Putin's perspective, since his win condition was a guarantee that Ukraine would never join. This exact point was a sticking condition in the failed negotiations before 2022.
I think the poster has some point though, in that it is not all Ukrainian factions that have been pushing for this, and was perhaps not them as much as western powers which prevented this concession (their policy is influenced by their more powerful neighbours and backers!)
In the present, the secretary general of NATO Jens Stoltenberg has said "Let me be clear: Ukraine’s rightful place is in the Euro-Atlantic family.
Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. And over time, our support will help you make this possible."
> When the war started there were no talking what's so ever about NATO expansion to Ukraine.
You were replying to a comment that’s clearly referring to current or recent talk of Ukraine joining NATO at the time of the invasion.
> In the present, the secretary general of NATO Jens Stoltenberg has said "Let me be clear: Ukraine’s rightful place is in the Euro-Atlantic family. Ukraine’s rightful place is in NATO. And over time, our support will help you make this possible.”
Yes, obviously things are different now. Ukraine may very well be the next step in the NATO expansion that Putin has imposed upon himself.
Well, you have at least temporarily stabilized the Russian state (or at least Putin's position within it). I suspect this was the primary purpose, along with the belief that Ukraine and Crimea in particular are fundamentally Russian. Though things didn't go as planned and the longer this persists the more authoritarian (rather than simply depoliticized kleptocratic) the state must become to maintain it. It's a delicate balance, and the economic costs are high, but Putin is quite skilled at maintaining it. Concern for individual lives has never been a great concern in Russian wars.
From a state propaganda point of view, they have patriotically battled the Nazi Jew Gay Needle Freaks who, along with NATO and "the West", are plotting the extermination of Russia and right thinking culture, but are doomed to fail due to their degenerate beliefs. It doesn't need to make sense.
I think this situation is sad for all involved, but I do feel a big part of the blame lies with the USA who have been expanding NATO closer and closer to Russia's borders, even though Russia warned against this many, many, many times in the past. Ukraine was too close for comfort (kinda similar to Russia trying to plant nukes in Cuba during Cuba crises, now USA is doing the same).
All of this could have been avoided if USA respected Russia's wishes regarding NATO expansion [0].
And also, Ukraine bombing Donbass region for many many years prior to the war, also didn't help for sure.
And I don't understand why the USA and UK still tried to push this war, with Boris Johnson personally visiting Zelensky when Ukraine was close to signing a peace deal with Russia [1]. Boris Johnson blocked the deal, but why? What did Boris Johnson believe was to gain here?
1. While Russia warned against NATO expansion, it wasn't (and still isn't) in their power to do anything to stop it. Its actions have resulted in the expansion of NATO, a reasonably forseeable result.
2. NATO is a defensive only alliance, and can't be invoked for an invasion of Russia. If their concern is the ability of the US to store missiles and other military gear on its border, too late - the Baltics are already members. It would be an odd choice to invade purely based on the likely future expansion of an alliance that is designed to prevent you from invading its members.
3. NATO expansion or no, an independent, westward-leaning Ukraine is not an acceptable outcome. This would make NATO expansion irrelevant or at best an ancillary cause.
It's also worth noting it's not like this is the first time Russia has invaded and occupied one of its neighbours. AFAIK Georgia wasn't about to join NATO. We can't see counterfactual universes, but in my view an equally valid possibility is that NATO has stopped what is happening in Ukraine from happening in the Baltic states.
Overall the facts don't line up well with the theory that this is a response to NATO expansion, and therefore the US is to blame - it might be a factor, but more serves as a rhetorical justification Russia can use that it knows people in the US and UK can use domestically.
If you're a realist about international relations it's pretty easy to see why the UK and US might see it as in their geostrategic interest to prolong the war, and that might have been a factor. It's also worth noting there was a huge amount of public pressure for both to react. Either way, in their view, a longer war is worth it for a pro-western Ukraine, and Ukraine seems to agree. As for acting to prevent an agreement, that's largely speculation, but either way, the final choice was still Ukraine's.
Russia is completely in the wrong here, but this is false:
> NATO is a defensive only alliance, and can't be invoked for an invasion of Russia.
NATO is a regional security alliance with a mutual defense commitment. Most of the operations for which it has been activated were not invocations of that defensive commitment, which has only happened exactly once.
> 2. NATO is a defensive only alliance, and can't be invoked for an invasion of Russia. If their concern is the ability of the US to store missiles and other military gear on its border, too late - the Baltics are already members. It would be an odd choice to invade purely based on the likely future expansion of an alliance that is designed to prevent you from invading its members.
It's worth noting that the Soviet equivalent to NATO was the Warsaw Pact, whose largest military operation was invading a member because they wanted to leave. While ostensibly a collective defensive alliance, like NATO, the Soviets treated it as a tool of binding its sphere of influence together, and it would not surprise me if the current Russian leadership sees NATO the same way, a tool by which the US government coerces its sphere of influence to do its bidding. (Needless to say, this is not an accurate view of NATO, but I suspect it is the view that Russia has of it.)
> It's worth noting that the Soviet equivalent to NATO was the Warsaw Pact, whose largest military operation was invading a member because they wanted to leave.
I don’t think that’s quite accurate (it seems, unless I’m mistaken, to conflate elements of the Soviet invasion of Hungary in 1956 and the Warsaw Pact invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968); the Hungarian revolutionaries in 1956 declared an exit from the Pact but that invasion was pure USSR, not Warsaw Pact. Czechoslovakia in 1968 had reaffirmed its intent to remain in the Pact and faithful to Marxism-Leninism just prior to the Warsaw Pact invasion.
Nevertheless, that the Soviet Union invaded two Warsaw Pact members over insufficient perceived loyalty to the USSR’s direction seems to underline your general point of the difference between the Warsaw Pact and NATO, notwithstanding any quibbles of the precise details of either invasion.
I love when people say the USA or UK pushed this war. Russia tried to perform a decapitation attack on Ukraine and failed. There was no reasonable cause for this, they just thought they could get away with it and keep Ukraine as a vassal state rather than let it turn west like the Baltics etc.
Curious, do you think Russia is to blame at all for violating the terms of the Budapest Memorandum?
I’d think you’d be naive to think Ukraine would not become a vassal state to the US if Ukraine can somehow manage to win this war.
Because as far as I know US made huge loans to the Ukraine. Billions and billions of dollars. If Ukraine could manage to win the war, US will want payback for the loans. And I think payback will be in the form of resources. Perhaps US based multinationals like Monsanto taking over farmland or other companies exploiting resources. As I understand Ukraine is a very resource rich country and US pretty much only bothers to fight in countries with plenty resources.
At this point US is still exporting oil from Syria. And I should note, the Syrian government doesn’t approve of US invasion in Syria, much like the Ukraine government doesn’t approve the Russian invasion in Ukraine.
> Curious, do you think Russia is to blame at all for violating the terms of the Budapest Memorandum?
The Budapest Memorandum was predicated on adherence to all prior agreements Ukraine would never see sovereignty without in the first place [1]. Nobody would just let it go in peace without those prior agreements signed in 1990: >> The Ukrainian SSR ceremoniously proclaims its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which will be out of military blocks and will be committed to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce and not to acquire the nuclear weapon. (1990) <<
> Nobody would just let it go in peace without those prior agreements signed in 1990
The Declaration of State Soveriegnty of Ukraine isn’t an agreement signed by Ukraine, it was domestic legislation of the Ukraine SSR regarding its future plans at the time, more than a year before the Act of Declaration of Independence of Ukraine was passed.
Yeah, I've already heard that you don't believe in succesion of power in Ukraine and that it enables everyone in the government to act at a whim of the moment as long as it serves the current agenda. Turns out that strategy doesn't work in real life.
What I believe in is facts, and there is, in fact, a huge difference between an international agreement and an internal legislation setting general policy goals. You can’t cite a requirement to hold to past agreements and then cite as an example something that is not any kind of agreement.
Where did I say that annexation was predicated on the fact of joining rather than an intent to join? Next, what was sovereignty of Ukraine predicated on in 1990?
> Where did I say that annexation was predicated on the fact of joining rather than an intent to join?
Putin had been successful in getting NATO to reject MAPs for Ukraine and Georgia before invading either (just before, in Georgia’s case), and that rejection had caused Ukraine to abandon NATO membership as a goal before Putin launched the war in 2014.
Once it was at war with Russia, Ukraine changed its mind again and decided it needed to pursue NATO membership as a goal, for some reason. Putin’s war is literally the reason Ukraine has an intent to join NATO, not a response to that intent.
> Once it was at war with Russia, Ukraine changed its mind again and decided it needed to pursue NATO membership as a goal, for some reason.
Your timeline is missing a few important points, let's start with the fact that it never stopped pursuing it since 2003, when it had taken part in the invasion of Iraq with their 5th and 6th mechanized brigades [1][2].
> let's start with the fact that it never stopped pursuing it since 2003
That's not a fact. The Yanukovych government obviously didn't pursue NATO membership, and even the post-Maidan government expressly declared it a non-goal prior to the invasion that occurred shortly after that government came to power, reversing course only after the invasion.
> when it had taken part in the invasion of Iraq
2003 was before 2008, when Putin succeeded in getting NATO to reject the Georgia and Ukraine MAPs, and it was this caving to Putin by NATO which is why even when a pro-Western government came to power in 2014 after Yanukovych, it didn’t see pursuing NATO as a fruitful course. It took the war to change their mind. The war created the intent, it didn’t react to it.
> 2003 was before 2008 [...] it didn’t see pursuing NATO as a fruitful course. It took the war to change their mind. The war created the intent, it didn’t react to it.
You're hilarious, on the one hand you don't like it when there's evidence of the subsequent alignment with the goal of joining NATO (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36034020), on the other hand you don't like the evidence of the prior alignment either. I'm not sure what you argumnt is unless it's "we decide at the spur of the moment and no one can hold us accountable for anything neither in the past nor in the future".
> > That's not a fact. [..] and even the post-Maidan government expressly declared it a non-goal.
> You’re wrong: [wikipedia link to 2006 anti-NATO protests]
You realize that 2006 is both before the 2008 denial of the MAP and before the 2014 Maidan Revolution, right? So, your link has no value at all in discussing the post-Maidan government’s actions based in large part on the 2008 MAP denial.
> I'm not sure what you argumnt is
My argument is that Putin acheived his goal of stopping NATO expansion to Ukraine (and Georgia) in 2008, by getting NATO to deny Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans, that this denial led to even the next Western-oriented government after the one that was in power at the time of the 2008 attempt fell, was replaced with a pro-Russian one (which, arguably, then executed an autocoup, and, undisputedly, was itself replaced in the Maidan Revolution) being quite clear about not seeking NATO membership until AFTER Russia, who had invaded Georgia in 2008, invaded Ukraine in 2014.
This demonstrates a couple things: first, neither the Russian invasion of Georgia in 2008 nor the Russo-Ukrainian War was based on the threat of those countries joining NATO, which Russia had successfully averted, leaving aside any questions of whether that threat was a legitimate casus belli in any case, and, second, in the case of Ukraine, its actually the cause of the intent to join NATO, which the government, having previously disclaimed it, adopted as a priority after the invasion.
> You realize that 2006 is both before the 2008 denial of the MAP and before the 2014 Maidan Revolution, right?
Do you realize that in other thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened after 2014? And in this thread you complain that certain events regarding NATO have happened before 2014?
You do realize that there was a revolution in 2014 against a Russian-friendly leadership in Ukraine, and also that Russia launched the war shortly after that revolution? So, yes, claimimg the invasion was in response to things pre-2014 is implausible because of the revolution, and claiming it was in response to things after 2014 is implausible because of the arrow of time.
The question is lacking historical context of the declaration of state sovereignty of Ukraine from 1990 to be worthy of specificity you’re willing to hear. Welcome to the real world of messy politics that cost human lives, unless guided by level-headed leaders (that the modern Ukraine has been lacking since early 2000s)
> Ah it’s Ukrainian leaders fault that they were invaded and had their territory annexed?
Let me remind you what happened in 2014. The Ukrainian leaders of the successful armed coup did pass a bill to prohibit official use of minority languages on the eastern part of the country (dominated by Russian-speaking population) on a Sunday morning of February 23, 2014. It happened a day after their legitimately elected president (recognised by OSCE and PACE) had to flee the country. It was clearly a period of political crisis and no one was supposed to work and enact any legislation on that weekend day in the first place. No one was supposed to pass a bill of that significance without extended debates and a referendum specifically. But the coup leaders decided to move forward with it nonetheless. Russian troops legally stationed in Crimea took over the peninsula 4 days after that punitive act of the Ukraine government against its own russian-speaking population of the eastern part of the country. The reinforcement from Russia were only sent 6 days after the event, as the Kiyv regime decided to escalate. So yeah, that was utter barbarism on behalf of the coup leaders of Ukraine.
So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour an acceptable response is to annex territory and then launch a full scale invasion and attempt to decapitate their leadership?
> So if a country disagrees with the political situation of a neighbour
I see how nicely you downplay the armed coup and the ethnic discrimination against former citizens of one of the sides (who voted to remain a single country in the past [1]) into a mere "political situation of a neighbour". However, that same argument wouldn't work for you on this same forum if you dared to suggest that NATO's "intervening into the political situation of Yugoslavia" wasn't OK.
I’m not downplaying, I disagree with characterising it as an armed coup but figured there’s no point in even talking to you about that.
So all you’ve got left is some whataboutery? I’m guessing from your tone you thing NATO involvement in Yugoslavia was bad? And you see Russian involvement in Ukraine as equivalent so…
The thing that you call "whataboutery" is the basis of the Socratic method that every student who attended Philosophy 101 understands as an essential form of argument-building. Unfortunately to you, the whining of "whataboutery" that you've just demonstrated cannot serve as a rebuttal of anything but your aptitude for argument elaboration.
Nope it’s ad hominem and a propaganda technique used when your argument is flimsy. There’s nothing essential about it, you could discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own but instead you had to try to obfuscate and distract by expanding to Yugoslavia.
What Russia is doing right now in Ukraine is disgraceful, unjustified and indefensible.
Demonstrate exactly how it's ad hominem. I couldn't care less about you in the first place. You haven't refuted anything I said neither regarding the whataboutism, nor any other point I made regarding the conflict, so please do elaborate how exactly my points about your whining of whataboutism is ad hominem?
> you could discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own but instead you had to try to obfuscate and distract by expanding to Yugoslavia.
Why would I discuss the merits of Ukraine on its own if your argument is wholly based on the idea of morailty and ethics of actions (the ones you call disgraceful, unjustified and indefensible) that are supposed to be applied equally to everyone? I want to see how you apply it universally across the board, and until that happens I call you a person with an agenda to propagandise.
But let's entertain the idea, let's see how you cover "the merits of Ukraine on its own". What's happening on this video and who's receiving the medals? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwpBvJziSs&t=365s
> But let's entertain the idea, let's see how you cover "the merits of Ukraine on its own". What's happening on this video and who's receiving the medals? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nwpBvJziSs&t=365s
Theres nazis in Ukraine just like how theres nazis in Russia and other countries what your point?.
There is no point of course -- other than to make yet another attempt at intellectual obfuscation, and to push people's emotional buttons.
As to what the video shows -- it was a local ceremony, not any kind of federal recognition of these fighters. So far there has not even been a legislative attempt to grant "hero" status to members of any of the fighting unites in WW II.
And that's the important point: all of these (in my view, quite nauseating) commemorations of either the pro-fascist political leaders, or of the various collaborating fighting units have been at the local, not federal level. Precisely because it remains such a painful and divisive topic.
And because by and large, Ukrainian society has moved light years beyond the events of these dark times. It is the regime in that large country to the north (and that of its smaller puppet state next door) that is continually trying to make everyone live in the past, as if WW II basically never ended.
One could say a lot more about it -- just as there are all kinds of things to say about how collaborationist history has been processed in all the other countries in Europe; including, last but not least, in the Soviet Union and modern Russia itself (in regard to its attempts to all but banish any mention of its notorious high-level cooperation with Nazi Germany from its history books).
One could, that is - provided there was an atmosphere of civility, and of respect for in discourse. Unfortunately this does not apply to the commenter you are responding to -- who, as we have seen, seems intent on dragging the discussion ever downward, into an endless cycle of intellectual evasion and ad hominem attack.
And in any case: none of this history has any bearing on the current conflict. And the whole narrative that it does, let alone that it justifies or explains the naked, old-school barbarism that has been inflicted upon Ukraine since early 2022, as is the subject of the original article in this thread -- is just bonkers.
In other words you sound like an offended Ukrainian who got registered "77 days ago" and who had constantly been denying everything that didn't fit your agenda, including the political stance of your government prior 2014.
Imagine Mexico joined an alliance with China, complete with funding and transfer of weapons, that said any attack on any other Chinese aligned territory (or say taiwan) obligated Mexico to strike the US. This would never be tolerated in a million years. This doesn't make Russia in the right, but get real here---there are degrees of actual sovereignty, and few nations have class A shares.
This analogy would have some semblance of meaning if the US had plans to invade Mexico, or had made statements to that effect, or if there was even a latent desire in the US for that kind of action. It would then make sense for Mexico to find alliances with other countries for protection.
The situation in Europe is completely different, with close to half of Europe having been under Russian domination for decades if not centuries. Once those countries got out, they decided that never again would this be possible.
There is also a misunderstanding of how NATO works. Countries in Europe have not been forced to join the alliance, but they have been quasi begging to join NATO to get protection from the Russian aggressor. The process of joining NATO requires a formal application and the unanimous agreement of all existing members, not just the US's (see Turkey's move to block Sweden's entry for a concrete example of how that works).
There is also the notion that NATO applicants must follow requirements, including [1]:
- a functioning democratic political system based on a market economy;
- the fair treatment of minority populations;
- a commitment to the peaceful resolution of conflicts;
- the ability and willingness to make a military contribution to NATO operations; and
- a commitment to democratic civil-military relations and institutional structures.
In other words, the values defended by NATO are values which I consider positive. An alliance of autocratic nations (say Russia and China) would be a very different one.
Finally, if you haven't followed the discourse in Russia, there really is a discussion there of taking back not only Ukraine, but the Baltic states, Kazakhstan, and other former soviet republics (and yes, even parts of Poland). That is taking, as in invading under false pretense, not the peaceful recreation of a union with the consent of said countries. Luckily Russia will be unable to do so, but the need for protection remains real.
Thank you for actually rebutting the analogy and providing at least one link. I have found every thread on HN about this war is extremely lacking in links and there's all these things that have been "obvious" since the beginning that don't seem that obvious to me.
The US has invaded Mexico before (and taken half of its land in the subsequent treaty). Mexico is also substantially under US domination since (along with much of Latin America), it is just that our domination has been softer and maybe more beneficial. The situation is certainly not the same, but there are significant risks of very similar border conflicts arising in the coming 2-3 decades, and the US will absolutely respond in as dominant a way as it can. The US would absolutely not tolerate a border country joining a binding oppositional alliance. I don't think the analogy is so bad as you make it out to be and I think the US would try a series of actions to diffuse the situation similar to what we have seen in this conflict (but the US would probably be more capable and more likely to avoid the final escalation).
Do you actually think the US would preemptively invade Mexico in this scenario?
As an American, that sounds ludicrous, and I cannot imagine anyone in the US supporting that plan with the enthusiasm that Russians currently support the invasion of Ukraine.
I think the US would attempt to destroy the Mexican government. If it came to it, yes they would invade, although first they would simply try to install a friendlier government through a coup of some sort (it has been US policy to oppose any such actions since Monroe doctrine). As for the feelings of the US public, they can be swayed to war, as history shows.
The US did preemptively invade Panama in the past, at the first sign of General Noriega's shift toward the Soviet bloc, after his soliciting and receiving military aid from Cuba, Nicaragua, and Libya.
In your scenario, the triggering event is if/when the US attacks a Chinese aligned territory. NATO is a defensive alliance. When the US attacked Iraq, NATO did not follow. The only time NATO reacted was when Bin Laden attacked the US. Your scenario will only happen if China is the belligerent party.
Actually that's a great analogy. It would be like if the US tried to invade and conquer parts of Mexico and turn it into a new state in the year 2023. You know, that thing that will never fucking happen. We also invaded Canada a couple times back when we were dumber, but notice how Canada and Mexico are actually pretty pleased to be our allies, despite our faults, and they aren't seeking protection from foreign alliances to prevent us invading them again, because they largely believe we would never do that again, because the world is very different and we are very intertwined and wish to be cooperating countries.
This was a response to a question asking why Russia has any influence over Ukraine's alliance choices. The US exerts similar influence over the foreign policy of its neighbors, as does China, which is right now aggressively pushing on Taiwan for this reason. It is the reality of larger powers interacting with smaller ones. No one said the current situation in Canada or Mexico is the exact same. Nor did I say any of this justifies Russia's choices. But IF, say Mexico, started to flirt with an oppositional alliance, this would be countered, with war as a last resort if the other strategies failed. This has been done several times before in US history (eg in Cuba, we backed a local revolt against Spain to take control of the island and other Spanish possessions. In the 1960s we again threatened nuclear war against the Soviets for expansion there and embargoed the country for half a century). And the fact you are so dismissive of US action in Mexico is a big blind spot. The cartels in Mexico control significant territory adjacent to the US. US federal agencies have been deeply intertwined with the Mexican government's efforts to curtail the cartels, but these have failed. Special forces already operate there. The likelihood of direct US action is not high right now but is certainly plausible within 20 years, especially if the cartels make further inroads within the offical government. US congressmen have just this year proposed legislation allowing "military capabilities" against the cartels. The world is different, but some things don't change, and more powerful countries dictating some of the policy of their less powerful neighbours is one of them.
You know, that thing that will never fucking happen.
Exactly. To the extent that there's any validity in looking at the current situation between the US and its larger neighbors, it completely demolishes the idea that we should have some understanding or other respect for Russia's actions in Ukraine.
Based on it being "unavoidable", or "what else did you expect Putin to do?" or any of that crap.
Have you read Bill Barr's opinion piece in the WSJ about the use of military force against Mexican cartels, in support of the bill authorising such use of military capabilities by Reps Waltz and Crenshaw? I never said this war was unavoidable--actually it was very avoidable. Nor did I say Putin had no other choice, so I don't know what youre on about there.
What are the wishes of Ukraine? Are you talking about Zelensky or People of Ukraine?
Not very long ago US orchestrated a coup in the country so it is all meddled.
Yes, it is all meddled. Victoria Nuland was one of the main orchestrators regarding the Ukraine coup, quite clear when hearing the leaked phone call in which see also stated "fuck the EU" (might help people find the audio when Googling).
A spy, no. Just unfortunately living in the bubble of whatever blogs and other ideologically warped news sources you're reading.
No one in (mainstream) Ukrainian society believes in the "coup" or attaches any special significance to that allegedly pivotal and far-reaching Nuland exchange.
You know that just because some professor somewhere says something (in a way that makes it sound high-minded and respectable) -- that doesn't make it so, right?
Correct and same applies to you me and everyone else. The bottom line is you are an idiot if you flat out deny the perspective of people who are more knowledgeable than you are on this topic.
I don't deny Mearsheimer's views on Ukraine at all. On the contrary, I believe we should let them stand for what they are - as a shining example of Orwell's famous mamxim:
“One has to belong to the intelligentsia to believe things like that: no ordinary man could be such a fool.”
Do you see Ukraine as a sovereign country, that can define its own future, or is it just a puppet state of Russia, like Belarus? Should we still allow redefining borders in Europe in the 21st century?
To be honest, I am not sure what sovereign means at this point. For example it seems most European countries are just lapdogs of US interests. Which was especially clear when US bombed to German pipeline and Germany acts like nothing has happened.
Please cite your source with regards to the alleged US pipeline bombing; I currently am unaware of credible sources with any public knowledge of the event in question. I would love to know more, but, surprisingly(/s), not much info has been released.
Don’t need any sources on this, as several US state officials, even Biden, stated they would do this if the US invaded Ukraine.
Biden even stated this in a press conference with Olaf Schulz standing next beside him [0], but again there were more US officials making similar statements.
You can wait for “official” proof, while I am sure US officials weren’t making practical jokes.
I've watched that clip, and quite frankly, looking at the entire context of the press conference and the tone of voice of the answer, it's clear to me that he wasn't in the middle of planning any attempts to sabotage the pipeline.
Recall that this is a press conference essentially announcing that Germany agreed NordStream 2 will not open if Russia openly invades Ukraine, that Biden is (by this time) sitting on very reliable evidence saying that Russia is planning to imminently openly invade Ukraine, and the reporter is asking "okay, what if Russia doesn't openly invade Ukraine?", whereupon the answer is effectively "that's not gonna happen."
Several US state officials, even Biden, stated they would do this if the US invaded Ukraine.
They stated what, specifically? That they would literally bomb the pipeline?
You need to be at least a little more careful with these cognitive distortions you're pushing. Remember, in order for them to work - they need to be at least logically plausible, and in some way grounded in believable, every day reality.
Did the US see it as a sovereign country when we orchestrated a coup? Obviously Russia is in the wrong about all this but you have to be able to understand the context here.
He seems to be labouring under the misapprehension that Putin would tolerate a prosperous de-Russified Ukraine. He must never have read any of Putin’s speeches about the glory of the USSR and how it was a mistake to allow Ukraine to be separated from Russia. A vassal state like Belarus is what they wanted but their decapitation attack failed. Now they’re stuck in a quagmire with no clear end in sight. So much for a master strategist
> All of this could have been avoided if USA respected Russia's wishes regarding NATO expansion
No, the Russo-Ukrainian war that has been active since 2014 could not have been, and the reason I know this to 100% certainty is because the US and NATO did accede to Russia’s request to not offer Ukraine and Georgia Membership Action Plans to set the path for NATO membership in 2008, which was followed immediately (less than two months, IIRC) by Russia invading Georgia, and in 2014—with a Ukrainian government that had disclaimed interest in NATO largely because of the 2008 action—Russia following up with an invasion of large parts of Ukraine, starting the war.
If anything, NATO showing it was willing to abandon Ukraine and Georgia is what greenlit both wars.
NATO has been on the USSR's borders via Norway and (if you count air/sea borders without land borders) the United States since the day NATO was founded.
Wait, so it prevented the annexation of Crimea? The annexation of Georgia?
Wouldn't this be more like the US annexing Cuba, or really Venezuela, because of Russian/Chinese influence? I mean they are "Violent Socialist pedophiles invading our boarders and poisoning our children", and it's really American Oil put there by God anyway? Again, propaganda doesn't need to make sense when is serves a political and economic purpose.
My personal opinion is that dictatorships and democracies have a very hard time figuring each other out, which leads to great miscalculations. The dictator sees peoples elected representatives and decisions as great calculated moves, and seeks to threaten "the real power behind them". While democracies fail to plan (other than institutionally), but are driven by the beliefs of their populations, and need to be elected to make moves that are not "real politik".
Why do you see all those countries wedged between western powers and Russia as helpless pawns? Maybe the people of those countries have their own will. And a memory of those 40 years. Wanting "buffer countries" is 19th century thinking and it expectedly worked against them - do you think anyone forced Sweden or Finland to join just now?
I can't shake off the fact that Western powers won the cold war but imposed a victor's peace on Russia. Integrating Eastern European countries economically with the West (by their free will or not) is one thing but expanding NATO throughout the 90's and early 2000's was NOT a defensive move.
Regarding Finland I am not discussing the security dynamics post invasion. The scenario has now changed from what could have been...
I can't shake off the fact that Western powers won the cold war but imposed a victor's peace on Russia.
It's more of an assessment than "fact". But still, you don't need to shake if off. You can obsess about it all you want, in fact.
What matters here is that the current conflict not just entirely one-sided -- but utterly, completely insane. And that that there are absolutely no historical circumstances which explain, contextualize or otherwise minimize the aggressor's actions.
I think it’s pretty clear now why they wanted to join NATO, the same reason Finland, Estonia, Lithuania etc wanted to join, Russia hasn’t given up on restoring the Russian Empire.
Ah yes, why would a victim look to find protection from centuries of bullying? You may not like the US, but the US has not bullied the baltics, and Russia has. Very simple to see why they do what they do.
These were the people of Bakhmut in 2014 [1], after the events of Maidan in Kiev. Notice the Russian flag. It's unfortunate that the Ukrainian State hasn't allowed the people of the city to choose their own way so that it had to come to all this destruction, I agree with you on that.
As for the buildings, they will be re-built, look at today's Grozny.
It was that or the Odessa House of Trade Unions treatment for the local Russian population wanting not to depend on Kiev.
As I said, all this wouldn’t and shouldn’t have happened had the Ukrainians really believed in the principle of autonomy and of subsidiarity. Happily for them as soon as they’ll join us in the EU they’ll get right on to that.
By that argument essentially no war, ever, is on the right side of anything. Perhaps that's your position, but I'm sure some folks would differ and believe sometimes war is justified.
If war is sometimes justified, then the argument comes down to goals and values. Russians, apparently, value "unification" and strategic buffer zones more than the world believed, and it might even be the West's fault this is such a protracted war.
Btw: Reminder that HN voting system is not reddit's agree style upvote. It's instead to function on the quality of argument and evidences presented.
Would love to hear a rebuttal to both the Professor's and Editorial content that demonstrates that Russia isn't the only one who should be demonized here.
