Most active commenters
  • LarryMullins(4)
  • mint2(3)

←back to thread

688 points hunglee2 | 28 comments | | HN request time: 0.001s | source | bottom
Show context
mmastrac ◴[] No.34713024[source]
It's a great story, but it's all unsourced and could be a decent Tom Clancy story at best. You could probably write a similar one with Russia or German agents as the key players and be just as convincing.

The only anchor in reality appears to be Biden suggesting that they knew how to take it out which seems like a pretty weak place to build a large story.

What I find particularly odd is that this entire thing appears to be based on a single, unnamed source "with direct knowledge of the operational planning".

replies(18): >>34713169 #>>34713289 #>>34713318 #>>34713618 #>>34714956 #>>34715192 #>>34715760 #>>34716271 #>>34716360 #>>34717677 #>>34717883 #>>34718313 #>>34718875 #>>34719021 #>>34719781 #>>34727938 #>>34730841 #>>34835658 #
rsync ◴[] No.34713618[source]
"You could probably write a similar one with Russia ..."

I disagree - there is no credible motive here for Russia and, in fact, the outcome was directly opposed to every outcome they are, or were trying, to achieve.

Not only do I, as a US citizen, believe that the US perpetrated this act but further: I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most economically.

EU states are now buying US natural gas like we always wanted them to. How much pain and suffering were we willing to inflict to make that happen ?

replies(9): >>34713640 #>>34713674 #>>34713761 #>>34714514 #>>34714632 #>>34714918 #>>34715710 #>>34717613 #>>34717759 #
1. LarryMullins ◴[] No.34713761[source]
> I believe it is an overtly hostile action against EU citizens and, particularly, Germans, who will suffer the most economically.

In the scenario where America did it, I think there is a strong argument to be made that it was in the long-term interests of EU citizens, despite causing them some short-term discomfort. They never should have started this pipeline project in the first place, buying energy from Russia made the EU weak. Breaking that relationship permanently will make the EU stronger.

replies(3): >>34714012 #>>34714421 #>>34716384 #
2. Eduard ◴[] No.34714012[source]
> ... causing EU citizens short-term discomfort

You have no idea what's going on.

Also, are you arguing that having less choice in market supply is good better for EU?

3. pillefitz ◴[] No.34714421[source]
We were quite happy with cheap energy and it was great to have a choice between Russian gas and American LNG, until that option disappeared.
replies(1): >>34714551 #
4. letrowekwel ◴[] No.34714551[source]
That option disappeared when Russia invaded Ukraine, not when the pipeline was blown up (at least if you rate human life over economics). Nobody should buy anything from a regime like Putin's Russia.
replies(1): >>34716805 #
5. nostromo123 ◴[] No.34716384[source]
America "doing things in the long-term interests of EU citizens, despite causing them some short-term discomfort" is exactly why the US is seen as the baddy in a lot of countries. We are not your children to be nannied and taken decisions on behalf of!
replies(2): >>34717666 #>>34727671 #
6. RobotToaster ◴[] No.34716805{3}[source]
It's fine to buy gas from the USA, the butchers of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Yugoslavia though?
replies(2): >>34717106 #>>34717774 #
7. Animatronio ◴[] No.34717106{4}[source]
Yes, it's even sweeter because EU industry is quickly becoming unable to compete successfully on global markets and the Russians are getting poorer. Two birds with one stone!
8. tiahura ◴[] No.34717666[source]
We are not your children to be nannied and taken decisions on behalf of!

Until you can defend yourselves, you are.

replies(4): >>34718457 #>>34720013 #>>34721966 #>>34727574 #
9. mint2 ◴[] No.34717774{4}[source]
It’s telling that this post includes stopping a genocide as a bad thing, I.e. the UN stopping the Bosnian genocide in the fracturing Yugoslavia as a bad thing.

Coincidentally, the Russian sphere is one of the groups mad about the UN involvement in Bosnia and Serbia

replies(3): >>34718671 #>>34718700 #>>34721164 #
10. ClumsyPilot ◴[] No.34718457{3}[source]
Sick of hearing this BS.

Who can invade EU, Russia after their showing in Ukraine? China from half the world away?

EU militaries have multiple times the budget of the RU army.

We don't need 11 carriers to defend ourselves.

replies(1): >>34719160 #
11. lmm ◴[] No.34718671{5}[source]
No-one opposes stopping the genocide. The argument is generally that bombing Belgrade was unnecessary (and if anything, a distraction from the UN's failure to prevent the genocide).
replies(1): >>34720042 #
12. mempko ◴[] No.34718700{5}[source]
I think the point is that there is no ethical supplier of natural gas.
replies(1): >>34734271 #
13. dralley ◴[] No.34719160{4}[source]
Ukraine, in January 2022, had more tanks than Germany, France, and the UK combined.

They had more air defense than Germany, France, and the UK combined, though the systems were not quite as capable individually.

They had nearly as many active duty military as Germany, France, and the UK combined, and a huge number of reservists with experience fighting in the War in Donbass against Russian military and paramilitary forces with tanks and artillery, as opposed to jihadists with no real heavy weapons of any kind.

Their airforce was mostly comparable in size to any one of the above, though again not as capable qualitatively.

And they had a hell of a lot more artillery and artillery shells than Germany, France, and the UK combined. By a massive margin, although again not quite as capable individually. Nearly all of the NATO-standard artillery ammunition that has been provided to Ukraine has come from US stockpiles, because at the rate Ukraine consumes artillery ammo Germany, France, and the UK would be collectively tapped out in about 10 days. Not to mention HIMARS ammunition.

The Russians were also rather handicapped by the reckless, arrogant stupidity of their plan and extreme secrecy resulting in soldiers selling their fuel rations for alcohol, because until a day or two beforehand they thought was all a bunch of western lies because that's what the government was saying publicly. With the result that a bunch of vehicles ran out of fuel halfway to Kyiv. Had the invasion been done according to doctrine rather than as what they expected to be an immediate victory as the Ukrainians laid down their arms, awed by their superior military power, the story may still have turned out very different.

Anyway, Ukraine had, by a very significant margin, the largest military in Europe excluding Russia, and certainly the most experienced in fighting "real" wars. Take this into consideration when boasting about how easily the rest of Europe would be able to handle a Russian invasion.

replies(1): >>34722314 #
14. sudosysgen ◴[] No.34720013{3}[source]
The European Union can collectively defend itself against any conceivable invader. What it can't do without US help is bombing countries far away, as it lacks the military logistics and force generation to do that well. That's the main purpose of NATO since 1991, and the UK along with France really like having the option to bomb meddlesome African countries into civil war, so they play along.

There is no scenario in which Russia could successfully invade an appreciable part of the EU, even without taking into account European nukes.

15. mint2 ◴[] No.34720042{6}[source]
The comment I replied to called USA the butcher of Yugoslavia.

Personally I’d call the groups committing literal genocide the butchers, not the groups taking action to stop it. To each their own opinion.

replies(1): >>34733133 #
16. LargoLasskhyfv ◴[] No.34721164{5}[source]
I'll just leave this here, in case you haven't heard of it.

It's about a documentary which made some waves, accusing the involved politicians of outright lies and exaggerations as justification for military action, which in turn then lead to the things they fabricated.

It was called 'Es begann mit einer Lüge/It started with a lie'

https://programm.ard.de/?sendung=281116097670119

https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/umstrittene-ard-dokum...

replies(1): >>34725276 #
17. brmgb ◴[] No.34721966{3}[source]
We do have nukes you know. Feel free to pack up, go home and never come back. Would be the best thing to ever happen to Europe.

Honestly Europe would be far more peaceful now without NATO. The US has mostly been a destabilising force for the past three decades.

replies(1): >>34727607 #
18. ClumsyPilot ◴[] No.34722314{5}[source]
> Ukraine had, by a very significant margin, the largest military in Europe

Italy has a much more capable armoured force than Ukraine did at the time.

You are comparing T64s, vehicles designed in 1951 to modern vehicles? How do you think they are performing when it comes to firing on the move, engaging at night, accuracy, survivability?

Tanks newer than T64 have been long retired to reserve in Europe. There are many IFVs today capable of putting holes in T64s' in service today.

> The Russians were also rather handicapped by the reckless, arrogant stupidity of their plan

Such disrespect! Russia is an exemplary conservative society with traditional values!

Europe is 27 countries, not 3. Its's half a billion people. Europe combined has more operational vehicles than Russia does. Has a larger standing army than Russia does. A much better air force, and relies on it for air defence, not on ground-based missiles.

I never said 'easilly' but imagining that Russia can occupy half a billion people is downright crazy

replies(1): >>34722966 #
19. dralley ◴[] No.34722966{6}[source]
While the T-64 is an old tank, the ones Ukraine have have been upgraded several times. And I wouldn't count out their capabilities.

I'm sure the Italians are very capable but they've never demonstrated holding off a tank force 8x their size.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidaxe/2022/03/31/ukraines-be...

Whether the Russians can occupy successfully isn't the point, they can do a ton of damage in a short amount of time, not to mention the torture and rape.

20. mint2 ◴[] No.34725276{6}[source]
Great! because two Germans put together a documentary the thousands that died are back alive? The former victims will be relieved by their new circumstances.
replies(1): >>34734635 #
21. LarryMullins ◴[] No.34727574{3}[source]
Yup, pretty much this. We all know who wears the pants in the NATO relationship.
22. LarryMullins ◴[] No.34727607{4}[source]
> We do have nukes you know.

The only nukes Germany has are those that America charitably allows Germany to borrow. If Germany grew up like UK and France and bought/made their own toys, then maybe Germany would find itself to have more autonomy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

replies(1): >>34727974 #
23. LarryMullins ◴[] No.34727671[source]
Europeans are lucky that most Americans don't care what Europeans think of America, and continue to support and defend the EU despite Europeans being utterly ungrateful for any of it. If you lot had to pay for your own defense, you'd have a lot less social programs to go around, a lot less to gloat about to the Americans you hate so much.
24. brmgb ◴[] No.34727974{5}[source]
Most definitely. I am French by the way but I think the French nuclear umbrella can be extended to the EU at least somewhat.
25. lmm ◴[] No.34733133{7}[source]
When that "action to stop it" is bombing a civilian capital quite distant from the warring groups, you can understand people might not be enthusiastic about that.
26. peterfirefly ◴[] No.34734271{6}[source]
Norway? And -- as soon as the Tyra Field reopens -- Denmark?
replies(1): >>34734477 #
27. mempko ◴[] No.34734477{7}[source]
I mean, look at what the pro-German Norwegian government did during Nazi occupation? You can't escape this stuff. It's wild.

Also, petro states like Norway caused global warming and ultimately history will find them culpable for mass death.

28. LargoLasskhyfv ◴[] No.34734635{7}[source]
What is it that you want to say? The documentation showed that the things didn't happen as presented. By people who were there at the times, and before. For instance rows and rows of bodies lined up, or stacked up in vans, on pickups.

They were like that because of cleaning up after some skirmish. To be identified, and buried.

These pictures were used to present it like that was common. Which wasn't the case.

The military intervention created the circumstances which made that common.