←back to thread

577 points mooreds | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.435s | source
Show context
rdtsc ◴[] No.42176747[source]
> "it’s obvious this wasn’t an accidental anchor drop.”

If it's "he who shall not be named", gotta admit, that's a clever strategy: ramp up sabotage and see how NATO/EU will feel about their "red lines", and how well does that article 5 really work in practice. Is it worth more than the paper it's printed on? Let's find out!

People have been laughing at the West crossing multiple Russian "red lines" and the Russians not doing anything. So the Russians can follow a similar route: a cable torn here, a warehouse blows up there, maybe a bank website is hacked, water supply or power station company blows up "randomly". Is anyone going to launch nuclear bombs because of that? That's absurd, of course not, yet NATO/EU just looks weak and pathetic in the process.

Ideally, these countries should ramp up similar acts of sabotage on the Russian territory if they confirmed that's exactly who it is. A dam fails in Siberia, maybe the payment system goes down for a week, a submarine catches on fire while in port for repairs. Honestly I don't think they have the guts to do that.

Some regimes only speak the language of power. They have to be believably threatened; calling them on phone to chat and beg for them to behave, is just showing more weakness. Scholz just called Putin. Anyone remember Macron talking with Putin for tens of hours at the start of the war? A lot of good that did. When they see a credible fist in front of their nose, that's the only way they'll stop.

replies(5): >>42177016 #>>42177038 #>>42178644 #>>42179712 #>>42180670 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42177038[source]
> yet NATO/EU just looks weak and pathetic in the process

Really? Russia, with the 6th largest army in the world, had to pull in Iran and Pyongyang to not get invaded by the 13th largest [1][2].

Moscow is being a nuisance. That doesn't make NATO or Europe look weak, it makes Russia look pathetic.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of...

[2] https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/13/world/europe/ukraine-russ...

replies(3): >>42177140 #>>42177298 #>>42178689 #
fuoqi ◴[] No.42177140[source]
13th largest backed by the whole NATO and other US-aligned countries. They send almost everything they can outside of nuclear weapons, the most cutting edge military tech, and people (well, outside of a limited contingent of "advisors"). Let's be honest, without this backing the war would've ended in the first month as was drafted in Istanbul.
replies(5): >>42177178 #>>42178290 #>>42181481 #>>42183034 #>>42196275 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42177178[source]
> Let's be honest, without this backing the war would've ended in the first month as was drafted in Istanbul

The West didn't really help Ukraine in the first month [1]. We thought the Russian army was competent and would ride into Ukraine like we did in Iraq. It wasn't until after the weakness was made apparent that aid started dripping in.

Ukraine repelled a Russian invasion on its own. Our generations-old anti-air systems are downing their latest weapons. Meanwhile, our generations-old missiles are taking out their state-of-the-art systems.

To the degree Russia has been able to claim any victory, it's in not being demolished. That's the standard. Not winning. Simply surviving.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_military_aid_to_Ukrain...

replies(1): >>42177281 #
fuoqi ◴[] No.42177281[source]
The West was actively supplying Ukraine since 2014, especially after the Debaltsevo embarrassment. Yes, it pales in comparison to the post 2022 levels, but it still was far from insignificant. Even your Wikipedia link lists a lot of pre-2022 aid and I am pretty sure this page is far from being comprehensive.

And it's even without mentioning the direct role of Boris Johnson in tanking the Istanbul accords.

replies(3): >>42177394 #>>42177806 #>>42178869 #
aguaviva ◴[] No.42177806[source]
The direct role of Boris Johnson in tanking the Istanbul accords.

Which is a myth - oft repeated, but with precisely zero substance.

See also: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41813032

replies(1): >>42177855 #
1. fuoqi ◴[] No.42177855[source]
Zero substance? It was reported by Ukrainska Pravda (and Ukraine is far from being famous for its freedom of press) not by some Russian propaganda outlet. It's the same as saying that WSJ citing "sources" has zero substance.

Regardless, you can believe that the West did not provide any assurance to Ukraine during the Istanbul talks and that Russia has blown its own pipeline. It's your right.

replies(1): >>42178000 #
2. aguaviva ◴[] No.42178000[source]
It was reported by Ukrainska Pravda

It was speculated as a possibility by that article, but then it was looked into by others, quite thoroughly, and the narrative fell apart. That happens, you know.

The Foreign Affairs article in the aforementioned thread has a pretty good writeup about the whole thing, if you are interested.

You can believe that Russia has blown its own pipeline

You can change the subject as many times as you want, and speculate, falsely, about what you think other people believe about random topics, all day long if you want.

But this has absolutely no bearing on what we were just talking about.