←back to thread

577 points mooreds | 5 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42177394[source]
> it still was far from insignificant

Stil far from closing the gap between the 6th and 13th largest armies. Russia invaded an inferior force and got stymied. This would be like America's Vietnam being Cuba, where we fully committed the U.S. military and economy to the task and still continued to fail. The fact that Russia has never even established air superiority knocks it out of the category of running a modern military.

replies(2): >>42177526 #>>42179959 #
geniusplanmate ◴[] No.42179959[source]
At the moment, Russia has fully conquered (and integrated into their nation) 20% of the largest country in Europe. They seem intent on going for about 50% of it.

US cannot claim a single victory in the past 4 decades, it's been debacle after debacle.

replies(2): >>42180088 #>>42187661 #
1. JumpCrisscross ◴[] No.42180088{3}[source]
> US cannot claim a single victory in the past 4 decades, it's been debacle after debacle

Militarily? You've got to be joking. Russia is still struggling with the military part of the campaign.

Russia's "top of the line" weapons are routinely being potted by decades-old NATO kit. They are a spent force, conventionally. The military turned from a fighting force into a propaganda tool, aimed at projecting masculinity to a domestic audience over maintaining martial capability.

The problem in the West is there are a lot of Soviet-era talking heads who make money when Russia gets attention. There is no money to be made if Russia is a loser. So it's in the interest of that foreign policy wing to trump up Moscow as if it's a competent military versus the dumpster fire that it is without Pyongyang and Tehran.

replies(1): >>42180541 #
2. chgs ◴[] No.42180541[source]
Looks to me that Russia is winning the war of attrition. Is that view inaccurate?
replies(2): >>42180668 #>>42182057 #
3. nradov ◴[] No.42180668[source]
Yes, that's basically accurate. Russia has a huge advantage in manpower and equipment, and has been using that to gradually take more territory. Ukraine will have to achieve about an 8:1 casualty ratio in order to achieve an outright battlefield victory, which they haven't been able to do even with foreign military aid. A more realistic goal is basically to inflict enough Russian casualties that domestic political and economic pressures force a withdrawal from most of the occupied territory. That's not impossible but it's kind of a long shot.

Another approach which is more likely to work is for NATO countries to step up and really hurt Russia through every means short of war. That mainly means finding a way to reduce their fossil fuels export income.

replies(1): >>42180725 #
4. threeseed ◴[] No.42180725{3}[source]
> That mainly means finding a way to reduce their fossil fuels export income

Which is happening now.

EU is about to impose sanctions on the shadow fleet of Russian tankers.

https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20241111IP...

5. aguaviva ◴[] No.42182057[source]
Is that view inaccurate?

Technically no, but a more forthright assessment would be: "Russia has been winning the war of attrition, but very slowly, and only for the past year. At current rates, it would take several decades to reach Kyiv. Meanwhile, for the sake of these extremely modest gains, it's spending about 10 percent of its GDP."

Context it is everything.