return to table of content

Alexei Navalny has died

merpkz
353 replies
6h8m

So in latest news, last opposition figure in Russia dies together with any hope for regime change while Russia's war effort is starting to get some traction with it's overwhelming man power and Ukraine is forced to cede more territory all while west is busy either with it's in-fighting or comparing each others superior GDP and how Russia will crumble just any day now (TM). Man, are we in for a ride next decade in Europe, I would have never believed all this just a few years ago, how it will go down.

KingOfCoders
206 replies
5h51m

The (small) upside of all this missery, death and pain is Europe will lose some territory but gain it's own military security after decades of living from the US strategy alignment. Countries like Poland will no longer buy US weapons but increase European defense spending - they fear just like Ukraine that US congress just turns around and will stop delivering parts for F-35s in a conflict [0]. The US lost all it's trust that was left in Europe.

We just need to get our act together, not every country building or buying it's own incompatible weapons (like tanks, planes, frigates). The war in Ukraine shows how bad it is to run a war with ten different models of tanks etc.

And we can - at last - close Ramstein, Landstuhl and Weilerbach in Germany, no longer supporting US wars in the Middle East and beyond.

Living as a kid through the 70s and 80s with the PershingII/NATO Double-Track Decision I also would not have thought this threat is coming back the way it did.

[0] I'm sure Germany will not proceed on it's $10b F-35 plans

cglace
165 replies
5h33m

The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take away is that the US is somehow at fault. The one bill that was blocked by Congress would be more support than Europe as a whole has provided to Ukraine to date.

While I agree that European countries should start to take their defense seriously I don't see how you fault US support of Ukraine.

joakleaf
65 replies
5h20m

Not sure about the US providing more funding (especially not by a large margin):

This chart shows EU outspending the US.

https://www.statista.com/chart/28489/ukrainian-military-huma....

zer00eyz
47 replies
5h7m

Total aid, yes.

Military spending no.

In fact this war has highlighted that NO ONE was ready for the fight that came about.

Skip the money for a moment. Ukraine right now is marginally fucked for one reason: 155mm artillery shells.

There isnt enough global production to have a war. The US is far and away the largest producer. EU can not keep up and did not bring on anywhere near enough capacity to defend itself in a future conflict.

I would also like to point out that without that humanitarian aid flowing INTO Ukraine those folks flee TO the EU. Sending money there avoids bringing the problems to Poland and Germany and having to spend it there. After taking in so many refugees in recent history the EU is gunshy about another migration.

Cthulhu_
17 replies
4h58m

Artillery shells are but one tool though, which for some reason has become the main tool (? citation needed) in the Ukraine war; I would expect more air force being put in play if the conflict escalated into the rest of europe.

Even though Russia has got the bigger air force on paper (https://rlist.io/l/european-countries-with-the-largest-air-f...).

mschuster91
14 replies
4h27m

Artillery shells are but one tool though, which for some reason has become the main tool (? citation needed) in the Ukraine war

The reason is that neither side has air supremacy. Ukrainian AA defense is good enough to keep the Russians at bay, but Russian AA defense is also good enough to prevent Ukrainians from taking out their frontline defenses.

So with classic air forces being all but taken out, the only way either side can make progress is by using tanks and artillery.

selimthegrim
11 replies
4h14m

Can’t we give Ukraine HARMs?

protomolecule
7 replies
3h44m
mrguyorama
6 replies
3h27m

We gave them nerfed HARMs that can't properly integrate with their soviet planes, and they have zero SEAD training. HARMs aren't magic, without the strategy and training required for good SEAD, they won't do much. Things may improve when the F-16s start flying since those are properly integrated and capable SEAD platforms.

protomolecule
5 replies
2h53m

"Things may improve when the F-16s start flying"

This could only end with tactical nukes starting flying and with the strategic ones if the US attacks Russia. Things won't 'improve' no matter what happens.

actionfromafar
4 replies
1h38m

Putin is done for in those scenarios. He doesn't look the type to fall on his sword.

protomolecule
3 replies
1h29m

In which scenario he isn't done for if the US keeps escalating?

actionfromafar
2 replies
1h8m

I think Putin can find a way to exit the Ukraine and define that as a success if he wants to. But he still thinks he has a chance to win on the battlefield, so he has no motivation to do that.

protomolecule
1 replies
59m

How can he exit if Zelensky's goal is to retake Crimea, Donetsk and Lugansk?

actionfromafar
0 replies
34m

Hopefully we are about to find out.

piva00
1 replies
3h48m

The USA seems unable to give any more support due to political deadlock.

It definitely could provide much more to Ukraine if both parties were aligned to the common cause of sustaining America's hegemony by being a reliable ally, right now there's one party which the whole ideology centers on going against whatever the other party does and/or supports. Even if that means allowing Putin's Russia to gain more power and influence.

I don't think the vast majority of Americans understand the long-term consequences of allowing the USA to become unreliable to its closest partners (the West in general). You will be feeling this over the next few decades, America's soft power is waning.

mschuster91
0 replies
3h47m

It definitely could provide much more to Ukraine if both parties were aligned to the common cause of sustaining America's hegemony by being a reliable ally, right now there's one party which the whole ideology centers on going against whatever the other party does and/or supports. Even if that means allowing Putin's Russia to gain more power and influence.

It's even worse. The 45th is actively calling for Russia to take what they want.

terafo
0 replies
3h25m

Ukrainan Air Force has HARMs, but they are VERY limited in their capabilities due to them being employed from soviet-era jets. Basically area where target resides have to be pre-programmed on the ground, rocket then flies to that area and lock on any radar it finds there. But what previous commenter missed is that even if Russian air defenses are suppressed, their planes outclass Ukrainian ones. For example, air to air missiles that UAF has available need to be guided by planes radar all the way through, also that missiles have shorter range than something like R-37, which is fire and forget with VERY high range. Western air to air missiles are much better than what Ukraine has right now, but they can't be fired from Su-27 or MiG-29, they require something like F-16 or Gripen, but while a bunch of European countries agreed to transfer them, Ukrainian pilots and ground crews don't know how to operate them, and need to be trained, which happens right now. If there were trained beforehand it would've changed current situation on the front lines VERY significantly.

rawgabbit
1 replies
3h19m

What happened to the F16s, Ukraine was promised?

inglor_cz
0 replies
2h56m

F16s will arrive this spring, but Soviet AA was designed to contain them. None of the expert observers seems to consider F16s a gamechanger on the battlefield right now.

ethbr1
1 replies
4h45m

[artillery shells] which for some reason has become the main tool

Because Soviet (and ex-Soviet) armies were heavily built around massive numbers of lower-trained conscripts.

It's difficult to conduct maneuver warfare without highly trained troops.

It's a lot easier to throw a lot of artillery at the problem.

xeonmc
0 replies
4h25m

Conscript reporting. Da!
KingOfCoders
10 replies
4h56m

"Military spending no."

  Country          Military 
  EU Total         49,67
  United States    42,22
  Germany          17,70
  United Kingdom   9,12
  Denmark          8,40
  Netherlands      4,44
  Norway           3,80
  Poland           3,00
And if we take % of GDP the US looks worse on military aid.

And if we take % of military budget, the US is last on the list.

sekai
4 replies
3h59m

And this is chart is missing EU strongest military - France, they do not announce all the support they give for strategic reasons.

phtrivier
1 replies
2h19m

France published a list of equipment they sent to Ukraine, about an hour ago [1]

[1] https://www.lemonde.fr/international/live/2024/02/16/en-dire...

Quoting and translating the best I can (any translation error is mine):

Ground - Air

    SAMP-T : 1 system and ASTER 30 missiles
    CROTALE NG : 2 systems and some missiles
    MISTRAL : 5 systems and hundreds of missiles
    RADAR : 1 GM 200
Air - Ground

    SCALP : about a hundred missiles
    A2SM : several hundred bombs starting in February 2024
Artillery

    CAESAR : 30 canons and tens of thousands of munitions
    TRF1 : 6 canons and tens of thousands of munitions
    LRU : 4 systems and hundreds rockets
Armoured and liaison vehicules

    AMX 10 RC: 38 AMX 10 RC and tens of thousands of 105mm shells
    VAB: 250 (including VAB SAN)
    VLTT P4: 120 vehicles
    MILAN: 17 launch positions and hundreds of missiles
Engineering and small arms

    Anti-tank rockets: several thousand
    Anti-tank mines: several thousand
    Assault rifles: several thousand
    12.7mm machine guns: several hundred
    Other ammunition: several million
Aerial domain

    Drones: several hundred reconnaissance drones and small tactical drones
    Jet fuel: tens of thousands of cubic meters

No idea how important / relevant it is. Just posting

KingOfCoders
0 replies
1h0m

"SCALP : about a hundred missiles"

Wish Germany would send long range Taurus.

actionfromafar
1 replies
3h25m

Could the strategic reason be to avoid explaining why they give so little?

dragontamer
0 replies
3h12m

Unlikely. The Caesar artillery systems are large, expensive and well publicized.

They need USAs 155mm production the most. the fact that we cut off our specialty is ridiculous.

bitcurious
3 replies
4h19m

I’m not sure how the calculations work in other countries, but the US was/is heavily depreciating its donations, and funding/facilitating a much of European donations.

lumost
1 replies
4h5m

There's also ring trades where the us donates surplus gear to European countries to get them to donate hardware to Ukraine - somewhat inflating tallies. Greece got several c-130s in expectation that they would donate 152mm ammunition.

KingOfCoders
0 replies
3h59m

Yes, and Germany has ring-traded a lot of military equipment, e.g. several dozens of Leopard 2 tanks.

Sure about the 152mm? Not 155mm?

zer00eyz
0 replies
3h32m

https://www.defenseone.com/business/2023/11/race-make-artill...

It's more messed up than that. The ROI on US dollars vs Euros is stupefying. There has been a fairly significant spend IN the us retooling for this war. The ramp up of 155 production ISNT aid to Ukraine but is going to benefit them.

And I called out 155 for a reason, the ebb and flow of it has been at the forefront of Ukraine being successful or failing. It is the the most consistently asked for and consumed large item as it in combination with drones has proven effective beyond anyones expectations.

kurthr
0 replies
5m

Um, so the UK has rejoined the EU?

I'm mean it's a nitpick, but you're kinda nitpicking.

ivan_gammel
8 replies
5h0m

Sending money there avoids bringing the problems to Poland and Germany

I‘d argue that refugees, 50% of whom intend to stay, are the reason why EU is the only party to win something from this war. I actively support Ukrainian refugees by giving them some work and talk to people: those who will stay, want to integrate and they offer some relief to the job markets.

StockHuman
2 replies
4h22m

NATO already won; it has expanded and defence commitments are up, and that is besides the renewed raison d’être Russia has leased it.

The US defence industry has seen a minor win, too. It will reap the long-term win of new NATO accessions.

The EU got a wakeup call (not so much a win, but hey) to seek energy independence from belligerent petrostates, so that could be seen as a future win.

ivan_gammel
1 replies
4h5m

I‘m not sure about NATO, at least while Trumpism exists in America. If U.S. voters will think that Europe has to be sacrificed in favor of bilateral Russian-American deal, NATO is effectively as dead as it was pre-war.

U.S.defense industry will also depend on that. If Trump wins and commits to do everything he promised, they will be in a weaker position, loosing foreign markets one by one.

jacquesm
0 replies
21m

There is a lot of money riding on NATOs continued existence and I think if Trump decides to pull the USA out of NATO he will be in for a rude surprise. Playing with the climate accords was dumb enough and didn't have any immediate impact, if the USA visibly isolates itself from NATO after other countries supporting the USA in various efforts over the last couple of decades then the world as you know it will grind to a very rapid halt and the United States will be the big loser from that unless Trump is reigned in. I would expect him to receive a couple of very pointed reminders of what the consequences of such a move would be. Fortunately even an unhinged TV personality can not single-handedly destroy a country and what it has stood for for the last 70+ years.

KingOfCoders
2 replies
4h49m

"some relief to the job markets."

I agree and have done the same with Syrian refugees.

ivan_gammel
1 replies
4h30m

Oh, yes, Syrians. Danke, Merkel, I found some good IT admins from there.

piva00
0 replies
3h43m

In Sweden two of my favourite doctors are Syrian refugees, they gave me more humane and personal care than many Swedish doctors I've been to.

My landlord (and by far the best landlord I've had in Sweden) is another refugee doctor, a very laid back Iraqian pulmonologist, to the point I even invite him over to have some beers during summers.

randunel
1 replies
4h20m

How do you do that? I've hosted refugees for free, as opposed to locals who've had to pay for hotel stays, but I'm not discriminating against locals when hiring.

How do you "actively support refugees by giving them some work" in a way that's legal, without hiring bias?

ivan_gammel
0 replies
4h12m

E.g. I use cleaning services from a company that employs refugees.

Besides, using only specific recruiting channels to select candidates from certain demographics is not a discrimination. If locals would apply this way, I would consider them, but honestly… In Germany, esp. in Berlin hiring locals? The market is so tight, that by just removing the German language requirement you will find some immigrant faster.

joakleaf
2 replies
5h1m

Looking at Military aid only [1]:

The US has provided: ~$42.2B

Germany + United Kingdom + Denmark + Norway + Netherlands + Poland + EU inst.: ~$51B

[1] https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s...

sekai
1 replies
3h58m

France is up there with UK, but they are not on the chart because they do not disclose all the transfers they do.

KingOfCoders
0 replies
3h38m

Source?

m4rtink
1 replies
4h26m

I think South Korea does pump out more 155mm shells than most other countries, including US ?

Log_out_
0 replies
4h14m

And Europe doesn't order there due to french veto.

If you can not deliver personal, delivery is fine as long as no cannon go hungry.

fjfaase
0 replies
4h35m

I wonder if there is such a clear cut between aid and military spending. Most of the aid of Europe is send to Ukraine government such that the government can spend that money. I understand that about 90% of the USA military spending stays in the USA and is actually stimulating the economy.

This war is also a display of weapons produced by defense industries in the USA and increase the spending of foreign countries in the USA. So, the netto effect might be actually turn out to be possitive, if it were not chilled by the current position of the USA in not providing weapons. This is definitely not making European countries happy and might actually result in the EU on putting substantial effort in developing it own weapon systems in the coming decades and reduce the spending the USA.

borissk
0 replies
9m

North Korea was ready...

Good thing Bulgaria is able to supply Ukraine with plenty of 152mm shells for their old soviet artillery.

SergeAx
0 replies
1h36m

US also right now possesses the largest stash of 155 munition. Small fraction of that trove would've save Avdiivka.

Paradigma11
0 replies
2h32m

Congratulations for picking with 155mm shells one of the few items that Europe has far outproduced the US with an estimated capacity of 650k shells/year pre war and a ramped up actual production to 1 mill/year in the next few months.

kortilla
6 replies
5h13m

We’re talking about the military portion on that page.

joakleaf
2 replies
5h3m

That was certainly not clear, but it is still does not fit this chart [1]

Looking at Military add only:

The US has provided: ~$42.2B Germany + United Kingdom + Denmark + Norway + Netherlands + Poland + EU inst.: ~$51B

[1] https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s...

cglace
1 replies
4h56m

Oh man, the EU plus the rest of the world are eking it out before the US passes another spending bill. . .

This also includes long-term commitments that have not yet been delivered. EU promising to provide 1 million artillery shells two years from now doesn't help Ukraine at this time.

piva00
0 replies
3h41m

The US not passing a spending bill and getting constantly deadlocked by the GOP to even table it in Congress also do not help Ukraine at this time.

Also, it's not even close to a certainty that the spending bill will pass, and the chance of that happening diminishes every single day while this stupid presidential election doesn't happen.

eino
1 replies
4h59m

The quote from OP was "The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin". Which is just completely false. Now you're just moving goalposts.

cglace
0 replies
4h6m

But does it change the more significant point of the US being Ukraine's most important partner in terms of military support? I was countering the narrative that the US is not a good partner. As internet forums do, everyone globbed onto the specific number, not the point being made.

KingOfCoders
0 replies
4h54m

And the EU is spending more on military aid then the US.

As World = EU + X and X>0 => The world is spending more on military aid then the US.

yakito
2 replies
4h12m

does anyone know how much Russia has spent so far in the war?

Keyframe
0 replies
1h41m

I've read somewhere today that it's around ~$210b+ so far

CrazyStat
0 replies
4h7m

perchance, ledger, tallying, coffers, ponders, arsenal, remnants, tally, scales, colossal, amidst, perplexing, enigma, benefactor, patron, coffers, benefactor, defies, coffers, denouement

Do you always write like this? It reads like something from the 19th century.

lukasm
2 replies
3h32m

That chart is a bit pointless

USA can claim that one Bradley is 2mln, but what is a real value? Polish T-72 can be worth 1mln, but it's much more valuable than Bradley. UA army knows how to fix it and operate.

terafo
1 replies
1h28m

I would say that Bradley is actually more valuable, since it can serve wider range of missions, while having higher crew survival rate and being more maneuverable.

jacquesm
0 replies
19m

Without crew trained on that particular vehicle the value drops steeply.

erkt
2 replies
4h7m

That is Europe vs the US. Europe has almost 800million people, US less than 350million. On a per capital basis the average American has outspent the average European by a significant margin.

dagw
0 replies
4h0m

EU != Europe. EU has a population of just under 450 million. To get even close to an 800 million number you have to include all of both Russian and all the former Soviet states, which in this scenario would be rather misleading, given the geopolitics of the events under discussion.

avtolik
0 replies
4h4m

More like 450 million.

paganel
0 replies
4h35m

The US and the EU are mostly at parity when it comes to total spending (that includes military spending), with the difference being of about 5-10% last time I checked (which was sometimes in September of 2023). By how things have progressed since then it is fair to say that the EU has taken the upper hand on that.

And this is all without counting the "externalities" of the war in Ukraine which Europe had to absorb all by itself, such as higher energy prices, selling assets in Russia at very discounted prices (for comparison, the US and the UK didn't have that much stuff to sell there anyway) and the material help and assistance provided to the millions of Ukrainian refugees.

egisspegis
43 replies
5h27m

The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin

This is not true for some time now.

First google result (but there are more charts, numbers and sources): https://www.ifw-kiel.de/topics/war-against-ukraine/ukraine-s...

Yet whoever provided more aid is irrelevant, since it's not enough anyway. We, as a world, are observing (and doing nothing, for the most part) fourth reich coming into action.

Cthulhu_
21 replies
4h53m

"we" are doing nothing because "we" are not under attack; Ukraine did not have defense pacts with other countries, and the military aid took a while to get started because of the risk of Russia seeing it as hostility towards them, further escalating the conflict.

If it escalates, it will escalate bigly. If Russia attacks a NATO country, article 5 will / should kick in and the combined military force of 31 countries (with or without the US) will combine their strengths.

But nobody wants this to escalate further, because nukes. Nothing will matter anymore if Russia decides to use them. It doesn't matter if they lose hundreds of thousands of people, material, and are completely humiliated, as long as they have nukes, "we" cannot strike back.

At this point, wishful thinking that the Ukraine conflict seizes up again, keeps the Russian army occupied, and things cool off slowly. Or that the Russian leadership is replaced, but there's no guarantees it would be replaced by someone who would stop the war.

docmars
10 replies
3h36m

The easiest solution to this war is sitting Zelenskyy down with Putin and striking a compromise and forming a peace treaty, if the U.S. war mongers allow it.

inglor_cz
7 replies
2h45m

"to this war"

What about the next war? Have you listened to Putin? Ukraine is an artificial nation according to him and Russia has the right to reabsorb "Little Russia". How do you compromise with that view?

oceanplexian
6 replies
1h55m

I listened to him speak for two hours. Hundreds of thousands of people have been killed in the war, how many more lives should be sacrificed to avoid compromise? What about prioritizing the value of human lives over drawing lines on a map between two very broken, very corrupt countries?

inglor_cz
5 replies
1h46m

I don't really get how you can even begin to trust anything that Putin promises or signs.

Russia has a long tradition of treating treaties as scraps of paper, and they have a recent history in this regard with Ukraine.

Their long-term aim is to absorb Ukraine and exploit its industrial and agricultural potential for further imperial expansion. The next will be the Baltic countries and after them Central Europe.

Whatever peace will be signed now will last precisely as long as it takes Russia to rebuild their offensive capabilities for the next round of war.

All the dead are fault of Putin and his imperial ambitions. Our only choice is whether to submit and become serfs in a neo-Russian empire, or fight back and help Ukrainians fight back.

docmars
4 replies
1h42m

I'm not sure how anyone begins to trust our own military or elected Establishment leaders who start and fund endless frivolous wars for decades, for greed, leaving the Middle East absolutely laid to waste.

Bush, Obama / Hillary, and Biden are no different than Putin, if not far worse. They deserve no more trust from Americans than a serial killer who took out members of your family for fun. They are reckless abusers, for greed and continued power.

inglor_cz
3 replies
1h38m

If I were a Middle Easterner, I would agree. Or South American, for that purpose.

(With one huge caveat, both the Middle Easterners and the South Americans are perfectly capable of starting various shit themselves. Don't deprive them of agency by painting them as blind and obedient puppets of Washington. Especially the Middle East is a very ancient civilization with a tradition of backstabbing and betrayal going deep into the Antiquity. They don't have to learn that from some Westerners.)

But in the context of European security, the main problem of the last decades was either the USSR or Russia, not the US. It was Soviet tanks that rolled through Czechoslovak cities in 1968 to crush our attempt at political independence, not American ones.

Context matters, and for former Soviet Bloc nations, Americans are an ally against potential reestablishment of Russian rule.

docmars
2 replies
1h5m

But today's Russia is explicitly against the Bolsheviks and any form of the USSR altogether. Russia has moved well beyond that, so it isn't a matter of reestablishing former Russian rule under the same horrible terms as before. They are prospering now, are they not?

In 2023, a trusted, world-renowned expert — Bill Gates — stated that Ukraine is one of the single most corrupt nations in the world, and that he feels very sorry for the people there. [1] That says a lot, doesn't it?

Zelenskyy shuts down churches, imprisons political protestors and American journalists, and launders money back to the U.S. war machine after we "fund" them every month or less — to the order of $113 million per day now. How could anyone not see clearly what's happening there? It seems that people are so blinded by their hatred for Russia, that what the people are suffering in Ukraine on Ukraine's own accord isn't enough of a problem, despite how gaping it is.

1. https://x.com/RG_SargeXB/status/1758499201468768291?s=20

inglor_cz
1 replies
54m

Russia may be explicitly against Bolsheviks (though recycling the Soviet anthem!), and Putin's Russia is indeed more akin to the former tsarist Empire than to USSR, but the tsarist Empire was fairly evil, too. Just ask the Poles or the Jews. Russian empire didn't grow to its huge size by trade and friendship, it was conquest.

Ukraine is corrupt. So what? Ukrainian corruption is a threat to no one. Not a single nation from Finland to Bulgaria considers itself vulnerable to Ukrainian military aggression, because they aren't an imperial nation and don't seek to dominate others. They were perfectly fine within their 1991 borders and never attempted to annex any extra territory by any means.

It is Russia's problem, in the words of great Václav Havel, that it does not know exactly where it ends.

All the hatred for Russia stems from their former heavy-handed rule of other nations. If they sincerely tried to make amends, it would slowly go away. They are now trying to rebuild their former imperial system. OF COURSE that nations which escaped their tyranny once are going to hate them.

It is freaking simple: we, as in Estonians, Latvians, Poles, Czechs, Rumanians, Ukrainians, Georgians etc. DON'T WANT TO BE THREATENED OR ATTACKED BY RUSSIA. That's it. We have had enough experience with Russian rule. It is primitive and brutal at the same time. Never again.

docmars
0 replies
23m

Judging by Putin's recent interview, it seems he isn't interested in endless imperial conquest though. He stated it himself, and of course, many people think he's lying, but this isn't exactly something he can pull as a ruse by lying about it because we would already be seeing Poland and other neighboring territories taken over by Russia with great ease by now — but that simply isn't the case.

Putin also stated that Russia is the largest land mass in the world assigned to a nation, and that there's absolutely no reason that it should grow. However, when its borders are threatened, it will act accordingly, like any nation would. Ukraine has a history with manufactured agitation and baiting [1][2]. And before you judge the sources, there is always more than 1 side to a story.

Putin wants to reclaim only a small fraction of Ukraine where the people in those regions have openly stated wanting that very thing to happen, due to Ukraine's corruption and oppressive policies.

Kiev is practically spotless when you compare it to Gaza, so in the grander scheme, Russia isn't doing anything nearly as horrible as Israel or Hamas combined. This really puts things into perspective by comparing these conflicts and measuring not only their outcomes, but the timeframes in which these events have occurred. Putin's actions have been overblown tremendously, and has publicly stated he's open to peace talks, but the U.S. (and by extension NATO) will not allow Ukraine to do this. They want their war.

1. https://x.com/randyhillier/status/1755286103945277574?s=20

2. https://tass.com/politics/1629441

actionfromafar
0 replies
3h21m

How long will that last?

KingOfCoders
0 replies
2h48m

Like the last several ones, before or after Russia invaded Crimea?

Or the one where Russia guaranteed Ukraines sovereignty if they would give up nuclear weapons? (Russia playing the long con, got what it wanted, Ukraine free of nuclear weapons, ready to be invaded).

KingOfCoders
5 replies
4h46m

"But nobody wants this to escalate further, because nukes."

France and the UK will not use nukes when Poland is invaded.

Russia will not use nukes when invading Poland.

Russia might not even use nukes when losing Kaliningrad (but I'm not so sure there, if Ukraine gets back Crimea we will see).

thriftwy
3 replies
4h13m

What are you going to do with Kaliningrad if you occupy it? Are you going to hand out EU Schengen passports to its residents? You may get a large line for ingress if you're going to swap Russian passpors for EU ones.

If you don't, Russia will politely ask to have its territory back and would get that eventually.

Bottom line, stop thinking about the land as if it was not full of people settled there.

SXX
1 replies
3h42m

Honestly if you offer residents of Kaliningrad some free EU passports on condition they need to move out of Russia I pretty certain like 90% of them will gladly accept.

docmars
0 replies
58m

Not when they realize how immigrants are absolutely plundering EU nations' economies and putting citizens at risk due to spikes in crime. There's no way they're leaving Russia for that. They're prospering there just fine.

They would sooner live in the U.S. with our open borders if it were better, but we're finding that's not the case. The demographics of our mass-immigration issue show otherwise.

KingOfCoders
0 replies
2h54m

Because Germany has no interest in Kaliningrad and Poland has no (or a very weak) claim, I'd say should it come to that, Kaliningrad will be demilitarized and then "given back" to Russia.

And the argument was about nukes, in the event NATO invades Kaliningrad because of missle sites, not if it should or would.

Funnily the staunchest supporters of Putin in Germany (Nazis) would also be the only ones who would like to have Königsberg back.

GoblinSlayer
0 replies
42m

might not even use nukes when losing Kaliningrad

https://bellenews.com/2013/12/16/world/europe-news/russia-de...

fjfaase
3 replies
4h29m

Actually the USA does have a defense pact with the Ukraine. Ukraine gave up its nuclear bomb and destroyed its strategic bombers with the promise that it would be defended by the USA and Russia. Now that Russia stept out of that deal, it does not mean that the USA no longer has the moral obligation of its part of the deal.

fjfaase
0 replies
3h27m

I stand corrected, the Budapest memorandum is not a defense pact. The Ukraine government acted in good faith that they would not be invaded. Now that it has indeed be invaded by one of the countries signing the memorandum, it does give the other parties a moral obligation to step in. The USA is now showing to be an unreliable party and I think that this weakens the position of the USA in the world.

alephxyz
0 replies
4h0m

Actually the USA does have a defense pact with the Ukraine.

The Budapest memorandum is not a defense pact. The only obligation the US has is to e escalate to the UN security council if Ukraine gets nuked.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170312052208/http://www.cfr.or...

aembleton
0 replies
4h12m

the promise that it would be defended by the USA and Russia

The promise[1] was to not invade it, it was not to provide defence.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

cglace
20 replies
5h23m

It looks like your charts include things like refugee aid costs, which make up a large percentage of European aid. If you remove these costs and go strictly by military support, which is what we are talking about, then my point stands.

joakleaf
19 replies
4h57m

No it does not; You said:"The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin"...

Pick "Military" only in the chart, add up the numbers of, Germany, UK, Denmark, Norway, and Netherlands, and you'll get a higher number than the US.

cglace
15 replies
4h54m

Sorry, I'll rephrase: the US has delivered roughly equivalent military aid to Ukraine as the rest of the world combined.

Does that diminish my point?

I guess that means the US cannot be trusted.

PurpleRamen
12 replies
4h47m

Seems kinda unfair. USA has the biggest military complex, bigger than the rest of world combined IIRC. Naturally, can they deliver military aid faster and better than the rest of the world.

ethbr1
4 replies
4h26m

Part of the annoyance, as a US citizen, is that we spend ~3.5% of GDP on military. And that's off a large GDP, so hiding scaling efficiencies that would allow it to run lower while maintaining capability. And much more during the Cold War era!

That "bigger" is bought, and has been every year. We could spend that money on other things: social welfare, health care, etc.

So, excusing Europe's inability to deliver mass military aid, when they've willingly underinvested in their defense industry and equipment for decades, rings a bit hollow.

cglace
3 replies
4h12m

Yeah, especially when Europeans have mocked the US for decades for spending too much on its military while relying on security guarantees for their protection.

piva00
2 replies
3h35m

The US does get a lot from that in exchange, it's not like the US is being altruistic and providing security out of the goodness in your hearts, the US never does anything altruistically (as most nation-states do not), the dissonance that even well-educated Americans have as if they were footing a bill without getting nothing in return is frankly baffling.

mrguyorama
1 replies
3h5m

It's infuriating how many Americans don't seem to realize that we would spend the exact same amount on our military even if Russia, China, and NATO all evaporated tomorrow.

We police the world because being the world police is fabulously profitable. You want to maintain the largest economy in the world? Well then you want to keep up the status quo of "you can do business between most countries, and can ship anything across the world for pennies per pound with near zero risk".

ethbr1
0 replies
2h59m

"you can do business between most countries, and can ship anything across the world for pennies per pound with near zero risk"

Arguably, the biggest beneficiary of the US Navy's protection of commercial shipping has been China.

Especially considering China doesn't pay for any of that protection.

pb7
3 replies
3h21m

That seems kinda unfair? You don't think it's unfair that the US invests in defense for its own strategic reasons but also happens to greatly benefit the rest of the world while the rest of the world can invest in social programs that only benefit themselves all to turn around and criticize the US as soon as that plan seems short sighted? I think that's pretty fucked up personally.

actionfromafar
1 replies
3h20m

If this isn't strategics reasons, I don't know what is.

pb7
0 replies
3h5m

That's for the US to decide. Outside of fair share of NATO dues, the rest isn't for Europe to stick its nose in any more than the US doesn't stick its nose in how Europe spends its budget.

Paradigma11
0 replies
2h10m

Sure, that is unfair. But what is happening right now is the US having dragged its European partners into a very aggressive position in the Ukraine war, suddenly decides that it no longer cares about it. So Europe has a half dead crazy Russia on its door, has to fill in for the lack of US aid and might very well have the US retreat from NATO when Trump takes office.

cglace
1 replies
4h21m

Fair in what way? My point isn't about who is better. My point is that the US has been an extremely crucial partner to Ukraine, in terms of countries, _the_ most crucial partner. My feeling from the interactions on this forum is that Europeans do not see it that way.

PurpleRamen
0 replies
3h8m

Can you win a war with weapons alone? Can a nation survive with military aid alone?

USA is not the only crucial partner for Ukraine in this war, they are the crucial partner in a specific area. That's why it's unfair to undersell the crucial partners in other important areas. Everyone is doing their thing to support in the areas they can give support. But not everyone can give the same support, and not everyone should support in areas already covered by others.

tekla
0 replies
3h46m

Well yes, a big chunk of the world relies on the US to provide military power. How dare the US actually be good at doing the thing that the world asks the US to do.

piva00
1 replies
3h37m

You are not rephrasing, you are moving the goal posts, you said:

The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take away is that the US is somehow at fault.

No, it has not provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined, the EU by itself has provided more military aid than the US already.

You're just wrong. It's not hard to admit that, trying to save face just made it worse...

cglace
0 replies
3h1m

The EU's military commitments narrowly edge out US military commitments before a new bill is approved. This does not take away from the larger point of the US not being a bad partner to Ukraine or that the US cannot be trusted as a partner.

KingOfCoders
2 replies
4h53m

Not with US high school math.

tristan957
0 replies
20m

My US high school math was the equivalent of Calculus 2 in college. I don't understand your point.

Shocka1
0 replies
1h46m

I don't disagree with the overall point you are arguing (AKA I agree with you), but comments like this are of no help to the conversation. I get a strong sense from this and other comments in this thread that you might be anti-American, which strikes me as biased and small minded thinking for someone that seems so intelligent.

This is not intended to be an insult, but be better. There are plenty of forums to act like this on, and HN isn't one of them.

miroljub
10 replies
5h22m

That's just something they tell you during your election campaign. The truth is a bit different, USA is good at promissing and forcing other to do, but it did very little, compared to own GDP and military abilities.

Money:

- EU - 85,0 Mrd. €

- USA - 67,7 Mrd. €

- Deutschland - 22,1 Mrd. €

- Vereinigtes Königreich - 15,7 Mrd. €

- Dänemark - 8,8 Mrd. €

- EU: nur gemeinsame Hilfe

- Quelle: Institut für Weltwirtschaft / Ukraine Support Tracker

Tanks, promissed and delivered:

- Polen 324 Stück 264 Stück

- Niederlande 104 Stück 23 Stück

- Tschechien 90 Stück 90 Stück

- USA 76 Stück 23 Stück

- Deutschland 55 Stück 48 Stück

cglace
9 replies
5h7m

You cherry-pick tanks as your metric? Why don't we look at the totality of American deliveries, including long-range munitions and artillery, and see who comes ahead? What equivalent of game-changing ordnance, such as the GDSLB, are European countries providing?

This is why a large portion of Americans could care less about the defense of Europe. No matter what we do, it's either wrong or not enough. Meanwhile, Europe spent the last few decades enjoying cheap Russian energy and neglecting its defense spending and then turned around and told the US that we don't do enough to stop Russia.

KingOfCoders
7 replies
4h43m

Me: "Europe can't trust the US"

You: "How dare you ....!?"

Later You: "This is why a large portion of Americans could care less about the defense of Europe."

That was easy.

Q.E.D.

cglace
6 replies
4h35m

I don't see how that means you can't trust America. A large % does not equal a majority. Look at polling to see where the majority of US sentiment lies.

Similarly, if you look at surveys of Germans, you will see that a large % do not support Military aid of Ukraine, not a majority, but a large percentage. By your logic, does that mean that Ukraine cannot trust Germany?

htek
4 replies
4h3m

It doesn't take a majority of voters to elect a President in the U.S. thanks to the electoral college.

cglace
3 replies
3h53m

Only 31% of the US believes we are providing too much support to Ukraine.

miroljub
1 replies
3h20m

Because you are objectively not providing more than any other NATO land.

ganieldackle
0 replies
1h10m

Which country is providing more than the US? The only thing that matters is the absolute numbers. Ukraine doesn't care if Moldova contributes 10% of its GDP because it amounts to nothing compared to 1% of US GDP.

mrguyorama
0 replies
3h2m

Someone should tell the Speaker of the House that

ViewTrick1002
0 replies
3h25m

Due to the fucked nature of the political system in America most people don't matter. Who cares if someone in California supports aid to Ukraine when Trumpistic and Putinistic swing-voters in Georgia does not.

MrDresden
0 replies
2h58m

This is why a large portion of Americans could care less about the defense of Europe. No matter what we do, it's either wrong or not enough. Meanwhile, Europe spent the last few decades enjoying cheap Russian energy and neglecting its defense spending and then turned around and told the US that we don't do enough to stop Russia.

That comment comes off as surpisingly ignorant of the benefits that the US gets by having a buffer zone between it self on either side (Europe on it's eastern flank and the indo pacific on the western flank).

Your whole foreign policy revolves around keeping these areas armed and protected in cooperation with local governments in an effort of keeping conflict from reaching US shores (an evolution of the Monroe doctrine, which started back in the 19th century with keeping European conquest out of the immediate surroundings).

I would highly recommend picking up 'The Grand Chessboard[0]' by Zbigniew Brzezinski, former counselor to Presidents Lyndon B Johnson and Jimmy Carter. It is an excellent light read on the landscape in the mid 90's in regards to US foreign policy and national security. It even forshadows much that has happened recently.

It will truly fill in some gaps.

Meanwhile, Europe spent the last few decades enjoying cheap Russian energy

Let us not forget that for a long time the US was hooked on foreign imported oil from the middle east, and even in 2021 Russian energy made up a total of 4% of the domestic US energy usage (up since Venezualian sources were not available as readily).

Please don't paint the US as some white knight that does what ever it can to please others on the world stage for altruistic reasons.

At worst it is disingenuous, and at best signals a massive ignorance of the world stage, history and the actors playing on it (again, highly recommend the book[0]).

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Grand_Chessboard

edit: spelling.

Thaxll
9 replies
4h24m

The US funds their own economy, most of the money they send goes back to the US economy because they produce the weapons that Ukraine purchase.

cglace
8 replies
4h18m

And the stockpiles of artillery, long-range munitions, armor, ammo, guns, etc sent?

The US really can't win. If we didn't support Ukraine we would be blasted. If we do it's because we are just trying to enrich ourselves.

schumpeter
6 replies
3h56m

Because the only winning move it not to play. This is Europe's war. Not sure why the US is involved at all. It's not like Ukraine has oil or a NATO partner.

willvarfar
5 replies
3h24m

As Viscount Cunningham famously said when he risked his fleet to evacuate troops in the Battle of Crete in 1941, 'It takes three years to build a ship; it takes three centuries to build a tradition'. Which feels like how America's new insularism is undoing all the "leader of the free world" fandom that it has carefully cultivated - and profited from - in the last 80 years.

Today the US has two strategic enemies - Russia and China - and two strategic partners, Nato in Europe and everyone in pacific except China.

The US can spend peanuts - it really isn't a lot of money in US defence terms - backing Ukraine and using Ukrainian casualties to defeat it's strategic enemy, Russia, whilst making it's other strategic enemy, China, fear it.

Or it can waver and show it's no longer the leader of the democratic world and make all it's allies in Europe and Asia not believe in it.

My big fear is that it is empowering China to dare to have it's go at Taiwan in a couple of years.

pb7
3 replies
3h17m

Do Europeans think the US is the leader of the free world?

inglor_cz
0 replies
2h41m

Realistically: either the US is, or no one is.

It certainly seems that the US is unsure whether it wants this role. The Congress is putting US credibility at huge risk right now.

Nevertheless, if the US abdicates its leadership, the free world will shrink. Even democracies have domestic enemies and all of these will be encouraged to push autocracy as an alternative to the messy parliamentary system.

data_maan
0 replies
2h58m

I'm not a leader, but behind closed doors, grudgingly, my impression is that they do (still) think that.

A few more quotes by Trump might change that though.

Workaccount2
0 replies
2h26m

When polled or asked? Absolutely not.

When viewed by how they act? Unquestionably.

Europe is probably uncomfortable/ashamed by how dependent they are on the US for maintaining the western-centric global power axis. But on the same hand are unwilling to make the sacrifices their societies would need to in order to pick up the slack. Especially now that European economies tend to be in a slump.

maxglute
0 replies
1h40m

This presumes there's any amount US can spend to allow UKR to strategically defeat RU by proxy, and thereby have PRC fear it. UKR as proxy is as much limited by quality/quantity of it's human capita as it is by external support. What happens to US credibilty / desire to be US proxy in IndoPac to fight for US security interests when partners see UKR decimated to the last man despite full US assistance? The western wunderwaffles delivered to UKR have underdelivered, meanwhile US failing to guarantee red sea shipping against Houthis that US armed Saudis have failed to contain for over a decade. Single digit salvos of shit tier RU and Houthi missiles successfully penetrating Patriots in UKR and Flight2/3 DDGs in Red Sea has basically affirmed PRC the vulnerability of US hardware and validated their doctorine to deliver 1000x more fires. If anything the more US commits/show hand, and the more she reveals her (in)capability, the less her adversaries fear it. Sometimes better to commit half heartly and be thought incompetent (or indifferent) than go all in an remove all doubt. Nothing worse for US credibility than trying and failing.

inglor_cz
0 replies
2h50m

"And the stockpiles of artillery, long-range munitions, armor, ammo, guns, etc sent?"

Quite a lot of those are older weapons that need to be either spent or securely disposed of within a decade or so.

Don't take me wrong, I am happy that the US helped Ukraine and I certainly wish that the next package passes the House, but the economic cost of your help isn't easily calculated in dollars. (Or, for that matter, our in Czech crowns.)

Stockpiles need to be either spent or renewed/replaced. Perhaps you could have used some of that older stuff in training, but not all of it. Military equipment has an expiration date, you would need to refresh your stockpiles anyway.

tokai
5 replies
5h24m

That is a lie. EU and European countries has given more than double that of the US.

cglace
2 replies
5h19m

If you go by military support of Ukraine, this is not true. It's only valid if you include things like humanitarian support. If the US passes its support bill, it would be on equal footing with all aid to Ukraine from Europe, including humanitarian support.

tokai
1 replies
5h15m

Please stop spreading misinformation.

bandyaboot
0 replies
5h0m

Please stop making baseless accusations.

tw04
1 replies
4h50m

That is a lie. EU and European countries has given more than double that of the US.

Based on what number? You tell other people not to make things up, then throw out outlandish claims without citation.

And as for the "by GDP number" - you all seem to be failing to take into account overall military spending by GDP. Most of Europe spends almost nothing because they rely on the US to present a threat to their potential enemies. It's a lot easier to spend 5% of your GDP on military spending for a year or two when the rest of the last 40 years it's been less than 1% because the US has been spending 4-8% YoY for the duration on top of the direct aid.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1303432/total-bilateral-...

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-64656301

https://www.cfr.org/article/how-much-aid-has-us-sent-ukraine...

Paradigma11
0 replies
1h57m
MrDresden
5 replies
3h50m

The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take away is that the US is somehow at fault.

There is nothing in the parent post to even hint that they are saying that the US is to blame for what happened.

The US cannot be trusted to fulfill it's approved upon role in NATO if and when the push comes to shove (that damage to the US reputation is done).

I want to make it clear that the US does not sholder this responsibility alone. Every signatory to the convention is required to come to it's allies need if needed.

Europe has to get it's act together when it comes to securing its own borders, with tech and armaments produced inside said borders but in a cooperation with the US. As partners.

david2ndaccount
2 replies
3h41m

Ukraine is not part of NATO, so how has push come to shove?

mrguyorama
1 replies
3h30m

The very politicians blocking Ukraine support are openly talking about how NATO should be abandoned. I don't know how else you can interpret that other than making Europe doubt the US would come to her aid.

cglace
0 replies
3h11m

I would say the rest of the Republicans have ignored or shrugged off his comments more than agree with them.

jonwachob91
1 replies
3h3m

>> The US cannot be trusted to fulfill it's approved upon role in NATO if and when the push comes to shove (that damage to the US reputation is done).

What role as the US failed to fulfill in Ukraine? Ukraine isn't a NATO member, the US had no obligation to come to their support, yet we did anyways.

Meanwhile Germany divested their entire domestic energy security and became subservient to Russia for energy - enabling this entire conflict b/c Russia felt Europe became addicted and depended to Russian fuels and wouldn't oppose their dealers.

KingOfCoders
0 replies
2h46m

Yes, like buying LNG from the US [0]

[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-lng-export-pause-...

"Europe became addicted and depended to Russian fuels "

Yes like the US was addicted to oil from the middle east. The difference, Europe couldn't invade Russia and take the gas away.

matsemann
4 replies
5h27m

In terms of % GDP, USA is quite far down the list.

KingOfCoders
3 replies
4h38m

And in % of military budget, it's near the end of the list.

pb7
1 replies
3h32m

It’s not the US’s fault Europe spends so little on defense. You reap what you sow. If you get rolled, that’s on you and your poor planning hoping Daddy USA is going to play world police.

We remember the decades of mocking for our choice of investing in defense. Enjoy your “free” healthcare while it lasts.

KingOfCoders
0 replies
2h37m

"It’s not the US’s fault Europe spends so little on defense."

Exactly!

This crisis will probably bring nukes to Poland and hopefully Germany (Macron offered nukes several times, to safe costs, the German public sadly is anti-nuke) to make the EU independent of US protection. We then can close Ramstein, Landstuhl and Weilerbach and close air corridors for US military machines to no longer support US wars in the Middle East. European countries will stop buying US weapons and create jobs in Europe instead of US voting districts.

cglace
0 replies
4h1m

Well, of course, do you think the US is going to donate its aircraft carriers, F-35s, F-22s, B-2s, and nuke subs to Ukraine? The US isn't spending trillions on artillery rounds.

TomK32
2 replies
5h14m

Funding to Ukraine is even more complicated than most people realize. A massive amount of the money spent for weapons to be delivered to Ukraine is produced outside Ukraine in the US, EU etc. In cases where existing vehicles and ammunition is sent it is also an opportunity for all donors to modernize their vehicles and ammunition by replacing the donated ones with new ones.

selimthegrim
1 replies
4h12m

The money is produced or the weapons?

actionfromafar
0 replies
1h13m

With fiat, both :-D

suoduandao3
1 replies
4h58m

Spending a lot is not a badge of honor in an asymmetric conflict. If the US was spending more efficiently than Russia the way it did in Afghanistan, this would be sending a message to the next Putin that invading one's neighbors is a losing proposition.

The US's economy suffering more than Russia's sends the opposite message.

docmars
0 replies
53m

Completely agree. I wish I could upvote this harder because it's common sense. I would be curious what (if any) rebuttals can justify our tanking economy for the sake of this frivolous war.

luch
1 replies
5h25m

Honestly what's the difference whether it's POTUS or Congress blocking the bill ? The writing on the wall is here: if Russia invades Poland, NATO article 5 or not the US will not go into full blown war with Russia.

And honestly it was the European's fault to believe in this pipe dream.

KingOfCoders
0 replies
5h12m

"And honestly it was the European's fault to believe in this pipe dream."

Having lived through Reforger exercises, with US tanks everywhere and sonic booms every few minutes, I believe up and including Reagan it was clear the US would not let Soviet Russia invade Western Europe b/c of the resulting shift in world power.

After the EU got more powerful and expanded, dynamics changed.

It's unclear with the Bushes and clear that Clinton/Obama/Trump would not aid Europe.

kragen
1 replies
3h33m

the usg considers russia one of its key rivals, and so this ukraine thing was a godsend for them: ukraine provides the cannon fodder to fight and die, usg provides the materiel, and russia doesn't have a casus belli to nuke new york. the usg gets all the benefits of fighting a land war with russia with almost none of the costs: no messy body bag parades on cnn, no psychologically disturbed veterans blowing up federal buildings in oklahoma, no sheets of radioactive glass that were until recently thriving metropolises, and no test of the us nuclear response capabilities

all it's cost so far, in direct terms, is a hundred billion dollars or so over a couple of years, in an economy with thirty trillion dollars a year of gdp. 0.2% of gdp, say. contrast with, for example, 2.5% for the apollo program, or 1% for the manhattan project

it sucks pretty bad for the ukrainians tho. and the russians. they're being ground into hamburger by the machinations of putin and the usg, jockeying for power. anyone with a scrap of human feeling is horrified by what is happening. but that's not what animates the cfr

mrguyorama
0 replies
3h11m

Meanwhile even in this "we can't spend fifty bucks on Russia that we could be spending on tax breaks for oil barons!" political landscape, Russia would run out of hunks of metal to recommission into tanks within two years.

Can you imagine erasing your biggest rival's entire military threat with $300 billion? That's like four whole miles of Californian high speed rail!

docmars
1 replies
3h40m

Is it truly supporting Ukraine though?

All of that money is being laundered back to the U.S. war machine, yet it's somehow losing this "war"? Mitch McConnell admitted that himself just recently.

Meanwhile, Kiev is in pristine condition while Gaza is a now a wasteland. None of this makes sense.

docmars
0 replies
55m

Here is my source, for what it's worth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZnizA0N8wg

The downvotes won't erase the truth, so nice try I guess?

trilbyglens
0 replies
4h3m

It's less about current actions and more about how mercurial and dysfunctional the US congress currently is. No one is willing to bet their sovereignty on the outcome of a US presidential election.

hiddencost
0 replies
3h56m

The delay in US aid is going to lose this war. It's unconscionable.

PurpleRamen
0 replies
4h51m

The one bill that was blocked by Congress would be more support than Europe as a whole has provided to Ukraine to date.

Didn't EU just now agreed on future aid of the same amount the USA is still struggling to get through?

KingOfCoders
0 replies
5h15m

"by a large margin"

Numbers? Source?

KingOfCoders
0 replies
5h18m

"The US has provided more funding to Ukraine than the world combined by a large margin, and the lesson you take away is that the US is somehow at fault."

I've said the US can't be trusted to keep support up. Don't twist my words.

BurningFrog
0 replies
3h54m

The US has provided...

You write in the past tense, and in that sense you're right.

But the US is no longer providing that help.

jacquesm
12 replies
5h43m

I don't think anybody thought that it would, but here we are. It is quite amazing how time and again we seem to enable little narcissistic men to gain hold of positions of power. And I can't even really complain because NL has Geert Wilders to deal with right now and his foaming-at-the-mouth band of supporters who believe that everything that is wrong with this country can be traced back to immigration. On top of that they believe that this is the fault of 'the left', when in fact we haven't had a left wing government since I was riding a 16" wheeled bicycle.

KingOfCoders
6 replies
5h40m

Same in Germany, and Germans should know better.

funcDropShadow
3 replies
5h26m

But Germany has a left-wing government. And it is pushing this week to enact a law to prohibit speech that is not extreme enough to be against the constitution or otherwise criminal.

hulitu
1 replies
5h2m

But Germany has a left-wing government

Then the US has an extreme left wing government compared with Germany

data_maan
0 replies
2h32m

This is very hard to believe, honestly.

I get it may feel so for an American, since America is the strongest exporter if culture in the world - the whole world for example consumes American movie and songs, with the consequence that most people have some kind of approximate idea how it is to live in the US, what moves Americans etc .

On the other hand, by this same fact, that Germany isn't such a strong cultural exporter, few Americans really know what moves Germans, since these topics are rarely talked about in movies, songs, radio that Americans consume.

From this vantage point, I think it's hard for Americans to imagine just how left-wing Germany became compared to the US. For example, the US doesn't have a system for wide social security benefits, relaxed border controls (I never understand what the US is fretting about in terms if immigration, you can basically just walk in over the to Germany and register as a refugee - as millions have since 2015), and all other amenities that are typically "left" causes.

Furthermore, while Germany may not have a legal framework regulating what you can say, it has a lot of implicit rules, how to talk about foreigner, an implicit "speech police" so to say.

(The issue is actually not having all of thr above -because, after all, they are very nice things to have- but it's that they were allowed to be abused and overused at the expense of the general population, who keep paying more and get less if these services, and these initially nice ideas end up hurting now many more people. )

vaylian
0 replies
5h18m

to enact a law to prohibit speech that is not extreme enough to be against the constitution or otherwise criminal.

source?

jacquesm
0 replies
5h38m

Every Western European country, the US, Japan, Australia and tons of other territories should know better.

data_maan
0 replies
2h22m

Germans don't know better!

They voted time and time again for unpragmatic solutions and nanny state approaches, to the extent that the head state, Angel Merkel, become informally called "mother Merkel" (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_image_of_Angela_Merke...).

Except perhaps for the Dalai Lama who enjoys adoration out of religious reasons, I know of no other state (and definitely no other big economy) other then Germany where public infantilization reached such advanced states.

Imagine calling Biden "Uncle", Macron "Cousin" or Meloni "Aunt". Strange world.

hef19898
4 replies
5h36m

The upcoming 2024 election cycle will be one for the history books, regardless of outcome. And that outcome can be incredibly bad.

I said it before, if Trump gets a second term, he will have a third. And then democracy as we know it in the Western world will be dead.

prmph
1 replies
4h47m

And about half of the West will be OK with that. Interesting times we live in.

hef19898
0 replies
4h17m

If you really drill down the numbers, there are the cibstant 25% or so actively supporting it, regardless of country, with enough others tagging along passively to get the 25% dangerously close to actual power.

Interesting times indeed.

jacquesm
1 replies
5h34m

The one saving grace is that he's old. You'd hope for some divine intervention, unfortunately I'm not religious.

hef19898
0 replies
5h20m

Yeah, Trump wont drop out unless he dies. He desperately wants to stay out of prison. And people behind him want to stay in power. Fingers crossed we all dodge a bullet this year.

Because if we end up with Presidente Marine Le-Pen, President Trump and an AfD-let German government, well, things look grim. Poland gave me some hope so.

odiroot
7 replies
5h27m

Countries like Poland will no longer buy US weapons but increase European defense spending - they fear just like Ukraine that US congress just turns around and will stop delivering parts for F-35s in a conflict

That's absolutely not the sentiments among Poles. If anything, there's a belief we can only rely on US when poo hits the fan.

KingOfCoders
5 replies
5h11m

As I've said, when the Suwałki Gap falls and the US stands by - and the US will under Trump - sentiments will turn 180°.

Poland hoped the UK would safe them from Germany and Russia and was betrayed.

Poland now hopes the US would safe them from Russia, and they will be betrayed.

selimthegrim
3 replies
4h9m

Trump can forget about the upper Midwest Polish vote then

disgruntledphd2
2 replies
3h51m

Once he's President then he probably won't care.

shagie
1 replies
2h27m

"Once"? "Probably"?

https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/13/politics/fact-check-trump-nat...

He hasn't cared previously, and more recently... https://apnews.com/article/trump-backlash-nato-funding-russi...

Speaking at a campaign rally in South Carolina, he retold the story of his alleged conversation with the head of a NATO member country that had not met its obligations. This time, though, he left out the line that drew the most outrage — encouraging Russia “to do whatever the hell they want.”

“Look, if they’re not going to pay, we’re not going to protect. OK?” he said Wednesday.
disgruntledphd2
0 replies
1h16m

With respect to the Polish midwest voters, given that it'll be his last term he definitely won't care about them anymore.

hackandthink
0 replies
2h51m
belter
0 replies
5h11m

Looking at it historically, you are going to be short changed again...

Suddenly the following scenario, is not far fetched anymore: Russia will find an excuse around Kaliningrad Oblast, and a NATO hostile US president will negotiate a cease fire in the name of stopping a Nuclear conflict...

infecto
5 replies
5h16m

I get so tired of these sentiments.

Without a doubt the US pushes its might around the world BUT in the case of Europe, European countries do not have the willpower to create a military like the US's. How did the US lose all its trust? Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Europe was frolicking around for decades, most countries with no real economy and making many mistakes a long the way regarding energy security.

KingOfCoders
2 replies
5h6m

"European countries do not have the willpower to create a military like the US's."

Yes, not yet, except Macron.

"long the way regarding energy security."

Germany is switching to US LNG as fast as it can just for the US to signal it will no longer support LNG in Europe. This kind of energy security? [0]

[0] https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/us-lng-export-pause-...

inglor_cz
0 replies
2h37m

The French military will likely continue to be bogged down in Africa, given that the situation there is pretty dire and French vital interests are threatened.

The French betrayed Czechoslovakia in 1938, then got steamrolled by the Wehrmacht themselves, and their credibility in Central and Eastern Europe has been shot ever since.

infecto
0 replies
12m

I don't think the US stance on limiting LNG export for its own security is a valid defense. Europe/France/Germany made many mistakes before that by shutting off generation plants before having secured long term resources.

data_maan
0 replies
2h54m

We weren't frolicking, we were peacefully consuming Apple's wonderful technology, cursing at Microsoft's abysmal OS, and other great product from Silicon Valley ;)

Paradigma11
0 replies
1h34m

I absolutely agree with your criticism on European defense spending but I know how the US managed to do that.

By first dragging the rest of Europe in a very aggressive position in the Ukraine war. Dont get me wrong I fully support that stance. But it was only possible because the US stood front and center, president and congress hand in hand "as long as it takes".

Now less than two years the US lost interest and left Europe with a half dead crazed Russia running on a war economy on its doorstep. So Europe has to try and fill in for the lack of US support while a possible upcoming Trump presidency makes it rather likely that the US wouldnt honor article 5.

strictnein
2 replies
4h0m

Germany will buy its F-35s. Poland will start taking delivery of its HIMARS from the US starting next year and will continue to order US hardware. As part of the deals that Poland and Germany signed, they will be ramping up local production to support the systems they are buying.

One thing you're missing in lots of your predictions is that Ukraine had no US military presence. Poland does. There's 10k US troops in Poland right now. There's zero chance other European countries will be closing US military bases with the looming threat from Russia.

KingOfCoders
1 replies
2h33m

"Germany will buy its F-35s"

No. Germany needs those F-35 only for delivering nukes ("Nukleare Teilhabe") [0] replacing aging Tornados in that role. With Trump as the next president I don't think you find a German politician (except the far left and far right) who thinks sharing nukes with the US is working any longer.

I'd think Germany will rather take French nukes instead of using US nukes in the future.

"There's zero chance other European countries will be closing US military bases with the looming threat from Russia."

With a US president shouting "Russia, go, invade Germany, rape, plunder and torture with my blessing" - US bases will all be shut in the coming decades.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing

data_maan
0 replies
2h29m

I'm pretty sure Trump didn't say "rape" (source?).

justin66
1 replies
3h46m

Countries like Poland will no longer buy US weapons but increase European defense spending

One assumes Poland would actually like someone to fulfill those orders in a timely manner, so perhaps not. Germany can afford to "spend" money on weapons and then not produce anything, but it's not going to work for Poland.

KingOfCoders
0 replies
2h30m

Poland will not get spare parts for its F-35 in a conflict under Trump, or more likely be blackmailed for higher prices or other concessions. Or the software will stop working and they need to pay to make it work again. Trump would love that.

The only way for Poland to be safe is having military production in its own country. Because it's easier if everyone has the same weapons, I it should join Airbus and KMW+NEXTER and get production facilities on it's own land.

As seen with AstraZeneca you need physical control to be safe.

ethbr1
1 replies
5h32m

they fear just like Ukraine that US congress just turns around and will stop delivering parts for F-35s in a conflict.

This is an interesting read on the US sending more than half ($47.38b / $88.94b) [0] of the total worldwide military aid allocated so far to Ukraine.

[0] https://www.ifw-kiel.de/publications/ukraine-support-tracker...

dboreham
0 replies
5h29m

Suspect parent is thinking of another perfect call in the future.

roguas
0 replies
20m

I don't think Poland is very doubtful towards US(some is always welcome). We have strong ties and generally are on extremely good terms with US compared to other western countries.

As for weapons, well its a market situation, sometimes perhaps having non-us weapon systems is actually better.

mupuff1234
0 replies
6m

no longer supporting US wars in the Middle East and beyond.

A lot of these wars are connected - Russia is working with Iran and North Korea.

Thinking Europe should just care about what happens in their backyard while criticizing the US for not caring enough about Europe's backyard seems hypocritical.

matsemann
0 replies
5h32m

The US lost all it's trust that was left in Europe

Trump winning, with his comments about encouraging Russia to attack NATO countries, would not do much to help.

chewz
0 replies
4h39m

Countries like Poland will no longer buy US weapons but increase European defense spending - they fear just like Ukraine that US congress just turns around

This isn't how it works. You buy expensive and unnecessary weapon system from US not because thye are any good but because this is your designated protection fee. After you spend several bilion dollars US feels more obliged to help... Just a racket..

banku_brougham
0 replies
5h8m

this is very hopeful to me. as an american who is aware of whats going on its been discouraging to see my govt consistently spreading evil through the decades

DyslexicAtheist
0 replies
2h45m

why rant and rave against US? This isn't 2012 post-Snowden era of "friends don't spy on friends". The US are not the enemy here but our long-term ally. Right now Russia, China, the Assad regime, and IRGC are.

We just need to get our act together, not every country building or buying it's own incompatible weapons (like tanks, planes, frigates).

If "we" means Europe I agree, that "we" need to reintroduce mandatory military service, prepare to fight Russia and its allies on their own turf, defend against Russian terrorists on our own turf. Ans most importantly we must wage war against pro-Russian mouthpieces in our own countries, e.g. Geert Wilders, Marine Lepen, Meloni, Bjorn Hoecke and AfD, the entire Orban government, current Slovakian regime, and anyone who takes money from Putin and spouting their propaganda.

War is already here in Europe. It's just unequally distributed.

lordfrito
45 replies
5h45m

If you believe the western media, the west no longer believes in or upholds its values, and watches while Russia pushes westward while China builds up a military and eyes Taiwan, both more than happy to destabilize the middle east in pursuit of their goals.

The west needs to wake up, we're slowly sliding towards a world conflict. This is going to get worse before it gets better.

Edit: Russia is pushing westward not eastward!

neuronic
23 replies
5h29m

Listen to internal speeches by Putin or Xi, they are often available on YouTube. We are not slowly sliding towards a world conflict, it has already begun and we are hopeless to stop it. It is arrogant to ignore or dismiss the happenings.

Things were set in motion years ago and they are slowly unraveling. When the West rejected Russia's deeper integration into its structures after the Cold War ended and expanded NATO towards the East this path was set in stone. The late 2000s were the absolute breaking point.

Major Eastern players are asymmetrically breaking US hegemony through proxies and internal conflict. They cannot face the US conventionally but it doesn't mean they cannot face the US. They can, they do and they will continue to do so.

Brexit, MAGA, Mideast conflicts, Ukraine, EU refugee crisis, inflation, energy crisis, recent development in North Korea, social media disinformation etc. etc. etc.

The BRICS countries (and others) are pursuing a multipolar, non-democratic world with heavily reduced US influence over Asia and Europe, who are now discussing defense independence and their own nuclear umbrella after Trump strategically placed some Russian talking points (again).

actionfromafar
20 replies
5h22m

What deeper integration would that have been? Geniunely curious, I don't see what could have worked once the oligarchs were minted. They only care about selling simple low-effort stuff, easily corrupted, like oil.

lr1970
10 replies
4h51m

What deeper integration would that have been?

Boris Yeltsyn was proposing to Bill Clinton to admit Russia into NATO. This way Russian ambitions would be tamed and channeled into something more constructive.

actionfromafar
9 replies
4h14m

Of course, we can't know what a Russian NATO membership could have lead to.

But a few red flags - Russia just barely held together at that time and had its own civil war. Also, there's the risk of Russia joining just to walk away with the keys to the kingdom at any later point. If the CFE inspections (1) were anything to go by, Russia didn't exactly play fair.

1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_F...

protomolecule
8 replies
3h5m

That's comical that you mention CFE.

Your own link says: "The treaty proposed equal limits for the two "groups of states-parties", the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the Warsaw Pact" and later "most former non-USSR Warsaw Treaty members subsequently joined NATO, followed later by the Baltic states and the states of the former Yugoslavia".

"CFE-II took into account the different geopolitical situation of the post-Cold War era by setting national instead of bloc-based limits on conventional armed forces. NATO members refused however to ratify the treaty..." [0] What a surprise.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_Conventional_Armed_F...

actionfromafar
7 replies
3h2m

I'm not saying there wasn't mistrust from all sides. I'm saying Russia may have had ulterior motives to join NATO.

protomolecule
6 replies
3h0m

"Ulterior motives" like what?

actionfromafar
5 replies
2h55m

Having a veto on who gets in the alliance, gathering intelligence, who knows? Not me.

I just don't think Russia joining NATO is an apparent slam dunk success. Maybe it would have been great, we can never know for sure, but I can understand the suspicion.

protomolecule
4 replies
2h51m

"Having a veto on who gets in the alliance, gathering intelligence"

With what goal?

actionfromafar
3 replies
2h25m

Attack Ukraine? But on the other hand, joining NATO could have changed the course of history for the better, so such plans may never have come into motion. This is all counterfactual. There was deep mistrust on all sides and it didn't happen.

protomolecule
2 replies
1h59m

Attack Ukraine why?

actionfromafar
1 replies
1h12m

Read Putins "scholarly article".

protomolecule
0 replies
53m

I haven't read it. What do you have in mind specifically?

thriftwy
2 replies
4h8m

For starters, pre-2014 Russians would be glad to have a visa waiver with the EU. But they never got that. Then 2014 and Crimea affair came and EU didn't have that lever to pull.

Things like student exchanges, etc, were also severily limited in scope. Russians only ever saw EU as tourists, not as neighbours. And tourists can sure swap one destination for the another. Russians knew that they live in Europe, but did not feel the neighbourly presense of the EU.

rcatcher
1 replies
3h27m

Russians knew that they live in Europe

This is not accurate. In the USSR and after its collapse, Russians generally don't consider themselves European. I also think this aligns more or less with how the rest of the world sees Russia if you consider the standards of living and the freedoms citizens have in Russia (e.g., no freedom of speech; not being able to freely travel to most of the world). On top of that, don't forget that geographically, most of Russia is in Asia.

omrigan
0 replies
42m

Russia is a 100% European country.

standards of living

Comparable and exceeding some countries in EU (e.g. Bulgaria)

freedoms citizens have in Russia (e.g., no freedom of speech)

Some freedoms are there, some are not. Before 2022 it was similar to some parts of Europe.

Also, freedom is not synonymous to Europe.

able to freely travel to most of the world

It is not that bad. 127 visa-free countries, more than e. g. Montenegro, Moldova, Albaina - all of which are 100% European.

geographically, most of Russia is in Asia

This is a meaningless argument. Britan was 90% not in Europe in the year 1912. But no one would say it was not European.

neom
2 replies
5h13m

We talk a lot about economic integration but we rarely talk about cultural integration. imo part of what will keep us safe in the future is cultural integration. We have multiple generations of families established across many borders now. With enough of that, the appetite for world war in theory might be decreased. I don't know the answer here, but I do feel we don't think about cultural integration as a national security asset often, and it probably could be.

krisoft
1 replies
2h23m

We have multiple generations of families established across many borders now. With enough of that, the appetite for world war in theory might be decreased.

Like the multi-generational families some of their members living in Ukraine, some in Russia? Didn't seem to stop the war sadly.

neom
0 replies
2h13m

You're totally correct, to be clear I don't know if this is a good prognosis for regional conflict, I was more alluding to something like WW3.

riehwvfbk
0 replies
4h9m

It might be difficult to believe, but in the 1990s the people of Russia truly wanted to be in Europe (kind of like Ukrainians do now). That sentiment is now gone, and it's not (just) due to propaganda. The common people believe that Ukrainians will just be used to achieve some goal in the US vs. Russia power struggle and then abandoned.

https://www.politico.eu/article/how-the-us-broke-kosovo-and-...

protomolecule
0 replies
3h18m

Like this (2010):

No more tariffs. No more visas. Vastly more economic cooperation between Russia and the European Union. That's the vision presented by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in an editorial contribution to the German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung on Thursday.

"We propose the creation of a harmonious economic community stretching from Lisbon to Vladivostok," Putin writes. "In the future, we could even consider a free trade zone or even more advanced forms of economic integration. The result would be a unified continental market with a capacity worth trillions of euros." [0]

[0] https://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/from-lisbon-to-v...

danmaz74
0 replies
4h12m

Putin has pushing this lie that he tried to get closer to NATO and was rebuffed for a long time, but it's simply not true. His ideology has always been completely against being junior partner in a US led alliance.

emptysongglass
1 replies
5h18m

Things were set in motion years ago and they are slowly unraveling. When the West rejected Russia's deeper integration into its structures after the Cold War ended and expanded NATO towards the East this path was set in stone. The late 2000s were the absolute breaking point.

Your point would have been better made without weaseling in a Mearsheimer apology for authoritarian states. Russia snatching Ukraine has absolutely nothing to do with NATO's expansion. Indeed, had NATO expanded earlier, we wouldn't have found ourselves in this mess, with Ukraine left to fend for itself.

NATO grew because of the desperation of former USSR satellites to shelter themselves from their abuser.

As to the other bit here about rejecting Russian integration as a cause for war: I think that point has been proven quite wrong with Merkel's absurd fantasy that trade with Russia would bring peace.

empath-nirvana
0 replies
4h9m

The West didn't reject Russia's deeper integration -- Russia, and more particularly, Putin did. There was always a plan to add Russia to the EU and even at some point get them to join NATO. Russia abandoned democracy and closed that door.

kemotep
20 replies
5h32m

How do you propose the west avoids conflict with Russia and China?

Is there any examples in history of appeasement leading to less bloodshed?

neom
13 replies
5h18m

Fan fiction, but: Civil wars might do it, the Russians need to overthrow Putin, Xi in China, and we need to elect peace hawks in places that have democracy. People would have to really really really really not want a word war. On the history part, I have no clue, but I do know that today the citizenry is more connected and able to strategize for ourselfs than at any point in history before.

wombat-man
6 replies
5h11m

Putin's old, but he isn't that old. Plus I assume there are similar people waiting in the wings to takeover. Idk how to fix the situation but it would make me nervous for them to have a civil war in a nuclear power.

Xi might go, but that party isn't going anywhere.

m0llusk
3 replies
4h53m

Xi might go, but that party isn't going anywhere.

Geographically probably not, but politically the Chinese Communist party already covers a very broad spectrum with Xi and others currently at the top being the most insular, paranoid, and economically impractical of all the various factions. A "fix" to the situation is unlikely, but changes that yield improvements are all but inevitable at this point.

neom
2 replies
4h47m

This is interesting to me, I naively think of the CCP as being highly unified as they paint such a great picture of that, I always thought there would be some decenters but for the most part complete unification. I should probably learn more about this and would gladly accept any resources on digging into the modern CCP more.

ninjin
0 replies
3h44m

You can start here and work outwards:

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

I am not a historian, but I have always found diversity of thought inside large political bodies: Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Jimintou, etc. Surely if you have a large political party where you are from, you have also seen that they have factions as well?

alisonatwork
0 replies
3h59m

There is loads written about this. Wikipedia has a category page for it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Factions_of_the_Chine...

Painting a great picture of party unity - and national unity - is a key propaganda goal of the CCP, so if that's what you see then they are succeeding. In practice, the party has almost 100 million members so naturally it is composed of people with many different points of view, although those differences are rarely expressed openly and they're all still shaped by the overall political and educational environment of the PRC.

It's generally accepted that Xi Jinping has used his anti-corruption drive to wipe out rival factions, and one unlikely conspiracy theory is that he somehow orchestrated Bo Xilai's fall from grace in 2012 so he could take control of the party. The whole thing could provide material for stacks of palace intrigue thrillers... and in fact it did, which resulted in the Causeway Bay Books disappearances of 2015. Gotta control that narrative, after all.

If you're interested in the propaganda side, I recommend reading China Media Project: https://chinamediaproject.org/ If you just want to know about the party maneuvering, all the usual thinktanks (CSIS, Brookings, CFR etc) publish a ton of English language content.

neom
1 replies
5h4m

It's a damn shame everything going on, really gets me down sometimes. My mum said the other day one of the reasons my folks had us when they did was the Cold War was ending(Gorbachev came in), there would never be war in Europe again, and the world was happy and healthy for the future.

eric_cc
0 replies
28m

there would never be war in Europe again

Lol

protomolecule
5 replies
3h27m

"the Russians need to overthrow Putin, Xi in China, and we need to elect peace hawks in places that have democracy."

We overthrew communists in 1991, USSR crumbled, in 1992 Pentagon declared that America's "first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival" [0] and 17 years later NATO, after multiple rounds of expansion, announced that it would expand into Georgia and the Ukraine [1] despite all the promises given by Western leaders [2].

The trust between Russia and the collective West will not be rebuild for a very long time.

[0] https://www.nytimes.com/1992/03/08/world/excerpts-from-penta...

[1] https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/official_texts_8443.htm

[2] https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/russia-programs/2017...

mopsi
4 replies
2h35m

despite all the promises given by Western leaders

This gets repeated a lot, but who on the Russian side has ever confirmed it? Many people from that time are still around. Both the USSR's last minister of foreign affairs (1985-1990) and the first Russian minister of foreign affairs (1990-1996) have called that bullshit, with the latter adding in a recent interview that people believing this are "chumps and useful idiots"[1].

[1] https://newlinesmag.com/reportage/russias-ex-foreign-ministe...

protomolecule
3 replies
1h32m

"This gets repeated a lot"

I gave a link to the documents, not to hersay.

"who on the Russian side has ever confirmed it"

You mean apart from 'nationalists', 'hardliners' and 'communists'?

mopsi
2 replies
1h24m

I gave the link to the documents, not to hersay.

It's a speculation that has been categorically refuted by the very persons it mentions.

You mean apart from 'nationalists', 'hardliners' and 'communists'?

Apart from people like Putin, who at the time was nowhere near the foreign policy circles, but served as an enforcer for St Petersburg's mayor, collecting protection money and bribes from businesses.

protomolecule
1 replies
1h20m

How can a document be refuted?

mopsi
0 replies
1h16m

The Soviet minister of foreign affairs has explained that references to "NATO expansion" have been mischaracterized, and that their discussions were limited to placement of US forces in East Germany after reunification, and that no wider discussion about the future of Eastern Europe in NATO ever took place, let alone reached any agreement, because at the time they couldn't have imagined that the USSR would cease to exist in a few years. Both he and his successor find nothing wrong with the fact that most of Central and Eastern Europe eventually joined NATO and see no reason to whine about betrayal like Putin. If anything, they regret that the Europeans and Americans didn't engage more with Russia and didn't pressure it enough towards becoming a civilized country:

  While the West failed to seize the opportunity and some diplomatic mistakes were made on both sides, the United States and NATO were on the right side of history by admitting new democracies to the Alliance and being willing to find an accommodation with Russia. It was Moscow that returned to its antagonism toward NATO, which has been intensifying ever since. Yeltsin’s chosen successor president, Vladimir Putin, tried to hinder the West with a charm offensive in the early years of the 21 century and even hinted that Russia might join NATO. In the meantime, domestic anti-American and anti-NATO propaganda has continued to gain momentum. Today the Kremlin has left little doubt about its attitude toward the Alliance in words and in deeds.

  NATO remains the main power to safeguard the liberal world order. It is under attack from autocratic, populist and extremist forces who claim that the organization is outdated. The Kremlin’s champs and chumps in the West portray NATO as a bloc promoting American hegemony, expanding to the East and cornering Russia. It is reassuring however, that the U.S. Congress continues to display firm bipartisan support for NATO.

  The prospects of a new opening in Russian–NATO relations will depend on the resilience and firmness of the Alliance and on deep changes in Moscow’s domestic and foreign policy. I believe that sooner or later the Russian people will follow the suit of other European nations in finding their national interest in democratic reforms and cooperation with NATO and other Western institutions.
https://transatlanticrelations.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/0...

mschuster91
2 replies
4h23m

How do you propose the west avoids conflict with Russia and China?

There's a lot of things the West can do without throwing nukes at the problem:

- arming ourselves and our allies (especially Taiwan) to the teeth

- supporting exiled and in-country opposition

- intervening against hostile operations (such as "police stations") on our own soil

- strengthen links with "global south" countries to minimize Chinese/Russian influence on them, support local rebels against regimes that have already fallen towards Russia/China.

justsomehnguy
1 replies
3h28m

But if we change Russia/China and West places here you would scream bloody murder and terrorists not even finishing your own list.

mschuster91
0 replies
3h20m

Of course I would. We're at least a bunch of democracies, neither Russia nor China are.

I believe that we should have done much more, and much earlier, to foster democracies and to stop dictatorships and bullies. Instead, we let them fester (unfortunately, even amongst our own like Hungary and Turkey), and now the cancer has grown so massive that it will be very hard to kill it.

lordfrito
0 replies
5h24m

I'm not sure we can avoid conflict now, I think we're past the point where that was possible (last 10-15 years were critical). I think both Russia and China understand that, and are planning accordingly.

I'm proposing we wake up and start doing the same, planning and drawing "do not cross" lines in the sand to hopefully limit the total/final scope of the conflict.

Yes this will force an earlier confrontation -- but WWII would have been a lot less bloody if Europe had stood up to Hitler earlier -- problem was everyone thought that appeasing him would make things better.

It's clear both Russia and China can't be appeased at this point. Both need to be checked.

funcDropShadow
0 replies
5h23m

GP wasn't talking about appeasement. The west has to make sure, that it is not a winning option to attack it.

DyslexicAtheist
0 replies
2h31m

it is only possible to reduce not to avoid bloodshed.

Russia does not honor the rules of law so we should not negotiate with them in good faith. They are a terrorist state.

  UN Charter
  Budapest Memorandum
  INF Treaty
  Minsk 2 / Minsk 1
  ...

The only solution are preemptive strikes against Russian interests.

wouldbecouldbe
24 replies
5h45m

Russia really is not to be feared.

The Ukraine war is a tragedy and I hope it ends soon.

But they have no economical & military power to really do any harm the Europe & the US. Putin makes a lot of noise but really can't even win a few km's in Ukraine.

But the real threat is further east. China is slowly building it's empire, and it's a scary one. Taking over parts of Africa. Migrating it's people. Integrating it's tech worldwide. Making the world dependent while building it's own full independence.

KingOfCoders
8 replies
5h38m

As soon as the Ukraine war comes to a standstill, Russia will start riots in the Baltics to create a land connection to Kaliningrad.

cbg0
7 replies
5h13m

How exactly will Russia start "riots" in NATO countries?

wouldbecouldbe
2 replies
3h46m

Making it about US, main concern is Baltics

sach1
0 replies
3h12m

I think the links there are less about 'wow look at how this disruption playbook worked in the US' and more about'look you can cause instability without inviting open warfare with NATO'.

Or are the Baltics and her people immune to propaganda?

ceejayoz
0 replies
3h26m

A playbook is made up of repeatable tactics.

The_Colonel
0 replies
5h5m

With the large Russian minority living there. Just like it started in Donbas.

Paradigma11
0 replies
51m

There are significant Russian minorities left in the baltic states from the SU.

Russia will support and radicalize those.

If the Baltics dont react it will lead to unrest and Russia is forced to intervene and "protect" their fellow Russians.

If the states react this will be seen as suppressing the Russian minorities and Russia will be forced to intervene and "protect" their fellow Russians.

KingOfCoders
0 replies
4h50m

The same way as in Transnistra, Georgia and Ukraine. Soviet Russia colonized these areas with Russians to control access to the baltic sea/coal production/... and today these Russians lead a "Back to Mother Russia" campaigns.

vaylian
6 replies
5h39m

But they have no economical & military power to really do any harm the Europe & the US. Putin makes a lot of noise but really can't even win a few km's in Ukraine.

Let's see how the situation in Avdiivka develops in the next few weeks. Ukraine is reinforcing the area, but it doesn't look good.

We've seen plenty of blunders by the russian army. But you should not underestimate your enemy.

KingOfCoders
5 replies
5h34m

Avdiivka will fall next week.

Putin (and the Russian (leaderhsip) culture in general, see Stalin) is this:

What are a 100M (of our) people dead if we own Ukraine/Baltics/East Poland/Georgia/... for the next hundreds of years?

Stalin had the same blunders, thats priced in, the Red Army had meat wave attacks in WW2 and lost millions, but achived all it's war goals (Poland, Baltics, Eastern Europe including half of Germany - only the US achieved all it's war goals too, everyone else lost, sadly Poland had the biggest loss).

lm28469
3 replies
5h21m

What are a 100M (of our) people dead if we own Ukraine/Baltics/East Poland/Georgia/... for the next hundreds of years?

The fertility rate more than halved since then, they're not playing with the same cards anymore

KingOfCoders
1 replies
4h52m

Putin is doing everything to get fertility rate up again [0]

[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-urges-russians-ha...

azangru
0 replies
3h50m

Putin is doing everything to get fertility rate up again

Any success?

Moldoteck
0 replies
5h14m

you can just make people poorer and they'll have more childs, that's the lifehack

secondary_op
0 replies
4h12m

What are a 100M (of our) people dead if we own Ukraine

Exactly the same logic followed by US/Germany elites fuelling and capitalising on this war by selling weapons and preventing peace talks.

Red Army had meat wave attacks in WW2 and lost millions, but achived all it's war goals (Poland, Baltics, Eastern Europe including half of Germany

This reads as if Red Army was aggressor and not Nazis, are you deranged ?

lm28469
3 replies
5h22m

can't even win a few km's in Ukraine.

And the US couldn't win against a few thousand goat farmers with Ak47s, or maybe there this is a bit more complex...

tekla
1 replies
3h46m

As it turns out, glassing an entire country is politically unpopular.

caekislove
0 replies
49m

Unless you're Israel

wouldbecouldbe
0 replies
4h56m

The problem of Afghanistan has never been conquering it, but holding it, the Soviets ran into the same issue. Anyway, the km's really do matter, if people truly fear for a deeper invasion into Europe.

I don't think it's a convincing narrative that that's what Putin wants, and also that that's something he could reasonably accomplish. But I do hear it often as a powerful narrative to help Ukraine more, and I understand why, but from my point of view it's not very convincing.

At the same time I agree with the sentiment that heavier the losses in Ukraine, the more he will have difficulties in starting similar drama in other countries with large Russian communities.

chinathrow
1 replies
5h31m

You underestimate how Russia is playing the long game while everyone else thinks in election cycles.

wruza
0 replies
5h18m

The natural election cycle is pending though. I want to believe this is his last term.

xnx
0 replies
5h18m

Any unstable and/or desperate country with nukes is absolutely to be feared.

gorbachev
0 replies
5h1m

Ukrainians, Lithunians, Latvians, Estonians, Finns and Polish would disagree with your first sentence.

timeon
20 replies
6h4m

west is busy either with it's in-fighting or comparing each others superior

Also slowly folding. It is not happening only in little countries like Slovakia. US has relevant party that is now openly pro-Putin.

lm28469
9 replies
5h58m

Also slowly folding. It is not happening only in little countries like Slovakia.

I assume you don't know much about Slovakia besides the few headlines that pop here and there, right ?

timeon
8 replies
5h52m

I have mentioned Slovakia because conspiracy theories are mainstream there. Ministry of culture is ruled by one of those medias.

I have mentioned Slovakia because I constantly hear about 'US bad Russia Good' there.

I mentioned Slovakia because that is my home country.

So tell me why would you assume my lack of knowledge?

lm28469
4 replies
5h37m

My wife's from there and I spend quite a lot of time there. Everybody and their uncle became a Slovak politic expert during the last election while half of them didn't even know Czechoslovakia wasn't a thing anymore the day prior.

Unless you evolve in very weird circles you probably know that it's infinitely more complex than 'US bad Russia Good'

So tell me why would you assume my lack of knowledge?

Hard to tell if you're part of the "Slovakia should be kicked out of EU because they voted bad" crowd that popped up out of nowhere (and disappeared as quickly apparently). It's much less black and white than people make it look like, for example: https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/27331.jpeg

timeon
2 replies
5h21m

Hard to tell if you're part of the "Slovakia should be kicked out of EU because they voted bad" crowd

Not sure why you went that far with your assumptions. I just stated that situation in Slovakia changed. It is not black and white - I agree with you. I mentioned Slovakia where it happened and US where it is starting to happen. It is not going to be black and white there either but that should not be excuse to stay passive.

lm28469
1 replies
5h11m

Fair enough, I jumped on the gun because I heard lots baseless attacks on Slovakia in the recent past, which I assume might be partially orchestrated or at least coming from very uninformed individuals trying to fit their local political games onto other nations'

timeon
0 replies
4h57m

I was bit vague with my original comment. I should have expect comments like that but I posted that under emotions of this news and what is currently happening at home.

Viliam1234
0 replies
1h5m

I live in Slovakia. My impression is that the country was always divided; half of the population pro-Western, the other half pro-Russian.

The pro-Western people are over-represented in Bratislava and among the university-educated people. So if you are a smart person living in the capital city, it is easy to forget how the rest of the country thinks... and then you always get surprised when they elect an anti-Western alpha male: previously Mečiar, now Fico.

For reasons I do not understand, Russian propaganda (Slobodný vysielač, etc.) is extremely popular here. I have never actually listened to it, but I don't even need to, because people quote them on internet all the time; it is the source of all popular conspiracy theories.

Luckily for us, Fico lies to everyone, including his own voters. He promises them to side with Russia against the Ukraine... but most of that are just empty words. The actual policy probably will not change a lot, because his main concerns are somewhere else: staying out of prison, remaining popular, stealing more money. Otherwise he will give up under the slightest economical threat from EU. His voters only care about rhetoric, and at home he is going to give them exactly that.

reportgunner
2 replies
5h40m

That sounds like a yes to me

timeon
1 replies
5h29m

Can you elaborate?

reportgunner
0 replies
4h8m

I would prefer not to on here.

flanked-evergl
8 replies
5h24m

US has relevant party that is now openly pro-Putin

What relevant party in the US is openly pro-Putin?

bandyaboot
3 replies
4h38m

I’d say it’s more accurate to say the Republican Party is firmly beholden to a man who is at times openly pro-Putin and the rest of the time merely transparently pro-Putin.

flanked-evergl
2 replies
4h14m

Thanks for clarifying, I'm not an American, and I was not aware Trump is openly pro-Putin. This is quite concerning, do you mind clarifying what openly or transparently pro-Putin policy positions he takes?

bandyaboot
1 replies
3h9m

Well for one, his public and sharp criticism of NATO countries that he's decided are not or have not been spending enough on defense. Airing that stuff out in the open sows division and weakens the unity of the alliance. And it often seems like he is angling toward pulling the US out entirely at some point--though I'm not sure he'd be able to.

flanked-evergl
0 replies
2h57m

Why would NATO members not spend enough on defence? NATO members would never spend less on defence than they should, that is clearly an insane and slanderous lie that only a pro-Putin idiot liar would ever make. Trump is probably trying to goad them into tanking their economies by redirecting too much spending to defence so that Russia can be victorious over them in the global economy. Thanks for explaining. It's not quite what I would describe as openly pro putin but I understand the need for some level of dishonesty when faced with some so blatantly openly pro putin.

The_Colonel
1 replies
5h5m

Recently Trump said that if Putin invaded Europe, he (Trump) "would encourage Russia to do whatever the hell they wanted to you".

It's not full pro-Russia yet, but he's certainly moving in that direction. Unfortunately, Trump is currently the republican party.

danielovichdk
0 replies
3h27m

Europe has to wake up. We are so lazy and political incompetent that it would easy for anyone to invade us and have us work in gulags. The only people left that fights back are the slaves, the rest of us is uncomfortably unconcerned.

Please help us by selecting Trump.

mlrtime
0 replies
4h30m

There is none, it is 100% rhetoric. When AOC says "Eat the rich" , do people think she literally wants the masses to go find the nearest billionaire and start cannibalism?

Trump thinks that the US pays too much into NATO and others not enough. This his tactic for getting other countries to pay more for the security we all enjoy which isn't free.

I'm not a Trump fan but I see through his words to his tactics.

Cthulhu_
0 replies
4h15m

The MAGA subgroup of Republicans: https://accountability.gop/ukraine-quotes/

Tucker Carlson is on there too, he's now a full time Russia shill.

jacquesm
0 replies
6h0m

You have to wonder about the sanity of people that are in love with power for power's sake.

FredPret
12 replies
4h8m

Europe will now spend more on it’s own defence which is very good for the West and just horrible for Russia. Invading the EU is a different proposition to invading Ukraine. Invading a well-armed Europe is almost impossible.

reactordev
9 replies
4h3m

“Invading a well-armed Europe is almost impossible.”

Funny, the world had the same thought in 1936.

ninjin
6 replies
3h52m

Fair point. But if you want to use that analogy, maybe you are also willing to admit that the might of the Wehrmacht accomplished substantially more than getting bogged down about 100km beyond their initial borders two years into the conflict?

reactordev
5 replies
3h9m

I will admit no such accomplishments. Where I'm from, we punch Nazi's in the face.

baobabKoodaa
2 replies
1h52m

Not sure if refusing to learn from history is the approach I would take to stop nazis or Russia, but to each their own I guess

reactordev
1 replies
1h44m

I refuse to acknowledge any nazi accomplishments. That does not mean I haven’t learned from history. I think the evidence shows it’s the other way around. That people forget history and like to admire a fascist regime for their murder rate or ability to take down unsuspecting neighbors.

Russia got bogged down because Russia doesn’t want this fight. Russia’s Kremlin does.

baobabKoodaa
0 replies
55m

Nobody "admires" the murder rate of nazis (except perhaps other nazis). People are horrified by the efficiency and success that Nazis achieved. It's a stark reminder of what can happen when the wrong people get too much uncheckered power. Denying or minimizing that it happened will make it more likely for it to happen again.

ninjin
1 replies
2h32m

Not sure how admitting that the current state of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation relative to the rest of Europe is not as good that of the pre-WWII Wehrmacht has any relationship to punching Nazis.

reactordev
0 replies
1h41m

I do not admire Nazi military accomplishments nor compare current military strategy to a world invasion. Russia’s military state is because Russia’s military doesn’t want this fight, but they must.

ovulator
0 replies
1h29m

How did that work out for the Germans?

BurningFrog
0 replies
3h49m

Someone was always wrong about something similar in the past.

That proves nothing about the present.

rllearneratwork
0 replies
2m

"Invading a well-armed Europe is almost impossible."

- You don't get it. An alliance of china, russia, iran and north korea will be enabled to do whatever they want. Including invading or, more likely, hitting with missiles critical infrastructure in any Nato country with the exception of US and UK

frereubu
0 replies
3h35m

This feels like the complacency that has meant Europe is almost entirely dependent on the US for credibile defence against Russia. Europe is not well-armed, as shown by the panicked response to Trump's threat to let NATO allies be attacked if they don't contribute enough to the budget, and it will take a long time to re-arm properly in the current economic climate. (For clarity, I think Trump's threat is terrible in many ways, but it has exposed NATO's fundamental dependence on the US)

lm28469
6 replies
5h58m

I would have never believed all this just a few years ago, how it will go down.

The writing is on the wall for a while now, the only problem is that people talking about it are promptly labeled as not worthy of being listened to

sekai
3 replies
3h57m

The writing is on the wall for a while now, the only problem is that people talking about it are promptly labeled as not worthy of being listened

Exactly, did people forget Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014? Let's not be naive here.

disgruntledphd2
2 replies
3h48m

Yup, this was the time to arm Ukraine. (or even in 2008 with Georgia).

Aerroon
1 replies
2h50m

The US did actually train Ukrainian troops after that. Eg https://www.newsweek.com/us-troops-prepare-ukraine-soldiers-...

Could more have been done? Probably, but effort was definitely put in.

disgruntledphd2
0 replies
1h17m

If you compare what happened in 2022 to what happened in 2014, you could make the argument that basically nothing was done in 2014.

I had a friend who kept saying that we needed to do something back then, and kinda ignored him, and now looking back, it's depressing how right he was.

lifestyleguru
1 replies
5h48m

This is just silly play of ironic smirks. The interests of key players in Europe are secured, some intra-Slavic conflicts have no importance for them.

ben_w
0 replies
5h37m

Security isn't a thing that can be secured in an absolute sense, only a relative one.

For example, while the catastrophic ineptitude of the Russian forces at the start of their invasion has caused me to believe 80% of their nukes don't work any more, even just one nuke detonated as a HAEMP would destroy a continental-sized power grid — and the same visible signs of corruption that gave me the previous 80%, that also means there's a substantial chance at least one of the warheads ended up on the black market.

qwertox
5 replies
4h47m

how Russia will crumble just any day now (TM)

Have you ever thought about what Russia's influence in the AI sector would be by now if they would have focused on developing it instead of starting a war? Developing it while pretending a peaceful cooperation with the West?

It might well be that China supports Russia's war effort so much because it knows that this way Russians will have zero time and resouces to focus on being an AI leader, and through it, a threat to China.

The biggest win for the US and China is that Russia will now never be at the cutting edge in AI development. The longer this war goes on, the better it will be for both the US and for China.

Even Europe will be more advanced than Russia during the next couple of decades.

czechdeveloper
2 replies
4h36m

This sounds so random. Did Russia ever proved they can do AI in any significant capacity?

macleginn
1 replies
4h33m
bzzzt
0 replies
2h32m
ivan_gammel
0 replies
4h34m

Putin's Russia does not have a good track record of developing strategic projects with big R&D component. If anything, they spectacularly failed in space, in nanotechnology and other fields which were designated as strategic 15 years ago. All Russian successes were in commercial sector so far thanks to many technology entrepreneurs and ignorance of Soviet boomers - the generation currently in power. Despite the enormous brain drain, Russia may be now in a better position to start and make significant progress in something. Russia is traditionally better in mobilizing the nation in times of war than in peaceful times and it shows now, when they were able to scale military-industrial complex capacity very quickly.

actionfromafar
0 replies
3h12m

Russia could have done many things, but it's entire business environment is broken.

picadores
3 replies
4h46m

It fits very well into the narrative that democracy is ineffective and basically a hot-house flower, that some culprits propell.

eric_cc
0 replies
26m

Democracy is an ideal. There absolutely are bad implementations, democracies that get hijacked and are democracies in-name-only, dumb populaces, etc.

aerique
0 replies
4h4m

Yes, as long as said autocrats spent billions to undermine it ;-)

Agraillo
0 replies
2h49m

What keeps my hope for democracies in the world is an observation I made after reading The Year 2000 by Joseph Goebbels written on 25 February 1945. He more or less said that Stalin wasn't bound by the rules of democracies then he would succeed after all. I like to analyze such predictions because you know the outcome and you can guess what was wrong when someone wrote this. My version is that democracies have values kept while transitioning from a state to a state (after elections) while dictatorships change in many respects. It was visible in the Soviet Union, every new ruler brought a new system despite the fact that they all claimed to fight for the same goals.

chaostheory
3 replies
5h56m

Not sure I remember the source, but even Navalny was not against Russia’s war to get its buffer zones back. Of course, if Navalny was able to magically overthrow Putin, it’d be harder for a democratic regime to fight an offensive war because no one wants to personally participate in a war.

deely3
2 replies
3h5m

Not sure about downvotes, but Navalny was definitely against bringing back Crimea to Ukraine. In his own words: "Crimea is not a pastry to pass from hands to hands". After it becomes clear that "3 day" invasion of Ukraine is unsuccessful he changed his mind. But only after it, not before.

5e92cb50239222b
1 replies
1h20m

The last one is pure fantasy. He made a statement on the first day of the war and was strongly against it from the start.

https://zona.media/online/2022/02/24/pokrov4

deely3
0 replies
57m

And where this statement in this article? Are you lying? He against the war sure, but show me where he mentioned returning Crimea to Ukraine.

Mistletoe
3 replies
5h10m

Putin has cancer and Father Time is undefeated. There’s reason for much optimism in the world.

gorbachev
1 replies
5h2m

He has Princes waiting in his wings that will continue the same kleptocratic dictatorship in that country for decades to come. Nothing will change when he, hopefully soon, dies.

Mistletoe
0 replies
3h54m

I know it is enough to fill several books but I don’t see how we went from Gorbachev to this.

I’ll hold hope that the Princes will be less homicidal maniacs. I think there is something extra psychotic about Putin that you don’t find in normal people.

mistyq
0 replies
5h4m

We've been hearing news about his cancer periodically since ~2012, now it's the time to believe

api
2 replies
5h17m

You forgot a chunk of the US right actively supporting Russia and praising Putin as savior of the West.

They aren’t the majority but are influential.

Xi Xinpeng should take a lesson here. Apparently all you have to do is dunk on gay people and pay lip service to right wing culture war stuff and they’ll roll over. You don’t even have to mean it. (Every core statistic the right claims to care about is worse in Russia like birth rate, divorce, abortion, etc.)

joenot443
1 replies
3h52m

I hang out with people of a huge range of political views, from classical Marxist-Leninists to earnest tear-it-down anarchists, from neolib Obama stans to full magapedes.

I've yet to meet a single one who "actively supports Russia and praises Putin as savior of the West". Like, literally not one. The only time I've _ever_ heard this viewpoint uttered in North America is when people online are sketching it out online as a bogeyman. Even on the trashier, more marginal sides of Twitter it's still America First - I just don't know who these people are that you and others in this thread are so concerned about.

Have you personally met someone who believes that crap? Who, given the option, would prefer a world of Russian hegemony over American? I think we're getting mad at a population that in North America doesn't really exist in any meaningful way.

rightbyte
0 replies
3h24m

Usually, I believe the underlying reasoning is that they think someone is not pro-war enough, or anti-the guy enough, when they accuse someone of being pro the guy. Like secret supporters or something. Because actual pro the guy seem extremely rare.

TomK32
2 replies
5h20m

Surely not the last opposition figure and Russia will run out of manpower as every attacker has a higher loss than the defender. You forget Lukashenko, he wasn't unwilling to let Belarus join the Russian Federation for no reason. As soon as Putin dies for whatever reason, Lukashenko will be the first to race to the Kremlin and take over.

Personally I have great hopes that an outsider like Kasparov could become President of Russia once Russia is defeated. He did attempt to run for presidency in 2007.

You do read the news? Ukraine is sinking the Russian Black Sea fleet ship by ship with cheap sea-drones. Ukraine is destroying Russian oil refineries and Russia has to reduce it's crude oil production now that India seems to saturated with cheap Russian oil.

On Ukraine ceding territory, I assume that's in case of a peace deal? Putin will sell that as a victory to the Russian people and prepare the next attack a few years later. This simply isn't an option for Europe to allow. Russia will crumble.

jncfhnb
1 replies
4h25m

Lukashenko taking over Russia is the funniest take I’ve heard about him

selimthegrim
0 replies
4h4m

Remember at the time his competition was Yeltsin

stcroixx
1 replies
3h22m

Europe deciding to depend on Russia for their energy and not focusing on defense spending is the unbelievable part to me, but they've been doing this for quite some time now. They walked right into it. Russia is doing what they've always done and always will do.

ivan_gammel
0 replies
3h12m

It was reasonable not to see Russia as enemy. It was well integrated into European trade and some political structures (PACE, NATO-Russia council etc) and there were even talks about visa-free travel between Russia and EU. What went wrong was the glacial speed of integration, letting the nationalist sentiment and disappointment in West grow. Post-WWII Europe was pacified through a political union between Germany and France, post-Cold War Europe should have done it too. Putin could be another Orban in the worst case.

piltdownman
1 replies
3h28m

There's not so much infighting as there is a fascist fox in the hen-house (Orban). They still managed to get the €54bn aid package through this month - and that's just a Marshal Plan to set the country up for future EU membership. Germany alone has pledged €8bn in bilateral military aid for Ukraine this year, and there's a further €5bn coming from the coalition.

https://apnews.com/article/ukraine-russia-war-eu-aid-funding...

Also are we just ignoring Vladimir Kara-Murza in terms of opposition figures fighting for regime change?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/02/14/putin-ukr...

ivan_gammel
0 replies
3h8m

Vladimir Kara-Murza is a minor figure, one of the many others in jail, who are decent people but irrelevant politicians. 99% of Russians haven’t heard of him. At this moment the only active and relevant politician is Nadezhdin.

dindobre
1 replies
4h49m

Let's keep in mind the man was no saint either, perhaps his regime would have preferred sending some rockets to the Georgian "rats" rather than Ukrainians.

eveningsteps
0 replies
2h42m
miroljub
0 replies
5h27m

Why does this surprise you? Russia just can't afford another Lenin during the war. Or another Yeltsin.

The last thing they need now is a fight for supremacy, similar to what we have in Ukraine, that would cripple their war effort and benefit only their enemies. The death or one of the opposition leaders may be considered as a small price to pay to avoid the 1917 like catastrophe. Today, with the abundance of nuclear weapons, the stakes for the whole world are much higher than then.

lawn
0 replies
5h18m

He never represented any real hope for regime change.

He was just a useful figurehead to attract sympathies from the west, but he never posed any threat to Putin and even if he somehow got into power he would do nothing to change Russia for the better.

He died (was killed) because he no longer served a purpose for Putin.

kunley
0 replies
3h59m

Sad reality, from the pov of their neighbors, is that russian regime change wouldn't really change much on their side.

As much as it is incomprehensible for America, there are societies that do not value freedom from the very bottom to the very top - and Russia is one of them

jncfhnb
0 replies
4h22m

There are more oppositional figures, they’re simply barred from entry because it’s not a real democracy.

Russia is not gaining noteworthy traction. Avdiivka is a tiny pointless place aside from the fact that Russia is willing to impale itself at horrible odds to achieve any victory it can for optics.

I_am_tiberius
113 replies
6h42m

Unbelievable. The world just watches.

profunctor
90 replies
6h36m

What do you want to world to do? Russia is already under increasingly crippling sanctions and many countries are funding + arming its opponent in a war.

I_am_tiberius
58 replies
6h34m

Everything we can.

ed_balls
34 replies
6h25m

There isn't much more we can do. NATO could end Russia with more weapons and making a defence deal with Saudis in exchange for price dumping of oil and gas[1].

But no one wants a nuclear state to fail. Moscow must be terrified of another coup d'etat, hence Navalny's death.

[1]extracting, insurance and delivery cost for Saudis are about $17 and for Russia it maybe as high as $40 now.

foldr
14 replies
6h9m

The US Congress could pass the Ukraine funding package. That's one obvious thing.

ethanbond
13 replies
6h2m

You can and should blame the Republicans. Congress isn’t the problem. Republicans are.

foldr
12 replies
5h59m

I didn't say anything about who was or wasn't to blame. My point is just that it's weird to say "there's not much more we can do" when that funding package is still in limbo.

jacquesm
8 replies
5h53m

You didn't say it, but it is the Republicans that are to blame. They seem to believe that obstruction is a form of government. And the weirdest thing is that their supporters seem to believe this is true.

A4ET8a8uTh0
5 replies
5h40m

<< They seem to believe that obstruction is a form of government.

It may come as something of a shock to some, but US constitution effectively guarantees gridlock if the various blocks are unable to agree. It is a feature and not a bug.

In other words, obstruction, such as it is -- last time I checked there were still talks about aid package slowly making it through house with pieces being cut out -- is a valid form of political expression.

jacquesm
4 replies
5h39m

Those people should open a history book or two, it might help them to see what their future image will be.

A4ET8a8uTh0
3 replies
5h29m

History is not a set of if/then statements. It is not written in stone. My most charitable interpretation of the post is that history can be a useful heuristic, but to blindly assert 'future will be' x is inaccurate at best.

I think I understand where you am coming from, but the post I see from you are all unnecessarily 'angry' presenting an opinion as an axiom. It may be worthwhile to take a step back and consider whether those contributions are useful to the community. Frankly, it may be detracting people from the message you intend to spread.

edit: second paragraph spelling errors

jacquesm
2 replies
4h31m

but the post I see from you are all unnecessarily 'angry' presenting an opinion as an axiom.

Ah, ok so until things really derail you shouldn't be upset. Sorry but I'm not 'angry', I'm ANGRY and that is mostly because I spent a long time working through my various family's stories about WWII, what led up to it and how it all ended up and that nobody that could have done something about it acted when they still could. This isn't some kind of abstract mental exercise. If you're not angry that simply means you haven't thought it through yet.

A4ET8a8uTh0
1 replies
2h45m

<< I spent a long time working through my various family's stories about WWII

I do not want to seem dismissive, but I am from the old country and, well, we all have family stories about WW2. I am not going to delve deep into into it though.

<< If you're not angry that simply means you haven't thought it through yet.

I personally think it is a common misconception. Yes, anger can be a good catalyst and may force a person to act, but I am not entirely certain anger is a good advisor. On a personal scale, I rank it just below fear in terms of usefulness.

My actual point: If you are angry, you are not thinking clearly. I tend to remove myself from conversations if I find myself so.

jacquesm
0 replies
2h3m

I do not want to seem dismissive, but I am from the old country and, well, we all have family stories about WW2. I am not going to delve deep into into it though.

Proceeds to be dismissive.

I personally think it is a common misconception. Yes, anger can be a good catalyst and may force a person to act, but I am not entirely certain anger is a good advisor. On a personal scale, I rank it just below fear in terms of usefulness.

I don't want to be dismissive, but you are giving undue weight to your own opinion over those of others when you probably should at least give them equal weight, on the off chance that you are simply wrong.

My actual point: If you are angry, you are not thinking clearly. I tend to remove myself from conversations if I find myself so.

What you meant to say: "If I am angry, I am not thinking clearly. I tend to remove myself from conversations if I find myself so."

foldr
1 replies
5h45m

I agree, but the person I was responding to seemed to think that I was somehow blaming Congress in general rather than the Republicans, which is reading something into my comment that simply wasn't there.

jacquesm
0 replies
5h40m

I saw it more as a confirmation and expansion on your point than a contradiction.

brookst
2 replies
5h38m

But there isn’t much we can do, given the reality that a major US party is increasingly pro-Putin. That’s a constraint on what we can do.

We might eventually get to a place where we can dramatically increase support for Ukraine, but there’s a lot that has to happen first.

foldr
1 replies
5h8m

The question that kicked off this discussion was "What do you want [the] world to do?" In that context it's pretty obvious what it means to say that the US Congress could approve more aid to Ukraine. Of course some people don't want to do that. That's why it remains something that we could do rather than something that we're doing.

brookst
0 replies
4h7m

But the US Congress can no more approve significant aid to Ukraine than it can make pi == 3.

In a platonic ideal world, sure. But in the world as it stands, this is not possible. The constraints on the system prohibit it as surely as if the Constitution specifically forbade it.

mamonster
6 replies
6h19m

Why would Saudi go against Russia for doing something they do themselves, i.e murdering opposition(Khashogi)? Similarly, why would this be the trigger when the Saudi experience shows US is fine with it?

lukasm
5 replies
6h0m

In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. The number one problem for SA is security. The state is fragile. Wahabi, Muslim Brotherhood, tribes that hate House of Saud. Secondly, Iran possess a direct threat, Houthi could destroy critical infrastructure. $$$$ spent on military doesn't help - they lost the war in Yemen.

SA is on a lookout for allies: Defence partnership with Pakistan which probably end up in a nuclear technology transfer or purchase of atomic weapons.

If USA would give better security guarantees to SA (similar to Jordan) with some tech transfer, SA would increase the output by 2x, which would result in $45 per barrel.

mamonster
4 replies
5h41m

Wahhabism isn't an internal threat to Saudi, like at all. It's their export ideology and it is not at all appealing to the citizens of one of the best welfare states in the world. Wahhabism in actual Saudi is completely different to what gets exported.

As for Iran, seems like recently there has been a rapprochement(mediated by China), will need to see where it leads. It's pretty clear to me SA is on the lookout for allies, but US is low on their list, as they realised(correctly) that all the human rights issues in Russia exist there as well and might get tackled by the West in a decarbonised future.

alephnerd
3 replies
5h15m

It's their export ideology

Not anymore after MBS came to power. Wahabhi missionary worm was a King Fahd policy (and why so many foreign mosques are named after him).

it is not at all appealing to the citizens of one of the best welfare states in the world

Not to most, but it's definetly appealing to a small subset similar to how White Nationalism is appealing to a small subset of Americans.

The religious reforms post-2017 have been massive [0], and the fact that shows like Masameer or Bait Tahrir are being openly produced is a testament to that fact

As for Iran, seems like recently there has been a rapprochement(mediated by China)

Only limited to Yemen. The relationship post-rapprochement was still fairly shaky and went down the gutter once 10/7 happened [1]

pretty clear to me SA is on the lookout for allies, but US is low on their list

Yea no. Saudi is still continuing with US lead Israel-Saudi normalization [2] along with pushing for a US Defense Pact similar to what Japan has [3]

[0] - https://carnegieendowment.org/2021/06/07/saudi-arabia-s-reli...

[1] - https://foreignpolicy.com/2023/06/12/saudi-iran-rapprochemen...

[2] - https://www.mei.edu/publications/saudi-israel-normalization-...

[3] - https://www.reuters.com/world/middle-east/saudi-arabia-pushe....

mamonster
2 replies
4h20m

I think the notion that US Defense Pact is a sign of the countries being true allies needs to be examined. It's clear what the benefit for Saudi is, but it isn't so clear what the benefit for the US is/what the cost for Saudi is(beyond spending money on US arms which they wanted to do anyway).

The reason why I say this: Around the time of the price cap on Russian oil US was already asking Saudi to pump supply so that Russian budget would suffer, and of course Saudis didn't do anything. I think MBS is going fully down the Erdogan/Orban route where he is nominally "West aligned" but is going to be playing both sides as much as he can. When I said allies I meant someone who they would have reciprocal relationships with(which IMO isn't really the case with US atm).

alephnerd
1 replies
3h54m

Around the time of the price cap on Russian oil US was already asking Saudi to pump supply so that Russian budget would suffer, and of course Saudis didn't do anything

You're overreading into what is a fairly routine demand and response.

Saudi is in the process of implementing MBS's Vision 2030 [0], which requires a lot of financing, and oil prices have been dropping significantly over the last few years.

Most US allies outside of Europe are indifferent to Russia because the bigger bad to them is China or local rivalries.

Even in the US, Ukraine (and Israel and China) almost never comes up in conversations outside of Reddit. Adviika and much of the Russia-Ukraine war is barely mentioned in any mainstream American news because it doesn't hold much relevance to most Americans compared to domestic concerns [1]

allies I meant someone who they would have reciprocal relationships with(which IMO isn't really the case with US atm)

Nothing you've said is proof to the contrary. Oil price decreases are always a no-go for Saudi given that 75% of state revenue is financed by oil.

[0] - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Vision_2030

[1] - https://apnews.com/article/2024-top-issues-poll-foreign-poli...

mamonster
0 replies
1h39m

I mean that's kind of my point. I don't really understand what the point of calling US and Saudi allies is when this clearly only extends to the Iran issue in which Saudi is only too happy to freeload on US commitments to the region/Israel as it matches their goals. Its also my more general point, US doesn't really have a lot of allies in the sense "I help you out you help me out", most of these so-called "allies" are interested in freeloading on US's back as much as possible whilst trying to get as much from Russia/China elsewhere as possible.

Oil price decreases are always a no go for Saudi

Factually false, remember 2015? Saudis tried to kill US shale pretty aggressively.

KingOfCoders
4 replies
6h9m

When Russia invades Poland to create a land connection to Kaliningrad, just as they invaded Ukraine to create a land connection to Crimea, Europe will wish it had done 10x as much as it did.

Western countries could deliver planes, Germany could deliver Taurus cruise missles, countries could give submarines in the atlantic to target Russian oil rigs etc.

sesm
1 replies
4h47m

Why Poland instead of Lithuania?

justsomehnguy
0 replies
1h9m

Because the OP can't into maps.

jacquesm
0 replies
5h54m

Exactly this. They're slow-walking this thing when they should be decisive. Kick Orban and Hungary out of the EU if they keep playing silly games, make a real stand and stay the course. This dumb half-assed stretching the line is going to end up in misery.

ben_w
0 replies
5h24m

When Russia invades Poland to create a land connection to Kaliningrad, just as they invaded Ukraine to create a land connection to Crimea, Europe will wish it had done 10x as much as it did.

If it invades Poland. Finland joining NATO makes such an invasion less likely, because (I'm told) that membership gives NATO enough logistics to encircle Kaliningrad without going through the Suwałki Gap, and this in turn changes Kaliningrad itself from an asset into a liability. No, I'm not sure why Latvia/Lithuania/Estonia were not already sufficient for this.

Western countries could deliver planes, Germany could deliver Taurus cruise missles, countries could give submarines in the atlantic to target Russian oil rigs etc.

Yes, though I've heard convincing arguments that part of the current Russian strategy is to keep NATO sufficiently worried about escalation that they focus on building up their own forces instead of donating those same resources to Ukraine.

jacquesm
3 replies
5h55m

Russia has already failed. The mob controls the nukes, that's the only reason why they managed to get as far as they did in Ukraine. If not for that it would have been long over.

tasuki
2 replies
4h55m

I'm not sure I understand, can you elaborate please?

jacquesm
0 replies
4h25m

Russia is a nuclear kleptocracy, it is ruled by a mob that seized power in a country that was already very fragile but that still had a massive arsenal. If you think about Russia in terms of a large gang run empire it starts to make a lot more sense. I know plenty of absolutely great Russian people, the country however is giving me the creeps and I don't see any of it ending well.

actionfromafar
0 replies
4h49m

The mob is Putins gang. And they have access to nukes, which is why they dared start this expedition into the Ukraine in the first place.

alangibson
1 replies
6h9m

To be fair, a nuclear state did fail. The US launched a program to help secure nuclear material and it more or less worked out.

You could argue that if the Russian state failed then a group of nations could literally just buy their nukes from whatever gangsters ever up in charge.

ed_balls
0 replies
3h14m

I'd argue USSR collapse was a messy dissolution. A failure would be: Tatarstan declares independence, regular fighting in the streets of Moscow for months.

schappim
0 replies
6h1m

Saudis price dumping

This is a nice idea but thanks to the shale revolution the US is now a net exporter of fossil fuels, and I suspect the will is not there.

insurance

What percentage of energy is going out insured? It was my understanding that the transportation was moving to state owned vessels.

neovialogistics
11 replies
6h30m

Military intervention or something else?

comonoid
5 replies
6h24m

You cannot attack a country with nuclear arsenal. This is what really allows Putin to be so aggressive.

squarefoot
2 replies
5h22m

You can attack a country with nuclear weapons, provided you use only conventional ones, then threaten to escalate to nuclear if they do that. Nuclear weapons are the ultimate threat which would ensure mutual severe damage if not destruction if used, therefore nobody uses them first unless they're completely nuts, or they're cornered. Putin is a criminal but he's far from being crazy, and as for now is surely also far from being cornered. Surgical attacks in Russia with conventional weapons would undermine his powers and create enough public disapproval to facilitate a coup from within, but should be done with extreme care and up to a certain point in order not to trigger a nuclear response. Sadly, even using conventional weapons, the number of deaths would be huge; it is entirely possible that Putin would sacrifice millions of innocents sending them to the front line before giving up, also because when dictators give up they usually die shortly after.

sesm
1 replies
4h38m

‘Surgical attacks in Russia with conventional weapons’ using drones/rockets are already happening. They have the opposite effect of what you discribe.

squarefoot
0 replies
1h35m

Black/Azov Sea aside, they're not touching the area where the power resides, which is usually needed to weaken the leader image. Last bombing in Belgorod is probably just an error, but in any case it accomplishes nothing aside giving more fuel for Russian propaganda.

KingOfCoders
1 replies
6h8m

A lot of things of "you cannot do" have already been proven to be false.

comonoid
0 replies
5h3m

You have only one try in this case.

foofie
2 replies
6h21m

Military intervention or something else?

Military intervention is not required. Just give Ukraine what it needs to repel the Russian invasion and let Putin face his Russian czar fate.

Clubber
1 replies
6h15m

Manpower is what Ukraine needs.

terafo
0 replies
2h33m

Wrong. Shells, artillery, drone components, engineering vehicles, tanks, APCs, jets, long-range missiles, anti-air defenses. 10x that and Ukraine starts winning again. 10x manpower won't do that.

__loam
1 replies
6h24m

Congratulations, you just triggered nuclear Armageddon and ended modern civilization.

stavros
0 replies
6h23m

Maybe that's for the best.

schappim
10 replies
6h33m

What is left on the table?

foofie
2 replies
6h18m

What is left on the table?

Arming Ukraine, tighten sanctions.

The world has been treating Russia with kids gloves while it should be treating it as the drunken nuisance it is.

lucasRW
1 replies
5h36m

Not so sure. I remember that pulling the plug on SWIFT was seen and talk about, as "the nuclear option" that no one thought would be used.

thriftwy
0 replies
3h46m

It wasn't done to the full extent (Raiffeisenbank for starters) and does look petty.

"We are not confiscating your money from the bank but when you call to withdraw them, we will pretend we can't hear you on the phone".

I_am_tiberius
2 replies
6h27m

- Europe is still consuming lots of gas that finances Russia's "defense" budget.

- There's also a lot of other business with Russia that is not sanctioned.

- Ukraine does not have enough ammunition.

- There are so called neutral countries that should not be neutral.

unmole
0 replies
6h22m

There are so called neutral countries that should not be neutral.

Why?

schappim
0 replies
6h13m

I think you’ll find that even the neutral countries are providing support to Ukraine via the backdoor (eg Swiss with their armour going via DE).

I believe the strategy that the powers at be are attempting is to keep Russia occupied in Ukraine for as long as possible without major escalation. Without assigning morality, it seems like a tough balancing act to achieve.

Gasp0de
2 replies
6h25m

The US could stop Taiwan from selling ammunition manufacturing machinery to Russia

ed_balls
1 replies
6h18m

And Germany, Austria, Switzerland, Japan. Siemens CNC machines are making cruise missles instead of train parts.

PedroBatista
0 replies
6h7m

And the US

bbsz
0 replies
6h15m

There're countless studies conducted during the Ukraine-Russia war pointing out what sectors to hit with full export ban to grind Russian military capability to a halt (e.g Austrian GFM manufacturing equipment for artillery barrels production). But this is very politicized discussion. Obviously companies will want to protect their interests and politicians prefer to make strong and visible statements in place of the working ones (like, freezing Russian assets outside of Russia does very little damage to Russia itself right now, compared to, say, decimating their heavy equipment supply chain)

Business is separate from war (see Sweden's metallurgy industry during WW2).

SXX
15 replies
5h55m

What do you want to world to do?

Support Ukraine more.

Support refugees from Russia.

Enact personal sanctions against 6000 war-enablers that Navalny team prepared:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6000_List

And their families and kids who all keep their money in US, UK and EU.

Muehe
10 replies
4h15m

And their families and kids who all keep their money in US, UK and EU.

Collective punishment is still a war crime.

SXX
5 replies
4h7m

It's not like west suppose to kill or inprison them. Just go after their finances and throughfully check their source of wealth. Lots of lots of people who are close to Putins regime continue to live in a west and spend money they get out of Russia.

Muehe
4 replies
3h57m

The Geneva Convention (part IV) is pretty clear on this matter:

Article 33 - Individual responsibility, collective penalties, pillage, reprisals

No protected person may be punished for an offence he or she has not personally committed. Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.

Pillage is prohibited.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property are prohibited.
SXX
3 replies
3h46m

KYC and AML procedures have nothing to do with Geneva convention. There are a lot of Putin cronies whose families still live in west and launder money they make on this war every single day.

Muehe
2 replies
3h41m

Well sure. However you didn't say go after them for money laundering in your OP. You said go after the families of war-enablers.

SXX
1 replies
3h35m

My post clearly says "enact personal sanctions".

Freezing someone stolen wealth has nothing to do with a war crimes.

Muehe
0 replies
3h28m

Enact personal sanctions against war-enablers, which is fine with me by the way. But the family of war-enablers are not necessarily involved in their crimes. You didn't mention stolen wealth or money laundering at all. You said:

And their families and kids who all keep their money in US, UK and EU.

Let's just say, for arguments sake, there is a child who is genuinely estranged from his war-enabling parents, living in Europe on his own dime. Should they fall under these sanctions? I would say no.

tiahura
1 replies
3h48m

Only if you lose.

Muehe
0 replies
3h47m

De facto? Maybe. De jure? Still a war crime.

clarionbell
1 replies
3h47m

No. Not in this case it isn't. Look up definition of war crimes before talking about them.

Muehe
0 replies
3h44m

I did. Now you may argue that NATO and Russia are not in a state of war and therefore Russian citizens do not fall under the definition of a protected person given in article 4, but then you would be saying that it is alright to commit war crimes during peace times. Which seems kind of backwards to me.

yolo3000
3 replies
4h18m

Refugees from Russia? They are free to travel to many countries, there are plenty of Russian expats in Europe, who also happen to support Putin

rcatcher
1 replies
4h1m

Russians need a travel visa to go to any Western country and most of the world. Some EU countries are banned Russians from entering; the US is not issuing travel visas in Russia anymore.

SXX
0 replies
3h52m

US is actually quite good on offering entry to refugees from Russia. At least 30,000 people from Russia entered US through Mexico and requested asylum in US and many got it. The problem is that it's only option for basically rich citizens of Russia because whole process is expensive, hard and quite dangerous.

EU is much closer, but it does nothing. Putins regime could've lost 30-50% of it's high-skilled workforce if EU or UK just made it easier to immigrate. E.g literally 100,000s of Russian IT workforce left due to war and political situation, but getting actual work visas is hard process and outside of country of citizenship it's only gets harder if not impossible.

But honestly west can't even help Ukraine efficiently. How can one expect EU to actually do anything to cripple Russia economy...

SXX
0 replies
4h11m

There are a lot of political immigrants from Russia as well as people who trying to avoid being drawn into army. And for people who left Russia back in 2022 it's just basically impossible to get any visas anywhere simply because you can't apply for one outside of Russia without having some other residency permit that' impossible to get in Georgia / Turkey and many other countries.

EU still provide visas to tons of people who continue to live in Russia and pay taxes in Russia, but dont give any visas to people who left and dont support Putins regime.

belter
4 replies
5h49m

Russia is already under increasingly crippling sanctions

You are surely joking...

"IMF raises Russia growth outlook as war boosts economy - New 2024 forecast of 2.6% rise doubles previous prediction and prompts questions over sanctions against Moscow" - https://www.ft.com/content/21a5be9c-afaa-495f-b7af-cf9370931...

empath-nirvana
1 replies
4h5m

A) Russia is large enough that it doesn't really need foreign trade to have an economy B) We -- ie "the west" have no control over what India and China does wrt russia. If they keep buying Russian oil, we can't stop them.

SXX
0 replies
3h34m

West can't even stop it's banks from servicing Russia financial transactions or actually ban sales of heavy machinery that used to produce weapons...

The_Colonel
1 replies
5h2m

It's a war economy. Russia builds a lot of tanks, mans a large army, pays a lot to the families of the fallen, it all adds a lot to the GDP.

But those tanks are going to burn, they don't add value to the economy, won't be exchanged for foreign goods. If you dig a hole into the ground, you increase the GDP, war destruction is not much different in its value creation. GDP is not a perfect measure of an economy.

mopsi
0 replies
1h50m

GDP is not a perfect measure of an economy.

An often-used example of this is the crash of oil tanker Exxon Valdez, which in terms of GDP is one of the most productive sea voyages of all time.

bitcharmer
1 replies
5h57m

Russia is already under increasingly crippling sanctions

The sanctions don't look that crippling from where I'm standing. Russia keeps intensifying their war effort in Ukraine

inference-lord
0 replies
5h37m

That's different from having a working country and well functioning economy. Not that you're wrong, just I don't think that is in indication of the sanctions being effective or not.

InCityDreams
1 replies
6h7m

Leave Ukraine?

belter
0 replies
5h26m

You could call it the Munich Agreement 2.0... - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

AndyMcConachie
1 replies
6h4m

And Julian Assange is still in prison.

Let's not pretend that Russia is the only country on the planet that houses political prisoners in its jails.

I'm sure I'll get downvoted to hell for this, but seriously, the west isn't any better.

JohnBooty
0 replies
5h42m

Zero large entities (countries, corporations, political parties, etc) have clean records.

We still need to fight -- or at the very least, call out -- injustice when it happens.

Pointing out Russia's misdeeds doesn't mean one thinks the West is innocent. It certainly is not. That's why you're being downvoted.

rsynnott
0 replies
5h33m

The sanctions on Russia can be ratcheted up a lot more, though there are risks to this.

pier25
0 replies
3h57m

What crippling sanctions?

It's business as usual in Russia.

The Moscow malls are full of people.

mschuster91
0 replies
6h12m

Russia is already under increasingly crippling sanctions and many countries are funding + arming its opponent in a war.

Supply more weapons to Ukraine? No matter what, Ukraine lacks resources everywhere. Tanks, long-range missiles, anti-air defense, artillery, ammunition.

Alternatively, we can do whatever we can to assist the Russian opposition. A lot of them have been forced into exile. Give them money and access to even a bit of the juicy stuff the CIA is bound to have on the entire Russian elite...

jacquesm
0 replies
5h56m

They're not nearly crippling enough. But the problem is that there are a lot of sanction breakers and that those get away with it because we allow them to. That could and probably should stop. Obviously that will hurt the West as well but I'm ok with that, there are no principles without a cost.

wouldbecouldbe
18 replies
6h8m

It's hard to think of any military intervention in the last 60 years by US and their friends that left the region or country in a better state, Asia, South-America, Africa, Middle-east it all became big mess. Arguable some of that mess was by design, but not all.

Russia is not something anyone can solve from the outside; they have to figure it out themselves. Same for the Europe & the US, there are enough things to figure out here.

jacquesm
17 replies
5h57m

There are other ways short of military intervention that can be quite effective.

wouldbecouldbe
14 replies
5h53m

Like what? Boycots are in place, what remains? CIA mingling? Taking Putin out? Any of those things are hard to predict and allow you to confidently steer the country in a right direction. There arguably a lot of places, for instance South America & Iran, where those action were taken and only made things worse.

hackerlight
7 replies
5h32m

Like accepting Russian refugees, lots of them. Putin can't fight a war if he has no people. Ban them from defense sensitive industries for 1 generation and spread them around Europe, US and elsewhere.

It's also the humane thing to do. Accept any LGBT and any Russian who lives outside of Moscow or St Petersburg who are being forcibly conscripted for the meat grinder at 10x higher rates (effectively murdered).

actionfromafar
3 replies
4h55m

It would be a grand and very effective move if done in a major way.

Half-done it could be very dangerous - getting many well-connected and affluent people with nothing against in principle to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but who don't like the practical consequences for themselves.

hackerlight
2 replies
4h45m

Half-done it could be very dangerous - getting many well-connected and affluent people with nothing against in principle to the Russian invasion of Ukraine, but who don't like the practical consequences for themselves.

Maybe disallow them from voting in local elections for 8 years after immigration so they have no political influence. And spread them around many countries so they're less than 1% of the general population.

Even if they're pro-Putin it might still be a net good getting them out of Russia. It's now a war of attrition, the #1 thing that matters is manpower (manpower for conscription, and manpower for industrial production).

actionfromafar
1 replies
4h37m

Another thing to consider - if you brain drain a country - who will pick up the pieces when a regime falls?

You want someone able to keep things organized when the state cracks.

jacquesm
0 replies
4h13m

That's important, but it is also not the problem we have today. Right now what we have is an out-of-control nuclear weapons wielding/threatening kleptocracy that murders many thousands of people every month. Picking up the pieces is the next problem and the sooner we have that problem the better. It is definitely worthwhile to point at this problem because to a large extent that's how we ended up with this mess in the first place, but it is not the immediate one and arguably an easier one to solve than the one that we have now, especially given lessons learned.

toomuchtodo
0 replies
5h9m

Indeed, drain the country of anyone of value while enabling better lives for these people. Extend comfortable retirement plans to anyone responsible for maintaining Russian nuclear hardware to drain the institutional knowledge needed for maintenance and operations; use this information to prepare to disarm it. Russia’s nuclear arsenal is currently the only thing holding the world back from taking aggressive action. Defang the cobra.

justsomehnguy
0 replies
2h0m

Like accepting Russian refugees, lots of them

Russians tried to do that. Got labeled murders and told in words and actions to 'get back to their shithole' or outright to just die.

Quite surprising, that wasn't viewed favourably by other Russians.

jacquesm
0 replies
4h29m

I'm totally for it and I will support any Russian that leaves their home country to withdraw their support for the war in any way I can - and have already done so, so this is not just words.

jacquesm
5 replies
5h49m

Boycotts are definitely not in place and as long as we tolerate countries doing an end run around any kind of sanction without being sanctioned themselves they will remain ineffective.

wouldbecouldbe
4 replies
5h26m

Sanctions are a patronizing form of punishments that have hardly ever been effective and are hard to maintain over a long period of time. Take Iran, even when there is a huge international block working together against Iran, the people suffer yet the government continues but just in secret to develop their nuclear program. And if anything it spurred Iran's warlike actions in the region.

To do it because of Navalny would just be a out of a wish to punish, not out of knowledge it would actually change the situation. And is it the role of the West to dish out punishment?

Besides it would just be used by Putin to empower the internal story of the threat of the West & NATO.

actionfromafar
3 replies
4h40m

Sanctions have already reduced the amounts of dollars Russia can get for its oil. Also, sanctions targetting the weapons industry is very important.

wouldbecouldbe
2 replies
3h44m

Yet have they stopped people from dying? The Russian economy suffered, but adjusted.

And it turned Russian people more more away from the West and enforced the us against them story of Putin.

jacquesm
1 replies
3h37m

That's not what I hear from the people that I know on the other side of the divide. They know damn well why this is happening and who is in the driving seat but: they're scared, they don't want to be seen as unsupportive because people have already died because of that and they don't want to speak out because that's a surefire way of seeing your life completely screwed up or ended.

Putin is where he is because he doesn't hesitate to kill each and every person that questions his authority, you can't expect people in an environment like that to go out onto the streets to demand the dictators head because it will end in a very predictable way. But the general impression I get is that people are broadly visibly supportive but in private a lot less so if not outright against it. This makes it very hard to measure the temperature in Russia. There is a good reason why Putin keeps murdering the opposition (or removing them in other ways): he knows that if there is a fair election and a half decent challenger that he's history.

wouldbecouldbe
0 replies
3h19m

It depends on what part of the population, yeah young tech/internationally oriented people often yes. And also Russians in Europe often are anti-putin.

But Russia is big and I also know a handful of people where he is the one who gave stability & although they are not stupid the idea that he is fully lying or wrong is hard to accept for them.

They generally accept the Ukraine narrative the Russian Media portrays, since it's all they know; and they have no reason to trust the West more then mother Russia.

empath-nirvana
1 replies
4h6m

Like cutting them off from the world financial system and seizing all their assets? Already done.

kulikalov
0 replies
3h9m

There's no cutoff. Only some inconveniences for population maybe.

lm28469
0 replies
5h55m

I mean, for decades the US played the world's police, idk if it turned out to be a net positive in the end. What do you want "the world" to do ?

jacquesm
0 replies
5h58m

Yes, it is unbelievable. But better believe it anyway because it is a very harsh reality and if we keep pretending it won't affect us then it eventually definitely will. Russia should be kicked off the net and out of the UN for this stuff, unfortunately there are enough other countries run by similar characters (possibly with more polish) that will continue to enable him.

cedws
0 replies
5h44m

Russia just watches.

mittermayr
17 replies
6h5m

I often wonder what Russia will be like once Putin is gone. The time he has left can't be very long, so what happens then?

maratc
11 replies
5h24m

Once Putin is gone, someone else is going to take his place. There won't be much difference between Putin and the other guy, and that (small) difference may be for the better or it may be for the worse.

Putin is not in that place because he's somehow an extremely talented (or extremely lucky) person. Putin is there because that's what most of the Russian elite wants. Once he's gone, the Russian elite will put there somebody else who will fit them the most. It would not be reasonable to expect any drastic difference given the unchanging circumstances.

sidibe
6 replies
5h3m

I think this paints a picture of oligarchy that might have been true when he first came to power but the tail is now wagging the dog. In fact it's not even the same dog the elites and billionaires of Russia now are childhood friends of Putin, people who worked with him in KGB or St Petersburg mayors office, the chef at a restaurant he frequented (RIP), etc.

I'm sure any of the original Russian elites left that weren't brought in by Putin regret him being put there would secretly love to see him gone. That doesn't mean they wouldn't end up in the same situation, countries where nobody trusts each other just waiting for the next dictator hard to get out of that cycle

maratc
5 replies
4h10m

I'm sure any of the original Russian elites left that weren't brought in by Putin regret him being put there would secretly love to see him gone

Any elites that are there since before Putin, of whom there was notably more in 2012, could simply nominate someone else for the elections in 2012, or failing that, just keep that Medvedev guy for the second term. For some reason, they decided to move Medvedev away and put Putin back.

I am afraid that the set "any of the original Russian elites... that weren't brought in by Putin [and] regret him being put there" is an empty one.

chupasaurus
4 replies
3h17m

For some reason

The whole reason was to reset the counter of 2 consequent terms of presidency without touching the constitution since "The Party" didn't have 2/3 of parliament to be sure.

maratc
3 replies
2h55m

That was the reason for putting Medvedev there in 2008. But that wasn't the reason for puttin' Putin (duh) back there in 2012.

chupasaurus
2 replies
2h36m

The reason for puttin' Putin was ... Putin himself. The system he finished building during the time (the shift of power and resources to capital from regions was done in 2010-11) doesn't actually work without him as a consensual figure for all "elites".

maratc
1 replies
2h23m

I am certain that Shoigu, or Mishustin, or Rogozhin, or the same Medvedev again, could all replace Putin just fine should a need arise. As I wrote, that would be a small change anyway, and not necessarily for the good.

Navalny, on the other hand, never had a chance, unless the vote for Russian president was done among the US voting populace. In that case, he would no doubt win a landslide victory. In Russia outside of the Moscow intellectual spheres, he's simply unknown — it's not that the people in Vorkuta hate him, they don't know who he is (was) to begin with.

In the USSR media of 1980s, there was a lot of talk of Angela Davis, she was the undoubtful "opposition leader" in the USA, as presented by Soviet media. Navalny is in the same position.

chupasaurus
0 replies
1h59m

LOL. Shoigu is a PR guy, Mishustin isn't a politic by any means, Rogozin (if you've meant ex-director of Roskosmos) never was even a member of Putin's party. The common thing between all 3 is loyalty to Putin: proclaimed during 99-2000 transition, the corrupt tax service head and KGB soldier, respectively.

You're talking to a guy outside of Moscow who knew Navalny from his LiveJournal blog. Republic of Komi - the region Vorkuta is in - has 0.5% of Russia's population.

The_Colonel
3 replies
4h55m

Transition of power is notoriously difficult in authoritarian systems and Putin is more of an exception rather than a normal occurence. Only Stalin had this level of control in Russia in the past 100 years. Do you remember who came after Stalin? Georgy Malenkov, but even I had to google his name, he didn't stay there for long. Even (the better known) Khruschev wasn't a strong ruler and got ousted in a couple of years.

maratc
2 replies
4h43m

I think a good proxy for russian situation would be China. They have changed the guy a couple of times in the last 30 years but the policy stayed the same. The only things that can bring a change are either a coup (not likely in Russia) or a black horse like Gorbachev.

I also don’t think that reductio ad Stalinum is in place here. Putin got a full blessing from the retiring guy, and by that proxy from the elites as well. It’s not that he deposed the king in a coup d’etat or something.

The_Colonel
1 replies
3h31m

China used to be like post-Stalin USSR - there's a leader, but also some intra-party pluralism.

Putin's Russia is nothing like that and Xi's China is leaving that pattern as well. Putin is an absolutist leader with no checks in place.

maratc
0 replies
2h58m

The picture where Putin is a detested psycho hated by everyone including all of his comissars who just wait for a stroke (or bullet) to replace him with a popular, young and charismatic Western-style democratic leader — that's nothing but a conspiracy. And as far as conspiracies go — and as much as that conspiracy is depressing — that's actually an optimistic one. Look, something happens to Putin, and we can have a revolution! But the reality is an even more depressing thought. And the reality is that he has both the elites' support and popular support.

timeon
1 replies
6h1m

can't be very long

He still has ~20 years.

falcor84
0 replies
5h31m

Yes, I expect he'll be getting every possible half-tested life extension treatment that money can buy.

At this stage, I also wouldn't be that surprised if he amends their constitution to allow his uploaded intelligence to continue in the role after his physical death.

lifestyleguru
0 replies
5h57m

Some other oligarch nominated alpha racketeer takes over.

KingOfCoders
0 replies
5h42m

Break up and civil war.

JohnBooty
0 replies
5h27m

I can only imagine an absolutely massive power vacuum followed by the inevitable power struggle lasting a decade or two.

belter
16 replies
6h10m

A little reminder of what Putin has been up to in the last few years.

- Annexation of Crimea (2014)

- MH17 Downing (2014)

- Intervention in Syria

- 2016 U.S. Election Interference

- Skripal Poisoning (2018)

- Anti-LGBTQ+ Laws

- Navalny Poisoning (2020)

- Wagner Group Activities

- Invasion of Ukraine (2022)

- Killing of Yevgeny Prigozhin (2023)

- Killing of Alexei Navalny (2024)

What is necessary for US and European Laws, to specify any type of contact, endorsement, indulgence even, of such a regime, is an intolerable criminal offense?

Edit: Its difficult to keep track...

- Killing of Alexander Litvinenko

- 1999 Russian Apartment Bombings

- September 2022 — Ravil Maganov's fatal fall from a hospital window. He was chairman of Russian oil giant Lukoil. Lukoil was the first major Russian company to call for an end to the war in Ukraine

- July 2009 — Natalya Estemirova found dead in a ditch

- October 2006 — Anna Politkovskaya murdered in an elevator

- April 2003 — Sergei Yushenkov murder was never solved. Yushenkov was one of the harshest critics of the Chechen war and the KGB's successor organization, the FSB.

KingOfCoders
3 replies
6h2m

- Invasion & Second Chechen War (1999)

- Invasion in Georgia (2008)

KaiserPro
1 replies
5h9m

transnetria

KingOfCoders
0 replies
5h5m

I think that was before Putin?

belter
0 replies
6h1m

Yeah, it's so many, would need the Spreadsheet of Death...

wouldbecouldbe
2 replies
5h57m

Yet it's not Russia you should worry about. But China. They are the real threat and are actively playing strategic chess by taking over resourceful parts of Africa, building up their military & immigrating their people over the world.

chaostheory
1 replies
5h51m

China is a paper tiger. They are fated to be weak due to demographics. They’re now beating Japan in the race to become the world’s largest retirement home.

tim333
0 replies
1h56m

They still have a pretty large economy and are building up militarily. Even so they seem less belligerent than the Russians.

lukasm
1 replies
5h52m

- Litvinenko

- blowing up ammo storage in Czech Rep.

- Beslan school siege

- Keystone Pipeline and Freeport LNG fire

- electricity and internet cable sabotage

lukasm
0 replies
3h42m

Kursk submarine disaster

sashazykov
0 replies
5h47m

- Killing of Boris Nemtsov (2015)

phtrivier
0 replies
5h52m

A technical revolution that would have:

* instantly removes the need for oil and gas * instantly protects half of the world from nukes and radiations

(if possible, that would have done this 15 years ago.)

Now, as much as everyone, I loved reading the headlines in HN that told me about the new "energy breaktrough that will change everythin" - meanwhile, in the real world, we're stuck with oil & gas, and the countries owning it are basically free to behave as they please. Understandably, they behave... badly (except for Norway, I suppose ?)

But it's good that Silicon Valley stopped caring about producing energy, and is now mostly worried about to worst spend it in VR helmets and training AIs to generate fake porn.

Given the state of "reality", it's only fitting that we deal mostly in lies and head-burying.

For the second point, I don't think there is even anything in sight, so Putin's opponents are bound to only tread carefully with Putin.

With the Republican delaying aid, Trump almost certain to get back at the WH, and the fall of Adviivka just a couple of days away - this is, in objective terms, a good time to be sitting in the Kremlin.

The only certainty, however, is that, through diplomacy, artillery, or biology, the tides will turn. Navalny probably wished he would be there to see it. Fate decided otherwise.

"To the beggar: This, too, shall pass.

To the emperor: This, too, shall pass.

This, too, shall pass."

kranke155
0 replies
5h33m

We were always at war with Russia.

And I mean this in sad, sombre way. Russian imperialism has never really stopped, it just had an interregnum in the form of a drunkard President, who was promptly replaced.

imglorp
0 replies
6h3m

Plus many, many deaths of business associates, oligarchs, and generals.

dindobre
0 replies
5h43m

It's impossible to pinpoint this with a single event but I think russia is also an extremely negative influence on Europe, with corruption, spreading division and disinformation, and so on. Who knows how much kompromat is going around, when the war started there were lots of interesting people pushing for "peace" (i.e. Ukrainian surrender), including the pope.

appplemac
0 replies
5h50m

In addition to Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk regions of Ukraine were also invaded in 2014, and a lot of the area that was invaded then is still occupied today.

Lutger
0 replies
5h49m

I'm afraid the answer is 'not having nukes'.

carlos-menezes
13 replies
6h4m

I don't understand why he went back to Russia --- on principle, maybe? Regardless, it wasn't worth it. He could and should have stayed in the West and pumped out anti-regime content: he would have achieved much more.

Rest in peace.

maratc
5 replies
4h56m

He answered that question: "I have my country and I have my principles, and I'm not willing to give up either."

barelyauser
4 replies
4h14m

Dying like that seems like a computer who can't avoid but to crash when it hits a single wrong bit on an ocean of memory. Why? Why choose rigid principles that might lead you straight to doom? Why people think this is honorable? His enemy lost nothing, and the allies left behind have to fight with less men.

maratc
2 replies
4h7m

I'm not advocating for what Navalny did, just explaining his point of view, according to which if you're not ready to die for your principles then you have no principles — just opinions. Again: his words, not mine.

barelyauser
1 replies
2h33m

What if my principle is to survive?

AlexAndScripts
0 replies
1h40m

That may be yours (and mine), but it wasn't his.

seanw444
0 replies
3h47m

Because if he left, the propaganda would have easily portrayed him as a coward. Staying in Russia gave him the best chance he had to win over the populous.

bitcharmer
3 replies
5h59m

GRU threatened his family. He did that to save them.

zarzavat
1 replies
5h14m

Can’t be that, his wife went back with him to Russia and stayed there afterwards. Hardly the actions of someone protecting their family.

bitcharmer
0 replies
3h29m

Can’t be that

Umm... why?

He was given a choice. Either he returns or his family gets assassinated.

mirpa
0 replies
5h17m

Hmm, in attempt to poison Skripal in London, they poisoned his daughter as well. It is quite silly to talk about this if you consider all the war crimes in Ukraine.

yakireev
2 replies
5h17m

I don't understand why he went back to Russia --- on principle, maybe?

He was a Russian politician and was intending to stay one. In the eyes of Russian public opinion, a politician who fled abroad - opposition or not - is not a politician anymore, but some foreign guy living in comforts of some Germany or England, either on money stolen from Russians or on the payroll of CIA, not worth listening to. Interests of polit-emigrants and interests of Russians in Russia do not align, and the general public knows that.

This is why Navalny returned and Yashin never left.

bvrmn
1 replies
5h3m

In the eyes of Russian public opinion, a politician who fled abroad - opposition or not - is not a politician anymore

Public gives no shit where politician sits unless they have influence on politics.

culebron21
0 replies
3h37m

I confirm the previous poster: in the eyes of even oppositional public those who fled loose credibility -- at least that they can't call people to the streets under SWAT batons; and also living abroad they lose sense of what matters and events are important.

banku_brougham
13 replies
4h59m

Does anyone know why NATO/US never gave Ukraine what they were asking for! jets, Anti-air systems, ATACMs, etc?

r0ckarong
4 replies
4h23m

Because this whole shit is just another cold war meant to drive the interest of power on both sides. The west got justification to jack up prices on everything in the name of "energy crisis because we need to do the right thing" and the East can expand their power and nationalize western businesses in the name of "sanctions" that happen to be relabeled and still run profitably through shell companies. It's all just another big squeeze to wring some more out of the normal folk.

seanw444
3 replies
3h44m

And just like every other time, you're the stupid one if you don't vote in lockstep with the current trendy war.

And then two decades later after the war, when people aren't so vehemently biased one way or the other, then everyone agrees again "war is stupid - why did everyone fall for it?"

arp242
1 replies
3h38m

It's not "trendy" nor is there anything to "fall for" because no one choose this war except Russia's leadership. It was forced upon everyone else.

seanw444
0 replies
3h14m

I'm talking about foreign involvement.

mrguyorama
0 replies
4m

Were we also wrong to defend Kuwait from Saddam?

This isn't the bullshit Bush pulled in the desert, this is defending a mostly free nation from hostile action of it's neighbor.

buster
1 replies
4h43m

Maybe because, on the other side of the table sits a lunatic with a massive amount of atomic bombs. Also, because Ukraine is not NATO.

beretguy
0 replies
4h35m

And now they want to put those atomic bombs into space, cause we let them know that we won’t do anything about it.

terafo
0 replies
2h50m

"Escalation management" through "slowly boiling the frog" combined with lack of coherent strategy for the war, partially because some western politicians are afraid of Russia's tantrum in case of Ukrainian victory(using nukes if Crimea is lost, for example), and that are balancing aid so it's enough for Ukraine not loosing, but not enough for Ukraine winning. Equipment that would've been sufficient to win the war in 2022(before Russia constructed massive defensive lines) was delivered in 2023, largely in the second half of 2023. And there's not that many signs that it might change.

mihaaly
0 replies
4h22m

Trying to postpone a direct conflict with Russia perhaps? Attempting some Chamberlainian achievement in preserving peace against a ruthless and untrustworty agressor? Hopeless efforts of course but the stakes and anticipated damages are quite high actually for being not too eager escalating.

jonathanstrange
0 replies
4h10m

Just domestic politics under effective Russian influencing campaigns ("America first"). If the Democrats were against Ukraine and pro-Russia, Republicans would be violently pro-Ukraine. There is no other reason.

jncfhnb
0 replies
4h24m

The republicans mostly

delecti
0 replies
3h59m

The theory I've heard is it's to limit US tech being used to strike into Russia.

2OEH8eoCRo0
0 replies
3h14m
kulikalov
12 replies
4h5m

There are smart people who work for Russia, or worse - for russian gov. Without them it would not be possible.

How can an individual have both the critical thinking and still have the gut to contribute to this?

I grew up in rural russia. It's much much worse than what you see on the facade. My neighbour was a police man. His 15 years boy raped a kid from local orphanage and captured it on a video. No justice followed, because his dad is a policeman. No one spoke up. Everyone just accepted it, as they always do. When he grew up he became a policeman. It's not even the most screwed up story that I witnessed. This is beyond fucked up.

It's a case of mass inheritable PTSD. All males I knew in my family tree were violent drunks, all females were bitten up housewives. This place is surreal and should not exist. And my family was somewhat functional compared to some neighbours.

I abandoned everything there and got out as soon as I could make any money. I wish every person capable of critical thinking just leave this dreadful place and let it descend to the middle ages.

danielovichdk
2 replies
3h4m

Russia’s murder rate is one of the highest in the world, up there with Jamaica’s. Eighty-three percent of murderers and more than 60 percent of murder victims were slobbering drunk during the deed. A typical drunken murder story goes something like this: Two middle-aged male friends meet, go back to A’s apartment, and pound four or five bottles of cheap vodka over a two-day binge. A passes out drunk; B stumbles away, rapes and strangles A’s prepubescent daughter, steals A’s microwave oven, and sets A’s apartment on fire to cover his tracks but passes out while setting the fire, then dies of smoke inhalation. (This, by the way, happened to my ex-girlfriend’s next-door neighbors.)

avodonosov
1 replies
39m

Sources?

In the following wikipedia article Russia's murder rate is near the world's avearage, close to the US, and 8 times lower than Jamaika. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intenti...

CobrastanJorji
0 replies
4m

There is some reason to disbelieve the official numbers. They started dropping rapidly under Putin, while the number of unidentified bodies processed by the health system climbed more or less identically: https://www.noahpinion.blog/p/russia-is-not-actually-a-very-...

avodonosov
2 replies
2h36m

You must do something about the horrific crime your neighbour did. Simple things. Collect the info: his name, surname, adress, etc - everything you can. The date this happened. List the other witnesses, potential witnesses, and other people and facts that can help investigation. Other possible crimes he committed? Who was aware and not acted?

Then submit it to authorities: investigative commitee, child ombudsmen, prosecutor's office, etc. Not local, but higher, maybe even central.

If the video is available, submit it too.

If not adressed by all authorities (unlikely), go public with the specific and detailed information.

Make sure to protect the victim's info from public.

kulikalov
1 replies
2h27m

It happened 15 years ago. Half of the town knew that, all the police knew that. In fact the police tortures people themselves, it's not news for them.

This thread is in the midst of discussion of a public person tortured for 3 years and murdered and the whole country knows that.

What authorities are you talking about? It's criminals upon criminals.

avodonosov
0 replies
2h6m

Sorry, but this reply demonstrates lack of critical thinking in so many ways.

You haven't tried. Even if you assume Navaly's death is a political murder, the case you described is a regular crime, which very often get addressed, including years after they happened.

If you do nothing, you are one of the people who "just accepted it, as they always do".

I understand you had a difficult childhood, and even this case was probably traumatizing for you.

But there are simple things you can and must do.

hn_throwaway_99
1 replies
3h33m

I abandoned everything there and got out as soon as I could make any money. I wish every person capable of critical thinking just leave this dreadful place and let it descend to the middle ages.

I don't begrudge you for doing that, as I would have done (and basically did) the same. But that also highlights how a lot of these places get more fucked up over time.

The same thing is happening/has happened in the US. Basically, nearly all of the opportunity has moved from rural areas to urban and suburban ones. So basically anyone with the slightest modicum of ambition gets up and leaves. So all the people that are left are the people (a) without ambition or (b) are stuck there for other reasons (e.g. lots of early pregnancy). But the end result is those rural areas fall further behind, and many of the people that stay there become even more embittered about their lot. In the US the effect is even more pronounced because rural areas have outsized voting rights due to the way the electoral college and Senate work.

kulikalov
0 replies
3h21m

Parts of population always did and always will be falling behind other parts.

Humanity must ensure that an individual has the way to realize their potential. Freedom to raise and freedom to fall.

The internet changed everything. The information flowing freely and allowing critical thinkers to get out of a swamp they found themselves in. At least this gives everyone a chance to see.

The other thing is immigration. Your case about the US is thankfully different because one can get on a car and leave to another state or urban area. It's not as easy to get out of russia. Get a visa first. Maybe. If you have education and fit into a category. Do not fit? Too bad, there are great places like Kazakhstan that are available though.

ed_balls
1 replies
2h42m

It's a case of mass inheritable PTSD

About 8% of the world suffers from PTSD symptoms. There was a recent study done in Poland that said over 15% of population has symptoms. It is generational PTSD from WW2.

mvdtnz
0 replies
27m

"Generational PTSD"? What a bunch of made up bullshit.

apexalpha
0 replies
3h25m

I wish every person capable of critical thinking just leave this dreadful place and let it descend to the middle ages.

I think it might've already...

MrDresden
0 replies
3h43m

How can an individual have both the critical thinking and still have the gut to contribute to this?

Personal experience has taught me that critical thinking does not nessecarily go hand in hand with the ability and/or the guts to push for change.

Many who move through corporate worlds do so for personal gains, and will not speak out against or put them selves in the spotlight to fix issues that might reflect badly on their upward progress in the hierarchy.

And from my interaction of these kinds of people, they have often been very intelligent.

I believe the same behaviour and motives sadly exist for many in modern day societies.

Clubber
11 replies
6h9m

People calling for the US to do more against Russia, be careful what you wish for. You have no idea how close the US is to a draft. The US has been woefully low at filling military recruiting quotas. Keep in mind both presidents during WWI and WWII campaigned to keep us out of those wars. Any major conflict like that will most certainly require a draft. Better keep your saber rattling to a minimum.

Though the percentage of active duty military members has fluctuated since 2001, it has declined by 39% since 1987, its most recent high.

https://usafacts.org/articles/military-recruitment-is-down/

ethanbond
3 replies
5h59m

Uhhh that’s why it’s better to fund Ukraine to fight the battle for us before it’s actually on NATO’s doorstep. Not that confusing.

Clubber
2 replies
5h16m

Sure, I support funding Ukraine 100% for that very reason, but consider what happens when Ukraine runs out of troops. Russia has a 3:1 advantage.

https://ifstudies.org/blog/the-demography-of-war-ukraine-vs-...

ethanbond
0 replies
2h42m

Consider what happens when the Taliban runs out of troops. The United States has a 28:1 advantage.

KaiserPro
0 replies
5h11m

If you use your troops as bait for tanks, then sure having a 3:1 people advantage is useful.

If you have a bit more respect for the lives of your citizens, its not so much of a disadvantage.

postingawayonhn
2 replies
5h11m

Do you realise how easy it would be for the US to defeat the depleted Russian military? The US Air Force alone could probably do it in a weekend.

The war in Ukraine only drags on for so long because of the refusal of the west (partly tachnical issues, partly political hesitation) to equip Ukraine with modern weapons in sufficient quantities.

Clubber
1 replies
4h59m

the depleted Russian military

They aren't depleted. They've suffered 300K casualties, they have 24,700,000 left of fighting age. Also keep in mind Russia has no qualms about putting women in front line combat roles.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Russo-Ukrain...

Also, Iran seems like they want to get involved. They've been selling Russia arms during the conflict. They have about 17 million people of fighting age.

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

do it in a weekend

They said that about the US Civil War

https://www.loc.gov/exhibits/civil-war-in-america/april-1861...

And WWI

https://www.theworldwar.org/exhibitions/over-christmas

By WWII, we realized it wouldn't be a short war. We seem to have forgotten. Also Russia has a lot of nukes, you know what MAD stands for right?

Best case we're probably looking at a Phyrric victory.

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

terafo
0 replies
2h7m

they have 24,700,000 left of fighting age

Without equipment, logistics and ammo to support it it's a dead weight. Also, it's very interesting that you omitted Gulf War, which would be the most similar conflict in terms of power dynamics. 4th by strength military in the world in war against large coalition of countries that is led by USA.

GartzenDeHaes
2 replies
5h52m

The people behind this propaganda are pushing for privatization, not a draft. The US Army is dramatically downsizing its uniformed troop strength at the same time its budget is dramatically increasing.

"Under end strength levels outlined in the annual defense authorization bill passed by the Senate Wednesday evening and expected to be passed by the House on Thursday, the total number of active-duty troops in the armed forces will drop to 1,284,500 in fiscal 2024. That’s down nearly 64,000 personnel in the last three years and the smallest total for America’s military since 1940, before the United States’ entry into World War II."

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2023/12...

Clubber
1 replies
5h12m

Second paragraph after the one you pasted:

Lawmakers say the reason for the lower target isn’t a decrease in missions or threats in recent years. Instead, the number reflects recruiting challenges across the services and an expectation of what level of personnel is realistic in coming months.

They aren't lowering troop numbers because they want to, they're moving the goalposts to meet the reality of diminished recruiting.

Also, privatization is for non-combat roles, logistics and what not. It allows us to keep more US military personnel in combat roles instead of support roles.

When all of these hack aren't enough to fill ranks in a major conflict, the next step is a draft. Iraq I, II and Afghanistan were not major conflicts in terms of total deployment.

https://www.va.gov/opa/publications/factsheets/fs_americas_w...

Also, no politician will utter the word "draft," or they will lose all support. If a major conflict arises with Russia, it will get instituted, make no mistake about it. Everyone pushing for war with Russia needs to consider the consequences.

GartzenDeHaes
0 replies
5h9m

I think the flow of money points to the truth of the mater.

globalnode
0 replies
5h30m

downvoted by propagandists and bots?

sumedh
10 replies
6h9m

His death was certain the moment he went back to Russia. He should have stayed back in some European country and continued the fight.

MrDresden
6 replies
5h57m

He will be remembered along with other reformers of history who stood up to what they believed and in the end paid with their lives.

I truly hope his death will not be in vain.

inference-lord
4 replies
5h40m

I personally think it makes a clown show of Musk and Carlson Putin fan club we have going on, now they're buddies with a murder. I mean Putin has murdered many people, but this one is pretty fresh and seems to hold a lot more weight because of the stature of the victim.

jacquesm
3 replies
5h35m

In their eyes it makes Putin more, not less attractive because that's how they view their own little power fantasies: to do away with their enemies, real and perceived.

It's not as if we collectively refused to do business with the murderer (correction, butcher) of a journalist in a f'ing embassy. That stood pretty much unchallenged besides some finger wagging.

riehwvfbk
2 replies
4h39m

Are you talking about Assange?

wyldfire
0 replies
4h11m

No, this refers to US ignoring KSA/Mohammed bin Salman killing and dismembering Jamal Khashoggi.

From [1]:

[Trump said] "it could very well be that the Crown Prince had knowledge of this tragic event – maybe he did and maybe he didn't ... In any case, our relationship is with the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia." Two days later, Trump denied that the CIA had even reached a conclusion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamal_Khashoggi#U.S._response

krallja
0 replies
4h26m

Pretty clearly not, as Assange is alive.

MrDresden
0 replies
2h10m

I just realized that the Munich Security Conference started today. There is no chance this was an coincidence.

diggan
2 replies
6h2m

I'm fairly certain he knew this, but did it anyways. If anything, it'll make him a martyr who died in their home country, still fighting, rather than someone who is trying to run away and fueling the opponent's arguments.

Still sucks it had to come to this. But I agree, this wasn't the unexpected outcome.

satellite2
1 replies
5h17m

Unfortunately, a martyr in Western countries only. I doubt his death will be discussed in Russian's media.

proxysna
0 replies
5h13m

It is already being discussed. Also Russian media is not limited to state media.

isolli
9 replies
6h4m

Sad times for Russia...

Barred anti-war Russian presidential candidate [Boris Nadezhdin] fails in two legal challenges [0]

[0] https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/barred-anti-war-russian...

mistyq
4 replies
5h44m

He is not an "anti-war candidate". To think it is possible without FSB approval is naivety. His purpose was to collect lists of people who signed for him (that is, new opposition that hasn't emigrated and formed naturally in 2022-2024 - needless to say, it consists of completely different demographics and people's backgrounds from the "old" opposition). Unfortunately these people are too naive to recognize the danger.

throwaway290
2 replies
4h37m

this is FUD. Inventing another candidate while already sitting on already existing lists of tons of Navalny supporters? supporters to whom nothing happened through all that time? doesn't pass the smell check

herculity275
1 replies
3h44m

Navalnyists are soft-banned in Russia. They can't make any meaningful public statements without hitting one of the censure laws (e.g. it's illegal to say anything about the war that differs from the official Kremlin line). The FSB just slaps the "foreign agent" designation onto the more loud ones and makes their lives difficult enough for them to migrate away. It's a slow cleanse but it's pretty effective.

throwaway290
0 replies
3h38m

You are talking about public discourse

I replied to comment claiming a candidate was invented by our gov to collect PII of people who signed for him. Until people who donated/signed for Navalny are in trouble I don't see why that can be true

golergka
0 replies
3h42m

I've known him personally for quite a time and that's a ridiculous statement. He never was and isn't a revolutionary, but he always was pretty sincere in his beliefs and his attempts to fight in rapidly closing legal space.

bvrmn
1 replies
5h5m

Sad times began in 2012. Since then opposition has no a single chance to win elections.

iwontberude
0 replies
3h43m

Navalny was in support of Ukrainian invasion of Crimea and knew it would require a further land invasion to keep. He was just as psycho and homicidal (suicidal) as Prigozhin but refused to be under Putin’s thumb. Navalny wanted to be the #1 asshole in charge otherwise return to Russia and die in prison.

mihaaly
0 replies
4h32m

I feel it worths noting that the meaning of the word 'legal' is different for ears of western than some eastern nations. It may be inaccurate to describe for western minds what actualy is happening there as legality and law is an instrument of the ruling party for the benefit of the ruling party not some independent supervising power for the goodwill of all. I feel using the English word 'legal' is completely inaccurate expressing Russian public matters, some other was better to adapt/coin for the situation, unsure what though.

alkonaut
0 replies
3h45m

Putin usually had faked opposition, and even some illusion of election monitoring. This time around it seems there will be no illusion of having elections at all since there will be no international monitoring and seemingly not even a pretend opposition.

But I guess why would he pretend to have democracy? The Russians certainly don't buy it, and the countries that might care have already cut all ties. I wonder why he bothers to have the election charade?

telesilla
7 replies
6h10m

The 2022 documentary 'Navalny' is important and explains how the anti-corruption campaigner got to that terrible place, being poisoned with a Novichok nerve agent and still deciding to go back to Russia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navalny_(film)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF_HsKCWEHw (trailer)

aerique
6 replies
4h2m

I never understood why he went back to Russia.

orbital-decay
1 replies
3h42m

Certainly nobody wants to be a martyr. I guess he thought he had a chance at peaceful politics, and at the time it could have been seen as reasonable by a poor planner like him. He had a history of weird blunders, like refusing to resort to violence when it became the only possible solution, or failing the publicly planned protest simply because he didn't account for being detained under a bullshit pretext for a few hours.

pimlottc
0 replies
40m

Certainly nobody wants to be a martyr.

Some people do. If you believe the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and you truly believe your death will significantly help others, then maybe you do make that (incredibly hard) decision knowing full well the consequences.

pimlottc
0 replies
1h0m

It's the Office Space Michael Bolton argument: "Why should I abandon my country? He's the one who sucks."

From a practical point of view it may not be wise, but as a principled decision, it sends a very powerful message.

e12e
0 replies
2h13m

Why stand in front of a tank?

cyrillite
0 replies
3h4m

Martyrdom.

Navalny calculated that this process would be watched and documented through to the very end. He hoped that might be significant, perhaps even sufficient.

1970-01-01
0 replies
3h32m

I have held the exact same question. I don't say this lightly. His decision was stupid. He would've been much more effective as a critic with a Twitter account. You can't criticize the government when you're not free to do so.

ZoomZoomZoom
6 replies
6h2m

The brave denizens of the Internet love to ridicule Russians for their learned helplessness, calling them weak, docile, etc.

Well, here's another example of the thing that most of those who grew up in that culture know or feel subliminally: the hero always crushes evil and triumphs at the end of the story. But in real life, for every success there are thousands that wither along the way.

PedroBatista
1 replies
5h25m

Russians for their learned helplessness, calling them weak, docile, etc.

"learned helplessness" yes

"calling them weak, docile, etc." - I'm not aware of this going on in any meaningful scale.

About the "learned helplessness" and general apathy it's true and the product of many things, one of them a very targeted effort to make the people internalize this during a whole century. China is very similar in this regard too.

All those "decadent" western democracies went through periods of very violent internal wars, centuries of constant internal "cold wars" where the main objective was "democracy" that includes many things like separation of State/Justice/Free Speech, a minimum standard of living ( not just economic ) that society itself does not tolerate existing below that, etc. I'm talking about the real practical thing, not the "cerimonies" or the theatrical plays of "democracy" authoritarian regimes like to show.

Russia never had that, it had a lot of violence, but for other reasons. One of the main one is Imperialism.

"Russia" in reality is pretty much just Moscow and nearby lands, but Russians have imperialism in their psyche. That's why the Baltics, Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova, etc are considered "brother" nations. Because most people in Russia would see no problem if they were somehow "peacefully" integrated in Russia.

But when it comes to pay the price, Russians are "apathetic" because even with all those big speeches and grandiose imperial ego, they know anyone who shows initiative becomes a target.

I don't think it will happen anytime soon, but the best thing to happen to Russia would be to breakup in other states as much as this stupid brutality has been to keep it's internal integrity. That's also why they are always inventing evil external enemies.

mihaaly
0 replies
3h50m

"calling them weak, docile, etc." - I'm not aware of this going on in any meaningful scale.

That is a shame because they actually are. I feel the same coward and pity venal attitude with the Hungarian people - being a soulmate of Russians in this regard - whom I grown up with. They would be very vocal about being proud and brave but the actions only show shortsighted submissive conformity to ruthless tyrants for pity same day breadcrumbs - from the wealth taken away from them. Or just liking if others take charge, instead of the freedom to act that comes with taking responsibility for own actions. Smart people using their talents to screw with others, or just laying low in the hope to get by, whatever happens. Whatever! (a good few even participating for similar reasons, and of course there are scores participating, since Putins and Orbáns would just be laughing stock without the complicity and active support of masses)

A4ET8a8uTh0
1 replies
5h48m

Maybe I am not participating in the 'right' conversations, but I don't recall HN being a forum for such a silly name calling ( and if it is, it tends to be called out ).

<< the hero always crushes evil and triumphs at the end of the story. But in real life, for every success there are thousands that wither along the way.

I think even in US kids learn really fast that there are no heroes; especially these days. One could argue this is one of the factors so many have withdrawn to easier past times.

ZoomZoomZoom
0 replies
5h43m

Just to clarify, I'm not calling HN out on this specifically. This place is one of the most civilized corners of the web. In other places it's rampant though, and I'm pretty sure some of the people holding this view are here.

parthianshotgun
0 replies
5h15m

The same I think could also be said of Russia, in their view they are the hero's, it makes for good and easily digestible propaganda.

I think the triumph of good over evil is a bias we all share, to recognize the complexity, well, that involves a healthy amount of skepticism. I think underlying it is probably a decent ethic, once we define good/logos/love/god. Defining something doesn't mean we still aren't influenced by it

User3456335
0 replies
4h17m

You can learn a lot of that from reading Dostoyevski. At least, from what I have read so far. It's painful to read (injustice, pessimism, disappointment) so I haven't gotten very far yet but it feels more honest.

seanw444
5 replies
3h31m

Rest in peace.

It's wild to me how everyone has a (very energetic) opinion about a conflict nowhere near their home, helmed by people they don't know, fought by people they don't understand, over problems they don't understand.

I wish we could return to when not every conflict between nations was a considered a global emergency.

avaika
2 replies
2h55m

The war affects everyone. Some people die, some suffer because they are under shelling or occupation, some suffer cause their loved one die. But those outside war zone suffer as well. Due to broken food chains, crazy economic inflation and general political instability. For sure it's as bad as when you're dead because of the random shell hitting your home, but still.

When a man with a nuclear button savagely kills his opponent just because he can, this creates instability inside the country. And increases chances, that once he dies (which eventually will happen), some radical guy might overtake the power and who knows what happens next.

I understand that a lot of events in the world might have potential global effect, but only few of them might hit as bad.

seanw444
1 replies
2h41m

I don't understand why people are so scared specifically about Putin's nukes. He's not the only murderous dictator with a big red button, but he's the only one I hear people worrying about. Xi + the CCP is just as much, if not more, of a threat.

And due to the way things are going, they're testing the waters in cooperation and friendship.

awb
0 replies
1h0m

There have been decades of tension, proxy wars and explicit threats of mutual nuclear destruction between Russia and the West.

unethical_ban
0 replies
2h28m

You don't think the safety of Europe is important to the US?

awb
0 replies
1h7m

I’m guessing that many people have a preferred ideology or a moral compass that encompasses all humans.

Violence and questions of justice tend to ignite conversation.

jacquesm
5 replies
6h1m

I wonder how the Kremlin apologists will spin this one. I find it unbelievable that someone like Putin seems to inspire people that are nominally far outside of his sphere of influence in spite of decades of mass murder leading an empire run by criminals.

The_Colonel
1 replies
4h53m

Something like "it's the West's fault, if it left Eastern Europe to Russia, Putin would not get this bad"

jacquesm
0 replies
4h28m

Yes, that one has been used here on HN in fact, multiple times.

sidibe
0 replies
5h59m

Being "anti-woke" gives you infinite leeway for many people

publius_0xf3
0 replies
3h6m

Tucker Carlson gave a pre-emptive justification following his tour, saying that real leaders have to kill people.

inference-lord
0 replies
5h35m

"He was a western puppet" I've heard this already.

cedws
5 replies
5h45m

Incredibly sad. Navalny had balls of steel to stand up to a murderous dictator like he did. It feels like it was all for nought. Putin kills another opposition figure and nobody bats an eye.

falcor84
4 replies
5h41m

nobody bats an eye

That's not the problem. Here we are all batting our eyes, but that doesn't help. Thousands of Russians went out to the streets to protest the war and got arrested without making a difference.

I'm very unclear on what kind of sacrifice would be required at this stage to change the situation in Russia.

kranke155
1 replies
5h33m

A full general strike of some kind. But Putin is popular and so is the war. Russia is a top 10 world economy, rivalling Germany in GDP PPP.

This article "The Majority Never Had It So Good", was enlightening for me about the situation in interior Russia: https://russiapost.info/regions/majority

Effectively a lot of stuff we talk about (no more travel, hard to get money outside of Russia) is meaningless to many Russians, many of which are getting good money to go fight in the war.

arp242
0 replies
2h38m

Do you remember what happened with the large general strikes in Syria a decade ago?

You don't "just" protest these kind of authoritarian regimes; there's tons of examples for this.

In Nazi-occupied Netherlands there was a large general strike to oppose the Jewish deportations ("February strike"). This worked out about as well as one would imagine. It was stopped in about a day by force, with several casualties. Most of the organizers were summarily executed days later without much of a trail, dozens others were sent to prison for a decade, and the Germans warned "we let you off easy this time, but next time the consequences will be serious". So that was the end of that kind of protest for the rest of the war.

There's an old Iraqi joke from the 90s (controversy surrounding Bush's Iraq war notwithstanding, it genuinely was an authoritarian regime and atrocious by any standard): "Congratulations mister President, 99.98% of the people voted for you in the election! Only 0.02% of the people voted against you; a fantastic result! What more could you want? The President growls: "their names". It's pretty funny, and also describes the kind of fears people have. Often these fears are very realistic.

Lots of things you and I can "just" do in free democracies just don't apply to authoritarian regimes. I never lived in those kind of circumstances, and I think it takes some amount of effort to really understand what it's like.

JohnBooty
1 replies
5h31m

It just seems hopeless. An enormous country (with a tremendous cultural history) that has never known a healthy democracy. It's just not in their DNA. I think the US will give up capitalism before Russia adopts anything resembling a healthy democracy. (Not the the US' democracy is in perfect health)

Even if Putin dies, whatever replaces him will certainly be just as bad. There will be a power vacuum, then a power struggle among oligarchs etc, and then the next Putin will emerge.

cedws
0 replies
5h21m

When Putin dies things will get ugly. He's spent the last 20 years building a power structure where he holds all the keys. I doubt he has any kind of successor in mind, he seems himself as the only one capable of leading Russia.

The one to replace him will probably not have the same backing from the citizens nor the Kremlin itself. And although I hate to say it, Putin is quite intelligent, which is one of the factors that has enabled him to stay in power. His replacement may not be.

0xdeafbeef
4 replies
6h51m

Jailed Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny is dead, the prison service of the Yamalo-Nenets region where he had been serving his sentence said on Friday.

ivan_gammel
3 replies
6h6m

This is the Biden‘s red line, just like Syria was the red line for Obama. In 2021 he promised dangerous consequences for Russia if Navalny dies.

JohnBooty
1 replies
5h37m

I'm not sure this situation is comparable because the US is already fighting a proxy war including economic sanctions against Russia's invasion of Ukraine, with US materiel and funds directly responsible for the deaths of thousands of Russian soldiers.

Pentagon estimates 300,000 Russian casualties so far. https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/15/world/europe/russia-invas...

In concrete terms what would you suggest the US do now in order to respond to Navalny's death?

ivan_gammel
0 replies
3h42m

Situation is comparable politically as an example of promise America probably cannot keep. There’s nothing left to do, no additional pressure to apply. And that is going to have consequences for America more than for Russia.

tim333
0 replies
2h8m

I predict crossing that line will cause Biden to do nothing different.

steeve
3 replies
6h25m

Yeah Navalny is dead but have you looked at their shopping carts?

thriftwy
0 replies
3h8m

But wasn't that the prime argument for the US previously?

"Disregard the wars that the US gets into, have you seen their cars and houses?"

And it did work for a long time. People would give you a lot of leeway if you had a nice house and a car.

steeve
0 replies
5h36m

My comment is currently sitting at -4 karma. Draw your own conclusions (:

misterioss
0 replies
6h5m

Yep, we need more interviews with Putin. Things ArE CoMpLIcATeD.

ngetchell
3 replies
6h33m

I can't believe any American would carried Putin's water after the treatment of Alexei Navalny.

pfdietz
0 replies
6h25m

You just don't understand the depths of depravity to which those people will sink.

kergonath
0 replies
5h58m

If the various other opposition figures were not enough, there is no reason Navalny will be. Litvinenko’s assassination was not that long ago, and yet there were many since then.

gorbachev
0 replies
4h55m

When he has pee tapes about you in his vault or you owe hundreds of millions (or billions) to banks he controls, it's easy to believe.

lifestyleguru
3 replies
6h8m

Solid propaganda piece with the recent interview, now a popular opponent eliminated after long sadistic power play. Putin's Russia is consistently moving ahead, they don't seem to be losing at all.

cbg0
2 replies
5h15m

Russia just hit 400K casualties since their invasion of Ukraine, I wouldn't call that "not losing at all".

putna
1 replies
4h55m

sorry, but that is nothing for rusland. 1 person is worth 3 drones - so about $800. The amount of gas/oil they sell per day can continue the war indefinetely.

ioblomov
0 replies
3h17m

Agreed. People forget that both Napoleon and Hitler lost largely because of the sacrifice of Russian lives.

schappim
2 replies
6h46m

“Died”, I suspect the more accurate term is “murdered”…

sashazykov
0 replies
6h36m

Murdered by Putin

kergonath
0 replies
5h57m

Died peacefully from natural causes, novichok, radium poisoning, and a shot in the back after having fallen through the window of an underground cell.

ceejayoz
2 replies
6h21m

Putin has been informed of the death, says Kremlin

In advance, one assumes.

captainbland
0 replies
5h35m

It was probably his idea.

Moldoteck
0 replies
5h7m

i think it was in reversed: putin informed the kremlin about the death

amai
2 replies
3h54m

A 47 year old man killed by the 72 year old president. Nothing shows the conflict of generations in Russia better than this. The old farts of Russia/Soviet Union are killing the younger generation and by that are killing Russias future. For what, grandpa? For what?

acuozzo
1 replies
2h47m

What future? Between the war in Afghanistan in the 1980s and the collapse of the USSR, Russia has only a few generations left before experiencing demographic collapse.

There simply aren't enough young men there to keep the Russian population growing and the population there doesn't value diversity enough to consider producing more Russian children with immigrants.

This is what many believe (e.g., Peter Zeihan) to be the real reason behind the invasion of Ukraine. Ukraine is "Russian enough" in their eyes, so combining the two populations would help stave off demographic collapse.

machinekob
0 replies
2h29m

There is not enough Young women as MEN cant give a birth, still russian demographic looks terrible and this is very good news for all russian neighbors and EU as last imperial country in Europe will die

ModernMech
2 replies
5h29m

Amazing this happens just as a concerted pro Russia media campaign is being run by the American political right.

It will be interesting to see what they do now. This is definitely a loyalty test for them. Those who speak out against Putin at this point will be excised from the party.

squarefoot
1 replies
4h58m

I wonder how the pro-Putin crowd will react to this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68309496

and this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68266447

My country is spending around 1.4% of GDP for defense, therefore it made into the list of countries he would encourage Putin to invade. The guy apparently doesn't know about the over 100 (publicly known) USA military bases and the American people working there (around 13000).

ModernMech
0 replies
3h55m

Yeah the last few weeks or so have been interesting.

A raft of politicians block Ukraine aid.

Then they go on the air to say how strong Putin is, and how his victory is inevitable.

Then Tucker Carlson airs footage of himself in Moscow saying what he sees there will “radicalize you against your government, seeing how much better Russians have it, I know radicalized me at least”

Trump argues in court that presidents have the right to assassinate political rivals.

Trump says on national TV multiple times that he would encourage Putin to invade NATO countries.

Now Putin assassinates his already imprisoned political rival.

rubytubido
1 replies
4h52m

Really sad news. But if you really think that he was killed - why now? He was "under control" in a prison for multiple years, so why kill him now? It worsens Russia's public image even more

My assumptions: 1) He was killed, but why now? 2) He died because Russians' prison has a really bad conditions of detention - so his health was declining over time

arp242
0 replies
2h55m

It's not my impression that Putin overly cares about Russia's public image abroad.

And plausibility seems a good reason for "why now". You need to be very naïve to not strongly suspect foul play here, or in other cases of people falling out windows and whatnot, but you can also never be quite sure. Not really. So there is at least some plausibility that it was "just" an accident, or "just" illness, at least when trying to sell this to the Russian people.

kortilla
1 replies
5h16m

Fell down the stairs and accidentally shot himself in the back 8 times?

How are these events viewed internally in Russia? Is it just widely known that the government arranged it and it was “good, because he was a traitor”?

beretguy
0 replies
4h33m

You sound like Reddit.

dupertrooper
1 replies
4h14m

I Russian (government employees) are fuckheads. Ok i framed it as anti-government are we allowed to say negative things about Russian bots here? When they murdered someone?

AlecSchueler
0 replies
4h10m

Political points are discouraged here.

axegon_
1 replies
3h45m

I love how naive and gullible most people can be... Just google past the first result and you'll see that he is a carbon copy of putin - they are literally the two sides of the same coin. His personal views were perfectly in line with the russian leadership for the past 300 years: believed in imperialism and ethnic superiority. He played opposition for one reason and one reason alone: personal gains. He softened down his tone internationally in the past decade just to buy himself some sympathy from the west(and sadly way too many people ate it like a fresh doughnut). But he was no different. Assuming there is such a thing as opposition in russia(which, I'm sorry, I don't believe for a nanosecond), I'd argue his contribution was to further divide it.

avgcorrection
0 replies
23m

I haven’t looked hard into this issue but that’s the more likely explanation in these kinds of situations. So you have a terrible kind-of dictator and you have a seemingly charismatic opposition. In a country stereo-typically ruled or co-ruled by oligarchs. What’s the most likely explanation? That the opposition is a selfless saint who only wants to liberate Russia (or tone it down to: wants reform, democracy, is kind of an egotist but is using his ego for good ends)? Or that he’s another shade of dark who is aligned with other factions close to or inside the power elite of Russia? And that Russia wouldn’t fundamentally change with one or the other at the helm—it’s still the same corrupt country.

Of course we The West jump to the fantastical conclusion that he, an opposition leader in Russia, wants everything that we want and would be the seedling of prosperity of Russia but also (most importantly) wants to be friends and buddies with The West.

Not surprised to see your comment at the very bottom of this thread by the way.

westmeal
0 replies
3h7m

RIP buddy

tibbydudeza
0 replies
1h24m

So they finally killed him - regime is confident not to worry about him being turned into a martyr since the Russian people has been sufficiently cowed and intimidated since the Tsarist/Glasnost days to accept their place that is modern Russia.

tekkk
0 replies
4h31m

People are throwing hyperboles while the incident is merely symbolic. Nothing changes whatsoever.

And while it's easy to armchair guestimate Russia and its future, we western folk simply cant truly understand the nation and its people. They've endured WWII, USSR and some say take pride in how much they've suffered.

But Europe certainly should get its act together, especially regarding its ammo production. There was plenty of time to ramp up after Crimea,now the improvements are predicted to finish in couple of years. And US is again proving its indecideness in maintaining foreign policy.

The war in Ukraine is existential to Putins Russia and I am wishing the democratic nations win. However, I'm not holding my breath. It's the same as having a street fight. Without outside inference, the one who is more willing for absolute violence most likely wins.

sys_64738
0 replies
5h44m

He would have been severely tortured in various manners. You don't survive the Russian gulag.

sampa
0 replies
4h36m

well, that's a lesson for every western-backed opposition wannabe: don't trust your German handlers (probably told him, they will support him like a murderer Khodorkovsky, and get him out later)

prisons are bad for your health

rllearneratwork
0 replies
6m

was murdered by putin and his thugs, not "has died"

pastacacioepepe
0 replies
2h29m

RIP, Russian Guaidó. I laugh at those who consider him a symbol of democracy or of "regime change". He was a corrupt (he stole his campaign funds) racist nationalist.

He defined muslims as cockroaches, and depicted himself as "an unapologetic nationalist who will deport non-White immigrants from Central Asia and the Caucasus by ruthlessly deporting them"[0]. Even Amnesty stripped him of the "prisoner of conscience" status.

Had he been given the chance of governing, he would have made Russia a worse place than it is now. You can say what you want of Putin, but he's definitely not a racist.

Bonus: a nice selfie he took with his friends[1]. Almost looks like it's taken in Ukraine, given the symbology in the background.

- [0]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/03/01/we-need-h...

- [1]: https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-5fd556a9086172637c8ca...

orangesite
0 replies
57m

Tucker Carlson killed Alexei Navalny.

mynameisnoone
0 replies
12m

In Texas, I ran into a recent Russian emigrant/asylum seeker who said he had to leave Russia because the corruption and personal security issues were too much and presently unfixable. Since arriving here, he has already hustled semi-seasonal work to reach over $100k/year in independent commercial transportation services. We spoke mostly by using the Google Translate conversation app as he's still struggling to learn English, which is a very difficult language.

iwontberude
0 replies
3h44m

At least there is now a chance that Russia’s next opposition leader doesn’t support Crimean annexation.

inference-lord
0 replies
5h12m

RIP.

I hope we don't have similar news about Julian Assange someday soon.

huqedato
0 replies
5h40m

Great job, Vladimir Vladimirovich! Your late mentor, Stalin is so proud of your achievements.

freetanga
0 replies
3h21m

I hope never to see this conflict materialize, but if it does, I expect Russian aviation to be wiped out fairly quickly even without US assistance (they have not gained Air Superirity against Ukraine in 2 years).

And then a lot of angry Poles doing a blitz across Bielorussia.

At that point shit either goes Nuclear or Russia retreats.

I just don’t see Russian tanks across Berlin.

PS: hopefully now of this ever happens

bitcharmer
0 replies
31m

As someone born and raised in Poland I can tell you that the Russians are universally hated by other Slavs. We get along with Lithuanians, Belarusians, Ukrainians, Chechs, Slovaks, basically everyone except the Russians. The sentiment is widespread across central Europe. You can call it racism or xenophobia, I don't care. Putin is not one person, there's a whole nation behind him. Most people online seem to forget this.

benterix
0 replies
6h11m

Frankly, it's strange Putin allowed him to live for so long, normally he just kills his opponent quite fast. Maybe it was just a power show to make everybody understand he can control his opponents' lives completely.

balex
0 replies
3h31m

Lenin, Stalin, Putin...

"There's this new guy, Flapin. Good strong name, let's make him our leader! What could possibly go wrong?"

apienx
0 replies
4h28m

“Life makes no sense if you have to tolerate endless lies. I will never accept this system, which is built on lies[..]” — Alexei Navalny

Alexei believed in doing what’s right, not what’s easy. In his honour, let’s all do our part to help the truth prevail.

andy_ppp
0 replies
5h29m

I couldn’t believe how brave he was going back to Russia after being poisoned the first time, I didn’t understand it and assumed this would happen at some point. I don’t understand how Putin thinks this can be good for him to do this now but it certainly will make anyone running against him aware it’s a very bad idea. It reminds me starkly that Europe is going to be dealing with the Russian problem for a long time after Ukraine is settled one way or another.

ChrisArchitect
0 replies
4h14m
082349872349872
0 replies
1m