Hacker News Reader

By the fact that Russia gave Ukraine security guarantees for giving up nuclear arsenal (3rd largest in the world) in the Budapest memorandum and still decided to annex Crimea in 2014.

Ukraine was already invaded and is at war with Russia over Donbas since 2014.

Russia does not deny their current military buildup on Ukraine border with Belarus and Russia.

Those facts are not the evidence that Russia is preparing for a full-scale invasion or even for a local escalation in Donbas. The pretext for those events was quite different.

You must be sleeping, really. They've collected troops on all sides of Ukrainian border, and ships are on the move.

Russia is obviously preparing for a full-scale invasion. It may be a bluff or not, we don't know.

But as I said, they don't even deny buildup.

They just say that they do not want to invade and that it is their right to gather army all around Ukraine. None of our business.

Instead they make demands with regard to security of countries like Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and of course Ukraine.

Ukraine is preparing to attack Donbass. Of course Russia is gathering army to be ready to defend from Ukrainian forces if necessary.

Yes, very possible. Ukraine wants Donbas and Crimea back. And they are not excluding use of force.

This is also why Ukraine will not join NATO until they resolve their business with Russia.

As someone born in Crimea and moved to Kyiv in 2014, I can tell you that a preventive strike is the last thing people in Ukraine really want now. And that is exactly what Russia wants to provoke or stage if that fails. And I will have to decide (if l will have the time for that choice) if I am going to fight or run. The former is more "right" , but the latter might be more "practical". Just appreciate the fact that most of HN audience do not have to make that kind of choice.

Why would they want to reclaim Donbass and Crimea right now? They can easily wait until Russia collapses under the rule of a madman.

>Russia is obviously preparing for a full-scale invasion.

It was not obvious recently to German navy chief, it is not obvious to Ukrainian government and to plenty of other experts. All the evidence about "imminent attack" is fed to media by US government without sufficient proofs. Whatever are your sources, try to find more information.

German navy chief did not say anything with regard to factual state at Ukrainian borders.

Ukrainian government is not denying Russia buildup on their borders. They just say that Russia does not have enough troops for a full scale invasion. So, Russia is preparing, but is not yet ready for a full-scale invasion.

But USA is indeed going too far in rhetoric if Ukraine is toning them down.

Personally, I think there is 55% chance Russia is bluffing and intimidates Ukraine to dissuade them from thinking about taking back Donbas and Crimea. 45% chance that by end of March there will be land corridor from Russia to Crimea.

> German navy chief did not say anything with regard to factual state at Ukrainian borders.

Indeed he did not. However he said that such invasion to annex more of Ukrainian territory does not make sense. In order to run a very expensive and widely unpopular military operation you do need a good motive, and this means that whatever is the purpose of the military buildup, invasion is not the goal.

Russian military did not invade undisputed territories since War in Afghanistan and they now prefer hybrid wars or limited peacekeeping operations, rather than full scale invasions. They may provide some support to Donbas, but there is actually no point even investing in that. Minsk agreements are quite favorable to Russia, so it brings more value to persuade Germany and France that Ukraine needs more pressure to implement them. No, the real target of this buildup is NATO, playing Biden into signing new security treaties.

True, it does not make sense to invade Ukraine second time. And hopefully Russia will not invade.

We will see.

Ukraine will not be allowed to join NATO due to disputed territories anyway.

As a Pole, after full blown invasion on Ukraine, I would support increase in military spending beyond current goal of 2.5%.

I also think that Sweden and Finland would join NATO relatively soon after invasion. After 2014 annexation of Crimea support for NATO grew there some 20-30%. Sweden is rattled enough to deploy symbolic military presence to Gotland. Joining NATO is part of political discussion in Finland, but they are on the edge.

Russia would only lose on war with Ukraine.

We all will lose if any side of the conflict starts the war. For Poland this may mean, for example, a refugee crisis on the scale far beyond what we had after conflict in Syria. I do not think this will happen.

As for the expansion of NATO, any change in the military configuration of it is an unnecessary and significant escalation. Russia is not threatening neither Finland, nor Sweden, not even close, but we will get at least an arms race in Baltic region if they join. Russian military strategy is that of active defense, they build up the power to protect their own territory. They do not have capabilities to attack and occupy Poland or Finland for a long time, mainly for logistical reasons (their army will run out of fuel quickly and won’t be able to resupply fast enough). The worst part of the expansion is not that there’s a hypothetical risk of a conflict but that it strengthens Putin. He has built his rule on the idea of Fortress Russia surrounded by enemies. Any hostile moves by the West help him to build this case and to prove that pro-Western opposition is wrong. But if instead we could bind Russia in the series of multilateral deals with its neighbors, including defense cooperation, we could on one side defeat the Russian hawks and on the other side create too big pie to lose for Russian elites. America has Monroe doctrine: we should try to remove the need for Russia to have one. Situation in Ukraine made this really hard to achieve, but not impossible.

Russia is a terrorist state and terrorists don’t ever make sense - their intension is murder, fear and instability. Something that Russia has been master of for centuries.

> All the evidence about "imminent attack" is fed to media by US government without sufficient proofs. Whatever are your sources, try to find more information.

I don't feel like one can participate in this discussion in good faith because any "evidence" of "imminent attack" can be brushed off... 100k troops and a ton of military gear on the border? Just chilling out and sightseeing, my friend, nothing to see here!

However, I do contest the claim that all "evidence" is fed by the US government. There are other sources if you care to dig in.

How about Ministry of Defence of Ukraine? They've been predicting action for January-February since months ago, and there's certainly evidence from Ukraine that Russia is up to something.

> On 21 November, the head of the HUR MOU, Kyrylo Budanov, reported that Russia had concentrated more than 92,000 troops and deployed several Iskander short-range ballistic missile (SRBM) systems near the Russo-Ukrainian border. Budanov accused Russia of conspiring protests against vaccination against COVID-19 in Kyiv and other protest rallies in Ukraine to destabilize the country in preparations for a large-scale military invasion. According to Budanov, active Russian military actions should be expected between late-January and early-February 2022.

> On 3 December, the Ukrainian Minister of Defense, Oleksii Reznikov, spoke of the possibility of a "large-scale escalation" by Russia during the end of January 2022, during a session at the Verkhovna Rada (Ukraine's national parliament).

> Russia began a slow evacuation of its embassy staff at Kyiv beginning from January 2022. The motives of the evacuation remain unknown and were subjected to multiple speculations. By mid-January, an intelligence assessment produced by the Ukrainian Ministry of Defence estimated that Russia were in its final stages of completing a military buildup at the Russo-Ukrainian border, amassing 127,000 troops at the region.

I'm not going to post the links because anyone who is not dishonest and not intellectually lazy can find them in two minutes of searching.

First, it is already beginning of February, so those predictions were false - nothing happened so far. Second, it would be more appropriate to quote more recent statement by the president of Ukraine, who denied that the attack is imminent and said that these statements only create unnecessary panic. Whatever links you refused to post, they cannot possibly deny that this official position did exist just a week ago.

> First, it is already beginning of February, so those predictions were false - nothing happened so far.

Umm, this is exactly what I meant when I said it's impossible to discuss this in good faith. Any evidence can be immediately brushed off. "Ha, Ministry of Defence of Ukraine failed to predict the exact date when something would happen, therefore everything they said is false!" Completely disregarding everything that has been happening near Ukrainian border.

Sorry, I'm not going to continue this discussion with you.

Well, my comment had two parts. Statement of Ministry of Defence that is disavowed by the President a month later does not look like based on hard evidence, it is merely a speculation. Ukraine has a role in this propaganda theater just like everybody else, and apparently they back off from a convenient alarmist position when the money start flowing away, not because of any change in the situation on the borders.

Given that it is the within the president's interest to avoid war, come to a diplomatic resolution, and prevent panic, I wouldn't take their denouncement as having any bearing on the evidence.

The MSM has been parroting "imminent attack" memes such as the recall of regional embassy staff. Trotting out a USS Maine "dem Ruskies gonna make some fake videos" looks like more of the same yellow journalism that loves a good war.

The thing though is it does make Putin look weak if he has to move 100k troops to threaten Biden to the negotiation table.

PS: "Proof" is both singular and plural. "Proofs" isn't a word.

Coincidentally, my high school history teacher accurately predicted in 1995 that Russia would eventually annex Crimea. He was a Swedish-American who did his Master's thesis on the 19th c. Crimean War. Putin is a dangerous guy because he has a chip on his shoulder that the West ruined the Soviet Union, is likely the richest man in the world, has nukes, is okay with assassinating dissidents, and wants to Make The Soviet Union Proud Again, especially if it keeps him dictator for life.

Short answer: Russia is quite different from Iraq because it has nukes. Iraqi WMD was all about chemical/biological and the capability of a nuclear program. Most sources today say that Iraq had halted and dismantled their CBW program in the 90s, but they did have those weapons prior to that.

USA will proxy war with Russia all over the world, but always falls short of direct conflict. It's too likely to turn nasty, and trigger MAD.

I think it's an important distinction that the US isn't gearing up for war with Russia (US-Russia), but rather readying themselves for a Ukraine-Russia escalation, and whatever ways in which that might spill over. Arguably they are already at war. The concern is not just another territory grab, but outright attack on Ukrainian sovereignty.

I don't know enough about world politics to have a say in to what degree the US is willing to come to Ukraine's defense. I do know that US doctrine since the Cold War is to not directly square off with the bear, not discounting giving the bear death stares from across the bar.

"but rather readying themselves for a Ukraine-Russia escalation" - but rather *pushing* for a Ukraine-Russia escalation.

You should read not only what the state department tries to claim, but also what the russian official figures are saying (google translate?). Objectively, you are advancing troops to Russian border, and not Russia advancing its troops to yours. And you have the history of invading other nations, not Russia (though you would claim Russia invaded Ukraine, remember that Ukraine was part of Russia long before the american state came into being, that no one ever considered Lugansk and Donetsk "ukrainian cities", and that the current ukranian neonazi government, supported by US in its role of a battering ram against Russia, tries to ban the Russian language in Ukraine, and glorifies WWII collaborationists).

>And you have the history of invading other nations, not Russia

So Russia didn't invade Afghanistan, USSR did. Okay I guess.

>remember that Ukraine was part of Russia

So now Russia is the same as USSR? But didn't invade other countries?

What? Doublespeak much?

>the current ukranian neonazi government

Okay I now regret reading your comment. It's just swallowing and regurgitating Russian state propaganda.

Ah yes, the old "Russia was provoked into invading Ukraine" defense. Along the lines of "Germany was provoked into invading Poland".

Or the old Iraq has WMDs, it must be invaded!

You can not draw parallels with Iraq. US is not willing to go to war over Ukraine, and Europe does not even want to sell weapons to Ukraine.

They are on their own against Putin's Russia.

> You can not draw parallels with Iraq. US is not willing to go to war over Ukraine, and Europe does not even want to sell weapons to Ukraine.

"We didn't plan to do this, we stated this so many times in all media, but what we said they are going to do is so bad, that we had to take actions... Totally not our fault, everyone can see that..."

I'm not sure how anyone sees similarities between these two scenarios:

Scenario 1) US disseminates bad intelligence and invades a sovereign country. Iraq War.

Scenario 2) US disseminates bad intelligence and arms / militarily supports a sovereign country which is being invaded. Ukraine.

Nobody is remotely considering a scenario where the US is saying "Russia might invade Ukraine, so we're going to invade Russia."

A defensive war is by definition the fault of the aggressor. Because they are literally on land that is yours.

If someone was falsely accusing me of throwing eggs I would stay the hell away from eggs.

Russia has deployed troops to the border. They have stocked up blood - short shelf life. The clock is ticking for them, they need to make a move soon. Given this, I consider it quite believable.

Is there a non-US for the blood supply information? All I could find was stories citing unnamed US officials.

As with the Uighur issue in China it’s really simple: we assume the worst wherever independent media isn’t allowed to report.

It would be very easy for the Chinese authorities to allow critical media in every province just like it would be easy for Russia to have OSCE (or equivalent) inspection of “excercises” near the Ukrainian border.

Questioning sources and rumors is a good thing - but in cases when the sources are scarce because they are denied, one should assume the worst from the party refusing oversight. This is a plausible rumor.

USA will not take unilateral action against Russia. The fact the it is willing to try to uncover those actions by Russia is a signal that it is doing whatever possible to make clear to the public that Russia is invading Ukraine (not defending itself), but also making clear that it does not want to support Ukraine military.

Your message is based on a guess "USA government willing to uncover some actions". You can't make anything "clear" to the public without evidence. The only thing it makes clear is that you have interests there.

Russia already invaded Ukraine and conquered land. Now it's coming back for more using the same tactics they used for Crimea, but with a twist here and there and on larger scale.

No one wants to deal with Russia, have anything to do with Russia, or hear of it at all. No one. They're a nation of misery and nothingness. Would you leave your apartment, right now, go to the slums and start shit with the people over there? The thought that the US is looking for excuses to mess with Russia is insane.

And spending any time on Russia is a wasted time and resources which could have been spent towards more productive things. But if you let Russia run around and conquering this and that will force your hand eventually, at which point the time and resources you have to spent to deal with them would have grown massively.

> Would you leave your apartment, right now, go to the slums and start shit with the people over there?

Describes South Los Angeles or San Francisco SoMa perfectly.

Russia has natural resources, which is vital to the European economy. But you're right, the mere idea that the US government would have any interest in a conflict with them is so bizarre.

Another honest question that was prompted by the remembering WMD debacle: why is the American military going to fight in a border war between Russia and Ukraine?

Unless you are to pass moral judgment it doesn't matter. One of the parties staged a causus belli, a plausible reason to initiate war, this escalate things.

Which came first, this press release, or Russia amassing 150k troops on Ukraine's border?

Come on, unilateral military action against Russia? You can't be serious.

Uncanny isn't it? I don't know if just getting older and wiser or if the propaganda is getting sloppier.

relevant: https://twitter.com/nntaleb/status/1489757554326523907?s=20&...

How? This is something that any news media does when there are large scale events going on, write multiple headlines with multiple outcomes

Because Russia and Putin have a recent history of using false-flag attacks. The 1999 Russian apartment bombings are universally considered false-flag attacks by Russian journalists and historians who are not on the Kremlin payroll.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings#Rus...

the US officials, who are quoting no sources other than unspecified "declassified information" for this false-flag stuff, also have a history of false flag operations and lying with the goal to start a war.

While I have strong skepticism of anything from the Government, I literally cannot find any reason that NATO or the USA would have any reason to to start a conflict with Russia inside Ukraine without provocation.

https://news.un.org/en/story/2022/01/1110912 The UN reports that Russian troop buildup is happening at the border

The area has already had Russian agression via Crimea https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_Crimea

Are people suggesting that no one should respond militarily to an allies plea for help to respond to military aggression?

> I literally cannot find any reason that NATO or the USA would have any reason to to start a conflict with Russia inside Ukraine without provocation.

First you say "this is going to happen" and then courageously prevent it by something you needed to do but had no excuse before.

Literally no reason?

Having just finishing the war in the middle east, I'm sure the military complex would have a vested interest in joining / starting another conflict.

What about using a conflict to deflect attention away from a market breakdown?

What about using a conflict to drive a post-COVID recovery?

I'm not saying it definitely has to be one of these reasons, but I can think of many off the top of my head. Why are you so certain that USA or NATO nations would have no reason to start a conflict?

Nobody has put an armed conflict with Russia on the table, with the idea of sending US troops into Ukraine explicitly ruled out. The only responses being discussed are economic sanctions, which would slow a post-COVID recovery and would not distract from the domestic economy, and arming and training Ukrainian insurgents from bordering NATO countries. Your conspiracy theory just doesn't make sense in this context.

Neither Russia, nor NATO plan any real war here. Ukraine - maybe, because it seems pretty convenient to grab some land in Donbas, given that West is ready to activate sanctions against Russia even before the first shot. Russian buildup is just big enough to put pressure, aggressive NATO rhetoric is to demonstrate "non-negotiability" of any limitations to NATO expansion.

Ukraine is not member of NATO and not an ally of NATO states, just a rather unreliable partner in security cooperation, a corrupt democracy with stagnating reforms that does not want to commit to the diplomatic agreements negotiated with the help of the West. There is no reason for NATO to participate in any military conflict there.

The title here is technically correct in representing the content and the U.S. view. But you aren't the only getting weird vibes from it. In fact, I think I can honestly say that it is actually, literally the weirdest announcement I ever heard the U.S. government give.

Others saying similar:

> after eight years of facing down one another across about 200 meters of no-man’s land at the line of demarcation, the situation between Ukrainian armed forces and Donbas forces is very tense and volatile, so that it would be very easy for a provocation staged by British or American special forces, who are known to be in the area, to touch off a major conflagration.

https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2022/02/04/look-at-the-map-where...