Ask HN: What Will War Between Russia and Ukraine Mean for the World? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: What Will War Between Russia and Ukraine Mean for the World?

27 pointsthwy0000148 comments

What will a war between Russia and Ukraine mean for the world? For Europe? For the global economy?

Lots of death and destruction in Ukraine. Human suffering and misery. A new refugee crisis because many Ukrainians, and probably Russians, will try to flee the conflict. I think that there won't be direct military intervention by other countries out of fear of escalation, but who knows. Certainly a lot of sanctions, and a lot of cold and exploding electricity bills ( Russian gas supplies will be cut off either by Russia for pressure or European countries as sanctions).

Also, the global oil and gas prices will increase, countries like Qatar will benefit from washing their image. Russia should be banned from Olympics and other sporting competitions ( the World cup comes to mind). And the stock market, especially in European countries, will dive a bit.

> Also, the global oil and gas prices will increase,

It did cross my mind that perhaps we might start to see energy rationing, something that was used in the UK not too long ago.

Probably not much, Russia is likely to annex Eastern parts of Ukraine. Germany will continue with NS2 as this winter have proven there really isn't other options. Some political talk and maybe some sanctions will go on for a while.

From what I heard:

- more chip shortage because of neon gas from ukraine and sanctions against russia

- yet another state loosing democracy and in the kremlins grip

- and war in this case is not binary. There already is war and the extend of a further invasion can vary.

- energy market trouble in germany

The whole issue is basically because of two factors.

1. After WWII Ukraine made a verbal agreement not to join NATO/EU, but now it wants to, meaning they want to break the verbal agreement, which of course the other party (Russia) does not like.

2. USA placing rockets next to the Russian border in Poland, which would probably also be done in Ukraine, if it joins NATO/EU.

I would say that if USA removed itself and their forces from EU, all of this war/invasion stuff probably wouldn't be happening.

I don't want war or anything similar to it, I'm more on the side of legalise weed so that everyone can just chill the f down.

BUT I would probably be pretty angry and panic if my neighbor would start placing rockets on the border.

I'm not saying that what Russia is doing is right or that I agree with them, but objectivity looking, their actions are reasonable, it makes sense.

Regarding what will happen or what would happen. In an ideal world NATO and UN would react as soon as a war broke out and hopefully stoping the war as soon as possible.

I hope that in the future there will come a day where military will exist only for events and parades.

EDIT: Sofixa corrected me, it's not Belarus but Poland! Not sure how this slipped my mind, but yeah...

>I would say that if USA removed itself and their forces from EU, all of this war/invasion stuff probably wouldn't be happening.

I'm not sure about that, it could be with out the US in Europe they would be bolder.

You're spectacularly wrong on multiple points. After WWII Ukraine was a part of the Soviet Union. The verbal agreement was about NATO, and after the fall of the Soviet Union in the 1990s, and is the same one as Russia agreeing to respect Ukrainian autonomy ( because the deal was about Ukraine giving up the nuclear weapons it inherited from the Soviets). US weapons deployments in Poland, not Belarus ( which is for all intents and purposes a Russian puppet), are mostly of defensive nature ( antimissile defense), but yes, they're obviously aimed at Russia.

That being said, you are right that Russia's actions are "reasonable" from a geopolitical point of view - they don't want to be isolated with the enemy at their borders, so they act. It's still a travesty and humanitarian disaster in the making.

Russia's actions are "reasonable" only if you believe that killing or enslaving your neighbors and seizing their property is the normal way of living a life.

"Reasonable from a geopolitical point of view". If it were a board strategic game, if you will. From a humanitarian point of view, it's a travesty.

But this is NOT a board strategy game. Would you call Germany attacking Poland or France reasonable?

You can't just call shameless aggression reasonable and implicitly assume that the "board strategy game viewpoint" (whatever it is) is the default one we should use.

Reasonable if you remember the lessons of 19th and 20th centuries and even earlier. Western Europe has long been aggressor, just remember the Hitler, Napoleon and so on. Even Great Britain. And it is not like these imperialist nations have changed just look at their actions in Africa in 21st century... A sane country must protect themselves from those well known bad actors. A buffer is needed to stop them from enslaving and seizing property, which historically they are well known to attempt repeatedly...

> Reasonable if you remember the lessons of 19th and 20th centuries and even earlier. Western Europe has long been aggressor

> A sane country must protect themselves from those well known bad actors.

let's not forget that Russia's history puts it right there with "aggressors and bad actors".

19th and 20th century Russia:

1) Kept Poland under occupation for 123 years until 1918 (together with Prussia and Austria)

2) Attacked Poland in 1920 (and failed)

3) Attacked Poland in September 1939, they had agreement with Hitler about how to split Poland between themselves.

4) Enforced their shitty political system on their neighbors for over 40 years.

> After WWII Ukraine made a verbal agreement not to join NATO/EU.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Just stop it, please.

Also, look at the map and try to guess where the border between Poland and Russia is located.

Times change.

During those 70 years, Ukraine wants to move away from Russia as many others. Even when Russia agreed ( not verbally, but in writing) that Ukraine was autonomous and after the Revolution of Dignity in 2013 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_of_Dignity ) it was clear that Russia has no more role to play in Ukraine.

Russia didn't expect Democracy in Ukraine and doesn't like it. Additionally, Ukraine could block their naval fleet of going out.

The defensive actions of the EU are justified, Russia has been testing war responses every year for many years. Through planes, fleet and even killing people in foreign countries ( widely documented).

What they just now did, just proofs that improving defensive capabilities is the right call now and will be so in the future.

> After WWII Ukraine made a verbal agreement not to join NATO/EU

Thanks for reminding why I try to stay away from [geo]politics/military opinions on hacker news.

Yeah, when I found out that it was just a verbal agreement I was quite surprised too.

To me if it ain't written it doesn't exist. Which is why I write everything down that's important, but most just because I would forget otherwise...

What has kept Ukraine out of the EU ? Simple garden-variety corruption ? EU membership would have provided some deterring effect.

I don't think the EU wants any new members. It's already barely working ; the UK have just exited. And the EU is not a military alliance like NATO, so it offers no protection.

Politically, it would have been much harder for Putin to justify an invasion for sure.

But... politically as well, Ukraine is far from meeting EU requirements in terms of rule of law and democratic aptitude. As was Turkey when it wanted to join.

As a French, I think that the EU should have waited far longer before admitting some Eastern countries. Hungary and Poland have proved - for example - not being ready by lack of democratic depth. Democracy is something that a people needs to learn. And it can be unlearned, as the US and France prove - even if the issues are quite different in each country.

There won't be a war.

My bad english, meant to write "what would a war between [...] mean".

Why do you think that? If it's a bluff, it's taking a long time, with a lot of actions edging closer to war.

There won't be a war precisely because it's taking a long time, just a bluff.

On the contrary, the bluff is costly and it's costing money every day. It doesn't make sense to continue it for long after seeing that the initial public objectives aren't attainable. Furthermore, the evacuations and mobilisations from the separatist republics, and the false flag bombs and stuff, feel like going too far for merely bluffing.

> false flag bombs and stuff, feel like going too far for merely bluffing.

Again, to me, this is the definition of bluff. It's literally in your sentence "_false_ flag bombs"

False flag as in, the Russians plant a bomb, and say it's the Ukrainians who planted it, to make up a casus belli.

Oligarchs have been taking a lot of flights out of Russia recently:

https://www.vice.com/en/article/dypwvy/ukraine-oligarchs-fle...

If it's a bluff, it's a bloody good one.

The article is about Ukrainian oligarchs running away, which just means they're scared of Russia and doesn't indicate any insider knowledge ( even if one of them is a leader of a pro-Russian party and there might be a connection).

Yes my bad. I read an article about it the other day but linked to the wrong one.

"No war" as in no further invasion at all?

(there already is war and what is yet to come can be on any scale)

Well I hope so, but don't think so.

Yes, Russia will take whatever it wants within a week, calling it "humanitarian mission" to help poor separatist being murdered by bloodthirsty Ukrainian army.

From a Russian perspective:

1/ Fabricating evidence to invade Ukraine is exactly what the US have done in Iraq.

2/ Taking apart Crimea and some eastern parts from Ukraine in the name of the majority of their population is exactly what the USA and a large part of European countries have done with Kosovo.

I'm 100% hostile to Putin but we have skewed the very same international laws in the past.

I am very afraid for Ukrainians.

Kosovo is a naive talking point from Putin POV, but it's egregious. Thousands of civilians were being massacred by Serbia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kosovo_War , the current measures are a least worse option to prevent atrocities and killing, in no league similar to Crimea, which is purely a geopolitical chess piece to the Kremlin.

Yes, of course we had to intervene to save Kosovars from Serbia's atrocities: no question.

I disagree with Putin POV too, but I find it difficult not to remember the arguments the West gave to justify Kosovo's independence.

After all, the UN could have seen troops to preserve Kosovars' safety.

My point was on the legal basis: can a territory detach itself based on the sole majority of the population living on it?

Of course, Putin never asked the people living there what their opinions were.

And I'm also flabbergasted when the US denounce the lies that Putin will tell to justify an invasion, since Iraq's invasion was just among the worst set-up ever.

We can't have it both ways all the time. After all, far fewer civilian Kosovars were killed without reason than Iraqis by US troops. I'm talking about the civilian casualties here.

All the measures to stop Putin invading Ukrain are justified, but I feel that the West gave ground to Putin by its handling of Kosovo and Iraq.

With respect to Iraq, I agree. It was a sham, rammed on the American public by a small radical contingent (Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc), taking advantage of a fear based climate. Unfortunately, the world has to deal with that America, and doesn’t get to see the full world outcomes of the policies of the true Americans, the 57% of Democrats who voted against that heinous war. For those Democrats and their constituents, there is no cognitive dissonance, confusion, or guilt.

Kosovo is not like that egregious mistake. The ideal world is making the Kosovo call and still not having Putin invade. Maybe it provides a slim boost to Russian imperialism, and hindsight could play what if games about letting Kosovo atrocities happen if it meant preventing Ukrainian atrocities. But tbh, it doesn’t move the needle when Russia simply has its objectives in mind and comes up with a laundry list of everything “seemingly” contradictory the West has ever done as their rebuttal. You’d just have some other slightly even more irrelevant “Kosovo issue” taking its place in Putin talking points.

ad 2) Hitler and Sudetenland is even more fitting parallel. Does Russian POV include that too?

I couldn't help but wonder when the US left Afghanistan when the next conflict would start.

How can anyone take the governments word on this? Even if they actually are right this time, it's like the boy who cried wolf.

Sanctions for Russia. Good opportunity to short the rouble.

How soon we forget USSR ! Perhaps it is inevitable that the USSR would reform and this is just another step in that process. Germany will build and make use of the pipeline regardless what Biden says, they need the energy. Europe will posture as usual and not actually do anything. If no one else gets involved it may well be over in a month and the west will get back to the greed & corruption which seems to be the norm these days. For the US a new cold war will be ideal for their military/industrial economy and the rest of the world will suffer from the bullying of Russia, China & the USA. Same old same old....the media will find something else to scare us about.

My prediction: Russia makes some quick wins against Ukraine's military, but discover they can't defeat a stubborn, well-armed guerilla resistance.

Then things will get ugly.

If we go by Russia's actions against Ukraine in the 20th century, they'll start rounding up civilians and sending them to a life of hard labor in Siberia [1], not much caring if they survive the journey and conditions.

Or just shoot all the farmers who know what they're doing and sell all the food, with predictably horrific results [2].

Vladimir Putin will deny any reports of atrocities committed by his military as hysteria and exaggeration, or say that all the bad things happening to civilians are being done by big bad Ukrainians to poor innocent Russian separatists, in his variation on that old favorite theme of school bullies everywhere, "Stop hitting yourself." There will be a lot of hand-wringing and sanctions, but ultimately NATO will decide that if Russia's actions result in the deaths of a few million people, it's unfortunate, but ultimately this isn't an issue over which we would start World War 3 and trigger the deaths of a few billion people.

Russia will discover it has a taste for brutal repression and territory annexation (to a greater extent than it currently has). It will turn into Soviet Union 2.0. NATO and every former Soviet state will have common interests in avoiding another Ukraine situation, meaning those states will all rush to join NATO, and NATO will super-fast-track them. Which will make Russia even more alarmed and less rational. Which will get us closer to World War 3 than we've ever been.

The sanctions -- driven by a Europe united in fear and disgust of Russia's actions -- will ultimately decouple Russia from Europe economically: Iron Curtain 2.0. China will be perfectly fine with it, as it will allow them to fill the economic vacuum left by the severed European ties, and become Russia's top trading partner.

Which will lead to more coordination among Russia and China, and they'll validate and reassure each other that dictatorship, repression, genocide, etc. are perfectly legitimate means of running a country. China will be better able to stand up to the US with Russian trade to fall back on if the US threatens them with sanctions. China will be emboldened to take Taiwan and maybe more, if Russia's invasion of Ukraine is successful in enlarging its borders. From the point of view of the leadership, the prestige from border enlargement is the point of playing the game; the barbarism, deaths and misery are unimportant implementation details.

...Wow, thinking about where this is going is quite depressing.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collective_punishment#Soviet_U...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_famine_of_1932%E2%80%93...

One thing for sure, draft will be back around the world.

I think this is a very interesting comment. Would the youth of EU or NATO countries really accept a draft? After all, they did not grow up during the cold war or with clear memories of ww2.

Hum, I can't see a draft be accepted in order to defend a country a few thousand kms away... when vaccination against Covid was politically impossible (I'm putting aside ethical issues here).

Nuclear deterrence cost 13 B€ per year to France - that the price for no large war anymore.

Well, in theory.

Please stop spreading the panic and hysteria. Even in such a neutral and curious manner.

It is exactly the goal of russian politicians’ manipulations — more and more people talking about it and hence afraid.

Just like terrorists’ main goal is not blowing buildings and people, but raising awareness of their cause through the roof.

The only war that is already going on is an informational war.

And such a post is a tiny battle of this war, lost to russian propaganda machine.

Why do you think that there would be no war? With the actions of the separatists, and the new false flag operations, it seems increasingly likely.

May be there will, I don’t know. But then it will be another, separate issue.

Right here and now western media is losing the informational war by spreading the panic unfortunately :(

I don't think it's spreading panic. Especially by informing on what Russia will soon do ( e.g. false flag operations), it's calming the situation because people know what to expect.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com