Hacker News Reader

Comment by ericmay | Hacker News Reader

What do you propose? Europeans deploy their military and attack Russia? More sanctions? If Ukraine destroys more refineries then what effect does that have on the global economy? Is it more important to destroy the refineries and cause disruptions to fuel supplies across the world or is more important to not let things get too bad?

Everyone pretends there are easy answers here and I don’t think there are, nor do I think a lack of nuance and honest discussion does anyone any good. What more pressure can the US put on Russia that it hasn’t already? Call on the phone and yell at Putin more strongly? I’m interested in hearing ideas but I’m not sure what more we can do that will “end the war”.

View on HN

Well, it would not be an easy answer. Currently China is openly "it is in our interest this continues". So US & EU could coordinate to make it in Chinas interest that this does not continue (problem: rare earths, so maximum effort to fix that first). Once China is aligned totally isolate Russia.

What do you think the EU should do? I know the US has enacted tariffs which have been met with hostility but that was an obvious first move to shore up manufacturing capability. The EU I believe is seeing a continued influx of Chinese products and vehicles and I’ve been told by Europeans that Huawei for example wasn’t a big deal and didn’t need to be removed from NATO networks.

There has been a (unfortunately recent) shift in the view towards China in the EU. So the US and EU would be natural allies when it comes to dealing with Chinas export led growth strategy. The Huawei thing was before Russia where everyone was still a bit more optimistic.

China depends on market access for its growth. So the US & EU have a pretty big lever, they'd just have to use it and not chicken out when it hurts a bit.

That’s good. I’m glad the EU is coming around to the danger that China presents with their autocratic government and desire to de-industrialize Europe.

Complete comms blockade with Russia. Complete trade embargo with Russia. Complete embargo of sanction breaching states. Complete sea blockade in the Baltic and Mediterranean. All within technical reach and no option of proportional retaliation by Russia.

Great - when will Europe start doing that? It doesn’t even ban Russian tourists.

I am posting this from Norway. It most certainly bans Russian tourists.

Yes but not most of the EU, right? If I’m wrong please correct me as this would be new information.

I think it's banned in most of Northern Europe, with less enthusiasm in the South. However there's an effort to ban it across the bloc, which is likely to happen at some point.

https://www.rferl.org/a/eu-limits-russians-entering-bloc/338...

And anyhow, your question was what Europe can really do to end the war. I just listed some practical, low escalation options.

Sure but why only low escalation options? It’s a war. Also I’m not too sure much of those are necessarily “low” escalation. But let’s assume they are. I agree with the goals - let’s get Europe to implement as soon as possible. Do you think a “coms blackout” for example will force Russia out of Ukraine? Idk.

Also why is it taking a long time? Why is Brussels working on a “nuclear” option? Just ban them tomorrow, and seize Russian assets and property in the EU. Have all Russians return to Russia. What is Europe waiting for and why wasn’t this done on day 1 of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine?

A comms blackout and other forms of blockade will severely hamper Russian influence ops in the West. That would make other forms of confronting Russia politically tenable.

For my end am fine with just glassing Russia today, you don't have to convince me.

Glassing Russia? You and what army?

I dunno, maybe we should ask Pakistan, the greatest power of South Asia.

Good luck with that. And there is no such thing as "South Asia," just like there is no such thing as Europe. The former is the Indian subcontinent and the latter is West Eurasia.

Eurasia wasn't used until the appearance of 20th century movements. But fine I'll rephrase: Pakistan, the greatest power on Indian subcontinent.

Well they're more powerful than all the Baltic statelets and Scandinavian "countries" combined, so I'll give you that.

https://www.globalhungerindex.org/Pakistan.html

Very possibly so! They've won all their wars over India too which is much more populous than all the Nordics too.

You probably think The Ukraine is winning as well.

I am not thinking that Ukraine is winning but I am a decent human being so naturally can't cheer for Russia.

A decent human being doesn't pray for "glassing" a country.

Especially the 1971 war, where they won so well that East Pakistan became a new country.

Channel your indignation into victorious dance.

You do understand that a naval blockade is an overt act of war?

You're basically asking two nuclear powers to go to war. The US has been sly in its blockades, but anything like what you're suggesting is basically WW-3.

Speaking of overt acts of war, Russia just blew up a merchant vessel in EU territorial waters. A little blockade will do just fine.

About time. I really don't understand why Russia has been so restrained. They should have used NATO style tactics from day one, like the methods used on Yugoslavia, Iraq and Syria.

So we agree that blockade is not a problem then, goodie.

NATO never had a combat mission in Syria or Iraq.

Russia, on the other hand, together with the Syrian government bombed so many hospitals in Syria that Doctors Without Borders stopped reporting the locations of their hospitals.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/feb/18/msf-will-not-s...

https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/10/15/syria/russia-strategy-ta...

> What do you propose? Europeans deploy their military and attack Russia? More sanctions?

How about not weakening Ukrainian capabilities so they can continue to beat Russia? How about the US not buying Russian diesel/energy, which Trump himself criticized Europe doing in his September 22, 2026, UN speech.

Why did Europe continue to buy oil and gas from Russia? Maybe global energy markets are more important than Ukraine and Russia’s war is?

Which capabilities are being weakened exactly? Can you point to specific capabilities?

Why are you repeating all kinds of russian talking points that have been debunked over and over again?

I’m not repeating Russian talking points so I don’t follow the question.

I believe that you believe that you do not, but you are.

"Europeans buying oil and gas from russia" -> that is mostly one or two hold-outs that are in russias camp, pretty much like Orban/Hungary.

"Maybe global energy markets are more important than Ukraine and Russia’s war is?" -> yes, they are, but they have nothing to do with each other. Conveniently though, this is the link that Trump wants you to make and Trump is pretty much a mouthpiece for the Kremlin.

> Which capabilities are being weakened exactly? Can you point to specific capabilities?

GP never responded and I don't blame them, but taking the risk that you really do not know and are not 'just asking questions':

Ukraine needs both defensive weapons to stave off russian attacks on their citizenry and offensive weapons to make sure russias capacity to wage war is diminished. Both of these rely to a large (but ever decreasing) extent on foreign countries. Lots of that stuff comes from the United States and even though the United States has not made good on the promises it has made it now also effectively puts its thumb on the scale to favor the Kremlin, for instance by diminishing Ukraine's capability to control its drones and by withholding armaments that were promised by the United States, and paid for by the EU.

If you are even remotely interested in what is going on there this should not be news to you, if it is then you should review your sources.

The problem here is you are making two fundamentally flawed assumptions. I shall spell them out:

The first flawed assumption is that an argument, discussion, or point that disagrees with you must fundamentally be a Russian talking point. That I can tell you is just untrue.

The second flawed assumption is you are assuming that something which appears to be “pro-Russian” must also be judged solely as Donald Trump serving as a Kremlin talking point.

> Ukraine needs both defensive weapons to stave off russian attacks on their citizenry and offensive weapons to make sure russias capacity to wage war is diminished.

There is an assertion “if only Ukraine had more weapons” that would somehow “end the war” yet when asked to provide specific examples, there is a failure to do so. At best the provision of additional defensive missiles, which of course are sorely needed, simply protracts the stalemate. Ukraine does not posses the manpower (please feel free to cite specific, reputable sources if you disagree) to retake territory stolen from it by Russia and Vladimir Putin.

Even in the case of “the US is withholding admissions” is framed incorrectly. We need those munitions too. We have to make tough choices. We cannot just give or even sell to Ukraine all of our weaponry when we need it versus Iran and maybe China.

> If you are even remotely interested in what is going on there this should not be news to you, if it is then you should review your sources.

This comment applies to you, not me. You mistake, continually, a disagreement with “someone is on a different side than me” and that undermines your position, causes disagreement about the overall goal (get Russia out of Ukraine or at least bring peace and stability), and plays directly into Russia’s desire to sow division. You act like you know more than others about the war, but the United States has a lot of fish to fry, so to speak, around the world. Ukraine is just one of those fish. Iran and stopping them is in my opinion far more important. We face trade-offs and challenges. When someone mentions those and you try to then accuse them of “pro-Russian talking points” you only undermine your own position and goals.

> The first flawed assumption is that an argument, discussion, or point that disagrees with you must fundamentally be a Russian talking point. That I can tell you is just untrue.

You write just like someone whose brain has been softened by Russian propaganda. That's why you're seeing the responses you are seeing, not as a response to mere disagreement.

That doesn’t make any sense. I’m anti-Russia and anti-war. Whenever you claim something like “your brain has been softened by Russian propaganda” you are factually incorrect.

> You act like you know more than others about the war.

I've been ten times or so in Ukraine since this war began and yes, I think I know more than others - specifically, you, not all others - about this war. I've also lived in Poland before the wall came down and have first hand experience with the russian body politic when they think they are on top. I have family in the Baltics, Poland and Romania.

You seem to have a highly theoretical understanding of how this all works and I can't fault you for that but I will be happy to educate you and I invite you to come along on my next trip to Ukraine. And we'll see how your theoretical idea of the world holds up in practice.

If you want to take me up on that offer, email in profile.

Being in the country just colors your perspective differently. If anything it clouds your judgement as someone like me who has not been (but would love to visit sometime!) can look at the situation a bit more dispassionately and with a more global perspective.

Happy to share more info any time.

My position did not change since I went there, I went there because of my position. But I did learn a lot of things that are not so easy to see from behind your keyboard and a continent (or in my case half a continent) away.

And no, my judgment isn't clouded, I know right from wrong when I see it. If you would love to visit sometime then you may have to change your position on a lot of things because if enough people believe like you seem to do then there won't be anything to visit left.

That doesn’t make any sense. I support Ukraine and Russia’s war is wrong and stupid but I also see more of the global perspective so I don’t have to overreact to bad things happening in only one part of the world. There are bad things happening in many places and America for example has to deal with many bad things or potential bad things all over the planet. The European perspective is very narrow while the American one is global.

All the energy in the world, doesn't make any kind of Ukrainian genocide ok.

Ukraine needs to defend itself, and that is all.

Sorry that’s unrealistic and untrue. Your framing is wrong too. We won’t choose between Ukrainian genocide and energy.

Europe is buying refined fuels from India. Debunk this.

> Which capabilities are being weakened exactly? Can you point to specific capabilities?

* https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm2d6e62p49do

* https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine-starlink-elon-musk-9.7...

* https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/aug/26/ukraine-war-br...

Ironically all of this is also making Ukraine stronger, more able to attack European targets.

1) If Russia ever did get control of Ukraine, they would be much closer and much more armed to attack more of Europe.

2) If Urkaine ever has a change of heart towards Europe / hostile leadership is elected, you now have an extremely capable, strong, well experienced fight force on your doorstep.

Really supporting Ukraine is the best option.

> What do you propose?

Consistency.

> Europeans deploy their military and attack Russia?

Well, given that half our gear was US bought that doesn't even look like an option at this point.

> More sanctions?

The ones in place were broken by Trump.

> If Ukraine destroys more refineries then what effect does that have on the global economy?

Ask a russian. But the rest of us will have to deal with it and whatever Ukraine does has far less effect on the world economy than what trump and putin have done and continue to do.

> Is it more important to destroy the refineries and cause disruptions to fuel supplies across the world or is more important to not let things get too bad?

Where do you get this 'across the world' thing from?

> Everyone pretends there are easy answers here and I don’t think there are, nor do I think a lack of nuance and honest discussion does anyone any good.

You mean: "I've made up my mind and even though the evidence is obvious I'm going to persist in my way of thinking". It is so transparent. All of the points you make above you could have pulled right off the russian set of talking points.

> I’m interested in hearing ideas but I’m not sure what more we can do that will “end the war”.

Give Ukraine the means to defend itself, no strings attached, no stupid games and no witholding arms already bought and paid for. Recognize that russia is the aggressor and ensure that they realize that if they stay on this path it can only go down for them.

> Well, given that half our gear was US bought that doesn't even look like an option at this point.

That doesn’t make any sense.

> The ones in place were broken by Trump.

No they aren’t.

> Ask a russian. But the rest of us will have to deal with it and whatever Ukraine does has far less effect on the world economy than what trump and putin have done and continue to do.

Russia should stop its war. It won’t until it’s forced (Europe should start using its military immediately to take down Russia). Spain and Italy should immediately deploy forces on the ground in Ukraine. What are they waiting for?

There isn’t anything to “ask a Russian” because if there was an answer to be had they wouldn’t have started the war in the first place.

> Where do you get this 'across the world' thing from?

Energy markets are global?

> You mean: "I've made up my mind

Incorrect. Unless you mean I’ve made up my mind that Europe should immediately go to war with Russia and stop the whole thing. If it is unwilling to do that we have to figure things out in a different way.

> Give Ukraine the means to defend itself, no strings attached, no stupid games and no witholding arms already bought and paid for. Recognize that russia is the aggressor and ensure that they realize that if they stay on this path it can only go down for them.

This doesn’t end the war. You haven’t been following it very closely if you think just giving some weapons to Ukraine somehow “solves the war”.

> That doesn’t make any sense.

To you. But it makes sense to me and to many other people besides: If the United States can not be trusted as an ally then that means that weapons systems bought from the United States diminish in value because their operational readiness can not be counted on.

> > The ones in place were broken by Trump.

> No they aren’t.

Well sorry, but yes, they were. To wit:

- Russia is currently under sanctions both by the EU and by the US, who signed their last sanctions package less than a month ago - Within days of signing that sanctions package Trump broke the law by agreeing to buy oil from russia.

You can't really argue with the facts here unless you are doing this wilfully.

> There isn’t anything to “ask a Russian” because if there was an answer to be had they wouldn’t have started the war in the first place.

I would not count on that. Russia is the aggressor here, not Ukraine and only Russia can stop this war. Not the USA, note Europe, definitely not Ukraine. Until you recognize that simple fact the answers to 'why' are to be found in Russia. As for the rest of the effects of recent activity on the global economy: the American/Israeli/Iranian war is a much larger factor there. It is disingenuous to blame Ukraine for what their actions against Russia do to the world economy.

> Energy markets are global?

They are, but they are local markets first and there is this thing called proportionality. You are focusing on something that has 1% or thereabouts of the impact internationally that the US made disaster in the strait of Hormuz has. If you have beef with someone about this you will find them in the Whitehouse or in some brothel in Florida.

> Unless you mean I’ve made up my mind that Europe should immediately go to war with Russia and stop the whole thing.

Oh that's your solution. Yes, sure, that will definitely end well, escalate to deescalate? Where have I heard that before?

> This doesn’t end the war. You haven’t been following it very closely if you think just giving some weapons to Ukraine somehow “solves the war”.

Well, there is a difference between 'some' and 'lots' and there is a difference between promising to do so and actually doing it. Ukraine has done extremely well so far given that in the beginning of this war most people thought they would roll over. So this is not the time to start withdrawing capabilities from them. If you believe it is then you are a useful tool in Putin's pocket.

> But it makes sense to me and to many other people besides: If the United States can not be trusted as an ally then that means that weapons systems bought from the United States diminish in value because their operational readiness can not be counted on.

Not trusting the US means either you are playing in to Putin’s hands, or it means we need to immediately leave NATO and pack up all of our military equipment deployed all over Europe because it’s impossible to have a military stationed in Europe if you don’t trust it.

> Well sorry, but yes, they were. To wit: - Russia is currently under sanctions both by the EU and by the US, who signed their last sanctions package less than a month ago - Within days of signing that sanctions package Trump broke the law by agreeing to buy oil from russia. You can't really argue with the facts here unless you are doing this wilfully.

Sure I can. You can just say as I might, that stability of global energy markets is more important than sanctioning Russian diesel fuel. Maybe by continuing to sanction this fuel we cause other wars to erupt, or something even worse. While tiny, insignificant countries in Europe are focused on Ukraine, the United States has to worry about the entire planet. Trade-offs and choices have to be made. Europe for example still allows Russian tourists.

> I would not count on that. Russia is the aggressor here, not Ukraine and only Russia can stop this war.

And Russia won’t stop the war so if Europe can’t stop the war and neither can Ukraine then there isn’t anything to do or anyone to call.

> They are

Thanks. Conversation was over here. My point was made.

> Oh that's your solution. Yes, sure, that will definitely end well, escalate to deescalate? Where have I heard that before?

So Europe isn’t willing to fight and thinks that sanctions will just magically stop Russia? It might, and I hope it does, but until then I’m not sure what else to tell you. Want to end the war? Join the military or your EU member state or volunteer to fight in Ukraine. Everything else is bullshit. You’re sounding a lot like a Russian right now.

> Well, there is a difference between 'some' and 'lots' and there is a difference between promising to do so and actually doing it. Ukraine has done extremely well so far given that in the beginning of this war most people thought they would roll over. So this is not the time to start withdrawing capabilities from them. If you believe it is then you are a useful tool in Putin's pocket.

You’re explaining things I already know. No need. Ukraine exists today still in no small part bexause of the United States and United Kingdom. A large reason why Ukraine did so well is because American and British militaries were running 24/7 airlift operations to bring weapons to Ukraine while Germany was sending helmets and Spain, France, Portugal, and others were claiming American warmongering. You’re welcome, Europe.

How about instead of accusing anyone who even vaguely disagrees with you, you take a step back and realize you yourself are playing into Putin’s hands by trying to discredit American help? Yea? Stop accusing people of being pro-Russia or whatever.

> Call on the phone and yell at Putin more strongly?

Nobody in the current administration is “yelling” at Putin, strongly or weakly. Perhaps that would be a place to start.

What do you think that would accomplish? Putin would just say thanks for your concern.

Strange question. What do you think high-pressure diplomacy on the part of the most powerful nation on Earth accomplishes?

Without a willingness to go to war probably not a whole lot else more. And we can’t go to war because whenever we do we’re bad guys unless it’s a war Europe approves of. Rhetoric has consequences.

Nothing strange about it. Maybe the EU which is many times larger than Russia and posses countries like France, Spain, Germany, Italy, Poland should call Putin and do whatever you’re suggesting the US should do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com