Hacker News Reader

You should be aware that this discussion has been shadow banned by the HN moderators. So only the 2 of us can see it, and it isn't available for the public. So you can cut down the propaganda and discuss facts if you are really interested in having a discussion on it. For me, it is a fact that this is a proxy war between NATO superpowers and Russia (+China). Ukraine is a victim here. Everything I say is based on that fact. If you disagree with that, then disapprove that or end the discussion.

> In other words, 2/3 of NATO (by expenditure) is not participating in supporting Ukraine.

In other words, over a period of 4+ years now, various NATO members have trained, armed, supported and financed Ukraine's army to fight the Russians. So, to repeat myself again - it is a fact that Russia is fighting a NATO trained, NATO armed, NATO supported and NATO financed Ukrainian army. And without NATO support, it is apparent that Russia would have achieved all its military objectives in Ukraine a long time ago. That support for Ukraine, within NATO, is also declining is simply because Russia now has the upper-hand in this war, and NATO members are divided on whether it is beneficial for them to continue this proxy war.

> Cutoff from US sources is very painful ...

Yes, cutoff is painful because Ukraine cannot fight the Russians without NATO support, of which the US is the most militarily powerful member. The cutoff also highlights how dependent Ukraine is on NATO members to fight the Russians. And how NATO countries are supporting Ukraine against Russia. So stop arguing or pretending as if you aren't aware that that NATO is involved in this war when you know it very much is.

> Military value of such revenge attacks is near-zero. It is just pure terror against the civilian population ...

That's just normal wartime propaganda - both sides have claimed that civilians are being deliberately "targeted". Sift through this propaganda and you find that both sides are targeting what they believe to be military targets and both sides are dismissive of the collateral damage. Ukraine being the military weaker country is obviously facing the worse end of this war. Zelensky has proved to be a poor leader for Ukraine. In this case, in failing to understand the concept of "escalation dominance" while being manipulated by the Europeans (mainly French, British and German in this case) to pointlessly escalate the war when they were already losing the war.

> Trump's temper tantrums over his inability to force Ukraine to do what he wants clearly disprove the "proxy war" narrative ...

The Trump administration realises that all the benefits of the proxy war that they could get has been derived and, as Russia cannot be economically or militarily defeated, it is best to end the war before Russia starts to benefit from it now.

> here's how the vote went on a UN resolution that condemned the Russian invasion of Ukraine..

And how many of those from the Global South has offered anything more substantial than words in this war? We in the Global South understand that this is a proxy war between superpowers, it is dangerous for us to get dragged into it and as it happened because of the foolishness of Ukraine's own leader, it is their own hard political lesson to learn from.

> Likewise, popular opinion of Russia has also sharply fallen. South America saw an especially sharp drop ...

South American countries swing between left and right, and whenever the US backed right- come to power, obviously negative opinions against Russia increases.

> Interesting way to gloss over the fact that the Ukrainian Air Force never had the 674 airplanes and 284 helicopters that the Russian Ministry of Defence claims to have destroyed.

I obviously have no idea where you plucked those numbers from as I have never read anything similar. The sources I have read claim that whatever the Ukrainian Air Force couldn't get out of their country, Russia has been successful in destroying most of it. Note that this also includes what NATO / EU members had donated to Ukraine.

> but the Winter War is considered a Finnish victory, ...

Only an ignorant delusional person would think that a country that had to surrender its territories to the winner of a war, is the "victor" of a war! The only reason Finland retains its independence, government and armed forces is because the pragmatic Finnish leaders capitulated to Russian security concerns, agreeing to all their terms. And Russia reciprocated by not treating them as threat and let them retain its sovereignty on the rest of their territory. The Russians even went on to give them back some of their territory, if I remember right. The propaganda that Russia wants to capture Finland, then, or Ukraine now, is just a western one. Neither the western superpowers or Russia want their territory (except parts of it for tactical military reasons) - what they both want is the allegiance of these country so they provide a buffer and cannon fodder in future wars.

As for Putin and Hitler ....

The closest leader who is similar to Hitler is Winston Churchill. Both were racist imperialists who believed in white superiority and looked down on other races. Remember that Hitler is not condemned for his war time tactics, as the Russian, British and Americans employed similar tactics in targeting and bombing innocent civilians in Germany and Japan. What Hitler is condemned for is the genocide of the Jews, Slavs, Gypsies and others he considered "inferior". Churchill matched him in this callousness when he created the Bengal famine and let millions of Indians starve to death, even as 10's of millions indians and Africans were also forced to fight for British, in World War 2. European leaders' racism may have been muted to that of Hitler, but wasn't any different really and is apparent in that the French and the British did not want "coloured" soldiers in their victory parades (See http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7984436.stm or https://www.rfi.fr/en/france/20240824-liberation-of-paris-ho... ).

Putin is many thing, but not an extremist like any of these European leaders ...

As for Putin's comment on Poland and Hitler, the context was that Poland had helped Hitler and Germany in the division of Czechoslovakia, but when the Poles refused to give up the Danzig corridor, Hitler, who looked down at the Poles, decided to make an example of them and attack them. (It is interesting to me how encouraging the west is in peddling revisionist history on WW2 so that Russia today can be demonised, and its role in defeating Hitler minimised and forgotten by the current generation).

View on HN

> As for Putin's comment on Poland and Hitler, the context was that Poland had helped Hitler and Germany in the division of Czechoslovakia, but when the Poles refused to give up the Danzig corridor, Hitler, who looked down at the Poles, decided to make an example of them and attack them.

> Cambodia rejects the use or threats of force and does not side with any of the parties in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Prime Minister Hun Sen has declared. The premier stated that support for any party in what he believed had evolved into a proxy battle between the former USSR and US-led NATO countries would violate the Kingdom’s own policy of non-alignment with military blocs.

Prime Minister Hun Sen has reiterated that Cambodia does not support the forceful occupation of one country by another, in comments that apparently referred to the Russian-Ukraine conflict as an “invasion”. “We don’t support the invasion of one country by another. This is our absolutely firm position,” he said while presiding over the inauguration of National Road 21 connecting Kandal province to the Cambodia-Vietnam border. “This is not a small issue because it creates a bad habit for the world: the stronger nation attacking the weaker one. So, if the stronger nation attacks the weaker one, will they attack us [Cambodia]? Then who will help us? This must be clear-cut. This is why we must have a clear position,” he explained.

Cambodia was one of 141 countries to co-sponsor the draft resolution of the UN General Assembly (UNGA) on March 2 condemning Russia’s military offensive in Ukraine. Hun Sen revealed recently that there were countries that allegedly lobbied for Cambodia to abstain on the Russia-Ukraine vote, but did not state which ones.

> And when you mention that it is only prudent to also mention that Soviet Russia made that pact only because the French and British refused to make a pact with USSR, against Hitler, in the first place.

> No one can confidently say that if Poland had acquiesced to Russian terms to provide right of way to the Russian military, and for a stage hold territory, backed by British and the French guarantees of sovereignty, Soviet Russia would not have withdrawn after defeating the Germans.

> And ofcourse, you guys have always upheld that, have you? (cough NATO invasions cough). Look up every western action against another country that was done without UN approval - it's all illegal to the rest of the world. Like I said, you guys have no moral standing to preach to the rest ...

> Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett has publicly stated in an interview that he took a message from Putin to Zelensky that Russia would not invade Ukraine if he publicly committed to not join NATO.

> Zelensky was willing. But all subsequent negotiations (before and during the war) failed because the western superpowers always dissuaded him from signing and committing to "permanent neutrality" - the original condition on which the USSR had granted independence to the Ukrainians

> And ofcourse, this is again something to be seen in isolation, and we should all ignore the development of the cold war, right? Selective picking of a political event without the underlying context is easy to twist to fit some narrative. Post WW2, as Russia supported the independence of western colonies, and communist revolutions everywhere, the western superpowers again turned hostile towards USSR.

> Any political action under violence, and then the threat of violence (whether it be by so called "revolutionaries" or an army) resulting in the opposition capturing power undemocratically is exactly that - a coup ...

> Benett has also said that all the negotiations were very carefully coordinated with the US, Germany, France and UK. And once Putin and Zelensky compromised and agreed to a deal and a ceasefire, the West then blocked it because they wanted to "keep striking Russia".

> Sure, if you wish to resort to technicalities and legalspeak, that is partly true. But the delaration of independence, and subsequently the constitution of Ukraine proclaimed that it would not join any military alliance.

> You had to carefully choose your words to write that sentence, didn't you? Otherwise NATO invasions post 1975 shows how little the Western superpowers have cared about international law or sovereignty ...

> Yeah, when facts don't suit you, it is ofcourse fake or "misinterpretation" or even irrelevant because of the "source" along with snide subtle remarks that imply how you alone are superior in intellect, and everyone else who doesn't agree with you is automatically dumb.