Thread

1. Shank · 1790247119 · focus · HN ↗

   It feels like it’s very, very risky territory for these activities to be “occurring” in a NATO country. I’m sure everyone else is thinking the same thing, but at what point does Article 5 get invoked?

   1. jwr · 1790247914 · focus · HN ↗

      It's a typical Russian strategy: gradually increase the intensity of operations, while pretending you have nothing to do with it. That is exactly how war in Ukraine began (way back with the first incursions of "little green men").

      What we have been seeing is this gradual escalation. It's like boiling a frog slowly. Each escalation is too small to trigger a significant response, but after a while you suddenly notice that your country is burning.

      I expect more of this in the near future. I wish the world stopped treating Russia as "just another business partner".

      1. vintermann · 1790248586 · focus · HN ↗

         Ukraine is currently striking facilities deep inside Russia.

         Russia could hit back in the same way easily, and to some degree they do. But their problem is that the equivalent weapons factories, refineries etc. often aren't in Ukraine, but in NATO countries supplying Ukraine and giving Ukraine explicit permission to use them against targets inside Russia - until they got that in May 2024, Ukraine understandably did not risk alienating their suppliers by doing that.

         There aren't very many new lines of escalation crossed here. Russia views it as NATOs proxy war against them now - many hawks in the west haven't been shy about describing it as such either.

         1. applfanboysbgon · 1790248840 · focus · HN ↗

            GTFO, Russian propagandist. If Russia dislikes the state of affairs there's a reallyyy easy solution: don't invade other countries baselessly. "NATO's proxy war" is a really funny way to describe the Russian war of aggression.

            1. Sharlin · 1790249256 · focus · HN ↗

               That’s a weird reading of the GP. They only said that Russia views this as a proxy war, which is true.

               1. nl · 1790249398 · focus · HN ↗

                  No, they are trying to justify actions against countries that supply arms to Ukraine.

                  As I point out in a other thread, supplying weapons is pretty normal and attacking random infrastructure in a country that happens to be allied to Ukraine is a significant escalation.

                  1. Sharlin · 1790249890 · focus · HN ↗

                     Where do you get this stuff? Only thing they’re saying is that Russia can’t attack Ukrainian weapon or munitions factories like Ukraine does to Russia because there aren’t many of them.

                     1. nl · 1790250291 · focus · HN ↗

                        Read the context of their comment:

                        >> It's a typical Russian strategy: gradually increase the intensity of operations, while pretending you have nothing to do with it. That is exactly how war in Ukraine began (way back with the first incursions of "little green men").

                        > But their [Russia's] problem is that the equivalent weapons factories, refineries etc. often aren't in Ukraine, but in NATO countries supplying Ukraine and giving Ukraine explicit permission to use them against targets inside Russia

                        That reads exactly like an argument justifying Russia's actions.

                        1. wvbdmp · 1790250723 · focus · HN ↗

                           You are correct. We should fire all generals who aim to understand the enemy’s thought process. Why would they entertain these evil justifications?! At last victory will be ours when we finally stop making excuses for the bad guys and instead start blindly thrashing at them.

                           1. nl · 1790255414 · focus · HN ↗

                              Oh I agree that "know your enemy" is good advice!

                              But an alternative commentary with the same facts would have been something like "Russia knew there was wide Western support for Ukraine but thought they would overrun the country before Western nations would be able to provide practical support. They dramatically miscalculated and now are trying to deter Western countries by slowly increasing actions."

                              This was basically what @jwr said that kicked off this subthread:

                              > It's a typical Russian strategy: gradually increase the intensity of operations, while pretending you have nothing to do with it.

                        2. Sharlin · 1790250980 · focus · HN ↗

                           I just don’t see it. They seem to be just saying that these attacks probably aren’t (mostly) about escalating right now because Russia has their hands fully (thanks to Ukrainian sacrifices), but simply about trying to disrupt both NATO internal cohesion and support for Ukraine. Of course, if they can kill two birds with one stone, all the better.

                           Seems like a completely reasonable analysis of Russia’s motivations. I don’t see any moral justification there.

            2. vintermann · 1790249347 · focus · HN ↗

               Where's the lie? I said they now see it as NATOs proxy war against them, and western hawks are not shy about talking about it in those terms.

               Yeah, they probably didn't expect it to turn into that when they attacked - they probably hoped it'd be all over in a week with a regime change in Kyiv. It's now they're thinking, shit, we were goaded into another Afghanistan. Which again, is not a way western hawks are shy of talking about it.

               1. invader · 1790255622 · focus · HN ↗

                  The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan was a cakewalk compared to what is going on today. 15k dead in 10 years, and the USSR was twice as big as modern ruzzia, so it is more like 7k dead for ruzzia alone. Now compare that to 4.5 years of the invasion of Ukraine - these wars are on a totally different scale. The Afghan affair was a remote low-profile endeavour; ports and oil refineries weren't burning all over the Soviet Union.
               2. someonebaggy · 1790261212 · focus · HN ↗

                  Well for one, it's nobody's war but Russia's, since they started it unprovoked.
            3. OtomotO · 1790249412 · focus · HN ↗

               What about "Russia views it as NATOs proxy war against them now" don't you understand?

               Let me highlight the important part "RUSSIA VIEWS IT AS..."

               And that's exactly what they communicate towards their population AS PROPAGANDA.

               Whether Putin really sees it that way doesn't matter.

               And if stating this makes me a Russian Propagandist, then so be it.

         2. Sharlin · 1790249172 · focus · HN ↗

            And it is in a way. Ukraine is practically fighting on behalf of East European NATO states against Russian imperialism. NATO’s eastern flank is not immediately threatened only because Russia’s curbstomp invasion turned into a war of attrition.
         3. nl · 1790249267 · focus · HN ↗

            Countries have always had arms supplied from countries not involved in the conflict.

            It's a significant step to escalate to attacking those countries.

            > Russia views it as NATOs proxy war against them now

            It is an interesting argument to choose to invade a country, act with faux outrage when they find allies willing to supply them with arms and then call it a proxy war.

            Russia got themselves into this mess. They have an easy way to get out of it.

            1. cpursley · 1790249679 · focus · HN ↗

               This is well beyond arms supplies, NATO is running their entire ISR and targeting show and quite vocal about it. Plantar, Starlink on drones etc. and that’s ignoring financing and production. If anything, the Russian response has been quite flaccid.

               1. nl · 1790250056 · focus · HN ↗

                  Yes, there is no doubt that NATO countries (except maybe the US/Trump some days) wants Ukraine to win. They train troops, help with intelligence etc.

                  There is no argument that they are neutral.

                  But there's a big distance between being an adviser and being at war.

                  North Korea is supplying actual troops to Russia, and that doesn't mean Ukraine is at war with North Korea. Belarus and Iran have both supplied arms to Russia and Ukraine isn't at war with either.

                  Palintir and Starlink are both private companies, not NATO.

                  1. vintermann · 1790250760 · focus · HN ↗

                     > But there's a big distance between being an adviser and being at war.

                     > Palintir and Starlink are both private companies, not NATO.

                     Is it so hard to see why Russia doesn't see things that way?

                     "Realism" is a much abused word in international relations, but for once I think the "realists" have a point: That Russia is dismissing these distinctions is entirely unsurprising, and other big powers don't have a leg to stand on complaining about it.

                     1. vegardx · 1790271412 · focus · HN ↗

                        You wrote:

                        > "Realism" is a much abused word in international relations, but for once I think the "realists" have a point: That Russia is dismissing these distinctions is entirely unsurprising, and other big powers don't have a leg to stand on complaining about it.

                        I agree that realism is a much abused word, and I think this is an example of it.

                        The first part of your sentence is realism: it is not surprising that Russia chooses to treat Western help as taking part in the war. That does not make it true. Advising, supplying and sharing intelligence is not the same as fighting.

                        The second part is not realism. Realism explains what states do. It does not say who is right, or who has the right to complain. "Don't have a leg to stand on" is a moral judgment, with the word realism put on it.

                        This is exactly how Russia wants the word to be used. Right after the full invasion started, the Russian foreign ministry shared a Mearsheimer article that blamed the West for the war. The goal is to make Russia's actions look like a natural reaction to the West, so that objecting to them looks naive.

                        Maybe you don't mean it that way, but going from "unsurprising" to "don't have a leg to stand on" does the same thing.

                  2. account42 · 1790253134 · focus · HN ↗

                     > Yes, there is no doubt that NATO countries (except maybe the US/Trump some days) wants Ukraine to win. They train troops, help with intelligence etc.

                     There is actually much doubt about that. It rather seems they are content with Ukraine not loosing and draining Russia in the progress with little care what happens to Ukrain except that they keep up the fight.

                     1. myrmidon · 1790257801 · focus · HN ↗

                        It is very obvious to me that basically every country in the alliance wants Ukraine to win and Russia to lose, and this is clear because they actively spend lots of money on effecting that outcome.

                        But NATO members obviously don't want to be spending money on foreign military, so pro-Ukraine spending stays limited to "cost effective" levels.

                        You make this sound like some nefarious conspiracy by western war-fetishists, when the status quo is basically the obvious outcome given even a little western self-interest.

                        1. geoka9 · 1790270039 · focus · HN ↗

                           It seems to be the way they want Ukraine to win: Putin withdraws but keeps his power in Russia at all costs. But this goal is akin to threading a needle.
                  3. [deleted] · 1790259821 · focus · HN ↗

                     [deleted]

                  4. cpursley · 1790271244 · focus · HN ↗

                     > Palintir and Starlink are both private companies, not NATO.

                     Yeah, no. That is not how it works, American private companies are not just allowed to provide weapons of war without executive approval. If you remember, Trump is the one who removed Biden's ban on providing them targeting and the intel to hit Russia directly. The entire "Zelensky, please stopping hitting Russian diesel production" Trump thing is just an act - the US holds the keys to their (and the UK/EU, for that matter) ISR feeds.

            2. vintermann · 1790249813 · focus · HN ↗

               > Countries have always had arms supplied from countries not involved in the conflict.

               My country, Norway, had a long-standing policy of not selling weapons to countries at war - yes even to the attacked party - because of the common understanding that would be tantamount to joining the war, and make us the target of reprisals. This prohibition also was a good shield against accusations of war profiteering or proxy warfare.

               That policy which had been standing for 60+ years, was dropped for Ukraine.

               1. [deleted] · 1790250657 · focus · HN ↗

                  [deleted]

               2. myrmidon · 1790252115 · focus · HN ↗

                  Even if you are the most pacifist leader imaginable, at some point you have to draw a line with policies like that if you dont want to fold and hand over control to expansionist neighbors.

                  I figure a majority in Norway would have been willing to support Finland with more than just arms deliveries had they been the victim (would you agree with that?), so sending some cash + weapons to Ukraine seems consistent policy to me.

                  1. vintermann · 1790253832 · focus · HN ↗

                     The point was not that you should never support a country that was attacked. The point was that you should be 100% above the table if you did that. If you weren't willing to fight yourself (and take the expected consequences, such as reprisals and sabotage), then you shouldn't sell weapons either.

                     And I'm sure statesmen like the Stoltenbergs would have defended this policy very eloquently, better than me, back when it was official policy...

                     And sure, it was broadly popular to get rid of this policy for Ukraine's benefit. It wasn't a hard sell to the public majority. Saying "let's take a step back and think principled about this" was the hard sell, as usual.

                     1. someonebaggy · 1790261134 · focus · HN ↗

                        Seems like they did think principled about it:

                        Killing people is bad

                        Murderers must be fought back with maximum force

                        We can supply force

                        So we should

                        1. vintermann · 1790331768 · focus · HN ↗

                           That's to me the same as saying the policy should never have existed in the first place. Your thinking could easily have been applied to justify the hand-grenade sale to Cuba which prompted the policy (I'm not even sure which side benefited from it, but that doesn't matter, your principles work either way!)
               3. vegardx · 1790262618 · focus · HN ↗

                  That’s simply not true and a gross misreprestation of the policy, which is still in place.

                  And it not dropped to cater to Ukraine, as it specifically has a carve-out for legal defensive war, which the Russian war of aggression towards Ukraine is.

                  1. vintermann · 1790264258 · focus · HN ↗

                     Check snl.no/våpeneksport_fra_Norge, which is more reliable than Wikipedia on this.

                     It gives a list of the changes (or "clarifications") to the policy over the years. To the degree there ever was a carve-out for legal defensive war, it was certainly added after Ukraine.

                     Actually there were two phases: in 2022 they defend giving weapons to Ukraine in that it was a donation, not a commercial endeavor (that suggests to me that they implicitly admitted, commercial sales would have been against the policy). Then in 2024, they allowed direct commercial sales as well. Of course their defense lawyers will say the policy is still in place, but "realism" again: you can't blame Russia for not being convinced by that.

                     1. vegardx · 1790268568 · focus · HN ↗

                        [dead]

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.