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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.