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. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.