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. 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.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.