Thread

Zelensky says Russia has widened attacks to hit Ukraine's data centres

102 points · 147 comments · dabinat

shevy-java · 1790364187 · focus · HN ↗
At this point in time I think a few key observations should be clear:
- Putin wages an invasion, with the primary goal to occupy territory. This is what they officially say too, bla bla bla Ukraine should give up Donbass etc... bla bla bla.
- At the same time, Putin also wages a genocide. This is in many ways similar to other wars, e. g. Israel expanding and occupying Palestine, just on a large scale Putin commits to his genocidal war ambition here (see the rumours of another wave of upcoming mass mobilization in Russia).
- Unfortunately, and this is an even bigger problem for more people in the future: Putin has no interest and desire, but also no longer any real possibility to end his war. He married the thought of the war to not only his own personal survival but that of imperialistic Russia. I don't really see how negotiations could work now (Trump acting as agent Krasnov won't do anything useful anyway, other than be a spokesperson for Putin - note that Yuri predicted this in the 1980s: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5It1zarINv0" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5It1zarINv0) and this means Putin can only escalate further. While many think Putin is insane, I think the path of escalation "makes sense" IF you are willing to use nukes. While the USA meta-jabait trolls ("he won't use nukes"), I am pretty certain that he would. Which then brings us to the biggest question here:
- Why is the EU not already mass-producing nukes for all member states?
It can not continue that terrorists such as Putin continue to threaten europeans with total annihilation. Relying on the USA is a losing strategy; a replacement for NATO is necessary, one that can also include more actors, including Canadians. Either way I do not understand european politicians refusing to build up a nuclear arsenal for all members in the EU. That makes no sense. We all know Russia under Putin will continue to escalate daily. At some point these EU politicians then have to answer why they did not build up nukes. Agent Krasnov will never harm his business partner - he maximizes on his own personal wealth. Worst US president ever but best russian asset.
1. altmanaltman · 1790364518 · focus · HN ↗
  What would be the point of nuking Ukraine if you want to occupy it?
  Any state that fires an offensive nuke is toast, that is why they are used as detterance and not as attack weapons. MAD is a very real thing. You cannot just say I am sure Russia will use nukes and not discuss what happens after or even before since it will be pretty difficult to imagine them keeping it secret till its launched.
  Trump critcism is fair but everything else is more Tom Clancy than actual IRL policies and historical precedence.
  1. chasd00 · 1790367585 · focus · HN ↗
    What Putin is feeling out is the very real possibility he uses a nuke on Kyiv or invades/attacks a NATO member and Europe just wrings their hands and turns away.
    edit: there's no difference between launching a conventional cruise missile and one armed with a nuclear warhead. You'll only know after the attack not before.
    lostlogin · 1790367960 · focus · HN ↗
    The attacks in Europe have been slowly escalating.
    And Russia hasn’t really had pushback.
    <a href="https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ylm3m67n2o" rel="nofollow">https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5ylm3m67n2o
  2. lostlogin · 1790367802 · focus · HN ↗
    > Any state that fires an offensive nuke is toast
    Do you really think the U.S. would attack Russia? Do you think the U.S. would allow the EU to level Russia (which it probably doesn’t have the ability to do)?
    nradov · 1790369043 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't think that the US would attack Russia as retaliation for a nuclear strike against Ukraine. But the US would probably step up aid to Ukraine. And more importantly, nuclear escalation would likely trigger economic sanctions by key neutral trading partners such as India.
  3. dingaling · 1790405489 · focus · HN ↗
    > MAD is a very real thing.
    As repeatedly stated over the years, it is _not_.
    Every nuclear nation plans on winning a nuclear exchange. Of course, what 'winning' means is debatable, but they very much plan to beat the threat and not just bluster about mutual nuclear annihilation.
2. throw930393930e · 1790365357 · focus · HN ↗
  > Either way I do not understand european politicians refusing to build up a nuclear arsenal for all members in the EU. That makes no sense
  I am not sure if you are trolling. Producing nukes takes time, even with advanced industrial economy like EU, it would take a few months to develop and test nukes. And I would not trust country like Hungary with nukes!
  Much more effective is to manufacture weapons. Soon EU will double its tank production to 5 dozens a year!
  1. rebuilder · 1790365592 · focus · HN ↗
    A few months? Really? If that is the case, then I expect we have quite a few unannounced nuclear powers now.
    throw930393930e · 1790365881 · focus · HN ↗
    Other countries do not not have advanced industrial economy like EU!
    rebuilder · 1790365977 · focus · HN ↗
    The EU is not a country
    throw930393930e · 1790366423 · focus · HN ↗
    I never said EU is a country, it is group of countries with advanced industrial economy and super weapons!
    And we can produce several dozens tanks a year! Soon we will even produce air defense missiles!
    libertine · 1790366379 · focus · HN ↗
    I think it's pretty well recognized that Sweden/Norway, Japan, with some help Poland, even Ukraine could get functioning nukes in a matter of months, with delivery systems.
    Look at Saudi Arabia, suddenly they found Uranium deposits just a week ago: <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/saudi-arabia-discovers-110-million-tonnes-uranium-bearing-ore-medina-2026-09-14/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/saudi-arabia-discove...
    You don't have unannounced nuclear powers now because despite what's being propagandized for the last 5 years, the rules base world order functioned, and brought stability, despite it's flaws - it wasn't perfect, but there was an effort to abide by treaties and international law.
    It's was the product of WW2, and to some extent, the Cold War.
    Just because you have waves of bots saying it was bad, you haven't seen yet anyone saying how the "Multipolar world order" is going to be better.
    There's no project other than autocracies surviving by oppressing neighbors freely by decree.
    throw930393930e · 1790366781 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    libertine · 1790367388 · focus · HN ↗
    I had to Google that claim, and apparently you're talking about one of the Russian disinformation campaign before the second invasion of Ukraine in 2022?
    <a href="https://raskrinkavanje.ba/en/analysis/ukraine-did-not-try-to-develop-nuclear-weapons-before-the-russian-invasion" rel="nofollow">https://raskrinkavanje.ba/en/analysis/ukraine-did-not-try-to...
  2. lostlogin · 1790367569 · focus · HN ↗
    > I would not trust country like Hungary with nukes!
    Recent German, French and Italian elections are a cause for concern too.
3. dabinat · 1790367162 · focus · HN ↗
  In the book 1984, the country was at war with another country. Then they changed which country they were at war with overnight, modifying history books to pretend they had always been at war with that country. The public just went along with it.
  If Putin wants an exit strategy (I’m not sure he does), he can simply declare that all terrorists were defeated and the “special operation” achieved its goal. Then hold a victory parade and have state media say that Russia won. The Russian public would be so glad the war was over that they wouldn’t care.
  1. lostlogin · 1790367474 · focus · HN ↗
    In your scenario, I’d love to know what The White House and Congress say.
    parineum · 1790377065 · focus · HN ↗
    "We're glad the war is over."
    lostlogin · 1790377643 · focus · HN ↗
    That's taking a middle line I guess? I think Trump would pick a a more Russian friendly tone.
    parineum · 1790378669 · focus · HN ↗
    I think he'd gloat about how another war ended on his watch and take credit for it.
    dimitri-vs · 1790380187 · focus · HN ↗
    Trump: "I did this" Congress: "He did this"
4. tim333 · 1790430721 · focus · HN ↗
  I don't think everybody gets a nuke is the answer. There are obvious downsides to that one.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.