‹ BackHN Continuity

Thread

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

102 points · 147 comments · dabinat

  1. CamperBob2 · · focus · HN ↗
    Even Russia would be better off today if we'd given Ukraine the tools to beat them back a couple of years ago.
    1. petcat · · focus · HN ↗
      Europe has hard decisions to make about what an end to the war in Ukraine will look like, and whether that means ceding territory. Ukraine is never going to recapture the territory that it has lost without European troops on the ground. Macron famously said that he would "have to send guys to Odesa" and yet 3 years later there are still no French troops in Ukraine and Russia has since captured even more territory and is actively bombarding Kyiv. Europe simply cannot keep carving out $100 billion military aid packages every year indefinitely.

      Tough decisions have to be made and, despite public criticism and posture, every EU leader is secretly hoping USA can broker a peace deal and this all just kind of goes away.

      1. libertine · · focus · HN ↗
        Just out of curiosity why do you think Russia can sustain this insanity indefinitely?
      2. EA-3167 · · focus · HN ↗
        People have been making "never" statements about what Ukraine is capable of since before the war started, and they've almost universally been incorrect. You're also paying a lot of attention to the minutiae of Ukraine's pressure and ignoring what's going on in Russia politically, economically, and in terms of burning infrastructure.

        As for this "going away" like it or not that doesn't work and it isn't going to happen no matter how much people would like to wish it away. Russia taking a break to re-arm and recover isn't the same as "it's over" and frankly that's why Ukraine is stuck fighting the way they are.

        You're also missing the value that Western nations get from Ukraine fighting Russia, both in terms of disrupting Russia, and advancing the state of the art of drone warfare, EW, etc without the rest of us having to fight and die for it. The amount of money involved when considered against those factors and the economic reality of an EU-integrated Ukraine makes this entirely sustainable economically.

        1. joinHNtheysaid · · focus · HN ↗

          [dead]

          1. EA-3167 · · focus · HN ↗
            Thank you for input, brand new account speaking broken English and spreading "Great Replacement" theory.
      3. mrcwinn · · focus · HN ↗
        Europe doesn’t decide when to end the war, or if it does, Europe has decide the war does not end. There is only one party that decides when the war ends. That would be Russia.
        1. HarHarVeryFunny · · focus · HN ↗
          It's hard to see Putin ever choosing (under pressure) to end the war unless he can at least claim some sort of victory, such as territory gained, although never say never. The Soviet Union eventually just accepted their loss in Afghanistan and withdrew, although it took new leadership to do that. For that to be politically possible probably requires the war to become felt even more at home in Russia, and become more unpopular, which seems to be slowly happening already, even before more advanced missile systems become available to Ukraine.
          1. nradov · · focus · HN ↗
            Right, so the hope is that eventually Putin will either die of natural causes or be deposed in an internal coup / revolution. And then maybe his successor will be more reasonable. Until then there's no way to end the war.
      4. gus_massa · · focus · HN ↗
        A few countries think they are in the "to invade" list of Putin. They prefer to pay to fight that war on Ukranian land with Ukranian troops.
      5. throw930393930e · · focus · HN ↗
        > Europe has hard decisions to make about what an end to the war in Ukraine will look like, and whether that means ceding territory.

        Why would Europe decide anything? Ukraine is a sovereign country, nobody should be making decisions on its behalf!

        Especially not about war and its teritory!

        Edit: EU countries should give Ukraine part of their territories, to compensate for land stolen by Russia! This way Ukraine becomes part of NATO and EU, everybody wins!

        1. vintermann · · focus · HN ↗
          You don't decide an outcome, you decide what you will do. Assuming Russia doesn't suddenly change goals, there is very little France can decide to do which could plausibly lead to the outcome "peace in a united Ukraine".

          And nothing Ukraine can decide to do on its own.

      6. xdennis · · focus · HN ↗
        > Ukraine is never going to recapture the territory that it has lost without European troops on the ground.

        This is such a defeatist attitude. By that logic North Vietnam would never have recovered South Vietnam.

        A lot of things can happen if you just refuse to be defeated. Hannibal killed almost the entire Roman army at Cannae, but the war ended 15 years later with full victory by the Romans.

        In 1940, Britain was the only country in Europe fighting Germany. Many had fallen, were neutral or were fighting with the Nazis (Russia, Italy, etc). But in the end Britain won.

        1. joinHNtheysaid · · focus · HN ↗
          The britain coming out of world war 2 was very different from the britain entering WW1, in a way the late-comer nations refusing to be starved by the empires by going hyper-imperialist destroyed the age of empires.
          1. tim333 · · focus · HN ↗
            May happen to Russia too. The empire thing is so last century.
            1. joinHNtheysaid · · focus · HN ↗
              ?? The chinese are openly calling what they do inspired by the british empire. The turks want to restore their empire. The iranians are in it for the very same reason. This seems very wishful thinking. Not that empires are not zero sum and perfectly dreadfull, but i would call believers in the western alternative limited to europe, japan, sk and canada right now.
              1. tim333 · · focus · HN ↗
                Humans have always been up for seizing neighbouring humans stuff and trying to rule over them and human nature hasn't really changed but the economics have. In the days of the British Empire it was far ahead industrially so could go stick railways in Africa and India and trade and it was kind of win win, sorta. Now everyone is more similarly developed and if you try it on in places like Ukraine they fight back at a similar tech level to Russia which ends up with ownership of some bombed out rubble in Ukraine and their own stuff burning.

                For clarity I'm talking proper empire where you send in troops and install a viceroy, not just trading with places which is mostly what China does. The Taiwan thing is a special case of the communist party trying to take the remaining bit of China which has held out for a century.

      7. nradov · · focus · HN ↗
        Maybe. But another possibility is a repeat of what happened in 1918 with the Russian central government falling to a violent revolution followed what was essentially a surrender in WWI. That's not necessarily the most likely outcome — but one can hope.
      8. foxyv · · focus · HN ↗
        Getting Ukraine to cede territory is going to be an uphill battle because the last time they did it, our security guarantees meant jack squat. Also Russia is never going to let them join NATO because they fully intend on taking the rest of Ukraine. The only way to keep them out of NATO is to continue the war with them.

        So, if Ukraine cedes the territory, they have just legitimized the Russian claim to that territory while getting nothing in return. This is why talks have always fallen through up to this point. Russia wants Ukraine, Ukraine does not want to be Russian. There is no middle ground.

        1. tim333 · · focus · HN ↗
          There is a middle ground which is kind of happening. Ukraine doesn't get all its territory back as it would be too costly in lives. It doesn't join NATO as that was never that practical.

          However it builds up its military with the aid of partner countries sufficiently to stop Russia.

          That's my bet - it gets frozen with some territory lost but with Ukraine able to defend itself a bit like USSR v Finland. I daresay it could still go like USSR v Afganistan too.

          1. foxyv · · focus · HN ↗
            Why would Ukraine need to cede territory to get military aid they are already getting and _not_ be able join NATO? That would be like trading your back yard to your neighbor in exchange for your front porch not being burned down while the neighbor warms up the flame thrower they used to burn down your shed after you gave them your car to not burn down your shed. You are just giving Russia the time to build up infrastructure and equipment to go at you again.
      9. joinHNtheysaid · · focus · HN ↗
        It can longer than russia though.
      10. jltsiren · · focus · HN ↗
        Nobody is hoping for a peace deal. The goals of Russia and Ukraine are too incompatible for any peace deal European leaders could support. Everyone has resigned to the fact that the war will go on, until the internal politics in either country make it impossible to continue. Or until something completely unexpected happens.

        And the $100 billion/year military aid can go on indefinitely, because it's only a fraction of the increased military spending due to the war. If the war ends too soon with the terms favoring Russia, Europe would have to spend even more to increase the pace of its remilitarization.

        1. hollerith · · focus · HN ↗
          >Nobody is hoping for a peace deal.

          I'm hoping for a peace deal.

          1. KellyCriterion · · focus · HN ↗
            Wondering why this gets downvotes?
            1. CamperBob2 · · focus · HN ↗
              There's been a recent influx of pro-Russian astroturfers here and elsewhere. I have a feeling something seriously bad is about to happen.

              Alternatively, people could be reading hollerith's post as "I want Ukraine to do whatever's necessary to make peace with Russia," which is obviously downvote-worthy.

              I personally chose to read it as "I want a peace deal that involves Russia G'ing TFO and paying reparations," but he did leave room for other interpretations.

          2. tim333 · · focus · HN ↗
            I'm hoping too. Basically everyone has been up for a peace deal apart from Putin. It will likely be harder for him to keep the agression up now Russia burns and runs low on money.
            1. icannotstandit · · focus · HN ↗
              This is factually incorrect. The west torpedoed a peace agreement in early 2022, I think it was Johnson, though probably it was really the Pentagon and your "secret services". And you cannot expect Russia to accept a peace agreement which is just a pretext to gather forces to attack Russia in the future.
              1. tim333 · · focus · HN ↗
                The 2022 "peace agreement" was something like give up your territory and weapons so we can take the rest when we feel like it. That it was more is mostly Russia propaganda based on the details not being published so they can make up stuff.

                "pretext to gather forces to attack Russia in the future"

                For goodness sake Russia is 100% the aggressor in this. If they hadn't started killing the neighbours no one would be hitting them.

                1. icannotstandit · · focus · HN ↗
                  "Russi is 100% aggressor in this" - if you tell that, you understand nothing.
      11. tim333 · · focus · HN ↗
        >Europe simply cannot keep carving out $100 billion military aid packages every year indefinitely.

        The total NATO military budgets are $1.8 tn per year. They could easily chip in $100bn a year indefinitely to defeat their no 1 adversary. There won't always be a Putin fanboy in the White House cutting all funds.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.