Thread

September 2026: The world today, as seen by one Polish guy

522 points · 391 comments · marjancek

jakozaur · 1790761035 · focus · HN ↗
I'm Polish, but this is such a pessimistic, overdramatic take. The visualisations are impressive, but you're living in Poland's golden age. See this Hacker News story with 1,000+ upvotes: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48062117">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48062117
The war in Ukraine is a tragedy, but it has proved that Russia is weak. The price shock will speed up the transition to renewables, and Iran is losing its grip on Hormuz. So many of the other issues are solvable.
It's easy to be a pessimist, but there's a bright future ahead of us.
1. jeziorsa · 1790762065 · focus · HN ↗
  [dead]
  1. bartekrutkowski · 1790762292 · focus · HN ↗
    "Golden age" doesn't mean that everything is perfect and we've reached mythical utopia. It merely means there wasn't a better period in history, to date. Please, name one period, where you had more freedom, more rights, more money earning opportunities, bigger food abundance and variety, longer life expectancy, more safety, less wars (speaking locally about Poland) so on and so forth.
    lifestyleguru · 1790762560 · focus · HN ↗
    Sir are you aware of the state of Polish public healthcare and the nearby war?
    bartekrutkowski · 1790762776 · focus · HN ↗
    I am very well aware. Again, the question still stands: when was that the public healthcare provided more services, for more diseases, better medications, better care? When was that there was no wars in Poland for longer than it is currently?
    I'm aware of all the issues we're dealing with, with the horrible war in Ukraine, but that's still unspeakably better situation than it was in 1945 or in 1965 or any other time before that. I hate any war, I'm not happy with the one in Ukraine, but I will take any war happening in the country next to the one I am in, over a war happening in the country I am in.
    jeziorsa · 1790764772 · focus · HN ↗
    You ask about healthcare? I get the impression that you're a bit clueless on this topic.
    Of course, there's more money in healthcare than ever before. Yet somehow hospitals are being closed, and waiting times are longer than they were three years ago. These are facts that may not be obvious to you if you have private healthcare through Medicover or Lux Med.
    Access to private healthcare can make it easy to overlook the problems in the public system, but for many people those problems are very real and affect their daily lives.
    bartekrutkowski · 1790769584 · focus · HN ↗
    I never said anything about private health care.
    You can take a tiny fraction of any good image and find it lacking. The OP wasn't talking about "golden age of public health care" but about "golden age" in general. I'm still waiting for anyone to answer the questions I've asked above, when was it better to live in Poland if not now?
    Not "when it was absolutely perfect to live in Poland" not even "when was the public health care 100% ideal". It feels that the day to day life issues (of which there are plenty, sure) are stopping you from realising how good you have it compared to generations before you.
    I don't know for sure, but I think it's a safe bet that should you be from your own parents generation, you could've been prosecuted for complaining publicly about "the state of the state", not to mention obtaining a computer for your personal use would be next to impossible.
    [deleted] · 1790769724 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    [deleted] · 1790769798 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    subscribed · 1790770036 · focus · HN ↗
    Mate, I'm saying that as someone living in the UK (with friends and relative in Poland so I have close ties) - Poland has much better healthcare than many, for example the UK.
    If I need a doctor who actually listens, or the consultation in less than 2 years, this is the way, and it's a world-class care as well.
    Sure there are subpar parts of the healthcare in Poland, but until all you can get is 15 minutes phone chat with the GP (two days away if it's urgent) instead of in-person visit, or 47 minutes wait for the ambulance in case of stroke or heart attack (in Poland it's ~10 min in cities, ~20 in the villages) you really don't have anything to be ashamed of.
    Complain, if you can improve it, yeah. But it's a good service. Just overworked and underpaid.
    lifestyleguru · 1790770565 · focus · HN ↗
    Medical professionals in Poland overworked and underpaid? Doctors work simultaneously in multiple places with no obligation to be physically present at any, their salaries have been for few years now at Swiss and US levels. Yes salaries of high hundreds thousands EUR annually from the public healthcare system with tax rebates and total taxation somewhere around 15% (!!!).
    World class care? No you are not getting urgent in-person visit in Poland either. There are cases of people dying in ER with dislocated shoulder (because no anesthesiologist present), after quite standard C-section (no doctor present), or intubated into esophagus (and dying afterwards).
    The availability and attention you are writing about are alien to me. Private visit costs 400PLN for five minutes of attention. Most important thing you'll learn is that they don't have the time (for you).
    pzo · 1790766382 · focus · HN ↗
    you can pretty much say the same about many countries like italy, greece or even developing one. But we should be comparing to last 1-2 decades rather than 1-2 centuries. And in my opinion precovid era in poland was better than current one.
    aswegs8 · 1790766987 · focus · HN ↗
    Hard to tell people, who feel the world goes to shit, that it doesn't. When you look at statistics we are living in the Golden Age truly. Worldwide even. But people feel it's worse than ever. One of the big paradoxes of our time.
  2. altern8 · 1790762548 · focus · HN ↗
    Feels like you don't know how bad Poland had it in the past...
  3. jwr · 1790762877 · focus · HN ↗
    That is actually an interesting point to consider. I have been living without reading or watching any local media. I also do not follow any politicians on "social media". I do not use Facebook. I get my tech news from Mastodon and HN, some of the world news trickles through to the tech world, and I get my world news update from The Economist, mostly Leaders section (and Science&Technology).
    I don't care what scandalous thing a politician said on any given day. I do not want to be advertising or voting material, to be riled up and pitted against others.
    That means that I can judge the state of things by simply living in the country and watching what happens around me, comparing it to other places I visit. And that paints a very positive picture of the reality that surrounds us. Even on a practical level, living in a city that is safe and clean with good public transportation is something I've learned to appreciate. There are very few places in the world where I would consider living at this point, and in summertime at least, when the weather is nice, I simply wouldn't want to live anywhere else.
    As to the OP and the blog post (impressive, btw!) — I largely agree. I don't think this is fear-mongering, these things are genuinely happening and are real risks. The OP didn't panic, and neither do I — but I do take these risks into account.
    jeziorsa · 1790764489 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
2. telesilla · 1790762595 · focus · HN ↗
  I agree. My grandmother was not allowed to make decisions over her body, own a bank account, or work after marriage until the late 60s. For many of us, it's definitely a golden age of rights and possibilities.
  1. greggsy · 1790775105 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not Polish, and don't know much more than what's in this thread and in the post, but the world has changed a lot since the late 60's.
    I'm not discounting the value of the good things you mention, but is there anything else to add to the 'golden age' description?
    telesilla · 1790786741 · focus · HN ↗
    Suicide decriminalisation, abortion and euthanasia legalization, decriminalisation of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, gender recognition, disability rights, abolition of death penalty, indigenous rights and land sovereignty, probably a lot more. That's in the eighties, nineties and two thousands, depending on the country.
3. paganel · 1790762605 · focus · HN ↗
  > and Iran is losing its grip on Hormuz.
  That is just hope-believe, i.e. it ain't happening.
  > It's easy to be a pessimist, but there's a bright future ahead of us.
  I lived through the 1990s here in Romania, the future does not look bright in the slightest. Yes, materially speaking we do have more stuff compared to the 1990s, a lot more stuff, but the opportunities in front of us are as slim as ever (which wasn't the case back in the 1990s). But maybe things look different for the Polish.
  1. boringg · 1790765896 · focus · HN ↗
    I would wager Iran is barely hanging on. The question is which side can hang on longer. Its like their both dangling off a cliff with their fingers on the edge - one due to politics, the other because they weren’t as strong as they projected from the start. I suspect Iran might hang on to after midterms.
    Worth noting mid east is all looking for other routes now 3-5 years from now Iran will be in a weaker economic situation on reduced flow. Hopefully Theocracy has been ended.
    SideburnsOfDoom · 1790769854 · focus · HN ↗
    > I would wager Iran is barely hanging on. The question is which side can hang on longer.
    I think this applies to both sides, and the issue is that the people in power are not affected by the crises that cause hardship to ordinary people. " Iran is..." does not distinguish between the two, they are different. Fanatical leadership can live by "Some of you may die, but it's a sacrifice I am willing to make" .
    The problem though is that people in the USA do have one lever to pull on their government, in the form of approaching midterm elections, that the people of Iran do not. And the leadership of Iran knows it. They may be fanatical and awful but they're not stupid - causing fuel shortages causes economic pain to ordinary people causes political pain to the USA. They have this weapon and are using it heavily.
    Notwithstanding that, this assessment of blame is correct ( <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49907371">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49907371 ), the missteps that put us in this mess with no clear way out all come from stupid leadership in the USA.
    boringg · 1790773461 · focus · HN ↗
    You realize you mostly just agreed with everything I said but added more language?
    SideburnsOfDoom · 1790775404 · focus · HN ↗
    Yes, I knew all along that I agreed with what you said, I was not trying to dispute what you said. Apologies if that wasn't clear to you, I should have started it with "yes, and" so that you would not take mistaken offence.
    I don't agree that the consequential points are just "more language". I said things that you did not.
    boringg · 1790776678 · focus · HN ↗
    No offense taken - I always find most people try and take an opposing view for debate sakes. I was merely hoping you didn't think that was the case. Glad to see we agree.
  2. gniv · 1790769425 · focus · HN ↗
    > I lived through the 1990s here in Romania, the future does not look bright in the slightest.
    Why? Inflation was much higher then. There were almost no highways. Very little foreign tourism. Towns were ugly. Industry was barely functioning. Etc. Things are way better now. Just because Romania has high debt is no reason to be pessimistic. Everybody has high debt.
    paganel · 1790773277 · focus · HN ↗
    I was talking about the perspective on the future, we had that back in the 1990s, it is sorely missing now. No-one even dares mentioning about any “light at the end of the tunnel”, it’s everybody for himself (and for his/her family/clan) right now.
    gniv · 1790790816 · focus · HN ↗
    I don't live in Romania so I don't know the details but that probably makes me more objective. I think the situation is better for the future than it was in the 90s. In hindsight, back then it took many years for things to get better. Whereas now with so much upheaval in the world Romania is well-positioned to keep growing.
  3. stickfigure · 1790787195 · focus · HN ↗
    >> and Iran is losing its grip on Hormuz.
    > That is just hope-believe, i.e. it ain't happening.
    Best estimates are that 80% of the pre-war levels of oil are flowing through Hormuz right now. It's happening.
    What are you hoping for?
4. keiferski · 1790764212 · focus · HN ↗
  Yeah I struggle to think of a time in the last three hundred years that Poland was in a better position than it is today. Maybe like 2019 or so? And that is basically still the same era.
  1. Tade0 · 1790765933 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah, we're new rich, but we're also old poor - the majority of millennials and the entire gen x have seen what a proper 3rd world country Poland was back in the 90s - that's the bulk of the current workforce. We've navigated worse crises.
5. machiaweliczny · 1790765316 · focus · HN ↗
  Agree, with UA stopping Russia western capital will finally flow into Poland because previous strategy was to defend on Vistula river which blocked a lot of heavy industry investments that are starting now.
6. bjourne · 1790765908 · focus · HN ↗
  What about the rise of Fascism?
  1. drybjed · 1790766850 · focus · HN ↗
    That's the unseen undercurrent pushing different things described in this essay.
  2. lifestyleguru · 1790772089 · focus · HN ↗
    Where, in Italy in 1930s? Football hooliganism and organized crime though, yes.
7. pzo · 1790765923 · focus · HN ↗
  golden age was precovid we are passed the peak even thought we got into G20 I suspect GDP increased a lot of because inflation.
  Been living a lot in SE Asia in the last 12 years but ever yeah in poland for few months. There has been really big inflation in the last 2-3 years and everybody notice it.
  Been twice this year in Italy, one time in alps and last week in puglia and there is a reason so many Poles go there for holiday - its cheaper or similar price but better than taking a holiday in poland.
8. iforgetti · 1790766591 · focus · HN ↗
  It wouldn’t be Polish if it wasn’t pessimistic ;)
  1. TheOtherHobbes · 1790771122 · focus · HN ↗
    You joke, but there are practical and historic reasons for the pessimism.
    No one in the West has had the Eastern European experience of queuing for bread for hours and discovering there isn't any.
    In the West we have exceptionally strong normalcy bias and can't imagine a world with severe scarcity.
    In countries like Poland that's still lived memory.
    macintux · 1790775002 · focus · HN ↗
    Heck, 80 years ago it wasn't obvious there would still be a Poland. Absolutely understandable that pessimism is a normal state of mind.
    jacquesm · 1790779993 · focus · HN ↗
    That exact experience was my first day in Poland in the 80's. As a spoiled Western kid this was quite an eye opener. Lots of stuff I took for granted was reviewed in those years, and it affects me to this day.
9. traceroute66 · 1790767705 · focus · HN ↗
  > and Iran is losing its grip on Hormuz
  Remember this is a war that Iran has spent 40 years planning for.
  Netanyahu has been doing the same "two weeks away" stand-up comedy since 1992.
  Netanyahu asked every single US president. They all took advice and then went back with a polite "thanks, but no thanks".
  You don't need to have access to super-secret intel to know going into this frivolous war was a very stupid idea. You just need to look at a standard map and use your brain.
  Finally Mr Netanyahu found a stupid enough US president.
  And the problem with the current US president is he won't accept a loss.
  He is not the sort of person willing to accept he has bitten off more than he can chew.
  Nor is he the sort of person who is willing to sit down and have a proper negotiated discussion. Infact he's the very person who just tore up the JPCOA seemingly just because he doesn't like Obama.
  Nor is he the sort of person willing to learn from Iraq or Afghanistan.
  So we have a stalemate. And a US president who doesn't believe in diplomacy, old-school politics or anything else.
  And this stalemate is not one that is going to be resolved with more military firepower. Again, just look at the map....
  1. Ntrails · 1790768182 · focus · HN ↗
    > And the problem with the current US president is he won't accept a loss.
    At least he hasn't yet gone nuclear (metaphorically but also literally)
    galangalalgol · 1790768756 · focus · HN ↗
    The more likely hyperbolic step would be to blow up outgoing pipelines and apply secondary sanctions. Or, as threatened, blow up power and water treatment plants killing large swaths of the civilian population. Nukes wouldn't be necessary to cause mass death.
    Ntrails · 1790784084 · focus · HN ↗
    Oh yes, I was primarily referring to the metaphorical - hundreds of abhorrent non nuclear "wrath of god" options exist.
    traceroute66 · 1790768802 · focus · HN ↗
    > At least he hasn't yet gone nuclear (metaphorically but also literally)
    Maybe the only possible bit of credit we can give the guy is he said no when the Israelis wanted to use theirs.
    Isn't it after all supposedly the world's worst kept secret that they have some too ?
    But I'm also kind of concerned what happens in the unlikely event he does well in the mid-terms, and the same after the Israeli elections ....
  2. TheOtherHobbes · 1790770865 · focus · HN ↗
    Not a stupid idea at all. The US oil corps are making massive profits.
    It's at everyone else's expense, but so is everything else they do.
    traceroute66 · 1790772049 · focus · HN ↗
    > The US oil corps are making massive profits
    Its not my area of expertise by any means, but I would perhaps point out the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve chart[1] which is at its lowest level since 1982.
    Also do not forget the oil and LNG needs to be transported and that is becoming increasingly difficult and expensive.
    It may well be that the artificial party cannot go on forever.
    [1] <a href="https://en.macromicro.me/charts/41674/us-strategic-petroleum-reserve" rel="nofollow">https://en.macromicro.me/charts/41674/us-strategic-petroleum...
    tancop · 1790777310 · focus · HN ↗
    They don't need to go on forever. Just long enough to maximize the share price so oil execs can sell at the top before it all comes down.
    ragebol · 1790777623 · focus · HN ↗
    > but I would perhaps point out the US Strategic Petroleum Reserve chart[1] which is at its lowest level since 1982.
    Might be the case, but that doesn't refute the argument? Maybe an empty reserve is even better for the (US) oil corps, financially.
    digdugdirk · 1790779126 · focus · HN ↗
    The US Petroleum Reserve is governmental, not done by the oil industry. The US government buys and stores oil when prices are low to provide a buffer for volatility in the markets or for things like natural disasters. The reserve being low means that the oil companies are very close to having a market that has no alternative but to pay whatever price is asked for oil.
    To your point about oil and LNG being expensive to transport - that just means oil corps can turn down production at the locations impacted, and jack up the prices for whatever is produced in the locations that aren't. Lower operating costs + higher revenues = profits.
    It really is a perfect storm for massive returns for the major players. As a bonus, it's impacting the Saudi and Russian national players, which are their toughest competition since they don't need to file any quarterly reports. I agree that it can't go on forever, but the oil industry is rolling around in money like Scrooge McDuck in the meantime.
    GolfPopper · 1790780013 · focus · HN ↗
    Sharp price increases will cause demand destruction. That is not good for profits in anything other than the short term.
    bdangubic · 1790788393 · focus · HN ↗
    True if goods are non-essential, false otherwise. It price of water went up 1,000% in my city demand would still be fairly strong (though sure we’d ration as much as we can)
    WarmWash · 1790777144 · focus · HN ↗
    This is probably the worst thing oil corps could ask for, and I can guarantee you with every ounce of my being that they are furious over this.
    It might check the phantom "short term profits" box, but anyone with any modicum of business sense (and the oil boys are no amateurs) see this event as probably the largest nail ever driven into the oil coffin.
    Trump could not have given a bigger gift to the anti-oil crowd, making every human on Earth think "Damn, this shit is getting expensive and unreliable, what alternatives are available?"
    fransje26 · 1790785076 · focus · HN ↗
    > see this event as probably the largest nail ever driven into the oil coffin.
    It will probably go like this:
    war -> fuel costs explode -> economic crisis -> AI bubble burst -> bigger economic crisis -> eventually rebuild on the ruins of what is left and go electric
  3. timnetworks · 1790772545 · focus · HN ↗
    [dead]
    secretsatan · 1790773140 · focus · HN ↗
    How do you propose to end the war without negotiations?
    drybjed · 1790774298 · focus · HN ↗
    Make the oil less relevant to the point that 1/5th of it not being present doesn't affect the rest of the world. We are not there yet, but when we get there, there will be no reason to hold the Strait of Hormuz. Of course the impact on the Gulf states will be enormous, economic or otherwise, so it's hard to say if they will let this be.
    traceroute66 · 1790774713 · focus · HN ↗
    > there will be no reason to hold the Strait of Hormuz
    Hormuz was yesterday's problem.
    Today's problem which was entirely predictable to anybody with a map and half a brain is Bab El Mendab now being heavily disrupted by the Houthis etc.
    It was always a case of when, not if.
    Which now means the old ~20 day alternative-route transits via Bab are now ~50 days becuase you have to go via Suez and Cape of Good Hope.
    This is exactly why all the other US presidents said no. It was a Pandora's box that was not worth the risk poking with a sharp stick.
    HappyPanacea · 1790775721 · focus · HN ↗
    What does the Hormuz have to do with Bab El Mendab? The Houthi attacked red sea routes before any "Pandora's box" was opened.
    orwin · 1790778271 · focus · HN ↗
    Houthis used to only attack Israeli ships, because of their truce with the Saudis. Now that their diplomats got bombed at an airport, they are attacking Saudi ships, including tankers, too.
    Against GP point though: the Houthis probably won't attack non-saudi, non-israeli vessels anytime soon, so it shouldn't change the route so much.
    traceroute66 · 1790779654 · focus · HN ↗
    > Against GP point though...
    Fair point. But one word .... Insurance.
    HappyPanacea · 1790780739 · focus · HN ↗
    > Houthis used to only attack Israeli ships
    Houthi attacked non-Israeli ships as well. So it does change the route or at least make it riskier and before opening the "pandora's box".
    tw04 · 1790778417 · focus · HN ↗
    So are we getting there by exhausting the strategic reserve, by killing renewable projects, or by eliminating fuel efficiency standards?
    tw04 · 1790773315 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m hoping they don’t grow up in one the US shapes if it continues to be run by a dictator loving sexual predator who thinks corruption isn’t just ok, but a mandatory part of government.
    It’s also rich saying that the US doesn’t negotiate with terrorists while watching Trump verbally fellate Putin at every given opportunity.
    timnetworks · 1790827690 · focus · HN ↗
    "Speak softly and carry a big stick; you will go far." Speak like a tiktok echo chamber, you may get stuck believing it yourself.
    arthur-st · 1790773592 · focus · HN ↗
    The US very much has been trying to get Ukraine to surrender to Russia since Trump was elected. Quite nothing would seemingly please Trump more than Ukrainians rolling over and clearing the way to a fat kickback from Russia.
    jonnybgood · 1790776135 · focus · HN ↗
    Trump recently signed a Russian sanctions bill and the State Department just cleared a $2.7 billion military sale to Ukraine. So, I don't know how you've arrived at your conclusions.
    jodrellblank · 1790777150 · focus · HN ↗
    Are you kidding?
    2025 November: "Trump’s peace plan is a demand for Ukraine’s surrender What makes this plan different from all the others?"[1]
    2025 October: "Donald Trump Wants Ukraine to Surrender to Putin"[2]
    2025 September: "Ukraine's refusal to give up territory to Russia stalls peace deal, Trump envoy says"[3]
    2025 Feb: "Trump Gives Europe 3 Weeks to Accept Ukraine’s ‘Surrender,’ Says European Lawmaker"[4]
    2025 January: "Trump says Ukraine should have surrendered to Russia and blames Zelensky for war"[5]
    2024 September: "Harris meets Zelensky and slams Trump's 'surrender policy' for Ukraine"[6]
    1. <a href="https://www.vox.com/politics/469993/trump-ukraine-peace-plan-zelenskyy" rel="nofollow">https://www.vox.com/politics/469993/trump-ukraine-peace-plan...
    2. <a href="https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/donald-trump-wants-ukraine-to-surrender-to-putin/" rel="nofollow">https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/donald-trump-wants-ukrai...
    3. <a href="https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/ukraines-refusal-territory-russia-stalls-100132986.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.yahoo.com/news/us/articles/ukraines-refusal-terr...
    4. <a href="https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47574" rel="nofollow">https://www.kyivpost.com/post/47574
    5. <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-putin-zelensky-ukraine-russia-sean-hannity-b2685565.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
    6. <a href="https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20240927-harris-meets-zelensky-and-slams-trump-s-surrender-policy-for-ukraine" rel="nofollow">https://www.france24.com/en/americas/20240927-harris-meets-z...
    jonnybgood · 1790778426 · focus · HN ↗
    Yep, he says a lot of stupid stuff, but I care more about the actual actions that are being done. Despite what Trump says, the US has not stopped supporting Ukraine.
    polotics · 1790783625 · focus · HN ↗
    Have you noticed the small detail about the application of the sanctions bill that has been signed? Please tell us when you see something out of this bill, and the effect it has on whom.
    timnetworks · 1790827018 · focus · HN ↗
    War is big business. The biggest. My family, in Ukraine, would laugh at your basic level of understanding of the situation on the ground. It doesn't look like we're rolling over any time soon though, so there's that.
    [deleted] · 1790774074 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    smcg · 1790774406 · focus · HN ↗
    The US has materially supported terrorist groups in the Middle East and South America.
    swat535 · 1790774786 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm in Iranian and I have relatives in Iraq.
    United States decided that our children shouldn't have the right to grow up in this world.
    So that, I say, I would rather not take part in any world that United States shapes.
    HappyPanacea · 1790775595 · focus · HN ↗
    > United States decided that our children shouldn't have the right to grow up in this world.
    What makes you believe this great exaggeration? If it was true USA would have nuked Iran and Iraq to kingdom come ages ago.
    tw04 · 1790778509 · focus · HN ↗
    I’m guessing the indiscriminate bombings of schools in Iran and Palestine are probably playing a role in his opinion.
    HappyPanacea · 1790781352 · focus · HN ↗
    Sorry, A single mistaken strike isn't indiscriminate bombings of schools.
    bigyabai · 1790789912 · focus · HN ↗
    Donald Trump has very clearly and explicitly threatened to attack civilian infrastructure in Iran: <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-iran-stone-age-bombing-b2950890.html" rel="nofollow">https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
    Even the most charitable interpretation of this comment suggests that Trump is okay letting Iranians grow up in a country without electricity, clean water and denied any humanitarian aid. You'll note that many defense commentators called this a threat to commit war crimes, which the US has already supported through it's proxies like the IDF.
    timnetworks · 1790826747 · focus · HN ↗
    "When peace comes we will perhaps in time be able to forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but it will be harder for us to forgive them for having forced us to kill their sons." - GM
    I'm not a huge fan of the gay parade tbh, but I'm less a fan of countries that enact policies to hang those that would march in it. The world is moving forward, admittedly not everyone is invited. Sad all around.
  4. bluecalm · 1790774033 · focus · HN ↗
    >>You don't need to have access to super-secret intel to know going into this frivolous war was a very stupid idea. You just need to look at a standard map and use your brain.
    NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte disagrees with your assessment: <a href="https://x.com/clashreport/status/2102671513337856357" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/clashreport/status/2102671513337856357
    traceroute66 · 1790774370 · focus · HN ↗
    > NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte
    Would that be the same Mark Rutte who referred to Trump as "daddy" during an alliance summit and sent him a flattering text message which Trump published[1] ?
    Yeah. Erm. I think we know what side of the bread Mr Rutte butters his toast on.
    [1] <a href="https://apnews.com/article/trump-rutte-text-message-nato-signal-6263810ac3ca77a5bf7366499f51c772" rel="nofollow">https://apnews.com/article/trump-rutte-text-message-nato-sig...
    wat10000 · 1790774965 · focus · HN ↗
    What's the point of this comment? "Somebody disagrees with you"? We know.
    traceroute66 · 1790775272 · focus · HN ↗
    > What's the point of this comment? "Somebody disagrees with you"?
    I'm perfectly open to people posting opposing points of view as long as they are made from an independent mindset perspective.
    Don't just post a pro-war view from a man who we know is pro-Trump.
    Its a bit like saying JD Vance disagrees with me. Well duh....
    bluecalm · 1790775660 · focus · HN ↗
    The is not "somebody" but the NATO Secretary General. It's a good counterpoint to "anybody with a brain can see..." point.
    >>Don't just post a pro-war view from a man who we know is pro-Trump.
    If you are going to discard people who are pro-someone you don't like then you end up with a recipe for an echo-chamber.
    ebcode · 1790785790 · focus · HN ↗
    Look up the paradox of tolerance. The tolerant should tolerate everyone except the intolerant. Trump and his cronies are clearly intolerant. Same reason you can’t let the neo-nazis hang out in your bar. They ruin it for everyone else.
    “It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brain falls out.” — Carl Sagan
    bluecalm · 1790788750 · focus · HN ↗
    Some of the smartest, honest and hard working people I know supported and voted for Trump. We will see how history judges him as a president. My point is not that we should tolerate him out of principle but that you should try to understand his policies and the reason people voted for him twice. A lot of his policies enjoy majority support today as well and most of them are not straight up moronic as HN crowd would like you to believe.
    Here we have NATO Secretary General and people are dismissing his opinion because "quote from random guy supporting Trump doesn't count". It's just ideological blindness/insanity at this point.
    >>Trump and his cronies are clearly intolerant.
    Well for one Trump ended a lot of racist policies of the previous administration so there is that. In some areas he is way more tolerant and sensible than what US had before.
    vouwfietsman · 1790789378 · focus · HN ↗
    Rutte being NATO Secretary General says more about that position than it does about Rutte. He is a serial liar, lacks any conviction or personal moral compass, and sees politics mostly as a professional career meta-game detached from society.
    wat10000 · 1790789431 · focus · HN ↗
    We've been trying to understand for 11 years now! Our lack of understanding does not come from a lack of trying.
    wat10000 · 1790788446 · focus · HN ↗
    "Someone you don't like" is a bad way to describe it. It's not about disliking Trump (although I dislike the guy plenty). It's about the fact that he is, to quote his former Secretary of State, a fucking moron.
    There are smart people I dislike. If someone supports them then I might look askance at that, but at least I can accept that this support might be based on that person's ability to think. Our disagreement is probably based on different values or different understandings of things, and that's useful to dig into.
    When someone supports a profoundly stupid person, it's different. It's either a failure of judgment or it's a cynical ploy. Either way, there isn't a lot to be gained from analyzing the situation.
    vouwfietsman · 1790789556 · focus · HN ↗
    Although I support the idea that Rutte likely possesses a brain, I don't think he's a sensible example as an 'outside view' that tolerates Trump.
    Put differently, I don't think a NATO can exist where the Sec. Gen. disagrees fundamentally with Trump. If that were to happen, NATO would simply cease to exist.
    This is why its a bad example.
  5. jonnybgood · 1790775473 · focus · HN ↗
    > Remember this is a war that Iran has spent 40 years planning for.
    So has the US. But as the saying goes: Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the face.
    [deleted] · 1790776229 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    SideburnsOfDoom · 1790776604 · focus · HN ↗
    > So has the US (spent 40 years planning for conflict with Iran).
    True, but also worthless - the USA fired or retired people who knew the plan (1), and didn't listen to the warnings. It's more "Everyone knows the plan until they punch themselves in the face"
    1) <a href="https://fortune.com/2026/04/05/doge-fired-state-department-energy-resources-bureau-key-personnel-insights-iran-war/" rel="nofollow">https://fortune.com/2026/04/05/doge-fired-state-department-e...
    dcss_gardener · 1790776822 · focus · HN ↗
    Not in the same way I don't think.
    My understanding is that the US's longstanding evaluation is that their strategic goals in the region can't be accomplished by brawling with Iran over the strait, and their best move is to avoid it. The actions of every previous administration align with this view.
    Where Iran's strategic position can be improved by drawing the US into an open conflict. Disrupting global petroleum markets, forcing the US to spend disproportionate resources defending its regional allies or withdraw and admit it can't, weakening the US's influence as a diplomatic power, all are achievable (or, frankly, achieved) with this conflict.
    The US has no comparable strategic wins to even aim for here. At this point their only reasonable goal is restoring open trade through the strait, the status quo before the conflict. Fighting a war to successfully reclaim the status quo that was disrupted by entering the war is, strategically, losing a war.
    jonnybgood · 1790778014 · focus · HN ↗
    What do you mean by open conflict? I don't think you're taking in to account the costs to Iran and Iran's current capabilities. Iran's GDP has already contracted by 10%. We've already seen the most Iran can do.
    traceroute66 · 1790778870 · focus · HN ↗
    > I don't think you're taking in to account the costs to Iran and Iran's current capabilities.
    The US has incurred plenty of costs though....
    Those very expensive billion-dollar THAAD radars of which there are "not many" in the world ? Those are not getting replaced any time soon. IIRC following the destruction they have redeployed the one they had stationed in South Korea, much to the annoyance of the Koreans.
    All those very expensive fancy missiles that have been used ? Expensive to re-manufacture and long lead-time.
    The jets, helicopters and drones the Iranians shot down ?
    The cost of running those ships they have parked off the Iranian shores ?
    Those AWS datacentres ?
    And that's before we get to the broader indirect non-military economy impacts.
    That's the whole point of this war and Iran knows it.
    Yes, Iran's GDP might have contracted 10% but that's nothing compared to what the US has incurred and the impact on the rest of the world.
    > We've already seen the most Iran can do.
    Except as Iran has demonstrated with the entirely predictable Part 2, the Houthis enter stage-left and disrupt Bab.
    So now the US have the mess they created in Hormuz, plus a second front in Bab.
    The only way out of this is going to be the US accepting old-school diplomatic resolution. More guns won't fix anything.
    dzonga · 1790779716 · focus · HN ↗
    yep - very few know or acknowledge the damage the Iran war has done to the US GDP and war fighting (i.e weapons, industry) etc
    largely due the us gvt hiding information, suppressing. e.g all the bases in the Middle East are toast in range of missiles or drones. that means the us will withdraw from them silently.
    weapons stockpiles are almost depleted. and replacing them takes years.
    so 10% of Iran GDP vs that --
    stickfigure · 1790785162 · focus · HN ↗
    I'll take "that" over a 10% GDP contraction every day of the week.
    I really don't think you've considered the scale of these things. Yeah the US burned some billions of dollars and tens of lives. On the scale of the US, this is nothing compared to what Iran is experiencing.
  6. ketanmaheshwari · 1790776589 · focus · HN ↗
    > just look at the map
    I have Google maps open on another tab. Could you clarify what should I be looking at?
  7. stickfigure · 1790780394 · focus · HN ↗
    > So we have a stalemate.
    It's not a stalemate. Best current estimates are that oil traffic through Hormuz is back to 80% of pre-war levels. This is not going well for the Iranian regime.
    ndiddy · 1790786519 · focus · HN ↗
    I saw news reporting about this a few days ago, then in the last 24 hours Iran has hit 4 tankers taking the US escort route with no military response from the US: <a href="https://x.com/UK_MTO/status/2104881435123339274" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/UK_MTO/status/2104881435123339274 <a href="https://x.com/UK_MTO/status/2105229649693266101" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/UK_MTO/status/2105229649693266101 <a href="https://x.com/UK_MTO/status/2105230089768357958" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/UK_MTO/status/2105230089768357958 <a href="https://x.com/UK_MTO/status/2105246915625701554" rel="nofollow">https://x.com/UK_MTO/status/2105246915625701554 . I guess Iran saw the news reporting as well and decided to ramp things back up.
    seemontyburns · 1790787038 · focus · HN ↗
    >oil traffic
    Its funny how the goal posts shifted from traffic to specifically oil traffic.
    > 80% of pre-war levels.
    and what happens when the US NAVY stops escorting?
  8. pfannkuchen · 1790783596 · focus · HN ↗
    > stupid enough
    Or blackmailed enough? People seem to be forgetting about that aspect of the Epstein ordeal.
10. knivets · 1790770197 · focus · HN ↗
  This is living in denial. Lots of Ukrainians didn't believe there's going to be war either. There are already Russian drones flying into Eastern European countries, while the US is lifting sanctions on Russia - you don't have to be a fortune teller to predict where this is going.
  >Iran is losing its grip on Hormuz
  citation needed
  1. lifestyleguru · 1790773077 · focus · HN ↗
    In 2016 I spoke with an Ukrainian in Germany. He was saying the war is in the easternmost regions, he's safe because he's from Kiev area. That's how war works, uninformed civilian never believes it's coming.
11. tejohnso · 1790770682 · focus · HN ↗
  > it has proved that Russia is weak.
  How? Russia is successfully fighting the entirety of NATO on a front that it is continually pushing further west, with about 20% of Ukraine now lost. If anything NATO and the promise of US security is what has been shown to be weak. And I don't think the idea of US/Western superiority is ever going to come back to what it was given what has happened in the Ukraine and Iran theaters in recent past.
  1. intrasight · 1790771125 · focus · HN ↗
    Russia is strong like an ant is strong: strong but insignificant. It only has any significance economically because it has oil and gas.
    Bareja · 1790771621 · focus · HN ↗
    Russia employs modern ballistic and drone warfare to fight Ukraine. USA can't have its way with Strait of Hormuz and Iran because it can't fight against ballistic missiles and drones effectively. And Poland position is... USA will fight against Russia and their drones and their ballistic missiles while at the same time... USA hasn't been able to do it with much smaller and weaker Iran for 7 months now. Iran got control of the Strait of Hormuz and Iran still has the control of the Strait of Hormuz. For 7 months now USA can't do anything about it. How come you are so sure if they can't protect their allies in the Middle East to export oil through the Strait of Hormuz they will be so successful protecting say... Suwalki "Strait" from much stronger and nuclear strike ready opponent? Reality check? I think we will get one.
    mcv · 1790773220 · focus · HN ↗
    Different conflict, though. That's just the US, not NATO. Because the rest of NATO knows very well what an utterly stupid and pointless war that is.
    close04 · 1790773516 · focus · HN ↗
    In all fairness, the US by itself is fighting someone else's war on the other side of the world, in a region that's generally not super friendly to them.
    Russia is fighting its own battle at its own border against an enemy which receives some support from NATO countries.
    US leadership fights to not lose face, Russian leadership loses a lot more than face if they back off.
    someonebaggy · 1790774984 · focus · HN ↗
    Ukraine probably wouldn't invade Russia if Russia stopped fighting tomorrow.
    close04 · 1790778603 · focus · HN ↗
    No, but the current leadership would show weakness for backing out and get shanked at the showers by the future leadership.
    intrasight · 1790775576 · focus · HN ↗
    Russia lost many years ago. They just don't know it yet.
    esarbe · 1790784716 · focus · HN ↗
    Russia is currently in the denial stage of losing a war.
    inglor · 1790774251 · focus · HN ↗
    The US can absolutely conquer or decimate Iran and has explicitly avoided targeting energy infrastructure or doing so (understanding that doing so gets us another Iraq or Afgahnistan) but it's not as if the US can't "take on" Iran it's that the US expected regime change in Iran rather than a dragged out war.
    Iran doesn't need to conquer or hold Hormuz they just need it in missile/drone range - it's not symmetric.
    As for the impact on the global economy - the entire world is letting Iran hold its gas/oil hostage because of something the US did. I'm not sure why those countries don't pressure Iran more they're not at war with them they shouldn't be embargo'd.
    macintux · 1790774848 · focus · HN ↗
    > The US can absolutely conquer or decimate Iran
    Decimate? Sure. Conquer? Absolutely not.
    Iran is a huge country with dispersed command and control and generations of people raised to hate the U.S.
    orwin · 1790778500 · focus · HN ↗
    Not really raised to hate the US, but they do learn in school that the sarin Saddam Hussein used on their parents and grandparents were from US stocks. Which is factually true, even if used as propaganda.
    stickfigure · 1790787889 · focus · HN ↗
    Those people also hate the IRGC; the recent popular uprising was only suppressed by murdering ten thousand people. The regime is not as stable as you think.
    lo_zamoyski · 1790788159 · focus · HN ↗
    Indeed, and that's an important distinction.
    Just war [0] proponents will argue both. For instance, targeting civilians/civilian infrastructure is gravely immoral (the decimation part), but also any armed conflict is unlikely to be successful and thus would be immoral on the grounds that there is no reasonable chance of success (the conquer part). But frankly, in this case, we don't even meet most jus ad bellum criteria, let along jus in bello.
    [0] <a href="https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/" rel="nofollow">https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/
    inglor · 1790791446 · focus · HN ↗
    It absolutely can conquer Iran lol it's a much stronger much better funded army - the issue is _holding_ Iran and what the point actually is. Even in conflicts like Vietnam when the other side had a superpower backing them (or Afghanistan when the Soviets attacked it) the issue isn't grabbing the territory it's the fact holding territory doesn't actually accomplish much and the strategic goal (not having a nuclear theocracy there) isn't met long term.
    intrasight · 1790775850 · focus · HN ↗
    I never said anything about the US's actions to protect anyone. I just said that Russia is weak.
  2. pepperoni_pizza · 1790771426 · focus · HN ↗
    Russia is not fighting NATO, much less the entirety.
    Russia is also not pushing, they actually lost occupied territory in 2026.
  3. microtonal · 1790771941 · focus · HN ↗
    front that it is continually pushing further west
    Ukraine is taking back terrain currently:
    <a href="https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-has-retaken-745-sq-km-precision-operation-this-year-zelenskiy-says-2026-08-12/" rel="nofollow">https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraine-has-retaken-745-sq-km-...
    <a href="https://www.kyivpost.com/post/85252" rel="nofollow">https://www.kyivpost.com/post/85252
    Russia is successfully fighting the entirety of NATO
    It is not. The primary reason that Russia can even keep up is that it has many more citizens that can be thrown in the meat grinder and can work in arms factories and it has a larger industrial base than Ukraine. If you would tell most experts before the invasion, that it would've ended up as it did, they would have laughed their heads off. They would have told you that the Ukraine army would not be a match for the Russian army and they would have told you that the response of the West would have been divided.
    Russia has ~146M citizens, Ukraine has ~29M citizens within land that it currently controls. Russia's estimated GDP is $2.66 trillion, Ukraine's GDP is $225 billion. That's 5x as many citizens and a 10x larger economy.
    A real conventional war against NATO would be a completely different story. Sure, NATO countries would have to catch up with drone production and defense, but a lot of knowledge transfer and co-development is already happening. But NATO's economy and population is several times larger than Russia's. If NATO countries switched to a war economy, it would not be a fair game.
    Of course, Putin knows this and he also knows the real weaknesses: there is a change that not all countries will uphold Article 5 and coordination might end up in a mess if the US would bow out, because command & control has always largely been handled by the US. This is why he is constantly testing how strong Article 4 and 5 are on an escalating ladder. The other weakness are disinformation campaigns through social media, which are working really wel for them, both in the US and in various European countries.
    (I don't think it's useful to talk about nuclear war, it will end up badly for everyone in a population center. There will be no winners, only losers.)
  4. sobellian · 1790772161 · focus · HN ↗
    I am curious how Russian people feel about this propaganda line that they're fighting NATO. It's obviously nonsense, along the lines of "war is peace." Russia borders NATO and there is no front there. Russia invaded a non-NATO country and immediately bogged down against an army that does not fight according to NATO doctrine. I have to believe this is something the average Russian realizes.
    specproc · 1790773556 · focus · HN ↗
    Not Russian, but spent a lot of time out east.
    Russia is reflexively anti-NATO as NATO is reflexively anti-Russia.
    NATO is an alliance that was created in opposition to the Soviet Union. NATO has absorbed parts of the former Soviet Union.
    Western companies pillaged Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union. Rightly or wrongly, Putin owes a lot of his original popularity to dealing with the aftermath.
    Russia, rightly or wrongly, sees colour revolutions as intelligence operations, and territorial conquest.
    Russia cannot accept NATO forces on its borders.
    NATO is providing decisive material, political, logistical, financial and intelligence support to Ukraine, precisely to bog it down and drain it.
    These are all pretty normal perspectives for most Russians. They're arguably pretty based, and not necessarily a product of internal propaganda campaigns.
    The thing that westerners don't get about Russia, and the reason we're stuck in this Godforsaken conflict, is that we personalise things around Putin. We think that if Putin dies, everything will magically improve.
    The decision to invade was Putin's, but the rationale goes much deeper and will outlast him.
    someonebaggy · 1790775082 · focus · HN ↗
    > Russia cannot accept NATO forces on its borders.
    This is such obvious bullshit. Russia already has NATO on its borders, and is attempting to expand it's borders so they will contact even more of NATO.
    c-smile · 1790783960 · focus · HN ↗
    > will contact even more of NATO
    Geography and Istanbul would be agreement to make Ukraine neutral tells exactly the opposite.
    But "let's just fight" (c) Boris Johnson (GB PM at that time). Yeah, why not?
    mopsi · 1790790277 · focus · HN ↗
    Myth: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49078088">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49078088
    tim333 · 1790848499 · focus · HN ↗
    Huh? Geography shows NATO borders Russia in Latvia and Estonia, now also Finland. Ukraine was neutral till 2014 when Russia invaded it. Russia is so full of shit. It's like 1984 war is peace type stuff.
    someonebaggy · 1790853670 · focus · HN ↗
    Their actions show they want to have Poland, Slovakia, Hungary and Romania on their border.
    The excuse is such transparent bullshit it has to be a deliberate litmus test to see who will repeat the bullshit uncritically.
    wiseowise · 1790889159 · focus · HN ↗
    Nonsense. Russia wanted to limit Ukrainian army in addition to neutrality. No sane leader would sign a "peace" like that.
    [deleted] · 1790792123 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
    sam_lowry_ · 1790778466 · focus · HN ↗
    > The decision to invade was Putin's, but the rationale goes much deeper and will outlast him
    Not Russian either but also spent a lot of time out east.
    Putin declared the war as a means of personal survival. The negotiations are possible only if he gets out of the way, and then, it's really important to make a Marshall plan for Russia because indeed lots of reputational damage has to be repaired by the "winners" in the Cold War.
    specproc · 1790804826 · focus · HN ↗
    That Putin has personal investment in this is not under question. I agree, there are things that he won't compromise on.
    Does this mean the war continues till he dies? We could yet wait a long time.
    Say he does fall over tomorrow, there's no guarantee what comes next is any better. Defeat in WWI brought about Nazi Germany. A Marshal Plan would more likely come from China.
    He's had attempts on his life made. Do you think Russia will fall over if that's successful? Look at what's happened with Iran. Would Russia believe he had a heart attack if he had one?
    It would be in everyone's best interests if this war was frozen exactly where it is, now. A continued war in Europe is bad for everyone, and could get much worse.
    sam_lowry_ · 1790847316 · focus · HN ↗
    > Defeat in WWI brought about Nazi Germany
    Defeat of Germany in WWII was followed by Marshall plan exactly to avoid the ressentiment that nourished the Nazis.
    > He's had attempts on his life made
    That's a dubious claim. Nothing that we know for sure. I've seen him hinting at that and at the danger to his family in interviews, but who takes his word for it?
    tim333 · 1790848790 · focus · HN ↗
    Trouble is Putin is not prepared to freeze it where it is now.
    kijashdkujdfhas · 1790785397 · focus · HN ↗
    > NATO is providing decisive material, political, logistical, financial and intelligence support to Ukraine, precisely to bog it down and drain it.
    NATO would not need to provide so much material, political, logistical, financial, and intelligence support to Ukraine if Russia just fucking left Ukraine.
    The drain goes away if they stop invading a sovereign neighbor.
    sobellian · 1790786346 · focus · HN ↗
    I'm not going to say that NATO materiel has had zero effect but I think what Russians (at least those in power) really can't reckon with is that their initial invasion got stopped by Ukrainian AD, artillery, armor, and soldiers operating on the same Cold War stockpiles and doctrine as they did. The single most valuable intervention from NATO was simply alerting Ukraine that Russia was about to invade, allowing the Ukrainians to disperse their units.
    Russia committed to too many (and often poorly chosen) lines of advance and did not have a plan to keep their units adequately supplied and moving on the approach to Kiev. This meant even in the opening month of the invasion, their plan went south almost immediately and you had infamous miles-long traffic jams on the roads leading south. Their SEAD didn't work. Their soldiers were not told ahead of time that they were invading Ukraine. They didn't want to mobilize ahead of time, so they didn't amass enough forces. Against a large country like Ukraine you don't need to invent a NATO bogeyman to understand why the initial offensive failed. Credit to Ukraine, they did not allow a defeatist narrative to take hold and fought.
    wiseowise · 1790889001 · focus · HN ↗
    > Western companies pillaged Russia after the fall of the Soviet Union.
    Western companies, of course. Not oligarchs.
    Please. Must be Western companies that threw orgies, spent hundreds of millions of rubles on parties and buying influence, started bandit wars, and feasted on leftovers of USSR industry.
    yurish · 1790786361 · focus · HN ↗
    > It's obviously nonsense, along the lines of "war is peace." Ukraine is armed in financially supported by NATO countries. Russian propaganda obviously exaggerates this fact. Western obviously propaganda downplays this fact. That's a Russian person's opinion you are looking for.
  5. analognoise · 1790772858 · focus · HN ↗
    > Russia is successfully fighting the entirety of NATO
    Has anybody told NATO yet that they’re fighting the Russians?
    If only we had known, right?
  6. mcv · 1790773054 · focus · HN ↗
    Do you mean a metaphorical front? Because on the ground, it's been a stalemate for the past year or so. Ukraine is often taking back chunks of territory.
    Russia is claiming to fight NATO, but NATO hasn't even shown up yet, but Russia is struggling. If NATO were to go to war with Russia, there would be very little that Russia could do. The one thing they might be able to do is the reason NATO has been holding back.
    tejohnso · 1790788588 · focus · HN ↗
    Last time I was really paying close attention, there was heavy fighting in Pokrovsk, and Russia ended up taking it. Huliaipole was also a major fight. Ended up being taken. Myrnohrad, taken. Siversk, taken. These are all areas where I recall a lot of resistance and weeks or months long fighting. But in the end the Russian side prevails. However, I haven't been paying much attention in recent months. I've concluded that Russia is going to continue executing and will eventually end up with a settlement that they're happy with.
    As far as NATO showing up, they have. To the tune of over 300 billion Euros. I'm not sure how you can claim Russia is not fighting NATO. Zelenskyy is constantly requesting more and more funds and weaponry from the west, because without it, the Ukrainian side would not be able to put up the resistance that they have been.
    mcv · 1790794146 · focus · HN ↗
    Their money shows up, their troops don't. NATO could send their own troops and probably liberate southern Ukraine quite quickly, but they're reluctant to get their hands dirty. The only way Russia is fighting NATO is how Nazi Germany was fighting the US on the eastern front: equipment and supplies.
    And yes, Russia has taken some towns, but so has Ukraine. Ukraine just took Lyman back (again) as well as a bunch of land north of Lyman, undoing recent Russian advances there. It's the same story in many places: Russia spends a year making some small gains and extreme cost, and then Ukraine takes most of it back again.
    It's a stalemate. There hasn't been any significant progress from either side in years. And what Russian progress there is, comes at a steep cost in lives, whereas Ukraine recently took some ground with nothing but drones.
    wiseowise · 1790888659 · focus · HN ↗
    > I'm not sure how you can claim Russia is not fighting NATO.
    I also claim to fight Mike Tyson when I fight his poor neighbor who borrowed Mike’s money.
  7. Aozora7 · 1790773670 · focus · HN ↗
    Russia is on equal footing with a country third of its size that is supported by a small fraction of NATO's GDP. You can barely tell the difference between a territorial control map from 2023 and 2026. Neither side is capable of achieving its goals through military action.
    Ukraine us unlikely to get back most of the territory it lost in 2022, but Russia is also unlikely to even finish capturing the remaining parts of the Donetsk oblast, let alone the rest of Ukraine. It's taking Russia months/years to capture settlements with just thousands of prewar population. Donetsk oblast still has a heavily fortified urban area with a prewar population of 500k under Ukrainian control.
    sam_lowry_ · 1790777911 · focus · HN ↗
    > third of its size
    Russia is about 28 times larger than Ukraine and 10x GDP.
    ambicapter · 1790781736 · focus · HN ↗
    Population-wise, Russia is about 140M+, Ukraine is about ~40M.
    tejohnso · 1790787525 · focus · HN ↗
    >You can barely tell the difference between a territorial control map from 2023 and 2026
    Last time I was paying close attention (maybe 8 months ago) the fighting was heavy in Pokrovsk, Myrnohrad, and not yet in Konstantynivka. Now all three of those are well within Russian control. And that seems to be the story all over the front. There may be some temporary regressions, and occasional slow downs, but overall the Russian side is continually pushing.
    > It's taking Russia months/years to capture settlements with just thousands of prewar population
    They're not moving quickly. That's the way they're choosing to fight the war, and also due to the strength and resilience of the Ukrainian side, along with roughly 300 billion Euros pumped into the war by NATO so far. I don't think the slow methodical approach is evidence of weakness. Taking the average territory capture rate since 2022, the entire Donbas would be under Russian control mid next year. Using only the relatively slow 2026 rates, the entire Donbas would still be under Russian control in less than 5 more years.
    Aozora7 · 1790808208 · focus · HN ↗
    Russia isn't slow because it's methodical, it's just throwing all of the bodies it can buy at the problem, and the small advancements they get is what they buy with tens of thousands casualties per month. This is doing significant macroeconomic damage to Russia.
    Years to capture Donbass is an absolutely pathetic rate of advance for an army that was supposed to be second in the world, fighting a war on its border.
    Ukraine is large and conquering all of it would be a massive challenge for any army, but relative to resources Russia has available to it, its performance is awful.
  8. wat10000 · 1790775863 · focus · HN ↗
    If Russia was fighting the entirety of NATO, they'd lose the war in a week. They're fighting the entirety of Ukraine, with NATO dribbling in supplies to help out. NATO help is absolutely tiny compared to what they could be doing.
12. Bareja · 1790771181 · focus · HN ↗
  Dzień Dobry :-) Poland is very modern on the surface. Very clean. Very safe. And an economic success story. As long as private sector goes and its citizens ambitions it is doing fantastic. However the society is a bit anachronistic. The same goes with the public sector. Yes, you get mObywatel app, and so many public services can be done online nowadays including court proceedings. The problem is quite subtle, not easily seen on the surface. I.e. once you hit issues like, say, divorce, or taxes, or the army mentality, politicians, local government, out of sudden you are transported back to 1960s. Not even 1989 when the communism in Poland collapsed. Like two decades earlier than that. You need to persuade the court you can have divorce. Not like in any other Western country. It isn't sufficient you want one. You need to persuade the court you can have one. When they wrote the law in 1960s it made sense. In communism the Party decided if an individual can have a divorce (in a sense). Not the individual. In the West if an individual says, I want a divorce, they file the paperwork and they will get the divorce. In Poland, nope. You need to persuade the court the marriage can't be repaired. Doesn't matter what you want, the state (the party) knows better when your marriage is over. So they will drag you for months, years every time the judge asking: "are you sure you don't want to go back to her?". Because the state knows better and many people will go back just because in 1960s divorce was the end of the world. Today, in 2026, it is an administrative task. As long as the society lives in 2026 that is. The same logic still persists in polish courts for other cases. Not really anything got reformed in polish court system since 1960s. Other weird things, like lawyers inheriting positions in courts by birthright. Your dad is a judge? Well, you will be too. Your dad works in Ikea as a clerk? Well, good luck! That's not 1960s anymore. That's Middle Ages. The same with Medical Doctors, other public professions. They are inherited. Honestly, the whole public sector stinks. Never reformed. While the private sector -- built from zero and world class. Just saying, it is different deep down than on the surface level. And there is a much deeper problem to it. Historically, Army, in any nation, has been a product of public sector. Not private sector. Anachronistic, corrupted public sector won't produce modern army. It will produce corrupt public servants buying tanks as if it is... 1960s. And that's the real problem that Poland has now with Russian jet drones hitting targets in Ukraine mere meters from the border check points.
  1. lo_zamoyski · 1790787497 · focus · HN ↗
    > You need to persuade the court you can have divorce.
    What makes you think no-fault divorce is desirable? Stable marriages are integral not only to the individual well-being of those who are married, but to a healthy society in general. No-fault divorce is one of the worst developments in the West, because it feeds mediocrity, selfishness, convenience, and self-indulgence. Requiring a grave reason seems utterly sensible. Do vows mean nothing? Are they just nice little lies to tell each other?
    So, making civil divorce more difficult to obtain is beneficial, because individuals are weak, and indeed one of the purposes of the law in general is to teach and to help guide people toward a good life. So, here, by making divorce more difficult, it assists in getting couples to work their issues out. Speaking from experience, I know marriage forces a kind of ultimatum: either ship up as a human being—either keep chiseling away at becoming a better person by becoming a better spouse—or prepare for a miserable marriage. And let's not flatter ourselves: many people choose the latter and reach for the easy way out with divorce.
    Appealing to Western hyper-individualism falls on deaf ears, because we've seen the effects of hyper-individualism. Collectivism is bad, but the extreme of hyper-individualism isn't good, either. Why would you want to replicate the tangible failures of the West in your country?
13. xyzsparetimexyz · 1790772535 · focus · HN ↗
  > Iran is losing its grip on Hormuz
  They are not, and this is a good thing long term.
  1. jonyt · 1790772714 · focus · HN ↗
    It absolutely is. And anything that's bad for a regime that just recently massacred tens of thousands of its own citizens is a net good.
    xyzsparetimexyz · 1790781753 · focus · HN ↗
    Yeah I agree, ICE, healthcare denial and mass addiction are good reasons why the US regime should fall.
14. jonyt · 1790772610 · focus · HN ↗
  Yes: Strait of Hormuz oil flows near pre-war levels as Iran’s grip slips and Brent’s war premium fades[0]
  [0] <a href="https://www.oilandgasmiddleeast.com/news/strait-of-hormuz-oil-flows" rel="nofollow">https://www.oilandgasmiddleeast.com/news/strait-of-hormuz-oi...
15. danfunk · 1790777811 · focus · HN ↗
  Visited Warsaw this summer. Beautiful city full of hope and energy. Can confirm Poland is in full blossom.
16. blini-kot · 1790783525 · focus · HN ↗
  >but it has proved that Russia is weak
  not really, I think.
  To stop the advance and drag it into positional warfare whole europe had to scrape for surplus arms, US provides a ton of munitions and guidance, the financial burden carried by the EU is absolutely insane - Ukarine's military budget is 40% of its GDP excluding direct military aid, etc.
  Of course the war didn't go as to RF's regime boasting, but of all things it actually proved that the regime is not to be underestimated - they are very flexible, can adapt well and are very fast at adopting technology into the field.
  I mean, we know now that they are not as powerful as they marketed - but the only other country who has engaged in a direct war with a peer adversary is Ukraine, and we don't know how prepared every other country is in practice.
  I wish all the best for Poland and Polish people, but I don't think we should hedge our bets on nation-states and the situation around that going forth in 21st century
17. ponkipo · 1790785371 · focus · HN ↗
  > but it has proved that Russia is weak
  does anybody else wonders how this isn't a good old wishful thinking, when with 350+ billions of dollars in foreign aid to Ukraine, all sorts of intelligence and tech help, total and forced mobilization in Ukraine (while only one partial in Russia in 2022), all sanctions on Russia you can think of - even with all of that "weak Russia" after 4+ years of war still controls almost 20% of the Ukraine counting Crimea and it's not really changing?
  or maybe there is a difference between "not as strong as was thought" and "weak" after all?
  1. stickfigure · 1790786341 · focus · HN ↗
    The "not really changing" part is what shows Russia is weak.
    Also, Russia cannot keep this going indefinitely. The West can. There is some question about whether Ukraine can or can't, but from an endurance perspective, there is absolutely no question who has the upper hand. Nobody west of Ukraine is on a war footing, we're all working our day jobs, taking vacations, and growing our economies.
    $350 billion of foreign aid sounds like a lot until you realize the GDP of NATO is more than $55 trillion. We could keep this going forever.
    Russia is spending 7-10% of its GDP, and fully half of its federal spending, on the war. And that probably understates because Russia forces war spending onto localities and companies. This will come to an end eventually; time is not on Russia's side.
  2. ponector · 1790798924 · focus · HN ↗
    If russia is strong why their advance has stalled? Snail's pace for the last few years.
    So advanced military - they use civil vehicles for assault operations.
    So strong they lost the control of the Black sea to the country with no navy.
    [deleted] · 1791063468 · focus · HN ↗
    [deleted]
  3. wiseowise · 1790841249 · focus · HN ↗
    Weak as in “can’t roll over Europe like Nazis did”, not weak as in “lol, a couple of JADMs and they’re done”.
  4. tim333 · 1790847753 · focus · HN ↗
    I think weak compared to people thinking of them taking over Europe. They still have a lot of military though and the result in Ukraine is up in the air still.
18. sleepyguy · 1790786552 · focus · HN ↗
  Russia is not weak, Putin has millions who will run to their death with open arms into Poland. How many Poles are willing to die to stop him? He could send 400 Jet drones into Poland every night, how do you propose you stop him? 10's of 1000's of Russian saboteurs in the EU, how do you find them? You even have Political Parties that want to enslave their own people for Russia. Iran hasn't lost its grip in 40 years, the USA doesn't have the resolve to finish what they started or protect Europe.
  Tell me how you would solve all the other issues, I am interested.
19. rixed · 1790787063 · focus · HN ↗
  Why is it so easy to be a pessimist though? I believe in the 50s and 60s it was easy to be an optimist. Why is that?
  1. nozzlegear · 1790788113 · focus · HN ↗
    It's because you're always on that god damn phone
    /s but kinda not
  2. ponector · 1790799479 · focus · HN ↗
    Because bad and tragic news happens fast and sells well.
    Tragedy in Nepal was everywhere for a week. Advances in vaccination? Diseases cure? Green energy? Not much because it's very slow news.
20. gitowiec · 1790787411 · focus · HN ↗
  Being optimistic does not solves problems.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.