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. 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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.