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. 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.

Open on Hacker News to reply ↗

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.