Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by starkd 1183 days ago
Strange how you automatically feel the need to support one side and can't see the horrible outcome this has been for all parties. This could have been resolved through diplomacy. You never see the term even mentioned anymore.
3 comments

One side could unilaterally end the war in one word.

Strange that it’s only in the interests of that side that people call for this.

that's not how the world works. Peace deals can happen, but everyone has to put everything on the table. When people dig in and are stubborn, that's when we get hundreds of thousands of deaths.
> When people dig in and are stubborn

Such as when you decide to announce a rushed annexation of your enemy's lands after your army suffers the biggest rout of the 21st century? While claiming that this war isn't about trying to annex your enemy's lands, after all...

Please explain exactly what you think the Ukrainians have "dug into".
Just curious, what are your primary sources of information that have shaped your opinions and perspectives shown in this thread?
Quite a few. I try to listen to what everyone is saying. It always makes me nervous when the media seem to march in lockstep.

Looks into what David Sacks has been saying. He got into it on the ALL-in podcast a couple of weeks ago, but you can find him on Twitter. He says the corruption in Ukraine right now is off the charts. Higher than anything in any corrupt Latin American country. Its difficult to decipher what is going on in Ukraine right now, because there's so much propaganda from all sides.

> Quite a few.

name a top three then, or can we assume that this is "random forwards on FaceBook or twitter" ?

No idea what a random forwards is.

Look at what David Sacks has been saying. There are many benefiting from this war. Neither Russia nor ukraine are on that list.

> Look at what David Sacks has been saying

Is that your top 3, your "listen to everyone" ? One guy. That does not even answer the "top 3" question meaningfully.

One guy: David Sacks; a Paypal and Thiel aligned guy, who unironically calls Russia's invasion "Woke War III" ? Not a geopolitics guy, just a a rich "culture war" guy? This has less than zero credibility to me.

While I am sorry that your information diet is so poor, both in quality and in variety; but I have no interest in you recommending the same to me. Sort yourself out first.

> No idea what a random forwards is.

Do you follow the youtube algorithm then? That would explain this amateur hour.

> This could have been resolved through diplomacy.

Yes, by giving Ukraine to Russia.

We know how it works if you try to appease fascists, come on.

This is a more complex than that. I don't like the invasion, but its not like Russia has no vital interests in the area that is right on their border. And they have occupied Crimea in the past going back to 1776. I'm just saying they have as much national interest as the West does. Israel Prime Minister claims they had a deal that was agreed to but Biden administration turned it down.

It's also the responsible thing to do to look at the prospects of forcing a war though, when the Urkainians are so heavily outgunned. 200,000 Ukrainians have died in this fight. Maybe 50,000 Russians have died (its hard to find out specifics). The US wants to fight this war on the cheap with the Ukrainians taking all the casualties so that Americans won't have to. That is pretty deplorable to me.

Your casualty figures don't seem to line up with most other sources. Any citations?
The sources are all over the place, but they all seem to be horrific. There are estimates that Ukrainian deaths so far could be anywhere from 100K to 200K.

Russians have lost a lot too. But the only thing we know is that they are depressingly high.

> The sources are all over the place

You gave specific figures. From which source, and why choose that one?

What about Ukraine's national interest? Where does that fit in?

What about the Eastern European countries' interests whose combined economies eclipses Russia?

Of course Russia has vital interests all around it: everyone does. But it doesn't follow that "therefore Russia should be allowed to annex everything around it".

Again, we know that playbook, it has played out before in Europe. Today it's Ukraine, tomorrow it's Poland, and your arguments will still be exactly the same: Russia has vital interests in Poland, Russia has occupied Poland before, Poland is outgunned, and why would we care about Poland, really?

And then it's Germany, at which point, again, nothing has changed. Britain and France might use their nuclear deterrence when it's their turn, but if they listened to you, they'd probably say "do we want to end humanity just because we don't like Russia to rule over us? Surely not, humanity is too important to be destroyed over Russia's vital interest to annex whatever is next to Russia" and roll over.

It would end only when Russia invades the US or China, because neither will allow it if their nuclear weapons are still available by then.