Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by SturgeonsLaw 8 days ago
It absolutely is sinister. Everything about the military is, when you decouple the rhetoric from the actions and consider what it is that those organisations actually do.
2 comments

This is a luxury belief that requires the privilege of being unbombed. I invite you to explain this to Ukrainians.
My position is that war is a blight on humanity, and people waging war are committing evil acts. Russia's actions in Ukraine reinforce my view.

I am fortunate enough to live in a country that is not being bombed, and I wish that for every human being.

It's the UK we're talking about here.

To skip the currently political sensitive topics of who is helping who with what, who feels the consequences, what prices are affected because of that, let's go a bit further in the past... for example, UK taxpayers money went for bombing Iraq for the "weapons of mass destruction" when Tony Blair already knew those didn't exist.

At some point you have to ask, is it really for defense, if you're bombing someone a quarter of a planet away? Are you really protecting your people at home by doing that, and are they happy their money is being spent for that instead of eg. healthcare, education, etc.?

And the same UK taxpayer money is now being spent to ferociously defend Ukraine, and in turn European interests. That same UK taxpayer money is spent to promote freedom of the seas for global trade, whether it be the Hormuz, the Malacca Strait, the Indian Ocean, the Atlantic, the Baltic or the Horn of Africa.

Defence spending is only as good as the government that controls it, but you can't be serious if you're discounting the importance of military readiness at all times, given the world we live in.

The UK's military spending has always been much more justifiable, especially given that the country actually spends a lot on education and healthcare too (and I will argue that both of them are some of the SOTA systems in the world currently, in spite of their challenges).

Hormuz?

I mean... UK airforce is literally protecting the skies of the agressor in that war, the genocidal one. Didn't do anything to stop the genocide though.

As someone not from US nor UK, but from a small country that always seems to send a van of soldier a year after the war has started, i'd be much happier if both the brits and the yankees stayed back home on their "islands" and within their borders, I don't want to pay for our soldiers to go to another afghanistan-style expedition again too; it doesn't help us at all to be a part of the agressive occupier, the locals there hate us, and somehow we even leave their local traitors behind (eg. in afghanistan).

Here's one article by someone relevant to this post: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/08/08/israel-has-littl...

Israel has "no choice", right.

You can't just skip the currently present and urgent defence requirements because they're "politically sensitive" and then go twenty years back to support your point.

But even if you want to do that, why don't you go just a couple more years further and argue that Bosnians should've been left to be genocided?

Are you arguing the UK involvement in Bosnia was to defend the UK?
I mean... if you want to go to current times and politicaly sensitive topics, UK is defending the genocide of gazans and the attacks on iran right now by protecting israeli airspace. So yeah, genocide seems to not be a problem for the UK.

Again, nothing to do with defending the british people.

In a democracy, any military action (except fighting pack when directly attacked) should start with a referendum to see if people actually want to pay for that. (it also makes it less problematic for the other side to destroy the infrastructure when fighting back, since it's not just some smiling Tony choosing to attack then, but the people too).

You can't deny Ukrainian military suffers from deep corruption.
Much less than 5-10 years ago, and orders of magnitude less than the Russian military.

The pressures of fighting an existential war plus the demands of the public in a democracy have closed off most typical avenues for corruption, forcing a focus on battlefield results and effective supply to the front-line.

Nobody in the Ukrainian military is advocating for military spending for corrupt reasons, but for the country to remain independent in the face of a Russian military invasion.

> Much less than 5-10 years ago, and orders of magnitude less than the Russian military.

Stop with whataboutism, please. My taxes don’t go to the Russian military, so I couldn’t care less.

I didn’t intend it as a whataboutism, but as an indicator of progress. Not all that long ago the Ukrainian and Russian militaries were virtually indistinguishable, with the same doctrine, training, mindsets, and above all levels of corruption. There’s been a ton of work over the past 15-20 years to reform and modernise the Ukrainian military, especially since the war started.

Corruption is intensely damaging, especially in wartime, and shouldn’t be tolerated. That we’re not seeing many cases of corruption despite the intense scrutiny on the Ukrainian armed forces shows that things are both much improved and heading in the right direction.

That said, I’ve now spent enough time countering what was a low-effort throwaway comment from you in the first place, and which felt less like a valid complaint and more like an outdated belief. If you have any substantive evidence of large-scale corruption, worse than comparative forces, and being tolerated and ignored, I’ll re-engage.

> Not all that long ago the Ukrainian and Russian militaries were virtually indistinguishable, with the same doctrine, training, mindsets, and above all levels of corruption.

This just shows you're not frequent in Ukrainian Telegram scene. The situation members of UAF report there is totally different.

> If you have any substantive evidence of large-scale corruption

The political corpse of Yermak is still warm. Umerov has been named in Mindichgate, as well as Firepoint. It's all very fresh and there has been no resolution. I don't know much more evidence of large-scale corruption you want.

What compelled you to write this? It's just a random point having no relationship to what you're replying to. Why have you typed this and pressed "reply"?
Yes, the military is fed by the one thing all cultures have in common - their susceptibility to warrior narcissism - and indeed in the modern age any military is little more than a criminal murder-class protected by a thin line of paper.

However, murder is meat. Wars feed people. Not often the 'right' people, but the moment one starts drawing another such thin line about who and who doesn't deserve to be fed, the narcissist demon draws closer and so then, is the warrior devil justified.

Anti-war rhetoric is unpopular, it is true - but there is more of it out there than most people realize, or else we'd all be ash already. Warrior narcissists are only given the space for such identity by quiet, humble peace-makers. Get louder about making peace and stay proud about it.

I don't know how you can post something this stupid after the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Well, lets see .. the invasion and destruction of Iraq, the destruction of Libya, Afghanistan, Syria .. the violence in Somalia .. the genocide of Gaza, and now ethnic cleansing in Lebanon.

You can say as many stupid things as you want, until the war crimes are prosecuted, the war criminals will continue to get away with war.

How do you propose to prosecute Vladimir Putin? Will the UK send some unarmed police officers to arrest him?
The only ones who can do anything about their war criminals are the citizens, themselves.

This is also the reason Western war criminals are currently free to continue their heinous blood-shed.

If you want to prosecute their war criminals, you better prosecute yours first, or else the moral cliff upon which you climb is merely a shadow.

Cool. In the meantime though we should do whatever we can to help the Ukrainian military kill as many Russians as possible.