romwell

Being: "they have a choice to stop the bulk of ongoing costs of the war to Russian Federation at any moment, a choice that Ukraine does not have" - with the implicit assumption that the costs of the war to Russia are understood by everyone, and that the cost of withdrawal is significantly smaller.

Of course this ignores the cost of withdrawal to Putin, whose citizens (80% of whom want the war to continue) will have a lot of questions in that case.

Like, what did all the people die for. And why did you withdraw when we were winning, when 4 out 5 of us wanted the fight to go on.

Putin, like any dictator, is beholden to the overall vibe of his populace, because that's the only mandate to power that he actually has.

Democratically elected leaders have the power to decree "do as I say, that's the will of the people; elect someone else next time if you disagree".

Putin can't say that, because there are no elections in the social contract.

Russian leaders only leave the throne by abdication, coup, or death.

The only exception in their 850-year history was Nikita Khruschev, who was officially removed from power after he, himself, dismantled Stalin's cult of personality and brought on reforms that made such removal possible.

He was a Ukrainian.

Comment · 1 year ago

>What are your assumptions, those that would enable a scenario in which the invader decided to retreat? It seems like a scenario that cannot just spawn from the current chessboard.

You mean, the chessboard on which we gave up our nuclear weapons under the promise from the US, the UK, and Russia that our territorial integrity will be respected?[1]

The "chess move" that directly led to this invasion, according to the US president that pushed for it?[2]

Dare I suggest, the scenario in which Russia retreats is the US holding up to its own promises, for once. For nuclear-non-proliferation's sake, if anything.

Even setting that aside, the war is not sustainable for Russia.

Russia is begging Iran and North Korea for help, getting both ammo, weapons, and people to fight the war with from them. Russia relied on NK artillery for a year, Iranian drones for two years. 10K North Korean soldiers are already on the battlefield, 100K more to come.

Ask yourself what price Russia is paying for that.

Realize that Russia ran out of resources to get that ammo and cannon fodder (and cannons) in Russia.

So, one assumption that enables the scenario is actual, real, enforced SANCTIONS on Russia.

- Cut off Gazprom from SWIFT. The share of Russian gas in the EU dropped to as low as 8% last year, the EU doesn't need Russian gas specifically. That share has since doubled. Put a stop to it.

- Make anyone who's helping Russia pay more than what they can get from Russia in exchange for it.

Iran is sending rockets and drones? Iran gets its nuclear weapon research facilities destroyed. Israel is gladly doing that task already. Would be neat if the West got its head out of its collective ass and stopped dunking on Israel in the UN for its own survival's sake.

NK is sending soldiers? Oops they're all dead (getting within Tomahawk range was unwise). Also NK gets a blockade, and any entity that helps them break it gets sanctioned to hell and back. China can feed them at that price.

Speaking of China, any entity that deals with Russia or NK there should be eliminated from participating in global markets. Simple as.

The West has one leverage over that Dictators Anonymous club: ECONOMIC OUTPUT. They have more people, and they don't care about lives. They have more nukes, together, and they make more artillery shells, together.

But on their own, they don't have the resources to fight that war. All the resources went into sustaining autocracies.

The CRINK (China, Russia, Iran, NK) are waging a war because they got fat on beneficial relationships with the West, that they've been rewarded with on the expectation that they would appreciate access to the global economy and the benefits that come with it, and don't do anything to risk losing it -

- like invading a European nation, say.

The expectation didn't pay off. The solution is simple: take that access back.

Stop rewarding bad actors. The West paid them upfront, they didn't hold up their end of the deal.

Russia can go back to its Iron Curtain planned economy. The West was fine without Russia then, it will be fine now.

China can go back to its Cultural Revolution planned economy. The West was fine without China then, the West can manage now. Doesn't need to happen in a day either. Start with cutting off any individual entities in China that touch Russia or NK.

North Korea can go back to figuring out how to feed its own population, rather than making ammo and meat waves for Russia.

Iran can go back to pre-Trump-presidency days. They're the only ones in the club that were pre-emptively punished, which gave the Ayatollahs all the excuses. Bring Obama's deal back, on the condition that all ties with Russia and Arab proxies are cut. Should they reject it, more FO will be delivered as a consequence of the many instances of FA they committed in the past years (including their role in Oct 7th attack).

So, that's some thoughts, for a start.

That's before we get to getting Ukraine some real military assistance. Not even talking "boots on the ground".

Look at what Poland got since 2022. Now imagine what Ukraine could do if it was able to put orders for thousands of HIMARS launchers instead of a dozen it got in 2022. What Ukraine could do with hundreds of F-35 jets instead of a dozen of F-16. What Ukraine could do with hundreds of ATACMS rockets.

What Ukraine could do with the thousands of Abrams tanks, designed to fight the Russian tanks, that the US has rusting in storage and will, in all likelihood, never use, nor have a need for - instead of the dozen it eventually got.

Ukraine could have had all of that in 2022. And if it did, the war would've stopped then.

Ukraine was given none of that gear over the fears that it would push Russia to use nukes. The reality shows that bullies are emboldened by appeasement, and reconsider when met with strength. Military assistance to Ukraine, even in modest amounts, kept the Russian nuclear threat at bay.

So, plenty of scenarios.

The collective will to make them happen isn't plentiful though.

And this is why Russia is getting ahead.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

[2] https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-ukraine-war-russia-nuc...

Comment · 1 year ago

We don't need Russia to "accept defeat".

We need, first and foremost, a guarantee that if the war stops today, that Russia will not launch an invasion for the third time in a few years.

This war didn't start in 2022. They invaded in 2014, and "peace" was negotiated in Minsk. Worked out swimmingly.

There are several ways we can get this guarantee:

-A complete withdrawal and de-nuclearization of Russia, plus referendums held in Chechnya, Tatarstan, Syberia, Yakutia and other Moscow-controlled Republics in the Federation on whether the people there want to continue being a part on Moscow's imperial ambitions, or choose independence.

Side note: Tatarstan had such a referendum in 1992. It would be great if its results were, at last, honored.

Return of occupied territories is a means to an end. The end is peace. If Russia gets rewarded in any way for its invasion with acceptance of its territorial gains, they WILL do it again; the calculus is that simple.

-Alternatively, NATO and EU membership and/or any sort of multilateral security agreement (not a promise) that would guarantee us boots-on-the-ground assistance in case of another invasion, backed by something more than a piece of paper.

Say, NATO stations ammo depots, rockets, warplanes in Ukraine in sealed warehouses, and we promise not to take and use any of that stuff as long as NATO holds up to its own promises.

-Ukraine develops nuclear weapons

That's about all I can think of. Everything else has been tried before. The war started in 2014, and the invasion in 2022 took place after all the nuke-fearing pearl-clutchers suggested was already done.

Funny thing, the only thing that makes Russia use nuclear weapons more likely is impunity, which is exactly what that sort of people is asking for. They are bringing their own doom, and are pulling us along with it.

Trying to, in any case. We won't go. With or without them.

Comment · 1 year ago

Erik Demaine always has some fun stuff for us.

Comment · 1 year ago

>Here's a clear message for you then. I have zero interest in engaging with you further than this message you are reading now. Hopefully the feeling is extremely mutual

With sadness, I have to inform you that we're on a public forum, where I have just as much right to opine on issues as you do — and I, for one, am enjoying our conversation.

That said, instead of making a grand announcement of your lack of interest in engaging in the discussion further than this message, may I suggest not engaging in a discussion you don't want to be engaged in?

It would also do the trick, and spare you the effort.

Looking forward to your further insightful contributions on Hacker News.

Comment · 1 year ago

Seconding this, and wanted to emphasize that I see no issue with your responses or questions (and don't really understand why you've been downvoted either — advice on style appreciated).

As I wrote in the other comment, my point of asking those questions was to get answers from the Russian person who asked what's wrong with them specifically, not from other people (as the subject I wanted to discuss was, ultimately, why people could see well meaning Russians as a threat based on responses to those questions).

But I didn't make it clear (and again, corrections on style were very welcome!), and the points mdp2021 brought up were valid.

As far as I can tell, we didn't disagree on anything.

mdp2021 lacked some of the context, but so would most people, including me prior to the 2022 invasion.

So, dang's reaction seems unwarranted.

Comment · 1 year ago