| |
| ▲ | misja111 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | I think he is asking how well the devastating sanctions have been working so far.
Which is a retorical question of course, because obviously they haven't harmed Russia all that much. Actually, they are hurting the EU as well because of the risen energy prices. | | |
| ▲ | sekai 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > haven't harmed Russia all that much Ruble is below a single penny. Interest rates are at 21%, highest since 2003. Inflation is out of control. Not really all that rosy. | | |
| ▲ | misja111 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | In Feb 2022, just before the war started, the Rubble was worth $0.012. Now it's $0.0099. That's a 17% value drop in almost 3 years.
It's true, the inflation is high, but nowhere near out of control. Also, the discussion was about the effect of the sanctions. But the inflation is going up not because of that, but because of the huge amount of Russian government money that's flowing to the military and to the weapon industry. | | |
| ▲ | Terr_ 5 days ago | parent [-] | | > It's true, the inflation is high, but nowhere near out of control. I'm not sure how useful that exchange-rate data is when the Russian government has made it harder to for their people to actually trade away rubles even at a price they like. [0] I'd also expand the time window: The Jan-2022 ruble had already taken geopolitical damage, because of how Russia attacked Ukraine using insignia-less forces in 2014. In contrast, a 2012 ruble was more like $0.30. [0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/oct/31/russia-capital... | | |
| ▲ | misja111 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Well sure, but weren't we discussing the effect of the 'devastating' EU sanctions?
If you want to expand the timeframe all the way back to 2012, then the conclusion must be that the effect of the sanctions on Russian policy has been even smaller ..
After all, it didn't stop them from first annexating the Crimea in 2014 and next trying to annexate Ukraine completely in 2022. |
|
| |
| ▲ | chii 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | none of those things prevent russia from waging war. All of it are merely suffering that the russian citizens suffer, but canwithstand. Russia does not import food, does not need to import fuel, and can import most consumer goods from china and bypass western sanctions. Therefore, russia's gov't can allocate most of their internal resources for war production. | | |
| ▲ | aguaviva 5 days ago | parent [-] | | It's not so much how much they "can withstand" (under the absolute worst of circumstances), as opposed to how much they are wiling to withstand given that, on a certain level, most of them have to understand that the war is basically optional for Russia. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | sabbaticaldev 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | look, if someone looks like they are losing a war in the beginning, middle and the end act of it, I wouldn’t have much faith that extending it is the best solution to finally win. | | |
| ▲ | llamaimperative 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Tautological The Nazis were mopping the floor with Europe until they weren’t. The Japanese were conquering Asia until they weren’t. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | But obligatory reminder, that back then there were no nukes. So it is not exactly the same situation. | | |
| ▲ | llamaimperative 6 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Eh, MAD brings us back to equilibrium. It's a significantly more dangerous equilibrium, for sure, but we should be much more afraid of a nuclear accident (not reactor meltdowns but accidental weapon launch) than of purposeful use of a nuclear weapon. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 6 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, the result is the same, no? If one rocket flies, chances are, they will all fly. |
| |
| ▲ | lpcvoid 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Russia will not use nukes. If you believe they will, then they have you exactly where they want you to be. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 5 days ago | parent [-] | | So how do you know that? Why wouldn't russia use a tactical nuke in west Ukraine to destroy tank factories? They already are a international Pariah, that is why they align with North Korea. The only answer is - to remain the last standing they have. But at some point, they might not care. It is dangerous to put someone with nukes in a desperate position. Putin would not survive retreating from Ukraine - he would be in a desperate position if the odds of war are against him - currently they ain't. | | |
| ▲ | aguaviva 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | Why wouldn't russia use a tactical nuke in west Ukraine to destroy tank factories? Because the Biden administration communicated to its regime (in late 2022) that this would definitely trigger a massive kinetic response. In particular it indicated that its ground forces in Ukraine would be utterly destroyed (as Putin knows it is very much capable of doing). | | |
| ▲ | lukan 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Talking and doing are not the same thing. Geopolitics is like Poker, who is bluffing and who is calling it.
You are saying only Putin is bluffing - well, I do read russian military blogs/telegram chats. Spoiler: they also think Biden is bluffing. Don't you see, how this can turn out wrong? | | |
| ▲ | aguaviva 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Anything can happen, and people say all sorts of stuff online. But from the fact that the warning was expresed privately, and using carefully chosen language (unlike Putin's warnings, which are generally aimed at the public sphere, and are full of bluster) -- and considering, again, that the US is fully capable of carrying through with its promise in this regard -- it seems likely the message was received as intended. Could still go wrong, but the likelihood of things going wrong by not promising any sufficiently serious consequences at all to Russia's regime if it actually deploys nukes seems to be (unequivocally) far greater. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 5 days ago | parent [-] | | If the warning would have been really private, you would not know about it. Since you know about it - it was apparently rather a public statement as well. We both don't know about the real backroom deals and what exact words are used there. What are the real red lines that are communicated behind the curtains - most of those statements are just show. Part of the game. I am pretty sure, that Putin would like to remain in power and not radiated. But I would not bet on it. There are rumors he is sick - and sacrifice and suffering is somehow part of the russian mentality. | | |
| ▲ | llamaimperative 5 days ago | parent | next [-] | | The threat is public so people like you can go and sow fear because Russia itself has been revealed as a paper tiger. Kleptocracy can only take a modern civilization so far. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 5 days ago | parent [-] | | "because Russia itself has been revealed as a paper tiger." I see, you have personally checked the russian nukes and found they are all worthless? Or have access to top secret informations confirming that? Otherwise it seems a bit out of this world, to claim the country with the most nukes on earth is a paper tiger. And the russian conventional military is far from a paper tiger as well. That tale comes from the fantasy, that Ukraine is facing russia alone. But the whole NATO is supporting it. Without NATOs weapons and money, Ukraine would have been russian since over 2 years. But yes, I do have fear. But more from people like you, who look at reality in a way, that fits their ideology. Just assume for a moment, you are wrong. What would happen as a result, if the people in command would think like you? | | |
| ▲ | llamaimperative 5 days ago | parent [-] | | No, you don't need to check the nukes. MAD still works just like it has for decades. It's inconvenient but this was where we had to wind up the moment we split the atom. People knew the moment we split the atom that this is where we'd wind up. > And the russian conventional military is far from a paper tiger as well. Lol okay. > Just assume for a moment, you are wrong How about you assume that you are wrong, and you are volunteering for a world where once a nation acquires a nuclear weapon they are allowed to run roughshod over the entire world, raping whoever they want, torturing whoever they want, and cowards will just line up and beg the victims to allow them to continue? Do you hear yourself? The alternative here is not sunshine and rainbows. The alternative is an even more vigorous race to nuclear weapons from the most vicious regimes on the planet and more horrific crimes committed and excused under nuclear blackmail. If Russia launches a nuke, they are the criminals. Not the people who stood up to them and "forced" them to do it. Russia has all the agency in the world. They could turn around and march back to Moscow today. How about you go do your "peacemaking" beggar appeasement routine on VK and tell Russians to tremble in fear of the United States deleting their civilization? | | |
| ▲ | lukan 5 days ago | parent [-] | | "How about you assume that you are wrong, and you are volunteering for a world where once a nation acquires a nuclear weapon they are allowed to run roughshod over the entire world, raping whoever they want, torturing whoever they want, and cowards will just line up and beg the victims to allow them to continue? Do you hear yourself?" Yes, I can hear myself. And I never said anything like it. And I doubt you can point to where I said or wrote such things. All this thread was about the question if russia would use nukes. It is telling, that for you just the realisation of this possibility, automatically assumes surrender. Well, not for me. I am a strong proponent of weapon delivery and training for Ukraine. Despite the chance, that russia might use a tactial nuke. Rumors have it, that at the succesful Ukrainian Cherson offensive 2 years ago - there was serious fear in russian command and increasing pressure of using a small nuke, so much that some western agencies saw the chance at 50%. If the offensive would have moved on towards Krim, then it likely would have happened. And this still did not change - russia (beyond Putin) is very unwilling to give up the Krim. And I can see worse outcomes, than the Krim remaining russian. Or do you just want the rule of international law and criminals must not be rewarded for aggression?
Yeah, I would like that, too. But before demanding total victory over russia for the sake of law at the risk of an allout nuclear war, I see some other chances of improving international law. For example doing something about turkeys conquering. Or Aserbaidschan. Or get the US to abolish the hague invasion act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Service-Members%27_Pr.... Or look at some other allies. Etc. | | |
| ▲ | llamaimperative 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Nobody here believes it's not possible that Russia could use a nuke. They're saying it's unlikely and it shouldn't dictate our decisions. It seems like there's not an actual disagreement here, so have a good day. | | |
| ▲ | lukan 5 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, this thread for me was literally about: "Russia will not use nukes." https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42197260 | | |
| ▲ | llamaimperative 5 days ago | parent [-] | | "The United States will not fill the Colorado River with gasoline and light it on fire." Would you embark on some argument about how technically they might actually be able to do that? | | |
| ▲ | lukan 5 days ago | parent [-] | | I am interested in arguing about real things. It is real, that russia made nuclear threats and expresses increasing frustration that their threats get ignored. It is also real, that many people, also here, say the threats are completely empty. And I am sceptical about that claim. No idea how your gasoline river fits in that reality. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | aguaviva 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | [flagged] |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | 5 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | [deleted] | |
| ▲ | pvaldes 5 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Putin would not survive retreating from Ukraine A most interesting question is: Would survive Trump? |
|
| |
| ▲ | actionfromafar 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Neither is now the situation exactly that having nukes, means you can tell everyone to back down and do exactly as you say or else. |
| |
| ▲ | meiraleal 6 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | The nazis won many wars even tho they lost the big one. Will NATO win against Russia? Who knows. But in the showdown NATO/Ukraine vs Russia, they lost. | | |
| ▲ | llamaimperative 6 days ago | parent [-] | | “NATO/Ukraine”? I am literally giggling at the absurdity :D Get a grip. Russia is getting bombed every day and doesn’t even hold all of its initial territory. It is not clear who will win this. It is extremely obvious that Russia would be crushed within days by a confrontation with NATO (but this conflict almost certainly wouldn't materialize due to nuclear weapons). | | |
| ▲ | justin66 6 days ago | parent [-] | | > It is extremely obvious that Russia would be crushed within days by a confrontation with NATO (but this conflict almost certainly wouldn't materialize due to nuclear weapons). It's interesting the extent to which people haven't internalized this. Russia's industry has really ramped up on military production in the past two years, and their military will eventually get to the point where it can cause tremendous damage against a poorly-equipped Ukraine, through attrition. But the invasion revealed how far behind they are technologically, and a combined NATO force would turn off their entire military's command and control on day one of a real conflict. It's an inversion of the situation forty or fifty years ago, when Europe had to rely on the the nuclear threat because the Russian conventional forces were considered to be overwhelming. |
|
|
|
|
|
