I'm in downtown Kharkiv, Ukraine right now (SaaS founder born in Canada). Woke up to explosions at 5 AM this morning. At 12PM still some explosions, can feel the ground shaking, but the streets are mostly calm. Went out to buy some groceries, long lines, but everything still works. Police cars are out patrolling in full force, but no signs of unrest. Church bells tolling nonstop. TransferWise is limited to $200 USD transfers but it worked -- Apple Pay worked at the grocery store. Obviously internet and electricity is still up for now, but water pipes have been shut off in many of my friend's places.
Good luck. My girlfriend is Ukrainian and has been working on her family's evacuation plan as well all morning.
There's an interesting contrast between this comment and your previous one from yesterday, and she shares how you feel. She was taken aback by how this "came out of nowhere", even though it really didn't. Up until this morning, she didn't believe an invasion was possible.
Romanian here.
Our government said we could host up to 500.000 refugees.
I doubt we could do that, but I'm sure they have enough spaces right now for all reffugees.
The news is that no ukrainian refugees want to stay in romanian provided places at the moment -- they either have relatives/friends where they'll be staying with or they immediately want to go to wealthier countries in Central/Western Europe.
That could probably change as more ukrainians flee -- those desperate and those that have no friends or means to travel to other parts.
I've seen footage of ukrainian mothers WALKING for two hours to the border with their children, it broke my heart.
I'm reading Eric Schlosser's Command and Control right now (1). Housing becomes quite elastic in the face of bombing. Fred Iklé actually developed a formula based on WW2 Germany for RAND:
Fully compensating increase in housing density = (P1 - F) / (H2) - (P1 / H1)
* P1 = Population of city before destruction
* P2 = Population of city after destruction
* H1 = Housing units before destruction
* H2 = Housing units after destruction
* F = Fatalities
The tipping point seemed to be reached when about 70% of a city's homes were destroyed. That's when people began to leave en masse and seek shelter in the countryside.
Glad you're geographically in a position where you can help. You should start a gofundme or something on here so that people can send you money to help the people you encounter.
My great grandmother walked from Ukraine to Germany with my grandmother who was a little child when world war II happened. Unfortunately my great grandmother was killed in Germany by the Stasi who said she had jumped from a window. My grandmother knew better because she saw and our whole family knows what really happened now.
I am now sitting in my car at the border at Medyka. I have been here all day. I am helping two Ukrainian women evacuate, and I will bring them to safety deeper into Poland. Traffic is at a standstill on the Ukrainian side, so these two women have had to continue on foot for the last 26km over the border. It is cold, and they are hungry, and they are carrying luggage. I have seen small children walking and dragging suitcases behind them.
It’s a real crisis.
There are humanitarian aid workers here, and mainstream media from around the world. You might see me standing in the background on NBC today; not sure. I don’t see much in the way of housing facilities here at the border, but there are buses constantly shuttling people from the border over to the nearest larger town.
To what extent do you feel that the sense of security there (disbelief this attack would happen) stemmed from the belief that Western interests would serve as an effective deterrent? Or do you attribute it to something else?
I'm ashamed that my government (Australia) has done so little in response. 10 days ago the government was touting how they'd offered online cybersecurity training for Ukraine. It would be laughable if it wasn't so tragic.
There should have been far greater support with defenses in place to effectively mitigate the risk. Did the West seriously take Putin for his word that he would respect Ukraine's borders and is the best we have in response sanctions? On top of that, Biden said that personal sanctions against Putin are still on the table [1]. Not done already? Doesn't this effectively amount to a green light to the effect of "Yes we're pissed, but its ok, just don't do something really crazy and we won't punish you personally".
I'm really sorry you've had to leave your country. I don't suggest troops or NATO getting involved. I don't have an answer that is better, but I'm pointing out that the lack of planning is simply astonishing. It's tragic that the people of Ukraine are paying for that.
I wish your girlfriend and her family a safe and timely evacuation. It is heart breaking how normalcy can turn to a hot war so fast. Hopefully it doesn't keep escalating, but there is absolutely no reason to stick around and find out.
People underestimate how quickly a tense situation can turn to horror. My mother told me people in ex-Yugoslavia were going to their cabin to wait for it to blow over at the dawn of war. Even while it's going strong they underestimate just how bad it is; for instance in the middle of it (like 3 years in) you keep thinking it's gonna pass sooner rather then later. Then there was a bit of a lull and people thought it was over, life coming back to normalcy - hence why we hadn't fled yet, and why I was born in that period. Before you know it, it gets worst then it's ever been, literal hell on Earth and you're trapped for it, with army and blockades at every exit restricting movement and catching deserters. We were lucky to be in a region where it was possible for my mom, my brother and myself to get out (pretending you're going next town and some bribe money, but you obviously can't pack your things and show blockaders that you're getting the fuck out) and reach an embassy to seek asylum (unlike poor souls who were stuck in hell holes like Sarajevo or god forbid Srebrenica). If you're a man it's even harder as you're a deserter in some warlord's conflict, my dad couldn't have escaped his nth drafting without savvy trickery, and we know for a fact he wouldn't have made it out alive if we didn't turn on a dime and bail.
Obviously not the same situation, but if people in ex-Yugoslavia were able to justify sticking to it for years, expecting it to blow over and not see how the whole situation was a powder keg, it shows how easy it is to miss war turning for the worst, let alone when it's lurking over the corner.
I can vouch. Everyone was ambivalent about a war then I woke up one day in Sarajevo and the building across the street was on fire, and the city was surrounded. The next few months until I got out were nuts.
My mom loves to tell the story of how we went to the capital to pick up new faucets on sale on the day that war started in Slovenia. Essentially triggering the Yugoslavian wars.
My parents knew that war started that morning but they were really cheap faucets. Wouldn’t want to miss the opportunity.
But the civil war in the Ukraine has been going on for 8 years, 12k people have died over this time and the shelling has been fairly continuous over this time with only short lived cease fires. So what has been happening is already similar to Yugoslavia.
However, what is happening now is very different. This is more like when the US attacked Libya and it was over in two weeks.
My point wasn't how similar or different these conflicts are, I hope it didn't come off that way as I don't wish to start such a debate, the result is people suffering needlessly either way. But my last sentence with regards to war lurking may have been off-base if that's your point.
I just meant to point out, using my family's experience and in response to GP's girlfriend's "out of nowhere" comment, how easy it is to not recognize the seriousness of a conflict as it is starting and even as it's been ongoing for years.
Putin won't care, he will most likely install a regime of Ukraine nationals. As Putin talks of nazis and the need to "purge": this time less like Yanukovitch, more like the brutal Chechen Kadyrow. very depressing
I don’t see Putin being able to build the organs of a pro-Russian state in Ukraine, even a repressive one. The population is far too hostile to the idea, and too militarized.
In my opinion the more likely outcome if Putin doesn’t stop is Syria: total collapse, the civilian population flees and only militants remain.
It can be that but there is also denial, which is a slightly different mechanism. From Jared Diamond's "collapse":
"For example, consider a narrow river valley below a high dam, such that
if the dam burst, the resulting flood of water would drown people for a con-
siderable distance downstream. When attitude pollsters ask people down-
stream of the dam how concerned they are about the dam's bursting, it's not
surprising that fear of a dam burst is lowest far downstream, and increases
among residents increasingly close to the dam. Surprisingly, though, after
you get to just a few miles below the dam, where fear of the dam's breaking
is found to be highest, the concern then falls off to zero as you approach
closer to the dam! That is, the people living immediately under the dam, the
ones most certain to be drowned in a dam burst, profess unconcern. That's
because of psychological denial: the only way of preserving one's sanity
while looking up every day at the dam is to deny the possibility that it could
burst. Although psychological denial is a phenomenon well established in
individual psychology, it seems likely to apply to group psychology as well."
In this specific example, it could be that people who chose to live under the dam were already unconcerned with the dam bursting. People who had concern have moved farther from the dam.
Yeah it could be.
Diamond doesn't seem to have given a citation, and unfortunately I haven't found his source, so not sure if there is evidence about that.
"Hindsight bias, also known as the knew-it-all-along phenomenon, is the common tendency for people to perceive past events as having been more predictable than they actually were."
It surprises me to hear that residents were surprised. Among everything else, the most alarming/clear warning that a serious safety threat was looming was when Russia's diplomats started leaving the country. That strikes me a pretty certain indicator of imminent and real danger.
Not only that, but the reports of a huge chunk of the Russian military moving towards the border is pretty much all the info you needed to know. I doubt the Russians can afford to mobilize their military to have it pull back as a bluff.
I don't know about "a bluff" but this happened in mid-2021 and did not precipitate an immediate invasion.
> In March and April 2021, Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered the Russian military to begin massing thousands of personnel and equipment near its border with Ukraine and in Crimea, representing the largest mobilization since the annexation of Crimea in 2014. This had precipitated an international crisis and generated concerns over a potential invasion. Satellite imagery showed movements of armour, missiles, and heavy weaponry. The troops were partially withdrawn by June 2021.
My mom is in Ukraine, I'm in California, but don't know how to get her out. What is the evacuation plan? Drive west? She's in Kharkov, and I'm afraid it's more dangerous to make the drive to Poland or Moldova than staying put.
I am genuinely curious. Did she not trust Biden's warnings? Or did she think the media was overblowing it?
The "media" gets a bad rap, but I think we have reached a particularly bad place if the general public is so distrustful of it that we can't use it to communicate about very serious public safety matters.
I'm not from the Ukraine but there has been news of something like this on a regular basis since 2014. It's kind of like South Korea/North Korea. On a near weekly basis there is big news about something bad potentially happening.
The belief that Russian mercenaries in the Donbass would be eventually relieved by conventional forces has been around since then, yes. Many were surprised by the fact that it was not happening, year after year. At some point the consensus in policy circles was that Putin must had decided to keep the area as a wild-west buffer.
The recent deployment near the border wasn't the first, although it was definitely an order of magnitude bigger - there were, in fact, questions on whether the exaggerated scale was so brazen and disproportionate (and unbalanced - their Asian border is now pretty weak...) that it couldn't be anything more than posturing.
Except Putin has been negotiating with all the other western leaders to avoid this for the past couple weeks, and each one basically failed. Doesn’t that seem different?
This isn't my point. My point is the GP said this has been forecasted for many years now so people stopped paying attention. However, these talks with other nations ARE new and were highly stressed as important to avoid war. That hasn't been the case for years now.
It was forecast for many years, the question many have is why it took as long as it did, I'm still not sure about that. I think it was maybe because Putin was counting on Trump winning re-election that he thought he had plenty of time.
As for the talks:
They were instrumental in getting away with the attacks, Putin played that for all it was worth, taking a leaf right out of Hitlers playbook.
I don't see what is unhinged about it: it was a pretty closely contested election and it could have easily happened. Which would give Putin a chance to do this without any fear of interference. Brexit certainly helped him as well.
So you're still pushing the crazy conspiracy theory that Trump was Putin's puppet?
The more likely explanation is, IMO, that Trump was just unhinged enough to actually do something, unlike the mellow Biden, who'll obviously just sit and wait (or, well, sleep).
Trump praised Putin at every turn (even did that again today and called the invasion "smart"). Went against NATO. Had closed door meetings and got rid of the transcripts. Asked that the US ambassador to Ukraine be fired. Wanted dirt on Biden in exchange for releasing the (congress-approved) military aid to Ukraine. And so on. An entire book could be written on this based only on public information.
Trump has an anti-war, contain the bully platform.
He introduced new sanctions for Iran and killed one of their highest ranking officers. Precision strikes instead of wasteful wars.
Turkey and SA are US allies, Trump just continued that long-standing policy, as does Biden.
> And even if you don’t believe that, Trump is currently okay with the invasion.
Quote? Trump said Putin's "pretty smart", which, judging by their progress towards Kyiv, and the lack of response by the West, well, you can't say it's not smart (at least in the short term... long term, remains to be seen).
For you and parent commentator: the topic of the thread is Ukraine's invasion by Russian imperial forces.
Let us not devolve into the Rorschach test that is Trump's administration and our personal interpretations. It serves no purpose but to feed relative trolls.
> I don't appreciate the gratuitous insult that we can't objectively discuss the actions of a past president.
Regardless of any point made on the subject, what one side considers objective, the other side considers biased and tainted. Your rejoinder on the existential insult (though a consequence of human nature) is noted -- and your wish shared that we could exist with any real semblance of objectivity. We primates aren't objective creatures when it comes to arguments that at least one side has turned its axioms into articles of faith.
For the record, I expect we agree substantively on an analysis of Trump's presidency, both in terms of motivations, outcomes, and impacts.
Also it appears the metadata of the video of his speech just before the attack indicates it was actually shot 3 days earlier, which illustrates even further that any resemblance of negotiations were just smoke and mirrors.
Or... you pre-record both 'attack' and 'no-attack' speeches ahead of time, because you know the actual moment will be very stressful and you won't have time.
'Negotiations as misdirection' makes literally no sense. Who would he be misdirecting? Nobody is coming to Ukraine's aid.
If he said for example a day earlier "I will attack" NATO countries could have moved a few troops to protect their embassies pre-emptively, which would have likely been a very shrewd de-escalation, as attacking NATO troops directly would have risked an unintended escalation.
After he has attacked, he has the initiative, and can threaten ww3 if any NATO troops enter the combat zone, and a few troops are not much use anyway.
> 'Negotiations as misdirection' makes literally no sense. Who would he be misdirecting? Nobody is coming to Ukraine's aid.
The US waited until the actual invasion began to impose serious sanctions. Misdirecting for a few days could easily have bought Putin enough time to make arrangements for both his personal and national finances. That's idle speculation on my part, but it doesn't seem terribly unlikely.
exactly right. fx levels, bond sales, gold stockpiling, this was planned for years in advance, in anticipation of financial sanctions. he has a very, very assymetric risk/reward in this war.
If Putin actually wanted to avoid invading a sovereign nation in violation of international law, all he had to do was... not invade a sovereign nation.
How is demanding the end of NATO via an outside party having veto control over membership "negotiating"?
It's very obvious that his demands are impossible. Putin is really a master at playing people. It's kind of shocking people are _still_ falling for it.
The problem is that for Ukrainians the threat has been near constant since 2014, 8 years now. So people have heard the "news" thousand times before that invasion could happen any day now, and it did not happen... Until today.
They didn't have 200k troops and tons of military gear amassed around their borders for 8 years. It's hard to believe anyone who's been paying attention to the buildup would've thought they're there just to chill out.
Or conversely, when you have a flappy monitoring system that constantly complains about non-problems and half-problems, it gets very hard to notice when an actually serious alert is firing.
It's not entirely true. Someone who lives in Eastern Europe these border drills and threats are normal and go back to 10 years and more.
Obviously this time they were better equipped infrastructure wise that the western agencies clearly said they were but for an average citizen it was "the same as usual".
Isn't this partially why armies are routinely sent out on "war games" or "joint manoeuvers?
You're never sure whether the Chinese submarine is "exercising its rights to international waters" or is preparing for a strike; or the US-Swedish troops are just making friends with each other or getting ready to invade.
That's totally apart from the obvious "sabre rattling" bit.
Even if that’s true, Putin straight up announced he’d be sending troops into the two rebel controlled regions a few days ago. That’s a pretty obvious sign that this time was different.
Like, I get that the previous buildups could be dismissed as saber rattling and training exercises, but Putin literally announcing, "HEY I'M COMING IN, I'M SENDING IN TROOPS TO UKRAINE NOW", how do you dismiss that?
Isn't this a war between brothers, after all? I want to hope that Russian soldiers will stop in front of the babushkas that obviously will never leave their houses, and show some compassion.
That kind of humanity is of course much harder to experience when bombing or using drones, but I do not know if they're being used.
The NYT are running interviews w/ Russian citizens; w/ the premise that a lot of them are perplexed as to why Putin ordered all of this, especially bc there are a lot of friends/relatives cross border.
So far Russia's done precision strikes and is simply rolling troops down roads. They won't encounter much resistance.
A month (or more?) ago Zelenskiy said he's not sending Ukrainians to die. Today there's a lot of tough talk but there's no indication that Ukrainians will put up a fight and die en masse...
According to a friend of mine who served as a flight engineer in the red army until somewhen in the nineties your post pretty much nails it.
He called a former Ukrainian colleague today. According to him Russia obtained complete air souvereignty today. Ukrainian air defence was destroyed by sea-launched cruise missiles. Regular Ukrainian troops are not fighting. They leave their weapons behind and go away. High ranked russian staff promised not to chase them. To the majority of Ukrainian soldiers it just feels not right to shoot russians. So Russia covered a lot of ground today without firing much. Extremist formations on both sides and Russian mercenaries are the ones who do real fighting.
This is consistent with the media insofar as you would usually expect: x killed troops in y, z troops caught, strategic installations damaged etc. You cannot get these reports if one side literally throws their guns away and goes home.
In my friend’s opinion Kiev will fall within the next few days if not tomorrow, the government will either flee or get captured and he joked there will be elections next week.
This is very false, there have been forces deserting, but not in any significant numbers.
While in the morning, attack was sudden and situation looked very bleak for Ukraine, towards the evening, army has been more or less mobilized and started to take back territory.
Unfortunately, the worst is to come.
>In my friend’s opinion Kiev will fall within the next few days if not tomorrow, the government will either flee or get captured and he joked there will be elections next week.
Not to deminish that they're people but that's basically a weekend in Chicago... For a "full scale invasion" it's nothing and would indicate that there won't be much resistance.
Because the media and everyone make it sound like it's about to be trench warfare and then urban warfare for years and the original parent I responded to implied soldiers would be gunning down babushkas...
It's bad but it's obviously modern warfare and there likely won't be massive casualties because the Ukrainians aren't marching to die since the west already abandoned them.
We were told Russia would be rolling tanks through the mud and fighting in trenches... Lots of propaganda.
And an hour ago I watched Biden say sanctions are as bad as missiles SMH...
Anyhow, the west abandoned Ukraine, I really doubt too many Ukrainians are eager to die for nothing.
Just the most absurd line of argument from OP -- there are tons of videos of dead Ukrainian soldiers, burned out tanks/APCs, videos of indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilian centers, jets firing on residential buildings, cruise missiles striking civilian airports, at least one video of a child on a bicycle being hit with a mortar.
Because the confirmed number of military KIA in the first hours of the war is only "several dozen" it's "a weekend in Chicago". Just incredibly ghoulish.
What would you have suggested? and the consequences of say putting US or NATO troops in Ukraine?
I agree we should have an even stronger response to Russia right now in terms of just completely crushing their country economically. And perhaps provided more air defense weapons.
But I wouldn't take a bet that Putin wouldn't call our bluff (of troops sitting in Ukraine). And if it's not a bluff......
Precisely. It is revolting some of the sentiments on HN regarding this make me sick.
To believe that Ukrainians will just let their country be run over is naive, what bugs me is that they are left to hang in the wind rather than that they receive help, that's the one thing that Putin really fears right now judging by his performance earlier, clearly aimed at persuading the public in the West that he would rain nuclear destruction on any country that decides to interfere.
Because they are under the - in my opinion mistaken - belief that they will be able to deal with this using sanctions and external pressure alone. For some reason people seem to want to believe that the counterparty here is rational even if all of the evidence is against that.
It is very much like the run up to World War II, when countries were making all kinds of deals with Hitler regarding neutrality because they believed that that would keep them out of the firing line, when in fact it enabled a war on a much larger scale than would have ever materialized if the allied sphere had immediately struck back. But even the United States only responded after Pearl Harbor. So, now we have a real problem, and the people of the Ukraine get to choose between abandoning their country, fighting back or living under the Russian jackboot for as long as it takes to plunder their country.
Well, I'll be frank: between nuclear holocaust and Ukraine going back to 1989, I pick the latter. Sucks to be Ukrainian right now, I know, but this is the time to be smart: France was overrun in a month too, and looked pretty pacific under occupation for a pretty long time, but eventually...
You mean good enough to buy NATO-grade American weapons, surely. But anyway, obviously the allegiance matters - if anything because they already got troops and missiles deployed there, so the risk for Russian assets is too high - you can hit St. Petersburg from Tallinn with little more than a fishing boat.
Besides, there is no reason for Putin to claim those, nor a real strategic value. Ukraine has value: the pipelines, the coast, the Dnieper, and the example for Belarusians not to get ideas once Lukashenko goes. That it would remain a Moscow satellite was basically the agreement post-1990, this makes it more explicit. Sucks for self-determination and all that, but again, avoiding nuclear holocaust is probably worth losing the occasional battle.
I'm going on the assumption that you haven't visited those countries or you would realize that the sentiment runs a lot deeper than being allowed to buy NATO grade American weapons, those countries have Russian occupation in living memory and very much won't go back to those days without a fight.
> Besides, there is no reason for Putin to claim those, nor a real strategic value.
The strategic value of Lithuania or the North of Poland for Russia can not be underestimated.
> Sucks for self-determination and all that, but again, avoiding nuclear holocaust is probably worth losing the occasional battle.
It isn't the West that is threatening nuclear holocaust here, Putin did just that on live television and if that threat works this time I don't see any reason why it would not work the next.
Historically appeasement of dictators never ends well, I don't see why this would be the exception.
> you would realize that the sentiment runs a lot deeper than being allowed to buy NATO grade American weapons
Oh but I referred to sentiment at the other end of the alliance.
> if that threat works this time I don't see any reason why it would not work the next.
Eh, I don't completely disagree, but the risk/reward calculation of invading a full NATO member with deployed military infrastructure is undoubtedly different - if anything because the stay-behind capabilities in those areas would be very difficult to uproot.
> Historically appeasement of dictators never ends well
The luxury of getting rid of dictators in certain countries by swinging a bigger club, effectively ended in Hiroshima in 1945.
France was invaded because the liberals in France and UK refused to act against Hitler when he first invaded Poland and Austria, or when he and Mussolini supported Franco's coup d'etat in Spain in 1936, crushing a popular anarchist revolution and destroying any notion of hope across Europe for the decade to come.
France/UK argued that helping elected governments (or people's militias) against their invader could ignite war spreading throughout Europe, so they would rather not irritate these angry dictators. Where did this strategy get us? It's hard to imagine just how different Europe (and probably the rest of the world, for better or for worse) would be today if the western powers had intervened at that time.
It's also worth noting already at the time, social-liberal democracies from the USA to France were very unwelcoming of refugees from the nazi regime. Let's make sure to make them welcome no matter what our governments say, there's quite empty housing for everyone!
> No, France was invaded because they didn't shore up their Northern border.
Technically correct, yet completely misses the point. If you don't want to be bullied, don't let someone bully anyone else. To be clear, i'm extremely hostile to any colonial Empire (Russia/USA/France/etc) and i'm certainly not a fan of military intervention.
My point is not to compare modern Russia to the nazis, but rather that this laissez-faire policy in regards to military invasions of sovereign territories doesn't exactly have a history of leading to a more peaceful situation overall (see also: France in Mali, USA in Iraq/Afghanistan, China in Tibet, Turkey in Bakur).
Some of their country, probably yes. All of it, including Donbass and the coast, probably not. After all, anybody who felt strongly about the Donbass was already there fighting. Ukrainians might well decide that they can live with a landlocked country, if the alternative is annihilation.
Russians are literally driving on Kyiv as we speak. 3 million people live there and it's the seat of government. I'm not sure what to tell you if you think the Ukrainian military is going to abandon the fight.
And I imagine that many places would rather opt out of becoming another Chicago. "This is nothing, people elsewhere have it worse" can be applied to a majority of the world's population. It's a useless argument.
The Ukrainian army was 400k strong and quite experienced. They're badly out-teched, especially in the air warfare department, but they will make it up with morale - they're defending their motherland.
Russian army just does what it's been told. They're risking their lives to make a select few oligarchs a couple billion richer each. They don't want to be there.
If this doesn't end within a week, it'll take years. Putin knows this, hence the offers of unconditional surrender.
In this case, the western intelligence organizations were spot on from several weeks ago. Biden played it as well as he could, reserving some further sanctions until this happened. I lived through the "Iraq has WMD" build-up and lies, and I thought they were lies then, before we went in and found out there were no WMD. This was good intelligence.
Unfortunately, it does no one any good. All we can do at the moment is sanction Russia. But it does argue that we should be prepared for a nuclear response if they cross any line west, as long as Putin or some other madman is in power there.
My understanding at this point is that Russia has destroyed Ukraine's air defenses and has complete air superiority. Western forces could contest that, but won't because that could cause unintended escalation.
Of course he did. And he'll threaten the same thing the next time wants another piece of Europe. There's zero reason to believe him; he wants to live too. More importantly, the vast bureaucracy that supports him wants to live.
He's quite literally 'all in', which also means that he has nowhere to run now, Russia is from here on forward until Putin has been replaced, either from without or within a pariah state.
I reckon Biden made one big mistake, and it was to pressure the Germans to block NordStream2. This pre-dates recent events, the pipeline has been effectively ready for a pretty long time - it had long become clear the "technical" delays were anything but. It irritated the Russian kleptocrats, who live off Gazprom, making a military move over Ukraine much more likely.
I live in an independent country thanks to NATO and EU. This place used to be Russia's back yard for 50 years. I'd like it to remain not-Russia's back yard, thankyouverymuch.
if tanks show up in estonia, latvia and lithuania, will you say 'but they're too small and not worth much?'
you don't have to be the head of intelligence to understand importance of ukraine, even if it isn't technically our job to defend it. Germany, UK and Italy have scored an own goal, as has US policy of russian reset. zero upside, heavy downside, bad trade.
Unfortunately, I'm afraid that that will be exactly the response. If that happens NATO is done for, but the fact that today Germany is one of the two countries that stop stronger sanctions against Russia is a strong sign that Putin will get away with this and more if we let him.
Nothing I disagree with, Germany's reaction is pathetic. I'm also very concerned with Italy, didn't expect that. I hope they'll sort this out. Only thing left.
Countries tending to their own border security isn’t a matter of “good” and “evil.” Russia has far more basis for invading a rapidly arming country on its own border than the US did for invading Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam or Korea.
"Russia has far more basis for invading a rapidly arming country on its own border than the US did for invading Iraq or Afghanistan or Vietnam or Korea."
Ukraine's attempts to prepare against invasion do not justify said invasion.
Russia has no basis for this at all, hence all the pathetic excuses they've been showering the gullible with.
And yes, it's evil, and no, it has nothing to do with their border security, that's a ridiculous suggestion, in the same vein, you would be ok with Russia annexing Poland, Lithuania, Finland or Estonia because they are armed and bordering Russia.
Sure, that must be it. Russia has a perfect right to encroach on whatever territories border their nation because they can't handle having sovereign nations at their borders. And of course after that they get to do it again.
Call me what you wish, but it's not true. If you're done then log off and stop spamming your replies to every single comment in this thread, and leave some space for any other opinion. You're just ranting
I won't be told to shut up by you or anybody else for that matter, nine years on HN and this is what brings you out to comment with a bunch of disinformation? Pretty clear which side you are on.
That's not the case. But anyway, after a night to clear my head I realize this is an emotional time for everyone, and I'm sorry for stirring you up. I was reacting to my own things. I definitely don't support this war, nor any further bloodshed. I wish for peace, and peace to you as well. Have a good day
I'm happy calling initiating a completely preventable conflict that nobody wanted that has resulted in the deaths of 137, 17 of whom are Ukrainian civilians, and 316 wounded evil. There's no meaningful moral difference between what Putin did and outright murdering 17 people. He knew innocent Ukrainians (and, for that matter, innocent Russians) would die and didn't care.
Well that’s not how anything works. E.g. how many babies might be saved by Russian economic development from having access to the sea through Ukraine? At this scale the moral calculus isn’t easy.
War has led to plenty of development through history, and development saves babies. Do you think Italy or Germany would have been better off as bickering principalities, without Giribaldi or Bismarck? Do you think China would have been better off as a bunch of warring states?
I agree on Iran but this is different. We could have sold steel and fuel to the Germans and Japanese in WW2, but we didn’t because they were engaged in something evil.
The Germans were engaged in the holocaust, which was evil. The Russians are invading a sovereign country to replace the government, which the US has done twice in as many decades.
Massing weapons in what sense? Not in any way that poses a threat to Russia, and the reason they were increasing their arms is because of the obvious threat Russia poses to them.
What is so weird about these things: every time you read a history book you go like 'Oh, I recognize that', and then it plays out exactly the same. This whole wave of isolationism and so called neutrality was an important factor in why WWII went as far as it did, if the world had stood united against Hitler/Germany from day #1 he would have had not nearly gone as far.
No, Eastern Europe is Europe's 'backyard', and in fact it isn't a backyard. Romania, Poland, the Baltics, Hungary, Czechia, and so on are all solidly part of Europe.
What are you taking offense to, his idea that Russia and Eastern Europe are neighbors (which seems objectively true)? Or idea that the US should not involve itself in Eastern Europe-Russian disputes?
The term backyard implies a proprietary relationship, Ukraine isn't part of Russia's backyard and hasn't been for a long time now, and in the minds of the Ukrainians has never been part of Russia's backyard. The fact that the OP believes this to be so belies even the most basic insight into the reality for millions of people in former USSR countries who have in living memory what it means to be part of Russia's backyard and what the price to them would be if those days were to return.
Calling Siberia or Kamchatka Russia's backyard might be accurate. But just like Canada isn't America's backyard neither is Ukraine - or any other former USSR vassal state - Russia's backyard.
Neighbors is an entirely different term.
As for Europe-Russian disputes, there is such a thing as NATO, which was good enough to be relied on after 9/11, I take it that it is still in force? If not can you point me to the news that I apparently missed?
Words mean different things to different people. Personally I have never heard "backyard" as in "in my backyard" used that way. A slang dictionary yields this:
>An area nearby to a country or other jurisidiction's legal boundaries, particularly an area in which the country feels it has an interest. https://www.yourdictionary.com/backyard
Which seems spot on, I swear I didn't just write that myself. The WSJ even went so far as to call Equatorial Guinea (in West Africa) part of America's backyard: https://archive.fo/8UjYC
"In my own backyard" would connote what you are saying, but there's an extra word "own" there.
That's fine, but the implied sentiment was that if there is trouble in Europe's 'backyard' that we're on our own, loud and clear. Isolationism worked so well against mad dictators the last time we tried it, I'm sure this time around it will all be peachy.
I’m explaining my context for why I think your point is wrong. As I recall, you’re from a little European country that thinks it has inviolable “sovereignty.” In reality you exist because Germany or France haven’t wanted to take you over recently. Countries exist amongst each other in a state of anarchy. Bangladeshis are just closer to that reality. We haven’t had as much time to cloud the reality with fantasies about “international law.”
This is certainly a ... reductionist view on geopolitics.
Not only does this assume everyone in the thread is American, but also completely disregards the sovereignty and historic significance of many Eastern European countries.
You mean realist. A country’s sovereignty matters only as much as it’s ability to defend it (or the willingness of someone else to do so out of their own interests).
My own country only exists because India wanted to get back at Pakistan and helped us in our independence war. If they hadn’t, we’d still be part of Pakistan—which would be what it would be.
Nothing is Russia's back yard. Russia is the back yard. Russia is the graveyard of civilization, which has no claim to anything outside its miserable, ruthless territory.
I would rather die than live in a shithole under Putin.
The only madness would be not using nuclear weapons against Putin if he crosses NATO lines. If he wants to die rich, he can live a long life. Otherwise let him die with his missiles, and his daughter who dances.
Russia isn't going to cross NATO lines. Even if they do, NATO can defeat the Russians without nuclear weapons. I can't believe I have to say it but escalating to a nuclear war is a horrible idea.
There's still the hope that nobody, not even an imperialist Putin, would be willing to risk the total destruction of his own country if not of human civilization over some territorial ambitions.
I would say, so far Putin is proceeding rationally. He prepared his economy for this over many years, made strategic agreements with opponents of the West, and slowly built up a force which will now take a neighboring country using classic military techniques and massive imbalance of power.
Maybe the word that better describes it is 'systemically' or 'meticulously'. When I am in a mood to get drunk, I will prepare by buying the alcohol, invite friends, prepare the food, and then get myself piss drunk. Not sure if the world 'rational' fits ill conceived plans that are just well executed.
Word! The backyard of a sad Mafia of outdated old Russian men still stuck in the 20th century. As things stand my guess is this lasts about five years and ends with some nuclear exchange over Europe, assassinations across the West and East, and prude dove China slowwwwly crawling east, then south, north, west.
Biden played it like shit. If they had never warned of war maybe Putin could have saved face.
Instead Biden antogonized Russia, pledged support to Ukraine but didn't actually do anything. They sold out Ukraine. They wanted Ukrainians to do what, fight and die? What good was US intelligence? The US isn't doing shit...
> What do you want the US to be doing? Are these actions feasible?
Nothing because it's too late. But had the west given some concrete promises to Ukraine, I don't know at any time in the last few years, do you really think Russia would have invaded?
> How exactly did he antagonize Russia?
Really? He kept threatening sanctions, kept saying the invasion was happening... Even Zelenskiy told Biden to stop...
Edit - now Biden is gloating about being right, talking about sanctions but not helping Ukraine
Edit2 - Biden's press conference is so bad SMH... Hahaha Biden just said the sanctions will be just as bad as Russian missiles are to Ukraine. Clown world...
> Nothing because it's too late. But had the west given some concrete promises to Ukraine, I don't know at any time in the last few years, do you really think Russia would have invaded?
What specifically do you mean by "concrete promises"?
The US has been sending military aid to Ukraine for years. Trump tried to withhold it but was eventually forced to send it anyway, it was a pretty big story:
Threats = antagonizing. If he knew the invasion was coming, he should have DONE something.
So he made a bunch of threats then publicly said he won't do anything... Do you think this helped the situation? Even Zelenskiy told him to STFU.
They could have stationed troops in Ukraine. Or they could have taken NATO membership off the table. Or done any number of things but they literally did nothing except threaten sanctions.
Then Biden went on TV to gloat about being 'right' after giving up Ukraine... SMH
saving face would've been withdrawing and saying "What's this dude talking about, dude's nuts, that was just routine training exercises, there's no war in Ba Sing Se." Instead he did exactly the thing Biden said he was going to do.
Putin is trying to conquer a country because someone gave the heads up on his alleged plans and his feelings are hurt? People do not give Putin the credit he deserves and thus Putin plays them.
Fwiw, my Ukrainian friend DMed me two days ago saying he was tired of the media “fearmongering”. Then a few hours ago he sent “oh shit, war has started”.
I think people just genuinely didn’t think Putin would call everyone’s bluff and be willing to eat all the economic sanctions.
In fairness, it's pretty nuts if you're just an ordinary person, to believe someone would be insane enough to invade your country for virtually no reason.
I try to think about this by putting myself in Putin's shoes but i keep drawing blanks. I only see downsides to the invasion and no upside from the perspective of Russia. I must be missing something huge that has a value > than the cost because the cost, in all terms, is very very high.
I think he is gambling that he can "Shock and Awe" his way across Ukraine in a few days with minimal casualties. And then quickly install a new government or declare Ukraine a Russian territory.
This is probably why he gave such a strong warning against NATO intervention (re: veiled nuclear threat), he doesn't want anyone interfering with that initial push, which could then lead to a long drawn out conflict.
And this is also probably why Trump, Tucker and other hard right leaders and factions are still parroting pro-Putin propaganda. If "Shock and Awe" works, then the "post-war" narrative is going to switch to something like "See that wasn't a big deal, the media was just scaremongering, the Ukrainian people did not want to fight, and prefer to be a part of Russia. Everyone needs to chill out and move on."
This is not to say that I don't think Putin is crazy. But just trying to read between the lines, I think they think they can get away with this. After all they did invade Crimea with little pushback. On one hand, I hope Ukraine will pull through, but on the other hand, I do worry that the longer this draws out, the further we get away from Putin's playbook, and then more erratic he will be. But if this thing is over in a few days, watch for the right wing to start pushing for a quick return to normalization with Russia.
Pretty much everywhere[1]. "Far right" is more accurate than "right wing". But tldr, Putin and Russia have been building ties with far right and evangelical parties and groups across the west for the past decade or two.
An example of this tie between far right and the putin-russian narrative seems to be the reporter Patrick Lancester on various social media sides, that reports the conflict from inside the "seperatist regions" but in english and for the western audience. I don't know whether he's been pushed, though. From the very few of his hundrets of videos I saw, I feel like he's genuinly believing what he's reporting. I don't know whether he is pushed, but I believe it's possible that he's getting supported. Even unbeknownst to himself through "crowdfunding".
The gamble is that the west will back off and leave him in possession of Ukraine, as they did with Crimea. Then he can gradually extend control over other encircled states to the north of belarus. More counties to loot, more resources to share with his friends. Absolutely zero personal consequences for him.
He’s quite happy to sacrifice the lives and prosperity of millions of Russian people if necessary in pursuit of this plan. He’s quite happy to preside over chaos and destruction and call it peace.
Putin won’t stop until he is stopped with force and he has very clearly stated his long term goals - the expansion of the Russian empire for his profit. He has not been subtle about this, the invasion was planned at least weeks ago and the signs were all there:
You say that now, but would anyone believe a few years ago that Putin could suborn US democracy (The republican president calls him a ‘genius’ after this attack and is visibly subservient when they meet), fund the Brexit campaign and encourage an ambivalent policy in the EU?
His stated goal is to reconstitute the USSR. One route past the nato problem would be to fund opposition groups in these states, poison opponents and induce them to leave NATO prior to invasion.
If he is allowed to take Ukraine he will not stop there.
> I only see downsides to the invasion and no upside from the perspective of Russia.
Not everything comes down to dollars and cents. The Russian president spelled out in his speech that he believes that Ukraine has always been a region of Russia, and never an independent state, and therefore he believes it has no right to an independent existence. The motivations are mostly in historical terms, even if there are economic gains for Russia in the end.
Also, an authoritarian state like Russia using its military might to shut down a nascent democracy like Ukraine is a pretty powerful narrative for the pre-emininence of the former type of government over the latter. There has been quite a bit of solidarity on this subject between authoritarian governments like Russia and China in recent years.
Once you have as much as Putin, have toadies listening to your every whim and reinforcing every paranoia -- its easy to just start doing stupid things. Small people do it all the time, at smaller scales, big despots go big. Thats why the most important thing is to keep term limits. Power increses expotentially with time in office.
The cost to the Russian people is high, but the cost to Putin and his entourage is yet another toothless freeze on overseas assets (the ones they know about), some irrelevant protests in Moscow, and a hefty increase in oil prices.
Isn't oil price increasing good for Russia though? Their oil isn't as cheap to extract so price increasing multiplies their profit very significantly if they can find a buyer.
The sanctions being levied against them will impair their ability to sell to a large portion of the world, including current (well, now former I suppose) trade partners in Europe. While they could try to undercut the global price in order to make their oil more appealing to remaining trade partners, it's going to be a challenge depending on how the current and future sanctions develop to even get to market.
A quick search gives this as the answer to who their largest oil buyers are: China, the European Union, South Korea, India and Japan.
China will do what China wants here. But South Korea, Japan, and the European Union will end up being harder to sell to, if possible at all, in the near future. India is a toss-up, depends on how they decide to participate in all this.
Russia made a deal with Ukraine like 30 or 40 years ago that Ukraine wouldn't join EU or NATO.
For unknown reasons Ukraine started to want to join EU and/or NATO.
If Ukraine joins NATO then Russia would be basically surrounded by NATO forces.
The biggest issue here is that USA has been placing rockets near the borders of Russia in NATO countries and these rockets just happen to face Russia. If Ukraine joined NATO, who's to say that USA wouldn't place rockets there's as well and thus have an incredibly huge reach into Russia.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a pacifist, if I could I would remove all militaries, there's really no reason to have them, since I believe that with rational conversation you can solve any and all issues.
But a fact is still a fact even if you don't like it...
I've been waiting for ten years and am still waiting for my country to legalise marijuana.
Everyone just needs to chill~
Can't we just pass the joint around and be friends?
So I’ve heard this rocket argument for a long time, never been presented with verifiable sources but I’ve also though that it seems plausible that the US would and indeed have done this. So if we take this as fact, which I’m not saying I do, but if – wouldn’t invading and annexing Ukraine basically inch Russia even closer to these missiles? I see Poland and Romania right there, and they are in fact NATO members are they not?
Also, what strategic value does Ukraine have, that for instance the Baltic countries (also NATO members) do not? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I can’t shake the feeling that the “Russia doesn’t like NATO and Ukraine becoming a member is a bridge too far” argument feels more like a straw man than anything else.
I’m probably just too dumb to get it, so if someone more enlightened would like to clarify why invading Ukraine helps the Russian anti NATO effort I’d be much obliged!
It really doesn't. The strategic value is in securing the coast for good (Crimea was still kinda exposed), clearing up the wild-west they themselves created around Donbass, and providing a new avenue for gas pipelines, effectively neutering any Ukrainian leverage over Russia forever and ever. The NATO-expansion argument is just propaganda, not even the Russians really believe it.
I don't think NATO-expansion argument is propaganda, but I do agree that that's not the reason for Russia's actions.
That's mostly because in terms of NATO war isn't allowed, thus generally speaking there's isn't a lot of reason to be scared of the huge army that NATO represents.
What's really annoying to me as a coder and gamer is that, strategically speaking what Russia did was logical and expected. I'm speaking from a point of view of if this was StarCraft, EU4, CK2 or Civ5. And from that point of view, my biased monkey brain is telling me that if US left the EU alone, there wouldn't be a possible WW3 brewing...
Mildly interesting note, my father is studying Multinational law thing and we were talking about the role of NATO, the function it serves. We got to that topic because my argument was that my country (Slovenia) should either stop having a military or focus on having few but very specialised units, because as it is now, it's mostly just a waste of money, that's because we've got a population of ~2 million and about ~4-7k military units, depending on how you count them. Regardless, it's a number that compared to other countries is not even note worthy. Which is why my argument was that our military in its current state is a waste of money. BUT because we're so small we don't really have air forces, which is where NATO comes in. Because we don't have air forces our air is protected by currently Hungarian forces and the ones from Italy a few years ago.
What I was trying to find out with the conversation with my father was, if there's a way to gain the protection of NATO without having an army. But sadly that's not possible, because too be in the NATO, you have to have an army... There also UN which could protect you, but there response isn't guarantied and the response time is much longer then NATO. Thus ima way you're kinda forced to have an army...
I would still prefer removing our army, I mean... We've got pretty lakes and nice mountains, also good wine, why would anyone want to attack us? :D
The US continued to keep NATO around, despite the end of the Cold War in the '90s, because it's a huge program for the American defense industry. NATO membership requires a country to have capabilities with certain standards, which largely force them to buy American weaponry. As such, they would never consider full membership for an army-less country, except maybe in very exceptional circumstances (the Vatican? Lol).
But I agree that in the modern world, conventional armies tend to be a massive waste of money. It's just that occasionally a Putin-level threat comes along, and at that point you'll be glad you have them.
I'm not "enlightened", and you can draw your own conclusions. But they don't have to annex Ukraine, they can just mess it up and cripple its military. At the least, Putin's stated aim is "demilitarization" of Ukraine.
As for the comparison with the Baltic states, I would note that this entire situation evolved over decades. Perhaps Russia would have more strongly opposed NATO membership for the Baltics had it been in a more powerful position when that was happening. Perhaps they thought that NATO-expansion would stop there.
A lot has happened in the past 3 decades and some patterns are much more clear now than they were back then. One that Putin has repeatedly pointed to is that the USA is continuously supporting overthrow of governments that it doesn't like, even in the case of democratically-elected Yanukovich in Ukraine.
Maybe Putin is paranoid to think the same can happen in Russia, maybe not. But I think in his view, maintaining the nuclear deterrent with the West is an existential concern, like it had been for the USSR. Having NATO missiles and bases in Ukraine is clearly a step in the wrong direction for that concern.
I'm not saying that this justifies war or that Putin is right. I just think that Putin perceives himself as a cornered rat, and that from this perspective his actions make a lot more sense than just seeing him as deranged or a power-hungry demagogue. This perspective is laid out more fully in this talk by John Mearsheimer if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4&t=120s
This is obviously a very sensitive topic at this time, and I hesitate even to post this comment. But I think everyone should be free to draw their own conclusions.
that's your opinion, and you're welcome to it. But it's not fact, and none of us are in Putin's head and know what he thinks. This is simply one perspective
> For unknown reasons Ukraine started to want to join EU and/or NATO.
Could it perhaps be related to the fact that they were promised neutrality (also by Russia) in exchange for giving up their nuclear weapons... and then Russia invaded Crimea anyway?
The Ukraine NATO talks were the direct precursor to the Crimea invasion and were ongoing before that. Russia has black sea navy assets in Crimea and per NATO, Ukraine couldn't support Russian military assets in the country while simultaneously joining NATO. Russia needs them there, so they took Crimea proactively to preserve their naval position in the event Ukraine joined NATO.
It's not an argument, it is well documented fact. A cursory reading with any detail of the 2014 crisis will mention this. Russia has it's only warm water port in Crimea as per an agreement between Russia and Ukraine upon Ukraine's independence from the USSR. Ukraine joining NATO means Russia must withdraw from that port. This is militarily not an option for Russia, so you get the annexation of Crimea.
Putin's shoes but i keep drawing blanks. I only see downsides to the invasion and no upside from the perspective of Russia
That's your problem. Putin doesn't care about Russia. This invasion has nothing at all to do with the economic or strategic well-being of the nation of Russia. This has to do with the preservation and expansion of the political power of one single man and his oligarchal cronies. The rest of the country can burn as long as they hold power.
Exactly. Like I tried to explain to someone here earlier today: stop using Russia as your reference point, switch to Putin as your reference point and it all makes a lot more sense.
Biggest mistake the West has made is thinking that soft power will work with Putin. He just doesn't care. Sanction some oligarchs and he still goes home to his palace like nothing ever happened.
NATO has been steadily moving in towards Russia, picking off ex-Soviet satellite states one by one, and withdrawing from the treaties that kept the EU safe:
This was one of the pivotal moments:
"US President George W Bush, in 2002, pulled the US out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, which banned weapons designed to counter ballistic nuclear missiles."
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49198565
It has nothing to do with NATO, it is just another lie invented as excuse to invade. Here they still have it on the kremlin website:
"I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners."
And? That statement occurred 4 or 5 months before the USA had withdrawn from the ABMT.
I don't know enough about Russia's changing attitudes towards the USA: how much of it was hope that they could work things out together to jointly oppress the rest of the world; how much of it was biding time in a weakened state before they could mount a plausible defence against the USA.
But it does seem probable that the prospect of being left without the possibility of firing nuclear weapons at the US while staging bases are set up ever close to Russia would be undesirable to Russia.
Do not take from this that I am defending Russia's actions. I have no interest in either a US nor a Russian Imperium and think that the Ukranian right to manage their own affairs without being attacked is paramount. The same way that I believe that Venezuela and Iran have a right not to be attacked.
NATO did not move towards Russia by its own desire, as you imply.
All the neighbors of Russia have always known that one must expect that Russia will invade them at the first opportunity, so they made efforts to join NATO as it was obvious that like Ukraine, they do not have enough resources to fight alone against Russia.
Entering NATO was not easy for them, because the main NATO countries imposed a lot of conditions and the new NATO members had to actually unofficially pay their membership with billions of dollars in contracts awarded to companies from various old NATO members.
The NATO membership was not a free gift and it was paid dearly precisely because the new members were those who wanted the NATO expansion, to be protected against the Russians.
It was not the old NATO who desired the expansion towards Russia.
Moreover, calling the new NATO members as "ex-Soviet satellite states" is an insult. They have never been satellite states by their own will.
All the countries from the Eastern Europe are states who have been invaded by the Russians during WWII and where the Russians were able to install puppet governments and steal whatever they wanted as a consequence of the agreements between USA and Great Britain with Stalin.
The states from Western Europe have paid their freedom from Hitler with little of their own money but mostly with what was not theirs to give, i.e. with the countries from Eastern Europe, which were given to the Russians.
It's surprisingly common take in these times. Climate change? Fearmongering. Covid? Who's going to be scared of the flu? And obviously Putin's danger is made up by media, at least until today.
I don't think the accuracy rate for these predictions will be too good but plenty of people seem to think otherwise.
The West has mostly lived in peace and prosperity since 1945. It is hard to come to terms with the fact that this is not a natural state of events. I think this has led to a certain sort of hubris, that everything will turn out well and we don't have to make the hard decisions.
But plagues and pandemics were a thing in the past. So were wars. And man-made ecological disasters.
To me, fearmongering is something specific. People fearmonger about climate change when they act like nothing can be done or that no action will be good enough. It's a form of nihilism. COVID, same deal - people who spent months trying to use shaming and guilting of people, at the expense of those who got sick who weren't being reckless/antivax/whatever are fearmongerers. Those who are just concerned and aren't acting as a mouthpiece - very different. Let's not do a 180 on the social acceptability of being an asshole; there are upper and lower bounds to be observed.
Climate change is real as is COVID, but the "fearmongering" part is, that the people who are telling you to take it seriously (politicians, top 1%, celebrities) are not taking it seriously themselves (partying without masks, flying private jets to Davos, ...).
Therefore, while climate change and COVID might be real, most of the proposed solutions are completely fake.
It's definitely an interesting place where we're at. I personally no longer believe anything mass media says, I lost all faith in them a number of years ago. They no longer have the ability to influence me, whether for better or for worse.
I think I'm justified in having these beliefs, and some portion of people might agree with me, while another portion might call me an idiot, but the reality is that no matter how objectively "right" or "wrong" I am in having these beliefs, the fact still stands that the end result is I no longer believe a single thing mass media says. If they ever do have a legitimate, "true" message they need me to receive, whether about Ukraine, or Covid, or whatever comes next, they no longer have any ability to influence my thoughts or actions.
At this point I feel standard mass media has become so institutionalized, so corrupt, so completely politicized, that there's not even reform possible; the whole system has to be torn apart and replaced with some new system, before I'll even consider listening again.
>why should she turn to America’s president for information?
Because he has the World's most powerful intelligence agencies behind him?
I know, children and propagandists will say "but, what about Iraq?" or some-such.
But most serious people know that we generally hear about the relative few intelligence failures versus the multitudes of successes, and that the U.S. and its allies unquestionably wield the World's foremost intel services.
And, here, we have the benefit of hindsight so we know unequivocally: our intelligence had it right and "she" would have done well to "turn to America's president for information".
1. Keep your passport on you at all times. It's your best protection against official soldiers (from every side), although it may not help against unofficial militias. Stay away from them.
2. Make sure your embassy knows where you are at all times. You are their problem.
3. If you can, make your way quickly and quietly out of Ukraine.
4. Avoid posting things like this publicly. It draws attention to you and puts the people around you in danger.
Good tip on the embassy, but beyond that, you should know "getting out" isn't exactly easy right now. There are no flights, a curfew is in place in several cities, all trains and buses are fully booked. If they don't have a car, repatriating any time soon is probably beyond the realm of their possibilities, Canadian or not.
"Canada temporarily suspends operations in Kyiv. Due to the rapidly deteriorating security situation, the Canadian Embassy in Ukraine has temporarily suspended its operations in Kyiv and moved to an office in Lviv. Canadians in need of consular assistance in Ukraine should contact Global Affairs Canada’s 24/7 Emergency Watch and Response Centre (EWRC) in Ottawa." (https://www.canadainternational.gc.ca/ukraine/index.aspx)
The problem with these warnings is that you have zero idea of whether or not they are honest, mildly exaggerated, or just political posturing.
As of a few days ago, it was quite clear that Russia would invade Donetsk and Lugansk. It was not at all clear whether an invasion of Kiev would actually take place, or if it was a fairy tale, just like Saddam's WMDs.
I'm in decent shape (probably top 10% of the population) and I did 114 km this summer in great weather on an old mountainbike with a slick rear tire on gravel roads. It took me about about 5½ hours effective riding time.
To go out biking winter-time 100+ km, in freezing temps or slightly above that, with high humidity and possibly rain/sleet/snow you better be well prepared. Especially if you don't know where you will end up and if that place will have water / heat / electricity.
Doesn't seem so :/ Personally I think their best bet is to wait and see how the situation evolves in the short term. Russia does not seem to want to hurt citizens. At least, not yet...
Quite. Russia is now a pariah, until Putin is gone they will not be able to live this down. I'm really disappointed that Italy and Germany block kicking them off Swift, that should have been the first response.
As someone who lived through 4 years of war, my advice is to get out while you still can. As incredibly difficult as it is, it will only get more difficult to leave and it is unlikely to get any easier to stay. I have absolutely no knowledge of the current situation in Ukraine, I'm merely advising based on my own personal experience.
To everyone questioning why Ukranian population haven't heeded the warnings from Biden/West and left already - I can only assume you have never been in a comparable circumstance. It is easy for me to suggest/advise people leave, but I know all too well that's easier to type on a keyboard than act on in real life.
What was your impression of the grocery store? Were the shelves mostly bare, or pretty full?
I heard most stores are mostly out of stock ("only expensive food is left") and that supplies are expected to last 15-25 days, but I was curious if that was accurate.
Thanks for the tip about TransferWise -- I wasn't sure how to send money to people. My go-to is usually Venmo, but I haven't tried it internationally.
I hope you all are okay! I follow a blacksmithing shop that makes axes and woodworking tools out of Kharkiv and they haven't posted in quite a while. Has me worried for everyone out there
Dunno about OP, but the BBC has an interview with a Scottish man in Kharkov, who was unable to leave with his wife and stepson because of "Ukranian bureaucracy" on this ridiculously long URL
Don’t offend people like that. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion and views. They can also be wrong without having to be talked down to like that.
Perhaps gp could have worded it a bit more kindly, but I think there is value in calling out people who espouse opinions without having sufficient knowledge to back it up. It's people like this who degrade and limit useful discourse.
My heart goes out to op and everyone else who has been unfairly effected by this conflict.
Ok. He was obviously wrong. He made a prediction about the future and was wrong.
But to say because he was wrong this time, he "didn't have sufficient knowledge" is just kind of dumb itself.
He's probably way more aware of what Ukrainians are feeling about the situation and their opinions on what's happening than we are. You can have a lot of knowledge, but still be wrong. Lambasting people and insulting them for the apparent sin of simply being wrong is the thing that's degraded and limited useful discourse.
One might argue that they were too interested in internet points on a forum and on maintaining an ideological position that was pretty obviously already untenable.
It's still a dumb position/argument to point a finger at someone who is now a target and say "see I told you so" probably from the other side of the world.
It's like if your friend just had their bike stolen after someone suggested not to leave it there. What was a valid contribution turns into being a dick "Yes, ty for your useful contribution"
What have Americans done other than warn of war but not do anything? If anything they made war more likely by preventing Russia from saving face. Even Zelenskiy said as much.
But the west didn't actually do anything... Why didn't they pledge any real support? What use was all the US' intelligence if in the end they just stand by?
It really feels like the west wanted this in order to justify more sanctions and completely sold out Ukraine.
Edit - on further thought, it feels like the US wants Ukrainians to fight and die. Really though, what use is the US?
What? Do you want the US interfering with your country? How many years did you have to create closer ties to the US before now? Why would the US want Ukrainians to die and why would they want Americans to die?
>Do you want the US interfering with your country?
Not in Ukraine, only of Ukrainian descent.
The US has already been interfering... Orange Revolution, Maidan, beating the NATO war drums, etc... They "encouraged" Ukraine to leave Russia's sphere but kept dragging out real timelines and concrete promises.
Right now, I'm watching Biden talk about "supporting" Ukraine while smiling and smirking. But nothing concrete. Really feels like the US wanted this just to sanction Russia. But Ukraine is being sacrificed...
