Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

So at this point obviously the US pulls all support from Ukraine - weapons, intelligence, the works.

Any negotiations US-Russia will be useless as the US won’t represent anyone with a stake in the war. They don’t have people, territory, anything at stake, they don’t get refugees and generally aren’t directly affected in any way.

What are the chances that they just leave Ukraine, Europe and Russia alone from now on and leave them to sort it out on their own?



Despite all the rage in these comments, the base of the right largely views this as best possible outcome.


At this point that sounds like a good deal.

Also pull everything out of Europe and make NATO worthless.


In return we can replace all the McDonalds and KFCs with European alternatives, and kick out Meta and the rest of the tech imperialism.

Don't pretend America gets nothing out of its role as global hegemon.


From the ashes of the fall of Pax Americana will rise Pax Europa.


Not going to happen. EU has its own massive problems. And the countries are not aligned on the politics at all.


Although the analogy between European nation states and US states is very weak, it's hard to resist pointing out that different parts of the US are also not aligned on politics.


The EU doesn't need to align on all politics. Defense is defense and everybody understands the value of that.


That is not the vibe that I'm feeling over here at all.

The USA aligning with Russia was a major wake up call here, and it is leading to solidarity the likes of which I've never seen.

For example:

https://old.reddit.com/r/europe/comments/1irgt3n/german_chan...


> The USA aligning with Russia

I keep seeing this sentiment, but I'm having trouble understanding it, especially since the terms of whatever possible agreement are not set.

To me, it seems the options are to compromise, which by definition is an alignment, or continue fighting indefinitely.

If compromise isn't an option, how do you see this ending? Or do you see some lesser compromise that could work?


> If compromise isn't an option

What the USA is now proposing is not compromise by any definition of the word. The USA is now parroting Kremlin talking points, word for word. Recently when a US official was asked ~"what is Russia giving up?" He was unable to provide an answer.

See the map in my other comment here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43211923


My understanding has not improved, since the questions weren't addressed.

Do you see some lesser "compromise" that could work? Or, do you see any options on the table that don't match the previous borders?

How do you see this ending?

That map reflects who wants to continue the war and who doesn't, not anything about the specifics of a possible compromise. A proposal of the agreement does not exist at the moment, so we can only speculate what it might include.


> That map reflects who wants to continue the war and who doesn't

No, it does not. It's a map of countries which actively deny that Russia is to blame for their invasion of Ukraine. Sitting out the vote was an option.

Ideally, I see this war ending by Russia facing internal economic collapse. There were many indications showing that this was a real possibility. That seems much less likely now that they have a partner in Washington.


It appears they have a well functioning war economy [1]:

> Despite all of this, Russia’s economy has not collapsed. But it does look very different, and is now entirely focused on a long war in Ukraine – which is actually driving economic growth.

> In fact, the IMF expects Russia to experience GDP growth of 2.6% this year. That’s significantly more than the UK (0.6%) and the EU (0.9%). Similarly, Russia’s budget deficit (the amount the government needs to borrow) is on track to remain below 1% of GDP, compared to 5.1% in the UK and 2.8% in the EU.

What signs do you see?

[1] https://theconversation.com/russias-economy-is-now-completel...


> The first signs appeared at the end of 2024. The ruble has weakened, with the Russian currency having lost more than half of its value against the US dollar and the euro, according to a recent analysis by the Kyiv School of Economics. International sanctions on Russian financial institutions played a critical part in this devaluation. In addition, according to the Kyiv School of Economics, Russian oil exports “dropped to $64.40 per barrel” at the end of 2024 (exports were initially $70 per barrel). This suggests that the Russian government is generating less revenue from oil sales.

> Rising inflation is causing concerns in Russia, too. In his annual televised question-and-answer session last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that inflation is a problem and that the Russian economy is “overheating.” He acknowledged that the price of goods has increased, but he attempted to counter this by saying that wages for Russian citizens have also increased. He then concluded that the Russian Central Bank was working to adjust its benchmark to address rising inflation.

> Putin’s points on inflation were telling. The Russian leader seldom discusses problems pertaining to Russian society. Thus, the fact that he felt the need to acknowledge inflation as a serious issue suggests that something greater is afoot. [0]

To further answer your original question, less ideally would be a settlement where the EU and Ukraine are both parties to the negotiation. I am not sure what role the US has at this table, tbh. Full withdrawal from support of Ukraine, and NATO withdrawal appears imminent in any case. A settlement like that might look like:

What Russia gets:

Their territory back in Kursk Oblast

The end of sanctions

A significant portion of Ukrainian territory

What Ukraine gets:

Some contested territory back

All, or nearly all EU held Russian funds for rebuilding the incredible amount of destruction from Russian assault

Permanent stationing of military in Ukraine from a new EU coalition of the willing. (NATO is over, that discussion is pointless)

[0] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/new-atlanticist/is-202...


Yes, their economies health is not the greatest. There are many, to quote that, “concerns”. Concerns and economic growth doesn’t suggest near term collapse.

Can this be tied back to the original comment? I think we agree that a compromise, some level of alignment with Russia, will be required.

What is the clear US alignment with Russia that you see, based on the US compromise? And, what is the compromise? Details of it aren’t publicly or privately known, since it hasn’t gone that far, and there haven’t been any talks of security promises yet. Is alignment entirely that vote?


Now do Hungary. Or Slovakia.


Nothing like being stuck betweentwo hegemons to galvanize a continent.

As an American: I stand with Europe.


Move there, see how it actually is. I spent almost a decade there. I prefer USA, it's not even close.


...how it actually is? What do you mean?


You have to experience it. Living and working in Europe. Do it for a few years. Then see what you prefer.


This is not a convincing argument. It tells me nothing about why I should not stand with Europe, rather than American isolationism and pro-Putinism. It doesnt even support your own claim about how Europe "actually" is. Wtf does that even mean.

>Europe is sooooooo actually.

What??? What does that mean?

>Idk man you just have to know how actually Europe is.

Though I have not lived in Europe, I have traveled there frequently and hold EU citizenship and I cant fathom what you are saying except your prefrence for America, but not why you prefer it.


I think you mean Pax China. China is already making big headway into countries where the US support has been flagging and leaving a power vacuum.


The only thing that matters is that Ukraine keeps fighting. And I think they will.

EU will have another 10 "emergency" meetings, after which they will publish a memo that we are in a state of emergency.

What I'm hoping for is more direct involvement from France + new German leadership.


With no security guarantees, It’s either continue to fight or be annexed by Russia and drafted first a couple of years down the line to attack Poland/Romania/Moldova


Technically that would be "Pax Europeaus", Europa is the noun.


Supporting peace?! That's a right wing cause now?


I wish I knew how to respond to such ridiculously bad faith comments like this.

Ukraine has no leverage to bring to any peace negotiations. The only possible way to get peace is for Ukraine to roll over and get annexed by Russia.

You're arguing for the Bad Guys to win.


Good thing the world isn’t a marvel movie


Why do some many people think enabling invaders is "supporting peace"? Chamberlainism used be so verboten.


Because Russian shills, the Alt-Right have already burrowed deep into HN. Don't assume much of the discussion here is anything but in bad faith that feigns ignorance to exhaust opposing arguments. It's the classic gish-gallop in play.


Would you please stop breaking the site guidelines like this? I asked you once already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43213985.

This is a divisive topic with a range of opinion. I don't see any evidence of shills so far but if you think you do, you should be emailing us at hn@ycombinator.com so we can look into it, not posting this sort of sinister speculation to the threads. It's the ultimate internet cliché, and has a degrading effect on discussion. Hence that guideline.


Supporting peace via the 2025 version of the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact? It is very important for future world peace that Russia not be successful in this war.


You don't even have to go back to WWII, we let Russia take part of Ukraine in 2014 and look how that worked out. The idea that letting other countries annex parts of their neighbors is a recipe for lasting peace would be laughable if I didn't see it so often. It's like Charlie Brown and the football every time: https://imgflip.com/i/9lvwwu


And before that, there was Georgia in 2008.


Their Peace is Ukraine laying back and taking it.


[flagged]


Well, you just nailed why this line works on voters.

Here’s the other one that works on that same crowd:

“We need to fix the budget to close the deficit. We’re going to leave spending basically unchanged and cut taxes for the rich.”


> So at this point obviously the US pulls all support from Ukraine - weapons, intelligence, the works

Probably even worse than pulling weapons and intelligence would be if the US pulled the plug on sanctions.


This is the outcome.

Well, we might see a vestigial "peace treaty" set up between D and V, with both saying "we'd have peace now except for Z not wanting it, he's the problem".

USA is out of the game. Only question now is if it goes neutral (EU can still buy munitions/weapons) or actually becomes actively hostile, to whatever extent.

EU now needs to step up. This means 7% defence spending, to re-arm and to support UA.

HU/SK will block everything in EU, every step of the way, as both are Putin's.

EU is actually fundamentally unable to respond because it cannot really deal with HU/SK. NATO also. No mechanism to eject members. Enough voting mechanisms require unanimous vote.

EU States need to start organizing things between themselves, sans HU/SK/USA.


I'm pretty sure that's what Trump wants if the mineral deal isn't signed. And now the mineral deal seems more and more unlikely.


Alex Krainer has speculated that Zelenskyy literally can't sign a mineral deal because those rights were a secret part of the UK/Ukraine 100 Year Partnership deal, making this all a bunch of theater.


There’s 0 chance Zelensky signed with the UK if there was a possibility to secure the US instead


That would be a good ending by now - USA can start supporting Russia. With intelligence, with weapons.


Yeah but why? To what end?

Russia gets USSR back together? What does Trump get out of that?

And don’t start with any of that “Trump was turned by GRU”, “they have dirt on him”, “he’s bought by Russia”

He’s got a dozen billionaires on speed dial that’ll give him endless money, much more than Russia can afford. Saudis donate hundreds of billions to businesses close to him, etc - he doesn’t want or need money

He’s at the top of power - both houses, presidency, supreme court all will follow whatever he says without a second thought, commander of the strongest military the world has known, richest nation in the world - there’s hardly any more power to gain.

He doesn’t need to care about getting reelected, he won’t get removed from office. He’s 80 and whatever - there’s nothing to fear in his future as he’s at the end. He doesn’t care about the Republican party, so setting that up for the future doesn’t matter to him.

Any dirt they bring out can just be handwaved away as AI generated and no one in his base will believe it regardless.

So he can’t be a Russian asset, he’s beyond that and untouchable to the Russians.

So what is it? What is he after?


I think this:

> He’s got a dozen billionaires on speed dial that’ll give him endless money, much more than Russia can afford. Saudis donate hundreds of billions to businesses close to him, etc - he doesn’t want or need money

is flawed thinking.

No billionaire ever needs more money. But they all spend their time trying to make more money anyway. Think about it - these are people who have a billion dollars, but instead of starting charities and giving it away or retiring to an island, they take their money and power and use them to get more money and more power. It's greed. So I reject the idea that Donald Trump doesn't want more money.


But he literally has it all in all but name.

He can have direct access to any of the big billionaires’ finances, DOGE is restructuring money left and right. 2.4 billion go into the SpaceX for an FAA contract, who’s to say a billion of that doesn’t go to Trump related businesses.

We’ve seen it happen where foreign dignitaries stay at Trump hotels when visiting DC, etc

There’s just no point in having it under Trump’s name, but if he wishes - he could be the first trillionaire


Yeah he does literally have it all, but it's not enough. It's never enough.

These billionaires, they're sick. Literally mentally unwell. They're addicted to the feeling of getting more. The greed is like a disease, it's like a drug. It's addictive and corrupting.

It's not enough to be wealthy, when there's more money to be had. It's not enough to be president when there's a chance to be a King. If he has a chance to make himself a trillionaire, he will take it. And he won't care what it costs us.


He likes Russian representatives. They speak his language and have a similar outlook. Allying with them will personally enrich him and his family. That’s about it really, which is kinda pathetic with how small it is.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: