News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by oezi on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @02:11PM (#44801938)
When all your military spending can't help you win against a third-world country (USA in Afghanistan) or a single country 1/3 your size (Russia in Ukraine), it really makes you wonder if all that spending is justified to uphold one big bluff.
Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by AnimalMuppet on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @02:34PM (#44802262)
We aren't pointing "all our military spending" against Russia in Ukraine. Not by a long shot (no pun intended).
Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by notahacker on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @02:49PM (#44802451)
Of course not. But I think it's also true to say if the US hasn't been willing or able to effectively use its military power at the margin to stop a historic enemy from annexing its neighbours with impunity, your average regional power doesn't have to worry about the US using its military power to dominate world trade.
Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by Alupis on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @03:07PM (#44802750)
Nothing will change in the US if Ukraine falls tomorrow.

People love to cry foul when the US flexes it's might... then cry foul when the US takes a back seat... literally cry foul no matter what the US does.

If Ukraine is so important to the world order, why has Europe (you know, Ukraine's actual neighbors) not stepped up with their full military power? Why is Europe not threatening troops, missiles, aircraft, tanks, etc... even nuclear obliteration if Putin doesn't yield? Why is it the US has to swoop in, from half a world away, and save the day (again, and again, and again...)?

The US is not currently willing to send our citizens to die in Ukraine. Maybe Europeans should?

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by alfiedotwtf on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @03:28PM (#44803049)
> The US is not currently willing to send our citizens to die in Ukraine

The US is currently not wanting Ukraine to win for a single reason - it’s personal to Trump. So much has happened that we’ve collectively forgotten that it was Zelensky said “No” to Trump on the phone when wanting to find any dirt on Joe Biden helping Hunter in business deals.

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by Alupis on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @06:09PM (#44805061)
> The US is currently not wanting Ukraine to win for a single reason - it’s personal to Trump

That totally explains why Biden kept slow-walking support packages...

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by ModernMech on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @03:46PM (#44803318)
> Nothing will change in the US if Ukraine falls tomorrow.

It certainly will when Putin moves on to invading Poland or Finland. The whole point of holding the line at Ukraine is because everyone believes Putin won’t stop there.

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by lukas099 on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @12:38AM (#44807691)
After the unexpected difficulty of the Ukraine war, how likely is it that they would try to extend themselves even further, against stronger countries than Ukraine?
Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by ModernMech on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @09:19AM (#44811596)
More likely than if they lose in Ukraine, that's for sure. Because the lesson they will have learned is that invading countries is a winning strategy. They were deluded enough to invade Ukraine, they are deluded enough to invade Poland.

"Putin is too sensible to invade Ukraine" was the argument people were making the day before he did. My guess is these are the same people who now say "Putin would never invade Poland".

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by ExoticPearTree on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @10:05AM (#44812217)
It would not be a terrible loss for the world if Russia invades Poland. Been there, too many consonants in their names and the food is too sweet.

Never been to Finland so no opinion on that.

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by hvb2 on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @04:22PM (#44803743)
Just to state a fact.

Article 5 of NATO (an attack on one is an attack on all) has only been invoked once, by the US. So why did NATO members send their militaries to Afghanistan?

The real reason is that most conflicts never happen. Or are resolved before ending in a full war. Either the US or a European NATO country sending in troops would muddy the conflict so much that the risk of escalation is huge.

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by coryrc on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @05:14PM (#44804409)
> People love to cry foul when the US flexes it's might... then cry foul when the US takes a back seat... literally cry foul no matter what the US does.

There's a difference between the US invading Iraq and US aiding a country being invaded.

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by Alupis on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @05:27PM (#44804572)
> US aiding a country being invaded

Why can't the Germans send troops into Ukraine? Or the Brits (for all their grandstanding and bluster)?

Why must it be the US?

If "everyone" thinks Putin isn't going to stop with Ukraine, then it would seem Europe has an existential crisis to deal with - not the US, thousands of miles away...

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by ben_w on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @07:56AM (#44810799)
Why the US and not Germany or UK?

Two reasons:

1. Because whichever country does go in, it gives everyone else in NATO an excuse to do nothing in response to Russia subsequently going to full war with whoever it was that went in. Strategic vs tactical response in local political sphere, short-term tactical benefit of using such an excuse comes at long term strategic cost.

2. Right now, each individual European power is in a state of "Oh no, Russia's probably 3-5 years away from attacking us if Ukraine falls, and it will take us 5-8 years to be ready to defend ourselves". The UK, for example, has a 136k active and 32k reserve personnel in total, while Ukraine forces have suffered ~400k wounded and ~50-100k fatalities.

Both points become "we can only intervene directly as a joint act from multiple nations".

That said, if the USA were to leave NATO, I wouldn't be overly surprised if rest of NATO may issue a joint declaration that Ukraine is now under their combined protection, nor would I be overly surprised by an alternative outcome such as NATO being functionally replaced with Article 42 of the Treaty on European Union: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A...

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by pjc50 on Thursday August 07, 2025 @05:27AM (#44822385)
There's plenty of threats by Putin to use first strike nuclear weapons if NATO troops directly engage Russian troops. So the current approach is indirect: British "military advisers" train Ukranians in the use of British Javelin missiles, but don't pull the trigger themselves.

Even a non-nuclear direct conventional war would get very messy very quickly. NATO would have to seize Kaliningrad and Belarus, start interning Russian nationals, rush forces to hold the Baltic states, and so on. It's not complicated to say "this will be very expensive and deadly, so we're not going to do it unless absolutely forced to".

European states are now re-arming (the irony of fate is that it's now US policy for Germany and Japan to re-arm), but that is going to take a while.

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by oezi on Thursday August 07, 2025 @04:50AM (#44822171)
You are taking a short sighted view on what it means to be a super power.

If Putin wins in Ukraine, it will show everyone that the US is incapable to hold even a weak enemy such as Russia to account. It is irrelvant that you frame it as a choice rather than a failure.

Europe has been doing more than the US in absolute and relative terms to prop up Ukraine but it hasn't been enough to help Ukraine win. As a European, I would want our governments to put soldiers down and end the war, but Russia has been successful in the information war to make too many citizens afraid to enter with troops.

The US hasn't been saving the day for anyone without ulterior motives for a long time (ever?). You make it seem like it were generous moves to counter mostly Russia or e.g. ensure access to middle eastern oil.

The US has never spend money on its allies which it didn't believe has a large return. So the current Republican administration's view to reduce engagement is actually hurting themselves. Classic lose-lose.

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by pjc50 on Wednesday August 06, 2025 @05:41AM (#44809881)
Entire discussion seems to be ignoring the Russian nuclear weapons, so the war has to be conducted entirely with Ukranian-flagged troops.
Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by oezi on Thursday August 07, 2025 @02:53AM (#44821380)
Why? Would the presence of peace western troops make a Nuclear strike by Russia more likely?
Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by pjc50 on Thursday August 07, 2025 @05:44AM (#44822516)
See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44822385

"Peacekeepers" is obviously meaningless when there is no peace to keep, so the question is what happens when NATO troops attack Russian troops directly.

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by vaidhy on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @02:17PM (#44802011)
Winning is different from taking over.. Russia wants to rule over Ukraine, not destroy it.

US was all into destroying Afghanistan and Iraq. They had no intention of being there long term.

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by duxup on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @02:52PM (#44802527)
I'll nitpick here and say that Russia's plan was more likely to topple the government and put a puppet in place and then leave, but they botched that.
Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by lostlogin on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @02:51PM (#44802498)
> Russia wants to rule over Ukraine, not destroy it.

Can’t it be both? It’s hard to argue they aren’t trying to destroy it. It has been attempted in the past during the Holodomor.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holodomor

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by vkou on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @03:10PM (#44802798)
The context of post-civil war stalinism and food/industrial policy was a little different from modern Russian empire-building.

Russia's end goal here is a cultural genocide.

Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by watwut on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @03:21PM (#44802957)
Russia destroys its colonies. It wants to destroy ukraine. And it wants cultural genocide.
Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by tick_tock_tick on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @05:21PM (#44804498)
I mean we rolled over Afghanistan the problem is fighting a war "humanely". Hard to accomplish anything with both hands tied behind your back. Just like in Vietnam the USA's ability to wage war is only limited by what it's local population thinks is "fair".
Re:US reportedly forcing TSMC to buy 49% stake in Intel to s... by msabalau on Tuesday August 05, 2025 @05:53PM (#44804890)
The Bush administration was looking to "win" in the Afghanistan by doing nation building, which was never going to work, and certainly wasn't going to be accomplished by military means. Obama and Trump both chose to kick the can the road, to not pay the political cost for "losing", Biden ended the conflict, and paid the political price.

But if the US had a different objectives, every human settlement in Afghanistan could have have been radioactive ash by September 12, 2001. Or, more realistically, the US could have gone in, killed all (for some value of all) the local elites as a warning to leaders elsewhere about the costs of harboring terrorists, and then immediately left the country in the same sort of chaos that they eventually did a couple of decades later. Kabul delenda est was always accomplishable.

The only people who should be ashamed of the their performance in Ukraine are the Russians, and the Europeans, for failing to be able deter or respond to the Russia on their own despite having an economy five times the size.

US interests are perfectly well served by seeing the Russian military mauled for a generation at the cost of aid, much of it material that was going to be decommissioned anyway, that costs roughly what Americans spend on golf in a given year (Once you throw in the costs of drinks on the 19th hole.)

Anyway, US arms sales are up since the start of the conflict, Russian sales have cratered.