sweng @ sweng @programming.dev

Posts

1

Comments

206

Joined

2 yr. ago

Why would anyome become the member of anything if you can just be a "de facto" member snd freeload? Why did so many things change, including e.g the signing of DCAs after becoming a member if it somehow does not matter?

NATO does not care too much about non-members, as can be seen by e.g. the non-support for Ukraine. NATO is not a charity. NATO look after itself and its own interests., not the interests of some nebulous "de facto" members that in reality does not exist. This is also why the Finns and Swedes changed their minds about NATO (going from overwhelmingly negative to overwhelmingly positive) so quickly: they realized that being a "de facto" member means nothing. Not even being a NATO partner means much. The only thing that matters is actual membership. Russia managed to show that very clearly, and Finland and Sweden got the message.

Your links actualy don't show that the "vast majority" spports Russia. And the reason is simple: because they don't. As can also clearly be seen in e.g. UN votes: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/2/24/un-tells-russia-to-leave-ukraine-how-did-countries-vote.

8 years? Ethnic cleansing in Donbas started in 2008? Do you have some source for that? I don't remember even Russia claiming such a thing. Why did Russia support Yanukovych if he did such things?

There is no such thing as "de facto" NATO member. There are NATO partners, which certainly is not at all the same thing. There was essentially no chance of either country joining NATO as the local support was low. Until Russia invaded Ukraine.

https://www.eda.admin.ch/eda/en/home/das_eda/aktuell/dossiers/konferenz-zum-frieden-ukraine/Summit-on-Peace-in-ukraine-joint-communique-on-a-peace-framework.html

Quite a lot of non-western countries on that list, including the global south.

that NATO expansion stops. that’s the objective that is being achieved.

Remind me again how many member states NATO had before the invasion, and how many it has now?

Everything except building trust, it seems.

And who said anything about not achieving objectives? Unless the objective is to get people, both Russians and Ukrainians killed, I guess.

I'm sure the tens of thousand of dead russian troops and all those displaced russian families prefer that to just gaining trust with others, resulting in the end of support for Ukraine and a quick surrender. Apparently getting people killed is better than doing everything you can to end end the conflict.

How is that relevant? Maybe it was because Ukraine is a nazi-fascist-baby-eating-puppy-kicking nation? It would make it even crazier for them to trust Russia not to attack them again, and even more important for Russia to build trust with others.

Surprised pikachu What? Ukraine did not trust Russia to not attack them again, after being attacked by Russia?

Russia has a trust-problem. If they are serious about wanting peace they should work on it.

I'm pretty sure people in the affected areas would rather not be evacuated and have their lived destroyed, don't you? Is Russia unable to accommodate that? Why?

Kusk? Did you already forget about Donetsk, Luhansk, Kharkiv, and other "Russian" regions partially occupied by Ukrainian troops? This just underlines my point that certain areas seem to be more Russian than others, despite being part of the Russian Federation. It seems even Russia forgets they annexed the areas.

Last I checked, Russia evacuated the citizens living in these few villages, and now it’s become a cauldron for the AFU where they have thousands of troops stuck who can’t leave.

And why exactly did the Russian military allow this to happen? Considering the state of the Ukrainian military with outdated tech even some mininal protection should have sufficied? If I care about someone, I protect them so that nothing bad happens to them. I bust don't ignore them, then go "oops" and do the very minimal amount of work, which would not even had been necessary had I done my job in the first place.

Ok, occupying small parts, if that makes you happier. Maybe so small that Russia does not care about it, nor the citizens living there.

But that can't be the case, because Russia seems to put a lot of effort into cleaeing out e.g. Donbass, yet there Ukraine still is "occupying" large areas of it.

If Russia does not care, then stop fighting there. If Russia does care, then why do they have so much trouble with it, taking years and years to kick out "occupiers". How can Russia tolerate such a situation? Or is it, maybe, the case that Russia can't kick them out, despite the superior military? Which again goes back to my point about how impressivly bad Russia is performing, all things considered.

How can something that legally can not be called a "war" be called "war of attrition"? Does it make sense to use terminology related to wars to something that is not a war? The article specifically talks about "attritional wars". Are you saying an "attritional war" does not need to be a war?

On the one hand, you seem to be very strict with the exact wording (taking offense at the joking use of "gulag") , on the othet hand you seem to play it quite loose when it comes to other terms.

The Unrainian army is collapsing so bad they accidentally collapsed all the way into Kursk.

What does it say about the Russian army that a collapsing enemy is still occupying large parts of Russia? Or does the Russian army simply not care? Are certain parts of Russia more Russian than orhers?

War of attrition? Off to the gulag with you, clearly it's a special military operation of attrition!

The fact that Ukraine, using antiquated hand-me-downs, still manages to hold off Russia, with access to state-of-the-art technology, is both truly impressive of Ukraine, and truly impressive of Russia (but for different reasons).

Is Yubico actually claiming it is more secure by not being open source?

Isn't that the point of the article? It's not open-source currently, but will be, once the AGPL option is added.