True.

Hunger for power would exist, but a critical feature that currently exists - the means of returning to power - would be absent.

Bribes would be a concern, so good pay and anti-corruption mechanicms would still be required.

• Because propaganda works. If propaganda didn’t work, companies would not advertise products and politicians wouldn’t run campaigns. Rich sponsors fund politicians who promise to look after their interests. Well-funded politicians run better campaigns and win.

• Because politicians are, nearly without exception, above middle class, if not outright rich. They won’t act too radically against their own class interests.

The only solution I know comes from ancient Athens. Sortition -> you hold a lottery to draw representatives. A few extremely stupid people will be drawn into parliament, but idiots are far better than sociopaths, and the current system gives undue representation to sociopaths (willing to climb over bodies if that gets them to power). If one then dislikes the idea of a considerable percentage of bumbling fools (as opposed to cunning predators) in parliament, one must feed everyone well, treat all childhood diseases and educate everyone as well as possible. As if their rational decisions were needed tomorrow.

I read it, thanks for linking. Ranked intelligence officers typically get exchanged, and sometimes the hostage they’re exchanged against is indeed a random person seized for the purpose of having someone.

That’s lamentable, as it’s nothing close to justice - the maximum sentence they get to serve is a few years (the time of negotiations). There’s no elegant solution. One half-solution would be banning the travel of civilians into a country which might be plotting to seize someone for exchanging. Most countries recognize that people sometimes have valid reasons to visit hostile countries (e.g. family members living there) and don’t practise it.

Meanwhile, hired crooks with no fixed relationship with the hiring government, they typically get abandoned by their clients.

If guilt is proven and the captain gets convicted, subsequent steps depend on whether he has a military rank in FSB or GRU. If yes, eventually we’ll hear of whom Russia is willing to give in return for his release. However, if he gets convicted and is a random civilian hired for dirty work, they won’t even wave him goodbye.

And of course, whether he gets convicted depends on whether evidence can be found.

However, making companies pay (seizing the ship and goods until arrangements are found) is a different story. It happens so rarely that I can’t predict the outcome.

Ukraine has been with primarily American support.

Did you check this link?

https://protectukrainenow.org/en/report

The problem with your statement: it’s too simple and thus simply false. The sum of support from other allies considerably exceeds US support. The US is the biggest among donors however, and that is a great amount of support.

People often tend to oversimplify the picture. People also tend to memorize the state of affairs at some moment, and assume too long that the same snapshot still applies. The US fell behind when Biden’s bill spent months being stuck in Congress (and lots of it is spent domestically anyway - to replace the supplies being sent to Ukraine - sometimes with newer articles, e.g. ATACMS with PrSM). The US also seems to have something at hand which prevents sending any fixed-wing combat aircraft (my guess: state secrets). After some trying, the sides seem to have agreed that US tanks aren’t appropriate for Ukraine, so they sent only a handful and stopped. However, again after some trying, US infantry fighting vehicles are highly sought after, and they’ve been sending a lot. For some reason, the US is unable to send appreciable amounts of self-propelled artillery guns. But it more than made up by sending towed guns and ammo for guns.

Meanwhile, some European countries which were surprised and unprepared at first (e.g. Germany) have become high-ranking donors in the table, because they got their industry started eventually. Going by percentages of GDP however, one can observe that the biggest contributions relative to their own weight are from countries closer to Russia - other invasion candidates are contributing very seriously.

My guess: if responsibility is proven, the owner of the ship will pay for fixing the cables (note: according to some sources, the ship has recently been transfered to a new owner). If they can credibly explain how it was an accident, they have a small chance of their insurer helping them pay.

Employees like the captain may indeed get convicted and jailed, and subsequently may get exchanged.

Typically, if a spy agency sends a ranked employee and he’s busted, they will try to exchange him. However, if a spy agency hires a rando and he’s busted, they typically leave him high and dry.

“it’s a shame a country on the other side of the world isn’t doing enough to stop this”.

The US is not a totally random country, but one signatory of the Budapest memorandum (giving Ukraine security guarantees in return for Ukraine giving away nuclear weapons).

As for levels of support - I advise taking a look at this website. You may notice some surprising patterns.

Some additional background:

Previous reports indicated that a Danish naval vessel was trailing the “Yi Peng 3” and subsequent reports said that Danish vessels had surrounded the cargo ship. Apparently they were waiting for paperwork to be finished.

The cargo ship behaved erratically and switched off its AIS transponder while passing through a region where two data cables were recently damaged under the Baltic Sea.

The incident is not entirely isolated - last autumn, another Chinese-owned cargo ship, the NewNew Polar Bear was photographed entering a Russian harbour without one anchor shortly after the BalticConnector gas pipeline had been severed between Estonia and Finland and the “EE-S1” data cable damaged between Estonia and Sweden. The ship’s anchor was later recovered from the site of gas pipeline damage.

This is just a list of grievances and false accusations

What you just read was a gently formulated history lesson, from a person who is far closer to the situation and far better informed, yet has no obligation to teach you history.

If your actual position is “I don’t care about facts, I don’t care about justice, I just fear World War 3”, you should be sincere about it. Fearing war is understandable, but you should then say that.

In the early stages of World War 2, people also feared war - so badly that they let dictators have parts of countries, then entire countries. In the end, what came out of it - at first they got shame (for failing to help allies, for persuading victims of agression not to resist - for being fools of the greatest variety) and then they got the biggest war in history, because an appeased dictator generally doesn’t stop. He’ll consider it a sign of weakness and try harder.

An important element in your views appears to be “I don’t need Ukraine”. Correct, an individual does not “need” a country - I don’t need any country in the world.

States do need alliances to safeguard their interests. Alliances are easier to maintain with societies that work similarly. States do develop relations of trust, and occasionally give each other access to valuable resources or knowledge. Betraying trust is considered a bad thing, since other partners stop trusting you then. Simple game theory, OK.

Ukraine received a promise in return for giving away hundreds of nuclear warheads: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budapest_Memorandum

The three memoranda were originally signed by three nuclear powers: Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom.[1] China and France gave somewhat weaker individual assurances in separate documents.[2]

The memoranda, signed in Patria Hall at the Budapest Convention Center with US Ambassador Donald M. Blinken amongst others in attendance,[3] prohibited Russia, the United States and the United Kingdom from threatening or using military force or economic coercion against Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, “except in self-defence or otherwise in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.” As a result of other agreements and the memorandum, between 1993 and 1996, Belarus, Kazakhstan and Ukraine gave up their nuclear weapons.[4][5]

…but now that Russia has violated the terms of the agreement, other countries have to uphold their part of the deal. Many do because of their sense of justice - because they have a vested interest in preserving a rules-based international order. Others do it because they are likely candidates for Russian invasion.

The US helps Ukraine in the war because it has a vested interest in global stability. To demonstrate that international law applies, countries have to act when law gets violated. Deterrence was tried in autumn 2021, but sadly it failed. Now, for already 1000 days, weapons must back up ink on paper, showing that international law still applies (and violations have consequences).

If the US ignores its promise, allies of the US know that the US will ignore promises when not convenient. The network of alliances in Europe and Asia which gives the US a considerable extra layer of safety - it will come loose. Stability will be weakened, new conflicts may start. If someone thinks of attacking the US, they will no longer compute the numbers for fighting countries inhabited by a billion people, but only those who bother.

You mentioned Taiwan, and said you considered Taiwan unlikely to withstand Chinese attack. China is watching the war in Ukraine very attentively. If other countries assist Ukraine “no matter what”, China may consider it smarter to wait another 100 years for peaceful re-unification (if it ever comes) rather than attack Taiwan, because “no matter what” is a very high price.

I hope u not gonna deny that US funded that overthrow in Ukraine

In 2014, while Ukrainians were busy rioting by tens of thousands - about their government abandoning the EU association treaty - most of the world was entirely unprepared for taking even a firm political position about the events. After all, Yanukovich was a legitimate president who had only recently resorted to violence. Nobody had expected a revolution over a trade agreement, but he sparked it by having the folks protesting at Maidan beaten and dispersed. If he had talked or compromised with them, history would be considerably different.

As for who eventually took advantage of the situation - well, it was Putin. He used the opportunity to occupy Crimea (while denying that it was occurring) and to start an armed insurrection in Eastern Ukraine (the initiators were well known GRU people, including the now jailed Girkin).

I’m not sure where you get your information, but your source is not competent on Eastern Europe. The US is a far clumsier creature than you imagine (perhaps you expect today’s US to have the manners of the 1960-ties) while Putin’s regime has rarely had any second thoughts, and has been quick to draw and fire, because there’s only one brain making decisions, and he’s been in the Kremlin for decades now…

so I can understand they don’t want hostile state right there, especially with nuclear ambitions.

Nuclear ambitions? Are you even aware that Ukraine gave away its nuclear weapons to a friendly Russia, at a time when nobody even imagined Russia invading Ukraine? In return, though, it received security guarantees, both from the US and Russia. It also handed Russia its strategic bombers - because why have them - and intercontinental ballistic missiles - because what’s the use.

Before Putin entered the path of annexing parts of Ukraine, nobody had any reason to consider Ukraine and Russia to be hostile to each other. You can consult the old polls. The people considered each other brothers, until Putin exploited the confusion of a revolution in Ukraine, starting the invasion he’s now trying to finish. During the years 2014-2022, he gradually became dictator in Russia and brainwashed people into considering Ukrainians enemies. His goal? Making Russia great again, and he felt Russia couldn’t be great without the resources of Ukraine.

However today, after Russia has spent 1000 days grinding meat, I bet that several European countries do indeed want nuclear weapons - without admitting it openly, of course. Because apparently, conventional weapons don’t really deter Putin.

Imo conditions for Ukrainians are more than fair - Russia gives them citizenship, all the native rights,

Sorry, but your sentence is laughable. Apparently, you are entirely unaware of the situation in the occupied territories, or in Russia. In Russia, you can get 5 years quite easily for criticizing the war. In the occupied territories, you just disappear if you get in someone’s way. Even most of the fallen Russian soldiers just “go missing”, so nobody would have to pay their relatives. The “native rights” of Russians at the moment are heading quickly towards rock bottom, and might only have some glamour if you offered them to North Koreans.

My recommendation: get informed first. And if your preferred way of getting informed is Facebook, Twitter or YouTube, then before going, be aware that such sites are algorithmically steering you towards material you’re predicted to like and engage with. Encyclopedias where one is required to cite sources, and mainstream media (some of it anyway) where a person can be held responsible for spreading falsehoods - they exist for a reason.

P.S. Apparently I’m a bit absent-minded, and the sentencing was recently reported about in this thread, where a considerable amount of discussion also followed.

It’s sad to note that people in Hong Kong have lost their fight for democracy, and are being repressed for trying what they could.

Some notes, to help folks stay better informed:

• Ukraine has been firing ATACMS into “Russia” (occupied and annexed Crimea) for a good year already, without World War 3 breaking out

• Ukraine has its own missiles too (mostly cruise, not ballistic, but they had at least a few dozen Soviet-made “Tochka” SRBMs) and they’ve been firing those at high value targets in Russia from day one of getting invaded, it’s simply that their supplies of Tochka have almost entirely run out, and their home-grown missile industry is a big fat target for Russian attacks (despite which Ukraine produces missiles, but currently not ballistic missiles of a practically usable sort)

• ATACMS is effective and practical, with a cluster warhead it has shown ability of taking out Russian air defense batteries (S-400 and such), which are difficult targets to attack

• this time too, air defense failed to stop them and they caused secondary detonations at a large ammunition storage site

• since Russia is still attempting to conquer Ukraine, now with added North Korean soldiers sent by their dictator, there continues to be plentiful ground for other countries to supply Ukraine with more advanced stuff to fire at the invaders, lest they invade more of Ukraine or start invading elsewhere

• foreign ballistic missiles that Russia has fired into Ukraine include North Korean and Iranian missiles, so foreign-made BMs flying about is ordinary stuff in this war

As far as I read, he had a leg spinal injury and an operation scheduled (bad stuff for a ballet dancer - you can’t work with an injured leg spine) and was experiencing difficulties with alcohol and painkillers (the latter for the injury). He might have felt that his career was doomed.

As far as I read, he called his girlfriend (or maybe ex-wife, as the article suggests) and asked her to visit him. When she arrived, he had already fallen.

He was characterized as optimistic and nobody had noticed a death wish. Then again, during injury, pain, inability to work, (self-)medication and maybe withdrawal symptoms, other people’s predictions of character may not entirely apply to every person.

The balcony was described as not the safest place on Earth. It doesn’t require a detective to suspect that being under the influence of strong painkillers might increase the risk.

He can’t be characterized as an opposition figure, or a figure of power. There is no clear beneficiary or motive.

As for war and statements against it - he was an artist, a dancer in a publicly funded theatre, and limited by that in what he could say without losing his job. Since it seems that he had reasonable political opinions, inability to voice them without experiencing retribution probably didn’t make him cheerful.

Level 3000 hack: compromise security with drone fleas that jump onto drone dogs.

Level 9000 hack: join the pack with a drone attack dog.

In this video you can see soldiers patrolling the borders with rifles and dogs and using drones to scan the area, what’s your definition of heavily armed?

The clue here is that soldiers typically don’t have dogs - their job is not tracking anyone. The folks you see are probably border guards. (Another clue is that soldiers would be expected to carry at least one proper machine gun per squad, items like grenades and grenade launchers, etc.)

The ukrainian military also have checkpoints in the west border to make sure any male between 18 and 60 doesn’t leave the country so that they can be forced into war.

In the west, you should expect to find the border guard. They are capable of checking databases and patrolling in nature, but aren’t heavily armed. And tens of thousands of guys have taken leave on their own, despite anything the border guard can do. If one doesn’t like the draft, one hikes out via the Carpathian mountains.

As for the draft, yes, it’s a real thing. Of course it’s unjust, people should be able to live in peace - hence no agressor should invade any land. Having to take up weapons sucks. But when a war on this scale gets started, states will draft soldiers into their armies. Many will dodge it. Since hundreds of thousands of soldiers are needed, lots of mistakes will be made, and will be sorted out later (units don’t actually want soldiers who aren’t capable of fighting).

Ultimately, who was called up but absolutely doesn’t want to fight, must choose among these roles:

• emigree
• medical personnel
• defense industry
• logistics
• dodger
• jailed dodger

Obviously, everyone is not competent to become a medic. The remaining positions are attainable. So, in the end, it’s mostly people willing to fight at least somewhat, who end up fighting. Some of them get disillusioned and desert, however. That’s normal too, in a large war that lasts long. I don’t hold it against them.

I’m not from Ukraine, and not a military person, but I cooperate with military people, supplying drones and stuff that helps bring hostile drones down (profit is not involved). So inevitably I do know the approximate situation.

I’ve read some things by Malatesta before (not much from Goldman), so thanks for the reading tips. There is a nuance, though. Once some country has started a conquest attempt, any disarmament will only give them victory. Disarmament is only possible when it’s mutual, and then I fully support it. The article by Goldman that you suggested seems to originate from 1915, when World War I was being fought in Europe. I remind that World War I had no clear agressor, and indeed, anarchists of all countries tried to overthrow the ruling regimes (which were mostly undemocratic, frequently dictatorial and imperial).

The current situation somewhat differs. There is a clear agressor, which happens to be a dictatorship and an empire, supported by other dictatorships and a messed up theocracy. There happens to be a clearly defined victim of agression, which happens to be mostly democratic, supported by places that are reasonably democratic. I believe that if Malatesta lived today, I could convince him to start a charity that supplies Ukrainians. :)

I hope for revolutionary conditions to arise in Russia, but that will be a long wait. My comrades there tried and lost, they’ve mostly emigrated by now. Some are imprisoned, some still keep trying (I can’t estimate what the percentages are, people don’t talk openly of such things), but there are approximately 4 times as much cops per capita in Russia compared to a normal country, so their chances are miserable.

If you are sure about something, then bring evidence of considerable off-label activities.

In response to your response about “Nordic Response”:

Surveillance, patrols, road control posts, vehicle inspection, control of air space, minesweeping, evacuation of civilians, and riot control were important part of the exercise.”

Those are realistic military duties in war time. Every military practises them. Where do you find a fault?

An example from real life: the Ukrainian military has checkpoints on roads near the frontline. Moving with a vehicle, you’d expect to show papers, say a few words and maybe even show transported goods. The purpose? Finding reconnaisance / sabotage groups, which every competent enemy is expected to send. If an opponent doesn’t send recon or saboteurs, they are fools. If a military doesn’t learn how to deter those, they’re fools.

How does one learn? After dry reading in a classroom: one holds an excercise. There’s a home team and an opposing team. The home team checks, the opposing team infiltrates. Both teams report what they achieved, results get compared. If the blue team found the “saboteurs”, good. If the red team “blew up” all bridges and pipelines in the area, people think hard about what they did wrong. If they don’t practise, they don’t get to think hard.

While the ability to counteract styrofoam pollution is of course good, sadly this doesn’t apply to other plastics in general. Some plastics are physically hard or chemically much harder to break than polystyrene (PP, PVC, ABS, anything that it fiber reinforced) .

So, while the worms are nice, one should not hope they can help with other plastics.

Based on this, I conclude: the NATO of today is a mostly defensive alliance with some taints in its history.

It is currently very busy doing a real job - opposing a conquering dictator named Vladimir Putin.

I wish it luck, as long as it sticks to its declared purpose. If it oversteps, I will revise my opinion.

The EU has by now significantly outpaid the US, and out-supported the US in Ukraine. However, for historical reasons, it lacks certain items which Ukrainians badly need (tactical ballistic missiles and anti-missile defense, to bring good examples).

On the matter of aircraft, I should especially emphasize that EU countries have given fighter aircraft, but the US has not. The US is currently attempting to get through the bureaucracy of approving a Swedish AWACS aircraft (with some US components) going to Ukraine.

Educate thyself here, military people use this resource and approve of it:

https://protectukrainenow.org/en/report

So, NATO had a problematic operation, trying to establish (and coordinate the establishment of) guerilla stay-behind troops to use in the event of Soviet takeover - and the operation went especially problematic in Italy during the Years of Lead, where some of those guys associated with right-wing terrorists. The year was 1969 or so.

Basing on this, how do I conclude anything about the NATO of today?

Disclaimer: I was asked to hold an anti NATO speech during a protest event during a NATO summit. Being a moderately honest anarchist, I held a speech denouncing the practises seen in Afghanistan (the year was 2012), but emphasized that collective self defense is a valuable thing to have (a common attitude here in Eastern Europe), and added that if the alliance would bother doing what it says on the sticker, I would support it.

NATO is an alliance of various countries. Some of them aren’t nice or democratic (classic example: Turkey). Mixed bag, and constantly changing. Membership in NATO is not a letter of indulgence for a member state to do anything - allies are obliged to help only if someone attacks a member state. If a NATO member attacks someone else, allies can ignore the affair or even oppose the member (example: Turkey recently bombed Kurdish troops in Syria so sloppily that threatened US troops shot down a Turkish drone).