Except for one thing: Even if you get the General Assembly to say that Russia no longer has veto power in the UNSC, China would just step in and veto anything that Russia wanted them to. Remember the game here is to get Russia what it wants now, so China can take what it wants next.
This is in fact the best time for introspection, but that need not distract from condemning Putin's actions and responding to them. But without introspection WRT our own actions, we simply lay the ground work for more crises, more nationalism, more war.
No, I was asking for examples as to how a hacker group doing some hacktivist vandalism could actually impede our official efforts to disrupt them. Even assuming there was any overlap to the sorts of targets they were looking at.
The other thing they talked about is this: Who do you want as commander and chief? Someone who thinks your greatest geopolitical adversaries are idiots, or someone who respects their adversaries as opponents who should not be underestimated? Having a healthy respect for your opponent is probably a good thing. It doesn't mean you admire their character or moral fiber, but knowing at the strategic level you are dealing with highly competent foes is not a bad thing.
Unfortunately we can’t really believe anything at this point. While the rooskies are obviously deep into manipulative misinformation warfare, the Ukrainian side is probably pumping things up too (for morale and whatnot). This one seems extremely doubtful to me.
So you are asking for example of how nation states execute offensive cyberspace operations, whether you realize it or not.
Ukraine is shooting fairly advanced US and British anti-tank missiles. If you believe their numbers that they have cooked off around 30 tanks and 130 APCs, that starts to get towards big numbers by itself (figure a crew of 3 per tank, and 10 or so per APC).
I would be far more interested to learn how many armored vehicles and combat aircraft the Ukrainians can confirm they’ve destroyed. Believe it or not, those will be more difficult to replace than the manpower, which is just about limitless in Russia.
This assumes Russia under Putin wouldn’t have gone ahead and done this anyway (without NATO, perhaps farther back into the Baltic states, and years earlier). I don’t think this is a good assumption at all. Again, it’s nothing but “she asked for it”.
Or perhaps this is simply an ex post facto justification for all the actions we have taken. The fact is, we expanded NATO and this is where we are at. It did not lead to peace, reduction of nationalist tensions, expanded democracy or a contained Russia. While you can certainly disagree with the column, its hard to toss off the opinion of a guy who made a career on Russian containment saying expanding NATO was a mistake.
Yeah, that's pretty much the score. ...but I do appreciate the idea of challenging Russia's standing on the council anyway, when the entity that held it (USSR), has since been dissolved.
Curious what anti-corruption have to do with my answers? To be blunt is is not as if current members of NATO are angels with regards to corruption.
Yes, you are since one cannot be explain without getting into the other. If you don't believe me, that is fine. If you want to understand this topic, Countdown to Zero Day is the best book to read.
This. Even if China just votes how Russia wants, Putin's ego/drive is standing, restoring the Soviet empire, etc. Losing that position would be another hit to the super power respect he wants to keep/increase. Symbolic I would guess but still just *chef's kiss* beautiful if it happens.
