The only real solution i see is to stop feeding the animals with stuff humans could eat and make a point of global solidarity. I say this as a avid meat eater, but I'm not holding my breath.
How is this non-sense the top comment?
I can't believe we get this level of ignorance on HN.
(1) the ruling power will eventually control all communication and remove any free speech.
You think people can trade child porn online because we allow them too? Anyone building a illegal operation ( i.e. a resistance ) knows that you can make anything carry information. Even IF they find what you are using to transmit it, that doesn't mean they can read whats in it.
(2) they will constantly find and kill leaders through electronic means which are now amazingly effective.
You are overestimating the Russian tech by a mile. And you are overestimating the ability to automate this process by another mile.
The Russians will eventually torture people for information on others. That is exactly how it happens in the past.
A guerilla will be spectacularly effective, even today. But it will be extremely bloody if the Russians decide that is okay.
I would simply start with: "You have to be more specific" and go from there.
And as a warning to your approach: don't take on the job to make dysfunctional people function for free. Either communicate that you are taking on a burden, or escalate to those whose job it is.
There are two primary reasons we think the Russians did it.
Putin has gone full conspiracy theorist, nostalgic, delusions of grandeur, fear of dying. He has locked himself away with alternative history since the start of covid. If Russia wants to defend its borders, capturing Ukraine decrease the length of the borders significantly. In a 100 years who knows? NATO might try to expand.
Personally, i don't see how anybody under the age of 60 can be persuaded with this logic. But it does explain part of the failure so far. Putin beliefs it had to be far easier and cheaper than it turned out so far.
I think the economic reason to do it is far more plausible.
Ukraine as a sovereign nation is an existential threat to Gas/Oil Russia. Since 2012 it has become clear that they hold enough gas and shale oil that it would break Russia's monopoly to the EU. That's could half their state budget, in a time the social security for the baby boom needs to be paid out.
I personally think they could have figured it out, but Putin is obsessed with gas and oil. To him they are the foundation of a Great Russia.
What Russian elites? Nobody in Russia holds enough power over Putin to change his mind. Since the start of COVID he has closed himself off and basically only talks to a club of ideologues who read and write alternative history.
Its a rather simple situation, they would never publish this if true, and wouldn't publish this if false. Period. Nothing to "ask for sources about". Simply choose which you belief or don't make a choice.
But please don't suggest lack of Chinese sources is a relevant data point.
There is certainly a factor of ego at play, but the more obvious reason is that Russia will fail both economically and strategically if Ukraine integrates with Europe, and the demography of Russia won't allow them to fight a human war within
the decade.
You're right that the hopeful propaganda is giving a distorted view of the dire situation. Combined with the fact that the Russians don't carry their phones to show their victories.
Apparently RT expected to announce the capture of Kyiv on the morning of the 26's. Every moment Kyiv holds is an indication by what scale Putin's party has miscalculated.
Ukraine has a significant potential for gas and shale fields. One of the reasons the EU has been getting friendly with Ukraine. Putin knows his way of life, and the Russian budget to consider doing something like this, is gone when those become active.
The thing that's a little crass to say right now, is that: Russia imploding to focus internally, Putin gone, Ukraine integrating further into the EU, is like a full bingo card of items that was strictly in the 'keep dreaming' section 3 months ago.
Now it is the best outcome for the EU. Still unlikely, but not categorically impossible.
Germany was told to be supporting of pacifism by the Americans after WW2.
But with the Americans signaling that they are no longer willing to play world police, a shift in that attitude is a matter of time.
> That is, it works as long as you don't have to face any real evil.
Also, lets not conflate national interests with good and evil. That's the propaganda talking.
I'm not satisfied at all with Europe response so far, but i might be missing something here.
> can I rely on these people who threw out every treaty for a want of sleeping without a blanket?
Why isn't the US sending troops? Because the risk of escalation and nukes are unacceptable. In case you forgot, Europe also has nuclear powers and the risk of escalation is higher if the EU as an organization openly acts on more then soft power.
And as far as i know, only the US and the UK are ignoring a treaty to offer security to Ukraine.
Again, I'm not satisfied with the response so far, but what exactly are you suggesting so that EU bureaucrats don't lose their credibility?
A: using artificial intelligence when statistics would have been enough ( or a failure to explain what part made it AI )
B: Using Chinese tiktok as the title.
On a side note, Telegram is the nexus of raw information. For every video going viral on other sites, the other 99 stay on telegram and aren't very interesting for an outsider. Its going to be Russia's downfall if it doesn't have a way to control it.
> but everyone would think "Oh it's Facebook they'll get back in the game soon, better buy now"
Not everybody. I've been in the "Facebook is overvalued" camp for many years.
It has never been a forgone conclusion that Facebook is an institution that would be relevant for decades. Something its share price would suggest.
Its core product (high value & high volume groups to advertise too) can largely disappear within a year, and the only semi-effective coping mechanism it has displayed is buying new brands.
I'm extremely curious what you think her job is and what her job actually is. I don't know either one. But I must be waaaaaay of base if 2m+ is a reasonable salary for the workload and responsibility.
And if we want to get conspiratorial, If she thinks her main job is getting the most money out of the Google deal, then Google would be more than happy to pretend shes doing great in the negotiations and pay 5m extra.
The sooner Mozilla loses its dev culture and talent the more power Google has.
The only real solution i see is to stop feeding the animals with stuff humans could eat and make a point of global solidarity. I say this as a avid meat eater, but I'm not holding my breath.