Yes. However that tank could also have prevented other families from being killed. These days we are seeing Putin's war on TV, but another war inside Ukraine has been ongoing for 8 years now. We couldn't see it on western media, of course, but families and civilians were also killed by the same army we're now supporting. So I won't celebrate either, because here, there are no good and bad.
Nepizdi. The guerilla war wagered in East Ukraine saw lots of civillian casualties despite best efforts of the Ukrainian military, not because of its involvement. And there would be no civilian casualties if Russia wasn't supporting the separatists and if they weren't constantly pushing misinformation over their borders.
> And there would be no civilian casualties if Russia wasn't supporting the separatists and if they weren't constantly pushing misinformation over their borders
Sure. And there would be no civilian casualties in Ukraine if its government didn't insist in joining NATO and cease to be a neutral country.
This wasn't that great of an issue until the annexation of Crimea. This is a false narrative, please sosi huy. So what if a sovereign neighbor wants to join a defensive alliance? NATO, unlike Russia, hasn't ever attacked its neighboring countries. Countries seek to join NATO to deter Russia from invalidating their sovereignty.
Well, NATO is not just a "defensive" alliance, it's more of another tool used to primarily protect the interests of the US. And of course NATO attacked countries in the past. You remember Yugoslavia, or Bosnia and Herzegovina? They were bombed by NATO just the same way today Ukraine is being attacked by Russia.
NATO were not the instigators there, not by a long shot. It was overreach, sure, but I fail to see the equivelancy. NATO didn't invade any country and didn't seize any territories.
Being a citizen of an eastern european country that joined NATO, I can promise you that my and other countries like mine are free-er to do what they please than they would be if they hadn't joined NATO.
Please, anyone reading the comments of the person above, don't be fooled, this is Russian propaganda, whether the person above is acting in good faith is irrelevant.
> NATO were not the instigators there, not by a long shot. It was overreach, sure, but I fail to see the equivelancy. NATO didn't invade any country and didn't seize any territories.
That's not the point. It was an attack and civilians died. Don't pretend that some civilians deaths are better than others just because we, the good guys from the NATO, were just "saving the world" another time.
Also, we can say Russia is not the instigator here as well, and they are just addressing Ukraine's lack of compliance with the Minks agreements and attacks to the Russian communities in eastern Ukraine.
> Please, anyone reading the comments of the person above, don't be fooled, this is Russian propaganda, whether the person above is acting in good faith is irrelevant.
I know, everything other that the official "free world" statements is propaganda. You may suggest the HN admins to ban my account, just to get a community with more plurality where only the official statements from the western countries are allowed.
You forgot to mention that another war ongoing for 8 years now was also started by Putin.
And when things go to court, like with MH17, all the evidence points that it's russia and its puppets is killing civilian families.
>like with MH17, all the evidence points that it's russia and its puppets is killing civilian families.
Evidence? That sounds like an understatement to me, we have details history of the whole thing including communication with command and photos of the route the BUK took afterward going into Russia. Its beyond shadow of doubt it was russian military that is responsible for MH17
One alternative could be, instead of buying a router, getting a single board computer designed to run whichever routing software you like. Banana pi is an example that comes to my mind. You'd need to get a case, and it won't be as neat as a commercial router.
I would love to replace these "routers" with a normal computer. The thing is these computers would need special ports for either phone lines or fiber optic connections, as well as built-in modems. I've never seen a computer with this sort of hardware built into it. Even on dedicated network cards I only ever see ethernet ports, nothing compatible with whatever it is my ISP is using (SFP?). Decades ago in the dial up days I used to be able to buy modems separately but not anymore, and I'm not even sure what sort of hardware components are needed for a fiber connection...
My ISP gives me a box that terminates the fiber and has ethernet on the other side. They also rent and sell routers that are configured to handle the pppoe and vlan settings needed for the WAN interface to this box. Plenty of routers can do this, and a dedicated Linux box like you are proposing should work, or you can throw a cheap managed switch in between if not. The hardest part is knowing what settings are needed (e.g. I had to call my ISP to ask for the pppoe password).
DSL standalone termination is still widely available, as are standalone DOCSIS cable modems.
If you're on DSL, the DLink DM200 has an integrated adsl/vdsl modem that's supported by OpenWRT, and the platform is quite powerful. You'll need a second device for wifi though but that suits my use case.
If you want a dedicated OpenWRT device Mikrotik would be my suggestion.
The point is that there were no sanctions, and there won't be the next time the US decides to invade another country. So punishing Russia this time gives the US an unfair advantage, and that's not good for anyone outside the US.
* There are a lot of Indians openly support Putin. I guess there is an excuse to justify the invasion because Russia is not the first one doing that.
* Inside China there are a lot of debate. Russians invasion obviously breaks the international law. But if US did the same thing in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Libya, Syria ...(Let's not debate if US conducted good invasion to avoid to going to rabbit hole), also indirectly caused humanity disaster and refugees, why put Russia in a different standard?
Not making judgement of which is correct or wrong, just saying it's difficult to convince certain population if different standards were applied.
Oh, it's good to know that. Maybe Russia could get away with the invasion without sanctions just letting his people protest against the war. No matter if the outcome of the war is the same, or if Putin is elected again (as happened with George W. Bush in the US).
Putin tried to run the GWB playbook with his invasion but he got impatient. He didn't have a 9/11 handed to him like GWB did. Putin's excuse is too flimsy about a Nazi genocide against Russians. There wouldn't be any sanctions whatsoever against Putin if he had planes flying into a building in Moscow.
An area with a minority, self declared independence, minority and majority fighting every now and then, and then the "outside player" deciding to attack the whole country to "protect the minority".
For us in the balkans, america has always been a bigger threat to peace (and still is), especially after having plane fly above our roofs to bomb a country 200miles away, and not that long ago, we were still a same country.
His mistake is to mix up these plays. If he had stuck to that balkans play it would all be a lot harder to argue with from a western perspective. We just don’t know enough t about Eastern European politics/beefs. But he’s also talked about Russian security and nato expansion and denazification which is so stupid as to make a mockery of any sensible rationale.
We all had the extra dollars and did spend them in places where these abuses were not happening when we had a robust economy that was not just centered on knowlage and service work.
When you can get cheap goods from somewhere, then you can buy more. We outsourced and promoted cheap products for the benifit of Wallstreet and busniess at the expense of our future wages and global human rights.
The US doesn't have the best track record either(read the worst), but I'd rather them have a "we will not support any belligerent at war" instead of picking a side policy.
So how do you connect to the internet? Have you managed to build and assemble your phone/laptop/computer yourself, using custom chips also designed by you, in order to the stay away from the spyware, or do you care only about Huawei's spyware?
> There will no popular support and the long term strategic implications make it untenable
People just want cheap prices for gas, oil... We don't care too much about what happens in Ukraine, we just want to pay our bills. Nobody is going to be cold or hungry just to harm Russia. Capitalism wouldn't exist otherwise, and capitalism is just what the EU is about.
I think you're not getting the full picture.
A dictator with thousands of nukes has gone rogue, saying and doing crazy things, eg. is unpredictable.
Capitalism works in peaceful times, it stops when tanks are rolling by.
The only thing I remember, is that the only time nuclear weapons were used, it was not Russia nor the USSR. To me it doesn't look unpredictable at all: Ukraine has long been warned that joining NATO poses a threat to Russia and that they should remain neutral. Yet they decided to continue to provoke Russia (just for the interest of the US) and now they get what they were looking for.
Russia said don't join Nato or we'll destroy you, Ukraine. And then Russia attacks Ukraine anyway. So what would be different if Georgia, Ukraine, and the other smaller democratic survivors of the USSR join NATO? Russia will still want to attack them.
Edit - one more thing, Russia said it threatens us if NATO is right next door to us in Ukraine. So Russia wants to take over Ukraine, and they'll be right next door to NATO in Poland. They were already right next door to NATO.
> Russia said don't join Nato or we'll destroy you, Ukraine. And then Russia attacks Ukraine anyway
They wanted some guarantee that Ukraine would remain a neutral country, and the response they got was that Ukraine was going to join NATO. Even more, NATO's secretary general said not only Ukraine can join NATO, but also, NATO's presence in eastern Europe was to be strengthened. If that was meant to avoid a military conflict, I think they were very wrong.
RF is aggressor in Ukraine since 2014, but RF cannot win over Ukraine, thus RF has constant fear of losing the war with Ukraine, so they are so sensitive to any military or political help to Ukraine. Yes, RF wants for their target to be alone, while Ukraine don't want to be at 1:1 war with a much larger opponent.
Independent countries joining defensive pacts is their internal business. Putin wants what he thinks is Russia's god ordained sphere of influence(imperialism), and what's more considers Ukraine as Russia's to rule(imperialism). Everything that was said, and different things were said to different audiences, were just distractions/post-decision excuses. It has nothing to do with defense, and everything to do with imperialism, and generations of indoctrination in it. Baltic states(already in NATO) are as close to Moscow as Harkiv. And defense wise Russia will be much weaker in the decades to come with an isolated economy. Putin wants a poor desperate and isolated North Korea like country, he doesn't want a prosperous Russia -- prosperity is not too compatible with authoritarianism.
People like to post this, but Dugin is mostly irrelevant in Russia, and I doubt he had any influence on Putin's decision making. Putin's imperialism is of his own biographical origins.
RF invaded into Ukraine, so if Ukraine will join NATO, then Ukraine will leverage that and RF will be kicked out from Crimea and Donbass. This is THE problem for RF.
How can a country that doesn't control its own territory, and has some ongoing struggles, join NATO in the first place? It's against the rules. Also, why would Russia be kicked out from Crimea and Dombass? Inhabitants from those places want to be independent from Ukraine, the same way Ukraine wanted to be independent from the USSR 30 years ago. And they should not be prevented from that.
> How can a country that doesn’t control its own territory, and has some ongoing struggles, join NATO in the first place? It’s against the rules.
No, its not. Its against standards outside of the Washington Treaty that some member countries have suggested for membership, specifically to justify delaying the membership process for Ukraine and Georgia.
The present invasion seems to have shifted EU/NATO opinion among governments against Russia and toward Ukraine (and other states under Russian threat), perhaps most significantly in the places that have been most friendly to Russia and reluctant to support the countries they are threatening (Orbán’s Hungary, for instance), so that non-rule excuse may or may not continue to be operative.
Be aware that using SLF4J does NOT mean you're not using log4j (1 or 2). SLF4J, as it names implies (Simple Logging Facade) is a logging facade, so your code is not tied to a specific logging implementation, like log4j. But it does not do the actual logging, and you have to use some implementation, which can be (and quite often is) log4j.
However, it is right that log4j2 is not as ubiquitous as log4j1. Spring Boot, while using SLF4J, defaults to "logback", if I'm not wrong, which is another logging framework similar to log4j, but not affected with this kind of vulnerabilities.
Yes, it is possible to use log4j-core as the backend for SLF4J. The vast majority of the time, especially in small, bespoke services, the backend is logback.
I'm reminded of something Al Viro said long ago about the Linux kernel[1]
"Yes. So's sysfs, so's udev, so's hal, so's any number of revolting
strings of intertwined copulating tapeworms hanging off the kernel's arse."
Maybe you mean what Trump said about it?
Well, he also said the 2020 election was robbed. Among many other things that nobody would believe.