I am not Russian, and have nothing to do with Russia or Ukraine or whatever (I am Brazillian, of Iberian descent).
Still, Crimea was not a "invasion" or "conquest".
Long story short:
Russia invaded Crimea in 1700s, taking it from Tartars.
When a Ukranian became leader of URSS, he "gave" Crimea to Ukraine, it was only nominal, nothing changed in Crimea itself, the place still was basically a navy base for Russia.
When URSS broke up, because of previous decision, it was decided Crimea was Ukranian, except most of population there is Russian (including a huge amount of Russian military), and their only warmwater seaport deep enough for the good warships Russia had, was still there, to make this work, Russia "rented" the place from Ukraine.
When Ukraine most recent revolution happened, do you think all the Russian military personel families that live there since 1700s would want to leave?
Now... if you want to claim what is happening in Donbass is a invasion, then that is more plausible.
There's a reason no country gives much of a second thought to international law. In the end it's purely about the optics and the optics are written by each superpower for whoever cares to listen to them. Case in point:
- Wage an asymmetric proxy war, invade a sovereign country, and annex one of their territories - Not OK.
- Find even a demonstrably false reason to wage declared war, invade a sovereign country, kill and torture combatants and civilians alike during the war and subsequent occupation - OK.
International law is a guideline and every country will interpret their own acts as righteous heroism and other countries' acts as barbaric violations of the law.
https://pics.me.me/their-barbarous-wastes-our-blessed-homela...
It's the sort of organizing the US used to be good at, and is presently failing at miserably (for obvious reasons). Germany, France and Britain are also falling down on the job as well (because they're economically scared), so there's plenty of blame to go around.
They can veto anything.
Context: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_vetoed_United_Nations_...
It’s the kind of stuff that wouldn’t pass the smell test with security engineers here.
But what are you going to do about it? Start shooting in China's general direction?
People are constantly claiming to be attacked by nation states to hide their incompetence (nobody ever gets blamed that they failed to deter "China")
Nations need to have more preparation, funding, and simulations, for potential large future cyberattacks before one causes significant destruction.
We need a unified world approach.
I always hear cyber-attack's from Russia, North Korea or China, but never from Israel or the US, are they just so bad in covering up or is maybe something else behind it?
Most everything else seems more about finding a scapegoat to blame.
Now, think which country wants to attack Australia and teach it lesson for various noises it has been making against it.
Now look at the past history of the said country.
There is your evidence.
The Chinese aircraft carrier strike force threatened Taiwan : https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/11394307/china-warships-taiwan... .
The General Secretary of Central Committee of the Communist Party of China is up to something.
As a superpower capable of standing off with China, the US should be stepping in and offering very public political and economic support to Australia. It's the only approach that will work when dealing with China's new era of extreme belligerence. If the US were currently being led by a wiser politician, they would be rallying allies old and new (such as India) at China's expense.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/21/austr...
[2] https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/13/china/australian-drug-smuggli...
Its only because Australia kowtows with fluidity every time the US snaps its fingers that its in this mess right now. Australians need to stop being the lapdogs to the American empire, and start thinking about their own future. Australias future isn't white American: it is multi-cultural and mostly Asian.
The usual understanding is that such loyalty is a two-way street. Not that the current US government cares about such pesky details but that's where it stands.
Australia is a liberal democracy, and turning away from that to the arms of communist, authoritarian China is simply a non-starter. Like America, Australia will be multi-ethnic, but it’s still a liberal democracy. America is a multi-ethnic liberal democracy too, and supports Australia against Chinese communism. The fact that the US will be less white in the future has no bearing on anything here. Do you think it’s only whites people in America who want to stand up against China? If it is, what does that say about the future of the world if nobody but white people care about liberal values? You’re kind of confirming the fears of white supremacists here.
The US and Australia are allied. They're in Five Eyes together, for example.
That's an interesting claim to test, actually. Could you provide links to one or more discussions on this site where the overwhelming consensus was that Huawei 5G would not be a national security threat to the US?
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21757097
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19954673
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23191055
Likely the scale of the attack happening is something that may have surprised the victim nation that they are calling out the attacks in the hope that it would at least calm down the intruder or even have the government intervene.
On a side note, reading the article in a mobile device was a big PITA. Lots of ads and unnecessary information included. And they had the temerity to tell me that I am using n/3 free articles. I think I would pass from subscribing if on the limited free version and the reading experience was just worst.
