Hans-Christoph Steiner @eighthave@librem.one

@peterjsefton @nanoelquant I agree that it all hangs on how the war ends. Perhaps NATO could bring stability there. Based on the past decades, it looks more likely that NATO countries would continue to push for instability in Russia if they think they can get away with it. And if Putin falls, it looks like a sure thing that NATO countries will be pushing to help choose the successor, like in the early 90s. I think stability in the region would require a stalemate with a negotiated peace.

@tootiredtothink @nanoelquant NATO invoked its mutual defense clause, that's what started the war. The UN and other organizations did not just give up on doing anything in Afghanistan, and rightly so, in my opinion

@vitali64sur ok, that's fine. I was just hoping you could test the F-Droid client to see if it still triggers that warning

One of the things I sometimes appreciate about using #invidious is that is sometimes pauses and doesn't work for a bit. That forces me to think: did I just click through to this video, or is it actually worth watching? I hate interruptions in general, but I also hate being driven by social media #algorithms to waste my time and my brain.

@szbalint @nanoelquant @Lazycog@mastodon.online The hard part is that there is big money in selling weapons, and not for selling neutrality and peace. That gives the military industrial complexes around the world big money to spend to sway opinions to keep the money gushing towards weapons, both in #NATO and in #Russia. And more NATO members means more money to spend on proxy wars like Ukraine, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, etc.

@szbalint @nanoelquant @Lazycog@mastodon.online That logic presumes that NATO decreases war. The evidence is pretty clear that NATO just shifts wars outside of NATO. That is not anything I think a democratic and anti-war Europe should take part in. That line of reasoning is exactly what the PR firms of NATO weapons industry is spending lots of money pushing. Austria contributes by supporting global diplomacy, there is a good reason why things like the Iran Nuclear Deal is handled in Vienna.

@tootiredtothink @nanoelquant @Lazycog@mastodon.online Right, and Austria's security is certainly not based on our military, it would be basically useless against any large scale invasion. Our security is based on being strategically neutral, and being the home to #UN #OPEC #OSCE and many other international organizations. Austria chose this strategy. Austria's situation now is not comparable to Ukraine. When Austria was forced to be neutral, it was in a very similar position to what Ukraine is now.

@tootiredtothink @nanoelquant Austria sent a small contingent of soldiers to Afghanistan that mostly did logistics then some police work. It peaked at something like 100 solders, but was 5-10 soldiers for most of the duration of the war. This was a symbolic contribution, and was also largely based on UN Security Council decisions rather than duties from a military alliance. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einsatz_des_Bundesheeres_in_Afghanistan

@nanoelquant @Lazycog@mastodon.online we also have a giant monument in one of the main squares of #Vienna thanking the #Soviet army for liberating us. We have to keep it forever as part of the treaty that ended the occupation. People hated it for a long time, but in the end, it does not really limit our freedom, and it was an important symbol for the #Soviets. I think that it was a brilliant move by the Austrian negotiators to accept it.

@nanoelquant @Lazycog@mastodon.online yes exactly, Austria was forced by military invasion and occupation to become neutral. That occupation was mostly Russians and directed from Moscow. Now, neutrality is immensely popular with Austrians, and all but one minor political party fully support it. It can work very well, much better than any military alliance, so #Ukraine really should keep it in consideration, especially because its clear they won't be allowed into #NATO any time soon.

@vitali64sur Could you try installing version 1.17.0? I believe that's fixed now

Europe has a long history of destroying river ecosystems throughout the continent by building dams.This contributes a lot to #ClimateChange. The #EU is exporting this, by paying for new dams in pristine ecosystems, for example, in the #Balkans, where the locals have long history of keeping nature intact and wild. Places like #Bosnia and #Albania should export their knowledge to the EU, what is happening is vice versa and now we watch more "dams destroy rivers completely"

https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/10/world/neretva-river-save-the-blue-heart-of-europe-c2e-spc-intl/index.html

@nanoelquant @Lazycog@mastodon.online Austria's neutrality was also forced by a deal between the Soviet Union, France, UK, and USA. But it has worked, and is immensely popular in Austria now. Finland's situation now is quite different than both Ukraine and Austria. Finland was already spending more on than NATO's 2% requirement, and it has a long border with Russia. It will be interesting to see how the Finns feel about NATO when they have to join in some pointless yet devastating invasion like Afghanistan.

Hey @cpu good to see you here! Welcome!

@Lazycog@mastodon.online @nanoelquant Finland became neutral after the Soviet Union's invasion. That is what I'm referring to. Allying with Sweden and Germany means Finland was not neutral then.

@nanoelquant And Austria and Finland provide possible examples of how neutrality could work for Ukraine. Austria was neutral while Soviet tanks rolled into our neighbors Hungary and Czechoslovakia. They did not invade Austria, even though militarily, it would have been simple for the Soviets to take over Austria. They had done it before. I know at lot less about it, but #Finland's situation during World War Two looks quite similar to Ukraine's now. Finland was neutral yet not invaded again.

@nanoelquant Joining military alliances also means getting dragged into the wars of other countries. You can see that over the history of #NATO. Right now, it is plain to see how Putin is leaning on Belarus to join in the war of Ukraine, and tried with Kazakhstan too.

Consider #Trump does not seem to like NATO and could be the next US President https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/aug/04/john-bolton-trump-nato-2024

NATO won't let Ukraine join until the war is settled. After that, its not clear Ukraine benefits. Neutrality might work better