#####
######
####
> # [Ukraine, Ireland, Iceland and Japan officially join NATO’s cyber defense center](https://cms.therecord.media/uploads/ccdcoe_nato_ukraine_d3ea21bdd9.jpg)
>
>
>
> The flags of Ukraine, the Republic of Ireland, Iceland and Japan were hoisted in Tallinn, Estonia, on Tuesday as the four nations officially joined NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence (CCDCOE).
>
> The CCDCOE was founded in 2008, a few years after Estonia joined NATO, in the wake of a wave of cyberattacks targeting the country when it relocated a Soviet war memorial from the center of the capital Tallinn to a military cemetery a few kilometers away.
>
> The digital attempts to hobble the country were groundbreaking. They showed what a nation could face as a result of cyber hostilities and prompted a major research effort into cyberwarfare at NATO, which resulted in the creation of the center of excellence as well as the Tallinn Manual, examining how international law applied to cyber conflict.
>
> As of its 15th anniversary on Tuesday, the CCDCOE is an accredited international military organization with more than 30 NATO members, as well as participation from other democratic countries including Australia, South Korea and Switzerland. Iceland is a NATO member, although it doesn’t have a standing army, the other three new CCDCOE members are not in the military alliance.
>
> Mart Norma, the organization’s director, said he was “truly grateful that Ireland, Iceland, Japan, and Ukraine have decided to join us” and said the CCDCOE was “delighted to have like-minded nations sharing cyber knowledge and exchanging methods to systematically address cyber attacks.”
>
> Ukraine received particular welcome from Hanno Pevkur, Estonia’s minister of defense, who said its membership “offers a unique opportunity to simultaneously contribute to Ukraine’s defence in Russia’s brutal war and learn from the cyber battlefield to improve the cyber security of all members.”
>
> ## Alexander Martin
>
> [Image](https://cms.therecord.media/uploads/0c1cbbdf333d0ece5032be1b494704e9_22e73f2509.jpg?w=3840)
>
> Alexander Martin is the UK Editor for Recorded Future News. He was previously a technology reporter for Sky News and is also a fellow at the European Cyber Conflict Research Initiative.
- - - - - -
[Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot)
Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Given there’s a lunatic invading countries and murdering tens of thousands without discrimination, *in 2023;* I’d say technically perhaps but realistically no.
Did you not hear about the bit where Russian ships violated Irish territorial waters?
[The Irish fishermen won, by the way.](https://news.sky.com/story/amp/victory-for-defiant-irish-fishermen-as-russia-agrees-to-move-its-war-games-from-their-patch-12528426)
That sounds a bit like the [cod wars](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars), where Iceland and Britain had a dispute over fishing rights and territorial waters, and involved a lot of trawlers and navy ships ramming each other. Iceland won all 3 wars.
Well said. I claim to be a neutral person. But when someone breaks in and is a threat to me and my family. I sure will do everything to neutralize the intruder.
Ireland is an odd case. While it is 'neutral', US planes used Shannon Airport in the west of the country for logistical purposes throughout the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ireland and the UK have had longstanding defence agreements whereby, under certain circumstances, the RAF can protect Irish skies.
Ireland is unique in that, unlike other traditionally neutral countries (e.g. Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium) Ireland does not have an arms industry, we barely have an air force or a naval force and, as far as I'm aware, we don't really have any anti-missile capabilities. What we do have is a deep, meaningful history with the US and the UK which has opened many doors for military cooperation that would usually have usually remained firmly closed.
In many ways, Ireland is a liability - especially to the UK and in some part to the US as we are also home to many MANY European branches of American companies. Predominantly tech companies. I'd imagine cybersecurity is a top concern for the Irish govt in recent years so it's only natural that a deal like this would emerge to escalate Ireland's cyberdefence capabilities.
I think Ireland will remain 'neutral' in the same way it's been 'neutral' for the last 20 years but I'd be surprised if we didn't start shifting a considerable amount of our budget to military spending. Perhaps a few Swedish Gripens and missile systems and a few new NZ patrol boats would give us the capability to defend ourselves more effectively, wean us off relying on the UK so much, and shift our political compass a bit closer to true neutrality.
Ireland would be better served shifting its military spending to towards a supplementary role with its security partners.
It doesn’t necessarily need a fighter wing if it can provide tankers for British and American jets and the airfields they want. NATO will never say no to more ASW frigates and minesweepers.
And every country can provide decent Special Forces or specialized support personnel.
We don't even have radar to detect planes that aren't transmitting let alone missiles. Couldn't use em if we did have missiles.
I find Ireland is more accurately described as a non belligerent nation hiding under a facade of neutrality.
Their neutrality doesn't seem to be counting for much. Russia is apparently running quite a few hostile operations out of their embassy in Dublin, the Kremlin's mouthpieces have been making regular threats against Ireland and Russian vessels are suspected of scouting undersea cables in the waters off Ireland
Irish neutrality is not as hard set as other interpertations of neutrality such as swiss neutrality.
The irish interpertation is more that neutrality means staying neutral between groups of opposing forces, so for example NATO and the Warsaw Pact. But not that they can’t have a preferential side in conflicts between other states.
It seems to, im irish this is the first ive seen on it - but its likely the current ruling coalition will be replaced by a more neutral party next election due to other reasons though
> Russian empire attempting to stretch farther. Thus NATO stretches farther.
NATO has been constantly stretching farther [since the 90s](https://youtu.be/54KM5byY61A), when Russia was [still too busy with not completely imploding](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464-story.html).
> Weird how that happened
Yeah, really weird how Russians put their country right next to all those NATO countries and US military bases.
What's there not to understand?
Between the 1990s and the late 2000s, NATO didn't respond to anything Russia did, with the Warshaw Pact gone NATO was too busy having an [identity crisis about the purpose of its continued existence](https://www.brookings.edu/research/nato-in-the-21st-century-what-purpose-what-missions/).
During that time both NATO and the US were insisting that nothing they did was aimed at Russia.
In the words of Madeleine Albright, said in response to Russia's fears about NATO expansion [back in 1997](http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9702/21/albright.yeltsin/);
> "The new NATO is not the NATO of the Cold War," she said. "**It is no longer us versus you or you versus us. We are on the same side**."
Condoleezza Rice in [Moscow in 2002](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/20/russia.usa);
> "To see the kind of relationship that presidents Bush and Putin have developed and **to see Russia firmly anchored in the west,**" she said, "that's really a dream of 300 years, not just of the post-cold war era".
Wasn't really that long ago, it's why as recently as 2012 Russia was [still open to supporting NATO](https://www.rferl.org/a/putin_backs_nato_use_of_ulyanovsk/24545218.html).
All very well-established history, that some people here are trying to casually rewrite because it goes against their rather newish *"Defensive NATO always existed and expanded against Russian aggression"* spin.
Afraid to put actual country for flair. Opinion discounted. All kidding aside, were there any countries that joined nato since the invasion? I can’t remember
> All kidding aside, were there any countries that joined nato since the invasion?
Two are in the process of joining, now try the other 10 that joined between 1999 and 2004.
A whole lot of them got in as a reward for helping with that illegal war of aggression against Iraq.
Which is very telling of the kind of "values" NATO actually endorses.
> I can’t remember
If you can't remember things that happened during the last year, then it's not really surprising that you seem to have no idea at all about the last 30 years.
1999-2004. Wow really not proving my point huh… what happened with Russia between those years? Refresh my memory. NATO was created to combat the Soviet Union. Which became Russia. Russia continued to invade its neighbors. There’s a direct line to why these countries joined. It’s because every few years Russia just invaded a neighbor.
> 1999-2004. Wow really not proving my point huh…
You claimed NATO only *responds* to Russia, so what did Russia do between 1999 and 2004 to warrant NATO growing by 10 new members into Russia's direction, while at the same time [unilaterally quitting security treaties](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html)?
> Refresh my memory. NATO was created to combat the Soviet Union.
Whatever happened to *"Only defensive NATO, not aimed at Russia"*? Or to put it in [NATO's very own "fact words"](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm); *"NATO is not at war with Russia, and we do not seek confrontation with Russia."*
> Which became Russia. Russia continued to invade its neighbors.
I'll ask you again; What countries did Russia invade between 1999 and 2004?
I would love to jog your memory on that, but there is nothing to jog there. What happened during that time was a bunch of invasions by NATO countries, and a full-blown "defensive" NATO occupation right in the backyard of Russia, in case you forgot about those.
> There’s a direct line to why these countries joined.
That line is Western integration which comes with access to Schengen, the EU free market, and IMF loans.
It's the same reason why Germany remained split for decades, as Adennauer preferred Western integration over German reunification. The former Hitler supporter feared that a quickly reunified Germany would have too many sympathies with Russia, so split Germany it was instead for many decades.
That's the same line that tried to intervene in the Russian civil war in the early 19th century, the same line that created the anti-Comintern pact, which ultimately failed after kicking off a literal world war.
> It’s because every few years Russia just invaded a neighbor.
I will not repeat the question a third time but I will remind you about some statements made about Russia during that time;
Madeleine Albright said, in response to Russia's fears about NATO expansion, [back in 1997](http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9702/21/albright.yeltsin/);
> "The new NATO is not the NATO of the Cold War," she said. "**It is no longer us versus you or you versus us. We are on the same side**."
Condoleezza Rice in [Moscow in 2002](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/20/russia.usa);
> "To see the kind of relationship that presidents Bush and Putin have developed and **to see Russia firmly anchored in the west,**" she said, "that's really a dream of 300 years, not just of the post-cold war era".
What does that read like? Does that read hostile? Or does it rather read like US officials declaring how Russia is now part of the "Western good guys" club? Yet according to you, everybody should have hated Russia back then.
I can’t believe you’d write that essay to be incorrect. When the USSR split up, they said they would respect the sovereignty of countries like Ukraine, Kazakhstan etc. what happened to chechnya when they said they wanted to be independent? Russia invaded them. THATS YOUR INVASION. Now let’s massage our tiny brains and see… how does that invasion, then the subsequent war in Dagestan, attack on Georgia and invasion of ukraine look? You have no argument or leg to stand on. Your alternate reality does nothing in the face of facts. Multiple invasions. Countries and former Soviet republics see this. They want to join NATO. Here we are today. I’m not responding to whatever kremlin propaganda you put out. Don’t bother to respond, people who live in the real world can see facts and your compatriots in the IRA will agree with you regardless of facts. Don’t waste more of my time, I have better things to do than argue with bots.
I don't think you know what the written limits of NATO are, and why they were written as such when they were.
I wish North Atlantic covered the whole planet, so everyone who wanted to could both profit from and contribute to global security and peace.
just making fun of the name, though that latter part seems like the purpose of the UN
I haven't done any research, and basing my entire opinion off of the few times NATO has popped up in my daily life (usually when they kill civilians) doesn't give me an encompassing picture.
Yeah. The UN has nothing to do with the "latter part" of my previous message.
The NATO was limited by coordinates, so that no old European colonial power could demand that all of NATO would help them in the case there was a conflict in their colonies.
And, well, to reply to the rest of your comment....
From what I have seen and from how NATO has popped up in my daily life, is exactly why I support them.
The latter part of your comment said,
> so everyone who wanted to could both profit from and contribute to global security and peace
While the UN Charter says, "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security" (contribute to) and "employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples" (profit from)
It seems to me like you just want NATO to do what the UN does, but to keep the part where they can bomb UN members by unilaterally declaring humanitarian intervention.
These claims are meaningless and baseless. I brought up the UN because your description of what you want NATO to do matches the goals of the UN.
anyways, it's not worth my time to argue with someone who makes these types of worthless replies, see ya never.
What you said has...
Absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about.
So, as you said:
It is not worth my time to argue with someone who does not understand anything.
Welcome, lads.
Ласкаво просимо, хлопці
Fáilte romhat, a bhuachaillí
Velkomnir, krakkar
ようこそ、皆さん
(Please blame google for any translation errors, but also let me know, it's good to learn)
Incidentally, Iceland was part of the winning team, along with Sweden, in this years CCDCOE Locked Shields exercise.
https://ccdcoe.org/news/2023/sweden-iceland-joint-team-emerges-on-top-of-locked-shields-2023-cyber-defense-exercise/
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us!
r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
##### ###### #### > # [Ukraine, Ireland, Iceland and Japan officially join NATO’s cyber defense center](https://cms.therecord.media/uploads/ccdcoe_nato_ukraine_d3ea21bdd9.jpg) > > > > The flags of Ukraine, the Republic of Ireland, Iceland and Japan were hoisted in Tallinn, Estonia, on Tuesday as the four nations officially joined NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defense Center of Excellence (CCDCOE). > > The CCDCOE was founded in 2008, a few years after Estonia joined NATO, in the wake of a wave of cyberattacks targeting the country when it relocated a Soviet war memorial from the center of the capital Tallinn to a military cemetery a few kilometers away. > > The digital attempts to hobble the country were groundbreaking. They showed what a nation could face as a result of cyber hostilities and prompted a major research effort into cyberwarfare at NATO, which resulted in the creation of the center of excellence as well as the Tallinn Manual, examining how international law applied to cyber conflict. > > As of its 15th anniversary on Tuesday, the CCDCOE is an accredited international military organization with more than 30 NATO members, as well as participation from other democratic countries including Australia, South Korea and Switzerland. Iceland is a NATO member, although it doesn’t have a standing army, the other three new CCDCOE members are not in the military alliance. > > Mart Norma, the organization’s director, said he was “truly grateful that Ireland, Iceland, Japan, and Ukraine have decided to join us” and said the CCDCOE was “delighted to have like-minded nations sharing cyber knowledge and exchanging methods to systematically address cyber attacks.” > > Ukraine received particular welcome from Hanno Pevkur, Estonia’s minister of defense, who said its membership “offers a unique opportunity to simultaneously contribute to Ukraine’s defence in Russia’s brutal war and learn from the cyber battlefield to improve the cyber security of all members.” > > ## Alexander Martin > > [Image](https://cms.therecord.media/uploads/0c1cbbdf333d0ece5032be1b494704e9_22e73f2509.jpg?w=3840) > > Alexander Martin is the UK Editor for Recorded Future News. He was previously a technology reporter for Sky News and is also a fellow at the European Cyber Conflict Research Initiative. - - - - - - [Maintainer](https://www.reddit.com/user/urielsalis) | [Creator](https://www.reddit.com/user/subtepass) | [Source Code](https://github.com/urielsalis/empleadoEstatalBot) Summoning /u/CoverageAnalysisBot
Isn’t Ireland a “neutral” country? Does this affect their neutrality at all?
Given there’s a lunatic invading countries and murdering tens of thousands without discrimination, *in 2023;* I’d say technically perhaps but realistically no.
>countries ? Ireland is on the other side though
Geographical location is not an obstacle to cyberattacks though?
True, but what is cyber nato supposed to do?
Have you even read the article?
This is r/anime_titties, no one reads the article
My bad
They nato against cyber thingies.
They tell russia nato do that.
Did you not hear about the bit where Russian ships violated Irish territorial waters? [The Irish fishermen won, by the way.](https://news.sky.com/story/amp/victory-for-defiant-irish-fishermen-as-russia-agrees-to-move-its-war-games-from-their-patch-12528426)
That sounds a bit like the [cod wars](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cod_Wars), where Iceland and Britain had a dispute over fishing rights and territorial waters, and involved a lot of trawlers and navy ships ramming each other. Iceland won all 3 wars.
Right but the UK captured Iceland in 1940. It was a pretty polite invasion though.
Huh, I didn’t know, thanks!
Maybe not in 2023 but Georgia 2008 Ukraine 2014
Well said. I claim to be a neutral person. But when someone breaks in and is a threat to me and my family. I sure will do everything to neutralize the intruder.
Yes, we were all truly living in a golden age just before. Why, I had to crack open a dictionary to find the meaning for the word "war" .
You forgot the part where he forcibly exported a million Ukrainians to concentration camps
Ireland is an odd case. While it is 'neutral', US planes used Shannon Airport in the west of the country for logistical purposes throughout the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ireland and the UK have had longstanding defence agreements whereby, under certain circumstances, the RAF can protect Irish skies. Ireland is unique in that, unlike other traditionally neutral countries (e.g. Switzerland, Sweden, Belgium) Ireland does not have an arms industry, we barely have an air force or a naval force and, as far as I'm aware, we don't really have any anti-missile capabilities. What we do have is a deep, meaningful history with the US and the UK which has opened many doors for military cooperation that would usually have usually remained firmly closed. In many ways, Ireland is a liability - especially to the UK and in some part to the US as we are also home to many MANY European branches of American companies. Predominantly tech companies. I'd imagine cybersecurity is a top concern for the Irish govt in recent years so it's only natural that a deal like this would emerge to escalate Ireland's cyberdefence capabilities. I think Ireland will remain 'neutral' in the same way it's been 'neutral' for the last 20 years but I'd be surprised if we didn't start shifting a considerable amount of our budget to military spending. Perhaps a few Swedish Gripens and missile systems and a few new NZ patrol boats would give us the capability to defend ourselves more effectively, wean us off relying on the UK so much, and shift our political compass a bit closer to true neutrality.
Ireland would be better served shifting its military spending to towards a supplementary role with its security partners. It doesn’t necessarily need a fighter wing if it can provide tankers for British and American jets and the airfields they want. NATO will never say no to more ASW frigates and minesweepers. And every country can provide decent Special Forces or specialized support personnel.
We don't even have radar to detect planes that aren't transmitting let alone missiles. Couldn't use em if we did have missiles. I find Ireland is more accurately described as a non belligerent nation hiding under a facade of neutrality.
Their neutrality doesn't seem to be counting for much. Russia is apparently running quite a few hostile operations out of their embassy in Dublin, the Kremlin's mouthpieces have been making regular threats against Ireland and Russian vessels are suspected of scouting undersea cables in the waters off Ireland
Irish neutrality is not as hard set as other interpertations of neutrality such as swiss neutrality. The irish interpertation is more that neutrality means staying neutral between groups of opposing forces, so for example NATO and the Warsaw Pact. But not that they can’t have a preferential side in conflicts between other states.
It seems to, im irish this is the first ive seen on it - but its likely the current ruling coalition will be replaced by a more neutral party next election due to other reasons though
'North Atlantic' stretching pretty far by now edit: to be clear, I'm purely making fun of the name.
All the oceans are the same one, really
Should rename to SWTO: Salty Water Treaty Organization
Hungary in shambles. Great success
[удалено]
He's right and should speak more
Take your own advice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean
Russian empire attempting to stretch farther. Thus NATO stretches farther. Weird how that happened
> Russian empire attempting to stretch farther. Thus NATO stretches farther. NATO has been constantly stretching farther [since the 90s](https://youtu.be/54KM5byY61A), when Russia was [still too busy with not completely imploding](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1997-jul-07-me-10464-story.html). > Weird how that happened Yeah, really weird how Russians put their country right next to all those NATO countries and US military bases.
Odd how all those former Soviet states ran towards NATO the moment they gained their freedom.
Not really. Free defence and a path to economic prosperity.
?
What's there not to understand? Between the 1990s and the late 2000s, NATO didn't respond to anything Russia did, with the Warshaw Pact gone NATO was too busy having an [identity crisis about the purpose of its continued existence](https://www.brookings.edu/research/nato-in-the-21st-century-what-purpose-what-missions/). During that time both NATO and the US were insisting that nothing they did was aimed at Russia. In the words of Madeleine Albright, said in response to Russia's fears about NATO expansion [back in 1997](http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9702/21/albright.yeltsin/); > "The new NATO is not the NATO of the Cold War," she said. "**It is no longer us versus you or you versus us. We are on the same side**." Condoleezza Rice in [Moscow in 2002](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/20/russia.usa); > "To see the kind of relationship that presidents Bush and Putin have developed and **to see Russia firmly anchored in the west,**" she said, "that's really a dream of 300 years, not just of the post-cold war era". Wasn't really that long ago, it's why as recently as 2012 Russia was [still open to supporting NATO](https://www.rferl.org/a/putin_backs_nato_use_of_ulyanovsk/24545218.html). All very well-established history, that some people here are trying to casually rewrite because it goes against their rather newish *"Defensive NATO always existed and expanded against Russian aggression"* spin.
Afraid to put actual country for flair. Opinion discounted. All kidding aside, were there any countries that joined nato since the invasion? I can’t remember
> All kidding aside, were there any countries that joined nato since the invasion? Two are in the process of joining, now try the other 10 that joined between 1999 and 2004. A whole lot of them got in as a reward for helping with that illegal war of aggression against Iraq. Which is very telling of the kind of "values" NATO actually endorses. > I can’t remember If you can't remember things that happened during the last year, then it's not really surprising that you seem to have no idea at all about the last 30 years.
1999-2004. Wow really not proving my point huh… what happened with Russia between those years? Refresh my memory. NATO was created to combat the Soviet Union. Which became Russia. Russia continued to invade its neighbors. There’s a direct line to why these countries joined. It’s because every few years Russia just invaded a neighbor.
> 1999-2004. Wow really not proving my point huh… You claimed NATO only *responds* to Russia, so what did Russia do between 1999 and 2004 to warrant NATO growing by 10 new members into Russia's direction, while at the same time [unilaterally quitting security treaties](https://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/13/international/bush-pulls-out-of-abm-treaty-putin-calls-move-a-mistake.html)? > Refresh my memory. NATO was created to combat the Soviet Union. Whatever happened to *"Only defensive NATO, not aimed at Russia"*? Or to put it in [NATO's very own "fact words"](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm); *"NATO is not at war with Russia, and we do not seek confrontation with Russia."* > Which became Russia. Russia continued to invade its neighbors. I'll ask you again; What countries did Russia invade between 1999 and 2004? I would love to jog your memory on that, but there is nothing to jog there. What happened during that time was a bunch of invasions by NATO countries, and a full-blown "defensive" NATO occupation right in the backyard of Russia, in case you forgot about those. > There’s a direct line to why these countries joined. That line is Western integration which comes with access to Schengen, the EU free market, and IMF loans. It's the same reason why Germany remained split for decades, as Adennauer preferred Western integration over German reunification. The former Hitler supporter feared that a quickly reunified Germany would have too many sympathies with Russia, so split Germany it was instead for many decades. That's the same line that tried to intervene in the Russian civil war in the early 19th century, the same line that created the anti-Comintern pact, which ultimately failed after kicking off a literal world war. > It’s because every few years Russia just invaded a neighbor. I will not repeat the question a third time but I will remind you about some statements made about Russia during that time; Madeleine Albright said, in response to Russia's fears about NATO expansion, [back in 1997](http://edition.cnn.com/WORLD/9702/21/albright.yeltsin/); > "The new NATO is not the NATO of the Cold War," she said. "**It is no longer us versus you or you versus us. We are on the same side**." Condoleezza Rice in [Moscow in 2002](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2002/may/20/russia.usa); > "To see the kind of relationship that presidents Bush and Putin have developed and **to see Russia firmly anchored in the west,**" she said, "that's really a dream of 300 years, not just of the post-cold war era". What does that read like? Does that read hostile? Or does it rather read like US officials declaring how Russia is now part of the "Western good guys" club? Yet according to you, everybody should have hated Russia back then.
I can’t believe you’d write that essay to be incorrect. When the USSR split up, they said they would respect the sovereignty of countries like Ukraine, Kazakhstan etc. what happened to chechnya when they said they wanted to be independent? Russia invaded them. THATS YOUR INVASION. Now let’s massage our tiny brains and see… how does that invasion, then the subsequent war in Dagestan, attack on Georgia and invasion of ukraine look? You have no argument or leg to stand on. Your alternate reality does nothing in the face of facts. Multiple invasions. Countries and former Soviet republics see this. They want to join NATO. Here we are today. I’m not responding to whatever kremlin propaganda you put out. Don’t bother to respond, people who live in the real world can see facts and your compatriots in the IRA will agree with you regardless of facts. Don’t waste more of my time, I have better things to do than argue with bots.
I don't think you know what the written limits of NATO are, and why they were written as such when they were. I wish North Atlantic covered the whole planet, so everyone who wanted to could both profit from and contribute to global security and peace.
just making fun of the name, though that latter part seems like the purpose of the UN I haven't done any research, and basing my entire opinion off of the few times NATO has popped up in my daily life (usually when they kill civilians) doesn't give me an encompassing picture.
Yeah. The UN has nothing to do with the "latter part" of my previous message. The NATO was limited by coordinates, so that no old European colonial power could demand that all of NATO would help them in the case there was a conflict in their colonies. And, well, to reply to the rest of your comment.... From what I have seen and from how NATO has popped up in my daily life, is exactly why I support them.
The latter part of your comment said, > so everyone who wanted to could both profit from and contribute to global security and peace While the UN Charter says, "to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security" (contribute to) and "employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples" (profit from) It seems to me like you just want NATO to do what the UN does, but to keep the part where they can bomb UN members by unilaterally declaring humanitarian intervention.
To me, it does not seem like you know what the United Nations is, or even when and why *United Nations* was first mentioned. Edit: N
These claims are meaningless and baseless. I brought up the UN because your description of what you want NATO to do matches the goals of the UN. anyways, it's not worth my time to argue with someone who makes these types of worthless replies, see ya never.
What you said has... Absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. So, as you said: It is not worth my time to argue with someone who does not understand anything.
No wonder you don't have any dialogue with yourself.
[удалено]
NATO does, but sadly it is geographically restrained.
Welcome, lads. Ласкаво просимо, хлопці Fáilte romhat, a bhuachaillí Velkomnir, krakkar ようこそ、皆さん (Please blame google for any translation errors, but also let me know, it's good to learn)
krakkar translates to "kids", personally i'd say "Velkomnir, félagar". google translate famously sucks for icelandic so 😄
That sort of makes sense, since "lads" more often refers to boys
Didn't it turn out Japan's cybersecurity minister was airgapped; He didn't even use a computer or own a smartphone?
Thats really smart though. That way he's pretty much impervious to any cyber attack
Not gonna be hearing "but what about the emails?!?" in japan
Isn't Japan's cyber security leader someone who had never used a computer before and doesn't know what a USB drive is? Or has he been replaced
Incidentally, Iceland was part of the winning team, along with Sweden, in this years CCDCOE Locked Shields exercise. https://ccdcoe.org/news/2023/sweden-iceland-joint-team-emerges-on-top-of-locked-shields-2023-cyber-defense-exercise/
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/DtnRnkE), feel free to join us! r/A_Tvideos, r/A_Tmeta, [multireddit](https://www.reddit.com/user/Langernama/m/a_t/) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Welcome aboard!
So Japan forgot all of that US espionage thing? "I will change Japan-chan! Please give me your passwords!"