krebssteven

Because the content of my post already makes it clear that my position and perspective is on the side of Ukraine. I am not a diplomat, nor a politician nor a political speaker. Political correctness serves no point in my post and therefore was not relevant over my linguistic idiosyncrasies.

Man muss ja nun auch mal relevant erscheinen, da bietet sich ein chinesisches LLM wirklich an xD

Given how you seem to need justifying your correction, I wonder what’s the point of it in the first place. I have used the term both with and without the article, obviously disregarding the political implications I am aware of.

I was where you were back when S1 aired. Gave S2 a chance and am positively surprised. It’s its own take on the material but given the later books it’s not that inconsistent.

You might want to look up the historic usage. And I don’t mean the slavic etymology nor soviet russia. It has been named both until the article became a politicized matter. So if you want to object to me accidentially implying I would not affirm the independence of Ukraine as a country, then I understand that.

Technically it’s both, given the etymology of the word. Just as you say ‘The United States of America’ or ‘The Republic of Congo’.

https://www.justsecurity.org/107087/tracker-litigation-legal-challenges-trump-administration/

It looks like there is more than just ‘nobody’ trying to stop his bs in the court rooms.

The problem is - while he might not be wrong, simply because it’s unlikely that Russia would accept a total territorial loss at the negotiation table - ceding anything to the Russian imperialists is an invitation to keep pushing.

The truth is that the US of course do not care about the Ukraine as a sovereign entity. They care only about maintaining their own geopolitical interests.

On the other hand do I doubt that Russia is interested in merely maintaining their territorial gains - maybe as a special zone of some sort - if that would mean that the Ukraine would pursue a proper membership in NATO.

So what we will likely see is that Russia will want to maintain or increase their presence in eastern Ukraine, maintain Crimea and want assurances that Ukraine will remain a neutral buffer state.

Leading to the Ukraine being screwed over either way.

Nevermind. I literally am wrong about how binding an executive order is for a non-government entity.

I am no friend of china’s internal policies and am of course under no illusion that the CCP does this solely because of humanist motivation, but a maniac in the White House obviously means the rest of the world has to rethink their geopoliticies.

Keep in mind that might not be that easy, depending on if the services are provided by an EU subsidary or directly overseas.