Posts by hollowdriver13

wiredseal7 said:Don't try to play people for fools—if you actually think the claim in that link is wrong, just explain why.

Anyway, they got what they wanted. They were the first ones to say they'd pull their recognition of statehood, and now even the cargo isn't flowing.

They definitely haven't pulled that recognition—hardly anyone would walk away from that deal now, regardless of this.
Maybe someone said it, but personally, I doubt it's an official stance.

Look, if we’re going to talk like this, fine. Honestly, the only real idiot here is Rogozin—and anyone else who parrots his nonsense without even bothering to fact-check it first. But hey, I guess that’s just standard Russophile behavior, isn't it? You grab some random snippet that happens to fit a specific narrative, run with it, and then act all smug about how right you were. Typical.
So, this guy—this total vodka-soaked joke—is rambling about stuff that has absolutely nothing to do with freight or transit. He’s actually talking about visa-free travel and people crossing borders, which is something he really should have a handle on given his history as a former governor of the Kaliningrad region. But honestly? Expecting any kind of actual intelligence from him is pretty much like expecting to find a party atmosphere on the Moon.
Honestly, since we're already diving down this rabbit hole, this is just another perfect example of how Russia has never truly come to terms with the collapse of the USSR.
Yeah, let's take a second to actually look back at all the nonsense they were pulling regarding that situation back then.
A US official told CNN last week that Russia has been pushing a group of new demands that will reduce the effectiveness of the agreement reached last year between Russia and the EU on the transit question. It looks like things are getting complicated again. Basically, Moscow is trying to move the goalposts on an agreement that was supposed to settle how energy moves through the region, and it’s creating a lot of friction with European Union leaders. It feels like Russia is once again testing how much they can get away with. By throwing these new requirements onto the table, they might be trying to weaken the stability of the deal we thought was solid. It’s a classic move—wait until everyone thinks the dust has settled, then pivot to grab more leverage. Honestly, it's a bit exhausting to watch this cycle repeat itself, but that seems to be the playbook lately. We'll have to see if the European Union stands its ground or if these new demands actually start to chip away at the previous progress.

A US official told CNN last week that Russia has been pushing a group of new demands that will reduce the effectiveness of the agreement reached last year between Russia and the EU on the transit question.

It’s just the classic Russian negotiation tactic: they agree to something, everyone shakes hands, papers get signed, and then right before ratification kicks in, they suddenly "remember" they want to change everything. Honestly, it sounds incredibly familiar, doesn't it? Just gives me major Minsk or Minsk 2 vibes.

Kirkilas mentioned that the Russians seem pretty hesitant about actually moving forward with the readmission treaty talks. He basically pointed out that lately, they’ve been avoiding calling these meetings "negotiations" altogether, opting for the term "consultations" instead. On top of that, they're just sending low-level officials to handle the discussions. Honestly, we've seen this playbook before—it's a classic stall tactic. To me, it really just means that there is no political decision in Moscow yet. It looks like they haven't quite figured out if they actually want to sign the treaty or if they'd rather just drag their feet and use it as leverage against Lithuania in the future.

It’s always the exact same playbook. Decades go by and the Russians just don't change. They aren't actually holding negotiations; they call them "consultations," which is just a fancy way of saying they're keeping the whole mess simmering under the surface, just waiting for the right moment to let it all blow up again in the future.

Let's keep this rolling.

The Lithuanian envoy mentioned that it’s anyone's guess why Russia seems to be pulling back on its commitments right now, but he suggested that Moscow might just be looking to squeeze a few extra concessions out of Brussels during that Russia-EU summit coming up in May. He also pointed out that these stalling tactics could be a calculated move to play to the Russian public before the parliamentary elections in December.

Kirkilas mentioned that Russia might be trying to capitalize on the friction currently splitting the European Union regarding the war in Iraq. He basically thinks Russia is looking to poke at the cracks in European unity, banking on the idea that since EU nations are preoccupied with their own issues right now, they won't be as quick to step up and stand behind Lithuanian interests.

So, looks like we’re seeing a classic attempt by Russia to sow some discord. Just their usual playbook, really.

Kirkilas alleged that Russia, by stalling on the treaty talks, is attempting to sabotage Lithuania's aims of joining the Schengen agreement. Russian officials—at least those in the lower ranks— I honestly still haven't quite wrapped my head around the whole situation with Lithuania joining the EU and NATO. It’s one of those things that just sticks in the back of my mind. The envoy mentioned it.

I mean, honestly, who would’ve thought? It turns out the Russians just haven't quite come to terms with losing their old Soviet empire... nope, they're total imperialists, and apparently, they're never going to let it go!

And here comes the coup de grace

"Even though it’s been over a decade since the USSR collapsed, Russia hasn't actually ratified a single border treaty with any of the former republics. It’s pretty clear they only view the independence of these new nations as a temporary thing. By stalling on these border agreements, they’re basically keeping the door wide open to launch an invasion under the guise of a tiny territorial dispute," Radzvilas said.

Just translating the whole thing so nobody gets lost in translation...

"Even though it’s been more than 10 years since the collapse of the USSR, there isn't a single former Soviet republic with which Russia has ratified a border treaty. There is no doubt that this shows Russia views the independence of the former Soviet republics as a temporary state. By refusing to ratify border agreements, they leave themselves the opportunity to start an aggression against those countries over some minor territorial dispute."

If you didn't know better, you'd think we were talking about Ukraine instead of Lithuania and stuff that happened decades ago... the only real difference is that Lithuania was already under the NATO umbrella back then. The total losers who dared to push back even slightly couldn't do a damn thing. Now, they figured the West was too distracted and weakened by the fallout from COVID to stop them, thinking they could just slide this through while Ukraine waits with open arms to welcome them as "liberators."
Literally the textbook definition of "a leopard never changes its spots."

Alright, give us a little more Rogozin—go ahead and bury yourself again with that bag of bad jokes and vodka.

wiredseal7 said:It looks like Lithuania's recognition of Russian sovereignty essentially guaranteed they'd allow the free flow of people and goods between Kaliningrad and the rest of Russia:
https://twitter.com/spriteer_774400/...X1ttu3MQAvLAZw

The politicians over there act like toddlers—we saw that clearly with those unprovoked spats with China.
Plus, they can't really do much damage to Kaliningrad anyway, since cargo will just head out by sea through that narrow corridor in international waters between Finland and Estonia—nobody has the right to shut that down.

Dmitry Rogozin😂

At the end of the day, they got exactly what they asked for. They were the ones who first suggested pulling back the recognition of sovereignty, so now even the flow of goods doesn't count for much.
Even though Kyiv totally played them—by pulling that document about Prince Volodymyr founding Moscow, which technically means Moscow doesn't even exist as an independent city anymore—they still fell for the trolls hook, line, and sinker.☕

https://mobile.twitter.com/Osinttech...C9nZmT9dgqAAAA

Look, it's not like Russia is some honest-to-god legitimate government that has zero intention of trying to annex everything they grab... right? And then you see a headline on Gazeta.ru basically bragging about how the grain harvest from the Kherson region is going to lead to a record-breaking year for their profits.

So, here's how they manage to squeeze all that hard currency out of the US economy: they just slap a 3% fee on every transfer for "banking costs," but there’s a catch—it can't be less than $200. So, if someone tries to send you, say, $199, the bank basically just swallows the whole thing as a service fee. Talk about a joke. 🙏

https://twitter.com/tinkoff_bank

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVcTCqQW...g&name=900x900

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FVcTCqIX...jpg&name=large

Nancy Gomez26 said:We should probably start logging these "arguments" alongside the dates they were uttered. It’s a predictable cycle. First, it was denying that Ukraine or Ukrainians even exist as a nation. Then came "denazification." Next, it was stopping the expansion of NATO. Then they pivoted to protecting the Russian language and those helpless, defenseless people in Ukraine. Then came the supposed biological threats—claims that they're developing bio-weapons. We've seen the talk about restoring the USSR, the theft of borscht, and now, preventing a Polish occupation of western Ukraine. If anyone remembers any other "justifications" for this "special operation," please, feel free to add them to the list. If they had just picked one single excuse and stuck to it, they might actually carry some weight. They won't ever mention a real motive. What they're doing is utterly farcical; it’s starting to look like a bad joke. It would be funny if it weren't so grim, considering people are dying on both sides every single day because of a few unserious fools sitting in the White House.

You forgot to mention they're also saving Ukraine from Western "lifestyle values." See how beautifully they explain all that on Rossiya-1?
https://twitter.com/VatnikCoPe/statu...37500752814082

bonesy said:Honestly, I haven't a clue—they're keeping me in the dark too! 👎

Man, that’s a fair question. You’ve got a point about the inconsistencies there. Maybe they’ve picked up some intel suggesting that Ukraine poses the biggest threat (which makes sense if you look at it from their perspective, since it's the largest country/most populous of the bunch, and they might even have more Russ in Ukraine compared to the other nations mentioned).

If you had asked me this about a year ago, I probably would’ve been right there with you, arguing the same things. My take has shifted since then. Look, I know Russia has plenty of its own issues, but when you stack them up against the West, I honestly feel like they have less blood on their hands.

And I don't really buy the idea that Russia is obsessed with expanding its borders like some of the media outlets here claim (I've actually stopped reading most of them lately). To me, it seems like this whole mess was triggered by security concerns and the fact that they're genuinely spooked by NATO. They feel surrounded by NATO and felt like they were backed into a corner.

What does the size of Ukraine have to do with it being a "threat"? If anything, that imaginary danger would be way more intense on the border with Finland, where 31 miles the only decent road connecting Murmansk Oblast to the rest of Russia runs through. But hey, that’s fine by them, right? No threat there (meaning: we’re just terrified of launching a conventional attack on Finland).

Russia doesn't have blood on its hands. 🤦
They didn't need to go around conquering Siberia; they were basically handed that massive amount of land. Besides, they were pretty much the only imperial power in the 19th century that managed to hold onto most of its empire from that era.
But let's not forget the history of wiping out populations along the way. We're talking about the Circassian genocide where they ethnically cleansed that part of the empire, killing roughly 1.5 million people. Then you've got the White Terror with 300k dead, followed by the Red Terror with 1.3 million gone. Then there was the peasant uprising in Tambov where they crushed 240k people, and after that, the party just kept going with the Soviets—including the Holodomor in Ukraine where maybe 5 million died, and the list just keeps going...

No, Russia definitely wants to expand. They annexed Crimea 2014, orchestrated the rebellion in Donbas, and back in 2008, they set up those two puppet states in Georgia. Now they’re maintaining Transnistria in Moldova, and every chance they get, they announce plans to annex more territory. Seriously, tell me again how they aren't looking to conquer more ground.

mbtmbo said:What kind of quality of life did your ancestors actually have? If we set aside all the shiny trinkets and gadgets people like you are obsessed with today, they probably had a better one.
The government's only real job is to make sure its citizens don't become prey for other nations. But that’s literally it. For everything else, we have to step up ourselves and figure out how to live within our means, even if that feels a bit old-school.

What does the historical standard of living have to do with how we live today???
And honestly, save those cheap ad hominem attacks about my ancestors for some random internet troll forum where people count grains of sand. You don't know me or where I came from, and I didn't bring up your family tree either.

As for what Boldan said, then I guess you agree that Ukraine needs every possible resource to defend itself against Russian aggression. 👍

mistycanyon67 said:In an ideal world, no. But this isn't an ideal world. Maybe we should stop pretending that Russia and NATO aren't enemies. Russia doesn't want NATO troops near its borders, period. To them, it’s a security issue.

Even Americans didn't want Russian missiles in Cuba, and they threatened World War III if they weren't removed. That's where the Russians messed up. They probably should have just left the missiles there, given how cheap a third world war is. At least it would have been on a different continent for once.

Here we go again with the whole "NATO at the borders" nonsense. What about the fact that the Baltic states have been in NATO for over 20 years? That's already a border, isn't it??
Or look at Finland joining NATO soon—that brings them way closer to 81 miles Pittsburgh, yet Putin claims he has "no issues with the Finns." Maybe that's because the last time they had "issues," the Finns absolutely wrecked them.

mistycanyon67 said:Hey, let's dial back the intensity a bit. The Russians are losing people too, you know. This whole mess shouldn't have happened in the first place. Nobody actually wants this; it's just a massive clash of perspectives on how to fix things. Personally, I don't see any path to peace as long as the Anglo-Saxons keep sticking their noses in, pouring gasoline on the fire, ramping up the military buildup, and setting up more bases. If anything, I think all that interference is just going to make everything way worse.

What do you mean "pouring gas on the fire"? What "new bases" are we even talking about?🤦
And honestly, reaching peace would be incredibly simple—all they'd need to do is have Russia pull its troops back to its own borders. There is a 110% chance the Ukrainian military isn't going to cross over into Russian territory to chase them.

The President of Kazakhstan is sitting there acting totally stone-faced, claiming he doesn't recognize the DPR or LNR, even though Putin is literally sitting just a few feet away from him. Man's got some serious guts, I'll give him that—he might just end up becoming a legend in the world of exotic Russian tea blends.

https://mobile.twitter.com/McFaul/st...34394534105088

urbanotter said:I don't see any actual proof regarding who "poisoned" him or if he just did this to himself.

You should probably save these kinds of "proofs" for the street corner rather than bringing them to people who understand how the legal system actually works. In a real American courtroom, guilt is determined through a formal process involving both prosecution and defense, where evidence from both sides is presented before a judge reaches a verdict.
And that's assuming we're talking about a court that both parties actually respect.

Let's move past this vigilante justice; if you can, maybe go back to discussing sanctions or go out and protest to soothe the "righteous anger" of the masses.

He poisoned himself. 🙏🙏🙏

We've officially reached a whole new level of brainwashed coping.

urbanotter said:If Yanukovych had just climbed onto a tank, similar to how Yeltsin might have handled things, he could have dealt with those protesters in the tents back in May.

Or, you could look at how the authorities in the US handled the people who stormed the Capitol; a few casualties and the whole thing would have been settled quickly.

There are plenty of examples of such resolutions, because a real state deals with street mobs using the official institutions at its disposal.
I think you might recall how Canada handled those truckers who blocked the roads with their rigs for several days, effectively paralyzing the country's movement.

That is how democratic nations operate—through the police, SWAT teams, or if things get serious, the National Guard—rather than letting street thugs decide who gets to be president or how the government should run.

Canada took a hard line against the truckers, though some among them were dangerous extremists.

Once you run out of actual arguments, you always end up falling back on that good old Soviet-style whataboutism.

"What abooot the US," "what abooot Canada"...

urbanotter said:There is no actual scientific evidence regarding these poisonings; they all feel just like the claims made about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
The issue is that you're taking one side's accusation and treating it as established fact.

Do you have any actual confessions or a verdict from an independent court—though those don't really exist anymore—proving anyone actually carried out these poisonings? Or are you just acting like a judge, accusing and convicting people based on hearsay?

America had a legally elected president because even the minority populations had the opportunity to vote and run for office.
If my memory serves me correctly, there were representatives for those minorities in Congress.
America eventually resolved the issue of reclaiming rebellious territories through military action, which was done with a certain level of quiet permission.
It’s hard to blame anyone when Putin’s Russia wasn't standing behind the frontier back then.
If Russia had been what it is today and had supported the rebels within that minority group, we’d probably still be seeing firefights out in the Rocky Mountains.

Harmon assessed the situation quite shrewdly, prioritizing American perspectives and receiving his guidance and approvals from the White House.
I hope you haven't forgotten that during the refugee columns in Operation Storm, the American ambassador P. Galbraith actually traveled with them, hoping his presence would help prevent a higher number of civilian casualties.

🙏🙏🙏

"No evidence," he says. Well, I guess I just restructured my face—I was pretty ugly before, but looking much better after this "non-poisoning."

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/...h_fig1_7327824

urbanotter said:Of course I'm defending my position; I haven't noticed you attempting to defend mine, rather you're just pushing your own views and presenting invalid arguments.
Why don't you look up the election maps from before the Maidan coup and see how many votes Yanukovych received? He was the last president elected by the entirety of Ukraine before things boiled over, even though foreign "helpers" had been present since the moment the country broke away from the USSR.
For you Anglo-philes, trolling and twisting facts seems to be second nature. You only see things through your own lens instead of listening to those who are far more objective and provide a complete picture of the problem rather than cherry-picking context to suit your narrative.
The pressure from Ukrainian nationalists to "Ukrainianize" the country started long before the Maidan coup.
You have access to Google and can educate yourself; I really don't have the patience to repeat myself ten times just to debunk your trolling.
Here is just one link I happen to have saved:

I could give you a whole list of links regarding the history of the region now known as Ukraine, but that's not the topic here, so please, do your own research.
Let's stick to this thread and discuss the supposed success of these "sanctions" and the hypocrisy of Europe, which refuses Russian gas, yet when they turn the taps just a little bit, they scream about being blackmailed by Russia.

It's funny how when Russia actually fulfills the West's "wishes," it's suddenly a bad thing because then everyone starts shouting about coercion.
It is pure Pharisaical behavior, much like everything else that has been attempted without yielding any tangible results.

Give me a break—they say they won't take Russian gas, but once Russia meets their demands, suddenly it's not good enough.

The arrogance is clearly so massive that the West believes Russia should simply dance to whatever tune the West conducts to suit its own interests.
It honestly feels like they’re dealing with some pretty incompetent conductors lately, especially since Russia just seems to be doing whatever they want, playing by their own rules and dancing to their own tune without any regard for anyone else.

Good luck trying to take them down with actual facts and logic, because honestly, just saying "I think so" doesn't really cut it—an opinion isn't an argument.
Look, you’re totally missing the point here. What does an election map from before the Maidan coup have to do with your whole argument about Zelenskyy not being a legitimate president? It doesn't make sense. Plus, you conveniently dodged my question about those "5G" gaps between the 2014 Maidan events and the 2019 elections... come on, give me some actual substance here. Since you're the one pushing this idea that everything is connected back to Maidan, the burden of proof is on you to actually show it. Put some meat on those bones.
So, what exactly did these foreign "helpers" actually do? Honestly, it’s so easy to just grab some random soundbite, toss it out there, and pretend it’s a legitimate argument—but if you're going to make claims like that, you really ought to bring some actual evidence to the table.
Man, you’re getting awfully emotional on behalf of the Russian side for someone who claims to be all about being "objective and neutral."
You're just not in the mood to Google anything because there’s honestly nothing worth looking up, other than a bunch of links to "logic-based" sites and those other supposedly "high-quality" outlets. Your link to Index is actually a perfect case in point. It seems like whenever they publish something that fits the pro-Russia narrative, suddenly it's a legitimate news source, but if they report anything else, it's immediately labeled as bottom-of-the-barrel tabloid trash. Typical.

What kind of connection does history actually have to what’s happening right now? I mean, if we follow that logic, is every single country just going to start claiming "historical rights" whenever they feel like it? If that were the case, the whole of Europe would basically be one giant battlefield. Think about it—if you dig deep enough into the past, almost every nation once held territory that sits inside someone else's borders today. We don't see Austria trying to launch a military campaign to reclaim South Tyrol, and we don't see Germany demanding Alsace-Lorraine back from France. Even if we really start digging through the archives, you've got the English wanting Normandy back from the French, and so on and so forth. It just doesn't add up.
Keep at it, man. You're doing a great job. ☕

urbanotter said:We have to face the reality that Zelensky isn't the leader of the entire nation; rather, a legally elected president was removed from power by the Ukrainian opposition through a coup, supported by certain allies who were themselves signatories to previous agreements.
Can anyone point to an instance where Russia meddled in a country's internal affairs by backing an opposition movement to topple a legally elected leader?
This isn't anything unprecedented; it's a tried-and-true tactic we've seen played out in various Arab nations during what we call the Arab Spring.
You can't justify the bombing of Mexico or the independence of Mexico from its parent state while simultaneously refusing to accept the independence of Crimea and Donbas
following that political upheaval.

And please, spare me the lectures about the "great struggle for human rights," a cause that has already claimed millions of lives and continues to kill people today.
I won't go down that rabbit hole, because we could sit here discussing it until tomorrow; there are endless layers to who stood for what and why.
https://www.dw.com/hr/sad-i-rusija-o...eta/a-41917932

Erdogan once stated quite clearly that the West cannot be trusted. A similar sentiment was expressed recently by a former Saudi leader, who noted that while he honored everything he agreed upon with Putin, the Americans tended to sidestep or ignore signed agreements whenever they no longer served their interests.

Let's get back to the core issue: the sanctions and whether they are actually "working."

Man, what kind of nonsense are you even talking about? 🙏🙏🙏

Look, Zelenskyy *is* the president of Ukraine, excluding the occupied territories.



Just look at his vote count; go ahead, try explaining to Ukrainians that he isn't their president.
Also, you're trying so hard to defend an indefensible position that you've completely lost the plot. What does the Maidan uprising in 2014 have to do with Zelenskyy, who didn't even take office until 2019?
So, in your logic, they overthrew the government just to bring him in... what happened to the five years in between??
And yeah, sure, Russia hasn't meddled in anyone's elections or helped pro-Russian opposition... except for the fact that they basically do that constantly in every former Soviet state. 🤦

So, you're dropping a link that basically proves you wrong, showing that Russia was actually the first to break the mid-range missile agreement. 🙏

Nice job defending your "positions"—keep going, I'm listening. ☕

Donna Harris11 said:Americans might actually pull the trigger on limiting their own oil exports

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-G...rt-Limits.html

Word on the street is the White House is looking into putting caps on fuel exports.

Apparently, shipping all that fuel abroad is being blamed for why we're seeing such ridiculous prices at the pump here at home.

I mean, maybe Brendon could just leave the EU hanging out to dry if this happens.

The truth is, Europe doesn't really import refined fuel from the US—they mostly just grab raw crude, which only accounts for about 5% of their total imports.

Honestly, I get why these English-language articles freak you guys out; it’d probably be way less stressful if everything was written in Russian.

Jack Hill2 said:I don't know if you realize that 85% of the cars registered this year in places like Norway are electric.

The argument is settled. In developed nations, EVs will be the majority within five years.

Of course, in America, people will spend the next decade peddling stories about how they're junk, how the batteries will die instantly, or where anyone is supposed to charge them. But once there's enough money flowing for the first wave of used imports from overseas, we'll end up exactly where the Norwegians are today...

Look, I never said the shift to Teslas wasn't inevitable, I just think it won't be quite as smooth as everyone expects.
Norway is its own special case and isn't really a fair comparison for the rest of us; they've been aggressively subsidizing and incentivizing EV purchases for nearly a decade. While the rest of the developed world was sitting at 1-2% sales, they were already pushing 40%+. They started early, and now they're reaping the rewards.

And honestly, I’m not so sure people are going to be lining up to buy used EVs. It's not like these cars have proven they can last as long as a traditional gas car—you only have to look at how many used Priuses or Chevrolet Volts are out there right now, which are all cars that should be hitting that 8-to-10-year mark by now.

Nathan Evans78 said:The prelude to what’s headed our way is already playing out down south, in a nation that has coal to burn for days but suffers from an almost identical level of political absurdity:

Eight million people in Australia have been asked to cut their power usage by two hours every single day just to keep the lights on while the country grapples with a massive energy crisis.

Speaking at a press conference in Washington, D.C. this past Thursday, Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen urged residents living in the state of New South Wales to conserve electricity for two hours every evening.

"If you have any flexibility regarding when you run certain appliances, please don't run them between 6 and 8 [pm.]", he stated.

He went on to explain that the New South Wales power grid will be "under significant strain" during those hours, though he expressed being "confident" that total blackouts can still be avoided.

I mean, even in California, you deal with those regular rolling blackouts every single summer. It’s usually not actually a production issue; it’s a transmission nightmare, pretty much the same situation they face in Australia. The grid just can't handle the peak loads, so they have to go into controlled shutdowns for certain areas just to prevent the whole damn system from crashing. Plus, you've got those insane temperatures that cause cable stretch on the power lines, which makes short circuits way more likely.
Honestly, energy grids across most of the developed world are basically in the gutter right now. That's why the push to go all-in on Teslas without making massive, heavy-duty investments into the distribution network is just 🤦

George Robinson43 said:The era of Xiju's dominance is nearing its end.

Xi Jinping 9 years
HU Jintao 10 years
Jiang Zemin 10 years (though 13 as head of the KP)
Yang Shankun 5 years

Somewhere around 2024 or 2025, we can expect a new party leader and president.
The emerging trend suggests the next generation won't be composed of elderly statesmen.

But didn't they change the rules just so Xi could hang onto power longer?
Kind of like how Putin tweaked things in Russia to bypass those term limits.

rowdytiger13 said:Well, it’s official: Ukraine has been granted candidate status.
As someone pointed out earlier, this is largely a symbolic gesture. It matters on paper, sure, but given the current reality on the ground in Ukraine, you don't just stumble into membership like this. Honestly, it feels like a massive exercise in turning a blind eye.

By the way, flying under the radar, Moldova also grabbed candidate status, but Georgia sort of missed the mark and ended up just one step away.