The title is sensationalized and misleading though:

There's no way to know the culprits were Pro-Russian.

There's no indication they were Hackers.

They didn't only target US government employees.

No mention if other (not pro-Ukraine) politicians were also targeted, or if it was only those who support the war.

It could just be that US officials were caught in a large drag-net operation.

My point is, that anyone can trick a naive person to give up their password. They don't need to be a "Hacker" and they often aren't. The article's title is misleading and sensationalized.

Email phishing is not computer hacking.

Years?

Something I never understood: if the population is shrinking, why do they import workers instead of just scaling back production to accommodate the smaller population size?

For example, suppose you had a population of 100 people, and 25 of them would make 100 ice cream cones a day for everyone to have. Then if for some reason the population dropped to 80, why not just have 20 workers make 80 ice cream cones per day? Why is it necessary to import 20 workers to keep the population at 100?

>they've lost 1000 troops a day for 6 months trying to take a town with little strategic importance.

They lost 180,000 troops trying to take Bakhmut?

>Yes. First; you're quoting a study regarding enlargement guidelines. These aren't hard rules. They don't show up in the Treaty text.

Yea but weren't the proposals in the 1995 Study of NATO Enlargement eventually adopted as official policy during the 1999 Washington Summit?

>This often gets thrown around but this is a misconception based on policy rather than strict rules. There's no rule that says countries with existing territorial conflicts can not join.
>
>The actual condition is that the country must demonstrate the intent to resolve any such conflicts in accordance with international law. Ukraine has met this condition.

Chapter 1.6 of the 1995 Study of NATO Enlargement states:

>States which have ethnic disputes or external territorial disputes, including irredentist claims, or internal jurisdictional disputes must settle those disputes by peaceful means in accordance with OSCE principles. Resolution of such disputes would be a factor in determining whether to invite a state to join the Alliance.

One of the conditions for joining NATO is that the country must have resolved any conflicts with its neighbors or other countries in accordance with international law.

So even if France, Germany, and the UK did have the power to offer NATO membership to Ukraine, they could not accept it at this current time. Even pre-2022 before the invasion they could not get accepted because they had disputed territory in the Donbass and Crimea.

So, I guess a non-NATO guarantee of military support by individual nations is probably the best way forward for Ukraine.

Good, should have happened a year ago, but better late than never.

Mayor Cheat!

edit: seems many people already forgot about the 2020 Iowa Caucus fiasco...