I don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean by comparison? I don't think that every other country but Ukraine is useless. What makes you say that? What are you saying about nukes?
I don't understand what you're saying. What do you mean by comparison? I don't think that every other country but Ukraine is useless. What makes you say that? What are you saying about nukes?
> What do you mean by comparison?
Your comment compares Lithuanian homebrew tech to Ukrainian military-funded tech and claims that the former is grossly inferior to the latter. That comparison is what they're challenging.
> What are you saying about nukes?
According to your comment, homebrew tech was not going to prevent World War III. This can come across as unconstructive because in general, even small things can make a difference (or be a first step towards something that will.)
Their comeback "explain what your plan is against nukes" is just another way of saying "your comment just dismissed an idea but failed to present a better idea on its own," or more generally, "let's remain constructive."
I'm not convinced that's what the other commentors was talking about, but thanks for attempting to translate. I can respond to what you're saying though.
Yes, the Lithuanian tech in question is inferior, but that's sort of beside the point. The point is that it's a system unconvincingly reinventing what a significant Lithuanian ally has mastered. Further, the volunteer-based initiative begs the question: where are the state investments, official installations, official initiative in general?
I'm all for open-source hacking, volunteering, etc. But, state defence is a task for the state: defence development is too.
It is embarrassing to watch Baltic airports suspend traffic regularly because of Belorussian baloons or whole of Vilnius shuffling to underground parking structures because a drone-like radar blip appeared a few hundred kilometers away. We need meaningful investment in defence and we need it yesterday. A volunteer initiative to counter these modern airspace threats is so little so late that it's frankly upsetting.
As for deterrence, a volunteer organization for passive listening will not be part of the risk assessment in Kremlin. We need a political class that understands the price of kowtowing, the price of in-fighting, and a defensive capability that is meaningful.
As for concrete solutions, these are democratic governments: vote, discuss, don't be silent. This open-source initiative, as I said initially, is cute: and it might actually make waves where it matters: but my point this is not what we need in of itself.
Further, as I was saying before: cooperation with Ukrainians: trading technology, expertise: establishing long-term industrial relationships.