Oh for sure. What I meant was “check router for a built in VPN and use it if it has one, otherwise use wireguard because it’s the easiest”.
The specific VPN doesn’t really matter so much. The built-in one would be the easiest, so checking for a solution that took a few clicks is worth it. :)
I would use something like wireguard, or another VPN service you can host yourself if your router supports it natively.
From the looks of it Minecraft servers seem to have dogshit authentication, so using some form of private network setup is going to be your best move.
You asked why Europe would want to avoid pushing Russia too far.
You can either come up with a complicated answer involving Russia having a vast reserve of undemonstrated military might and thinking that anyone found the “denazification” excuse plausible, or you can remember that they have nukes and even with a military that poses no plausible threat or defense to NATO being a nuclear power is a great deterrent.
Why, lacking evidence to the contrary, you would pick the more complicated explanation is a mystery.
Europe and the west are hesitant to provoke Russia for a reason. Idk why that’s such an unpopular opinion here.
Yeah, nuclear weapons and domestic political concerns around openly escalating a war as opposed to supplying a defensive war. No one is particularly hesitant to admit that Russia has nukes and or that that influences how NATO handles the situation.
People think that looking at the past decades of what’s happened to Russia, and the recent failures they’ve had and concluding that they’re just “holding back” is assinine.
Attributing loosing or making preposterous strategic mistakes to some sort of 5D chess is a weird choice to make.
I don’t know why so many of you people have such a hard time accepting that the popular conception of Russia as an Eastern counterpart to the US was inaccurate. Turns out that if you consistently invest less in your military equipment and personnel, you have a less capable military. It’s been 40 years since their expenditures have been comparable, and quite frankly it shows.
Using your old equipment for an invasion would actually be a pretty novel strategy. Ukraine consistently used the best equipment available to them. That that was leftover NATO hardware doesn’t mean Ukraine was choosing to hold the good stuff in reserve.
If they’re trying to use a “let the reservists die and then send in the competent soldiers” strategy, it doesn’t seem to be going very well. They’re somehow not holding the territory they took very well, and churning through a lot of what was presumably reserve hardware.
Failing to execute a gulf war 1, and so deciding to chill in a Vietnam situation for … Some reason … for an indeterminate period of time is just not a strategy that any sane strategist would pick.
If Russia has the ability to just handwave their way to victory if things got too rough, they’ve done a pretty terrible job of demonstrating it.
I honestly can’t comprehend what you might have seen of this whole affair that would make you think they had that ability, beyond clinging to the notion that a former superpower must still be a superpower.
They just don’t have the economy or the equipment to be able to afford to burn through endless waves of soldiers like you seem to think they’re intentionally doing.
They didn’t even get air superiority, which is just embarrassing.
Eh, it’s been old equipment and concripts for a bit now, but that’s not what the sent at first.
Trying to take a country using your C team and old hardware and then scaling up if things go badly is a radically bad strategy. It’s a great way to lose your C team, and then send more competent soldiers to fight against a prepared and well defensed enemy.
That might be what Russia did, but if so it’s a show of incompetence about in line with everything else we’ve seen and not some “better slow down” signal.
An all out war is unlikely, since if NATO involvement was going to kick that off it would have done so by now.
The next point of escalation that could start something bigger would be stuff like NATO openly sending troops or actively providing fire support.
US hesitation to allow our hardware to be used for this type of attack is much more to do with the political issues surrounding the war being framed as a proxy war instead of defensive support.
The electorates support for “saving the day” and “superior US hardware helping keep a country free” is high. Support for a protracted and complex proxy war without clear right and wrong sides is exhausting and hits too many Iraq/Afghanistan buttons for people to care.
Asking for and publicly being denied permission to bomb targets adjacent to the capitol does just as well at communicating “we can bomb your capitol” as actually doing it.
There seems to have been some policy miscommunication between political and military parties of both nations.
The US has maintained that the restrictions have been to not allow offensive use, or specific long range missiles for targeting well inside Russian territory.
Ukraine understood this to mean using them to fend off an attack, and only targets within a specific distance from the border.
In the past few months it seems that much of this has been clarified, and Ukraine is now using US munitions for a proper US “preemptive defensive action inside enemy territory”, because a Russian base in Russia is full of Russian soldiers who will be ordered to attack, therefore an attack is defensive.
If it was an actual miscommunication or a pivot is unclear, but the US language seems to have not changed, and a policy that acknowledges that almost anything Ukraine does in this war is inherently defensive is much more reasonable.
You do know that the first amendment doesn’t protect incitement, right? It’s just about the only thing that it doesn’t cover, along with defamation.
He’s literally specifically calling out something our laws also prohibit.
Freedom of speech does not include the right: To incite imminent lawless action. Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969).
Yeah, it’s definitely faster, but I’m not sure it’s going to make too much of a difference for a Minecraft server.
With setting it up being a bit annoying by hand, I’d still rank the router option higher even if it’s a worse VPN. Otherwise you risk ending up in that yak shaving situation where you’re fighting with routing tables and DNS when you wanted a Minecraft server.