> Kofman said he believes the analysts did not misread Russian capabilities as much as they underestimated the Ukrainian ones.

That's a bluff, Ukrainian army was revamped right after annexation of Crimea happened, they received training from Israeli army, Europe and the USA were eyeing the country's natural resources. The stagnation of the EU is providing enough encouragement in providing military aid, something that the general population is split on.

https://www.thelocal.de/20230120/are-germans-really-that-pacifist-anymore

War is an extention of politics and all countries are preparing for one. We are all approaching the point where it will either be nationalism or internationalism/resistance/civil wars. I wish best to Iranian revolutionaries, mass insurrection and general strike is a personally preferred alternative to being in denial about a possible thermonuclear WW3.

What a clown fiesta this is, the Ukraininan government remains to be the enemy of its people for all the shady corruption, anti-unionism, and taking extreme WTO-dictated Neoliberalism as "standard norm". You can pretend all you want but Yanukovich Ukraine was barely distinguishable from Russia and renaming every second street after Bandera is not an improvement. Everybody's gangsta until the question of military draft comes into play, where the sons of politicians and diplomats display that they can help combat Ukraine's coronavirus by really socially distancing themselves from us, plebs.

From fire to flame. No external aid will help fixing internal issues of any government, since every state acts in their self-interest. Experience with Russia should have been a lessen to learn from.

I'm not so sure what is considered here to be a proper talk and what is a pointless mumble, nevertheless here are my thoughts on this topic:

Whenever the talk is about open-source, what makes it bad is also what makes it paradoxically good. For that you see, open-source is inherintly a chaotic consept. Free code, limitless amount of volunteers, yet questionable skill of mentioned individuals. The problems are nearly identical in nearly all projects is that people sometimes spend an unreasonable amount of time trying to band-aid an already "patched" software. Although, in hands of clever core developers, pure genious that is git or similar, and undeniably some luck, some masterpieces can be created (though some might say I'm being overly fanatic).

Unfortunately it seems that OpenSSL outdid its welcome. Whenever you start to hear that there is a ludicrous amount of bugs, then clearly some gnome is no longer magically keeping the garden intact; people have lost the enthusiasm. At some point, perhaps, the project had went in the wrong direction, hence experts foreshadowing its demise, or it could have been unexpected and unpleasant surprise for everyone (latter being pretty unlikely for this particular case).

While its stupendous to state that the project will revive itself, some things can be mentioned for certain. For one, it's natural for any given project to become extinct. It is not possible for us to know for certain that something will exist indefinitly, but at the very least, the consept, the idea will live on. Of course, just like any creation, it's sad to see its beating heart to stop, especially for its creator; mistakes are to be learned from and to be improved upon. I am more than excited to see what could possibly come out as a successor. Only time will tell.

So in conclusion, OpenSSL is a good idea which went without a clear guidance - a path proven so many times to fail. But most definitly, it's not the time to say that Linux lost SSL support. And when the time will come, "From the ashes, phoenix will rise!"