In this video you can see soldiers patrolling the borders with rifles and dogs and using drones to scan the area, what’s your definition of heavily armed?
The clue here is that soldiers typically don't have dogs - their job is not tracking anyone. The folks you see are probably border guards. (Another clue is that soldiers would be expected to carry at least one proper machine gun per squad, items like grenades and grenade launchers, etc.)
The ukrainian military also have checkpoints in the west border to make sure any male between 18 and 60 doesn’t leave the country so that they can be forced into war.
In the west, you should expect to find the border guard. They are capable of checking databases and patrolling in nature, but aren't heavily armed. And tens of thousands of guys have taken leave on their own, despite anything the border guard can do. If one doesn't like the draft, one hikes out via the Carpathian mountains.
As for the draft, yes, it's a real thing. Of course it's unjust, people should be able to live in peace - hence no agressor should invade any land. Having to take up weapons sucks. But when a war on this scale gets started, states will draft soldiers into their armies. Many will dodge it. Since hundreds of thousands of soldiers are needed, lots of mistakes will be made, and will be sorted out later (units don't actually want soldiers who aren't capable of fighting).
Ultimately, who was called up but absolutely doesn't want to fight, must choose among these roles:
Obviously, everyone is not competent to become a medic. The remaining positions are attainable. So, in the end, it's mostly people willing to fight at least somewhat, who end up fighting. Some of them get disillusioned and desert, however. That's normal too, in a large war that lasts long. I don't hold it against them.
I'm not from Ukraine, and not a military person, but I cooperate with military people, supplying drones and stuff that helps bring hostile drones down (profit is not involved). So inevitably I do know the approximate situation.
I've read some things by Malatesta before (not much from Goldman), so thanks for the reading tips. There is a nuance, though. Once some country has started a conquest attempt, any disarmament will only give them victory. Disarmament is only possible when it's mutual, and then I fully support it. The article by Goldman that you suggested seems to originate from 1915, when World War I was being fought in Europe. I remind that World War I had no clear agressor, and indeed, anarchists of all countries tried to overthrow the ruling regimes (which were mostly undemocratic, frequently dictatorial and imperial).
The current situation somewhat differs. There is a clear agressor, which happens to be a dictatorship and an empire, supported by other dictatorships and a messed up theocracy. There happens to be a clearly defined victim of agression, which happens to be mostly democratic, supported by places that are reasonably democratic. I believe that if Malatesta lived today, I could convince him to start a charity that supplies Ukrainians. :)
I hope for revolutionary conditions to arise in Russia, but that will be a long wait. My comrades there tried and lost, they've mostly emigrated by now. Some are imprisoned, some still keep trying (I can't estimate what the percentages are, people don't talk openly of such things), but there are approximately 4 times as much cops per capita in Russia compared to a normal country, so their chances are miserable.
If you are sure about something, then bring evidence of considerable off-label activities.
In response to your response about "Nordic Response":
Surveillance, patrols, road control posts, vehicle inspection, control of air space, minesweeping, evacuation of civilians, and riot control were important part of the exercise.”
Those are realistic military duties in war time. Every military practises them. Where do you find a fault?
An example from real life: the Ukrainian military has checkpoints on roads near the frontline. Moving with a vehicle, you'd expect to show papers, say a few words and maybe even show transported goods. The purpose? Finding reconnaisance / sabotage groups, which every competent enemy is expected to send. If an opponent doesn't send recon or saboteurs, they are fools. If a military doesn't learn how to deter those, they're fools.
How does one learn? After dry reading in a classroom: one holds an excercise. There's a home team and an opposing team. The home team checks, the opposing team infiltrates. Both teams report what they achieved, results get compared. If the blue team found the "saboteurs", good. If the red team "blew up" all bridges and pipelines in the area, people think hard about what they did wrong. If they don't practise, they don't get to think hard.
Based on this, I conclude: the NATO of today is a mostly defensive alliance with some taints in its history.
It is currently very busy doing a real job - opposing a conquering dictator named Vladimir Putin.
I wish it luck, as long as it sticks to its declared purpose. If it oversteps, I will revise my opinion.
The EU has by now significantly outpaid the US, and out-supported the US in Ukraine. However, for historical reasons, it lacks certain items which Ukrainians badly need (tactical ballistic missiles and anti-missile defense, to bring good examples).
On the matter of aircraft, I should especially emphasize that EU countries have given fighter aircraft, but the US has not. The US is currently attempting to get through the bureaucracy of approving a Swedish AWACS aircraft (with some US components) going to Ukraine.
Educate thyself here, military people use this resource and approve of it:
So, NATO had a problematic operation, trying to establish (and coordinate the establishment of) guerilla stay-behind troops to use in the event of Soviet takeover - and the operation went especially problematic in Italy during the Years of Lead, where some of those guys associated with right-wing terrorists. The year was 1969 or so.
Basing on this, how do I conclude anything about the NATO of today?
Disclaimer: I was asked to hold an anti NATO speech during a protest event during a NATO summit. Being a moderately honest anarchist, I held a speech denouncing the practises seen in Afghanistan (the year was 2012), but emphasized that collective self defense is a valuable thing to have (a common attitude here in Eastern Europe), and added that if the alliance would bother doing what it says on the sticker, I would support it.
NATO is an alliance of various countries. Some of them aren't nice or democratic (classic example: Turkey). Mixed bag, and constantly changing. Membership in NATO is not a letter of indulgence for a member state to do anything - allies are obliged to help only if someone attacks a member state. If a NATO member attacks someone else, allies can ignore the affair or even oppose the member (example: Turkey recently bombed Kurdish troops in Syria so sloppily that threatened US troops shot down a Turkish drone).
In his shoes, I would think twice - does their team really want to present their dirtiest laundry to the world - such as owing an election to a media oligarch?
As for the EU, it's a massive bureaucracy which still follows its own laws. It probably won't change track. There is no single person to change its track.
However, at this stage of the game, I have the nagging feeling that some American may downregulate Elon Musk directly, far before the EU manages to step on his precious toe.
If conservative means "cautious and wary of unexpected results", "disillusioned with methods that we tried and failed with" or maybe even "equipped with experience of successful and failed cooperation with various sorts of people", then yes. Already before age 50, I'm spoiled with various good and bad experiences. I cannot exclude that as my tendency to explore decreases (psychology tends to affirm this trend), I may get prejudiced too. I may have to figure out something to counter it.
But if conservative means that I suddenly don't want a society with equality and without hierarchy, then - nope.
/me listening to the sound of a WinXP virtual machine booting under Debian Linux
They can shoot their foot with a grenade launcher next. I'm already out of range.
Having once worked on an open source project that dealt with providing anonymity - it was considered the duty of the release engineer to have an overview of all code committed (and to ask questions, publicly if needed, if they had any doubts) - before compiling and signing the code.
On some months, that was a big load of work and it seemed possible that one person might miss something. So others were encouraged to read and report about irregularities too. I don't think anyone ever skipped it, because the implications were clear: "if one of us fails, someone somewhere can get imprisoned or killed, not to speak of milder results".
However, in case of an utility not directly involved with functions that are critical for security - it might be easier to pass through the sieve.
Say you’re trying to defend against something like a Shahed-136. It can hit pretty much anywhere in Ukraine. You can’t stick an AA gun on everything that Russia might consider trading a Shahed-136 for.
As far as I know, the routine in the current war is - the AA gun is on a truck that moves 80 km/h, the drone comes in slower than 300 km/h, one or multiple truck crews position themselves on likely vantage points for intercepting, and the rest is luck.
Level 3000 hack: compromise security with drone fleas that jump onto drone dogs.
Level 9000 hack: join the pack with a drone attack dog.