-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Russia begins Invasion of Ukraine
- Thread starter AfricanKing
- Start date
- News NSFW
- Status
NoLootBoxDev
Member
I hope it is true. New Day, Fuck Putin.
6502
Member
Well China was virgin soil for hundreds of years. Look at what the British managed with Hong Kong.. it was pure unadulterated capitalism far far beyond what they ever did back home - in an almost zero regulation environment. Often held up as an example to UK population of how to turn around their decline before the handover. GB has centuries of corruption and classism causing a moral divide as a result GB will likely just keep on muddling through at best.
Much of what enabled hong kong growth will be destroyed by winnie the pooh as his muppets turn it into another authoritarian nightmare.
I think USA has the greatest chance of kick starting the next capitalist surge and emerging as the undisputed superpower again. It has a divided society and deep routed corruption to sort out but the culture still has the right ingredients to make reindustrialisation an individual endevour succeed.
Also worth keeping an eye on el-salvador. I dont know much about the politics or the regime but they are doing some interesting economic stuff which may just change our perspective on world financing (if it succeeds and others embrace it).
BigBooper
Member
Don't worry. It's a pipe dream fantasy view of "the West." As if our politicians don't constantly get away with doing illegal and unethical activities. It's a belief that those incidents don't matter because society is moving in a direction that author likes.So... according to that definition, Latin America isn't part of the west.
Good to know.
I'll welcome you into my west, partner.
Wildebeest
Member
The myth is that Hong Kong was run by a nerdy British civil servant who thought that Adam Smith's wealth of nations was an instruction manual. The story being not that the UK never had "capitalism" but that the ideal of British capitalism was in the 18th century. A time when there just wasn't as much direct competition to the exploitation of coal based technology happening in Britain. Really what we are talking about here is the industrial revolution, not the more vague concept of "capitalism" which views things as just about private ownership and markets than new technologies and mass social upheaval. A lot of capitalism involved trading and imperial expansion into new territory rather than purely building manufacturing capacity. It became in Britain that getting rich was not something that people did at home by starting industries, but something they did overseas in shady ways before sometimes returning to show off their wealth.
Ionian
Member
That was chilling. Not a fan of VICE as their early episodes ... But then Thor interviewed the Ukrainian leader.
Once he switched to his native language, I picked up more. His English was great though.
He's some man, Ukrainian leader. Interviewer, well he didn't impress me other than the fact he got to interview him.
RAÏSanÏa
Member
The interviewer was acting clueless. Jimmy Olsen or not, the answers were direct and superb - Europa - heard clearly from the tower.
BigBooper
Member
He seems pretty optimistic and realistic about their future. He's the perfect leader for the situation Ukraine's in.
Good on Vice for getting in there too.
Rat Rage
Member
Yes, of course most russians are against the war. There were a lot of protests and thousands of people got arrested. It's actually pretty hard to protest in a dictatorship, unlike in western countries with free speech. You really have a very simple minded and narrow way of looking at this conflict. You are way too extreme. "Russia" is not one entity, nor are the United States of America. The US started lots of stupid wars as well, which I was against, but that still didn't make me shout "Americans are shit" like an Idiot or "From now on I'm gonna put evey American on ignore on the internet!".
Last edited:
QSD
Member
probably not gonna be my most popular post, but I thought this was interesting
interesting point:
"Vladimir Putin is not afraid of Covid, he is afraid of an engineered bioweapon targeted at his genome that has symptoms similar to covid. he believes the lab-leak hypothesis"
interesting point:
"Vladimir Putin is not afraid of Covid, he is afraid of an engineered bioweapon targeted at his genome that has symptoms similar to covid. he believes the lab-leak hypothesis"
Last edited:
Vestal
Junior Member
@9m mark compares Ukraine to Viet Cong regarding captured soldiers to make equivalency.
Thanks for taking one for the team.. With that single outtake I think I will avoid the entire video.
IDKFA
I am Become Bilbo Baggins
funkygunther
Banned
one hour video and no summary is a guarantee I’m not watching it, with that kind of effort I’m not convinced even the person posting it has watched it
QSD
Member
I mean, I tend to find the interviews with the Russian POW's believable like most here, but I think what he's warning against is letting ourselves be lead too much by wishful thinking. It's certainly true that POW statements have not been very trustworthy (and that is the understatement of the year probably) in the past.@9m mark compares Ukraine to Viet Cong regarding captured soldiers to make equivalency.
QSD
Member
I'm still watching!
Violinists share their support of Ukraine and call for peace. There's also an active fundraiser in the full youtube link for the UNHCR to assist refugees.
Background: http://violinistssupportukraine.com/press/
Background: http://violinistssupportukraine.com/press/
Last edited:
NoLootBoxDev
Member
Roll Fizzlebeef
Member
On my phone so difficult to make a new thread. Sounds like iran fired some rockets at the US embassy in iraq. Some of the people ive been following for ukraine news have been posting videos on it
Last edited:
FunkMiller
Member
So... according to that definition, Latin America isn't part of the west.
Good to know.
Well, what part of Latin America are you in? If it’s not a nation based on the rule of law, freedom, and democracy... then, no. You’re not part of the ’west’ as defined as an ideology.
Denton
Member
Z - zombies - brainless with a taste for human flesh - describes Putin and his supporters well actually
I would say some countries are, e.g. Uruguay and Paraguay
Last edited:
QSD
Member
The reason I found it noteworthy is because it illustrates the extent and nature of his paranoia. He believes not only the lab leak, but really that the whole thing was staged to kill him (at least that's what I got from what the guy was saying) which also points to an insane level of grandiosity/self importance
RAÏSanÏa
Member
That may explain the reasoning for Macron declining the covid test way back in early negotiations; from taking these types of accusations as being paranoid projections of intent.
FunkMiller
Member
@9m mark compares Ukraine to Viet Cong regarding captured soldiers to make equivalency.
Ah, a fucking idiot then? Good to know. Good to not watch.
The World That Putin Has Made
By attacking Ukraine, Vladimir Putin may have brought about what he wanted least: a galvanized West, determined to act together to preserve a liberal world order.
www.wsj.com
On Feb. 4, just weeks before he would invade Ukraine, Vladimir Putin went to the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Beijing. Sitting alone, the Russian president appeared to close his eyes as the Ukrainian team entered. By the end of the month, he would threaten the country’s independent existence.
The Olympics wasn’t the only item on Mr. Putin’s agenda in Beijing. He held a high-profile summit meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, in which the two pledged friendship and solidarity. To sum up their vision for what such a partnership could achieve, they issued an expansive joint manifesto.
The world they sought, the statement said, would be ordered very differently than in the past, and China and Russia would cooperate with “no limits” to assume their rightful places in it. They would forge an “international relations of a new type,” multipolar and no longer dominated by the United States. There would be no further NATO enlargement, no color revolutions, no globe-spanning U.S. missile defense system, no American nuclear weapons deployed abroad. Actors “representing but the minority on the international scale”—that is, the U.S. and its allies—might continue to interfere in other states and “incite contradictions, differences and confrontation,” but Beijing and Moscow together would resist them.
The manifesto put in stark, global terms much of what Mr. Putin has pursued for more than a decade. The Russian president wants to prevent Ukraine from aligning with the West and to dominate and absorb the Ukrainian people. He hopes to fracture Western unity, especially within NATO, to stop the alliance’s expansion and to reverse its eastern military deployments. In Mr. Putin’s plans, Russia would regain an expansive sphere of influence that would at once guarantee its security needs and recognize its longstanding imperial claims. After a long period of post-Cold War decline and humiliation, his country would be strong and respected again—a great power treated as such.
In the world order to come, no one would pressure China or Russia on human rights or interfere in their internal affairs. Democracy itself would be redefined and subject to no universal standard. “It is only up to the people of the country,” the manifesto said, “to decide whether their State is a democratic one.” Russia would join with China to oppose both “any forms of independence for Taiwan” and the formation of alliances opposed to Beijing in Asia.
This is the world that Mr. Putin wants, but it is not the one that he is violently ushering into existence. His unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has resulted in geopolitical shifts astonishing in their scale and rapidity. The outlines of a new global order are already perceptible—and in many ways, they are precisely the opposite of those the Russian president seeks.
Before the invasion, Western countries widely viewed Russia as a resentful, revisionist power, led by a president who was unhappy with his country’s global position but pragmatic and opportunistic. Moscow’s unprovoked war of aggression changed this perception overnight. American and European leaders now see Russia as a clear and present danger, not just to Ukraine but potentially to other neighbors and even to NATO territory. Gone are the visits of European leaders to Moscow and the lengthy discussions about accommodating Russian security concerns. In their place are utter distrust and a common desire to isolate and weaken Russia.
If Mr. Putin hoped to carve out an international leadership role for Russia, he has failed badly. For the first time in a quarter century, the U.N. General Assembly met in emergency session to debate a resolution condemning the invasion. It did so by a vote of 141-5, with Moscow joined only by Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea and Syria in opposing the measure. Even its quasi-ally China abstained on the vote. Nearly 40 countries then made the largest-ever referral to the International Criminal Court, asking it to investigate potential Russian war crimes in Ukraine. President Biden summed up the attitude of many leaders, saying, “Putin has unleashed violence and chaos. But while he may make gains on the battlefield, he will pay a continuing high price over the long run.”
As the war began, Mr. Putin warned that “Russia remains part of the global economy” and that its partners should “not set a goal to push us out of the system.” And yet, the world’s largest economies, except China, moved quickly to disconnect Russia from the benefits of globalization, including trade, travel, technology and finance. They sanctioned Russia’s biggest banks, enacted restrictions on their use of the SWIFT financial messaging system and froze central bank assets. In so doing, they deliberately fomented a financial crisis, drove the ruble to an all-time low and provoked a near-default on Russia’s sovereign debt.
Multiple countries stopped issuing visas to Russians, barred Russian air travel, sanctioned key individuals and their families and put export controls in place. Energy giants like BP, Shell and Exxon are divesting their Russian holdings, Visa and Mastercard have stopped processing payments, and Apple no longer sells iPhones in Russia. Even sports bodies have joined the movement: FIFA suspended Russian soccer teams, the International Olympic Committee banned Russian athletes, and Russian teams are now prohibited from participating in international hockey events. Never before has an economy so large become so isolated so quickly.
The combination of unprovoked war and economic mayhem has brought many Russians into the street to protest. But Russia has long had the habit of accompanying external aggression with domestic repression, and the Kremlin has played to type, cracking down on internal dissent. The resulting image is one of a Russia not strong and unified but discontented and even brittle.
In Europe, Mr. Putin’s aggression achieved virtually overnight what decades of haranguing by American presidents could not. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz killed Nordstream 2, the $11 billion pipeline that would have carried gas to Germany, and pledged to diversify away from Russian supplies. He announced that Germany would immediately boost defense spending by 100 billion euros and pledged annual defense outlays amounting to 2% of German GDP, up from 1.4%. He also pledged to ship weapons to Ukraine, including antitank rockets and Stinger missiles that can take down Russian aircraft.
Neutrality is waning. Non-NATO member Finland and neutral Sweden both aligned firmly with the West against Russia, and for the first time, majorities in both countries now favor NATO membership. Both are sending weapons to Ukraine. Even Switzerland, which has famously guarded its neutrality for more than 500 years, has frozen Russian assets, adopted the EU sanctions package, voted at the U.N. to condemn Moscow’s invasion and delivered emergency relief supplies to Ukraine.
The EU, which for two decades has aspired to a military role without much success, crossed its own Rubicon. The economic bloc announced that it will provide fighter jets and other lethal arms to Ukraine. “For the first time ever,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said, “the EU will finance the purchase and delivery of weapons and other equipment to a country that is under attack. This is a watershed moment.” After Kyiv appealed for EU membership, Ms. von der Leyen observed that Ukraine is “one of us, and we want them in the European Union.” She subsequently softened her remarks, but such sentiment toward Ukraine was notable because it had been unthinkable just days before.
Much more in Europe was previously unthinkable. In the 1980s, the U.S. and Britain supplied weapons to the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan, but they did so in a secret operation that took years to scale up. Within days of Mr. Putin’s invasion, by contrast, at least 15 countries, most of them European, were openly arming Ukraine. NATO activated its Response Force, an advanced military force capable of rapid deployment, for the first time in its history.
Mr. Putin sought to stop NATO expansion, roll back the alliance’s deployments and dominate what he considers Russia’s sphere of influence. But the opposite outcome is more likely. His war could ultimately leave NATO larger, more unified, better armed and with military deployments placed closer to Russia. For decades, EU members divided largely on east-west lines over how to deal with Russia. Now that problem is a source of common action. A land war on the continent may well have helped to birth a new Europe.
The geopolitical reverberations extend to other regions as well. Japan joined the sweeping sanctions on Russia and is sending bulletproof vests to Ukraine. This may be just the beginning for a country that sees in Russia’s invasion the possible antecedents—and responses—to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. “We want to demonstrate what happens when a country invades another country,” a Japanese official told the Washington Post. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said that “Japan needs to implement a fundamental upgrade of its defense capabilities.”
“
FunkMiller
Member
“The World That Putin Has Made
By attacking Ukraine, Vladimir Putin may have brought about what he wanted least: a galvanized West, determined to act together to preserve a liberal world order.
On Feb. 4, just weeks before he would invade Ukraine, Vladimir Putin went to the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Beijing. Sitting alone, the Russian president appeared to close his eyes as the Ukrainian team entered. By the end of the month, he would threaten the country’s independent existence.
The Olympics wasn’t the only item on Mr. Putin’s agenda in Beijing. He held a high-profile summit meeting with Chinese leader Xi Jinping, in which the two pledged friendship and solidarity. To sum up their vision for what such a partnership could achieve, they issued an expansive joint manifesto.
The world they sought, the statement said, would be ordered very differently than in the past, and China and Russia would cooperate with “no limits” to assume their rightful places in it. They would forge an “international relations of a new type,” multipolar and no longer dominated by the United States. There would be no further NATO enlargement, no color revolutions, no globe-spanning U.S. missile defense system, no American nuclear weapons deployed abroad. Actors “representing but the minority on the international scale”—that is, the U.S. and its allies—might continue to interfere in other states and “incite contradictions, differences and confrontation,” but Beijing and Moscow together would resist them.
The manifesto put in stark, global terms much of what Mr. Putin has pursued for more than a decade. The Russian president wants to prevent Ukraine from aligning with the West and to dominate and absorb the Ukrainian people. He hopes to fracture Western unity, especially within NATO, to stop the alliance’s expansion and to reverse its eastern military deployments. In Mr. Putin’s plans, Russia would regain an expansive sphere of influence that would at once guarantee its security needs and recognize its longstanding imperial claims. After a long period of post-Cold War decline and humiliation, his country would be strong and respected again—a great power treated as such.
In the world order to come, no one would pressure China or Russia on human rights or interfere in their internal affairs. Democracy itself would be redefined and subject to no universal standard. “It is only up to the people of the country,” the manifesto said, “to decide whether their State is a democratic one.” Russia would join with China to oppose both “any forms of independence for Taiwan” and the formation of alliances opposed to Beijing in Asia.
This is the world that Mr. Putin wants, but it is not the one that he is violently ushering into existence. His unprovoked invasion of Ukraine has resulted in geopolitical shifts astonishing in their scale and rapidity. The outlines of a new global order are already perceptible—and in many ways, they are precisely the opposite of those the Russian president seeks.
Before the invasion, Western countries widely viewed Russia as a resentful, revisionist power, led by a president who was unhappy with his country’s global position but pragmatic and opportunistic. Moscow’s unprovoked war of aggression changed this perception overnight. American and European leaders now see Russia as a clear and present danger, not just to Ukraine but potentially to other neighbors and even to NATO territory. Gone are the visits of European leaders to Moscow and the lengthy discussions about accommodating Russian security concerns. In their place are utter distrust and a common desire to isolate and weaken Russia.
If Mr. Putin hoped to carve out an international leadership role for Russia, he has failed badly. For the first time in a quarter century, the U.N. General Assembly met in emergency session to debate a resolution condemning the invasion. It did so by a vote of 141-5, with Moscow joined only by Belarus, Eritrea, North Korea and Syria in opposing the measure. Even its quasi-ally China abstained on the vote. Nearly 40 countries then made the largest-ever referral to the International Criminal Court, asking it to investigate potential Russian war crimes in Ukraine. President Biden summed up the attitude of many leaders, saying, “Putin has unleashed violence and chaos. But while he may make gains on the battlefield, he will pay a continuing high price over the long run.”
As the war began, Mr. Putin warned that “Russia remains part of the global economy” and that its partners should “not set a goal to push us out of the system.” And yet, the world’s largest economies, except China, moved quickly to disconnect Russia from the benefits of globalization, including trade, travel, technology and finance. They sanctioned Russia’s biggest banks, enacted restrictions on their use of the SWIFT financial messaging system and froze central bank assets. In so doing, they deliberately fomented a financial crisis, drove the ruble to an all-time low and provoked a near-default on Russia’s sovereign debt.
Multiple countries stopped issuing visas to Russians, barred Russian air travel, sanctioned key individuals and their families and put export controls in place. Energy giants like BP, Shell and Exxon are divesting their Russian holdings, Visa and Mastercard have stopped processing payments, and Apple no longer sells iPhones in Russia. Even sports bodies have joined the movement: FIFA suspended Russian soccer teams, the International Olympic Committee banned Russian athletes, and Russian teams are now prohibited from participating in international hockey events. Never before has an economy so large become so isolated so quickly.
The combination of unprovoked war and economic mayhem has brought many Russians into the street to protest. But Russia has long had the habit of accompanying external aggression with domestic repression, and the Kremlin has played to type, cracking down on internal dissent. The resulting image is one of a Russia not strong and unified but discontented and even brittle.
In Europe, Mr. Putin’s aggression achieved virtually overnight what decades of haranguing by American presidents could not. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz killed Nordstream 2, the $11 billion pipeline that would have carried gas to Germany, and pledged to diversify away from Russian supplies. He announced that Germany would immediately boost defense spending by 100 billion euros and pledged annual defense outlays amounting to 2% of German GDP, up from 1.4%. He also pledged to ship weapons to Ukraine, including antitank rockets and Stinger missiles that can take down Russian aircraft.
Neutrality is waning. Non-NATO member Finland and neutral Sweden both aligned firmly with the West against Russia, and for the first time, majorities in both countries now favor NATO membership. Both are sending weapons to Ukraine. Even Switzerland, which has famously guarded its neutrality for more than 500 years, has frozen Russian assets, adopted the EU sanctions package, voted at the U.N. to condemn Moscow’s invasion and delivered emergency relief supplies to Ukraine.
The EU, which for two decades has aspired to a military role without much success, crossed its own Rubicon. The economic bloc announced that it will provide fighter jets and other lethal arms to Ukraine. “For the first time ever,” European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said, “the EU will finance the purchase and delivery of weapons and other equipment to a country that is under attack. This is a watershed moment.” After Kyiv appealed for EU membership, Ms. von der Leyen observed that Ukraine is “one of us, and we want them in the European Union.” She subsequently softened her remarks, but such sentiment toward Ukraine was notable because it had been unthinkable just days before.
Much more in Europe was previously unthinkable. In the 1980s, the U.S. and Britain supplied weapons to the anti-Soviet resistance in Afghanistan, but they did so in a secret operation that took years to scale up. Within days of Mr. Putin’s invasion, by contrast, at least 15 countries, most of them European, were openly arming Ukraine. NATO activated its Response Force, an advanced military force capable of rapid deployment, for the first time in its history.
Mr. Putin sought to stop NATO expansion, roll back the alliance’s deployments and dominate what he considers Russia’s sphere of influence. But the opposite outcome is more likely. His war could ultimately leave NATO larger, more unified, better armed and with military deployments placed closer to Russia. For decades, EU members divided largely on east-west lines over how to deal with Russia. Now that problem is a source of common action. A land war on the continent may well have helped to birth a new Europe.
The geopolitical reverberations extend to other regions as well. Japan joined the sweeping sanctions on Russia and is sending bulletproof vests to Ukraine. This may be just the beginning for a country that sees in Russia’s invasion the possible antecedents—and responses—to a Chinese attack on Taiwan. “We want to demonstrate what happens when a country invades another country,” a Japanese official told the Washington Post. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said that “Japan needs to implement a fundamental upgrade of its defense capabilities.”
“
Short version: Vladimir Putin is a fucking moron.
Yoboman
Member
Nationalism is one of the most low IQ things humans do that I can think of
That goes for every country
Edgelord79
Gold Member
Actually zombies best describes the general populace 3 months from now. People subjugated while they can’t repair cars or airplanes because there are no parts. Simple household items behind difficult to get. All while being fed information saying everything is fine and that these are mild setbacks. The population will slowly start realizing something is wrong but it will be a trickle effect while the state maintains business as usual. It will become like bizarro world.
Last edited:
QSD
Member
What he's basically saying is that POW statements in the past have not been trustworthy (hard to argue with IMHO) and that we are in danger of letting ourselves be lead by wishful thinking.
I would like to believe those interviews are legit, and that Russian morale is on the verge of collapsing. But I run the risk of being manipulated if I ignore how tendentious the evidence is for that.
FunkMiller
Member
QSD
Member
I don't think he's saying what you think he's saying (which is something along the lines of "the ukranians are mistreating their POW's and pressuring them into making statements through torture and abuse, similar to the vietcong")
He also doesn't imply it. He's simply saying POW statements aren't unbiased sources of information that can be taken at face value, and that our view of the vietnam war would be very skewed if we only had POW statements to go on.
funkygunther
Banned
the issue is with the commentator…at first he says that the idea Putin is going insane is false, and then completely invents Putin’s state of mind that happens to be one where Putin is afraid of a virus that is specifically targeted to his genome
so he’s against the whole mainstream narrative of Putin being insane while at the same time fabricating the mental state of someone who is totally insane
Gp1
Member
Ballistic Missiles Strike Near U.S. Base in Erbil, Iraq (Updated)
The missiles were likely launched from Iranian territory.
www.thedrive.com
A little bigger than a rocket.
I guess the oil for sanctions is off the table now. Brent prices will be awesome monday...
Bernd Lauert
Banned
MrMephistoX
Member
And No Time to Die…
MrMephistoX
Member
Ballistic Missiles Strike Near U.S. Base in Erbil, Iraq (Updated)
The missiles were likely launched from Iranian territory.
A little bigger than a rocket.
I guess the oil for sanctions is off the table now. Brent prices will be awesome monday...
Guess it’s time to sell my RSUs and buy oil futures?
FunkMiller
Member
His meaning is implicit and obvious:
"The vietcong tortured American POWs, and when paraded for the world, the POWs were forced to say things they didn't believe. The same is probably happening with the Russian POWs in Ukraine."
Notice how he doesn't talk about a comparison with German POWs in the second world war, or other POWs when taken by western forces. No. His comparison goes straight to the vietcong. He's trying to establish a narrative that the Ukranians are treating their POWs the same way the vietcong did.
Also this:
"Vladimir Putin is not afraid of Covid, he is afraid of an engineered bioweapon targeted at his genome that has symptoms similar to covid. he believes the lab-leak hypothesis"
...because that kinda makes Vlad sound pretty cool, doesn't it? That he's worried about an engineered bioweapon, rather than being a scared little bitch about covid - which is of course, the truth.
Also puts the disinformation out there that there is an engineered bioweapon being made by his enemies to get him. There isn't.
Last edited:
akimbo009
Gold Member
Did this get confirmed?
Yoboman
Member
Not sure how healthy a diet of rations and vodka will be
FunkMiller
Member
Not sure. There appears to be a conflicting report saying that the Russians captured the outskirts of Volnovakha so I have no idea who's made progress in that area.
NoLootBoxDev
Member
Sadly nothing new at this time.
QSD
Member
He picks that example, because it's the most infamous example of POW's doing interviews that everyone knows, and how relying on those interviews would be bad. I've never seen any interviews from WOII that I know of, I don't know that there are even that many out there.
David literally laughs at how that's the plot of the latest James Bond movie during the interview, they don't entertain this as a serious hypothesis anywhere. And I don't get how that makes Putin sound cool? It makes sound paranoid, but it explains why there are rumours that he's become completely isolated (which was the question David was posing)
QSD
Member
this kind of just depends on how you define 'insane'. He speculates because David invites him to, and tries to explain how Putin's mindset is internally coherent, even if it is completely divorced from the reality we all know.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked