Tor is fighting and beating Russian censorship
wired.com
wired.com
The algorithm is quite simple:
1. Attempt to connect to TOR
2. If it connects, blacklist the IP, goto 1.
3. TOR is unavailable
(If an anonymous TOR user can obtain bridge address, shared by any means, email, Signal, messenger pigeons or whatever, RKN operative can obtain it as well)
https://media.ccc.de/v/26c3-3554-de-tor_and_censorship_lesso...
There is no e2e encryption, it has access to everything you do, its often said to be an alternative to WhatsApp, but its mostly worse in privacy, WhatsApp has proven encryption at least, and encrypted backups on android, while on apple its basically a back door.
And the explanation up to now is that durov is paying for everything for the faint of heart, which I really don't believe.
Matrix on paper is a good alternative, but its clients are not even close, and I speak as a daily matrix user.
And aren't supported on desktop either, no body uses them, they are severely limited on purpose.
> Source on operational costs?
Telegram saves everything you do on the platform, every message, every picture, every video, every file with no limit. They market it as a feature, on their twitter they often say you can use it as cloud storage.
This absolutely costs more than WhatsApp or signal, which only use servers as relays.
> Dont they have “telegram premium” thing to earn money now?
Its a very recent thing, and it has a very minimal effect, and the previous years didn't just pay for themselves.
It's founder, Durov, is a billionaire and he has quite clearly stated he's bankrolling it but looking for monetisation avenues for Telegram to become self-sufficient - first it was some token scheme that was shutdown by the SEC, now there's Telegram Premium.
And that VK was a company supposedly taken away from Durov. Also, Telegram's early versions bear the striking similarities with VK own products. As if Telegram was developed internally in VK and then spun away as an independent company.
When Navalny's team tried to employ same tactics, RKN was able to ban their app in both appstores in week or so. Same for LinkedIn.
We need Apple/Google to confirm, if they did ever receive the demands to remove Telegram from their app stores. If not, it is a big big red flag.
And the only downside is that RKN will have an even worse reputation... Which already was beyond worse of the worse, so nothing is really lost.
Telegram wasn't even removed from appstores, unlike Navalny'a app a bit later or LinkedIn a bit earlier.
This is why Chinese regions have to replicate nearly all services in their own regions. No intermingling with other regions.
Their system analyzes all the traffic and tries to identify VPN packets, so I don't really see why wouldn't they block all the providers should they need to.
There are still ways to mask the traffic, but a regular user can only be bothered so much.
Yes, many businesses rely on VPN, but I can imagine that RKN might just come up with some great white-list idea.
Plus with the sanctions it’s unlikely there is much need for western businesses to run VPNs into Russia.
https://blog.trailofbits.com/2016/12/12/meet-algo-the-vpn-th...
Especially when opposing power.
It’s cliche but rubber hose ultimately is the end point.
I don't understand this reference. What does "rubber hose" mean here?
Other cultures don't bother as much with the aspect of leaving lasting marks. The equivalent Russian language idiom is 'thermorectal cryptanalysis' which involves a soldering iron inserted into the anus and is expected to reveal passwords of any length within a minute.
So yeah, they can, and the sky wouldn't fall.
So, if Tor browsing becomes easy enough for a common citizen to use, they will disrupt it just enough so that common citizen won't be able to use it, and would stop there.
This is a little different than using VPS services because with the VPS services you're actually connecting to the customer you appear to be connecting to, it's just very unclear who that is, because it's just one random VPS customer among a huge number of servers hosted on that same service.
There could also be an element of luck or differences in how strongly particular governments are trying to block particular apps and circumvention methods at a given moment. I know that varies a lot from country to country.
Edit: However, Signal does have a "Censorship circumvention" feature under "Advanced" options. So there is some level of official work on that from Signal. Have your friends tried this feature?
There are a number of countries gearing up to actively regulate instant messaging, including with potential encryption restrictions and app-blocking remedies for noncompliance, so I imagine this functionality will become more and more relevant over time. :-(
https://community.signalusers.org/t/signal-needs-to-shift-to...
As a Tor relay operator, this always seemed like the most silly aspect of bridges: if someone really wanted to block Tor, wouldn’t they just block any bridges they encountered?!
Some of the bridges are even published on public pages, wouldn’t that defeat the whole point of bridges in the first place?
Btw, it is quite difficult now to have private bridge or VPN because of idiotic ban on Mastercard / visa payments Russians can't pay for hosting without a lot of trouble. While inside radishes Russia Mastercard/Visa work fine. Putin is happy: dissidents are cut off, his supporters didn't even notice.
> Tor is also working to stop the potential abuse of bridges. In 2016, researchers proposed a system called Salmon that aims to weed out those accessing bridge details with the intent of blocking or abusing them.
However, Google reports a mere 3.51% IPv6 usage (compared to 51% in the USA) so I don't know how practical IPv6 would be even if all Tor nodes were fully usable over IPv6.
It has about fifteen users each day, all connecting from Russian ISPs.
I set it to only be announced by the telegram bot and only for a few weekends.
Russians at large know perfectly well that their media is censored and the government is corrupt. They just don't care.
So true, so Slavic. I love the dark Russian humor and bracing cynicism.
We're getting there ever so slowly in the USA...
"What's the difference?", they ask.
"In the American one you're force-fed a bucket full of shit every day. In the Russian one, you're force-fed two buckets. Other than that, you're free to do as you please."
"Well, that's a no-brainer; I pick the American Hell", says the American.
The Russian ponders for a while longer and says, "I'd rather stay in a familiar place; I'll go to the Russian Hell".
A month has passed, and the sinners meet to compare notes. The Russian asks: "So, what's it like in your place?"
"It's exactly as advertised; I have to eat a bucket of shit every day, regular as clockwork, but other than that I'm enjoying life. What about yours? I can barely get through one bucket, two must be horrible!"
"Pah, it's not so bad. Most days, there's a shortage of shit, and they don't have enough to feed even one bucket to most of us. And sometimes the buckets get stolen altogether. Just like home; I love it!"
Update: have not been able to get through it when I tell someone else so far. I collapse in laughter at the punchlines.
How does it get to this point? I live in a country with a fairly corrupt government with a free media(South Africa) and most people rank corruption as the biggest problem facing SA after crime. ..the big government projects to create jobs have failed due to above corruption & a low skill workforce. Plenty natural resources being dug out but instead of oligarchs we have Anglo American &other multinational mining companies taking most the profit&on ward processing.
But for the general population to really not care about censorship,war&corrupt government, surely these are basic values we take for granted as humans? &So long as we have encryption, tor & VPNs at our disposal, citizens of all nations can transcend the self serving narrative pushed by governments.
'All we need to do is keep on talking' (encrypted) great Pink Floyd track btw .
I would imagine because, going back to even before Soviet times, all the people who do care are either disappeared or flee, leaving behind only the people who are too jaded to effectively resist.
Russian absolutism is generally more, well, absolute than other places. Though it's imperfect, a video[1] by Kraut gets the gist across.
Russian society has always been at this point, at least, according to the trend of 19th century literature and foreign accounts I've read going back to the (I think) 17th century.
If you are willing to spend a little time to better understand Russian society, search out the online videos with Mark Galeotti. He is a political scientist specializing in the politics, military, and organized crime of Russia and Ukraine. His discussion of the history of the parallel criminal social structure of Russia/Ukraine is quite interesting.
(I'm speaking from an Arabic background)
The cost of speaking up is too High, you know what happens when someone speaks up, and its not worth it. Nothing will change, and your life will be ruined, and your family will be affected too.
In my experience(not Russian), people talk about the goverments action privately and with trusted relatives, just don't expect any action because no body is going to risk it.
> But for the general population to really not care about censorship,war&corrupt government, surely these are basic values we take for granted as humans? &So long as we have encryption, tor & VPNs at our disposal, citizens of all nations can transcend the self serving narrative pushed by governments.
A lot of people can see what happens when you speak against the government, and what happened in other nations when the people rose up, it ends up in a civil war or a never ending cycle of corruption.
They see they have food, they have a good or acceptable life, they have electricity. That's enough, and its not worth it to risk dying in prison for speaking against the government.
Its mostly happens when people have nothing to lose.
And dont dismiss that a lot of people support the government, they see the positives, see change, and just simply ignore the bad things, for them rising against the government is how you end up in a destroyed country.
Quite a lot of people concluded democracy is a mess ruled by uncontrolled mafia. And the rest focused on own life, because they needed to.
And then obviously slow crackdown on opposition destroyed organized political groups.
1920s is extremely far in history. There was whole WWII after that. There were purges after that. So much happened and power changed hands so many times in between, that it does not matter all that much.
Claim that criminality was comparably high in USSR is false.
Most Russians just assume that's how things got to be run everywhere and just perceive it as a normal state of affairs: whoever has the biggest stick, has the privileges. Many just openly say that if they were in a position of power they would do the same.
Russians respect brute force, but they don't respect money; so they are much more irritated by privilege and extravagance displayed by businessmen, even if it's earned in a legal and ethical way, than by someone in a position of power, especially (as in cases of police, fsb and other sikovikis) if it's power rooted in violence.
If you haven't had a chance to investigate WebRTC I really think it is worth it. WebRTC gives up P2P Data/Media everywhere and it is really hard to block (because so many companies depend on it). To me it really feels like the best path forward to circumventing control. It also is a great career move. You can help people build conferencing tools during the day, and Censorship Circumvention at night.
[0] https://github.com/pion/dtls/commit/de299f573c3e44fece16f09c...
A tor-like protocol baked on top of webrtc could do some amazing things :)
https://community.torproject.org/relay/setup/snowflake/stand...
Or by installing the browser addon: https://snowflake.torproject.org
The website is blocked again. [1]
> However, people are able to connect to its services using volunteer-run bridges—entry points to the network that can’t easily be blocked, as their details aren’t public—and Tor’s anti-censorship tool Snowflake.
It seems that plenty of bridges (the ones you obtain via the website) are blocked, refuse connections, or otherwise don't function properly. I've checked yet again now, with a bunch of hand-picked bridges to which connections at least succeeded at some point in the past, and connections over Tor just time out.
It is still helpful though, but unfortunately "beating" looks like an overly optimistic way to describe this.
[1] https://www.rbc.ru/technology_and_media/28/07/2022/62e28fc39...
Tor is mostly used for darknet/drugs/weapon selling. Nobody is using it to read some new Navalny's post.
Of course, if you're in a state that's already started censoring information as Russia has, they also start censoring on-ramps to crypto, as Russia has begun, https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2022/07/15/vladimir-putin-ba...
Owning monero and bitcoin in self custody is a "rather have it and not need it than need it and not have it" kind of thing. If you wait until you need it, it's too late.
Even if you are setting up your own VPN, I recommend installing your own tor infrastructure instead. It is simply stronger than a VPN.
I say "base tor" because I recall some work towards tunneling tor through other traffic to hide that it's happening, but as far as I know tor doesn't do that by default.
New Zealand imprisons people for sharing the video of the Chirstchurch mosque shootings. I'll bet Tor is doing a good job helping circumvent that censorship too.
https://psix.ca/d/nyi8gE6Zk/regional-overview?orgId=2&var-re...
So far, in my experience, the problem has been not as much about Russia's censorship as about Western sites blocking access to Russian users just because - on a good day I can bump into a dozen of such sites (by default I surf with VPN disabled).
Pluses: much faster than TOR.
Rhetorical question? Serve your web page as an onion service (preferably without javascript).
>Looking for solutions once the "Disinformation Governance Board" gets rolling again.
I doubt it. It would be highly unpopular and supreme court will strike it down.
Last time it happened it took a decade to end it, and of course nobody got punished: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism
Every country has different rules during war, and here in Europe many Russian politicians have made statements about attacking us. We shouldn't allow the Russians any means of attacking us from the inside.
https://www.rt.com/usa/420219-tor-us-government-funded-bbg/
Back in the late aughts a user claimed to have found some extremely suspicious activity:
https://web.archive.org/web/20070515180447/http://jadeserpen...
Some folks get emotionally invested in tor and get really bent out of shape when you bring this up. You will hear silly arguments about open source code as if that was any kind of guarantee about what’s running on a server you can’t inspect. Or maybe according to some explainer they read, its secrecy is unbreakable, despite that correlation attacks on the protocol have been known for years.
This is pure FUD.
(If you are more concerned about traffic correlation perhaps be more careful where you are entering the Tor network)
I remember back when more exit nodes were in Russia, i'd sometimes not be able to visit different sites because the russian exit nodes I was connecting to were blocking them.
sputniknews.com does't.
Telegram being the main source of raw information about course of military actions.
Try t.me/warjournaltg and see if there's anything blocked/not available (there are a lot of reposts, I wonder if their source channels would be unviewable or if reposts will be silently dropped)
And yes, this is a dark part of EU history... someone like putin blocking websites... sure, he's more or less a dictator, and we expect dictators to do stuff like that. But EU, a "pillar of democracy" blocking sites, because they don't like what they say, and because they show a different side to western propaganda... that's a bad precedent to set. But yeah, unironically writing articles like "evacuation of azovstal" [0] with a headline photo like that, takes some guts and needs some censorship to pass
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacua... ("evacuation" for western media is another word for "surrendering and being taken as war prisoners to siberia")
Which, btw, is very obvious when you actually look at RT. It’s a (more American than Russian for some reason) right wing sewage pool in the comments and some Daily Mail level “journalism” above.
Yup, just call anything you don't like "russian disinformation", and you are free to ban it, easy.
I delight in the irony
Also no need to pretend you don't know what Russian version of the "facts" are, you can find what their claim in media and social networks. But in Russia world each fact might be in a superposition of 3 realities, the initial Russian fake reports, then when caught the second altered fake report , and the third convoluted fake version where the army of trolls found all their previous holes and patch them with more idiotic falsehoods. 2
But they don't do business "here", they do their business "there". We're "here" and connecting to their service "there". EU doesn't want us to connect to their business "there".
> Also no need to pretend you don't know what Russian version of the "facts" are, you can find what their claim in media and social networks. But in Russia world each fact might be in a superposition of 3 realities, the initial Russian fake reports, then when caught the second altered fake report , and the third convoluted fake version where the army of trolls found all their previous holes and patch them with more idiotic falsehoods.
I was born in yugoslavia, I know how the government-lead media is. And that's another reason to not-censor foreign media, even foreign government owned, because the real truth is always somewhere between what russians say and what the western media says. I really don't want to read articles like this: https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacua...
I am in EU and I have access to TASS https://tass.com so at least in my country I can get free access directly to Russian main media, I can also see the Russian trolls version of facts on social media and Russia has a group of fans that promote their alternate reality so we are not in "danger" of not knowing what Putin wants us to know.
TL:DR
- we don't have absolute free speech in EU, most constitutions have limits and consequences for bad behavior (we are not USA)
- there is high quality western media(stop reading tabloids)
- if you hate the waste read Easter European media, Ukrainian neighbors have journalists on the ground and they are also more familiar with the history of the region and remember media past Russian/Putin actions
- only a few propaganda media channels might be blocked, there are plenty Russian media channels available, so only "concerned trolls" will raise the issue that we the poor EU guys can't read Putin approved facts.
If I make a law in my country that allows me to throw rocks at people in another bordering country without repercussions, then that other country should just let me do it because those are my country's laws?
You're conflating intent of one law with execution of another.
No one would do that, because it's stupid and ineffective.
Instead you potentially punish the citizen for having committed a crime on foreign soil, and/or arrest the dealer should they come to your country. This is something nearly every nation state already does. Another thing to look at is extradition treaties.
In the case of disinformation, punishing someone for reading it doesn't stop the spread, but the manufacture of it is undesirable. Current execution is the best method to reach the intent, because doing things like blowing up webservers is undesirable.
how do you know if something is disinformation if your government blocks your direct access to the content and suggests that you read local moderated outlets instead? You just blindly delegated your conclusion forming capacity to a third party that decides for yourself.
But they didn't commit a crime on foreign soil... they did something legal there.
The servers, manufacture and the information is created and stored in russia, and we're just "travelling" (with our IP packets) to russia to read that content there (I'm assuming the servers are located there).
I still remember when freedom of speech was a right people fought for, even if they didn't like what "the other person" said.... sadly, this is changing and bringing with it dark times.
Irrelevant to how a state chooses to organize its criminal code. If the act is considered severely criminal in nature then most nation states do not care where it occurred, nor should they.
> I still remember when freedom of speech was a right people fought for, even if they didn't like what "the other person" said.... sadly, this is changing and bringing with it dark times.
Lies by foreign actors are not the same as opinions or criticism of a country's own citizens. They are an offense against the public and should be policed. This isn't about simply "not liking what someone said". This is about statements that have negative value; created for the express purpose of causing confusion and harm.
It seems to have been reduced to "country that allows enemies a free platform".
You're being irrational. Free countries don't broadcast the enemy's information during a war.
Is US in war with Russia? Is EU in war in Russia?
If so, should we already send nukes?
Yes.
> If so, should we already send nukes?
No.
1. Nukes are bit more complicated than vodka or coal, and given that nowadays Russia can’t even make a car, nukes need regular servicing, and the rest of its armed forces are a joke, it’s highly unlikely their nukes are any better.
2. Sending nukes would turn Russia into wasteland; rest of the world would do better because of its natural advantage.
1. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/russia-nigeria-with-nukes_b_1..., and of course Nigeria got much better future prospects
Riiight. Because that’s why RT was banned.
You're going to have to explain the difference between these two things.
Europe doesn't ban [dis]information from Russia (until of course it violates specific laws of a given country against say inciting violence, propaganda of genocide, etc.)
It is up to a specific government whether they allow another government to come in and for example spread propaganda or mine coal or build railways. Usually there is some reciprocity expected. Russia blocked not only West government propaganda agencies, it is also blocked independent media. So, the West governments are more than expected to block Russian government propaganda operations, especially given that non government information flow from Russia isn't blocked (that would be the censorship similar to that Russia has been doing, and West hasn't done it yet).
So is BBC. And they lied about iraq having weapons of mass destruction. We didn't ban them.
Yes, russia is led by an ex-kgb dictator... do we really want to be the same as him, and do the same things? Are we really no better at censorship and propaganda than him?
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_World_Service
[2] - https://thegrayzone.com/?s=Bbc
[3] - https://thegrayzone.com/2021/02/20/reuters-bbc-uk-foreign-of...
Perhaps an article from a website that isn't actively known for misleading reporting and being sympathetic to authoritarian regimes.
The wikipage on the grey zone is pretty damning. I mean using these people as a source for anything on the west that is critical would be a huge mistake.
> The website published pro-Russian propaganda during the Russian invasion of Ukraine, including the debunked claim that Ukrainian fighters were using civilians as human shields, and that the Mariupol theatre attack was staged by the Azov Regiment.[24] The Russian fake news website Peace Data republished articles by The Grayzone in order to build a reputation as a progressive and anti-West media source and to attract contributors.[38]
Why do you think Twitter added a "hacked materials" warning to that article instead of simply removing it as "Russian misinformation", as they have repeatedly, and perhaps justifiably done for other tweets?
Wikipedia is totally unreliable for controversial topics that challenge the media establishment. Just look at their list of "reliable sources". It's a bad joke!
do you really think that that BBC lying was a deliberate action of Great Britain government against your country? I think nobody thought that, so it wasn't banned.
In general you're mixing 2 different things - an operation of a foreign government on your territory and information content. Blocking the first is sovereign right while blocking the second is censorship and is a mark of dictatorship.
The RT operation in EU is blocked, while the content isn't - you wouldn't get punished for forwarding or retelling (on your own volition without any payment from Russian government for doing so) a content of RT propaganda contradicting official information of EU. In Russia BBC is blocked as an operation as well as its content - i.e. you'd get criminally punished for forwarding or retelling (again, even at your own will) a BBC content contradicting official [dis]information of the Russian government, i.e Russia does have censorship.
Instead of keeping an editorial line on a list of subjects, organizations like the BBC simply maintain a culture, from the top down, where if you were to threaten propaganda by the government or it's allies that is too valuable, you will lose your job.
And who gets to decide whether something is "information content" or a "foreign operation" ?
And that is relevant how? Here comes the whataboutism.
> Yes, russia is led by an ex-kgb dictator... do we really want to be the same as him, and do the same things? Are we really no better at censorship and propaganda than him?
Russia uses misinformation as an attack, EU blocks it.
Also, RT block is very different from censorship in China: it’s aimed at the outlet itself, not at its users.
That's what you do during a war. All democracies do it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Censorship
(And this isn't even the stated reason! You can just watch Putins faux-historical speech!)
https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/ukrainealert/putin-adm...
There's already a perfectly close place to put them, which the US hasn't bothered doing, because it's unnecessary.
In the many years that Cuba was friendly and cooperative with the USSR, the US never made any more than a joke attempt at a military intervention. The US was obviously not thrilled, but never did anything comparable to the current invasion of Ukraine. Not sure your point.
There is a difference though: we can’t punish US, because it’s a superpower. USSR was a superpower too. But Russia isn’t.
Also, everyone has just realized Russian army was all bluff. Every single country bordering with them will take advantage of this. Which means there will be multiple parties we can buy the formerly Russian gas from.
https://www.businessinsider.com/germany-gas-crisis-landlords...
> Germany starts rationing hot water and turning down the heating in case Russia cuts off its natural gas supplies
https://english.almayadeen.net/news/economics/germans-told-t...
> Germans told to wear a sweater to cope with soaring energy prices
Yeah...
But that’s besides the point, which is: like it or not, in politics might makes right, and Russia very obviously lacks the might.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
[1] "iraq has weapons of mass destruction"
What people need to understand is that 'words have consequences'. The 'truth' isn't that important in communications because people can't discern it.
People don't know, and often do not care what the truth is.
Putin, Xi etc. can easily convince millions of Europeans of their view of the world, which will mostly be based on lies. It's a key pillar of their respective foreign policies.
That disinformation has material effects in civil culture.
So put another way: we don't want to 'completely ban' content from Russia, but rather, not make it part of the populist lexicon.
It's a bit like removing a TV station from broadcasting as one of the 'major channels'.
If Europeans conscientiously choose want to get RT, they can. But the West shouldn't allow Russia or China to broadcast directly into people's homes willy nilly. My god man.
Information is by far the most powerful weapon.
If either Putin or Xi lost their power to censor, their respective governments would collapse, frankly I suggest both of them would be literally dead. Very quickly, within a few months.
The internet is giving us the biggest lesson in 'Critical Theory' imaginable (i.e. competing narratives) and of course, we have our own narratives (and internally huge competition over them), but still, some truths are a bit better than others.
What will happen if West would allow it? Will it collapse? If not, why censor it? If it will, what's the difference between West and Putin? Both will collapse without censorship.
If you're wading int moral relativism, then what is the point, really?
The West mostly acts in good faith (not always), and, bad information mostly is marginalized though definitely available.
For example, we suppress some kinds of bad information about health, and definitely suppress things like 'how to make nuclear weapons' etc. though generally, it's available if you really try. We don't completely shut down pirate bay.
RT.com is a propaganda outlet, designed to spread falsehoods and to undermine civic integrity.
If RT.com was 'in every home', a large swath of Europeans would come to believe things that are not true, and likely undermine important efforts, specifically around security.
Stalin controlled 17% of the Bundestag during the Wiemar Republic through direct control over the Germany Communist party. He used information, thugs, violence, populism to try to overthrow the Social Democrats (center left) many times, in an attempt to spread his tyranny. He even worked with the far right (aka nascent Hitler) during that time, as they were considered fools. The far right used the legitimacy of Soviet intervention as a means for violent populism. They lied themselves about various things in order to gain power. Mass destruction ensued.
The Russians ironically initiated the spread of the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion' a pretty good example of 'misinformation' which has seriously dire consequences.
30% of Americans believe that 'Joe Biden Stole the Election' which combined with events on Jan 6 which was a clear and direct attempt to dismiss valid votes in lieu of political 'votes' to overthrow the government, has very real consequences. None of that could have happened of only, say, 1% of Americans believed the election stolen. And that's in a media system where most mainstream outlets did not directly promulgate the lie (Fox News didn't sufficiently question the lies about election integrity, but they didn't usually directly support the lie either).
The issue matters, greatly.
I have access to RT in North American and I don't think it's a big deal, but collectively it is, much more so in Europe where there are Russian sympathizers.
For example, RT was pulled form regular broadcast, which is rational.
Someone noted above that 'Vodafone' blocked them from RT.com, which I think is fine so long as there is some way to conscientiously get around that arbitrary blocking.
Finally, you'll note that Russians do have access to tons of information from outside the censors, but they don't access it, or even care to, which denotes how kind of 'lazy' most of us plebes are - we tend to watch what is in front of us, and believe what we want to believe.
Go ahead and watch Russia 1, i.e. Russia's main TV broadcast for a bit, translated into English. It's utterly shocking, now contemplate that 50% of the country believes most of what is beings said because of how they are being fed information.
This idea that 'the truth' rises to the point is worse than naive, it's extremely dangerous because it's absolutely false. The most engaging ideas that appeal to our impulses are those that 'rise to the top' to become 'truth'.
It's a serious issue. Though again, Europeans should be able to access RT by jumping a few small hoops.
Moralizing geopolitics is the domain of children and warpigs
This whataboutism is exactly why RT is currently suppressed: the Russians have painted Ukrainians as a 'non people' who do not have an identity and do not deserve to exist, with rampant cultural Nazism embedded in the society, in order to justify their invasion, conquest, mass murder - and they want to the world to see it this way as well.
A large swath, possibly the majority of Russians, believe in this incredulous repulsive lie, and are happy to see Ukranian citizens mass killed, just hop on Telegram to see what is in 2022, something you didn't believe modern people would ever say.
This is the effect of RT and 'Russia One' TV, where every day Russians are subjected to hours and hours of beyond pale insanity.
Literally on this day, Russians have murdered about 50 prisoners near Donetsk by blowing up a prison camp, while blaming their repulsive crimes on Ukrainians themselves. This is likely to destroy evidence of a crime committed just yesterday, whereby Russians cut off the testicles of a Ukranian soldier, put them in his mouth, shot him, tied him to a car and dragged him through the streets. [1]
Literally on this day, on Russia One, ex-Russian General and Duma member is calling for Russia to 'bomb Berlin' into the Dust - in front of millions of Russians. Every few days they yell about 'Nuking London and the entire UK'. They do this for three hours every day, on the 'primary' TV Channel, of course state-backed. [2]
From an 'information perspective', this matters, because apparently, about 10-20% of people 'in the West' will just 'believe' these utterly repulsive lies (akin to Hitler blaming the death of the Jews on the 'invading Americans') - which is why we suppress this information.
Thousands of random Telegrammers (such as Олег Царёв - follow the links in his feed) perpetuate horrific propaganda, in some ways much worse than anything apparently the Nazis were doing at least in public, for millions of Russians to be elated. Again, obviously a concern about how information is propagated - it elicits people into a bloodthirsty fervour.
Surely Hitler had a few legit complaints about the Versailles agreement, fair enough, but we still would not have wanted to broadcast his speeches live to the entire world in the name of 'free expression'.
And so, don't want this repulsive Russian ultra-fascism on our airwaves. If someone really wants to find it - they can.
Moral absolution is never black and white, it's often close enough.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/29/video-appears-...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/wbxhze/general_of_...
Western establishment media constantly moralizes the Ukraine conflict because the reality is much more nuanced and not aligned with Washington's foreign policy goals in the region.
It's much easier to say "Putin bad" than deal with the decades of ugliness involving the Budapest Memorandum, Orange Revolution, Pinchuk's YES campaign, Kolomoyskyi's propaganda drive, Maidan coup, Sevestapol, etc. and Washington's often direct involvement in all of the above.
I dunno it’s kinda easy to say that the guy commanding his army to exterminate an entire country is “bad”.
This is less moralising and more that the world has decided maybe Russia shouldn’t be raping Ukrainians?, executing citizens?, committing genocide?.
There’s no amount of meddling that should make the above justifiable. This is evidenced by Russia constantly changing their reasons for invading, they know there’s no valid reason.
If this were true, why did Moscow not simply cull the entire population of Kiev with a thermobaric carpet bombing on day 1? Why have civilian deaths so obviously been minimized?
When you start from this outrageously false premise, despite an abundance of evidence suggesting other motives, you concede any chance of accurately diagnosing this conflict.
Because they want to capture the people too.
> Why have civilian deaths so obviously been minimized
I didn’t knowing that lunching anti aircraft carrier weapons at shopping malls was considered “minimising civilian deaths”.
Russia uses civilian deaths as a weapon of war. They also use forced deportation and filtration camps (which are used to torture and kill civilians) as a weapon of war.
Russia in way minimises civilian deaths in fact they try and maximise them.
> When you start from this outrageously false premise, despite an abundance of evidence suggesting other motives, you concede any chance of accurately diagnosing this conflict. https://youtu.be/qciVozNtCDM
No one forced Russia to invade, no one forced Russia to rape, no one forced Russia to commit genocide. The decision to do and support these actions lies solely with Russia itself
I’m kinda interested how you explain away the Russian embassy saying that legitimate Ukrainian POW’s should be executed?, war crime, but then again Russia seems to be trying to tick off every war crime it can.
You're not responding because there's no response. The Russians are killing, raping civilians and committing genocide in Ukraine.
There is no reason for Russias war of aggression other then because they want to capture a country that they claim doesn't even exist.
There's insurmountable evidence that the Russians aren't avoiding civilian casualties and that they are using them to inflict a terror campaign on Ukraine as a whole.
There is no goalpost moving, there is only the truth.
I will admit I haven't seen Russia's supporters accuse other people of using the "Firehose of Falsehood" before, but then again it was only a matter of time really as Russia and its supporters accuse others of doing what they/it does.
False. The current actions are not genocide by any means. Even raping of civilians is unproved. Ukraine even fired their human rights chief because of lie spreading https://www.newsweek.com/lyudmila-denisova-ukraine-commissio...
>There is no reason for Russias war of aggression other then because they want to capture a country that they claim doesn't even exist.
False. The expansion of NATO to the east, 2014 anti-russian coup in Ukraine, the refusal to follow to Minsk agreements(guaranteed by western leaders, who failed them too) and militarization of Ukraine were the major reasons of the events.
Another false: Putin never claimed Ukraine doesn't exist.
Despite popular belief genocide is not what the pro Russians want it to be, and Russias actions clearly fit within the UN's well defined definition of genocide.
>> In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
>> Killing members of the group;
>> Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
>> Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
>> Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
>> Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.
We already have evidence of many of these individual things (of which any constitutes genocide).
The Russians have already been forcibly deporting children and sending them to Russia, so point 5 is met.
The Russians are on video castrating Ukrainians so we have point 4 met.
The Russians have been indiscriminately bombing civilians so we have points 1 and 2 easily.
> Even raping of civilians is unproved.
I see you avoided the whole indiscriminate killing of civilians, of which Russians are already in jail for.
It seems like you wouldn't be satisfied without video evidence of these crimes, but don't worry the Russians the will answer for their war crimes in time.
> False. The expansion of NATO to the east, 2014 anti-russian coup in Ukraine, the refusal to follow to Minsk agreements(guaranteed by western leaders, who failed them too) and militarization of Ukraine were the major reasons of the events.
Why does Ukraine have to abide by the Minks agreement but Russia is free to wilfully for years violate the Budapest agreement where Russia promised to not invade Ukraine of threaten its territorial borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes?.
None of these are "reasons for these events", what all these are is Russias excuses to try and dominate another country and eliminate their statehood.
> Another false: Putin never claimed Ukraine doesn't exist.
Here's a source from the literal Russian media. https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/877224
Here's a quote literally from Putin.
`When it came to Ukraine, Putin flared up. Addressing Bush, he said: "You understand, George, that Ukraine is not even a state! What is Ukraine? Part of its territories is Eastern Europe, and some, and significant, are donated by us!"`
Everything you said is false, is true, strange that.
Is a key sentence here. Your points are invalid because none of these actions(even if they really took place, because you know about them from biased source) were caused by intent to destroy Ukrainians as group.
>I see you avoided the whole indiscriminate killing of civilians, of which Russians are already in jail for.
Because the indiscriminate killing of civilians is a common thing in wars. It's nearly impossible to prove that killing of civilian was indiscriminate. About jailing - of course you can jail prisoners of war, but it does not prove anything. Ukrainian SBU, like Russian FSB is descendant of KGB. They can get any testimony they need, especially from helpless prisoner of war.
>Why does Ukraine have to abide by the Minks agreement but Russia is free to wilfully for years violate the Budapest agreement where Russia promised to not invade Ukraine of threaten its territorial borders in exchange for Ukraine giving up its nukes?
First, memorandum is not an agreement. These things actually don't oblige you to anything. It's like "we talked, and there are the thing we said".
Second, Putin thinks that US broke the first point of that memorandum by inciting the 2014 coup. Because Ukraine is not sovereign now - it is fully controlled by the West. So old rules are not working anymore.
And third, Minsk agreements were signed after the annexation of Crymea, so Budapest Memorandum was already broken. If you do not intend to follow agreements, you don't sign them or you are liar. You don't say "hey you broke our last agreements so i can broke these".
About this article https://www.kommersant.ru/doc/877224. It's funny that you brought article from 2008(14 years ago), which clearly states that Putin told Bush that he will attack if Ukraine or Georgia joins NATO. 14 years later he attacked and everyone: "look! Putin is liar!". He told you about consequences 14 years ago!
They all took place, Putins stated goal to remove Ukraine as a state and the idea of being Ukrainian. Russia says this very upfront and blatantly they don’t try and hide it despite how much more work it makes for its propaganda arm.
Let me guess your only unbiased source is Russia?. The same source that believes in Ukrainian super soldiers and Ukrainian black magic battalions because they failed to take city 300km from their border.
> About jailing - of course you can jail prisoners of war, but it does not prove anything. Ukrainian SBU, like Russian FSB is descendant of KGB. They can get any testimony they need, especially from helpless prisoner of war.
You seem not convinced even by a court sentence, what would you even convinced by? At this point in time you seem to require impossible evidence for something that we have clear video and photo graphic evidence for.
Unless you think a shopping centre is a valid military target?.
> Second, Putin thinks that US broke the first point of that memorandum by inciting the 2014 coup. Because Ukraine is not sovereign now - it is fully controlled by the West. So old rules are not working anymore
So because Ukraine decided and ousted their Russian puppet all the way back to Moscow and decided they wanted to have someone pro Europe they don’t deserve sovereignty?.
Btw the only person who calls the 2014 revolution a coup is the Russian puppet who got ousted and his Russian handlers.
> And third, Minsk agreements were signed after the annexation of Crymea, so Budapest Memorandum was already broken. If you do not intend to follow agreements, you don't sign them or you are liar. You don't say "hey you broke our last agreements so i can broke these".
Yes Russia is a liar, that is painfully obvious they never follow any agreements they make (binding or not) and they always shout scream and get their supporters to stamp their feet when others act the same way.
Why should anyone believer anything Russia says or sign or abide by any treaty Russia decides when Russia themselves don’t?.
> which clearly states that Putin told Bush that he will attack if Ukraine or Georgia joins NATO. 14 years later he attacked and everyone: "look! Putin is liar!". He told you about consequences 14 years ago!
Neither joined NATO and he would never attack if they did, it’s why all the former Soviet states try to join NATO because Russia is incapable and unwilling to even blink in the direction of a NATO member.
It’s also probably why Russia tried to force all the post soviet states to not join NATO so they can go pillaging again in the future.
Maybe because giving up the nukes wasn't the only condition for the sovereignty of the state that USSR (and Russia as a successor) granted to your leaders on peaceful terms in 1991? Remember, your country didn't have to fight a war for its sovereignty, the peaceful transition of a regional power was one of the greatest achievements of that generation.
Maybe the modern Ukrainian elites and the current president shouldn't have been frivolously contemplating the idea of joining a military bloc [1]. Maybe they shouldn't have been frivolously contemplating the idea of obtaining nukes either [2], maybe they shouldn't have been saying that "The agreement is not an official treaty. It is neither legally binding nor does it carry an enforcement mechanism".
Your leaders should have known that your foundational documents predate the Budapest Memorandum, and they outline all conditions under which your sovereignty was guaranted [3]: "The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce, and not to acquire nuclear weapons."
[1] "Zelensky: Yes we'd like to join NATO" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4_JUhMe0Go
[2] https://www.dailywire.com/news/president-zelensky-suggests-u...
[3] https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_...
Tonnes of other soviet block countries joined NATO with no issues whatsoever only reason Russia took issue with Ukraine is that they thought they could win a war against them, if only they didn’t drink their own Russian strong too much they might of won instead of having their military destroyed for the next 10 years.
Russia tried to keep its influence over Ukraine and ban anyone from trying to free them from Russias grasp. This was never going to work because we all know Russia never keeps its promises anyway.
> Maybe the modern Ukrainian elites and the current president shouldn't have been frivolously contemplating the idea of joining a military bloc [1]. Maybe they shouldn't have been frivolously contemplating the idea of obtaining nukes either [2], maybe they shouldn't have been saying that "The agreement is not an official treaty. It is neither legally binding nor does it carry an enforcement mechanism
Ukraine has made it obvious to all post soviet states that the only way to protect themselves from Russian wars of aggression(of which their are many) is by strong military alliances or perhaps nukes.
You cannot stamp your feet and be surprised when someone tries to protect themselves from their neighbour who has a habit of invading and annexing people just like you.
> our leaders should have known that your foundational documents predate the Budapest Memorandum, and they outline all conditions under which your sovereignty was guaranted [3]: "The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention to become a permanently neutral state in the future, which does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three non-nuclear principles: not to accept, not to produce, and not to acquire nuclear weapons."
Ukraines founding predates Russia itself. Ukraine is sovereign and no amount of feet stamping by the Russians will change this.
But if you think Russia is justified in its war go ahead and believe that but know that the vast majority of non dictatorships disagree with you.
Btw I’m not Ukrainian so they aren’t “my leaders”, i merely support them in their struggle for sovereignty against their neighbour who has conquered them once before and is once again trying to genocide them out of existence.
Because they had their own terms and circumstances. Ukrainian SSR had its own terms and circumstances too, they compiled and signed the declaration in 1991. If the leaders didn't want to stick to the internationally recognised founding documents they shouldn't have signed it. One either follows the legal procedures or not, and if procedures are not followed and if the new government feels like violating the previously signed documents, then it's a bit odd to expect that the country wouldn't have a separatist movement within its borders.
> Ukraine has made it obvious to all post soviet states that the only way to protect themselves from Russian wars of aggression(of which their are many) is by strong military alliances or perhaps nukes.
They definitely made a good point about dangers of armed coups against democratically elected presidents that didn't break laws and were supposed to represent half of the country until the upcoming elections. Kiyvites didn't care much about legitimacy of their actions from the perspective of Eastern Ukrainians in 2013-2014. No referendum felt necessary when the coup had been decided and executed.
> Ukraines founding predates Russia itself.
Even if that were true, if the intention was not to follow the founding documents they shouldn't have been signed in their current form. But it isn't true, sorry. Ukraine founding does not predate Russia, because no reputable historian is able to draw a clear line between historical periods of Kievan Rus' (not Ukraine) and Tsardom of Rus' (not Russia), as it was ruled and disintegrated by the members of the same dynasty of Ruriks over a long period of time).
> Ukraine is sovereign and no amount of feet stamping by the Russians will change this.
Surely it is sovereign. When you say that something is sovereign, you usually reference the corresponding legal founding documents. The corresponding legal founding documents in case of Ukraine start with the Declaration on State Sovereignty of Ukraine of 1991, which all subsequent delcarations and memorandums reference to. You can check it yourself, the current Constitution of Ukraine, including the amendments of 2004, reference the declaration on its Preamble section on the very first page [1]. The declaration states clearly that non-military bloc status and absence of nukes are the foundational principles of the sovereign state of Ukraine.
> But if you think Russia is justified in its war go ahead and believe that but know that the vast majority of non dictatorships disagree with you.
I only mention this to bring clarity on the respective roles of the current Ukrainian elites and the government (including the president) in this conflict. They did everything to intentionally reject diplomacy, and it's the opposite of what they were paid for by the citizens.
[1] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ukraine_2004....
http://static.rada.gov.ua/site/postanova_eng/Rres_Declaratio...
I am not seeing anything that you have mentioned at all, the declaration is tiny and mentions nothing about military alliances or nuclear weapons at all. Seems like your entire premise that Ukraines founding document is predicated on a lake of nukes and military neutrality has no basis in reality.
> then it's a bit odd to expect that the country wouldn't have a separatist movement within its borders.
Funny that these Pro Russian separatist movements keep appearing in post soviet states its like the FSB and GRU funds them, and even sends soldier to arm them. I mean its not like the leaders of the LPR and DNR where literally FSB officer right?.
> They definitely made a good point about dangers of armed coups against democratically elected presidents that didn't break laws and were supposed to represent half of the country until the upcoming elections. Kiyvites didn't care much about legitimacy of their actions from the perspective of Eastern Ukrainians in 2013-2014. No referendum felt necessary when the coup had been decided and executed.
I know the Russians, and Pro Russian trolls like to call it an armed coup constantly but it reality, where the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia. Since then they have had many elections and power has changed hands multiple times unlike Russia.
I cite and highlight the sentence from that page: "Proceeding from the right of a nation to self-determination in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and other international legal documents, *and Implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine*, the Verkhovna Rada of the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic solemnly declares [...]"
When the document says "implementing the Declaration of State Sovereignty of Ukraine", it references all chapters from that document (July 1990), with no exception, including the Chapter IX that mentions non-nuclear and non-military bloc principles. Simply put, the document declares the official beginning of implementation of the chapters under a new sovereign state.
> I know the Russians, and Pro Russian trolls like to call it an armed coup constantly but it reality, where the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia.
The US hearings on the event of 6th January 2021 call the thing "a coup" and "attack on the Capitol" [1]. By the same standard of the allied country, the events in Ukraine in 2014 should be identified as a coup too. And it was armed, violent, and successful too. One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play.
> the rest of the world exists it was a revolution that ousted a Russian agent that went against the will of the people and immediately ran back to his masters in Russia.
against the will of which people? How exactly do people of Eastern Ukraine fit into your narrative of the will of the people being heard during the coup, if citizens of Mariupol lost their right to representation by their elected president that didn't break the law and wasn't impeached in the first place? The chosen means to "get people heard" do not look particularly democratic to my taste. Due Process was invented for a reason, and it seems that the modern Ukrainian political tradition is not aware of it.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_Select_Com...
Can you link to the document that you claim states this?. It’s annoying to have to chase your references to things you claim exist.
> The US hearings on the event of 6th January 2021 call the thing "a coup" and "attack on the Capitol" [1]. By the same standard of the allied country, the events in Ukraine in 2014 should be identified as a coup too. And it was armed, violent, and successful too. One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play.
The difference is not double standards it’s the meaning of the word. In Ukraine power changed hands because of a vote in parliament, in the USA the people trying to coup the government where looking to subvert the government with violence and install their own leader.
> against the will of which people? How exactly do people of Eastern Ukraine fit into your narrative of the will of the people being heard during the coup, if citizens of Mariupol lost their right to representation by their elected president that didn't break the law and wasn't impeached in the first place? The chosen means to "get people heard" do not look particularly democratic to my taste. Due Process was invented for a reason, and it seems that the modern Ukrainian political tradition is not aware of it.
Ukraine wanted to join the EU this was already decided; Putin decided this would make Russia weaker so got his puppet to subvert that choice, which lead to him being over thrown.
> One doesn't need to be a Pro Russian troll to discern patterns of the two similar events and the level of double-standards at play.
I dunno your hardline pro Russian views seem to suggest that your views may not he neutral on this topic.
It was linked to my topmost response, here it is (scroll down to "IX. EXTERNAL AND INTERNAL SECURITY"): https://zakon-rada-gov-ua.translate.goog/laws/show/55-12?_x_...
> In Ukraine power changed hands because of a vote in parliament
That's the point, it's illegitimate to oust a sitting president after a vote in Parlament without a proper impeachment process that includes (1) providing evidence of a commited crime or other serious legally-bound misconduct and (2) having a special court hearing that draws the final conclusion. None of that happened in 2014 (see [1]). Instead, the aforementioned impeachment process against the sitting president was declared unnecessary (proving if his actions were illegitimate in a court hearing became unnecessary too) due to his "self-removal from the performance of his constitutional duties". This is a very neat and convenient wording for "ran for his life" when it became clear that the armed rioters from Kiyv were after him and approaching his Mezhyhirya Residence.
Again, the event doesn't look democratic to me. In fact it looks random at best and suggests a case for an opportunistic power grab at worst. One cannot simply declare that the vote in parlament was legal and the due process respected because the subject had to flee the country ("self-remove") to save his life. There are many places in the world where leaders have to self-remove without due process, and we don't call these places democracies.
> I dunno your hardline pro Russian views seem to suggest that your views may not he neutral on this topic.
Neither is your apologetic stance on the events of early 2014 that tore a thin fabric of a democratic society. It is fine to be upset on country leaders that break their political promises, but it's extremely irresponsible to suggest that "self-removing" those leaders for their promise-breaking yet non-crime legitimate decisions is a proper reaction for the upset part of the society.
[1] https://uk-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/%D0%86%D0%BC%...
It does appear to exist, and mention what you say. But it appears to not refer to the country of Ukraine but to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic a country which ceased to exist when the Soviet Union collapsed.
The modern basis for the sovereignty of Ukraine, is the Ukrainian constitution that was ratified on 28 June 1996. The same constitution that explicitly mentions (through amendments) that Ukraine's goal is to join NATO and the EU.
> That's the point, it's illegitimate to oust a sitting president after a vote in Parlament without a proper impeachment process that includes (1) providing evidence of a commited crime or other serious legally-bound misconduct and (2) having a special court hearing that draws the final conclusion. None of that happened in 2014 (see [1]). Instead, the aforementioned impeachment process against the sitting president was declared unnecessary (proving if his actions were illegitimate in a court hearing became unnecessary too) due to his "self-removal from the performance of his constitutional duties". This is a very neat and convenient wording for "ran for his life" when it became clear that the armed rioters from Kiyv were after him and approaching his Mezhyhirya Residence.
It doesn't matter if it was a "convenient" as long as it was constitutional, and it appears that it was constitutional, the president of the country was unable to perform his duties so it was voted that he be removed.
> But it appears to not refer to the country of Ukraine but to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic a country which ceased to exist when the Soviet Union collapsed.
Ukrainian SSR ceased to exist similarly to how RSFSR ceased to eixst after USSR collapse, yet the newly formed respective states and the governments were their legal successors, they paid external debts of USSR and followed all ratified documents with regard to foreign relations. Ukraine's Constitution of 1996 was no exeption to that transition. [1] shows it in its Preambler section (I cite):
> aware of our responsibility before God, our own conscience, past, present and future generations, guided by the Act of Declaration of the Independence of Ukraine of 24 August 1991, approved by the national vote of 1 December 1991, adopts this Constitution — the Fundamental Law of Ukraine.
They deliberately include responsibility before the "past generation" to convey the idea of succession (that the new sovereign state doesn't come from a void but from a sequence of historical events and relations), and they make it clear that the principles of that succession are guided by the Act of Declaration of the Independence of Ukraine of 24 August 1991. That's the document we reviewed above, the resolution act that only has a few pages to declare the implementation of the principles of the state sovereignty outlined in the document of July 1990.
It is clear that one can argue that the succession was selective, and that the guidelines do not necessarily include all aspects of the declaration of July 1990, but this is the point where principles cease to exist and the non-aesthetic side of geopolitics takes over. Basically, it's the same place where other side's arguments stem from. Besides, if there was a selective guding on the principles mentioned in the document of 1990 (and I keep referencing it because the doc of 1996 references the doc of 1991 that references the doc of 1990), the document of 1996 should have been mentioning these exceptions explicitly to avoid most of the potential doublespeak, as this is basic jurisprudence 101. Unfortunately, I cannot find such exceptions that would suggest selective guding.
> It doesn't matter if it was a "convenient" as long as it was constitutional, and it appears that it was constitutional, the president of the country was unable to perform his duties so it was voted that he be removed.
Let's take a look at this claim of constitutionality of the events. Did the president break a law when he broke his political promise? I am not aware of such law existing prior 2014. Was armed rioting (you can call it armed revolution instead) constitutional? I am not aware of that constitutional right be granted to Ukrainians by their constitution (the US constitution has that right declared explicitly). But I'm aware that the Article 27 says that "Everyone has the right to protect his or her life and health, the lives and health of other persons against unlawful encroachments".
At this point we've already got armed rioters, while not being granted the right to revolt, being after the president that didn't break a law. The Article 27 of the constitution grants the president the right to protect his life when rioters approach his place of residence. It does not mention the means of pretecting the life so I asume that fleeing the country under a threat to one's life is a legitimate act for the sitting president to have. Now, in order to establish whether a president of any country is able to perform their duty while being away from it, we need to come up with a legal framework that defines "ability to perform president's duty at a distance". I am not aware of that legal framework to exist, but I know it as a matter of fact that presidents of this world do travel outside their respective countries a lot, and that it doesn't affect their ability to perform their duty.
So, what exactly is the difference between a travelling president and the president that had to flee its own country to save his life due to armed rioters chasing him, in terms of their ability to perform their duty? Last time I checked, the ability of the fled party to perform their duty as a legitimate representative of the will of the people was the foundation for Taiwan government's claims of their legitimate successor status of "the China". Would you rather suggest that due to Taiwan governemnt's inability to perform their duty on the mainland territory of China they are no longer able to represent the "One China" principle?
And does it still look democratic to you? To me it looks more like an opportunistic power grab. The whole sequence in terms of principles is similar to an act of violence where a better armed side forces the weaker side to flee before declaring a referendum and the rule of a new law in a newly controlled territory. Sounds familiar, doesn't it?
[1] https://www.constituteproject.org/constitution/Ukraine_2014....
Here’s an article about the approved amendments that make it a goal of Ukraine to join NATO
https://www.rferl.org/amp/ukraine-president-signs-constituti...
> Ukrainian SSR ceased to exist similarly to how RSFSR ceased to eixst after USSR collapse, yet the newly formed respective states and the governments were their legal successors, they paid external debts of USSR and followed all ratified documents with regard to foreign relations. Ukraine's Constitution of 1996 was no exeption to that transition. [1] shows it in its Preambler section (I cite):
This is all kind of a moot point because if they can amend there constitution to allow it (which they did). It’s not longer a issue is it.
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/lseih/2020/07/01/there-is-no-ukraine...
Were they?
Mariupol was peaceful before the Russians Nazis invaded. You can try and shout about Azov all you want but it might be better to do that in a war where the Russian Nazi PMC (Wagner) isn’t committing war crimes left right and centre.
? It's not 'juvenile' to call a murderer, a murderer.
It's juvenile to contemplate otherwise with whataboutery.
Putin is a mass killer, absolutely, within the historical realities of "Budapest, Maidan, Orange Revolution, Donbass - and even 'Washington's Involvement'"
It's juvenile (or maybe 'in bad faith', or 'dumb', or 'evil')to hide under their propaganda and hold it at face value.
Putin has been interfering in Ukraine since it gained independence, he poisoned Yuschenko (and of course poisoned and killed so many of his other opponents), he has his GRU thugs all over Ukraine corrupting, bribing etc. trying to gain control, trying to turn Ukraine into a vassal, exactly along the lines of Belarus, where has that living fart Lukashenko do whatever he wants.
He bribed and played 'both sides' of the 2014 Donbas conflict and lies blatantly all the time about supposed NATO concerns etc..
Putin is a Russian Imperialist Fascist who is 100% responsible for the war, mass murder, suppression within his domain (Russia, Belarus etc.) in the same vein as innumerable leaders before him.
That's 'immoral'.
Should’ve started with that, Ivan. Nothing, short of literal genocide, justifies war against other country.
>If you're wading int moral relativism, then what is the point, really?
It's neither moral relativism nor whataboutism to ask for the principle that divides our "good" censorship from their "bad" censorship.
Once that mechanism for censoring RT is in place, what is the principle that will keep bad actors who gain the reins of power from censoring inconvenient truths or political opponents?
The mass adoption of some terrible idea by the populace in history nearly always accompanies control of information or censorship.
Unfettered access to all ideas, even bad or nutty ones, will lead to some bad or nutty people adopting those ideas, but collectively people understand what's true.
This is why it's shocking that Europe is adopting the tactics of control that dictators use.
I share your views. I'm reading all comments here and many of them are so naïve. Propaganda doesn't harm - that kind of thinking is really flabbergasting. Try living in Russia for a change, and experience the (dis-)informational torrent there.. you'll come back a changed man, I can promise you that. And then tell me that it is harmless..
(For the record, I'm not from Russia, I just happen to live near it and see all the dirty tricks it does first hand)
Or what result?
https://intellinews.com/serbians-blame-us-and-nato-for-ukrai...
eg: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing
> The Grdelica train bombing occurred on 12 April 1999, when two missiles fired by US aircraft F-15E Strike Eagle hit a passenger train while it was passing across a railway bridge over the Južna Morava river in the Grdelica gorge, some 300 kilometres (190 mi) south of Belgrade, Serbia. At least 20 civilian passengers were killed or declared missing. Estimates of the total death toll run as high as 60.[1] It is considered the deadliest rail disaster in Serbian history.[3][4]
So, nato bombed a civillian train, claiming it was an accident, because the train was "so fast",... which anyone knowin trains in serbia knows it's a lie. So, nato sped up the video:
> Later investigation by Frankfurter Rundschau asserted that the video was sped up 4.7 times.[8]
So again... we have an area of a country, where "other people" live and want their own country, main country won't let them, there are some shootings, shellings etc. for years, and then an "outside" superpower intervenes, basically destroys the main country to achieve independence for that area. Kosovo, ukraine.. it's all the same, just different actors.
There’s no “other people” in Ukraine. There are Ukrainians and Ukrainians. There’s no other people that want “other country”.
But nice straw man, 40 rubles deposited to your account.
This is very untrue. East Ukraine is mostly Russian ethnically. Even languages are different in Western and Eastern Ukraine.
Before 2014 some guys who are now in Azov Batallion identified themselves an Russian nationalists.
While many things changed since, there are still many people on the East who identify themselves as Russians.
Think about it - Mariupol was taken by DPR troops and Crimean marines. Basically by people who live on territories Ukraine claims its own. Donetsk is shelled
1) You have to back 25 years to find an accident which you contort and completely turn upside down?
2) This was not an act of 'propaganda' by NATO. NATO hit the train and literally admitted to it the next day. There was no claims that the Serbians 'did it to themselves' or 'cover up'. There is no 'propaganda' or 'information' issue here.
3) It was assuredly an accident. There is absolutely no reason for NATO to hit arbitrary trains with civilians otherwise, even cynically. In fact, as they admitted the mistake immediately - it was hugely costly in terms of bad press, winning hearts and minds. Why would NATO do such damage to itself for no reason?
4) NATO intervention in Kosovo/Serbia is obviously nothing like Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Kosovars were being killed by Serbians and are very, very happy to have the protection of NATO in that regard.
5) Your repulsive implication that somehow Ukraine is similar to Kosovo in that it's a 'breakaway' area that wants 'independence' is disgusting Russian propaganda: Ukraine is a sovereign country, not a wayward Russian territory.
While Serbia/Kosovo is a complicated situation, Serbians will have to stop killing Kosovo citizens, thankfully NATO achieved that, and at least we have that.
Russia has no business being in Ukraine - full stop. Russian forces in Ukraine will have to leave or be killed, and when it's over Russians will be responsible for paying damages to Ukraine, and be forced to recognize their atrocities.
Yes, because the planes flew over my head, 400km away and bombed people there... not long before that, we were a part of the same country. People from eg. pakistan had planes bomb weddings there, and another "whoopsie, accident", and they're not even at war with them.
> 2) This was not an act of 'propaganda' by NATO. NATO hit the train and literally admitted to it the next day. There was no claims that the Serbians 'did it to themselves' or 'cover up'. There is no 'propaganda' or 'information' issue here.
Yes, nato pilot waited for the civilian train to cross the civilian bridge that the nato was bombing, to hit the train too.. that's why they had to speed up the video, because the wait was long.
> 3) It was assuredly an accident. There is absolutely no reason for NATO to hit arbitrary trains with civilians otherwise, even cynically. In fact, as they admitted the mistake immediately - it was hugely costly in terms of bad press, winning hearts and minds. Why would NATO do such damage to itself for no reason?
I mean.. they did hit a LOT of civilian targets, not by mistakes, but intentionally, "by design". They even carped bombed a city. A TV station. Not a "whoopsie" but they targeted it and hit it. Also a tobacco factory, and many others.
> 4) NATO intervention in Kosovo/Serbia is obviously nothing like Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Kosovars were being killed by Serbians and are very, very happy to have the protection of NATO in that regard.
So were the russians in ukraine. Look, even reuters was writing about that before 2022:
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/life-under-siege-reside...
So, you want independent kosovo but not independent lugansk/donbas regions?
> 5) Your repulsive implication that somehow Ukraine is similar to Kosovo in that it's a 'breakaway' area that wants 'independence' is disgusting Russian propaganda: Ukraine is a sovereign country, not a wayward Russian territory.
So is serbia. But a superpower decided an area wanting independence will get independence, and it used bombs to gain independence of that area. Catalonia is an area where superpowers don't want independence, so they don't get it. Eastern ukraine regions are the same as kosovo, just with a different superpower.
> While Serbia/Kosovo is a complicated situation, Serbians will have to stop killing Kosovo citizens, thankfully NATO achieved that, and at least we have that.
And ukranians should've stopped with the attacks on russian minorities in the east.
> Russia has no business being in Ukraine - full stop. Russian forces in Ukraine will have to leave or be killed, and when it's over Russians will be responsible for paying damages to Ukraine, and be forced to recognize their atrocities.
Yes, and slovenian (my country) troops have no business being in syria. I don't know from which country you are, but i'm guessing your troops have no business being in some other sovereign country either. And you want pay damages and won't recognize your atrocities. If you're an american, you might just imprison another whistleblower for exposing war crimes... you have a history of that.
If I want to visit rt.com , Vodafone blocks it.
Right now on RT.com they are spreading some fairy bad propaganda, and this illustrates the problem.
A few days ago a Russian soldier castrated then killed a Ukrainians soldier, it made waves around the world, the next day the prison facility where Ukranian soldiers were held was 'blown up'.
The Russians blamed it on HIMARS strikes, but as can be seen from satellite imagery it can't really be the case, it's also really cynical to suggest that somehow Ukraine would just go ahead and kill it's own citizens.
It's believed Russia did that to cover up their prison/torture situation but that's hard to know for sure.
The ultra Machiavellian approach of the Russians is to literally blame their atrocities on others, i.e. akin to Hitler saying: we didn't kill the Jews, we left them just fine, the Americans killed them when they overran the positions!
Russians will create diversionary media events to distract/suppress from the situation knowing the fact about 'the internet' is that it doesn't discern the truth.
There were small bomblets/mines in Donestk city yesterday, which would definitely injure someone if they stepped on it (likely requiring foot/leg amputation) but probably not enough to disable a tracked vehicle.
Russia is claiming those were somehow place by Ukraine, of course, Ukraine doesn't seem to even have the capability to do that, let alone the rationality - why would Ukraine arbitrarily drop such things way behind enemy lines? It makes no sense. They are almost assuredly placed there by Russians to create a false controversy (can't be sure on this though).
RT.com is as I write this being used to promote the false narrative and to say 'oh, Ukraine is committing war crimes!'
Do you see how easy that is?
RT exists for this reasons: to place ugly lies, to give them the veneer of credibility.
A couple months ago, Russia launched a Tochka missile on a train station where civilians were gathered for evacuation. Dozens of civilians were injured and killed. Russia blamed it on Ukraine, and used RT to promulgate the 'fact' that they didn't have Tochka missiles in their inventory, thereby 'proving' that it could not have been them. But more recently, verifiable evidence has come to light (from Russian sources!) showing Russia launching Tochka missiles, which we know they have. Their response? Who cares. The lie already happened, their 'propanda' already had it's effect and even to this day, they will avoid the question of 'Two months ago you said you had no Tochka missiles, now you are launching Tochka missiles?'.
So imagine trying to have a conversation with a total psychopath who lies to your face, and when evidence comes to light showing they lied, they still won't admit their lies. You know they are lying - they know you know they are lying - and of course you know, they know, that you know they are lying.
But it doesn't matter. The misinformation is out there.
It's a similar story for the downing of flight MH17. The evidence points to Russia having done it, likely by a wayward Buk operator. But RT is used to propagate disinformation and lies about the event, so as to cloud the reality of the situation.
Millions of people around the world, including in the West will 'fall for it' - you can even see it on this thread. They become 'useful idiots' for the propagation of the lie.
Even US idiot Congressman and notable media figures will repeat the 'talking points' promoted by RT. This happens not so much because they 'support Russia' per sey, rather, they use this information to attack their local political opponents in the US, or wherever.
Russian allied governments in China, Africa, M/E etc. happily pick up on this 'news' and run segments on it.
In this manner, Russia can literally blow people out of the sky, and very simply use their mass media tools to 'convince' 1/2 of the world that the Ukranians did it themselves.
Hitler telling the world that 'The Americans Killed The Jews, Not Us' - that is the purpose of RT, that's why it exists.
Why?
I can see how a coordinated infowar attack could at some point topple either one (not just "freedom of speech" stuff but a barrage of weaponized propaganga), but I'm not sure why you take this happening as granted.
What are the truths that Russians (or even Chinese) have no way of knowing right now and that would topple China/Russia if they did knew those?
Why do you think it's illegal to even refer to the War in Ukraine as a 'War'?
They've threatened 15 years in jail with anyone who even hints at something that is 'not true' - in their purview - meaning - if you publicly say something against the ridiculous propaganda - you dissapear. Watch interviews of regular Russians on the street as the 'avoid answers' or 'struggle to find ways to say something, without actually saying it' because they obviously live in a system of fear, where just a few wrong words ends their lives.
Without the power to make sure that Russians do not talk about the war, about Putin's corruption, and how to 'get rid of him', Putin (and Xi) would be gone very quickly.
The #1 thing in our modern constitutions is 'freedom of assembly' - basically so that people can convene and have ideas. 'Rulers' don't like that because it's how they are overthrown.
On the other side - RT is a propaganda outlet that can hugely affect popular opinion and discourse, especially in a realm where people generally do have free access to information.
Most of Putin's lies are laughable, but most people aren't in a direct position to dispute them either, and so its' pretty easy for him to convince, say 10% of the population of the legitimacy of whatever genocide he wants to do.
Which is why we absolutely do not want RT on broadcast to every American every night.
Of course, freedom of information is important as well, so we do want to enable people to have access, and as such, only a very small subset of the population will bother with it. Those that are 'inclined towards information' which is probably a good thing.
If your confidence rests on assumption that Russians are too scared to discuss the war, that's myopic.
You're missing the relevance here:
1) Russian can talk 'about' the war, obviously, they just can't talk about it in a way that contradicts Putin's propaganda. And for at least some time, they literally could not use the term 'war' - and frankly - you still do not hear that word. They are afraid to use it.
2) That a few people can talk a bit more freely isn't evidence of much, when 1000's of people have been fined or imprisoned for speaking out even marginally.
Example: Strelkov is a hardcore, fascist ultra-nationalist Russian who is responsible for killing Ukrainians in Donbas, and who would burn Ukraine to the ground if he could - and his publicly stated objective is 'mas mobilization' and 'total war'.
His 'ultra nationalist murderer credentials' allow him to speak somewhat more freely about the situation than others.
If Putin wanted to arrest him at any time, he could, for whatever reason, on any kind of arbitrary charge, but there isn't much point to that as he's 'on the side of Russia' just a bit critical.
And of course, Telegram is littered with people 'talking about the war' but they do so in a 'pro Russian' or 'Neutral' way.
But:
+ How many Russian voices are calling for the war to end immediately because Russia has failed and Russia's actions are inhumane?
+ How many Russians are voicing the number of Russian soldiers killed?
+ How many Russians are calling for an end to Putin's regime?
The answer is zero or close to it.
While most Russians are in the range of 'neutral to support' the war, there are obviously millions, especially in Moscow and St.P. who don't want it - so where are their voices? Where are their Telegrams? Where are their web sites?
They don't exist, because they will be put in jail.
Try this guys YouTube channel [1] he walks about in Moscow and asks people subversive questions, because he obviously cannot ask them direct questions.
(It's a very good channel, not it's not a randomly sampled audience, they are younger and more urban than most Russians).
Significant numbers of people are unwilling to speak to him merely for the 'possibly controversial' nature of his questions.
In another background video, he indicates significantly more people are not willing to speak to him than even those he shows.
Significant numbers of people use 'carefully guarded' language to state their subversive opinions.
Some of them use ridiculous satire (i.e. by saying ridiculously ultra nationalist things) to make their point.
ZERO people on his channel ever refer to the war in an antagonizing, confrontational manner, in a way that would get them in trouble. None.
They never use the word 'war' to refer to the 'war' - if that's not obviously Orwellian.
If those questions were asked in America, UK or France, even during the Iraq war, significant numbers of individuals would have some very ugly words for Mr. Bush, the war etc.. I
Those 'regular people' are not remotely able to express themselves freely, which is evidence of Putin's ultra authoritarian control over them.
Also note he does ask in many videos from where people derive their information, the more likely they 'mostly watch TV' (which is mostly state controlled propaganda) by far the more likely they are to support the war and say incredibly fascist things.
If Russians watched 3 hours of 'completely free press' TV every night, and were allowed to express themselves publicly on the internet, Twitter, and 'assemble freely' without fear of repression - that war would have been over long ago. Putin would have likely been ejected long ago.
The information which you expected to topple Russia is widely available. Most Russians just don't want to lose the war and have their country toppled. But even if you persuade a simple majority of them, how would they proceed toppling anything? Did people topple any governments over unpopular COVID restrictions?
Why do you assume that the majority of Russians would like to watch TV channels which spit on them, magnify every their misstep and ignore their issues? Because that's the only mode free media found itself to be capable of.
The amount of pro-ukranian propaganda, is nowhere near the amount of pro Russian propaganda that has been seeded by the FSB and GRU for years. Their systematic firehose of falsehood has been in full effect for years, ever since the "little green men" in Ukraine and the Russian shooting down of MH17.
You see far more pro Russian propaganda even on places like here then you see pro Ukrainian propaganda, probably by orders of magnitude.
Because that's what people have in mind when you friendishly suggest them to 'topple' their government.
That's competently true, but you have to weigh the options. Giving Russia any access is far more dangerous.
Hitler was a popular charismatic figure in Europe before the war.
Would you have made sure that his big Prime Time speeches were lined up with broadcasting so that everyone in Europe had the opportunity to hear what this wonderful man has to say in 1936? Because he bought network time on the Radio? And bought placements in all of the cinema theatres?
Or would you let the press do a little summary and put it in a few newspapers and maybe that's that?
What about the extra few hundred thousand people who are going to die from a disease, because some wayward doctor is running around telling people 'the government created the vaccine to control people' and 10% of the population believes it. What 'more speech' is going to convince those people of the truth, when 'more speech' from any rational, reliable medical source only makes the idiots more suspicious? Do we just let them die?
'Freedom of Expression' is a very important right, but now and again, there are issues we have to contend with.
Information is power, the press knows that very well, which is why even though they guise their narratives in 'pretty much mostly facts' - they can still drive bias and manipulation through.
We have to contend with the reality that 'the truth' - which is probably what we are all seeking, is somehow not well communicated in the commons, terribly communicated by politicians, somewhat well communicated by our the government (depending on the area), and reasonably well communicated by the mainstream press, but with large swaths of bias. And yes, generally defer to 'Freedom of Expression' as a hugely important pillar of freedom.
Is there any powerful country you can name that does not do this...?
Their specific lies are leveraged to harm us (the west) therefore something should be done about them.
Gone should be the days of giving autocracies special privileges in the media while they maintain a tight grip on their own.
The US government has an official propaganda ministry: USAGM.
Large "independent" media like NYT have admitted that they work closely with the DoD and other agencies to screen content before publishing.
Also worth noting that the former propaganda chief at USAGM is the current head of NPR.
And yet none of the above get "USA state media-affiliated" warnings on social media like Twitter, which digs the hole even deeper.
The de facto state media apparatus of the USA is unbelievably huge and underacknowledged. The DoD alone employs over 50,000 people working in "media" roles.
Most major media outlets around the world confer with state agencies for information, there is some degree of responsibility to protect the lives of individuals and sensitive issues, that does not make them 'State Affiliated' nor 'Propaganda' outlets.
The NYT can and does publish whatever it wants.
More importantly, the NYT is usually fairly factual.
The CBC or BBC are 'state affiliated' though still mostly independent.
RT and Russia One are direct branches of state control - they coordinate their entire 'truth agenda' with FSB, GRU, Duma, Military and other officials to promote the state agenda. They promote mostly bombastic rubbish with little bearing on reality, and call for the invasion and nuclear eradication of Europe and America, specifically to get their own citizens in a frenzy.
Consistent with this policy is the punishment of anyone who publicly disagrees with the 'party line' or talks about the 'war' in any way that is inconsistent with Putin's wishes.
Fortunately, you or I can walk down any street in the USA/West and say almost anything we want about Biden, Bojo or Trudeau, and thankfully nobody will do anything about it.
USAGM is obviously biased, but it's also mostly truthy, and it competes with a a variety of any other voices. On the whole, it's hardly influential. Almost zero Americans for example, are affected by anything they say or do.
And of course, this notion that the DoD employs 50 000 people in 'media' roles is ridiculously false.
American media is painfully biased and narrative driven, it'd be hard to make sense of the world by 'just' watching either CNN, MSNBC or Fox, but thankfully we can watch all three and absorb information from an enormous variety of sources. All with the help 'media bias checkers'.
The information situation between Russia and the United States or any other Western country is not comparable.
Virtually all of this is true about both USA and Russian media. There are some minor differences due to historical circumstances, but the bottom line is that both have massive & sophisticated domestic and foreign propaganda apparatuses. Both governments crack down hard on credible, organized threats to their control. Saying "I don't like $LEADER" on the street, alone, is neither, and you won't get persecuted in Moscow for doing this no matter how much Radio Free Europe insists.
> The information situation between Russia and the United States or any other Western country is not comparable.
This is shockingly naive.
Really:
LIST OF JOURNALISTS MURDERED IN RUSSIA [1]
This is as obviously, laughably wrong as the "The DoD has 50 000 secret media men running around!!!".
Is 'Q' one of your 'sources' for that?
The US has largely a free press, and there's almost nothing you cannot say, and the government has very little, usually no control over information dissemination.
US President DJ Trump just spent 4 years screaming about the press, they literally banned him from Twitter and FB and you think 'Mr. US Government' is running the show?
US Gov. has no influence over 'Democracy Now' or 'Breitbart' or 'Mother Jones' or 'Joe Rogan' and barely has any influence with CNN/NYT etc. even though in those cases they obviously communicate.
There are innumerable sources of information available in the US.
Conversely, Putin directly controls most of the main 'information outlets' (i.e. RT, Russia One) as they are designed specifically to be propaganda outlets. He fairly aggressively censors outside information, though Youtube, Google are still available, he just fined Google something like $300M for conveying information he didn't want Russians to have access to i.e. the truth.
Of course Putin literally imprisons and murders journalists who dare publish information he disagrees with ...
... and of course they literally censor vast areas of the internet [2]
... and of course they literally ban large swaths of Social Media because they cannot censor it [3]
But keep trying to make that 'Russia and USA are the same' argument ...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roskomnadzor [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_Ru...
https://www.newsweek.com/exclusive-inside-militarys-secret-u...
This is the special privilege autocracies get, being hostile while also being allowed to speak.
So, you mean like USA, every time they bomb some middle eastern country?
I mean.. they said "whoopsie" after they reported about iraq having weapons of mass destruction: https://web.archive.org/web/20101105194258/https://www.nytim...
Source?
"We described the article to the government before publication."
They use this as a defence; how can something be "treason" if it was literally approved by the government?
The NYT depends on government approval to publish some stories, including probably every international story. Not uncommon to have ex-FP/NatSec people in foreign editor roles.
It's easy to see why: if they don't work with the government, the government won't work with them and some other newsroom will get superior access.
Because with the state of western media and governments, "if they block it, it must be true, and they don't want us to see it".
...and then they post an article like this one: https://www.theguardian.com/world/gallery/2022/may/17/evacua...
>"Putin, Xi etc. can easily convince millions of Europeans of their view of the world, which will mostly be based on lies."
If your own government / media can not convince them otherwise it is quite pathetic then. Normal person should be able to see through Putin's bullshit, particularly the one that is "based on lies". If however you are educating mostly vegetables that can't think on their own and do some fact checking you definitely deserve it.
I do.
There's no reason to have any connection to those people since the invasion until the heat death of the universe.
$ ping rt.com
PING rt.com (91.215.41.4) 56(84) bytes of data.
^J
--- rt.com ping statistics ---
293 packets transmitted, 0 received, 100% packet loss, time 295812ms
I'm not a Putin/Russia supporter, nor do I read rt.com, but I want the ability to hear what the enemy says.
Read propaganda written for internal consumption then. I find it much more illuminating. Maybe through Google Translate, I think it's quite decent at ru → en translation these days.
Some of the main outlets off the top of my head:
Or through an aggregator:
$ curl http://91.215.41.4 <!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title>DDOS-GUARD</title><meta charset="utf-8"><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1">....
News stories are often engineered to achieve a specific desired outcome.
What do you call something that is engineered to cause destruction or chaos? I would call it a weapon. Just because it isn't incendiary, doesn't mean it is any less able to cause destruction. You wouldn't let someone who has engineered an explosive bring it through your borders. I don't understand why you would let someone who engineered a story for the purpose of creating chaos transmit on your equipment.
The west has sanctity for all communication due to the potential of misidentifying good faith communication as bad faith. Good faith communication should enjoy a level of sanctity, but to say bad faith communication should be treated with the same sanctity as good faith communication in all situations seems deeply optimistic at best. At some point the pragmatic call has to be made that the risk of labeling a good faith communication as bad faith is low enough that action must be taken.
This game is worth playing: https://ncase.me/trust/
It beautifully demonstrates what happens when you give unfettered trust to those who abuse it.
Depends is that thing a lie or the truth?
The Pentagon Papers were designed to cause destruction and chaos. They were the truth. Should we have banned them because they let people see what their government was actually doing? Would it have mattered if Pravda posted them instead of the NYT?
Was blocking Hitler's propaganda during WW2 a dark side of Europe's history?
This is war! You can't allow the enemy to trick your population.
In Romania, when we were occupied by Russia, there were just 400 communists in the country. Those people were put in charge of everything by the occupiers.
If Ukraine is defeated, we'll be next, so it makes sense to not have any such people. A poll showed that only 75 % of Romanians blamed Russia for the war. 5 % blamed Ukraine, and the rest NATO/"the West"/etc.
That means that an incredible number of our people are traitors, and we can't allow Russia to communicate to them.
I don't see any logical support for this conclusion even based on your narrative.
> and we can't allow Russia to communicate to them. Obviously because YOU know better.
The AUR party was very pro-Russian before the war, and now, after the war, the politics in Romanian are getting incredibly charged to the extent that if you were to legitimately criticize actions of NATO or the EU, regardless of what arguments you bring, you'd be automatically be classified as an AUR fan, a Kremlin supporter, a Russian shill, and a traitor that must be silenced or locked up.
Basically any criticism towards NATO/EU is forbidden in Romania, on the basis that don't bite the hand that feeds you.
There's valid criticism in how the EU and NATO handled not just the relationship with Russia and Ukraine, but many other issues from energy, mass immigration, COVID, fiscal policies to Brexit.
There's nothing to gain for us by not self reflecting on the mistakes of our political leaders who are conveniently trying to push Russia as the scapegoat for everything wrong today, many issues they set up, before Russia even invaded.
So yeah, 'Russia evil' and all that, but we should still keep our political leaders accountable for their mistakes and not let them get away with everything just because 'EU/NATO good' and if you point out issues then you're automatically a Putin shill like in WW2/cold war logic.
Still, this isn’t a good moment to focus on criticizing NATO where there’s a vastly greater evil to defend against.
And I definitely can compare this to Europe in 1943 - it’s the same ideology, forcing people to do the same kind of genocide, for the same reasons. Sure, Russians nazis only killed few dozen thousand people so far, but we know well what they intend to do - they are openly saying the purpose of the invasion is to destroy the Ukrainian nation. (Also note how ironic it is - Russia, which is neither a real nation not a proper state, is trying to destroy a vastly superior Ukraine.)
Yes.
Ironically, that's the narrative employed by Putin when our (Russian) government bans western press. I hope that in future neither you nor Putin will be allowed to censor facts that I see.
Especially that media from both sides had been known to bend facts to support their narrative, and only way to navigate is to compare data from both sides.
I see as the priviledge to be able to read in English, Russian and Ukrainian, to be able to read information from all sides.
You mean blocking sites because they spread blatant misinformation, fake news and generally text book demagogue?
Or is it just when it's the "other guys" doing it? When it's "iraq has weapons of mass destruction", "iraqi soldiers kill babies", "trump inpatient, feeds fish to fast", "smirking kid attacks native american", etc?
And frankly, RT's reporting style changes massively after the ban.
Foreign VPNs also work too.
The DDG result for the page has swastikas which gives me an idea at least.
That's to protect people from the barbaric country which castrates Ukrainians for fun. There's nothing to be gained for accessing that stuff.
Where X is typically the local population which is not smart/strong/informed enough to understand why Y is harmful.
On the one hand, X are indeed usually ignorant because that is the natural state of humans, school is a worker assembly line as opposed to a place for sharing knowledge and their own governments lie to them and trick them all the time.
On the other hand, the censors typically have ulterior motives and their goals are aligned with keeping X in the dark.
You’re obviously wrong about there being nothing to gain from censored information. In fact, one can gain a very rare thing indeed - an own opinion that isn’t shaped by middlemen.
Instead, the government decides what the narrative that they want to communicate is and the press willingly and uncritically reports it. Not all the press and not always, but there is a strong pull to the mainstream. This sounds rather ridiculous, but I’ve seen it time and again in Germany with the 2015 refugee situation, the Coronavirus pandemic and now also with the Russian invasion in Ukraine. Other countries don’t seem to do much better and critical thinking, presenting deep analyses or alternative explanations are very rare. What happens instead is that each crisis has a group of bad guys which are typically critical of the mainstream opinion, but are at the same time flawed (e.g. far-right, racist, anti-science, etc). Over time anti-mainstream opinions become associated with extremism and become easy to dismiss - unless reality diverges so hard from the mainstream that it forces a re-evaluation.
This makes it very easy to find out what the mainstream political opinion in say the UK or France or Germany is, but quite hard to get informed.
The restriction and indirect censorship of public discourse is pure poison for a democracy, but typically it’s those that claim to protect democracy that practice it.
I was like, whaaat, the courts can actually top the government from doing things ? This is already much better than most dictatorships.
It's just the majority of Russians dont want to know anything. Just like US citizens during the invasion of Iraq, most of them barely knew what was happening and simply didnt care to know. They were just comfortable in their assurance that USA was #1.
Don't forget that Ukraine and Russia are very tihtly related, with tons of friends and relatives on each side of a border. You don't need some Western media to get news about rumble on your backyard.
According to the UN, civilian deaths in Russian war on Donbas were 25 in 2021, lowest since the war began in 2014. How many have died in 2022?
If Russia wanted to stop needless bloodshed, all it had to do was to pull its armed forces out of Ukraine and leave rest of the world alone. Nobody wants to be a part of your pathethic "Russian world" of poverty and hopelessness, and now that everyone's seen the true "might" of Russian army, you've become a laughing stock of the world. Nobody even pays attention to the threats you make in regard to Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
And yes, you're absolutely correct: again, according to their own official claims, by May, they have already lost about 50 times more civilians since the beginning of the war than they did in the year before. So if the point of the war was to protect the civilian population of Donetsk, it's already objectively a failure of truly epic proportions.
And this is all before accounting for mass forced mobilization and the resulting mass casualties, because untrained office workers are sent to assault fortified enemy positions with Mosin bolt-action rifles. It got bad enough that several prominent public figures on the Donbas separatist side called it "genocide of the male population of Donbas by Russia".
That said, it is true that civilian casualties in Donbas were much more significant in 2014-2015 - over a thousand per year - and many of those were undeniably due to the actions of the Ukrainian military. It's also true that some people in Ukraine denied that any of that was happening when it did. I'd be surprised if there's any war in which this doesn't happen to some extent, though - what's unusual in the current situation in Russia is the sheer scale of it.
(There's a similar issue within Russia across generational rather than national lines, by the way - a family might not have any relatives in Ukraine, but the millennial kids are anti-war and generally pro-West, while their elderly parents call them Nazi sympathizers and cheer Putin.)
> view any region free video on youtube
Only if you specifically look for it, and for the same reason.
btw, I have to help my non-technical friends with VPNs/proxies/reading news through sites like archive.ph/some other tricks. They definitely cannot read or watch anything they want without some technical expertise or someone willing to help.
> Just like US citizens during the invasion of Iraq, most of them barely knew what was happening and simply didnt care to know. They were just comfortable in their assurance that USA was #1.
While the WMD aspect of the invasion of Iraq was bullshit, the rest of it didn't seem to contain nearly as much propaganda -- as in, just blatantly lying -- as what Russia's doing here. I don't think the US lied about US soldier casualties, for instance, acting like they were taking a small fraction of the actual injuries and deaths. Not to mention the war crimes seem enormously more common and severe with Russia's invasion, and those are all getting covered up by the Russian media within their country (e.g. "Azov/Ukraine did Bucha").
Basically any war will involve some amount of propaganda and atrocities, but some people are acting like the way Russia and the US prosecute war are the same, when that appears to be clearly wrong.
> As I understand it, a ton of Russians, especially older ones, just rely on TV and print media for news, and those are much more tightly controlled by the Kremlin.
All the news sources that are still not blocked either have a hand in their asses or are about to get blocked. They are completely controled by the Kremlin. Much more tightly is an understatement here. Unfortunately, so is 'a ton'. I'll try to elaborate.
Moscow, St. Petersburg, and the cities around them, have relatively high percentage of well-educated people with sufficient technical competency and mindfulness to avoid the censorship. I'd say that would be at least a good half of the population of these cities, which amounts (very roughly) to 10M. These people would try to find some facts, and form something resembling a picture of what's really happening.
Not too bad, really, but the thing is, I'd be surprised if there is another 20M across the rest of the country (the population is approx. 145M as of 2022). The farther you go from the big cities the faster the freethinkers' (tongue-in-cheek term) percentage declines. When the government says that 90% of the population 'supports' the war, I'm afraid it's not that far from truth.
What 'supports' means, though? As it seems, in reality, it means that the people aren't really bothered by the war all that much because they don't consider the country to be (much of?) an agressor. In small cities, people live in poverty and the only thing that's used to hold them together is the TV which gives the hope that some day life is going to get better. But there, of course, are a few hurdles to overcome. The current hurdle is to 'win against Ukraine'. Based on numerous interviews and personal interactions, that's what common folks really think.
I believe that they (most of them anyway) are not bad people, but merely simple and gullible. And when the president says that zombie-nazis were about to attack motherland, well, of course they praise the guy who sent the rockets their way thus saving the day. That's the gist of the propaganda, by the way.
As for the older people (even well-educated ones), can confirm. First of all, they are stubborn and know better. And they just can't believe that TV isn't a good source of information on the matter. My older relatives are like that and I don't really know how to convince them to think otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, no one has figured that out yet. For every bit of evidence TV has a piece of counter-evidence. You try counter that. I've taught them how to read independent news, but they don't trust them.
edit: brainfart with understatement/overstatement in the beginning of the post
From my European perspective there's very little difference between the magnitude of terrifying things done by either the US then or Russia now... except maybe that Russia has less reach and power in the bigger scheme of things.
Abduction of people in allied countries to be brought to black sites, torture of inmates at Guantanamo (construction starting 2002), puerile attempts by officials at "downranking" the amount and definitions of torture inflicted upon people, varying degrees of war crimes committed while the highest instances of the world's powers debate vague points or outright lie about the very foundation of why they militarily attack another country, and this continued despite very public outrage at a few strikingly depressing "leaks" (smiling soldiers torturing inmates) or testimonies, and violence inflicted upon specific targets while keeping constant pressure on third parties to remain by the sidelines.
https://www.justsecurity.org/57301/policy-legal-implications...
> Both of Thursday’s Al Nashiri and Zubaydah judgments “are striking for their frank and clear declaration that the CIA operated black sites in Lithuania and Romania at which torture took place, with the knowing acquiescence of the host governments,” notes Just Security’s Oona Hathaway. “The Court, relying in significant part on the 2014 US Senate Committee Report, dismissed Romania’s and Lithuania’s claims that, among other things, (a) the applicants lacked credible sources of evidence; (b) the black sites did not exist in their countries, and (c) if the sites did exist in their countries, the government did not agree to them and did not know that torture was taking place at them,” Hathaway said.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210525025654/https://www.wired...
> The first of those existing rules came from Department of Justice, which in 2002 wrote a series of memos that gave a new, very narrow definition of torture. (The next year, lawyers at the DOD wrote a report that reiterated these rules.) To qualify as physical torture, the memo said that an act of interrogation would have to cause serious physical injury, "such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function or even death."
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2004/05/iraq-m12.html
> A May 11 article in the Los Angeles Times exposed other methods of torture used by US forces: deliberately inflicting massive and severe burns, the use of electric shocks, and threatening detainees’ female relatives with rape. The Times article also revealed that the ICRC considers that between 70 and 90 percent of Iraqis seized and held by US forces are wrongly detained.
[...]
> After the bombing ended, US Special Forces and Dostum’s troops herded 3,000 surviving prisoners into sealed metal containers and drove them for 20 hours to Sheberghan prison. Most of the prisoners suffocated along the way. When the convoy arrived at its destination, the containers were emptied and the prisoners who had survived the journey were shot. Their remains were buried in a mass grave.
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisoner_...
> Eleven soldiers were convicted of various charges relating to the incidents, with all of the convictions including the charge of dereliction of duty. Most soldiers only received minor sentences. Three other soldiers were either cleared of charges or were not charged. No one was convicted for the murders of the detainees.
---
And with all of these things, two full decades after that and with the full "freedom" of access to the internet that one has in Europe or North America, a lot of people still say with a straight face that those situations don't compare?
Talk about successful propaganda. I'm sure Russia is dreaming to continue achieving similarly too.
> After the bombing ended, US Special Forces and Dostum’s troops herded 3,000 surviving prisoners into sealed metal containers and drove them for 20 hours to Sheberghan prison. Most of the prisoners suffocated along the way. When the convoy arrived at its destination, the containers were emptied and the prisoners who had survived the journey were shot. Their remains were buried in a mass grave.
presumably refers to the following event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dasht-i-Leili_massacre
All of this doesn’t change that it is wrong when Russia or anyone else does these things. America could arrest Bush and his entire band of illegal imperial war buddies to show Russia what happens afterwards, but we both know that there will never be accountability. Similarly when Obama said “we tortured some folks” but did not punish the folks responsible for torture, international law says he should be held accountable. This will never happen either - America set rules for everyone else and does not even require public servants to follow them. It is a reflection of the will and the general desire of the American people. They want blood, they want revenge, they do not care for justice for some enemies. Justice for 9/11 would have been to put OBL on trial like we did for the Nazis, but Americans I spoke with said it clearly: why should we risk one more American life? Why should we treat OBL fairly? He didn’t play by the rules after all! Those who hold these views could not see that the reason has almost nothing to do with OBL and everything to do with ourselves. That we even have to explain why a trial is important is a kind of moral decay that sets a terrible example for the rest of the world.
Putin appears to be banking on this moral rot being the default case for the world now. There is a fog of war, so we cannot know for absolute certainty but it seems pretty clear from decades of analysis. It seems from the Russian perspective, the West showed Putin and key Russians the way to perpetuate these crimes and walk free afterwards. It’s depressing and terrible, and so predictable.
We set the tone after the Second World War of a moral upper hand with trials for some of the worst Nazis. We, after 9/11 and the assassination wars by drone strikes, no longer maintain even the pretense of this moral superiority through law. This sets a new example for a new world, and the next seventy five years probably won’t be much like the last seventy five years in terms of general (but not absolute) peace.
It should not be like this. It is incredibly sad, impossibly short sighted, and now the chickens are coming home to roost. Imagine an America that could find the energy for justice rather than brute force. We have to imagine it, if we can even do so, because the last twenty years have shown us a very different picture in the wider world. There were always exceptions, but now there is simply a new rule.
OTOH there's that infamous quote about half a million dead children (slightly less in practice ?) having been "worth it", while Putin's regime prefers to deny/lie in those cases ?
FBI broke / infiltrated TOR, I am sure the Russians can do much more. But does it need to achieve the goal they have set?
The US blocked Russia Today US on cable and YouTube. You can still get it. But for the vast majority they dont have to.
"" RT, the English-language news network funded by the Kremlin and based in Moscow, was dropped from YouTube and American cable in early March, but still appears on an assortment of alternative video-hosting platforms, "" (Yes you can say that it was American companies not the government that banned RT. The distinction in reality is little. )
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/11/07/how-did-... where reporting on the war is described as a “special operation chronicle
If Putin really wants to, he can just buy the tech from China, and Xi is more than happy to sell since it gives him a grip on Russia.
Tor is not an anti-censorship tool all by itself, it's just a privacy protection tool. An anti-censorship program will have features that obscures it's traffic pattern, not 512-bytes fix-sized frames (cells).
Also I want to point out that, even through the firewall might allow the traffic through, it does not mean that the user is undetected. As the firewall might record the behavior and notify law enforcement to manually investigate the usage.
People in both countries just use a random free or dirt cheap VPN.
The feasibility of a "big firewall" is kinda low if you're not willing to go full North Korea.
I work for the Navy. The Naval Research Lab where Tor and onion routing was started. I wrote a FAQ to respond to these concerns on Reddit here[0]. AMA if you want.
[0]: https://old.reddit.com/r/onions/comments/kdjrxa/tor_was_star...
Now, time for a thought experiment. Imagine Tor was instead developed by Russian researchers working for Russian ministry of defense at the time. Would you use it to visit rt.com blocked in your country?
The funding was secured to protect $military comms. Allegedly the $military actively uses it, so it better be actually secure, especially when malicious foreign enemy actors have had two decades to study it. Academics have studied it to death, and some of their discovered attacks have actually resulted in transitioned improvements. I myself have the benefit of (1) being extremely familiar with how it works on the lowest level and what its weaknesses are, and (2) not considering myself a target worth my $govt's close monitoring.
People should consider using I2P instead, which didn't come out of government research and has superior anonymity.
The downside is it doesn't have a browser bundle like Tor, but it's possible to configure Tor Browser to use it. Turning off scripting all together is really a better approach no matter which tool you use, be it I2P or Tor.
https://blog.torproject.org/improving-tors-anonymity-changin...