It feels like a good moment to note that the previous Yandex CEO resigned and moved to Israel, citing that she "can not live in a country that is at war with its neighbours".
You've meant ex-CEO of Yandex Russia, i.e. subsidiary of Yandex N.V.
But yeah, both of them now in Israel, trying to build a new company without Russian money. And it will be problematic because of sanctions now.
It is kinda funny how Israel has not joined sanctions against Russia plus has provided exile for these Russian business people who have been pushed out of Europe and the US.
The goal of the sanction is to punish the regime, not arbitrarily punish all Russian individuals. Sanctions directed at individuals are supposed to motivate them to not support the regime.
If intelligent, capable leaders leave Russia and start businesses elsewhere (and even more so if they help other intelligent, capable Russians leave to work for them), the sanctions have worked as intended. If those businesses are started in Israel and not in EU or US then that's Israel's gain and EU/US's loss.
Well - right now, the sanctions punish those who emigrated (e.g. me). I had trouble opening even a personal bank account in the Philippines, allegedly "because of EU sanctions" (c'mon, when did the Philippines join the EU?), will retry in a different bank. Inability to open a bank account is a major obstacle for starting a business.
Common story. Some of the people who fled Russia to the west to avoid supporting the war got totally screwed. When they arrived their credit cards and bank access stopped working so they couldn't pay for anywhere to live, they cannot get visas etc, nobody wants to hire Russians and oh, yes, also cannot easily return home. The Russians who stayed and continued paying taxes? No problems.
Governments like the idea that they can fix things via market interventions but it never quite seems to work out how they intended.
I'm not in PH but in the region, and know a few recent Russian émigrés here. They've eventually been able to open an account after trying a few banks. The banks are concerned about unknowingly dealing with a sanctioned person or business, and consequently having trouble with their access to EU and US banking systems. Banks in PH in particular often do a lot of US business, you may consider looking for a bank that does not (e.g., banks dealing more with China).
The banks are unlikely to be thinking about moles. They're just trying to minimise the risk that they accidentally deal with a sanctioned person/company or a front for one.
Most of the world has not imposed sanctions against Russia. But, yeah, seeing as Israel falls under the US "security umbrella", more or less, it's interesting that they didn't (as almost all the other countries military protected by the US did). Which maybe goes to show that they don't need that umbrella that much, anymore.
"Russians in Israel or Russian Israelis are post-Soviet Russian citizens who immigrate to Israel and their descendants. As of 2022, Russian-speakers number around 1,300,000 people, or 15% of the Israeli population.[2][3]"
...
"Most Russians in Israel have full Israeli citizenship. Israeli Russians are involved in the country's economy on all levels."
So She goes to Israel which is in a proxy war with Iran and Syria. The latter it’s already destroyed and the former it’s planning a full scale invasion.
Well, she could have also moved to the US, saying that she cannot live in a country which has no qualms about bombing civilians. There are lots of options these days 8-(
Without getting involved in the RU war politics, Yandex does one thing that most other search engines refuse to do: search for hashes. If you take a hash and put it into Google, Bing, etc. they basically refuse to search for it unless it's a "well known" hash.
They make money off of us anyhow, by way of advertisement.
They won't make this money if we don't use their service.
So, they may try to encourage us to use their service, even if that encouragement itself is costly in isolation from its effect. In this way they can ensure they continue to make money off of us by way of advertisement.
But masses of people want to use them, despite them not offering the extra features that apparently wouldn't increase their revenue, but that they should provide anyway for unstated reasons.
Are you saying that if they don't provide these extra features, their advertising revenue will fall (due to reduced user base)? Because that's the opposite of what you started this thread by saying.
My only claim has been (and continues to be) that not all features a search engine provides need to have direct monetization.
If you took the same concept and applied it to television then would it just be entirely advertisements? Who would watch it? Obviously there needs to be a balance between providing utility and earning revenue. And television is typically a service that users pay for in addition to having advertisements!
> But masses of people want to use them
Many products get popular by being high quality, lock in market domination as much as possible, and then maximize revenue even if at the expense of quality. Food brands often follow this trend by using high quality ingredients early on then go public and replace the ingredients with cheaper ones. Sure, eventually the brand loyalty is destroyed, but that can take significantly longer than it took to build the brand recognition.
> despite them not offering the extra features
Most search engines had this specific feature for most of their lifespan. It's difficult to tell if a search engine like Google would get popular if released back in 1999 while being operated like it is currently.
I think it's pretty obvious that having non-advertising programming on television increases their advertising revenue, since with 100% advertising that revenue would trend to zero.
This whole thread has been a response to this:
> I don't think search engines should only be providing features that boost advertising revenue.
It seems you don't actually mean that, so I guess we probably agree.
Disclosure: I've worked for Yandex as deputy CTO till 2015, and one of the reasons i've left the company was increased pressure from Russian government. Since then I have lived in Ukraine, now in Kyiv.
We're nervously joking about "ID of Good Russian" inside the Russian community. It's like "somebody from Russia who proves he/she is against Putin's regime." At least a third of them are now in Israel, trying to do something to stop this war. Arkady, who was the founder and CEO of Yandex since the beginning for me, is one of these "good Russians." He's helping to run from Russia for many people who's against the war now, trying to build a startup-asylium for russians with jewish roots in Tel-Aviv. I do not believe that Russia as a country will change soon, so one of the best ways to accelerate the process is to help intelligent people to leave the country, as Arkady does.
Honestly, I think everybody at Yandex, including me is guilty because, indirectly, we helped to build this regime. It is not fair to penalty for Volozh this hard. We all have to be penalized somehow, but give us a chance to fix at least something.
> We all have to be penalized somehow, but give us a chance to fix at least something.
I concur with the rest of your argument, but I think excessive penalization should be upheld as long as Russian forces are in Ukraine. The more penalization, the faster that war will end. After war - yeah, some sanctions should be lifted.
It looks like similar problem as with Germany after WW I. They got held down too much "so that they pose threat no more" and it backfired. Western world tried to appease Russia with economic integration and flow of capital, but it still didn't work. Germany somehow departed from their war-oriented path, how would you do that with Russia?
I understand the idea of sanctions but didn't get how it works in this case. He is not in Russia. He lived and pay taxes in Israel for last 3 years. He is even not a Russian citizen (changed his passport to Malta and Israel 4 years ago).
I have nothing to say about sanctions against Tigran Khudaverdyan (who is COO and really in charge of Yandex actually), it's pretty logical.
I always assumed that WWII was facilitated by heavy sanctions imposed on Germany. See [1] for a romanticized description of economic disarray that thrusted Hitler into power.
I wouldn’t feel too guilty. It’s hard to leave friends and family and culture and work and stability behind. I’ve kept my head down and continued to work in the US despite some terrible presidents and plenty of wars and other governmental actions that I completely disagreed with. Do I feel guilty for that? No. I didn’t support it. I didn’t start it. I couldn’t stop it. Leaving would have only destabilized my family and robbed my children of knowing their grandparents.
This isn’t whataboutism. I’m not trying to say Russia is equivalent to the US, etc, etc.
But I think it’s unjust how much guilt and responsibility we put on the shoulders of the average citizen who is just trying to live.
I think the point was exactly that the author of the parent comment is not just an average citizen. As you grow, you tend to (IMHO, rightly) feel more and more responsibility for people around you.
> I do not believe that Russia as a country will change soon, so one of the best ways to accelerate the process is to help intelligent people to leave the country, as Arkady does.
At a personal lever, I feel it's very good and I wish these Russian all the best trying to do something meaningful in exile. On a more global level, though, it's clear that if all anti-war folks leave, the country becomes even more pro-war, and there is nobody left to save it.
That's the difference between us: you're believe in possibility to save the country, I believe that "Carthage must be destroyed" before people can build the new country on top of that. 20 years of dictatorship for Russia, even more for Belarus - it's not something that can be easily fixed.
The big question is what happens next. Call me biased, but after seeing how my fellow Russian colleagues are transpiring the official propaganda, I think it may end up just like when they kill a dictator in the Middle East (i.e. suffering for everybody), not like in, say, Romania where basically the whole country was against Ceaușescu.
Not fair. The guy in fact did a great job by NOT letting the Russian government nationalize Yandex (and they considered to do it), so it is up to this day a company with no govt. involvement — which is almost impossible for a business of this scale in Russia.
But yeah, there is a price to it — Yandex had to make a deal that it does not shut down its infamous news aggregator with cherry-picked pro-Kremlin sources (the cherry-picking is required by the Russian regulations in case you didn't know) — despite many ppl in the company wanted to shut it down, as it damages the company's brand so much.
And now since Yandex announced that it has finally managed to get rid of that toxic asset (by selling it) — I don't know for what EU is really punishing him? How that helps ending the war? It has the exact opposite effect. It would be now significantly harder for him to start up new legit businesses outside of Russia, so basically it created complications in moving value out of Russian economy. It looks like a clear win for Russia and a clear loss for the West.
The same, by the way, applies to all Russian people that got "sanctioned" by not giving visas to them, by refusing to open bank accounts, etc. That only keeps brains and money inside of Russia, thus helping the evil regime thrive! Just think about it.
The joke would be funnier if you explained that the same answer was repeatedly given by Yandex when asked why its news service shows only propaganda from a handful of state-controlled sources.
No offense but as a rule of thumb if you have to explain to the reader that what they just read was a “(funny joke)”, then probably it’s not that funny :)
I don't believe that's a fair point. Google takes down requests if the us gov asks them to, or Bing. Baidu can only show Chinese gov approved messages.
They are all at the mercy of the controlling government.
Yes, all of them comply to local laws. But point is Yandex repeatedly denied all accusation of working with government by saying "No, we didn't filter news, it's our algorithms decided this topic from top1 twitter trend is not important at all"
Turns out their "algorithms" was "where source in state_approved_media"
Just for clarification: it's illegal to build news aggregator in Russia if you use any sources that is not certified by Russian government. So technically you're right, "source is state_approved_media", and pretty the same for all Russian news aggregation services.
The proportion of propaganda differs, as does the quality and motivation. The resulting differences in diversity of journalism definitely affects the ability to triangulate. While the result from triangulation doesn't have to be accurate to be effective, if triangulation is impossible, journalism is indistinguishable from propaganda and results in a programmed society. We see this in the polls in Russia by age demographics. Older Russians believe the propaganda. Younger Russians much less so, and that's because younger Russians user mobile devices and VPN to obtain alternative journalism sources compared to older generations.
A meta-observation: the logic underpinning bothsiderism or whataboutism, correct or incorrect, is that everyone is equally evil and there is no sincere goodness, so any attempt to punish a particular evil is itself evil and insincere. By its own logic it can't say that the action it criticizes is wrong -- its own criticism can't be sincere -- but it justifies opposing or at least not supporting the action. The world is just funhouse mirrors. Moral judgment is impossible.
It’s like when people say there’s no such thing as altruism, and everyone will cheat, steal, or worse given the opportunity - they are telling you a lot more about themselves personally than they realise.
I think it is simply an act of calling into question double standards. "Are you sure propaganda is actually an evil thing? or are you simply attacking your enemy because he is your enemy?" is a good question to ask.
> so any attempt to punish a particular evil it itself evil and insincere.
For there to be punishment, there needs to be sovereignty or control over the punished. To legitimize punishment, you must presuppose that the punishing party has legitimately attained the power to punish; or, which is worse, entirely fail to perceive the existence of a punishing party and think of it as some sort of abstract, background, universal, authority.
Or, you could accept these as attempt to pressure on Russia, to make it harder and less pleasant to continue victimizing Ukraine, other countries around them and other countries they are purposefully trying to destabilize. The whole "you cant help Ukraine and should not help any Ukrainians until everything is perfect and angels fly over the west" is its own form of hypocrisy.
And yes, sanctions against oligarch and Russia itself are weakening the aggressor.
I don't believe the US has any interest in "helping Ukraine", let alone the people of Ukraine, considering its interaction with Ukraine over the past 31 years; and considering how it is "helping" or not-"helping" other world states right now.
And yes, the US is just coercing others into its foreign policy campaign against Russia under the guise of "punishment". The aggressor which most needs weakening is the one that's able to hijack SWIFT and dictate to third parties whom they can trade with.
> don't believe the US has any interest in "helping Ukraine", let alone the people of Ukraine,
In this case, "Enemy of my enemy is my friend.". "Not having interest in helping Ukraine" doesn't mean that USA wants to hurt Ukraine. And if it does, well, Russia wants it much more, so it would be still wise for Ukrainians to side with USA. But USA does indeed have one big interest in helping Ukraine. While helping them, they hurt Russia.
> The aggressor which most needs weakening is the one that's able to hijack SWIFT and dictate to third parties whom they can trade with.
Nope, the agressor which most needs weakening is the one actively shooting rockets and killing tens of thousands of civilians in just three months.
> And yes, the US is just coercing others into its foreign policy campaign against Russia under the guise of "punishment"
Nope, it's like everyone wanted to help Russia, so they invested there, bought their gas and oil so that maybe Russia is a good trade partner. But Russia decided that they now are strong enough to invade their neighbour and threaten other neighbours with more violence. Yeah, we should pat Rusia on their head and say "good job invading Ukraine, please don't invade us" while Russia makes threats of further invading left and right while telling everyone that they didn't in fact invade anyone yet.
US is actually helping Ukraine. They are actually sending arms there and enough to make the difference. Its interactions with Ukraine last 31 were way more friendly then Russian interactions in any case.
> US is just coercing others into its foreign policy campaign against Russia under the guise of "punishment".
Nah, there is a lot of push coming from Estonia, Poland, Ukraine itself, Latvia, Czech Republic and so on. This is not even close to US throwing weight in it, no matter how much you wish to twist events that way.
> The aggressor which most needs weakening is the one that's able to hijack SWIFT and dictate to third parties whom they can trade with.
No, it is the one implementing filtering camps, comitting genocide, burning Ukrainian books ...
The EU doesn’t hate Russian companies. It is believed that Yandex manipulate their search result in a way to support Putin propaganda. You can read the EU decision if you want to understand their reasoning, it’s all public in their journal of records.
if you don't mind, why should ceo be sanctioned for this? is there a chance for him to do the opposite? it's basically punishment for being a ceo of a russian company.
google does pretty much the same as yandex and baidu. and it was going to do the same trying to go to china.
what eu does can't stop yandex from doing that, so it boils down to just alienating. not for eu's good. the war will end and eu will depend on US even more.
So does youtube... mainstream media from select media houses always comes higher than any independent video producer, no matter the views count or like/dislike ratio.
Well, the EU mandated that search engines manipulate their search results too. So I guess it's indeed that they dislike Yandex/Russia, not that they dislike biased search results.
No, they dislike official state propaganda which is blatantly and verifiably false, from an enemy, regardless of who promotes it.
yes, Russia is an enemy of the EU, and it's entirely Russia's fault. In a sense it has always been an enemy for a few EU countries like Poland and the Baltics. Nonetheless, the EU, and some specific countries in it, tried to placate Russia for a very long time, hoping that the same thing achieved by the EU (peace and prosperity through very close economic integration) could be achieved with Russia. It's fully on the shoulders of Putin and his cronies that it didn't work out, but at least thanks to his misguided actions Germany and others can finally move to get rid of natural gas.
But why should a Brussels bureaucrat decide what's propaganda and what's not, in the first place? I can still receive plenty of state propaganda from other states, so yes, it's a matter of our politicians applying censorship based on their convictions.
The issue isn’t “propaganda” in the general sense. It is “war propaganda, denying war crimes Russia is committing, lying about the invasion of a European country, etc”. Your comparison doesn’t make much sense.
I've yet to see similar censorship in the EU when the propaganda comes from its allies, like the US. Nobody in the EU tried to keep me away from the lies the United States used to invade Iraq back in 2003.
So, no, you can say this is different, but it's not. It's just that the Ukraine war goes against the interests of the EU, while other wars (with more civilian casualties) do not and they say nothing about propaganda.
Did the US invade European countries with the intent to genocide an entire nation to satisfy the fascist dream of the president? If that would be the case and US media would be used as a weapon, propagating lies and disinformation to support the invasion, then yes, I hope the EU would do the same ban.
But nothing like that ever remotely happened.
It’s not like you cannot access russian propaganda from Europe if that’s what you want. Their media are just removed from mainstream platforms given that they are active participants in the invasion.
Ukraine is not a member of the EU, so I can't see why being an European country would make any difference. Furthermore, does the fact that Iraq is not an European country mean that we shouldn't care about things like girls being raped and tortured by US soldiers or entire innocent families killed for nothing?
Russia is not at war with the EU more than with the US, so I wouldn't expect our civil servants to behave like Stasi officials deciding which contents should we, the people, have access to or not.
I wrote “invade European countries”, not EU member… Of course Ukraine isn’t part of the EU. It’s a direct threat to the safety of union members, has direct impact on their economies, social situation, and politics. Obviously it is something that matters to the EU.
The rest of you comment is a straw man, I won’t comment on it.
Ordinary Russians in Russia (ones who did not move to Kiev in 2015 like bobuk@ or to Israel in 2022 like klm@) also dislike propaganda which is often blatantly and verifiably false ("denisova site:theguardian.com"), and comes from adversary of their country.
I imagine that's why Yandex demotes all the stuff coming from certain Russian-language news outlets.
You can be against war without lying or throwing a fit, but I don't know a single news source doing that. I know a lot of propaganda outlets, though. Having that choice, people (and Yandex) usually choose propaganda from their side.
how does it feel to be so sure replicating western propaganda?
there's no such thing as entirely someone's fault. you live in black and white.
i don't know, was the whole germany literal nazi? well, half europe was. was hitler the enemy of the whole world? well, not until he did his job keeping commies under control. noone cared about jews and racism, ok? einstein moved to us from nazi germany and was shocked by racism towards black. he was lucky he's not black.
it's not a tale of good and bad. and it doesn't need to. hating your enemy is hating yourself for the enemy being in your mind, being close to you, being in your news or the same continent. love your enemy to love yourself.
Yes, actions don't exist in a vacuum, however excusing Russia's agression through "oh but the EU tried to be friendly to Ukraine" doesn't pass a sniff test.
Russia, today, is an oligarchy run by one man and his cronies. Not all of Russians agree with them, and hopefully with time that part will become a majority. But don't mistake Russia being an enemy with Russians. Some of them are direct enemies ( like frontline troops), but most are just people that have the misfortune to live in Russia.
Oh please, I'm from Bulgaria, a nation split between Russophilia and Russophobia due to centuries of history with Russia. I'm a history nerd and have pretty decent knowledge around Eastern European history.
What I'm saying is coming from a position of knowledge, history and geopolitics, not random "Russia bad guys communism" or whatever you think it is. If you're so certain in your version, go on, let's debate. How is Russia, in today's form, not an enemy of the EU through it's own choice?
Almost every time I argue with somebody who believes Russia has been forced to act the way they had it always boils down to this: any peaceful cooperation with the west built on trade and mutual respect of the rules is de-facto a humiliation for Russia who would succumb to American imperialism and lose its deserved place of glory as a rightful superpower.
Now, I'm personally coming from a position or disdain for American imperialism and the very same position drives me to despise any other sentiment of grandiosity self-righteousness and feeling that one or another country should have their well deserved spotlight and rule over the others.
Yet, the vast majority of people I interact with on a daily basis seem to reduce the whole thing to one camp against another camp. If you're against American imperialism you must be for Russian imperialism, or Chinese imperialism (whatever kind, past and future or wanna-be).
It aches me to see how utterly impossible it is to have a nuanced conversation about this without reducing everything to a tram match, a tribal identity contest.
I'm in Croatia right now to meet some family, and every left-leaning person is pro-putin (because Ukrainians are nationalist right wing) and every right-lraning person is pro-ukraine (for the same reasons apparently). The same left-leaning people 30 years ago voted to secede from Yugoslavia and were appalled that the resulting war was so brutal and that the west didn't do enough to stop the Serbian invasion. Now those same family members, pontificate that Ukrainians don't exist and they are just Russians, and that the government is a bunch of Nazis, and say other things like that straight from the Russian news outlets. And the reason they prefer that world view is just because the alternative seems to be to accept Americana hegemony.
Nobody seems to be able to say fuck to both. Why is it so hard?
>How is Russia, in today's form, not an enemy of the EU through it's own choice?
Why is it? Ukraine is not part of the EU, but the EU and it's big brother NATO aka US is threatening russia since years -> NATO east expansion. But hey instead of having good relations, you force Russia to make a pact with china.
You know what happened last time the Warsaw-pact made a east expansion? Hint Kuba....but Russia has to accept it in Poland and Turkey (after all US=good Russia=bad).
Thinking that Russia is the enemy of Europe will bring out two winners, China and the US, once more we got played.
Not NATO nor Russia is the good guy here, and talking with words like "enemy" is exactly what's not needed now. What do you think happens when Russia has no other choices?
What do you think about this perspective of the war:
> It appears that Germany and France have started to wake up to the Anglosphere’s designs. This US and UK imposed war is hollowing out Germany and France, Europe’s economic power houses, by destroying their economies. The UK is particularly chuffed about breaking the European Union and forming an informal union of Russophobe countries from the Baltics and Central Europe.
> Germany now believes that one of the objectives of the Anglosphere through this war was to kill the Nord Stream 2 pipeline between Russia and Germany which was crucial for keeping German industry competitive in the world market. German industrial leaders are crying hoarse over this but European capitals, including and particularly Berlin, are too timid to stand up for their own interests. The same goes for France.
> However, sources say, lately, both Germany and France are taking some steps in tandem to sabotage the Anglosphere’s designs in Ukraine. Both Germany and France have either stopped supplying critical weapons to Ukraine or are delaying it to the point where they shall have little or no role to play in the war. They are also wary about the possible wheat shortage across the world and have established back-channels with Moscow to look at possible ways Ukrainian wheat can be exported via the Black Sea.
Your source is seemingly blaming Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the US and UK. That doesn't really make for a convincing source on... anything, really.
> Your source is seemingly blaming Russia's invasion of Ukraine on the US and UK.
No, it's discussing the geopolitics involved in the war between the European powers. It is a fact that Germany, France and UK in Europe don't see eye to eye on many issues. And it is definitely a realistic possibility that the US and UK want to partly break the EU and and create a rival union with the states bordering Russia. This would mean that even if Germany and France want to improve economic relationship with Russia in the future, they would have to involve the US and UK too. It is clever as it would isolate Russia more from Europe as it would now need to deal with two blocs hostile to it.
First, framing the war as imposed by USA is plain lie. It is not even different perspective, it requires intentional manipulation of events and lying to promote.
> However, sources say, lately, both Germany and France are taking some steps in tandem to sabotage the Anglosphere’s designs in Ukraine.
Yes, it seems like they are fine with genocide of Ukrainians in exchange of business. And yes, they are loosing soft power European countries as a result. But, to be fair, Germany does quite a lot of humanitarian help, even as the Sholtz would be happy to sacrifice Ukraine to Russia.
> forming an informal union of Russophobe countries from the Baltics and Central Europe
Yes, countries formerly occupied by Russia and being at risk of being occupied by Russia again had Russia succeeded in Ukraine don't like Russia as much as India. India did not had that many citizens murdered by Russia, did not had political system dictated by Russia. The closer to Russia you are, the more corruption is there.
From Stalin to Putin, it is pretty easy to see why Baltics and Central Europe dont want Russian tanks at home again.
How does being a russophobe protect you from Russian tanks at home?
Central Europe is circa 100M people, just get yourself a real competitive army (not NATO) - that will protect you from Russian tanks at home. Then you can normalize relations with Russia.
Which does not like you very much either, by the way.
> How does being a russophobe protect you from Russian tanks at home?
The Russophobia displays by sending support to Ukraine and pushing for EU independence from Russian exports. It also manifests by trying to keep your country less influenced by Russia. So, quite a lot, actually. It does a lot more then appeasement.
> Central Europe is circa 100M people, just get yourself a real competitive army (not NATO) - that will protect you from Russian tanks at home.
Central Europe is already member of NATO, which is even better. NATO has also United States in it, which would be even more useful in case of attack. Even now, Americans are the ones giving out the most needed arms to Ukraine.
> Then you can normalize relations with Russia.
That is up to Russia to normalize relations. They are the expansive aggressor praising Stalin legacy. Once they stop trying to export their corruption, violence and authoritarianism, relationships can normalize.
I'm still unconvinced that it protects them from Russian tanks at home. Having an army would do. Not having an army and angering Russia at the same time, not so sure...
You cant be member of NATO without having the army. It is literally one of conditions. NATO itself does not have an army, it is literally composition of nation states armies.
> Not having an army and angering Russia at the same time, not so sure..
Lol, trying to blame victims. Russia is angry when other countries don't act like their puppet states. Don't pretend someone is going out of way to antagonize Russia, this is not true. What is going on is that Russia is ruthless and don't care.
You don't have to be a victim if you have good army. NATO is something which may or may not come to your aid, especially as it is afraid of nuclear war. But if you had a healthy regional Central European army you could stop being victim and have peer relations with Russia.
You genuinely don't know what NATO is nor how it works. Nevertheless, central European countries are members of NATO and were for years.
Turkey is member of NATO too. They are the ones trying to block Sweden entry. They want to use situation to oppress Kurds better - Turkey is not exactly role model.
> you could stop being victim and have peer relations with Russia.
What exactly you mean by peer relationship with Russia? Help them to destroy Ukraine in exchange for gas and oil?
Peer relationship with Russia is when you are no longer motivated by ressentment towards Russia but only by your goals, which you may freely choose, starting from division of other countries for fun and profit, and towards the noble goals of peace and justice; but not being motivated by Russian tanks at home.
Of all countries, Turkey lost a huge amount of stuff to Russia. They could have endless ressentment towards Russia if they wanted. But they may allow themself to not want that, since they have stuff to do and means to do that.
That seems like state of majority of countries, until Russia devolved back to its soviet state. That relationship is quite easily possible inside NATO, you don't worry about Russian tanks. Which is why Finland is seeking NATO membership - so that they can do politics without worrying about pleasing Russia.
For those of us who aren't westerners and are familiar with the divide-and-rule tactics of the superpowers since colonial times, it is clear that the US and UK are the most vocal advocate of prolonging and escalating the war in Ukraine. This tactic makes sense as the more the war drags on, the more it is a drain on Russia and it also strengthens the perception that Europe needs NATO (thereby effectively killing criticisms against the need for NATO or any idea of an "EU army" without US). The forming of another union in Europe by UK will also strengthens the UK / US hand as it would mean more geographic isolation of Russia from Europe, and itwould mean even if France and Germany wanted to improve their economic ties with Russia, they would still have to go through the UK / US.
All the superpowers are only looking at the advantage they can gain here. Russia will not stop till it achieves its geostrategic aims in Ukraine to contain NATO goals against it. And the US and UK will make sure that Russia bleeds as much as possible during this process. The reality is that nobody gives a damn about Ukraine.
I have notice trend of non-westeners to treat Ukrainians, Eastern Europeans and Central Europeans as disposable. Neither opinions nor interests of those matter to you. I have noticed that you are quickest to spread Russian lies. The whole region is just potential resource to you, these countries nor people in them matter to you. In your worldview, the whole region should put up and shut up so that you can blame countries you dislike for ... to avoid blaming country like Russia.
> are familiar with the divide-and-rule tactics of the superpowers since colonial times
For those of us who know who pushes for what, Poland and Estonia are much stronger pushing then US and UK. The strongest one however, is Ukraine itself. It is not true that UK would be particularly strong. Besides, colonial times are still here - Russia is the colonial power as it was majority of its history.
Divide what? Who exactly is being divided here? Countries who were occupied by Russia are divided from former occupier who would like to occupy them again? Yes, this war shows Europe in fact needs NATO and in particular needs US in NATO. Russia can be stopped and must be stopped. Russians are not gods, they are just violent autocratic regime they always were.
> geostrategic aims in Ukraine to contain NATO goals against it.
This part is a lie, simply. Even Russia stopped using this talking point. There is enough rhetoric from Russia about Ukraine not being real state or real nation. They would not need to kill al those Ukrainians, would not need to replace Ukrainian language, teachers and books. Anything but puppet state, any democratic reforms in Ukraine are treated as threat to Russia. Just like democratic reforms in Belarus would be treated as threat. The NATO itself is threat only as far as it prevents Russia to invade.
> And the US and UK will make sure that Russia bleeds as much as possible during this process. The reality is that nobody gives a damn about Ukraine.
You do not care about them, that is for sure. You would give them to Russia, so that they can finish the genocide there - again. US do actually helps Ukraine more then your lies.
> The whole region is just potential resource to you, these countries nor people in them matter to you.
Yes, that is exactly how the superpowers view you and us (India). That is why good politicians ensure that their country doesn't get caught in the ambitions and competitions of these superpowers. (That is why India and other like minded countries started the Non-Aligned Movement - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-Aligned_Movement ). Ukraine is an ideal candidate for NAM because the world powers have geostrategic interest in them. But unfortunately Ukraine's shitty and selfish politicians lack experience or vision - one sought to side with the Russian and the other decided to side with the west. Both have placed their own selfish and partisan political interest over that of their country. That is why the rest of the world doesn't really respect them and views them both as puppets of either side. This is important to understand - if Ukranian politicians are viewed as puppets of Russia or the west and seek some help from other nations, every nation has to necessarily think twice or thrice on whether this is being asked on behalf of Ukraine or the respective puppet-master (Russia or US / UK). Remember, most nations don't want to get dragged between the super powers. This is why Ukraine has been suffering with political turmoil for more than a decade now. Genuine support for Ukraine will only pour in when Ukraine has serious politicians that care more about their country than their own political interests - not when one Ukrainian leader is camped with Russia and another with NATO. That is a problem Ukraine has to solve. If your own politicians don't talk to each other, you are a nation divided.
> Divide what? Who exactly is being divided here?
Divide and rule is an old colonial political practice of weakening your opponent by creating divisions in them so that they get bogged down fighting each other. In India, for example, the British tried to keep us from uniting politically against them by pitting Hindus against muslims or upper caste against lower castes (i.e. they sought to widen the political divisions in our society). Gandhi's greatest success was in preventing this and uniting us despite our divisions.
In modern times, the US and allies use their economic and military might to create situations so that potential rivals do not unite and become stronger - like pitting Saudi Arabia against Iran or Israel against the Arabs in the middle-east or pitting India, Pakistan, China, Russia, Japan, Korea in Asia, or pitting the countries in South America or Africa. To a lesser extent (lesser because the US needs them) this also happens in Europe by pitting France, Germany, UK but for now it is more focused on pitting Europe against Russia. If the US and UK manage to create another bloc in Europe comprising of central european and Balkan countries, it would really weaken EU too (that would imply there are serious differences between Germany and France vs UK and US on how to deal with the Russians).
NAM doesn't work against an air power of 1700+ missiles launched at your territory. Like it or not, Ukraine with its standing army and modern military equipment will be among the most powerful European countries at the end of this war and Russia will be confined and likely go through internal breakup processes.
Ukraine has been fighting Russia for 400+ years. It has a long history of revolutions against Russia's puppets. Zelenskyy is anything but a puppet. You can listen to his speeches. https://www.youtube.com/user/PresidentGovUa/featured (with English subtitles). Ukraine simply wants to join the EU and NATO. Russia does not want that. That's the reason for this war. And now Ukraine is very likely to attain EU candidate status this month. EU is actively supporting Ukraine in its accession bid.
If Ukraine had any smart politicians who really understood what NAM did, neither superpower would be launching missiles on Ukraine. Neither NAM nor UN makes a difference if one does not have experienced politicians who genuinely care about their countrymen.
From what I have read about independent Ukraine's short political history, only Leonid Kuchma stands out as the smartest Ukranian politician so far. He seemed to understand an important political axiom that all good politicians abide by - there are no permanent enemies, only future opponents and allies. That's why he worked to develop a good relationship with Russia as well as improve ties with the west. He understood the importance of not getting caught between the egos of the superpowers while also using their rivalry for Ukraine's benefit, without antagonising both. That is how he managed to create a stable economic climate to initiate economic growth and reform for a brief period.
After him, Ukraine just seems to have had a string of shitty politicians - some who didn't know how to manage foreign powers interfering in their domestic politics and some who were willing to sacrifice their country's interest and work with foreign powers to be in political power at any cost.
> Ukraine with its standing army and modern military equipment will be among the most powerful European countries at the end of this war
It is very naive of you to believe that UK, France or Germany will allow that.
So India is ok with selling us to Russia, is ok with supporting genocide and somehow wants me to see it as something positive?
You are as cynical as Russia. You don't get to blame countries that provide humanitarian support and arms to victims for what country you supports started. You don't respect Ukrainians, because you want then to submit to Russia. And you would then looked down on them and called them disloyal Russians anyway.
You are on the side of genocide. You don't get to call Ukrainian politicians shitty with much much worst politics you support.
Feel free to move to Russia. Feel free to see pleasures of being ruled by country like that
I will add that this is not the first genocide in Ukraine by Russians. This is not first time Russia went out of their way to kill thousands of innocent people. Russia was among the most brutal feudal systems, among the kost brutal in wars after that too.
Their victims count millions and they again celebrate Stalin. Only proper analogy is would be Germans celebrating Hitler. Yes Hitler killed more people, but him and Stalin they were about the same ethical.
That is who you support while talking about Ghandi.
There are no Anglosphere designs. There is an insane aggressor who is getting defeated with the help of our allies who happen to speak English.
Our President has appealed to more than 50 countries for military and humanitarian aid.
The countries standing in the way of peace in order of annoyance are: Russia, Belarus, France, Germany, India.
Russia is raping and killing our children in occupied territories, which is an established fact. It is committing genocide of Ukrainians. It has deported over 1.5 million of our women and children into Russia. It is attacking our cities full of peaceful residents and every single aspect of our culture. 200+ churches have been bombed. Ukraine is older than Russia. Kyiv is 1540 years old. We have countless UNESCO-listed objects of historical heritage that are being systematically demolished by cruise missiles.
Belarus is providing Russia with a base of operations, but is itself an occupied nation. We are patiently waiting for it to crash. Its dictator is sensibly defying Russia's request to join this war and so we are thankful for that at least. However, over 1700 missiles were launched at Ukraine from Belarus.
Hungary is denying access through its borders to deliver military and humanitarian supplies and actively interfering with EU sanctions. It will likely force EU to take drastic measures to work around its interference.
France is trying to reason with an insane man. France and Turkey are offering to broker a peace agreement that infringes on Ukraine's sovereignty. Ukraine will achieve a complete defeat of Russia and is not interested in unsecured peace.
Germany promised a lot. Germany helps tremendously with humanitarian aid to our refugees. Germany has yet to deliver the majority of promised heavy equipment that Ukraine desperately needs. Germany is moving in the right direction.
India is not helping. If it chooses to help Russia, there will be severe consequences. Russia is being thrown back into 1970s, literally. It will not be a viable partner for India after it loses the war.
Who are Ukraine's best friends?
Poland - without a question, unconditional support.
USA - without its weapons, Ukraine would have been occupied by now.
UK - lots of weapons delivered very quickly and sometimes stronger than USA versions. You are not informed just how much UK is helping Ukraine militarily.
The rest of EU - EU is assisting as a whole tremendously.
Moldova - they are broke but still are helping unconditionally.
Do you know why Ukraine's grain cannot be exported? Our primary means of export is Black Sea. That entire sea is blockaded and mined by Russia since February.
Your "source" makes me sick. As far as I am concerned, it's written by Moscow. It says "As many as 75 foreign vessels that were to carry wheat are stuck at different ports in Ukraine that are still under Ukrainian control. These ships are not leaving because it is Ukraine that has mined the shallow waters leading to the port. If nothing can come in, it also means that nothing can go out."
That is a lie. Those are Russian mines. They are washing up on our beaches and killing people.
Please read and watch something that is a little more realistic... For current news, that would be 1+1 International. That's Ukrainian news in English. It will shock you. If that's too biased for you, BBC and CNN have plenty of information.
Oh, please - stop with the exaggeration! We have been helping Ukraine by sending a lot of humanitarian aid:
... India on Thursday handed over 7,725 kg of humanitarian aid comprising essential medicines and medical equipment to Ukraine ... India sent the first tranche of humanitarian assistance to Ukraine on March 1 ... the consignment comprised two tonnes of humanitarian aid including tents, blankets, surgical gloves, protective eye gear, water storage tanks, sleeping mats, tarpaulin and medicines and other relief material ... Later, on March 9, India's second tranche of humanitarian aid to Ukraine was sent to Romania by an IAF flight ... India provided 90 tons of relief material to Ukraine and India focuses on supplying more medicines to Ukraine ...
Do you think Russia likes that? No. But it understands the limits of its influence on us and also our stand on the war. (And that is because Indian politicians have worked to build a good relationship with many, including both Ukraine and Russia, on terms of equal respect).
I agree with you generally, but not with regards to France.
France has sent weapons, including heavy artillery ( and a huge percentage of France's arsenal at that).
Ukraine cannot win in traditional terms (conquering Moscow and forcing a surrender), like Vietnam couldn't against the US. Them "winning" would be forcing Russia to abandon the war through attrition, generally making the war unpopular there, etc. It'd be a win, but it would be a very long road ahead, because Russia is a dictatorship that could survive quite a lot of internal unrest, and has quite a lot more bodies it can throw at Ukraine than vice versa. And there are the global ramifications with regards to food products. Not to mention that Putin is unhinged, and nobody knows what might happen if things get really bad for him, personally.
Macron wanting to keep a dialogue open is commendable IMHO. People are dying at an alarming rate on the front, and Eastern Ukraine is getting pummeled into oblivion. The best and quickest way out of this mess is through negotiations. Putin has no interest in this because he wouldn't get anything out of it, so the war would have been for nothing, i.e. a failure for him. Which is where Macron is coming from, i think, trying to propose to throw him a bone so he can bow out.
On the other hand, could anyone trust the result of negotiations with Putin? I wouldn't, and i doubt Ukraine would, so i fully understand their position ( not wanting to throw Putin a bone so he can save some grace at home). Let's just hope they have the forces required to bleed Russia dry until Putin dies, and in the end get what they want ( full restoration of Ukrainian territory, and probably reparations to rebuild). It still won't bring back the dead though.
PS: I don not envy Zelensky, he has an impossible job.
>I am sending you the below email on behalf of [redacted], in order to provide clarifications
related to the sanctions, following up on questions received.
(...)
>Search engines such as Google are designed to index results containing any possible content;
they index websites throughout the world; the information is indexed by their ‘web crawlers’ or
robots, that is to say, computer programmes used to locate and sweep up the content of web
pages methodically and automatically (see by analogy judgment of the ECJ in Google Spain,
C‑131/12, para. 43). The activity of search engines plays a decisive role in the overall
dissemination of content in that it renders the latter accessible to any internet user making a
search on the basis of the content indication or related terms, including to internet users who
otherwise would not have found the web page on which that content is published (see by analogy
judgment of the ECJ in Google Spain, C‑131/12, para. 36). Consequently, if search engines such
as Google did not delist RT and Sputnik, they would facilitate the public’s access to the content
of RT and Sputnik, or contribute to such access.
>It follows from the foregoing that by virtue of the Regulation, providers of Internet search
services must make sure that i) any link to the Internet sites of RT and Sputnik and ii) any
content of RT and Sputnik, including short textual descriptions, visual elements and links to the
corresponding websites do not appear in the search results delivered to users located in the EU.
Social media
Just try to search "Russia Today" in Google, Bing, DDG, whatever, from inside the EU, and you'll see. Do you know what you'll get within the first results? Fox news, for example.
Why would the world need another Google, European or whatever? I believe we don't need changes to make a new Google possible, we need changes to promote competition of many (much smaller) search engines, service/content aggregators, email services etc.
