How Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, bowing to pressure from Putin, decided not to sign the association agreement between Ukraine and the EU, how that sparked the Euro Maidan protests, and how all differs from the "Orange Revolution" of 2004.
In case the "International Cheap Left" wants to learn something. (No, there was no US coup involved. It was Russian harrassment, pressure, extortion.)
With NATO special forces on the ground in Ukraine, Putin can now indeed claim a direct confrontation between Russia and NATO taking place. What a clusterfuck. The whole time NATO states have tried their utmost to keep their military personnel off Ukrainian soil. And now the Brits and the Yanks seemingly undermined that. I can only hope that this is not true but some sort of deep fake. But I'm not too optimistic. Anyway, this war was always going to be a major land warfare fought over the whole of Europe. I never had any illusions about it. (Although I desparately hoped otherwise.) And this war will last until Putin is dead. So here we are, one year into the war, and the overt exchange of Russia–Nato blows quickly approaching. It will get a whole lot worse before it can get better.
With this immense betrayal of secret and the leaking of U.S. (top) secret documents re: Ukraine and her military capabilities, I fear this is going to be a major blow to the Ukrainian war effort. And I wonder whether any Assange or Snowden remnants had their fingers in this. Due to their anti-Americanism and, accordingly, pro-Putinism, I assume anybody from the former Wikileaks sphere or kindred private intelligence organisations to be able and unscrupulous enough to help out Russia. Perhaps it was Russia herself, using the insights into the U.S. intelligence procedures it gained from Snowden. And obviously that doesn't rule out other actors too. But right now, remembering how Assange used Wikileaks to personally go after Hillary Clinton and help Trump win 2016, I wouldn't be surprised at all if these people did it again. Pissing on Bucha for personal revenge...
> I imagined Europe becoming a sort of demilitarized zone but without conflicting armies on each side of said zone.
This is a common misconception. The Treaty of Lisbon (2007) introduced a strong mutual defence obligation of all members of the EU into the Treaty of the European Union (Article 42(7)).
That was arguably too late for the Eastern European countries who joined earlier, but not for aspiring new candidates like Ukraine. (Perhaps one reason why Zelensky put aside NATO membership for now and insisted on a speedy admission to the EU.)
> ... despite NATO's clear intention never to admit them to its membership.
At the NATO summit in Bucharest 2008 Germany and France vetoed membership of Ukraine and Georgia against the insistence of the U.S. on a clear timetable for negotiations and speedy admission. Instead, both countries achieved a watered-down communiqué that vaguely granted both Ukraine and Georgia admission in some distant future. The reason, obviously, was to not rattle Russia. (And perhaps Germany and France saw themselves vindicated when in 2009, after the end of START 1, Russia declared the Budapest Memorandum to still be valid.)
> So when Finland and Sweden finally decided that the threat of invasion was greater than their longstanding neutral stances could overcome, they too applied to join NATO.
Both Finland and Sweden are members of the EU but perhaps don't put much trust in a mutual defence alliance without NATO and U.S. participation.
I'm pretty baffled that many people opting for "transitions" apparently have no grasp of the concept of self-responsibility. Sometimes it sounds to me, from afar, as if vast parts of the U.S. judiciary are deliberately designed to eschew personal responsibility and replace it with blame and restitution. As if the judicial system were desgined to keep people childish.
« [R]ussia’s imperialism blurs the distinction between what constitutes a colony and the home country. Over the centuries, Russia absorbed many of its immediate neighbors, often resorting to physical extermination rising to the level of genocide, and imposed its language and culture.
[...]
Moscow began its colonial expansion after freeing itself in 1480 from the Mongol Golden Horde. Muscovy served as the Mongols’ principal tax collector and agent in Russian lands in previous centuries. Once it gained independence, it adopted many of the methods of war and elements of statecraft that once allowed the Mongols [...] to conquer much of the known (and exponentially wealthier and more technologically advanced) world. Turning cities that refused to submit into rubble, such as what happened this year in Ukraine’s Mariupol, was the Mongols’ trademark tactic.
A powerful current of Russia’s political thought, the so-called Eurasianists, holds that the Russian state is a natural heir of the Mongol empire that is finally ending a three-century-long flirtation with Europe that began when Peter the Great launched a wholesale westernization of the Russian state and society. “Peter the Great opened the window to Europe. Putin closed it. We’ve aired enough,” goes one meme currently making the rounds on Russian social media. »
When on Twitter you have to screenshot (!) a link to a Mastodon run server because Twitter prevents posting it, calling it possibly harmful. I mean, seriously, Twitter, why don't you just shut down shop right now? You're not even a platform any more but a ridiculous imitation of some social media business.
I still wonder how #Russia under #Putin, Putin and his circle, and their apologists in the South and West could ever come up with the idea that NATO and "the West" were out to "encircle" and "subdue" Russia. If you want to bring down a country, you don't first engage in economic relationships with it or make yourself dependent on it in crucial areas of #infrastructure and #energy. Assuming Putin to be a rational player – a murderous one, but still – he must have clearly seen that delivery of raw materials to the West was increasing, not decreasing Russia's security. Not even a NATO membership of Ukraine and Georgia could endanger Russia given the scale of Western dependency. Thus, the Greater Russia chimera with the corresponding conspiracy idea of the West wanting to "extinguish" Russia is the fantasy of a drama queen that cannot accept that Russia is a banal and mediocre state with little else to offer than raw materials and conflict. Putin needed to concoct interrelationships of historical, existential, and religous dimensions because he seemingly couldn't accept that after 20 years in power (various positions), his only achievement had been the creation of a mafia-state for his self-enrichment. But the country itself had become a failure, and so, irrespective of his riches, he himself. (Since 2007 I would argue.) And so he started it. A genocidal war on a sovereign neighbouring state, to ease his feelings of inferiority as man and head of state.
Yep. This is what I replied to this celebrity on that very post:
« Don't bullshit people! Esp. on any instance that is part of the Mastodon network, you are no less small and a commodity than on Twitter. You're neither important nor "a person", but at the whims of admins who decide by fiat and without accountability with whom you can interact and with whom not. Perhaps it's different on the other projects (gnusocial, friendica, etc.), but in the Mastodon network, you're as much in a silo as on Twitter. Again: Stop bullshitting people. »
« If ActivityPub (the protocol) and Mastodon (a server that adheres to that protocol) were designed to incentivise decentralisation, having more instances in the network would not be a problem. In fact, it would be the sign of a healthy, decentralised network.
However, ActivityPub and Mastodon are designed the same way Big Tech/Big Web is: to encourage services that host as many “users” as they can.
This design is both complex (which makes it difficult and expensive to self-host) and works beautifully for Big Tech (where things are centralised and scale vertically and where the goal is to get/own/control/exploit as many users as possible).
In Big Tech, the initial cost of obtaining such scale is subsidised by vast amounts of venture capital [...]
However, unlike Big Tech, the stated goal of the fediverse is to decentralise things, not centralise them. Yet how likely is it we can achieve the opposite of Big Tech’s goals while adopting its same fundamental design?
When you adopt the design of a thing, you also inherit the success criteria that led to the evolution of that design. If that success criteria does not align with your own goals, you have a problem on your hands.»
A wonderful blogpost explaining why mass and scale are a danger to the #fediverse. Thanks @aral for unearthing this problem for the #Fediverse (not just the silo-esk Mastodon-network).
--------------
« [O]n the fediverse, I find myself in a somewhat unique situation where:
1. I have my own personal Mastodon instance, just for me.4 2. I’m followed by quite a number of people. Over 22,000, to be exact. 3. I follow a lot of people and I genuinely enjoy having conversations with them. [...]
Unfortunately, the combination of these three factors creates a perfect storm which means that now, every time I post something that gets lots of engagement, I essentially end up carrying out a denial of service attack on myself. [...]
So, what’s the solution?
Well, there’s only one thing you can do when you find yourself in such a pickle: scale up your Mastodon instance. The problem with that? It starts getting expensive. »
--------------
Yes, scale the instance and have it get more expensive is one problem.
But the other is that by doing so you either oust smaller instances or force them to scale up as well to stay visible and "see" enough accounts.
A wonderful blogpost explaining why mass and scale are a danger to the #fediverse. Thanks @aral@matodon.ar.al for unearthing this problem for the #Fediverse (not just the silo-esk Mastodon-network).
--------------
« [O]n the fediverse, I find myself in a somewhat unique situation where:
1. I have my own personal Mastodon instance, just for me.4 2. I’m followed by quite a number of people. Over 22,000, to be exact. 3. I follow a lot of people and I genuinely enjoy having conversations with them. [...]
Unfortunately, the combination of these three factors creates a perfect storm which means that now, every time I post something that gets lots of engagement, I essentially end up carrying out a denial of service attack on myself. [...]
So, what’s the solution?
Well, there’s only one thing you can do when you find yourself in such a pickle: scale up your Mastodon instance. The problem with that? It starts getting expensive. »
--------------
Yes, scale the instance and have it get more expensive is one problem.
But the other is that by doing so you either oust smaller instances or force them to scale up as well to stay visible and "see" enough accounts.
A wonderful blogpost explaining why mass and scale are a danger to the #fediverse. Thanks @aral@matodon.ar.al for unearthing this problem for the #Fediverse (not just the silo-esk Mastodon-network).
--------------
« [O]n the fediverse, I find myself in a somewhat unique situation where:
1. I have my own personal Mastodon instance, just for me.4 2. I’m followed by quite a number of people. Over 22,000, to be exact. 3. I follow a lot of people and I genuinely enjoy having conversations with them. [...]
Unfortunately, the combination of these three factors creates a perfect storm which means that now, every time I post something that gets lots of engagement, I essentially end up carrying out a denial of service attack on myself. [...]
So, what’s the solution?
Well, there’s only one thing you can do when you find yourself in such a pickle: scale up your Mastodon instance. The problem with that? It starts getting expensive. »
--------------
Yes, scale the instance and have it get more expensive is one problem.
But the other is that by doing so you either oust smaller instances or force them to scale up as well to stay visible and "see" enough accounts.
@lnxw48a1 @fu If I may pitch in on on th etopic of "how the fediverse works"...
Yes, you can explain it with the image of email and email providers. But you rely on "freedom" (whose?) to describe a structure that doesn't explain why newbies can and cannot subscribe to other people or otherwise interact with accounts and posts.
A different way is stop putting "freedom" into the centre – which in itself is a rather problematic hierarchical approach as it invokes the imagery of landlords dealing with their rowdy tenants – and explain to people the basics of #federation, from which most of the peculiarities and problems of fediverse interactions arise.
2015 I wrote a piece for Twitter migrants to GNUsocial primarily from the angle of a layperson, explaining the various oddities by pointing to and explaining from federation as the root cause. Perhaps this snippet is of some help:
I'm a kitchen porter, cleaner, lavatory attendant. At night the latrine faerie and I sing dirty duets. — Annotated tag list : https://gnusocial.net/conversation/7497705#notice-13090788