“Russian military units were also spotted wearing civilian clothes in the Kursk region” I’m seeing a whole lot of statement here but not a whole lot of confirmation.
Spotted wearing civilian clothes? What does that mean? Doesn’t that just imply they saw civilians?
I guess I’m struggling to find the bit of info that explains how they knew these are Russian troops. ELI5?
if confirmed, would constitute a violation of international humanitarian law, according to which all armed combatants in a conflict are required to wear distinctive insignia
It sounds like the restriction may be that you cannot act out-of-uniform to “kill, injure, or capture” an adversary, but can do so to gather information and the like.
However, if caught out of uniform, someone also loses Geneva Convention protections for prisoners of war.
disguising a warship to appear to be a neutral merchant vessel, or a merchant vessel on the side of one’s opponent, has traditionally been considered a legitimate ruse de guerre, provided the belligerent raises their own flag to break the deception before firing their guns. This was called sailing under false colors. Both sides during the world wars used this tactic, most famously the Royal Navy’s Q ships. The German raider Kormoran used this tactic against the superior HMAS Sydney, disguising herself as the Dutch merchant vessel Straat Malakka prior to their mutually destructive engagement.
It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
(a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
(b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
(c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
(d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts that are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.
The principle of distinction is one of the core principles of IHL, and the requirement to operate while wearing a uniform or a distinctive sign is generally considered one of the fundamental criteria for attaining combatant status. However, after examining the relevant sources such as the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols, we have concluded that the mere operation of combatants without uniforms does not violate IHL. Nevertheless, since that requirement is also one of the basic conditions for conferring POW status upon combatants, the failure to wear a distinctive sign while conducting a military attack could result in the loss of the right to POW status in international armed conflicts, and thus the loss of combatant immunity.
After analyzing the prohibitions and their elements, we have reached the following conclusions:
(a) Customary nature of the prohibition - Treacherous and perfidious killing or wounding, originating in article 23 of the 1907 Hague Regulations and article 37 of Additional Protocol I, are customary prohibitions under IHL and are applicable to all parties in international and non-international armed conflicts. The prohibition against capturing a person while resorting to perfidious ways, appears only in article 37 of Additional Protocol I and does not constitute a customary prohibition, and therefore, it applies only to states party to Additional Protocol I.
(b) The mere use of undercover units does not constitute a violation of the prohibition of perfidy and treachery. Only undercover operations aimed at the killing or wounding of an adversary are prohibited as perfidious and treacherous.
(c) The violation of the prohibition of perfidy and treachery becomes applicable from the point that the undercover forces are de facto visible to the adversary during the deployment to attack, and therefore trust can be established.
(d) Undercover operations aimed at the gathering of information are not prohibited as perfidious or treacherous acts and could be considered acts of espionage.
EDIT: The above distinction pointing out that the prohibition on use of perfidy specifically to capture is not customary international law – that is, binding on everyone, regardless of what treaties they are party to – and only affects states party to Additional Protocol I shouldn’t apply to Russia, as Russia is a state party to Protocol I.
So I’d expect Russia can probably have soldiers legally act out of uniform, but if captured, they will not receive the protections the Geneva Convention affords people with POW status, and if they act out of uniform to kill, injure, or capture Ukrainians, this will be a war crime violating one or both of customary international law or the Geneva Conventions.
[deleted]
EDIT4: Misread Wikipedia; it looked like WP had said that Russia had revoked ratification of Protocol I in 2019, but in fact, they revoked an associated statement attached to the ratification. So Protocol I’s prohibition on acting out of uniform to capture Ukrainians does indeed apply in Russia’s case.
This is the rationale behind gitmo imprisonment. The combatants where out of uniform and not soldiers, therefore not afforded the treatment reserved for enemy soldiers.
What subsequently happens in gitmo is unacceptable, but not following the Geneva convention was about these points.
Novaya Gazeta Europe was founded in April 2022, following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine six weeks earlier and the subsequent introduction of wartime censorship that forced most of Novaya Gazeta’s editors and journalists to leave the country.
Based in the Latvian capital Riga, Novaya Gazeta Europe seeks to continue the legacy of Novaya Gazeta, which has been one of the most trusted names in Russian independent journalism for over 30 years.
Confirmed by Wikipedia. No MBFC or AllSides rating, though their Wiki page lists numerous awards they’ve won. There are many articles about the Russian government shutting them down after the invasion. Here’s one from Reuters. Many of their journalists have been murdered by Putin’s regime. Anna Politkovskaya’s murder is maybe the most infamous.
The vast majority of russians support imperialism and a majority hold genocidal views (they would never openly agree to this, but on an outcome basis they do support eradication of Ukrainian culture and not only).
Even to this day, every russian with a smartphone has access to uncensored youtube available within 10 secs on their phone.
Not saying what apple did was right, just pointing out the “lack of factual information” narrative is largely incorrect. It’s more a lack of respect for the rights others, nihilism and overwhelming supremacism; no VPN or technology is going to solve this.
I’m not talking about the people happily living in self-delusion. We have plenty of those in the US too. Free information channels are still important and can be a crushing loss to the people who do care about reality.
There is different people in different countries. No question about that. And free information channels are definitely very important. My argument is that in the case of russia, this factors don’t really come into play in a meaningful way.
Information channels even after the full scale invasion are available and easy to access, it was less restrictive before Feb 24 2022, but the difference is somewhat marginal. Access to information isn’t going to magically change the imperialist, supremacist mindset of the overwhelming majority of russians.
It’s not an access to information problem, it’s a social and cultural problem. I’ve lived there for 10 years (in addition to living a decade in north america and many years in asia), the imperialist/genocidal mindset has survived 3 regimes (Tsarism, USSR, authoritarian capitalism) with very different technological currents and economic structure profiles. It’s not going away just like that.
Full disclosure: I am Ukrainian, but I would argue you can come to the same conclusions by taking a critical look at their history, current attitudes (even among the “liberal” opposition) and broad worldview.
Just wanted to share my thoughts. Re-reading my posts, I think I come off a bit more pushy than I wanted to.
I’m not advocating for free information because i think it’ll make a significant difference in current geopolitics or change how things would have gone. I simply view it as a human right. But I do think it is particularly important in a country that is in the process of violently suppressing increasingly important information (e.g. who the terrorist attackers were so Russia isnt in a blind rage against Ukrainian “butchers”). These small drips of reality into the information space do temper the level of dishonesty Russia can get away with. They aren’t quite yet to North Korean levels of mass delusion and if a tiny portion of Apple’s profit help spare people from that misery then it is a small price to pay for what little seed of hope that can sow for the future. Other countries have been expected to endure much more to deal with trade restrictions etc. so it’s a bit much that Apple can’t even do this tiny thing.
So your country is butt friends with Azerbaijan yet you are moralizing on genocides. Fuck off. Being invaded by Russia is not an indulgence paper for other crimes.
The vast majority of russians support imperialism and a majority hold genocidal views (they would never openly agree to this, but on an outcome basis they do support eradication of Ukrainian culture and not only).
That’s a major simplification. The fact that russians do not stand against a genocidal war doesn’t mean that the vast majority do support it.
I disagree. While my statement did not include any kind of elaboration. This is not a simplification.
At the very least a strong majority (and I am being conservative) support the annexation of Ukrainian territories and elimination of Ukrainian culture and language in areas under occupation. On the quantitative side this is confirmed by various polling initiatives that use different methodologies (including in-direct polling with attempts to estimate preference falsification).
On the qualitative side, you can look at genocides committed in the last ~100 years by the russians (and there are several, includes less well known ones) and review the attitudes towards these crimes among various socio-political groups (not necessarily in a purely quantitative manner).
I have one interesting anecdote. Currently among the “liberal” russian opposition there is a big debate around a 3 hour YT series about the 90s in russia.
One bit topic that was completely excluded was the actions of russians in Chechnya; the creators (Navalniy’s organization) said it was out of scope.
During their intervention in Chechnya in the 90s, they killed approximately 5% of the civilian population; it would be like if 7.5 million russian civilians were killed.
Don’t get me wrong, a relatively small % of russians would openly admit to that they support extermination of Ukrainian identity (still 10s of millions). But even among the reminder, there is a strong undercurrent of supremacism, a desire of expansion that de facto is support for genocide.
So what exactly do you think a russian citizen can do to opose the war? Are you aware of the people protesting with blank peaces of paper being taken away? Or even high ranking people “falling from the balcony”
Do you also think that North Koreans support and enjoy their way of living?
There is a long way from not having much choice in oposing something to actually supporting it…
Outside of the political sphere, life in russia is nothing like in NK.
I am aware of the such protests and of public condemnations that result in jail sentences and even acts for sobotage.
Realistically, there are three options 1. Do nothing (understandable) 2. Leave the country (not available to all) 3. Join rebel forces and/or engage in sabotage (this takes a lot of bravery, and people have dependents). [1] is the only realistic option for most.
That being said, I never claimed that the situation for those russians who oppose the full scale invasion (and genocidal imperialism in general) is not dire. Nor did I claim that every single russian is a genocidal imperialism.
I did claim that at least a strong majority (if not an overwhelming majority) are genocidal imperialist and provided some high level points with respect to quantitative and qualitative approaches.
I strongly disagree that my statement is a simplification and I tried to explain why.
Your welcome to say I am wrong or claim that the current situation is influencing my thinking (don’t forget, in my OP I did mention that I lived in russia for 10 years, this was before the invasion of Georgia) but you can’t say this is just a quick simplification; “a stereotype driven by a stressful situation” or something like that.
I’ve been recently banned for putting links that lead to russian sites, so I’ll reference the sources by name in italic.
On the quantitative side this is confirmed by various polling initiatives that use different methodologies (including in-direct polling with attempts to estimate preference falsification).
AFAIK it is neither confirmed nor refuted. I don’t know how one would interpret results where 91-93% just refuse to talk to a sociologist and 4-5% more abort the interview when asked about something related to the war. That’s the results by Russian Field, one of a few agencies that publish these numbers. They do interpretation of these results, but they differ from month to month: you can numbers from Feb 2024 to prove your point, I can put numbers from May 2024 to prove mine.
On the qualitative side, you can look at genocides committed in the last ~100 years by the russians (and there are several, includes less well known ones) and review the attitudes towards these crimes among various socio-political groups
That’s a bold point implying that history defines the attitudes for a whole nation for decades. There were a lot of atrocities made in the name of Russia in the Baltic states, Belarus, Ukraine, towards Circassians, Germans, Tatar and Georgians (probably forgot something). But for some reasons, russians want to exterminate only Ukrainian identity, conquer Baltics and befriend Georgia and Germany. That’s a political/propaganda surface, not a historical one.
Talking about qualitative research, there’s a publicsociologylab group that conducts interesting narrative research. Their last project is concerned with the view on the war from a non-central city. They conclude that people do ignore the atrocities and view them as something that is alien to them. The only question they ask is whether it is worth it to go to war for $10k + $3k/mo.
I hope that I was able to draw a picture where Russia is not a country of pests that should be exterminated. It’s a complex evil system that could be built anywhere in the world, even in Ukraine or the US.
I of course didn’t mean to imply that a strong majority of russians are interested in the destruction of only Ukrainians. The russians hate the Baltic nations with a passion (particularly “liberal opposition-mind” emigre russians) and others nations too of course. There is enough hate to go around.
Regarding, the quantitative side, I have read several Russian Field reports, for the latest one that I can access (May 23 to June 2) the results speak for themselves. Regarding non-response, there are methodologies such as list-based polling that can at least partially address this issue. The results once again align with what I mentioned earlier, albeit with a relatively small estimate for preference falsification (~10%) that moves the spectrum from an overwhelming majority (70-80%) to a strong majority (60-70%). To be honest I’ve given up using quantitative results as an argument, I find that any and all polling (no matter what methodology, topical focus) will always be dismissed unless it portrays russians in an innocent light.
History does not define a group of people. But there is also the matter of the timescales. 100 years? Sure, but almost everyone alive today is likely going to be dead by then. 30 years? 50 years? I have a life to live. Historical essentialism is the domain of professors living in NATO countries who do not have to deal with russians outside of sociological research, conferences and the academic equivalent of shitposting online.
A complex evil can indeed happen anywhere; there is nothing unique about russia in that sense. It can and has happened in Ukraine too (and not only in the 20th century). However, there are also practical consideration; reality if I may call it so. Uruguay is not going to land its marines in southern India and force locals to eat their steaks and send them to a torture basement if they refuse. Botswana is not going to send its navy to blockade Malaysia in order to strangle their economy.
And with respect to russia, the reality is that the non-central city that you reference will always (in our “collective” lifetimes, not necessarily for the next trillion years) choose the path of evil. Some might do it because they need money, other might do it due to conformism, another group might be very excited about seeing their country expand and exterminate the local language and culture. Some might simply not really care, they have their own things to worry about, right? But the practical, on-the-ground outcome will be that this town (just like all russian towns/cities/villages) will always be a source of evil for the countries that have the misfortune having russians as their neighbours.
And if you think I am being emotional or whatever (I’ve held these views since 2014, many Ukrainians were uncomfortable with my argumentation; all before Feb 24th of course), I will ask you to answer the following question:
Since my argumentation is allegedly based on historical essentialism, a misinterpretation of quantitative data, a biased view of qualitative data, a lack of empathy for russians (perhaps even understandable in your view), how and when will russia change from its current state?
With respect to the “when?” question, I will literally take anything other than “sometime in the future”, next 10 years? next 50 years? next million years?
The “how?” is the more impactful question. If a strong majority of russians are not genocidal imperialists, then it would make logical sense that russia would stop with its genocidal invasions, no? So how will we get to that point?
Let me first address the accusations of me accusing you being emotional and whatever. We’re having a respectful conversation I hadn’t hoped to have it in the first place. I don’t like your views, I may only sympathize with you. Thanks for that.
The hate you are talking about is not inherently inside Russia’s population. This hate is channeled by propaganda. As with Georgians and Turks: there were periods where everyone hated them, now they are friends. Fingers crossed the same will happen with ukranians soon, but I lost any hope that it will be reciprocal. Still, it is and will remain for decades a problem for the world.
how and when will russia change from its current state?
The current state is perpetual but silent war that exists, but somewhere far from themselves. The government finds this state to be the most favorable to them, but it draws a line between the government and the economic elites. I’d give it five to twenty years to resolve. No more than Putin’s lifespan, but also it should be resolved by the upcoming Third World War.
But the question itself contains a subtle implication. You think that Russia is a threat to the world or neighbors because how easy it starts the war with its neighbors and how violent its rhetoric. While I agree, I would also add to this the efficiency of Russian government, if by efficiency we define the government’s capability to save and multiply the resources of the very rich. My biggest fear is that other countries will implement the similar approaches.
Apologies for bringing that up, it was indeed uncalled for. You were being tactful and respectful.
I strongly disagree with the notion that hate is not inherently inside russia’s population. I would even go as far saying russia, as conceptualized by the overwhelming majority of the population, cannot exist without imperialism, chauvinism and genocide (i.e. extermination of local culture/language in any occupied territory as well as physically killing and torturing those who disagree).
Earlier in our thread you brought up a sociological report on a small town (on the eastern side of the Urals?), I read a preview article (in russian) about this report. The findings in the preview are damning for russian society. Even those who are not committed supporters of the invasion still believe the invasion should continue and they support “their boys” as a matter of patriotism and national pride. They also don’t think the full scale invasion was a mistake (let alone the annexation of Crimea and invasion of Donbas - although this my speculation). Furthermore, they also support making the war effort more efficient.
And this is supposed to be the more moderate wing of russians society. Something like 1.1 million russian men have directly taken part in the invasion of Ukraine (since 2014). Maybe 1.5-1.7 million civilians have personally taken part in the occupation of Ukrainian territories (I am excluding say “tourists” visiting occupied Crimea for the sake of argument). You also have 10s of million of russians who hold openly genocidal views (I believe 30% of russian think Ukraine should be nuked).
Russians will be hated in Ukraine for at least two generations (if not for far longer) because russian society as it is today is largely supportive of their government’s imperialist and genocidal aims. More so, there is no reason to believe this will change (even on the basis of a conceptual model).
How exactly would there be any political change in “five to twenty years”? What specifically can happen (on a purely theoretical level)? Why would it happen? What are the roots of this change?
And why do you say no longer than putin’s lifetime? What would stop someone similar (or worse) from taking over after putin dies? The russian people aren’t going to do anything and they show no interest in changing anything. You might say this is because of threats to their livelihood (fair, but who is responsible for this state of affairs?) or propaganda. I would say it’s because fundamentally the overwhelming majority of the russian population are aligned with imperialist and openly genocidal goals of the government.
What of the russian opposition? Have they started a campaign to develop a military strike force consisting of russian nationals? Sabotage programs? Assassination campaigns against senior enablers and admin of the regime? Of course not, instead they make stupid youtube videos trying to scapegoat the current situation on some people in the 90s. Why would the average russian choose what is essentially “putinism lite” (I will note that the “liberal” opposition largely supported the annexation of Crimea, even if they tried to put a spin on it for western audiences) when they can choose the real thing?
I will go back to my original OP. The qualitative and quantitative evidence very much supports the notion that the overwhelming majority of russians are authoritarian, chauvinistic and support imperialism and to some degree genocide too. This is not because of historical essentialism or some of “bad gene”; these are bunk theories best left for crude jokes (fully justified considering the situation). It is because as things stand now (and I will speculate this won’t change in the next ~50 years), the vast majority of russians have a made a choice; they believe invading neighbouring countries and genociding the local population (both direct violence and to turn them into “russians”) is a good thing.
The vast majority of russians support imperialism and a majority hold genocidal views (they would never openly agree to this, but on an outcome basis they do support eradication of Ukrainian culture and not only).
Don’t pretend there’s any difference to yourself in this though. Just different allowed targets.
Even to this day, every russian with a smartphone has access to uncensored youtube available within 10 secs on their phone.
You have access to whole ass uncensored Web yet I’m certain you don’t know shit about siege and ethnic cleansing of Artsakh, while the 3 mediators there were (and formally still are) USA, France and Russia.
And the USA representative publicly said they won’t allow ethnic cleansing days before it happened. And, say, in case of Ukraine they well knew months before and were very loud with warnings. And after said ethnic cleansing they immediately started talking the way it became clear that they supported it. And no sanctions have been put on Azerbaijan (which is also a big proxy for Russian strategic exports and imports, but that’s unimportant, of course).
So being Armenian I say shut up.
Also no, vast majority of Russians don’t support anything such, they are just in apathy because kinda big protests were not successful in changing the government.
I’ll add that when those protests were happening, “the West” mostly supported Putin by recognizing his stolen elections, just like they did during Chechen wars and, of course, with opposition to Yeltsin’s fascist tendencies. Cause there were lots of money to be made in Russia for politicians making those decisions.
Any such moralizing westerner should go to the frontline and replace some Ukrainian life in the total number of the dead.
You’ve made an even more fascinating blanket statement against Russians, and it so happens most decent people I know are Russian, living, well, in Russia.
There’s nothing exaggerated in it, Ukraine’s government is complicit in genocide.
I haven’t said anything on Ukrainians in general thinking about it. I mean, plenty of supposed Ukrainians in the Interwebs are complete ghouls on this particular subject, but they are likely bots.
What other states have recognized NK/Artsakh as independent or part of Armenia? What’s Armenia take on this specific issue?
I am going by memory, but hasn’t Armenia itself not recognized Artsakh as independent and legally they consider it to be part of Azerbaijan? If this is correct, does that mean the Armenian government is also complicit in genocide of Artsakh Armenian, or how does this work? Or did I get this wrong?
Ukraine wants to invade NK/Artsakh? Come on now…
You have a completely wrapped perception of the Ukrainian government’s and public’s view on NK/Artsakh.
I just hope you just aren’t aware of reality and are not wasting my time with this…
What other states have recognized NK/Artsakh as independent or part of Armenia?
How is this relevant? Technically Armenia did in 1991, because Artsakh had a unification referendum (then supported, for example, by the EU), but during the war it kinda backtracked to the position I’m describing further.
What’s Armenia take on this specific issue?
Armenia’s take can be either that Artsakh is part of it or that it can’t represent Artsakh. I mean, that’s logical.
QP government has said all kinds of things, but they are not legitimate after 2021 in my opinion.
I am going by memory, but hasn’t Armenia itself not recognized Artsakh as independent and legally they consider it to be part of Azerbaijan?
Armenian government’s position was that it recognizes the authority of the OSCE Minsk Group, the principles of resolution of which included mandatory right to self-determination.
So no. What it did was that Artsakh can either be independent or undetermined for all eternity until a solution satisfying all principles is found. It was considered that with 3 nuclear powers as guarantors there won’t be more war.
If this is correct, does that mean the Armenian government is also complicit in genocide of Artsakh Armenian, or how does this work? Or did I get this wrong?
You got it wrong, but since 2020 the Armenian government has said all kinds of things, including such. And yes, it’s definitely complicit.
Which doesn’t negate the simple fact that Artsakh is in Armenia’s declaration of independence as part of it and in its constitution as something it can’t recognize as part of Azerbaijan contrary to its right of self-determination.
Ukraine wants to invade NK/Artsakh? Come on now…
Didn’t say that.
You have a completely wrapped perception of the Ukrainian government’s and public’s view on NK/Artsakh.
I hope so, but all the official statements suck.
I just hope you just aren’t aware of reality and are not wasting my time with this…
I’m sorry, I can’t get past that first paragraph. What “targets” do you think most people are okay with genociding? The fact that you think everyone has a group they’d be fine with wiping off the face of the earth completely is extremely concerning.
I dunno, any of more than a dozen happening right now on this planet with no notable protests or anything in democratic countries and with their governments just doing business as usual with governments perpetrating those.
Where I live it’s been 20+ years since a protest changed anything, and now those kinda may get you jailed for an arbitrary amount of years or sent southwest as cannon fodder.
Why did you say “everyone has a target they are fine with genocide about” then justify it with a lack of protests, and protests not going anything?
You clearly stated something as fact, then went beyond moving the goalpost, playing a completely different game with your justification.
I can’t think of anyone in my communication circle that would ever shrug off genocide. Virtually everyone not taking part in genocide agrees it’s wrong, and anyone trying to justify it or saying “everyone is fine with it to some degree” is extremely suspect.
“Everyone” in natural languages is very close to “the majority”.
then justify it with a lack of protests, and protests not going anything?
This was incomprehensible for me and requires clarification.
You clearly stated something as fact, then went beyond moving the goalpost, playing a completely different game with your justification.
No, I don’t think so. Also don’t do that “strict” tone, your logic is not strict and you don’t have the authority.
I can’t think of anyone in my communication circle that would ever shrug off genocide.
That’s usually done by ignoring those you don’t care about. How many genocides you and your circle are not shrugging off? You do realize that a 2-digit number of non-sanctioned UN member countries are doing it right now and you are not protesting?
Virtually everyone not taking part in genocide agrees it’s wrong, and anyone trying to justify it or saying “everyone is fine with it to some degree” is extremely suspect.
Everyone taking part in one agrees it’s wrong as well, and says they are not.
Apple pulled out of the country after the invasion of Ukraine, but they left the AppStore up for people with existing hardware. Since they have a walled garden, if they kill the AppStore, they would also be killing access to things that Russian dissenters and refugees would need access to.
The walled garden needs to be destroyed. Compute devices should not be bound to the whims and fancies of their manufacturer. I’m honestly surprised it has gone on so long.
Excuse me??? If not the manufacturer then who? The government???
The walled garden absolutely should not be destroyed because it’s owned by a private company and they see said walled garden as a way to protect their users from scams that plague many android stores.
The compute devices are not bound the whims and fancies of the manufacturer at all, the software made available on the company’s own servers are what is bound to their whims, and rightly so because it’s THEIRS and they’re a PRIVATE COMPANY.
You cannot simply force a company to do what you want simply because you don’t like what they do not allow on their own private store.
Do you think we should force every other goddamn store in America to sell whatever the gov says they should? Or maybe we should leave that to those that own the store.
You’re not forced to use that store, if you don’t like it fuck off.
“Walled garden needs to be destroyed” you’re advocating for a fascist takeover, Apple can remove literally anything they want because it’s their fucking goddamn store. That fact does not mean the “walled garden” should be destroyed, Jesus fucking Christ. Who upvotes these literal brain dead comments
novayagazeta.eu
Hot