Jarno Luoma-Nirva 🇫🇮🇺🇦😷 @jarnoln

Rep. Keating to Mike Waltz: Ambassador Waltz, I want to note a point of shame brought to this country when United States sided with Russia, Belarus and North Korea in refusing to condemn Russia's illegal aggression against Ukraine and denied supporting its territorial integrity.

At the UN, the United States under the Trump administration has voted with Russia and a handful of rogue autocrats against resolutions condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine. Even China abstains! We vote with Russia. That is the opposite of "pressure on Russia," Mr. Ambassador.

Kate from Kharkiv @BohuslavskaKate

2 days ago

Rep. McBride: Ambassador, I'm curious why United States is scared to call out and stand up to Putin at United Nations? Amb. Waltz: United States under this administration has put more pressure on Russia to come to the table. Rep. McBride: Well, they're now getting more money

31 447 2K 162K 84

A Simple Question! Who won the U.S 2020 election? Don't worry, it's not a trick. There is no follow-up. A child could answer it. Billions of people across the planet could answer it. And yet Jay Clayton, former SEC chairman, sitting federal prosecutor, a man entrusted with the secrets of the American state, stared at Senator Ossoff this week like he'd been asked to solve cold fusion. He knows the answer, of course. That's the delicious part. He simply isn't allowed to say it, because the one man whose approval he needs prefers a lie. So there he sat, one of America's finest legal minds, reciting "he was certified" with all the conviction of a hostage video. And here is the trick, because it is a trick, and an old one. Psychologists have understood it since Festinger described cognitive dissonance in the 1950s: once you publicly say something you know is false, your mind starts working overtime to justify it, because the alternative is admitting what you've become. The dissident Václav Havel wrote about the greengrocer who hangs a party slogan in his window, not because he believes it, but to signal obedience, and in that small act the regime acquires him. The psychiatrist Theodore Dalrymple made the same point about Soviet propaganda: it was never meant to persuade. It was meant to humiliate. A person forced to repeat an obvious lie loses the ability to resist anything, because their self-respect is already gone. That is what Trump understands instinctively, the way every narcissist does. He doesn't need you to believe the lie. He needs you to repeat it while both of you know it's false. That's the moment of ownership. The lie isn't information, it's initiation. Shared complicity, the same glue that holds criminal gangs together. And as you've surely noticed, everyone around Trump repeats his lies. Every cabinet member, every nominee, every senator in the front row. Not one of them believes it. That's precisely why they say it. So think about that, the next time someone powerful asks you to say something you both know isn't true. It's never about the words. It's a loyalty test, and the fee is you. Stay connected, follow Gandalv @Microinteracti1

Headquarters @HQNewsNow

a week ago

Sen. @ossoff: Who won the 2020 election? DNI nominee Jay Clayton: I'm not going to do this with you Ossoff: This is a job interview. You have an obligation to be honest with the committee. Clayton: I'm not gonna get into that with you Ossoff: You refuse to answer a basic

639 7K 40K 1.4M 2K

It does not matter whether the man federal immigration agents killed in Maine had work authorization. It does not matter whether he had a social security number. The state killed a man, and the national conversation turned first to his paperwork. That order of priorities is worth sitting with for a moment. The debate underway is whether the victim somehow earned his own death. The question that should be asked, why agents of the state are killing people over immigration status at all, has gone strangely quiet. It deserves saying plainly: this is not a normal practice anywhere. Most authoritarian states, whatever else they do, do not execute people over work permits. Among Western democracies, the number of countries that do this is zero. I say that carefully, and I include the United States in the arithmetic. A country where this happens, and where the response is to audit the victim, has stepped outside that category, whether or not it has noticed yet. Nobody knows where this ends. America will not repeat anyone else's history; it will make its own, and its own history books will one day have to account for this chapter. But the direction of travel is visible from here, and it would be dishonest to pretend otherwise. What worries an outside observer most is not any single incident but the paralysis around them. When one side asks the government to stop killing innocent people, the answer is not reflection but reflex: do not listen to them, they are the other side. When even that request has become a partisan position, something essential has already broken. And the pattern from here is familiar. One killing becomes several. Unrest follows, because decent people will try to stop what they cannot accept. And unrest, in turn, becomes the argument for emergency powers, manufactured or real, which enable more of what caused the unrest in the first place. This is not prophecy. It is simply how these sequences have always run. For decades, people asked how ordinary countries slid into darkness. The answer was never a dramatic turning point with sinister music. It was a Tuesday, a news cycle, a paperwork debate over a dead man. Then another one. To my American friends reading this: I know the majority of you want no part of it. But watching from the outside, we notice something your own media seems unwilling to show: one half of your country has effectively been silenced. Not argued down, simply removed from the picture. The cameras point one way now. They find endless airtime for the people explaining why someone had to die, why a mother lunged at twenty-two masked men, why the latest body is somehow its own fault. The people asking why any of this is happening at all do not get a microphone. A majority you can neither see nor hear is still a majority. I have known your country too long to doubt it. So the rest of us will say what your cameras will not: the America worth remembering does not kill people, documented or not, and every single one of you knows exactly why that sentence should never have needed writing. Stay connected, follow Gandalv @Microinteracti1

Why do you think this might be happening, Bridge? I agree a middle power strategy is difficult and sub-optimal. But the US has threatened the territory and sovereignty of its allies. What do you expect us to do?

Under Secretary of War Elbridge Colby @USWPColby

a week ago

There is a great deal of hubbub about a collective “middle powers”strategy these days. At DoW, we are not concerned that this is a serious possibility. Rather, we are more concerned that a few allies and partners will *think it is* and waste valuable time, money, and political

1K 1K 7K 3.9M 2K

HS haastatteli "Jarnoa", joka lähti Ukrainaan 21-vuotiaana. Palattuaan Suomeen Jarno on saanut tukea tukiverkkotoiminnastamme. Artikkelissa haastatellaan myös varapuheenjohtajaamme Minnaa. hs.fi/maailma/art-20…

Since schools are such a hotbed for viral spread, in this week I will begin contacting as many education ministers, commissioners, school districts, trustees, teachers unions, principals, and even teachers to share relevant information with them before and during the opening of schools. Gonna Tag everyone on the planet. If you would like to support my efforts it will be greatly appreciated. Thank you for all the support, YerAweSum. gofund.me/f7437a4d9 #Sunday #SundayVibe @TheMomoftheHour @WNeptuneW @kgold62 @NoreenPaz87 @PacificGirl2021 @CozyVoyager @V74_N_ @katikazeo @bnjm @CarolAnneGraha4 @Rachel_Jae @davidgoodier @amandaerle @das_pea @astrid_h_m @Gunnteach @theunseenn @thevandal666 @JasperLamarCrab @NielsANielsen @hobfit1 @lcracraft @whethervane @AllenPepe @leilamw3 @skirri @Megastar271 @msomalamute @jarnoln @OctopusSoap @Lindae701 @youkaymelis @vsvlns @jmwyett @topcat4681 @KanakaMPH @Fred_J_Walsh @GallaraDragon @patriciabtweets @WeepyWelshWitch @jsessf01 @fortweetssake61 @laenadalton @caprellid @ShelaghH @Planetchic

Keith @keetmuise

2 weeks ago

When I was a teacher I wish I knew how to limit sickness. gofund.me/f7437a4d9 Since schools are such a hotbed for viral spread, in early next week I will begin contacting as many education ministers, commissioners, school districts, trustees, teachers unions, principals,

1 17 62 23K 10

Should a country that kills athletes be allowed to participate in international athletic competitions? My vote is no.

Mikan tarkoitus on hyvä, mutta EU:n ajama Chat Control ei todellisuudessa suojele lapsia Laitonta materiaalia jaetaan TOR-verkossa, jonne EU:n valvonta ei yllä Chat Controlilla ei pysäytetä rikollisia. Chat Control ainoastaan loukkaa tavallisten ihmisten yksityisyyttä

Mika Aaltola @MikaAaltola

2 weeks ago

@PToveri @Dystocracycrew @HennaVirkkunen @spietikainen @SebastianTyne Juuri näin. Lapsiin kohdistuvan seksuaalisen väkivallan todisteiden piilottajat tuntuvat olevan kovasti harmissaan. Mikä on tehnyt lapsipornon levittämisestä hyväksyttävää näiden röllien mielestä? On vain yksi puoli minkä voi tässä asiassa valita. Se on lapsiemme.

332 6 50 210K 43

Signal taitaa olla jatkossa turvallisin kuluttaja-alusta henkilöiden väliseen viestintään. Chat Control ei koske päästä päähän salattuja sovelluksia.

🇩🇪"Nach dieser totalitären Überwachungslogik müssten ja selbst unsere Schlafzimmer als potenzielle Missbrauchsgelegenheiten unter Überwachung stehen." #Chatkontrolle 1.0 ist heute so gefährlich wie bei ihrer Einführung. Meine Plenarrede damals. peertube.european-pirates.eu/w/m2zFmdrU9ojB…

Yesterday was a sad day for the privacy of citizens in the European Union given the extension of #ChatControl 1.0, allowing for voluntary scanning of private communications. In light of yesterday's vote, we wanted to remind you that: Chat Control 1.0 is different from Chat Control 2.0 in that providers (like us at Tuta) are not forced to backdoor their end-to-end encryption for surveillance. At Tuta, if Chat Control 2.0 is passed we have two options: to move out of the EU or sue and fight it. As our CEO, Matthias Pfau has stated, we would sue and fight for people's privacy. Because for us, undermining end-to-end encryption is not an option. We will continue to say no to #ChatControl and fight for everyone's right to privacy. ✊🏻❤️🔒 Find out more about Voluntary Chat Control here 👉 tuta.com/blog/voluntary…

🇩🇪EU-Parlament lässt #Chatkontrolle 1.0 trotz Mehrheits‑Nein (314:276) passieren – Massenscans privater Chats bis 2028 erlaubt. Betroffene warnen. Meine Einordnung und warum das der falsche Weg ist 👇 patrick-breyer.de/eu-parlament-w… #Demokratiefail

Chat Control 1 is back. Despite the European Parliament voting down the legislation twice this year, the Council of the European Union and parts of the Parliament today managed – through an urgent procedure – to extend it for another two years. The law was originally introduced as temporary legislation, so that its effectiveness could be evaluated. At the end of 2025, the European Commission itself concluded that it was not possible to determine whether the law had any measurable effect. Even so, it has now been pushed through. Some of today's amendments could have stopped the law. And a majority of the voting MEPs wanted to do so. By a margin of 314-276, the Parliament voted to reject the proposal through these amendments. However, since it was an urgent procedure, 361 votes were required. As a result, the majority lost today and Chat Control 1 was passed. The urgent procedure was a dirty play by the Council and parts of the Parliament – it’s a procedure not meant to be used on legislation already rejected by the Parliament. For now, Chat Control 1 will remain in effect. This means that tech companies may continue scanning communications without a warrant or suspicion. However, the real battle is Chat Control 2. Unlike Chat Control 1, it would require all providers to scan communications, and to do so far more extensively than Chat Control 1 ever has.

The EU Parliament REJECTED Chat Control, but now they are forcing us to vote it AGAIN to revive it. What kind of democracy is this if we're forced to vote on the same issue over and over until they get the result they want? My colleague @MarketkaG explained the situation very well in plenary👇🏻

🇪🇺 The European Parliament lets #ChatControl 1.0 go through despite a majority voting against it (314:276) – allowing mass scanning of private chats until 2028. Survivors are warning. My analysis and why this is the wrong approach 👇 patrick-breyer.de/en/eu-parliame… #DemocracyFail

🇩🇪Knappe Mehrheit für Eilverfahren zu #Chatkontrolle 1.0-Massenscans. 331 dafür. 304 dagegen. 11 Enthaltungen. Ein dunkler Tag für Privatshäre & Demokratie. Am Donnerstag wird inhaltlich abgestimmt. Nur eine absolute Mehrheit kann das Gesetz noch stoppen! fightchatcontrol.de

#ChatControl 1.0 and 2.0 Explained: There is not one proposed “Chat Control” law — there are two, and they are moving through the EU institutions in parallel. This page untangles the two. fightchatcontrol.eu/chat-control-o…

🚨 ChatControl is part of the EU’s Digital Prison where elites want to lock in all 450 million EU citizens by abusing “child protection” as a pretext. This is a false argument, and everyone knows it. There is no democracy without privacy. We should not be ruled by Brussels bureaucrats. We pay them to work for us, not spy on us. #StopChatControl #DigitalPrivacy

Martin Sonneborn @MartinSonneborn

3 weeks ago

Ich habe heute versucht, die Chatkontrolle zu stoppen. Am Wochenende mussten Sibylle Berg und ich Parlamentspräsidentin Metsola schriftlich mitteilen, dass das Durchprügeln der Chatkontrolle im Eilverfahren leider gegen die Geschäftsordnung des EU-Parlaments verstößt. Während

1K 10K 35K 3.7M 4K

Russian forces massacred hundreds of civilians in Bucha during a month of occupation in 2022, leaving bodies in the streets and a mass grave by the church. What happened there is why Ukrainians refuse to give up occupied land in any peace deal — Dominic Pino, Washington Post. 1/