First they made it commercial. Then they realised there were not enough people prepared to pay for the project and shut down the project. But now it is back in free form?
You can use third party cards which are sold for a fraction of a price too. There are a bit of hassle to setup (you need to link an original card and then clone it to a cheap card), but when done they work flawlessly
> No such explicit assurances have ever existed and if someone claims russian politicians have believed some spoken sentences as ratified pacts, they are either dumb or lying. Anyway, Russia also promised in writing to guarantee the territorial integrity and safety of Ukraine (1994), so there is no reason to believe anything they say or write for the foreseeable future.
You can look at this issue from both sides. The Budapest Memorandum was exactly that—a memorandum—and it was never ratified by Russia. As such, it carries no more legal weight than the security assurances provided by NATO. Moreover, it was largely the Clinton administration, together with the EU, that pressured Ukraine to give up its nuclear weapons, since no one wanted the emergence of a new nuclear state in Europe.
> For which they never apologised.
You are also incorrect on the historical point. Russia officially apologised for the Winter War during Yeltsin’s presidency, along with issuing several other apologies for Soviet-era crimes. Finland, by contrast, has never apologised for its own actions, nor does it adequately teach about its own atrocities. Ask the average Finn how Finland acquired Petsamo or about Finland’s role in the siege of Leningrad, and you are unlikely to encounter much regret or acknowledgment of responsibility.
> And this is exactly why many people say the only good Russian is a dead one. If the country and nation wants to be universally hated, it should proceed exactly like that.
If you look at Yeltsin’s presidency and Putin’s first term, both pursued the goal of integrating Russia into the Western world, and to some extent they succeeded. At the same time, both leaders strongly opposed NATO’s expansion eastward. This opposition was rooted in explicit assurances given by Western governments that NATO would not expand, assurances made in exchange for the withdrawal of Soviet troops from East Germany. Putin’s stance hardened once it became clear that Russia would never be accepted into either the EU or NATO, unlike many other former Soviet states.
You speak of Russia’s aggression toward its neighbors, but overlook Western aggression toward Russia. Russia—and earlier the USSR—was invaded twice in the last century by coalitions of Western powers. Two of the most devastating wars of the twentieth century were fought largely on Russian territory, resulting in the loss of tens of millions of lives. These experiences are often downplayed or ignored in Western historiography, but they remain central to Russian historical memory.
Take Finland as an example. The USSR attacked Finland once, but Finland invaded Soviet territory twice: first by annexing land, and later by participating in mass violence alongside Nazi Germany. Yet popular memory outside Russia tends to focus almost exclusively on the Soviet attack. Given this historical context, it is hardly surprising that Russia remains deeply suspicious of NATO and Western countries—especially considering that, over the past 30 years, NATO members have been involved in numerous wars of aggression.
Citation needed.
Stalin did at one point signal interest in joining NATO, fully aware that the proposal would be rejected; the gesture was largely ironic and intended to expose the alliance’s anti-Soviet character rather than to pursue genuine integration.
Post-Soviet Russia likewise raised the possibility of NATO membership on two occasions—first under Yeltsin and again early in Putin’s presidency. In both cases, the idea was dismissed, even as NATO proceeded to incorporate nearly all former Warsaw Pact members. This asymmetry contributed to the deterioration of Russia–NATO relations. Declassified materials from the U.S. National Archives documenting NATO–Russia talks over the years shed light on the alliance’s consistent reluctance to treat Russia as a potential partner rather than an object of containment.
That said, NATO and Russia were structurally ill-suited for integration from the outset. Russia’s geographic scale, strategic culture, and legacy military doctrine and equipment posed serious obstacles to meaningful interoperability within a U.S.-led alliance. A more stable European security order might have emerged from the creation of a new, inclusive framework after the dissolution of the USSR. Instead, Western states chose to expand and entrench NATO, a decision that effectively marginalized Russia and helped lay the groundwork for today’s confrontation.
Correction: it was created to advance own geopolitical goals and harrass unfriendly regimes using human rights abuse as an excuse. So in that sense nothing has fundamentally changed.
Yes, this is really my opinion. And unlike yourself, I am well familiar with Russian media first hand and not the distilled version presented by Western propaganda.
It’s striking that while many states push citizens toward digital-only public services, almost none provide a state-run email service. Instead, official communication is effectively outsourced to foreign, commercial platforms with uneven privacy records (e.g. Gmail).
If governments are serious about digital sovereignty and data protection, they should operate their own email infrastructure and issue each citizen an official address, much like a social security number. Whether people actually use it or prefer a private alternative should remain a personal choice—but the state shouldn’t depend on third-party platforms as its default communication layer.
How convenient is to label opinion you do not agree with as propaganda and ban it in the name of free speech. Hypocrisy and narrow-mindedness of so called liberal crowd never ceases to amaze me.
Guess what, by large Russian media is no different to any Western media in terms of propaganda and the "us good, them bad" narrative. Russian media advances Russian interests, American media advances American interests and so on. Take any media openly hostile to the state's foreign policy and it will prosecuted no matter the country. Wikileaks, The Intercept, Junge Welt to name a few.
Not with this kind of attitude for sure. EU can at least send a strong signal by doing concrete actions. Sanctions against American corporations and individuals, travel restrictions, SWIFT ban. These will make Trump think twice before waging acts of unprovoked aggression.
It is shocking how openly US planning a war of aggression against Venezuela and the whole civilized world is just fine with it. EU could grow a pair and show the US that this type of behaviour is not accepted. Sanction the fuck out of the US regime, boot off Swift, kick American companies out of the EU market, barren American citizens from travelling to EU. EU can prevent this war, while it is not too late.
That's blatantly false. Look at the map, Russia has good relations with majority of its neighbours. It is only NATO and its vassals Russia has got sour relations and for that NATO has nobody else to blame than themselves. Had Russia been integrated into European security/economic structures from day one, we wouldn't be in the current mess.
It implemented on a DNS level. Easily circumvented by using a third party dns server (like Google or Cloudflare). Nonetheless this is political censorship plain and simple. EU crying about censorship in other countries is just pure hypocrisy.