Jump to content

KYHorn

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    3772
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Posts posted by KYHorn

  1. This is an interesting article that reminds us not to forget the presence of Belarus and in particular, the Belarusian resistance. An overturning of Luka is a potential turning point in the war. 

    https://kyivindependent.com/opinion-russias-war-may-have-opened-pandoras-box-for-belarus/ 

    Opinion: Russia's war may have opened Pandora's box for Belarus

    Spoiler

    As Russia's full-scale war against Ukraine rages on, the stability of neighboring Belarus, which has been backing Russia's aggression, appears to be fracturing. Has Russian President Vladimir Putin's war of aggression opened a Pandora's box for a regime that is practically a remote wing of the Kremlin?

     

    Recall that, in Belarus' presidential election in August 2020, Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya almost certainly defeated the incumbent Alexander Lukashenko, whose minions had dismissed his opponent as a "housewife." When an upswell of support made it obvious that Tsikhanouskaya was heading for victory, Lukashenko falsified the results, awarding himself over 80% of the vote – and inciting huge protests that lasted for months.

     

    Lukashenko's regime responded to the post-election demonstrations with terror and mass arrests, which led to even larger protests. Within days of the election, his grip had begun to weaken, with workers, public media, doctors, students, pensioners, and many others coming out publicly against the security services. The entire country went on strike, but Lukashenko, in power since 1994, held on by the skin of his teeth, owing to brutal interventions by loyal special forces, who were already drenched in innocent blood and therefore completely dependent on him – ultimately, Lukashenko chose not to test the army's loyalty.

     

    Nonetheless, it has since been clear that Belarusians will not return to the passivity that they exhibited before August 2020. “We have all changed, and forever,” Belarusian opposition leader Maria Kalesnikava, who is serving an 11-year sentence in Belarusian prison for politically motivated charges, said in 2022.

     

    Opinion: Russia’s nuclear giant is falling through the sanctions cracks

    Because Lukashenko's regime had offered hardly any state assistance or media coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic in the months before the election, Belarusians had already switched en masse to independent media, which they still read and watch today, despite the threat of imprisonment.

     

    Like Ukraine, Belarus is culturally alien to Russia. That is why Belarusians were able to stun the world with their sustained protests and demands for democracy in 2020, despite Belarusian society having been subjected to Sovietization and centuries of Russification. Belarusians acted as if they lived in a modern, democratic, liberal society, because that is what many Belarusians consider themselves to be (though older cohorts are still heavily influenced by Russia and Lukashenko himself).

     

    To keep this broad-based opposition movement at bay, Lukashenko must rely on constant draconian repression. More than 1,000 political prisoners have been given decade-plus prison sentences, and 1,500 others have been jailed for protesting against the war in Ukraine, including by sabotaging railroads to impede the Russian army. Others have received on-the-spot unofficial punishments such as rifle shots to the knee.

    For example, as she was led from a courtroom back in 2022, the then-28-year-old Belsat reporter Katsiaryna Andreyeuna remarked to her husband, “I got a longer sentence than Solzhenitsyn.” Whereas the famous Russian dissident was sentenced to eight years by the Soviets, Andreyeuna was sentenced to eight years and three months.

     

    Comparing Belarusians to Ukrainians and expecting the same type of resistance is unfair. Belarusians do not have opposition members in parliament or in local governments like Ukrainians had before the invasion. Poles also protested peacefully against the imposition of martial law in December 1981, because it was the only way they could make their voices heard. And while the 10-million-strong Solidarity trade union was diminished after 16 months of operation, the myth survived. A million people may have left Poland, but the rest stayed and did not forget how to take to the streets.

     

    Poland’s experience offers a preview of what could lie ahead for Belarus. Poles got their chance at independence in 1989 because they took advantage of a brief moment of uncertainty in the Kremlin. Likewise, when the Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991, Ukraine seized the moment and gained sovereignty (though Russia has threatened that sovereignty ever since).

    Russia’s war in Ukraine could soon offer a similar opportunity to Belarus. Since 2020, Belarusian society has articulated its values, learned the art of long-term resistance, and created a free media based abroad. And now, for perhaps the first time ever, Belarusian dissidents are getting their hands on weapons and joining the fight against Putin in Ukraine, where they are becoming renowned for their courage and battlefield successes. (It is worth remembering that in 2014, Ukraine also had mostly volunteer battalions.)

     

    All political forces have come to an agreement and a Belarusian government-in-exile was formed, headed by Tsikhanouskaya. It includes her office operating in Vilnius; the National Anti-Crisis Management, headed by Pavel Latushka; the Warsaw-based BYPOL initiative of former members of the uniformed services; the Opposition Initiative, which includes the Cyber Partisans; and the Pahonia regiment fighting in Ukraine. The Coordination Council, created during the protests and featuring Nobel Prize winner Sviatlana Aleksievich, is being transformed into a substitute for parliament.

     

    A marked change is that the government-in-exile already has its own armed branch, ready to rise up against Lukashenko at the first opportunity – including by force. Until recently, Belarusian soldiers and government officials had no alternatives. But now they have a choice between the illegitimate government in Minsk and the legitimate one elected by a majority vote in 2020, headed by Tsikhanouskaya. That choice will be made when the opportunity arises, which could be when Russia’s humiliation in Ukraine engulfs the Kremlin in chaos.

     

    Editor’s Note: The opinions expressed in the op-ed section are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the views of the Kyiv Independent.

     

    • Hook 'Em 2
    • Like 2
  2. Today is Orthodox Easter. Pretty powerful video 

     

    This Easter, we are united in prayer.

    For our warriors of light, who repel demons in all directions. For those who follow one more commandment in life: protect Ukraine. For all civilians who work every day to make the country strong and efficient in overcoming evil forces.

    For all of our cities and villages, which deserve God's blessing rather than constant evil terror. For all of our lands and people, whose spirit is unbreakable.

    Happy Easter to all of you, fellow Ukrainians!

    Christ is risen!
    He is risen indeed!

    • Hook 'Em 5
    • Like 1
  3. Russian Telegram channels shared more details about the Russian aircraft that crashed yesterday in Crimea.

    Reportedly, it was a Su-27 and it was shot down by the Russian Pantsir anti-aircraft missile-gun system. For some unknown reason, the air defense did not receive notification of the departure of their Su-27.

    Because the Pantsir system's combat crew did not receive a response from the Su-27 pilot to its interrogation, a decision was made to fire the plane for effect. As it became known later, the system's crew interrogation did not reach the Su-27 pilot because the IFF interrogator on the Pantsir system was not working correctly.

    Some Russian media called this a "technical deficiency."

    • Hook 'Em 3
    • Like 1
    • Haha 1
  4. A daily newsletter I subscribe to (The Morning Dispatch) seemed to hit the sweet spot between detail and readability on this topic. It is spoilered below.

    Spoiler

    ‘Buy Your Mom an iPhone’ 

    Apple products are offered for sale at an Apple store on March 21, 2024, in Chicago, Illinois. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)
    If you’re anything like your Morning Dispatchers and fretted deeply in middle school over whether it was illegal to “jailbreak” your iPod Touch to get access to more features—all the cool kids were doing it—competition authorities have finally heard your struggle.

    The Department of Justice (DOJ), along with the attorneys general of 15 states and Washington, D.C., filed a landmark antitrust lawsuit against Apple on Thursday, alleging the company has attempted to monopolize the smartphone market through anti-competitive practices that hurt users and degrade innovation. The suit—the culmination of a years-long investigation—sets the stage for a fierce legal battle with one of the world’s largest companies as Biden administration appointees attempt to reimagine American antitrust policy.

    The White House has made expanding antitrust enforcement one of its signature issues. Proponents of the “hipster antitrust” or Neo-Brandeis movement—a school of thought that wants to broaden the approach of antitrust beyond a legal focus on low prices and consumer protection—heralded President Joe Biden’s selection of Assistant Attorney General Jonathan Kanter, the head of the Justice Department’s antitrust division, and Federal Trade Commission Chair Lina Khan as a big win for the trust-busting cause. Supporters believe antitrust policy should target market concentration as inherently harmful and corrosive to competition and economic equality, even if that concentration isn’t necessarily reflected in higher prices.

    Tim Wu, a former competition policy czar in the Biden White House, explained in a New York Times opinion essay published yesterday how antitrust policy fits into the administration’s approach to the economy. “The Biden administration, in a break with center-left orthodoxy, seeks to address economic inequality not through taxation and transfers but through policies that allow more people and businesses to earn wealth in the first place,” he wrote. “It is at the heart of the Justice Department’s continuing New Deal-style antimonopoly campaign, which has already prevented dozens of unwise mergers.”

    Kanter clearly sees the Apple lawsuit as a large piece of that campaign, comparing the suit to the major antitrust cases the government won against Standard Oil and Microsoft that bookended the 20th century. “Today, we add to that distinguished legacy by announcing an antitrust lawsuit against Apple for monopolizing smartphones,” he said at a press conference on Thursday.

    Antitrust authorities sometimes target a few practices by a company they believe are anti-competitive and sue for remedies. However, with Apple, the DOJ complaint presented a broader case that the tech giant—the world’s second-largest company by market capitalization—“has long relied on contractual restrictions rather than competition on the merits to fortify its monopoly power.”

    The Justice Department homed in on five areas where Apple allegedly suppresses competition to protect its profits and hurts users in the process. The scrutinized practices include Apple’s alleged restriction of so-called “super apps”—multifunctional applications like WeChat that are popular in Asian markets—and kneecapping of cloud streaming game apps that lift some of the computational burden from devices by running games in the cloud, enabling users to play games on older hardware. The DOJ alleges that Apple tried to make the gaming experience on your four-year-old iPhone untenable by restricting cloud gaming apps, thereby increasing the likelihood you buy a shiny new iPhone to support your gaming habit.

    The complaint also alleged the company prevents text message interoperability—in other words, those green text bubbles for messages from non-Apple devices—“deliberately degrading quality, privacy, and security for its users,” and suppresses iPhone compatibility with third-party smartwatches. Lastly, the suit argues Apple blocks cross-platform digital wallets, hampering users’ ability to switch between iPhones and alternative devices.

    Competition enforcers argue these allegedly anti-competitive behaviors have enabled Apple to exercise monopoly power among smartphone companies. According to the complaint, Apple maintains control of 65 percent of the American smartphone market. In the fourth quarter of 2023, tech research firm Counterpoint found that Apple had a 62 percent market share—with the next closest competitor, Samsung, at 17 percent.

    Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act, which the DOJ says Apple is violating, makes “monopolizing”—but not monopoly—illegal. “Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal,” the Federal Trade Commission explains. “However, the same result achieved by exclusionary or predatory acts may raise antitrust concerns.” To win its case, the government will have to show that Apple not only has a monopoly but also that the company maintains it through anti-competitive practices. 

    Apple strongly disputed the allegations in the suit. “We believe this lawsuit is wrong on the facts and the law, and we will vigorously defend against it,” the company said in a statement. “If successful, it would hinder our ability to create the kind of technology people expect from Apple—where hardware, software, and services intersect. It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology.” 

    The case will hinge on whether Apple can justify its distinctive practices—creating a so-called “ecosystem” for its products—as providing value to consumers. Critics of the complaint believe Apple has a strong defense. Alden Abbott, former general counsel at the Federal Trade Commission, said the company “will undoubtedly explain that its actions are all aimed at creating a curated experience for customers with enhanced security, conferring major benefits on Apple consumers—and a major economic efficiency.”

    “Such actions are not ‘exclusionary’ in the antitrust sense,” Abbott argued, “and thus there is no monopolization or attempted monopolization under Sherman Act Section 2, which bars such practices.” 

    To that end, some argue that the government has no place in making business decisions for Apple. “Why should Apple have to make its smartwatch compatible with smartphones other than iPhones?” asked Elizabeth Nolan Brown in the libertarian Reason magazine. “Perhaps this helps steer Apple Watch owners to buy iPhones. But it may instead (or also) be true that owning an iPhone steers people to buy an Apple Watch, or that the exclusive arrangement leads some people to avoid both Apple Watches and iPhones. In any event, none of this is the government’s business.” 

    Other observers, however, warn against dismissing the DOJ’s entire suit as frivolous. “It is a complex case,” Brian Albrecht, the chief economist for the International Center for Law and Economics, told TMD. “Anyone who mocks [it] as obviously ridiculous overall, is overstating it.” 

    Rebecca Allensworth, an antitrust law professor at Vanderbilt University and proponent of the suit, said the outcome of the case will come down to Apple’s ability to justify its practices. The DOJ will have to prove that “there’s something that consumers want that Apple is denying them, not because it’s unsafe for their data, not because it will degrade the overall Apple experience, but just because it gives a competitive toehold to their competitors,” she told TMD. “The question is just will it hold up when Apple says, ‘No, that’s not why we’re doing it. We’re doing it because this is truly a better experience for the consumer.’”

    If you’ve ever received an exceptionally grainy picture from an Android-using friend or relative, the DOJ would argue you’ve been a victim of Apple’s anti-competitive behavior. The iPhone messaging app, iMessage, does not work with non-Apple devices. Instead, iPhones receive messages from Android phones via SMS and MMS, outdated services that can’t share high-quality images and don’t encrypt text messages. “If Apple wanted to, Apple could allow iPhone users to send encrypted messages to Android users while still using iMessage on their iPhone, which would instantly improve the privacy and security of iPhone and other smartphone users,” the Justice Department argued. Security concerns aside, critics of the case knocked the complaint for taking things too far by also arguing that the “social stigma” of “green bubble” texters “reinforces switching costs” and discourages people from making the leap to a non-Apple device.

    The complaint cites emails from Apple executives acknowledging that supporting better cross-platform messaging “would simply serve to remove [an] obstacle to iPhone families giving their kids Android phones” and that “moving iMessage to Android will hurt us more than help us.” When asked publicly about messaging issues at a conference in 2022, Apple CEO Tim Cook told a questioner frustrated that he can’t send his mom videos, “Buy your mom an iPhone.” Apple announced last fall that it plans to enable iPhones to receive Android messages via Rich Communication Services (RCS). The change would support image sharing and encryption but would not fully integrate RCS into iMessage.

    A challenge for the government, if it can defeat Apple’s arguments, is sorting out effective court remedies for highly technical practices. Allensworth acknowledged critics’ worries about the danger of allowing the court to micromanage business decisions. “I think those are real concerns,” she said. But she went on to argue that the “stakes of not doing that are so high that it’s a necessary trade-off.”

    The Apple suit—which, if not dismissed, could take years to litigate—will serve as yet another indicator of whether competition enforcers can succeed in reorienting antitrust law. “This case is a perfect example of what happens when somebody who wants to, in some ways, radically reform antitrust has to do so through the common law process,” Allensworth told TMD, arguing that the Justice Department’s approach “is totally possible under the law as it is right now.”

    Despite some bipartisan enthusiasm, the new antitrust movement has had decidedly mixed results in court so far, drawing equally bipartisan criticisms from left-leaning commenters and libertarians alike. Jason Furman, the chair of the Council of Economic Advisers during President Barack Obama’s second term, warned against using antitrust too broadly. “It is good to step up antitrust enforcement,” he tweeted yesterday in response to Wu’s essay. “But go too far and you can end up harming everyone else in the process of preventing people from innovating, starting new businesses, and growing.” 

     

    • Hook 'Em 1
×
×
  • Create New...