Not by EU institutions, but there has been a lot of effort to control various African countries by European countries. Again I don't really know about Spain and Portugal, but it is widely known France has continued to militarily back governments it favoured after they gained independence and also had major economic influence through their currency (more here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CFA_franc).

I wasn't referring to countries with white minorities, I meant England still holds power (Although not very hard power) over former colonies with white majorities such as Canada, Australia and NZ but much less so in former colonies where the original inhabitants have power (such as India and pakistan).

Yes these countries are their own nations now, but it seems not easy to let go. Not just on a government level but also private wealth and public companies still have business related to colonial times.

We are moving in the right directions but if you were to interview people in these former colonies a lot of them will tell you we are not there yet. Not only is the damage not fully repaired (if this is even possible), there is still influence happening. Although less and less, since for example the current Mali government kicked out the French military in favour of Russian soldiers.

Do you know if you upload something to instance a, does it get copied to instance b like text or would it just link to the original upload?

I used to think two big ego's sooner or later start fighting, even if they have been friends a very long time. Trump made me doubt it a little, but looks like it still holds true.

I do agree on this argument, China never was an ally to India or Taiwan.

I don't think Europe ever even attempted to repair the dammage we did. But to be fair I don't really know how that could be done.

We do all have different strategies, England went 'well if a part is white we can keep control', France went 'well if a part is poor we can keep control' and the Netherlands and Belgium went 'well as long as it doesn't cost us money we don't need to be in control' don't know about Portugal and Spain but seems eu relationship with Latin America is in a better state than eu relationship with France Afrique.

You mean I shouldn't put it in my foot?

Agree, this is totally bonkers and a year ago it would be too crazy to possible be from the onion but there hasn't really been a grey area where this could've been because the shock was so big. We all know this is just regular American politics nowadays and this isn't a community about messed up politics.

The Kyiv Independent is quite biased (rightly so), but the historian they interviewed is not just somebody with an opinion:

Timothy Garton Ash

British historian and author (born 1955)

---

Timothy Garton Ash CMG FRSA FRHistS FRSL (born 12 July 1955) is a British historian, author and commentator. He is Professor of European Studies at the University of Oxford. Most of his work has been concerned with the contemporary history of Europe, with a special focus on Central and Eastern Europe.

He has written about the former Communist regimes of that region, their experience with the secret police, the Revolutions of 1989, and the transformation of the former Eastern Bloc states into member states of the European Union. He has also examined the role of Europe in the world and the challenge of combining political freedom and diversity, especially in relation to free speech. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Garton_Ash

Yes obviously, but whether a country is European is decided by geography not values.

Is it me or is FT sliding further into Fox News territory? There was a time I considered them a good source of information but lately I'm questioning a lot of their journalism. Might be because I don't visit their website and communities like this skew my view but damn they look more and more maga crazy from my pov.

A while back I read an article on Chinese hackers, who seem to be organised very different to western hackers. Basically hacking in China is only illegal if it is against 'national interest', so governments (even local cities) hire hackers to find out information on local criminals (I guess also on anyone who disagrees with the state, but that aside). So there is much more financial incentive to hack individuals, there is more people doing it.

Hacking these individuals is basically only possible because of vulnerabilities in non-chinese software (since Chinese software and online services don't need to be hacked since the government already has a backdoor anyway). These firms share these vulnerabilities among each other as in I give you mine if you give me yours. So there a bunch of people in the know about these vulnerabilities even more so because there is a law you have to report these vulnerabilities to the state (because otherwise you are against the 'national interest').

The article was about these Chinese firms, not about the cyber safety of non-chinese citizens but I guess knowledge of these vulnerabilities could also be sold to Russians, Iranian and North-Koreans who have their own reasons to attack European, Israeli and US companies.

Tldr, more knowledge of vulnerabilities leads to more abuse of these vulnerabilities. Securing against this abuse is a cat and mouse game and neither is dead yet.

Also in their eyes current day Russia is the continuation of the old day sovjet union, which is not completely false, and their (remaining) positive feelings toward to SU colour their view of the current day Russia. It's not only because of new (though not necessarily true) information they like Russia.