Linkey

I am not sure that this is true. Did you read these news from social networks? Durov is a very good person, and he has a reputation of a Russian "internet-warrior", because he tried to protect anti-Putin bloggers in Vkontakte and had to leave Russia because of this. In 2019, the Telegram was blocked in Russia, but Durov was able to make Telegram "self-VPN" and the Russian authorities were unsuccessfull.

https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_de_la_correspondance Autotranslation:

In August 2025, the owner of Telegram Pavel Durov was arrested in France. The French policemen accused him that because of the lack of the moderation in Telegram, the Telegram had become a platform for criminals like drug dealers. I am not sure that this arrest of Durov was legal. If I am not mistaken, the constitutions of all Western countries declare the right of secrecy of correspondence. Possibly all they were derived from the Article 2 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789. Because people like drug dealers use messengers for communication, the policemen indeed need to read their correspondence; so it seems that Durov was arrested because he didn't let the French policemen the possibility to read the correspondence of the Telegram users. But what about the constitution? If you think that the police must have the right to read our correspondence for struggling with the criminals - that's ok, but firstly you should change the constitution. Can you comment this?

One day maybe...

I believe that the game theory can be useful for improving relationships in families. Here is a simple analogy: A husband and wife are deciding how to spend their time together. If they both go to watch football, the husband gets two "units of pleasure", the wife one. If they go to the theater, the husband gets one "unit of pleasure", the wife two. If they are inclined to compromise, they can agree to go there and there alternately, then each gets an average of 1.5 units of pleasure. But if the wife is selfish and has more patience, she can make her husband choose either to go only to the theater or not to go anywhere. The husband acceps this and the wife gets 2 units of pleasure, but this approach destroys their relationship. In fact, this example is not entirely correct, later I can explain why. My main idea is that studying the game theory can help spouses NOT play such games, recognize these games and treat them negatively, and this will lead to an improvement in their relationship.

I have two examples of referendums in recent times: 1) As far as I know, in some US states the referendums were performed with the suggestion to prohibit abortions, and this suggestion was never supported by the majority of the population. At the same time, Trump will now say "the Americans have voted for me, so this means that they want to ban abortions". Is this good? 2) In Germany, the powers closed the nuclear plants, even after 02.2022, and that is totally terrible (the Germany is still buying the oil from Russia through India). At the same time, in Switzerland the referendums relating this question were performed, and the Swiss people rejected the suggestion to close the nuclear plants. I am sure that if a similar referendum was performed in Germany, it's results would be the same. But the powers of Germany will say "the Germans have voted for us, so they want to close these plants". Is this good?

[Patiently] So you think that current political system in the Western countries is better? The system when half of the US population hate the elected president, and recently another half hated previous president?

I have heard that in California there is something similar to the system in the Switzerland? However I am sure it does not work propebly, because the referendum can be initiated only by two ruling parties and nobody will suggest a referendum relating really important things for the people, like the cryptocurrencies legalization. Currently it is possible to perform referendums via the internet. so a referendum each week is indeed possible. But the ruling politicians are not motivated to implement this...

I see that in modern countries, which call themselves democratic, a hidden authoritarianism is mainteined by votings where the citizens can vote for both something good and something bad in ac single vote. For example, the Americans voted for Trump because they disliked the inflation and transgenders in big sport, but now Trump or Vance will say that they voted for prohibiting abortions and stopping the support of Ukraine. In Russia, a sample of such packed voting was e.g. the referendum of 2020 for changes in the constitution; it can be said, that the Russians mostly voted for new parts like “A marriage is a union between a man and a woman”, but after that Putin was saying that they voted for his next term. It seems evident that when the Russians voted for Putin in 2024 – they voted not for such things as blocking the youtube. I am starting to think now that the main reason of their vote for Putin was the following – if a democratic candidate won the presidential elections, a civil way could start in Russian. Putin has done very much for such situation. This is similar to Syria – Asad has allowed the Syrians to choose only between him and a civil war.

Such replies usually have the meaning "if someone threatens me with nukes, it is rational for me to surrender". No, it is not rational: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicken_(game) If Putin and Kim win through their nuclear threats, their appetites will increase and at the next step Putin will say that he will start a nuclear war if the West don't purchase the Russian oil at a high price.

They are both together. I have an idea, that Russia usually overcame Europe, because Russia is placed geographically at the East related to Europe. And all countries which are placed at the East always win the wars with those which are placed to the West. The Mongols overcame Russia in 13th century, and so on. USA won the war with Japan in 1945, because USA is placed at the East for Japan.

China is supporting Putin. If China stops supporting him, the war would end.

Russian economy is now totally dependent on China: if China stops buying Russian oil, Russia would experience economic collapse and famine. Xi does not want to go this way yet, since he as a dictator supports dictator Putin. But Xi is probably unsatisfied with Putin's nuclear threats. I have already said that the West should declare that, in case of a very massive nuclear strike from Russia, the United States should retaliate not only against Russia, but also against of China. At the same time, there is a possibility to interest Xi with the following proposal. China will firstly join the sanctions; then Russia will experience an economic collapse and Putin's rating will fall to zero. And then Xi will give Putin an offer to become the governor of the province of Siberia in PRC. The Sibiria will go to China, the European part of Russia will go to the West. Putin, trying to save his life from a coup, will agree to these conditions and ensure the control over Russian nuclear arsenals. What do you think about this plan?

These two rulers are very similar: 1) Both came to power rather by accident; 2) Both showed themselves as relatively secular, not fanatical, maybe even pro-Western; 3) Both started their rule quite liberally; 4) In 2021, according to official data, Assad "got" 95% of votes in the first tour of the presidential election. Putin "got" 87% in the first tour in 2024. The next point is that any dictator benefits from the situation when the population have a little choice - either this dictator or a civil war. Please tell me if anyone knows how Assad did it in Syria. Currently I understand how Putin does this in Russia: 1) Now Chechnya is in fact an independent state, with a monarchical form of government, currently as an ally for the Russian Federation. But this "union" has to be paid for. Kadyrov has always shown himself to be anti-liberal; and if the next president starts democratic reforms )a thaw_, then Kadyrov will say that he and the Russian Federation are not on the same path, and this president will have to start a third Chechen war; 2) Until recently, another such figure was Evgeniy Prigozhin. He has always positioned himself as an extreme anti-liberal, and while he demanded to ban YouTube and turn Russia into the DPRK, Putin favored him and allowed him to grow; 3) One more such figure now is Viktor Zolotov, a chief of RosGuardia. As far as I understand it, he has his own army with armored vehicles and artillery.