I had an acquaintance in Russia. He got chronic stomach problems since he couldnt afford a diverse diet due to the sanctions on food imports (the Russian sanctions on the EU aimed at making the Russian economy more resilient). Last time i heard from him he manage to move a nestegg into Dollar taking a hefty cut due to devaluations. I lost contact when Russia blacklisted the site we knew each other from and he didnt want to risk getting a VPN. Also talked to somebody from Belarus who saw the protests and cleanups happening. I am really curious about what you would tell them what they should have done to not become a target for you.
Would recommend a sober look in the mirror as well as maybe getting a copy of Chris Hedges "War is a force that gives us meaning". The "there are no innocence in war" is a textbook warcry right out of conflicts like Yugoslav one. Its the tactical dehumanization of the enemy. To have a one dimensional caricature to rally people against. Its what makes it logical to escalate the conflict to ethnic cleansing. Its great for polarization after all and you get people to join you who would never associated with you in the first place. It even works in prisons. And its absolutely horrible. And has the additional benefit of whitewashing yourself, after all, nobody is innocent.
Lets call your post for what it is, its warmongering. And the fact that you are rightfully outraged doesnt change that. What you are doing is creating and perpetuating a narrative that sets the stage for atrocities against the civilian population. They are all guilty after all, so you get to be as well.
I am honestly shocked that people dont get that there is a whole lot of room to escalate from where we are now. And i am very much afraid that people dont grasp that. Or worse, they do but prefer to embrace their emotional reaction on the topic. Or take it out of a strategic calculation. But at the end the malice or stupidity spetrum is completely irrelevant. It all has the same result.
Voting with their feet is the only real/effective option.
When big power structures collide the vast vast vaasst majority of the affected are nothing, not even pawns, not even innocent, since the question makes almost no sense.
It sucks, but the world is connected and finite, this leads to a lot of the issues we see at these times.
Only thing I regret that they didn't suffer enough to withdraw troops from my country. Stomach problems hardly compare to ruined cities and lives lost. Screw Russia and your rhetoric.
Now, we are sitting in our comfortable homes still and this is for us another thought-challenge about horrible events far away. I condemn all wars, but as nerds continue with the thinking and analyzing, this is not meant to defend any side and especially not to justify any war.
Now then, what you said.
Do you also hold that against all the Germans when they started both World War 1, and World War 2? They did nothing. There was no resistance movement within Austria or Germany of any significance to stop their war machines. People where complacent. How did they get away with it? Would you let Russians also get away with it, if they say they are sorry and have changed?
> This country should pay for every war crime they committed. There are no innocence in war. Silent complacency what brought it on. Russian IT giants did nothing to prevent the bloodshed. On the contrary, they actively propagate lies generated by their government.
Give it up. Azov Battalion is explicitly neo-Nazi. It's also about about 1500 people. If you're going to engage in whataboutism over the wholesale invasion of a country, you've gonna have to do better than that.
That said, there's no justification for the Nazi crap.
Come up with a new word. Not everything is 'whataboutism'.
But more to the point, if it's such a small force why is part of the National Guard of Ukraine. Disband it and send the members suspected of war crimes to stand trial at The Hague. I'm sure a nation looking to join the EU would have no problems doing that.
edit: Also something that's bothering me...what do you mean they are "explicitly neo-Nazi"? Is that somehow different to being a Nazi in your mind? Weird thing to point out...
> what do you mean they are "explicitly neo-Nazi"?
Just looks at their crimes at Wikipedia:
> On 11 August, Azov battalion, backed by Ukrainian paratroopers, captured Marinka from pro-Russian rebels and entered the suburbs of Donetsk clashing with Donetsk People's Republic fighters.
They're killing Russians.
> In early September 2014, the Azov battalion was engaged in the Second Battle of Mariupol. Regarding the ceasefire agreed on 5 September, Biletskiy stated: "If it was a tactical move there is nothing wrong with it ... if it's an attempt to reach an agreement concerning Ukrainian soil with separatists then obviously it's a betrayal."
They don't believe Russians.
> As of late March 2015, despite a second ceasefire agreement (Minsk II), the Azov Battalion continued to prepare for war, with the group's leader seeing the ceasefire as "appeasement".
They don't believe Russians.
> In March 2015 Interior Minister Arsen Avakov announced that the Azov Regiment would be among the first units to be trained by United States Army troops in their Operation Fearless Guardian training mission.
They cooperate with US.
> According to Minsk Ceasefire Agreements, foreign fighters are not allowed to serve in Ukraine's military. Despite the Minsk Ceasefire Agreements, the regiment still has foreign fighters, including an ex-British army serviceman Chris Garrett and a 33-year-old former soldier of the Greek army and French Foreign Legion known by the nom-de-guerre of "The Greek".
Nobody believes Russians these days. For good reason. Have you forgotten all the lies served by Putin in the run-up to the invasion? Those weren't "clever ruses", those were lies as crude as those of a preschooler who has just discovered that you can say counterfactual things. They kill Russians: yes, that's what happens in a war. There has been a war for eight years.
Nothing you wrote is the tiniest evidence that they are nazis, completely besides the point.
Doesn't change the fact though that they certainly are self-identifying Nazi, in a sad perversion of "the enemy of the enemy is my friend"
Perhaps they are falling to the same misperception you seem to fall to, equating nazism with "against Russia". Tell that to a Frenchman, tell that to a Pole. Tell that to a Jew of any nationality. No, actual Nazism was not "against Russians". That wasn't part of their identity at all. Actual Nazis literally didn't give a shit about Russians in specific, they just wanted the land and the people currently on it happened to be Russians. But they would have tried exactly the same on any other ethnicity.
Sorry, I seem to have missed the well-deserved sarcasm in your statement, I guess we agree in everything but my claim about nazi self-identification.
What lead me to that claim: Just eight years of sometimes watching from afar (very far) and initially being quite confused by the occasional evidence (or what seemed like it?). Eventually I came to assume that they were effectively taught "from the same schoolbooks" (maybe not literally, but who knows) this Russian misappropriation of the term nazi and then simply applied logic: "if I'm against Russia then I guess I'm a nazi, heil whatever that guy was called!"
Quite unlikely (understatement!) that they actually are out to build a fourth reich and work on an Endlösung. I wrote "self-identify", not "are": I'm German and we like to think that we know a thing or two about actual nazism. But I wouldn't be surprised if occasionally some poor chap fell too deep into the ideological rabbit hole and inadvertently produced propaganda ammunition for Putinists. I suspect that the propaganda battle might be going much less bad for Putinists if the Ukraine was led by someone not quite as immune to being called a nazi (I guess bookies stopped taking bets for Time Person of the Year already?)
When a different word is appropriate, then I'll use it.
> Not everything is 'whataboutism'.
No, but your comment was.
> But more to the point, if it's such a small force why is part of the National Guard of Ukraine.
Because they were very effective fighters.
> Disband it
I hope they do.
> and send the members suspected of war crimes to stand trial at The Hague.
This is what should happen to anyone suspected of war crimes. No qualification is needed.
> what do you mean they are "explicitly neo-Nazi"? Is that somehow different to being a Nazi in your mind? Weird thing to point out...
No it's not. Neo-Nazi is the accepted term since the National Socialist part of Germany no longer exists. They're new Nazis. It's right there in the word.
And it's explicit because they use symbols the Nazis used and they call themselves Nazis.
I am afraid it's worse than that. Western oil and gas buyers paid for death and destruction of Ukraine. That means all of us. Our heating and gas money financed Russian military.
This is why it's so important right now to help Ukraine and hinder Putin.
> This is why it's so important right now to help Ukraine and hinder Putin.
Well, it's yet another reason why it's so important right now to help Ukraine and hinder Putin. Seems a bit shallow to put self-redemption as the first (or even worse, only) one.
Nobody sane thinks that normal citizens deserve sanctions; they're for the most part not responsible for the madness of one man; this is obvious when you think back about how half of the USA thought about Trump but was unable to do anything - an din Russia it's much worse.
But the sanctions are meant to make people angry, go out and send a strong signal to their leaders they want a change. This is the most the West can do.
I do think they should pay reparations in full after this is over. It is not one man madness. This was coming from far away, he was elected, every poll suggests about half of Russian population is in support of the war.
It's not uncommon for the losing country in a war to receive support for rebuilding and stabilizing its economy afterward. But you wouldn't really call that reparations if it's the aggressor that started the conflict. If things suck for the ordinary citizens of that country, it's not the fault of the victims who defended themselves – it's the fault of the aggressor's leadership for starting a war of choice.
Even though what you are saying about making people angry and stand up for themselves and democracy is true, it is fairly strange to pretend that leaders in the USA/EU are sincerely interested in the people of Ukraine.
For some reason unknown, Ukrainians believe so which resulted in that atrocious situation where both the US and European countries are not willing to step in and protect Ukraine. Even Zelensky himself had high hopes for that, based on what he said a few days ago.
It would be much better for Ukraine to lose war than have NATO involved, for reasons described clearly earlier by experts: modern warfare requires the destruction of enemy's military infrastructure on their territory and the conventional warheads on the radar are indistinguishable from nuclear ones. The moment NATO starts bombing military targets in Russia is the end of our civilization (yes, we have had Russian heroes in the past who already saved our planet, but we can only pray their replacements will be equally reasonable - and even that wouldn't probably work once they realize their country is actually under attack).
> both the US and European countries are not willing to step in and protect Ukraine
Both US & EU are lending tremendous support in materials, training (over the past 8 years), and coordinated economic sanctions far beyond what anyone would have predicted. Sounds like Europe is also offering energy grid support soon.
What those countries will not do is directly intervene using their own military forces – Ukrainians would have to be crazy to ever expect that. Two nuclear-armed powers in direct conflict on the battlefield = nuclear holocaust. You could say that's merely conventional wisdom based on wargames and other geopolitical assumptions, but... does anyone really want to test that theory??
> Do you feel this way about American companies as well, or only when convenient?
Reply to all those saying this is not whataboutism: The question as posed has no value and is meant only to obscure the issue at hand.
Here are some critical questions that would have been worth asking:
- Russia has a legitimate gripe against NATO expansion. Why aren't you citizens of Western democracies doing something to keep your governments from expanding?
- Sanctions will hurt average Russians that have no voice in their government. How do you citizens of sanctioning countries justify this?
- US arms makers will make a fortune off of this conflict. Give me one good reason not to tax the revenues at a 100% windfall profit rate.
Dropping the intellectual equivalent of "No, you!" is just lazy.
I cant tell if people are actually unable to see the value in this question, or if pretending it has no value is their way of trying to fight it. Its getting to the point where humans are appearing more bot like than bots. You appear to be completely blind to reality. You think I asked the question to "obscure the issue at hand"? What If I asked the question to make OP think for a second and realize his moral position is random and inconsistent, in hopes that it wakes him up and he stops being a human bot that repeats whatever the last 17 people around him told him to think.
Not gonna argue on that whataboutism part buuut....
>Russia has a legitimate gripe against NATO expansion.
The successor to the occupying CCCP, that did wildly shady stuff all over the Caucasus, invaded Georgia, supported a rebellion in Donbas, annexed Crimea and invaded a corrupt but nonetheless somewhat democratic Ukraine using GRAD strikes against cities has a legitimate gripe over countries WILLINGLY joining a defensive pact.
Don't get me wrong, NATOs involvement in MENA was/is pointless and counterproductive, even criminal, but it's a voluntary alliance.
> legitimate gripe over countries WILLINGLY joining a defensive pact.
I will always support self-determination. Ukraine was obviously justified in wanting to join BUT you cannot expect a country that counts casualties in the millions every time it gets invaded to not get its hackles up about a nuclear armed alliance specifically aimed at containing it expanding up to its doorstep.
I look forward to seeing Putin on trial in the Hague, but if you're not willing to do a hard-headed logical analysis of the situation then you're doomed to watch history repeat itself in an endless cycle.
Definitely not. He's trying to put a neutralized Ukraine and friendly Belarus between Russia and the eastern border of NATO. This is standard practice for Russia. They already succeeded temporarily once with the Warsaw Pact.
EDIT: Anyone interested in this topic, search YouTube for Norther European Plain. There are quite a few good videos.
If you meant neutralized in the military sense (combat ineffective) I agree.
If you meant politically (seeing as you wrote 'friendly' for Belarus): Ah yes, when I get kicked in the teeth I tend to be quite neutral about it afterwards.
> Definitely not. He's trying to put a neutralized Ukraine
His overt claim that Ukraine naturally belongs to Russia I his war announcement speech and the premature, quickly deleted victory announcement from state media announcing that the victory in Ukraine was to be follows by a new pan-Russian union between Belarus, Greater Russia (a historic term for Russia proper) and Lesser Russia (a historic term for Ukraine) suggest that “neutralized” is not the goal.
> They already succeeded temporarily once with the Warsaw Pact.
None of the Warsaw Pact members (especially not Ukraine, which was a republic of the USSR) were neutralized, or even merely friendly, they were Soviet-dominated states that would be invaded of they strayed from the Soviet line too far.
Yes, establishing the borders the metropolitan state had and the control of the peripheral states it exercises under the Warsaw Pact might be what Putin wants, but that goes far beyond “neutralized Ukraine” and threatens a number of current NATO members.
So all Putin's claims that Ukraine shouldn't really be a state were just pep talk for the boys sent out to die and he fully intends to continue that "Bolshevik fiction" of a separate Ukrainian state? That's a novel way of calling Putin a liar, haven't heard that one before.
That wasn't the point. The piint was that he isn't after a neutral Ukraine, but to incorporate it. This, in turn, was in support of the earlier point that annexing Ukraine would not decrease, but increase the legth of Russia's borders with NATO countries: Ukraine borders on Poland, Slovakia, Hungary, and Romania.
From very credible evidence it looks as though the surprise cherry on the cake would have been to also invade Moldavia. That doesn't change your calculus in any way?
IIRC Romania is in NATO, Moldavia isn't. So invading Moldavia too would just, by eliminating a bit of border with a neutral country, give him an even longer border with NATO. Thus even more putting the lie to his alleged "Must avoid NATO countries on my border!" motivation.
OTOH, if Moldavia is already in, then AFAICR from its shape on the map the length of the Russia / NATO border would hardly change at all (because Moldavia's western and eastern borders are about equally long), so neither would the "calculus".
Why; is there anything wrong with it?
[P.S:] Oh, and it wasn't my "calculus" originally; it was @usrusr's. At least if I understood them correctly.
This is whataboutism and it is so tired. A good propaganda tactic though, and the Russians are using it as an attack vector. Westerners seem really vulnerable to this form of propaganda, possibly due to the success of previous information warfare led by Russia.
Bringing up some other terrible thing for comparison does not change in any way whatsoever the severity of what is happening in Ukraine. Whataboutism propaganda is designed to muddy the waters around that indisputable fact.
Using a tool to help someone see that their thoughts or words are foolish isn't a bad thing. People are getting very emotional about this entire situation, which is understandable. But then they are getting on their internet soap boxes and saying things that don't make any real sense and they don't really believe. I was simply trying to make OP realize that his extremely harsh comments are just platitudes, by reminding OP that in very similar situations he basically did nothing.
People are reacting appropriately given the situation.
NameCheap operate an office in Kharkiv, a city which currently finds itself under Russian rocket attacks and indiscriminate shelling with cluster bombs, and you create an account to criticise the company for stopping operations in Russia and then imply people are overly emotional and foolish about this issue?
If I operated a business which had staff and operated in Kharkiv I would do exactly the same thing.
> Using a tool to help someone see that their thoughts or words are foolish isn't a bad thing.
That's not what you're doing. Whataboutism is a method of _stopping_ interrogation via deflection and redirection.
I think a lot of people that engage in whataboutism do actually think they're trying to start a discussion or analyze the situation more deeply. They just fail to see what their actually doing due to not being particularly skilled analysts (trying to be nice here...).
I don't even see how what I said applies to what you're saying. Stopping interrogation? I nor anyone else was not being interrogated. I did not deflect or redirect. I asked him if he felt the same way about what America did. Not to deflect, but to get him to realize that (unless he is the 0.01% that tried to do something real about Americas many weird wars) when countries went to crazy wars previously, he did not feel the same. Hopefully that makes him wonder why.... either he is a terrible person, or his main point is wrong.
> Using a tool to help someone see that their thoughts or words are foolish isn't a bad thing.
So what tool can we use to make you see that your whataboutism propaganda is shit? So far you haven't seemed able to get that, so any tips would be welcomed.
This is not whataboutism. I am in favor of strong sanctions again Russia, but saying that "Russian companies paid for death and destruction in Ukraine. I feel no empathy. This country should pay for every war crime they committed. There are no innocence in war. Silent complacency what brought it on." is blatantly false, and it becomes apparent when you reverse the narrative. Are all American companies responsible for/complacent with US war crimes?
Not all Russian companies wanted the war, not all companies are complacent, and they only financed it by contributing to the GDP of the country.
Is it fair to sanction them? No. Should we do it if it helps destabilizing Putin? Yes, absolutely, even more than we are doing now.
>Is it fair to sanction them? No. Should we do it if it helps destabilizing Putin? Yes, absolutely, even more than we are doing now.
As someone who was from a country where sanctions were supposed to destabilize our leader, it doesn't work, never did, never will. In the tough times people rally behind their leaders, just look at Zelensky or Boris Johnson right now.
> As someone who was from a country where sanctions were supposed to destabilize our leader, it doesn't work, never did, never will.
Did you rally behind your leader because of sanctions?
More importantly, what would you suggest, given your previous experience? Start an actual war to depose the leader (not always turning out great, and I'm assuming your country wasn't a nuclear superpower)? Leave everything as it is, let the leader invade neighbors with no repercussions?
Maybe not the leader, but around the country itself. Even people that were vehemently against the leader were deeply against "the West".
>Start an actual war to depose the leader (not always turning out great, and I'm assuming your country wasn't a nuclear superpower)? Leave everything as it is, let the leader invade neighbors with no repercussions?
I don't know, I am not a world leader but I know that those sanctions are not going to have the intended consequences, just about the opposite.
If I had to say something, I would recommend to let them battle em out, with substantial military aid to Ukraine. Throwing out common Russian people from universities and jobs across Europe is just going to feed a siege mentality and its plainly speaking, racist.
> Throwing out common Russian people from universities and jobs across Europe is just going to feed a siege mentality and its plainly speaking, racist.
Boris Johnson's popularity has completely and utterly sunk after a series of scandals that have exposed him as a lying, cheating, hypocrite. It's quite likely that he won't be allowed by his party to contest the next election. To say that he's popular and in particular popular as a rallying cry against international condemnation is utterly false. He's deeply disliked by a large chunk of the population.
Tell me, if Google banned you from all their services because you only lived somewhere and you were a "soft liberal", would you support Google in their decision or would you dig in and go the other way? Or in more simpler terms, take football fans, are they hungry at their ultras when they get fined for something or are they angry at UEFA?
All Europe is doing by these discrimination measures is creating a siege mentality among Russian citizens.
The “rally behind your leader” effect is only usually temporary.
These sanctions and moves spread an unambiguous and clear message which can’t be blocked by state news channels which is “no matter what your government says, nobody supports you”.
It's not temporary, or it depends on what time scale do you define "temporary".
>“no matter what your government says, nobody supports you”
Exactly my point, people at this point flock toward their country not against it. They develop this "so fuck 'em" mentality which would just enable wars to go on.
Those of UEFA and Google are silly, symbolic sanctions. What the EU and US are doing is trying to tank Russia's economy and seize/block the oligarchs' properties. Whether that works is left to be seen, but there are already large protests against the war, there might be more protests against the harsh economic conditions, and Putin cannot just arrest everyone.
But in any case, the whole point is that sanctions are unfair, as they will hit plenty of people that are not involved in the war in any way and do not support it. "We" use them because "we" believe that they work (I hope so, but you might be right of course, I'm no expert), not out of spite for a whole population.
I was using a personal anecdote what happens when some foreigners sanction "our" nation, so I used UEFA as an example. It's a similar mentality when it comes to other kinds of sanctions waged against "our" nation.
>not out of spite for a whole population
You may see it that way, but you and average Russian were consuming different media up to this point, and if we admit or not, media has an enormous influence on our worldview.
As many have said, this is not whataboutism. Western companies also paid (and keep paying) for death and destruction in Ukraine.
It’s not a wild stretch to say that the whole thing was financed through selling gas and oil to the West.
Google and Apple removed Russian opposition apps from their app stores and Facebook censored groups that they used to coordinate because, you know, “we have to comply with the laws of the country we operate in”. They also pay taxes in Russia.
Are you trying to hold Russian IT companies to a higher standard than SV giants?..
And Western companies are increasingly falling in line with sanctions by ceasing to do business with Russian customers or partners. So they are also being cut off from business as usual that benefits the Russian government – it's just that since they aren't based in Russia themselves it looks a little different.
Energy prices may soar soon for Western consumers and companies. BP and Shell may need to write off multi-billion-valued stakes in Russian gas companies. Air travel routes between Europe and Asia may be about to get a lot crappier. So there are many ways that companies and individuals outside Russia will also be paying a price to put the squeeze on Putin and his military in response to what they've done.
It really isn't. It's a short of counterfactual and it's actually quite useful in checking if you are morally/intellectually consistent. This strategy even has a name (some Bostrom thing that I can't remember right now).
it's not whataboutism. It's a very valid point.
American power is imperial. Putin is imperial too. The amount of harm that the US committed cannot be forgotten. As I won't forget Putin.
This is not whataboutism and it is so tired. It's about the fact that this isn't about the human suffering caused by Russia, it's a conflict between major power - case in point, all of the previous instances of similar behaviour from multiple countries that went unpunished.
When evidence fly in the face of a narrative, whataboutism isn't a defense. Whataboutism would be if they said it's fine for Putin to commit atrocities in Ukraine because the US commits atrocities in various countries. That's not what was pointed out. It was pointed out that the narrative doesn't follow past precedent.
Many people in the US were very opposed to the Iraq war (the war in Afghanistan, though stupid, had a more real precedent). It would have been good had the US suffered sanctions for invading Iraq, but sadly the geopolitical reality didn’t support that at the time. Does that mean we should just roll over and accept deeply unethical and wrongheaded behavior from a different country? (It’s also worth pointing out that the invasion of Iraq, while by no means justified, was at least targeted towards a brutal dictatorship, whereas Ukraine is a functional democracy with a free press.)
Interestingly, the political party in the US which most favors Putin - the GOP - is also the most comfortable with the US committing atrocities on foreign soil (and at home TBH). Not a coincidence if you ask me. Looks like there can be messed up people in more than one country!
You claim “this isn’t about the human suffering caused by Russia”. You sure about that? I think most people feel like a primary issue with invading another country is the amount of human suffering it causes.
I'm sure many people in the US were opposed to it. Did they have a choice though? Both of those wars were essentially unanimous amongst the ruling class. There is nothing the average citizen can do at that point.
You claim “this isn’t about the human suffering caused by Russia”. You sure about that? I think most people feel like a primary issue with invading another country is the amount of human suffering it causes.
Oh people most definitely do, an I am sure you and I both do. But clearly the countries imposing sanctions, almost every single one of which engaged in a bloody war of agression in the recent past, don't. Actions speak louder than words.
>
I think you’re still oversimplifying. NATO countries may have been involved in bloody wars, wars which were varying degrees of bad idea, but at least those wars were fought against regimes which were terrible - brutal and repressive towards their own population. Ukraine is a mostly liberal democracy, which makes invading it even harder to justify.
But sure, US citizens might not have had much say in whether the US invaded Iraq. That doesn’t mean that sanctions wouldn’t have created political pressure which could in turn have made an invasion less appealing to the neocons in power at that time. So while I’m sorry to see average Russians (or at least those opposed to the war) suffer as a result of these sanctions, I can also acknowledge that sanctions may actually put pressure on Putin to de-escalate this conflict, and also warn him of the consequences of future aggression. It’s possible Putin will ignore these sanctions, but doing so risks improving the position of his opponents within Russia.
It's not unlikely that sanctions against USA because of Iraq or Afghanistan would have fueled USssian nationalism to an extent that makes the current right look like a fairy tale. Sure, there would be people protesting against the government because they would want them to reverse course but there would be people who would react in the precise opposite way and they would want to cave in. Pride is a strong human emotion.
The Russian aggression case is much clear cut, but it may not look like it is clear cut if you live inside a different information bubble (especially if you want to believe that your country did nothing wrong, or that it's just "an internal matter", or that "we don't want foreign missiles at our doorstep; the USA wouldn't want Russian missiles at cube why should we accept <insert threat>".
What we're learning in this day and age is that information poisoning cannot be cured by just throwing more information.
Perhaps. But another scenario is that the population, or some not insignificant part of it, is opposed to the war and doesn’t buy the party line. We’re certainly seeing more resistance within Russia than expected. At the very least, sanctions can force leaders to expend resources quashing internal dissent rather than looking outward.
I mean, should we not be imposing economic sanctions on Iran and NK? Sure, they hurt ordinary citizens, but they’re still a strong bargaining chip.
I’d argue that a large number of ordinary citizens would be brainwashed with or without sanctions because of the degree to which dictators like Putin have subverted the media.
>I think you’re still oversimplifying. NATO countries may have been involved in bloody wars, wars which were varying degrees of bad idea, but at least those wars were fought against regimes which were terrible - brutal and repressive towards their own population. Ukraine is a mostly liberal democracy, which makes invading it even harder to justify.
And the point is that you got this information from the ruling class who were for those wars. Or their allies abroad.
And as for Ukrainan democracy, from the Freedom house report in 2019 it sits between Burkina Faso and the Philippines.
> Whataboutism would be if they said it's fine for Putin to commit atrocities in Ukraine because the US commits atrocities in various countries. That's not what was pointed out. It was pointed out that the narrative doesn't follow past precedent.
That's just a somewhat deniable -- i.e. more chickenshit -- way of saying the exact same thing.
A crime committed by one party, doesn't justify a crime committed by another party
There is absolutely no justification what Putin (NOT "the Russians" mind you) is doing right now.
But to answer your question: yes, I do feel that about US companies as well, and I have avoided them (or services offered by them) where ever possible in the last two decades. But sadly it's way easier to avoid Russian services, than US services.
> But sadly it's way easier to avoid Russian services, than US services.
Yes, that's the key.
US has already rooted deeply in global economy so no one could sanction it.
And Russia is sanctioned for a very long time so it takes this dangerous move to avoid the upcoming death.
It's all about money.
Should you really be on this site then? I'm sure there are non-US based tech/startup forums you can use, and not support an American based company from the evil American empire.
Well, there is a difference between reading a random news feed or using a service e.g. for communication where the US government can seize my data any time they want to.
What you refer to as "whataboutism" is essentially an attempt to have a more balanced view.
All countries are equal, but some are a bit more, right? I agree 100% that awful things done by one country do not justify in any way atrocious actions in another. That said, for some reason most people to decide to pick a side very quickly blaming all the world evil on one person and country.
Frankly speaking, the USA, EU, Ukraine share the same amount of blame for what is happening now. You are right, it was Putin not anyone else who made the decision to invade Ukraine, but things are more complicated here than the world is now preferring to see.
