If software vendors want to really turn the screws on Russian aggression, I have a suggestion: break license checks from Russia. Microsoft Windows, Office, Sharepoint, looking at you in particular. Delicense existing installations.
> Reminder that the goal is hinderance of aggression by the Russian government, not punishment of the Russian people.
Hindrance of aggression by the Russian government.... by wrecking their economy. Yes, the Russian people, being the economy, are the target, unavoidably.
> The entire Russian economy needs to be punished as much as possible in as short a time as possible. This unavoidably hurts everyone.
Sanctions can work too well. After the US embargoed all oil to imperial Japan their navy calculated they only had fuel left for two years, which led to the attack of Pearl Harbor.
That sounds great, till the union dissolves and nukes start being divided up amongst a dozen Russian "oligarch" mini states and all the corruption that will ensue. Either that or the nukes and tanks start flying out of Russia in retaliation. I honestly don't see how the west thinks this will go well, unless that's what they want.
During which time democracy became a dirty word and they were ready to embrace a strongman leader...
So honestly yeah I'm not seeing an amazing end state with this "let's punish the Russian people so they overthrow their government" strategy. In 1917 they did and got a bloody civil war. In 1991 they did that and had years of civil instability and an economic crisis. What makes people think in 2022 it would be better?
> That sounds great, till the union dissolves and nukes start being divided up amongst a dozen Russian "oligarch" mini states and all the corruption that will ensue.
My read of the hivemind sentiments on that would be "Russia has no justification to do that!" Whether popular memes are substantial protection from nuclear weapons seems questionable, but it seems to be overwhelming consensus opinion that this is the way to think about such things so who knows.
What's that saying, when everyone's thinking the same, nobody's thinking?
> Reminder that the goal is hinderance of aggression by the Russian government, not punishment of the Russian people.
The goal is both. You can't meaningfully punish a government without also punishing its people. The current sanctions are absolutely crippling to the Russian domestic economy. Their exporting businesses are dead in the water. What remains of their industry completely depends on imports, which have no stopped.
In their personal lives, they are accustomed to buying foreign goods, as basic as furniture. Russia currently doesn't manufacture enough furniture to meet its domestic needs... And doesn't manufacture enough manufacturing machinery to build said furniture factories, even if it wanted to.
So, you tell me, does mass unemployment, inability to buy basic consumer goods, and a collapse in purchasing power do - does it punish a government, its people, or both?
Their sons and daughters are in a foreign country murdering children and shooting fleeing civilians. We aren't talking about dropping cluster munitions on them like they are on Ukrainians. They are a perfectly legitimate target for economic actions.
> Reminder that the goal is hinderance of aggression by the Russian government, not punishment of the Russian people.
Is it? Or is the goal to turn the people of Russia against the Russian government for putting them into this position, perhaps even triggering regime change.
You know, it was pretty clear that Russia was willing to go to war to stop Ukraine joining NATO. They said so multiple times since the first time the objective was announced, in 2008 I think, which was followed by the Russian war on Georgia for the same reason... and the annexation of Krimea also had the same root cause... so I am convinced the war could have been stopped, but the West made absolutely no effort to do so. Do you remember when Russia sent the "ultimatum" to the USA and the answer was that none of the Russian demands even merited consideration? They knew then that this response would lead to a war.
Therefore, I believe there's reason to believe the West willingly allowed Russia to enter this war, perhaps with exact this goal: causing Russia to go broke (similar to what happened to the USSR in Afghanistan, which was also assisted heavily by the West at the time) over a gigantic conflict (and sanctions), forcing a regime change in Russia, finally, at the cost of a totally destroyed Ukraine. Maybe the West thought the cost (thousands of Ukrainians and Russian dead, two destroyed economies, another generation of people who can't trust their neighbours anymore, increased military spending) was acceptable?
> … so I am convinced the war could have been stopped, but the West made absolutely no effort to do so.
Conspiracy theories aside, avoiding war at all costs by capitulating to the aggressor's demands without a fight is not a sustainable approach.
Sure, Russia was strongly and publicly opposed to Ukraine joining NATO, to the point of threatening war over it… but that isn't their decision to make. Russia is still the unjustified invader here and the only one at fault—not Ukraine for seeking NATO membership or the other NATO members for considering the application.
Not to mention NATO blocking (or considering blocking) applicant countries due to arbitrary third-party threats/requests would weaken the entire purpose of the treaty. It would have left every current and prospective member questioning the treaty's actual effectiveness.
Putin was basically asking NATO to harm itself, there was no way anyone was going to take that seriously.
I disagree because I am not saying NATO should capitulate... just that when you don't compromise in any way even when it's in your own interest to do so just because you believe you have all leverage in the world, and then the strategy backfires, that you should take some responsibility as well.
I'm really confused on what you are trying to make a point on. Your statement was NATO should have not allowed Ukraine membership based on the threats from Russia of war. NATO did not allow Ukraine membership and even stated as much that Ukraine likely could never be a member. Russia got what they wanted. So what compromise was NATO not willing to make?
It feels like you are trying mental gymnastics to give a pass to a country starting a war. Russia is to blame, full stop. Russia should have no say in how Ukraine wants to move forward or the alliances they want to make. Russia is free to voice their concerns or better yet, provide better assurances and protection to Ukraine than what NATO could offer. Instead, they invaded. No one is at fault for that other than Russia.
> I'm really confused on what you are trying to make a point on.
My point is simple: Ukraine should've done what Sweden is doing and strategically make sure its territory is safe while at the same time avoiding direct confrontation with other nations. Ukraine and NATO failed to do so and we're now seeing the result of their miscalculation. Of course Russia is to blame as well, as they're the ones that Ukraine was trying to defend against, I'm not claiming otherwise.
Even though the NATO-Ukraine story goes back to 1992, let's look at the events leading up to the war:
On 14 September 2020, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky approved Ukraine's new National Security Strategy, "which provides for the development of the distinctive partnership with NATO with the aim of membership in NATO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%E2%80%93NATO_relations... ).
25 March 2021 - Russia starts military operations near Ukraine's border (which would lead to the war, almost one year later).
It's also relevant to notice that the Euromaidan protests in early 2014 were sparked by the then Pro-Russian Governement in Ukraine decision to move away from NATO and the EU (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euromaidan) under pressure from Russia... that Russia had strongly opposed NATO membership by Ukraine should be crystal clear. That the new Ukrainian Government's decision to antagonize Russia and pursue as strongly as possible membership of NATO should also be crystal clear... hence my point that Ukraine behaved irresponsibly with regards to avoid Russian agression, ironically, while trying to prevent exactly that.
So nothing in your examples justifies an invasion of another country (and coincidentally, leaves out all the acts of aggression by Russia). This feels a lot like the "she shouldn't have worn that" arguments. You appear to feel Russia is justified for attacking and committing war crimes because Ukraine had the audacity to want to strengthen their alliances and protect their territory. Something, ironically, you say they should be doing, just not in a way that would protect them from the threats they are facing...because...Sweden!?. It is an interesting stance to have; though not one rooted in the reality of the situation and threats Ukraine faces(d), which are nothing like Sweden's (pull up a map to see the most obvious reason they are in different situations). But since you brought it up, Sweden actively participates in NATO initiatives, are members of NATO's PfP ("track that will lead to NATO membership") and currently have troops deployed helping NATO initiatives. So they are not likely a good example for your case of how Ukraine could have avoided instigating Russia.
> hence my point that Ukraine behaved irresponsibly with regards to avoid Russian agression
Or in fewer words, your blaming of the victim. Don't act as if it wasn't entirely Russia's choice to invade, without any comparable provocation. It's not Ukraine's job to placate Russia. Avoiding Russian aggression is Russia's job. There is no guarantee that Russia wouldn't have invaded anyway even if Ukraine didn't pursue NATO membership. (The threat of this is why they wanted to join NATO in the first place.)
Well, yes. Who is to blame for the sanctions being applied on Russia now? Russia, the victim maybe? Can I blame the victim sometimes when their actions directly lead to a terrible outcome that's bad for everyone?
It is a strange equivalence you are trying to build here. But to answer you directly: the people responsible for the sanctions are the people that enforced them. Full stop. Just like Russia is responsible for attacking and committing war crimes. Full stop.
Now, if you want to go down the more philosophical road, people tend to be more morally ok with not feeling for Russia (IE: not calling them a "victim") over the sanctions because the sanctions were in response to attacking a nation and committing war crimes (though, if you read, many are feeling for russian citizens as many oppose the actions of "their" government). The reason most people see Ukraine as a victim is because they were doing what a nation should be doing (trying to build alliances to protect themselves against hostile forces). And when most people look at those two situations, they can easily understand how they aren't the same thing. Signing a piece of paper != bombing a hospital. Your argument is trying to take away that there is meaning and nuances to actions. We could say, "Ukraine did A, so Russia did B in response after threatening to not do A" is the same as "Russia did B, and NATO did C in response after threatening to not do B". And thus if "Russia is 'to blame' in C, then it reasons that Ukraine is 'to blame' in B". That is effectively your stance boiled down. And you can live in that world and no one can take you out of it. But the reality of the world isn't that simple and I certainly don't want to live in one where we decide that victims of atrocities and unspeakable acts "are to blame" because they tried to find peaceful ways to protect themselves. You are also completely avoiding the reality of how it could have been avoidable. Russia has no reason, NONE, to do what they are doing. You try to paint Ukraine responsible because they could have just given in to the threats (which makes no sense, given the reality of the situation), but for some reason completely ignore that Russia could have much more easily just not threatened. They could have been an ally to Ukraine. Putin and company decided they were the more powerful party and wanted to swing it around. So no, Ukraine's actions did not "directly lead to a terrible outcome". Russia's actions did. So no matter how you want to do your math, you are fundamentally wrong for victim-blaming in this situation.
The way your argument falls squarely into the same fallacies you attempt to accuse me of falling is quite interesting.
Examples to try to help you find your own biases:
> But the reality of the world isn't that simple and I certainly don't want to live in one where we decide that victims of atrocities and unspeakable acts "are to blame" because they tried to find peaceful ways to protect themselves
The reality of the world is that a big power gets to dicate what smaller countries can do around them. I don't like that either, but that's how it is and you can find multiple examples of that in the world throughout history. The USA has applied this same kind of doctrine the Russians are trying to impose on their smaller neighbours for over a century[1]. You live in a world where this is how things work and if you pretend you don't , you can cause a lot of suffering to your own people.
> Russia has no reason, NONE, to do what they are doing.
So you get to tell Russians what they can do or not and what reasons are acceptable for them to motivate themselves? Well, then perhaps Russia can tell Ukraine that their reasons to join NATO are not acceptable either?
> They could have been an ally to Ukraine.
They were for a long time.... when they attempted to join NATO, a Russia-hostile alliance whose creation was almost entirely motivated by the desire of Western powers to keep Russia in check, they absolutely signaled to Russia that they see Russia as their enemy.
> So no, Ukraine's actions did not "directly lead to a terrible outcome". Russia's actions did
We can't agree on that, obviously... you believe that anyone should have the right to do what they want without consequences to themselves because there should be no aggression from others. What a nice world it would be if that was the case, but unfortunately, just like Cuba can't have nuclear weapons pointing to the USA, so can't Ukraine have NATO bases within striking distance of Moscow... because both the USA and Russia think that they must protect themselves against the enemy and that their right to do that supersedes the rights of Cubans and Ukrainians to join whatever military alliances they want to. Until that changes, things like this will continue to happen... if Brazil tried to develop nuclear weapons, for example, we know all too well what would happen - because that actually happened and we know how it went - they stopped under enormous pressure from the USA - if they had pushed forward and said to the world "we have the right to peacefully defend ourselves against the american enemy by developing weapons that are as strong as the enemy's", I have no doubt the situation could have escalated to the point where American bombs would've be exploding in Brazil - but luckily brazilians realized that and bowed to the pressure. The problem in Iran was very similar and it was very, very close to being bombed by the USA (and it's still very possible that they will eventually invade).
> The reality of the world is that a big power gets to dicate what smaller countries can do around them. I don't like that either, but that's how it is and you can find multiple examples of that in the world throughout history. The USA has applied this same kind of doctrine the Russians are trying to impose on their smaller neighbours for over a century[1]. You live in a world where this is how things work and if you pretend you don't , you can cause a lot of suffering to your own people.
This has nothing to do with what I said. So "ok"!? Thank you for explaining that strong countries swing it around because they can. I'm not sure if you are trying to convince me that people do that [we are talking about someone doing that right now] or it somehow justifies it as ok [yes, that is what we are debating]? I can point to multiple points in modern times and history where people were persecuted because of physical attributes. That doesn't suddenly make it ok. I'm not sure what fallacy you are trying to point out or argument you are trying to prop up.
> So you get to tell Russians what they can do or not and what reasons are acceptable for them to motivate themselves? Well, then perhaps Russia can tell Ukraine that their reasons to join NATO are not acceptable either?
Again, I made no claims as to what I'd say to Russia or Russians or where I said I'm against people/countries speaking their minds. But we can go down this path...because it doesn't end up where you probably thought. I literally stated that Russia is absolutely free to say to Ukraine they don't agree with them trying to join NATO. My quote to you: "Russia is free to voice their concerns". You just restated what I previously said. So...not sure your point here or "fallacy" you are pointing out. Does that mean you are agreeing I'm right, since your rebuttal was paraphrasing me and not a list of reasons I'm wrong? I'm happy with dialogues and people speaking their mind. I'm not ok with war crimes and attacking others.
> They were for a long time.... when they attempted to join NATO, a Russia-hostile alliance whose creation was almost entirely motivated by the desire of Western powers to keep Russia in check, they absolutely signaled to Russia that they see Russia as their enemy.
The inaccuracies of statements about NATO's mission aside (I'm happy to concede, since it doesn't really change anything), the Ukrainian people certainly don't think so and history doesn't really show that. But even if we pretended they were an ally up until just weeks ago...they aren't much of an ally if they invade...so...I'm not sure your point here. it certainly doesn't counter my argument that Russia could have been an ally and supported Ukraine better. Now, with that out of the way, we can delve a little into history...rewind a bunch of years... I'd say pushing your troops into someone's country and stealing part of their territory isn't what an ally does. But wait, isn't your whole argument about accepting consequences and thus it becomes your fault for what someone did to you? Could a consequence of stealing part of someone's country be that they might not see you as an ally and want to try to build an alliance with countries that could help defend them against you!?!? By your own logic, that would make Russia responsible, so through your own reasoning, Russia is to blame, right? I know you like to avoid mentioning this event when you talk about your timelines (perhaps because your arguments fall flat otherwise), but are happy to link to Ukraine saying it is a goal to get their territory back (so you clearly are aware of the actual history here). So even if you decide to change your argument that "knowing the consequences makes you at fault" to say Russia isn't to blame, the reality is Ukraine didn't wake up one day and say, "We should be part of NATO despite Russia being our BFF." History is not on your side here.
> We can't agree on that, obviously... you believe that anyone should have the right to do what they want without consequences to themselves [...USA...]
I don't recall making any statements about the US anywhere. I don't recall making any statements that the US is an example to hold up to. I don't know if you are trying to say one wrong justifies another..or perhaps something else? The statements again don't speak to anything I said. So the best I can surmise is you are trying to say that Russia isn't to blame because look, someone else has done things. If that is the case, you are literally affirming my argument from above...not showing a fallacy in it. But this whole part fails to even refute what I said. You instead threw out a basic strawman argument that I somehow believe there are no consequences in the world. If saying that a country peacefully negotiating to form an alliance after multiple threats and an invasion of their country from someone, who you claim is an "ally", doesn't justify that country invading them again...then yes, I don't believe it justifies it and I don't believe that makes the attacked country responsible for the other country attacking. I just refer back to my actual argument that you failed to address or refute if you want more reasons as to why.
At the end of the day, you failed to point out any fallacies in my arguments. Or really respond to any of them other than what seems like shifting your argument to: Russia is big and strong. Big and strong countries get to do what they want and that is ok because <history>.
It seems like I've distilled down your argument correctly, and if so, there isn't much to debate there, since that simply confirms my argument from above. So I guess, thank you for agreeing my arguments are correct, but it is unfortunate you have no inclination to change your mind. Which is a position one can take, but not one for fruitful conversation. I sincerely wish you the best and hope you are able to find a way to identify and empathize with victims, rather than blame them someday.
I'm really curious how some people can bend their own minds in such a way that Russia invading a sovereign country is somehow the fault of "The West".
With all due respect, there was nothing to negotiate. Practically every world leader came to Putin's virtual doorsteps and tried to negotiate. Olaf Scholz even hinted at the fact that Ukraine wont be able to join NATO anyways bc of various reasons. But none of that helped. Putin has nuclear bombs. If we were to bend to his will bc he threatened to invade Ukraine, then we might as well pack our stuff, bc he has bigger threats. I can already see the messages on our post-nuclear-winter internet "Well, Proto-Putin threatened to start a nuclear war. The West had every chance to just allow him to crown himself Godking of Earth. This was the West's fault!".
I'm sorry but your worldview is cynical.
> so I am convinced the war could have been stopped,
Yes, by Putin. But he didnt. And that's somehow the fault of the West, I guess?
Vladimir Putin: I am absolutely convinced that Ukraine will not shy away from the processes of expanding interaction with NATO and the Western allies as a whole. Ukraine has its own relations with NATO; there is the Ukraine-NATO Council. At the end of the day the decision is to be taken by NATO and Ukraine. It is a matter for those two partners.
Keep in mind that "their job" in this scenario means revolution against a government that is more than willing to lock you away in Siberia for 15 years. It's a steep expectation and we shouldn't be surprised when most citizens don't volunteer to forgo their livelihoods and everything they've built up so far for the cause.
Most sanctions that could be imposed have not been imposed yet. The indirect effects of current banking sanctions have made it almost impossible to do business with Russia though.
I have many Russian customers, but neither my Chinese nor UAE banks will accept any transfers from Russia (not to even mention western banks). My business is not directly affected by sanctions, the banks just don’t have sufficient risk appetite to touch Russian money.
Best offer I’ve seen was from a partner which offered to take Russian transfers to a Kyrgyzstani bank account and send me USDT.
Perhaps such sanctions would be unnecessary? Perhaps they’re just on the way.
Even so, delicensing existing installations would still have a significant effect. The blockade doesn't have to work perfectly to cause more economic disruption.
If a country doesn’t want to operate within the confines of international law, does not honor international agreements, does not honor its word and commits war crimes — then the word “immoral” does not apply to any action taken to punish and stop the aggressor. You cannot have it both ways. Either you operate as a Western country, with western contract law, and resolve conflicts in international courts or you go back to 1914.
This narrative of “oh my would you think of the innocent Russian people” is tiring. They’re all guilty, just like all of Germany was guilty in 1945.
>"This narrative of “oh my would you think of the innocent Russian people” is tiring. They’re all guilty, just like all of Germany was guilty in 1945."
People are worried because sentiments like yours enable hate. You've literally just carte-blanche declared all Russians guilty. Even the protestors? The newborn babies? Call me hyperbolic but you were the one who said "all". Do I even need to go on about why such absolutism can lead to tragedy?
>Do I even need to go on about why such absolutism can lead to tragedy?
They think that I and my people shouldn't exist, that my country shouldn't exist.
We already have a tragedy on our hands -- humanitarian crisis, my people being exterminated, etc. This is no time for equivocation, a vast majority (>70%) support Putin and be extension the war.
And protesting does not absolve your guilt. Ukraine has been at war since 2014.
War in Georgia was in 2008, so lets not mince words. They have supported this regime for decades.
Who is they? Do you believe that Putin's regime is a democratic expression of the will of the Russian people?
> my people being exterminated
What the Ukrainian people are going through is absolutely horrible. But it is by no means an extermination.
> They have supported this regime for decades.
Ukraine were part of the Soviet Union for 7 decades. During this time, the Soviet Union invaded Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. I would still consider Ukrainians victims of the Soviet Union and not supporters.
I think I would know better about what my people are going through and what happened do them during Soviet Rule. They already did one genocide through Holodomor, so yes my people are being exterminated thanks for your expert opinion.
> If a country doesn’t want to operate within the confines of international law, does not honor international agreements, does not honor its word and commits war crimes — then the word “immoral” does not apply to any action taken to punish and stop the aggressor. You cannot have it both ways.
You've just described the USA for the past 100 years here. The level of double standard here is reaching levels I've never expected before.
We are talking about the crime that is going on right now as we speak. Make your own submission on a century of bad behavior by America and discuss that there instead of diluting this one with whataboutism.
Are you aware the US is facilitating the ongoing war in Yemen?
It’s all about strategic interests. The US commits war crimes when it suits our agenda…just like the Russians. It’s kind of scary how much power the USG has over the world. We’ll destroy the economies of our adversaries with almost ZERO resistance. Using the term “whataboutism” doesn’t make OPs argument untrue.
Nobody in the US actually gives a shit about the Ukraine. It’s purely a strategic interest. We’re using the country as a pawn in our global political game. It’s fucked.
If we really cared about war crimes we wouldn’t constantly commit them. Why aren’t US citizens outraged by the horrific warfare that occurs on a daily basis in our world?
The funny thing is that Ukraine is actually pretty low as far as american interests are concerned... That's why the USA will absolutely not fight in Ukraine, as it has said repeatedly before and after the war started. Which makes the whole reason for this conflict to have developed into a full scale war - Ukraine's prospect of joining NATO, causing Russia to feel itself existentially threatened as it couldn't defend itself against NATO if that happened - extremely futile. America would gain nothing by Ukraine joining NATO (assuming no desire to actually launch an attack on Russia), but Russia had a lot to lose as they absolutely expected NATO aggression (if we wanted them to believe we didn't mean to attack them, perhaps we shouldn't have continued to expand to their borders in the first place despite their extremely strongly worded protests?!).
NATO has never been a force for unilateral aggression its a defensive pact. Russia was never been at risk from invasion from NATO for the same reason that nobody is attacking Russia right now they fear nuclear war. Russia being threatened is a lie. A pretext for expansion by mass murder.
The entire phrase "expanding to their border" betrays a defective world view. Ukraine was considering joining a defensive pact to deter Russian aggression with obvious justification. The usage of "their border" somehow manages to imply ownership and violation. Nobody has a right to tell their neighbor they can't just a defensive pact or indeed any agreement whatsoever because of adjacency. Such deals don't take place by both parties standing on the dividing line and spitting onto Russian territory together. They take place within the respective countries capitals by their respective lawmakers.
The murderer doesn't have a right to stop his victims from conspiring to resist him.
> The entire phrase "expanding to their border" betrays a defective world view.
I've never read a sentence that so clearly ignores the meaning of the words it is rejecting. When NATO includes another country, it's expanding. This is the meaning of the word "expand", to grow - adding a new country to your territory makes you grow - or expand!!
As Ukraine (as well as the Baltic states, which are already NATO) borders Russia, "expanding to the Russian borders" describes physically what it is that NATO is doing.
I use words with their current meaning without trying to spin their meaning to express something that's occurring... if you think that's a "deffective world view" then you're way too far into the play of words of politics to be able to have a serious discussion about the topic.
> NATO has never been a force for unilateral aggression
Tell that to people in Iraq... Or other countries NATO been fucking with for a while now.
During cold war for example NATO-aligned countries happily went around doing coups, sometimes backed with force (for example a US aircraft carrier threatening to bomb Rio de Janeiro in case of Brazil), replacing democratically elected presidents with dictators that would do whatever NATO wanted, how that is NOT unilateral aggression? Libya is a special case even, they were doing everything NATO wanted for most part, trying to make amends and create a good relationship, and got fucked anyway, NATO even gave air cover to people commiting black genocide there, what Tawergha people did to NATO to justify its "defense"?
I don't think Russia is actually afraid of NATO aggression. They are running out of accessible gas and oil reserves, so the undeveloped wells in Ukraine are too tempting to pass up.
The USA at least subjects itself to elections, free press, democracy. That is the crucial difference.
Democratic systems get it wrong sometimes. No doubt.
I'm a UK citizen and disagreed with the war in Iraq waged in my name. But at least I was permitted to go out on the street and protest it. And eventually Blair was gone. And soon, so will Blowjo. But Putin has been around for long enough now, that he's starting to cause a bad smell in the world.
And it might seem unjust that Tony Blair and the rest never saw the Hague. I live in hope. But I see that what Russia is doing now is completely unacceptable regardless of how it sees the world evolving. It's democracy vs autocracy and democracy will win because if it doesn't, then what's the fucking point.
If anything does that not make the American people even more responsible and culpable of those war crimes since they actually have more power over their government's decisions?
The point I was making was not about assigning or excusing blame to Russian or American citizens. That is as constructive as assigning blame for some IT outage.
It was highlighting the differences in the systems of government that allows for course correction when the government starts making poor decisions.
The Russian government has set itself on a course, and then shut down the processes by which that course can be altered by (restricting information, disseminating false information, arresting protestors, opposition politicians)
If economic sanctions, or even supplying arms to Ukraine to support them were considered moral, then I fail to see how merely remotely disabling software is suddenly immoral. At worst, it would merely be use of another type of weapon.
I guess you think that all sanctions against Russia are also “grossly immoral”, no?
E: My reply to the now deleted child comment by “from” which suggested that the sanctions are pointless because they probably won’t result in regime change.
But why do you think the sanctions are about causing regime change? That’d be nice, but nothing anybody is betting on.
It’s all about discouraging such actions in the future.
Move out of an authoritarian dictatorship or demand your leaders stop killing innocent civilians as they try to escape during a ceasefire agreement, and end an illegal invasion that shouldn't even be a thing.
Do immoral things, let your leaders do them in your name, and well live with the consequences of a failed country/state.
This is tantamount to theft. Yes, I’m sure there’s plenty of weasel words in agreements. But at the end of the day, if you traded X for Y and end up with both X & Y, you have stolen from someone else.
To exaggerate massively - if you were running an authentication server for your software and found actual Nazis were using it, I think you'd be justified to boot them from it, even if they paid you.
In every war since WWII, the enemy is always painted in the image of Hitler. I am sure there's a lot of horror going on in Ukraine right now, as in every war (do you know of any war that's not pure destruction and horror?)... but to say it's close to the horrors Hitler committed is, in my opinion, grossly failing to see how the motivations, tactics and methods involved differ enormously.
Until I see gas chambers being used to kill Ukrainian civilians in mass, and innocent people being rounded up and burned inside buildings like the Nazi did, I would say we're still luckily very far from the same level of cruelty. And I pray to God we'll never see that kind of event again.
International organizations claim the number of dead civilians so far is around 400, which is in line with a full scale war where civilians are killed in the cross-fire, as horrific as that sounds.
For comparison, the USA invasion of Iraq caused around 5,000 civilian deaths in the initial few months [1], so it was actually likely much worse than Ukraine! Would you compare that with Hitler as well?
Early days yet. If you check my comment, I said he's replicating the run up. It remains to be seen whether he will be allowed to commit genocide but he's written about restoring old Soviet borders and he cannot do that without going against the wishes of 10s of millions of people. Maybe 100s of millions.
The comparison to Hitler is inevitable not because of death camps or body count, but because the foreign policy of Russia today seems to be on the same trajectory as the foreign policy of Nazi Germany prior to WW2.
Germany took Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia on the grounds that it was populated mostly by Germans, who were being oppressed by Slav-dominated government. Russia took Crimea from Ukraine on the grounds that it is populated mostly by Russians, who are being oppressed by the Ukrainian-dominated government.
Germany subsidized a Slovak separatist movement in Czechoslovakia, culminating in the declaration of independent Slovakia, which promptly became a German puppet state. Russia tried to do something similar with Donbas separatist, although it wasn't particularly successful.
Then, at last, Germany invaded what was left of Czechoslovakia, with intent to fully annex and absorb it. We're now watching Russia do the same to Ukraine.
