8 ms·

If a company does business in Russia right now, they are giving money to the Russian government which will be used to kill Ukrainians. Let's not conflate wartim

by pkulak 5y ago

If a company does business in Russia right now, they are giving money to the Russian government which will be used to kill Ukrainians. Let's not conflate wartime trade policy with Twitter wokeness marketing.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
slig 5y ago
What about countries buying oil and gas from them?
- 542458 5y ago
  Yes, that is bad too. However, in some cases it is necessary to prevent people from freezing, so there is a balancing act. Note that fossil fuel dependency just became a much more common political discussion item in Europe.
  - gruez 5y ago
    While it's unreasonable to expect europeans to freeze to death to protect ukranians, I think there's a middle ground between "business as usual" and "protect ukraine at all costs" that's not being considered here. Specifically, turning the temperature down to 5-10°C and wearing a coat. I doubt you'll be freezing to death in those circumstances. Is there widespread effort by europeans to do this? If not, then the parent's is still mostly correct: europeans are not willing to endure slight discomfort to prevent "giving money to the Russian government which will be used to kill Ukrainians".
    - leaflets2 5y ago
      I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors. And people could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. And energy intensive industries could close for a while. Is it really more important to continue producing more cars, for example, than to try to stop the war?
      - leaflets2 5y ago
        It's annoying that the politicians don't seem to think about this. Are they worried that they'd get fever votes? What if everyone wrote to their politicians (in one's respective country) and said that they'd happy wear extra clothes indoors
        gruez 5y ago
        > It's annoying that the politicians don't seem to think about this. Are they worried that they'd get fever votes? They're probably worried about stated preference vs revealed preference. People say that they stand with ukraine and they're willing to make tremendous sacrifices to help ukraine/hurt russia. That might be true, but they might not be willing to actually pay the cost (eg. higher gas prices).
        leaflets2 5y ago
        Good point. Maybe in some cases, people won't know until afterwards, if they actually want more sanctions or not -- until after they've gotten to try it and discover how it was. Especially problems with transportation could cause anger, I suspect. Whilst extra clothes is maybe simpler. Now I start thinking that more buses and bike lanes in a way can be seen as part of a military defense strategy, hmm. (If the population does mostly ok without oil)
      - def_true_false 5y ago
        > Is it really more important to continue producing more cars, for example, than to try to stop the war? German policy of the last decade in a nutshell. Green feel-good crap for the masses while building more pipelines to Russia, literally planned to enable gas delivery even in case of conflict in Eastern Europe.
      - IMTDb 5y ago
        > I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors. That's the theory. Here is probably what would happen in practice: all the people that have disposable income will swallow the cost. All the people who can't swallow the cost will pour in their last savings for a few more hours of warmth. Those who can't will start rioting, especially when their children start coughing. It's hard to tell your child "put on a jacket, dad can't pay to keep you warm" when little Jimmy next door goes to a Safari next easter. There is only so much inequality you can accept before resorting to violence. I think it's better to ensure everyone can - at least - eat, sleep, keep warm and get some access to some entertainment. > And people could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. In practice, many people just can't do that. Either because those transport options do' not work or aren't ready yet. Think of Mr. Electrician who goes around the city in his van fixing peoples home. If he is forced to take the bus, he needs to reduce his client base to what's accessible by bus, he can do less client per day. Or he can pay for the gas and keep his activity. Or he can just let it go and ask for welfare, increasing the burden on social security for someone who is perfectly willing, able and qualified to work if not for high gas prices. Many low earning workers will have to make a choice between going to work, and going to unemployment. We have already started to see people making that choice with the current gas prices. Of course, highly qualified profile who are already well paid will negotiate with their employers so that the companies swallow those added costs. Most companies will have no choice but to agree. So the people on the roads will be in the "already rich" category. All in all, this would just increase the disparity between the upper and lower class. The upper class will swallow those cost by just saving a bit less, but generally keeping their lifestyle. The lower class will be hit the hardest, by having their spending power reduced and/or being moved to unemployment. One of these groups will benefit more of the economic recovery if/when prices goes down - you can guess which one.
    - def_true_false 5y ago
      People in the EU are not going to freeze to death even if Russian gas and oil is banned. Germany would lose a few percent of GDP, equivalent to couple hundred bucks per capita. I would be surprised if they pull of the ban before this winter is over, though. FWIW people in Ukraine are already freezing to death, thanks to Russia's deliberate attacks on infrastructure.
- reaperducer 5y ago
  What about countries buying oil and gas from them? They're almost all (except India) moving away from that. It's not something that can be done overnight. It's been in the news for almost a month now.
AdrianB1 5y ago
There are US companies still selling health products to Russian citizens. What is the expectation, to let them die? I fully understand that cars, fast food, liqueur or perfumes are things to stop selling, but essential products not. The average Ivan and Natasha should not receive a collective punishment (to death in some cases) for what some guy they may not have even voted for is doing.
- _whiteCaps_ 5y ago
  Everyone selling pharmaceuticals should follow Pfizer's example and donate profits from sales in Russia: https://www.fastcompany.com/90731145/pfizer-is-donating-its-profits-from-russia-instead-of-pulling-out-heres-why https://www.fastcompany.com/90731145/pfizer-is-donating-its-...
  - burrows 5y ago
    Why should other companies do that?
blub 5y ago
They’ll most likely use it to pay their employees, since employment costs are the biggest chunk of expenses for many companies. From the money that goes to the government, some will go to fund the war, but some will go towards social support, maintenance, etc just like any other country. Where does this black and white caricature of an idea come from if not twitter? Acting like all the money in Russia is used to make bullets which are sent directly to the front. Not to mention that there’s quite a few countries killing people today and nearly nobody’s boycotting them.
whimsicalism 5y ago
I know this will get labeled as whataboutism, so to pre-empt that I am suggesting sanctions and Hague charges for all perpetrators, but what is uniquely bad about killing Ukrainians over Syrians, Libyans, or Iraqis?
- reaperducer 5y ago
  I haven't seen anyone in this thread, or anywhere else, state that killing Ukrainians is uniquely bad. Do you have a source for this assertion?
  - whatshisface 5y ago
    They are obliquely complaining that the US gets a free pass to blow up civilians in other countries in the course of pursuing its own geopolitical goals, an by extension the US armed forces are exempt from international prosecution. As for domestic prosecution, the record is mixed, but there was that high-profile case that got a presidential pardon.
  - ensan 5y ago
    Then, if you live in a western country, stop paying taxes because it supports killing innocent people, and to a much larger extent than what is going on in Ukraine. Leave your job because tech companies have contracts with the government/"defense industry" and also pay taxes. Don't buy anything from the grocery stores. Cancel your flight if it's on an Airbus/Boeing. Otherwise, it's all empty talk. To be clear, it absolutely is in my opinion.
    - dunkelheit 5y ago
      It is kind of crazy when one remembers all the human rights abuses that companies providing popular products and services tolerate and benefit from, and where the tax money goes. It is almost as if if the goal is to be consistent and avoid hypocrisy, the only two options are abandoning modern lifestyle... or not protesting at all.
    - mrtranscendence 5y ago
deltarholamda 5y ago
If a company shows support for the Ukraine, then they are giving aid and comfort to the Ukrainian military who was shelling civilians in the Donbass region for the past decade.
- zucker42 5y ago
  Your comment has the implication (intended or unintended) that Ukraine was the instigator as far as ceasefire violations go. As far as I can tell, that's not true. However, the real way to find out for sure would be to go through the OSCE SMM reports[1] about ceasefire violations and determine what percentage of them were likely from Ukranian-controlled territory versus separatist-controlled territory. [1] https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports
  - deltarholamda 5y ago
    Your comment has the implication (intended or unintended) that there are situations where civilian casualties are perfectly acceptable. My only real point was that who the Good Guys and who the Bad Guys are in Ukraine are predetermined by the set of assumptions you start with. Everybody who was paying attention isn't that surprised by the invasion. It's not even a puzzle as to why Russia would do it. They spelled it out quite clearly, and have been saying it for years. Which is why I find the media narrative annoying. It's an almost perfect example of gaslighting. The only response to Russia's complaints about NATO meddling in Ukraine being provocative is to make some kind of counter-offer to offset the provocation. To suggest that there wasn't any meddling, or that Russia just invaded out of the blue for no good reason other than sheer evilness, is either staggeringly wrong, or a deliberate lie.
    - dwaltrip 5y ago
      Are you saying Russia is not a bad actor here? I'm not very convinced by your arguments.
      - burrows 5y ago

by pkulak 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

slig 5y ago

What about countries buying oil and gas from them?

542458 5y ago
Yes, that is bad too. However, in some cases it is necessary to prevent people from freezing, so there is a balancing act. Note that fossil fuel dependency just became a much more common political discussion item in Europe.
- gruez 5y ago
  While it's unreasonable to expect europeans to freeze to death to protect ukranians, I think there's a middle ground between "business as usual" and "protect ukraine at all costs" that's not being considered here. Specifically, turning the temperature down to 5-10°C and wearing a coat. I doubt you'll be freezing to death in those circumstances. Is there widespread effort by europeans to do this? If not, then the parent's is still mostly correct: europeans are not willing to endure slight discomfort to prevent "giving money to the Russian government which will be used to kill Ukrainians".
  - leaflets2 5y ago
    I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors. And people could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. And energy intensive industries could close for a while. Is it really more important to continue producing more cars, for example, than to try to stop the war?
    - leaflets2 5y ago
      It's annoying that the politicians don't seem to think about this. Are they worried that they'd get fever votes? What if everyone wrote to their politicians (in one's respective country) and said that they'd happy wear extra clothes indoors
      - gruez 5y ago
        > It's annoying that the politicians don't seem to think about this. Are they worried that they'd get fever votes? They're probably worried about stated preference vs revealed preference. People say that they stand with ukraine and they're willing to make tremendous sacrifices to help ukraine/hurt russia. That might be true, but they might not be willing to actually pay the cost (eg. higher gas prices).
        leaflets2 5y ago
        Good point. Maybe in some cases, people won't know until afterwards, if they actually want more sanctions or not -- until after they've gotten to try it and discover how it was. Especially problems with transportation could cause anger, I suspect. Whilst extra clothes is maybe simpler. Now I start thinking that more buses and bike lanes in a way can be seen as part of a military defense strategy, hmm. (If the population does mostly ok without oil)
    - def_true_false 5y ago
      > Is it really more important to continue producing more cars, for example, than to try to stop the war? German policy of the last decade in a nutshell. Green feel-good crap for the masses while building more pipelines to Russia, literally planned to enable gas delivery even in case of conflict in Eastern Europe.
    - IMTDb 5y ago
      > I'm in Europe and I'd happily wear a jacket and a winter cap indoors. That's the theory. Here is probably what would happen in practice: all the people that have disposable income will swallow the cost. All the people who can't swallow the cost will pour in their last savings for a few more hours of warmth. Those who can't will start rioting, especially when their children start coughing. It's hard to tell your child "put on a jacket, dad can't pay to keep you warm" when little Jimmy next door goes to a Safari next easter. There is only so much inequality you can accept before resorting to violence. I think it's better to ensure everyone can - at least - eat, sleep, keep warm and get some access to some entertainment. > And people could go by bus, subway, ride share, so less oil and gas needed for transportation. In practice, many people just can't do that. Either because those transport options do' not work or aren't ready yet. Think of Mr. Electrician who goes around the city in his van fixing peoples home. If he is forced to take the bus, he needs to reduce his client base to what's accessible by bus, he can do less client per day. Or he can pay for the gas and keep his activity. Or he can just let it go and ask for welfare, increasing the burden on social security for someone who is perfectly willing, able and qualified to work if not for high gas prices. Many low earning workers will have to make a choice between going to work, and going to unemployment. We have already started to see people making that choice with the current gas prices. Of course, highly qualified profile who are already well paid will negotiate with their employers so that the companies swallow those added costs. Most companies will have no choice but to agree. So the people on the roads will be in the "already rich" category. All in all, this would just increase the disparity between the upper and lower class. The upper class will swallow those cost by just saving a bit less, but generally keeping their lifestyle. The lower class will be hit the hardest, by having their spending power reduced and/or being moved to unemployment. One of these groups will benefit more of the economic recovery if/when prices goes down - you can guess which one.
  - def_true_false 5y ago
    People in the EU are not going to freeze to death even if Russian gas and oil is banned. Germany would lose a few percent of GDP, equivalent to couple hundred bucks per capita. I would be surprised if they pull of the ban before this winter is over, though. FWIW people in Ukraine are already freezing to death, thanks to Russia's deliberate attacks on infrastructure.
reaperducer 5y ago
What about countries buying oil and gas from them? They're almost all (except India) moving away from that. It's not something that can be done overnight. It's been in the news for almost a month now.

AdrianB1 5y ago

There are US companies still selling health products to Russian citizens. What is the expectation, to let them die? I fully understand that cars, fast food, liqueur or perfumes are things to stop selling, but essential products not. The average Ivan and Natasha should not receive a collective punishment (to death in some cases) for what some guy they may not have even voted for is doing.

_whiteCaps_ 5y ago
Everyone selling pharmaceuticals should follow Pfizer's example and donate profits from sales in Russia: https://www.fastcompany.com/90731145/pfizer-is-donating-its-profits-from-russia-instead-of-pulling-out-heres-why https://www.fastcompany.com/90731145/pfizer-is-donating-its-...
- burrows 5y ago
  Why should other companies do that?

blub 5y ago

They’ll most likely use it to pay their employees, since employment costs are the biggest chunk of expenses for many companies. From the money that goes to the government, some will go to fund the war, but some will go towards social support, maintenance, etc just like any other country. Where does this black and white caricature of an idea come from if not twitter? Acting like all the money in Russia is used to make bullets which are sent directly to the front. Not to mention that there’s quite a few countries killing people today and nearly nobody’s boycotting them.

whimsicalism 5y ago

I know this will get labeled as whataboutism, so to pre-empt that I am suggesting sanctions and Hague charges for all perpetrators, but what is uniquely bad about killing Ukrainians over Syrians, Libyans, or Iraqis?

reaperducer 5y ago
I haven't seen anyone in this thread, or anywhere else, state that killing Ukrainians is uniquely bad. Do you have a source for this assertion?
- whatshisface 5y ago
  They are obliquely complaining that the US gets a free pass to blow up civilians in other countries in the course of pursuing its own geopolitical goals, an by extension the US armed forces are exempt from international prosecution. As for domestic prosecution, the record is mixed, but there was that high-profile case that got a presidential pardon.
- ensan 5y ago
  Then, if you live in a western country, stop paying taxes because it supports killing innocent people, and to a much larger extent than what is going on in Ukraine. Leave your job because tech companies have contracts with the government/"defense industry" and also pay taxes. Don't buy anything from the grocery stores. Cancel your flight if it's on an Airbus/Boeing. Otherwise, it's all empty talk. To be clear, it absolutely is in my opinion.
  - dunkelheit 5y ago
    It is kind of crazy when one remembers all the human rights abuses that companies providing popular products and services tolerate and benefit from, and where the tax money goes. It is almost as if if the goal is to be consistent and avoid hypocrisy, the only two options are abandoning modern lifestyle... or not protesting at all.
  - mrtranscendence 5y ago

deltarholamda 5y ago

If a company shows support for the Ukraine, then they are giving aid and comfort to the Ukrainian military who was shelling civilians in the Donbass region for the past decade.

zucker42 5y ago
Your comment has the implication (intended or unintended) that Ukraine was the instigator as far as ceasefire violations go. As far as I can tell, that's not true. However, the real way to find out for sure would be to go through the OSCE SMM reports[1] about ceasefire violations and determine what percentage of them were likely from Ukranian-controlled territory versus separatist-controlled territory. [1] https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports https://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/reports
- deltarholamda 5y ago
  Your comment has the implication (intended or unintended) that there are situations where civilian casualties are perfectly acceptable. My only real point was that who the Good Guys and who the Bad Guys are in Ukraine are predetermined by the set of assumptions you start with. Everybody who was paying attention isn't that surprised by the invasion. It's not even a puzzle as to why Russia would do it. They spelled it out quite clearly, and have been saying it for years. Which is why I find the media narrative annoying. It's an almost perfect example of gaslighting. The only response to Russia's complaints about NATO meddling in Ukraine being provocative is to make some kind of counter-offer to offset the provocation. To suggest that there wasn't any meddling, or that Russia just invaded out of the blue for no good reason other than sheer evilness, is either staggeringly wrong, or a deliberate lie.
  - dwaltrip 5y ago
    Are you saying Russia is not a bad actor here? I'm not very convinced by your arguments.
    - burrows 5y ago