5 ms·

> there's no way I'm – directly or indirectly – buying Russian products Why not?

by drysine 2mo ago

matkoniecz 2mo ago
In my case: Russian state is my direct enemy and most likely to invade my country. And would do it if they would consider success likely. Previous wars with Russia were obnoxious with very bad consequences, so I dislike idea of even very indirectly funding them. And I support actions that are harmful to Russian economy, also when they are harmful to me - as long as it is not too badly balanced. As this is much cheaper than directly participating in war. (I am from Poland) PS Yes, I understand that at some point there are some indirect effects that you cannot avoid. I also understand if for some people paying Kagi that pays tiny fraction of that to Yandex that is paying taxes in Russia which funds their wars is too tenuous connection to care.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  I think at this point Russia is failing so hard they don't need a 100% boycott any more. 99.9% is enough.
- drysine 2mo ago
  >Russian state is my direct enemy and most likely to invade my country. And would do it if they would consider success likely. What makes you think so? >Previous wars with Russia were obnoxious with very bad consequences What do you mean?
  - maximinus_thrax 2mo ago
    > What makes you think so? Your resident propagandists like Solovyov, Dugin and Medvedev are very explicit about invading former warsaw pact countries when they're not threatening Europe with nukes. > Previous wars with Russia were obnoxious with very bad consequences They didn't teach you about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in your russian school? Of course not, it doesn't fit the great patriotic war narrative. It's about that time when your country's leadership was friendly with the nazis and decided to split eastern europe between themselves. Look, a picture of stalin shaking hands with a nazi: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H27337%2C_Moskau%2C_Stalin_und_Ribbentrop_im_Kreml.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Bundesar...
  - matkoniecz 2mo ago
    > What do you mean? that joint invasion of Poland by Russia (Soviet Union) and Germany (Third Reich) was really bad for my country and its inhabitants. 1920s Russian invasion failed but also was bad. Previously there was occupation of part of Poland that lasted over century which was also bad for us. and so on > What makes you think so? Geopolitical analysis of situation. Who else in your opinion is more likely to invade Poland? Japan?
    - drysine 2mo ago
      >1920s Russian invasion failed but also was bad. That's a very interesting turn of conversation. I think you are missing a bit from that story when presenting Poland as a victim[0]: According to Aviel Roshwald, (Piłsudski) "hoped to incorporate most of the territories of the defunct Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth into the future Polish state by structuring it as the Polish-led, multinational federation." Piłsudski had wanted to break up the Russian Empire and set up the Intermarium federation of various different states: Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and other Central and East European countries that emerged from the crumbling empires after World War I. In Piłsudski's vision, Poland would replace a truncated and vastly reduced Russia as the great power of Eastern Europe. His plan excluded negotiations prior to military victory. <...> He used military force to expand the Polish borders in Galicia and Volhynia and crush a Ukrainian attempt at self-determination in the disputed territories east of the Curzon Line, which contained a significant Polish minority. On 7 February 1919, Piłsudski spoke on the subject of Poland's future frontiers: "At the moment Poland is essentially without borders and all that we can gain in this regard in the west depends on the Entente – on the extent to which it may wish to squeeze Germany. In the east, it's a different matter; there are doors here that open and close and it depends on who forces them open and how far". Polish military forces had thus set out to expand far in the eastern direction. As Piłsudski imagined, "Closed within the boundaries of the 16th century, cut off from the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, deprived of land and mineral wealth of the South and South-east, Russia could easily move into the status of second-grade power. Poland, as the largest and strongest of the new states, could easily establish a sphere of influence stretching from Finland to the Caucasus". >that joint invasion of Poland by Russia (Soviet Union) and Germany (Third Reich) The USSR returned the territory that Poland grabbed in the 1920. And I must remind you that just a year earlier Germany, Hungary and Poland jointly dismembered Czechoslovakia[1]: Germany had started a low-intensity undeclared war on Czechoslovakia on 17 September 1938. <...> This was followed by Polish and Hungarian territorial demands brought on 21 and 22 September, respectively. <...> Poland grouped its army units near its common border with Czechoslovakia and conducted an unsuccessful probing offensive on 23 September. Hungary moved its troops towards the border with Czechoslovakia, without attacking. The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia's assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused. <...> The Munich Agreement was soon followed by the First Vienna Award on 2 November 1938, separating largely Hungarian inhabited territories in southern Slovakia and southern Subcarpathian Rus' from Czechoslovakia. On 30 November, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland small patches of land in the Spiš and Orava regions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War#Back... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement
gspr 2mo ago
Because Russia is a danger to all that I cherish. I did not use to think that. Then they brutally and unprovokedly attacked the sovereign nation of Ukraine, and showed their true face. Russia must be resisted until those responsible for that war are held accountable and Ukraine is whole, free and compensated, and all imprisoned and kidnapped Ukrainians (especially the kidnapped children) are returned. Once those things are done, I'd be open to a slow process of normalization for the sake of the Russian people.
- drysine 2mo ago
  [flagged]
  - gspr 2mo ago
    > How do you make the leap from the war? I don't think you cherish post-2014 Kiev regime. I cherish the world in which it is unacceptable to invade your neighbors, kill their people, occupy their country, destroy their buildings and kidnap their children because you dislike their government. Doubly so as an actual neighbor of the Russian menace! > People keep repeating this as if the promise of NATO membership in 2008[0] was never given The independent and free nation of Ukraine has the right to join any alliance they want and that wants them. If Russia considers that a provocation, that's entirely Russia's problem. Disagree? Simple question. I bet you won't answer. > and the coup engineered by the US in 2014[1] didn't happen. That source does not at all prop up your insane claim. At most, it suggests that the US meddles.
    - drysine 2mo ago
      >I cherish the world in which it is unacceptable to invade your neighbors Only neighbors? Invading a country that is not a neighbor is fine? What I'm asking is are you consistent in your judgement? Do you boycott companies from the US and its allies for the invasion of Iraq, bombing of Serbia and Libya, invasion of Syria, recent attack on Iran? If you do, I have nothing but respect for you. >The independent and free nation of Ukraine has the right to join any alliance they want and that wants them. Sure >If Russia considers that a provocation, that's entirely Russia's problem. So you don't think that a country has the right to react to the expansion of a military alliance that has not long ago bombed countries that hadn't attacked it[0][1]? And likewise the members of that alliance in smaller gangs invaded other countries [2][3][4] who hadn't attacked them first either? >I bet you won't answer. What have you bet on that? Just curious [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Protector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Protector [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_involvement_in_the_Syrian_civil_war#2016%E2%80%932017_military_interventions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_involvement_in_the_Syr...

> there's no way I'm – directly or indirectly – buying Russian products Why not?

by drysine 2mo ago

> there's no way I'm – directly or indirectly – buying Russian products Why not?

In my case: Russian state is my direct enemy and most likely to invade my country. And would do it if they would consider success likely. Previous wars with Russia were obnoxious with very bad consequences, so I dislike idea of even very indirectly funding them. And I support actions that are harmful to Russian economy, also when they are harmful to me - as long as it is not too badly balanced. As this is much cheaper than directly participating in war. (I am from Poland) PS Yes, I understand that at some point there are some indirect effects that you cannot avoid. I also understand if for some people paying Kagi that pays tiny fraction of that to Yandex that is paying taxes in Russia which funds their wars is too tenuous connection to care.

inigyou 2mo ago
I think at this point Russia is failing so hard they don't need a 100% boycott any more. 99.9% is enough.
drysine 2mo ago
>Russian state is my direct enemy and most likely to invade my country. And would do it if they would consider success likely. What makes you think so? >Previous wars with Russia were obnoxious with very bad consequences What do you mean?
- maximinus_thrax 2mo ago
  > What makes you think so? Your resident propagandists like Solovyov, Dugin and Medvedev are very explicit about invading former warsaw pact countries when they're not threatening Europe with nukes. > Previous wars with Russia were obnoxious with very bad consequences They didn't teach you about the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in your russian school? Of course not, it doesn't fit the great patriotic war narrative. It's about that time when your country's leadership was friendly with the nazis and decided to split eastern europe between themselves. Look, a picture of stalin shaking hands with a nazi: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Bundesarchiv_Bild_183-H27337%2C_Moskau%2C_Stalin_und_Ribbentrop_im_Kreml.jpg https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Bundesar...
- matkoniecz 2mo ago
  > What do you mean? that joint invasion of Poland by Russia (Soviet Union) and Germany (Third Reich) was really bad for my country and its inhabitants. 1920s Russian invasion failed but also was bad. Previously there was occupation of part of Poland that lasted over century which was also bad for us. and so on > What makes you think so? Geopolitical analysis of situation. Who else in your opinion is more likely to invade Poland? Japan?
  - drysine 2mo ago
    >1920s Russian invasion failed but also was bad. That's a very interesting turn of conversation. I think you are missing a bit from that story when presenting Poland as a victim[0]: According to Aviel Roshwald, (Piłsudski) "hoped to incorporate most of the territories of the defunct Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth into the future Polish state by structuring it as the Polish-led, multinational federation." Piłsudski had wanted to break up the Russian Empire and set up the Intermarium federation of various different states: Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine and other Central and East European countries that emerged from the crumbling empires after World War I. In Piłsudski's vision, Poland would replace a truncated and vastly reduced Russia as the great power of Eastern Europe. His plan excluded negotiations prior to military victory. <...> He used military force to expand the Polish borders in Galicia and Volhynia and crush a Ukrainian attempt at self-determination in the disputed territories east of the Curzon Line, which contained a significant Polish minority. On 7 February 1919, Piłsudski spoke on the subject of Poland's future frontiers: "At the moment Poland is essentially without borders and all that we can gain in this regard in the west depends on the Entente – on the extent to which it may wish to squeeze Germany. In the east, it's a different matter; there are doors here that open and close and it depends on who forces them open and how far". Polish military forces had thus set out to expand far in the eastern direction. As Piłsudski imagined, "Closed within the boundaries of the 16th century, cut off from the Black Sea and Baltic Sea, deprived of land and mineral wealth of the South and South-east, Russia could easily move into the status of second-grade power. Poland, as the largest and strongest of the new states, could easily establish a sphere of influence stretching from Finland to the Caucasus". >that joint invasion of Poland by Russia (Soviet Union) and Germany (Third Reich) The USSR returned the territory that Poland grabbed in the 1920. And I must remind you that just a year earlier Germany, Hungary and Poland jointly dismembered Czechoslovakia[1]: Germany had started a low-intensity undeclared war on Czechoslovakia on 17 September 1938. <...> This was followed by Polish and Hungarian territorial demands brought on 21 and 22 September, respectively. <...> Poland grouped its army units near its common border with Czechoslovakia and conducted an unsuccessful probing offensive on 23 September. Hungary moved its troops towards the border with Czechoslovakia, without attacking. The Soviet Union announced its willingness to come to Czechoslovakia's assistance, provided the Red Army would be able to cross Polish and Romanian territory; both countries refused. <...> The Munich Agreement was soon followed by the First Vienna Award on 2 November 1938, separating largely Hungarian inhabited territories in southern Slovakia and southern Subcarpathian Rus' from Czechoslovakia. On 30 November, Czechoslovakia ceded to Poland small patches of land in the Spiš and Orava regions. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War#Back... [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

gspr 2mo ago

Because Russia is a danger to all that I cherish. I did not use to think that. Then they brutally and unprovokedly attacked the sovereign nation of Ukraine, and showed their true face. Russia must be resisted until those responsible for that war are held accountable and Ukraine is whole, free and compensated, and all imprisoned and kidnapped Ukrainians (especially the kidnapped children) are returned. Once those things are done, I'd be open to a slow process of normalization for the sake of the Russian people.

drysine 2mo ago
[flagged]
- gspr 2mo ago
  > How do you make the leap from the war? I don't think you cherish post-2014 Kiev regime. I cherish the world in which it is unacceptable to invade your neighbors, kill their people, occupy their country, destroy their buildings and kidnap their children because you dislike their government. Doubly so as an actual neighbor of the Russian menace! > People keep repeating this as if the promise of NATO membership in 2008[0] was never given The independent and free nation of Ukraine has the right to join any alliance they want and that wants them. If Russia considers that a provocation, that's entirely Russia's problem. Disagree? Simple question. I bet you won't answer. > and the coup engineered by the US in 2014[1] didn't happen. That source does not at all prop up your insane claim. At most, it suggests that the US meddles.
  - drysine 2mo ago
    >I cherish the world in which it is unacceptable to invade your neighbors Only neighbors? Invading a country that is not a neighbor is fine? What I'm asking is are you consistent in your judgement? Do you boycott companies from the US and its allies for the invasion of Iraq, bombing of Serbia and Libya, invasion of Syria, recent attack on Iran? If you do, I have nothing but respect for you. >The independent and free nation of Ukraine has the right to join any alliance they want and that wants them. Sure >If Russia considers that a provocation, that's entirely Russia's problem. So you don't think that a country has the right to react to the expansion of a military alliance that has not long ago bombed countries that hadn't attacked it[0][1]? And likewise the members of that alliance in smaller gangs invaded other countries [2][3][4] who hadn't attacked them first either? >I bet you won't answer. What have you bet on that? Just curious [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Yugoslavia [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Protector https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Unified_Protector [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_Sycamore [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_involvement_in_the_Syrian_civil_war#2016%E2%80%932017_military_interventions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_involvement_in_the_Syr...