I'm guessing they don't cut off the United States because the United States isn't invading and bombing the cities where they operate and have employees.

A lot of people are making assumptions about this being a purely PR "woke" move of some kind, ignoring this: https://www.namecheap.com/careers/ukraine

Seems pretty personal to me. If I or my people were actively being bombed by an invading force, I'd take it personally, too. And then I'd take action about it.

To me, Russian behaviour is identical to the Turkish invasion of 1974, the subsequent occupation of Northern Cyprus until this very day, and the installation of a puppet government.

I sympathise with Namecheap's CEO, and had I been anything more than a grad student, I'd have done similar.

Is definitely a personal move.

Go on their website, they operate in 4 countries.

US: 40 people

Portugal: 70 people

Ukraine: 1700 people

India: 70 people

Classic American company delocalizing everything and now crying because all the engineering is based in Ukraine.

You put all the eggs in one basket and now you complain that they broke? Ukraine is in a conflict with Russia not from yesterday, it has been years from the Crimea case.

The CEO of this company never had a thought about de-risking his over reliance on Ukrainian talent to run his company? Or was just too cheap to keep the location there and pocket the difference in added value created by these talents?

Why should NameCheap have done anything differently? The idea that they should have run their company differently so that they could keep doing business with a hostile country presumes that it's more desirable for them to do that than hire Ukrainians.

Yes that's how business works. Have you seen Microsoft being hit by this for example?

From a business and operational point of view is just a silly move to have your business in one country, especially when you claim to be a "US business"

To me look like that of US here you've only a pool of directors, is more a Ukrainian company to me. Many Ukrainian companies have been hit as well, but they're not multinational businesses and don't use HN to voice their concern.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not justifying the war or anything. But from a business point of view, if I were the CEO I would've opened another office somewhere else and transfer know how from the Ukraine branch given that the situation with Russia has been tense for a decade now.

I hope this explains it

Are US businesses even going to be able to keep doing business with Russia? Is it a mistake for any businesses to be based in the US when there's a risk of losing access to Russia? Is it a mistake for businesses to be based in the US when they've already lost access to North Korea and Iran?

It's not surprising that wars cause fractures in international dealings. That seems like the exact kind of thing they would bring. The problem is the war itself, not that every participant of the international economy isn't a perfectly-neutral profit generator.

I can see why someone might want to run their own business as a perfectly-neutral profit generator but I can't imagine others faulting someone else for not doing so.

Is risk management 101, I'm sorry if you don't understand but I don't have time to explain it to you.

If 100% of your business is based in a country that has been threatened to be invaded many times and also had been attacked 8 years ago and you still think is ok go have 100% of your engineering and core business there then is your problem.

You don't know what Risk management? Business continuity?

Is the same reason why you don't deploy your DB in one PC in your basement and hope that nothing happened. If you get flooded and you didn't have a plan to recover is your sole responsibility.

The same goes business wise

Are we talking about the risk of the company being entirely destroyed, or the risk of it being made inconvenient for them to serve Russian customers? I figure this thread is about the second one since those are the consequences that are happening now. If they don't particularly need Russian customers to survive, it doesn't seem like they made a mistake in not preparing against that risk more.

I'm talking about the first, doesn't seems to hard to understand isn't it?

To me the move is like: "well now I've no way to do by business because my engineering and the core team is under bomb shelter, so lets ban the Russian customers because I'm pissed"

They can do that if they're happy with it, I'm with you on this.

It's definitely personal. But it's people you care about being bombed kind of personal, not asset risk.

When the day comes when US tanks cross over into Canada to annex it under a false pretext, running over passenger vehicles; when the US tells its soldiers they are going on a military exercise only to have them shoot at their neighbor; when the US tells the world "if you get involved we'll nuke you"; when the US jails its anti-war protestors for as much as carrying a sign... then perhaps your comparison will be valid. Until then you're just deflecting.

When you already mentioned false pretexes - how's going on with finding WMD in Iraq? Any seccess yet?

Is shooting at neighbor worse than shooting at people half over the world (or they don't count because of wrong skin color)?

WMDs or not, Saddam Hussein's Iraq did not in any way resemble Canada or Ukraine.

The problem with this kind of whatabboutism is that the US invades places run by morally reprehensible people. To keep the comparison with Ukraine going, you've either got to convince us that Saddam Hussein was a nice guy, or Zelenskyy is a butcher. Everyone knows that's bullshit.

Just because a place doesn't resemble Canada or Ukraine or people who look and act like your version of civilized society doesn't give the US a right to wage war resulting in large numbers of civilians being displaced or killed.

What's happening in Ukraine is reprehensible - but the result of US policy blunders in places like Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, numerous South American countries and the like has been more damaging for the world we live in IMO.

While this isn't an apples to apples comparison, maybe you've got to convince us that the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, etc. are better off after US involvement. From my perspective, the answer is an obvious 'no'. Even under Saddam Hussein (who was a dictator and evil person - I'm in agreement there) the people of Iraq, who lived under some repression in their daily lives, were better off than before the US invasion.

Afghanistan (by supporting Bin Laden and his organization) attacked the US first. Kick sleeping dogs, get bit.

In Iraq, about a third of the population (the Kurds) are unequivocally better off. About a third (he Shias) are arguable. The Sunnis, no, but they were the ones beating up the others. The final history hasn't been written yet (and it could get worse, no question). Still, the story is incompetence rather than malevolence. Marching in and killing Hussein is easily defensible on moral grounds. The chaos after is not.

Blunders in Latin America have to be taken on a case-by-case basis. Mostly they involved supporting one side or another in an existing civil war. The worst excesses predate WW2.

Nobody claims that the US has an angelic past, but comparison to Putin's Russia is not apt.

I wrote a long response to this but I don't think it's worth debating these points further as we probably see and experience the world differently.

> The problem with this kind of whatabboutism is that the US invades places run by morally reprehensible people.

So a Mexican invasion when Trump was President would have been okay? Only if rest of the World knew...

That happened only in your wild imagination. Despite Trump, the US and Mexico enjoy exceptionally good relations, second only to our neighbor to the north.

I see.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that the only thing that matters at all is power. Sadly, the USA is responsible for establishing this paradigm, although pointing this out is taboo whataboutism. Now, we're returning to a world as it's always been: apes compelling other apes with their sticks.

Could you clarify ‘paradigm’ in context?

sure, I mean the paradigm of using military force, and more generally disregarding international law to achieve geopolitical goals

The morality of any military action, can and has been endlessly debated (as it should) because it's non-binary, it's a spectrum. That does not change the fact that these two superpowers could not be further apart in how they go about spreading their influence around the world.

Through oversimplification you can argue that anything is the same as its opposite.

There is a reason that when given a choice, nearly all European countries chose NATO over Russia.

We don't have to build a wall to keep our people in. Or our allies for that matter.

I think the world has changed in the past twenty years, and I think if the U.S. engages in future foreign wars, maybe they will have to suffer similar consequences from non U.S. companies. I hope so, and I say that as a U.S. citizen.

I for one like this. If you are a shitty citizen in our increasing global world, one positive benefit of globalization is the many ways that that global world can now bite you in the ass.

There is no excuse for wars of aggression. And in the past people would throw their hands up and say "well what can I do?" Well we are all connected now, so increasingly there is something you can do.

The world is not changing and the next US invasion will also have zero consequences and lot of justification to placate the sense of morality of the population.

> The world is not changing

You may have blinked and missed it, but it just did. The US has weaponized global finance to an unprecedented level. Russian loans denominated in FX will all default. The stock market is cratering as soon as they are brave enough to open it back up. The ruble is going to be worth less than it was an hour ago. The Great Russian Experiment is underway.

Everything will be back to normal in 4-8 years after a cease fire, though. So sanctions just hurt the most vulnerable of a 150m people country. Congratulations. That will surely prevent future wars like seen with the treaty of Versailles...

I don't think a cease fire will return things to they way they were. Lots of countries have had it with Komrade Putin and will work to see him deposed. Maybe an oligarch or general will help speed up the process?

> Why don’t you cut off United States citizens while you are at it?

Just because they don't cut off the American government, especially Texas, from services, doesn't mean that they can't stand against Russia. This is a blatant false dichotomy. In addition, I 100% blame every tax-payer of Texas for the human rights violations going on there, even those who would call themselves liberals.

Vote with your wallets. Leave.

Please kindly check your whataboutism at the door. It's not HN-caliber discussion.

OP's comment is not whataboutism. It's simply pointing out that this is not the principled stand it is masquerading as. If this action was strictly about countries waging unprovoked wars heavily laden with war crimes, the US would be on the chopping block from NC's perspective. That we were not (nor ever will be) is a testament to the fact that the US is too lucrative a market for them to lose and that this is not principled whatsoever.

Attacking a position solely because it is inconsistent is the definition of whataboutism. (And perfect consistency is the enemy of improving short-term outcomes.)

"A propaganda technique where criticisms are deflected by raising corresponding criticisms of the opposite side."[0]

OP is not deflecting criticisms of Russia, OP is pointing out that the claim that NC is taking a principled stance is blatantly false. Obviously NC can still choose to proceed since they believe that this is a net benefit, but they cannot claim it is a principled stance.

[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/whataboutism

> And perfect consistency is the enemy of improving short-term outcomes.

Sure, I can agree with that point. But everyone can agree that pointing out inconsistency is definitionally not whataboutism.

Whether you call it whataboutism or something else, my point remains: it is still a cheap argument anyone can throw out that isn't HN-caliber.

Calling repeatedly for violent revolution isn't HN-caliber certainly but that hasn't stopped you from doing it all over this thread. <- This is whataboutism by the way.

Sorry, what was the point of this?

Sorry, that was a bit rude and pointless. I apologize. I am just frustrated that your comments all over this thread are suggesting that people should take up arms and violently overthrow their governments in Venezuela and Russia, but you are here policing good-taste commenting on HN.

I don't really know how to address the meat of your point, in that I think OP's point is a perfectly legitimate one and you don't, and I think it is unlikely that I would ever be able to convince you (and you will certainly never be able to convince me).

No, crying out "whataboutism" is precisely what is wrong with our discourse ATM. We are simply unprincipled or contradictory in huge swathes of our daily lives and especially when it comes to these "large" issues. And it is an especially important element in a site like HN with many technical and (rule or process) orientated people. You have to peel back the layers, and the GP comment is spot on in that it spawns a discussion along the lines of "why is this one different?" If we figure out that difference and the collective news and opinion's community apparent double-standard (or not) then we have a good place to allow us to move forward.

Address it, don't dismiss it.

Nobody’s perfect; everyone is a hypocrite to some degree. And we have more pressing matters to address right now, such as Russia invading Ukraine. If a company wants to stop doing business in a country that’s doing wrong, we should support that. If that same company (or a different one) wants to boycott the U.S., they’re welcome to do that, too. People have their reasons for doing things and they’re not always consistent, because life is complex and nuanced, actions must be prioritized, and choices often involve weighing different trade-offs.

You and others use "whataboutism" like it's some sort of checkmate. The point is, many Americans are very eager to police everyone based on their "principles", everyone else except themselves and their allies that is.

The topic of discussion is not whether or not the Russian invasion of Ukraine is bad. If it was, your argument would be applicable.

This topic is analogous to "selective enforcement" from police. If a policeman typically jails blacks but gives whites a warning for the same crime, this is bad, and should be acknowledged as such. Same here.

You're comparing a civil-rights violation to a business inconvenience. Namecheap and others like them owe nobody anything except by contract, and they're going to refund (to the extent possible) those they won't do business with anymore.

It's hypocrisy nonetheless, regardless of the scale

Pointing out hypocrisy is a cheap shot, though, because everyone's a hypocrite to one degree or another. As I've said elsewhere, pointing out hypocrisy usually gets you nowhere in an argument. It's seen by many as a vain attempt to show how smart you are and is generally just a distraction, as opposed to a participation in a substantive discussion of the issue at hand.

Maybe that's how you feel, but not me. I try to live in a principled way, and I think many other people do as well. So I support calling out hypocrisy because I think it makes the world a better place (I would like my own views also challenged on these grounds). In this case, the hypocritical action is needlessly divisive because it paints Russians as "the other", and I don't think this type of thinking helps the world in the long-term.

Whataboutism usually follows some kind of hypocrisy.

The act of pointing out whataboutism are usually done so the hypocritical side can take refuge and refute any discussion. This often happen because hypocrisy is real - otherwise it would be easy to refute the equivalence instead.

As I've said elsewhere, pointing out hypocrisy usually gets you nowhere in an argument. It's seen by many as a vain attempt to show how smart you are, as opposed to participating in a substantive discussion of the issue at hand.

> As I've said elsewhere, pointing out hypocrisy usually gets you nowhere in an argument.

It does sometimes gets you somewhere. Hypocrisy implies the (often moral) concern over the accusation is not a genuine one, that the accusers are merely criticising to advance their agenda. If an agenda is involved, then whatever the accuser says should be taken with some grain of salt.

Pointing out hypocrisy destroys the argument & the discussion as a whole, because it reveals that the other person is arguing in bad faith.

In case of Namecheap: it’s 100% complete bullshit when they say they hate war & invasions, and people are calling them out on that. Instead, they should say “we prefer when US invades, because we hate Russia” which would be much closer to the truth.

Maybe, just maybe, the two things you might think are alike, in fact are only superficially so.

Maybe, just maybe, the two things you might think are only superficially alike, bear a much deeper resemblance.

See how two can play at this absolutely pointless game of offering pithy remarks without any argument behind them?

Indeed. Usually people who lazily point out hypocrisy instead of making substantive arguments haven’t spent a modicum of effort to find and consider distinguishing characteristics that would make them think twice before posting. That’s what makes whataboutism so frustrating in what is supposed to be an intellectual forum. And it’s an attractive nuisance, so it leads to long threads such as this one.

Ah, yes. "What about whataboutism!?"

Calling out whataboutism is just a way to avoid explaining your inconsistent views. Often times people who call out whataboutism haven't really thought out their position.

No, I’m calling it out because it cheapens our discourse. We can, and should, have more substantive conversations here.

So instead of saying “whataboutism” you can tell us why it’s okay to be hypocritical, or why the situation is sufficiently different.

Making statements that are hypocritical cheapens discourse, and we can and should have more substantive conversations here.

You’re putting the burden of the work on the wrong party. It’s the lazy hypocrite hunter who needs to focus that energy making substantive arguments instead.

https://thenib.com/mister-gotcha/

>"It's not HN-caliber"

Are you suggesting that the hypocrisy is?

For all the problems with the US's actions in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention the run-up to them and their aftermaths), there's an enormous gulf between that and any equivalency to Russia invading Ukraine.

Iraq was a nation that had invaded and annexed a neighboring country, a scorched earth retreat, committed domestic human rights abuses, had attempted to acquire various WMDs in the recent past, and had perpetrated chemical weapon attacks. Afghanistan was knowingly sheltering a group that repeatedly targeted and killed Americans worldwide, culminating in the deadliest attack on civilians in world history.

Again, that's not to say war was the best option on the table, nor no blood on the hands of the US in the end... but not a single one of these justifications for war applies to Russia invading Ukraine.

As another commenter said, the morality of military force is a spectrum of grays, not black and white – but just because criticism can be found in every case doesn't mean every one is equally unjustified or amoral.

> Why don’t you cut off United States citizens while you are at it? The regime that has probably done more damage and caused more instability to the world than any other country.

Is this true? My understanding was that (despite the current conflict), the world has been experiencing a rather unique period of relative peace under US hegemony compared to the past. This is obviously true when looking at timescales since the late 19th/early 20th centuries [https://oneearthfuture.org/opinion-insights/world-getting-mo...]. Clearly the world has been significantly less violent since WW2, which is the time that the US became a superpower.

Datapoints on prior eras are significantly less robust, but the US wasn't a leader at those points anyway. We do know that wars were widespread and brutal, despite having much less advanced weaponry, and we know that life expectancies are far longer today than in the past.

> Again, this doesn’t EXCUSE the actions of the Russian government, but taking their people hostage to use as leverage is disgusting and despicable.

This is how economic sanctions work. What's the alternative? Do nothing? Economic sanctions place pressure on the politicians in the aggressive nation to stop their aggression. The alternatives are to do nothing (morally unfathomable) or to fight them (in which case Russians will die, and if Putin's threats are believed, maybe we all die).

I find it concerning and perplexing that so many hackers are seemingly more concerned about Russia's economy than Ukrainian lives. Every day the conflict goes on, Ukrainians die (and if you're so concerned about economy - their economy is getting destroyed too!). Logically, anything that moves us towards ending the conflict peacefully and quickly reduces lives lost and will spare all involved from further economic retribution.

Additionally, this is personal for Namecheap. Imagine being bombed by a country and having strangers tell you that you have to keep providing services to members the country that is killing your friends, family, or even you! You must continue serving the country that is bombing your home! It is truly absurd.