Regardless; your enemies are not my enemies. Even then: Sanctioning occupied territories only serves to push the occupied territory further into the occupiers hands.

This moral superiority about expecting people from other places to do what we don’t would be hilarious if it was completely outrageous

We’re expecting normal people to stand up against armed regimes while around the world our governments commit the worst human crimes while we’re zapping on netflix I have absolutely no words, I’m terrified

There's no democratic and prosperous country that isn't aligned with the USA somehow.

Russia had the chance to become a country like that in the 90s, but they chose to have another tsar instead.

There was a real possibility that Russia could have joined Europe, but something got broken along the way.

I'm not sure that USA is really a strong ally of Europe. It's something in-between. US has its own interests before all.

They would lend us (Europe) money and sell us weapons in case we go to war, but a friend giving you a loan and making profit out of you isn't really that great friend.

The USA is not perfect, but there isn't anyone else out there.

Beggars can't be choosers. Especially after European NATO members underinvested in defence for decades and refused to see Russia as a threat that it is.

Not that long ago France even attempted to sell them aircraft carriers.

Not very great choices. Also only Russia and China would be safe for people like Snowden or Assange.

Add "NATO", "Russophobia", "Nazis", "Western" and other keywords in the soup and you have the perfect anti-Western speech.

It's not even a Western tool.

Sanctions are a tool to refuse to trade with opponent regimes, and it works both ways (China has sanctions on the West too, for example on semiconductors. Russia has sanctions too against the West).

It's not perfect, and it has side-effects, but overall it deters other countries / terrorist organizations to follow the same path of taking an hostile posture against you.

If you let people go around sanctions, then becoming hostile will simply have no consequences.

If there are no consequences to actions, and there is a big prize to win, then the politics will do it, no matter what.

Interesting quote:

> In April 2023, the Australian government released their 2023 national review where it is outright stated that the age of American unipolarity and primacy in the Indo- Pacific is effectively over, paving way to great power competition and a more fractious world order.

It's new to me that Australia is known to spread Russo-Chinese propaganda either.

If you want to work for them, reach out to them. Maybe they need more people like us still :)

And; if you lived in Laos, Cuba, Cambodia or Afganistan: you would currently be taking the opposite stance.

We owe it to ourselves to not permit the affectations of propaganda to convince us that we are consistently right, the truth on the ground is much more complicated.

I certainly believe Crimea is an invaded territory of Ukraine, but I cannot pretend that it's a wise notion to demerit the entire conflict down to "Crimea is in Ukraine".

It does nothing to help the people there, and is completely meaningless in the face of my initial comment: that while I could sell games to Ukrainians, I could not allow them to play from within Crimea... a territory you claim; is Ukraine. The implicit argument you just made is that we have created sanctions against Ukraine itself.

These documents are illegal and have no meaning.

> I certainly believe Crimea is an invaded territory of Ukraine, but I cannot pretend that it's a wise notion to demerit the entire conflict down to "Crimea is in Ukraine".

And then you are trying to legitimise the Russian invasion. Come on. Most intelligent people see through this, comrade.

Practically they are required for many domestic tasks, and Russia won't let you leave the region with a real passport so you need one to get out. The European Union has emphasized to its member states that possession of one of these "passports" should also expedite the issuance of a humanitarian/refugee passport.

In this conflict, I agree with you 100% - fuck Putin.

On the other hand, many international organisations don't recognise Taiwan as a country, whereas in my mind it's clearly a country for obvious reasons. So I don't consider international recognition to be the be-all-and-end-all of which borders lie where.

"No meaning"? That seems like a meaningless statement.

> And then you are trying to legitimise the Russian invasion.

Not everyone is a soldier in your ideological (and literal in this case) war. People can have nuanced views for nuanced reasons.

And, most likely, your personal allegiance would be Russian.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Crimea#Ethnici...

And I'm not saying considering yourself Russian means you have allegiance to Russia, but I think there is a strong correlation between the two. Even if there's less of a correlation than I think, the percentage which considers themselves Russian is over twice that of the percentage which considers themselves Ukrainian. Maybe the Tatars align more with Ukraine than Russia, improving the balance, but idk.

Even though you have the results of "demographics" survey of 1989 that put "Russian" populace at 67%.

This gives us a great idea of how likely a Crimean who considers themselves Russian would actually vote between the two and that while the correlation is strong, it might not be strong enough to suggest Crimeans would favor Russia and while Crimea is still clearly, the most Russian-friendly Ukrainian state, the decision between the two is much closer than I previously thought.

Edit: to add, I have talked with a Crimean who supports Ukraine, but they say the outcome of a vote would very likely be pro-Russia, even before they started shipping Russians in and pre-occupation.

> but they say the outcome of a vote would very likely be pro-Russia, even before they started shipping Russians in and pre-occupation

I heard similar opinions too, but it might vary on who you ask. E.g. we talk about information bubbles on the Internet, but they exist IRL too. That is to say, hearsay is not proof. And even if it were true, one might keep in mind that the reasons for that might not be obvious. E.g. there had been a fair amount of anti-Ukrainian propaganda on the Russian state TV (which broadcasted in Crimea as well) starting with 2000s or so.

Or here's a thought exercise, from another perspective: would you say if US made a poll in Monterrey (Mexico) about whether the people in there wanted to join US, and >50% of them said yes, it would have been justifiable (in at least some practical sense) to annex it? Or Montreal/Canada, for example. It's close enough to the border.

I will do my best to go against that instinct and instead say;

1) I don't believe necessarily that Crimeans are "Russian"

2) I don't believe that we can talk about a countries people as being homogeneous.

3) I don't believe we should be deciding what liberty people should be entitled to, that feels decidedly totalitarian to me, it would be very easy to decide that you dear reader are not entitled to liberty either, since you implicitly support *gestures broadly*.

That being said, many people consider sanctions as an act of war[0] and if you think of them like that, well obviously it sucks, it's war and war-like consequences always suck for the people on the ground.

Just make sure when your boss asks you to implement geoblock bans for sanctions, do what you need to do and not more like trying to block VPN users or other shenanigans. Don't break the law but don't make it harder for people on the ground to use their right to internet access.

[0] https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2022/06/29/economic-sanctions-as-...

The thing is, I somewhat understand why the sanctions were placed decades ago, but... is that rationale still valid? Anyway, and sadly, the sanctions affect "regular" people like me the most. The ruling elite? Not at all.

Thank you for your position, BTW!

Let me give you an example: I can't open dell.com, at all. What I want to believe is that they blocked all access because it was easy, just a geo thingy flipped on. It is their decision though, but it is supported on existing sanctions. So... yes, the law compels them to do it, indirectly or not. And there are hundreds, thousands of other examples that I can provide, if you're interested.

This confirms my secondhand knowledge of financial sanctions. It seems to universally be this way and makes me wonder why we still tout them as if they were effective. They sure don’t seem to be.

False. There's a lot (the majority) of people from my close circle who were and are "upset", if I can put it this way. I don't have the statistics, but let's say that's 80/20 ratio (supporters/non-supporters), even though I personally believe it's closer to 50/50.

> fast-food, clothes

So you really think that limited access to the Internet and the fact that McDonalds is gone would force these 20% to get on the streets and fight against the heavily armed government forces AND the rest 80% of the country population? I mean, among the other reasons that come to mind, sanctions (movies, cars, clothes - what??) are somewhere at the very bottom of my list, if matter at all.

I was firmly planted in Malmö (3hrs train away) and had just signed to buy an apartment.