Spotify made a cowardly choice: to submit to the Kremlin(copyriot.se)
copyriot.se
Spotify made a cowardly choice: to submit to the Kremlin
https://copyriot.se/2022/03/05/spotify-made-a-cowardly-choice-to-submit-to-the-kremlin-rather-than-to-support-russian-dissenters/
121 comments
> The smart move for companies is to comply with these laws to a superficial extent while silently keeping as much dissident content online as possible and staying off the radar of regulators.
I don't disagree, but I think we also have to consider that a "PR stunt" by spotify would be part of boycotts by many, many other companies.
A hypothetical Russian that still has no clue what their government is doing will be magnitudes more likely to notice spotify stopped working, apple doesn't sell new devices, Ikea is closing, than accidentally find one slighly critical bit of content. All of this happening at once is very hard to ignore, also for pessimist apolitical persons (people who don't like putin, but won't do something against him as long as they can do their own thing). That kind of person is quite common in Eastern Europe to my experience.
Ofc the Russian government could frame this as everybody else being mean to them, and instead of making Russians critical it could polarize them in that way, so this is not clear cut the best strategy as well.
Maybe it would be even better to have them ban you for trying to speak truth to power (if this is possible without putting your staff in harms way).
I don't disagree, but I think we also have to consider that a "PR stunt" by spotify would be part of boycotts by many, many other companies.
A hypothetical Russian that still has no clue what their government is doing will be magnitudes more likely to notice spotify stopped working, apple doesn't sell new devices, Ikea is closing, than accidentally find one slighly critical bit of content. All of this happening at once is very hard to ignore, also for pessimist apolitical persons (people who don't like putin, but won't do something against him as long as they can do their own thing). That kind of person is quite common in Eastern Europe to my experience.
Ofc the Russian government could frame this as everybody else being mean to them, and instead of making Russians critical it could polarize them in that way, so this is not clear cut the best strategy as well.
Maybe it would be even better to have them ban you for trying to speak truth to power (if this is possible without putting your staff in harms way).
>A hypothetical Russian that still has no clue what their government is doing will be magnitudes more likely to notice spotify stopped working, apple doesn't sell new devices, Ikea is closing, than accidentally find one slighly critical bit of content.
Okay, then what? I guess the assumption is that once they find out, they will find an accurate/neutral representation of what's going on, and then go protest or whatever. What makes you think that'll be the case, rather than them being fed whatever anti-western propaganda the government has concocted? Has western sanctions made the people of north korea realize "what their government is doing"?
Okay, then what? I guess the assumption is that once they find out, they will find an accurate/neutral representation of what's going on, and then go protest or whatever. What makes you think that'll be the case, rather than them being fed whatever anti-western propaganda the government has concocted? Has western sanctions made the people of north korea realize "what their government is doing"?
This is more of an American thing - the slow and subtle ceding of autonomy and power to corporates, with the expectations that they should behave like country states and be political. It's a very dangerous idea that Americans are being slowly brainwashed into, to repose more and more faith on corporates than their own democracy! This is the kind of thinking that lead to imperialism, with the Dutch East India Company being the poster boy of the idea as the world's richest corporate, with one of the largest private army in the world conquering and even ruling colonies.
The idea that foreign companies shouldn't submit to the laws, rule and regulations of another country is a retrograde colonial idea that reeks of both racism and greed. CEOs are not elected representatives nor seasoned politicians.
The idea that foreign companies shouldn't submit to the laws, rule and regulations of another country is a retrograde colonial idea that reeks of both racism and greed. CEOs are not elected representatives nor seasoned politicians.
> The idea that foreign companies shouldn't submit to the laws, rule and regulations of another country is a retrograde colonial idea that reeks of both racism and greed.
More to the point, one cannot dictate the actions of another under pressure.
It's one thing to have a theoretical model of what others _should_ do when confronted with aggression.
It's quite another to stay on the theoretical course when confronted by state actors backed by guns.
Another dimension is those affected by our decisions. One might go down in a blaze of Leeroy Jenkins[1] glory if it's only oneself in the blaze.
If ones actions put others in harm's way, things tend to get far more cautious.
SUMMARY: it gets hard to be too harsh in these situations.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeroy_Jenkins
More to the point, one cannot dictate the actions of another under pressure.
It's one thing to have a theoretical model of what others _should_ do when confronted with aggression.
It's quite another to stay on the theoretical course when confronted by state actors backed by guns.
Another dimension is those affected by our decisions. One might go down in a blaze of Leeroy Jenkins[1] glory if it's only oneself in the blaze.
If ones actions put others in harm's way, things tend to get far more cautious.
SUMMARY: it gets hard to be too harsh in these situations.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leeroy_Jenkins
As much as I would like to agree with parts of your argument, I find it difficult. Maybe because I grew up in Germany and near the Iron Curtain to be more precise.
There is an alternative, as a company can either be organized around values like money, shareholder value, opportunism or values like still making money but not at all costs. Acting based on humanistic values.
This is a spectrum. And lots of grey between black and white. One could look to be one thing and behind the scenes actively act contrarian to this outside facade.
Take many examples of people or companies in oppressive regimes that use their influence to protect others.
For example out of personal interest I studied a lot of stories of people in the ranks of the NS regime (2nd World War) that did use their role to secure people being hunted by the state's ideology and others within the NS ranks. As well as many normal people.
People like from average Else up to government officials.
What I am incoherently rambling about is the fact that one can't always see the details from the outside while things unfold. These people would have been seen as part of the system. Not as actively working against it. Because if the later they would not have been able to work against the system.
On the other hand there were a lot of opportunistic people as well. That would have looked a lot like the other category of people described.
Maybe Spotify is just opportunistic. Maybe there is a hidden positive agenda. We don't yet know. So I would not try to have a definitive answer in my head.
There is an alternative, as a company can either be organized around values like money, shareholder value, opportunism or values like still making money but not at all costs. Acting based on humanistic values.
This is a spectrum. And lots of grey between black and white. One could look to be one thing and behind the scenes actively act contrarian to this outside facade.
Take many examples of people or companies in oppressive regimes that use their influence to protect others.
For example out of personal interest I studied a lot of stories of people in the ranks of the NS regime (2nd World War) that did use their role to secure people being hunted by the state's ideology and others within the NS ranks. As well as many normal people.
People like from average Else up to government officials.
What I am incoherently rambling about is the fact that one can't always see the details from the outside while things unfold. These people would have been seen as part of the system. Not as actively working against it. Because if the later they would not have been able to work against the system.
On the other hand there were a lot of opportunistic people as well. That would have looked a lot like the other category of people described.
Maybe Spotify is just opportunistic. Maybe there is a hidden positive agenda. We don't yet know. So I would not try to have a definitive answer in my head.
"to repose more and more faith on corporates than their own democracy! "
Corporations are a part of the system, that's the way it is.
You want an iPhone, it's not going to be your government that makes it.
While you do have a point ... it's a bit moot when we consider that 'corporatism' is at very minimum 'one of the pillars'.
FYI I would support Swedish government requiring a more comprehensive embargo.
Corporations are a part of the system, that's the way it is.
You want an iPhone, it's not going to be your government that makes it.
While you do have a point ... it's a bit moot when we consider that 'corporatism' is at very minimum 'one of the pillars'.
FYI I would support Swedish government requiring a more comprehensive embargo.
I appreciate this point but my take on this is that corporations are running scared of social media...paranoid of normies boycottong their brands. To me this is good and is what was predicted as the next wave of progress by people like William Grieder. Citizens voting with their dollars.
Mother's boycotted GE into leaving the weapons manufacturing business in the 1980s. There is an explicit policy against any type of weapons manufacturing inside the company to this day.
I do agree with your premise that this is inappropriate since power is supposed to rest with elected representatives but I until we ban corporations from political contributions (any activity) then we will have to live with bullying corporations via social media.
Mother's boycotted GE into leaving the weapons manufacturing business in the 1980s. There is an explicit policy against any type of weapons manufacturing inside the company to this day.
I do agree with your premise that this is inappropriate since power is supposed to rest with elected representatives but I until we ban corporations from political contributions (any activity) then we will have to live with bullying corporations via social media.
>running scared of social media... citizens voting with their dollars.
That's not an unreasonable idea, but the trouble I see is that those two concepts are surprisingly different. The din on social media is not reflective of the general citizenry. Think of almost any issue that the country is split fairly evenly on. How lopsided is the outrage on social media?
Right now, it's a weapon wielded by a minority, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad.
That's not an unreasonable idea, but the trouble I see is that those two concepts are surprisingly different. The din on social media is not reflective of the general citizenry. Think of almost any issue that the country is split fairly evenly on. How lopsided is the outrage on social media?
Right now, it's a weapon wielded by a minority, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad.
No, the 'smart move' for most companies is to withdraw.
Putin gains almost everything by having his censorship and then having Russians enjoy regular products and services.
Russians still support the war and incursion, at least partly due to propaganda, and they won't miss a beat (pun intended) whatever Spotify censors.
One of the most important things we can do to 'signal' to the Russian public that 'it's bad' is to pull products and services that they know and love.
It's not hugely material from an economic perspective (though it will definitely hit), but not having Starbucks, McDs, Coke, Nike, Spotify, Apple, Netflix - which means maybe no music, entertainment, sports, football - it's important.
It's one of the only ways that every day Russians can 'feel' that they are definitely begin excluded. You want this war? No lattes, Iron Mans, your Volvo will go into disrepair and your iPhone is degraded.
For some services, like Google, which is an 'access point outside of Russia' - it's the opposite, we should do everything we can to keep Russian ability to somehow 'get past the firewall' - that is where your strategy would apply.
But for consumers services, no - we should be withdrawing.
Today Fedex, MS, Volskwagen announced withdrawal. I believe Coke, Starbucks, McD will follow suit.
I should note that it seems the companies with the most 'boots on the ground, dispersed' have the toughest time. It's easy for digital companies to stop/start, harder for those with factories (i.e. Volvo), but even harder for those with broad brand awareness, a lot of local entities and possibly local supply chains, like McDs.
But McDs, though not very important, is kind of like the 'biggest symbol' as they were the thing that was had first after the Berlin Wall came down. Getting a McDs was a signal that the country had entered modernity. It's a bit perverse (!) but it's still populist. Most people like McD fries.
Putin gains almost everything by having his censorship and then having Russians enjoy regular products and services.
Russians still support the war and incursion, at least partly due to propaganda, and they won't miss a beat (pun intended) whatever Spotify censors.
One of the most important things we can do to 'signal' to the Russian public that 'it's bad' is to pull products and services that they know and love.
It's not hugely material from an economic perspective (though it will definitely hit), but not having Starbucks, McDs, Coke, Nike, Spotify, Apple, Netflix - which means maybe no music, entertainment, sports, football - it's important.
It's one of the only ways that every day Russians can 'feel' that they are definitely begin excluded. You want this war? No lattes, Iron Mans, your Volvo will go into disrepair and your iPhone is degraded.
For some services, like Google, which is an 'access point outside of Russia' - it's the opposite, we should do everything we can to keep Russian ability to somehow 'get past the firewall' - that is where your strategy would apply.
But for consumers services, no - we should be withdrawing.
Today Fedex, MS, Volskwagen announced withdrawal. I believe Coke, Starbucks, McD will follow suit.
I should note that it seems the companies with the most 'boots on the ground, dispersed' have the toughest time. It's easy for digital companies to stop/start, harder for those with factories (i.e. Volvo), but even harder for those with broad brand awareness, a lot of local entities and possibly local supply chains, like McDs.
But McDs, though not very important, is kind of like the 'biggest symbol' as they were the thing that was had first after the Berlin Wall came down. Getting a McDs was a signal that the country had entered modernity. It's a bit perverse (!) but it's still populist. Most people like McD fries.
> Here we may take a break to consider the fact that Russian is not only the language of one country, Russia. It is also the native language for millions of Ukrainians and Belarusians. Therefore it is far from obvious that a Russian-language podcast initiative should be based in Russia.
The fact that some people speak Russian in Ukraine/Belarus does not mean that it’s better to do it there. This is like trying to make an English-language podcast initiative in Republic of Ireland just because English is also the language spoken there. Furthermore, as far as I know Ukraine try to promote Ukrainian language more to distant further from Russia. Hence I don’t think it’s that crazy that they opt for Russia-based office rather than elsewhere, also the fact that there are more Russians meaning that they have bigger target audience.
The fact that some people speak Russian in Ukraine/Belarus does not mean that it’s better to do it there. This is like trying to make an English-language podcast initiative in Republic of Ireland just because English is also the language spoken there. Furthermore, as far as I know Ukraine try to promote Ukrainian language more to distant further from Russia. Hence I don’t think it’s that crazy that they opt for Russia-based office rather than elsewhere, also the fact that there are more Russians meaning that they have bigger target audience.
Full quote, emphasis mine:
> Here we may take a break to consider the fact that Russian is not only the language of one country, Russia. It is also the native language for millions of Ukrainians and Belarusians. Therefore it is far from obvious that a Russian-language podcast initiative should be based in Russia. For an organization serious about defending free speech, it might have made more sense to locate the office in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv: a predominantly Russian-speaking city, which in recent years has also served as a refuge for many dissidents from Russia and Belarus.
Also, earlier:
> Yet, a better alternative would have been to keep operating, while declaring openly that their media machine will be available for the dissidents in Russia
To read an article like that and and come away thinking the argument being made is "Russian is spoken in Ukraine and Belarus therefore it should be based there" is... well, unlikely tbh.
> Here we may take a break to consider the fact that Russian is not only the language of one country, Russia. It is also the native language for millions of Ukrainians and Belarusians. Therefore it is far from obvious that a Russian-language podcast initiative should be based in Russia. For an organization serious about defending free speech, it might have made more sense to locate the office in the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv: a predominantly Russian-speaking city, which in recent years has also served as a refuge for many dissidents from Russia and Belarus.
Also, earlier:
> Yet, a better alternative would have been to keep operating, while declaring openly that their media machine will be available for the dissidents in Russia
To read an article like that and and come away thinking the argument being made is "Russian is spoken in Ukraine and Belarus therefore it should be based there" is... well, unlikely tbh.
I wanted to add a bit of footnote commentary on how I understand Russian to be spoken in Ukraine.
Millions of native Ukrainians, especially in the eastern side of Ukraine, exclusively speak Russian, and in fact speak it much better than Ukrainian. [1] (Almost all Ukrainians understand Ukrainian perfectly fine, and even study it in school, but a large contingent don't speak it as their mother tongue.) It's much, much more than just "some Ukrainians", and in fact, it's part of what characteristically and culturally distinguishes some eastern and western/rural and urban regions of Ukraine. [2]
Going into anecdotal territory: This was surprising to me. I hosted a family native to Kharkiv and discussed this topic. I'd think speaking Ukrainian would be a part of one's heritage worth preserving, so it was surprising that speaking Ukrainian wasn't a fluent affair for them, and they also didn't have much interest in promoting the language. Their remarks, extremely simplified, were basically that Russian is so broadly understood that it is just efficient to use, especially because of the internet. They don't want the Ukrainian language to die, but they also don't find it as a practical "daily driver". Their children know Ukrainian from having to learn it in school (but don't really speak it), and their grand-children—who moved to the USA—don't know it at all and only speak Russian.
I'm less familiar with Belarus, but it was an almost identical sentiment about Russian and Belarusian for a Minsk-native family that hosted me.
[1] "Russian is the native language of 29.6% of Ukraine's population [...]." "According to a survey conducted in 2006-2007 by Gallup, 83% of the respondents preferred to conduct the Gallup interview in Russian." "For the preferred language of work, an equal amount chose either Ukrainian or Russian (37%) and 21% communicated bilingually. The study polled 10,071 individuals and held a 1% margin of error." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ukraine
[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Uk...
Millions of native Ukrainians, especially in the eastern side of Ukraine, exclusively speak Russian, and in fact speak it much better than Ukrainian. [1] (Almost all Ukrainians understand Ukrainian perfectly fine, and even study it in school, but a large contingent don't speak it as their mother tongue.) It's much, much more than just "some Ukrainians", and in fact, it's part of what characteristically and culturally distinguishes some eastern and western/rural and urban regions of Ukraine. [2]
Going into anecdotal territory: This was surprising to me. I hosted a family native to Kharkiv and discussed this topic. I'd think speaking Ukrainian would be a part of one's heritage worth preserving, so it was surprising that speaking Ukrainian wasn't a fluent affair for them, and they also didn't have much interest in promoting the language. Their remarks, extremely simplified, were basically that Russian is so broadly understood that it is just efficient to use, especially because of the internet. They don't want the Ukrainian language to die, but they also don't find it as a practical "daily driver". Their children know Ukrainian from having to learn it in school (but don't really speak it), and their grand-children—who moved to the USA—don't know it at all and only speak Russian.
I'm less familiar with Belarus, but it was an almost identical sentiment about Russian and Belarusian for a Minsk-native family that hosted me.
[1] "Russian is the native language of 29.6% of Ukraine's population [...]." "According to a survey conducted in 2006-2007 by Gallup, 83% of the respondents preferred to conduct the Gallup interview in Russian." "For the preferred language of work, an equal amount chose either Ukrainian or Russian (37%) and 21% communicated bilingually. The study polled 10,071 individuals and held a 1% margin of error." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_Ukraine
[2] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/4/4f/Uk...
This happens also in catalonia (Spain) where I'm from.
Internet has made the breach greater, we might have great catalan poets from centuries ago, and a rich culture and history, but no youtuber will stream in catalan when in spanish they reach a 100x audience for example...
I'm glad I learnt it as my mother tongue though, being bilingual makes both learning other languages easier, and latin is like the wildcard of word roots for all of 'em (I can speak well English, Spanish, Catalan, and some French)
YMMV
Internet has made the breach greater, we might have great catalan poets from centuries ago, and a rich culture and history, but no youtuber will stream in catalan when in spanish they reach a 100x audience for example...
I'm glad I learnt it as my mother tongue though, being bilingual makes both learning other languages easier, and latin is like the wildcard of word roots for all of 'em (I can speak well English, Spanish, Catalan, and some French)
YMMV
I think it can be compared to e.g. The Irish learning Gaelic. It's part of the identity for some and spoken in the west of the island by a few. The government invests in keeping the heritage alive and you see it e.g. in how names are written. But many Irish don't speak a word of Gaelic without feeling less Irish as a result.
Ukrainian is a bit like that except it's easier to learn if you already speak Russian.
I am not sure if how well a language is spoken is a good metric.
As an example, a lot of older people do not speak fully correct Catalan, since it was prohibited during decades and they could not learn it formally.
As an example, a lot of older people do not speak fully correct Catalan, since it was prohibited during decades and they could not learn it formally.
There is nothing bold about halting trade with Russia right now; as far as can be told there is a great deal of social and political support for anyone making such a choice.
To be honest, companies making emotional decisions is more concerning to me. It is reasonable and to be encouraged if businesses want to be a moral-less dumb pipe. Spotify is not equipped to make geopolitical judgements about what is and isn't a just war or propaganda & can achieve nothing against the Russian military. If they just stick to following the law that is fine. If something is required of them then the military leadership can ask them to do it.
To be honest, companies making emotional decisions is more concerning to me. It is reasonable and to be encouraged if businesses want to be a moral-less dumb pipe. Spotify is not equipped to make geopolitical judgements about what is and isn't a just war or propaganda & can achieve nothing against the Russian military. If they just stick to following the law that is fine. If something is required of them then the military leadership can ask them to do it.
This is an extreme position, and IMO unrealistic.
The key term here is "a moral-less dumb pipe."
I'm not sure it's even realistic to expect "dumb pipes" to me morally neutral, but that doesn't matter because Spotify is not trying to be a dumb pipe.
This is about podcasting, so let's stick with that. We already have/had a dumb pipe for podcasting. RSS. Podcasting is more free than most online media specifically for this reason. It uses an open protocol instead of a corporate platform. Notice how there is no post about RSS' policy regarding this war.
Spotify is, currently, trying to obtain exclusivity over top podcasts... taking podcasts off the "dumb pipe." The goal is to eventually dominate podcasting as they do streaming music. That's the opposite of platform neutrality, dumb pipes, decentralized moral choices, etc.
If you want dumb pipes, that idea is not really compatible with corporate fiefdoms in 2022 practice.
I'm not sure it's even realistic to expect "dumb pipes" to me morally neutral, but that doesn't matter because Spotify is not trying to be a dumb pipe.
This is about podcasting, so let's stick with that. We already have/had a dumb pipe for podcasting. RSS. Podcasting is more free than most online media specifically for this reason. It uses an open protocol instead of a corporate platform. Notice how there is no post about RSS' policy regarding this war.
Spotify is, currently, trying to obtain exclusivity over top podcasts... taking podcasts off the "dumb pipe." The goal is to eventually dominate podcasting as they do streaming music. That's the opposite of platform neutrality, dumb pipes, decentralized moral choices, etc.
If you want dumb pipes, that idea is not really compatible with corporate fiefdoms in 2022 practice.
> This is an extreme position, and IMO unrealistic.
We're watching an escalating conflict that could easily involve nuclear armed powers. Maybe we should try something extreme that doesn't involve asking Spotify to escalate the situation further? Heaven help us, now is the time to be de-escalating rather than throwing more sticks and stones at Russia that do nothing but annoy people.
We're watching an escalating conflict that could easily involve nuclear armed powers. Maybe we should try something extreme that doesn't involve asking Spotify to escalate the situation further? Heaven help us, now is the time to be de-escalating rather than throwing more sticks and stones at Russia that do nothing but annoy people.
I don't see how this relates to my comment. Where did I imply that spotify should escalate, or do anything for that matter?
How is it that you think a corporation is not capable of making geopolitical judgments? You don't think they have a PR department? You don't think they have leadership that can read the news?
“Reading the news” hardly gives you the ability to make geopolitical judgments.
> Al Kelly, chairman and chief executive officer of Visa Inc., said in a statement: “This war and the ongoing threat to peace and stability demand we respond in line with our values.”
From the New York Times. Someone seems to be able to make these judgements. Also kind of absurd given Corporations status as legally people in the US. If they get those protections, shouldn't they also bear the responsibilities?
From the New York Times. Someone seems to be able to make these judgements. Also kind of absurd given Corporations status as legally people in the US. If they get those protections, shouldn't they also bear the responsibilities?
Why not? How else would you make geopolitical judgments?
The traditional way has been to organise a panel of bureaucrats and a large diplomatic/informant network spread over multiple countries, where individuals often have multiple decades of experience in their area of the globe. Which still throws up some pretty terrible misjudgements; but that is the baseline for a serious try.
Any group who's state of the art information gathering includes having "a PR department" and reading the news shouldn't be trying to make moral judgements in countries half a world away. They're going to get it wrong, regularly, and start sanctioning people who shouldn't be sanctioned. The news is not reliable enough to make snap commercial decisions.
The only strategy that works in practice at scale is providing a dumb service. These companies are not up to the job of international politics, it is too fraught. If they think they can dip a toe in safely they're just taking on risk for no real gain. At best they can maybe blindly support the US position, which is the more morally questionable side a fair chunk of the time. Ukraine is unusual for me in that a country is being invaded and the US troops aren't explicitly involved.
Any group who's state of the art information gathering includes having "a PR department" and reading the news shouldn't be trying to make moral judgements in countries half a world away. They're going to get it wrong, regularly, and start sanctioning people who shouldn't be sanctioned. The news is not reliable enough to make snap commercial decisions.
The only strategy that works in practice at scale is providing a dumb service. These companies are not up to the job of international politics, it is too fraught. If they think they can dip a toe in safely they're just taking on risk for no real gain. At best they can maybe blindly support the US position, which is the more morally questionable side a fair chunk of the time. Ukraine is unusual for me in that a country is being invaded and the US troops aren't explicitly involved.
reading the news shouldn't be trying to make moral judgements in countries half a world away
How should we make moral judgments about what’s going on in the world?
How is deciding to be a dumb service in a country when clearly innocent people are dying as a result of official actions of that country not a moral judgment? Or should we just not care?
How should we make moral judgments about what’s going on in the world?
How is deciding to be a dumb service in a country when clearly innocent people are dying as a result of official actions of that country not a moral judgment? Or should we just not care?
> How is deciding to be a dumb service in a country when clearly innocent people are dying as a result of official actions of that country not a moral judgment?
Because it is a position that fundamentally says "I don't know how reliable this information is". Obviously if we took news at face value then it would be necessary to approach the world very differently than people do. But the media lies/is wrong/works to sway consensus/doesn't uncover the most important issues/are only human and so it would be stupid to respond to everything that gets reported.
There hasn't been a crisis in my lifetime where the consensus position 10 days in was useful for making good decisions. People were still saying COVID wasn't human transmissible and laughing at peppers at this point, for example. Or Iraq, my go-to comparison, where people were convinced Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The news coming out about the Russia/Ukraine war is unreliable no matter how much people think that this time it will be an open and shut case.
At some point people have to bow to overwhelming evidence that even though every single time it looks like this time is different, it probably isn't different. The reliable information here is that Russia has invaded the Ukraine. That isn't enough reason for businesses to start throwing out random punitive mini-sanctions. We've seen a lot of invasions over history and that isn't a usual or useful response.
Because it is a position that fundamentally says "I don't know how reliable this information is". Obviously if we took news at face value then it would be necessary to approach the world very differently than people do. But the media lies/is wrong/works to sway consensus/doesn't uncover the most important issues/are only human and so it would be stupid to respond to everything that gets reported.
There hasn't been a crisis in my lifetime where the consensus position 10 days in was useful for making good decisions. People were still saying COVID wasn't human transmissible and laughing at peppers at this point, for example. Or Iraq, my go-to comparison, where people were convinced Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The news coming out about the Russia/Ukraine war is unreliable no matter how much people think that this time it will be an open and shut case.
At some point people have to bow to overwhelming evidence that even though every single time it looks like this time is different, it probably isn't different. The reliable information here is that Russia has invaded the Ukraine. That isn't enough reason for businesses to start throwing out random punitive mini-sanctions. We've seen a lot of invasions over history and that isn't a usual or useful response.
If you are not sure what’s going on, then yes, I agree with you. But what if you’re sure? Personally I have received enough information to be sure about what’s happening there. Maybe the Spotify’s CEO feels the same way you do. But if not - he should make a moral judgment and prioritize that over profits. This is what great men do.
Sure about what?
At any given time it is normal for the US to be engaged in active invasion or occupation of multiple countries. Nobody is calling for Spotify to boycott US propaganda. The parts we can be sure of don't justify anything other than business as usual. Which is typical.
At any given time it is normal for the US to be engaged in active invasion or occupation of multiple countries. Nobody is calling for Spotify to boycott US propaganda. The parts we can be sure of don't justify anything other than business as usual. Which is typical.
Agree to disagree.
[deleted]
Honestly? You shouldn't. There is so much we aren't privy to, and today's 240-character news cycle is full of rumor, hearsay, and lies, so any opinion or judgement formed is almost guaranteed to be flawed.
> Spotify is not equipped to make geopolitical judgements about what is and isn't a just war or propaganda
how hard it is? when only one of the 2 sides bombs civilians and causes millions of people to run away (as of now 1.4M, mostly women/children/elderly, have already crossed the border while many more is still running toward the border) just for the reason of ethnical difference, and thus committing genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Edit in response to comment below:
>No one had ever mentioned Ukrainians being "discriminated" by Russians before the war
well, sounds like you are completely unfamiliar with history there. I'm btw a Russian, half-Ukrainian, and your lecture here on that national issue is just fully incorrect.
>This is a desperate attempt by some Ukrainians to paint a picture of Russia as being equivalent to Nazi Germany, playing the same Hitler card that Putin did to start the war.
that is just Russian propaganda, and completely unsupported by any facts.
>They are doing that to try to make the West feel morally obliged to act even if that means war spreads to the whole of Europe and potentially, turns into a nuclear war.
that again is Russian propaganda, trying to scare the West by nukes.
>Even though there is a lot of suffering happening in Ukraine
the suffering has ethnical reason and thus it is genocide
> and Russia is indeed bombing cities in the fight with the Ukrainian army
that it Russian propaganda. Russia is bombing cities without any connection to any fight. Just look at all those aftermath videos - there is no Ukrainian tanks/etc among the destroyed buildings/etc. For example, today they shot down a pilot bombing a city and interviewed him - "They told us the city was empty", and of course he lied as it was a guy well known for his Syrian civilian bombings. He didn't even try to say anything about any military targets.
On the other side there are tons of videos of Russian armor burnt in the cities. Why did they come into cities endangering the civilians?
how hard it is? when only one of the 2 sides bombs civilians and causes millions of people to run away (as of now 1.4M, mostly women/children/elderly, have already crossed the border while many more is still running toward the border) just for the reason of ethnical difference, and thus committing genocide and ethnic cleansing.
Edit in response to comment below:
>No one had ever mentioned Ukrainians being "discriminated" by Russians before the war
well, sounds like you are completely unfamiliar with history there. I'm btw a Russian, half-Ukrainian, and your lecture here on that national issue is just fully incorrect.
>This is a desperate attempt by some Ukrainians to paint a picture of Russia as being equivalent to Nazi Germany, playing the same Hitler card that Putin did to start the war.
that is just Russian propaganda, and completely unsupported by any facts.
>They are doing that to try to make the West feel morally obliged to act even if that means war spreads to the whole of Europe and potentially, turns into a nuclear war.
that again is Russian propaganda, trying to scare the West by nukes.
>Even though there is a lot of suffering happening in Ukraine
the suffering has ethnical reason and thus it is genocide
> and Russia is indeed bombing cities in the fight with the Ukrainian army
that it Russian propaganda. Russia is bombing cities without any connection to any fight. Just look at all those aftermath videos - there is no Ukrainian tanks/etc among the destroyed buildings/etc. For example, today they shot down a pilot bombing a city and interviewed him - "They told us the city was empty", and of course he lied as it was a guy well known for his Syrian civilian bombings. He didn't even try to say anything about any military targets.
On the other side there are tons of videos of Russian armor burnt in the cities. Why did they come into cities endangering the civilians?
> just for the reason of ethnical difference...
How the hell has this suddenly become an explanation for the war (or even a thing in the first place)??? No one had ever mentioned Ukrainians being "discriminated" by Russians before the war, quite the opposite, Russian-ethnics and Ukrainians have lived peacefully in Ukraine AND Russia for generations (except for a small minority of far-right nationalists).
> committing genocide and ethnic cleansing.
This is a desperate attempt by some Ukrainians to paint a picture of Russia as being equivalent to Nazi Germany, playing the same Hitler card that Putin did to start the war.
They are doing that to try to make the West feel morally obliged to act even if that means war spreads to the whole of Europe and potentially, turns into a nuclear war.
Even though there is a lot of suffering happening in Ukraine and Russia is indeed bombing cities in the fight with the Ukrainian army, it's an absolute disgrace to compare that to a genocide, and the claim Russia is trying to ethnically cleanse Ukraine should be as strongly rejected as the claim by Russia that Ukraine is governed by people with Nazi beliefs, both being ridiculous.
How the hell has this suddenly become an explanation for the war (or even a thing in the first place)??? No one had ever mentioned Ukrainians being "discriminated" by Russians before the war, quite the opposite, Russian-ethnics and Ukrainians have lived peacefully in Ukraine AND Russia for generations (except for a small minority of far-right nationalists).
> committing genocide and ethnic cleansing.
This is a desperate attempt by some Ukrainians to paint a picture of Russia as being equivalent to Nazi Germany, playing the same Hitler card that Putin did to start the war.
They are doing that to try to make the West feel morally obliged to act even if that means war spreads to the whole of Europe and potentially, turns into a nuclear war.
Even though there is a lot of suffering happening in Ukraine and Russia is indeed bombing cities in the fight with the Ukrainian army, it's an absolute disgrace to compare that to a genocide, and the claim Russia is trying to ethnically cleanse Ukraine should be as strongly rejected as the claim by Russia that Ukraine is governed by people with Nazi beliefs, both being ridiculous.
> This is a desperate attempt by some Ukrainians to paint a picture of Russia as being equivalent to Nazi Germany, playing the same Hitler card that Putin did to start the war.
You can't deny there's similarity in how they operate, the excuses they used for "reasons" ( that's not a country, people there are Russian) and the even flimsier excuses they used for the "provocation" (false flag operations) they're "responding" to. There's even the "foreign element we just want to get rid of"(Nazis vs Judeo-Bolsheviks).
Heck, even their strategy is similar, and they even get slowed down by the same mud.
The comparisons are very apt.
Yes, it is a genocide to try to clean out the local population of a city through destruction to settle it with your own (Mariupol).
You can't deny there's similarity in how they operate, the excuses they used for "reasons" ( that's not a country, people there are Russian) and the even flimsier excuses they used for the "provocation" (false flag operations) they're "responding" to. There's even the "foreign element we just want to get rid of"(Nazis vs Judeo-Bolsheviks).
Heck, even their strategy is similar, and they even get slowed down by the same mud.
The comparisons are very apt.
Yes, it is a genocide to try to clean out the local population of a city through destruction to settle it with your own (Mariupol).
No, I can deny, there's no similarity at all.. There's no concentration camps. There's no gas chambers. There's no ideology of a supreme race. Nothing at all is similar.
While I do agree Putin's speech was based on flimsy excuses, the actual trigger of the war was the West's refusal to accept Russian terms in their ultimatum[1], which you seem to have forgotten, which only asked one thing of Ukraine: to abandon plans to join NATO.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-...
While I do agree Putin's speech was based on flimsy excuses, the actual trigger of the war was the West's refusal to accept Russian terms in their ultimatum[1], which you seem to have forgotten, which only asked one thing of Ukraine: to abandon plans to join NATO.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/dec/17/russia-issues-...
> the actual trigger of the war was the West's refusal to accept Russian terms in their ultimatum
The actual trigger of the war was Putin’s order to invade. The list of demands issued to the West prior wasn't even cited as a pretext for the special military operation when it was announced, though it had some conceptual overlap with a subset of the very long lost of grievances and excuses cited in the announcement of the “special military operation”.
> which only asked one thing of Ukraine: to abandon plans to join NATO.
This is true in a sense: the only thing the ultimatum demanded of Ukraine was that it be permanently prohibited from entering NATO. BUT it also demanded of NATO that it be permanently banned from any further expansion, that it withdraw all troops and equipment from all countries that joined NATO after 1997 (which is a weird date, as no countries were admitted to NATO between 1990 and 1999, so it really means 1990), and that it be banned from holding drills in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, or the Caucasus without advance permission from Russia.
While the invasion was targeted at Ukraine, the ultimatum was targeted at NATO, and specifically at removing it's capacity to interfere should Russia choose to invade, or threaten to invade as a means of dictating internal policies, it's neighbors (including existing NATO members) in the future.
The actual trigger of the war was Putin’s order to invade. The list of demands issued to the West prior wasn't even cited as a pretext for the special military operation when it was announced, though it had some conceptual overlap with a subset of the very long lost of grievances and excuses cited in the announcement of the “special military operation”.
> which only asked one thing of Ukraine: to abandon plans to join NATO.
This is true in a sense: the only thing the ultimatum demanded of Ukraine was that it be permanently prohibited from entering NATO. BUT it also demanded of NATO that it be permanently banned from any further expansion, that it withdraw all troops and equipment from all countries that joined NATO after 1997 (which is a weird date, as no countries were admitted to NATO between 1990 and 1999, so it really means 1990), and that it be banned from holding drills in Ukraine, Eastern Europe, or the Caucasus without advance permission from Russia.
While the invasion was targeted at Ukraine, the ultimatum was targeted at NATO, and specifically at removing it's capacity to interfere should Russia choose to invade, or threaten to invade as a means of dictating internal policies, it's neighbors (including existing NATO members) in the future.
I can agree with you on most points. Where we seem to disagree is at the point where subjectivity is required to interpret the intentions of either side.
> BUT it also demanded of NATO that it be permanently banned from any further expansion...
That was not a demand that involved Ukraine, and my assertion about what the ultimatum asked "of Ukraine", not of NATO. So there's no disagreement here. The other demands were unacceptable to the West, but probably thrown in for leverage in negotiations, but the West's response was that even Ukraine not joining NATO was out of the question, so we'll never know for sure if that would've been enough to prevent war.
> the ultimatum was targeted at NATO, and specifically at removing it's capacity to interfere should Russia choose to invade...
That's your interpretation of what the demands were aiming for... here's another:
"the ultimatum was targeted at NATO, and aimed specifically at stopping it from expanding into Russian neighbours and placing weapons there, including atomic weapons (which is a requirement of nations that join NATO[1]), threatening Russia right at its border."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
> BUT it also demanded of NATO that it be permanently banned from any further expansion...
That was not a demand that involved Ukraine, and my assertion about what the ultimatum asked "of Ukraine", not of NATO. So there's no disagreement here. The other demands were unacceptable to the West, but probably thrown in for leverage in negotiations, but the West's response was that even Ukraine not joining NATO was out of the question, so we'll never know for sure if that would've been enough to prevent war.
> the ultimatum was targeted at NATO, and specifically at removing it's capacity to interfere should Russia choose to invade...
That's your interpretation of what the demands were aiming for... here's another:
"the ultimatum was targeted at NATO, and aimed specifically at stopping it from expanding into Russian neighbours and placing weapons there, including atomic weapons (which is a requirement of nations that join NATO[1]), threatening Russia right at its border."
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_sharing
> the West's response was that even Ukraine not joining NATO was out of the question,
No, it wasn't. Ukraine not joining NATO is the status quo. It is obviously acceptable to NATO, though Ukraine isn't too happy about it.
Ukraine’s response was that permanently ruling out NATO membership was unacceptable.
NATO's response was that every single other element was unacceptable, including the permanent ban on NATO expansion (which, of course, would ban Ukraine from membership whether or not Ukraine accepted what was demanded of it.)
> including atomic weapons (which is a requirement of nations that join NATO),
That description is simply false as a characterization of the nuclear sharing arrangement you cite to support it. NATO nuclear sharing agreements all predate the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and no country that has joined NATO since Turkey (and only a few of the earlier ones) has one. They are not required of countries that join NATO, or even available to them.
Also, pedantically, describing them as dealing with “atomic” weapons is incorrect, as that phrase refers to a specific subset of nuclear weapons, and all weapons known to be deployed under nuclear sharing arrangements — because it's what the dual-use aircraft they are tied to are made to deliver — are B61 thermonuclear, not atomic, bombs.
No, it wasn't. Ukraine not joining NATO is the status quo. It is obviously acceptable to NATO, though Ukraine isn't too happy about it.
Ukraine’s response was that permanently ruling out NATO membership was unacceptable.
NATO's response was that every single other element was unacceptable, including the permanent ban on NATO expansion (which, of course, would ban Ukraine from membership whether or not Ukraine accepted what was demanded of it.)
> including atomic weapons (which is a requirement of nations that join NATO),
That description is simply false as a characterization of the nuclear sharing arrangement you cite to support it. NATO nuclear sharing agreements all predate the Non-Proliferation Treaty, and no country that has joined NATO since Turkey (and only a few of the earlier ones) has one. They are not required of countries that join NATO, or even available to them.
Also, pedantically, describing them as dealing with “atomic” weapons is incorrect, as that phrase refers to a specific subset of nuclear weapons, and all weapons known to be deployed under nuclear sharing arrangements — because it's what the dual-use aircraft they are tied to are made to deliver — are B61 thermonuclear, not atomic, bombs.
> Ukraine: to abandon plans to join NATO.
No, for Ukraine and NATO to sign a guarantee Ukraine will never join NATO. Which is a ridiculous thing to ask, just like Danzig, or the Autro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia was. And of course, it was 1) deliberately unacceptable 2) all for show, as Kadyrov's leaked communications show ( he's talking about the impeding invasion weeks in advance).
The lack of complete parity doesn't impede drawing parallels where they exist, and there are a lot of them.
No, for Ukraine and NATO to sign a guarantee Ukraine will never join NATO. Which is a ridiculous thing to ask, just like Danzig, or the Autro-Hungarian ultimatum to Serbia was. And of course, it was 1) deliberately unacceptable 2) all for show, as Kadyrov's leaked communications show ( he's talking about the impeding invasion weeks in advance).
The lack of complete parity doesn't impede drawing parallels where they exist, and there are a lot of them.
> The lack of complete parity doesn't impede drawing parallels where they exist, and there are a lot of them.
The parallels you're drawing could've been drawn with every single other armed conflict in history.
The parallels you're drawing could've been drawn with every single other armed conflict in history.
Do share a few examples where:
* the aggressor makes an impossible to accept ultimatum
* claims their enemy isn't really of a different ethnicity and historically belongs to the aggressor
* stages false flag operations to excuse their invasion
None of these is in any way new, or revolutionary, and wasn't invented by the Nazis, or the Austrians in WWI, but it's not a mandatory element of every other armed conflict of history. And even if it were, it's still valid to compare to other such conflicts, like WWI and WWII, including the Nazis.
* the aggressor makes an impossible to accept ultimatum
* claims their enemy isn't really of a different ethnicity and historically belongs to the aggressor
* stages false flag operations to excuse their invasion
None of these is in any way new, or revolutionary, and wasn't invented by the Nazis, or the Austrians in WWI, but it's not a mandatory element of every other armed conflict of history. And even if it were, it's still valid to compare to other such conflicts, like WWI and WWII, including the Nazis.
2Gkashmiri(2)
> Spotify had opened a representative office in Moscow. [...] Why? Seemingly just to get a bit closer to the treasuries of the region’s greatest kleptocrats.
or maybe it's easier to hire talent in Moscow (a metropolis of 17M) than Kyiv (3M), sheesh
or maybe it's easier to hire talent in Moscow (a metropolis of 17M) than Kyiv (3M), sheesh
Why write such a dismissive comment when that’s not the point at all?
It captured the tone of the article to me, reading in too deep to motivations of a publically traded company where there might be easily explained, boring, financial incentives. Don't know why anyone expects a corporation to take the moral high ground.
Viewing a company as only having purely financial interests is very limited, IMO. Hey, let's sell hypermodern weaponry to the Russians and the Chinese. It'll make us a quick buck!
But you may well be right that that's all Spotify has, given their predatory business model. What's wrong pointing that out? Why would you even criticize that, given that it's that site's financial incentive?
But you may well be right that that's all Spotify has, given their predatory business model. What's wrong pointing that out? Why would you even criticize that, given that it's that site's financial incentive?
It's a business, not a charity.
> Don't know why anyone expects a corporation to take the moral high ground.
Because corporations belong to the biggest and most powerful entities on the planet and not holding them to high moral standards seems to many of us like a sure way into a dystopian future.
If a corporation is viewed as some sort of mega-organism that lives long, evolves, changes it's environment, etc. who else then humans shall try to keep these from turning the world into a bad place? Even staunch believers into the invisible hand of the market think that it is individuals who will guide the corporations into behaving in such ways that they benefit all of us.
Because corporations belong to the biggest and most powerful entities on the planet and not holding them to high moral standards seems to many of us like a sure way into a dystopian future.
If a corporation is viewed as some sort of mega-organism that lives long, evolves, changes it's environment, etc. who else then humans shall try to keep these from turning the world into a bad place? Even staunch believers into the invisible hand of the market think that it is individuals who will guide the corporations into behaving in such ways that they benefit all of us.
It's common to open local offices for ad sales.
As an R. Kelly fan, this does not surprise me all. Once censorship begins it’s easier and easier to follow that well worn path. A lot of people like to mock the idea of cancel culture and pretend that it doesn’t exist - you know, the plainly disingenuous types who will say “they are a private company” out of one side of their mouth while demanding gay wedding cakes get baked out of the other. And sure there are ostensible shallow moral victories to be enjoyed by shutting your enemies up. But this impulse to control what’s said and what’s heard in the public sphere sure seems more dangerous when the stakes are higher, and increasingly it isn’t just normalized, but encouraged.
> As an R. Kelly fan ...
okay i think i just hit enough HN comments for the day already.
okay i think i just hit enough HN comments for the day already.
> As an R. Kelly fan...
You mean Robert Sylvester Kelly, who was found guilty of one count of racketeering and 7 counts of violation of the Mann Act after a jury trial?
The same R Kelly that illegally married 15 year old Aaliyah in 1994?
The same R Kelly that is now facing further federal charges of child pornography and obstruction?
How is he or his cases in any way relevant to censorship or "cancel culture"?
The guy is a convicted child molester and has been a sleazy person for 25+ years.
You mean Robert Sylvester Kelly, who was found guilty of one count of racketeering and 7 counts of violation of the Mann Act after a jury trial?
The same R Kelly that illegally married 15 year old Aaliyah in 1994?
The same R Kelly that is now facing further federal charges of child pornography and obstruction?
How is he or his cases in any way relevant to censorship or "cancel culture"?
The guy is a convicted child molester and has been a sleazy person for 25+ years.
His sex crimes are unrelated to censorship or cancel culture. I agree with your non-controversial position that child abuse is abhorrent. I hope he is killed in prison. But I love his music, I still listen to it, and I'm not sorry for that.
The twitter mob against him that harassed Spotify into removing his music from their service is the literal epitome of cancel culture.
1. Take a consensus position (raping children is bad)
2. Repeat it over and over again, loudly, to make your actual point, which is that you are a good person. Not just because you don't rape children, but also because you are bravely amplifying this view that basically everyone holds
3. Make a public demand of a company that is tangentially related to the subject somehow, which if satisfied, will do exactly nothing to help or fix the problem
4. Form a mob of those interested in signalling their own virtue, who may or may not care about the motivating issue, to strong arm said company into compliance
5. Celebrate your hollow victory and briefly feel like you did something important (you did not)
The twitter mob against him that harassed Spotify into removing his music from their service is the literal epitome of cancel culture.
1. Take a consensus position (raping children is bad)
2. Repeat it over and over again, loudly, to make your actual point, which is that you are a good person. Not just because you don't rape children, but also because you are bravely amplifying this view that basically everyone holds
3. Make a public demand of a company that is tangentially related to the subject somehow, which if satisfied, will do exactly nothing to help or fix the problem
4. Form a mob of those interested in signalling their own virtue, who may or may not care about the motivating issue, to strong arm said company into compliance
5. Celebrate your hollow victory and briefly feel like you did something important (you did not)
Seems pretty relevant for the reasons you just stated.
Telling someone you can't like music from a child molester or that it has retroactively been deemed to not be good music is cancel card culture at its heart, the bread-and-butter most defensible part. Preventing people from procuring said music is obviously censorship.
Telling someone you can't like music from a child molester or that it has retroactively been deemed to not be good music is cancel card culture at its heart, the bread-and-butter most defensible part. Preventing people from procuring said music is obviously censorship.
[deleted]
> out of one side of their mouth while demanding gay wedding cakes get baked out of the other
Sexuality is a protected characteristic, and it's illegal to discriminate people based on such characteristics.
Sexuality is a protected characteristic, and it's illegal to discriminate people based on such characteristics.
The legality is entirely beside the point, although of note, in the case I referenced the Supreme Court found in a 7-2 decision that it was in fact legal to refuse to bake a cake for that particular gay wedding while being careful not to set a precedent. So your claim here is not universally true. Personally I would have baked the cake.
There is a contingent of the left that is happy when force and coercion are deployed so long as its done in a wider context that benefits their political aims. They argue that a baker must be forced to go against his personal values to further a particular goal that they support, but take up the exact opposite posture as soon as it suits them. For example, Twitter is a private company, of course they can ban you for saying that thing you said that doesn't conform with my political views.
At any rate, I was just trying to gesture towards a growing pack of vocal hypocrites, not re-litigate the baker decision.
There is a contingent of the left that is happy when force and coercion are deployed so long as its done in a wider context that benefits their political aims. They argue that a baker must be forced to go against his personal values to further a particular goal that they support, but take up the exact opposite posture as soon as it suits them. For example, Twitter is a private company, of course they can ban you for saying that thing you said that doesn't conform with my political views.
At any rate, I was just trying to gesture towards a growing pack of vocal hypocrites, not re-litigate the baker decision.
This doesn’t seem any more cowardly than YouTube’s decision to ban RT. Hard to claim to be on the side of free speech when American tech companies are censoring right and left.
[deleted]
RT propaganda is an organic part, a psyop, of the genocidal war in Ukraine. There is nothing about free speech in refusal to support genocidal war. If anything it is a duty of any normal person (and any company consisting of such people).
This isn’t a “genocidal” war.
Yes, it is. Russia wants to squash Ukraine out of existence. He’s going out of his way to get rid of the Ukrainian language and culture.
For him, Ukraine is a part of Russia, and its independence and own culture is a threat to Russia.
What is your argument that this isn’t genocidal, by definition?
For him, Ukraine is a part of Russia, and its independence and own culture is a threat to Russia.
What is your argument that this isn’t genocidal, by definition?
By your own claims, and the definition of genocide.
> the deliberate killing of a large number of people from a particular nation or ethnic group with the aim of destroying that nation or group.
How does this not describe what’s happening? Could you not be obtuse, please, and either argue your point in more depth or say you’re wrong?
How does this not describe what’s happening? Could you not be obtuse, please, and either argue your point in more depth or say you’re wrong?
Disclaimer: I am Russian, so you could count all of this as a russian propaganda.
We don't want to kill a large number of people at all. In the first days of war, our army even had an order to somehow skip the fights with regular army and fight only so-called "volunteer batallions" - these are real, patented, nazis (google "azov battalion nazis" and you could find a lot of interesting photos). Of course, they failed and right now it is a bloody mess. But look at the videos captured cities - our troops didn't event drop the ukrainian flag and there are demonstrations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JIaJTSWoqQ
Do you really think that this city looks like the city after the genocide? Come on.
What we really want is no NATO bases everywhere near our border and now looks like the only way (idk, maybe there were others, but Putin decided so) to do it is to destroy ukrainian state completely (the state, not the people).
We don't want to kill a large number of people at all. In the first days of war, our army even had an order to somehow skip the fights with regular army and fight only so-called "volunteer batallions" - these are real, patented, nazis (google "azov battalion nazis" and you could find a lot of interesting photos). Of course, they failed and right now it is a bloody mess. But look at the videos captured cities - our troops didn't event drop the ukrainian flag and there are demonstrations: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JIaJTSWoqQ
Do you really think that this city looks like the city after the genocide? Come on.
What we really want is no NATO bases everywhere near our border and now looks like the only way (idk, maybe there were others, but Putin decided so) to do it is to destroy ukrainian state completely (the state, not the people).
I know regular Russians don't want to kill their Ukrainian brothers. Come on. Most people in Europe know that (and the people blaming Russians directly are the same racist fucks picking fights with any random brown-skinned dude for "being al'qaeda").
But yes, some of what you're saying is indeed propaganda. This war is unjustified and unjustifiable. I would invite you to watch this video by a Belarusian lieutenant colonel, it's relevant: https://twitter.com/kopiganja/status/1498182268523016195
Now, I want to be clear: That Russian soldiers are disobeying, failing or retreating does not mean this is not a genocidal war. The objective is genocidal, but the objective is stupid enough that the smarter Russian soldiers aren't following it.
> What we really want is no NATO bases everywhere near our border and now looks like the only way (idk, maybe there were others, but Putin decided so) to do it is to destroy ukrainian state completely (the state, not the people).
Okay, well, that's very different from "wanting to eliminate nazis", isn't it? And yes, I know Putin doesn't want NATO on russian borders, but like you said, "maybe there were other [ways]", and choosing the bloodiest one is fucking psychopathic.
Furthermore, I want to remind you that to "destroy the Ukrainian state completely" is still genocidal when Ukrainians DONT WANT YOU TO DO THAT and are rightfully taking up arms to defend themselves.
It is their right to defend themselves from a bully. And if the bully insists, you can't then say "oh well guess I'll have to kill everybody who doesn't want me to absorb their entire culture and identity" without being called genocidal.
Finally, please take a look beyond your own sources when looking at war footage. Here's example drone footage of destroyed civilian structures in Kyiv. https://twitter.com/avalaina/status/1499467690842415109
But yes, some of what you're saying is indeed propaganda. This war is unjustified and unjustifiable. I would invite you to watch this video by a Belarusian lieutenant colonel, it's relevant: https://twitter.com/kopiganja/status/1498182268523016195
Now, I want to be clear: That Russian soldiers are disobeying, failing or retreating does not mean this is not a genocidal war. The objective is genocidal, but the objective is stupid enough that the smarter Russian soldiers aren't following it.
> What we really want is no NATO bases everywhere near our border and now looks like the only way (idk, maybe there were others, but Putin decided so) to do it is to destroy ukrainian state completely (the state, not the people).
Okay, well, that's very different from "wanting to eliminate nazis", isn't it? And yes, I know Putin doesn't want NATO on russian borders, but like you said, "maybe there were other [ways]", and choosing the bloodiest one is fucking psychopathic.
Furthermore, I want to remind you that to "destroy the Ukrainian state completely" is still genocidal when Ukrainians DONT WANT YOU TO DO THAT and are rightfully taking up arms to defend themselves.
It is their right to defend themselves from a bully. And if the bully insists, you can't then say "oh well guess I'll have to kill everybody who doesn't want me to absorb their entire culture and identity" without being called genocidal.
Finally, please take a look beyond your own sources when looking at war footage. Here's example drone footage of destroyed civilian structures in Kyiv. https://twitter.com/avalaina/status/1499467690842415109
> I would invite you to watch this video by a Belarusian lieutenant colonel, it's relevant: https://twitter.com/kopiganja/status/1498182268523016195
Watched the video. Sorry, I don't think this is relevant - this is obvious propaganda from the other side of war. I found this man's instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CSSmN0uo0ir/. Looks like he has business in Poland, so I think he's kinda biased - if Belarus will be under sanctions, he may have problems. Also, the video quality is spectacular, it is really made by a professional, not just "his message to soldiers".
> the objective is stupid enough that the smarter Russian soldiers aren't following it
this is exactly what Nazis printed on leaflets and dropped from the planes during the WW2. see https://www.rbth.com/history/327798-nazi-propaganda-soviet-u... It is fun that both Zelensky and Putin are comparing each others with Hitler.
Jokes aside, the objective is not stupid, the explanation is. But I think explaining the objective as a "denazification" is not more stupid than explaining similar objective as "establishing a democracy". This is what politicians do.
>I want to remind you that to "destroy the Ukrainian state completely" is still genocidal when Ukrainians DONT WANT YOU TO DO THAT and are rightfully taking up arms to defend themselves. >It is their right to defend themselves from a bully. And if the bully insists, you can't then say "oh well guess I'll have to kill everybody who doesn't want me to absorb their entire culture and identity" without being called genocidal.
I understand what you're saying and you're right in a way. But you must understand too: the opposite was done by Ukrainian government to the people of Donbass for eight years, even though western media completely ignored it. Google "defence of donetsk airport" and something related. And even though there were declaration of piece (so called Minsk agreements), ukrainian army continued the war calling it "anti-terrorist operation". Don't you see the similarity of the situation? The difference is that ukrainians bombed their own people and russians are bombing ukrainians, but I don't see how's that better.
I personally know a couple of people from Donbass who left their homes and moved to Russia to escape this war. And believe me, they're not stupid and they understand who's guilty in it.
>Finally, please take a look beyond your own sources when looking at war footage. Here's example drone footage of destroyed civilian structures in Kyiv.
I sure do. I don't believe in "precise strikes" nonsense told by our officials - right now it is a bloody mess for sure. But you must understand too: a lot of defensive strikes made by Azov and AFU are made from civilian structures. That's what army do - because they expect that enemy will not fight back and if it does - they just will have one more "shocking" video for the media. This is war shit.
>who doesn't want me to absorb their entire culture and identity
This is also not the objective at all. We don't want to absorb the culture - there are lot of different cultures in Russia. The chechens, fighting by our side in this war is far more different from russians than ukrainians, believe me. We want different government to Ukraine, the government that will agree to admit Crimea as a Russia and DPR and LPR states and not join NATO neither de jure nor de facto. I hope that this is the real objective of Putin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxL5E7-Nejc
Watched the video. Sorry, I don't think this is relevant - this is obvious propaganda from the other side of war. I found this man's instagram: https://www.instagram.com/p/CSSmN0uo0ir/. Looks like he has business in Poland, so I think he's kinda biased - if Belarus will be under sanctions, he may have problems. Also, the video quality is spectacular, it is really made by a professional, not just "his message to soldiers".
> the objective is stupid enough that the smarter Russian soldiers aren't following it
this is exactly what Nazis printed on leaflets and dropped from the planes during the WW2. see https://www.rbth.com/history/327798-nazi-propaganda-soviet-u... It is fun that both Zelensky and Putin are comparing each others with Hitler.
Jokes aside, the objective is not stupid, the explanation is. But I think explaining the objective as a "denazification" is not more stupid than explaining similar objective as "establishing a democracy". This is what politicians do.
>I want to remind you that to "destroy the Ukrainian state completely" is still genocidal when Ukrainians DONT WANT YOU TO DO THAT and are rightfully taking up arms to defend themselves. >It is their right to defend themselves from a bully. And if the bully insists, you can't then say "oh well guess I'll have to kill everybody who doesn't want me to absorb their entire culture and identity" without being called genocidal.
I understand what you're saying and you're right in a way. But you must understand too: the opposite was done by Ukrainian government to the people of Donbass for eight years, even though western media completely ignored it. Google "defence of donetsk airport" and something related. And even though there were declaration of piece (so called Minsk agreements), ukrainian army continued the war calling it "anti-terrorist operation". Don't you see the similarity of the situation? The difference is that ukrainians bombed their own people and russians are bombing ukrainians, but I don't see how's that better.
I personally know a couple of people from Donbass who left their homes and moved to Russia to escape this war. And believe me, they're not stupid and they understand who's guilty in it.
>Finally, please take a look beyond your own sources when looking at war footage. Here's example drone footage of destroyed civilian structures in Kyiv.
I sure do. I don't believe in "precise strikes" nonsense told by our officials - right now it is a bloody mess for sure. But you must understand too: a lot of defensive strikes made by Azov and AFU are made from civilian structures. That's what army do - because they expect that enemy will not fight back and if it does - they just will have one more "shocking" video for the media. This is war shit.
>who doesn't want me to absorb their entire culture and identity
This is also not the objective at all. We don't want to absorb the culture - there are lot of different cultures in Russia. The chechens, fighting by our side in this war is far more different from russians than ukrainians, believe me. We want different government to Ukraine, the government that will agree to admit Crimea as a Russia and DPR and LPR states and not join NATO neither de jure nor de facto. I hope that this is the real objective of Putin.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxL5E7-Nejc
you again dumped a pile of steaming Russian propaganda in order to rationalize genocide. It is somehow got lost on the Russians in Russia that genocide can't be rationalized. If history is any guide, such loss (or at least suppression) of humanity will lead to catastrophic consequences to Russia and its people.
>ukrainian army continued the war calling it "anti-terrorist operation". Don't you see the similarity of the situation?
absolutely not. The similarity would be if Ukraine moved tanks on Moscow and bombed the sh^t out of Russia. They didn't even though their side also got shelled by the separatists.
> But you must understand too: a lot of defensive strikes made by Azov and AFU are made from civilian structures.
yea. Defenders of Stalingrad were guilty of the destruction of Stalingrad. That is Nazi logic. And it isn't the only time your post displayed it (which is naturally because Russian propaganda what you repeat is mostly nazism these days). Like this too :
>We want different government to Ukraine, the government that will agree to admit Crimea as a Russia and DPR and LPR states and not join NATO neither de jure nor de facto.
Just like Nazi wanted in their days - the USSR government without Bolsheviks and Jews which would suit more the vision of Great Germany the same way like Putin today wants to change Ukraine for his vision of Great Russia. Details change while the core nature of nazism stays the same.
>We don't want to absorb the culture
just drive millions of people out of their land, and the rest either killed for resistance or must accept the Russian Order as Putin declared. Just like Nazi planned for Slavic people in USSR.
>ukrainian army continued the war calling it "anti-terrorist operation". Don't you see the similarity of the situation?
absolutely not. The similarity would be if Ukraine moved tanks on Moscow and bombed the sh^t out of Russia. They didn't even though their side also got shelled by the separatists.
> But you must understand too: a lot of defensive strikes made by Azov and AFU are made from civilian structures.
yea. Defenders of Stalingrad were guilty of the destruction of Stalingrad. That is Nazi logic. And it isn't the only time your post displayed it (which is naturally because Russian propaganda what you repeat is mostly nazism these days). Like this too :
>We want different government to Ukraine, the government that will agree to admit Crimea as a Russia and DPR and LPR states and not join NATO neither de jure nor de facto.
Just like Nazi wanted in their days - the USSR government without Bolsheviks and Jews which would suit more the vision of Great Germany the same way like Putin today wants to change Ukraine for his vision of Great Russia. Details change while the core nature of nazism stays the same.
>We don't want to absorb the culture
just drive millions of people out of their land, and the rest either killed for resistance or must accept the Russian Order as Putin declared. Just like Nazi planned for Slavic people in USSR.
>Disclaimer: I am Russian, so you could count all of this as a russian propaganda.
no need for disclaimer. The content of your post is a well familiar Russian propaganda. I'm Russian myself and watch it enough to know and understand.
>We don't want to kill a large number of people at all.
it just magically happens. You declared war and moved 200K people on armor invading the country, bombed the sh^t out of the country and all that without wanting to kill a large number people! You just wanted to kill a small number of people. That is borderline psychopathy.
>fight only so-called "volunteer batallions" - these are real, patented, nazis
before fighting nazis in other countries Russia should have taken care about its own nazism - on top of the already pretty much totalitarian regime Putin in his Ukrainian war speech openly declares basic cornerstones of nazism - like Lebensraum, Volksgemeinschaft, Blut and Boden and Dolchstoßlegende - as the foundations of his Ukrainian policy. And the Russians cheer Putin on that like Germans did Hitler in 1939.
No wonder that, like back then in 1936 in Spain, people from all over the world are coming to Ukraine to fight fascism, this time the Russian fascism.
>Do you really think that this city looks like the city after the genocide?
looks like a genocide to me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE9WKybzkpY . Russia conducts a campaign of indiscriminate artillery and air bombing of Ukrainian cities. For the artillery bombing of the Ukrainian cities Russia uses unguided Grad with classic and unguided Smerch with cluster munition. For air bombing it uses unguided bombs like FAB-250 (250kg/500lbs) and FAB-500 (500kg/1000lb) resulting in those tremendous destructions. Some of these bombs were found unexploded, and 2 days ago Ukraine shot down Su-34 when the plane was bombing Chernigov and captured the pilot who happened to be that Russian pilot infamous for his civilian bombing raids back then in Aleppo and who got celebrated by Putin and Assad for that.
You of course is a good Russian boy regularly taking his daily dose of Russian propaganda. Like most of Russians you probably believe in the million times repeated to you by Russian propaganda "we only do high-precision strikes on military targets, and we never target civilian objects". The Russian "propagandons" (for non-Russian speakers - "propagandon" is combination of "propagandist" and Russian offensive word for "condom") are so sure that you eat their propaganda unquestionably that they don't even care to make any half-decent product. For example Russian official news yesterday on the channel 1 - the story where the reporter reports from an airfield on an airstrike conducted in Ukraine (https://rutube.ru/video/4b400cbcfbbd6c1b730b5e80138fe598/ starting timestamp 24:40 ). The plane takes off, supposedly performs "airstrike on a military target using air-to-ground missile" - they show computer game missile launch screen capture as the purported missile launch at 25:05 - and lands empty. So far so great.
Now lets looks at the plane on take-off at timestamp 24:56 - the plane is loaded only with unguided bombs FAB-250. No high-precision, no air-to-ground missile that those propagandons were talking about. They again show a plane similarly loaded only with unguided bombs at 25:19, and show unguided bombs at 25:50 which are supposedly being loaded on the plane which just returned empty. So much for the high precision what Russians are made to enthusiastically believe their country is using in Ukraine. As Russia doesn't have much Su-34, and as this unit does the unguided bombing, it actually seems to be the unit which is bombing Chernigov (and they have 3 planes while the unit would normally be 4, ie. one is lost as mentioned above)
>What we really want is no NATO bases everywhere near our border and now looks like the only way (idk, maybe there were others, but Putin decided so) to do it is to destroy ukrainian state completely (the state, not the people).
wonderful expression of the God-like position of the "Great Russian chauvinism" - we decided to destroy your state. Ok, lets suppose for the minute that it is a real purpose of this war (while dismissing contradicting evidence like the killed civilians, destruction in the cities and millions of displace). Then i guess it would be completely reasonable that upon winning of this war the Ukrainians would completely destroy the Russian state (not the people) in order to provide for the future safety of Ukraine, don't you think so?
By the way, NATO is an old news, you seems to failed to mention the nuclear and chemical weapons Zelensky was supposedly making to attack Russia. Or may be even you understand how stupid it sounds? Anyway, it works miracle for Russian internal propaganda, though even they seems to be hesitant to bring it up externally - just like you.
no need for disclaimer. The content of your post is a well familiar Russian propaganda. I'm Russian myself and watch it enough to know and understand.
>We don't want to kill a large number of people at all.
it just magically happens. You declared war and moved 200K people on armor invading the country, bombed the sh^t out of the country and all that without wanting to kill a large number people! You just wanted to kill a small number of people. That is borderline psychopathy.
>fight only so-called "volunteer batallions" - these are real, patented, nazis
before fighting nazis in other countries Russia should have taken care about its own nazism - on top of the already pretty much totalitarian regime Putin in his Ukrainian war speech openly declares basic cornerstones of nazism - like Lebensraum, Volksgemeinschaft, Blut and Boden and Dolchstoßlegende - as the foundations of his Ukrainian policy. And the Russians cheer Putin on that like Germans did Hitler in 1939.
No wonder that, like back then in 1936 in Spain, people from all over the world are coming to Ukraine to fight fascism, this time the Russian fascism.
>Do you really think that this city looks like the city after the genocide?
looks like a genocide to me https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE9WKybzkpY . Russia conducts a campaign of indiscriminate artillery and air bombing of Ukrainian cities. For the artillery bombing of the Ukrainian cities Russia uses unguided Grad with classic and unguided Smerch with cluster munition. For air bombing it uses unguided bombs like FAB-250 (250kg/500lbs) and FAB-500 (500kg/1000lb) resulting in those tremendous destructions. Some of these bombs were found unexploded, and 2 days ago Ukraine shot down Su-34 when the plane was bombing Chernigov and captured the pilot who happened to be that Russian pilot infamous for his civilian bombing raids back then in Aleppo and who got celebrated by Putin and Assad for that.
You of course is a good Russian boy regularly taking his daily dose of Russian propaganda. Like most of Russians you probably believe in the million times repeated to you by Russian propaganda "we only do high-precision strikes on military targets, and we never target civilian objects". The Russian "propagandons" (for non-Russian speakers - "propagandon" is combination of "propagandist" and Russian offensive word for "condom") are so sure that you eat their propaganda unquestionably that they don't even care to make any half-decent product. For example Russian official news yesterday on the channel 1 - the story where the reporter reports from an airfield on an airstrike conducted in Ukraine (https://rutube.ru/video/4b400cbcfbbd6c1b730b5e80138fe598/ starting timestamp 24:40 ). The plane takes off, supposedly performs "airstrike on a military target using air-to-ground missile" - they show computer game missile launch screen capture as the purported missile launch at 25:05 - and lands empty. So far so great.
Now lets looks at the plane on take-off at timestamp 24:56 - the plane is loaded only with unguided bombs FAB-250. No high-precision, no air-to-ground missile that those propagandons were talking about. They again show a plane similarly loaded only with unguided bombs at 25:19, and show unguided bombs at 25:50 which are supposedly being loaded on the plane which just returned empty. So much for the high precision what Russians are made to enthusiastically believe their country is using in Ukraine. As Russia doesn't have much Su-34, and as this unit does the unguided bombing, it actually seems to be the unit which is bombing Chernigov (and they have 3 planes while the unit would normally be 4, ie. one is lost as mentioned above)
>What we really want is no NATO bases everywhere near our border and now looks like the only way (idk, maybe there were others, but Putin decided so) to do it is to destroy ukrainian state completely (the state, not the people).
wonderful expression of the God-like position of the "Great Russian chauvinism" - we decided to destroy your state. Ok, lets suppose for the minute that it is a real purpose of this war (while dismissing contradicting evidence like the killed civilians, destruction in the cities and millions of displace). Then i guess it would be completely reasonable that upon winning of this war the Ukrainians would completely destroy the Russian state (not the people) in order to provide for the future safety of Ukraine, don't you think so?
By the way, NATO is an old news, you seems to failed to mention the nuclear and chemical weapons Zelensky was supposedly making to attack Russia. Or may be even you understand how stupid it sounds? Anyway, it works miracle for Russian internal propaganda, though even they seems to be hesitant to bring it up externally - just like you.
So you think, what, any forcible annexation of a country is genocide because it has fighting? That’s not the definition. They aren’t exterminating Ukrainians, defined ethnically or nationally.
You are not familiar with Putin's rhetoric at all then.
He wants to remove Ukraine as a country, a nation, a people and a separate identity from "Russia" and "Russian".
Just a couple introductory links, and this is the soft stuff, it goes well beyond that:
- https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/putin-threatens-w...
- https://time.com/6150046/ukraine-statehood-russia-history-pu...
- https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/ukraine-history-fact-ch...
My east-ukrainian girlfriend almost exclusively spoke Russian. Up until now. She and her friends have been switching to Ukrainian because they feel their entire identity and culture is being threatened. And she's from the part of Ukraine that identifies the most with Russia.
He wants to remove Ukraine as a country, a nation, a people and a separate identity from "Russia" and "Russian".
Just a couple introductory links, and this is the soft stuff, it goes well beyond that:
- https://www.inquirer.com/news/nation-world/putin-threatens-w...
- https://time.com/6150046/ukraine-statehood-russia-history-pu...
- https://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/ukraine-history-fact-ch...
My east-ukrainian girlfriend almost exclusively spoke Russian. Up until now. She and her friends have been switching to Ukrainian because they feel their entire identity and culture is being threatened. And she's from the part of Ukraine that identifies the most with Russia.
Civilians are intentionally killed and forced from their land because they are of different ethnicity. That is called genocide and ethnic cleansing. Putin has been very clear in his speeches that "Ukrainian question" is the main issue here. Ukrainians being of different ethnicity want their own culture, state, etc. while Putin refuses their right for that on the basis of his claim that their ethnicity doesn't exist.
> because they are of a different ethnicity
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
read Putin speech declaring the war. The people are killed because they of different ethnicity and refuse to play Russians as Putin tries to force them. From his point of view there 2 types of people in Ukraine - Russians and "nazi and benderovcy" with the latter needing to be killed.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-tran...
and that is summary which says it better than i'd say:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/2/23/22945781/r...
"Putin’s clearest answer yet came in a speech delivered on Monday. He believes that Ukraine is an illegitimate country that exists on land that’s historically and rightfully Russian
...
Putin’s basic claim — that there is no historical Ukrainian nation worthy of present-day sovereignty "
Edit to the commenter below:
Your post is either factually incorrect, like about my account or my motivation or about "historically friendly relationship", or just some conclusions not supported by any facts. Nothing to argue about, especially that i already addressed some of these your conclusions in our previous thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30541386
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-24/full-tran...
and that is summary which says it better than i'd say:
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2022/2/23/22945781/r...
"Putin’s clearest answer yet came in a speech delivered on Monday. He believes that Ukraine is an illegitimate country that exists on land that’s historically and rightfully Russian
...
Putin’s basic claim — that there is no historical Ukrainian nation worthy of present-day sovereignty "
Edit to the commenter below:
Your post is either factually incorrect, like about my account or my motivation or about "historically friendly relationship", or just some conclusions not supported by any facts. Nothing to argue about, especially that i already addressed some of these your conclusions in our previous thread https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30541386
You have a throwaway account solely created to try to make us, Westerners, believe that the War by Russia is as evil as Hitler's War because it has the same root motivation: ethnic hatred with a genocidal goal.
You may be motivated by your rage against Russia starting this terrible war, or it may be simple counter-propaganda, i.e. Ukrainians lowering themselves to the level they believe the enemy to be for the purpose of motivating despicable actions from either side.
Your interpretation of the Russian motivation for the war shows either complete ignorance of the facts (the historically friendly relationship between Ukrainians and Russians within and across the borders of the two nations) or a disregard for truthness that can only be attributed to being a propagandist who will stop at nothing to get people to believe and do whatever it is you want them to.
Some sources that might educate you a little bit:
[1] https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconception... (this is strongly anti-Russia, but describes in a much better way the relationship between Russians/Belarussians/Ukrainians and their "nationhood", unlike your distorted view of reality).
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 - Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer (American geopolitics expert, while being less anti-Russia, also attributes blame to the West in this whole story)
You may be motivated by your rage against Russia starting this terrible war, or it may be simple counter-propaganda, i.e. Ukrainians lowering themselves to the level they believe the enemy to be for the purpose of motivating despicable actions from either side.
Your interpretation of the Russian motivation for the war shows either complete ignorance of the facts (the historically friendly relationship between Ukrainians and Russians within and across the borders of the two nations) or a disregard for truthness that can only be attributed to being a propagandist who will stop at nothing to get people to believe and do whatever it is you want them to.
Some sources that might educate you a little bit:
[1] https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/05/myths-and-misconception... (this is strongly anti-Russia, but describes in a much better way the relationship between Russians/Belarussians/Ukrainians and their "nationhood", unlike your distorted view of reality).
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 - Why is Ukraine the West's Fault? Featuring John Mearsheimer (American geopolitics expert, while being less anti-Russia, also attributes blame to the West in this whole story)
[deleted]
If you’re going to link Mearsheimer, you could also be honest enough to discuss what other geopolitics scholars think about his take.
Please provide alternative view points from other scholars on geopolitics and we can happily discuss.
I’m not interested in having that conversation with you, just pointing out that this is one of the more extreme points of view on the table. It is certainly not a widely accepted one.
You could for example read what Mearsheimers university of Chicago colleague Paul Poast, or Stanfords Michael McFaul have to say about this.
They’ve gone as far as argue that it is exactly the absence of NATO expansion that is to blame for creating the permissive conditions for Putin's invasion.
It’s hard to view linking only to Mearsheimer as anything but deliberate cherry-picking.
You could for example read what Mearsheimers university of Chicago colleague Paul Poast, or Stanfords Michael McFaul have to say about this.
They’ve gone as far as argue that it is exactly the absence of NATO expansion that is to blame for creating the permissive conditions for Putin's invasion.
It’s hard to view linking only to Mearsheimer as anything but deliberate cherry-picking.
You're ignoring the fact I gave 2 links - one of them extremely critical of Russia, but still very far away from claiming Russia has some kind of ethnical cleansing motivation in the story - and the other, which you don't like, giving an alternate and at least plausible, if not widely accepted, explanation of what's behind the agression by Russia. Who's cherry picking here?
Declining to participate in a propaganda campaign supporting an illegal and unprovoked war is not censorship.
Russia is known to murder dissidents. For Spotify leaders to make a stand from the safety of the US and paint a target on the backs of their Russian employees would be the cowardly option. If the employees their want to choose on their own to take a stand that's up to them, but it's not a choice that Spotify should make for them.
Your point of view might have some merit to it if there a basis in fact.
Do you dispute the author's claim "On Wednesday night [March 2], Spotify announced that it is closing its Moscow office"?
Do you dispute the author's claim "On Wednesday night [March 2], Spotify announced that it is closing its Moscow office"?
Do you think Putin is going to care that Spotify closed the office if they're defying his censorship laws? The (former) employees are still going to be in Russia. They're still going to be associated with Spotify and subject to arrest. This not a normal legal system where you can prove to someone in a court that you no longer worked at the company and they're going to consider the merits of your argument. Putin will want to punish someone for Spotify defying his censorship order and he'll reach out and punish whoever is available to make an example, regardless of whether they are responsible.
It's your contention that Spotify's decisions have been driven by concern for their ex-employees in Moscow?
Wouldn't shutting down western tech companies in Russia lead to Russians being limited to just state propaganda?
IDK... I think the right thing to do isn't entirely obvious.
>> a better alternative would have been to keep operating, while declaring openly that their media machine will be available for the dissidents in Russia
>> At an absolute minimum, Spotify could have let its Russian users face recommended playlists on the theme of “peace”.
I remember when Google initially came into conflict with China's censorship. The government wanted them to conform to the chinese way, censoring bad content on their own initiative without receiving an explicit list. A particular bugbear was returning search results that link to sites blocked by the great firewall. ATT, Google's "don't be evil" was still standing as a slogan. Early 2000s internet naivety still had some punch. China's attempt to censor the internet seemed foolish and doomed.
Anyway Google eventually tucked tail and learned that they cannot conflict with the CCP and come away with a win.
A decade later and we're knee deep in a clunky, controversial and blunt anti-misinformation vs free speech balance. Try that in a war zone.
Realistically, I think companies have two choices... more or less. They can stay or they can go. Multinational companies are not emissaries of anything but economics. We shouldn't expect them to be independent participants in international conflicts.
Luckily, Spotify's podcast strategy has not succeeded yet. Most podcasts are still distributed as podcasts, via RSS. They're one of the most free forms of online media. Spotify is trying to build a walled garden around this last piece of wilderness. The best thing spotify can do to enable free media in wartime is to just go away.
>> a better alternative would have been to keep operating, while declaring openly that their media machine will be available for the dissidents in Russia
>> At an absolute minimum, Spotify could have let its Russian users face recommended playlists on the theme of “peace”.
I remember when Google initially came into conflict with China's censorship. The government wanted them to conform to the chinese way, censoring bad content on their own initiative without receiving an explicit list. A particular bugbear was returning search results that link to sites blocked by the great firewall. ATT, Google's "don't be evil" was still standing as a slogan. Early 2000s internet naivety still had some punch. China's attempt to censor the internet seemed foolish and doomed.
Anyway Google eventually tucked tail and learned that they cannot conflict with the CCP and come away with a win.
A decade later and we're knee deep in a clunky, controversial and blunt anti-misinformation vs free speech balance. Try that in a war zone.
Realistically, I think companies have two choices... more or less. They can stay or they can go. Multinational companies are not emissaries of anything but economics. We shouldn't expect them to be independent participants in international conflicts.
Luckily, Spotify's podcast strategy has not succeeded yet. Most podcasts are still distributed as podcasts, via RSS. They're one of the most free forms of online media. Spotify is trying to build a walled garden around this last piece of wilderness. The best thing spotify can do to enable free media in wartime is to just go away.
So now we are beyond "praise a company if they shut their business in Russia", and have arrived at "ostracize them if they don't", even though (afaik) they haven't been ordered to censor their content or otherwise be a mouthpiece for them?
Is there an extreme to this or is it all going to pass public judgement?
Is there an extreme to this or is it all going to pass public judgement?
I run over 300 forums. These are based in Europe, America, Australia. They are for varied interests from cycling to cars to telescopes.
There are threads about the war on every forum.
And individuals on every forum are actively cancelling subscriptions and tracking boycotts.
It's not just going to pass public judgement, it has enthusiastic and vocal support of most of the public.
This anecdata is based on a monthly user base of 250k. Not significant, but also not insignificant.
There are threads about the war on every forum.
And individuals on every forum are actively cancelling subscriptions and tracking boycotts.
It's not just going to pass public judgement, it has enthusiastic and vocal support of most of the public.
This anecdata is based on a monthly user base of 250k. Not significant, but also not insignificant.
These companies banning Russia is AMAZING opportunity for the Russian government. If Russia is run by smart people, they must be delighted by it.
All they have to do is wait for these companies to block them... and then use the opportunity to block it from their side never letting them come back to the market... and let the alternatives grow in the local market.
That way, they get to keep the population from being dependent on foreign infrastructure and they don't even have to take responsibility for blocking them themselves.
All they have to do is wait for these companies to block them... and then use the opportunity to block it from their side never letting them come back to the market... and let the alternatives grow in the local market.
That way, they get to keep the population from being dependent on foreign infrastructure and they don't even have to take responsibility for blocking them themselves.
> These companies banning Russia is AMAZING opportunity for the Russian government. If Russia is run by smart people, they must be delighted by it.
Are you living under a rock? Russia's leaders are in the process of destroying their country. Even the super smart contrarians on here who think the invasion is America's fault acknowledge that
Are you living under a rock? Russia's leaders are in the process of destroying their country. Even the super smart contrarians on here who think the invasion is America's fault acknowledge that
That worked well for North Korea.
Russia and NK are not comparable economies.
NK has an estimated GDP of 27 billion and a population of 27 million, Russia has a GDP of 1.5 trillon and a population of 145 million (per capita GDP for Russia is an order of magnitude higher than that of NK and very similar to that of China). Russia is perfectly placed to be able to pull that off while NK is not.
NK has an estimated GDP of 27 billion and a population of 27 million, Russia has a GDP of 1.5 trillon and a population of 145 million (per capita GDP for Russia is an order of magnitude higher than that of NK and very similar to that of China). Russia is perfectly placed to be able to pull that off while NK is not.
Watch GDP of Russia drop to per capita levels much more comparable over a year or two. You can't really produce shit without sophisticated equipment, and Russia is not famous for any.
> Russia and NK are not comparable economies.
Pretty soon they will be
Pretty soon they will be
>Russia and NK are not comparable economies.
Just wait.
While you wait, compare the economies of North and South Korea.
Just wait.
While you wait, compare the economies of North and South Korea.
You can sanction and isolate smaller economies. Larger independent economies will not only be fine if you sanction them, they grow stronger.
North Korea is being punished for not wanting to be invaded when America wanted to invade it. South Koreans got invaded and got all the multi-nationals to exploit them... as a result, they have an economy but they spend all their money into looking like their invaders (highest cosmetic surgeries in the world, to make their facial features look western) and kill themselves because they can never become like their invaders (highest suicide rate). If NK is around in its current state when the American empire falls, SK will look to NK to connect back to their roots. I truly hope, for the sake of South Koreans, North Korea manages to live on.
North Korea is being punished for not wanting to be invaded when America wanted to invade it. South Koreans got invaded and got all the multi-nationals to exploit them... as a result, they have an economy but they spend all their money into looking like their invaders (highest cosmetic surgeries in the world, to make their facial features look western) and kill themselves because they can never become like their invaders (highest suicide rate). If NK is around in its current state when the American empire falls, SK will look to NK to connect back to their roots. I truly hope, for the sake of South Koreans, North Korea manages to live on.
> Larger independent economies will not only be fine if you sanction them, they grow stronger.
This is a baseless statement. If you make a simple assumption, that progress is ~ number of people (which would probably exactly fit data on the smaller scales), then isolated China will progress ~3x slower than the rest of the world.
This is a baseless statement. If you make a simple assumption, that progress is ~ number of people (which would probably exactly fit data on the smaller scales), then isolated China will progress ~3x slower than the rest of the world.
Neither agreeing or disagreeing with Spotify.
But what Spotify is doing is anything but cowardly. It takes more to go against the flow where so many is doing one and you are doing the opposite.
But what Spotify is doing is anything but cowardly. It takes more to go against the flow where so many is doing one and you are doing the opposite.
What does opening representative office has to do with their stand?
Apple and Google, Meta also opened representative offices back in February. Did in stop them from doing business here (at least part of it, likely temporarily)? No.
>At the same time, both Instagram and Youtube have been blocked in Russia. But not Spotify.
That's not true. Twitter and Facebook are blocked (even though they also "submitted to the Kremlin"). Instagram and Youtube are not.
Apple and Google, Meta also opened representative offices back in February. Did in stop them from doing business here (at least part of it, likely temporarily)? No.
>At the same time, both Instagram and Youtube have been blocked in Russia. But not Spotify.
That's not true. Twitter and Facebook are blocked (even though they also "submitted to the Kremlin"). Instagram and Youtube are not.
"I think it's fine for them to be on platforms as long as they share my views and say the things I want them to".
Man, what a crybaby.
Corporations making meaningless gestures for empty "support" is not a positive, it's virtue signally to sell you more widgets. It's a more subtle version of ads. Why are you asking for more of it?
Man, what a crybaby.
Corporations making meaningless gestures for empty "support" is not a positive, it's virtue signally to sell you more widgets. It's a more subtle version of ads. Why are you asking for more of it?
A corporation is an amoral construct by design.
[deleted]
At least they are staying consistent I guess. Instead of just doing business in / cater to the government of messed up regimes and only stop doing that when they start a war in your backyard.
Imagine USA being bycotted by all companies for attacking Afghanistan or Iraq. This would unite the US citizens no matter what thier president did. Everyone, think twice before imposing crippling sanctions on a country with nukes.
> Everyone, think twice before imposing crippling sanctions on a country with nukes.
Just imagined. Imagine all the people... And what do nukes have to do with this exactly?
Just imagined. Imagine all the people... And what do nukes have to do with this exactly?
Tech companies face a tough choice on censorship but the timing of this one is especially bad.
This seems like a minor quibble compared to Biden not just refusing to stop buying oil from Russia, but encouraging companies like Shell to do so. Or only sanctioning 25% of the Russian banks, but making it sound like they're sanctioning all of them. Or not sanctioning Belarus.
According to HN commenters, opposing Russia in any way is wrong because censorship, slippery slope, dissidents, etc. take your pick of why their horse is higher than yours.
I don’t need nor want corporations to do decide what is good vs. evil in this world. I can make an informed decision on my own. Censorship takes this agency away from me.
Small horse syndrome? You sound unreasonably angry at HN commenters who have simply put their critical thinking hats to use
I think the poster is at a reasonable level of angry. What makes you feel otherwise?
Okay, so the author's idea of bravery is to pull a meaningless PR stunt that does nothing for Russians but instead saves the face of the company's CEO in the eyes of anglosphere online bloggers? For once an actual instance of behavior where the overused 'virtue signaling' phrase makes sense.
The smart move for companies is to comply with these laws to a superficial extent while silently keeping as much dissident content online as possible and staying off the radar of regulators.