@piggo and we thought Germany was the impostor...
@piggo That's a great shame indeed. For now there is a significant push in the country to "move something" about this, but I wouldn't have high hopes for it to go anywhere. We'll see. Ostrich politics at work in this little land of innocent and ignorant.
But let's not pretend it's all rosy elsewhere. I recommend reading kamilkazani's twitter - it is very instructive - the guy is stirring the pot on German, Czech and other military exports to Russia quite a bit (especially Rheinmetal et al). For instance this thread (and related ones from September) are a good start: https://nitter.it/kamilkazani/status/1567882093585203200#m
And his findings lead to news stories later picked up - for instance that Czech stuff ended in October in mainstream press in CZ and the German connection findings too.
@FailForward @piggo
IMO it's on governments to check the exports and block those that would violate agreed upon embargos (and also to make sure the embargos they agree upon are effective and don't have major holes).
@wolf480pl I agree. But either way, it's on us, the civic society to check on them too - after all, money tends to trump morale, so relying on the govt only is probably naive.
@FailForward @piggo
At the same time, I don't think companies and NGOs should apply sanctions extrajudically, nor be pressured by the public to do so.
At the start of war I saw many organizations jump on the hype train of "russia bad" and do whatever they can to be mean to Russians without any government coordination or thought whether such actions will be effective or whether they'll just make ordinary Russians hate the West more without any effect of Russia's capability to wage war.
@wolf480pl We are living in a free society. Individuals and companies are free to "apply sanctions" as they see fit, there is nothing wrong about it - as far as they are also wiling and prepared to bear the consequences of those decisions. I am not obliged to do business with people I don't like, or don't want to do business with. Is it stupid from somebody's perspective? Maybe. Silly? Perhaps too, but that is how freedom works. I don't need to coordinate with my government on that.
Whether I am interested in not alienating ordinary Russians is also besides the point. They do the job better than I ever could (c.f., e.g., https://nitter.it/JuliaDavisNews, or francis_scarr's feed).
@FailForward @piggo
AFAIU if a company refused service to a customer because said customer was black, or a Muslim, that'd be illegal in most countries.
And where it wouldn't be illegal, it would be wrong by our western morality.
Why should this principle not extend to nationality of the customer?
@wolf480pl Of course you are right, there are limits to a company's and individual's freedom. In the case you cited, it would be unconstitutional in most countries I care about. But it's more subtle than that.
* **freedoms**: A company or an individual are free to do business as they see fit as far as it is 1) legal and 2) they are ready to bear consequences of their decisions. Moral or not. It boils down to a simple thing: I am free to chose my friends and business partners. And I also am not obliged to be friendly to everybody. And on top, nobody has a right to tell me who I shall be friends with. You have that right too. And I am sure you exercise it as well.
* **society in/out dichotomy** In the end, while we agreed as societies that discriminating against our own citizens/fellow society members on the basis of race, religion, etc. is wrong (for good reasons) = non-discrimination against fellow society members; note, nothing stops us (at this point in history) to discriminate against citizens of other societies = discrimination against non-members of our societies. And it is a thing happening every single day: did you notice the last time you flew different queues for "home" passport holders and "alien" passport holders? Or the whole visa, or residency concepts... In other words, discrimination against non-members of a society is at this point in history an accepted thing. And personally, I see the point of it, even if I would wish to live in a society where that were not true.
@wolf480pl Well, our conversation started with the question whether it's OK for a company to choose where and with whom it does business with. And there indeed it's anybody's choice - as far as otherwise legal, morality is not an issue, it's a freedom of choice. Here we are sliding into a somewhat different territory.
@FailForward @piggo
I did not, in fact, fly, let alone abroad.
Also, visas, passports, etc - that is all done by governments.
It's the governments and their diplomatic branches that define relationships between nation states.
For example, if you made a trebuchet and launched a rock onto the territory of a neighboring nation state, that would, AFAIU, be an international incident, and it'd involve the governments of the country you were in and the country you launched the rock into.