The problem with this discourse is that what you said is hardly relevant. We have a clear understanding of what is considered moral and ethical behavior and what's not. The subject matter may as well be discrimination as no valid legal reason was given for action taken against a group of people otherwise. To say that a group of people is valid to discriminate against because reasons is also discriminatory in itself. If one wants to claim moral superiority, they have to abide by what is moral, otherwise that would make them a hypocrite. To discriminate against someone who did nothing wrong for you, and in fact was working for your cause, and to do that due to the fact that you can do nothing else for a good cause is both hypocritical and petty.
> The subject matter may as well be discrimination as no valid legal reason was given for action taken against a group of people otherwise.
All decisions are discrimination, and discrimination in general is fine. There are narrow, specific kinds of discrimination that are suspect and need additional justification. OTOH, a perfectly valid reason was offered: legal advice based on international sanctions imposed on Russian entities in response to Russia’s war of aggression in Ukraine. Now, certainly, there was not public information sufficient to assess the correctness of that decision, and I would not prejudge any claim from any party adversely impacted that chose to challenge it.
But I’d also note that where there is not a contractual relationship or some other binding commitment to way against the potential consequences of sanctions violations, legal advice will likely be “better safe than sorry” in that it is better to cut off relations where there is no commitment more broadly than sanctions might require rather than to err on the other side, too. Acting in such advice mag still be a reasonable and prudent decision.
The legal reasons is the sanctions against Russia for their illegal war of aggression. All of Russia and all who live within its borders are responsible for these actions.
There is something beautiful about how U.S. news outlets were always going on about how Russia is a dictatorship, with rigged elections, where you'll be beaten, arrested or killed for protesting or speaking out--Russians supposedly have no agency. And yet simultaneously, now, Russians apparently must be held accountable for everything their government ever does, because they "voted him in" or "should overthrow Putin".
We can't have it both ways. Either Russia is a functioning democracy (which I don't personally believe exists anywhere but that is another topic), or perhaps the average person does not actually have very much say in such events.
Sanctions are meant to harm innocent people as much as possible, on purpose, with the idea being that it will cause so much unrest that the government either caves to the pressure or the people revolt. While I find that very sick in and of itself, I would at least appreciate it if we were honest about that rather than making contradictory moral statements.
That said, worse yet, almost hilariously, I cannot think of a single time sanctions have ever truly worked in a situation even remotely similar to that of Russia. Just think about countries like North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Syria, etc -- like it or not, these countries have not toppled as a result of the sanctions. Do they hurt? Yes, of course, but they evidently do not destroy nations the way we believed they would.
Instead, the innocent are hurt, as was the intention, yet the goal never gets achieved. North Korea still has nuclear weapons, and all we've done is force Iran to develop its own industry, such that, ironically, it is now capable of sending weapons to aid Russia.
They have had a century to institute actual democracy. If 70% supported deposing Putin instead of the war it would be difficult for him to retain power or he would have to change tack to retain control and keep his skin intact.
We didn't think of the poor Germans when we burned them alive as part of the effort to stop the Nazis and few argue that the Germans aren't collectively complicit save only for those who actively resisted.
I'm fully willing to hold blameless those who burned weapons and recruitment centers, spoke out publicly against the war within or after fleeing Russia, shot their commander, or surrendered to avoid an unjust fight.
I'm aware those are all extremely risky. I know exactly why someone would want to keep their heads down and I none the less blame them no less than I blame all the good Nazis who didn't believe in the ideology but kept their heads down while Jews burned in ovens and their neighbors rotted in battlefields and economic consequences are the least of what is just and fair.
A million people are dead including many of their own they are complicit.
People who will suffer economically under sanctions or in this case from exclusion but who if the war isn't stopped may suffer explosive dismemberment or see their kids come home in a box.
Communicating clearly that you cannot currently accept contributions from people potentially associated with problematic businesses is an understandable decision. Tone of voice stated following the removal of a list of names of people you used to work with not too long makes this sound like a petty statement if anything.
Say that is true, then to be consistent, why is the MSS (CN) and GRU (RU) not included? Are those countries not also trying to project power, and compromise every system possible?
Communicating clearly that you cannot currently accept contributions from people potentially associated with problematic businesses is an understandable decision. Tone of voice stated following the removal of a list of names of people you used to work with not too long makes this sound like a petty statement if anything.
