
PandaDoc employees arrested in Belarus after founders protest against violence - perch56
https://savepandadoc.org/en/
======
hippich
A few facts about these events:

\- Based on data collected by from only some polling places, there is a huge
discrepancies in results comparing to official ones. Most poling places
refused to post results. People, who demanded to post results (as the law
requires), were arrested. You can read more about it at belarus2020.org

\- A lot of journalists left state media. Replacements were brought from
Russia's state's propaganda media.

\- While police is involved in some cases, the bulk of arrests, beating,
torture is done by special forces where most of them wear full head covering
at all times. In the few episodes when such head covering is removed during
the altercation, these enforces were running away hiding their faces with
hands 1)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zspZj5wPtaQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zspZj5wPtaQ)
; 2)
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj5cV8Dl7jA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vj5cV8Dl7jA)

\- Often, special forces use plain clothes and act like criminals. The only
suggestion that they are law enforcement - they often have a baton and full
head covering. They never tell you their names, departments, etc.

\- Last Sunday Belarus saw its first business glass door shattered as a result
of protests (protests started on Aug 9th). That door was broken by special
forces because some protesters tried to hide from beating there. People
donated to the business owner to buy a new door and were standing in the line
next day to buy a coffee from that place -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3I8dxAwybE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3I8dxAwybE)

\- To avoid beating by special forces, some running away protesters had to
jump into the river. Water is quite cold. They were saved by the rescue team
worked on the river, who brought them to the other bank of it. As a result,
the whole rescue team was arrested -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqA3deW_-
Yg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sqA3deW_-Yg)

There is a lot more going on, just wanted to share a few things to explain the
atmosphere of it.

~~~
pjc50
> Based on data collected by from only some polling places, there is a huge
> discrepancies in results comparing to official ones. Most poling places
> refused to post results. People, who demanded to post results (as the law
> requires), were arrested. You can read more about it at belarus2020.org

Whatever country you're in, this is a good time to think about becoming a poll
watcher. The exact arrangements vary but elections nearly always have a place
for volunteers to watch the count somehow.

~~~
411111111111111
And potentially making you a liability to unscrupulous dictators is smart?

It's either pointless because nobody wants to fake results or you're another
obstacle to remove.

~~~
batmansmk
In 1990, my brother observed the elections in Croatia that lead to the
Yugoslavian war. Western Europe was recruiting young people to defend
democracy and human rights across the continent. The bet was to stabilize all
countries on the continent.

Pro-Serbian regime tried to fraud, but with the help of international
observers, they got shutdown, votes have been reorganized when needed, and the
sole presence of neutral observers acted as a strong deterrant. Now Croatia is
a prosperous country that we enjoy spending vacation to.

Because of this act of courage, my brother got hired by the UN. From taxi
driver in 1990 to now diplomat in 2020. He served in Darfour, Afghanistan,
Mexico, Guatelama, Irak, Senegal, Sudan, Tanzania. Saved countless refugees
from certain death, negotiated with dictators, put pressure one step at a
time.

I understand your concern, but don't take courage for foolishness. My brother
is not a fool, he is an idealist and will probably have more lasting impact on
the world than me.

~~~
codezero
Shit, this is a comment that doesn't deserve to be hidden on hacker news, this
is amazing. Thanks for sharing this.

------
newbelarus
Hi Folks,

We ran the Belarus' post-election survey. Over 10,000+ respondents.

Here are the results:

\- Результат опроса «День Выборов Президента Беларуси» —
[https://surveymonkey.com/results/SM-W9PZGD9B7/](https://surveymonkey.com/results/SM-W9PZGD9B7/)
\- Панель индикаторов «День Выборов Президента Беларуси» —
[https://www.surveymonkey.com/stories/SM-
RKSGN36D/](https://www.surveymonkey.com/stories/SM-RKSGN36D/)

Here are the results for pre-election survey:

\- «Кандидаты на пост президента Беларуси» — начать опрос —
[https://surveymonkey.com/r/IMBELARUS-5](https://surveymonkey.com/r/IMBELARUS-5)
\- Результат опроса «Кандидаты на пост президента Беларуси» —
[https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-
VRQR539G7/](https://www.surveymonkey.com/results/SM-VRQR539G7/) \- Панель
индикаторов «Кандидаты на пост президента Беларуси» —
[https://www.surveymonkey.com/stories/SM-
VMNFBZ3D/](https://www.surveymonkey.com/stories/SM-VMNFBZ3D/)

~~~
newbelarus
Лукашенко Александр - 4,64% - 404 (Lukashenko, 26 years in power)

Тихановская Светлана - 87,68% - 7,639 (Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, removed from
the country)

Others:

Дмитриев Андрей - 0,59% - 51

Канопацкая Анна - 0,25% - 22

Черечень Сергей - 0,38% - 33

Etc:

Против всех - 2,80% - 244

Предпочитаю не говорить - 3,66% - 319

------
Molly555
Well, as far as I know, monstrous things are happening in this country right
now. What is the cost of a complete disconnection of the Internet throughout
the country? I can't even imagine how many millions of dollars it cost the
authorities. I also heard that people are afraid to follow the news through
the Telegram channels, because it is simply not safe.
[https://utopia.fans/tools/clash-of-the-titans-telegram-vs-
wh...](https://utopia.fans/tools/clash-of-the-titans-telegram-vs-whatsapp-vs-
utopia/)

~~~
SXX
There was only huge problems with internet for the first few days of protests.
Now they only censor specific websites, but internet is more or less working
around the country.

~~~
wp381640
Blocking websites thanks to silicon valley network co. Sandvine![0]

They were also used to censor the web in Egypt but nobody on the US end seems
to give a shit that local companies are facilitating dictators

[0]
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-28/belarusia...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-08-28/belarusian-
officials-shut-down-internet-with-technology-made-by-u-s-firm)

~~~
dfxm12
_nobody on the US end seems to give a shit that local companies are
facilitating dictators_

Slightly fewer than half the electorate in the US is _excited_ to vote for an
authoritarian president _in their own country_ who has repeatedly talked about
not giving up power due to term limits [0] or election results [1], a guy who
praised Xi for just naming himself president for life and said he'd like to
give it a shot [2].

It follows that a lot are indifferent to dictators abroad.

0 - [https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/election-2020/trump-
sa...](https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/election-2020/trump-says-
supporters-should-call-for-12-more-years-of-his-presidency)

1 - [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-election-results-white-
ho...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-election-results-white-house/)

2 - [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-china/trump-
praises...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-trump-china/trump-praises-
chinese-president-extending-tenure-for-life-idUSKCN1GG015)

~~~
pcbro141
Exactly. It's annoying when people think you're being hyperbolic or "too
political/left/anti-Trump" when you point out how uniquely dangerous Trump is.
He openly talks about his autocratic desires frequently and a lot of Americans
frankly don't care about an American president being an open self-admitted
threat to democracy.

We're in a really bad situation when a simple statement like "Presidents
shouldn't talk about extending term limits and suspending elections" gets any
reaction other than strong universal condemnation from all sides of the
political spectrum.

~~~
maerF0x0
> He openly talks about his autocratic desires

to be honest I've seen it as his form of jest, where he's constantly tryin to
rile up his opponents. And he can get away with it because he knows his
supporters have all the guns (at least amongst civilians). We'll see what the
military does and if that institution is solid.

~~~
pcbro141
I don't see it as jest because I see he's purposely riling up his base to
commit terrorist attacks on his behalf against fellow Americans like that mail
bomber Cesar Sayoc.

Like his undermining of mail-in voting right now, it's obvious that he's doing
it so that when/if he loses, his base will "defend" him as he disputes the
legitimacy of the results and rejects a "coup".

Am I concerned that he actually would remain in office after losing? No. But I
am concerned elements of his base will commit more terror attacks in the name
of "preventing a coup".

That's why I don't see his undermining of institutions and democracy as funny
or trolling to "own the libs". I think by now he's smart enough to be aware
there are violent members of his base ready to use violence against perceived
opponents and prevent a "deep state coup", and he is purposely trying to rile
them up to commit violent acts against Americans by making them feel like they
are "under attack/coup" by the deep state/left.

But we're supposed to pretend like a President "trolling" about term limits,
illegitimate elections, coups, assassinating opponents, and civil wars is
normal. This really shouldn't be a left vs right thing. In a normal world,
these would be things everyone agrees are bad.

But I'm being too political/biased/left/Trump derangement syndrome for
rejecting his undermining of democracy and fomenting violence so I'll get
downvoted for my unfair pro-democracy anti-violence bias.

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
The problem is that your political opponents say similar things. They're
convinced - perhaps wrongly, but as far as I can tell honestly - that anti-
Trump politicians are encouraging political violence and will commit more
terror attacks in the name of preventing an authoritarian takeover. They point
to James Hodgkinson the same way you point to Cesar Sayoc. As someone who's
extremely opposed to political violence but not strongly partisan, how can I
avoid splitting the difference here?

~~~
dfxm12
The differences are obvious and numerous.

    
    
      * James Hodgkinson wasn't motivated by a politician's platform or speeches. This is the material difference that makes me wonder if you're asking this in good faith or not. No mainstream politicians suggested violence against standing Republican congressmen. None of Trump's opponents are saying they are going to ignore the results of any election.
      * The politicians Hodgkinson supported immediately condemned his actions in no uncertain terms. There were no half measures. No "both sides" talk.
      * This is one unprompted (see point 1 above) incident compared to dozens of cases of violence or threats motivated directly by Trump & his speeches [0]. Trump supporters specifically have this history of violence.
      * Among right-wingers, this history of violence is not specific to Trump [1], [2].
    

0 - [https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-
finds-17-case...](https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/blame-abc-news-
finds-17-cases-invoking-trump/story?id=58912889)

1 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-
wing_terrorist_a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_right-
wing_terrorist_attacks#1990s)

2 - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-
wing_terrorism#United_St...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-
wing_terrorism#United_States)

~~~
SpicyLemonZest
Again, your political opponents say the same thing. They tell me that their
leaders immediately and definitively condemned Sayoc, tell me that your
leaders did _not_ condemn Hodgkinson to their satisfaction, and show me lists
[0] of citizens being threatened or assaulted for wearing Trump campaign gear.
There may well be obvious and numerous differences - I tend to agree with you
that there are! - but you're not getting a complete picture if you're seeing
political violence as a one-sided phenomenon.

0 -
[https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20190409/109266/HHRG...](https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20190409/109266/HHRG-116-JU00-20190409-SD008.pdf)

------
mensetmanusman
Unfortunately, history tells us that almost all major gains in freedom come,
at one point, through violent conflict/sacrifice.

If one side (an authoritarian oppressor) is not afraid to use violence, and
the other is prevented from using any response, the oppressor will win. This
is why major changes usually require civil war.

This is also why authoritarians definitely do not want their population to
have access to weapons. (The U.S. couldn’t even control Afghan farmers with
guns...)

~~~
diego_moita
> Unfortunately, history tells us that almost all major gains in freedom come,
> at one point, through violent conflict/sacrifice.

No, it doesn't. Recent history tells us exactly the opposite:

1) Rise of democracy in Latin America in the 70s and 80s (Argentina, Uruguay,
Paraguay, Chile, Brazil)

2) Collapse of communism on Eastern Europe in the 80s and 90s.

3) Democracy in Eastern Asia in the 80s (Indonesia, Korea, Philippines,
Pakistan).

4) Nigeria, Spain, Greece

These were achieved through pacific means. The cases of dictatorships that
became democracies through violence are very few: Portugal, Romania...

Prior history of violent conflict is precisely what led to dictatorships
hardening (leftist guerrilla groups in Argentina, Chile, Brazil and Uruguay,
tentative coup in Indonesia, etc.)

Also, violent reaction against dictatorships quite often leads to other
dictatorships (e.g.: Nicaragua, Cuba, Iran).

Edit: again, my point is that violent reaction against oppressive regimes is
foolish and leads to the opposite of freedom. Violence is the authoritarians'
favorite game because it provides them an excuse to do what they do best:
brutal repression. You are already loosing when you play their preferred game.

~~~
trhway
>1) Rise of democracy in Latin America in the 70s and 80s (Argentina, Uruguay,
Paraguay, Chile, Brazil)

i'm puzzled to say the least. Aren't the 70s and 80s were the bloody decades
of dictatorships there? For example:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirty_War)

"The Dirty War (Spanish: Guerra sucia) is the name used by the military junta
or civic-military dictatorship of Argentina (Spanish: dictadura cívico-militar
de Argentina) for the period of United States-backed state terrorism[1][2][3]
in Argentina[4][5] from 1976 to 1983 as a part of Operation Condor, during
which military and security forces and right-wing death squads in the form of
the Argentine Anticommunist Alliance (AAA, or Triple A)[6] hunted down any
political dissidents and anyone believed to be associated with socialism,
left-wing Peronism or the Montoneros movement.[7][8][9][10]

Up to 30,000 people disappeared, of whom many were impossible to report
formally due to the nature of state terrorism."

~~~
diego_moita
> i'm puzzled to say the least. Aren't the 70s and 80s were the bloody decades
> of dictatorships there? For example:

Yes, but they weren't the cause of the dictatorships' collapses. As I pointed
they were actually an argument for their hardening.

By the time those dictatorships fell the guerrillas were mostly exterminated.

Again: my point isn't to deny that repressive regimes repress. It is to point
that their collapse wasn't due to a violent reaction but a peaceful one.

------
maerF0x0
For me, this serves as a stark reminder to invest in barriers to oppression.

* General education (ideally, not state mandated)

* General self defense (fitness, martial arts, firearms training)

* Technological counter measures - TOR, crypto, crypto currency, and IMO we should be pushing for electronic voting systems (not shitty ones, but truly great ones) *

*Edit: By great ones, I mean ones that allow us to validate our vote was both counted and correct after the fact. There are crypto voting systems that do not allow anyone (including the government) to know if you voted or what your vote is (identifying you), but still allows tallying and validation.

~~~
bonzini
> There are crypto voting systems that do not allow anyone (including the
> government) to know if you voted or what your vote is (identifying you), but
> still allows tallying and validation.

Are they safe against "rubber hose cryptanalysis"? Such as forcing you to
verify your vote while I can see you?

~~~
runarberg
I’m not an expert, but couldn’t you keep a link between your public key and
your vote while the election is open. Allow subsequent votes that will nullify
votes associated with your public key. And when the polls close, this link
gets deleted.

This way you can be intimidated to vote and verify a certain way, then after
your intimidator leaves you alone, you simply cast another vote. And after the
deadline passes any record that you personally casted a ballot have been
erased.

Maybe as a further safeguard keep traditional in-person polling open, wherein
showing up to you automatically nullify you previous crypto vote, and only
your paper ballot counts.

~~~
rtkwe
There's still the problem that you can still coerce and verify then use
surveillance and the fear of surveillance to keep people from changing their
vote. Random rechecks the day the polls close would keep a lot of people from
risking changing their vote after the initial check-in.

Even beyond any theoretical security measures one huge benefit of in person
voting is it limits the available attack. With IPV to steal an election you
have to find a way to either physically bring enough people to enough polling
places to swing the election or corrupt the poll watcher system and steal it
in the counting phase. With electronic voting anyone in the world has a chance
to attack you. Anything that requires Joe/Jane Citizen to reliably or securely
operate their computer is kind of doomed for a long time IMO.

~~~
runarberg
I do think that voting should be as streamlined and easy as possible. If
electronic voting becomes a thing, you should still be able to do an in-person
voting at a poll both on election day, an in-person absentee voting at a
designated place, a mail-in absentee voting, etc. in addition to the e-voting.

All of these (except for in-person voting on election day) should have a
sealed timestamp and a public key/barcode attached so previous ballots can be
nullified with a more recent vote by an other—or the same—means.

~~~
rtkwe
The problem with being able to go back and revote/nullify is it makes counting
very complicated to do with non-attrubution.

~~~
runarberg
idk. It is already done quite successfully in many democracies, including
Iceland and Estonia.

I’m guessing the vote is sealed with a key or a barcode, if a later vote
arrives, a system will order a previous vote with a matching key/barcode to be
destroyed. Finally on voting day, the link between any personally identifiable
information is destroyed.

EDIT: Just to clarify, there should never be a time when a ballot is unsealed
and a link between a barcode and a person exists in the system. A counter
scans an absentee ballot before unsealing it, if the person voted in-person
the scanner should reject the vote and order it to be destroyed the link could
have been destroyed at any point between then and when the person showed up to
the polling station. If they didn’t show up, the scanner will order the link
to be destroyed, the counter will then pass this ballot on to be counted.
Importantly the counter (nor any human for that matter) never has access to a
link to a personally identifiable information, all the counter sees is the
barcode.

EDIT 2: I don’t know if this is how counting is done in democracies that allow
you to nullify a previous vote by voting again, but it is a system that could
work, conjured up by a mere spectator.

~~~
rtkwe
That probably works better for smaller countries. Here in the US mail in
voting kind of works that way in that the ballots are sealed until they're
'accepted' and then the ballots are removed and the identifying shell envelope
is discarded. The big slow down is actually going through all the submitted
votes and validating then counting, most in person votes here in the US are
counted via machine immediately at the polling place.

Somewhere between 25-50% of votes depending on state are cast through some
early mechanism and under this none of those could be counted until election
day which is a large increase in the number of votes that need to be counted
and makes them more difficult to count.

One other benefit of being able to count everything in person on the day it's
cast is the votes don't have to move outside the polling place for initial
counting which makes monitoring easier.

It's a nice and convenient idea but I don't see the small benefit of being
able to change votes (how many people honestly want to change their vote?) vs
the large increase in complexity.

~~~
runarberg
Like previously stated being able to change the vote is crucial to limit the
effectiveness of voter intimidation. You simply vote however your intimidator
orders you, and then you change your vote afterwards.

It also has the benefits of allowing voters who in absentee vote early for a
candidate that later drops out (i.e. Washington State voters who voted for
Elizabeth Warren) to correct their vote based on this new information.

Regarding monitoring. Mail in ballots are sent to the polling place on
election night for counting. They are counted just like any other ballots and
can be monitored as easily as in-person ballots. I suppose e-votes could as
easily be printed out and counted in the same place.

~~~
rtkwe
The voter intimidation problem only really comes out of adopting a new system
where you can check your vote to begin with though.. Our current system only
really suffers from that even being a possibility with mail in votes.

> It also has the benefits of allowing voters who in absentee vote early for a
> candidate that later drops out (i.e. Washington State voters who voted for
> Elizabeth Warren) to correct their vote based on this new information.

Maybe for a primary it's a useful feature but there are simpler options like
ranked choice that could be used to do that. Though there are still uses for
votes to people who are out of the race because it gives them voting power at
the convention if there's not a decisive winner.

Also if we're letting things change that much primaries are never really over
in a state. One of the reason for sequential primaries is that it lets smaller
campaigns have a chance because they don't have to compete everywhere at once.

------
allendoerfer
> Several international audits and inspections by EY and other reputable
> companies over the last years prove that the company adhered to all
> regulations and laws prevalent in Belarus.

I don't want to take away from the point of the article, but this made me
chuckle.

Are we talking about the same "reputable" EY that has been auditing Wirecard
for years and years while a giant scam reported on by the Financial Times was
happening right in front of their eyes? They might not be held accountable
financially, but I think we can and should stop calling them reputable.

------
_fat_santa
My last gig we hired a team out of Minsk to help us with a project, brought
them over to our US headquarters for about a month to help with planning and
buildout.

When coronavirus took hold I got laid off and the team was cut loose. Not sure
how they are holding up over there but damn I hope they are alright.

And fuck Lukashenko, I hope the man chokes on a cheeseburger.

~~~
MuffinFlavored
> And fuck Lukashenko, I hope the man chokes on a cheeseburger.

This kind of low-effort comment belongs on Reddit, not HackerNews. It's not
insightful/up to the standards of typical content for this community.

~~~
westmeal
Is your comment insightful?

~~~
MuffinFlavored
It is. It calls out the fact that trying to say witty remarks to get "upvoted"
to the top is going to drag down HN, just how it dragged down Reddit. Why not
explain why Lukashenko is a bad person to somebody who doesn't know? That's
too much effort. Might as well make a quick joke and get validation from
peers.

~~~
effingwewt
Gtfo. They simply mentioned how this a very worrisome situation, and quite
rightly at the end of it, did some venting, which I haooen to agree with.

It was your original comment and the later ones trying to defend said comment
are the low-effort comments you are complaining about.

And if you really don't know about Lukashenko a quick google will suffice,or
the, idk hundreds of comments between this post and the last?

And finally, it seems to me at least that if anyone here is pandering for
worthless internet points, it is you.

------
dalbasal
This is tangential..

As a European, I feel that we are too disconnected from this affair. Just as
with the Ukrainian civil war and Crimean annexation, a big part of this
conflict is a conservative, repressive, Russia/Putin sponsored regime at odds
with a population that identifies more with European/EU values... especially
younger people.

Russia see the dignity, prosperity and freedom of several nations as trivial
relative to their "vital concern" of having a buffer between them and "The
West."

I'm not saying that we can or should escalate recklessly vis-a-vis Russia. I
am saying that they are our neighbors too, not just Russia's. We have our
interests too, and more importantly our solidarity. The Lukashenko regime is
anachronistic, brutal and failed.

This is not a foreign affair.

I understand and even sympathize with Putin's concerns on encroachment. He
lays them out clearly enough. I will also admit that mistakes have been made,
and the the US played its hand too aggressively in the 1990s. I also think
that the EU (and NATO, if the US is willing) should negotiate a peace treaty
that addresses these. I also genuinely believe this is possible.

For that to happen though, we need to take a much firmer stance. We need to be
as interested in our neighbors as Russia is. The whole premise of the EU is
peace _and_ sovereignty. Those values need to be represented here.

Ukraine was abused because of their desire to join the EU, and we treated it
as above our paygrade. Now, Russia is openly propping up Lukashenko. Next year
it will be Lithuania, Estonia. Putin might decide to intervene on behalf of
Victor Orban. We're in this one way or another.

~~~
odshoifsdhfs
Ukraine yes, Belarus youth don't seem to align with EU that much. They just
want a freaking democratic country. Most favour Russian values over EU ones.

source: Current and previous gfs were Belarrusian and we had these discussions
a lot (both before and after this whole thing)

edit: And both parents of both women voted for lukashenko btw, as well as some
of their friends (not saying he won or anything, but it isn't also like 100%
are opposed to him)

~~~
kazagistar
I'm still not even sure what Russian values even means.

~~~
odshoifsdhfs
Whatever it means if you don't use the word 'values', basically they identify
more with Russia than EU. The gp mentioned that they identify with EU values,
and thus I used the same word.

------
zerr
When we see that nations are hostages of their criminal governments - what
real mechanisms are there for helping those nations? e.g. what would be the
outcome of targeting specifically Lukashenko, Putin, Kim Jong-un along with
their inner circles respectively?

~~~
mola
Usually(last 50y) US and EU would initiate sanctions, if it doesn't collide
too greatly with their own interests, that would put pressure on respective
government by putting their economy in peril. Lately US has stepped down from
that role, and openly started diplomatic hostilities towards the EU. EU isn't
powerful enough alone, plus they deal with their own economic and social
issues which make them not stable enough to afford sanctions.

~~~
merpnderp
I'm not sure how the US has stepped down from that role:
[https://www.state.gov/ukraine-and-russia-
sanctions/](https://www.state.gov/ukraine-and-russia-sanctions/)
[https://www.reuters.com/article/us-belarus-election-usa-
sanc...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-belarus-election-usa-sanctions-
exclus-idUSKBN25S5JU)

And if you mean "diplomatic hostiles" in that the US is angry at the EU for
not cooperating with the sanction process against targeted countries or
meeting their military obligations so that they qualify to vote in
international politics, then I guess you're right.

~~~
tw04
You're not sure? How about Trump fighting against new sanctions and actively
pursuing removal of existing ones?

[https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-
battles-n...](https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump-administration-battles-new-
sanctions-on-russia)

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/us-lifts-
sanct...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/27/us-lifts-sanctions-
oleg-deripaska-russia)

~~~
kazagistar
Venezuela? Iran? All you have seen is a change towards friendliness to Russia.
Its not a change in the policy of using sieges without declaring war to starve
and kill populations to somehow punish leaders (I refuse the word sanctions
because it is a weasel word). That practice is alive and well and worse then
ever; the only change is in who its weirded against.

------
openasocket
I'm sure there's a couple people reading about this and other events in
Belarus and wondering why Russia is so involved with Belarus like this. I
thought I'd add a little bit on context. Like Ukraine, Belarus serves as a
buffer between NATO and Russia, and was once a part of the Soviet Union. But
Belarus is especially important to Russia because of Kaliningrad:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaliningrad)
. It's a part of Russia that is completely separate from the rest of the
country, on the Baltic Sea wedged between Poland and Lithuania. Kaliningrad is
heavily militarized, and in any NATO-Russian conflict Kaliningrad would play a
vital role. And the country of Belarus is directly between Kaliningrad and the
rest of Russia. Any Russian war plan would hinge on being able to move troops
through Belarus. I would expect Russia to pull out all the stops to defend
their interests here

EDIT: sorry, Belarus does not directly connect to Kaliningrad, there is a gap
of about 50 miles with Lithuania and Poland on either side. But the general
point still stands

~~~
heavenlyblue
I've thought your general point was based on the fact that they were
connected?

~~~
openasocket
In an a NATO-Russian conflict, having free movement of Russian troops through
Belarus means you only have a 50 mile gap to fight through to link up with
Kaliningrad, as opposed to over 300 miles directly from the rest of Russia. At
50 miles Kaliningrad and Russian forces fighting from Belarus could have
overlapping SAM cover and MLRS artillery support, it's well within the combat
radius of attack helicopters, etc. And there are railway lines around that
corridor that, once seized, would enable efficient transport of material.

~~~
heavenlyblue
But there is still no border between Russia and Belarus.

------
atlasunshrugged
This is a bit off topic but since there are likely some people in this thread
familiar with the happenings in Belarus, does anyone know what's happening
with Vitali Shkliarov? I know he was arrested a while back and his lawyer has
made some public statements but I haven't seen much about him recently

------
homakov
Do not have business with any company that pays taxes in Belarus. We must
deprive Lukashenko of money. Many IT companies are attracted to Minsk because
of the low cost and here we are.

------
sabujp
video of what's going on in belarus :
[https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/ip14z2/bela...](https://old.reddit.com/r/PublicFreakout/comments/ip14z2/belarus_citizens_have_had_enough_and_turn_the/)

------
trurl123
What's happened with hn? I don't want to read about politics here.

------
jdennah
imprisoned HR, I'd just let that one run its course.

------
dshpala
I think that protesters didn't think it through enough. Yes, Lukashenko is an
awful guy, but what is the alternative?

Protesters say they are pro Russia - but in my opinion this is a grave
mistake, and Belarus will soon find itself as a Russia-controlled state.

~~~
playing_colours
The protesters look to me as against Russian interference, propaganda, and the
perspectives to become a Russian province. The protesters are not against
common Russian people and culture,they are for being good neighbours. It's
reasonable, that the more Russia interferes and helps Lukashenko - the more
negative the attitude of Belarusian becomes.

------
bmmayer1
Whereas this is monstrous, one has to ask if PandaDoc leadership is acting
recklessly by criticizing a foreign dictatorship from afar, while their
employees and assets are still at risk. At least Bill Browder had the
foresight to get most of his employees (and his money) out of Russia before he
started going after Putin...and yet Magnitsky still paid the ultimate price.
This is a dangerous game that they're playing and I really hope for the safety
of the PandaDoc team.

Edit: Updated to reflect that company was founded in Minsk and later relocated
to SV. Still dangerous.

~~~
mattdeboard
I'd suggest that no one has to ask if PandaDoc's leadership is acting
recklessly by speaking. Because the alternative is complicity. It is
absolutely dangerous to speak, though, you're right about that. The danger
exists regardless of whether their leadership speaks. The difference is
timing.

Yes, it is dangerous. But the party making it unsafe is the fascists. Outrage
should be directed there.

[https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-
nie...](https://encyclopedia.ushmm.org/content/en/article/martin-niemoeller-
first-they-came-for-the-socialists)

~~~
alehul
> It is absolutely dangerous to speak

Dangerous for who, though?

It was the founders who were supposedly acting against the Belarusian
government, and the employees who are paying the price. The founders are safe
in San Francisco.

My outrage is certainly directed at Lukashenko, but the commenter above us may
have a point about whether it was responsible to be acting against a dictator
while your employees are subject to his government. It's a tough situation.

~~~
mattdeboard
Dangerous for the workers still in Belarus.

And yes, it is tough. It's a very difficult & complicated situation that I am
thankful I don't have to experience.

