- the Afghanistan invasion was an actual reaction to a direct attack, not a “you are close to joining an opponent alliance”
- in the west people were free to criticize the invasion, while Russians have much to fear if they are anti-war.
The first point is more moral, while both wars are ridiculous, they are different scale of ridiculous, but not important from business perspective.
This is extremely important from a business perspective, as it shows the state heavy arm on its people and therefore its business. If it controls people’s speech, people’s business are under even more control.
So, as a business, you face a much bigger risk depending on some compony from a “controlling state”, then a more free state.
This doesn’t mean that USA/the west, doesn’t use it’s private companies, it’s just a difference on scale, and how easy/entrenched that control is.
Another example, is that many european PMs lost the next election cycle with major reason being supporting that war effort. Also, people were actually allowed to protest. Checkout how russian protests are handled.
Just like even today in eastern eurocountries there are some sons of ex wealthy soviets nicknamed “homo sovietis”, with their soviet themed bars, which are perfectly allowed today, but i wonder what would happened if during their youth they opened a “capitalist/ocidental” bar.
When did Afghanistan attack the US? You realize that they did offer to extradite bin Ladin, right? Did Iraq attack the US too? Might as well believe made up Russian propaganda about the Donbass.
Also Who cares if the people in the west were free to criticize it? It didn't stop the war, and it has absolutely nothing to do with embargoes and boycotts. Absolutely no one in Iraq cares that Americans still had their free speech when they destroyed their country and set them back 30 years
Russia wouldn't suddenly be a fine member of the international community if their government wasn't censoring criticism of the war while still invading Ukraine.
Yes to be clear I agree that doing business with Russian citizens in russia itself is not something I would do. I was referring to Russian corporations that basically migrated away from Russia but still have a most Russian (by citizenship) staff.
Also, just to provide a source and details on the extradition offer, they offered to extradite him to a third country for trial which I think is more than reasonable, but the US said that there was no need for proof or process.
>The United States today rejected yet another offer by Afghanistan's ruling Taliban to turn over Osama bin Laden for trial in a third country if the U.S. presents evidence against bin Laden and stops air attacks.
>"There's no need to discuss it," Bush said. "We know he's guilty. Just turn him over. … There's nothing to negotiate about. They're harboring a terrorist and they need to turn him over."
So essentially the US and the rest of the world razed a country to the ground because they wanted a man so badly that when the country offered to give that man a fair trial before a third neutral country, the US found that offensive and destroyed them?
democracy much?
Yes it's honestly troubling. Until recently I completely believed that they didn't want to give up bin laden at all. Even then, it was unjustified imo to invade a country since I'm sure the US also refuses extradition sometimes.
But to hear that the Talibans were the reasonable or at least negotiating party here is insane.
yeah, what difference is that from blood thirsty tyrants who wish to destroy worlds ? genghis khan slaughtered a huge chunk of human population because he was insulted or something stupid silly. isn't this the same thing?
- the Afghanistan invasion was an actual reaction to a direct attack, not a “you are close to joining an opponent alliance”
- in the west people were free to criticize the invasion, while Russians have much to fear if they are anti-war.
The first point is more moral, while both wars are ridiculous, they are different scale of ridiculous, but not important from business perspective.
This is extremely important from a business perspective, as it shows the state heavy arm on its people and therefore its business. If it controls people’s speech, people’s business are under even more control.
So, as a business, you face a much bigger risk depending on some compony from a “controlling state”, then a more free state.
This doesn’t mean that USA/the west, doesn’t use it’s private companies, it’s just a difference on scale, and how easy/entrenched that control is.
Another example, is that many european PMs lost the next election cycle with major reason being supporting that war effort. Also, people were actually allowed to protest. Checkout how russian protests are handled.
Just like even today in eastern eurocountries there are some sons of ex wealthy soviets nicknamed “homo sovietis”, with their soviet themed bars, which are perfectly allowed today, but i wonder what would happened if during their youth they opened a “capitalist/ocidental” bar.