• Echo Dot@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah but that’s what sanctions are. It’s not really possible to have convenient sanctions. How would that work.

    • Woht24@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      And at the end of the day if that interpretation is true, your essentially saying ‘bad fucking luck’ to all the Russians who lost their jobs while living in a country perpetrating a war that if they speak out against, they’ll be jailed at best.

      You’re right, there’s no convenient sanctions but if that’s really what old mate Lush is saying, he’s got a point.

      • thedirtyknapkin@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        i mean, this is one way to win a war. the other is with bombs and death. Russia chose to enter this war, it shouldn’t be surprised when it affects its citizens.

        no one should get to keep their war over seas and out of their own borders.

        imagine a future where we could stop wars by just taking people’s jobs…

        • lad@programming.dev
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Well, killing people using economy seems more humane than killing people using bombs, so I have to agree

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Sanctions are typically the acts of a government state not the actions of a business. Businesses have to comply with them but only if they’re bound by them. That wasn’t the case here. Lush did this based on public outcry, not sanctions.