I don't get it. If we're insisting that Crimea, Lugansk and Donetsk are Ukraine and the people are Ukranian, then why block/sanction people there who have no control over the situation?
- To inconvenience the institutions of the occupier just in that area (Why just there? To avoid removing their incentives to change and to avoid crippling your own companies who provide a service there. If you sanction the occupier fully, they'll double down, perceive it as an escalation, and your own companies will be significantly hurt. They'll find an alternative, and once they do, they won't need your service any longer, so you lose leverage.)
- To frustrate the local populace so that even the milder ones have additional incentives to oppose the occupying regime.
Imagine if Russia occupies Ukraine by force. Following this logic, Ukrainians should now be persuaded (punished) so that they they find the will (as if they don’t already have it) to throw Russia out. The same people that we are helping and sending money and weapons to right now.
Aren't companies just going to ban the entirity of Ukraine, due to it being easier than finding out if your clients are connected to Russia or in a Russia-controlled area, resulting in an outcome undesired by the Ukrainian gov?
My understanding is that the occupied areas of Ukraine generally have Russian telcos come and take over, so it would be as simple as blocking Russia the majority of the time.
- To inconvenience the institutions of the occupier just in that area (Why just there? To avoid removing their incentives to change and to avoid crippling your own companies who provide a service there. If you sanction the occupier fully, they'll double down, perceive it as an escalation, and your own companies will be significantly hurt. They'll find an alternative, and once they do, they won't need your service any longer, so you lose leverage.)
- To frustrate the local populace so that even the milder ones have additional incentives to oppose the occupying regime.