[gizmo]

Does any company fire their American customers because of the calamitous Iraq war and related war crimes? Do companies fire their Israeli customers because of the current bombing campaign? What about Argentinian customers? Melei has contempt for European style democracy. Should Chinese customers get the boot because of the horrific treatment of Uyghurs by the Chinese Party? Should Hetzner also fire their German customers while they're at it because of German arms exports to oppressive regimes?

Isolationism isn't the answer here. We live in a globalized world and by integrating our economies we disincentivize war and strife. Maybe Hetzner is acting out of principle, maybe they choose to do this because of optics. In any case, it's the wrong move both pragmatically and idealistically.

[jsnell]

Yes, companies constantly fire their American customers due to their nationality, or refuse to take Americans as new customers. (Banking and finance, in particular). Now, that's not a moral stance about American wars, it's just the natural outcome of the regulatory environment.

The original message from Hetzner suggests that this is also some kind of compliance issue rather than being driven by some kind of individual opposition to the war.

[red-iron-pine]

> Yes, companies constantly fire their American customers due to their nationality, or refuse to take Americans as new customers. (Banking and finance, in particular). Now, that's not a moral stance about American wars, it's just the natural outcome of the regulatory environment.

Specifically due to FATCA and related regulations that require foreign banks to report US citizens and potentially open the kimono if the IRS demands more about what they're up to.

No one outside of the middle east gave a shit about Iraq or Afghanistan enough to take the financial hit from pulling out of the US.

Even with moral shortcomings the US market was too big and too stable to walk away from. The Russian market was marginally stable, corrupt as hell, and mostly a source of raw materials and simple value-adds. For the EU that meant cheap gas, at the cost of funding people who hate you, and not taking steps to better nuclear or renewables.

[plorkyeran]

Hetzner is acting out of a desire to not go to prison for violating sanctions, not out of principle or optics. There's no hypocrisy in doing business with the customers you're legally allowed to and not doing business with the ones you aren't.

There's a lot of room to criticize the sanctions and what countries they get applied to, but that isn't something that's up to Hetzner.

[avaika]

I already posted this in another thread here. This particular change is not because isolationism. Most likely.

Russian government added Hetzner to the list of companies who must move their infrastructure within Russian borders in order to operate with Russian citizens. Few years ago they introduced a law on how companies have to process personal data. (It is kinda similar to GDPR, but the government might abuse it in the way to get access to data government needs). Obviously Hetzner doesn't want to create infrastructure on Russian soil. It was quite risky even before the war.

You can find the full list of "lucky" companies in here -- https://236-fz.rkn.gov.ru/agents/list (sorry, it's in Russian, but google translate should help you out).

[gizmo]

Thanks for that information. I agree with your assessment.

[flohofwoe]

What about... what about... what about... Western Europe really tried after 1990 to integrate with Eastern Europe and it worked pretty well for most former socialist countries, but not with Russia and Belarus. And not for lack of trying on behalf of the Western European countries, if anything the West had been too naive for too long.

[gizmo]

I'm pointing out clear hypocrisy. That's not whataboutism.

[dnh44]

Crying about "whataboutism" is just a cheap rhetorical technique employed to deflect attention away from accusations of hypocrisy. It's the last refuge of the hypocrite especially when it comes to discussing politics. Unfortunately it seems to be a rather effective rhetorical device in that it tends to terminate discussions while allowing the wielder to disappear in a puff of smoke.

[verdverm]

It can be both at the same time, which I would agree it is. Whataboutism seeks to inject other topics instead of focusing on the one at hand

[gizmo]

I'm not inviting people to change the topic with my post. Hetzners actions are clearly because of sanctions against Russia. They say so in their email. My response asks whether "the geopolitical situation" is a good justification, given that there are many comparable geopolitical situations where Europe would never respond with sanctions like these.

[verdverm]

There are contradictions in your comments, one example

> Maybe Hetzner is acting out of principle, maybe they choose to do this because of optics.

> Hetzners actions are clearly because of sanctions against Russia. They say so in their email.

> My response asks whether "the geopolitical situation" is a good justification

It's very hard to follow your logic and what you think is the reason Hetzner is cancelling some customers

Either way, your original comment is whataboutism as judged by HN members. Maybe it is not elsewhere, but it seems here it is

[gizmo]

We don't know what motivates the Hetzner executives. We only know what their actions are. We don't know whether they agree with the sanctions against Russia. But clearly their actions are because of the sanctions. Hetzner is not going to refuse to do business with an entire country entirely out of their own accord.

As for whataboutism, downvotes here can also represent simple disagreement. The first comment suggested that Europe "really tried", i.e. that Europe is acting with noble and good intentions. I think that's ahistorical, but I can see how people who believe that take offense to my post.

[rufus_foreman]

If pointing out hypocrisy is whataboutism, then I see no problem with whataboutism. Pointing out hypocrisy is not a logical fallacy, it is something that should be done more frequently.

If you believe that a country that invades another country should be the target of international sanctions, you believe that the US, along with many other countries, should be the target of international sanctions.

Do the people arguing that Russia should be the target of international sanctions act as if they believe the US should be the target of international sanctions? For the most part, they do not. It makes me question whether the real reason they want sanctions on Russia is because Russia invaded another country. Maybe the real rule is that when countries that you oppose invade another country, they should be the target of sanctions. That seems the be the rule that is actually practiced.

[verdverm]

This pretty much describes great power conflict and competition between democracies and authoritarian states. There are fundamental differences that make treating them the same unreasonable to most in the west.

[otabdeveloper4]

The real answer is that this isn't about morality. It's a pretext to roll back globalization, which the Powers that Be were on track to implement since the before Covid times. War is just convenient as a pretext.