Eugene Kapersky is a Russian state asset and literally refuses to use the word "war" in regards to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
Banning foreign agents from a hostile regime in a time of war is not an attack on free speech. Kapersky is free to speak -- and he has, through public statements from his company. He is not free to do business with the Western world while living in a sanctioned country.
The number of times I've seen HN posters rejoice that people are not allowed to even communicate their political ideas because they are x-ist (it's a private company, bigot!) is too many to count. But the minute there's an actual genocidal war being waged by one of the most wicked nations on earth, people are very concerned about the Constitutional right to commercially sell antivirus software from the enemy's borders. Absurd.
>Eugene Kapersky is a Russian state asset and literally refuses to use the word "war" in regards to Russia's invasion of Ukraine.
To be fair, western third parties like Japan refer to the conflict as the "Invasion of Ukraine" (ウクライナ侵攻, ukuraina shinkou) and such.
Personally, I don't view this as a war because there was no formal declaration(s) of war to be seen anywhere before nor after the fact. War is an act of diplomacy, but what Russia has been doing is anything but.
> War is an act of diplomacy, but what Russia has been doing is anything but.
No, this is an unnecessary formalism. Why not define war by what is actually happening (large scale armed conflict between states or other large groups) rather than by mere words uttered by somebody?
> In his study Hostilities without Declaration of War (1883), the British scholar John Frederick Maurice showed that between 1700 and 1870 war was declared in only 10 cases, while in another 107 cases war was waged without such declaration (these figures include only wars waged in Europe and between European states and the United States, not including colonial wars in Africa and Asia).
> The principle of a compulsory declaration of war has now fallen into disuse. In practice and under customary law, a declaration of war is no longer necessary for a state of war to exist; it suffices for one of the parties to make its intentions clear by actually commencing hostilities. Similarly, a formal declaration of war is not necessary for the application of international humanitarian law.
>> In practice and under customary law, a declaration of war is no longer necessary for a state of war to exist
Was it ever? Under customary law, a state of war exists between any two parties by default. What needs to be declared is peace, which is why so many ancient peace treaties survive.
Actually I am convinced that everyone in kremlin have the Diplomacy skill set to ZERO, all of them and their ambassadors, local leaders, duma politicians.
And the regular citizens that I interacted with are similar, for example a guy threaten me " my cousin fought in such and such Ruzzian war, he is not with the mafia and drawn a guy because X, do you want to have my cousin kill you? "
No sane goverment should run Ruzziancontrol software, even if the guy is a saint(we know is a KGB close friend ) the KGB goons will force him to install spuyweare in an update.
"Invasion" is also an acceptable and accurate term. The doublespeak of "special operation" as if it is a police issue in a territory they have right to is what he sticks to.
Regardless, Kapersky has plenty of money. If he doesn't support his nation's mass butchering of its neighbors he could easily buy citizenship in a country like Nevis, which puts it up for sale, denounce Putin, and abandon the Russian state. As it is, he is under the control of the FSB, and every dollar he earns generates demand for the ruble and tax revenue for the Russian state.
An invasion of a sovereign country is a act of war by definition. It's a legal casus belli for the victim to possibly be followed by a official declaration of war but that does not invalidate the war status.
A conflict without formal DoWs issued is not a proper war, FSVO proper. That doesn't detract from the hideous nonsense Russia is engaging in, of course; it's arguably worse than a war because they couldn't even be arsed to say it is one.
As much as diplomacy tends to be derided (and I'm certainly among those detractors), I also want to believe diplomacy still fucking means something for the sake of a civilized world.
> As much as diplomacy tends to be derided (and I'm certainly among those detractors), I also want to believe diplomacy still fucking means something for the sake of a civilized world.
I don't understand what benefit for diplomacy is this insistence that a war without a declaration isn't a war.
Aren’t wars (in the traditional sense) effectively banned by the UN? If war is illegal under modern intentions law what’s the point of declaring one besides self-incrimination? If you invade a country and just call that a “special operation” you can at least maintain some pretense of legitimacy.
What is happening currently in Syria? The USA hast still some forces there taking control of oil fields in a sovereign country. Can we count that as war?
A conflict without formal DoWs issued is not a proper war,
If it helps clarify things for you: most wars are deeply psychological in nature; and part of how they operate is by telling people (both the perpetrators and victims) that it's not really a "war". But rather a "special operation". They will even lie right to your face, and tell you that they are there to "demilitarize" the area and to bring peace. And that to the extent that it might look like a war -- that will insist that they had no choice; it was forced on them; the other side could stop it at any time if they wanted to.
Proper declarations do have significance of course; but they are always secondary to the basic facts of what's happening on the ground.
In case it wasn't obvious, no I don't buy Russia's "mUh SpEcIaL oPeRaTiOn!" bullshit. It's not a war either, for already stated reasons.
No, what's going on in Ukraine is even worse; it's unadulterated, uncivilized baboonery that should be an embarassment to all of humanity. Russia for doing it, and the rest of us all for failing to stop it (and so far putting an end to it).
It's the 21st motherfucking century and we can't even try to be civilized about brutally murdering each other en masse. Fucking hell, man.
True of most armies -- even the worst we can think of. The architects of war know this, of course. That's why most the killing is usually done at a distance, out of sight and out of mind.
Which was done (and, judging by the choice of ordinance, signed off on at the highest levels) not despite the fact that they knew there were children present at the carefully selected target; but because of it.
Is that a method anyone has ever used to distribute paid, multi-GB software (or ever will for that matter)? I’m pretty sure Kaspersky is fully closed source anyways. This argument seems really roundabout and ineffective.
The problem is that the company in question can act freely from the US government. Should I remind you what triggered this animosity toward Kaspersky in the first place? https://www.wired.com/story/nsa-leak-kaspersky-labs/
The US is currently indirectly at war with Russia... I don't understand why you think it makes sense to let someone you are basically at war with operate on your computers