that's a pretty indirect contribution. if we start to boycott companies because of what is done with the taxes they pay then there won't be many companies left to use or do business with.
The country has literally started the war and keeps killing people. Is it not enough to boycott any relationship with it, especially those from which it benefits financially?
as far as my observations go it's a little more complicated than russia started the war and apart from that life is not just about politics but also about mundane practicalities.
Only psychopath children: “I’m not bullying him, I’m just saying if he does anything I don’t want him to do I will bully him.”
Allegedly astute observers of European history: “Russia isn’t an aggressor, it just will aggress if its independent neighbors do anything Russia doesn’t like.”
sure, but that is sadly how world politics works. if the US expands nato right to the border of russia then they retaliate. ukraine fought a war against their own citizens in the eastern half when they sympathized with opening up to russia - a majority there perceives themselves as russians. this is not just whataboutism - if you don't fight for resources then you'll have to buy them for a very high price. and ukraine is very rich in resources. as is greenland.
Don’t give yourself credit for understanding the “much more complicated” picture of the invasion than what other people are identifying.
You’re right here saying that it’s a resource grab. That’s what everyone else identifies it as too. You don’t have a more “complicated” picture or a more complete one, just one that’s devoid of a moral imperative.
if it is a majority today, it is because those who had pro-Ukrainian views were killed or had to leave not to be killed. people have families and not always can just "move away" - that's why they are forced to get russian passports not to be killed
it has never been internal war in the east of Ukraine, and the full scale war there today is the proof.
> sure, but that is sadly how world politics works. if the US expands nato right to the border of russia then they retaliate. ukraine fought a war against their own citizens in the eastern half when they sympathized with opening up to russia - a majority there perceives themselves as russians.
This is not some "nuanced view", but blatantly wrong Russian propaganda:
1. The notion of "the US expands NATO" is ridiculously wrong. In Central and Eastern Europe, getting into NATO is considered the holy grail of foreign policy. Since the end of the Cold War, it has been regarded as the top goal in foreign policy (along with the EU membership), because nobody wants to return to being unfree prisoners under Russian rule in severely stagnating dictatorships, from which European nations broke free only 35 years ago.
2. I stress: Central and Eastern Europe passionately wants into the pact that would help to defend them in case of another Russian invasion. Sweden even abandoned its 200 years of neutrality and entered the pact. Trying to depict this as some kind of American initiative is plain wrong.
3. Existing members had refused to invite Ukraine into NATO in 2008 and the topic of Ukraine's entry into NATO was completely off the table by the time of Russian invasion in 2014.
4. There was no "war against their own citizens" in Eastern Ukraine. The European Court of Human Rights has ruled that the entire thing was a covert Russian special operation, directly under Russian military command. Their verdict is long and gives a really good overview.
The entire war is about as complicated as the invasion of Poland and France. Just plain naked aggression by a totalitarian dictatorship that first crushed all internal opposition, then turned outwardly expansionist. History has seen many such examples.
> if the US expands nato right to the border of russia then they retaliate.
US didn't expand NATO, those countries begged and pleased and threatened to get in and the US and other NATO countries finally threw up their hands and said fine. Note they didn't build any bases there or station significant amount of troops there.
> ukraine fought a war against their own citizens in the eastern half
To portray any part of the Ukranian war as a civil war even 2014-2021 is wrong. Ukraine fought Russia. At most there were a handful of far right and criminals who were willing to fight their own country. Girkin the FSB agent who took the first steps in the war admitted that if it hadn't been for Russia Ukraine would just have arrested the handful of troublemakers.
> when they sympathized with opening up to russia
I feel like you don't know very much about Immigration or business between Ukraine and Russia before Russia invaded, things were pretty open. It's that Russia ruined it by invading.
> a majority there perceives themselves as russians.
If you don't know the demographics or identities of Ukraine then please don't make stuff up. The majority considered themselves ethnically Ukranian in almost all parts of eastern Ukraine including Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts. And of course ethnicity isn't politics there are shit ton of soldiers politicians and ordinary Ukranian citizens of russian origin supporting their country. The head commander of Ukraine is an ethnic Russian who moved to Ukraine as a teenager and still has family there.
> this is not just whataboutism - if you don't fight for resources then you'll have to buy them for a very high price. and ukraine is very rich in resources.
Russia has many more resources.
Granted this war has been built on idiocy but invading Ukraine for resources makes no sense considering how much it would have business/expenses it would have cost even if Russia could have won
> as is greenland.
Greenland is militarily useful because of its location. It already has a US base so the status quo is good for the US
The problem with people who claim the Russian war on Ukraine is more complicated is that they dont seem interested in the actual complexity as opposed to the Russian propaganda.