If it's a legal decision, one can understand that, but it also brings up questions about the project's independence and neutrality. Any country and organization can now deem the project a security risk as it would be considered an extension of US foreign policy.
But if it's the former, the hypocrisy is nauseating:
Numerous war criminals who killed millions are called 'elder statesmen' in the US and are venerated today. Even as of this moment, a massacre is going on in the Middle East with US government support. But, American contributors are not removed from the project for that. Neither Torvalds seems to be saying anything about the past and ongoing crimes of such actors as the US, but instead vilifying Russia and Russians.
Disgusting however you look at it.
Note: "Whataboutism!!!":
If one makes moral comparisons, and even further, accusations, he has to provide an objective framework for comparison. If it's not provided or the framework just applies to others, the accusations become mere smears and have no weight. It becomes precisely what Chomsky labels "Only talking about the crimes of others". Hypocritically vilifying and targeting others while the 'side you are on' commits bigger crimes than those targeted.
"But Americans oppose their government"
Few do. Most support it. Otherwise, the US government wouldn't be able to kill 1 million Iraqis, then an unknown number of Libyans, Syrians, and so on. Without even going back to cases like Vietnam etc. And the few Americans who oppose their government haven't been able to change anything. Whereas the government always had, and still has enough majority support behind it no matter what atrocity or genocide it commits or abets. With the moral logic proposed by those like Torvalds, all Americans should be expelled from the project as well. Note that this also applies to the people of all US-satellite countries that aided and abetted all those atrocities and genocides, including but not limited to the Iraq war.
While his answer was phrased in an odd and unusual way, Linus acted like someone who knows first hand how nasty Russia is. Just ask any European from the Eastern side of Europe how much they love or hate Russia.
Not your friendly neighbor, but nevertheless Russia was on a more decent path in 2013, so people were a bit more neutral.
In 2023 only 18.3% had a positive perception.
What do you think about whopping 34% that in 2008 supported the bid to join NATO submitted by the Ukrainian president, who came to power after the so called Orange Revolution? Or 'it is different'?
"The Institute for Strategic Research poll asked the following question: “The Russian leadership has put forward the condition that in order for Russia to have good neighborly relations with Ukraine, Ukraine must renounce its intent to join NATO. What do you think, should Ukraine agree to this?” While 45.4 percent supported renouncing the goal of NATO membership, 33.6 percent replied negatively and 21 percent were unable to answer." [0]
I'm saying that people couldn't care less about Russia, most of the Romanians look towards West, not East. So when asked "what do you think about Russia?", a possible answer could have been "yeah, positive, why not? nothing bad happened lately".
As for Ukraine and NATO, who's Russia to decide what other countries do? I get it, polls are nice for armchair analysis, but in the end Ukrainians should probably organize a referendum and decide for themselves what they want now, not in 2008.
Except there's no analogy here of course, because unlike Cuba in 1962, Ukraine did not station nuclear missiles, or take any other action objectively posing a threat to Russia. But Putin invaded anyway, because as the world knows, the invasion was never about Russia's legitimate security concerns in the first place.
Meanwhile, if we were to draw an appropriate analogy to 1962 it would go like this: "Confrontation over missiles, Khrushchev backs down. However, JFK is not satisfied with Khrushchev's assurances that Cuba will not eventually form a NATO-like alliance with Russia, and doesn't like the idea of the countries forming close economic ties, and so decides to invade anyway, seeking regime change and a government in Cuba that is permanently friendly to US interests."
The latter (hypothetical) action would have been neocolonial aggression in the classic mold, of course - on top of being a transparent sham. And in exactly that vein, a much closer analogy to the course of action Putin actually took in Ukraine.
Fascinating, the degree to which Kennedy's delusion that he could "make his power credible" by taking a stand in Vietnam mirrors Putin's own delusion that he could win a similar degree of credibility by going into Ukraine:
Kennedy believed another failure to stop communist expansion would irreparably damage US credibility. He was determined to "draw a line in the sand" and prevent a communist victory in Vietnam. He told James Reston of The New York Times after the Vienna summit with Khrushchev, "Now we have a problem making our power credible and Vietnam looks like the place."
As Žižek teaches us: everything happens twice -- first as tragedy, then as farce.
>As Žižek teaches us: everything happens twice -- first as tragedy, then as farce.
That line actually originates from Karl Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice...the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." Žižek often references this concept, but it’s Marx who coined it in his analysis of historical repetition.
You need to really work on the depth of your historical understanding and get off of Mastodon or Lemmy, which I'm guessing is why I mistook your addledness for Twitter.
You're forgetting that Russia took Moldova from Romania and even today it still wants the same thing. They interfered heavily with last week's referendum that asked if Moldova should join the European Union and NATO. We're not talking about just some ads or fake news. We're talking about buying votes and preparing rebels just in case. So yeah, $39 million reasons to love Russia [1].
What's next, promoting the denazification of Ukraine? Please stop portraying Russia as the Liberating Army when in reality it's more like the Occupying Army.
P.S. I forget to mention that we're still waiting for Russia to give our gold back after we sent it to them for safe keeping. We've been waiting for more than a century since the end of the World War I.
>You're forgetting that Russia took Moldova from Romania
You are forgetting that Romania started building its own empire in 1918 and grabbed Moldova from Russia when Russia was incapacitated by the civil war.
>They interfered heavily with last week's referendum
The interference on the West's part was huge:
"Moldova’s presidential election and the constitutional referendum were being closely watched by Moscow, Brussels and Washington, all of which have sought to sway the outcome.
The United States and the European Union have offered economic support, including a package worth about $2 billion announced during a recent visit to Moldova by Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission."
>reasons to love Russia
Many Moldovans who at least don't mind Russia are working in Russia. In 2020-2021's elections Moldova opened 17 voting locations in Russia, but Sandu's pro-Western government opened only 2. This way Moldovan diaspora in Russia was effectively cut off from voting while Moldovan emigrants in EU had no problems. Considering that the margin was very thin (50.35% vs 49.65%) that changed the result of the referendum.
"There were more than 50 polling stations in Italy, 17 in the United States, and two in Russia (both in Moscow)." [1]
>Please stop portraying Russia as the Liberating Army when in reality it's more like the Occupying Army.
With few exceptions, after 1945 the USSR controlled the countries which participated in the Nazi's invasion. I don't think any apologies towards Nazi allies are in order.
> I forget to mention that we're still waiting for Russia to give our gold back after we sent it to them for safe keeping.
It's ironic that you are telling me this at the time when the West grabbed 300 billions of Russian foreign reserves which Russia trusted the West to keep.
Romania, empire... Who's this, Mr. Trololo? Come on, as Linus said, "Apparently it's not just lack of real news, it's lack of history knowledge too".
No one stopped Russia from offering economic support to Moldova, but guess what? Instead pro Russia guys stole one billion dollars.
More polling stations are always welcome, but it's not like they come for free. You're also forgetting that the initial pro-Russian strategy was to boycott the referendum. So why have more polling stations if no one will vote? :-)
> With few exceptions, after 1945 the USSR controlled the countries which participated in the Nazi's invasion. I don't think any apologies towards Nazi allies are in order.
Ok, no apologies needed, but stop with the Liberating Army bullshit.
> the West grabbed 300 billions of Russian foreign reserves which Russia trusted the West to keep
I don't have enough details to comment, but I guess it's not nice.
By the way, did I mention that we're still waiting for our gold to return from Russia?
Am I talking to a bot or are you just trolling? Ask for a better script.
Greater Romania wasn't an empire, this word would make any Romanian laugh. It was a just a bunch of regions inhabited by Romanians for hundreds (more like thousands) of years, that finally managed to unite under the same flag. WW1 destroyed the empires to which the regions belong, so they were free to unite. Sort of like the original United States of America if you wish.
If you're looking for an empire look at Russia which was and still is literally the GREATEST EMPIRE OF ALL TIME. No one's greater than Russia.
As I've already mentioned, no, Romanians weren't free. WW1 liberated them. Really liberated them unlike WW2 with its Russian Liberating Army.
I'm gonna ignore your whataboutism. The American states were colonies of the British Empire. They thought, became free, then united. End of story.
Yeah, I sort of forgot about the Mongolian empire because I ignore it most of the time. Nevertheless Wikipedia estimates its peak size at 23,500,000 km² while USSR had 22,402,200 km², so they're pretty close.
It's just that your analogy goes further than you thought.
>WW1 liberated them
And what happened to other ethnicities living on the lands of Greater Romania? As I already said, Romanian fascists genocided Jews on the lands that you say belong to Romania.
The UN rapporteurs who were tasked with overseeing the sanctions that the US effected against Iraq for the first one. And that was before the war. For the rest, use your imagination.
...
Its 20 years after the war. There are still people who think that those who read their comments are dumb enough to get gaslighted on this topic.
Are you talking about the United States of America or the United Nations? Because from what I see there's the United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and 661. Isn't Russia a member of this council?
Anyway while I'm not a fan of sanctions, why should the US be forced to deal/trade with Iraq?
Discussion (177 points, 1 day ago, 241 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41919670
Is this a moral decision, or a legal decision?
If it's a legal decision, one can understand that, but it also brings up questions about the project's independence and neutrality. Any country and organization can now deem the project a security risk as it would be considered an extension of US foreign policy.
But if it's the former, the hypocrisy is nauseating:
Numerous war criminals who killed millions are called 'elder statesmen' in the US and are venerated today. Even as of this moment, a massacre is going on in the Middle East with US government support. But, American contributors are not removed from the project for that. Neither Torvalds seems to be saying anything about the past and ongoing crimes of such actors as the US, but instead vilifying Russia and Russians.
Disgusting however you look at it.
Note: "Whataboutism!!!":
If one makes moral comparisons, and even further, accusations, he has to provide an objective framework for comparison. If it's not provided or the framework just applies to others, the accusations become mere smears and have no weight. It becomes precisely what Chomsky labels "Only talking about the crimes of others". Hypocritically vilifying and targeting others while the 'side you are on' commits bigger crimes than those targeted.
"But Americans oppose their government"
Few do. Most support it. Otherwise, the US government wouldn't be able to kill 1 million Iraqis, then an unknown number of Libyans, Syrians, and so on. Without even going back to cases like Vietnam etc. And the few Americans who oppose their government haven't been able to change anything. Whereas the government always had, and still has enough majority support behind it no matter what atrocity or genocide it commits or abets. With the moral logic proposed by those like Torvalds, all Americans should be expelled from the project as well. Note that this also applies to the people of all US-satellite countries that aided and abetted all those atrocities and genocides, including but not limited to the Iraq war.
> Is this a moral decision, or a legal decision?
It is, unfortunately, both. For me it was a shock to see Linus acting like a 18 years old, but, i think, propaganda has reached its aim.
However, i underestand a bit his position. He is caught between (global) politics so he cannot get out clean of this situation.
While his answer was phrased in an odd and unusual way, Linus acted like someone who knows first hand how nasty Russia is. Just ask any European from the Eastern side of Europe how much they love or hate Russia.
Yeah. Lets ask...
https://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/homesick-for-a-...
I don't see Russia, I see communism.
The results of the INSCOP poll: "In 2013, 36.8% of respondents had a positive perception of Russia" [0]
[0] https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/11/15/7428852/
Not your friendly neighbor, but nevertheless Russia was on a more decent path in 2013, so people were a bit more neutral. In 2023 only 18.3% had a positive perception.
So you think 36% is not a lot and I agree.
What do you think about whopping 34% that in 2008 supported the bid to join NATO submitted by the Ukrainian president, who came to power after the so called Orange Revolution? Or 'it is different'?
"The Institute for Strategic Research poll asked the following question: “The Russian leadership has put forward the condition that in order for Russia to have good neighborly relations with Ukraine, Ukraine must renounce its intent to join NATO. What do you think, should Ukraine agree to this?” While 45.4 percent supported renouncing the goal of NATO membership, 33.6 percent replied negatively and 21 percent were unable to answer." [0]
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20080912143617/http://www.jamest...
I'm saying that people couldn't care less about Russia, most of the Romanians look towards West, not East. So when asked "what do you think about Russia?", a possible answer could have been "yeah, positive, why not? nothing bad happened lately".
As for Ukraine and NATO, who's Russia to decide what other countries do? I get it, polls are nice for armchair analysis, but in the end Ukrainians should probably organize a referendum and decide for themselves what they want now, not in 2008.
>As for Ukraine and NATO, who's Russia to decide what other countries do?
Who was the US in 1962 to decide what Cuba and the USSR do?
>Ukrainians should probably organize a referendum and decide for themselves what they want now, not in 2008
Sadly, the time for that has passed, now it is war that decides what will happen.
Except there's no analogy here of course, because unlike Cuba in 1962, Ukraine did not station nuclear missiles, or take any other action objectively posing a threat to Russia. But Putin invaded anyway, because as the world knows, the invasion was never about Russia's legitimate security concerns in the first place.
Meanwhile, if we were to draw an appropriate analogy to 1962 it would go like this: "Confrontation over missiles, Khrushchev backs down. However, JFK is not satisfied with Khrushchev's assurances that Cuba will not eventually form a NATO-like alliance with Russia, and doesn't like the idea of the countries forming close economic ties, and so decides to invade anyway, seeking regime change and a government in Cuba that is permanently friendly to US interests."
The latter (hypothetical) action would have been neocolonial aggression in the classic mold, of course - on top of being a transparent sham. And in exactly that vein, a much closer analogy to the course of action Putin actually took in Ukraine.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but negations regarding Cuba were peaceful. And there was no war for 50+ years.
Yeah, it's hard to join NATO even if you want to, while your country is invaded.
No, they were anything but peaceful. [0][1]
>And there was no war for 50+ years.
There is still no war between Russia and the US.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Averted_n...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War#Kennedy's_escalati...
Fascinating, the degree to which Kennedy's delusion that he could "make his power credible" by taking a stand in Vietnam mirrors Putin's own delusion that he could win a similar degree of credibility by going into Ukraine:
As Žižek teaches us: everything happens twice -- first as tragedy, then as farce.>As Žižek teaches us: everything happens twice -- first as tragedy, then as farce.
That line actually originates from Karl Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: "Hegel remarks somewhere that all great world-historic facts and personages appear, so to speak, twice...the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce." Žižek often references this concept, but it’s Marx who coined it in his analysis of historical repetition.
You need to really work on the depth of your historical understanding and get off of Mastodon or Lemmy, which I'm guessing is why I mistook your addledness for Twitter.
Haven't been on either of those platforms, and couldn't even tell you what they look like.
But if that's the only defense you have for the current farce -- sure, go ahead and run with it.
Will do -- again. Hope that information helps. :)
[flagged]
You're forgetting that Russia took Moldova from Romania and even today it still wants the same thing. They interfered heavily with last week's referendum that asked if Moldova should join the European Union and NATO. We're not talking about just some ads or fake news. We're talking about buying votes and preparing rebels just in case. So yeah, $39 million reasons to love Russia [1].
What's next, promoting the denazification of Ukraine? Please stop portraying Russia as the Liberating Army when in reality it's more like the Occupying Army.
[1]: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/moldova-police-say-busi...
P.S. I forget to mention that we're still waiting for Russia to give our gold back after we sent it to them for safe keeping. We've been waiting for more than a century since the end of the World War I.
> in reality it's more like the Occupying Army.
It's not more like, it's outright the occupying army. Russians are the illegal invaders, full stop.
Also, don't bother engaging with our resident Russian-supporting troll. Just flag and move on, not worth your energy.
Also, să ai o zi faină!
Thanks for admitting that you flag the comments that you simply disagree with. That's very liberal, democratic and western of you.
[flagged]
>You're forgetting that Russia took Moldova from Romania
You are forgetting that Romania started building its own empire in 1918 and grabbed Moldova from Russia when Russia was incapacitated by the civil war.
>They interfered heavily with last week's referendum
The interference on the West's part was huge: "Moldova’s presidential election and the constitutional referendum were being closely watched by Moscow, Brussels and Washington, all of which have sought to sway the outcome.
The United States and the European Union have offered economic support, including a package worth about $2 billion announced during a recent visit to Moldova by Ursula von der Leyen, the president of the European Commission."
>reasons to love Russia
Many Moldovans who at least don't mind Russia are working in Russia. In 2020-2021's elections Moldova opened 17 voting locations in Russia, but Sandu's pro-Western government opened only 2. This way Moldovan diaspora in Russia was effectively cut off from voting while Moldovan emigrants in EU had no problems. Considering that the margin was very thin (50.35% vs 49.65%) that changed the result of the referendum.
"There were more than 50 polling stations in Italy, 17 in the United States, and two in Russia (both in Moscow)." [1]
>Please stop portraying Russia as the Liberating Army when in reality it's more like the Occupying Army.
With few exceptions, after 1945 the USSR controlled the countries which participated in the Nazi's invasion. I don't think any apologies towards Nazi allies are in order.
> I forget to mention that we're still waiting for Russia to give our gold back after we sent it to them for safe keeping.
It's ironic that you are telling me this at the time when the West grabbed 300 billions of Russian foreign reserves which Russia trusted the West to keep.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moldova#Greater_Romania
[1] https://www.bbc.com/russian/articles/cdje14pp4z8o
> Romania started building its own empire
Romania, empire... Who's this, Mr. Trololo? Come on, as Linus said, "Apparently it's not just lack of real news, it's lack of history knowledge too".
No one stopped Russia from offering economic support to Moldova, but guess what? Instead pro Russia guys stole one billion dollars.
More polling stations are always welcome, but it's not like they come for free. You're also forgetting that the initial pro-Russian strategy was to boycott the referendum. So why have more polling stations if no one will vote? :-)
> With few exceptions, after 1945 the USSR controlled the countries which participated in the Nazi's invasion. I don't think any apologies towards Nazi allies are in order.
Ok, no apologies needed, but stop with the Liberating Army bullshit.
> the West grabbed 300 billions of Russian foreign reserves which Russia trusted the West to keep
I don't have enough details to comment, but I guess it's not nice. By the way, did I mention that we're still waiting for our gold to return from Russia?
>Romania, empire...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Romania
Am I talking to a bot or are you just trolling? Ask for a better script.
Greater Romania wasn't an empire, this word would make any Romanian laugh. It was a just a bunch of regions inhabited by Romanians for hundreds (more like thousands) of years, that finally managed to unite under the same flag. WW1 destroyed the empires to which the regions belong, so they were free to unite. Sort of like the original United States of America if you wish.
If you're looking for an empire look at Russia which was and still is literally the GREATEST EMPIRE OF ALL TIME. No one's greater than Russia.
>bunch of regions inhabited by Romanians
And by others too.
>so they were free to unite
Were they free not to unite?
>Sort of like the original United States of America if you wish.
Well, USoA genocided Native Americans, even now their life expectancy is 15 years less than in the whole US.
>GREATEST EMPIRE OF ALL TIME
That will be Mongolian empire.
As I've already mentioned, no, Romanians weren't free. WW1 liberated them. Really liberated them unlike WW2 with its Russian Liberating Army.
I'm gonna ignore your whataboutism. The American states were colonies of the British Empire. They thought, became free, then united. End of story.
Yeah, I sort of forgot about the Mongolian empire because I ignore it most of the time. Nevertheless Wikipedia estimates its peak size at 23,500,000 km² while USSR had 22,402,200 km², so they're pretty close.
>I'm gonna ignore your whataboutism.
It's just that your analogy goes further than you thought.
>WW1 liberated them
And what happened to other ethnicities living on the lands of Greater Romania? As I already said, Romanian fascists genocided Jews on the lands that you say belong to Romania.
> the US government wouldn't be able to kill 1 million Iraqis, then an unknown number of Libyans, Syrians, and so on
Source?
The UN rapporteurs who were tasked with overseeing the sanctions that the US effected against Iraq for the first one. And that was before the war. For the rest, use your imagination.
...
Its 20 years after the war. There are still people who think that those who read their comments are dumb enough to get gaslighted on this topic.
Are you talking about the United States of America or the United Nations? Because from what I see there's the United Nations Security Council Resolution 660 and 661. Isn't Russia a member of this council?
Anyway while I'm not a fan of sanctions, why should the US be forced to deal/trade with Iraq?
Exactly this.
Illustrates the point
Yes. We are talking about the USA
Been practicing mass murder (including genocide) since its inception