• AgreeableLandscape☭@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 years ago

    I mean, if they halted operations, presumably permanently as they seem to imply, it shouldn’t matter right? Since they intend to ditch all their assets and exit the market anyway, right?

    Unless this whole thing was a marketing ploy for Western audiences and they plan to start right back up once people stop paying attention. Hmm…

    • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      14
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      3 years ago

      Yeah exactly, if they were serious about leaving then what’s all the fuss about. Looks like a bluff got called.

      • Julianus
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        3 years ago

        …with a weaker bluff. It’s childish, like the toothless sanctioning of Biden and Hilary Clinton. Or threatening international volunteers for the Ukrainians with legal action, while inviting Syrian mercenaries at the time. The noises coming out of the Kremlin have become farcical.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 years ago

          Nationalizing stuff is most definitely not a bluff. There is absolutely no reason for them not to do this, what’s the west going to do in response exactly?

          • Julianus
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            11
            ·
            3 years ago

            Never invest there again. This will hurt Russia long after Putin’s gone.

            • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              12
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 years ago

              The west was never going to invest there again anyways. Russia’s future is going to be aligned with China and India, the two biggest growing economies in the world.

              • Julianus
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                8
                arrow-down
                10
                ·
                3 years ago

                Yes, as a client state to China, as North Korea is now. And when China and India flare up, Russia will be forced to choose China. Their options only become more narrow, so long as Putin remains in control.

                • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  12
                  arrow-down
                  6
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  You continue to exhibit stunning lack of understanding of geopolitics or even basic geography. Comparing Russia to DPRK is beyond hilarious, but you go on further with the deranged notion that there’s going to be some China and India flare up when it’s becoming clear that India is patching things up with China right now seeing western insanity. India is currently exploring how to use yuan to pay Russia for energy and just had talks with China about resolving their border dispute.

                  https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202203/1254958.shtml

                  https://www.scmp.com/news/china/diplomacy/article/3170314/china-india-border-row-signs-thaw-fresh-round-talks-analyst

                  If you ever decide to look at a map, then it’ll become crystal clear to you that India’s interests lie with Russia and China.

                  • jackalope
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    5
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    India has ongoing ideological differences with China though, no? Modi doesn’t seem very friendly to China from what I’ve seen.

                  • Julianus
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    7
                    arrow-down
                    9
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    I love your certainty in your ignorance. Like, of course, I’m not sailing that way, because the earth is flat. It’s not like China and India aren’t skirmishing on their border, are they? China and Russia would be soon too, as well, for water. But current events are placing Russia firmly inside China’s orbit. So it won’t be much of a skirmish, but a capitulation.

                    Climate change has forced China to deplete the South China Sea and is now scouring the world. I would not want to share a border with China, at this point, no matter how much I needed the cash. Russia is definitely going to be a second class citizen in this exchange.

            • AgreeableLandscapeM
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              10
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 years ago

              Just saying, the Western sanctions that started this economic battle have already put Western companies off investing in Russia, for a long time even after the sanctions end. That was their intention

              • Julianus
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                7
                ·
                3 years ago

                I recall what started the economic battle was Putin invading his neighbor, Ukraine. This has blown past whatever BS he said about the provinces he destabilized and led to a direct attack on the sovereignty of said country. Imagine the wealth that might have been preserved, if only Putin could keep his second-rate army within his borders.

            • triplenadir@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 years ago

              Why do you think Microsoft not investing in a place would hurt people there?

              The company has a history of monopolistic anti-consumer practices (as decided by the US supreme court in 2001 and by the european commission in 2004, and they’re facing another complaint now), anti-worker cartel behaviour (settled charges in 2010, more charges in 2013, and a lawsuit in 2015 was dropped because of timing), and directly attacking public interest technology like open source (a small selection of examples).

              • Julianus
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 years ago

                Those monopolistic practices have created a software ecosystem that’s dominated by their OS. They aren’t the only solution anymore, but they are still the largest.