"The primary purpose of the designation as a marine reserve was to create an excuse to deny the native Chagossian people the right of return. Unlike true marine reserves, the area is heavily polluted by the nearby military base, which is exempt from all restrictions imposed on the area. "
Right now, argentina is pretty irrelevant on the region and Milei, as bad as it looks, doesent even look like part of a regional right wing wave, just more local nonsense to add to our beloved 40s fascist-communist party. So, i think you are right.
why would he say the quiet part out loud? how would this not make him seem like a piece of shit?
i tried to read in the article where he might say something about why but it really is just 'profits at all costs'.. wants to avoid the use of words like 'ethical'.. gotcha. i understand what kind of person you are now.
I think the article paints a pretty good portrait of a complicated but socially responsible business owner, even though I do think pulling out of Russia was the right thing to do even if it wasn’t what he would’ve chosen.
I think this is misrepresenting what he said. His stance is basically that he felt like they were punishing honest workers and business partners, people who never lied or cheated or hurt anyone, for something that they had no part in due to public pressure. He’s not wrong either unless people have some kind of explanation for how a cosmetics manufacturer is supposed to stop Putin from murdering innocent Ukrainians fighting against his pointless war and innocent Russians who don’t want to fight for him.
So, considering it hasn’t made a difference and Russia is still attacking Ukraine and Putin is still in power, how do you reconcile what you just said with the reality of the situation?
The only thing that’s changed is that Lush’s partner in Russia and all their employees have no income now.
Lush did this in March of last year. I’m just asking what you’re expecting from this considering that they did do what you suggested. When is the effect you’re saying is supposed to happen going to happen?
You don’t have to be an asshole. It’s a legitimate question based on your assertion that all that needs to happen is pressure needs to be put on people.
Yes, but no one has explained how the economy is harmed by harming individual Russians. If it’s not making a difference so far, how long do Russians who have nothing to do with the war suffer before we decide it’s a failed strategy? How long do Ukrainians suffer while we keep doing things that are not having an effect?
Just because things don’t turn out how you hoped doesn’t mean you didn’t make the right decision at the time with the information that was available.
Too often we judge past actions only through the lens of hindsight. It’s useful for learning what went wrong but it’s not useful for judging if something was the right decision or not.
I agree but that’s what I’m failing to understand. How does hurting the working class a tiny bit and making their lives harder do anything to stop Putin? Clearly the founder of Lush doesn’t and didn’t feel like it was the right decision at the time. It also not having the intended effect seems like a confirmation that it wasn’t the right decision rather than an indictment.
Bowing to public pressure doesn’t make the public right. If anything, it’s virtue signaling to keep your customer base instead of it being the right thing to do.
It was all part of an effort to economically hurt Russia in response to the war.
Best case scenario was Russia deciding the hit to their economy was not worth the war and back pedaling. No one realistically thought this was going to happen though.
The next best case scenario was for the changes in quality of life for the average Russian would create enough internal pressure that the war would be called off.
This hasn’t happened yet but internal support for the war has been dropping over the last year and some of that is attributed to the dismal state of the Russian economy, which is a direct result of things like Lush pulling out.
And even if neither of these come up fruition, the more Russias economy is damaged the harder it is to fund their war effort. This gives Ukraine a bit more breathing room in their war effort.
While the effect of a single company like Lush is unnoticed, it’s the collective effect of everything from these pullouts, to trade sanctions and other soft power diplomatic plays which total up to a noticable effect.
If stopping Putin from being in government is the only fix, the only possible action anyone could take would be ending Putin. Anything else would be useless.
It isn’t though, non-offensive actions have effects too.
So all the western companies that did leave at the start of the war… what effect has that had? The war still continues, Russia took over copyrights and trademarks to continue global brands going internally, and Putin is still President.
When is this economic hit supposed to happen and when will its effects cause this change everyone is claiming? It’s nearly 2024 and these companies left in March of 2022.
Russia’s GDP increased by 3.1% this year compared to last. The sanctions you mention did far more than western companies pulling their business from the country.
I’m not expecting an overnight collapse. I’m expecting quantifiable effects, such as those from the sanctions from other countries and the EU, that are actually measurable after 2 years.
You’re a little flog sitting in your western first world nation home that mum and dad likely own and you’re judging people on the other side of the world living under a dictatorship.
Judging by your name, you’re an Aussie and I’ve got to say, disappointed in your complete writing off of the entire Russian population. How the fuck is some young girl working at Lush supporting Putin or deserving of suffering if they don’t revolt?
Her taxes directly support the war. It’s not as easy as people are good and bad. Good people can be in bad situations. Sanctions are supposed to hurt all people. That’s how they work. It’s seen as a lesser evil, rather than a good. They are damaging for both sides.
And at the end of the day if that interpretation is true, your essentially saying ‘bad fucking luck’ to all the Russians who lost their jobs while living in a country perpetrating a war that if they speak out against, they’ll be jailed at best.
You’re right, there’s no convenient sanctions but if that’s really what old mate Lush is saying, he’s got a point.
i mean, this is one way to win a war. the other is with bombs and death. Russia chose to enter this war, it shouldn’t be surprised when it affects its citizens.
no one should get to keep their war over seas and out of their own borders.
imagine a future where we could stop wars by just taking people’s jobs…
Sanctions are typically the acts of a government state not the actions of a business. Businesses have to comply with them but only if they’re bound by them. That wasn’t the case here. Lush did this based on public outcry, not sanctions.
The article is not about Russia or Putin. It’s an interesting interview with a man who leads a company that tries, in his own words, do to what you’d expect of anyone. He explains his position intelligently, you don’t have to agree with him.
The main takeaway here is the ugly headline to draw clicks using negative bias - something that’s talked about a lot these days but is as old as time. No one made a successful newspaper headlining good news, unless it’s an enormous event like war victory or a royal wedding, and they tend to be magazine-style souvenir editions.
Atleast he isn’t lying. Every other company is waiting for the right time to go back why shouldn’t he? I am under no illusion that all businesses that left Russia did it because of the goodness of their hearts.
Are you going to boycott all the other business that left too?
If you actually read the article it doesn’t seem to be about the money:
Mr Constantine said: “It was horrible. I hated it because we have a very diverse workforce and lots of people who probably wouldn’t be welcome in Russia.
“We had a partner of 20 years in Russia who never cheated, never lied, and we had to tell him we weren’t going to supply him anymore.
(The Telegraph doesn’t close some of their “quotes” for some reason)
telegraph.co.uk
Active