• surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    35
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Because it might apply pressure to those rich enough to influence Putin. Because it slows their economy. Because it sends a message.

    It’s one raindrop in the flood. But without raindrops, there is no flood.

    • Zoolander@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • gmtom@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        19
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        So because it didnt immediately and totally fix the problem theres no point to it? Is that the “argument” you’re making?

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              How am I being an asshole? By pointing out that what you claim should happen hasn’t happened in the slightest?

              You made a claim. I’m just asking you to justify it.

              • gmtom@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                And all im doing is asking if you think that because it’s not fixed the problem straight away it’s not worth doing?

                Plenty of people have already explained how targeting Russias economy puts pressure on Putin.

                • Zoolander@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  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?

      • Kepabar@startrek.website
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • Zoolander@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          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.

          • Kepabar@startrek.website
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            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.

            https://www.euronews.com/2023/12/02/russians-support-of-ukraine-war-collapses-finds-poll

            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.

            • Zoolander@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              With respect, do you really trust poll numbers in a country where speaking out against the war will get you jailed or killed?