So, have at it.
Sure, don't take legal advice from me. Use a VPN.
I'd take away "by and large" here.
Many of them are also exceedingly generous, open and friendly and cares deeply. This holds true for both sides of the political spectrum.
They've also suffered a lot to end two world wars that they didn't start.
This is even more true of the Russians, and as an outsider, I'm wondering how much of their politics is informed by those memories.
It never ceases to amuse me how ignorant I am in my comments despite my attempts at being smart, wise and fair.
Of course you are right.
That said, this invasion is still a crime and I am utterly fed up by Russian actions in neighboring states, their constant lying, especially after MH17 was shot down, getting more or less away with state sponsored cheating in sports, simulating bombing raids against Swedish power plants etc. We should have seen this coming a long time ago.
(In my defense however, note that from the very start of this, even before the protests in Russia were known to me I think I have not said a bad word about the Russian people, barely a bad word about the men in boots and only after they started aggression and mostly - I hope - just about the leadership.)
> This is even more true of the Russians
No, it is not. The First World War was started because Russia backed up Serbia's refusal of Austria's ultimatum after a Serbian operation assassinated Austria's crown prince (and France & the UK backed up Russia, while Germany backed up Austria, and the whole powder keg blew up). The Second World War started because of the German invasion of Poland — and who else invaded Poland sixteen days later? The Soviet Union, which had signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with its supplementary German-Soviet Frontier Treaty. Moreover, modern-day Poland is really an amalgamation of western Poland and what used to be eastern Germany: the Soviet Union kept about one third of what had been Poland.
They where allied with the Nazis in the second one and invaded 16 days after the start.
1) you will never be able to travel to Russia or a Russian controlled territory. Ever.
2) you will always be at risk for a hack-back or other issues when the dust settles and they seek revenge.
You should delete your comment before you cause someone to go to jail.
"before you cause someone to go to jail"
If you take legal advice from pseudo anonymous users on aggregate websites you deserve to go to jail. Even in writing that, the users did not "cause" anyone to go to jail; the moron reading and acting on that comment did. Have some respect for individuality mate.
(To any dumbarses reading this comment, launching cyberattacks against adversarial nation states will land you in prison if you're lucky, a body bag if you're not)
I wish there was another option. I wish people in Ukraine weren't suffering.
That's a huge gamble.
What you're talking about is not.
-- from wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitement
Here's the more relevant wikipedia link:
The idea is that a jury is allowed to make its decision without any outside interference. A jury can acquit a person even it they think the person is guilty. Thus a jury could give you a fee pass on hacking Russian systems, but you'd be relying on them to realise that and then think the moral reasons for acquittal out weigh the legal reasons for conviction.
Obviously courts don't like jury nullification try to prevent it, without harming a juries independence.
So possibly not a good idea to rely on jury nullification as your get out of jail free card.
California’s state Supreme Court ruled in 2001 that jury nullification is not a valid decision… and my understanding is if the outcome case can be attributed to “jury nullification” (i.e. could be as obvious as the defense suggesting it as an avenue to the jury, which ironically itself is legal, or as technical as the jury refusing to consider or explicitly refusing a piece of evidence that is entered in the record— think a moral objection to the law, or “evidence undeniably shows the defendant left the scene at 7pm, but we the jury contend it was 6pm”) it legally would be considered a mistrial and allowed to be re-litigated— and the sole person who has the power to attribute something to jury nullification and/or declare mistrial? The judge.