11–20 of 54 posts
I'm not sure what's particularly interesting about this. If IBM has a support contract with any of these companies, they would have to discontinue it as well.
And if they do, would the US government pay off any current contract obligations IBM had to break?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if they do, would the US government pay off any current contract obligations IBM had to break?
In some sense. If you wanted to get the government to enforce the contract, they wouldn't, so there you go, paid off.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. The US constitution, Article 1 section 8 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 states: "The Congress shall have power... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes..." Congress has passed such laws, authorizing the President to impose economic sanctions banning trade with countries which pose "any unusual and extraordinary threat, which…
IMHO if your only/main source of news is the western media, you get a very one sided, anti-Russian point of view. Things are really not that black and white, they almost never are in the global politics.
I'm not sure what's particularly interesting about this. If IBM has a support contract with any of these companies, they would have to discontinue it as well.
And if they do, would the US government pay off any current contract obligations IBM had to break?
Edit: Which is why investors often choose not to invest in companies based in countries that have a history of economic or political instability. It can be difficult to hold someone to their obligations after investing if the state itself isn't going to consistently side with the rule of law. Russian and Chinese investors, for example, were they not already dealing with an even more unpredictable state, would possibly choose not to invest in the US because of unpredictable relations. But, most international investors consider US law to be predictable and stable and safe for investors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. The US constitution, Article 1 section 8 http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section8 states: "The Congress shall have power... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes..." Congress has passed such laws, authorizing the President to impose economic sanctions banning trade with countries which pose "any unusual and extraordinary threat, which…
IMHO if your only/main source of news is the western media, you get a very one sided, anti-Russian point of view. Things are really not that black and white, they almost never are in the global politics.
Let's just say that I find the Western sources on the matter much, much more trustworthy. It's very clear that Russia is running a propaganda campaign, which is apparently reasonably effective within Russia but less convincing when you have access to other sources of information.
The Russian propaganda campaign was even fairly effective at spreading the rumor on Western social media that the Ukrainian opposition movement consisted mostly of fascists, when in reality there was a fascist group that was associated with it but a relatively small percentage overall of the opposition to Yanukovych.
After Russia snuck unmarked Russian soldiers into Crimea, which comes dangerously close to counting as perfidy, it was pretty clear that Russia and Russian sources could not be trusted on this matter.
Now, are you trying to claim that Russia did not send troops onto Ukrainian soil to annex Crimea, and is not supporting the separatists in the east with at least arms and training? Or are you trying to claim that doing so is somehow justified, and if so, under what justification?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
And if they do, would the US government pay off any current contract obligations IBM had to break?
Most contracts have "through no fault of the undersigned" waivers in them. i.e. acts of god or government are often covered in some way within the contract language, making parties not liable for hurricanes and changes in law that cause contracts to become null. There's probably some kind of responsibility in these kinds of cases, but it's not going to fall under the usual termination of contract terms. And, whatever…
What if they don't?
Ah yes, the well known "topple enemy leaders by restricting their access to Linux tech support" strategy. Gets them every time.
Food for thought - what are the implications for Russian big-business of being forced out of the global cloud-services infrastructure?