So… What leverage does Ukraine have to make that happen?

Speaking at a news conference at the United Nations on Saturday, the minister called a 10-point peace blueprint promoted by Kyiv “completely not feasible”.

Kyiv’s plan:

Energy security, with a focus on price restrictions on Russian energy resources

Restoring Ukraine’s territorial integrity and Russia reaffirming it according to the UN Charter

Withdrawal of Russian troops and the cessation of hostilities, the restoration of Ukraine’s state borders with Russia

Justice, including the establishment of a special tribunal to prosecute Russian war crimes

building security architecture in the Euro-Atlantic space, including guarantees for Ukraine.

What leverage does Ukraine think they have to institute such a blatantly pro-Ukraine peace resolution? Based on Ukraine’s proposed plan, you’d think they were at the sea of Azov and halfway to Moscow, rather than stuck in a few salients along the same frontline they were at a year ago.

He’s wanted in India.

This isn’t unique to the far-left, though. It’s a problem throughout the entire political spectrum.

It’s rather dangerous to be creating echo chambers in a democracy, though. Democracy lives off of discourse between opposing views.

So, you really don’t have an argument, huh?

so… you really do have no argument, huh? You claim that taking state subsidies makes a company state-sponsored.

I claim that that’s stupid, because it means that Intel and Microsoft would be considered state-sponsored enterprises.

So… you don’t have an argument? Great!

Huawei, which is heavily subsidized by the CCP.

This statement is literally irrelevant because, guess what, every reasonable country subsidizes their domestic industries. I’ve proven that and you’re unwilling to accept that state-owned enterprises (which exist, by the way) are different from private companies.

I’ll help you out: Intel is a private company. Amtrak is not. Alibaba is a private company, CRRC is not. Huawei is a private company, CNPC is not.

But… you don’t consider T-Mobile, Apple, Intel, or Microsoft to be American state-sponsored companies despite their hundreds of billions in subsidies and tax incentives?

Odd.

The recent CHIPS act gave Intel what, like $20 billion in subsidies. Guess what? That’s what governments do to stimulate economic growth.

Al Jazeera has been given many awards for fair and (relatively) unbiased journalism. Notably, many of the journalists at Al Jazeera are not Qatari.

Except that’s exactly what you’re calling for? You gave evidence of (presumably a Chinese telecom) stealing T-Mobile testing equipment as a reason for the sanctions.

There’s no reason for country-level sanctions for private corporate espionage. It’s that simple.

It doesn’t matter if corporate espionage is malicious and it’s frankly hypocritical for America to be calling out other countries’ corporate espionage.

Your incorrect argument is that a rapist gets to make that determination. They don’t. It’s like saying “my rape was ok, but yours isn’t!”

That’s not how things work. It’s either ok or it isn’t.

Maybe if it was a country that didn’t built it’s entire economy on the back of corporate espionage, you might have a bit of an argument.

Here’s where s Chinese worker literally stole a troubleshooting robot from T-Mobile, Chinese companies stole electric vehicle designs, it just goes on and on

Oh no! Not a troubleshooting robot! Whatever will they do…

Again, if it’s a state secret that’s important for national security, it should be protected by the government. It doesn’t matter who’s attacking (because, y’know, crown corporations exist and can be sanctioned as individual entities), but it matters who’s defending. An attack against T-Mobile’s troubleshooting robot or Rivian’s electric vehicle is not an attack against the US. Private companies operate in a domain where corporate espionage is prevalent. Expecting corporate espionage to not happen is silly.

Corporate espionage is how Korea (Samsung, etc.), Taiwan (TSMC), Japan (Hitachi, etc.), and China jump-started their economies. Hell, it’s how the US jump-started it’s economy and was an act that Alexander Hamilton strongly supported.

Often times it’s state-sponsored or state-condoned and certainly partially state-owned (simply because the economies of these countries are intricately tied into the success of these companies, and these companies receive significant government investment through government-owned and government-managed funds).

For more, please see Hamilton’s “Report on Manufacturing” here: https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015014667409;view=1up;seq=3

State secrets crosses the realm into true espionage and should be punished as such, but corporate espionage? If the technology is owned by a private company, it clearly was seen to be harmless enough for the state to not bother protecting.

Considering the US built itself on a foundation of corporate espionage… Well, duh? Everyone does it, including American companies on other American companies. If your technology lags behind others, corporate espionage is the easiest way forwards. Globalization was supposed to slow down corporate espionage by making the technology more easily available (as evidenced by the relatively mundane technology that gets stolen today), but that’s unraveling.

Corporate espionage is reason for sanctioning companies, not countries. If your IP is necessary for national security, it should be owned by the government and protected as such. Otherwise, I have no sympathy for private profit-driven companies losing their competitive advantage because of decades of underfunding on their cyber security systems.