Basically what the title says. I am wondering what can a Software Engineer (without any knowledge in how to get into systems) particularly do. Apart from things everyone can do.
I think a great first step for this community would be to stop consuming media uncritically.
There are a lot of people in my country, America, who are morally outraged and it confuses me because our country doesn't seem to have any problem invading sovereign nations and, as someone who protested those actions, my fellow citizens and our media have consistently smiled and supported those actions. Hollywood doesn't make films about the injustices of this aggression but rather, how it makes American soldiers sad to shoot little kids.
A recent example is Iraq. It started with allegations from the US that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were an existential threat that needed to be acted on. Most of us who consume media critically charged that the real reason was closer to Iraq's massive untapped oil reserves. The US went to the UN with these allegations and the UN said, we don't see the evidence of WMD. The US went to NATO and NATO didn't see it either.
Some thought, that's it. Surely America won't just invade Iraq anyway. And... we did. And no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. Did we leave immediately, horrified at the war crime? Or did we stay and place our military bases at all the large oil wells?
Journalism is so important because it plays a vital role in informing us. If we don't have good journalism, we end up just thinking and feeling what we're told.
So maybe what we can do is to ask, "Were you and are you outraged about invading a sovereign for its resources -- which is a war crime? Have you posted or protested about that? Jumped up and down? And if not, why now with this? Is the difference because this time it's how you've been told to feel?"
Every country in history has made mistakes and perpetuated violence against their neighbors or fellow countrymen at some point in history. But I don't think it's a sign of progress to say "this bad thing happened 20 years ago or 200 years ago or 1,000 years ago, so I should be OK with it now." It's OK to make a bad decision in the past and a better decision today.
Plus, no two countries, wars, circumstances, etc. are exactly the same. Comparing Ukraine to Iraq is missing the differences in the geopolitical, economic, cultural and ethnic state of affairs in the two scenarios.
This isn't, "We did this bad and so we can't condemn you now." This is, "We did this over decades, constantly, everywhere, and it was consistently sanctioned and approved." The media smiled and the US people "supported their troops."
You call this a "mistake in the past?" First, the US is still illegally there, taking Iraq's oil, a war crime, as it jumps up and down in moral outrage about this. Second, more importantly, they're not calling a mistake.
The next step for us is to listen to why Russia is concerned with NATO expanding into the Ukraine.
Russia just offered peace under one main circumstance, that the Ukraine declare itself neutral so that there is a buffer zone. Seems reasonable, especially considering that the US already has military bases in 50 countries -- maybe it can skip this one country. Maybe it's up to the Ukraine now.
This is an incredibly dangerous position to take. Every argument should be taken on its merits, regardless of who else holds that position. Vilifying an argument simply because an adversary holds it is drifting in a direction you really do not want to go in, if you have any love of freedom whatsoever.
That's just the first step. The next step is to listen.
Have all parties, not just Putin's, condemned the expansion of NATO? Did NATO clarify that they wanted to expand into the Ukraine and the Ukraine invited that expansion, even up until days before this started?
Would the US be happy if the Russia/China military alliance invited Cuba or Mexico and planned to put military on its border?
Russia just offered peace under four circumstances, the main one being that Ukraine declare itself neutral so that there is a buffer zone. Let's sit down like adults and talk this out.
HN is a message board for tech nerds. It’s not a community, much less an organization with political clout or influence.
Stopping Putin, whatever that may mean or require, is currently beyond the power of the US, Europe, and allies.
You can help people get out of Ukraine and pay for places for refugees to live. At this point I think it’s more effective to focus on people who need help we can give them rather than on wishful thinking like stopping Putin. Programming skill is not a superpower.
I imagine the NSA, MI6, etc. have already thought about that. Hacking Russian computer systems seems unlikely to “stop Putin.” Also, hacking into a foreign computer system is likely illegal under US law.
Knowing how to write code is not a superpower that also enables hacking into Russian state computer systems, or Putin’s smartphone, despite what we see on TV shows.
We could revenue share some of our projects with charity's dedicated to refugees and military assistance. Past that and boycotting the Russian government in general there's not much we can safely do.
On another note there's a few Putin sympathizers redirecting attention in the comments, while theyre welcome to their opinion, I think they're a little off topic.
Why are you so bothered about Putin invading Ukraine?
Where was the outrage, protesting and flag-waving when Israel is invading Palestine and shooting little kids daily? And America is bombing Yemen, Somalia, Iraq and Afghanistan etc on a daily basis?
Don't get me wrong, it's all bad. But the general persons apathy and ignorance and ability to be manipulated by the media is just as bad as any actions Putin is taking.
There are a lot of people in my country, America, who are morally outraged and it confuses me because our country doesn't seem to have any problem invading sovereign nations and, as someone who protested those actions, my fellow citizens and our media have consistently smiled and supported those actions. Hollywood doesn't make films about the injustices of this aggression but rather, how it makes American soldiers sad to shoot little kids.
A recent example is Iraq. It started with allegations from the US that weapons of mass destruction (WMD) were an existential threat that needed to be acted on. Most of us who consume media critically charged that the real reason was closer to Iraq's massive untapped oil reserves. The US went to the UN with these allegations and the UN said, we don't see the evidence of WMD. The US went to NATO and NATO didn't see it either.
Some thought, that's it. Surely America won't just invade Iraq anyway. And... we did. And no weapons of mass destruction were ever found. Did we leave immediately, horrified at the war crime? Or did we stay and place our military bases at all the large oil wells?
Journalism is so important because it plays a vital role in informing us. If we don't have good journalism, we end up just thinking and feeling what we're told.
So maybe what we can do is to ask, "Were you and are you outraged about invading a sovereign for its resources -- which is a war crime? Have you posted or protested about that? Jumped up and down? And if not, why now with this? Is the difference because this time it's how you've been told to feel?"