Prospective Summer Walks Over Moscow Work Forum

[Anonymous User]

I recently read an article about a HSY law student who walked away yesterday from a summer associate position at a nameless "New York Law Firm" over the firm's refusal to cut ties with Russian state-backed companies and oligarchs. From the article, it seems the student expressed their concerns to the firm, and the firm expressed sadness about the crisis. But ultimately the firm refused to offer a stance on whether it would continue to perform this sort of work. The law student's post seemed to imply that the firm, despite deliberately remaining silent about the future of its Moscow office, had directed pro bono efforts to the crisis.

Any idea what firm this was? I would be curious to know if there is a firm that is projecting a pro-Ukraine stance but intends to continue to perform work that benefits Russian state affiliated persons. I know it's a complicated issue, especially if you consider the safety of rank-and-file employees of the firm in the Moscow office and ethical obligations related to current engagements. But I'd be curious to know if this is another issue entirely, of a firm being intentionally misleading about its stance.

Also curious if folks think this was a good reason to walk away from a SA position.

[Anonymous User]

I recently read an article about a HSY law student who walked away yesterday from a summer associate position at a nameless "New York Law Firm" over the firm's refusal to cut ties with Russian state-backed companies and oligarchs. From the article, it seems the student expressed their concerns to the firm, and the firm expressed sadness about the crisis. But ultimately the firm refused to offer a stance on whether it would continue to perform this sort of work. The law student's post seemed to imply that the firm, despite deliberately remaining silent about the future of its Moscow office, had directed pro bono efforts to the crisis.

Any idea what firm this was? I would be curious to know if there is a firm that is projecting a pro-Ukraine stance but intends to continue to perform work that benefits Russian state affiliated persons. I know it's a complicated issue, especially if you consider the safety of rank-and-file employees of the firm in the Moscow office and ethical obligations related to current engagements. But I'd be curious to know if this is another issue entirely, of a firm being intentionally misleading about its stance.

Also curious if folks think this was a good reason to walk away from a SA position.

Extremely stupid for this SA to walk away based on this and they better hope we're not entering a significantly harder labor market. Every large law firm has extremely problematic clients (have heard of issuers with several employee deaths on their hands, escaping rape liability, child labor suits, and more) so not sure where we'll start drawing the line. Also incredibly laughable for this SA to be upset that the firm did not have an official position for these matters on a timeline that was convenient for them. Firms are still announcing wind downs of their affairs in Russia since these things take time and it's quite possible that this firm could be in the same situation but obviously isn't going to give some random SA unique insight into such high level firm concerns.

This sounds like an SA who needs a reality check and thinks they're the next brilliant attorney gracing firms with their presence.

[Anonymous User]

It's also a weird virtue signal. You can quietly find another firm if it bothers you. But now you've told the entire internet that you're not going to be a loyal employee.

[Anonymous User]

I recently read an article about a HSY law student who walked away yesterday from a summer associate position at a nameless "New York Law Firm" over the firm's refusal to cut ties with Russian state-backed companies and oligarchs. From the article, it seems the student expressed their concerns to the firm, and the firm expressed sadness about the crisis. But ultimately the firm refused to offer a stance on whether it would continue to perform this sort of work. The law student's post seemed to imply that the firm, despite deliberately remaining silent about the future of its Moscow office, had directed pro bono efforts to the crisis.

Any idea what firm this was? I would be curious to know if there is a firm that is projecting a pro-Ukraine stance but intends to continue to perform work that benefits Russian state affiliated persons. I know it's a complicated issue, especially if you consider the safety of rank-and-file employees of the firm in the Moscow office and ethical obligations related to current engagements. But I'd be curious to know if this is another issue entirely, of a firm being intentionally misleading about its stance.

Also curious if folks think this was a good reason to walk away from a SA position.

Extremely stupid for this SA to walk away based on this and they better hope we're not entering a significantly harder labor market. Every large law firm has extremely problematic clients (have heard of issuers with several employee deaths on their hands, escaping rape liability, child labor suits, and more) so not sure where we'll start drawing the line. Also incredibly laughable for this SA to be upset that the firm did not have an official position for these matters on a timeline that was convenient for them. Firms are still announcing wind downs of their affairs in Russia since these things take time and it's quite possible that this firm could be in the same situation but obviously isn't going to give some random SA unique insight into such high level firm concerns.

This sounds like an SA who needs a reality check and thinks they're the next brilliant attorney gracing firms with their presence.

Really doesn't seem like the labor market for lawyers is weakening at all. HYS (lol @ OP's HSY, 95% chance this is S) will almost certainly clean up, even if the market worsens somewhat. This isn't a TTT student.

Edit: Turns out a simple google search shows it's H.

[Anonymous User]

I recently read an article about a HSY law student who walked away yesterday from a summer associate position at a nameless "New York Law Firm" over the firm's refusal to cut ties with Russian state-backed companies and oligarchs. From the article, it seems the student expressed their concerns to the firm, and the firm expressed sadness about the crisis. But ultimately the firm refused to offer a stance on whether it would continue to perform this sort of work. The law student's post seemed to imply that the firm, despite deliberately remaining silent about the future of its Moscow office, had directed pro bono efforts to the crisis.

Any idea what firm this was? I would be curious to know if there is a firm that is projecting a pro-Ukraine stance but intends to continue to perform work that benefits Russian state affiliated persons. I know it's a complicated issue, especially if you consider the safety of rank-and-file employees of the firm in the Moscow office and ethical obligations related to current engagements. But I'd be curious to know if this is another issue entirely, of a firm being intentionally misleading about its stance.

Also curious if folks think this was a good reason to walk away from a SA position.

Off the top of my head, possibly Debevoise. Moscow office, New York firm.

[Anonymous User]

I recently read an article about a HSY law student who walked away yesterday from a summer associate position at a nameless "New York Law Firm" over the firm's refusal to cut ties with Russian state-backed companies and oligarchs. From the article, it seems the student expressed their concerns to the firm, and the firm expressed sadness about the crisis. But ultimately the firm refused to offer a stance on whether it would continue to perform this sort of work. The law student's post seemed to imply that the firm, despite deliberately remaining silent about the future of its Moscow office, had directed pro bono efforts to the crisis.

Any idea what firm this was? I would be curious to know if there is a firm that is projecting a pro-Ukraine stance but intends to continue to perform work that benefits Russian state affiliated persons. I know it's a complicated issue, especially if you consider the safety of rank-and-file employees of the firm in the Moscow office and ethical obligations related to current engagements. But I'd be curious to know if this is another issue entirely, of a firm being intentionally misleading about its stance.

Also curious if folks think this was a good reason to walk away from a SA position.

Off the top of my head, possibly Debevoise. Moscow office, New York firm.

Nice office!

https://www.debevoise.com/aboutus/offices/moscow

[Anonymous User]

I recently read an article about a HSY law student who walked away yesterday from a summer associate position at a nameless "New York Law Firm" over the firm's refusal to cut ties with Russian state-backed companies and oligarchs. From the article, it seems the student expressed their concerns to the firm, and the firm expressed sadness about the crisis. But ultimately the firm refused to offer a stance on whether it would continue to perform this sort of work. The law student's post seemed to imply that the firm, despite deliberately remaining silent about the future of its Moscow office, had directed pro bono efforts to the crisis.

Any idea what firm this was? I would be curious to know if there is a firm that is projecting a pro-Ukraine stance but intends to continue to perform work that benefits Russian state affiliated persons. I know it's a complicated issue, especially if you consider the safety of rank-and-file employees of the firm in the Moscow office and ethical obligations related to current engagements. But I'd be curious to know if this is another issue entirely, of a firm being intentionally misleading about its stance.

Also curious if folks think this was a good reason to walk away from a SA position.

Extremely stupid for this SA to walk away based on this and they better hope we're not entering a significantly harder labor market. Every large law firm has extremely problematic clients (have heard of issuers with several employee deaths on their hands, escaping rape liability, child labor suits, and more) so not sure where we'll start drawing the line. Also incredibly laughable for this SA to be upset that the firm did not have an official position for these matters on a timeline that was convenient for them. Firms are still announcing wind downs of their affairs in Russia since these things take time and it's quite possible that this firm could be in the same situation but obviously isn't going to give some random SA unique insight into such high level firm concerns.

This sounds like an SA who needs a reality check and thinks they're the next brilliant attorney gracing firms with their presence.

IDK if I would say it was extremely stupid of him/her - whose knows that this person's situation is and maybe the internet clout this person will get will make it worth it. I can't imagine having the hubris and what kind of privilege this person must enjoy to give his/her firm an ultimatum as an SA though lol.

[Anonymous User]

Epic virtue signaling move. A quick Google says as of yesterday Cleary is temporarily shutting down Moscow office and ending reps of state associated entities. Could be them as they’re known to beat the social justice drum a bit, and this guy walked because some person in recruiting wasn’t going to tip the firm’s hand on the issue. If not Cleary, pounds to pesos his firm is going to do the same in next week or two.

That being said, this will be a good story to tell in 2 years when he interviews for an in house position at a mission-driven startup that’s going to disrupt the medical debt collection industry.

[Anonymous User]

isn't this guy the Harvard FedSoc President? read it as a publicity stunt to start laying the groundwork for a run for Congress in some flyover state in 2026

[Anonymous User]

isn't this guy the Harvard FedSoc President? read it as a publicity stunt to start laying the groundwork for a run for Congress in some flyover state in 2026

No he is not.

[Anonymous User]

I recently read an article about a HSY law student who walked away yesterday from a summer associate position at a nameless "New York Law Firm" over the firm's refusal to cut ties with Russian state-backed companies and oligarchs. From the article, it seems the student expressed their concerns to the firm, and the firm expressed sadness about the crisis. But ultimately the firm refused to offer a stance on whether it would continue to perform this sort of work. The law student's post seemed to imply that the firm, despite deliberately remaining silent about the future of its Moscow office, had directed pro bono efforts to the crisis.

Any idea what firm this was? I would be curious to know if there is a firm that is projecting a pro-Ukraine stance but intends to continue to perform work that benefits Russian state affiliated persons. I know it's a complicated issue, especially if you consider the safety of rank-and-file employees of the firm in the Moscow office and ethical obligations related to current engagements. But I'd be curious to know if this is another issue entirely, of a firm being intentionally misleading about its stance.

Also curious if folks think this was a good reason to walk away from a SA position.

Off the top of my head, possibly Debevoise. Moscow office, New York firm.

He's a classmate, it's skadden

[Anonymous User]

I recently read an article about a HSY law student who walked away yesterday from a summer associate position at a nameless "New York Law Firm" over the firm's refusal to cut ties with Russian state-backed companies and oligarchs. From the article, it seems the student expressed their concerns to the firm, and the firm expressed sadness about the crisis. But ultimately the firm refused to offer a stance on whether it would continue to perform this sort of work. The law student's post seemed to imply that the firm, despite deliberately remaining silent about the future of its Moscow office, had directed pro bono efforts to the crisis.

Any idea what firm this was? I would be curious to know if there is a firm that is projecting a pro-Ukraine stance but intends to continue to perform work that benefits Russian state affiliated persons. I know it's a complicated issue, especially if you consider the safety of rank-and-file employees of the firm in the Moscow office and ethical obligations related to current engagements. But I'd be curious to know if this is another issue entirely, of a firm being intentionally misleading about its stance.

Also curious if folks think this was a good reason to walk away from a SA position.

Off the top of my head, possibly Debevoise. Moscow office, New York firm.

He's a classmate, it's skadden

Just imagining this 2L's email to the 24-year-old recruiting associate demanding they fire all their Moscow associates.

[Anonymous User]

That being said, this will be a good story to tell in 2 years when he interviews for an in house position at a mission-driven startup that’s going to disrupt the medical debt collection industry.

Lol

[Anonymous User]

isn't this guy the Harvard FedSoc President? read it as a publicity stunt to start laying the groundwork for a run for Congress in some flyover state in 2026

No he is not.

re-googled - it's ACS, and he's from Kentucky. just had wrong org

[basketofbread]

I usually roll my eyes at any “this client is too evil for big law” discourse, but this might be the one exception.

But yeah, he clearly used this as a publicity stunt about how great he is. If he was actually interested in going in to big law then he wouldn’t have done this publicly.

[Anonymous User]

I recently read an article about a HSY law student who walked away yesterday from a summer associate position at a nameless "New York Law Firm" over the firm's refusal to cut ties with Russian state-backed companies and oligarchs. From the article, it seems the student expressed their concerns to the firm, and the firm expressed sadness about the crisis. But ultimately the firm refused to offer a stance on whether it would continue to perform this sort of work. The law student's post seemed to imply that the firm, despite deliberately remaining silent about the future of its Moscow office, had directed pro bono efforts to the crisis.

Any idea what firm this was? I would be curious to know if there is a firm that is projecting a pro-Ukraine stance but intends to continue to perform work that benefits Russian state affiliated persons. I know it's a complicated issue, especially if you consider the safety of rank-and-file employees of the firm in the Moscow office and ethical obligations related to current engagements. But I'd be curious to know if this is another issue entirely, of a firm being intentionally misleading about its stance.

Also curious if folks think this was a good reason to walk away from a SA position.

Off the top of my head, possibly Debevoise. Moscow office, New York firm.

He's a classmate, it's skadden

Thought it was Winston based on who he liked on LinkedIn.

[Anonymous User]

Every large law firm has extremely problematic clients (have heard of issuers with several employee deaths on their hands, escaping rape liability, child labor suits, and more) so not sure where we'll start drawing the line.

What a stupid comment. "We" dont have to decide where to draw the line. Everyone gets to decide that on their own, and they dont need to justify it to you. For me, defending labor suits or workplace hazard suits is not even in the same league as intentional bombing of hospitals, bombing civilian corridors, etc. Maybe for you that all goes in the "its all the same amount of bad category, so who cares, wheres my paycheck" -- and thats fine for you, your decision to make. But that doesnt mean someone else cant draw their own line somewhere else, and it certainly doesnt make them "extremely stupid."

[nixy]

Every large law firm has extremely problematic clients (have heard of issuers with several employee deaths on their hands, escaping rape liability, child labor suits, and more) so not sure where we'll start drawing the line.

What a stupid comment. "We" dont have to decide where to draw the line. Everyone gets to decide that on their own, and they dont need to justify it to you. For me, defending labor suits or workplace hazard suits is not even in the same league as intentional bombing of hospitals, bombing civilian corridors, etc. Maybe for you that all goes in the "its all the same amount of bad category, so who cares, wheres my paycheck" -- and thats fine for you, your decision to make. But that doesnt mean someone else cant draw their own line somewhere else, and it certainly doesnt make them "extremely stupid."

He absolutely has the right to draw the line wherever he wants. The “extremely stupid” part is his self-aggrandizing and performative approach to this. Of course he doesn’t need to hide his reasons, but at the end of the day, he made something much more important all about him.

[Anonymous User]

Every large law firm has extremely problematic clients (have heard of issuers with several employee deaths on their hands, escaping rape liability, child labor suits, and more) so not sure where we'll start drawing the line.

What a stupid comment. "We" dont have to decide where to draw the line. Everyone gets to decide that on their own, and they dont need to justify it to you. For me, defending labor suits or workplace hazard suits is not even in the same league as intentional bombing of hospitals, bombing civilian corridors, etc. Maybe for you that all goes in the "its all the same amount of bad category, so who cares, wheres my paycheck" -- and thats fine for you, your decision to make. But that doesnt mean someone else cant draw their own line somewhere else, and it certainly doesnt make them "extremely stupid."

He absolutely has the right to draw the line wherever he wants. The “extremely stupid” part is his self-aggrandizing and performative approach to this. Of course he doesn’t need to hide his reasons, but at the end of the day, he made something much more important all about him.

Exactly this. Ridiculous to be an incoming summer associate and start making demands of the firm's office structure when for all they know this is happening in the background.

Also, pretty laughable to equate having an existing Moscow office with supporting the intentional bombing of hospitals and civilians. Go get some fresh air and a reality check.

[Anonymous User]

Why is everyone dancing around the actual story and just floating tiny pieces of it? This has been reported publicly: https://www.law.com/2022/03/02/harvard- ... in-russia/

The story talks about this 2L's public LinkedIn post, which is here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ryan-don ... 8417-IQea/

None of this is outing anyone since the subject of the story, who made a public LinkedIn post, has volunteered to be interviewed by media including law.com anyway.

I say good for any 2L who decides that a biglaw firm is not compatible with their own morality, beliefs, and worldview. More 2Ls should do some introspection before committing to biglaw anyway. If you're fine with it, that's cool; you aren't evil. I am still in biglaw as a midlevel and trying to get out for various reasons including morality, but I don't think my colleagues are evil. We just only have so much time on the planet and I want to spend my labor trying to make it better.

I don't have a problem with him sharing his story publicly either since maybe it will convince other 2Ls to take that inward look instead of letting themselves be pushed into the biglaw meat grinder, which is what every T-14 (save maybe Yale) is built to do with students who do not affirmatively take another stance about their career.

[legalpotato]

Every large law firm has extremely problematic clients (have heard of issuers with several employee deaths on their hands, escaping rape liability, child labor suits, and more) so not sure where we'll start drawing the line.

What a stupid comment. "We" dont have to decide where to draw the line. Everyone gets to decide that on their own, and they dont need to justify it to you. For me, defending labor suits or workplace hazard suits is not even in the same league as intentional bombing of hospitals, bombing civilian corridors, etc. Maybe for you that all goes in the "its all the same amount of bad category, so who cares, wheres my paycheck" -- and thats fine for you, your decision to make. But that doesnt mean someone else cant draw their own line somewhere else, and it certainly doesnt make them "extremely stupid."

Are any biglaw firms doing this? Or are you saying guilty by association? In that case, couldn't you say the same about anyone working in an AG's office? JAG?

[Anonymous User]

Why is everyone dancing around the actual story and just floating tiny pieces of it? This has been reported publicly: https://www.law.com/2022/03/02/harvard- ... in-russia/

The story talks about this 2L's public LinkedIn post, which is here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ryan-don ... 8417-IQea/

None of this is outing anyone since the subject of the story, who made a public LinkedIn post, has volunteered to be interviewed by media including law.com anyway.

I say good for any 2L who decides that a biglaw firm is not compatible with their own morality, beliefs, and worldview. More 2Ls should do some introspection before committing to biglaw anyway. If you're fine with it, that's cool; you aren't evil. I am still in biglaw as a midlevel and trying to get out for various reasons including morality, but I don't think my colleagues are evil. We just only have so much time on the planet and I want to spend my labor trying to make it better.

I don't have a problem with him sharing his story publicly either since maybe it will convince other 2Ls to take that inward look instead of letting themselves be pushed into the biglaw meat grinder, which is what every T-14 (save maybe Yale) is built to do with students who do not affirmatively take another stance about their career.

The actual post was even worse than I imagined. Hopefully someday this kid will have his privilege checked. I looked through the comments expecting to catch cancer, but surprisingly they were pretty good, including calling out this kid for not taking the same stance on firms with chinese offices (in re Uyghur genocide). Although, some comments take it too far by accusing the poor sumbitch of racism...

[Anonymous User]

Why is everyone dancing around the actual story and just floating tiny pieces of it? This has been reported publicly: https://www.law.com/2022/03/02/harvard- ... in-russia/

The story talks about this 2L's public LinkedIn post, which is here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ryan-don ... 8417-IQea/

None of this is outing anyone since the subject of the story, who made a public LinkedIn post, has volunteered to be interviewed by media including law.com anyway.

I say good for any 2L who decides that a biglaw firm is not compatible with their own morality, beliefs, and worldview. More 2Ls should do some introspection before committing to biglaw anyway. If you're fine with it, that's cool; you aren't evil. I am still in biglaw as a midlevel and trying to get out for various reasons including morality, but I don't think my colleagues are evil. We just only have so much time on the planet and I want to spend my labor trying to make it better.

I don't have a problem with him sharing his story publicly either since maybe it will convince other 2Ls to take that inward look instead of letting themselves be pushed into the biglaw meat grinder, which is what every T-14 (save maybe Yale) is built to do with students who do not affirmatively take another stance about their career.

No one has an issue with deciding BigLaw isn't for you, or that you aren't cut out to defend big banks and other horrible people. People have an issue with a 2L making a ridiculous ask of a firm, accusing them of supporting the bombings in Ukraine when they can't immediately act on it, and then transforming a human rights tragedy into self-aggrandizement.

[Anonymous User]

Every large law firm has extremely problematic clients (have heard of issuers with several employee deaths on their hands, escaping rape liability, child labor suits, and more) so not sure where we'll start drawing the line.

What a stupid comment. "We" dont have to decide where to draw the line. Everyone gets to decide that on their own, and they dont need to justify it to you. For me, defending labor suits or workplace hazard suits is not even in the same league as intentional bombing of hospitals, bombing civilian corridors, etc. Maybe for you that all goes in the "its all the same amount of bad category, so who cares, wheres my paycheck" -- and thats fine for you, your decision to make. But that doesnt mean someone else cant draw their own line somewhere else, and it certainly doesnt make them "extremely stupid."

He absolutely has the right to draw the line wherever he wants. The “extremely stupid” part is his self-aggrandizing and performative approach to this. Of course he doesn’t need to hide his reasons, but at the end of the day, he made something much more important all about him.

Exactly this. Ridiculous to be an incoming summer associate and start making demands of the firm's office structure when for all they know this is happening in the background.

Also, pretty laughable to equate having an existing Moscow office with supporting the intentional bombing of hospitals and civilians. Go get some fresh air and a reality check.

The comment I was referring to said it was "extremely stupid" to walk away from biglaw firm over this because (paraphrased) "all big law firms do bad things and we cant draw the line anywhere."
Thats a bad take. Whether it was "extremely stupid" to self aggrandize as he did-- I have no idea because I dont know how he self-aggrandized, as I havent actually read his linkedin or whatever. Not sure a single inkedin pots is self-aggandizing, either, but I get we all want to hate the kid. But that was not the take of the comment I was referring to-- which again, was, "all biglaw firms do bad things so its extremely stupid to draw the line here."

And as far as the "equating having a moscow office to supporting the bombings.." If its Skadden, they actually do lobby for the Russian government and government entities, and I can pretty much guarantee are right now being paid to lobby against sanctions being imposed for bombing hospitals and civilians. That goes way beyond "just having an existing Moscow office."

[Anonymous User]

Why is everyone dancing around the actual story and just floating tiny pieces of it? This has been reported publicly: https://www.law.com/2022/03/02/harvard- ... in-russia/

The story talks about this 2L's public LinkedIn post, which is here: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/ryan-don ... 8417-IQea/

None of this is outing anyone since the subject of the story, who made a public LinkedIn post, has volunteered to be interviewed by media including law.com anyway.

I say good for any 2L who decides that a biglaw firm is not compatible with their own morality, beliefs, and worldview. More 2Ls should do some introspection before committing to biglaw anyway. If you're fine with it, that's cool; you aren't evil. I am still in biglaw as a midlevel and trying to get out for various reasons including morality, but I don't think my colleagues are evil. We just only have so much time on the planet and I want to spend my labor trying to make it better.

I don't have a problem with him sharing his story publicly either since maybe it will convince other 2Ls to take that inward look instead of letting themselves be pushed into the biglaw meat grinder, which is what every T-14 (save maybe Yale) is built to do with students who do not affirmatively take another stance about their career.

No one has an issue with deciding BigLaw isn't for you, or that you aren't cut out to defend big banks and other horrible people. People have an issue with a 2L making a ridiculous ask of a firm, accusing them of supporting the bombings in Ukraine when they can't immediately act on it, and then transforming a human rights tragedy into self-aggrandizement.

We don't really know the details, but I don't think a question like "Do you intend to leave Russia, like [X other biglaw firms have announced]?" is a ridiculous ask at all. You also assume that the firm could not "immediately act on it," as if they told him that they would do so but just needed more time. We don't know if that was the response.

I do think it is a defensible position to equate doing business in Russia with financial acquiescence to the Russian regime since they are so linked. I also think this would raise many questions about other atrocities that a person is tacitly supporting if they do not speak out against them, too (e.g. Uyghurs) but that alone does not defeat the first point. I personally don't hold that opinion but I don't think it is unreasonable.

The LinkedIn post is pretty self-aggrandizing and I don't think it was handled very well. Based on what he wrote, I doubt I'd want to be his friend. But I think that drawing attention to his decision is a defensible choice. The only way his choice would have any impact at all is if other people knew about it. The whole point (of a largely symbolic decision that will not harm Skadden in any way) is to get public opinion and other 2Ls on your side. So he gave it a shot, and I think he missed with what he wrote, but the idea was fine IMO.

I go back to what i wrote in the quoted post here that it would be a good thing for 2Ls to think more about what they want out of a career and an employer before they commit to biglaw. I hope this guy's self-aggrandizing LinkedIn post at least accomplishes that goal with some other 2Ls.

I'm curious if you, or other people who seem to think this 2L is wrong, would have a different opinion if he were a Ukraine native, or if he had family in Kyiv right now.