1. The giveaway creator had to remake the giveaway because he originally had the giveaway open to all countries. It turns out that particular game cannot be purchased or gifted to people "residing" in Russia, Belarus, and Turkey. This is a blanket restriction on anyone wishing to gift a Steam game to a "resident" of those countries, regardless of class, ethnic background, political affiliation, et cetera. In this particular instance, the restriction placed on the gift giver (not the intended receiver) may be tied to politics on the part of the developer, publisher, or Valve itself. It could also be for some other, totally unrelated reason.
2. The giveaway creator expressed his frustration with not being allowed to gift whomever he wished to gift. It was a general statement, unbound by any specifics, and therefore open to multiple interpretations.
3. You asked a general, open-ended question, also unbound by any specifics.
4. I gave a general response which covered all instances of gifting restrictions (for various reasons), and followed it with a generalized explanation of why gifting restrictions came to exist.
5. You apparently tried to interpret my general statements in the context of specific, political and social events. Aside from the fact that general statements are not nuanced enough to apply to each and every specific circumstance, taking what I said out of context invites confusion in the discussion. It is not surprising that it prompted you to question the applicability of my statement. My statement was not meant to apply to the specific circumstances you were inferring.
6. To add to the confusion, you were non-specific in your follow-up question. You did not clarify what "It" was, nor "that," and there was therefore nothing to prevent me from misinterpreting your question so as fit the context to which I was alluding instead of the context to which you were alluding. In other words, we continued to talk about two separate things.
7. In response, I clarified the general statement(s) I had previously made. Again, I did not get specific, nor was I talking about a specific circumstance.
8. You took my general statement(s) out of context, placed them in a different context (the specific instance of the current war), purposely substituted my word choice (syntax) to imply a meaning that was not only absent from my previous statements but also contradictory to them, and then appended irony and ridicule to highlight the absurdity of your concocted result.
9. I responded by pointing out your manipulation of my words and the false logic behind your hidden accusation (that what I said was absurd). I also noted that such practices were intellectually dishonest.

You deny my assertion. Fine. You also claim that the populations of Russia, Belarus, and Turkey "deserve" restricted access to the game in question. I should point out that you do not sufficiently know the men, women, and children that live in those countries, nor how they feel about the politics of their respective governments, so as to pass judgement upon them all, but that would be an appeal to your rationality and reason when you seem to be thinking with your emotions, instead.