Russia - General Discussion.

[ngatimozart]

If people want to discuss climate change or global populations start another thread.

 

[ngatimozart]

Also, there is the absurdity of not discussing population growth when it comes to global emissions and climate change. Nobody dares to mention the elephant in the room, because Europeans are too afraid to say anything bad about Africa, since they don’t want to be acused of being racists.

You are venturing down two paths that really upset the Moderators: politics and politics. Don't bother going there again because it is against the rules and the Moderators will be not be kind and considerate about it.

 

[Feanor]

In truth, these words are devoid of meaning. Where, for instance, is the ICC warrant for George Bush Jr? It is an intriguing question, for one could argue that American interventions in the Middle East created a power vacuum, ultimately leading to the rise of ISIS and the displacement of millions who sought refuge in Europe at tremendous cost to their host countries. Consider also the millions of Afghan refugees, some of whom are my colleagues here in Sweden. Yet despite the millions affected by these policies, and the many closeted racists (who would naturally love to see less of the refugees) who support anti-immigration parties across Europe, I remain perplexed (with a hint of sarcasm) at the lack of concrete steps taken by the EU to hold American officials and the US economy accountable. The contrast with the enthusiastic embrace of white, Christian refugees from Ukraine, whose flags now fly in major city squares from Lisbon to Warsaw, offers a sobering view of the world in which we live.

There is also the question of what, exactly, countries that "take sides" and sanction Russia would gain. Would the world suddenly become free from Western military interventions? It seems unlikely. Too often, and well before the Russian invasion of Ukraine, international law has proven to be nothing more than ink on paper.

I have said this before and will say it again: might makes right. The crux of the issue, however, is that this time, it is not the West's might that determines what is right.

One thought though. Isn't is western might too? I would argue that with the level of support for Ukraine, the west is very much applying their might here, just not as directly as they would if they were involved themselves. We know Ukraine would have exhausted their supplies and ran out of money a long time ago if it hadn't been for the massive influx of western money, weapons, and supplies We also know that intelligence support from the west is crucial.

 

[jref]

One thought though. Isn't is western might too? I would argue that with the level of support for Ukraine, the west is very much applying their might here, just not as directly as they would if they were involved themselves. We know Ukraine would have exhausted their supplies and ran out of money a long time ago if it hadn't been for the massive influx of western money, weapons, and supplies We also know that intelligence support from the west is crucial.

Although all of this is true, I would argue that Russian incompetence, primarily at the political level, followed by their military leadership, is the main cause of the battlefield difficulties they are currently experiencing. One does not need to be a 5-star general to recognize that there is something seriously wrong when a military, backed by a budget ranging from $120 to $200 billion, measured in PPP, is unable to do better than a WWI-style trench warfare against one of Europe's poorest and most corrupt countries (although apparently not as corrupt as Russia).

That being said, the West's might has clearly failed to prevent its client state from being destroyed and dismantled, and even with all of their shortcomings, it seems unlikely that Russia will be completely expelled from the territory of Ukraine.

 

[ngatimozart]

Although all of this is true, I would argue that Russian incompetence, primarily at the political level, followed by their military leadership, is the main cause of the battlefield difficulties they are currently experiencing. One does not need to be a 5-star general to recognize that there is something seriously wrong when a military, backed by a budget ranging from $120 to $200 billion, measured in PPP, is unable to do better than a WWI-style trench warfare against one of Europe's poorest and most corrupt countries (although apparently not as corrupt as Russia).

I would be very careful about believing in Russian incompetence on the battlefield. The stupid leaders in combat generally die and are replaced by experienced new leaders who have been taught on the battlefield. Russia still has the potential to cause havoc with conventional weapons. Never underestimate an enemy. History is replete with national leaders and commanders who have done that and pid the price.

That being said, the West's might has clearly failed to prevent its client state from being destroyed and dismantled, and even with all of their shortcomings, it seems unlikely that Russia will be completely expelled from the territory of Ukraine.

Who said that Ukraine is a client state of the imperialist west? Ukraine actually asked for the west's help.

 

[Vivendi]

The West should start thinking about how to deal with rebuilding Ukraine after the war. Many have proposed using the frozen Russian assets, or at least parts of them. I agree with this proposal however it's not enough. What they should do in addition, is to put a "war tax" of, say, 15-20% on all Russian products being imported to Allied countries after the war. The money from collecting this extra tax should then be used to rebuild Ukraine. It will take several decades before the "war tax" would be lifted, due to the massive levels of destruction. One needs good controls in place to make sure the money does not disappear into corruption.

This could also be used as a template for similar, future situations, e.g., if China were to execute an unprovoked invasion of Taiwan, a similar tax could be put on all Chinese goods....

 

[SolarisKenzo]

To use frozen Russian assets would be a huge mistake from a long-term economic point of view.
The EU should, actually, encourage all the Russian citizens that left Russia during this year and have any skill to move to Europe and work there.
Exactly like what we are doing with Ukrainians, that are now a very important part of EU workforce and are mitigating the demographic problem.

To use frozen assets would be extremely dangerous, instead we should encourage those who want and meet the requirements, to switch to our side.

This could also help, as it is happening with other immigrants, to make European population homogeneous and strengthen a European belonging sense...

 

[Vivendi]

Russia should be forced to pay for the damage they have caused. A working group is looking into the legal aspects of using frozen assets. If it's not possible to do in a legal manner then I agree it should not be done. However if they can find a way to do it then I see no reason why not. EU Working Group to look at using frozen Russian assets for reconstruction of Ukraine

Also I think the idea of a "war tax" should be considered. Alternatively, one can tell Russia to pay a fixed amount per year, that might be better way of doing it. When suggesting the "war tax" I was kind of assuming that Russia would not be very cooperative -- I may be wrong. The important thing though is that one way or another Russia must pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine after the war. They broke it they own it.

 

[jref]

Ukraine actually asked for the west's help.

As correctly pointed out by others, Ukraine would have run out of money and supplies, had it not been for the substantial inflow of Western aid, weaponry, and resources. This dependency on the West has made Ukraine rely on them for her political, economic, and military well-being, and has also given the West considerable influence in determining the allocation and utilization of these resources. It is a textbook example of a client state, regardless of whether the client state had requested it or not.

 

[John Fedup]

As correctly pointed out by others, Ukraine would have run out of money and supplies, had it not been for the substantial inflow of Western aid, weaponry, and resources. This dependency on the West has made Ukraine rely on them for her political, economic, and military well-being, and has also given the West considerable influence in determining the allocation and utilization of these resources. It is a textbook example of a client state, regardless of whether the client state had requested it or not.

A client state of the West or a client of the Putin crime family, I am pretty sure the average Ukrainian would prefer the former alternative.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

As correctly pointed out by others, Ukraine would have run out of money and supplies, had it not been for the substantial inflow of Western aid, weaponry, and resources. This dependency on the West has made Ukraine rely on them for her political, economic, and military well-being, and has also given the West considerable influence in determining the allocation and utilization of these resources. It is a textbook example of a client state, regardless of whether the client state had requested it or not.

I dont understand the meaning of the post.
What exactly is you point? The fact that Ukraine can be considered or not a " client state " is absolutely irrelevant both from ukrainian and western point of view...
So, If your point is just to say that " the imperialist west " is doing so because of personal gain and not because of " pietas "... Well congrats you discovered hot water...

 

[jref]

What exactly is you point?

My point was addressing @ngatimozart comment which is a continuation of my answer and remarks to @Feanor

So, If your point is just to say that " the imperialist west " is doing so because of personal gain and not because of " pietas "... Well congrats you discovered hot water...

At no point did I call any participating side imperialist or implied any type of personal gain or similar motives. Please refrain from fabricating and putting words in my mouth.

 

[jref]

A client state of the West or a client of the Putin crime family, I am pretty sure the average Ukrainian would prefer the former alternative.

This is obviously true and besides my point.

 

[tonnyc]

To use frozen Russian assets would be a huge mistake from a long-term economic point of view.
The EU should, actually, encourage all the Russian citizens that left Russia during this year and have any skill to move to Europe and work there.
Exactly like what we are doing with Ukrainians, that are now a very important part of EU workforce and are mitigating the demographic problem.

To use frozen assets would be extremely dangerous, instead we should encourage those who want and meet the requirements, to switch to our side.

This could also help, as it is happening with other immigrants, to make European population homogeneous and strengthen a European belonging sense...

I believe there is a misunderstanding on what these "frozen Russian assets" mean.

It does not mean the assets of some regular Russian person. It means the assets of the state of Russia and its bodies, plus the assets of specific named persons who occupy high positions in the Russian government (e.g., Sergei Soighu, the Russian minister of defense) and specific named organizations and people highly placed in those organizations. Now, a regular Russian person who has assets in a Parisian bank, for example, can not transfer his money into a Russian bank, but that is because Russia is cut off from the international banking network, not because his assets are frozen. He can still transfer the money from his Parisian bank account to, dunno, buy goods from Thailand.

The assets of the regular Russian people aren't in danger of being seized by the EU nations or USA or Canada etc. Whether they stay in Russia or emigrated, the status of their assets remain the same.

The assets of the state of Russia and the specifically named people and organizations though are frozen regardless of where they are physically at any given moment. So if they emigrate, their assets remain frozen. And if those assets are seized, whether they are in Russia or outside Russia at the time of the seizure won't prevent it.

As such, as best as I can tell, seizing the "frozen Russian assets" will not change anything about the fate of the average Russian, nor will it affect the likelihood of them leaving Russia. Because the regular Russian folks, if they have a foreign bank account, will not have the money in those bank accounts seized.

 

[SolarisKenzo]

I know what " frozen assets" mean, and that's exactly why it is so dangerous.
It is extremely dangerous to use another state's assets because by doing so the rest of the world, which is not necessarily your friend, will think twice before buying or having money in your banks.

No, Russian assets should not be touched.
Too many risks

 

[Feanor]

My point was addressing @ngatimozart comment which is a continuation of my answer and remarks to @Feanor

At no point did I call any participating side imperialist or implied any type of personal gain or similar motives. Please refrain from fabricating and putting words in my mouth.

Ok but for clarity's sake, Russia is definitely pursuing an imperialist foreign policy. This is not new, and did not start with this war. Much of the same could be said for certain western countries, whether or not they are acting in that capacity in this conflict.

 

[contricusc]

It is extremely dangerous to use another state's assets because by doing so the rest of the world, which is not necessarily your friend, will think twice before buying or having money in your banks.

I agree with that. Stealing a country’s assets would be a very dangerous precedent that will have severe consequences for future economic relations between countries.

 

[Vivendi]

I agree with that. Stealing a country’s assets would be a very dangerous precedent that will have severe consequences for future economic relations between countries.

One should never steal. However if the legal basis is shown to be solid it would not be stealing. I will try to explain with a simple example:

Imagine a person is breaking into his neighbor's house, ruining the house, killing some of those living there, stealing lots of stuff and then leaves. The authorities freezes the person's assets, and a judge is ordering him to pay to repair the house he ruined. He refuses. The judge then orders the authorities to use the frozen assets to pay for restoring the house that was ruined. Would you call this "stealing" from the person who ruined the house, but refuse to pay for the damages?

As for setting a precedent: It would be a positive precedent if it is has a solid legal basis and if one can explain that this is what happens when somebody is launching an unprovoked, unjustified, illegal war of aggression on a neighboring country, and only then. Don't launch an unprovoked, unjustified, illegal war, and your assets will be safe.

 

[Feanor]

One should never steal. However if the legal basis is shown to be solid it would not be stealing. I will try to explain with a simple example:

Imagine a person is breaking into his neighbor's house, ruining the house, killing some of those living there, stealing lots of stuff and then leaves. The authorities freezes the person's assets, and a judge is ordering him to pay to repair the house he ruined. He refuses. The judge then orders the authorities to use the frozen assets to pay for restoring the house that was ruined. Would you call this "stealing" from the person who ruined the house, but refuse to pay for the damages?

As for setting a precedent: It would be a positive precedent if it is has a solid legal basis and if one can explain that this is what happens when somebody is launching an unprovoked, unjustified, illegal war of aggression on a neighboring country, and only then. Don't launch an unprovoked, unjustified, illegal war, and your assets will be safe.

This presupposes a government with lawful authority to do so. On the international stage there is no lawful government. It's more like some of the neighbors get together and using their domestic house rules seize assets that the individual stored in their basement under some agreement.

 

[Vivendi]

This presupposes a government with lawful authority to do so. On the international stage there is no lawful government. It's more like some of the neighbors get together and using their domestic house rules seize assets that the individual stored in their basement under some agreement.

At one point in the not too distant past there were no lawful authority anywhere... Thank God that did not stop people from trying, and in the end, after centuries (if not millennia) they succeeded, meaning that in most countries you can walk down the street and feel quite safe.

I understand some people are very reluctant to seeing similar progress "on the international stage" but I hope that will not stop ongoing efforts to create international rules that will, in the hopefully not too distant future, be internationally recognized and accepted.

You may say I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one