Russia - General Discussion.

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
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
I don't want to go too far down this road, but historically early governments were less about lawful authority and more about the best hunter with the sharpest stone axe taking charge. After millenia this produced lawful authority with the theoretical consent of the governed but even today the social contract is more of a fiction then a practical reality. And while one would, looking from the big picture, consider this to be progress, if I saw the best hunter bullying others in the name of his "lawful" authority, I might be tempted to bash his head open with a large rock while he slept. If I was a nation state today facing the prospect of having "lawful" international authority forced upon me, I might be tempted to teach the rest of the world a lesson in nuclear fire before submitting. Of course I'm not a very nice person, and probably shouldn't be put in charge of running a country. On the flip side look at the EU attempting to get its members to get on the same page. How's that working out? Has Poland decided to accept migrants yet or shut down their coal plants? Does Hungary continue to be an obstruction on multiple issues? And these are what one might consider to be civilized countries. Certainly not failed states.
 

John Fedup

The Bunker Group
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.
Team Putin has pretty much eliminated any financial relations with everyone except China, NK, and Iran. Some nations will take advantage of natural resource deals. Most previous military customers will likely not be impressed with Russia’s military performance in Ukraine so China will get this business and their products are as good or better for the most part.
 
Team Putin has pretty much eliminated any financial relations with everyone except China, NK, and Iran. Some nations will take advantage of natural resource deals. Most previous military customers will likely not be impressed with Russia’s military performance in Ukraine so China will get this business and their products are as good or better for the most part.
Confiscating Russian foreign reserves would not only affect financial relationships between West and Russia but would have severe global consequences. No country would keep its money in western banks anymore and would try to minimize using western currencies both as a means of payment and as a reserve as much as possible. By doing this the West would start the process that would end the only super weapon in the world (apart from the nuclear weapons) the US dollar.
 
By doing this the West would start the process that would end the only super weapon in the world (apart from the nuclear weapons) the US dollar.
The process is already under way, but it is slow. Ever since the Patriot Act and the FATCA have been introduced, dealing with US dollars has become a lot more difficult than before. The introduction of the CRS reporting system (pushed mostly by the EU) dealt another blow to the global banking system based on legacy currencies like the USD and the EUR.

All the sanctions that have been used by the US and the West in general are another incentive for the world to decouple from the dollar and the Euro. Add to that the enormous QE programs that created money out of thin air at the expense of foreign countries holding dollars that saw their savings being dilluted.

There are lots of reasons to stay away from the current Western financial system. Confiscating Russian assets would be just another incentive, in the already high list.

The only thing that keeps the rest of the world from finding an alternative is the distrust they have among them (and for good reasons), and the lack of vision of their leaders.

There is already an alternative to the US dollar, and it is in plain sight for the world to see. So far, only the leader of El Salvador has seen the future, but he is young and intelligent, unlike most world leaders who are old and stupid. There is a financial revolution going on silently, but as always, big governments are the last to see the writing on the wall.
 
The process is already under way, but it is slow. Ever since the Patriot Act and the FATCA have been introduced, dealing with US dollars has become a lot more difficult than before. The introduction of the CRS reporting system (pushed mostly by the EU) dealt another blow to the global banking system based on legacy currencies like the USD and the EUR.

All the sanctions that have been used by the US and the West in general are another incentive for the world to decouple from the dollar and the Euro. Add to that the enormous QE programs that created money out of thin air at the expense of foreign countries holding dollars that saw their savings being dilluted.

There are lots of reasons to stay away from the current Western financial system. Confiscating Russian assets would be just another incentive, in the already high list.

The only thing that keeps the rest of the world from finding an alternative is the distrust they have among them (and for good reasons), and the lack of vision of their leaders.

There is already an alternative to the US dollar, and it is in plain sight for the world to see. So far, only the leader of El Salvador has seen the future, but he is young and intelligent, unlike most world leaders who are old and stupid. There is a financial revolution going on silently, but as always, big governments are the last to see the writing on the wall.
Indeed I would agree the faith in the western financial system has been shaken by the western countries' own doings. I would particularly highlight recent money printing spree as a particular problem and if they do decide to confiscate Russian assets, which would basically amount to theft on a mega scale, it would be very difficult to restore world's confidence in it.

Cryptocurrency could indeed be the way of the future but it's to early to tell in my opinion, and I do have some reservations, however I'm not an expert and have superficial knowledge on the matter, I would like to see some regulations knowing full well that the lack of it is one of the main attractions of cryptocurrency.
 

Ananda

The Bunker Group
Team Putin has pretty much eliminated any financial relations with everyone except China, NK, and Iran.
Global South including emerging markets and Gulf Kingdoms practically still open toward financial transactions with Russia. They are not using Western Financial systems including SWIFT and it's currencies baskets with Russia, but they are still open on alternative market and currency if needed.

China more and more providing that alternative currency and financial market. Doesn't means Global South and Emerging Economies going to abandon western financial market and currencies, but it's just this war and how West weaponise their financial markets and currencies, give incentives for those outside west and allies (OECD) to find alternative on doing business outside western influences.

US lead Western markets will still dominate Global Financial markets for sometime in future. No doubt about that. Most global commercial sectors will still used them due to conveniences and wide ranges financial options available. The stability of the US lead financial systems also give that incentives. However markets in the end work in mutual trusts, and what Western political leaders done so far is chipping away some of that trusts. This in the end only fasten emergences of alternatives financial markets.

This is in the end only fasten multipolar world order faster then what markets has predicted before.
 
Last edited:

seaspear

Well-Known Member
Russia loses elections to three U.N bodies following a vote that Russia stops all hostilities in Ukraine and withdraws its forces 141to 7 with 32 abstentions
Russia loses election to three UN bodies over Ukraine | AP News
U.N. Security Council defeats Russia humanitarian resolution on Ukraine that would omit fault | PBS NewsHour
This was an earlier U.N vote to hold Russia accountable that may be used as a base of recompense
UN General Assembly calls for Russian reparations to Ukraine - ABC News (go.com)
 
However markets in the end work in mutual trusts, and what Western political leaders done so far is chipping away some of that trusts. This in the end only fasten emergences of alternatives financial markets.
They are not only chipping away at the trust, but they are also destroying the functionality of their financial system.

Ten years ago people could easily open bank accounts in foreign countries, and it was easy to make international wire transfer payments. Not many questions were asked. The system worked.

Now, it is extremely difficult to open a bank account in a foreign country or to transfer money abroad. The system has been clogged by excessive regulation, KYC requirements, mandatory reporting, AML laws, etc. The system is barely working anymore.

I would say that the legacy financial system is on the brink of collapse when it comes to international transactions, and it is all because of the US and the OECD.
 

seaspear

Well-Known Member
It seems more complicated than just stating its the U.S and the West when there are now more legal requirements to prevent criminal activity from laundering and tax avoidance and hiding assets
 

koxinga

Well-Known Member
Now, it is extremely difficult to open a bank account in a foreign country or to transfer money abroad. The system has been clogged by excessive regulation, KYC requirements, mandatory reporting, AML laws, etc. The system is barely working anymore.
I would say it is working as intended?

One of my clients is a bank and we have people supporting their KYC activities. Said bank has Chinese roots and have to put up with enquiries from wealthy mainland clients to transfer funds out of China or whatever legal entities they use overseas. We flagged one case where this client was trying to move several hundred million USD out of an offshore BVI entity into the account, with some flimsy reason these are revenue from certain business entity which was 2 years old with a few directors and no real business to speak of. Apparently, it happens on a regular basis.

There is greater scrutiny, resulting in higher compliance costs but that has been factored in most legitimate businesses. That there is a move to alternative assets and juridictions with lesser oversight is an indication that some of these transactions and monies have sources that are difficult to account for.
 
It seems more complicated than just stating its the U.S and the West when there are now more legal requirements to prevent criminal activity from laundering and tax avoidance and hiding assets
And who introduced those legal requirements? They were imposed by the US and the OECD.
 
I would say it is working as intended?
If the intention is to kill small businesses and international trade, than it is working as intended.

One of my clients is a bank and we have people supporting their KYC activities. Said bank has Chinese roots and have to put up with enquiries from wealthy mainland clients to transfer funds out of China or whatever legal entities they use overseas. We flagged one case where this client was trying to move several hundred million USD out of an offshore BVI entity into the account, with some flimsy reason these are revenue from certain business entity which was 2 years old with a few directors and no real business to speak of. Apparently, it happens on a regular basis.
Exactly what I was saying. The financial system barely works. Imagine being that Chinese client trying to move several hundred million dollars and having to put up with all this crap, as if the money was not his. Having accumulated such wealth and not knowing wether you will be able to use it or not. That’s very low quality money if you ask me, and people have all the reasons not to trust it.

There is greater scrutiny, resulting in higher compliance costs but that has been factored in most legitimate businesses.
You mean most legitimate multi-million dollar businesses that are not in the financial sector. For small businesses the costs are huge, and compliance is a huge burden. For fintech startups, the rules are crippling.

That there is a move to alternative assets and juridictions with lesser oversight is an indication that some of these transactions and monies have sources that are difficult to account for.
For me, it is an indication that the financial system is broken.

What you’re saying is in the same line of thought the former communist regimes used, when they labeled people who fled to the West as traitors or criminals. It was not the regime’s fault that people were willing to risk their lives to escape to the West. It was simply that the people and the West were evil.

The financial system should not be a judge about who is right and who is wrong. Money transfers should not be used to censor people or to sabotage businesses. With the AML laws, the concept of “innocent until found guilty” has been destroyed. Now you are “guilty until you can prove your innocence”. It’s really crazy how low the West has fallen when it comes to personal freedoms.
 

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
Beheading the opponent is not something that started in Ukraine: Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya documented that this also happened during the Chechen war.
Anna Politkovskaya was killed in 2006 (October 7, by pure coincidence Putin's birthday), still not clear who hired the men who killed her.

Europe/US should have taken strong actions against Russia a long time ago, in particular they should have reacted much more strongly to what happened during the Chechen war, and also what happened in Syria later on.
The Chechen wars were particularly brutal on both sides (and the Chechen civil war before the Russians got involved was also brutal). Some people become brutalized in war*, and yes, beheadings happen. I personally saw beheaded bodies in former Yugoslavia. In one case, they had kicked around the head of the old man like a football (soccer ball to Americans). He was an elderly Serb who was caught in the stalled refugee convoy during "Op Storm". We had already rescued his wife and handicapped daughter and I had to tell his wife of his death, but left out the details, and she asked for none. The culprits were Bosnian Muslim V Corps "Hamza" fighters, out of Bihac. This bunch beheaded others, too, and also executed handicapped people in wheelchairs, including children, at a school for the handicapped. Nothing was ever done about any of that, even though UN, OSCE, etc., filed eyewitness reports, including those of officers from NATO countries acting as observers there with the UN and OSCE (OSCE was then called ECMM there).

I know the war in Syria has also been brutal, but am unaware of war crimes committed by Russians there (which does not mean they did not happen, only that I am unaware of them). I have read accounts of horrendous atrocities there, including beheadings and ripping hearts and livers out the bodies of enemy soldiers and eating them, but those only involved local fighters. (Same happened in Cambodia, but as best I recall, they only munched on livers, not hearts, and this was vanishingly rare.) I have seen Russia condemned for the "war crime" of using cluster bombs in Syria. Yet NATO used them during the 1999 bombing of Serbia (including the incident at Nis, which was surely an oopsie, when they killed a number of civilians at a crowded market and also in a hospital and apartment building adjacent to the market):


Anyway, civil wars, particularly inter-ethnic civil wars, are especially hideous. While the war in Ukraine is not characterized or thought of as an inter-ethnic civil war, it does have an aspect of it. I am hardly brushing off such crimes or making light of them, but war crimes do happen, at least rarely and sporadically, in nearly every war. I don't necessarily believe this beheading of a Ukrainian soldier by a Russian soldier actually happened just because there is a video floating around the net (propaganda abounds), but I can believe such a thing could happen and that a brutalized soldier from either side could be capable of it. I am not defending Russia, mind you, and I hardly think Putin is Mr. Nice Guy (understatement), but I've seen way too many false claims in this war and prior ones, too.

Whether "the West" should have taken stronger action against Russia over the Chechen wars and Syria is a matter of opinion, of course. There have been a number of grisly little wars featuring nasty war crimes over the past 30 years "the West" did not take strong action against.

*Some go nuts, some just get drunk, some wet their pants, and some are able to maintain their clarity and humanity. Nearly all go through a stage of initial shock if it's their first hot war (which might last seconds, minutes, hours or days). When it comes to professional armed forces, the vast majority go by their training and ingrained instinct and simply do their jobs as combatants. A high-ranking officer from a NATO country told me that those capable of compartmentalizing did best in war and were far less likely to suffer PTSD. The way he explained it made sense. I have never been a combatant, so I cannot say I am a proper judge, however. I have been in the very middle of Other People's hot wars and been shot at on more than one continent, but that is hardly the same as the experience of a combatant.
 

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
This article by Forbes details a very lengthy process in international courts for legal redress by Ukraine and compensation that may even take decades
Ukraine Can Make Russia Pay For This War In International Courts—Eventually (forbes.com)
First, I am very much opposed to the word "genocide" being tossed about so cavalierly as it has been lately. This word should be used very carefully to retain its original meaning. The Holocaust was genocide. Rwanda was genocide. The current war in Ukraine is not genocide, certainly not by the definition the ICJ would use, although the Ukrainian Rada adopted a resolution declaring it genocide and one can certainly read claims in the press that it is. Neither were the Ukrainians committing genocide during the phase of the war prior to the February 2022 invasion as alleged by Russia. The IJC correctly determined so:


Using the word "genocide" as lightly as some have in recent years and decades threatens to enervate that word and deprive it of its rightful power.

As far as Russia paying reparations goes, as your Forbes article correctly points out, neither the ICJ nor ICC exactly have their very own mighty army to enforce rulings. Both parties to a dispute either willingly agree to implement court decisions or are left to duke it out or live with the status quo. It could happen should a future Russian government decide to pay reparations. Otherwise, it never will.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
As far as Russia paying reparations goes, as your Forbes article correctly points out, neither the ICJ nor ICC exactly have their very own mighty army to enforce rulings. Both parties to a dispute either willingly agree to implement court decisions or are left to duke it out or live with the status quo. It could happen should a future Russian government decide to pay reparations. Otherwise, it never will.
Do you think my proposal of a adding a "war tax" on Russian goods and services sold to Europe/US/CAN/AUS/JPN/KOR could work?
 

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
Do you think my proposal of a adding a "war tax" on Russian goods and services sold to Europe/US/CAN/AUS/JPN/KOR could work?
If Europe/US/CAN/AUS/JPN/KOR decide to place tariffs on Russian imports, donating monies collected through said tariffs to reconstruction of Ukraine, that could work, but it is not the same as Russia paying reparations as ordered by the ICJ if the ICJ so rules -- it is a plausible workaround, I suppose. Certainly, it would harm Russia in the sense that the price of its exports would be inflated in those countries, thus cutting back demand or forcing Russia to discount prices of exports. Russia could also do as it does now, and concentrate on other markets, too. If sanctions remain in effect, as they likely will, though, what is left to impose tariffs on?

EDITED to add: And then there's the cost/benefit ratio to be considered. The countries imposing these tariffs would be at a disadvantage compared to countries not imposing them, especially if the tariffs are stiff. The market will adjust, meaning businesses in the countries imposing tariffs may find it unprofitable to operate there, hence moving operations elsewhere (as BASF is now moving operations from Germany to China on account of higher energy prices in Germany) or else closing down sections of their operations reliant on trade with Russia. Whether Russia or the countries you named would be more harmed by such tariffs is another question.
 
Last edited:

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
If Europe/US/CAN/AUS/JPN/KOR decide to place tariffs on Russian imports, donating monies collected through said tariffs to reconstruction of Ukraine, that could work, but it is not the same as Russia paying reparations as ordered by the ICJ if the ICJ so rules -- it is a plausible workaround, I suppose. Certainly, it would harm Russia in the sense that the price of its exports would be inflated in those countries, thus cutting back demand or forcing Russia to discount prices of exports. Russia could also do as it does now, and concentrate on other markets, too. If sanctions remain in effect, as they likely will, though, what is left to impose tariffs on?
Presumably Vivendi is imagining some sort of post-war settlement where Russia is defeated, accepts said defeat, and some sort of return to norlmacy occurs, though to what extent is unclear. I too think this could be a viable option in principle, and it might even be one Russia would be willing to accept as a way of paying reparations without paying reparations. I suspect that, if regime change doesn't happen, Russia will be very averse to anything that admits fault, but likely not averse to paying money, as long as they don't have to say that they're paying reparations. If what Ukraine wants out of the settlement of this war is Russian cash, that is probably the easiest thing to negotiate for. The real problem is the question of territory.
 

Feanor

Super Moderator
Staff member
The Chechen wars were particularly brutal on both sides (and the Chechen civil war before the Russians got involved was also brutal). Some people become brutalized in war*, and yes, beheadings happen. I personally saw beheaded bodies in former Yugoslavia. In one case, they had kicked around the head of the old man like a football (soccer ball to Americans). He was an elderly Serb who was caught in the stalled refugee convoy during "Op Storm". We had already rescued his wife and handicapped daughter and I had to tell his wife of his death, but left out the details, and she asked for none. The culprits were Bosnian Muslim V Corps "Hamza" fighters, out of Bihac. This bunch beheaded others, too, and also executed handicapped people in wheelchairs, including children, at a school for the handicapped. Nothing was ever done about any of that, even though UN, OSCE, etc., filed eyewitness reports, including those of officers from NATO countries acting as observers there with the UN and OSCE (OSCE was then called ECMM there).

I know the war in Syria has also been brutal, but am unaware of war crimes committed by Russians there (which does not mean they did not happen, only that I am unaware of them). I have read accounts of horrendous atrocities there, including beheadings and ripping hearts and livers out the bodies of enemy soldiers and eating them, but those only involved local fighters. (Same happened in Cambodia, but as best I recall, they only munched on livers, not hearts, and this was vanishingly rare.) I have seen Russia condemned for the "war crime" of using cluster bombs in Syria. Yet NATO used them during the 1999 bombing of Serbia (including the incident at Nis, which was surely an oopsie, when they killed a number of civilians at a crowded market and also in a hospital and apartment building adjacent to the market):


Anyway, civil wars, particularly inter-ethnic civil wars, are especially hideous. While the war in Ukraine is not characterized or thought of as an inter-ethnic civil war, it does have an aspect of it. I am hardly brushing off such crimes or making light of them, but war crimes do happen, at least rarely and sporadically, in nearly every war. I don't necessarily believe this beheading of a Ukrainian soldier by a Russian soldier actually happened just because there is a video floating around the net (propaganda abounds), but I can believe such a thing could happen and that a brutalized soldier from either side could be capable of it. I am not defending Russia, mind you, and I hardly think Putin is Mr. Nice Guy (understatement), but I've seen way too many false claims in this war and prior ones, too.

Whether "the West" should have taken stronger action against Russia over the Chechen wars and Syria is a matter of opinion, of course. There have been a number of grisly little wars featuring nasty war crimes over the past 30 years "the West" did not take strong action against.

*Some go nuts, some just get drunk, some wet their pants, and some are able to maintain their clarity and humanity. Nearly all go through a stage of initial shock if it's their first hot war (which might last seconds, minutes, hours or days). When it comes to professional armed forces, the vast majority go by their training and ingrained instinct and simply do their jobs as combatants. A high-ranking officer from a NATO country told me that those capable of compartmentalizing did best in war and were far less likely to suffer PTSD. The way he explained it made sense. I have never been a combatant, so I cannot say I am a proper judge, however. I have been in the very middle of Other People's hot wars and been shot at on more than one continent, but that is hardly the same as the experience of a combatant.
Moved to appropriate thread. I understand you were responding to the post, but the conversation here is once again that of the wider context of relations between Russia and the west, and the consistency with which certain standards are being implemented/enforced.
 

Capt. Ironpants

Active Member
Moved to appropriate thread. I understand you were responding to the post, but the conversation here is once again that of the wider context of relations between Russia and the west, and the consistency with which certain standards are being implemented/enforced.
Agree and thanks for moving it. It really does belong on the other thread.
 
Top