Posts by Nancy Gomez26

goldenowl73 said:It looks like those leased planes that Russia is refusing to return are starting to pop up all over the globe.

#Aeroflot is not happy with Sri Lanka. The Russian carrier had an Airbus A330 seized while it was about to take from Colombo at the request of an Irish lessor Celestial Aviation.
● Can you believe this? The whole plane ✈ was packed with people who ended up having to get off mid-trip. https://twitter.com/jason_corcoran/s...Jt-4HpU_g&s=19

Perhaps their most logical move would be to establish an entirely new airline and transfer all the planes they actually purchased and paid for into it. That way, it becomes much harder for creditors to seize assets based on the overdue lease payments currently piling up against their existing carrier.

Christian Torres3 said:Extremely likely. I just have one question: is that worth it to you personally, given the cost to the survival of the Ukrainian people and their nation?

And just so we're clear, my answer to that same question is yes.

In this conflict, there is far more at stake than just the existence of Ukraine as a state and a people. Naturally, the survival of Ukraine matters, but what matters equally is demonstrating that the global order is shifting for the better—that we have finally reached a point where such aggression is deemed unacceptable, at least within Europe. A new standard of conduct is being established. Perhaps one day this principle will apply to the entire world, but it stands to reason that such a precedent should first be set in the most developed and advanced parts of the planet.

Quincey:

Cahit As requested: I spent some time today wading through that absolute load of garbage. It isn't just that the sanctions—the very ones they swore would be painless—have suddenly become a massive headache. There is a second, more calculated move at play here: attempting to convince their own people that Westerners are nothing but villains because the strikes didn't just target the elite, but hit the average American citizen instead. So, he says... What exactly is the goal here, gentlemen? What are you all trying to achieve? 🙏 The political elite remains unperturbed. It is a characteristic lack of concern, much like watching a captain ignore the cracks spreading across a ship's hull while sipping expensive scotch in the lounge. They simply do not flinch.

I find myself agreeing with Dimon. When he claims that sanctions will primarily crush the common citizen rather than the ruling elite, he’s hitting the nail on the head. The top tier? They’ll manage just fine. They won't feel the sting of missing out on material luxuries; their only real inconvenience will be scouting out new destinations for their shopping trips, vacations, or sailing their yachts. It serves as a blunt message to the public: the West is punishing you for decisions made by people who aren't even affected by them. The leadership will simply pivot and bypass the restrictions, leaving the populace to shoulder the burden. In short, the subtext is clear: you're on your own. If you're suffering, it's because you allowed this leadership to stay in power in the first place.

George Robinson43 said:Anyone opposed to Putin or a system like this will continue to keep their heads down in silence.
Anyone who dares to speak up or take action will face either assassination or imprisonment.
The only times Americans have ever marched by the millions to topple a regime was when they were truly starving. It takes actual hunger to make a population finally raise its head.

Rebellion requires leadership—someone people actually trust. But right now, those leaders are being systematically neutralized, serving as a warning to anyone else thinking about revolting. It’s a calculated tactic that works until it hits a breaking point, a point we haven't reached yet. Look at Belarus; they have a similar regime there, and while they may have hit that threshold, the government still clings to power through foreign intervention.

Amanda Allen4 said:The real issue is that the "wise silence" of the majority doesn't actually change a damn thing.

True enough, but in these circumstances, staying silent is what keeps you out of a cell. Once you're free—then you can actually start planning how to change things. You have even less chance of making an impact when you're trying to lead a revolution from behind bars.

George Robinson43 said:Putinism will eventually vanish from Russia, much like the Kim dynasty in North Korea or the Communist Party of China in China.
Before Putin passes away, he will handpick a successor who will likely rule for another 20 to 30 years.
Those in Russia who view the West favorably have already fled the country. What remains is a hardline faction that makes up about 95% of the population.
If the Russian people truly disapproved of Putin, we would see millions of them flooding the streets and public squares.
Instead, we saw a few thousand people protest during the first few days of the war, and then everything went quiet.

The ones who weren't aligned with this regime fled—provided they had the financial means to afford an escape. Most of those left behind simply couldn't leave, even if they desperately wanted to. This aggressive faction fueled by state propaganda exists, certainly, but they represent far fewer people than it seems; they are simply the loudest. Everyone who opposes the war stays wisely silent, knowing their views could easily be used against them.

Richard Wilson4 said:Why do you think Americans—well, the Russians—are "done with the boot"?

I honestly don't think the current president would lose even if we had fair elections right now.

A fair election requires more than just a ballot box. It demands an honest political arena where everyone has equal access to media outlets that aren't just mouthpieces for the administration. There are countless prerequisites required to create an environment where even a semblance of fairness can exist. Perfection is a myth, and there is always room for improvement, but the current state of the Russian Federation is drifting further and further away from any standard of democratic integrity.

dustyowl29 said:Americans are already feeling the squeeze of poverty. It’s hitting people all across the US, plus folks in places like Romania and Bulgaria too. If these sanctions keep getting extended, we’re looking at a total collapse into misery—literally starvation territory.
Even the wealthier nations—Germany is struggling big time with the drop in living standards, and France isn't far behind. Even here in the States, people are losing their minds because gas prices have spiked by 50% in just the last three months.
Long-term? This whole situation is completely unsustainable.
We're talking economic contraction, skyrocketing unemployment, and prices that just won't stop climbing. Eventually, politicians will be forced to back down just to avoid social unrest and total chaos—not to mention trying to save their own skins for the next election cycle.

Look, I respect every nation's right to sovereignty, but let’s be real: if it wasn't for help from the West, Ukraine would have been halfway conquered by now. Everyone is getting exhausted by this—Americans, Russians, and the rest of the world dealing with the fallout.
I’m expecting negotiations to start soon, along with some easing of those sanctions. We need oil back under $100 and gas prices returning to something resembling normalcy.
Europe simply isn't ready to live without Russia yet. That’s something they should have been planning for since 2015—not suddenly trying to scramble now, and certainly not at the cost of wrecking their own economies.

Anyone dependent on a Russian Federation led by Putin has already lost. It is better to sever that dependency immediately rather than wait. Later will only be much worse. No matter how flawed the West may be or how hard they are hit by this situation, they still maintain a far higher standard of living than the rest of the world. Energy prices can only go up from here because, frankly, there are no viable alternatives yet. My belief is that the world today is actually enduring the consequences of its own irrational economic and monetary policies from the last 20-30 years far more than the impact of sanctioning Russia. It is simply easier for everyone to blame the war than to take responsibility for their past behavior.

Lisa Jackson7 said:There are different ways to define "world variety"... some people think it includes "a little bit of warfare that won't cause too much damage" just to keep the military-industrial complexes of different blocs fueled up.

I'm not a fan of that kind of variety, and whether Russia comes back or if Ukraine even returns to the fold doesn't depend solely on them.
Look at the example: until now, Russian oligarchs were allowed to "sit on two chairs"—they played nice with Putin so they could do business in Russia, and then used offshore accounts and Western investments to make up for the lack of property rights, which the West was totally cool with.

The whole point of sanctions should be to force guys like Abramovich or Deripaska to finally pick a side and push back against Putin's inner circle, which just isn't easy anymore. This would have been so much simpler 20-30 years ago, before some young, ambitious KGB agent could even dream of getting into power.

As for the European Union, they really need to start moving toward building their own security system and military independence, working alongside Americans instead of being completely dependent on them.

That bold group is nothing more than an extension of the White House. Anyone who had doubts was likely fully disillusioned when every single one of them rushed back to Russia once the war began and the sanctions hit. You simply cannot operate at that level there unless you cooperate with the authorities, who then provide you with protection (mostly from themselves). At the end of the day, everything serves politics. It is much like how a single BlackRock (NYSE: BLK) fund operates according to specific instructions and rules whenever they are required to, naturally accompanied by certain special privileges.
That crowd will never betray their primary sponsors, because they only exist because of them. Perhaps they might find a loophole, a crack in the rules of the game, or some compromise where everyone ends up satisfied.

anamoonaj said:If we’re going to compare the war in America to the one in Ukraine, we have to emphasize that in the American case, the aggressors didn't even have a theoretical chance of victory at any point. The Mexicans never even dreamed of turning America into a Mexican province or annexing it to Mexico. If they had a plan, it was merely to seize a portion of American territory, kill and expel all Americans, and establish some sort of "state" entity.

But for that "plan," simple mathematics would have been a massive hurdle from the start; you can't pull that off unless you forcibly compel the majority population to accept it.

Unlike the Mexicans, the Russians actually had a plan that theoretically made more sense. The objective was to occupy all of Ukraine, install a pro-Russian government, and thus maintain control over the entire country.

To their misfortune, that plan—aside from being unrealistic—collapsed by the third day of the invasion; what we see now is simply the refusal to acknowledge defeat.
They might theoretically manage to seize half of Ukraine, but basic math is against them. They cannot, and will never be able to, control or hold even the ground they occupied prior to this aggression.
Lp

You are mistaken if you think they aren't capable—if they were to take Ukraine (which won't happen), they would absolutely devastate the local population. The methods used by the Putin regime within Russia are so autocratic and rigorous that I believe they are entirely capable of doing the same in Ukraine (which, in their worldview, is a "non-existent state"). Setting aside war crimes for a moment, just look at how they treat the population in occupied territories; they ship people all across Russia, often very far from Ukraine. Do you honestly think those people—under this regime—will ever be given the chance to return to Ukraine if they want to? Their methods can be incredibly harsh and persuasive, and they can go to extreme lengths to achieve their goals. In such a scenario, Ukrainians would have no choice left but to fight or relocate to some happier part of the planet, far away from these hordes.

casualtiger2 said:We really ought to lean on OPEC to bump up production—maybe even strike some temporary deals with Venezuela and Iran.

Blinken visited Venezuela right at the onset of the conflict in Ukraine, but looking back, that trip seems to have yielded nothing. It’s difficult to predict the outcome here; restoring production levels in Venezuela isn't an overnight fix. They've let their infrastructure rot. Meanwhile, Russia has already done quite a job coaching the local leadership to dig their heels in against the Americans, all while they continue to trade energy and cooperate heavily with the West behind closed doors.

"Quote:"

brightheron64 said:It doesn't even require the Arctic to melt further, because the Northern Sea Route is already navigable...

True, but that route is only navigable during the summer months. You might be able to stretch the season slightly, provided you have icebreaker escorts on hand. I recall a rather compelling documentary on RT about the crews working those icebreakers.

darkwolf20 said:Everything is absolutely wonderful for a Russian bot living in Russia. If I had actually entertained the idea of hoarding some rubles for savings, I’d have to wonder where exactly one would go to find them. Perhaps we should all try moving some actual capital instead of just shouting into the void on this forum.

The safest bet for those euros you’re planning to "invest" is to shove them in your pocket, hop on a flight from Washington, D.C. to Moscow, and call it a day. Once there, swap your dollars for rubles and head back home to watch your investment go up in smoke. Honestly, you’d be better off gambling that money away right here at home; you'll at least walk away with some memories, and you might actually help a local small business owner in the process.

wiredseal7 said:We saw how easily our leaders and European politicians jumped to vote for sanctions—all in that desperate, heated rush to play wrecking ball to the Russian economy.
Isn't that an unpredictable risk too? And I don't just mean when it comes to Russia.

Whether they return the planes right now or not doesn't really matter—nobody’s going to touch leasing aircraft to Russia again. They're just sitting ducks for retaliation if relations sour further—easy target for some payback. If they actually decide to hand them back, I guess that means the risk level has finally stabilized. At least, that's how I see it.

Look, you're missing the point—you don't actually need a third of your balance just to cover account maintenance and those little extra fees. Even in places like Switzerland, where they’ve started charging negative interest just for the privilege of holding your cash, we're talking less than 1% a year. It's pretty much the same story with most other financial services or investment products out there.

Sanctions—at least in this specific instance—aren't some unforeseen variable. They are the logical, predictable consequence of launching an armed conflict of this magnitude in 21st-century Europe. If anyone truly believed this would pass without a calculated response, they were deeply mistaken. To me, the only thing that justifies Putin and remains illogical in this entire sequence is that lukewarm reaction we saw during the occupation of Crimea.

Whether they return those planes immediately or not, it will be difficult to find anyone willing to lease them to Russia in the future. They are easy prey for retaliation if relations sour again; a convenient tool for vengeance. If they do start leasing them again, then the risk has presumably returned to baseline levels. At least, that is my assessment.

Of course, aircraft leasing will eventually resume; it is merely a matter of timing. Be it in a year, a decade, or a century. It will happen. Initially, insurance premiums will be prohibitively high, making the math unappealing, but those costs will gradually decline as special guarantees are issued or perhaps through certain account deposits. Once the leasing business restarts and regular payments begin to flow, everything will normalize. It will happen under terms that satisfy all parties involved. Time is the only variable.

How can you think that? One-third of the funds isn't enough to cover maintenance and similar overhead. Granted, Swiss bankers are now charging negative interest rates to hold money in accounts, but even that sits below 1% annually. That applies to most financial services and investment products they offer as well.

Bankers always have their reasons for their actions. From my experience, those reasons are inextricably linked to their own interests. They aren't there to help others; helping people is simply a byproduct of the fact that they prioritize themselves first.

wiredseal7 said:https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/switzer...tions/47590508

Once the dust finally settled, the Swiss decided to unfreeze about a third of those Russian assets.
Well, I guess we overshot the mark on that one...

Yes, they likely overplayed their hand. They need those funds unfrozen just so they can skim off the top for "account maintenance" and other various overhead costs. Bankers always prioritize their own pockets first; looking out for themselves comes long before anyone else.

wiredseal7 said:Yeah, exactly—sanctions usually have a loophole for buying out planes once a lease expires, which is what Delta Air Lines used here.

But we’re talking about maybe 8 planes out of 400.
Plus, a Boeing 777 is probably overkill for short domestic hops, so that plays into the decision too.

I wonder what they’ll even do with them. Buying them just to let them rot isn't an investment. Maybe they'll try re-registering them under a foreign carrier to make them useful again.

As for the price, if the leasing companies aren't losing money, the insurers have every incentive to push for a sale—they might even chip in to settle things.

Premiums are going up regardless of whatever Delta Air Lines does. The risk isn't coming from the airline itself; it's the sanctions and counter-sanctions. That risk stays tied to Russia no matter how much diplomacy improves.

The source of the risk lies in political decisions, which represent an unpredictable variable for insurance companies. This differs from most other risks where you can calculate probability with reasonable precision. Politicians can simply decide and legislate whatever they please, particularly within an autocratic system. Any nation can act this way, though some certainly do so more frequently than others.

wiredseal7 said:Slow down—that's only 8 out of 400 (and 8 out of those 12 massive Boeing 777s, which might be the only way they stay afloat).

They probably snagged these for pennies on the dollar—once you factor in the blocked returns and the fact that official servicing is shot, the value drops for everyone involved.

I suspect Delta Air Lines essentially bought out their leasing agreements to settle up. Once Putin decided to seize those leased aircraft, he triggered a domino effect of complications for any airline holding such assets. First, there is the immediate issue of defaulted payments and the legitimate risk of seizure by leasing companies or insurers if these planes ever land outside of Russia. Then comes the maintenance nightmare. In aviation, every single service and every component must be certified and documented meticulously. It is highly probable that no one outside of Russia will touch these planes—even if all lease payments were settled—because the maintenance records are now considered non-transparent. Their value effectively hits zero, or rather, just the scrap value of the raw materials. The leasing companies might actually come out ahead; these aircraft are insured against precisely this kind of scenario, and with a current surplus of aircraft on the market keeping lease rates low, the removal of these units from the global pool will actually benefit the industry. The ones footing the bill will be the insurance companies. However, they will recoup those losses later by labeling Russia a high-risk jurisdiction, which means higher premiums moving forward. Ultimately, the cost falls on the passengers flying within Russia. As usual, the citizens end up paying the price for questionable political decisions made in the past. And who else would?

velvetbadger11 said:I am quite uncertain how Europe will react to this decline in standards, though it seems Russ doesn't particularly care what they think; either Alaska remains silent or simply endures it.

Russ doesn't bother asking because the election results are essentially decided before the first vote is even cast (at least, that’s been the pattern until now). In the West, there is a general realization that recent events have largely unfolded beyond the control of local politics. People understand that local politicians aren't primarily to blame for the current state of affairs, which influences how they vote. In truth, the war serves Western politicians quite well. I suspect prices were going to climb regardless—inflation was already gaining momentum before the conflict began—but now, the war provides a convenient scapegoat. It becomes the singular excuse for everything. Yet, once you scratch beneath the surface, you find the crisis isn't actually caused by the war, even if the war certainly makes an existing mess much worse.

Here’s the news: Delta Air Lines just bought out eight aircraft that were previously under lease agreements. They paid them off, even though the Federal Reserve essentially 'reclassified' them in their books. It suggests that the folks over at Delta actually grasp the long-term fallout of ignoring lease contracts—something the politicians failed to consider when they decided to bend the rules to suit their immediate interests.
Link.

wearydriver40 said:Alright, I see you're "brilliant," so it's exhausting dealing with people who aren't on your level. But are you seriously suggesting all this selflessness, charity, and readiness for nuclear war is just about making sure justice wins? You really think that's how the world works? I highly doubt it, unless we're talking specifically about Ukraine. That's why I asked how! What's actually happening behind the scenes? Let's stop with the fairy tales, Ivy, and Mary.

In the long run, there is a payoff when justice prevails, provided one remains consistent. Look at the occupation of Crimea—it wasn't met with sufficiently heavy sanctions. Consequently, someone in Moscow convinced themselves they could swallow all of Ukraine, fueled by the belief that the West is weak and dependent on them. They have finally received the message, but the timing is tragic; they can no longer restrain themselves. Their ego won't allow it. They would rather face self-destruction in Ukraine than embrace rational thought or decision-making. The collapse of a decaying political system isn't the issue; the issue is that they will drag tens of thousands of innocent people into unnecessary death in the process.