Sanctions on Russia

wiredseal7 said:In the EU-US, you’re seeing this happen more and more—just seizing things without even bothering to compensate the former owners.

[No text provided to rewrite]

You didn't mention the nationalization of Venezuela's entire private oil industry in the same breath as the "expropriation of Citgo"—for reasons that should be obvious to anyone paying attention. Does that ever get old for you?

Why bother bringing up Venezuela and Hugo Chávez? We all know that was just straight-up communist-style expropriation in a developing nation—basically a textbook case. It’s way more interesting to look at a similar move made in another advanced democracy, where they use some pretty stretched legal gymnastics to try and frame it as "compensation" for the first mess. And even if they hadn't pulled that stunt, would Juan Guaidó have stood a chance? 🙄

[No content provided to rewrite.]

Besides, we’re talking about "control" right now—not actual ownership.

First you were talking about ownership, now it’s all about management—funny how that works. At the end of the day, I think we both see where this is heading—it's just a slow slide toward seizing assets without paying a dime.

A quick little head start.

The essence remains unchanged.

It’s far more compelling to look at how a similar maneuver might play out in another advanced democracy, perhaps using slightly strained legal gymnastics to frame it as some sort of necessary compensation for whatever happened first.

Even if things get a little tight, we’ll still manage to pull together for our first scouting trip.

You mentioned earlier that they really ought to focus on securing ownership.

I am.

The situation remains steady, much like a slow-moving tide that eventually reshapes the entire shoreline without making any sudden noise.

It really comes down to management, doesn't it?

Because that is simply how things stand. It feels somewhat heavy, doesn't it? Like watching a slow sunset over a quiet landscape, where the light just gradually fades until everything becomes a bit more somber. I’m sticking to that. I have no intention of lying; I have certain standards to maintain.

Ownership issues need to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, likely involving some form of compensation—though, of course, any such settlement remains subject to current legal sanctions. Looking back, this was a situation that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. But then again, I wasn't consulted, so what can you do?

The conversation seems to have hit a bit of a lull, hasn't it? It’s almost like watching a slow-moving river settle after a heavy rain—quiet, steady, and waiting for the next current to move things along.

All things considered, it seems we both share the same intuition regarding the ultimate trajectory of this situation—a slow, systematic erosion of private ownership. Without any compensation whatsoever..

A quick bit of pioneering work.

To get ahead of this: I firmly believe any compensation payouts should be funneled into an escrow account first. From there, the funds ought to be distributed among everyone harmed by the Russian Federation based on the legal proceedings—we shouldn't be playing games by pretending Gazprom is some private entity. If there happens to be anything left over, though looking at the situation in Ukraine, that seems like a slim possibility, the surplus should simply be returned to Russia once sanctions are lifted and assets are unfrozen.

We certainly wouldn't want to reach a point where we find ourselves prioritizing the legal protections of mass murderers, rapists, and kidnappers over the actual rights and dignity of their victims.

Edward Stewart3 said:Look, it’s a tiny price to pay compared to letting Vladimir Putin think he can just treat all of Europe like his personal doormat. We aren't going to collapse overnight (sure, some specific industries might get absolutely hammered,
but hey, even the aviation industry managed to survive the mess of the last two years, so we're still breathing) and besides, just think about the payoff. How long until we have access to gas, oil, and every mineral resource imaginable at like a third of the current cost? Just wait until they're forced to sell everything off just to cover basic necessities. I mean, we're already seeing 30% discounts today!

And who's to say there won't be social unrest? People in the US during the period you're describing were taking to the streets and filling up public squares, even with relatively liberal pandemic restrictions in place. Defeating Russia and Vladimir Putin isn't something that happens overnight... it's not like the first lockdown. It requires smart, long-term strategy.
We need to reduce Russian gas imports every single year, and that takes time. It makes you wonder why some Polish commentators claim Viktor Orbán is fine while Germany is the one dragging its feet on tougher sanctions. Think about what the Ukrainian ambassador in Berlin was saying about their president lately... someone clearly fed him those lines. How are Slovakia, Latvia, or Bulgaria supposed to replace Russian gas? The US might have options, but Italy and Germany—our biggest energy and tourism partners—simply can't. In the end, even back during the American Civil War, our pipelines provided oil to both sides and various factions...

slyfox43 said:

A quick little head start.

The essence remains unchanged.

It’s far more compelling to look at how a similar maneuver might play out in another advanced democracy, perhaps using slightly strained legal gymnastics to frame it as some sort of necessary compensation for whatever happened first.

Even if things get a little tight, we’ll still manage to pull together for our first scouting trip.

You mentioned earlier that they really ought to focus on securing ownership.

I am.

The situation remains steady, much like a slow-moving tide that eventually reshapes the entire shoreline without making any sudden noise.

It really comes down to management, doesn't it?

Because that is simply how things stand. It feels somewhat heavy, doesn't it? Like watching a slow sunset over a quiet landscape, where the light just gradually fades until everything becomes a bit more somber. I’m sticking to that. I have no intention of lying; I have certain standards to maintain.

Ownership issues need to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, likely involving some form of compensation—though, of course, any such settlement remains subject to current legal sanctions. Looking back, this was a situation that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. But then again, I wasn't consulted, so what can you do?

The conversation seems to have hit a bit of a lull, hasn't it? It’s almost like watching a slow-moving river settle after a heavy rain—quiet, steady, and waiting for the next current to move things along.

All things considered, it seems we both share the same intuition regarding the ultimate trajectory of this situation—a slow, systematic erosion of private ownership. Without any compensation whatsoever..

A quick bit of pioneering work.

To get ahead of this: I firmly believe any compensation payouts should be funneled into an escrow account first. From there, the funds ought to be distributed among everyone harmed by the Russian Federation based on the legal proceedings—we shouldn't be playing games by pretending Gazprom is some private entity. If there happens to be anything left over, though looking at the situation in Ukraine, that seems like a slim possibility, the surplus should simply be returned to Russia once sanctions are lifted and assets are unfrozen.

We certainly wouldn't want to reach a point where we find ourselves prioritizing the legal protections of mass murderers, rapists, and kidnappers over the actual rights and dignity of their victims.
A quick little head start.

The essence remains unchanged.

It’s far more compelling to look at how a similar maneuver might play out in another advanced democracy, perhaps using slightly strained legal gymnastics to frame it as some sort of necessary compensation for whatever happened first.

Even if things get a little tight, we’ll still manage to pull together for our first scouting trip.

You mentioned earlier that they really ought to focus on securing ownership.

I am.

The situation remains steady, much like a slow-moving tide that eventually reshapes the entire shoreline without making any sudden noise.

It really comes down to management, doesn't it?

Because that is simply how things stand. It feels somewhat heavy, doesn't it? Like watching a slow sunset over a quiet landscape, where the light just gradually fades until everything becomes a bit more somber. I’m sticking to that. I have no intention of lying; I have certain standards to maintain.

Ownership issues need to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, likely involving some form of compensation—though, of course, any such settlement remains subject to current legal sanctions. Looking back, this was a situation that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. But then again, I wasn't consulted, so what can you do?

The conversation seems to have hit a bit of a lull, hasn't it? It’s almost like watching a slow-moving river settle after a heavy rain—quiet, steady, and waiting for the next current to move things along.

All things considered, it seems we both share the same intuition regarding the ultimate trajectory of this situation—a slow, systematic erosion of private ownership. Without any compensation whatsoever..

A quick bit of pioneering work.

To get ahead of this: I firmly believe any compensation payouts should be funneled into an escrow account first. From there, the funds ought to be distributed among everyone harmed by the Russian Federation based on the legal proceedings—we shouldn't be playing games by pretending Gazprom is some private entity. If there happens to be anything left over, though looking at the situation in Ukraine, that seems like a slim possibility, the surplus should simply be returned to Russia once sanctions are lifted and assets are unfrozen.

We certainly wouldn't want to reach a point where we find ourselves prioritizing the legal protections of mass murderers, rapists, and kidnappers over the actual rights and dignity of their victims.
Look, we care about the law—it’s perfectly reasonable not to just seize their property because this isn't some damn 1945 scenario where you nationalize everyone's stuff under a communist regime. There isn't a single court in existence where that kind of theft would fly... at least not in Western democracies.

Larry Fox5 said:A quick little head start.

The essence remains unchanged.

It’s far more compelling to look at how a similar maneuver might play out in another advanced democracy, perhaps using slightly strained legal gymnastics to frame it as some sort of necessary compensation for whatever happened first.

Even if things get a little tight, we’ll still manage to pull together for our first scouting trip.

You mentioned earlier that they really ought to focus on securing ownership.

I am.

The situation remains steady, much like a slow-moving tide that eventually reshapes the entire shoreline without making any sudden noise.

It really comes down to management, doesn't it?

Because that is simply how things stand. It feels somewhat heavy, doesn't it? Like watching a slow sunset over a quiet landscape, where the light just gradually fades until everything becomes a bit more somber. I’m sticking to that. I have no intention of lying; I have certain standards to maintain.

Ownership issues need to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, likely involving some form of compensation—though, of course, any such settlement remains subject to current legal sanctions. Looking back, this was a situation that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. But then again, I wasn't consulted, so what can you do?

The conversation seems to have hit a bit of a lull, hasn't it? It’s almost like watching a slow-moving river settle after a heavy rain—quiet, steady, and waiting for the next current to move things along.

All things considered, it seems we both share the same intuition regarding the ultimate trajectory of this situation—a slow, systematic erosion of private ownership. Without any compensation whatsoever..

A quick bit of pioneering work.

To get ahead of this: I firmly believe any compensation payouts should be funneled into an escrow account first. From there, the funds ought to be distributed among everyone harmed by the Russian Federation based on the legal proceedings—we shouldn't be playing games by pretending Gazprom is some private entity. If there happens to be anything left over, though looking at the situation in Ukraine, that seems like a slim possibility, the surplus should simply be returned to Russia once sanctions are lifted and assets are unfrozen.

We certainly wouldn't want to reach a point where we find ourselves prioritizing the legal protections of mass murderers, rapists, and kidnappers over the actual rights and dignity of their victims.

Look, we care about the law—it’s perfectly reasonable not to just seize their property because this isn't some damn 1945 scenario where you nationalize everyone's stuff under a communist regime. There isn't a single court in existence where that kind of theft would fly... at least not in Western democracies.
It isn't an act of theft when you're simply collecting on a court-ordered judgment against a party's holdings.

The necessary conditions for that aren't present at the moment, though that doesn't mean they won't be eventually.

slyfox43 said:Does anyone ever get tired of hearing the same crowd drone on about how US and Russian interests are perfectly aligned in their desire to weaken Europe? I wonder if there’s any actual evidence in how the US has behaved over the last year to support that claim. According to them, the US is undermining Europe by:

1) sharing intelligence that provides early warnings regarding potential Russian aggression,

2) applying intense diplomatic pressure to ensure sanction packages are coordinated,

3) coordinating alternative energy suppliers FOR EUROPE—some of which happen to be American—to shield the continent from Russian retaliation and leverage, ultimately placing Europe in a much stronger negotiating position,

4) deploying significant additional forces to the most vulnerable NATO members,

and so on,

and so on,

and so on.

Are they really working to destabilize Europe with the same fervor that Russia uses for its "denazification of Ukraine" campaign? 🙄

Honestly, reading this kind of nonsense is exhausting. It’s no different than those endless, hollow ramblings about the "brotherhood" of China and Russia while they simultaneously accept massive amounts of aid from the EU and the USA—the very same entities they constantly insult. It's the exact same garbage, through and through.

Sure, because clearly the US wants nothing but the best for Europe and dreams of a world filled with peace, prosperity, and democracy. Aren't you a little embarrassed to be pushing these fairy tales?

1) To put it simply, weakening Russia and ensuring their invasion of Ukraine fails was the priority here. This had nothing to do with some altruistic desire to make life better for Europe; it was about making sure Russia gets bogged down in the Ukrainian mud. Fortunately, that seems to have worked so far.

2) and 3) I don't see what's controversial about diplomatic pressure or organizing conditions so that Europe shifts its energy sources toward the US, allied nations, and democratic strongholds like Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Of course, in a situation like this, everyone is going to seize the opportunity to look out for their own interests.

4) Given the potential for escalation, it's only logical to move more NATO troops into Europe. That isn't American benevolence; it's preparing for the inevitable scenario where we end up having to defend America in Europe, as is often the case.

Just as the ideas about "brotherly" Russia and China are delusions, so too are these delusions about a "brotherly" America.

slyfox43 said:It isn't an act of theft when you're simply collecting on a court-ordered judgment against a party's holdings.

The necessary conditions for that aren't present at the moment, though that doesn't mean they won't be eventually.

And what does a private company or some personal assets have to do with damages the government might end up owing? Seriously...

Larry Fox5 said:And what does a private company or some personal assets have to do with damages the government might end up owing? Seriously...

If we're calling Gazprom a private enterprise, then I must be Santa Claus.

Ronald Chavez2 said:Sure, because clearly the US wants nothing but the best for Europe and dreams of a world filled with peace, prosperity, and democracy. Aren't you a little embarrassed to be pushing these fairy tales?

1) To put it simply, weakening Russia and ensuring their invasion of Ukraine fails was the priority here. This had nothing to do with some altruistic desire to make life better for Europe; it was about making sure Russia gets bogged down in the Ukrainian mud. Fortunately, that seems to have worked so far.

2) and 3) I don't see what's controversial about diplomatic pressure or organizing conditions so that Europe shifts its energy sources toward the US, allied nations, and democratic strongholds like Qatar and Saudi Arabia. Of course, in a situation like this, everyone is going to seize the opportunity to look out for their own interests.

4) Given the potential for escalation, it's only logical to move more NATO troops into Europe. That isn't American benevolence; it's preparing for the inevitable scenario where we end up having to defend America in Europe, as is often the case.

Just as the ideas about "brotherly" Russia and China are delusions, so too are these delusions about a "brotherly" America.

The guy talking about delusions is asking me if I feel embarrassed for writing what I wrote above.

The only thing that makes me uncomfortable is having to quote such arbitrary, baseless nonsense.

And no, I never mentioned a "brotherly America," but right now, given the circumstances, the USA acting in its own self-interest happens to align perfectly with Europe's interests. In doing so, it helps Europe weather the storm and correct the massive strategic blunders made during the post-Cold War era—errors that most of Europe is only now belatedly realizing and admitting.

It's not as if the USA didn't make its own share of massive strategic mistakes during that same period. Some European friends tried to talk sense into them, but unfortunately, they couldn't.

If the interests of China and Russia can partially overlap—at least in their own estimation, something you've never challenged (even though China is currently encouraging its ally to double down on a huge strategic error)—then it stands to reason that the interests of Europe and the USA might also align on certain specific issues. If the mere thought of that idea disturbs you, maybe see a doctor and get a prescription; I can't help you there.

slyfox43 said:If we're calling Gazprom a private enterprise, then I must be Santa Claus.

It is just like that video showing how Derepaska and Putin operate; the leadership directly controls massive private firms, and owners follow every single command just to keep their assets—otherwise, they might find themselves permanently retired under a tree in the middle of nowhere.

George Robinson43 said:It is just like that video showing how Derepaska and Putin operate; the leadership directly controls massive private firms, and owners follow every single command just to keep their assets—otherwise, they might find themselves permanently retired under a tree in the middle of nowhere.

Well, look at what happened with Exxon.

slyfox43 said:

A quick little head start.

The essence remains unchanged.

It’s far more compelling to look at how a similar maneuver might play out in another advanced democracy, perhaps using slightly strained legal gymnastics to frame it as some sort of necessary compensation for whatever happened first.

Even if things get a little tight, we’ll still manage to pull together for our first scouting trip.

You mentioned earlier that they really ought to focus on securing ownership.

I am.

The situation remains steady, much like a slow-moving tide that eventually reshapes the entire shoreline without making any sudden noise.

It really comes down to management, doesn't it?

Because that is simply how things stand. It feels somewhat heavy, doesn't it? Like watching a slow sunset over a quiet landscape, where the light just gradually fades until everything becomes a bit more somber. I’m sticking to that. I have no intention of lying; I have certain standards to maintain.

Ownership issues need to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, likely involving some form of compensation—though, of course, any such settlement remains subject to current legal sanctions. Looking back, this was a situation that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. But then again, I wasn't consulted, so what can you do?

The conversation seems to have hit a bit of a lull, hasn't it? It’s almost like watching a slow-moving river settle after a heavy rain—quiet, steady, and waiting for the next current to move things along.

All things considered, it seems we both share the same intuition regarding the ultimate trajectory of this situation—a slow, systematic erosion of private ownership. Without any compensation whatsoever..

A quick bit of pioneering work.

To get ahead of this: I firmly believe any compensation payouts should be funneled into an escrow account first. From there, the funds ought to be distributed among everyone harmed by the Russian Federation based on the legal proceedings—we shouldn't be playing games by pretending Gazprom is some private entity. If there happens to be anything left over, though looking at the situation in Ukraine, that seems like a slim possibility, the surplus should simply be returned to Russia once sanctions are lifted and assets are unfrozen.

We certainly wouldn't want to reach a point where we find ourselves prioritizing the legal protections of mass murderers, rapists, and kidnappers over the actual rights and dignity of their victims.
A quick little head start.

The essence remains unchanged.

It’s far more compelling to look at how a similar maneuver might play out in another advanced democracy, perhaps using slightly strained legal gymnastics to frame it as some sort of necessary compensation for whatever happened first.

Even if things get a little tight, we’ll still manage to pull together for our first scouting trip.

You mentioned earlier that they really ought to focus on securing ownership.

I am.

The situation remains steady, much like a slow-moving tide that eventually reshapes the entire shoreline without making any sudden noise.

It really comes down to management, doesn't it?

Because that is simply how things stand. It feels somewhat heavy, doesn't it? Like watching a slow sunset over a quiet landscape, where the light just gradually fades until everything becomes a bit more somber. I’m sticking to that. I have no intention of lying; I have certain standards to maintain.

Ownership issues need to be resolved within a reasonable timeframe, likely involving some form of compensation—though, of course, any such settlement remains subject to current legal sanctions. Looking back, this was a situation that should never have been allowed to happen in the first place. But then again, I wasn't consulted, so what can you do?

The conversation seems to have hit a bit of a lull, hasn't it? It’s almost like watching a slow-moving river settle after a heavy rain—quiet, steady, and waiting for the next current to move things along.

All things considered, it seems we both share the same intuition regarding the ultimate trajectory of this situation—a slow, systematic erosion of private ownership. Without any compensation whatsoever..

A quick bit of pioneering work.

To get ahead of this: I firmly believe any compensation payouts should be funneled into an escrow account first. From there, the funds ought to be distributed among everyone harmed by the Russian Federation based on the legal proceedings—we shouldn't be playing games by pretending Gazprom is some private entity. If there happens to be anything left over, though looking at the situation in Ukraine, that seems like a slim possibility, the surplus should simply be returned to Russia once sanctions are lifted and assets are unfrozen.

We certainly wouldn't want to reach a point where we find ourselves prioritizing the legal protections of mass murderers, rapists, and kidnappers over the actual rights and dignity of their victims.
Without the UN, there isn't really a solid, unbiased legal framework for this kind of thing. That said, it doesn't sound like a bad idea—maybe direct some of it to the families in Ukraine and the disabled victims.

The Russians will almost certainly retaliate by seizing an equivalent amount of German (or EU and USA) assets within Russia. If they do, they might as well use those funds for their own victims and those in the Donbas.

The UN has nothing to do with this, and bringing them up here just shows you don't really grasp how international law actually functions.

Russia has already seized tens of billions just by seizing aircraft. They aren't exactly citing legal precedents, of course—they just passed that nationalization law recently and called it a day. But sure, we can pretend it’s all about vital national interests, even if there isn't much flying happening anymore...

I haven't heard a peep about them offering any compensation, not even from their own frozen assets. Have you?

Since the invasion kicked off, there have been 398 expulsions of Russian "diplomats," with 385 of those coming from various European nations.

View on twitter

In America—not a single one.

Honestly, this is an absolute embarrassment for America.

wanderingpilot7 said:And who's to say there won't be social unrest? People in the US during the period you're describing were taking to the streets and filling up public squares, even with relatively liberal pandemic restrictions in place. Defeating Russia and Vladimir Putin isn't something that happens overnight... it's not like the first lockdown. It requires smart, long-term strategy.
We need to reduce Russian gas imports every single year, and that takes time. It makes you wonder why some Polish commentators claim Viktor Orbán is fine while Germany is the one dragging its feet on tougher sanctions. Think about what the Ukrainian ambassador in Berlin was saying about their president lately... someone clearly fed him those lines. How are Slovakia, Latvia, or Bulgaria supposed to replace Russian gas? The US might have options, but Italy and Germany—our biggest energy and tourism partners—simply can't. In the end, even back during the American Civil War, our pipelines provided oil to both sides and various factions...

Not quite

The Germans are out here claiming that if Russian gas shuts off, the economy takes a 3-6% hit—which apparently isn't a disaster in their eyes, especially if cutting it off basically guts half of Russia's economy in the process.
Look, this whole thing is a war against the West, plain and simple. It’s just Russia trying to force a new world order on us, and honestly? This might be the cheapest, most calculated way for them to pull it off.

Jamie Watson4 said:Not quite

Just ask Čermak how he built his fortune...

Timothy Kim9 said:Honestly, this is an absolute embarrassment for America.

America has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Just take a look at FlightRadar24 and track how those military planes are flying through Chicago Rzeszow to deliver aid. There hasn't been any photography happening at the airbase since March 11th... you have to wonder why. It doesn't need the media spotlight. Unlike Latvia, Slovakia, or Bulgaria, America isn't paying for its gas in rubles. And then, they kick out the Russian diplomats.

slyfox43 said:The UN has nothing to do with this, and bringing them up here just shows you don't really grasp how international law actually functions.

Russia has already seized tens of billions just by seizing aircraft. They aren't exactly citing legal precedents, of course—they just passed that nationalization law recently and called it a day. But sure, we can pretend it’s all about vital national interests, even if there isn't much flying happening anymore...

I haven't heard a peep about them offering any compensation, not even from their own frozen assets. Have you?

Well, it would be more meaningful if something came from a UN resolution rather than just from Germany.

Under what universal legal framework would German, EU, or even G7 laws have jurisdiction over compensating Russia to Ukraine (which isn't even part of the EU)? Or are they just going to declare themselves the sole arbiters? There’s a term for that: a "kangaroo court."

In my view, sanctions have spiraled out of control, and we need to start regulating them through international organizations. It's a utopia, though—the people weaponizing them aren't exactly going to volunteer for oversight—but it's the only way to make the UN relevant again. Bypassing them feels a lot like what happened with the League of Nations in the late '30s.

Regarding the planes, I agree there's no solid legal ground. But then again, that goes for the sanctions and freezes imposed earlier too.
You basically answered your own question on why it was done this way—it's a matter of national interest to maintain air links with remote parts of Russia. They just need to figure out how to service planes, like Iran does. If one goes down—with passengers on board—everyone will blame the ban on spare parts for civil aviation. A sadistic move where nobody actually wins.

wanderingpilot7 said:America has absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Just take a look at FlightRadar24 and track how those military planes are flying through Chicago Rzeszow to deliver aid. There hasn't been any photography happening at the airbase since March 11th... you have to wonder why. It doesn't need the media spotlight. Unlike Latvia, Slovakia, or Bulgaria, America isn't paying for its gas in rubles. And then, they kick out the Russian diplomats.

Latvia will be completely done with Russian gas by April 1st.