International Russia/Ukraine Megathread V14

Status
Not open for further replies.
MeatWagon06 said:
Good Lord, this one is worth a listen. If huge if true. it’s a Russian officers diary over a couple days trying to take Avdiivka. I was almost in tears from laughter, which it’s messed up, but the narrator killed it haha. Shows Z-armor getting destroyed throughout the whole thing as well.

Click to expand...


Sweet mercy! That diary reads like a scene out of World War Z! :eek:

Sheer horror!

 
Last edited:
cottagecheesefan said:
Wow, even CNN jumping on the bandwagon. Citing the economist and the time article.

CNN, TIME, NBC, and The Economist are basically compromised by the Russian government at this point

Click to expand...

Scerpi said:
Military weapon contractors have to eat
Click to expand...
There were Americans against supporting war against Hitler in WW2 would you in that group too?
 
Ruthless Ryan said:
There were Americans against supporting war against Hitler in WW2 would you in that group too?
Click to expand...

link to CNN and NBC and the economist being against war with hitler?

or do you mean the time article, which was not an opinion piece, but a piece using zelensky’s own admin as their sources
 
cottagecheesefan said:
link to CNN and NBC and the economist being against war with hitler?

or do you mean the time article, which was not an opinion piece, but a piece using zelensky’s own admin as their sources
Click to expand...
Should the aid stop and UKR get’s conquered and then Russia moves on to Moldova and the n Baltic states would you still support Russia? Because that is their goal and beyond
 
Can G7 make Russia pay for reconstruction of Ukraine?

By JUDITH ARNAL

A joint assessment by the government of Ukraine, the World Bank, the European Commission and the United Nations of March 2023 estimated that the cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine would amount to $411bn [€385bn]. This would be more than 2.5 times the 2022 Ukrainian GDP. Since nine months have gone by since the publication of the analysis, the figure is most likely higher now. Who will fund this huge amount?

The answer seems to be pretty logical and straightforward: it should be the one inflicting the damage, i.e. Russia. This is indeed in line with the resolution passed by the UN on 14 November 2022, according to which under international law, Russia will owe Ukraine reparations for the unprovoked war.

As part of the sanctions a group of countries has imposed on Russia, more than $300bn of Russian sovereign assets held abroad have been frozen. A vast majority of these assets consist of deposits made by the Russian Central Bank and more than €200bn are held in EU financial institutions, €125bn in Belgium-based Euroclear.

A possible solution raised by some experts to fit the bill of the reconstruction costs in Ukraine would entail the outright confiscation and repurposing of Russian assets to Ukraine.

Indeed, a report by a group of legal experts and commissioned by Garry Kasparov argues that such a proposal would be legally feasible and refers to a similar precedent, when President George H. Bush transferred Iraq's frozen assets in the US to the UN Compensation Commission for victims of Iraqi aggression.

Although on this occasion the US has somehow already tested this avenue with privately-owned assets, by for instance transferring to Ukraine more than $5m of forfeited assets of Russian Oligarch Konstantin Malofeyev, further expanding such a possibility to sovereign assets would raise a number of legal doubts, as conveyed by the US treasury secretary, Janet Yellen.

Moreover, since the assets to be seized belong to the Russian Central Bank, some experts indicate the stability of the monetary system could be put at risk and even the international role of the currencies of the sanctioning jurisdictions could be harmed.

Besides, there has not been significant progress in approving legislation introduced in June 2023 by a group of bipartisan US senators and representatives to grant the president of the US the authority to confiscate Russian sovereign assets that have been frozen in the United States and transfer them to assist in Ukraine's reconstruction efforts.

A similar bill is being discussed in Canadian parliament: while Canada can at present seize the assets of Russian citizens and companies by court order, it does not have the legal means to do so with sovereign assets of offending states, which benefit from immunity.

Since seizing Russian sovereign assets seems to raise legal doubts, another idea has been put forward: seizing the proceeds generated by these frozen assets, leaving the underlying principal untouched.

As an example, Euroclear has already generated €1.7bn in profits in the first half of this year from reinvesting Russian securities as they reach maturity. This proposal has been reflected in the G7 statement of ministers of finance and central bank governors of 12 October 2023, which states that G7 countries "will explore how any extraordinary revenues held by private entities stemming directly from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, where those extraordinary revenues are not required to meet obligations towards Russia under applicable laws, could be directed to support Ukraine and its recovery and reconstruction in compliance with applicable laws".

After pledging to fund a high proportion of the reconstruction costs of Ukraine, the EU is most interested in finding alternative funding sources. Otherwise, the EU budget could be severely strained and the financing of the green and digital transitions could be hindered.

This is why last week's statement by the European Council points out that "decisive progress is needed, in coordination with partners, on how any extraordinary revenues held by private entities stemming directly from Russia's immobilised assets could be directed to support Ukraine and its recovery and reconstruction, consistent with applicable contractual obligations, and in accordance with EU and international law. The European Council calls on the high representative and the commission to accelerate work with a view to submitting proposals".

By the time of writing this piece, a proposal has not been tabled yet and technical work is still ongoing.

Western allies should proceed with a very prudent approach. While seizing Russian assets and using them for the reconstruction of Ukraine seems to be a logical and even ethical avenue to follow, it also needs to fully abide by all international and national legal standards. Replying to an unlawful physical aggression with potentially unlawful financial actions does not seem advisable for democratic societies.

Thus, all the precautions and deep legal analyses currently undertaken by G7 members seem the right way forward. If a legal solution is found for the confiscation and rechanneling of assets' proceeds, even if the amounts will probably be far from substantially contributing to fitting the bill of the reconstruction, a staggered approach before possibly moving to the confiscation of underlying assets is adequate.

https://euobserver.com/opinion/157633
 
Ruthless Ryan said:
Should the aid stop and UKR get’s conquered and then Russia moves on to Moldova and the n Baltic states would you still support Russia? Because that is their goal and beyond
Click to expand...
Their real goal is also to install tanks in Berlin. Baltic states doesn't have such resources for mining industry like the same alone Luhansk oblastj or Donetsk oblastj ....also they are eurozone countries with economy basically sold to western friends....including a lot of land property and mortgage etc.... So for Russia is worth to invade them only IF they does want large scale war in Europe....big war.
Tanks in Berlin and ( sorry for reality ) to annex all former Warshaw block area is Russian World supporters dream.

Western dreamers still are dreaming like kindergarten kids.

When Russia started invade Ukraine, some tanks even had red flag and painted phrase " To Berlin ".
Germany already does have Russian immigrants and part of them had been used in pro Kremlin oriented demonstrations & provocations.
German MoD even told openly that there might be large scale war in Europe.
 
LeonardoBjj said:
Can G7 make Russia pay for reconstruction of Ukraine?

By JUDITH ARNAL

A joint assessment by the government of Ukraine, the World Bank, the European Commission and the United Nations of March 2023 estimated that the cost of reconstruction and recovery in Ukraine would amount to $411bn [€385bn]. This would be more than 2.5 times the 2022 Ukrainian GDP. Since nine months have gone by since the publication of the analysis, the figure is most likely higher now. Who will fund this huge amount?

The answer seems to be pretty logical and straightforward: it should be the one inflicting the damage, i.e. Russia. This is indeed in line with the resolution passed by the UN on 14 November 2022, according to which under international law, Russia will owe Ukraine reparations for the unprovoked war.

As part of the sanctions a group of countries has imposed on Russia, more than $300bn of Russian sovereign assets held abroad have been frozen. A vast majority of these assets consist of deposits made by the Russian Central Bank and more than €200bn are held in EU financial institutions, €125bn in Belgium-based Euroclear.

A possible solution raised by some experts to fit the bill of the reconstruction costs in Ukraine would entail the outright confiscation and repurposing of Russian assets to Ukraine.

Indeed, a report by a group of legal experts and commissioned by Garry Kasparov argues that such a proposal would be legally feasible and refers to a similar precedent, when President George H. Bush transferred Iraq's frozen assets in the US to the UN Compensation Commission for victims of Iraqi aggression.

Although on this occasion the US has somehow already tested this avenue with privately-owned assets, by for instance transferring to Ukraine more than $5m of forfeited assets of Russian Oligarch Konstantin Malofeyev, further expanding such a possibility to sovereign assets would raise a number of legal doubts, as conveyed by the US treasury secretary, Janet Yellen.

Moreover, since the assets to be seized belong to the Russian Central Bank, some experts indicate the stability of the monetary system could be put at risk and even the international role of the currencies of the sanctioning jurisdictions could be harmed.

Besides, there has not been significant progress in approving legislation introduced in June 2023 by a group of bipartisan US senators and representatives to grant the president of the US the authority to confiscate Russian sovereign assets that have been frozen in the United States and transfer them to assist in Ukraine's reconstruction efforts.

A similar bill is being discussed in Canadian parliament: while Canada can at present seize the assets of Russian citizens and companies by court order, it does not have the legal means to do so with sovereign assets of offending states, which benefit from immunity.

Since seizing Russian sovereign assets seems to raise legal doubts, another idea has been put forward: seizing the proceeds generated by these frozen assets, leaving the underlying principal untouched.

As an example, Euroclear has already generated €1.7bn in profits in the first half of this year from reinvesting Russian securities as they reach maturity. This proposal has been reflected in the G7 statement of ministers of finance and central bank governors of 12 October 2023, which states that G7 countries "will explore how any extraordinary revenues held by private entities stemming directly from immobilised Russian sovereign assets, where those extraordinary revenues are not required to meet obligations towards Russia under applicable laws, could be directed to support Ukraine and its recovery and reconstruction in compliance with applicable laws".

After pledging to fund a high proportion of the reconstruction costs of Ukraine, the EU is most interested in finding alternative funding sources. Otherwise, the EU budget could be severely strained and the financing of the green and digital transitions could be hindered.

This is why last week's statement by the European Council points out that "decisive progress is needed, in coordination with partners, on how any extraordinary revenues held by private entities stemming directly from Russia's immobilised assets could be directed to support Ukraine and its recovery and reconstruction, consistent with applicable contractual obligations, and in accordance with EU and international law. The European Council calls on the high representative and the commission to accelerate work with a view to submitting proposals".

By the time of writing this piece, a proposal has not been tabled yet and technical work is still ongoing.

Western allies should proceed with a very prudent approach. While seizing Russian assets and using them for the reconstruction of Ukraine seems to be a logical and even ethical avenue to follow, it also needs to fully abide by all international and national legal standards. Replying to an unlawful physical aggression with potentially unlawful financial actions does not seem advisable for democratic societies.

Thus, all the precautions and deep legal analyses currently undertaken by G7 members seem the right way forward. If a legal solution is found for the confiscation and rechanneling of assets' proceeds, even if the amounts will probably be far from substantially contributing to fitting the bill of the reconstruction, a staggered approach before possibly moving to the confiscation of underlying assets is adequate.

https://euobserver.com/opinion/157633
Click to expand...

Nothing bad will happen if all Russian assets had been seized.
Russia's economy is smaller that South Korean economy and rouble isn't important reserve currency even in Russia.

Western kids just are in fear from old alcoholics and toxicomans in Kremlin.
Fear and pussies.
World should had Reagan etc alike politicians not bunch with senile hypocrite pussies.
 
Anyway IMHO with Ukraine will happen future variants as Lithuania will predict. Their prognosis always were correct, also warnings had been proven to be precise and Ukraine never had listened. Never.
Because they are cocky.
 
Putler planning on announcing his election win by standing in front of the Tasr nuclear bomb. The single largest nuclear warhead. Did he miss the memo cluster nuclear warheads are far more destructive? Big bomb vs 10 smaller ones spread across a larger area. Anyway he's the biggest pile of sh@t in recent history.
 
Ukrainians cocky attitude is easily to see.
The same not important and supposedly poor idiotic Lithuania while soon will have NET GDP more than Belarus.
1993 th.
Landsbergis : Ukraine should not reduce their tanks fleet but increase ....otherwise sooner or later Ukraine will beg for main battle tanks.
Divination service? All this had happened.
 
1994 th . Supposedly just poor " bum " from not important Lithuania had told Ukraine that if they will afford to vote anything against Israel in U.N they never will get any normal! weapons supplies with weapons manufactured in Israel or Switzerland. Vitautas had advised Ukraine not to vote any thing here and warned Ukraine never to touch question about Israel's nuclear weapons.
Ukraine had ignored next two big warnings and didn't had listened any bare thing.
All this had happened and we easily might see this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,280,527
Messages
58,293,631
Members
175,997
Latest member
WingedC

Share this page

Back
Top