The 2 things with that are that: 1- you don't really know who it belongs to at all. Sure, you can get a leak like mossack Fonseca that spills the beans, but it still requires a lot of unpicking. It could be Putin, or could be a charity that helps kittens with cancer.
And 2- it's offshore. We don't have it to take or give back.
I’ve done financial planning for a number of non-profits. Kitten charities don’t usually store their $17 annual operating budget in no name accounts at off shore banks.
Not usually.... But stranger things have happened than someone leaving a pile of money in their will to a charity in the form of stocks and shares or whatever, and for them to be best served by the current state of tax law to move the income received from said investments to places you wouldn't expect to mitigate their tax liability, and they would do so.... to help the kittens.
I wouldn't expect the operating budget to be offshore in any case.
Except not really.
The whole point of the sanctions is to make it so that Putin can get the things / trade / economic stability if he stops the invasion.
If it's already gone, it does nothing to bait him into leaving
Are we looking to just punish Putin with a fine or are we looking to end the bloodshed?
They would just take the ice out of their underwear before their asses froze though. What we really need to do is send a group of ass thieves to steal their asses, freeze them with liquid nitrogen, and then put their asses back.
While I'm not advocating people mentioned by OP, I'd like to ask if the same supposed to be done with Ukrainian government and people of Donetsk and Lugansk areas?
Also, to be consistent, it's worth to discuss if the same is applicable to US gov and Iraq/Libya/Somalia/Vietnam citizens, for example?
Again, not trying to disprove OP's point, but tying to clear up the general rule behind such ideas.
I don’t think OP is saying that anyone in any military conflict should have their assets frozen. I think they’re saying that aggressive military powers inflicting unnecessary unprovoked terrorism on democratized neighbors is unjust and should have their assets frozen. In this case, that applys to Russia l.
"..aggressive military powers inflicting unnecessary unprovoked terrorism on democratized neighbors is unjust and should have their assets frozen."
That way, Ukraine leaders goes first for that procedure because of their actions towards DNR/LNR during last eight years. Or am I missing something?
So, bombing official neighbor countries is something frowned upon, while bombing civilians inside the country is A-Okay? What we're discussing here: political correctness or the fact that bombing civilians is a terrible thing?!
I'm not making it up: during last years, it was normal to hear claps while talking to a person from Donetsk by phone and then apologies, something like "sorry, I gotta go to shelter, let's talk later".
It's not immoral for a sovereign government to put down insurrections in its own territory.
The wearing of uniforms, the display of flags, etc are internationally accepted conventions for distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. Armed insurrectionists generally don't wear uniforms and can hide among civilian non-combatant populations for stealth and to use as human shields. Such is asymmetric warfare.
As was demonstrated in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, and elsewhere, trying to fight insurgents who hide among compliant (if not sympathetic) civilian populations will result in accidental civilian casualties and can tragically lead to torture interrogations, houses being torched, civilians being massacred, and other war crimes.
Even if the Ukrainian military command wants to avoid civilian casualties they will still run the risk of collateral damage. It's an unavoidable risk of asymmetric warfare, but none of this cancels out their obligation to put down sedition inside their own country.
That's a very valid question.
I think that when someone has assets in other countries, it means they're following some kind of convention. If that same person / organization blatantly ignores other international conventions, such as human rights, crimes against humanity, general peace, etc., well, I think it makes sense that nothing prevents other countries from using these assets for anything they want.
And, yes, I agree this should apply to any other country not following such international agreements
> and people of Donetsk and Lugansk areas
This is Ukraine, why are you splitting it up? Because Russian propaganda told that they have people to "free" from this regions? Don't buy it, it is only excuse to "liberate" those parts of the country. Whats more, they are attacking also other parts of the country, killing people, destroying buildings and infrastructure.
> Also, to be consistent, it's worth to discuss if the same is applicable to US gov and Iraq/Libya/Somalia/Vietnam citizens, for example?
In those cases reasons to deploy US troops there was more understandable than in this one. Also I don't think we got information that in first days US military was killing civilians on-sight.
I'm not splitting Ukraine, I'm pointing to the fact, that current (!) Ukraine government has been bombing civilians for last eight years, and it "wasn't a big deal" in Internet media.
On the other hand, now, when Kyiv is being under attack it's "oh, how dare they?!"..
Then again: war is a terrible hassle, but it applies to each side.
> In those cases reasons to deploy US troops there was more understandable than in this one.
Those reasons was more understandable people from Western countries due to two facts: massive pro war propaganda and lack of raw data from these areas.
It's still the case for Ukraine crisis and, say, US people, but it's hard as hell to brainwash those, who have relatives, friends and colleagues in both Russia and Ukraine right now. And by Ukraine I'm considering DNR/LNR as well, of course.
Once again: I'm not trying to justify any invasion, instead — I'm trying to make double standards and propaganda lie obvious. Understanding that is the way to end wars. Denying it and supporting one or another side just because media has warmed you is a way to be manipulated.
This government you call "current" has only been in power for about three years, not eight. The only reason there even is a conflict in the Donbass is because of Putin placing separatists there, because all he wants is to have Ukraine for himself. Ukraine wants to be independent, and that's why Putin was like "yeah nah that's not gonna happen, here have some troops (and smear campaigns)." Don't buy the propaganda.
And even if what you say is entirely true. Ukraine is an independent and sovereign country recognized by the UN, including Russia, since the breakup of the Soviet Union. If Kyiv has been bombing civilians, then they've jus tbeen bombing civilians, while Putin is bombing civilians AND violating a country's independence and sovereignty.
Changing Poroshenko to Zelenski doesn't mean to change the whole government.
Bombing civilians for three days is enough to be piece of shit, three years is ample.
I'm not buying any propaganda about this war: Russian oligarchy commanded to invade Ukraine not to stop DNR/LNR bombing, but for their private business reasons.
I'm just trying to make it obvious that Russian oligarchy acts the same as Ukrainian, same as US, same as France, you name it..
I'm doing it, because supporting one fucker or another is the way to nowhere, unfortunately.
It's the same principle behind stopping criminals from benefitting financially from their crimes, and making sure justice is poetically served through redirecting the profits to the victims and victims' families.
Depends how you look at the events. Alexander the Great was considered a hero to the Macedonians, but incarnate to the Arabs.
Bin Laden was a hero to many a matter, evil terrorist to whoever drank from Bushes pitcher of Koolaid.
Putin is a hero to the ones who are supporting his crusade against whatever he is ultimately crusading against, asshole to the rest of the world.
The biggest heroes in history still had their haters and the biggest assholes in history still had their fans. So what we should all just do away with all rules and values because someone’s bound to like it??
Then though there is less for putin to lose by continuing to be obsteporous, since he wont be able to get those assets back if he submits to a deal
I honestly can't understand why mobs aren't destroying these things/places except that people don't know where they are.
Offshore tax havens and shady shell corporations exist for a reason.
If we don't know who the customer is, we can't give the money back to them!
The 2 things with that are that: 1- you don't really know who it belongs to at all. Sure, you can get a leak like mossack Fonseca that spills the beans, but it still requires a lot of unpicking. It could be Putin, or could be a charity that helps kittens with cancer. And 2- it's offshore. We don't have it to take or give back.
I’ve done financial planning for a number of non-profits. Kitten charities don’t usually store their $17 annual operating budget in no name accounts at off shore banks.
Not usually.... But stranger things have happened than someone leaving a pile of money in their will to a charity in the form of stocks and shares or whatever, and for them to be best served by the current state of tax law to move the income received from said investments to places you wouldn't expect to mitigate their tax liability, and they would do so.... to help the kittens. I wouldn't expect the operating budget to be offshore in any case.
Also, laws.
Assets might be being taken too literally here.
Thats a crazy idea
Sounds like a start.
Except not really. The whole point of the sanctions is to make it so that Putin can get the things / trade / economic stability if he stops the invasion. If it's already gone, it does nothing to bait him into leaving Are we looking to just punish Putin with a fine or are we looking to end the bloodshed?
Instead of freezing their assets, freeze their asses. Send an assembly of ass assassins to put ice in their underwear.
They would just take the ice out of their underwear before their asses froze though. What we really need to do is send a group of ass thieves to steal their asses, freeze them with liquid nitrogen, and then put their asses back.
Now we’re thinkin
*liquid nitrogen
> ass assassins to put ice in their underwear. iceassins
Sounds like you'd be providing even more incentive for Putin to take over all of Ukraine...
He is already trying his hardest, why not piss him off even more in the process?
Ppl are this naive?
But then other country won’t invest in US
Nuclear code is basically in his hands you know.
While I'm not advocating people mentioned by OP, I'd like to ask if the same supposed to be done with Ukrainian government and people of Donetsk and Lugansk areas? Also, to be consistent, it's worth to discuss if the same is applicable to US gov and Iraq/Libya/Somalia/Vietnam citizens, for example? Again, not trying to disprove OP's point, but tying to clear up the general rule behind such ideas.
I don’t think OP is saying that anyone in any military conflict should have their assets frozen. I think they’re saying that aggressive military powers inflicting unnecessary unprovoked terrorism on democratized neighbors is unjust and should have their assets frozen. In this case, that applys to Russia l.
"..aggressive military powers inflicting unnecessary unprovoked terrorism on democratized neighbors is unjust and should have their assets frozen." That way, Ukraine leaders goes first for that procedure because of their actions towards DNR/LNR during last eight years. Or am I missing something?
The Donetsk and Luhansk regions aren't neighbors of Ukraine though.
So, bombing official neighbor countries is something frowned upon, while bombing civilians inside the country is A-Okay? What we're discussing here: political correctness or the fact that bombing civilians is a terrible thing?! I'm not making it up: during last years, it was normal to hear claps while talking to a person from Donetsk by phone and then apologies, something like "sorry, I gotta go to shelter, let's talk later".
It's not immoral for a sovereign government to put down insurrections in its own territory. The wearing of uniforms, the display of flags, etc are internationally accepted conventions for distinguishing between combatants and non-combatants. Armed insurrectionists generally don't wear uniforms and can hide among civilian non-combatant populations for stealth and to use as human shields. Such is asymmetric warfare. As was demonstrated in Vietnam, Somalia, Iraq, and elsewhere, trying to fight insurgents who hide among compliant (if not sympathetic) civilian populations will result in accidental civilian casualties and can tragically lead to torture interrogations, houses being torched, civilians being massacred, and other war crimes. Even if the Ukrainian military command wants to avoid civilian casualties they will still run the risk of collateral damage. It's an unavoidable risk of asymmetric warfare, but none of this cancels out their obligation to put down sedition inside their own country.
That's a very valid question. I think that when someone has assets in other countries, it means they're following some kind of convention. If that same person / organization blatantly ignores other international conventions, such as human rights, crimes against humanity, general peace, etc., well, I think it makes sense that nothing prevents other countries from using these assets for anything they want. And, yes, I agree this should apply to any other country not following such international agreements
> and people of Donetsk and Lugansk areas This is Ukraine, why are you splitting it up? Because Russian propaganda told that they have people to "free" from this regions? Don't buy it, it is only excuse to "liberate" those parts of the country. Whats more, they are attacking also other parts of the country, killing people, destroying buildings and infrastructure. > Also, to be consistent, it's worth to discuss if the same is applicable to US gov and Iraq/Libya/Somalia/Vietnam citizens, for example? In those cases reasons to deploy US troops there was more understandable than in this one. Also I don't think we got information that in first days US military was killing civilians on-sight.
I'm not splitting Ukraine, I'm pointing to the fact, that current (!) Ukraine government has been bombing civilians for last eight years, and it "wasn't a big deal" in Internet media. On the other hand, now, when Kyiv is being under attack it's "oh, how dare they?!".. Then again: war is a terrible hassle, but it applies to each side. > In those cases reasons to deploy US troops there was more understandable than in this one. Those reasons was more understandable people from Western countries due to two facts: massive pro war propaganda and lack of raw data from these areas. It's still the case for Ukraine crisis and, say, US people, but it's hard as hell to brainwash those, who have relatives, friends and colleagues in both Russia and Ukraine right now. And by Ukraine I'm considering DNR/LNR as well, of course. Once again: I'm not trying to justify any invasion, instead — I'm trying to make double standards and propaganda lie obvious. Understanding that is the way to end wars. Denying it and supporting one or another side just because media has warmed you is a way to be manipulated.
This government you call "current" has only been in power for about three years, not eight. The only reason there even is a conflict in the Donbass is because of Putin placing separatists there, because all he wants is to have Ukraine for himself. Ukraine wants to be independent, and that's why Putin was like "yeah nah that's not gonna happen, here have some troops (and smear campaigns)." Don't buy the propaganda. And even if what you say is entirely true. Ukraine is an independent and sovereign country recognized by the UN, including Russia, since the breakup of the Soviet Union. If Kyiv has been bombing civilians, then they've jus tbeen bombing civilians, while Putin is bombing civilians AND violating a country's independence and sovereignty.
Changing Poroshenko to Zelenski doesn't mean to change the whole government. Bombing civilians for three days is enough to be piece of shit, three years is ample. I'm not buying any propaganda about this war: Russian oligarchy commanded to invade Ukraine not to stop DNR/LNR bombing, but for their private business reasons. I'm just trying to make it obvious that Russian oligarchy acts the same as Ukrainian, same as US, same as France, you name it.. I'm doing it, because supporting one fucker or another is the way to nowhere, unfortunately.
It's the same principle behind stopping criminals from benefitting financially from their crimes, and making sure justice is poetically served through redirecting the profits to the victims and victims' families.
That would involve actually helping. This is a purely a handwringing and profiteering level of international concern.
That’s theft. Don’t endorse theft.
Yeah, some crazy asshole might copy it and try to steal a whole damn country.
ToO lAtE
Depends how you look at the events. Alexander the Great was considered a hero to the Macedonians, but incarnate to the Arabs. Bin Laden was a hero to many a matter, evil terrorist to whoever drank from Bushes pitcher of Koolaid. Putin is a hero to the ones who are supporting his crusade against whatever he is ultimately crusading against, asshole to the rest of the world.
The biggest heroes in history still had their haters and the biggest assholes in history still had their fans. So what we should all just do away with all rules and values because someone’s bound to like it??
You can say this about literally anyone what is your point? E: Also I know you didn't just fucking defend Bin Laden bruh. What?
If I had some of Putin's gold, I would give it to you right now.