Mapping and Seizing the Oligarchs' Assets(googlemapsmania.blogspot.com)
googlemapsmania.blogspot.com
Mapping and Seizing the Oligarchs' Assets
https://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2022/03/mapping-oligarchs-assets.html
199 comments
> I just want to remind those who are talking about due process that this is about crowd sourcing where assets of Russian oligarchs are…it's just a website.
An upvote alone is not enough to echo this comment. After all this is Hacker News. Not really a great place for insight in due process, but a good one for things OSINT visualization projects
An upvote alone is not enough to echo this comment. After all this is Hacker News. Not really a great place for insight in due process, but a good one for things OSINT visualization projects
> I just want to remind those who are talking about due process that this is about crowd sourcing where assets of Russian oligarchs are. That is not the same thing as denying them due process. In other words, it's just a website.
So it's not doxxing because they're Russians?
So it's not doxxing because they're Russians?
So much whattaboutism in this thread. We are at war. Seizing property of the other belligerents is a very normal thing to do in a war. Russia is currently seizing assets from American companies who leave the country.
Russia is currently bombing Ukrainian hospitals. This is a somewhat tame escalation in that light.
Russia is currently bombing Ukrainian hospitals. This is a somewhat tame escalation in that light.
You complain about whattaboutism then point out that Russia is doing the same thing three sentences later. "We are at war" has been used to justify the worst atrocities in human history.
It’s not whattaboutism if they’re linked. The two actions are by belligerents in the same conflict.
EDIT: I’m also calling it whattaboutism because I don’t think folks are actually arguing that other nations should have entered the Iraq war on the side of Iraq or ISIS. If they’re legit arguing that, it’s valid (though I disagree).
EDIT: I’m also calling it whattaboutism because I don’t think folks are actually arguing that other nations should have entered the Iraq war on the side of Iraq or ISIS. If they’re legit arguing that, it’s valid (though I disagree).
A lot of whataboutism. Many people downvoting the ones reminding those who are sitting safe in their unthreatened homes talking about "both sides" and "due process" that this isn't a fair and honorable fight, this is a dictator expanding into Europe by killing civilians and using his wealth and power to bully politicians and other states.
If there are digital archives left over after all this, these are the conversations people in the future will be reading to understand why the fuck Russia was able to get so much implicit support. Ever wonder "how germans let Hitler get away with it"? Future generations will look back at these to understand how Putin got away with so much.
Say hi, you're on a book. What year is this?
If there are digital archives left over after all this, these are the conversations people in the future will be reading to understand why the fuck Russia was able to get so much implicit support. Ever wonder "how germans let Hitler get away with it"? Future generations will look back at these to understand how Putin got away with so much.
Say hi, you're on a book. What year is this?
Why is seizing property without due process okay when we do it? Is it the same reason that dissenting opinions can’t be heard because they’re dangerous propaganda?
> Why is seizing property without due process okay when we do it
Honestly, I would have thought that the recent nationalisation of Russian oligarchs' assets over much of the Western world would sent thrills down the spines of many, many other wealthy people, no matter their citizenship. Probably it was a shock to them, too, I expect a counter-reaction via media in the coming weeks.
Locke wrote his famous treatises on government especially for cases like this one, i.e. what happens with your property when you fall on the wrong side of the current powers that be? He said that said powers shouldn't confiscate your property, and there are many smart people who have said/written during the last few centuries that that viewpoint stands at the basis of our (Western) civilisation. Interesting times, to say the least.
Honestly, I would have thought that the recent nationalisation of Russian oligarchs' assets over much of the Western world would sent thrills down the spines of many, many other wealthy people, no matter their citizenship. Probably it was a shock to them, too, I expect a counter-reaction via media in the coming weeks.
Locke wrote his famous treatises on government especially for cases like this one, i.e. what happens with your property when you fall on the wrong side of the current powers that be? He said that said powers shouldn't confiscate your property, and there are many smart people who have said/written during the last few centuries that that viewpoint stands at the basis of our (Western) civilisation. Interesting times, to say the least.
This is due process, per the laws of the countries their yachts are in.
Show me which western country and laws grants the government the right to seize property without due process. If that's really the case there's going to be a massive shift in capital allocation over the next decade.
In the USA this is specifically banned by the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
In the USA this is specifically banned by the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder
USA has something very close to that - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United...
It's universally thought as a "bad thing", and more like a "highway robbery" than something citizens actually want.
But when it's the russians, it's suddenly ok.
It's universally thought as a "bad thing", and more like a "highway robbery" than something citizens actually want.
But when it's the russians, it's suddenly ok.
This is a good thing to keep in mind; I originally figured this was outlandishly unfair, but lined up against other sanctions it makes sense. If sovereign nations can prevent profitable trade (aka ownership & exercising of business relations) it makes sense to prevent ownership & exercising of business property.
The communist nationalisation process after WW2 was also 100% legal in the countries where it was applied.
Later edit: To make things clearer, because I have the impression that people in the West live with the idea that out-here in the former Communist East (from where I'm from) things like nationalisations and all that were done sort of outside the law, hence why doing similar things in the West right now might be ok because it's done under the auspices of the law, I repeat, most of the that stuff was done with the law in hand.
I even wrote/implemented a small personal project [1] based on such a law, the June 1950 nationalisation law. I wanted to see where were located the properties of the Bucharest-based Jewish population that got their properties confiscated (remember, this was after WW2, under a regime that had fought against the Nazis). Of course that the Jews were not implicitly targeted by that law, but they were greatly affected by it (being, on average, a little better-off and more urban compared to the regular Romanian peasant).
[1]http://bucuresti.maglina.ro/nationalizari/ (you have to ignore the GMaps warning, I was too lazy to put anything else in place since their API changes some time ago; also, not sure it works on mobile).
Later edit: To make things clearer, because I have the impression that people in the West live with the idea that out-here in the former Communist East (from where I'm from) things like nationalisations and all that were done sort of outside the law, hence why doing similar things in the West right now might be ok because it's done under the auspices of the law, I repeat, most of the that stuff was done with the law in hand.
I even wrote/implemented a small personal project [1] based on such a law, the June 1950 nationalisation law. I wanted to see where were located the properties of the Bucharest-based Jewish population that got their properties confiscated (remember, this was after WW2, under a regime that had fought against the Nazis). Of course that the Jews were not implicitly targeted by that law, but they were greatly affected by it (being, on average, a little better-off and more urban compared to the regular Romanian peasant).
[1]http://bucuresti.maglina.ro/nationalizari/ (you have to ignore the GMaps warning, I was too lazy to put anything else in place since their API changes some time ago; also, not sure it works on mobile).
Because it helps get rid of Putin and its something we are able to do. Getting rid of Putin is our objective right now.
Is it technically ethical and nice? Maybe not, that can be debated. But I don't see why we should care. Russia's also seizing foreign property as well as invading another country, if you do want to have that ethical argument.
This is how the world works, I don't think we should get bogged down in whether it's technically entirely OK for those poor Russian-govt-linked billionaires to have less yachts. It's in our power, it's in our interest, and that's how the world works.
Is it technically ethical and nice? Maybe not, that can be debated. But I don't see why we should care. Russia's also seizing foreign property as well as invading another country, if you do want to have that ethical argument.
This is how the world works, I don't think we should get bogged down in whether it's technically entirely OK for those poor Russian-govt-linked billionaires to have less yachts. It's in our power, it's in our interest, and that's how the world works.
So wait... if we europeans wanted to get rid of eg. clinton for bombing in yugoslavia, and then bush of the middle eastern crap (well, technically both bushes), we can just take away property of random rich americans?
[deleted]
Of course, you are free to make your bed however you want. Just don't be surprised if the US responds by doing the same thing back to rich europeans.
Not random. All. And I fully expect the world to do it if USA ever does invade Mexico or Canda with tanks and starts shelling civilians just because they want to annex them.
American oligarchs have total influence over American government. If they allow such thing to happen they are materially responsible for the damage.
American oligarchs have total influence over American government. If they allow such thing to happen they are materially responsible for the damage.
> Not random. All. And I fully expect the world to do it if USA ever does invade Mexico or Canda with tanks and starts shelling civilians just because they want to annex them.
Why mexico or canada? Why not for iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Libya? Yemen? Jugoslavia? Why only for annexation and not for "just bombing" or even occupation, with yes, tanks?
Shelling civillians?
Like bombing a civillian train? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing
A bus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu%C5%BEane_bus_bombing
How about escaping refugees? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Albanian_refug...
Or a foreign embassy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_C...
Civillian tv station? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Tele...
How about directly custer bombing a city? Twice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C5%A1_cluster_bombing
A hospital? https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans...
So you agree, that if US/NATO doesn't immediately pull out from eg. syria, that switzerland can take away googles property in Zurich?
Why mexico or canada? Why not for iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Libya? Yemen? Jugoslavia? Why only for annexation and not for "just bombing" or even occupation, with yes, tanks?
Shelling civillians?
Like bombing a civillian train? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grdelica_train_bombing
A bus? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lu%C5%BEane_bus_bombing
How about escaping refugees? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_Albanian_refug...
Or a foreign embassy? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_bombing_of_the_C...
Civillian tv station? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_bombing_of_the_Radio_Tele...
How about directly custer bombing a city? Twice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ni%C5%A1_cluster_bombing
A hospital? https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/longterm/balkans...
So you agree, that if US/NATO doesn't immediately pull out from eg. syria, that switzerland can take away googles property in Zurich?
> Why mexico or canada? Why not for iraq? Afghanistan? Syria? Libya? Yemen? Jugoslavia? Why only for annexation and not for "just bombing" or even occupation, with yes, tanks?
Because those are different things.
> So you agree, that if US/NATO doesn't immediately pull out from eg. syria, that switzerland can take away googles property in Zurich?
No, I don't agree.
Because those are different things.
> So you agree, that if US/NATO doesn't immediately pull out from eg. syria, that switzerland can take away googles property in Zurich?
No, I don't agree.
"It's different when we do it"?
Why don't you agree? Americans occupied a sovereign country, started a war there... why no sanctions against american oligarchs? And if not, why sanctions now against the russians?
Why don't you agree? Americans occupied a sovereign country, started a war there... why no sanctions against american oligarchs? And if not, why sanctions now against the russians?
It's different when it's different.
Full scale invasion with intent to annex with nearly complete global opposition is different from America going around the world to kill people at their whim, very often with support and acceptance of other nations and occasionally with support of large groups of people in countries America messes up.
Putin invaded two countries and parts of Ukraine already in a predictible pattern. And next ones in line are NATO countries. I guess enough's enough to take action.
Serbs in Yougoslavia tried to do racial cleansing. Ukrainians never had such ideas.
By drawing such overstretched parallels you are no different than Putin supporting Russian now, nazi German after the WWII or Serb after they were stopped.
Full scale invasion with intent to annex with nearly complete global opposition is different from America going around the world to kill people at their whim, very often with support and acceptance of other nations and occasionally with support of large groups of people in countries America messes up.
Putin invaded two countries and parts of Ukraine already in a predictible pattern. And next ones in line are NATO countries. I guess enough's enough to take action.
Serbs in Yougoslavia tried to do racial cleansing. Ukrainians never had such ideas.
By drawing such overstretched parallels you are no different than Putin supporting Russian now, nazi German after the WWII or Serb after they were stopped.
Oh yes, "large groups" of bombed afghanis wanted to be bombed by amercans? And if UK and EU supported putin in ukraine (to make gas cheaper in europe for example), than the occupation of ukraine would be a good thing? So it doesn't matter that you destroy a country and kill a huge number of people, if your friends help or atleast "morally" support you with that?
Putin has a russian minority in ukraine, that was being attacked for a long time now, by groups like Azov (who were globally marker as neonazis just a few months ago, by most mainstream media), and which are now a part of national guard (for the last ~7 years). You cannot call it racial clensing if all the people mentioned are white (serbs, albanians, russians, ukranians), but considering the amount of brown people the americans have killed in the last few decades, it makes you wonder.
Putin has a russian minority in ukraine, that was being attacked for a long time now, by groups like Azov (who were globally marker as neonazis just a few months ago, by most mainstream media), and which are now a part of national guard (for the last ~7 years). You cannot call it racial clensing if all the people mentioned are white (serbs, albanians, russians, ukranians), but considering the amount of brown people the americans have killed in the last few decades, it makes you wonder.
Why does the skin color have anything to do with whether something is racial cleansing or not? Skin color is not a race. When the Tutsi were massacred by Hutus wasn't this a racial cleansing because they both have roughly same amount of melanine in their skin?
Are you seriously trying to justify what is happening right now in the Ukraine by existance of small nationalistic groups not condemned by the Ukrainian government? Anything that this fringe nazi group did, Russian soldiers are doing on a country wide scale as we speak.
And yes. Approval of parts of invaded population matters. That's one of the reasons world didn't react strongly to annexation of Crimea. And large groups of Afghanis were in favor of US bombing Taliban.
And also yes. Allies matter. Even the moral allies.
And sure, you can imagine a world in which EU and UK support Putin in the invasion of Ukraine for entirely selfish reasons with Ukraine being as innocent as it really is. It wouldn't be good then.
But if Ukraine built death camps for their Russian population. Allying with Putin to put a stop to that would be good.
However we do not live in any of those worlds. In ours Ukraine just wants to be a country and a nation they were always striving to be, despite being repeatedly crushed by the Russian heel and murdered by millions. And the west is supporting that ambition despite the great cost to its economy that is the result of cutting outselves off from Russia exports. We are doing it for both moral and selfish reasons. Because people and their actions are nuanced like that
It's never as simple as "it's ok when we do it".
I'm very sorry that you are struggling with this world to the point of turning you into a tube for clear aggressors.
Are you seriously trying to justify what is happening right now in the Ukraine by existance of small nationalistic groups not condemned by the Ukrainian government? Anything that this fringe nazi group did, Russian soldiers are doing on a country wide scale as we speak.
And yes. Approval of parts of invaded population matters. That's one of the reasons world didn't react strongly to annexation of Crimea. And large groups of Afghanis were in favor of US bombing Taliban.
And also yes. Allies matter. Even the moral allies.
And sure, you can imagine a world in which EU and UK support Putin in the invasion of Ukraine for entirely selfish reasons with Ukraine being as innocent as it really is. It wouldn't be good then.
But if Ukraine built death camps for their Russian population. Allying with Putin to put a stop to that would be good.
However we do not live in any of those worlds. In ours Ukraine just wants to be a country and a nation they were always striving to be, despite being repeatedly crushed by the Russian heel and murdered by millions. And the west is supporting that ambition despite the great cost to its economy that is the result of cutting outselves off from Russia exports. We are doing it for both moral and selfish reasons. Because people and their actions are nuanced like that
It's never as simple as "it's ok when we do it".
I'm very sorry that you are struggling with this world to the point of turning you into a tube for clear aggressors.
> Are you seriously trying to justify what is happening right now in the Ukraine by existance of small nationalistic groups not condemned by the Ukrainian government? Anything that this fringe nazi group did, Russian soldiers are doing on a country wide scale as we speak.
I mean... that "small nationalistic group" became a part of the official national guard, so it has support from the government itself. What exactly did eg. Afghanistan do, that attacking it was "good"?
> And also yes. Allies matter. Even the moral allies.
Oh yes... if your friends say it's ok to bomb some random country, that makes it OK?
> But if Ukraine built death camps for their Russian population. Allying with Putin to put a stop to that would be good.
Afghanistan had death camps? Yugoslavia did? Iraq? Lybia?
> However we do not live in any of those worlds. In ours Ukraine just wants to be a country and a nation they were always striving to be, despite being repeatedly crushed by the Russian heel and murdered by millions. And the west is supporting that ambition despite the great cost to its economy that is the result of cutting outselves off from Russia exports. We are doing it for both moral and selfish reasons. Because people and their actions are nuanced like that
Yes, so did every other middle eastern country strive to be a normal, peaceful country... sadly most of them have been attacked by americans, some more than once.
America had no real reason to attack eg. afghanistan, but they did. Because you find americans to be allies/friends, you support them at that, even though they basically destroyed the country in the same way as putin is doing now. And same for many middle eastern, south american etc. countries, that were attacked by americans. Putin is atleast using the same excuse america used when they attacked yugoslavia. America couldn't even plant "weapons of mass destruction" in the second iraq war, but that faked excuse was enough to attack a sovereign country.
America has been destroying countries for decades now, for same egoistic reasons putin has now. They have destroyed many buildings, killed many people, army and civillian, children and old people, destroyed infrastructure, etc., and the destroyed/killed numbers are a still lot higher than russias, even with this war now.
I have no idea, how lying about weapons of mass destruction can be a good reason for you, to attack a country on the other end of the world, and than act as if you're better than putin.
I mean... that "small nationalistic group" became a part of the official national guard, so it has support from the government itself. What exactly did eg. Afghanistan do, that attacking it was "good"?
> And also yes. Allies matter. Even the moral allies.
Oh yes... if your friends say it's ok to bomb some random country, that makes it OK?
> But if Ukraine built death camps for their Russian population. Allying with Putin to put a stop to that would be good.
Afghanistan had death camps? Yugoslavia did? Iraq? Lybia?
> However we do not live in any of those worlds. In ours Ukraine just wants to be a country and a nation they were always striving to be, despite being repeatedly crushed by the Russian heel and murdered by millions. And the west is supporting that ambition despite the great cost to its economy that is the result of cutting outselves off from Russia exports. We are doing it for both moral and selfish reasons. Because people and their actions are nuanced like that
Yes, so did every other middle eastern country strive to be a normal, peaceful country... sadly most of them have been attacked by americans, some more than once.
America had no real reason to attack eg. afghanistan, but they did. Because you find americans to be allies/friends, you support them at that, even though they basically destroyed the country in the same way as putin is doing now. And same for many middle eastern, south american etc. countries, that were attacked by americans. Putin is atleast using the same excuse america used when they attacked yugoslavia. America couldn't even plant "weapons of mass destruction" in the second iraq war, but that faked excuse was enough to attack a sovereign country.
America has been destroying countries for decades now, for same egoistic reasons putin has now. They have destroyed many buildings, killed many people, army and civillian, children and old people, destroyed infrastructure, etc., and the destroyed/killed numbers are a still lot higher than russias, even with this war now.
I have no idea, how lying about weapons of mass destruction can be a good reason for you, to attack a country on the other end of the world, and than act as if you're better than putin.
I think you are mistaking me for someone else. I'm not American and I don't support America in their military actions in the middle east.
Out of military involvements I support only the one in former Yougoslavia because it prevented genocide and ended the hostilities.
When you are comparing Putin to someone you can compare him to Serbs. Because similarities are many. And current support of Putin comming from some Serbs only proves that they are spiritually similar in their nationalist ambitions towards their neighbors.
When it comes to everything else America did in middle east and elsewhere I think it had a huge negative effect. That it was unjustified, immoral and instigated just for the economic benefit of US military industrial complex under the false pretenses.
However since US military budget is what it is and there are other strong global players that might act up in the future (Russia, China) the countries of the world couldn't really seriously impact USA.
However USA deserved to loose every bit of global good will and moral standing that they lost due to their actions.
But nothing USA did puts Russia in any better light. Existance of one murderer doesn't make the other murderer less worthy of contempt and punitive action.
You may cry 'hypocrites' all you want but we live in the real world in which because we can't go after one murderer, because he's too powerful, doesn't mean we just let all the murderes free pass just to be consistent.
Be anti-american all you want. It doesn't mean you have to be pro Putin.
To be honest I myself would prefer Anerica sat this one out just because of their lack of moral standing and history of direct mythicized conflict with Soviet Union.
I think Europe should wipe Russian hardware from Ukraine using just European equipment.
Out of military involvements I support only the one in former Yougoslavia because it prevented genocide and ended the hostilities.
When you are comparing Putin to someone you can compare him to Serbs. Because similarities are many. And current support of Putin comming from some Serbs only proves that they are spiritually similar in their nationalist ambitions towards their neighbors.
When it comes to everything else America did in middle east and elsewhere I think it had a huge negative effect. That it was unjustified, immoral and instigated just for the economic benefit of US military industrial complex under the false pretenses.
However since US military budget is what it is and there are other strong global players that might act up in the future (Russia, China) the countries of the world couldn't really seriously impact USA.
However USA deserved to loose every bit of global good will and moral standing that they lost due to their actions.
But nothing USA did puts Russia in any better light. Existance of one murderer doesn't make the other murderer less worthy of contempt and punitive action.
You may cry 'hypocrites' all you want but we live in the real world in which because we can't go after one murderer, because he's too powerful, doesn't mean we just let all the murderes free pass just to be consistent.
Be anti-american all you want. It doesn't mean you have to be pro Putin.
To be honest I myself would prefer Anerica sat this one out just because of their lack of moral standing and history of direct mythicized conflict with Soviet Union.
I think Europe should wipe Russian hardware from Ukraine using just European equipment.
[deleted]
A lot of these "oligarchs" have citizenships of European countries. (Which, in my opinion, they shouldn't have been given in the first place, but that's an entirely different conversation.) So in many cases people are effectively cheering for extra-judicial property seizure of European citizens. The consequences of setting such precedent will go way beyond the scope of the current conflict.
Should the world seize the assets of Silicon Valley billionaires over the US invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan and other actions in MENA?
Probably.
Probably.
It'd make more sense if you said sized the assets of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, the presidents of companies like Blackwater or Lockheed Martin and Halliburton, Kuwaiti and Afghani logistics companies...
Why? Because they are American?
The case against the Russian oligarchs is better because they are quasi state actors, however, but the case against the Russian oligarchs looks bad too.
The case against the Russian oligarchs is better because they are quasi state actors, however, but the case against the Russian oligarchs looks bad too.
And Bezos, Bloomberg, Ellison, Thiel, etc. aren't quasi state actors?
They're not. Do you think Biden has been sitting upon his throne for the past 22 years, giving orders to Thiel and Bezos so they can act on his behalf and in return he can give them a little more wealth/power?
The people you quoted have a lot of power and influence. That doesn't make them state actors. The difference is extreme. If you genuinely don't understand that difference, I invite you to read "The Dictator's Handbook" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, which nicely explains (among other many interesting things) how dictators and authoritarians wield and share power. You can apply those lessons to how Russia and its oligarchs work.
The people you quoted have a lot of power and influence. That doesn't make them state actors. The difference is extreme. If you genuinely don't understand that difference, I invite you to read "The Dictator's Handbook" by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, which nicely explains (among other many interesting things) how dictators and authoritarians wield and share power. You can apply those lessons to how Russia and its oligarchs work.
Thanks, but I have a copy of the book on hand already.
In the book de Mesquita refers to regardless of whether the system is Authoritarian or Democratic, rulers have to please their respective circle of power brokers. The only difference is the number they have to placate. And the US is not the prototypical example of the most democratic and grassroots political system out there by a long shot.
To say I believe Biden has been on his throne for 22 years is such a blatant strawman, I find it difficult to take you seriously. Even if he was a Senator since 1973 who clearly knows how to stay afloat in politics for 49 years.
In the book de Mesquita refers to regardless of whether the system is Authoritarian or Democratic, rulers have to please their respective circle of power brokers. The only difference is the number they have to placate. And the US is not the prototypical example of the most democratic and grassroots political system out there by a long shot.
To say I believe Biden has been on his throne for 22 years is such a blatant strawman, I find it difficult to take you seriously. Even if he was a Senator since 1973 who clearly knows how to stay afloat in politics for 49 years.
I apologize for the strawman, then. And yes, it's not like there aren't parallels, but you cannot compare the power and influence of a Russian oligarch, who tends to serve as both a proxy/puppet to Putin and a useful way to stash riches, to, say, Musk or Bezos who tend to very much follow their own goals.
American billionaires have too much power, for sure, but that's a statement on the power of money and the ability for people to amass too much of it in one place in the USA. Russian oligarchs have this power because Putin shares it with them.
Since you've read the book (and I'm guessing agree with it, as I do), we're on the same page about the spectrum of democracy vs authoritarianism. But nowhere can you compare the actual individuals. Individual Russian oligarchs are the equivalent of extremely large corpora of people, servants and businesses; not of individual CEOs.
American billionaires have too much power, for sure, but that's a statement on the power of money and the ability for people to amass too much of it in one place in the USA. Russian oligarchs have this power because Putin shares it with them.
Since you've read the book (and I'm guessing agree with it, as I do), we're on the same page about the spectrum of democracy vs authoritarianism. But nowhere can you compare the actual individuals. Individual Russian oligarchs are the equivalent of extremely large corpora of people, servants and businesses; not of individual CEOs.
Do you believe this is comparable? I'd be honestly interested why.
Last couple of years big tech in America became quasi state actors, we are seeing it now on social media but the last election was a glaring example.
Last couple of years is just when it became blatantly obvious to pretty much everyone.
Google's founders were funded and supervised by DoD employees in their grad school.
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
Here is how "Google Earth" happened: "In-Q-Tel sold 5,636 shares of Google, worth over $2.2 million, on November 15, 2005. The shares were a result of Google's acquisition of Keyhole, Inc, the CIA-funded satellite mapping software now known as Google Earth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel
Facebook launched in 2004. First check from Peter Thiel, who founded Palantir in 2003. DARPA's Lifelog was "cancelled" in 2003.
They were designed to be mass surveillance from the start. Some even funded directly be equity investments at pre-seed/seed stage. Others, funded at the research stage.
Google's founders were funded and supervised by DoD employees in their grad school.
https://qz.com/1145669/googles-true-origin-partly-lies-in-ci...
Here is how "Google Earth" happened: "In-Q-Tel sold 5,636 shares of Google, worth over $2.2 million, on November 15, 2005. The shares were a result of Google's acquisition of Keyhole, Inc, the CIA-funded satellite mapping software now known as Google Earth."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In-Q-Tel
Facebook launched in 2004. First check from Peter Thiel, who founded Palantir in 2003. DARPA's Lifelog was "cancelled" in 2003.
They were designed to be mass surveillance from the start. Some even funded directly be equity investments at pre-seed/seed stage. Others, funded at the research stage.
It was a multinational coalition led by America. Not just America...
Comparing people who legitimately made their money instead of ripping off their nation during the transfer of government owned assets to privately owned.
Also Afghanistan wouldn’t wouldn’t have been invaded if they handed over the Osama.
Also Afghanistan wouldn’t wouldn’t have been invaded if they handed over the Osama.
> Comparing people who legitimately made their money instead of ripping off their nation during the transfer of government owned assets to privately owned.
You can't even make them pay proper taxes,... "ripped off their nation" applies very much to most sillicon valley companies.
>Also Afghanistan wouldn’t wouldn’t have been invaded if they handed over the Osama.
"Do what I say, or we'll invade you!"
.... "It's ok, when americans do it!"
You can't even make them pay proper taxes,... "ripped off their nation" applies very much to most sillicon valley companies.
>Also Afghanistan wouldn’t wouldn’t have been invaded if they handed over the Osama.
"Do what I say, or we'll invade you!"
.... "It's ok, when americans do it!"
And Ukraine would not have been invaded had they agreed to Russia's demands, you fucking bastard.
Did Ukraine harbor terrorists that killed thousands of Russians? Comparing Ukraine to Afghanistan doesn’t work. Ukraine was a peaceful nation. Afghanistan was harboring terrorists and terrorists training camps and these terrorists had attacked US multiple times before. Osama Bin Laden wasn’t even a Afghanistan citizen, he was from Saudi Arabia.
well, offtop by Russophilis is getting out of hand. Russia was aggresor, in 1994 in Chechnya IIRC 1999 Chechnya, Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014, Ukraine 2022. Russian FSB do terrorists attack on their own citizen [1]. Case is simple, goverment is a war crime and was for 28 years. There is a whole generation of young people brainwashed by their parents with roots back to 1800s tsarist propaganda. Russians need to step up and deal with their horrible country past. I, as a polish, kinda has a natural degree in sovietology and Moscow war crimes throughout the ages.
I'm sorry that you're dealing with some incovenciencse. But there are people dying right now.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings
I'm sorry that you're dealing with some incovenciencse. But there are people dying right now.
[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings
Now do usa!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...
But when america does it, it's a "war for peace!" - https://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1995/11...
Look, we all agree war is bad... I live in the balkans, and I had american planes flying above my roof, bombing a country 300km away not that long ago... not to forget all of our "local" wars before that. But saying that americans are any better than russians or vice-versa is a huge lie. Russians atleast had a "weak" period in the 90s, where they didn't do this shit, until they got their economy fixed a bit, americans didn't stop even then.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_the_Uni...
But when america does it, it's a "war for peace!" - https://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1995/11...
Look, we all agree war is bad... I live in the balkans, and I had american planes flying above my roof, bombing a country 300km away not that long ago... not to forget all of our "local" wars before that. But saying that americans are any better than russians or vice-versa is a huge lie. Russians atleast had a "weak" period in the 90s, where they didn't do this shit, until they got their economy fixed a bit, americans didn't stop even then.
The US is not currently invading Ukraine. "Now do USA!" is whataboutism. It's what Putin is using as his justification to invade Ukraine:
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/world/europe/putin-ukrain...
Please. Stop. Amplifying. Putin's. Message.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/world/europe/putin-ukrain...
Please. Stop. Amplifying. Putin's. Message.
But it's occupying syria. It's bombing somalia. And Yemen. They just pulled out of afghanistan after many years there, and they even fucked that up.
Why cry about ukraine and not about syria?
Why are you so keen on protecting the americans, when they're just as bad as putin? If america invaded ukraine, this would be just another "war for peace", like every other american war was.
Why cry about ukraine and not about syria?
Why are you so keen on protecting the americans, when they're just as bad as putin? If america invaded ukraine, this would be just another "war for peace", like every other american war was.
Don't make accusations you can't back up. I never defended america's atrocities, repeatedly called them out, volunteered and donated time and money for Syria's refugee crisis as much as I could.
I'm more personally involved in the Ukraine war because this is my government, and my extended family is targeted. But I never fucking ignored Syria, and I'm not ignoring it now. I'm saying that all you're doing here is helping Russia, which helps neither Ukraine nor Syria. So stop it.
I'm more personally involved in the Ukraine war because this is my government, and my extended family is targeted. But I never fucking ignored Syria, and I'm not ignoring it now. I'm saying that all you're doing here is helping Russia, which helps neither Ukraine nor Syria. So stop it.
And I live in what was once Yugoslavia, and a part of our former country was bombed by nato.
Let's say you have a country, and there is a minority in that country... and people hate eachother a bit, due to historical reasons, there are tensions, a war, the minority unilaterally declares independence, some superpowers support them at this (others don't), main country disagrees and attacks the separatists, and after all that a superpower comes in and starts destroying the main country to get what they want.
If you're not sure if I'm talking about ukraine or kosovo, you're right, the scenario is the same, but since the americans were doing it back then, the destroying of the country was "good" and now it's "bad".
If switzerland pointed fingers at putin.. sure, point, curse, whatever. Nato members (including my current country now) should just stay quiet, because they did the same, many times before.
Let's say you have a country, and there is a minority in that country... and people hate eachother a bit, due to historical reasons, there are tensions, a war, the minority unilaterally declares independence, some superpowers support them at this (others don't), main country disagrees and attacks the separatists, and after all that a superpower comes in and starts destroying the main country to get what they want.
If you're not sure if I'm talking about ukraine or kosovo, you're right, the scenario is the same, but since the americans were doing it back then, the destroying of the country was "good" and now it's "bad".
If switzerland pointed fingers at putin.. sure, point, curse, whatever. Nato members (including my current country now) should just stay quiet, because they did the same, many times before.
I think everybody was sure you were talking about Kosovo and not Ukraine.
Hi, I live in Belgium, a country that like many others has a dark past of colonialism (who is currently trying to make amends for it).
We're pointing fingers. Switzerland is pointing fingers. I'm OK with the USA's support in the fingerpointing, so please let us have their fucking support. Every Ukrainian I know is OK with the USA's support, and it's been by far some of the most effective in this war, so please let them have their fucking support.
You don't get to pick and choose your own allies, LET ALONE SOMEONE ELSE'S.
We're pointing fingers. Switzerland is pointing fingers. I'm OK with the USA's support in the fingerpointing, so please let us have their fucking support. Every Ukrainian I know is OK with the USA's support, and it's been by far some of the most effective in this war, so please let them have their fucking support.
You don't get to pick and choose your own allies, LET ALONE SOMEONE ELSE'S.
So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?
And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?
And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
>So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
Just in case there's misunderstanding about what "seize" means...
Are governments actually taking ownership possession (nationalizing) of Russian yachts or are they removing the assets from the owner's control?
In other words, does "seize" mean:
(1) civil forfeiture like USA police confiscating cash without due process ?
or
(2) freezing an asset like impounding/towing a car away and the owner can eventually get the car back later (e.g. after Russia stops the war) ?
The various reports I've read makes it seem like UK is treating Russian yachts as (2).
In contrast... with the fleets of airplanes leased from Europe sitting in Russian territory, it looks like Russia does literally want to take ownership of them in retaliation to sanctions.
Just in case there's misunderstanding about what "seize" means...
Are governments actually taking ownership possession (nationalizing) of Russian yachts or are they removing the assets from the owner's control?
In other words, does "seize" mean:
(1) civil forfeiture like USA police confiscating cash without due process ?
or
(2) freezing an asset like impounding/towing a car away and the owner can eventually get the car back later (e.g. after Russia stops the war) ?
The various reports I've read makes it seem like UK is treating Russian yachts as (2).
In contrast... with the fleets of airplanes leased from Europe sitting in Russian territory, it looks like Russia does literally want to take ownership of them in retaliation to sanctions.
> (2) freezing an asset like impounding/towing a car away and the owner can eventually get the car back later (e.g. after Russia stops the war) ?
At least in Europe AFAIK. The rationale is to prevent, at least temporarily, oligarchs from benefiting from their assets. And the possibility of getting them back could give these influencial oligarchs an incentive to push for a resolution of the war that might be less catastrophic than where it is headed now.
At least in Europe AFAIK. The rationale is to prevent, at least temporarily, oligarchs from benefiting from their assets. And the possibility of getting them back could give these influencial oligarchs an incentive to push for a resolution of the war that might be less catastrophic than where it is headed now.
> Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?
Yes. And if America invaded Mexico and started shelling their cities, I'd like the world to do exactly the same. Tank the dollar into the ground and seize all assets of American companies and individuals who own over a 100mln dollars and stop all trade. You are benefiting for your government, you are materialy responsible for its actions. In the modern world there's no other way to keep the world sane.
If something is going bit too far is excluding Russian sport and culture. But even that it only mild overstepping since large number of Russians support their government and large part of Russian export of culture and sport is government subsidized.
How strongly the world reacts now is the only thing that can curb future teritorial ambitions of other countries like China. The message should be clear. Starting a war will cost you, your economy and the wealth of your wealthiest. And the world will really shrink for you because you won't be able to enjoy its freedoms.
Yes. And if America invaded Mexico and started shelling their cities, I'd like the world to do exactly the same. Tank the dollar into the ground and seize all assets of American companies and individuals who own over a 100mln dollars and stop all trade. You are benefiting for your government, you are materialy responsible for its actions. In the modern world there's no other way to keep the world sane.
If something is going bit too far is excluding Russian sport and culture. But even that it only mild overstepping since large number of Russians support their government and large part of Russian export of culture and sport is government subsidized.
How strongly the world reacts now is the only thing that can curb future teritorial ambitions of other countries like China. The message should be clear. Starting a war will cost you, your economy and the wealth of your wealthiest. And the world will really shrink for you because you won't be able to enjoy its freedoms.
>So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
Who said there's no due process? That's why it's getting seized. Forfeiture happens later if it's proven laws have been broken.
Besides, seizing property is better than more violence. Maybe if the Taliban seized the assets of rich american elites America would have left Afghanistan a lot sooner.
>Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary.
I'm watching people lose all their private property or worse while the aggressor responsible for the situation threatens “consequences greater than any you have faced in history” to any nation who wishes to step in and stop this. Pretty scary huh?
>We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
So no military intervention and sanctions. How is this supposed to end? I don't think apathy will do it.
Who said there's no due process? That's why it's getting seized. Forfeiture happens later if it's proven laws have been broken.
Besides, seizing property is better than more violence. Maybe if the Taliban seized the assets of rich american elites America would have left Afghanistan a lot sooner.
>Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary.
I'm watching people lose all their private property or worse while the aggressor responsible for the situation threatens “consequences greater than any you have faced in history” to any nation who wishes to step in and stop this. Pretty scary huh?
>We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
So no military intervention and sanctions. How is this supposed to end? I don't think apathy will do it.
> Besides, seizing property is better than more violence.
Also, governments can un-seize property back after a while. It's not like this stuff gets immediately liquidated and funneled into defense spending or disaster relief or whatever.
Also, governments can un-seize property back after a while. It's not like this stuff gets immediately liquidated and funneled into defense spending or disaster relief or whatever.
What do you expect? The Russians are a pretty comfy enemy. From Call of Duty over Mission Impossible, we are familiar to the evil Russian, hence, those reactions are so satisfying to too many people, unfortunately.
I have Ukranian/Russian roots. My girl, born in Germany, was just pushed by classmates and called nasty words just last week in school.
This reminds me of the racism against Asian people when Covid appeared.
This war only has losers, the Ukranians, the Russian people, the Europeans, the Americans.
Edit: Somehow some posts were deleted from this thread, also my experience with Racism I have faced a few days ago. That is strange.
I have Ukranian/Russian roots. My girl, born in Germany, was just pushed by classmates and called nasty words just last week in school.
This reminds me of the racism against Asian people when Covid appeared.
This war only has losers, the Ukranians, the Russian people, the Europeans, the Americans.
Edit: Somehow some posts were deleted from this thread, also my experience with Racism I have faced a few days ago. That is strange.
Pretty much. San Francisco fired the SF Symphony Director because... he's from Russia.
Amazing how quickly our base, tribal instincts kick in when an "enemy" appears. All pretense to "peace" and "restraint" and "avoid foreign wars" goes out the window really damn quick.
If you're the kind of person who looks back and thinks "man, how could America be so stupid to get involved in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq"? Well, you're living in those times right now.
Hell, that's exactly why we put the Japanese in internment camps. Looks like a pretty good portion of HN would support that even now.
Amazing how quickly our base, tribal instincts kick in when an "enemy" appears. All pretense to "peace" and "restraint" and "avoid foreign wars" goes out the window really damn quick.
If you're the kind of person who looks back and thinks "man, how could America be so stupid to get involved in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq"? Well, you're living in those times right now.
Hell, that's exactly why we put the Japanese in internment camps. Looks like a pretty good portion of HN would support that even now.
It works especially well when the enemy is somewhat predefined by the media and the general tropes and narratives in movies, games, books. The Chinese are evil, so are the Russians. Everyone knows that. Or Middle Eastern guys. They could be terrorists. All evil, we are good. Did you ever think that a Dutch or an Italian girl could be bad?
I told my child to say that she has Ukranian roots (which she has, my grandmother is from Ukraine) and deny her Russian roots after she was bullied last week in school. I tried to explain to her the situation and the motivation of those bullies.
I also deny my Russian roots in the volunteer group I support in my city here in Germany. They need Ukrainian/Russian speaking people to help to translate. When I first joined the coordination zoom chat of one group and it was my turn to introduce myself and mentioned my Russian roots (to explain why I speak Russian), I got banned. I later joined another group and there only mentioned my Ukrainian heritage. Now every day I help as a translator for the people who come to my city and I am very happy to do that.
I told my child to say that she has Ukranian roots (which she has, my grandmother is from Ukraine) and deny her Russian roots after she was bullied last week in school. I tried to explain to her the situation and the motivation of those bullies.
I also deny my Russian roots in the volunteer group I support in my city here in Germany. They need Ukrainian/Russian speaking people to help to translate. When I first joined the coordination zoom chat of one group and it was my turn to introduce myself and mentioned my Russian roots (to explain why I speak Russian), I got banned. I later joined another group and there only mentioned my Ukrainian heritage. Now every day I help as a translator for the people who come to my city and I am very happy to do that.
I feel for your situation and I'm sure as a parent, the treatment your daughter is getting is the most painful of all.
As they cliche goes "the veneer of civilization is thin".
Wishing you the best during these difficult times.
As they cliche goes "the veneer of civilization is thin".
Wishing you the best during these difficult times.
>Pretty much. San Francisco fired the SF Symphony Director because... he's from Russia.
Who would this be? A casual googling shows an individual from Finland has been the director since 2020. What am I missing here?
Who would this be? A casual googling shows an individual from Finland has been the director since 2020. What am I missing here?
Looks like the story was updated.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-Symphon...
Director at SF Symphony lost a bunch of gigs because the Montreal Symphony cancelled a bunch of performances by a Russian pianist.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/San-Francisco-Symphon...
Director at SF Symphony lost a bunch of gigs because the Montreal Symphony cancelled a bunch of performances by a Russian pianist.
Pretty much. San Francisco much fired the SF Symphony Director because... he's from Russia.
This isn't a thing that happened.
Looks like a pretty good portion of HN would support that even now.
No, it doesn't. "It's okay to freeze the assets of the oligarch collective currently invading a friendly nation" is quite far away from "let's round up Russians and put them into camps" and your comparison is ridiculous.
This isn't a thing that happened.
Looks like a pretty good portion of HN would support that even now.
No, it doesn't. "It's okay to freeze the assets of the oligarch collective currently invading a friendly nation" is quite far away from "let's round up Russians and put them into camps" and your comparison is ridiculous.
I'm French, this story makes my stomach wrench.
I'm very sorry to hear that. Kids are very eager to single out some other kids for the dumbest of reasons and attack them. Any difference might be a pretense for attack under the right conditions. I'm afraid that's how our species works naturally and there's a huge role of upbringing and education to silence those innate impulses in young people.
the worst part about this is, most Russians in the west are basically asylum seekers now. their state went full totalitarian in the last couple weeks. i'm trying hard to make delimit the difference between Russians and Putin, but it's hard to get ordinary people to listen. MSM does not like nuance at all.
> their state went full totalitarian in the last couple weeks
I’m sorry but a state does not go full totalitarian in a week. Putin has been in control for 20 years. This, was predictable and many had been predicting it for a long time.
What happened over the last couple weeks is that “authoritarianism” has lost its sheen. Russian-style strongman authoritarianism has bee a twinkle in the eye of a certain strain of American and Western politician for some years now (I’m looking at you Peter “Democracy and freedom are incompatible” Thiel and Fox News), and people who previously called Putin a strong and capable leader are now either having to get on board with a genocidal war, or eat crow.
A lot of people (on this site and elsewhere) are still even pushing the lines coming straight out of the kremlin (but biolabs! But nato aggression! Think of the poor oligarchs’ seized yachts! Can we really call the invasion and slaughter of Ukrainian people and cultural identity a a genocide?). It’s really quite sad how self proclaimed free thinkers on this site so obviously push the Russian propaganda being circulated in their conservative newsfeeds. These talking points go from the Kremlin, to Fox News, then back to Russia to be aired on RT, and at some point they make a stop here on HN by avid “free thinking“ consumers of this media.
I’m sorry but a state does not go full totalitarian in a week. Putin has been in control for 20 years. This, was predictable and many had been predicting it for a long time.
What happened over the last couple weeks is that “authoritarianism” has lost its sheen. Russian-style strongman authoritarianism has bee a twinkle in the eye of a certain strain of American and Western politician for some years now (I’m looking at you Peter “Democracy and freedom are incompatible” Thiel and Fox News), and people who previously called Putin a strong and capable leader are now either having to get on board with a genocidal war, or eat crow.
A lot of people (on this site and elsewhere) are still even pushing the lines coming straight out of the kremlin (but biolabs! But nato aggression! Think of the poor oligarchs’ seized yachts! Can we really call the invasion and slaughter of Ukrainian people and cultural identity a a genocide?). It’s really quite sad how self proclaimed free thinkers on this site so obviously push the Russian propaganda being circulated in their conservative newsfeeds. These talking points go from the Kremlin, to Fox News, then back to Russia to be aired on RT, and at some point they make a stop here on HN by avid “free thinking“ consumers of this media.
you're contradicting yourself here:
> I’m sorry but a state does not go full totalitarian in a week. Putin has been in control for 20 years.
the point is that it has happened suddenly in the past couple of weeks; let arrests of top FSB officials speak for it.
> This, was predictable and many had been predicting it for a long time.
oh that is absolutely true. every child in eastern europe knows this. the point is, when it happens matters - and it just has.
> I’m sorry but a state does not go full totalitarian in a week. Putin has been in control for 20 years.
the point is that it has happened suddenly in the past couple of weeks; let arrests of top FSB officials speak for it.
> This, was predictable and many had been predicting it for a long time.
oh that is absolutely true. every child in eastern europe knows this. the point is, when it happens matters - and it just has.
> the point is that it has happened suddenly
My point is that invasions don’t happen suddenly. Even if the spark happened in the last few weeks, the preconditions to make this war possible had been laid for years. People pretending that they never saw this coming are the very same who have been cheering Putin and Russia on for years.
My point is that invasions don’t happen suddenly. Even if the spark happened in the last few weeks, the preconditions to make this war possible had been laid for years. People pretending that they never saw this coming are the very same who have been cheering Putin and Russia on for years.
oh, there must've been a misunderstanding. yes, this particular invasion has been under preparation for at least months if not years; i'm talking about the country going full totalitarian oppressive basically overnight with a few new hastily introduced laws. this botched war has been the catalyst.
note that if not for these laws and arresting people holding blank pieces of paper, there would be a full-blown revolution in moscow now.
note that if not for these laws and arresting people holding blank pieces of paper, there would be a full-blown revolution in moscow now.
I am sorry but the world has always been this way. Countries with actual power used to take away far more than what is being done right now. The US (and the West) has been trying to do what is right which is doing it without devastations of wars. People forget the US military is good enough to wipe out 1/2 of the world within weeks. Would you rather have that? Or some bank accounts getting frozen? Your take is extremely naive.
>So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
it is a war, and the one started by them. They should be grateful of losing only property while people in Ukraine are losing their lives. They didn't afford due process to those Ukrainians. Actually they don't afford due process to any Ukrainian. What expectations of due process they may reasonably expect for themselves after that? After the war these Putin's top supporters should get punished for the war crimes together with Putin. This is the due process they should get.
Limiting blame only to Putin just doesn't make sense. Putin doesn't press the button launching missiles. All Russians in Russia are responsible for what is happening. Just looks at bacchanalia of "Z" symbol celebration these days across all Russia (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/07/world/europe/russia-lette... - The "Z" is the marking on the Russian armor of the western invasion group in Ukraine, the one which is attacking Kiev for example, and that symbol became the symbol of that war in Russia). You wanna get beaten as a dirty traitor by a bunch of Russian passer-by-s - just make some offensive comment on the "Z".
>And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
It is applicable only to Russian soldiers in Ukraine. It would be strange that one can shoot such a soldier, yet wouldn't be able to call for a death of the soldier on FB.
it is a war, and the one started by them. They should be grateful of losing only property while people in Ukraine are losing their lives. They didn't afford due process to those Ukrainians. Actually they don't afford due process to any Ukrainian. What expectations of due process they may reasonably expect for themselves after that? After the war these Putin's top supporters should get punished for the war crimes together with Putin. This is the due process they should get.
Limiting blame only to Putin just doesn't make sense. Putin doesn't press the button launching missiles. All Russians in Russia are responsible for what is happening. Just looks at bacchanalia of "Z" symbol celebration these days across all Russia (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/07/world/europe/russia-lette... - The "Z" is the marking on the Russian armor of the western invasion group in Ukraine, the one which is attacking Kiev for example, and that symbol became the symbol of that war in Russia). You wanna get beaten as a dirty traitor by a bunch of Russian passer-by-s - just make some offensive comment on the "Z".
>And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
It is applicable only to Russian soldiers in Ukraine. It would be strange that one can shoot such a soldier, yet wouldn't be able to call for a death of the soldier on FB.
> So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
Seizing the assets of a de facto government agent of a sanctioned country is following due process. Governments decided by their own internal deliberation mechanisms to sanction Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. The world didn't magically decide to seize assets of some random Russian speakers because they said mean words.
> And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
Nope, they relaxed rules specifically with regard to Russian armed forces[0]. It would be pretty ridiculous to ban a Facebook user in Ukraine that call for the defense of their country by attacking the invading soldiers.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-facebook-inst...
Seizing the assets of a de facto government agent of a sanctioned country is following due process. Governments decided by their own internal deliberation mechanisms to sanction Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. The world didn't magically decide to seize assets of some random Russian speakers because they said mean words.
> And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
Nope, they relaxed rules specifically with regard to Russian armed forces[0]. It would be pretty ridiculous to ban a Facebook user in Ukraine that call for the defense of their country by attacking the invading soldiers.
[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-facebook-inst...
Thats just not true. The relaxation of hate speech is towards Russian troops only. Not civilians.
Frankly, what kind of communication do you expect from civilians in a kill or get killed situation.
Frankly, what kind of communication do you expect from civilians in a kill or get killed situation.
"links to their government" is doing a lot of work there
[deleted]
How? The country doing the seizing is not at war with the government in question.
Even during the war you would expect the overseas property to be quarantined to use it as a lever during potential peace talks. As opposed to the unreversible confiscation such as giving it to somebody else to own. I'm not sure if that's what happening here.
Even during the war you would expect the overseas property to be quarantined to use it as a lever during potential peace talks. As opposed to the unreversible confiscation such as giving it to somebody else to own. I'm not sure if that's what happening here.
So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
Yes, I think most of us would agree it is reasonably acceptable to freeze the assets of people who have close ties with a government currently engaged in an invasion that is being condemned by the people doing the seizing.
Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?
I'm sure there are – and I hope that if, say, the US decides to invade Mexico and start levelling cities, then other countries seize the property of rich Americans who are backing that invasion.
And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
No we don't – you chose to deliberately misrepresent this.
Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
Nah, false equivalence. I think "we are going to seize the international assets of supporters of a regime engaged in a war we consider illegal" is a pretty fine tool, and really not anywhere close to "we are going to launch an all-out invasion of a relatively functional sovereign democracy".
Yes, I think most of us would agree it is reasonably acceptable to freeze the assets of people who have close ties with a government currently engaged in an invasion that is being condemned by the people doing the seizing.
Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?
I'm sure there are – and I hope that if, say, the US decides to invade Mexico and start levelling cities, then other countries seize the property of rich Americans who are backing that invasion.
And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
No we don't – you chose to deliberately misrepresent this.
Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
Nah, false equivalence. I think "we are going to seize the international assets of supporters of a regime engaged in a war we consider illegal" is a pretty fine tool, and really not anywhere close to "we are going to launch an all-out invasion of a relatively functional sovereign democracy".
Governments should be doing more to redistribute wealth, not perpetuate inequality.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_ideologies
Not quite sure which part of punk idealogies you are aligned with, but imo seizing assets of bloated billionaires that support and profit from war is definitely a punk move that I would support.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punk_ideologies
Not quite sure which part of punk idealogies you are aligned with, but imo seizing assets of bloated billionaires that support and profit from war is definitely a punk move that I would support.
they are not individuals. they are the Russian state.
i agree it's a fine line, but then, these people are undermining western democracies and at the same time seek safety in them. they assumed their assets would be safe and tried to max their payouts.
i agree it's a fine line, but then, these people are undermining western democracies and at the same time seek safety in them. they assumed their assets would be safe and tried to max their payouts.
How's that different from the US?
It's no different. And US oligarchs should fully expect to have their assets seized if they ever allow US government to perpetrate such insanity.
US oligarches are the people that decide what the government is allowed to do. They can stop any decision that they don't like. If they don't stop it, they are responsible for it. And should pay for it if the rest of the world decides it's prudent.
US oligarches are the people that decide what the government is allowed to do. They can stop any decision that they don't like. If they don't stop it, they are responsible for it. And should pay for it if the rest of the world decides it's prudent.
Wait until you find out about civil forfeiture.
> So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
Yes and it always has been. None of these people are actual citizens of these countries in any meaningful way, and Russia is a mafia state where the sanctioned individuals have more or less committed crime in order to gain these assets in the first place, and they are helping someone that the countries seizing assets believe is committing a war crime.
This is more like having a king and princes and princesses and seizing assets of the princes and princesses conducting the war. These aren’t like “oh shucks” rags to riches wealthy everyday Russians.
> Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?
Sure you can. And Iran or Venezuela or Russia or North Korea can seize their assets in those countries for committing “crimes” as they see fit. Wonder why nobody has assets in those countries?
But this whataboutism also fails because (insert cartoon CEO villain scapegoat) isn’t giving money to Joe Biden to go personally invade Canada. It’s incomparable.
> “Something something Iraq”
First who cares? We’re talking about Russia and Ukraine.
Second yes countries can decide that they don’t like Americans and seize their assets abroad.
> Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
You haven’t seen anything yet. We’re 100% going to war with Russia or will be engaging them directly unless Putin is deposed and I don’t think that’s going to happen. He wants a war so it’s just a matter of time until he decides to attack resupply missions in Poland directly on Polish soil.
Yes and it always has been. None of these people are actual citizens of these countries in any meaningful way, and Russia is a mafia state where the sanctioned individuals have more or less committed crime in order to gain these assets in the first place, and they are helping someone that the countries seizing assets believe is committing a war crime.
This is more like having a king and princes and princesses and seizing assets of the princes and princesses conducting the war. These aren’t like “oh shucks” rags to riches wealthy everyday Russians.
> Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?
Sure you can. And Iran or Venezuela or Russia or North Korea can seize their assets in those countries for committing “crimes” as they see fit. Wonder why nobody has assets in those countries?
But this whataboutism also fails because (insert cartoon CEO villain scapegoat) isn’t giving money to Joe Biden to go personally invade Canada. It’s incomparable.
> “Something something Iraq”
First who cares? We’re talking about Russia and Ukraine.
Second yes countries can decide that they don’t like Americans and seize their assets abroad.
> Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.
You haven’t seen anything yet. We’re 100% going to war with Russia or will be engaging them directly unless Putin is deposed and I don’t think that’s going to happen. He wants a war so it’s just a matter of time until he decides to attack resupply missions in Poland directly on Polish soil.
Yeah, I'm not looking forward to when Argentina decides they can seize the property of any US citizen because of the US invasion of Iraq.
There are brazen calls for literal assassination of Russian leaders with hundreds of upvotes on Reddit,
but when a veteran soldier confronts a former US president for pulling pretty much the same shit, he gets dragged and thrown out:
https://old.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/td5wgj/ir...
but when a veteran soldier confronts a former US president for pulling pretty much the same shit, he gets dragged and thrown out:
https://old.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/td5wgj/ir...
The guy is massively upvoted on reddit though.
Like, you're trying to frame it as some kind of hypocrisy, but it's not a stretch to imagine that the people who rage against russia on reddit and the crowds who go to Bush fundraisers don't overlap much.
Like, you're trying to frame it as some kind of hypocrisy, but it's not a stretch to imagine that the people who rage against russia on reddit and the crowds who go to Bush fundraisers don't overlap much.
I hadn't been on reddit for a really long time (way before all this started) and I logged in yesterday and was pretty surprised by how much war glorification was dominating the popular page and the simplistic narrative being pushed.
Remember that half of the messages you are reading on Reddit are from literal 10 to 15 year olds. A lot of popular media these days, but especially popular media targeted at the younger demographic, mentions reddit in it and the quality of the discourse clearly shows it. Full anonymity on the internet was a mistake. The exact same words carry very different weight depending on what lips they pass out of and every ounce of that nuance has been lost in internet discussion.
It’s literal propaganda:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30548972
Everything that pushes the required narrative gets massively upvoted and accepted as truth without verification, even if falsified later (like the “Ghost of Kyiv” which turned out to be screenshots from a video game)
You can try it yourself. Take a random picture from Google and put a made-up caption on it and note the results.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30548972
Everything that pushes the required narrative gets massively upvoted and accepted as truth without verification, even if falsified later (like the “Ghost of Kyiv” which turned out to be screenshots from a video game)
You can try it yourself. Take a random picture from Google and put a made-up caption on it and note the results.
It's almost as if the context differs between upvoting on a forum and threatening a leader to their face in their own country, in a room full of their supporters. I'm certain that if a Russian did the same in front of Putin, the results would be similar if not worse.
> threatening a leader to their face in their own country, in a room full of their supporters
Have we seen the same video? There's no threat. He said "You lied" and "You need to apologize".
Have we seen the same video? There's no threat. He said "You lied" and "You need to apologize".
> seize private property
Mind your tongue. It's not seizing, it is just a special legal operation. Absolutely nothing to do with seizing.
I'd also want to remind what Karl Popper said about Paradox of Tolerance.
" Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
Mind your tongue. It's not seizing, it is just a special legal operation. Absolutely nothing to do with seizing.
I'd also want to remind what Karl Popper said about Paradox of Tolerance.
" Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."
Here in Canada our government seized protesters money and the crowds cheered.
> just OK to seize private property of individuals
Yes, it's a war. Deal with it
If they have a problem they can take it up with their boss.
> to this is getting pretty fucking scary
I believe there are kids in Ukraine who are legitimately scared. Getting your megayacht confiscated is just a first world problem.
Yes, it's a war. Deal with it
If they have a problem they can take it up with their boss.
> to this is getting pretty fucking scary
I believe there are kids in Ukraine who are legitimately scared. Getting your megayacht confiscated is just a first world problem.
>Yes, it's a war. Deal with it
The countries doing the seizing aren't at war with Russia and seem adamant about currently not being at war.
The countries doing the seizing aren't at war with Russia and seem adamant about currently not being at war.
And one of the ways they're trying to keep from joining and turning it in to ww3 is confiscating the opponent's rich people's toys.
Russia itself is adamant about not being at war. It's a "special operation", remember?
We're trying really hard to toe the line in order not to start a third world war. But we are at war. We're sending aid and weapons every day by the megatons to Ukraine.
Ukrainians are fighting on our behalf, so that nuclear escalation does not happen. But as far as Russia is concerned, we are at war, and in fact Putin himself said that the various sanctions and such are "acts of war", even if he hasn't acted on it (yet).
We're trying really hard to toe the line in order not to start a third world war. But we are at war. We're sending aid and weapons every day by the megatons to Ukraine.
Ukrainians are fighting on our behalf, so that nuclear escalation does not happen. But as far as Russia is concerned, we are at war, and in fact Putin himself said that the various sanctions and such are "acts of war", even if he hasn't acted on it (yet).
formally, they aren't.
i'd google what mr. neville chamberlain did in 1938, though.
i'd google what mr. neville chamberlain did in 1938, though.
These things trickle down. It leads to stuff like this:
German clinic refuses to treat Russian Patients [0] Canada bans Russian pianist from performing [1]
0: https://www.rtl.de/cms/muenchen-iatros-privatklinik-will-kei...
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/arts/music/russian-artist...
Do you think that is OK? Because of a lunatic in their home country?
The same things were said about the Jews in the 1920's. We should try to be carful, and keep our empathy.
German clinic refuses to treat Russian Patients [0] Canada bans Russian pianist from performing [1]
0: https://www.rtl.de/cms/muenchen-iatros-privatklinik-will-kei...
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/arts/music/russian-artist...
Do you think that is OK? Because of a lunatic in their home country?
The same things were said about the Jews in the 1920's. We should try to be carful, and keep our empathy.
Hostility against Russians have nothing to do with sanction and everything to do with what the Russian government is doing. You might pretend otherwise but that's not how it works
The clinic has reversed their position by the way
The clinic has reversed their position by the way
It warms my heart this is the biggest worry on your mind at the moment. It's not beign seized though for now just frozen. Many of the so called "Olygarchs" are nominal holders of Putin's personal wealth btw.
> So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
> And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
You're absolutely right in both regards but please do not conflate those two.
I'll weep zero tears over Putin's rich friends not being able to play with their yacht anymore, but common Russians having to leave their home country and suffering from heinous mob mentality outside have my dearest sympathy.
> And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.
You're absolutely right in both regards but please do not conflate those two.
I'll weep zero tears over Putin's rich friends not being able to play with their yacht anymore, but common Russians having to leave their home country and suffering from heinous mob mentality outside have my dearest sympathy.
Yep, this is something that Hitler did, when he seized the property of the Jews, but people are currently acting like nazis did, just against the russians now.
This also sets another dangerous precendent, that you can just sieze property of someone you don't like... people protesting against covid measures? Seize their property. Protesting against a pipeline.. sieze their property! BLM, pro-trump, anti-trump, eco-protests, sieze everything!
This also sets another dangerous precendent, that you can just sieze property of someone you don't like... people protesting against covid measures? Seize their property. Protesting against a pipeline.. sieze their property! BLM, pro-trump, anti-trump, eco-protests, sieze everything!
1. This is not private property in any meaningful sense of the word. Russia is not governed by the rule of the law. Those people are more like semiofficial branches of the government than private billionaires working within the system. They made their fortunes by taking advantage of corruption rather than in legitimate business.
2. Wars of this scale are not fought between governments but between societies. Anyone who contributes to the economy of Russia (or Ukraine) is participating in the war. Third countries that favor one side of the war may seize the property of those who are contributing to the other side. Legally and legitimately.
3. Property rights are only as strong as the governments guaranteeing them. If no government is able and willing to guarantee them, they cease to exist in any meaningful sense. Once the war is over and the dust has settled, the victors and their friends will sort out who owns what.
2. Wars of this scale are not fought between governments but between societies. Anyone who contributes to the economy of Russia (or Ukraine) is participating in the war. Third countries that favor one side of the war may seize the property of those who are contributing to the other side. Legally and legitimately.
3. Property rights are only as strong as the governments guaranteeing them. If no government is able and willing to guarantee them, they cease to exist in any meaningful sense. Once the war is over and the dust has settled, the victors and their friends will sort out who owns what.
The simple fact that the term oligarch has come to be assumed to be preceded by the term Russian, as in the title, speaks volumes.
Honest question: Are Russian oligarchs more tied to the Russian gov't than in the USA, like how the RBN is more tied to gov't than American counterparts such as Pegasus/etc.
Honest question: Are Russian oligarchs more tied to the Russian gov't than in the USA, like how the RBN is more tied to gov't than American counterparts such as Pegasus/etc.
A small tip to HN readers: Whataboutism is key to Russian propaganda.
I'm not saying people here are Russian trolls, but if your key reaction to "What's happening in Ukraine is shit and we need to do something NOW" is to say "Oh but what about what the US did in the past?", you're amplifying Russian propaganda, and it may be because you've been hearing Russian-funded articles/media, directly or indirectly.
Nothing, in the immediate, will be done about the US's past war crimes. Should something be done? Yes. Is having this conversation now while Europe is at war and civilians are dying every day, hospitals are bombed, and millions are fleeing Ukraine? No, all that serves is to strengthen Russia's position on the web, which is a very important part of their strategy (as it has been for the past 8 years).
So I ask of you:
1. Do not amplify Putin's message and propaganda. You want to talk about this stuff? Wait for the war to end. Please.
2. Stop making everything in the world about the USA, FFS. My friends and girlfriend's family are hearing bombs fall every day, why do you have to make this about you?
I'm not saying people here are Russian trolls, but if your key reaction to "What's happening in Ukraine is shit and we need to do something NOW" is to say "Oh but what about what the US did in the past?", you're amplifying Russian propaganda, and it may be because you've been hearing Russian-funded articles/media, directly or indirectly.
Nothing, in the immediate, will be done about the US's past war crimes. Should something be done? Yes. Is having this conversation now while Europe is at war and civilians are dying every day, hospitals are bombed, and millions are fleeing Ukraine? No, all that serves is to strengthen Russia's position on the web, which is a very important part of their strategy (as it has been for the past 8 years).
So I ask of you:
1. Do not amplify Putin's message and propaganda. You want to talk about this stuff? Wait for the war to end. Please.
2. Stop making everything in the world about the USA, FFS. My friends and girlfriend's family are hearing bombs fall every day, why do you have to make this about you?
I really like the fact that now that RT is banned everybody read the same western articles and are attributing the whole dissent within Europe/US to Russia.
Where have you been when RT was doing that brazenly in front of your faces with full acceptance of the governments?
It's quite frankly amusing that it took Russia an invasion of Ukraine for that to become illegal, while before (Brexit, etc) it was just "freedom of speech".
Where have you been when RT was doing that brazenly in front of your faces with full acceptance of the governments?
It's quite frankly amusing that it took Russia an invasion of Ukraine for that to become illegal, while before (Brexit, etc) it was just "freedom of speech".
> Where have you been
I was always there, speaking out against propaganda, maybe you can check my post history.
And I don't know what you're on, but "everybody read the same western articles and are attributing the whole dissent within Europe/US to Russia" is utterly wrong. HN is becoming a very scary, far too pro-Russia place since the past week or so now that the Russians have gotten a better handle on their propaganda. If you have doubts, you can look at my post's score which is hovering around zero, constantly being voted up and down.
Opinion in Europe is extremely anti-Russia at this point, but I see that the US media is coming back to its old habits pitting controversy for the sake of clicks.
As a result, US opinion went from overwhelmingly anti-Russia to "maybe they're not all bad I mean let's just look at what we did before oh well" in the span of a few days.
I was always there, speaking out against propaganda, maybe you can check my post history.
And I don't know what you're on, but "everybody read the same western articles and are attributing the whole dissent within Europe/US to Russia" is utterly wrong. HN is becoming a very scary, far too pro-Russia place since the past week or so now that the Russians have gotten a better handle on their propaganda. If you have doubts, you can look at my post's score which is hovering around zero, constantly being voted up and down.
Opinion in Europe is extremely anti-Russia at this point, but I see that the US media is coming back to its old habits pitting controversy for the sake of clicks.
As a result, US opinion went from overwhelmingly anti-Russia to "maybe they're not all bad I mean let's just look at what we did before oh well" in the span of a few days.
Is that what's happening to the general opinion in the US? I guess I'm in a bit of a bubble, but I don't know anyone who's decided that what Russia is doing is fine since the US has also attacked other countries.
Slowly happening but as far as I can see, it is the case. Very early after the 24th, the opinion was extremely pro Ukraine, but it's been slowly trending down, with a pro-Russia voice taking over.
Not just "because US has done worse", but anything from "it's our fault because of NATO" to "Ukraine is supposed to be Russian anyway, he's taking back what's his".
It's not the majority opinion (yet), but it's worrisome.
Not just "because US has done worse", but anything from "it's our fault because of NATO" to "Ukraine is supposed to be Russian anyway, he's taking back what's his".
It's not the majority opinion (yet), but it's worrisome.
I've heard people blame the US for the war which only makes sense insomuch as we're not appeasing Putin. It's not like anyone was forcing Ukraine into NATO. As far as I can tell the only reason they wanted to join was because they were afraid of Russia doing exactly what they're doing right now.
I guess the idea that it's our fault spreads easily when it gives people another thing to say Biden has done wrong.
As for any claim that Ukraine is Russian, if that's a thought that anyone genuinely has and not just Russian disinformation agents, then I hope they have no problem letting Europe have their American colonies back. Or turning their homes over to the American natives.
I guess the idea that it's our fault spreads easily when it gives people another thing to say Biden has done wrong.
As for any claim that Ukraine is Russian, if that's a thought that anyone genuinely has and not just Russian disinformation agents, then I hope they have no problem letting Europe have their American colonies back. Or turning their homes over to the American natives.
You are wrong.
If a nation does something that other nations do, it is completely unjustified to pretend that their actions are wrong. The international community normalizes actions through actions. You might not like the fact that some particular action is normalized but you cannot suddenly villianize a nation for doing the same that other ("our allies") nations do regularly.
If a nation does something that other nations do, it is completely unjustified to pretend that their actions are wrong. The international community normalizes actions through actions. You might not like the fact that some particular action is normalized but you cannot suddenly villianize a nation for doing the same that other ("our allies") nations do regularly.
So what you're saying is that the West should allow Russia to do whatever it likes from now on because the US invaded Iraq, and to do otherwise would be hypocritical.
Ok. If that's the case, then Russia's actions justify any action the West ever takes in the future. There are no rules, all bets are off, and all war crimes are justified henceforth. Including the use of nuclear weapons, which was normalized in 1945, and the use of biological and chemical weapons as normalized in World War 1.
You wont' complain if any nation - the US, Israel, anyone - invades a sovereign nation and slaughters civilians because that's been normalized and is now justified, correct? And nothing - absolutely nothing - is more important than not being a hypocrite, correct?
Actually, now that I think about it, since the US wasn't even the first country to invade Iraq or Afghanistan to begin with, their actions were already justified. It's not as if the US created imperialism or war, so what are people even trying to accomplish pointing out America's flaws? It's been normalized for thousands of years, what's the problem?
Ok. If that's the case, then Russia's actions justify any action the West ever takes in the future. There are no rules, all bets are off, and all war crimes are justified henceforth. Including the use of nuclear weapons, which was normalized in 1945, and the use of biological and chemical weapons as normalized in World War 1.
You wont' complain if any nation - the US, Israel, anyone - invades a sovereign nation and slaughters civilians because that's been normalized and is now justified, correct? And nothing - absolutely nothing - is more important than not being a hypocrite, correct?
Actually, now that I think about it, since the US wasn't even the first country to invade Iraq or Afghanistan to begin with, their actions were already justified. It's not as if the US created imperialism or war, so what are people even trying to accomplish pointing out America's flaws? It's been normalized for thousands of years, what's the problem?
What the hell are you talking about? Your post is extremely difficult to even parse.
Let's be clear, there are war crimes happening daily in Ukraine and there is NOTHING normalized around this. The US having done it before doesn't make it fucking normal, but it also doesn't mean the top priority now is to talk about US war crimes.
1,582 civilians killed by Russian shelling and blockade in Mariupol (Reuters): https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraines-mariupol-says-1582-ci...
Lavrov confirmed that Russia deliberately bombed a maternity hospital in Mariupol (Article with more details from the Independent): https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/russia-maternity-hospti...
These are just two random recent examples I pulled from a long list of updates. Let me know if you want more, there's a buffet of choice.
Let's be clear, there are war crimes happening daily in Ukraine and there is NOTHING normalized around this. The US having done it before doesn't make it fucking normal, but it also doesn't mean the top priority now is to talk about US war crimes.
1,582 civilians killed by Russian shelling and blockade in Mariupol (Reuters): https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraines-mariupol-says-1582-ci...
Lavrov confirmed that Russia deliberately bombed a maternity hospital in Mariupol (Article with more details from the Independent): https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/russia-maternity-hospti...
These are just two random recent examples I pulled from a long list of updates. Let me know if you want more, there's a buffet of choice.
Why not? They are enemies, not friends. We should vilify our enemies and celebrate our allies. This is the nature of the world. Sometimes you must draw a line in the sand and pick a side. It is not possible to straddle the middle and try to apply the same sets of rules to every actor; each circumstance is different and should be treated with the nuance it requires.
The thing is, if you treat all the russian people as enemies, than they will in fact all become your enemies. If some oligarchs were (secretly) opposing Putin before - then this is the way to bind them to Putin.
"It is not possible to straddle the middle and try to apply the same sets of rules to every actor"
And this would be, how justice is supposed to work. Apply the same rules to every actor. Otherwise it is not justice and you loose every credibility, when you claim to wage wars in the name of "justice". It becomes just a meaningless word and you no different from the bad guys.
"and celebrate our allies"
So hooray to the great rulers of Saudi Arabia and co. May they live long and prosper, bomb the shit out of their enemies in Yemen(370000+ deaths so far) and stone their own women to death, if they dare to speak up and disobey.
"It is not possible to straddle the middle and try to apply the same sets of rules to every actor"
And this would be, how justice is supposed to work. Apply the same rules to every actor. Otherwise it is not justice and you loose every credibility, when you claim to wage wars in the name of "justice". It becomes just a meaningless word and you no different from the bad guys.
"and celebrate our allies"
So hooray to the great rulers of Saudi Arabia and co. May they live long and prosper, bomb the shit out of their enemies in Yemen(370000+ deaths so far) and stone their own women to death, if they dare to speak up and disobey.
> if you treat all the russian people as enemies
Let's be extremely clear: Russian people are not the enemy. Very few people here in Europe think this, and those who do are mostly the xenophobic assholes who enjoy thinking anyone who isn't them is the enemy anyway.
Oligarchs are Putin's keys to power. Sanctioning them is a way to hurt Putin's power and influence, which has a chance to bring the war to an end. Not sanctioning them because "oh there's a chance maybe one of them actually doesn't like the guy" is an idiotic move.
Let's be extremely clear: Russian people are not the enemy. Very few people here in Europe think this, and those who do are mostly the xenophobic assholes who enjoy thinking anyone who isn't them is the enemy anyway.
Oligarchs are Putin's keys to power. Sanctioning them is a way to hurt Putin's power and influence, which has a chance to bring the war to an end. Not sanctioning them because "oh there's a chance maybe one of them actually doesn't like the guy" is an idiotic move.
"Not sanctioning them because "oh there's a chance maybe one of them actually doesn't like the guy" is an idiotic move. "
Given recent russian history of fights between Putin and various oligarchs - I rather think it would be a idiotic move to target them all without due process - because the chances are actually quite high, that many of them oppose Putin.
Given recent russian history of fights between Putin and various oligarchs - I rather think it would be a idiotic move to target them all without due process - because the chances are actually quite high, that many of them oppose Putin.
We're not imprisoning them, we're freezing their riches. This gets more of them to oppose Putin. And several are now having to come out publicly speaking against him.
This is how we're helping a coup d'état happen. It's a good and solid strategy. A lot is riding on this.
This is how we're helping a coup d'état happen. It's a good and solid strategy. A lot is riding on this.
"We're not imprisoning them, we're freezing their riches"
Ok, I would be somewhat fine with it, if it is only "freezing". But still not without some form of process, that shows links of them to the government, or support/benefit of the war. Because otherwise this sets a (further) dangerous precedent. There was something called, "rule of the law".
Ok, I would be somewhat fine with it, if it is only "freezing". But still not without some form of process, that shows links of them to the government, or support/benefit of the war. Because otherwise this sets a (further) dangerous precedent. There was something called, "rule of the law".
Pray tell, where is the rule of the law not being respected? Call out specific examples if this is where your problem with this lies.
But need I remind you, we are at war, with an enemy committing war crimes every day and absolutely not respecting any "rule of the law". When you're up against fair adversaries, it's right to call for a fair fight. When you're up against somebody who's getting dangerously close to getting us into a nuclear war, it's ok to take some damn shortcuts.
Fat good the "long term consequences" of not having followed proper procedures will do us if half of Europe is irradiated. As we say in France, "there are largers cats to whip". I don't care, I live in Brussels, well within the blast zone.
But need I remind you, we are at war, with an enemy committing war crimes every day and absolutely not respecting any "rule of the law". When you're up against fair adversaries, it's right to call for a fair fight. When you're up against somebody who's getting dangerously close to getting us into a nuclear war, it's ok to take some damn shortcuts.
Fat good the "long term consequences" of not having followed proper procedures will do us if half of Europe is irradiated. As we say in France, "there are largers cats to whip". I don't care, I live in Brussels, well within the blast zone.
"we are at war"
Erm, no we are not. Russia is at war with the ukraine, but not with the EU, nor the USA. So maybe do not escalate?
"where is the rule of the law not being respected"
Where is it? It is not the case btw. that there is a title called "oligarchs". What all of this means in its current shape, is targeting simply rich russian people. Now sure, chances are quite high, that they got to their wealth through crime, but law does not usually operate on cliches.
"with an enemy committing war crimes every day"
And as far as I can tell, way more horrible are being done in Yemen for example since 2014 with no one giving a shit about it.
Erm, no we are not. Russia is at war with the ukraine, but not with the EU, nor the USA. So maybe do not escalate?
"where is the rule of the law not being respected"
Where is it? It is not the case btw. that there is a title called "oligarchs". What all of this means in its current shape, is targeting simply rich russian people. Now sure, chances are quite high, that they got to their wealth through crime, but law does not usually operate on cliches.
"with an enemy committing war crimes every day"
And as far as I can tell, way more horrible are being done in Yemen for example since 2014 with no one giving a shit about it.
> Erm, no we are not
Yes, we are. Like I said upthread, we're sending aid and weapons en masse into Ukraine. Putin has put us on a shit-list of countries, and even called the sanctions a declaration of war: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60633482
It's a proxy war, but still a war, with high chances of escalation. It's also being fought online, over social networks, with Russians actively spreading propaganda on our media and networks.
I've not been drafted yet, but the likelihood is becoming higher over time. We are at war, it's just not official yet. But as far as Russia is concerned, it's not even official in Ukraine, so "official definitions" don't matter.
> And as far as I can tell, way more horrible are being done in Yemen
ctrl+f whataboutism on this page, please.
Yes, we are. Like I said upthread, we're sending aid and weapons en masse into Ukraine. Putin has put us on a shit-list of countries, and even called the sanctions a declaration of war: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60633482
It's a proxy war, but still a war, with high chances of escalation. It's also being fought online, over social networks, with Russians actively spreading propaganda on our media and networks.
I've not been drafted yet, but the likelihood is becoming higher over time. We are at war, it's just not official yet. But as far as Russia is concerned, it's not even official in Ukraine, so "official definitions" don't matter.
> And as far as I can tell, way more horrible are being done in Yemen
ctrl+f whataboutism on this page, please.
"ctrl+f whataboutism on this page, please. "
I know, I know, only good propaganda supporting your cause is allowed here by your opinion.
But can you please explain to me, why a ukrainian child is worth more, than a child in yemen? Because they are also dying right now, too and in greater numbers. Caused by "our" allies. Not only in the past - but also today.
I think we need to be doing something about both. Otherwise it is just hypocrisy.
"It's a proxy war, but still a war, with high chances of escalation."
And yes, with every fanatic statement, chances of escalation are increasing. But have you heard of something called "Mutual assured destruction"? Sowjet Union did probably way worse than russia today, but was not attacked. That's why.
"I've not been drafted yet, but the likelihood is becoming higher over time. We are at war, it's just not official yet."
And do you know that you can go there and fight today? Ukraine is welcoming volunteers. But maybe bear in mind, that unlike in CoD, you might actually die there on day one. And it likely won't be heroic. War seldom is, nor black and white, especially not if it is in part a civil war. And you might end up fighting next to actual fascists. Not (only) against them, but with them. Stepan Bandera is considered a National Hero there to many. Google him if you are curious. And then about the Regiment Asow. And then about the ukrainian law, that was targeted against the russian language way before the war. Not against russian propaganda, but against the russian language(and people). Putin is a war criminal, belonging to Den Haag - but the ukrainian side are not made up by saints either.
""official definitions" don't matter."
And unlike in your opinion, official definitions actually matter a lot, because the moment russia attacks NATO territory - ALL NATO forces will react. Not before, no matter how great the lust for war, for people beating the drums of war online.
I know, I know, only good propaganda supporting your cause is allowed here by your opinion.
But can you please explain to me, why a ukrainian child is worth more, than a child in yemen? Because they are also dying right now, too and in greater numbers. Caused by "our" allies. Not only in the past - but also today.
I think we need to be doing something about both. Otherwise it is just hypocrisy.
"It's a proxy war, but still a war, with high chances of escalation."
And yes, with every fanatic statement, chances of escalation are increasing. But have you heard of something called "Mutual assured destruction"? Sowjet Union did probably way worse than russia today, but was not attacked. That's why.
"I've not been drafted yet, but the likelihood is becoming higher over time. We are at war, it's just not official yet."
And do you know that you can go there and fight today? Ukraine is welcoming volunteers. But maybe bear in mind, that unlike in CoD, you might actually die there on day one. And it likely won't be heroic. War seldom is, nor black and white, especially not if it is in part a civil war. And you might end up fighting next to actual fascists. Not (only) against them, but with them. Stepan Bandera is considered a National Hero there to many. Google him if you are curious. And then about the Regiment Asow. And then about the ukrainian law, that was targeted against the russian language way before the war. Not against russian propaganda, but against the russian language(and people). Putin is a war criminal, belonging to Den Haag - but the ukrainian side are not made up by saints either.
""official definitions" don't matter."
And unlike in your opinion, official definitions actually matter a lot, because the moment russia attacks NATO territory - ALL NATO forces will react. Not before, no matter how great the lust for war, for people beating the drums of war online.
and the reasons given for adding them to the sanctions list are not "some form of process"? (We can certainly argue if the process is sufficient, but targeted sanctions against named individuals is not the same as just grabbing everything with a russian name on it. And yes, some people are complaining that governments actually insist on proving that things belong to sanctioned people before acting, but "some people are complaining" is not the same as policy and what actually happens)
Yeah. USA should be treated exactly like that when they annexed parts of Mexico. But global economy wasn't developed to such a degree that this would have any impact back then.
Without questioning if seizing the property of Russian billionaires is justified or not, if you believe in equity, the property of American billionaires should also be seized by the other countries for the nearly 200 000 civilian deaths in Iraq (which is much worse, but the US-led war lasted longer).
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Ira...
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Ira...
Putting aside the confiscation question, it’s morally obtuse to liken Iraqi civilian deaths, the top cause of which per that link was execution after capture by insurgent & other non-US-aligned forces, with Ukrainian deaths from indiscriminate Russian shelling of civilian neighborhoods.
"Morallly obtuse" as if that wasn't what the US was doing[0]. I guess the Red Cross centre my cousin worked in was a legitimate military target when it was hit with a US airstrike :)
Perhaps if anyone asks the Russians they can just say it was worth it[1].
Let's stop with pretending that the reason why Ukrainian deaths are different is for any other reason than because they're pale skilled Europeans with blue eyes and blonde hair. Most major media have already admitted it, governments have already applauded it in parliament, it's probably about time that HN stops pretending it's about other reasons too.
[0] https://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/iraqi...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iFYaeoE3n4
Perhaps if anyone asks the Russians they can just say it was worth it[1].
Let's stop with pretending that the reason why Ukrainian deaths are different is for any other reason than because they're pale skilled Europeans with blue eyes and blonde hair. Most major media have already admitted it, governments have already applauded it in parliament, it's probably about time that HN stops pretending it's about other reasons too.
[0] https://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/iraqi...
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iFYaeoE3n4
Humans seem to have some kind of radius around their emotional center. Personally I'm not ashamed to admit my emotional responses get weaker in response to events that spread outward from my kids, immediate family, my own town, my own country etc ... you get the idea. A bomb going off in Syria doesn't shake me as much as a bomb going off in my home town and that's not a hypothetical example. I'm sure people in Nigeria don't lose much sleep over a bomb going off in Brussels airport. Does that make them racist?
What's happening in Ukraine is a completely unprovoked attack by a nuclear power led by a madman who seems to have lost all grip on reality. The potential for escalation in to something nobody ever imagined possible is very real.
Lastly, there's also such a thing as "intent". Cynical responses will surely follow but I'm convinced that while the US made many colossal mistakes in the Middle East they never came close to having malicious drive that Russia is showing now.
What's happening in Ukraine is a completely unprovoked attack by a nuclear power led by a madman who seems to have lost all grip on reality. The potential for escalation in to something nobody ever imagined possible is very real.
Lastly, there's also such a thing as "intent". Cynical responses will surely follow but I'm convinced that while the US made many colossal mistakes in the Middle East they never came close to having malicious drive that Russia is showing now.
> What's happening in Ukraine is a completely unprovoked attack by a nuclear power led by a madman who seems to have lost all grip on reality. The potential for escalation in to something nobody ever imagined possible is very real.
Way to lose the point. Nothing on that paragraph is different from the Bush Jr. excursions into the Middle East and threats all over the world?
Not to say the entire situation is alike. It's not. But on those features it's similar.
Way to lose the point. Nothing on that paragraph is different from the Bush Jr. excursions into the Middle East and threats all over the world?
Not to say the entire situation is alike. It's not. But on those features it's similar.
Everyone knew from the start there were no WMDs so it was pretty different, yes. Sadam, Assad, taliban, ISIS - also total madmen but basically just running around with a bunch of AKs
> Nothing on that paragraph is different from the Bush Jr. excursions into the Middle East
Irak was a dictatorship which committed genocide on its own people. Even if the reasons weren't true (and they weren't but people believed the propaganda at the time) there was at least the hope that things would improve for the people. (For the Kurds, they have.)
Ukraine is a democracy. The propaganda isn't even good enough to fool anyone.
The situations are very different.
Irak was a dictatorship which committed genocide on its own people. Even if the reasons weren't true (and they weren't but people believed the propaganda at the time) there was at least the hope that things would improve for the people. (For the Kurds, they have.)
Ukraine is a democracy. The propaganda isn't even good enough to fool anyone.
The situations are very different.
The real reason why the reactions are different this time is West Europe, not Ukraine. They are fueled more by pragmatic self-interest than by moral concerns.
For a long time, West Europe sought good relations with Russia and benefited from trade. That changed when Putin attacked Ukraine. The war hit too close to home, and West European countries could no longer trust Putin's intentions. The primary reaction was a sudden increase in military spending. As a secondary reaction, West Europe gave ok to stronger sanctions that were already supported by East Europe and the US.
For a long time, West Europe sought good relations with Russia and benefited from trade. That changed when Putin attacked Ukraine. The war hit too close to home, and West European countries could no longer trust Putin's intentions. The primary reaction was a sudden increase in military spending. As a secondary reaction, West Europe gave ok to stronger sanctions that were already supported by East Europe and the US.
The US funded and trained state death squads in Iraq, which engaged in anti-Sunni sectarian violence. We know from leaks that this violence was broadly tolerated, and even encouraged. There are cases of suspected insurgents being handed over to them to be disappeared. The blood is just as much on the hands of the US government as Ukraine's is on the Russian government.
By the Iraq War Bodycount's dataset, the civilian kill count of US forces alone, without including the Iraqi government forces, almost matches that of the sectarian terrorists who explicitly sought out to kill civilians. From occupation to leaving in 2011, it is only about 20% less. That is plainly unacceptable and criminal in any context.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/25/iraq-t...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/24/iraq-war-logs-...
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2010-03-10/oba...
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2011-05-23/us-...
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/iraqs-new-death-sq...
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
By the Iraq War Bodycount's dataset, the civilian kill count of US forces alone, without including the Iraqi government forces, almost matches that of the sectarian terrorists who explicitly sought out to kill civilians. From occupation to leaving in 2011, it is only about 20% less. That is plainly unacceptable and criminal in any context.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/25/iraq-t...
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/24/iraq-war-logs-...
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2010-03-10/oba...
https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2011-05-23/us-...
https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/iraqs-new-death-sq...
https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/
_3u10(2)
zakki(1)
I seem to recall the US' indiscriminate shelling of Iraqi civilian neighborhoods broadcast with patriotic pomp and pride on the news not all that long ago.
I even saw some brown people getting murdered by US forces on TV in my local McDonalds at 4 in the day one time.
I even saw some brown people getting murdered by US forces on TV in my local McDonalds at 4 in the day one time.
That doesn't follow.
It's perfectly consistent to believe in equity and believe that neither the Russian nor the American billionaires' assets should be seized.
You can't just handwave away one side and say "regardless of whether you believe it's justified for group A, you have to believe it's justified for group B".
It's perfectly consistent to believe in equity and believe that neither the Russian nor the American billionaires' assets should be seized.
You can't just handwave away one side and say "regardless of whether you believe it's justified for group A, you have to believe it's justified for group B".
What a fantastic idea, billionaires are a symptom of our unequal society.
We could have a ceiling of say 50 million quid and you get to say you won capitalism, and everyone throws you a bug party.
We could have a ceiling of say 50 million quid and you get to say you won capitalism, and everyone throws you a bug party.
Taxes should be doing this.
Progressive taxation should be uncapped, when you pass some threshold of "this is more than you need in the lifetimes of you, your partner, your next-of-kin to all live a life of unparalleled luxury" then it should escalate up to 99%, and if you pass some really obscene threshold equivalent to a small country's GDP then let it go to 100%.
Wealth taxation should be effective. No individual needs to own land area equivalent to a city, or housing and art assets of a disproportionate nature.
And on the flipside... income taxation can be lowered if we're more effectively taxing wealth and the obscene earnings. Instead we could encourage far more social mobility and the growing of a far larger middle-class. Tax low earners and those without wealth nothing at all, and tax the middle-class only a little.
This opinion won't resonate on HN, but modern society has become so effective at extracting money from people and enriching a few, and rent-seeking as a business model so prevalent that it does feel we're at risk of putting future generations in a serfdom role that had taken hundreds of years to get out of.
This is all distinct from what's happening in Ukraine and with sanctions, this is just an opinion about what's happening in the World at large.
Progressive taxation should be uncapped, when you pass some threshold of "this is more than you need in the lifetimes of you, your partner, your next-of-kin to all live a life of unparalleled luxury" then it should escalate up to 99%, and if you pass some really obscene threshold equivalent to a small country's GDP then let it go to 100%.
Wealth taxation should be effective. No individual needs to own land area equivalent to a city, or housing and art assets of a disproportionate nature.
And on the flipside... income taxation can be lowered if we're more effectively taxing wealth and the obscene earnings. Instead we could encourage far more social mobility and the growing of a far larger middle-class. Tax low earners and those without wealth nothing at all, and tax the middle-class only a little.
This opinion won't resonate on HN, but modern society has become so effective at extracting money from people and enriching a few, and rent-seeking as a business model so prevalent that it does feel we're at risk of putting future generations in a serfdom role that had taken hundreds of years to get out of.
This is all distinct from what's happening in Ukraine and with sanctions, this is just an opinion about what's happening in the World at large.
In the US, low earners already pay no income tax. In 2020, 61% of Americans paid no federal income tax.
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/18/61percent-of-americans-paid-...
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/18/61percent-of-americans-paid-...
> when you pass some threshold [...] then it should escalate up to 99%
Why stop at 100%? Assuming it is okay to put a cap on how much wealth and income a person can have, it should be sensible to have marginal tax rate higher than 100% of the taxable income.
You earn more than 100M in a year? Please pay 200M until your wealth is back to sensible levels. Alternatively, you can reduce your taxable income by making charitable donations willingly – same thing as far as balance is concerned, but you might feel differently about it.
Why stop at 100%? Assuming it is okay to put a cap on how much wealth and income a person can have, it should be sensible to have marginal tax rate higher than 100% of the taxable income.
You earn more than 100M in a year? Please pay 200M until your wealth is back to sensible levels. Alternatively, you can reduce your taxable income by making charitable donations willingly – same thing as far as balance is concerned, but you might feel differently about it.
If leaving the country wouldn't be an issue, a formally established rite of "financial lynching" could be an interesting tweak to society: have a regularly occurring vote about who is the least popular rich/powerful person and the "winner" gets a very generous stipend but is stripped of all assets and contracts, like starting with new name (and data, to curb stockpiling of blackmail material for the reboot). Much safer for everyone involved than allowing imbalance to grow until it's eventually cleared out in a revolution.
so we force productive people to retire early?
How do you expect to have Google, Microsoft, Apple Tesla, SpaceX? if their founders were to retire once they have 50m
How do you expect to have Google, Microsoft, Apple Tesla, SpaceX? if their founders were to retire once they have 50m
No one is forcing them to retire, I for one would be interested to see what these productive people would come up with when they shift their goal from making a great profit to making a great social impact.
> No one is forcing them to retire
> shift their goal from making a great profit to making a great social impact
who says they will shift?
> shift their goal from making a great profit to making a great social impact
who says they will shift?
I'd be willing to bet that at least some of them would. Instinctively I would also guess that it would lead to a better outcome on average, but as I'm less certain about that which is why I would like to see it tested out.
No one did. They are free to do as they please.
Great profit and great social impact are not mutually exclusive
True, though I do think great profit is not possible with _maximal_ social impact (unless hoarding cash serves to restrict total consumption and thus limit climate impact).
Then just look at Elon Musk's and Bill Gates' projects. One is weaning us off hydrocarbons, the other is curing disease.
mandmandam(2)
I think this assumes that only Certain Blessed Special People could create Google, Microsoft, Apple, Tesla, SpaceX, and so on. I think there are a lot of people out there who could start and/or run one of these. The population of entrepreneurs is limited by the number of potential commercializable ideas, not by the number of people who can do it. If people just stopped at $50M, it would open things up for even more entrepreneurs to make shots like those companies. Currently, a small number of already-rich people are using up all the economic oxygen in the room trying to get richer.
Put the cap on assets. They should be able to make all the money in the world as long as they spend it too.
Exactly. We tell Elon Musk "hey buddy, you did amazing with Paypal, but that's enough, we're forcing you to retire."
Why 50 million? Why millions? Think comrade
This would be a tu quoque fallacy, and when speaking of "Russia vs America", you can also call it whataboutism[1]. America's invasion of Iraq was bad, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine is bad, but only one is happening right now.
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
[1]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism
This is becoming ridiculous
I always thought: Wow they seized his yacht; I never thought that these people had a bunch of these billion dollar things floating around... So they seized one of his many, many boats.
I have to agree with everybody else in this thread, not a big fan of blaming the people of Russia for what their dictator does; even if they are in his so called "inner circle". Perhaps these people can pressure Putin to change his mind, but he doesn't look like a humble man looking for advice.
I have to agree with everybody else in this thread, not a big fan of blaming the people of Russia for what their dictator does; even if they are in his so called "inner circle". Perhaps these people can pressure Putin to change his mind, but he doesn't look like a humble man looking for advice.
US and Russia unites in cheering for Russian oligarchs being robbed (ordinary Russians, especially the war-supporting pseudo proletariat, never really valued wealth or private property and would happily watch oligarchs parting with their toys; and the US citizens think something productive is being done). The rich themselves would suffer next to no drop in their quality of life. They probably got rich by exploiting Russian resources, but most likely denounce Putin and the war anyway.
It is a weird development, but all things considered not the worst thing that's happening.
It is a weird development, but all things considered not the worst thing that's happening.
> but all things considered not the worst thing that's happening.
I agree, not a big thing, and I certainly think people with that kind of wealth know more about hiding money than the rest of us will ever know, and this war will probably not affect their wealth too much. They probably all knew in advance and shorted some Russian stock on the London stock exchange - making a killing. I do find it a bit strange that we "cheer on" this seizure of property based on nationality though; but most probably think it's ok since they are so obscenely rich.
I agree, not a big thing, and I certainly think people with that kind of wealth know more about hiding money than the rest of us will ever know, and this war will probably not affect their wealth too much. They probably all knew in advance and shorted some Russian stock on the London stock exchange - making a killing. I do find it a bit strange that we "cheer on" this seizure of property based on nationality though; but most probably think it's ok since they are so obscenely rich.
Yeah. I am semi-worried about the world turning on regular Russians like myself after that. We are so much easier to deal with than oligarchs with their multiple citizenships and property overseas; for us it's freeze one bank account or card and done.
If I am forced to return and work in Russian IT (seeing as I would also not be able to get paid by overseas customers due to sanctions), we both know which government's war this would support.
If I am forced to return and work in Russian IT (seeing as I would also not be able to get paid by overseas customers due to sanctions), we both know which government's war this would support.
Well then, don't act surprised when all Western companies and assets get nationalized.
Russia already announced they are doing so for any company that shuts down operations (even temporarily) in Russia that have 25% or more foreign control last week.
This talk now is in response to Russia acting in that manner first.
This talk now is in response to Russia acting in that manner first.
Should have probably mentioned "Russian Oligarchs" in the title, didn't see anything about Jeff Bezos (an oligarch by definition, he even has his own MSM thingie) and the like.
Where was all this reaction in 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia?!
Russia is TO THIS FUCKING DAY in Georgia and nobody cares about it.
Georgia and Ukraine are just 1,167 km = 725 miles away but the West only plays world super police when something near to the EU border happens or if the country has a lot of Oil.
I am really sick of the politics of both sides. If the US would have done something in 2008, than Russia wouldn't even dare to touch Ukraine.
Russia is TO THIS FUCKING DAY in Georgia and nobody cares about it.
Georgia and Ukraine are just 1,167 km = 725 miles away but the West only plays world super police when something near to the EU border happens or if the country has a lot of Oil.
I am really sick of the politics of both sides. If the US would have done something in 2008, than Russia wouldn't even dare to touch Ukraine.
Shouldn't you be happy there is at least a reaction now?
I could say the exact same of Turkey and Cyprus. Being sick of the politics "on both sides" only serves to lessen the CURRENT reaction. It's not useful.
You want payback for Georgia? I want payback for a lot of other things that didn't get their deserved political reaction. NOW is better than "let's just not do it cause we didn't do it last time".
I could say the exact same of Turkey and Cyprus. Being sick of the politics "on both sides" only serves to lessen the CURRENT reaction. It's not useful.
You want payback for Georgia? I want payback for a lot of other things that didn't get their deserved political reaction. NOW is better than "let's just not do it cause we didn't do it last time".
I'm terribly sorry that it took Georgia and Chechnya for the west to finally get of their asses. I guess third time's the charm.
Poland understood what was happening from the first invasion. But western governments have their perception impaired by distance or something. Maybe yoi can't hear bombs that well from under all of that Russian oil.
Only the vision of Russian tanks on NATO border and two million of refugees entering EU got through to them.
Poland understood what was happening from the first invasion. But western governments have their perception impaired by distance or something. Maybe yoi can't hear bombs that well from under all of that Russian oil.
Only the vision of Russian tanks on NATO border and two million of refugees entering EU got through to them.
[deleted]
On the other hand, the actual due process part happen when the actual authorities of those countries, follow the laws of their country, and seize those assets because of sanctions.