Russia and economic war by the west

Sujoy wrote:There  was a famous German banker - Alfred Herrhausen, Chairman of Deutsche Bank - who advocated Eurasian development. By doing so, he went against Anglo-American policy that Eurasia is an enemy. What happened to Herrhausen? Assassinated by Operation Gladio's network of terrorists.

I never heard of this man named Alfred Herrhausen; I looked him up an I found these informative articles:


https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2017/07/09/assassination-as-us-foreign-policy/

https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2019/04/28/operation-gladio-the-secret-cia-program-to-control-europe/

https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2014/11/09/the-history-and-purpose-of-false-flag-operations/

https://stuartbramhall.wordpress.com/2018/06/21/false-flag-terrorism-101/

Kremlin should request Moscow's HSE to start close statistical analysis and monitoring of CPIs in NATO countries to detect government induced fakes of inflation rates under spiking consumer prices.
As well, long term prices for Russian wheat exports and other commodities should be settled by Mosbirzha on a demand and supply basis, and not according to Chicago.

sepheronx wrote:You are aware Russia makes semiconductors, right?

A tank doesn't need a 14nm intel processor.

Their 180nm and down to 65nm is more than enough for producing what they need for military equipment.

Russias military been rather self sufficient for most part in making semiconductors and microbolometers for the equipment for quite a few years now.

Also, nothing that China wouldn't supply. As we speak, US is trying to sanction Chinese tech companies, this should benefit Russia as a customer

Whoever if anyone, takes over this on top of the existing Ukraine debts is stuffed. One thing for certain, it won't be Russia (who still has the $4B case running in the UK High Court).

Black Mag. E Cheese
@Deadl_E_Cheese
· 10h

Ukraine's tax revenue in 2021: $42bn
Biden's Lend-Lease: $33bn
Ukraine's real interest rate: NEVER less than 4%
Annual 30yr repayment at 4-7-10% interest: $1.8bn / $2.6bn / $3.5bn

Note how even the UK couldn't get better than 2% over 50 years (post WW2 Lend Lease debt consolidation).

Ukraine is SO fucking fucked.

JohninMK wrote:Whoever if anyone, takes over this on top of the existing Ukraine debts is stuffed. One thing for certain, it won't be Russia (who still has the $4B case running in the UK High Court).

Black Mag. E Cheese
@Deadl_E_Cheese
· 10h

Ukraine's tax revenue in 2021: $42bn
Biden's Lend-Lease: $33bn
Ukraine's real interest rate: NEVER less than 4%
Annual 30yr repayment at 4-7-10% interest: $1.8bn / $2.6bn / $3.5bn

Note how even the UK couldn't get better than 2% over 50 years (post WW2 Lend Lease debt consolidation).

Ukraine is SO fucking fucked.

What Ukraine? when Ukraine ceases to exist - there wil be no debtor anymore Kherson/Lugansk/Donetsk are first candidates ... I hope rest will follow

Ruble surges against the dollar, surpasses the Brazilian real as the best performing annual currency, says Bloomberg, 12.05.2022.

Sputnik - the Russian Ruble resumed its advance against the US dollar on Wednesday (11) while the Moscow Stock Exchange reopened after two days of national holidays. It is now up 11 percentage points against the U.S. dollar since the start of the year, outpacing the Real's advance of 9 percent, making it the biggest gainer among the 31 major currencies tracked by Bloomberg. The rate abroad increased even more, about 12%, according to the agency's data.

Bloomberg points out that the irony of the ruble advance during the conflict in Ukraine is noteworthy, especially since other countries that have imposed capital control recently have not achieved the same results. Turkey and Argentina tried similar measures when they faced a huge amount of sellers in recent years, with disastrous consequences for the lira and peso, which reached all-time lows and never recovered.

The ruble has taken the place of the Real as the best performing currency in the world, as monetary restrictions weighing on the Brazilian currency are being loosened. After increasing the benchmark rate by 1,075 basis points since the beginning of 2021, the authorities of the Latin American nation have signaled a slowdown in the pace of growth of the real, as well as their intention to end the cycle soon.

Yandex Translate from Portuguese

https://www.brasil247.com/economia/rublo-avanca-sobre-o-dolar-e-supera-o-real-brasileiro-como-moeda-com-melhor-desempenho-anual-diz-bloomberg?amp

GunshipDemocracy wrote:What Ukraine? when Ukraine ceases to exist - there wil be no debtor anymore  Kherson/Lugansk/Donetsk are first candidates ... I hope rest will follow

This is not how it works, when a country cease to exist (or split) the debt and assets abroad are kept
by the new country or in case of split, this is divided in equal parts or something else per agreement.

The problem start with deciding what equal parts means in each specific situation: equal parts per
number of territorial parts; per land size; human density; economic activity; based on who generated/received
most of the money; and go on. It have a high tendency to end up in international tribunals, at least partially.

The division subject of the debts/assets often take several years (or decades) to be fully addressed, ever when
split is consensual like in the Czechoslovakia case. The USSR case was simple because Russia took over the whole
debt alone. The former republics were supposed to re-pay Russia, but as far I'm aware they never re-payed what
also became a Russian pressuring tool.

In regards to the hypothesis related with the current Ukrainian controversy, and assuming «unconditional surrender»
it would be fairly simple: optionally change the capital to Lviv;[1] split Ukraine in 3 or 4 parts; dump the whole debt
in Galicia. Done.

The assets could be divided as Russia please too but the Ukranian assets abroad should be so irrelevant at this point,
this is likely to become more of a burden. They would likely be freezed/seized etc. and so dump them to Galicia too.

That said, Russia should not allow Poland to annex Galicia before they end the thing otherwise it will be impossible to
just dump the debt in there. Poland would not accept that.

[1] always one of the parts is considered the «old country» and naturally it would be the one retaining Kiev, switching
the capital to Galicia would make it clear this is desired that part to become the former Ukraine. preferentially retaining
the name (Ukraine), symbols, etc.

IMO, central Ukraine should be renamed to «Kievan Rus» (or something) to get rid of this whole «Ukraine» burden.

rigoletto wrote:

GunshipDemocracy wrote:What Ukraine? when Ukraine ceases to exist - there wil be no debtor anymore  Kherson/Lugansk/Donetsk are first candidates ... I hope rest will follow

This is not how it works, when a country cease to exist (or split) the debt and assets abroad are kept
by the new country or in case of split, this is divided in equal parts or something else per agreement.

The problem start with deciding what equal parts means in each specific situation: equal parts per
number of territorial parts; per land size; human density; economic activity; based on who generated/received
most of the money; and go on. It have a high tendency to end up in international tribunals, at least partially.

The division subject of the debts/assets often take several years (or decades) to be fully addressed, ever when
split is consensual like in the Czechoslovakia case. The USSR case was simple because Russia took over the whole
debt alone. The former republics were supposed to re-pay Russia, but as far I'm aware they never re-payed what
also became a Russian pressuring tool.

In regards to the hypothesis related with the current Ukrainian controversy, and assuming «unconditional surrender»
it would be fairly simple: optionally change the capital to Lviv;[1] split Ukraine in 3 or 4 parts; dump the whole debt
in Galicia. Done.

The assets could be divided as Russia please too but the Ukranian assets abroad should be so irrelevant at this point,
this is likely to become more of a burden. They would likely be freezed/seized etc. and so dump them to Galicia too.

That said, Russia should not allow Poland to annex Galicia before they end the thing otherwise it will be impossible to
just dump the debt in there. Poland would not accept that.

[1] always one of the parts is considered the «old country» and naturally it would be the one retaining Kiev, switching
the capital to Galicia would make it clear this is desired that part to become the former Ukraine. preferentially retaining
the name (Ukraine), symbols, etc.

IMO, central Ukraine should be renamed to «Kievan Rus» (or something) to get rid of this whole «Ukraine» burden.

I'm not sure how the West will manage to convince Russia to pay arms debts that were used by Nazis against "Ukrainian" Russians.
Russia will rightly tell them to suck dick.
Likewise with the other frauds done by the junta.
People think the World Bank, IMF etc are UN/international organisations with binding universal legal recognition. They aren't. They are simply organs of Washington imperialism. Dollar Hegemony. Which is very much waning. Hence Washington's evil tricks in the Ukraine.

Firebird wrote:I'm not sure how the West will manage to convince Russia to pay arms debts that were used by Nazis against "Ukrainian" Russians.
Russia will rightly tell them to suck dick.
Likewise with the other frauds done by the junta.
People think the World Bank, IMF etc are UN/international organisations with binding universal legal recognition. They aren't. They are simply organs of Washington imperialism. Dollar Hegemony. Which is very much waning. Hence Washington's evil tricks in the Ukraine.

This is not about what the West/Russia want or not, this is how the International Law works for ages. Russia (and Putin personally) is a legalist country and she act strictly accordly with it.

They could try to bring the «odious debt» theory over it but this is the kind of situation that open a can of worms. Far cheaper and less dangerous (in a long run) to not allow Poland to take Galicia before the situation is addressed.

Btw, the UNSC resolutions fundamented on the «Chapter VII» of the UN Charter are binding[1] and this is exactly why they are so rare, ever when there are consensus.

If the target doesn't implement the resolution they will have to impose it by force (military), and it cost a lot of money (who will pay?) and probably lives, and the countries whose the dead soldiers are from would need to explain internally WTF they sent people to die somewhere where they have absolutely no relation or what-so-ever.

So, in practice these resolutions just appear when the things are really out of control, or someone have interests in there and it not work against the interest of another permanent member.

[EDIT]

Similar situation happen with decisions of the «International Court of Justice». If the parts recognize its jurisdiction the decisions are binding but the only way to execute them by force is through the UNSC (which fall in the same problem explained before) but it doesn't means they don't have other means to force the execution of their decisions. E.g.

An ICJ decision order A to pay B a specific amount, but A refuse to pay. The ICJ doesn't have power to do forced execution, and the UNSC will not issue a binding resolution in favor of B; however decades later C is ordered to pay A some amount, but the ICJ (in the same decision) tell C to execute the decision in favor of B instead of A.

Situations similar to this example happened more than once. Most countries execute the ICJ decisions otherwise would make no sense to recognize its jurisdiction in first palce.

Countries don't die, doesn't matter what happens of they will receive the money if now or in 100 years (with interest), but they will.


[1] this is exactly why and how the Kuwait war ended. The UNSC defined where the borders were/are.

rigoletto wrote:

Firebird wrote:I'm not sure how the West will manage to convince Russia to pay arms debts that were used by Nazis against "Ukrainian" Russians.
Russia will rightly tell them to suck dick.
Likewise with the other frauds done by the junta.
People think the World Bank, IMF etc are UN/international organisations with binding universal legal recognition. They aren't. They are simply organs of Washington imperialism. Dollar Hegemony. Which is very much waning. Hence Washington's evil tricks in the Ukraine.

This is not about what the West/Russia want or not, this is how the International Law works for ages. Russia (and Putin personally) is a legalist country and she act strictly accordly with it.

They could try to bring the «odious debt» theory over it but this is the kind of situation that open a can of worms. Far cheaper and less dangerous (in a long run) to not allow Poland to take Galicia before the situation is addressed.

Btw, the UNSC resolutions fundamented on the «Chapter VII» of the UN Charter are binding[1] and this is exactly why they are so rare, ever when there are consensus.

If the target doesn't implement the resolution they will have to impose it by force (military), and it cost a lot of money (who will pay?) and probably lives, and the countries whose the dead soldiers are from would need to explain internally WTF they sent people to die somewhere where they have absolutely no relation or what-so-ever.

So, in practice these resolutions just appear when the things are really out of control, or someone have interests in there and it not work against the interest of another permanent member.

[EDIT]

Similar situation happen with decisions of the «International Court of Justice». If the parts recognize its jurisdiction the decisions are binding but the only way to execute them by force is through the UNSC (which fall in the same problem explained before) but it doesn't means they don't have other means to force the execution of their decisions. E.g.

An ICJ decision order A to pay B a specific amount, but A refuse to pay. The ICJ doesn't have power to do forced execution, and the UNSC will not issue a binding resolution in favor of B; however decades later C is ordered to pay A some amount, but the ICJ (in the same decision) tell C to execute the decision in favor of B instead of A.

Situations similar to this example happened more than once. Most countries execute the ICJ decisions otherwise would make no sense to recognize its jurisdiction in first palce.

Countries don't die, doesn't matter what happens of they will receive the money if now or in 100 years (with interest), but they will.


[1] this is exactly why and how the Kuwait war ended. The UNSC defined where the borders were/are.

International law? I´m from the west so I never heard about that. I only know the rules-based international order.

rigoletto wrote:This is not about what the West/Russia want or not, this is how the International Law works for ages. Russia (and Putin personally) is a legalist country and she act strictly accordly with it.

If the debt was illegitimate, as in created by a regime controlled by the same foreign power that "putsched" it into place to commit egregious crimes against all possible national and international laws, it may not be recognised. In practical terms, what is there for Russia to lose if they or the subsequent republics don't pay?

But as you say, it may be better to allow Galicia to have the great honour of being heir to Ukraine and paying the debt

LMFS wrote:

rigoletto wrote:This is not about what the West/Russia want or not, this is how the International Law works for ages. Russia (and Putin personally) is a legalist country and she act strictly accordly with it.

If the debt was illegitimate, as in created by a regime controlled by the same foreign power that "putsched" it into place to commit egregious crimes against all possible national and international laws, it may not be recognised. In practical terms, what is there for Russia to lose if they or the subsequent republics don't pay?

But as you say, it may be better to allow Galicia to have the great honour of being heir to Ukraine and paying the debt

What you describing in here is exactly the definition of «odious debt» which doesn't exist in International Law but in its theories - think academic/doctrine level.

Supposedly, Russia will absorve these republics at some point of the future except of Galicia, and doing so their debt would come together in the package. So, the earlier Russia get rid of it the better.

Also, most of Ukrainian debt should be with NATO members, Poland is a NATO member hence they can solve it among their pairs.

sepheronx wrote:Debt will be ignored regardless after the events. The republics that are formed into a new state or whatever will not be inclined to pay the debt.  Russia can state that the Ukrainian state that is formed later can "default" because it will be sanctioned.

Can you assure in 100 years these republics (or Russia) would not be in a position of creditors? Because, as I said earlier, at some point they may end up not being paid anything because, for some reason, the debtor paid to someone else who is a Ukraine creditor today, or not paying at all because it is one of the creditors today. This is totally fine legal-wise at international level.

In fact, once they become part of Russia and Russia negate to pay this debt, it would be very easy to justify the frozen Russian assets, now seized to pay the debt they are negating to pay.

The west could ever say they frozen the assets in advanced as guarantee, because they knew the debt would not be paid... Still quite abusive action but far from the situation today.

These decisions are not, and should not be made based on the situation of today or tomorrow, or a day after tomorrow, but with the consequences in a very long run.

In fact, if you want to know my personal opinion, this is likely to be the main reason of why Poland is so eager to annex Galicia, to avoid falling in this debt trap.[1] It is not like Russia will just release Galicia in 500 years but more likely in a few months, or in the worse scenario a couple years. Nothing Poland can't wait.

[1] remember the USA lend-leasing scheme coming too.

Russia has sanctioned 31 companies which were either seized by the West, or were involved in seizures of Russian corporate assets.
This includes EUROPOL GAZ, the owner of the Yamal gas pipeline on Polish soil, which is partly owned by Polish gas operator PGNiG.
https://www.rt.com/business/555379-russia-stops-gas-transit-poland/

sepheronx wrote:That isn't how it works nor has it ever worked that way.

I'm unsure where you get your facts from but it isn't facts.  Sorry.

I have a master degree in International Public Law and International Relations, I've studied this subject in depth in the past.

This is very specific subject called «State Responsibility and International Liability». Unfortunately, I'm not involved with Public International Law for more than a decade otherwise I could point you to several ICJ/ICC decisions,[1] and other factual and provable situations where all of that happened already - in away or another, but you can do some research yourself on the ICJ/ICC jurisprudence (if you have a lot of patience), but also some bible sized books on this subject.

The reason you never saw it is because the outcome just happen years or decades after the original fact, what means no one operating in the general or semi-specialized public is paying any attention anymore.

For instance, you probably don't know about the decisions related with the illegal bombing in Serbia. I don't remember the details but the countries who were answering for it managed to prove their military assets were under effective control of NATO,[2] which is an actual[3] international organization and so it have «international personality»,[4] and then the legal responsibility fell on NATO and not on its members, and the fact NATO is not a country make it hard to actually punish it.

I can ever tell the name of the Portugal's lawyer: «Eduado Correia Bapstista». His PhD Thesis became a book on the subject (State Responsibility and International Liability, not the Serbian controversy), and this a hell of a good one, but unfortunately just available in Portuguese.

[1] I don't have the links at hand anymore, the books are stored, and I'm not in a mood to look for them, sorry.
[2] there is something called «effective control» in International Law.[2a]
[2a] it basically state if the assets that belong to one country is under «effective control» of another country (or International Organization), the country the assets belong to have no responsibility over its acts. The one who have effective control is the one with the responsibility - this also ring the bell about the NATO commanders in Azov/Ukraine.
[3] there are tons of requirements to be recognized as one, most of called international organizations are not.
[4] just countries and international organizations have.

sepheronx wrote:Legality is worth the paper it's written on. That debt will not transfer and the previous holders go bust.

You will find out for yourself as your Portugal laws will not transfer to Russia.

Essentially EU elligally froze Russian assets too and broke countless international laws.  They aren't being punished for it.

Like I said, won't happen. And we will stick it there.  Your law degree is useless when it comes to war.

If it was the case, UK would need to pay back India trillions in theft.  Hasn't happened and never will

As I said, you can look for your self at actual decisions on worldwide recognized (including the ones Russia is part, UNSC decisions for instance) specialized sources in regards to International Law. If you don't want, this is with you.

I have no idea where and how the Portuguese Law got in this thread, unless you think lawyers working in international courts have some kind of "International Citizenship". They are lawyers of some country, and countries with long diplomatic tradition like Portugal have their own specialized lawyers or have it builtin in their diplomatic teams - or use both depending on the specific scenario. This is the country who decide if someone is can or cannot defend it.

Why do you think the subject of the frozen Russian assets is Fait Accompli? This story doesn't ever started yet, you should be very short sighted to be thinking on this way. This is a years/decades long subject and far bigger than what it seems, and I'm quite sure Russia left the money to be taken on purpose. Including the exact amount that was frozen.

If that was never happened RUB would not be in the position it is now since there would have no real infliction point. Russia could not sell the world the USD/EUR are worthless, because their assets were never frozen/seized.

There would have no compelling reason to Russia demand the payment in RUB. The point of demanding RUB for payments is not really to punish the «unfriendly countries» but to make the RUB a worldwide first class currency - what would be hard to happen if the assets were not frozen in first place.

Now the next best thing is this assets actually being seized. There are (apparently) 500 billion of west investment in Russia, some extreme profitable like Rosneft shares, a large part of Sakhalin project shares (which Russia doesn't have control since they don't have the majority of the shares). Russia is likely praying to have these assets seized.

India was a COLONY, and under the International Law there were no theft since UK (in simple terms) owned it, or do you think India don't know International Law? In fact India has deep tradition on it, China doesn't and use foreign lawyers, btw.

You could have brought a more interesting example, Congo which was never a Belgium colony but personal property of the King... which completely changes the nature of the thing but yet there is nothing to pay anyway.

The fact my realm of specialization is Law and International Relations already indicate why I'm not in some battle at this moment, for the same reason you don't see a «military special operation» happening inside the UN/ICJ/ICC building - in fact this is not ever possible since the they could just be moved elsewhere in a second.

The thing is, International Law is not made or designed for «people». People doesn't have international personality and so they have no business in this area, but are just subjects of it under the body of their countries. It doesn't matter if the people of some country think this or that, the maximum they can accomplish is getting their country to work for the objective they want, which mostly means have the country pretending to be working on that objective since they (people) have absolutely no idea of how these things work and hardly can ever formulate a objective that make any sense at a given point.

[EDIT]

Also, the main source of International Law is the VIOLATION of it, and what is happening now is the definition of a few things that were in the gray zone, and now are being imposed as legal, but also new (or not so new) things like the assets being frozen.

For instance, USA/NATO invaded Iraq using a preemptive strike narrative. They didn't invented it, preemptive strike was present in the doctrine for ages.[1] At that point it was deemed as illegal but the magic thing is: nobody said anything (other than minor irrelevant protests). Then again in Afghanistan. Cutting it short, now Russia who is sitting at the other side of the spectrum (what is important) did the same, attacked Ukraine preemptively which change the situation, and preemptive strikes (or attacks) should now be seen as legal - we will probably see then more often from now and on.

The same principle is valid to the assets that were frozen. They have done it with Venezuela, Iran etc. with no actual reaction, what put this practice in the grey legal zone. They did with Russia, but different of the others Russia is reacting actively, and so (in the way International Law works) this is quite unlikely this practice will be deemed as legal. And I don't think the west will try to do it again, because now will be a clear (proven as) illegal act and they are likely to have their assets frozen everywhere.

[1] the discussion of the theory was about the legality, since this is similar to self-defence and state of necessity, in fact one step before state of necessity.