Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)







raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
5,558
Wiltshire
Ouch. Brutal and 💯 correct.

Ben Wallace is one Tory who I do actually admire. Bravo.


"“Scholz’s behaviour has showed that as far as the security of Europe goes he is the wrong man, in the wrong job at the wrong time.”

Mr Wallace added: “Time and time again Germany has been last to help Ukraine. At every stage they have had to be pushed or embarrassed into doing anything. That isn’t leadership that is followship"

Tbh I struggle with contradictions about Germany: e.g.
- they won't supply long range missiles (like those the UK and France have supplied) but they are the second biggest provider of military aid to Ukraine after the US.
- some of their ministers have been consistently bullish about support for Ukraine, whereas Schulz has been weaker
- I can't figure out if these contradictions are planned or just show lack of a strategic position
 


peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
11,319
Tbh I struggle with contradictions about Germany: e.g.
- they won't supply long range missiles (like those the UK and France have supplied) but they are the second biggest provider of military aid to Ukraine after the US.
- some of their ministers have been consistently bullish about support for Ukraine, whereas Schulz has been weaker
- I can't figure out if these contradictions are planned or just show lack of a strategic position
I genuinely believe Scholz is terrified of Putin and that causes him to self deter.(which Putin senses as weakness and escalates further)

Finland a nation of 5m with a massive border with Russia has said they will place no limits or restrictions on what Ukraine does with its supplied weaponry as it fights this fascist genocide.

As Landsbergis cites, can you imagine N Korea or Iran telling the Russians what they can and can't do with the weapons they give? It's utter nonsense.

Scholz right now is the second biggest threat to European security. Ben Wallace is spot on, the wrong man in the wrong job at the wrong time.
 










Sirnormangall

Well-known member
Sep 21, 2017
2,962
I saw reports on CNN earlier that Transnistria has “asked for help” due to increasing pressure from Moldova. Circa 500k Russian speaking civilians, protected by1500 Russian troops in a small strip of land on the Ukrainian border with Moldova. Hard to see currently how Putin could easily intervene on the ground there, but nonetheless an unhelpful (though predictable) development.
 


Sirnormangall

Well-known member
Sep 21, 2017
2,962
Navaltny funeral in Moscow tomorrow. Will be interesting to see what if any public show of support for him takes place. No doubt tightly controlled by the authorities.
 




The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,409
West is BEST
Navaltny funeral in Moscow tomorrow. Will be interesting to see what if any public show of support for him takes place. No doubt tightly controlled by the authorities.

Putin will have eyes on. A few “arrests” in the days following I should imagine .
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,284
We can't use the money, as that would ve illegal:

"whether they could legally seize more than $300 billion in Russian central bank assets stashed in Western nations:"

Surely all legalities go out the window when it comes to legalities and Russia. That is purely an excuse, with the main issue being we don't collectively have the balls. They've invaded another county, committing war crimes and more.

It is bloody madness that legalities are even being mentioned. The reason the money gets used is due to Putin and his mates making a very silly decision to invade. It isn't a accident ffs. 🫤
we have a legal system based on the rule of law, we dont change law or apply it differently because we dont like someone or they are out of favour. like, say, Russia. seizing funds is one thing, if we were to start stealing their money we'd be no better than them.
 
Last edited:


Shropshire Seagull

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2004
8,496
Telford
Anyone else been watching "Russia's wars" series on TV. Starts off way back with Peter the Great and works all the way up to Putin and Ukraine. Some good history in there, worth a watch.
 




brighton_dave

Well-known member
Apr 13, 2016
422
we have a legal system based on the rule of law, we dont change law or apply it differently because we dont like someone or they are out of favour. like, say, Russia. seizing funds is one thing, if we were to start stealing their money we'd be no better than them.
Taking Russias money to allow Ukraine to take their country back, and rebuild what Russia has destroyed.
We are, and would continue to be far better than them.
If I were to suggest using their money to fund weapons, to be used to create atrocities within Russia itself, (murder, rape etc) I'd agree, but I'm not.
Give 🇺🇦 what they need to be what they were before Crimea was illegally seized.
What we've done over the last 2 years clearly has not worked, and it is time to up Ante with the inhumane b*stards.
Putting it very simply, if someone puts a brick through my window, they are liable to pay to put it back to the original state. I don't see Putin offering to do that.
 


peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
11,319
we have a legal system based on the rule of law, we dont change law or apply it differently because we dont like someone or they are out of favour. like, say, Russia. seizing funds is one thing, if we were to start stealing their money we'd be no better than them.
I do not agree at all.

We are not stealing their money for do so would be to keep it ourselves.

Russia has caused more than 300B worth of damage and killed tens of thousands of innocent people in its genocidal war of imperial conquest. A war not of Ukraine choosing but in which they are forced to fight to try and survive.

Diverting Russian frozen assets to partially pay for the unprovoked damage they have caused seems entirely fair and reasonable and their will be some form of mechanism, even if a fudge that will deem it legal.

Would you apply same rules to Nazi gold?

Imagine if a crazed lunatic who follows no laws, had deposited 400k in a bank, then broke into your house, killed some family members, burned down the upstairs, said they were confiscating your downstairs and keeping you hostage against your will.

Would it be unethical to seize the 400k and transfer it to you if there is a legal mechanism?

Or should they get it back and you be left to deal with the consequences?
 


beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,284
I do not agree at all.

We are not stealing their money for do so would be to keep it ourselves.

Russia has caused more than 300B worth of damage and killed tens of thousands of innocent people in its genocidal war of imperial conquest. A war not of Ukraine choosing but in which they are forced to fight to try and survive.

Diverting Russian frozen assets to partially pay for the unprovoked damage they have caused seems entirely fair and reasonable and their will be some form of mechanism, even if a fudge that will deem it legal.

Would you apply same rules to Nazi gold?

Imagine if a crazed lunatic who follows no laws, had deposited 400k in a bank, then broke into your house, killed some family members, burned down the upstairs, said they were confiscating your downstairs and keeping you hostage against your will.

Would it be unethical to seize the 400k and transfer it to you if there is a legal mechanism?
you go through a proper process with established international agreement. you dont just dip into their accounts without a legally sound basis.
Nazi gold was stolen wasn't it? so it gets returned to the orginal owner. yes, it would be unethical and illegal* to seize the crazed lunatic's money, you want some law for perpetrators to have their money seized in certain conditions. otherwise you end up with all sorts of people having assets seized and stolen by the state beacuse they did unrelated bad things. rule of law is a foundation of the western liberal democracies, not summary justice.

* there is law on proceeds of crime that might apply, aimed at confiscating money from criminal activity.
 
Last edited:




raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
5,558
Wiltshire
I genuinely believe Scholz is terrified of Putin and that causes him to self deter.(which Putin senses as weakness and escalates further)

Finland a nation of 5m with a massive border with Russia has said they will place no limits or restrictions on what Ukraine does with its supplied weaponry as it fights this fascist genocide.

As Landsbergis cites, can you imagine N Korea or Iran telling the Russians what they can and can't do with the weapons they give? It's utter nonsense.

Scholz right now is the second biggest threat to European security. Ben Wallace is spot on, the wrong man in the wrong job at the wrong time.
Yes that must be it about Scholz...much more to do with personal fear rather than electioneering issues.
 


raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
5,558
Wiltshire
Navaltny funeral in Moscow tomorrow. Will be interesting to see what if any public show of support for him takes place. No doubt tightly controlled by the authorities.
As per BBC, hundreds of mourners have turned up...plus hundreds of police of course. One mourner quoted as saying:
" What's the matter with the authorities... do they think we are starting a revolution here?"
 


peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
11,319
you go through a proper process with established international agreement. you dont just dip into their accounts without a legally sound basis.
Nazi gold was stolen wasn't it? so it gets returned to the orginal owner. yes, it would be unethical and illegal to seize the crazed lunatic's money, you want some law for perpetrators to have their money seized in certain conditions. otherwise you end up with all sorts of people having assets seized and stolen by the state beacuse they did unrelated bad things. rule of law is a foundation of the western liberal democracies, not summary justice.
There will be a mechanism that gives legal covering. They won't just dip into accounts.

I honestly think you couldn't be more wrong on this. With greatest respect to you.

Consequence free imperialism, destruction and mass murder should not be facilitated.

You are dealing with a sociopath who follows no rules except one, exploit any weakness.

What Putin is doing now is not not only destroying a country to subjugate it, but trying to smash the global rules based order and install his own version of "might is right" multi polar lawlessness as the new rules order.

Not only is it ethically right to make him pay for his damage to his victim using Russian money (much of which is stolen from the State by Putin and cronies), it also serves the dual purpose of starving Russia a bit as it seeks its global paradigm shift to lawlessness and destruction of the rules based order.

This is a fight the west simply cannot afford to lose and nor should they be forced to pay for his actions.

They are out to destroy west, along with Ukraine and yet we worry if we're being unfair or not dotting every i in making him pay financially for the destruction he has caused.

Find a legal mechanism to make Putin pay for his destruction?

Or give Putin 300B, so he can spend it on further destruction including the west rules based order and we pay for his destruction?
 
Last edited:






beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,284
There will be a mechanism that gives legal covering. They won't just dip into accounts.
if there is mechanisms then it's a moot discussion and that can be done. the fact that nothing like that has happened and experts cite no legal way to do so, or looking for one, indicates there is not. international and national laws say we can impose santions and freeze assets, and have done so.

Not only is it ethically right to make him pay for his damage to his victim using Russian money (much of which is stolen from the State by Putin and cronies), it also serves the dual purpose of starving Russia a bit as it seeks its global paradigm shift to lawlessness and destruction of the rules based order.
see right there is the problem. who's assets are they, Putin's, the Russian State's, the Russian population's misappropriated assets? we take some money to pay reparations for the war Ukraine, that takes away from the Russian people. maybe we say they are complicit, they deserve it, either way starts to get sketchy.

i hope there will be reparations, done properly, ideally from any assets Putin has direct control over. however i'm mindful that if we take that route, a future Russian government cant recover them for their people. ees complicated.
 




Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here