My brother I offered to debate you on factual terms and you said no I wanna construct narratives. I literally told you, that’s going to be a waste of time because it’s just us shouting narratives at each other.
I can point out the broken planes and broken heating systems. You can point out the shut-down steel plant and Germany’s industrial sector dropping by 2% in 2023. None of it means anything. It’s just little data points. But you chose this silly rhetorical environment, not me.
Oh, also, I’m interested in your explanation for this: When everything kicked off, Russia simply kept any airliners it had leased, effectively stealing them from the West. That’s a big part of why they’re fucked on maintenance, because any goodwill they might have had to get some help keeping them in the air is permanently gone. The West is still examining the legal options for confiscating frozen Russian sanction-money and using it to fund the war, but it hasn’t done so yet. Why not? How would you compare and contrast these two actions (assuming that you acknowledge them both as reality)?
So my point in contrasting those two situation is that the vast majority of that money is still sitting there, frozen, and actually “stealing” it is still considered a big deal 2 years in, with a lot of debate about when and how to go about it through legal means and whether to do it at all. Whereas with the planes, it was just right away “yoink they’re ours now.”
One of my other interlocutors said, more or less, that of course they can’t take the sanctions money completely, because it would be such a blatant theft that no one would ever trust the West again. Which, I don’t think that’s completely a wrong take on it, but then… what about the planes? How does that fit into that? That was my point.
The West stole 300 billion dollars and imposed illegal “sanctions”, after which Russia decided not to return a few planes; quite a difference in scale. And yes, “freezing” money is still theft – if you steal something and refuse to return it, “I promise I won’t do anything with it” is not a valid excuse
So if someone else breaks the law first (sanctions), it’s permissible to ignore the law in your dealings with them going forward (keeping the planes). Yes?
(Edit: I don’t agree with that statement in general; I’m asking whether you agree with that statement, because it sounds like that’s what you’re saying.)
“Permissible”? Not according to international law, but if your adversaries completely ignore the law and receive no punishment for doing so, why should you continue to follow it? (Worth noting that Russia kept NordStream open despite the sanctions because they wanted to honour contracts with European countries, despite the latter’s hostility)
Okay. Using that logic, if Russia completely ignores the law by invading neighboring countries, tampering in our elections, and assassinating residents of our countries, why should we continue to be bound by law in how we deal with them?
“Hey bro I’m gonna go shoot up my neighbor’s house.”
“Um… I’m gonna stop fixing your lawnmower for you that I manufactured for you.”
“COLLECTIVE PUNISHMENT my kids will suffer”
Ah the false equivalency of the unreasonable metaphor. What a useful technique to avoid your rhetorical failings.
My brother I offered to debate you on factual terms and you said no I wanna construct narratives. I literally told you, that’s going to be a waste of time because it’s just us shouting narratives at each other.
I can point out the broken planes and broken heating systems. You can point out the shut-down steel plant and Germany’s industrial sector dropping by 2% in 2023. None of it means anything. It’s just little data points. But you chose this silly rhetorical environment, not me.
Oh, also, I’m interested in your explanation for this: When everything kicked off, Russia simply kept any airliners it had leased, effectively stealing them from the West. That’s a big part of why they’re fucked on maintenance, because any goodwill they might have had to get some help keeping them in the air is permanently gone. The West is still examining the legal options for confiscating frozen Russian sanction-money and using it to fund the war, but it hasn’t done so yet. Why not? How would you compare and contrast these two actions (assuming that you acknowledge them both as reality)?
you mean like the 300 billion dollars the US effectively stole from Russia?
300 billion is the worldwide total, not the US total.
So my point in contrasting those two situation is that the vast majority of that money is still sitting there, frozen, and actually “stealing” it is still considered a big deal 2 years in, with a lot of debate about when and how to go about it through legal means and whether to do it at all. Whereas with the planes, it was just right away “yoink they’re ours now.”
One of my other interlocutors said, more or less, that of course they can’t take the sanctions money completely, because it would be such a blatant theft that no one would ever trust the West again. Which, I don’t think that’s completely a wrong take on it, but then… what about the planes? How does that fit into that? That was my point.
The West stole 300 billion dollars and imposed illegal “sanctions”, after which Russia decided not to return a few planes; quite a difference in scale. And yes, “freezing” money is still theft – if you steal something and refuse to return it, “I promise I won’t do anything with it” is not a valid excuse
So if someone else breaks the law first (sanctions), it’s permissible to ignore the law in your dealings with them going forward (keeping the planes). Yes?
(Edit: I don’t agree with that statement in general; I’m asking whether you agree with that statement, because it sounds like that’s what you’re saying.)
“Permissible”? Not according to international law, but if your adversaries completely ignore the law and receive no punishment for doing so, why should you continue to follow it? (Worth noting that Russia kept NordStream open despite the sanctions because they wanted to honour contracts with European countries, despite the latter’s hostility)
Okay. Using that logic, if Russia completely ignores the law by invading neighboring countries, tampering in our elections, and assassinating residents of our countries, why should we continue to be bound by law in how we deal with them?