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?
You chuds are the ones constantly bleating about the rules based order, yet you never follow the rules you preach. Literally everything you moan about in your comment is something that the burger empire constantly does around the world. So, the question is why should other countries respect your rules while you prance around and play world police.
I don’t completely disagree with that. A lot of US foreign policy is the same type of naked exercise of lawless power that’s all of a sudden a big emergency when someone else does it to our guys, yes.
That said, I wasn’t the one who started “bleating about the rules” in this instance. My whole point was, it’s a little weird to start shooting, bombing, and raping your neighbors, run away with whatever property you happen to have inside your borders, and then say the West “stole” the frozen sanction-money, when you can still up until the present day have it back any time you stop breaking international law in a big hundreds-of-thousands-of-dead-people way.
It’s weird because it’s a false narrative divorced from reality. It was NATO that continued expanding towards Russia until eventually Russia said enough is enough. NATO has been invading and destroying countries for decades since the end of USSR. Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria are just a few examples of that. So, why would anybody expect Russia to tolerate an aggressive and hostile military alliance on its borders?
Furthermore, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Finally, section IX of Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty states the following:
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs. Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
I can partially agree with the context you want to add to the situation, yes. That doesn’t change the fact the Russia is in a very literal sense shooting and bombing Ukrainian cities right now. Their explanation for why they’re doing it doesn’t mean it’s all of a sudden not what they’re doing.
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?
You chuds are the ones constantly bleating about the rules based order, yet you never follow the rules you preach. Literally everything you moan about in your comment is something that the burger empire constantly does around the world. So, the question is why should other countries respect your rules while you prance around and play world police.
I don’t completely disagree with that. A lot of US foreign policy is the same type of naked exercise of lawless power that’s all of a sudden a big emergency when someone else does it to our guys, yes.
That said, I wasn’t the one who started “bleating about the rules” in this instance. My whole point was, it’s a little weird to start shooting, bombing, and raping your neighbors, run away with whatever property you happen to have inside your borders, and then say the West “stole” the frozen sanction-money, when you can still up until the present day have it back any time you stop breaking international law in a big hundreds-of-thousands-of-dead-people way.
It’s weird because it’s a false narrative divorced from reality. It was NATO that continued expanding towards Russia until eventually Russia said enough is enough. NATO has been invading and destroying countries for decades since the end of USSR. Yugoslavia, Libya, and Syria are just a few examples of that. So, why would anybody expect Russia to tolerate an aggressive and hostile military alliance on its borders?
Furthermore, Russia tried to resolve this situation diplomatically since 2008 with Minsk agreements that western leaders now openly admit were a delaying tactic by the west.
Finally, section IX of Ukraine’s 1990 Declaration of State Sovereignty states the following:
The Ukrainian SSR solemnly declares its intention of becoming a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs and adheres to three nuclear free principles: to accept, to produce and to purchase no nuclear weapons.
The whole legal basis for the existence of state of Ukraine is predicated on Ukraine staying neutral and not joining military blocs. Ukraine broke the very basis of this agreement when it tried to join NATO.
I can partially agree with the context you want to add to the situation, yes. That doesn’t change the fact the Russia is in a very literal sense shooting and bombing Ukrainian cities right now. Their explanation for why they’re doing it doesn’t mean it’s all of a sudden not what they’re doing.
Surely we can agree on that much?