269

EU seeks to raise 15 billion euros for Ukraine from Russia's frozen assets (www.hindustantimes.com)

submitted 11 months ago by YoBuckStopsHere@lemmy.world to c/world@lemmy.world

40 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 41 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] nao@sh.itjust.works 27 points 11 months ago

Sounds good, is there any reason why their assets should not be used to compensate for the damages they are causing?

[-] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 12 points 11 months ago

I'm guessing because a lot of them aren't clearly marked "Russian state war chest part 12", but rather things like "Gazprom reserve fund" or "Oligarchs discretionary fund" which would muddy the border between state and private assets.

State assets might be fine to seize to cover state costs, but the legality of seizing the others' might by grayer.

[-] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 8 points 11 months ago

I'd think that's why they haven't been tapped this far. They're holding out to see if they can hand the Ukrainians something when this shit show is over.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

To what extent would that a be a larger question for like Switzerland and other Russian/dirty-money-heavy shelter jurisdictions?

[-] chitak166@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

is there any reason why their assets should not be used to compensate for the damages they are causing?

Losers who would also be responsible for the failure that was Reconstruction.

[-] PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee 19 points 11 months ago

I'm honestly shocked they haven't been doing it already, not like any good faith intention can be had at this point of resuming business with Moscow in the wake of things save for a MASSIVE change in the Russian geopolitical psyche.

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 14 points 11 months ago

Seize it all.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 points 11 months ago

Lets build a wall and let the Russians pay for it.

[+] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -20 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Europe ~~should be~~ is technically footing the lion's share of this deal but individual NATO members in Europe have [still] not universally met their 2%/GDP/annum committments rsspectively

For this reason, I believe more can be done ~~on their side of the ocean~~ in Brussels before we allow the suggestion that Washington DC internal politics should have any relevance as to whether Ukraine receives enough and sufficiently consistent provision of such funding than has been portrayed to be the case by Ukraine (via Zelensky) itself.

Consequently, I would ask the tangential but prescient question:

Why is the US even necessary for this convo in light of that and outside of the targeted provision of superior millitary equipment that only they can specifically address?

Edit: congratualtions, you've downvoted facts. That makes you smart, well-done ;)

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 11 points 11 months ago

I got one for ya no one's touched yet!

America gets to ship her old(ish) gear and arms to Ukraine and see it battle tested in a massive land war vs. our arch enemy. And keep in mind, we're talking about materiel that's already paid for and the replacements are already in the budget.

We're getting to explore new battlefield tactics, see our enemy play his cards, gather insane amounts of intelligence, etc. It's a no-brainer for NATO.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Oh, don't get me wrong, America is totally triple if not quadruple dipping and leveraging the shit out of this whole situation in the way only they can, and yes, they are def playing 6-D chess here, but that doesn't technically invalidate anything I've said thus far.

There's still a $-value to all that and the fact remains that several if not many individual NATO members have not met and continue to fail to meet their obligations.

I believe I can paraphrase someone as having argued "well, 10 EU nations ARE, so checkmate!" and its like, how many members of the EU ARE NOT and why is that allowed to consistently stand, unaddressed?

And how exactly is it unreasonable to use that as a benchmark to guide how much further Europe gives to close that gap before we all throw our hands up and resign ourselves to the notion that if the US House stifles the effort, why do we really give a fuck? Europe can just bridge the gap and if the US can get its shit together, than thats just gravy (sufficiently nice but not necessary)

[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm with you, and for once in my life even Trump, in saying that NATO is not paying what they already agreed to pay for membership. This is fact, not opinion. Here is NATO's very own source on the subject.

Trump's asinine threat of pulling out of NATO is heinously stupid and damaging bluster, but FFS, are we to shut up and foot the bill for everything? (Yeah, we do, this time at least.)

But you have me thinking! Despite all we American's have to gain, is this war not on Europe's doorstep? Does Europe not have more to gain from defeating Russia? Do they intend to pussyfoot around because the threat of Russian aggression is closer to home? Just let us foot the bill, because we're safe between two oceans?

In the end, I'm all in for Ukraine. All in. And I loathe Russians. Yeah, I said it. I grew up under the constant threat of those assholes nuking the entire planet. And after a century+ of nonstop international fuckery, it's the Russian people, not the government.

Hell, for what it's worth I fly a 4' Ukrainian flag at my camp. I wear Ukranian patches on my outdoor gear. Let anyone ask me why.

Sorry you're catching all the downvotes. This should be a place where we can honestly kick ideas around, especially unpopular ideas.

[-] sudneo@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago

I think the answer is fairly simpler, from my point of view: because NATO is not a military alliance among peers. It is the military arm of the American empire. This allows US to essentially manage the foreign policies of most of NATO members, but it also comes with the cost of being the one paying the bills. Empires are expensive.

I will skip commenting the rest because, well, you are entitled to your own opinion and you can loathe who you want. I would perhaps simply suggest to look at your own country with an outside perspective and realize that if everyone used your same logic, the world will be a more hateful place than already is.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I wish Lemmy had a feature to allow the target of downvote-brigading to challenge downvoters and give them an option to collectively settle on an adjoined rebuke or shut the fuck up and recieve their downvotes in aggregate they bad-faith collectively tried to impose in turn.

Would get a lot of button-happy idiots to go pound sand

Its just soooooooo damn easy

[-] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 10 points 11 months ago

US has made security everywhere it's job, so they care about stability in Europe as much as Europe does. Degrading Russian capacity means less military investment into Europe is necessary to keep things stable. Plus, the US is mostly giving stuff that they were throwing away anyway, so the cost is much much less than the sticker price commonly sited.

[-] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago

Because countering Russia has been the US' primary offer in all deals and bargaining for the last 50 years?

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That should have been a more universal position, why had Europe been screwing around with Russia all this time till now? Why was Germany so stupid to be relying on Russia in terms of energy dependance, why anybody rely on Russia for anything when they've proven themselves to be unreliable, violent, slimeballs full of stupid Chinese riddle-threats and nothing actually interesting or productive to say, like ever?

[-] Brainsploosh@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Because countering Russia has been the US' primary offer in all deals and bargaining for the last 50 years

[-] 768@sh.itjust.works 7 points 11 months ago

Why is the US even necessary for this convo

Cold War got more complicated, economies got more complicated, US defense is somewhat materially dependent on various regions, including Europe.

Also, NATO exists and depends on US engagement.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I just mean, theres all this drama about what if the Congressional Republicans screw Ukraine, and its like, the EU's GDP is way higher and the US is always complaining about them shirking their 2% committments they all agreed to. Why not get everyone paid up towards this effort, especially since its in their own side yard?

If the US fails to get it done, Europe and the rest of NATO need to step up and do the right thing. It shouldn't matter if the US gets bogged down in its own ridiculous internal politics, Europe needs to stop playing poor and open their very dusty checkbooks, including fucking Hungary and Turkey (but i'm not that naïve)

Downvote away, thoughful downvoters

[-] Skua@kbin.social 7 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

The USA's GDP is larger than the EU's, but the EU has given more to Ukraine than America has. That's without including contributions by individual nations in the EU or contributions by non-EU European countries like Norway and the UK either.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Im just saying that Europe needs to make it clearif it really gets problematic on the American side that they will step in as a backup. I get the drama and suspense helps bolster the morale of all involved and motivates increased participation/giving but its a little disheartening that we have to play these games for every stakeholder to get their house in order and start making gurantees to bolster the faith and morale of the Ukrainians themselves

BTW, you side-stepped the suggestion on individual NATO members not meeting their agreed-upon commitment of 2%(GDP) per annum, can you speak more specifically to that allegation?

[-] Skua@kbin.social 6 points 11 months ago

And I'm saying that Europe is already doing that. Europe is not the backup because most of Ukraine's aid is coming from Europe. America is a very large contributor and therefore important, and it has the biggest military industry to turn towards production, but to say that Europe "needs to stop playing poor and open their very dusty checkbooks" when Europe is already significantly outspending Ukraine's other supporters only makes sense if you've just never looked at the actual numbers

I didn't side-step the bit about individual domestic military spending commitments because I'm not looking to argue that part. 10 European NATO nations are meeting it this year. The others should do what they said they'd do, but it wouldn't actually help Ukraine unless we're all sending actual troops in.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -5 points 11 months ago

They should just pledge and give the shortfall and then everyone's happy.

I get you don't want to discuss that because its a problem with regard to your thesis. Just because Europe is giving more comparitively, doesn't conflict with the reality that they are still not meeting their NATO funding commitments on the basis of 2%/GDP.

Now maybe the US or at least the US government doesn't really care about that anr chalk it up to a cost of doing business as the world's policeman and dominant hegemonic actor, but let's not get in a pissing match or dick-measuring contest about who's ponying up more when certain parties aren't even meeting the baseline level of that which they freely and voluntarily commited to (even if thats on the part of EU as a bloc as opposed to individual members)

[-] Skua@kbin.social 5 points 11 months ago

let’s not get in a pissing match or dick-measuring contest about who’s ponying up more

literally your entire presence in this thread is dick-measuring about how europe isn't doing enough

I get you don’t want to discuss that because its a problem with regard to your thesis

No, it isn't. My point is that Europe is giving more to Ukraine and that while the European NATO members should meet the 2% commitment, doing so would not actually help Ukraine. If you want to have a general discussion about Europe's defence capacity then sure, have fun somewhere, but I had figured that since you commented on an article you were commenting about the article

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Well, I think thats a bit disingenuous. I am commenting more about how ridiculously beholden the viabillity of this entire effort (supporting Ukraine's war defense) seems to be on the participation of the US (in terms of financial backing) and its vulnerabillity to the US' internal political machinations when Europe should be underwriting and guranteeing this for the most part and anything the US provides should probably seen more as the "sprinkles" or a cherry on top.

Zelensky has certainly portrayed it as such (US blocking more funding == existential threat to Ukraine), and I'm not criticizing him for putting on that show because ultimately I think it will help in many ways but I sincerly hope their troops (to the extent they are in any way aware of what is happening on the larger world-level) are advised that they are going to be fine and morale is not affected by the soap opera aspect to all of this

Edit: its so goddamn sad the West needs a damn fairtyale to entertain ourselves sufficiently for us to drop $1/€ in the hat😤

[-] PugJesus@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

Because world security is in the US's best interests. "Two of the world's biggest wheat producers are now at war, driving up food prices because one of them is a dipshit authoritarian who thought that invading other countries like some interwar fascist twat was viable" is not something that the US likes to hear - at least not anyone here with a ounce of fucking sense.

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

And the EU's since they are geographically far more implicated in the dangers of Russia's frontier and hegemony expanding and all the more directly exposed to the collateral damage of their failure to ensure the success of Ukraine's defensive effort

[-] Skua@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

Who said the US is necessary for it?

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

That seems to be the part of the soap opera we're all in. Congressional repubs are threatening the abillity to get Ukraine funded/provisioned, unless that's just Biden's admin's rhetoric and they're going to leave the House and/or Courts to enforce clawing back anything they say fuck it and just wire/send over aha

Edit: seriously grow up downvoter lol, double dare you to open a new account and downvote twice cuz you know...your downvotes speak louder than you or I ever could aha #schizo

Edit: here, I'll downvote myself so we're on the same side finally (lol) and give you your stupid wish. Feel better, nothing in the world has changed and my words still dominate yours but yea, you got da widdle downvote [Milton from Office Space voice] ?! Not mad btw, high and superior logically as always, have a good night livin'ur best life lol

[-] Skua@kbin.social 4 points 11 months ago

I haven't downvoted any of your comments. I'm on kbin, so you can check for yourself here https://kbin.social/m/world@lemmy.world/t/696813/EU-seeks-to-raise-15-billion-euros-for-Ukraine-from/comment/4073577/votes/down

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Wasn't worried about you but thats interesting, I'll check 'er out when I'm feeling less mortified ;)

Edit: i don't know how to post my pics but I actually did upvote you prior to all this so you def weren't a suspect :)

Who did?

[-] Skua@kbin.social 3 points 11 months ago

Ahh fair enough, misinterpretation of your edit on my part then. I'm afraid whoever did downvote you isn't on kbin, so you won't see anything

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

Ah k so its localized to the instance aha. In that case ai am less mortified but still will check out later lol

I'm a weirdo, no worriez

[-] Skua@kbin.social 2 points 11 months ago

What does this have to do with the article?

[-] cheese_greater@lemmy.world -3 points 11 months ago

Ngl, it might be a tad tangential but nonetheless, the genie is out of the bottle so I'd prefer responses that genuinely engage with the threads they otherwise serve to non-substantively interrogate. I mean that in the politest most uneasy way :)

[-] mathemachristian@lemm.ee -3 points 11 months ago

Because they instigated the euromaidan?

this post was submitted on 11 Dec 2023

269 points (99.3% liked)

World News

38972 readers

2239 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Rule 1: posts have the following requirements:
- Post news articles only
- Video links are NOT articles and will be removed.
- Title must match the article headline
- Not United States Internal News
- Recent (Past 30 Days)
- Screenshots/links to other social media sites (Twitter/X/Facebook/Youtube/reddit, etc.) are explicitly forbidden, as are link shorteners.
Rule 2: Do not copy the entire article into your post. The key points in 1-2 paragraphs is allowed (even encouraged!), but large segments of articles posted in the body will result in the post being removed. If you have to stop and think "Is this fair use?", it probably isn't. Archive links, especially the ones created on link submission, are absolutely allowed but those that avoid paywalls are not.
Rule 3: Opinions articles, or Articles based on misinformation/propaganda may be removed. Sources that have a Low or Very Low factual reporting rating or MBFC Credibility Rating may be removed.
Rule 4: Posts or comments that are homophobic, transphobic, racist, sexist, anti-religious, or ableist will be removed. “Ironic” prejudice is just prejudiced.
Posts and comments must abide by the lemmy.world terms of service UPDATED AS OF 10/19
Rule 5: Keep it civil. It's OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It's NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

Rule 6: Memes, spam, other low effort posting, reposts, misinformation, advocating violence, off-topic, trolling, offensive, regarding the moderators or meta in content may be removed at any time.
Rule 7: We didn't USED to need a rule about how many posts one could make in a day, then someone posted NINETEEN articles in a single day. Not comments, FULL ARTICLES. If you're posting more than say, 10 or so, consider going outside and touching grass. We reserve the right to limit over-posting so a single user does not dominate the front page.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.