4 ms·

Not really Trump-specific is it, given Europe seized a ton of Russian assets. Maybe they just realized how easy that was and that nobody is going to war over i

by 0x3f 6mo ago

Not really Trump-specific is it, given Europe seized a ton of Russian assets. Maybe they just realized how easy that was and that nobody is going to war over it.

OgsyedIE 6mo ago
Exactly this. There were thousands of warnings that the western order conducting arbitrary seizure of treaty-protected deposits held by the outgroup was always a slippery slope to everybody getting hurt, right back to confiscating insured Cypriot bank deposits a decade and a half ago. But we live in a world where it is considered poor form to expect history qualifications in elected office, so this kind of crash, followed by the long descent, is baked in.
- JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
  > arbitrary seizure of treaty-protected deposits One, Russia’s stuff hasn’t been seized. Europe tried. But, in true form, failed to get its act together. Two, is the argument really that Trump would be constrained by precedent if Europe and the U.S. got into a situation where seizing the former’s gold comes on the table?
- pjc50 6mo ago
  > insured Cypriot bank deposits They were only insured up to something like 100kEuro, and it was values above that amount that got "bailed in" when the banks failed.
patrickmcnamara 6mo ago
> given Europe seized a ton of Russian assets Those assets are frozen, not seized.
- 0x3f 6mo ago
  To me frozen and seized are roughly interchangeable and mean, minimally, a temporary capture of control of an asset. Although maybe there's some strict legal difference I'm not aware of, I'm not sure there's much practical difference from the Russian PoV. Confiscation would be e.g. definitively taking control and disposing of it, the proceeds going in to the general funds of the relevant country.
  - patrickmcnamara 6mo ago
    The big difference is that the assets are given back when they stop invading other another country.
aktenlage 6mo ago
Freezing assets is simple. Seizing them is a huge pain. The EU has a hard time agreeing how to do it and who takes the liability for the Russian claims.
- 0x3f 6mo ago
  The EU has a hard time agreeing how to do anything, but the net effect for Russia seems about the same either way. If the 'freezing' lasts forever, what is the practical difference from the Russian perspective?
  - inglor_cz 6mo ago
    Unless Putin's scientists really discover a way to keep him alive forever, Russia will likely one day have a different leader and a different administration, which may be more amenable to diplomacy. It sounds optimistic, but after Stalin came Khruschev, a much more "normal" person. Though it is true he didn't last even a decade. But there was a lot of political thaw in between, and some of this thaw survived.
    - 0x3f 6mo ago
      Stalin to Kruschev was in a very different context. I don't see any way that Russia's next leader is someone cuddlier, unless through some forcing event.
      - inglor_cz 6mo ago
        Contexts are never quite the same. And instead of "cuddlier", I would simply say "more realistic". It is quite obvious that Russia miscalculated heavily, and someone who wasn't part of the small team that decided to go in, and thus whose face is not at stake, may be more amenable to declaring "OK, our goals have been basically met, let us solve the rest at the negotiation table". From what I get out of my Russian and Russia-located acquaintances, people are growing tired of this nonsense. Not yet rebellious (though some of the recent actions of the government, like messing with the civilian Internet to the point of unusability, plus mass culling of cows in Siberia, have certainly increased the total level of anger), but dead tired. There is political space to conclude this war, and the reason why it isn't happening is personal.
potatototoo99 6mo ago
Europe didn't seize them, the EU and US froze them, and the dividends of those assets in the EU are being seized. There's a big difference, the US actually seizing any country's gold would be much more serious.
u8080 6mo ago
Indeed, my stocks are still "frozen" by EuroClear and I can't use it - but somehow if you call it "not seizing" it is trustworthy behavior?
- ivell 6mo ago
  And if you can't trade your stocks when the company is in a downward spiral, you lose actual money. I doubt if this gets compensated.

by 0x3f 6mo ago

Not really Trump-specific is it, given Europe seized a ton of Russian assets. Maybe they just realized how easy that was and that nobody is going to war over it.

OgsyedIE 6mo ago

Exactly this. There were thousands of warnings that the western order conducting arbitrary seizure of treaty-protected deposits held by the outgroup was always a slippery slope to everybody getting hurt, right back to confiscating insured Cypriot bank deposits a decade and a half ago. But we live in a world where it is considered poor form to expect history qualifications in elected office, so this kind of crash, followed by the long descent, is baked in.

JumpCrisscross 6mo ago
> arbitrary seizure of treaty-protected deposits One, Russia’s stuff hasn’t been seized. Europe tried. But, in true form, failed to get its act together. Two, is the argument really that Trump would be constrained by precedent if Europe and the U.S. got into a situation where seizing the former’s gold comes on the table?
pjc50 6mo ago
> insured Cypriot bank deposits They were only insured up to something like 100kEuro, and it was values above that amount that got "bailed in" when the banks failed.

patrickmcnamara 6mo ago

> given Europe seized a ton of Russian assets Those assets are frozen, not seized.

0x3f 6mo ago
To me frozen and seized are roughly interchangeable and mean, minimally, a temporary capture of control of an asset. Although maybe there's some strict legal difference I'm not aware of, I'm not sure there's much practical difference from the Russian PoV. Confiscation would be e.g. definitively taking control and disposing of it, the proceeds going in to the general funds of the relevant country.
- patrickmcnamara 6mo ago
  The big difference is that the assets are given back when they stop invading other another country.

aktenlage 6mo ago

Freezing assets is simple. Seizing them is a huge pain. The EU has a hard time agreeing how to do it and who takes the liability for the Russian claims.

0x3f 6mo ago
The EU has a hard time agreeing how to do anything, but the net effect for Russia seems about the same either way. If the 'freezing' lasts forever, what is the practical difference from the Russian perspective?
- inglor_cz 6mo ago
  Unless Putin's scientists really discover a way to keep him alive forever, Russia will likely one day have a different leader and a different administration, which may be more amenable to diplomacy. It sounds optimistic, but after Stalin came Khruschev, a much more "normal" person. Though it is true he didn't last even a decade. But there was a lot of political thaw in between, and some of this thaw survived.
  - 0x3f 6mo ago
    Stalin to Kruschev was in a very different context. I don't see any way that Russia's next leader is someone cuddlier, unless through some forcing event.
    - inglor_cz 6mo ago
      Contexts are never quite the same. And instead of "cuddlier", I would simply say "more realistic". It is quite obvious that Russia miscalculated heavily, and someone who wasn't part of the small team that decided to go in, and thus whose face is not at stake, may be more amenable to declaring "OK, our goals have been basically met, let us solve the rest at the negotiation table". From what I get out of my Russian and Russia-located acquaintances, people are growing tired of this nonsense. Not yet rebellious (though some of the recent actions of the government, like messing with the civilian Internet to the point of unusability, plus mass culling of cows in Siberia, have certainly increased the total level of anger), but dead tired. There is political space to conclude this war, and the reason why it isn't happening is personal.

potatototoo99 6mo ago

Europe didn't seize them, the EU and US froze them, and the dividends of those assets in the EU are being seized. There's a big difference, the US actually seizing any country's gold would be much more serious.

u8080 6mo ago

Indeed, my stocks are still "frozen" by EuroClear and I can't use it - but somehow if you call it "not seizing" it is trustworthy behavior?

ivell 6mo ago
And if you can't trade your stocks when the company is in a downward spiral, you lose actual money. I doubt if this gets compensated.