Russian invasion of Ukraine

argyle said:
Click to expand...


What legal basis is there for seizing any of this? Seriously, is this some new version of the Defence of the Realm Act that's passed me by?

I'm not concerned here with the rights and wrongs of seizing this stuff, but what's the legal basis for all this? And what distinguishes a Putin "crony" from any other Russian businessman? Are their assets being seized because of a decision by the Russian State to invade, not this country, not a country we are bound by treaty, but Ukraine, how does that work?

So Chelsea is being sold before it can be seized, is that so? How come that's a thing? On what grounds was it going to be seized? What legislation covers such a seizure? What crime has been committed that makes such a seizure lawful?

There's a lot of heat around this, but very little light....




Before the knownothings pile in, I don't give a fuck about Abramovich, but I would like to know what legislation is being used here.
 
Last edited:
The perfect fumble said:
What legal basis is there for seizing any of this? Seriously, is this some new version of the Defence of the Realm Act that's passed me by?

I'm not concerned here with the rights and wrongs of seizing this stuff, but what's the legal basis for all this? And what distinguishes a Putin "crony" for any other Russian businessman?

So Chelsea is being sold before it was seized is it? What legislation covers such a seizure? What crime has been committed that makes such a seizure lawful?

There's a lot of heat around this, but very little light....

Click to expand...

The people of Ukraine will think he's a ****, much like the people of the UK do.
 
Vester said:
From my point of view, they dont see EU as an existential threat for them today. If EU countries would up their defense budgets by a large percentage that could certainly change in the future, but today Natos military strength is completely dependent on USA. Nato is basically just an alliance of nations USA protect today. That could of course change in the future, the power balance of the world shift over time. But for Nato to have the same military strength without USA as with USA, most members would basically have to up their defense budget with 500-1000%. As of today Russia knows that no EU country would be foolish enough to attack them, unless they have USA backing them up. They would perhaps think EU might have enough military strength to defend themselves from an attack from them, or at least enough to make it not worth while. But not the strength needed to attack them, making them a existential threat to Russia. USA (or perhaps China) are the only ones who have that strength.

Again just my opinion. What do you agree and disagree with from what I said?
Click to expand...
Personally I can't see Putin distinguishing between the EU/UK and the U.S. - His foreign minister only today spent 10 minutes specifically telling the world that Europe had been Americanised i.e we are just an extension of American imperialism. His quotes today to the world :-

He told Sky News: 'Napoleon and Hitler had the objective to have the whole of Europe under their control, now Americans have got Europe under their control.

'We see that the situation what role the EU is really playing in the context of the global situation, they are just fulfilling a role.

Putin is not stupid as he knows any EU military alliance will in essence have the disposal of NATO hardware, intelligence, military bases etc at its full disposal, so I say again that this could be an interchangeable relationship between the EU and NATO but without the constraints of being a defence only organisation. Surely Germany committing to this monumental decision to break it's 75 year taboo to go massive on defence spending tells you that the dynamics in the EU on defence have shifted massively in the last 2 weeks.

The premise of your argument seems to be NATO can invade Russia and an EU military alliance couldn't because the U.S. would not be with involved in it which I agree up to a point in terms of boots on the ground (even though Churchill eventually circumnavigated that problem) . I do not believe NATO has ever had any ambitions of making a pre-emptive attack on Russia, like I am sure you don't either so this is a red herring for what this really is which is Putin's reclamation of old soviet geographical boundaries. We need to distinguish between Putin and Russia as well here.

You didn't answer why Georgia put in an emergency application to join the EU 3 days ago - again I would suggest it was not for a sudden urge of access to the freedom of movement of people and zero trade tariffs.
 
The perfect fumble said:
What legal basis is there for seizing any of this? Seriously, is this some new version of the Defence of the Realm Act that's passed me by?

I'm not concerned here with the rights and wrongs of seizing this stuff, but what's the legal basis for all this? And what distinguishes a Putin "crony" from any other Russian businessman? And why are their assets seized because of a decision by the Russian State to invade, not this country, not a country we are bound by treaty but Ukraine.

So Chelsea is being sold before it was seized is it? What legislation covers such a seizure? What crime has been committed that makes such a seizure lawful?

There's a lot of heat around this, but very little light....




Before the knownothings pile in, I don't give a fuck about Abramovich, but I would like to know what legislation is being used here.
Click to expand...

Probably shagging his wife
 
Chippy_boy said:
Was there a video or something? I only saw excerpt quotes.

I am disheartened but I have to say unsurprised to hear what you say. Sounds like the negotiated-solution ship sailed the moment he invaded, if not before. I think the dropped ball - if any has been dropped - was to not have done everything humanly possible to prevent him invading in the first place. I don't think we spelled out anything like clearly enough just how bad this was going to be for Russia and for him personally, and that there was "a golden bridge" for him to cross, PROVIDED he didn't invade. Sounds like it is too late now.
Click to expand...
It sailed when he started an internet war on the West at the time we were trying to make Russia a friendly ally and even possibly a member of NATO itself. When Russia kept refusing to turn up to summits and conferences. When he proved Russia to be an untrustworthy country rather than a possible ally, and had to be kicked out of the G8 when they invaded Ukraine. When Putin has said that the Bolsheviks robbed Russia of Russian land when they relinquished Ukraine and when he has said he doesn’t recognise the sovereignty of Ukraine.

He has never been a man to reason or negotiate with, and never will be. He’s an evil dictator. He has never had any recognition or respect for Ukraine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top