From: rking164@comcast.net   
      
   On Tuesday, May 30, 2023 at 10:27:33 PM UTC-5, xdmod2 wrote:   
   > "Freedumb CockUs"  wrote in message    
   > news:u56aqo$29f2r$2...@dont-email.me...   
   > > Make Russia Pay    
   > >    
   > > The West has already frozen some $300 billion in Russian assets. Here's    
   > > the case for seizing them.   
   > I think that was another fabrication much like the Russians are fighting    
   > with    
   > chips from washing machines and whatever else nonsense you people put out.   
   > > For months, the West has fretted over the prospect of paying for Ukraine's    
   > > reconstruction. Russia's war has inflicted an estimated $400 billion in    
   > > rebuilding costs, a tally that rises every day. Western leaders, already    
   > > alarmed by inflation and the threat of recession, have understandably    
   > > blanched over the bill.    
   > > But many of them are disregarding a solution that would cover most of    
   > > Ukraine's costs and help deter future aggression not only from Russia but    
   > > from dictatorships around the world. A year ago, Western governments froze    
   > > some $300 billion in state assets from Russia's central bank. Now they    
   > > could seize the funds and give them to Ukraine.    
   > > The biggest question is whether this would be legal. As critics have    
   > > noted, a seizure of this magnitude has never been attempted. Moreover,    
   > > little precedent exists for the United States to confiscate the assets of    
   > > a nation with whom (despite the Kremlin's claims to the contrary) it isn't    
   > > at war.    
   > > From the June 2023 issue: The counteroffensive    
   > > But Russia has unleashed a kind of rank imperialism the world has rarely   
   > > seen since the Cold War, committing war crimes and-as manifold evidence    
   > > suggests-genocide, all against a harmless neighbor. Because of its   
   > > unjustifiable aggression and atrocities, Moscow has forfeited any moral    
   > > right to funds stashed abroad.   
   > > The reasons to seize them are legion. Confiscating the Russian funds-which    
   > > are spread across various Western economies-would serve a crucial role in   
   > > ending the fighting, beating back Russian imperialism, and ensuring a    
   > > viable economic future for Ukraine. And it would send a clear threat to    
   > > regimes that might otherwise be willing to breach international law and    
   > > destabilize continents for their own gain, as Moscow has.    
   > > Seizing these assets would also help fix an overlooked issue facing    
   > > Ukraine: investor hesitancy. Investors remain wary of bankrolling projects    
   > > that could be targeted by Russian drones and artillery. But the frozen    
   > > funds could cover nearly 75 percent of Ukraine's costs and significantly    
   > > reduce the burden on potential financiers, making the country a more    
   > > appealing investment destination.    
   > > In the U.S., much of the legal debate has focused on the International    
   > > Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), a 1977 law that defines the    
   > > president's abilities to regulate international commerce during national    
   > > emergencies. Although the IEEPA has historically been used to authorize   
   > > more conventional sanctions-including in Iran, the Central African    
   > > Republic, and China-some scholars, most notably Laurence H. Tribe and   
   > > Jeremy Lewin, have argued that it could also be used to seize the tens of    
   > > billions of dollars in Russian assets currently in U.S. reserves.    
   > > Recommended Reading    
   > >    
   > > That proposal has generated legal pushback, although advocates are    
   > > undeterred. The nonprofit Renew Democracy Initiative told me that it has    
   > > commissioned a study of the "legal foundations for seizing frozen Russian    
   > > assets and transferring them to Ukraine," which will be led by Tribe. (The    
   > > initiative is chaired by Garry Kasparov, who also chairs the Human Rights    
   > > Foundation, where I direct a program on combating kleptocracy.)    
   > > Even if U.S. law offered clear justification, though, it couldn't be used    
   > > to touch any of Russia's assets frozen in Europe, which are far more    
   > > valuable than those in the U.S. Fortunately, international law appears to    
   > > offer such justification.    
   > > As Philip Zelikow and Simon Johnson wrote in Foreign Affairs last year,    
   > > Russia's obvious culpability for the war entitles Ukraine to claim    
   > > compensation from Russia. Because "the Russian invasion of Ukraine is a    
   > > wrongful, unprovoked war of aggression that violates the United Nations    
   > > Charter," Zelikow and Johnson argue, any state (not just Ukraine) can    
   > > "invoke Russia's responsibility to compensate Ukraine, and they can take   
   > > countermeasures against Moscow-including transferring its frozen foreign   
   > > assets to ensure Ukraine gets paid."    
   > > Despite many policy makers' impression that Russian assets are    
   > > untouchable, Anton Moiseienko, an international-law expert at the    
   > > Australian National University, recently showed that they aren't immune    
   > > from seizure. "To extend protection from any governmental interferences to    
   > > central bank assets would equate to affording them inviolability,"    
   > > Moiseienko wrote, which is reserved only for property belonging to foreign    
   > > diplomatic missions. The protection afforded central-bank assets "is not    
   > > as absolute as is often thought."    
   > > That is, in the eyes of international law, Russian assets aren't    
   > > inviolate. In fact, the only real remaining obstacles to seizing them are    
   > > debates surrounding domestic laws and domestic politics. As Moiseienko    
   > > wrote, "Political and economic circumspection, rather than legal    
   > > constraints, are the last defense against [the assets'] confiscation."    
   > > This is particularly true in the U.S., where plenty of hesitancy remains    
   > > even after more than a year of war. As The New York Times reported in    
   > > March, Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen believes that seizing Russian    
   > > assets could reduce faith in the American economy and the U.S. dollar.    
   > > Other critics think it would threaten U.S. assets and investments in other    
   > > countries.    
   > > Eliot A. Cohen: It's not enough for Ukraine to win. Russia has to lose.    
   > > These points all have a certain merit. And so, too, do concerns about such    
   > > a move prompting the Kremlin to escalate. In all likelihood, though,    
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)