EU moves towards using €27bn in profit from frozen Russian assets for Ukraine

[Social Media]

 

The European Union is making significant strides towards utilizing €27 billion in profit generated by frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine's war effort. Officials from the European Commission are preparing a proposal that they deem legally sound for consideration by member states, potentially before a meeting of prime ministers scheduled for next week in Brussels.

 

These frozen assets, totaling around $300 billion belonging to the Russian central bank, are primarily held in the west, with approximately 70% stored in the Belgian central securities depository Euroclear, amounting to €190 billion. It is estimated that these assets could generate between €15 billion and €20 billion in after-tax profits by 2027, with an expected €2 billion to €3 billion in profits this year alone, depending on global interest rate fluctuations.

 

While there is optimism regarding an agreement to seize these profits, consensus on how the funds should be utilized remains elusive. Some member states are hesitant to allocate the funds for military purposes, preferring instead that they be directed towards reconstruction and humanitarian aid efforts in Ukraine. Ireland, constrained by its constitutional neutrality, contributes funds to Ukraine under the condition that they are used for non-lethal purposes such as demining.

 

The European Commission is not currently presenting options for the use of the funds, intending to leave this matter open for further discussion among member states. However, there is momentum building behind the decision to allocate the profits to Ukraine, particularly for military support.

 

The agreement reached by EU leaders last month suggests that the proceeds could be held in a separate account, marking progress towards the decision to confiscate and allocate the funds to Ukraine. It is anticipated that a portion of the funds will be retained within the EU to serve as a defense fund against potential legal retaliation from Russia in the future.

 

The move to confiscate Russian assets and allocate them to Ukraine is likely to pressure the British government to take similar action. With the Russian central bank holding £26 billion in the UK, there are calls for these assets to be seized and transferred to Kyiv. However, financial institutions in the UK are resisting this move, fearing potential repercussions for the City of London's reputation.

 

Overall, the proposal to utilize frozen Russian assets to support Ukraine represents a significant step forward in addressing the ongoing conflict and providing much-needed assistance to the Ukrainian people.

 

15.03.24

Source

 

[thaibeachlovers]

If they go ahead and do so, expect a great many countries to look for elsewhere to leave their money. If they can use someone else's money just because they don't like that someone, then they are not to be trusted with anyone's money.

[thaibeachlovers]

If they give the money to Ukraine, can we expect that most of it will be stolen? Ukraine is, after all, a very corrupt country.

[Skipalongcassidy]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If they go ahead and do so, expect a great many countries to look for elsewhere to leave their money. If they can use someone else's money just because they don't like that someone, then they are not to be trusted with anyone's money.

Much like the rest of the world using the USA money... right?!

[RayC]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If they go ahead and do so, expect a great many countries to look for elsewhere to leave their money. If they can use someone else's money just because they don't like that someone, then they are not to be trusted with anyone's money.

 

Never let it be said that you miss an opportunity to portray Putin and Russia as the victim.

 

The EU (and its' member states) didn't much care for Trump or Johnson, and their respective attitudes towards the rest of Europe. However, the EU did not deem it necessary to freeze US and UK assets in the EU. Why? Well no end of justifiable reasons, one being that neither the US nor the UK had illegally invaded a neighbouring European sovereign state and threatened the stability of the region as a whole.

 

In the unlikely event that the Kremlin is concerned about what is published on AN, I think they should give you a medal in recognition of your efforts re the promotion of pro-Putin and pro-Russian propaganda.

[RayC]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If they give the money to Ukraine, can we expect that most of it will be stolen? Ukraine is, after all, a very corrupt country.

 

Ukraine may be corrupt but it is fighting for its' survival. The expectation should be that the money will be used to further that cause.

[transam]

3 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

If they give the money to Ukraine, can we expect that most of it will be stolen? Ukraine is, after all, a very corrupt country.

And yours isn't......?  

[transam]

2 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Ukraine may be corrupt but it is fighting for its' survival. The expectation should be that the money will be used to further that cause.

Well said, Raymond...........

[Celsius]

give me

[beautifulthailand99]

The risks and costs are significant - not least that other autocracies will read the runes and realise their assets could be sequestrated if they fall foul of western sentiment and take out and avoid European sovereign funds. The intention is to create a bond which will be traded using the frozen assets as security, and these bonds will be traded - the funds released are a loan and debt to Ukraine not a gift. Now if these bond issues fail to raise the funds necessary on the open markets and most seasoned investors and institutions will avoid them like the plague  (though I'm sure some of the Ukrainian supporters will be keen to invest some of their retirement funds in them !) then central banks become the buyer of last resort, buying them again with QE money further debauching western currencies.

 

They can cause massive damage on European banks. Here are global funds stuck in Russia - they will all take enforced haircuts.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/stranded-assets-how-many-billions-are-stuck-russia-2022-03-03/

 

Not quite 300 billion, but the difference is that the 130 some billion is private assets, and holders won’t even be able to sue Russia for confiscating it.

Raffeissen would probably need money from the government to stay afloat if they have to compensate their customers.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/14/eu-profit-frozen-russian-assets-ukraine

 

The move is likely to be met with retaliation in Moscow before and after the end of the war, and officials think some of the money should be held in Euroclear as a defence buffer for any future court costs.

“We need a significant amount in Euroclear … because Euroclear will face a lot of claims,” the official said.

Russian courts do not recognise western sanctions and could move to seize €33bn in Euroclear’s assets held in national securities in Moscow

 

This has been covered in the rand's Corporation excellent report Avoiding a Long War - my money's on it as sabre-rattling to bring Russia to the negotiating table rather than a firm policy intention.

 

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html

 

The United States, the European Union, and other partners imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia, including the freezing of more than $300 billion in Russian central bank assets and the imposition of export controls that will severely limit the country's future growth. Thus far, U.S. sanctions have largely been framed as a punishment for Russia's actions, not as a tool to affect Russia's behavior and bring it to the table. As Daniel Drezner has pointed out, the United States and its partners have not been explicit about "what Russia can do to get the sanctions lifted." The "lack of clarity undermines coercive bargaining, because the targeted actor believes that sanctions will stay in place no matter what they do."[68] The promise of sanctions relief contributed to Iran's willingness to negotiate over its nuclear program and conclude the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015 and to Libya's agreement to renounce weapons of mass destruction in 2003.[69] Although not perfect analogies, these experiences suggest the plausibility of using the promise of conditional sanctions relief, as part of a package of policies, to influence a rival's calculations.

[RayC]

On 3/25/2024 at 1:15 PM, beautifulthailand99 said:

The risks and costs are significant -

 

Many of Russia's assets (in the EU) are Euro-denominated bonds issued by France and Germany. The underlying risk is that the Euro collapses. In that case, this proposed bond will suffer but that is no different to hundreds of similar bonds. I see no reason why the costs should be any more significant than for similar bonds. 

 

The significant risk for  potential buyers of this bond is that they may leave themselves open to litigation from Russia when the war ends.

 

On 3/25/2024 at 1:15 PM, beautifulthailand99 said:

not least that other autocracies will read the runes and realise their assets could be sequestrated if they fall foul of western sentiment and take out and avoid European sovereign funds.

 

If dirty money and unscrupulous investors are eliminated from European markets, it would be a positive development.

 

On 3/25/2024 at 1:15 PM, beautifulthailand99 said:

 

The intention is to create a bond which will be traded using the frozen assets as security, and these bonds will be traded - the funds released are a loan and debt to Ukraine not a gift. Now if these bond issues fail to raise the funds necessary on the open markets and most seasoned investors and institutions will avoid them like the plague  (though I'm sure some of the Ukrainian supporters will be keen to invest some of their retirement funds in them !) then central banks become the buyer of last resort, buying them again with QE money further debauching western currencies.

 

Whether the funds are a loan or a debt to Ukraine is irrelevant in this context. As I mentioned above, the risk for potential investors is litigation and they are seeking guarantees from the EU to mitigate against this eventuality. If these assurances are not sufficient, then I doubt that the sale of the bond will go ahead. If the bond is release then I very much doubt that, " ... most seasoned investors and institutions will avoid (this bond(s)) like the plague .." as the bond will only likely be released if the EU is confident of success.

 

On 3/25/2024 at 1:15 PM, beautifulthailand99 said:

 

They can cause massive damage on European banks. Here are global funds stuck in Russia - they will all take enforced haircuts.

https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/stranded-assets-how-many-billions-are-stuck-russia-2022-03-03/

 

Not quite 300 billion, but the difference is that the 130 some billion is private assets, and holders won’t even be able to sue Russia for confiscating it.

 

Most of those assets are held by US, not EU, institutions. I very much that at the end of the war, Russia will be keen to become involved in a 'banking war' with the US.

 

On 3/25/2024 at 1:15 PM, beautifulthailand99 said:

Raffeissen would probably need money from the government to stay afloat if they have to compensate their customers.

 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/14/eu-profit-frozen-russian-assets-ukraine

 

The move is likely to be met with retaliation in Moscow before and after the end of the war, and officials think some of the money should be held in Euroclear as a defence buffer for any future court costs.

“We need a significant amount in Euroclear … because Euroclear will face a lot of claims,” the official said.

Russian courts do not recognise western sanctions and could move to seize €33bn in Euroclear’s assets held in national securities in Moscow

 

 

The fact remains that Russian assets in the West are greater than those Western assets of the West in Russia. There would be only one winner in a banking war.

 

On 3/25/2024 at 1:15 PM, beautifulthailand99 said:

 

This has been covered in the rand's Corporation excellent report Avoiding a Long War - my money's on it as sabre-rattling to bring Russia to the negotiating table rather than a firm policy intention.

 

https://www.rand.org/pubs/perspectives/PEA2510-1.html

 

The United States, the European Union, and other partners imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia, including the freezing of more than $300 billion in Russian central bank assets and the imposition of export controls that will severely limit the country's future growth. Thus far, U.S. sanctions have largely been framed as a punishment for Russia's actions, not as a tool to affect Russia's behavior and bring it to the table. As Daniel Drezner has pointed out, the United States and its partners have not been explicit about "what Russia can do to get the sanctions lifted." The "lack of clarity undermines coercive bargaining, because the targeted actor believes that sanctions will stay in place no matter what they do."[68] The promise of sanctions relief contributed to Iran's willingness to negotiate over its nuclear program and conclude the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015 and to Libya's agreement to renounce weapons of mass destruction in 2003.[69] Although not perfect analogies, these experiences suggest the plausibility of using the promise of conditional sanctions relief, as part of a package of policies, to influence a rival's calculations.

 

Perhaps but the bottom line is Ukraine would have to agree to any proposed negotiated settlement.

[beautifulthailand99]

36 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

Many of Russia's assets (in the EU) are Euro-denominated bonds issued by France and Germany. The underlying risk is that the Euro collapses. In that case, this proposed bond will suffer but that is no different to hundreds of similar bonds. I see no reason why the costs should be any more significant than for similar bonds. 

 

The significant risk for  potential buyers of this bond is that they may leave themselves open to litigation from Russia when the war ends.

 

 

If dirty money and unscrupulous investors are eliminated from European markets, it would be a positive development.

 

 

Whether the funds are a loan or a debt to Ukraine is irrelevant in this context. As I mentioned above, the risk for potential investors is litigation and they are seeking guarantees from the EU to mitigate against this eventuality. If these assurances are not sufficient, then I doubt that the sale of the bond will go ahead. If the bond is release then I very much doubt that, " ... most seasoned investors and institutions will avoid (this bond(s)) like the plague .." as the bond will only likely be released if the EU is confident of success.

 

 

Most of those assets are held by US, not EU, institutions. I very much that at the end of the war, Russia will be keen to become involved in a 'banking war' with the US.

 

 

The fact remains that Russian assets in the West are greater than those Western assets of the West in Russia. There would be only one winner in a banking war.

 

 

Perhaps but the bottom line is Ukraine would have to agree to any proposed negotiated settlement.

European electorates have no idea what their leaders are subscribing too in making Russia an increasing adversary or the financial fallouts that will chip away at their baked in entitlements in terms of social welfare, pensions and healthcare. We are heading for a great reckoning, probably followed by a Great Depression and war and currency debauchment. Popular unrest has only just begun, and it's going to get pretty ugly. An alternative financial universe is unfolding before our eyes, and the days when the dollar or the Euro for that matter could dictate the terms are on the way out. Trump Media has just soared 50% on the NASDAQ for instance WTAF  - my belief is what has been outlined will never happen. Too many have to agree, and there are too many severe downside risks to get agreement, and Trump is coming. No one can triangulate that madness.

[beautifulthailand99]

On 3/15/2024 at 12:18 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

If they go ahead and do so, expect a great many countries to look for elsewhere to leave their money. If they can use someone else's money just because they don't like that someone, then they are not to be trusted with anyone's money.

China started selling US treasury bonds rabidly two years ago. They went from 2 trillion to less than 600 million now. I expect them to sell all out within 2024. Money's going home or to gold and other fungibles. There is an increasingly important BRICS Central Bank headquartered in Shanghai which is very much a work in progress.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Development_Bank

Edited March 26 by beautifulthailand99

[heybruce]

13 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

China started selling US treasury bonds rabidly two years ago. They went from 2 trillion to less than 600 million now. I expect them to sell all out within 2024. Money's going home or to gold and other fungibles. There is an increasingly important BRICS Central Bank headquartered in Shanghai which is very much a work in progress.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Development_Bank

What has BRICS accomplished?

 

To my knowledge BRICS has been less influential than ASEAN.

[beautifulthailand99]

27 minutes ago, heybruce said:

What has BRICS accomplished?

 

To my knowledge BRICS has been less influential than ASEAN.

I don't know is the honest first answer, but a lot of countries are queuing up to join it. It's not beyond the wits of the world's largest manufacturing country China coupled with the world's largest land mass and reserves of natural resources Russia to build something with others that is different too and an alternative to the US centric world financial system. And one that doesn't lecture members on human rights or democracy. Meyer Lansky after all, the mob's accountant was largely responsible for the mafia's rise to power in the US in the 20th century. The majority of the countries of the world are little more than mafia states when all is said and done, but it doesn't mean they can't be successful in economic terms.

 

The only other things that pops up in my mind is Dubai has become some major hub for all this dirty money to wash through and oil the wheels of this alternative financial universe. One that Iran and Russia are making increasing use of.

 

https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2022/03/10/washington-needs-to-do-something-about-the-uaes-dirty-money/

 

Turns out reading that article that the UAE has bought off Washington in various forms whilst cosying up to Putin with a state visit like no other. A lot of geopolitical posturing is just that dig deeper, and there are invisible red lines over which nation states don't wish to cross. You might have gathered from my posts, I generally don't trust authority or their weasel messaging.

 

As a first stab Chat GPT says this. Which is basically eff all.

 

 

Edited March 26 by beautifulthailand99

[RayC]

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

European electorates have no idea what their leaders are subscribing too in making Russia an increasing adversary or the financial fallouts that will chip away at their baked in entitlements in terms of social welfare, pensions and healthcare. We are heading for a great reckoning, probably followed by a Great Depression and war and currency debauchment. Popular unrest has only just begun, and it's going to get pretty ugly. An alternative financial universe is unfolding before our eyes, and the days when the dollar or the Euro for that matter could dictate the terms are on the way out. Trump Media has just soared 50% on the NASDAQ for instance WTAF  - my belief is what has been outlined will never happen. Too many have to agree, and there are too many severe downside risks to get agreement, and Trump is coming. No one can triangulate that madness.

 

At some point in the future, there will almost certainly be a global recession. At some point there may well be a global depression, but why does the current hostility with Russia act as the catalyst for the destruction of the West's financial system?

[beautifulthailand99]

32 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

At some point in the future, there will almost certainly be a global recession. At some point there may well be a global depression, but why does the current hostility with Russia act as the catalyst for the destruction of the West's financial system?

Why did the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand start WW1? After many decades of relative stability post WW2 (but not generally in the developing world they have had it pretty miserable) that period is coming to an end. Professor Niall Ferguson (who incidentally says we should be all in with Russia!) has made powerful arguments that the greatest moment of the British Empire when it was at it's greatest was 1937 not 1837 as you would think and WW2 and the rise of independence movements from colonial lowers finished it off. He says civilisations are like an ant hill, incredibly complex, seemingly robust in design and function but can be knocked over with a simple kick. The freedoms we have in the west are also our weaknesses the mass of the populace want a continuation of the benefits that have been used to and when thy find them wanting supporting Ukraine won't be top of their agendas. That and endless war. If the prospect of Trump in power again isn't a sign of the canary in the coal mine dying, then I don't know what is.

 

Finally, humans seem to have a perpetual, almost unbreakable cycle of hugely destructive wars baked into the evolutionary advancement into the future.  Poking the Bear is never a good idea, as many before have found to their cost. The Russian's appetite for misery far outweighs our capacity for pain, so better a messy peace now than much worse down the line. It's just so sad that Ukraine (and Russia) has had to suffer so much and for so long, but it was all so predictable. The world is a tinderbox soaked in petrol time to stop throwing matches around.

 

Oh, and nukes, I forgot about that - the long shadow hanging over all of this.

 

 

Edited March 26 by beautifulthailand99

[RayC]

1 hour ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

China started selling US treasury bonds rabidly two years ago. They went from 2 trillion to less than 600 million now. I expect them to sell all out within 2024. Money's going home or to gold and other fungibles. There is an increasingly important BRICS Central Bank headquartered in Shanghai which is very much a work in progress.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Development_Bank

 

I've never understood why it is seen as some sort of a priori truth that China and/or Russia would welcome the failure of the US and/or EU economies. How would economic turmoil, widespread civil unrest and a breakdown of the respective political systems in these two regions benefit China or Russia? It's not as though either China or Russia is currently in a position to step into the breach, and act as the world's economic powerhouse and de facto policeman. 

 

In any event, China's holdings of US treasuries are broadly correlated with the state of their balance of payments (BOP): A decline in their BOP leads to the selling of overseas assets including US Treasury bonds. The chances of China liquidising all its' holdings by the end of this year is slim. If that happens then we can conclude that the Chinese economy is in freefall not that it is part of some grand master plan to undermine the US economy.

 

Unless/ Until the BRICS are able to forge a common currency, the NDB poses no threat to the dominance of the dollar. Even then, there is no guarantee that the "BRIC" would become the world's reserve currency. The NDB is a work in progress and is likely to remain one for some time yet.

[beautifulthailand99]

11 minutes ago, RayC said:

 

I've never understood why it is seen as some sort of a priori truth that China and/or Russia would welcome the failure of the US and/or EU economies. How would economic turmoil, widespread civil unrest and a breakdown of the respective political systems in these two regions benefit China or Russia? It's not as though either China or Russia is currently in a position to step into the breach, and act as the world's economic powerhouse and de facto policeman. 

 

In any event, China's holdings of US treasuries are broadly correlated with the state of their balance of payments (BOP): A decline in their BOP leads to the selling of overseas assets including US Treasury bonds. The chances of China liquidising all its' holdings by the end of this year is slim. If that happens then we can conclude that the Chinese economy is in freefall not that it is part of some grand master plan to undermine the US economy.

 

Unless/ Until the BRICS are able to forge a common currency, the NDB poses no threat to the dominance of the dollar. Even then, there is no guarantee that the "BRIC" would become the world's reserve currency. The NDB is a work in progress and is likely to remain one for some time yet.

You are assuming logic and reason would underpin any actions. I think we are far long gone from that, maybe we are even at peak human. China never wanted this war or any kinetic war really but having happened it is trading it accordingly. I know little about the fall of the Roman Empire and why it collapsed, but my guess it was hollowed out by decadence within and the barbarians at the gate where animal spirits prevail. Sound familiar ? I very much like your posts btw good to get some informed kickback rather than abuse. 

Edited March 26 by beautifulthailand99

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

European electorates have no idea what their leaders are subscribing to

LOL. IMO most voters have absolutely no idea of the shenanigans that their elected leaders are up to. The elected leaders no doubt like it that way.

[beautifulthailand99]

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

LOL. IMO most voters have absolutely no idea of the shenanigans that their elected leaders are up to. The elected leaders no doubt like it that way.

A couple of years ago Ukrainians flags were everywhere in London now you hardly see one (Palestinian flags though - I drove through Tower Hamlets yesterday, and they were literally on every lamppost) nor do my friends and family ever bring the war up and if I do they eye roll and barely tolerate a rant, but they were animated as to where's Kate. They do care though about the cost of living crisis, increasing insecurity and interest rates and folks are angrier collectively as I have ever seen in my life.

[thaibeachlovers]

3 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

I know little about the fall of the Roman Empire and why it collapsed, but my guess it was hollowed out by decadence within and the barbarians at the gate where animal spirits prevail. Sound familiar ?

Somewhat correct. It was rotten within ( does bread and circuses seem familiar today ) but the "barbarians at the gate" were mercenaries hired because they couldn't get locals to do the job. Apparently the mercenaries realised that Rome had nothing to stop them so they just took over.

It all seems very familiar today.

All empires rot from within and ours is no different.

The Roman Empire took hundreds of years to rot enough, but seems we are on speed cycle to the end.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

A couple of years ago Ukrainians flags were everywhere in London now you hardly see one (Palestinian flags though - I drove through Tower Hamlets yesterday, and they were literally on every lamppost) nor do my friends and family ever bring the war up and if I do they eye roll and barely tolerate a rant, but they were animated as to where's Kate. They do care though about the cost of living crisis, increasing insecurity and interest rates and folks are angrier collectively as I have ever seen in my life.

In NZ the Ukrainian conflict barely got a mention outside the news for a while ( even Al Jazeera barely mentions it any more )- it just wasn't a topic of conversation. The propaganda only works till it gets boring.

Perhaps the advantage of being so far away is that we can ignore such things.

I don't think I ever saw a Ukrainian flag, even at the beginning.

 

People are back to normal, complaining about the economy, the government, crime, lack of houses and how bad the traffic is.

 

Interesting that you bring up people being angry. Everyone I know ( and don't know ) is angry about something. IMO it's not going to end well.

[thaibeachlovers]

4 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Why did the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand start WW1? After many decades of relative stability post WW2 (but not generally in the developing world they have had it pretty miserable) that period is coming to an end. Professor Niall Ferguson (who incidentally says we should be all in with Russia!) has made powerful arguments that the greatest moment of the British Empire when it was at it's greatest was 1937 not 1837 as you would think and WW2 and the rise of independence movements from colonial lowers finished it off. He says civilisations are like an ant hill, incredibly complex, seemingly robust in design and function but can be knocked over with a simple kick. The freedoms we have in the west are also our weaknesses the mass of the populace want a continuation of the benefits that have been used to and when thy find them wanting supporting Ukraine won't be top of their agendas. That and endless war. If the prospect of Trump in power again isn't a sign of the canary in the coal mine dying, then I don't know what is.

 

Finally, humans seem to have a perpetual, almost unbreakable cycle of hugely destructive wars baked into the evolutionary advancement into the future.  Poking the Bear is never a good idea, as many before have found to their cost. The Russian's appetite for misery far outweighs our capacity for pain, so better a messy peace now than much worse down the line. It's just so sad that Ukraine (and Russia) has had to suffer so much and for so long, but it was all so predictable. The world is a tinderbox soaked in petrol time to stop throwing matches around.

 

Oh, and nukes, I forgot about that - the long shadow hanging over all of this.

 

 

Interesting and thoughtful post with much to comment on. I won't comment on the bits I agree with ( I don't have all day! ).

 

has made powerful arguments that the greatest moment of the British Empire when it was at it's greatest was 1937 not 1837 as you would think and WW2 and the rise of independence movements from colonial lowers finished it off.

 

I disagree. IMO Britain was strongest before WW1 when the navy and the empire was at it's height. Trench warfare and the insanity of sending the best and brightest ( university students ) to lead pointless frontal charges against machine guns removed the future from British leadership in every aspect. WW2 just finished the job. It could be said that Butcher Haig was the catalyst that destroyed the British Empire.

 

The colonies only demanded independence because they knew they could, The iron fist had gone.

IMO the most telling moment of British impotence came in the Suez adventure, when America forced Britain to abandon it. I reckon that was the moment Britain began it's long and slow spiral down to a has been power. Falklands was probably the last gasp of a once great naval power.

 

The freedoms we have in the west are also our weaknesses the mass of the populace want a continuation of the benefits that have been used to and when thy find them wanting supporting Ukraine won't be top of their agendas.

 

and why should they? Of what benefit is it to the British, or any other country throwing money into the pit, whoever claims to be in charge of Ukraine. It was Soviet in the past, and when the western regions come under Russian control, will it make an iota of difference to the ordinary Brit trying to survive in an unfriendly economy ( not helped by throwing billions of quid at a corrupt nation )?

 

If the prospect of Trump in power again isn't a sign of the canary in the coal mine dying, then I don't know what is.

 

Why just Trump? Do you think Biden is any better?

I'll stick at those two ( though to comment on the war criminals that have served as POTUS in my lifetime is tempting ), but when a blowhard clown and an incompetent geriatric are elected to be "the leaders of the free world", unless one is willfully blind, it's the end of our civilisation writ large. It's just a question of waiting for the fat lady to sing. Stalin and Mao must be having a laugh from the depths of hell.

 

Oh, and nukes, I forgot about that - the long shadow hanging over all of this.

 

No point being concerned about them. Either they get used and it's all over anyway, or they are just the boogeyman to scare us into behaving. Either way, they are like climate, nothing we can do about them.

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

As a first stab Chat GPT says this. Which is basically eff all.

Which is basically eff all.

 

Probably programmed that way. If it told the truth it wouldn't be around much longer.

[thaibeachlovers]

6 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

European electorates have no idea what their leaders are subscribing too in making Russia an increasing adversary or the financial fallouts that will chip away at their baked in entitlements in terms of social welfare, pensions and healthcare.

Isn't it likely that Russia is being demonised SO the elites can chip away at their baked in entitlements in terms of social welfare, pensions and healthcare?

 

It's a classic case of deflection. Look over there while I steal your wallet.

[thaibeachlovers]

7 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

We are heading for a great reckoning, probably followed by a Great Depression and war and currency debauchment. Popular unrest has only just begun, and it's going to get pretty ugly.

I'd say the process has already begun.

It's certainly not going to be pretty and the only ones doing well at the end will be the 1%, as per usual.

 

There will be loads of divide and rule going on eg man made climate change, multiple genders, reparations for what happened hundreds of years ago, abortion, etc. IMO all carefully designed to make people angry at each other and not look at what is going on behind the curtain.

[rabas]

8 hours ago, RayC said:

I've never understood why it is seen as some sort of a priori truth that China and/or Russia would welcome the failure of the US and/or EU economies.

How would economic turmoil, widespread civil unrest and a breakdown of the respective political systems in these two regions benefit China or Russia? It's not as though either China or Russia is currently in a position to step into the breach, and act as the world's economic powerhouse and de facto policeman. 

 

In any event, China's holdings of US treasuries are broadly correlated with the state of their balance of payments (BOP): A decline in their BOP leads to the selling of overseas assets including US Treasury bonds. The chances of China liquidising all its' holdings by the end of this year is slim. If that happens then we can conclude that the Chinese economy is in freefall not that it is part of some grand master plan to undermine the US economy.

 

Unless/ Until the BRICS are able to forge a common currency, the NDB poses no threat to the dominance of the dollar. Even then, there is no guarantee that the "BRIC" would become the world's reserve currency. The NDB is a work in progress and is likely to remain one for some time yet.

I've never understood why it is seen as some sort of a priori truth that China and/or Russia would welcome the failure of the US and/or EU economies.

 

Certainly no one would welcome the collapse of China which is well integrated into and benefits the world economy. Putin's Russia is a different story. 

 

Putin's Russia is an economically failed state where a group gangsters sell off national resources to enrich themselves and  build doomsday weapons to threaten the world and protect their operation. You do remember the nuclear blast  not long before the Ukraine invasion? That was a failed test of Putin's unstoppable nuclear powered dooms day cruise missile. Nuclear rocket not bomb,  once turned on it can't be turned off. 

 

The Russian 'economy', once the size of Greece, is now closer to that of Chile.  Listen to what Yale Professor Sonnenfeld, world expert on the real Russia economy, has to say. 

 

 

[thaibeachlovers]

2 hours ago, rabas said:

I've never understood why it is seen as some sort of a priori truth that China and/or Russia would welcome the failure of the US and/or EU economies.

 

Certainly no one would welcome the collapse of China which is well integrated into and benefits the world economy. Putin's Russia is a different story. 

 

Putin's Russia is an economically failed state where a group gangsters sell off national resources to enrich themselves and  build doomsday weapons to threaten the world and protect their operation. You do remember the nuclear blast  not long before the Ukraine invasion? That was a failed test of Putin's unstoppable nuclear powered dooms day cruise missile. Nuclear rocket not bomb,  once turned on it can't be turned off. 

 

The Russian 'economy', once the size of Greece, is now closer to that of Chile.  Listen to what Yale Professor Sonnenfeld, world expert on the real Russia economy, has to say. 

 

 

While I don't know enough to comment on most of your post, does anyone think a Yale professor is going to support Russia? One might, as long as they don't mind losing their position. While there is much dissension in the US concerning the Gaza conflict, IMO it would be a brave man or woman to come out in support of Russia. Publishing something critical of Putin is far more likely to be met with support and secure one's future income.

 

When it's from an independent analyst, not in the US, I might be more interested.

Edited March 27 by thaibeachlovers

[billd766]

On 3/15/2024 at 7:20 AM, thaibeachlovers said:

If they give the money to Ukraine, can we expect that most of it will be stolen? Ukraine is, after all, a very corrupt country.

And Russia of course, is pure and innocent and has no corruption.

 

BTW who is "we"?