cheese_greater@lemmy.world
on 11 Dec 2023 21:27
nextcollapse
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 ;)
JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works
on 11 Dec 2023 21:42
nextcollapse
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.
mathemachristian@lemm.ee
on 11 Dec 2023 22:03
nextcollapse
Because they instigated the euromaidan?
768@sh.itjust.works
on 11 Dec 2023 22:07
nextcollapse
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
on 11 Dec 2023 22:54
collapse
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)
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
on 11 Dec 2023 23:07
collapse
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?
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
on 11 Dec 2023 23:28
collapse
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)
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
on 11 Dec 2023 23:38
collapse
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
on 11 Dec 2023 22:18
nextcollapse
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
on 12 Dec 2023 00:16
collapse
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
on 11 Dec 2023 22:25
nextcollapse
Who said the US is necessary for it?
cheese_greater@lemmy.world
on 11 Dec 2023 22:59
collapse
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
on 11 Dec 2023 23:21
nextcollapse
What does this have to do with the article?
cheese_greater@lemmy.world
on 12 Dec 2023 02:13
collapse
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 :)
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
on 12 Dec 2023 01:55
collapse
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
shalafi@lemmy.world
on 11 Dec 2023 23:44
nextcollapse
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
on 11 Dec 2023 23:47
collapse
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)
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.
cheese_greater@lemmy.world
on 12 Dec 2023 02:32
nextcollapse
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
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.
Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
on 12 Dec 2023 08:16
collapse
Because countering Russia has been the US’ primary offer in all deals and bargaining for the last 50 years?
cheese_greater@lemmy.world
on 12 Dec 2023 11:34
collapse
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
on 12 Dec 2023 14:16
collapse
Because countering Russia has been the US’ primary offer in all deals and bargaining for the last 50 years
PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee
on 11 Dec 2023 22:04
nextcollapse
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
on 11 Dec 2023 22:16
nextcollapse
Seize it all.
nao@sh.itjust.works
on 11 Dec 2023 22:27
nextcollapse
Sounds good, is there any reason why their assets should not be used to compensate for the damages they are causing?
AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world
on 11 Dec 2023 23:22
nextcollapse
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
on 12 Dec 2023 02:06
collapse
Which is super fucked they’re waiting. Probably waited for Hitler to win to congratulate him on doing the dirty work for 'em, t✡️✡️ and c✡️mpen$ate him für sein/der Kampf or waseva
mrnotoriousman@kbin.social
on 12 Dec 2023 02:12
collapse
Probably because sending equipment and stuff is currently more valuable than just straight cash
cheese_greater@lemmy.world
on 12 Dec 2023 02:16
collapse
Why wouldn’t they straight up liquidate and convert it all to weapons like even more directly and promptly and publicly than what you’re saying? Or have i just equivocated that which youmre saying (I’m a little uncertain I’m inferring what you’re intending)
Edit: like, why wait? Screw the neutrality shit or whatever
cheese_greater@lemmy.world
on 12 Dec 2023 00:10
nextcollapse
To what extent would that a be a larger question for like Switzerland and other Russian/dirty-money-heavy shelter jurisdictions?
Brainsploosh@lemmy.world
on 12 Dec 2023 08:11
nextcollapse
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.
chitak166@lemmy.world
on 12 Dec 2023 11:59
collapse
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.
threaded - newest
Europe
should beis 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 rsspectivelyFor this reason, I believe more can be done
on their side of the oceanin 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:
Edit: congratualtions, you’ve downvoted facts. That makes you smart, well-done ;)
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.
Because they instigated the euromaidan?
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.
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
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.
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?
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.
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)
literally your entire presence in this thread is dick-measuring about how europe isn't doing enough
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
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😤
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.
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
Who said the US is necessary for it?
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
What does this have to do with the article?
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 :)
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
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?
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
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
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.
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)
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.
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
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.
Because countering Russia has been the US’ primary offer in all deals and bargaining for the last 50 years?
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?
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.
Seize it all.
Sounds good, is there any reason why their assets should not be used to compensate for the damages they are causing?
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.
Which is super fucked they’re waiting. Probably waited for Hitler to win to congratulate him on doing the dirty work for 'em, t✡️✡️ and c✡️mpen$ate him für sein/der Kampf or waseva
Probably because sending equipment and stuff is currently more valuable than just straight cash
Why wouldn’t they straight up liquidate and convert it all to weapons like even more directly and promptly and publicly than what you’re saying? Or have i just equivocated that which youmre saying (I’m a little uncertain I’m inferring what you’re intending)
Edit: like, why wait? Screw the neutrality shit or whatever
To what extent would that a be a larger question for like Switzerland and other Russian/dirty-money-heavy shelter jurisdictions?
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.
Losers who would also be responsible for the failure that was Reconstruction.
Lets build a wall and let the Russians pay for it.