Mapping and Seizing the Oligarchs' Assets

https://googlemapsmania.blogspot.com/2022/03/mapping-oligarchs-assets.html

by chippy • 4 years ago

75 173 4 years ago

googlemapsmania.blogspot.com

cyberpunk2• 4 years ago

So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?

Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?

And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.

Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.

jamespo• 4 years ago

"links to their government" is doing a lot of work there

thriftwy• 4 years ago

How? The country doing the seizing is not at war with the government in question.

Even during the war you would expect the overseas property to be quarantined to use it as a lever during potential peace talks. As opposed to the unreversible confiscation such as giving it to somebody else to own. I'm not sure if that's what happening here.

Razengan2• 4 years ago

There are brazen calls for literal assassination of Russian leaders with hundreds of upvotes on Reddit,

but when a veteran soldier confronts a former US president for pulling pretty much the same shit, he gets dragged and thrown out:

https://old.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/td5wgj/ir...

krapp2• 4 years ago

It's almost as if the context differs between upvoting on a forum and threatening a leader to their face in their own country, in a room full of their supporters. I'm certain that if a Russian did the same in front of Putin, the results would be similar if not worse.

jamil7• 4 years ago

I hadn't been on reddit for a really long time (way before all this started) and I logged in yesterday and was pretty surprised by how much war glorification was dominating the popular page and the simplistic narrative being pushed.

PoignardAzur2• 4 years ago

The guy is massively upvoted on reddit though.

Like, you're trying to frame it as some kind of hypocrisy, but it's not a stretch to imagine that the people who rage against russia on reddit and the crowds who go to Bush fundraisers don't overlap much.

88840-88552• 4 years ago

What do you expect? The Russians are a pretty comfy enemy. From Call of Duty over Mission Impossible, we are familiar to the evil Russian, hence, those reactions are so satisfying to too many people, unfortunately.

I have Ukranian/Russian roots. My girl, born in Germany, was just pushed by classmates and called nasty words just last week in school.

This reminds me of the racism against Asian people when Covid appeared.

This war only has losers, the Ukranians, the Russian people, the Europeans, the Americans.

Edit: Somehow some posts were deleted from this thread, also my experience with Racism I have faced a few days ago. That is strange.

Gepsens• 4 years ago

I'm French, this story makes my stomach wrench.

refurb4• 4 years ago

Pretty much. San Francisco fired the SF Symphony Director because... he's from Russia.

Amazing how quickly our base, tribal instincts kick in when an "enemy" appears. All pretense to "peace" and "restraint" and "avoid foreign wars" goes out the window really damn quick.

If you're the kind of person who looks back and thinks "man, how could America be so stupid to get involved in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq"? Well, you're living in those times right now.

Hell, that's exactly why we put the Japanese in internment camps. Looks like a pretty good portion of HN would support that even now.

baq5• 4 years ago

the worst part about this is, most Russians in the west are basically asylum seekers now. their state went full totalitarian in the last couple weeks. i'm trying hard to make delimit the difference between Russians and Putin, but it's hard to get ordinary people to listen. MSM does not like nuance at all.

scotty7910• 4 years ago

I'm very sorry to hear that. Kids are very eager to single out some other kids for the dumbest of reasons and attack them. Any difference might be a pretense for attack under the right conditions. I'm afraid that's how our species works naturally and there's a huge role of upbringing and education to silence those innate impulses in young people.

kragen• 4 years ago

Yeah, I'm not looking forward to when Argentina decides they can seize the property of any US citizen because of the US invasion of Iraq.

raverbashing2• 4 years ago

just OK to seize private property of individuals

Yes, it's a war. Deal with it

If they have a problem they can take it up with their boss.

to this is getting pretty fucking scary

I believe there are kids in Ukraine who are legitimately scared. Getting your megayacht confiscated is just a first world problem.

Tenoke• 4 years ago

Yes, it's a war. Deal with it

The countries doing the seizing aren't at war with Russia and seem adamant about currently not being at war.

cyberpunk2• 4 years ago

These things trickle down. It leads to stuff like this:

German clinic refuses to treat Russian Patients [0] Canada bans Russian pianist from performing [1]

0: https://www.rtl.de/cms/muenchen-iatros-privatklinik-will-kei...

1: https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/05/arts/music/russian-artist...

Do you think that is OK? Because of a lunatic in their home country?

The same things were said about the Jews in the 1920's. We should try to be carful, and keep our empathy.

kangda123• 4 years ago

Thats just not true. The relaxation of hate speech is towards Russian troops only. Not civilians.

Frankly, what kind of communication do you expect from civilians in a kill or get killed situation.

trhway• 4 years ago

So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?

it is a war, and the one started by them. They should be grateful of losing only property while people in Ukraine are losing their lives. They didn't afford due process to those Ukrainians. Actually they don't afford due process to any Ukrainian. What expectations of due process they may reasonably expect for themselves after that? After the war these Putin's top supporters should get punished for the war crimes together with Putin. This is the due process they should get.

Limiting blame only to Putin just doesn't make sense. Putin doesn't press the button launching missiles. All Russians in Russia are responsible for what is happening. Just looks at bacchanalia of "Z" symbol celebration these days across all Russia (https://www.nytimes.com/2022/03/07/world/europe/russia-lette... - The "Z" is the marking on the Russian armor of the western invasion group in Ukraine, the one which is attacking Kiev for example, and that symbol became the symbol of that war in Russia). You wanna get beaten as a dirty traitor by a bunch of Russian passer-by-s - just make some offensive comment on the "Z".

And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.

It is applicable only to Russian soldiers in Ukraine. It would be strange that one can shoot such a soldier, yet wouldn't be able to call for a death of the soldier on FB.

newsclues3• 4 years ago

Here in Canada our government seized protesters money and the crowds cheered.

baq5• 4 years ago

they are not individuals. they are the Russian state.

i agree it's a fine line, but then, these people are undermining western democracies and at the same time seek safety in them. they assumed their assets would be safe and tried to max their payouts.

jeffreygoesto• 4 years ago

How's that different from the US?

qaq2• 4 years ago

It warms my heart this is the biggest worry on your mind at the moment. It's not beign seized though for now just frozen. Many of the so called "Olygarchs" are nominal holders of Putin's personal wealth btw.

matthewmacleod2• 4 years ago

So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?

Yes, I think most of us would agree it is reasonably acceptable to freeze the assets of people who have close ties with a government currently engaged in an invasion that is being condemned by the people doing the seizing.

Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?

I'm sure there are – and I hope that if, say, the US decides to invade Mexico and start levelling cities, then other countries seize the property of rich Americans who are backing that invasion.

And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.

No we don't – you chose to deliberately misrepresent this.

Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.

Nah, false equivalence. I think "we are going to seize the international assets of supporters of a regime engaged in a war we consider illegal" is a pretty fine tool, and really not anywhere close to "we are going to launch an all-out invasion of a relatively functional sovereign democracy".

ericmay• 4 years ago

So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?

Yes and it always has been. None of these people are actual citizens of these countries in any meaningful way, and Russia is a mafia state where the sanctioned individuals have more or less committed crime in order to gain these assets in the first place, and they are helping someone that the countries seizing assets believe is committing a war crime.

This is more like having a king and princes and princesses and seizing assets of the princes and princesses conducting the war. These aren’t like “oh shucks” rags to riches wealthy everyday Russians.

Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?

Sure you can. And Iran or Venezuela or Russia or North Korea can seize their assets in those countries for committing “crimes” as they see fit. Wonder why nobody has assets in those countries?

But this whataboutism also fails because (insert cartoon CEO villain scapegoat) isn’t giving money to Joe Biden to go personally invade Canada. It’s incomparable.

“Something something Iraq”

First who cares? We’re talking about Russia and Ukraine.

Second yes countries can decide that they don’t like Americans and seize their assets abroad.

Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary. We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.

You haven’t seen anything yet. We’re 100% going to war with Russia or will be engaging them directly unless Putin is deposed and I don’t think that’s going to happen. He wants a war so it’s just a matter of time until he decides to attack resupply missions in Poland directly on Polish soil.

kleene_op• 4 years ago

So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?
And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.

You're absolutely right in both regards but please do not conflate those two.

I'll weep zero tears over Putin's rich friends not being able to play with their yacht anymore, but common Russians having to leave their home country and suffering from heinous mob mentality outside have my dearest sympathy.

lvl102• 4 years ago

I am sorry but the world has always been this way. Countries with actual power used to take away far more than what is being done right now. The US (and the West) has been trying to do what is right which is doing it without devastations of wars. People forget the US military is good enough to wipe out 1/2 of the world within weeks. Would you rather have that? Or some bank accounts getting frozen? Your take is extremely naive.

InvertedRhodium• 4 years ago

Wait until you find out about civil forfeiture.

jasode• 4 years ago

So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?

Just in case there's misunderstanding about what "seize" means...

Are governments actually taking ownership possession (nationalizing) of Russian yachts or are they removing the assets from the owner's control?

In other words, does "seize" mean:

(1) civil forfeiture like USA police confiscating cash without due process ?

(2) freezing an asset like impounding/towing a car away and the owner can eventually get the car back later (e.g. after Russia stops the war) ?

The various reports I've read makes it seem like UK is treating Russian yachts as (2).

In contrast... with the fleets of airplanes leased from Europe sitting in Russian territory, it looks like Russia does literally want to take ownership of them in retaliation to sanctions.

Canotdohng• 4 years ago

(2) freezing an asset like impounding/towing a car away and the owner can eventually get the car back later (e.g. after Russia stops the war) ?

At least in Europe AFAIK. The rationale is to prevent, at least temporarily, oligarchs from benefiting from their assets. And the possibility of getting them back could give these influencial oligarchs an incentive to push for a resolution of the war that might be less catastrophic than where it is headed now.

thrw2355y• 4 years ago

Governments should be doing more to redistribute wealth, not perpetuate inequality.

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

Not quite sure which part of punk idealogies you are aligned with, but imo seizing assets of bloated billionaires that support and profit from war is definitely a punk move that I would support.

jltsiren2• 4 years ago

1. This is not private property in any meaningful sense of the word. Russia is not governed by the rule of the law. Those people are more like semiofficial branches of the government than private billionaires working within the system. They made their fortunes by taking advantage of corruption rather than in legitimate business.

2. Wars of this scale are not fought between governments but between societies. Anyone who contributes to the economy of Russia (or Ukraine) is participating in the war. Third countries that favor one side of the war may seize the property of those who are contributing to the other side. Legally and legitimately.

3. Property rights are only as strong as the governments guaranteeing them. If no government is able and willing to guarantee them, they cease to exist in any meaningful sense. Once the war is over and the dust has settled, the victors and their friends will sort out who owns what.

giantrobot• 4 years ago

So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?

Seizing the assets of a de facto government agent of a sanctioned country is following due process. Governments decided by their own internal deliberation mechanisms to sanction Russia for its aggression in Ukraine. The world didn't magically decide to seize assets of some random Russian speakers because they said mean words.

And now we have american media platforms saying 'yeah, it's fine to call for death to Russians'.

Nope, they relaxed rules specifically with regard to Russian armed forces[0]. It would be pretty ridiculous to ban a Facebook user in Ukraine that call for the defense of their country by attacking the invading soldiers.

[0] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-facebook-inst...

ajsnigrutin11• 4 years ago

Yep, this is something that Hitler did, when he seized the property of the Jews, but people are currently acting like nazis did, just against the russians now.

This also sets another dangerous precendent, that you can just sieze property of someone you don't like... people protesting against covid measures? Seize their property. Protesting against a pipeline.. sieze their property! BLM, pro-trump, anti-trump, eco-protests, sieze everything!

scotty7910• 4 years ago

Of course these individuals have links to their government, you think you can find some rich Americans who aren't somehow linked to their government?

Yes. And if America invaded Mexico and started shelling their cities, I'd like the world to do exactly the same. Tank the dollar into the ground and seize all assets of American companies and individuals who own over a 100mln dollars and stop all trade. You are benefiting for your government, you are materialy responsible for its actions. In the modern world there's no other way to keep the world sane.

If something is going bit too far is excluding Russian sport and culture. But even that it only mild overstepping since large number of Russians support their government and large part of Russian export of culture and sport is government subsidized.

How strongly the world reacts now is the only thing that can curb future teritorial ambitions of other countries like China. The message should be clear. Starting a war will cost you, your economy and the wealth of your wealthiest. And the world will really shrink for you because you won't be able to enjoy its freedoms.

beefield• 4 years ago

seize private property

Mind your tongue. It's not seizing, it is just a special legal operation. Absolutely nothing to do with seizing.

I'd also want to remind what Karl Popper said about Paradox of Tolerance.

" Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant. We should claim that any movement preaching intolerance places itself outside the law, and we should consider incitement to intolerance and persecution as criminal, in the same way as we should consider incitement to murder, or to kidnapping, or to the revival of the slave trade, as criminal."

CTDOCodebases• 4 years ago

So now it's just OK to seize private property of individuals without any even pretend due process?

Who said there's no due process? That's why it's getting seized. Forfeiture happens later if it's proven laws have been broken.

Besides, seizing property is better than more violence. Maybe if the Taliban seized the assets of rich american elites America would have left Afghanistan a lot sooner.

Our response to this is getting pretty fucking scary.

I'm watching people lose all their private property or worse while the aggressor responsible for the situation threatens “consequences greater than any you have faced in history” to any nation who wishes to step in and stop this. Pretty scary huh?

We need to start dialing this back or we become what we're supposedly against.

So no military intervention and sanctions. How is this supposed to end? I don't think apathy will do it.

ilammy2• 4 years ago

Besides, seizing property is better than more violence.

Also, governments can un-seize property back after a while. It's not like this stuff gets immediately liquidated and funneled into defense spending or disaster relief or whatever.

koolba3• 4 years ago

Why is seizing property without due process okay when we do it? Is it the same reason that dissenting opinions can’t be heard because they’re dangerous propaganda?

samhw• 4 years ago

This is due process, per the laws of the countries their yachts are in.

paganel3• 4 years ago

The communist nationalisation process after WW2 was also 100% legal in the countries where it was applied.

Later edit: To make things clearer, because I have the impression that people in the West live with the idea that out-here in the former Communist East (from where I'm from) things like nationalisations and all that were done sort of outside the law, hence why doing similar things in the West right now might be ok because it's done under the auspices of the law, I repeat, most of the that stuff was done with the law in hand.

I even wrote/implemented a small personal project [1] based on such a law, the June 1950 nationalisation law. I wanted to see where were located the properties of the Bucharest-based Jewish population that got their properties confiscated (remember, this was after WW2, under a regime that had fought against the Nazis). Of course that the Jews were not implicitly targeted by that law, but they were greatly affected by it (being, on average, a little better-off and more urban compared to the regular Romanian peasant).

[1]http://bucuresti.maglina.ro/nationalizari/ (you have to ignore the GMaps warning, I was too lazy to put anything else in place since their API changes some time ago; also, not sure it works on mobile).

koolba3• 4 years ago

Show me which western country and laws grants the government the right to seize property without due process. If that's really the case there's going to be a massive shift in capital allocation over the next decade.

In the USA this is specifically banned by the Constitution: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_attainder

throwawayninja• 4 years ago

This is a good thing to keep in mind; I originally figured this was outlandishly unfair, but lined up against other sanctions it makes sense. If sovereign nations can prevent profitable trade (aka ownership & exercising of business relations) it makes sense to prevent ownership & exercising of business property.

_bbny• 4 years ago

Because it helps get rid of Putin and its something we are able to do. Getting rid of Putin is our objective right now.

Is it technically ethical and nice? Maybe not, that can be debated. But I don't see why we should care. Russia's also seizing foreign property as well as invading another country, if you do want to have that ethical argument.

This is how the world works, I don't think we should get bogged down in whether it's technically entirely OK for those poor Russian-govt-linked billionaires to have less yachts. It's in our power, it's in our interest, and that's how the world works.

ajsnigrutin11• 4 years ago

So wait... if we europeans wanted to get rid of eg. clinton for bombing in yugoslavia, and then bush of the middle eastern crap (well, technically both bushes), we can just take away property of random rich americans?

paganel3• 4 years ago

Why is seizing property without due process okay when we do it

Honestly, I would have thought that the recent nationalisation of Russian oligarchs' assets over much of the Western world would sent thrills down the spines of many, many other wealthy people, no matter their citizenship. Probably it was a shock to them, too, I expect a counter-reaction via media in the coming weeks.

Locke wrote his famous treatises on government especially for cases like this one, i.e. what happens with your property when you fall on the wrong side of the current powers that be? He said that said powers shouldn't confiscate your property, and there are many smart people who have said/written during the last few centuries that that viewpoint stands at the basis of our (Western) civilisation. Interesting times, to say the least.

hbbio• 4 years ago

Without questioning if seizing the property of Russian billionaires is justified or not, if you believe in equity, the property of American billionaires should also be seized by the other countries for the nearly 200 000 civilian deaths in Iraq (which is much worse, but the US-led war lasted longer).

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Ira...

stuaxo• 4 years ago

What a fantastic idea, billionaires are a symptom of our unequal society.

We could have a ceiling of say 50 million quid and you get to say you won capitalism, and everyone throws you a bug party.

obilgic2• 4 years ago

so we force productive people to retire early?

How do you expect to have Google, Microsoft, Apple Tesla, SpaceX? if their founders were to retire once they have 50m

buro9• 4 years ago

Taxes should be doing this.

Progressive taxation should be uncapped, when you pass some threshold of "this is more than you need in the lifetimes of you, your partner, your next-of-kin to all live a life of unparalleled luxury" then it should escalate up to 99%, and if you pass some really obscene threshold equivalent to a small country's GDP then let it go to 100%.

Wealth taxation should be effective. No individual needs to own land area equivalent to a city, or housing and art assets of a disproportionate nature.

And on the flipside... income taxation can be lowered if we're more effectively taxing wealth and the obscene earnings. Instead we could encourage far more social mobility and the growing of a far larger middle-class. Tax low earners and those without wealth nothing at all, and tax the middle-class only a little.

This opinion won't resonate on HN, but modern society has become so effective at extracting money from people and enriching a few, and rent-seeking as a business model so prevalent that it does feel we're at risk of putting future generations in a serfdom role that had taken hundreds of years to get out of.

This is all distinct from what's happening in Ukraine and with sanctions, this is just an opinion about what's happening in the World at large.

sunshinerag2• 4 years ago

Why 50 million? Why millions? Think comrade

usrusr• 4 years ago

If leaving the country wouldn't be an issue, a formally established rite of "financial lynching" could be an interesting tweak to society: have a regularly occurring vote about who is the least popular rich/powerful person and the "winner" gets a very generous stipend but is stripped of all assets and contracts, like starting with new name (and data, to curb stockpiling of blackmail material for the reboot). Much safer for everyone involved than allowing imbalance to grow until it's eventually cleared out in a revolution.

twoodfin• 4 years ago

Putting aside the confiscation question, it’s morally obtuse to liken Iraqi civilian deaths, the top cause of which per that link was execution after capture by insurgent & other non-US-aligned forces, with Ukrainian deaths from indiscriminate Russian shelling of civilian neighborhoods.

someotherperson• 4 years ago

"Morallly obtuse" as if that wasn't what the US was doing[0]. I guess the Red Cross centre my cousin worked in was a legitimate military target when it was hit with a US airstrike :)

Perhaps if anyone asks the Russians they can just say it was worth it[1].

Let's stop with pretending that the reason why Ukrainian deaths are different is for any other reason than because they're pale skilled Europeans with blue eyes and blonde hair. Most major media have already admitted it, governments have already applauded it in parliament, it's probably about time that HN stops pretending it's about other reasons too.

[0] https://www.military.com/video/operations-and-strategy/iraqi...

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iFYaeoE3n4

mandmandam• 4 years ago

I seem to recall the US' indiscriminate shelling of Iraqi civilian neighborhoods broadcast with patriotic pomp and pride on the news not all that long ago.

I even saw some brown people getting murdered by US forces on TV in my local McDonalds at 4 in the day one time.

DoItToMe81• 4 years ago

The US funded and trained state death squads in Iraq, which engaged in anti-Sunni sectarian violence. We know from leaks that this violence was broadly tolerated, and even encouraged. There are cases of suspected insurgents being handed over to them to be disappeared. The blood is just as much on the hands of the US government as Ukraine's is on the Russian government.

By the Iraq War Bodycount's dataset, the civilian kill count of US forces alone, without including the Iraqi government forces, almost matches that of the sectarian terrorists who explicitly sought out to kill civilians. From occupation to leaving in 2011, it is only about 20% less. That is plainly unacceptable and criminal in any context.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2010/oct/25/iraq-t...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/oct/24/iraq-war-logs-...

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2010-03-10/oba...

https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2011-05-23/us-...

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/iraqs-new-death-sq...

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

jstanley• 4 years ago

That doesn't follow.

It's perfectly consistent to believe in equity and believe that neither the Russian nor the American billionaires' assets should be seized.

You can't just handwave away one side and say "regardless of whether you believe it's justified for group A, you have to believe it's justified for group B".

z3c0• 4 years ago

This would be a tu quoque fallacy, and when speaking of "Russia vs America", you can also call it whataboutism[1]. America's invasion of Iraq was bad, and Russia's invasion of Ukraine is bad, but only one is happening right now.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism

vowelless• 4 years ago

Should the world seize the assets of Silicon Valley billionaires over the US invasion of Iraq, Afghanistan and other actions in MENA?

Probably.

barney54• 4 years ago

Why? Because they are American?

The case against the Russian oligarchs is better because they are quasi state actors, however, but the case against the Russian oligarchs looks bad too.

newsclues3• 4 years ago

Last couple of years big tech in America became quasi state actors, we are seeing it now on social media but the last election was a glaring example.

Fordec3• 4 years ago

And Bezos, Bloomberg, Ellison, Thiel, etc. aren't quasi state actors?

Physkal• 4 years ago

It was a multinational coalition led by America. Not just America...

adrr2• 4 years ago

Comparing people who legitimately made their money instead of ripping off their nation during the transfer of government owned assets to privately owned.

Also Afghanistan wouldn’t wouldn’t have been invaded if they handed over the Osama.

ajsnigrutin11• 4 years ago

Comparing people who legitimately made their money instead of ripping off their nation during the transfer of government owned assets to privately owned.

You can't even make them pay proper taxes,... "ripped off their nation" applies very much to most sillicon valley companies.

Also Afghanistan wouldn’t wouldn’t have been invaded if they handed over the Osama.

"Do what I say, or we'll invade you!"

.... "It's ok, when americans do it!"

radmuzom• 4 years ago

And Ukraine would not have been invaded had they agreed to Russia's demands, you fucking bastard.

bluedino• 4 years ago

It'd make more sense if you said sized the assets of Donald Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, the presidents of companies like Blackwater or Lockheed Martin and Halliburton, Kuwaiti and Afghani logistics companies...

bjarneh2• 4 years ago

I always thought: Wow they seized his yacht; I never thought that these people had a bunch of these billion dollar things floating around... So they seized one of his many, many boats.

I have to agree with everybody else in this thread, not a big fan of blaming the people of Russia for what their dictator does; even if they are in his so called "inner circle". Perhaps these people can pressure Putin to change his mind, but he doesn't look like a humble man looking for advice.

throwaway2902• 4 years ago

US and Russia unites in cheering for Russian oligarchs being robbed (ordinary Russians, especially the war-supporting pseudo proletariat, never really valued wealth or private property and would happily watch oligarchs parting with their toys; and the US citizens think something productive is being done). The rich themselves would suffer next to no drop in their quality of life. They probably got rich by exploiting Russian resources, but most likely denounce Putin and the war anyway.

It is a weird development, but all things considered not the worst thing that's happening.

bjarneh2• 4 years ago

but all things considered not the worst thing that's happening.

I agree, not a big thing, and I certainly think people with that kind of wealth know more about hiding money than the rest of us will ever know, and this war will probably not affect their wealth too much. They probably all knew in advance and shorted some Russian stock on the London stock exchange - making a killing. I do find it a bit strange that we "cheer on" this seizure of property based on nationality though; but most probably think it's ok since they are so obscenely rich.

scrollaway17• 4 years ago

A small tip to HN readers: Whataboutism is key to Russian propaganda.

I'm not saying people here are Russian trolls, but if your key reaction to "What's happening in Ukraine is shit and we need to do something NOW" is to say "Oh but what about what the US did in the past?", you're amplifying Russian propaganda, and it may be because you've been hearing Russian-funded articles/media, directly or indirectly.

Nothing, in the immediate, will be done about the US's past war crimes. Should something be done? Yes. Is having this conversation now while Europe is at war and civilians are dying every day, hospitals are bombed, and millions are fleeing Ukraine? No, all that serves is to strengthen Russia's position on the web, which is a very important part of their strategy (as it has been for the past 8 years).

So I ask of you:

1. Do not amplify Putin's message and propaganda. You want to talk about this stuff? Wait for the war to end. Please.

2. Stop making everything in the world about the USA, FFS. My friends and girlfriend's family are hearing bombs fall every day, why do you have to make this about you?

heavenlyblue• 4 years ago

I really like the fact that now that RT is banned everybody read the same western articles and are attributing the whole dissent within Europe/US to Russia.

Where have you been when RT was doing that brazenly in front of your faces with full acceptance of the governments?

It's quite frankly amusing that it took Russia an invasion of Ukraine for that to become illegal, while before (Brexit, etc) it was just "freedom of speech".

scrollaway17• 4 years ago

Where have you been

I was always there, speaking out against propaganda, maybe you can check my post history.

And I don't know what you're on, but "everybody read the same western articles and are attributing the whole dissent within Europe/US to Russia" is utterly wrong. HN is becoming a very scary, far too pro-Russia place since the past week or so now that the Russians have gotten a better handle on their propaganda. If you have doubts, you can look at my post's score which is hovering around zero, constantly being voted up and down.

Opinion in Europe is extremely anti-Russia at this point, but I see that the US media is coming back to its old habits pitting controversy for the sake of clicks.

As a result, US opinion went from overwhelmingly anti-Russia to "maybe they're not all bad I mean let's just look at what we did before oh well" in the span of a few days.

dotancohen2• 4 years ago

You are wrong.

If a nation does something that other nations do, it is completely unjustified to pretend that their actions are wrong. The international community normalizes actions through actions. You might not like the fact that some particular action is normalized but you cannot suddenly villianize a nation for doing the same that other ("our allies") nations do regularly.

krapp2• 4 years ago

So what you're saying is that the West should allow Russia to do whatever it likes from now on because the US invaded Iraq, and to do otherwise would be hypocritical.

Ok. If that's the case, then Russia's actions justify any action the West ever takes in the future. There are no rules, all bets are off, and all war crimes are justified henceforth. Including the use of nuclear weapons, which was normalized in 1945, and the use of biological and chemical weapons as normalized in World War 1.

You wont' complain if any nation - the US, Israel, anyone - invades a sovereign nation and slaughters civilians because that's been normalized and is now justified, correct? And nothing - absolutely nothing - is more important than not being a hypocrite, correct?

Actually, now that I think about it, since the US wasn't even the first country to invade Iraq or Afghanistan to begin with, their actions were already justified. It's not as if the US created imperialism or war, so what are people even trying to accomplish pointing out America's flaws? It's been normalized for thousands of years, what's the problem?

scrollaway17• 4 years ago

What the hell are you talking about? Your post is extremely difficult to even parse.

Let's be clear, there are war crimes happening daily in Ukraine and there is NOTHING normalized around this. The US having done it before doesn't make it fucking normal, but it also doesn't mean the top priority now is to talk about US war crimes.

1,582 civilians killed by Russian shelling and blockade in Mariupol (Reuters): https://www.reuters.com/world/ukraines-mariupol-says-1582-ci...

Lavrov confirmed that Russia deliberately bombed a maternity hospital in Mariupol (Article with more details from the Independent): https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/russia-maternity-hospti...

These are just two random recent examples I pulled from a long list of updates. Let me know if you want more, there's a buffet of choice.

andonisus• 4 years ago

Why not? They are enemies, not friends. We should vilify our enemies and celebrate our allies. This is the nature of the world. Sometimes you must draw a line in the sand and pick a side. It is not possible to straddle the middle and try to apply the same sets of rules to every actor; each circumstance is different and should be treated with the nuance it requires.

scotty7910• 4 years ago

Yeah. USA should be treated exactly like that when they annexed parts of Mexico. But global economy wasn't developed to such a degree that this would have any impact back then.

paganel3• 4 years ago

Should have probably mentioned "Russian Oligarchs" in the title, didn't see anything about Jeff Bezos (an oligarch by definition, he even has his own MSM thingie) and the like.

jeanlou• 4 years ago

This is becoming ridiculous

asimpletune• 4 years ago

I just want to remind those who are talking about due process that this is about crowd sourcing where assets of Russian oligarchs are. That is not the same thing as denying them due process. In other words, it's just a website.

On the other hand, the actual due process part happen when the actual authorities of those countries, follow the laws of their country, and seize those assets because of sanctions.

sha256sum• 4 years ago

I just want to remind those who are talking about due process that this is about crowd sourcing where assets of Russian oligarchs are…it's just a website.

An upvote alone is not enough to echo this comment. After all this is Hacker News. Not really a great place for insight in due process, but a good one for things OSINT visualization projects

gambler2• 4 years ago

Reframing mass doxing as crowd sourcing doesn't change the basic dynamics of what's going on.

qaq2• 4 years ago

Yes those poor cleptocrat oligarchs with their 100 mil+ yachts being doxed

dwaltrip• 4 years ago

Reframing crowd sourcing as mass doxing doesn't change the basic dynamics of what's going on.

koolba3• 4 years ago

I just want to remind those who are talking about due process that this is about crowd sourcing where assets of Russian oligarchs are. That is not the same thing as denying them due process. In other words, it's just a website.

So it's not doxxing because they're Russians?

gambler2• 4 years ago

A lot of these "oligarchs" have citizenships of European countries. (Which, in my opinion, they shouldn't have been given in the first place, but that's an entirely different conversation.) So in many cases people are effectively cheering for extra-judicial property seizure of European citizens. The consequences of setting such precedent will go way beyond the scope of the current conflict.

DaltonCoffee• 4 years ago

The simple fact that the term oligarch has come to be assumed to be preceded by the term Russian, as in the title, speaks volumes.

Honest question: Are Russian oligarchs more tied to the Russian gov't than in the USA, like how the RBN is more tied to gov't than American counterparts such as Pegasus/etc.

cabirum• 4 years ago

Well then, don't act surprised when all Western companies and assets get nationalized.

Fordec3• 4 years ago

Russia already announced they are doing so for any company that shuts down operations (even temporarily) in Russia that have 25% or more foreign control last week.

This talk now is in response to Russia acting in that manner first.

5etho• 4 years ago

well, offtop by Russophilis is getting out of hand. Russia was aggresor, in 1994 in Chechnya IIRC 1999 Chechnya, Georgia 2008, Ukraine 2014, Ukraine 2022. Russian FSB do terrorists attack on their own citizen [1]. Case is simple, goverment is a war crime and was for 28 years. There is a whole generation of young people brainwashed by their parents with roots back to 1800s tsarist propaganda. Russians need to step up and deal with their horrible country past. I, as a polish, kinda has a natural degree in sovietology and Moscow war crimes throughout the ages.

I'm sorry that you're dealing with some incovenciencse. But there are people dying right now.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_apartment_bombings

ajsnigrutin11• 4 years ago

Now do usa!

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

But when america does it, it's a "war for peace!" - https://img.timeinc.net/time/magazine/archive/covers/1995/11...

Look, we all agree war is bad... I live in the balkans, and I had american planes flying above my roof, bombing a country 300km away not that long ago... not to forget all of our "local" wars before that. But saying that americans are any better than russians or vice-versa is a huge lie. Russians atleast had a "weak" period in the 90s, where they didn't do this shit, until they got their economy fixed a bit, americans didn't stop even then.

scrollaway17• 4 years ago

The US is not currently invading Ukraine. "Now do USA!" is whataboutism. It's what Putin is using as his justification to invade Ukraine:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/24/world/europe/putin-ukrain...

Please. Stop. Amplifying. Putin's. Message.

wilde2• 4 years ago

So much whattaboutism in this thread. We are at war. Seizing property of the other belligerents is a very normal thing to do in a war. Russia is currently seizing assets from American companies who leave the country.

Russia is currently bombing Ukrainian hospitals. This is a somewhat tame escalation in that light.

scrollaway17• 4 years ago

A lot of whataboutism. Many people downvoting the ones reminding those who are sitting safe in their unthreatened homes talking about "both sides" and "due process" that this isn't a fair and honorable fight, this is a dictator expanding into Europe by killing civilians and using his wealth and power to bully politicians and other states.

If there are digital archives left over after all this, these are the conversations people in the future will be reading to understand why the fuck Russia was able to get so much implicit support. Ever wonder "how germans let Hitler get away with it"? Future generations will look back at these to understand how Putin got away with so much.

Say hi, you're on a book. What year is this?

insickness• 4 years ago

You complain about whattaboutism then point out that Russia is doing the same thing three sentences later. "We are at war" has been used to justify the worst atrocities in human history.

wilde2• 4 years ago

It’s not whattaboutism if they’re linked. The two actions are by belligerents in the same conflict.

EDIT: I’m also calling it whattaboutism because I don’t think folks are actually arguing that other nations should have entered the Iraq war on the side of Iraq or ISIS. If they’re legit arguing that, it’s valid (though I disagree).

Wronnay• 4 years ago

Where was all this reaction in 2008 when Russia invaded Georgia?!

Russia is TO THIS FUCKING DAY in Georgia and nobody cares about it.

Georgia and Ukraine are just 1,167 km = 725 miles away but the West only plays world super police when something near to the EU border happens or if the country has a lot of Oil.

I am really sick of the politics of both sides. If the US would have done something in 2008, than Russia wouldn't even dare to touch Ukraine.

scrollaway17• 4 years ago

Shouldn't you be happy there is at least a reaction now?

I could say the exact same of Turkey and Cyprus. Being sick of the politics "on both sides" only serves to lessen the CURRENT reaction. It's not useful.

You want payback for Georgia? I want payback for a lot of other things that didn't get their deserved political reaction. NOW is better than "let's just not do it cause we didn't do it last time".

scotty7910• 4 years ago

I'm terribly sorry that it took Georgia and Chechnya for the west to finally get of their asses. I guess third time's the charm.

Poland understood what was happening from the first invasion. But western governments have their perception impaired by distance or something. Maybe yoi can't hear bombs that well from under all of that Russian oil.

Only the vision of Russian tanks on NATO border and two million of refugees entering EU got through to them.

Mapping and Seizing the Oligarchs' Assets

Related Stories