No. of Recommendations: 4
I'm replying to a different post on the BRK board (by RayVT)
RayVT (in italics)
I find it amusing that Europe is considering ignoring "rule of law" with respect to the $300 billion of frozen Russia assets. Lending money using Russia's assets as collateral. (Great, I'll borrow money from the bank and put your house up as collateral.) Seizing the interest earned on the $300B. (The earnings of an asset belong to the owner of that asset.)
RayVT
-The latest proposal is that Ukraine assign their war reparations claims ...
This would be the first time I have ever heard of the loser of a war making the winner pay reparations.
But, hey, this isn't the first wild claim from Ukraine.
-This is generally legal (if one is mindful of a few technicalities) and has long precedent, and would accomplish about the same thing as outright confiscation.
Which winners of a war in history had their assets forcibly taken from them and given to the loser? Usually it's the other way around.
Did Rome pay reparations to Carthage?
--------------------------------------------------
You said that "the earnings of an asset belong to the owner of that asset"
But your context is lacking:
Russia rolled tanks into a sovereign country which was a European ally, Putin got surprised that they didn't win in a few days, and he got sucked into such a meat grinder that he needed North Korean troop reinforcements.
Ukraine has been supported by the U.S. and by its European allies (not to get side-tracked, but Trump's claims about relative amounts of aid from Europe and from the U.S. are fact-checked lies). As an aside, Russia is a long-term foe of U.S. ideals and interests, it's currently run by a thug who has looted the country along with his oligarch buddies of roughly a trillion dollars, and this lot brutally invaded a neighboring democratic country and European ally.
About 300 billion dollars of Russian central bank reserves is held outside the country in the form of currency as well as soverign bonds of China, France, Germany and the UK. Given that Russia has broken international law, and has obviously caused great damage to Ukraine infrastructure (as well of course as great loss of life), my opinion is that imposing requirements that it pays for some of the damage it caused as a condition of ending the war is reasonable. What's been discussed is that interest on the sovereign debt not go to Russia but instead go to arm and/or repair Ukraine, and Russia would get its principal back when the war ends. As for the currency, which does not have contractual obligations as debt does, my personal opinion is to confiscate it and use it to repair Ukraine's injuries, but I'm not an expert on currency law. Perhaps that's somewhat "extra-judicious', but heck so is Putin, so fair play.
Which winners of a war in history had their assets forcibly taken from them and given to the loser? Usually it's the other way around.
Did Rome pay reparations to Carthage?
As for Russia "winning" -- well it didn't.
Also, the "I win, you lose, and everything is zero sum" idea, that seems to me to be central to Trump's policies, is just factually wrong.
Consider WWII: "we", i.e. the U.S. and allies, won.
The U.S. then instituted the Marshall plan, which helped rebuild Italy, Great Britain, and France ... and Germany. Germany lost. General MacArthur also coordinated economic aid to Japan, as well as implementing needed institutional reforms. Japan lost.
By helping the loser, the winner i.e. the U.S., ultimately benefited.
It's not zero sum.
A similar notion holds in business (and diplomacy).
It's usually a bad policy to try screw every last dime from your partner in a business deal, if only because this is very sort-sighted i.e. you'd ultimately get even more just by taking a longer view.
If all parties walk away from a deal thinking they got something they wanted, even if the deal was a tooth and nail negotiation, then it's more likely in future that the parties would do something together that again benefits them both.
But if one party feels screwed, while the other smirks, there will be no other future benefits accruing to either of them.
Furthermore, other parties will view a zero-sum transaction policy of the winner in this isolated instance, and decide they either don't with to deal with that party, or will only do so on the harshest terms.
Zero sum is a losing policy.
