This week, I’m looking at the controversial question of Russian reparations for Ukraine. Should Russia be made to pay reparations for the death and destruction it has caused? Or do you think it will complicate efforts to end the war? And is it time for a general principle of reparations? More to the point, should Russian assets be confiscated to cover the huge costs, even though this could have very serious broader consequences? As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments below. (By the way, there’s a bit of family history with the subject, and there’s a little easter egg in the video. My great-grandfather makes an appearance. He was the British delegate on the Reparation Commission after the First World War. But can you guess which one he is in the photo?)
No, I don't think Russia should. My reasoning is that the idea itself of reparations is a type of block to the progress of peace. The government and the people need an easy way out, being told that once the war ends, they'll be forced to pay X amount of dollars makes people even more entrenched in their views. Peace is what's ultimately important and we have to make it as easy as psychologically possible for Russian people to want that, that's what I believe.
That's a very cool family history, your great-grandfather is in the front row, second from the right. Weren't all these opposition concerns about reparations also the same concerns given in the past? Russia is already seizing western assets, maybe not governmental but certainly from the private sector. I don't see why the west can't go to the court beforehand and get a decision? I think the west has been walking on eggshells this entire time only to eventually cave and grant what they have been resisting. How many lives could have been saved if the west had some kahunas on day one and supplied all that Ukraine needed. Have a great weekend Prof. hope the weather is nice in your neck of the woods. PS your great-grandfather would be proud of the work you do; you certainly are appreciated during these times.
The same people who are advocating reparations for Ukraine from Russia are very silent on the same question regarding the Vietnam war and the USA. Silence on the USA in case of Grenada in the 1980s. Silence or complete aggression against the idea of reparations for descendants of the victims of slavery and the Atlantic slave trade. Silence on European colonial powers (France, Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Germany) and their destruction/raping of former African, Caribbean, Asian, and Pacific Islands colonies. Why the righteousness now?
It's important to consider what framework is appropriate beforehand given the side doing the contemplating is concerned with how well whatever they impose is in accord with the good functioning of the current international system.
I live on a railway where no train has run for 50yrs...pehaps you could start your repreations to Vietnam there or perhaps a thousand other places or pay for the 300 Vietnamese that are killed every yr from your unexploded ordinance
@@williamridgeway4315 , haha. Why don’t you ask the Vietnamese? Or does everything in the world go by the American/Western perspective? Btw, I talked to many Vietnamese in Vietnam. Americans bombed civilian infrastructure and deprived civilians of water, electricity for decades.
@@richiesd1 Do you mean "the NORTH Vietnamese did PLENTY OF HARM to the SOUTH Vietnamese and South Vietnam found a mighty champion in the USA" or are you happy to peddle cheesy myths instead ??
I am not sure who is the ‘you’ is in the comment. I am not American. I am British. We had nothing to do with what happened in Vietnam. Britain sat out that war.
Of course, this talk of -reparations- goes over well in the West but for many people beyond the West, they want to know: When does the US pay operations to Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and more. They ask why the US is exempt from the -Rule-based order- that it talks about so much? Because Ukraine is on the border of RUssia, its pretense for invasion is far more plausible than the US invasions.
The US pays considerable amounts in aid money. This is often forgotten. And this money doesn’t just go to countries that have been affected by wars where the US played a part, but also helps to rebuilt many countries affected by conflicts it wasn’t involved in.
@@JamesKerLindsay Prof James, your perspective, and that of Western elites, is finding no traction in the Global South. That should be cause for reflection regarding Western double standards in international relations. Deep reflection.
To be fair Biden has created a fund to be given to Iraqis and Afghans but he doesn't want to give it to them now because he knows it will just be taken by the current governments of both of those countries because the current governments are both of those countries don't give a crap about the welfare of their own citizens so that fund is just sitting there frozen and accumulating interest
- "No clearer example than Iraq." If that's the clearest example you have, then your case is pretty weak. Ukraine is a peaceful democracy that wasn't a threat to Russia or anybody else. Iraq was a brutal and aggressive dictatorship that was a threat to the (already weak stability) of the region. I'm not arguing for or against the war in Iraq, but just pointing out the silliness of your example. Iraq also would never even consider demanding reparations, as it would very soon face stronger cases against itself brought by Iran, Quwait and other countries it attacked in recent history for no reason. Also brutally repressed ethnic groups inside Iraq could very well make demands of their own. Because of the invasion the Iraqi people also got rid of a cruel, long standing dictator who held the country under his iron fist. They probably couldn't have done that themselves.
United Kingdom, as a part of NATO military, invaded the following countries, just in the last 25 years: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya (air space invasion), Syria. All mentioned invasions are illegal under International law, as United Nation's Security Council never approved any of those invasions. Yes, James Ker-Lindsay - a UK citizen makes a video about Russian reparations. What about reparations of upper mentioned countries taken from UK?
Here is a list of countries russia has invaded the past 30 years Russia occupied Transnistria. ... 1992-1993 - Russia provoked the Abkhazian war. ... 1994-1996 - first Russian-Chechen war. ... 1999-2009 - second Russian-Chechen war. ... 2008 - Russian-Georgian war. ... 2015-2022 - Russia's invasion of Syria. And obviously Ukraine and Georgia
They get enough. It's called international aid. And it was Africans that sold the slaves to Europeans, and Arabs of course but you probably chose to forget that part. So why reward them for enslaving their neighbours ?
First Russia has seized European assets without compensation before the war began through nationalisation of joint ventures, etc.. Second it's a question of value, Russian assets in Europe are greater than European assets in Russia. Third European governments can afford to compensate European investors, Russia cannot do the same since it's out of money, the seized assets are largely state owned, and the private assets belong to those that run the country in the first place.
Hahaha because Russia is such a weak little cowardly bully, that because it started an illegal war it thinks Europe are attacking it by donating weapons to the attacked country.
@@Matt_The_Hugenot Can tell you in more detail exactly WHICH assets Russia seized and WHEN? This "civilized" American-European monkey house has imposed sanctions against Russia since 2014
I don’t think I have an opinion as to whether the assets should be seized or not. However, any argument, the West makes as to the morality of the situation is laughable. After what the United States is allowing to happen in Gaza, we have lost the moral high ground to such luminaries as turkey and South Africa. Any claim to any sort of moral right by the United States is, on its face, not worthy even of contempt.
As I point out, I think we need to be careful with the ‘what about the US argument’. We are discussing reparations. The US has a history of paying for reconstruction and recovery, often in conflicts that it had no part in. It is one of the largest aid donors in the world. You can find the data here. www.foreignassistance.gov/cd It includes Palestine. (Under the heading West Bank and Gaza.)
@@crackpot0236excellent,he is totally confused professor for real ,he keep pointing out nonsense so called charities the USA is dumping to zeep their 👄. He knows better .
@@JamesKerLindsay the largest recipients of US aid (once you exclude the Marshall plan) is Israel and Egypt (for doing Israels bidding). The money given to Palestine goes to support the bantustan govt in Ramallah for collaborating with the zionists.
I think it is worth pointing out that the US has paid vast amounts of development aid to Iraq. And it still does. The invasion may have been wrong, but the US has paid large sums towards reconstruction and recovery. But the question here is about Ukraine. How should Russia be made to pay?
No, it won’t. But let’s not also forget that these countries weren’t peaceful democracies beforehand. And let’s certainly not forget what happened with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, a man who caused the deaths of millions by starting the Iran-Iraq war and then invaded Kuwait. He also tortured and killed his own people and carried chemical weapons attacks on Kurds. He was a threat to international peace and security and to Iraqis.
The US has an enormous aid budget. It has spent hundreds of billions on reconstruction and recovery in many countries, often in states destroyed by conflicts it wasn’t involved in. The US rebuilt Europe after WWII. Russia has no such record.
@@JamesKerLindsay I mean that's literally untrue. The Soviets had the Molotov Plan after WW2 which was of course less succesful than the Marshall Plan but you cannot deny its existence. Also the Soviet Union subsidized the economies of the Eastern Bloc nations during the Cold War and the collapse of this relationship partly led to the economic downturn after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc.
@@TSEliot1978 I would hardly assess the Soviet reconstruction in the same way. One just needs to look at the outcome. The Soviets effectively occupied most of Eastern Europe (albeit accepting that British, France and the US occupied West Germany). And the Molotov Plant was only introduced used after the USSR rejected the Marshall Plan for areas under its control.
@@m.a.118Marshall plan was nothing close to a reparation. It was aid used to create industries to boost the economies of European countries allied to the US to counter Soviet influence.
@@shakiMiki Depends on the perspective. Winning wars is never the goal, endless wars that cost trillions of tax payer dollars are. Maximum damage has been done, Millions of civilians have been murdered. In that they were quite successful.
Please make a video about the Palestinians right to get reparation from Israel, USA, Britain, German, and all of the other former colonial powers who have stolen their land, forced them to live under apartheid m, keep selling weapons to Israel, and the over 75 years of torture and unaliving they endure.
I see the russki ruble patrol is alive and well. Take your 15 rubles and drink lots of vodka comrade. I mean lots of it all at once until you see your ancestors
@@atomm3331 вы по себе людей не судите. Русские не платят за грязные комменты. Это прерогатива страны которые развязала десятки войн. Начиная с коренного населения Америки.
@@JamesKerLindsayit has confiscated many companies under forced / compulsory purchase and confiscated $10 billion of planes belonging to Ireland alone- there were hundreds more. Any future re-entry of Russia to global economy & lifting the sanctions will be contingent upon reparations to all affected.
My oppinion is that, this analyse should be modified by this way: 1) instead of word Russia to use word NATO, 2) instead of word Ukraine to use word Serbia (or FR Yugoslavia), 3) instead of years 2022, 2023 or 2024 to use year 1999. And only with those changes this "analyse" would have sence. Serbia has sufered "illegal agression" from NATO countries (without permission of UN SC and without attacking any NATO member state) and had over 150 billion material war damage plus over 3000 people dead and many more wounded, plus plus even more people died from uranium munition used during bombing of Serbian towns. When FR Yugoslavia officialy asked from UN Court of justice to force NATO to pay war compensation, the answer of the Court was that the Court is not autorised to such a legal process. And that is a message to whole free world about fairness and principness of western legal bodies under UN umbrela.
You do realise that the United States and EU have given vast sums of development aid to Serbia after Milošević was ousted? I work on the Balkans. (And I was critical of Kosovo’s independence.) But, I find it interesting that when Serbs are asked who has helped them the most they list Russia. In fact, it’s nowhere near as much as the West. And I think that many Serbs also selectively forget what Milošević did. He is responsible for much of the chaos and destruction as Yugoslavia collapsed. Many feel that Serbia is the country that should be paying. All this is to say that while I accept that Serbia feels aggrieved, it only tells itself part of the story. Many in ten country tend to forget the damage it caused, and overlook how much assistance it has received since then, including significant EU money to help with European integration.
@@JamesKerLindsay Changing the thesis is not an answer, it's rather avoiding of the argumented answer. The main point of the author's video analyse is "Justice", "Legality", "Morality" on the confiscating of Russian property from the Western countries in order to make Russia to "pay" for its "aggression war" against Ukraine. When I changed the names of the subjects by remembering on the case of 1999 aggression of NATO 19 countries against one single Yugoslavia which was unpunished by any world court, or any other institution, what I got as an answer is "Serbia got financial help form West after Milosevic was thrown down (not saying that we got 90% of that help as credits with interest rate 4% and up, not saying exact amount of 15 billion € what is just 10% from war demage that NATO caused to Serbia while throwing 75.000 tons of bombs on Serbian towns). By following that same logic of thinking Russia is very willing to give Ukraine a credit of few billions $ as "financial help" after President Zelenski is thrown down from power and Ukraine accept the fact that they shouldn't challenge the "great power" in its geopolitical agenda.
@@bakisastilom Please remind this forum what Serbia had been doing in Kosovo prior to the NATO intervention. Did NATO intervention occur in a vacuum? Were there diplomatic efforts to resolve issues prior? Let's also not forget what Serbia had been doing in Bosnia earlier too.
@@nigelgarrett7970 I am very glad to explain, it's not hard when the facts are transparent for any check. To explain the case of Bosnia and Kosovo man must return into 6th century when Serb south Slavic tribes came to Balkan peninsula from Carpathian mountains, they settled themselves on the current territory of Kosovo, central Serbia, North Macedonia and Bosnia. Since 6th century until 13th century Serbs were investing blood and hard work in protecting those lands from neighbouring powers. In 13th century Serbs were the only Balkan nation to confront to enormous Turkish Otoman army. After the battle of Kosovo 1389 when 50% of Serbian male population died as a soldiers who were defending its land, its christian religion and Europen continent we lost the battle but we killed Turkish sultan and more then half of its army. From 13th century until 1912 we were submitted to genocide, ethnic cleaning and religious convertion into Islam from Turkish authorities. Many times we were raising rebellions against Turks and every time were supported in every means only from Russian Empire. In Balkan wars 1912-1913 Serbs have finally liberated our people on Kosovo and North Macedonia. The Albanians who were Turkish supporters and collaborationists for about 7 centuries (from 13th until 20th century) were submitted finally to the same regim of life like they were making to Serbs. In the first World war Serbian people lost 1.3 million of its population from the genocide made by Austrians, Germans, Albanians and Bulgarians (40% of total population). Serbian aim was primarily creation of "6th century Serbia" or some are calling it "Great Serbia" but the Croatian and Slowenien Slavic brothers were pleasing us to create a joint state of Yugoslavia because their lands would be otherwise shared between Hungary and Italy. We helped them unfortunately. In the Kingdom of Yugoslavia brother love broke very fast and we Serbs were seen as a oppressors in stead of saviours from Italy and Hungry. In the Second world war we Serbs lost 1.7 million of our population. Croats, Albanians and Bosnian Muslims were main collaborationists of Nazy Germany in commiting genocid against Serbian people. After WW2 newly established Communist Yugoslavia led by Croat Josip Broz Tito wanted to stop serbian revanchism and they have split country into 6 republics with strong federal government in Belgrade. Under the policy of "Weak Serbia - strong Yugoslavia" inside Serbia were created two autonomous regions (Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohia). Each of 6 Republics had its constitution in which were precisely described how they can leave Yugoslavia and become independent country. 1/3 part
@@nigelgarrett7970 part 2/3 According to the Constitution of Socialist Republic of Slovenia, the people of Slovenia have right on self-determination if they want it. Slovens have used their right according to Socialist Constitution and President of Serbia Slobodan Milosevic was not against that. In the federal Yugoslav government led by Croat Ante Markovic they decided to send Yugoslav people's Army to stop Slovenian secession. Milosevic was very furious when he heard about Jugoslav Army Intervention in Slovenia and he was the one who has all credits for peaceful withdrawal of Yugoslav Army from Slovenia. Later came Macedonia, according to the Constitution of Socialist Republic of Macedonia, the Macedonian people just like Slovenian people have right for independence. In Macedonia was referendum for independence 1991 and again thanks to Serbian President Milosevic Jugoslav Army has peacefuly withdrew from Macedonia. Than came Croatia, in Croatia were living 25% of Serbs (1.000.000) and in WW2 Croats killed 700.000 Serbs in concentration camp called "Jasenovac", Yugoslav President Tito (1945-1980) has made Croatian Socialist Constitution on very specific way. There was written that Croatia is a Republic of Croat and Serbian people and each decision can be made only if 51% of Croat parlamentaries and 51% of Serbian parlamentaries vote YES. In the Constitution of Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were written that any decision can be made only if 51% of Bosniaks (Muslims), 51% of Serb and 51% of Croat parlamentaries vote YES. In 1991 Serbian President Milosevic was very relaxed cause he knew that by such decision making system Croatia and Bosnia will stay in Yugoslavia. The war started when Croats supported by Germany and US were ignoring Serbian vote NO in Croatian Parlament, same happened in Bosnian Parlament, Serbian vote NO was ignored. Therefore President Milosevic had to help Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia in order not to be genocided third time in history. (next part 3/3 Kosovo 1999)
Yes, in a way. The US, Britain and EU pay vast amounts in development aid. This not only goes to countries where they have been involved militarily, but also goes to rebuild many countries destroyed by conflicts where they played no role. I think we need to be careful. It’s easy to present the West as bad. But it is only honest also acknowledge the part it plays in helping many countries.
You should know that Russia took a lot as reparation from countries it occupied after WW2. It is only just it is too made to pay reparations. You only know the history of Western countries, so you only compare with that, but if you informed yourself on what happened after WW2 to countries abandoned beyond the Iron Curtain, you would find out how they were economically despoiled (is this the correct word?) by the Russians , who even relocated entire factories as spoils of war. As a Romanian, I would also like to bring to your attention that in WW1, whyle being allied to the Russian Empire, we send 94 traincars full of gold from the National Bank reserve for safekeeping in Russia, together with art treasures and the crown jewels, only to never see them again, with the exception of a few much to famous to be kept. To this day they have not returned our treasure!
@@JamesKerLindsay The question was not if they provide development aid - after all, Russia also gives development aid, so, again, that same reasoning could be used, then. It's about paying for all the damages they do when waging war. And the answer to that is a definite no. You know this as well as I do. If you don't believe me, ask Vietnam. BTW, I'm from the West myself. I'm not portraying "them" as bad. I'm portraying "them" as hypocritical. And rightfully so. Just like all the rest, I don't give our own politicians any slack, just because they're "ours". Russia is no saint, but neither are we, and I'm getting pretty sick of our constant one-sided arguments and excuses, why we can do what another can't. I value the logic and rationality of an argument above a tribal feeling of "we're the good ones and they're the bad ones, and therefor everything we say goes" mentality.
Thanks for a balanced discussion but I think you missed one important economic argument against confiscation. The use of the dollar as the international currency is already threatened and setting aside property rights would definitely hasten that outcome. It would be an own goal of historic proportions .
Thanks. Great point. I did touch on this, albeit indirectly. As I mentioned, there is an expectation that the EU and US are safe havens for assets. That would be put at risk they confiscated assets. And you are right, this could have very serious knock on effects for the dollar and the euro. This was why Lagarde also warned against eroding the international legal order. But it is good that you spelled it out.
@@JamesKerLindsay Hey James. I love your channel. Could you do an video on what would happen if the dollar stopped being the reserve world currency, so people can finally see what a dangerous game they're playing?
The level of hypocrisy displayed by them is truly astounding, as they have revealed themselves to be both frauds and hypocrites. However, it is important to note that the situation in Ukraine cannot be compared to the horrific events in Gaza.
Hypocrice..! Well.. Here ,we must thank the Russian foreign minister mr.Lavrov. Right with the beginning of their illegal invasion against Ukraine, the man mentioned about the Cyprus issue, and how all those western countries hypocrites are still have their eyes,ears and Mouths completely shut about. ! Thank you sir..! .mr.Lavrov Cypriot
I absolutely sympathize with the Palestinians and I think the war is horrible. But why is Hamas so hell-bent on continuing the war??? The are sacrificing their own people and they know it and don't care. Even if Israel stops, Hamas won't.
@@JamesKerLindsayno it does not. It uses organizations like IMF to loan in $ in return for market reform so US corporations can exploit those economies
@@JamesKerLindsayWe all know USAID is more of a bribe with lots of strings attached, similar to what China does with their "friendly loans", than reparations...
@@JamesKerLindsay , that’s not the same as compensation to actual victims of bombing and killings. - people whose houses very destroyed and family members murdered. Think about it objectively… for example China built Laos a modern high speed train, 5G mobile networks, etc… what has the USA done to improve people’s lives? Plus discretionary development aid is not the same as humiliating, legally mandated reparation payments to victims.
Why US did not pay any reparations for the death and destruction during their war operations in Livia, Siria, Aphganistan, Irak? Is it time for a general principle of reparations to these countries?
Всем пожелателям российских компенсаций следует захлопнуть свою ненасытную варежку. И открыть ее не раньше, прежде чем Россия предъявит счет за разрушенный Донбасс, за 8-летнюю экономическую блокаду Крыма и Донецкой/Луганской народных республик, за ущерб от НЕЗАКОННО введенных санкций
The US lost against Vietnam and never ended up paying reparations. Why would we expect Russia, currently gaining ground in Ukraine, to be made to pay reparations. It's not even clear that European countries want to keep the current sanctions against Russia, let alone force it to pay reparations.
Gaining ground? You mean how Ukraine is retaking the territory that Russia spent thousands of soldiers to gain? Also the US supported an internationally recognized state against it's enemy (and internal guerillas). You might think it was right or not. But that is the fact. The US didn't invade north Vietnam to make it the 51st state, did not kidnap thousands of children and, as far as I know, didn't steal Vietnamese toilets to take them home
And Europe is pretty united to keep the sanctions against the last European nation that abolished serfdom, since the country of putlerism is bent on reinvading both Poland and the Baltic states
@Konstantin2004 how many Vietnamese civilians did the Americans kill? Let me know when the Russian total gets somewhere near that total. I dont expect to hear from you
Moscow has also lost a total of 15,319 armored combat vehicles, 7,984 tanks, 19,078 vehicles and fuel tanks, 857 anti-aircraft warfare systems, 359 military jets, 326 helicopters and 28 warships as of 06/19/24. Glorious🎉
Should Russia pay reparations? This question in return reflects many so-called war circumstances; for example, should the U.S pay all reparations for the great losses of Vietnam War, Iraq war, Libya, etc and should German pay reparations for the losses of the world war II? Should Islael pay reparations for brutal killing Palestinians and destruction of Gaza? Should Ukraine pay reparations for killing more than 14,000 people in Donbass? so on and so forth.
I covered all this in the video. But if you believe that the US should pay elsewhere (and in many ways it has through vast amounts of aid money) then I presume that you agree that Russia should also pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine, through direct reparations or also by channeling aid money to the country?
A likely scenario is that the war will only end with a ceasefire. The part of Ukraine under American, Western influence will be rebuilt with Western money, while the West will not contribute to the reconstruction of the part under Russian administration, it will be Russia's task and financial burden.
Lets just take exemples for other conflicts 1) US war in Vietnam : Did the US pay war reparations to Vietnam? No, they did not. 2) Did the US pay war reparations to Iraq/ Vietnam? No, they did not. 3 ) Did israel pay war reparations or help rebuild Gaza for the infinite times they have destroyed It, never, in fact they have asked arab countries to pay, and now with the last gaza genocidal war, Israeli elites when they talk about after they dont consider paying anything… 3) Did Israel Pay syria for war reparation and for the seize of Gollan Heights ? No they didn’t… So if on the previous conflicts caused by the West, we have never heard of reparations payment, why would russia pay now ??
Were there war reparations after the Vietnam war ended ? Vietnam , Cambodia and Laos were never compensated for damages suffered in the wars against France and USA ! How about Yugoslavia , Iraq , Libya , Afghanistan ? The NATO countries never paid a dime ! How about Israel , will they be force to pay war reparations ?
Unless Russia lose this war and surrender without conditions, you cannot force them to pay war reparations. I mean the US lost the Vietnam war and paid no reparations.
Let me dispel this mythology right now, because I can't believe people have forgotten what actually happened. The US did not "lose" the Vietnam War. The US left Vietnam in March of 1973 with a treaty in hand that stated that North Vietnam and the Vietcong would respect South Vietnamese sovereignty and the issue of Vietnamese reunification would be resolved through a democratic, diplomatic process. So when we left Vietnam, we did so understanding that our mission of defending South Vietnamese sovereignty had succeeded. Therefore, we didn't "lose" the Vietnam War, we left it thinking that we had won. The Nixon Administration even actually called March 29, 1973, "VVN Day." Just shy of two years later, in December of 1974, North Vietnam reneged on the treaty, invaded South Vietnam and, by April of 1975, had conquered it. So what most call "The Vietnam War" was actually two wars. The First Vietnam War, which started in 1954 and ended in 1973, was a victory for South Vietnam and its allies, at least inasmuch as they prevented a North Vietnamese conquest of the South. And the Second Vietnam War, which started in December 1974 and ended in April 1975, was a victory for North Vietnam and its allies, as it conquered South Vietnam. The United States took part in the First Vietnam War as one of South Vietnam's allies, and in that war our side was victorious. Right or wrong, the United States was not a participant in the Second Vietnam War, so we actually didn't lose anything. I understand, there was an American military presence in Saigon at the beginning of the 1970s, but by mid decade, the American military presence was gone, the place was under a communist flag and it had been renamed "Ho Chi Minh City." I can definitely see how a someone unfamiliar with the details can interpret that as a defeat. But to do so is to forget the specific events that took place and their chronology. But back to the point, we actually did NOT lose the Vietnam War, so we owe no one reparations for anything. Thank you.
@@benjauron5873 No matter how hard you try to spin it, it was a loss. If it was up the US, they would have never back down. They accomplished and gained nothing in this war. So yeah they signed an agreement that didn't make them lose the face but it was definitely their loss.
@@donrog5035 oh look another "UNitEd StateS Badd SOo RuSsIa NooT bAdDD" .. well by your logic why should germany pay reperations after ww2 because russia hasnt paid ukraine for starving over a million of its own people.. . do you realize how ignorant your OG comment is? or do you just love ruzzia that much?
@@JamesKerLindsayBecause Israel does not pay. Why should Russians pay? As far as Israel is concerned, you are not saying that it should pay war reparations. When it comes to the Russians, you believe they should pay war reparations. Don't you think this is ironic? Does the concept of evil vary across states? Is it good if Israel does this? Would it be bad if the Russians did this? Sorry, but first the British. French. Americans. Israelis must pay compensation for the crimes against humanity they committed. Then we will all try to make the Russians pay for this.
This is not a discussion about Gaza. I posted a video about Gaza reconstruction a few weeks ago. (Which most of my viewers who often raise Palestine on other videos seemed to ignore.) Let's focus on Ukraine and the myriad of important and complex issues I tried to raise in this video.
Thanks. That’s the interesting point about the current debates. In the past, this would have been the case. But the modern international system is highly interconnected. Russia has many assets in the West. Some have suggested that these should be seized now to pay for the war. This is the why the discussion over reparations is happening now. Ukraine needs funds and there is a way to get hold of this money. But, as I explained, it carries serious questions.
@@JamesKerLindsay well that is a mambo jumbo thing.. unless the defeated side signs any reparation agreement ending a conflict... taking money us simply theft or confiscation at best..
@@JamesKerLindsay The West has about the same amount of assets in Russia. Which will be seized in retaliation, as authorities clearly said. Long live the dollar reserve system, good luck =)
Забудьте о выплатах как страшный сон! Вам Россия ничего не должна и ничего не будет выплачивать!!! Кто вы такие чтобы вообще открывать рот! Вы должны выплатить всему миру!!!
Этот человек ни слова не говорит о Палестине. Он никогда не обвиняет Израиль. Он говорит, что все немного сложно. Обвинять Израиль непросто. Не существует военного преступления, которого бы не совершил Израиль. Это знает даже человек, который немного думает. Но по какой-то причине этот господин не знает. Но когда дело доходит до России и Ирака, все становится проще, и они могут сказать, что эти государства совершили военные преступления. Он говорит, что Россия должна выплатить компенсацию. На видео о вторжении в Ирак президентом Ирака является Саддам. Он бросал на курдов химические бомбы и т. д. Вот почему США вошли в Ирак. Те же США почему-то не могут войти в Израиль, который использует запрещенные фосфорные бомбы. Он не говорит, что Израиль должен выплатить военную компенсацию.....
First USA, France and UK should start paying back to places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, CFA Franc nations, India and every damn meddling they have done, then perhaps Russia should consider.
No. I see it. But I also see that tje argument is more nuanced than many would like to present it as being. The West is by far the largest aid donor in the world. The US has done bad things. But it has also paid huge sums to countries across the world, often to help rebuild countries after wars it had no part in.
@@Nikola-eg5tpTheir situation looks like this. You are crippling a person. later as an apology. You put a few coins in your pocket. Then, you become financially dependent on yourself by using that financial aid. If America provides financial aid to a country, it means buying off many people in those countries. That money does not go to war losses. An autonomous administration supported by America is being established there. and this administration acts in the interests of America. Because you serve whoever you take the money from. If he gives money, it means he accepts that he is guilty. If it's a crime, why are you doing it? If you are doing it. Then why do you condemn Russia? Don't you think there's something in this? Last question for the video narrator...
As soon as we’ve paid full financial reparations to Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and all our colonial conquests….then we’ve every right to ask that of Russia for Ukraine.
I think you’ll find that the US has paid vast amounts of development aid to these states. Also, the US has a long history of paying aid to many other states, including the reconstruction of warm-torn countries that it had nothing to do with. Just consider the Marshall Plan for Europe after WWII. The US has down wrong, but we should also bear in mind that it has helped a lot of countries. Far more - both in absolute and relative terms - than Russia ever has.
@@JamesKerLindsay Understood, but one might argue that this is simply a clever form of economic imperialism. In Iraq, for example, the US oil companies took full and enduring control of the Iraqi oil industry, post the conflict. Look also at the scale of US interests now in Japan, Germany and South Korea. Unconditional aid, reparations and spoils of war are very different things.
The alternative is that the US does nothing. Then it would be accused of selfishly ignoring world problems. Unfortunately, this isn’t a debate that it can ever ‘win’. In reality, it is a complex issue. But it would be good if those who shout against the US and the West in general would consider the broader debate. And, again, it’s worth remembering that Russia gives almost no aid, and China is notorious for linking its aid to development projects that it can step in to seize when the country in question can’t repay its debts. In many ways, this is far more exploitative than US development assistance.
@@JamesKerLindsay I’m no Putin fan or apologist, but I happen to believe that the West’s whole approach in Ukraine is also misguided, immoral and dangerous….but you’ve already responded twice so I’ll leave it there, with due thanks and respect for this and all your work. 👍
@@hisdadjames4876 Thanks. I know we differ on this. I think Russia is fundamentally undermine international law in a way that is dangerous for the entire system of international security. But always happy to have a polite exchange. Sadly, it’s become rather rare on the channel, to the point that I am seriously considering whether to even continue with it.
Это может прозвучать забавно, но в России очень следят за терминами, и если и ждать от России в будущем каких-то денежных переводов, то не под видом "репараций", поскольку проигрыша армии как такового нет (да и сам проигрыш российское государство никогда не признает при любом исходе), а путём, например, заключений выгодных для Украины контрактов по транзиту газа (не опять, а снова), или, скажем, закрытия её долгов перед внешними партнёрами в знак "доброй воли" и, что более вероятно, в обмен на снятие санкций. Изъятие активов же приведёт к раздражению тех международных игроков, которые считают коллективный Запад не меньшим виновником этой войны. Спасибо, Профессор, за видео! Посмотрел до конца и всем рекомендую!
Да, да пришло время. Кто проигрывает, сдается, капитулирует - тот и платит репарации. А кто-нибудь вообще верил, что Украина выиграет? Пенсию Джонсона и Байдена надо направить в счет репараций.
Seizing Russian assets in the West as payment for reparations is no doubt very tempting now but I agree it will undermine confidence in the West in a real way. Using the lifting of sanctions as a way is a better option, imo.
Please, please, please can we focus on the topic at hand? Gaza is important. I have made many videos about it. But this was about Ukraine. Really, I appreciate comments, but can we try to keep them focused. It becomes impossible to manage if on every topic people just shout "Ukraine", "Palestine", "Kosovo" in response to any and every issue.
I thought the obvious answer was Yes Reparations. But you’ve put a lot of extra light on the subject and displayed just how complex this really is. Very well done!
Thank you so much. I thought it was important to open up the debate. I support reparations. But I can also see the problems associated with them, as well as the difficulties of some of the ideas being put on the table.
In any case, what can putler do against the west confiscating Russian properties (like the Ruzzians have done with western properties)? Also, how is Russia supposed to "win" when they can barely take a couple of km or frontline? And need north korea to send them antiquated weapons?
@@Konstantin2004But taking the assets by the west will only make stronger in the future as most of the rich will keep the money in Russia instead of investing it abroad
@@Konstantin2004 Take a look at the frontline and numerical reports; it's beyond ridiculous to expect Ukraine to handle a front of that size, even with all the help they receive. Second, the world isn't solely the West, which seems to be overlooked. Assessing this war is incredibly complex, but one thing is clear: Ukraine cannot achieve the victory that the West anticipates.
@@boombang857 it's also ridiculous to expect putler to be able to take all, or even just slightly more or Ukrainan territory than they already have considering their problems getting even slight advances
James, great topic and you covered the "two edge sword" impacts of Russian owned assets outside of Russia extremely well. Freezing of aseests was a wise move at the outset of this situation, but we must address that most of these "assets" are property own by individuals who are Russian. If the assets are soverign holdings of the Russian state, it falls in a different catagory of consideration. Regardless of owernship these assets are in numerous countries and fall under the individual jurdistiction of the property rights laws in those locations. The rights to the ownership of property (land tenure & title) are a cultural foundation to the success of Western nations. Appropriation of assets who happen to be individuals who are Russians, must follow established legal processes in each nation where they are located. Even the seizure of intrest earning from this property must also be fully adjudicated by individual state's legal processes. Russia is the Aggressor State in this situation, however the issue of assets is highly complex & nuissanced. Defense of Western liberal values is equally applying the law to the situation regarding property owned by Russians or the Russian state outside of Russia. Retrograde legislation passed by nations after Russia's invasion of Ukraine that targets Russian property is only a mechanism of legal theft. These kind of actions undermind the concept of property ownership in the West. Doing so is a betrayal of the idea of Western values, and smacks of convenient hypocrisy. In the United States the ACLU has famously defended evil characters right to free speech despite the evil speech being vile to all of society. But as in that situation the individual "right" is more imporant then the person. So we must acknowledge that despite Russia's evil actions in Ukraine we in the West must adhear to the concept of property rights of Russian individuals & the Russian state and any processes to sezie property MUST be adjudicated legally with the laws in place prior to Russia's invasion in February 2022. Undermining that concept of the safety of property ownership, as you well stated, opens up Pandora's box and in effect is a contributing factor to the destruction of liberal Western values, prosperity and success. Excellent topic to present. As always thanks for the great platform your podcast provides.
Thanks, Andrew. I agree. We do need to be very careful when considering these situations. I just wish there more thoughtful comments like this. Sadly so much has been whataboutism, often from people who clearly didn’t bother to watch the video.
Are you talking about Afghanistan and Iraq? We already did. We invested as much money into rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan per month as we've given to Ukraine in the last 2.5 years. Any monetary debt we have to those countries is paid in full and then some.
The whole idea of international law is pretty weak. Its an anarchy out there. In practice, the fact that China and Saudi Arabia oppose seizing Russian assets seems like a good argument that it is the right thing to do. The general idea of reparations from a country is pretty sketchy. Do the populace bare responsibility for actions taken by the state? It seems more plausible to break up states that engage in wars that would lead to reparations.
Breaking up such states would certainly serve as a much harsher example for would-be aggressors. However, it would be necessary to take good care of the security situation while doing so.
Let's be frank here. Reparations would serve to be "just" to Ukraine as a secondary objective. Firstly, by forcing Russia into a Weimar-esque situation, throwing the Russian economy into the furnace, it will massively destabilize Russia and likely lead to a "grassroots" chain of protests leading to regime change. Fomenting this process has been the US' MO since the Arab Spring, HK umbrella movement, and Maidan, (and a failed attempt in Belarus). This has quietly been the wests objective with Russia since 2008 I suspect as well. Not only to "get rid of Putin", but deprive China of a massive strategic ally, member of BRICS, and counterpart to China within the SCO. Since Russia is politically stronger than it was in 1996 (When the US interferred in Russian elections by supporting Yeltsin), economically straving Russia is only way to try and oust Putin, which that has been the end game for over 15 years now.
@@AlexxAmadeoWell if we can assume Russia interfered in the 2016 election, backed the freedom convoy movement, and is involved in subversive activities... What makes you think the US isn't? it's not a tin foil hat if you've actually read a history book about US clandestine operations since 1945. Go ahead, look up "US involvement in Russian election 1996" or Operation Mockingbird, or The Department of Strategic Influence, or pretty much any point of Latin American history... You know actually being crititical doesn't make everyone an Alex Jone when you actually *read* up on the history of US foreign policy.
Funny joke! Russia is growing and becoming more self-sufficient in all areas with the help of its BRICS partners. It is right now in the transition phase to become fully independent from the west. It is the best thing, Putin said, what could ever happened to Russia.
@@TSEliot1978there is an opportunity cost which was correctly pointed out by the OP. Don't pay & "survive just fine" vs pay & resume normal global trade relations. The choice will be up to them. Remember, North Korea is also surviving just fine.
@@jacqdanieles same goes for Ukraine. They can negotiate a peace deal and eventually go back to normal, or continue fighting and be just fine. Only it will be a lot less fine than Russia
The US has spent huge amounts for reconstruction in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The money was not called reparations but it was many billions of dollars Probably not that well spent or managed, but huge amounts all the same.
It is not true concerning Iraq. The US and UK paid only inadequate funds for the reconstruction of the country after their unjustified full-scale invasion of the country, in which up to 1 million people lost their lives and the country was(and still is) heavily devastated.
@@hplarsen34 Are you some kind of internationally known expert on these matters? Search for getting-reconstruction-right-and-wrong-lessons-from-Iraq on Google (I can't post a link here)
There is a very notable difference in taking someone elses money, and spending it on your own contractors and spending your own money, largely - again - on your own contractors (as done by the US in Iraq).
This whole discussion makes me think of the Versailles treaty put upon the German government after WW1. The payments along with other factors (Looking at you France) helped drive extremism in Germany and was used as much political fodder for Hitler's rise to power. It also hobbled the nascent democratic-ish government there. That's why I think it's much better to use the funds now and hurt an aggressive Russia during the war rather than wait for the shooting to stop and hobble whatever government led to a peaceful outcome.
Thanks. This is a really great argument. Imposing reparations on a defeated side can indeed set in place the sense of victimisation. Maybe it is better to find a way to impose the costs on an aggression while they are doing it. The only problem is that this carry deeper risks for the US and EU. If they confiscate the funds, then they will lose their reputation as a safe place for assets. This could strengthen other places. Then again, there are only so many places where it could go.
@@JamesKerLindsay where would capital flow to? The PRC where the CPC can do as it pleases, with China having closed financial markets? Brazil, India, South Africa...now we are getting into laughable territory. The only markets deep enough, liquid enough with enough trust is the USA, and to a lesser extent the EU euro-zone.
@@JamesKerLindsayJust look at mBridge progress and BRICS, look at the price of gold. The reputational damage has already been done. Now its but a matter of timelines
Wow I never knew the concept of reparations to be so complicated because I was one of the initial supporters that yeah it seems right to me make Russia pay but I didn't know it could potentially have for reaching consequences that could affect all of us in negative ways Thank you so much for enlightening me
Thanks. It is indeed a more complex problem than it seems, isn’t it? I am reminded of what happened with Germany. As I mentioned, my great-grandfather was the chief British delegate on the reparations commission. I remember my grandfather always used to tell me that his father felt that France was going too far. It was obvious at the time that it was too punitive. On the other hand, how can a country launch a war of aggression and not be forced to pay something towards it?
It seems to me that the time for discussion of reparations is at the peace negotiating table. Seizing assets is a good way to make sure that nobody trusts you with their money. It seems like a shortsighted decision to me.
- "It seems like a shortsighted decision to me." Commenting without knowing what you are talking about is short sighted. The assets haven't been seized (did you even watch the video). They are only frozen, and the accumulated interest is going to be given to Ukraine.
Frozen and utilised to fund a war against the asset's original owner - if that's not effective seizure idk what is. We'd be doing X and calling it Y. No one believes it my guy.
@@aleksandrpulnikov684 I studied the matter a little more, and what to my understanding (as a non-lawyer and non-economist) actually is given to Ukraine now is a loan against the accumulated interest, not the interest itself. What will happen in the future is that international court will either decide that Russia will have to pay reparations for the damage caused by its illegal war against Ukraine, or that it doesn't have to pay. If Russia has to pay, and Russia pays, the frozen assets with interest will be unfrozen after full payment of reparations. If Russia doesn't pay them, the assets will be legally confiscated and loans given to Ukraine will be paid from them. Especially Europe (where large majority of the funds are) wants everything to happen legally, so it's likely that that's also how they will happen.
@@adoatero5129 Any manipulation with assets without the owner's consent is a theft. You won't fool anyone. So watch how money flows out of Europe. Congrats, this is already happening. Regarding legality, NATO has been stealing daily 80% of the Syrian oil production for over 10 years. this is an open theft conducted by NATO and approved by NATO. why am I not surprised that none of international courts all located in NATO countries sees absolutely no problem with the NATO's theft of vital resources of the independent country of Syria?
Seizing Russian assets will not undermine the sense of investor security. If they are seized, it would not send the signal that investments are not secure, just investments made to support a country that conducts such egregious violations of international order and peace. Investors are not stupid; they understand this.
@@dimushka383 They will know that if they engage in illegal operations like Russia, then yes, they will know that their funds will be seized. Are you saying that those non-European countries are intrinsically corrupt? Smart investors will not invest in countries that will do that. And they shouldn't.
Thanks. But as I mentioned, it is already being discussed. The problem is whether to confiscate the assets, or merely use the interest and profits earned on them.
Yes and no. But does this mean that countries that start wars and cause huge damage should not have any responsibility to pay for the death and destruction caused?
7:59 they may be inevitable but rather unjustified. Russia started a war of aggression against Ukraine but Israel was the one attacked on 7.10. What kind of message will it deliver? Ukraine is definitely not Gaza..
As he says in the video, that isn't NECESSARILY the most important thing. You only have to read comment sections on this channel to see comparisons drawn with other conflicts, including those that Russia and China have little interest in other than around this question. Whether those comparisons are justified or not, it seems evident that a very large number of people do believe that something like the NATO bombing of Serbia falls under the same category as what Russia is doing in Ukraine. That is an important consideration.
yah but the United States accused Israel of crimes against humanity before the 7.10 attack. From that perspective the 7.10 attack is a response to crimes against humanity
A strange and immature comment. I show the sources for the information I provide. If there’s anything you feel is inaccurate, point it out and provide alternative sources for that information. That’s what serious, grown up people do when they are trying to have an informed debate.
Should note that $3bn per year is destined to fall given lower interest rates. The reality is we are really just taxing profits from investments from the clearing house. Instead of these tax revenues flowing from Euroclear to the Belgian government, they are going to issuer of the loan. Still not sure if we agreed upon who is putting up the money or on the hook for the debt, as Europe and the US were wanting the other to hold the bag. Looking at the price of gold and central banks buying it, there already is a lot of damage being done to the global financial system. In the grand scheme of things $300bn isn't a lot of money and is a pittance to what could be lost if we lose investor confidence. Especially if you are a country like the UK who has a negative current account balance and needs foreign direct investment.
The sides can haggle over exactly how much money Russia should have to pay, but the fact that Russia owes Ukraine reparations is self evident. It's not even open for debate. As for US paying reparations to Iraq and Afghanistan, we already did. We invested as much money into rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq per month as we've given to Ukraine in the last 2.5 years. As for Israel paying reparations to Gaza, of course. Once Hamas has been eradicated and the Strip is placed under an Israeli provisional administration, the Israelis should definitely invest a lot of money into revitalizing the territory. That's in their best interests.
US investment money into its (former) servant states is not equal to reparations, which come as a huge humiliation for the imperialist countries. Has US ever paid reparations for its nuclear attacks on Japan? Has it ever paid money to all the southern countries after it has created its CIA attacks to overthrow governments and wreck chaos? No, it has not. I truly wish for a peaceful world, which is guided by UN principles. But the US is as bad or even worse than China and Russia. And believe me if I tell you that the US rather falls apart sooner than your wishful thinking about Russias falling apart.
If the US started paying reparations for all the countries it annihilated it would go bankrupt very quick. Truth is neither Russia nor the US, or Israel paid and won't pay jackshit. This is just wishful thinking from westerners.
The USA has acted as an aggressor against other countries before. The Dominican Republic, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Serbia did not receive reparations. For Nicaragua, the international court has already made a decision on the payment of war reparations, but the USA refuses to implement this.
Let’s not forget that Ukraine would probably spend a considerable amount of its budget on the military even after the war. Ukraine would for many decades distrust the Russians. And spend hundreds of billions in the military.
Yes, it is a difficulty, especially if Ukraine has to remain neutral. This is why Ukraine wants to join NATO, then it would be enough to maintain a smaller army due to collective defense. It's just that NATO expansion was one of the root causes of the war, so it's not certain that this is the solution. Perhaps other security guarantees could be a solution, which would be acceptable to both Ukraine and Russia.
@@nigelgarrett7970 easily. the next day after Russia acknowledged DPR and LNR and signed a treaty with them, Ukraine started a massive artillery barrage along the whole frontline. Ukraine would never have done any of such moves without a prior consultation with US and NATO
The greatest damage is the lives lost and lives destroyed. If you ever traveled in much of the Former USSR you know it is mostly old soviet apartments and buildings which needed to be torn down. You can buy a summer home (starting at) $1,500 a village home for 8 K and an apartment in a medium-sized apt in city for 15k (East Urakne 2020)
Reparations are for the winning side. and to say that Ukraine is gonna win even with all of the western aid is not backed by any factual numbers behind it. That’s just my realist perspective on things
I love how people in this comments section somehow ignore the fact the US has an immense aid budget. If you include the UK and EU then it's even bigger.
Thanks. I agree. It is incredible. The sums are enormous and much of it is for reconstruction and recovery. It doesn’t justify conflicts, but it does say that it is wrong to suggest that the US and others don’t pay anything. I actually posted a comment on my community tab. The contortions that people went to arguing that it didn’t count, it was still evil (even to countries where they never been to war), etc. was incredible.
you know what the difference was in ww1 and ww2? they didnt decide to make them pay until surrender terms were imposed. not stealing it from them so that ukraine can pay for the war itself. why does there seem like a whole lot of unprofessionalism going into this from the west?
"Normalising relations" with Russia means that Russia must not object to NATO expansion. This is USA's goal. Basically Russia must be subdued. However, the "contract" won't say this.
What cused and triggered this war? Is the USA's hand, NATO incursion closer to Russia be the main factor? PLIZ make some vedios on these question. Thank you.
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. This is one of those topics where the answer seems really straightforward, to both sides, but is far more complex than most realise. I hope I at least brought out some of the issues.
@@sergeipetrov_rzn I don't think there are any good options. I think the overriding issue is long-term nuclear risk. Nuclear blackmail has been a key part of Russia's approach. If Russia succeeds because of it, even if it's only a costly partial success, that will increase the incentive for other countries to acquire large numbers of nuclear weapons. MAD didn't work very well between two blocs; we survived the Cold War by luck on several occasions. With the same kind of arsenals held by many countries, we would have no chance of surviving. And I think that pretty much anything is less bad than nuclear omnicide. So I think the least-bad option for the rest of the world is a boil-the-frog strategy, crossing each supposed "red line" in a trivial way, then ramping up gradually, then moving on to the next one. The important thing is that no particular step in the process is so bad for Russian decision-makers that a firm commitment to suicide is ever their least-bad option, but the whole process leads to unconditional surrender. That means a _lot_ of deaths, both Ukrainian and Russian, that ought to be preventable but I don't see any way of preventing them. Getting to unconditional surrender requires the carrot as well as the stick, so we should commit to a Marshall Plan for Russia (as well as Ukraine). It would be very costly, and it would take political will that we're not likely to have, but I don't see any less-bad options that have even that much chance of working.
Это по крайней мере хамство. Как только запахло жаренным, Вы вспомнили о деньгах. А когда Вы вкладывали деньги на войну в Украине, о чём думали? Я знаю. Думали что выиграете и доходы к вам рекой потекут. Так что Вы получите дырку от бублика. А обо всем остальном надо было думать в 2014 году. Поезд уехал. Прсщяйте господа!
Strange comment. I am someone who looks at international relations and key issues going on in the world. Many people laughed that Russia should pay reparations for Ukraine. I explored the complexities of that. I’m not sure you understand this UA-cam thing.
Lots of good arguments for both wiews here. To me it all boils down to what kind of relation do Russia want to have with EU, UK, USA, and other democratic western nations that have paied for the survival of Ukraine, after the war is over. To me is obvious that they can not run from this bill.
Russia won’t accept Ukraine joining NATO anymore that the U.S would have accepted Canada or Mexico joining the old Warsaw Pact. Great powers will not tolerate direct threats right on their border. It’s not that hard to understand.
The very consideration of stealing someone else's money has ruined your reputation already. In Syria NATO (or US, which is the same thing) has been stealing oil and gas for a decade, and does not feel obliged to pay for anything. Does that improve your reputation? Did you pay for ruining Iraq or Syria or Libya or Serbia?
@@0816M3RC My country was officially invited by the internationally recognized government of Syria in order to help fighting terrorists. NATO invited itself to Syria, which it also did earlier in Libya and in Serbia
@@JamesKerLindsay NATO is presumably a defensive alliance. You should ask people of Serbia, Libya, Syria, Iraq and many other places what do they think on this funny matter. You attacked so often, but you never actually defended. Serbia did not attack you, but you ruined Serbia and annexed its part. And you attack under false pretexts which your rich fantasy generously provides you with. Your throw excuses that US provides financial help later to these countries, which is a blunt lie. US offers loans with interest. The combined amount of those loans is a tiny fraction of the incurred damage. During your safari in Iraq you killed over 1mln civilians for no reason and you have a nerve to speak of human rights. In Syria you have been stealing oil and gas for over 10 years. You do not steal just some oil, you have been stealing 80% of Syrian daily oil production. And yet you have a nerve to speak of international laws. NATO is a dangerous gang bullying and killing everyone in its path. This is a universal perception of NATO and the exact reason, why NATO's sanctions against Russia do not work. Obviously, Russia has every right to be concerned with a thug on its border. When Ukraine as a republic within USSR issued a declaration of independence, it stated that Ukraine was a neutral state with no intention to join alliances. Regions of Ukraine voted for that declaration and that independence. Also, Russia did not have a problem with a neutral Ukraine and later this was Russia's main requirement during negotiations in Istanbul in 2022, in return Russia agreed to withdraw its forces to 2022 borders. In confirmation of this and after a preliminary agreement was established, Russia withdrew from Kiev, Sumy and Chernigov. But this was sabotaged by US and UK. One of the Ukrainian participants openly admitted to Boris Johnson convincing Ukrainian officials into fighting. If it was not for NATO thousands of people would have lived and dozens of towns would not be destroyed. So it is NATO who must pay for the damage. Speaking of human rights, you are ignoring a simple fact that Ukrainians do not want to fight. There are no volunteers into the Ukrainian army for over a year. Men are being hunted across Ukraine and forced into the fight. There are tons of videos showing how Ukrainians resist mobilization, how they are trying to escape the country. NATO claims that it is helping Ukraine in its fight against Russia, but in reality NATO only supports the expired Zelensky. Zelensky uses his gestapo to gather common people and feed them to the front in order to assure the continued stream of money from NATO. he remains in power for as long as the fight continues. NATO is perfectly cool with that. NATO does not care about common Ukrainians, as it never truly cared about human rights, but wants to prolong the fight and postpone its inevitable defeat. Given this new situation, eastern and southern regions of Ukraine must have a possibility to reconsider whether they want to stay in such a country, or possibly succeed. Kosovo was granted this right, so the same must be applicable to those regions.
When it comes to Russia itself paying reparations (instead of them being take from the frozen assets) I don't see how that could happen under any even remotely realistic scenario. Let's consider a few: 1) Russia wins. -> It won't pay. 2) A settlement is reached which preserves at least a large part of Ukraine (granting Ukraine a partial, or at least a moral victory). -> To reach this, Russia needs to have enough incentive to agree. This would probably include at least no reparations, return of the frozen assets, and a lifting of the more significant sanctions. 3) Ukraine achieves a complete military victory pushing out Russian forces from all of Ukraine. -> Russia can just retreat inside its borders and refuse a settlement that includes reparations. Even with such a complete victory, Ukraine almost certainly wouldn't march on Moscow to enforce reparations. Also, reparations probably can't be very significant if e.g. lifting of sanctions would be enough to make Russia agree to them. 4) Russia sinks into civil unrest and chaos. -> There won't be effective government in Russia that could impose the cost of sanctions on the populace. 5) Russia becomes bankrupt and destitute. -> It can't afford to pay, at least not without foreign aid and no one would probably aid Russia just so it could pay.
The destruction Russia has visited in Ukraine is not collateral damage. The attacks on civilian housing and infrastructure are the point. Russia's model for victory is to use terror to force a surrender. They've engaged in all manner of war crimes as part of their strategy, including murder, sexual assault, looting, perfidy and more. Since the EU, NATO and other allies have imposed sanctions on Moscow, and the Russian state will want those lifted at the end of the war, that gives the West leverage to demand reparations for Kyiv if the Moscovites wish to ever access the world's financial systems again.
It's not that clear. NATO also used the same strategy to defeat Serbia in 1999, by bombing critical infrastructure, bridges, power plants, oil refineries, transformer stations, and power lines to paralyze the country, prevent normal civilian life, and achieve its capitulation. This can be considered a terrorist bombing, but the attacker can also say that these facilities also serve the army and the military industry, so they are legitimate targets.
There were 14,000 victims of the war in eastern Ukraine, that's all the dead. Of these, approximately 3,000 were civilian victims and they were Ukrainian citizens, both of Russian and Ukrainian ethnicity.
I would agree. I suspect that one way or another, Russia will have to pay something. But I’m not sure it will come anywhere close to the 490 billion dollars that the World Bank estimates is needed.
The only country that received reparations from Germany was Israel. All the others caved in, or accepted humiliating terms, taking machines, grants, favourable loans and stories of German remorse. Some countries were in such disasterous shape that they accepted loans instead of reparations, just to end hunger. And it just proves what we historians already know - it doesn't matter who won the war on paper, what matters is that Germany won in essence. They were happy to pay to relocate all the German Jews to another continent, as for the rest of us - how are we gonna collect if they simply say "no"? So, Europe simply accepted what they could've get - humiliating handout from the ww2 winner. What else?
Because most deaths are from Artillary shelling and RU is using many more shells than Ukraine, it only stands to reason that Ukraine has lost as many as Russia and probably a lot more. It bothers me that the West downplays the losses, presumably to shield UA and the West from knowing the huge cost that Ukraine has paid and obviously will keep paying.
They have actually started rebuilding Mariupol. There are many locals documenting it online. So sure they will rebuild but what is now Russia. Reparations are paid by the losing country, so it might be Ukraine with Western money will have to pay some type of reparations to Russia. There is no path for Ukraine to win this war.
This week, I’m looking at the controversial question of Russian reparations for Ukraine. Should Russia be made to pay reparations for the death and destruction it has caused? Or do you think it will complicate efforts to end the war? And is it time for a general principle of reparations? More to the point, should Russian assets be confiscated to cover the huge costs, even though this could have very serious broader consequences? As always, I look forward to your thoughts and comments below.
(By the way, there’s a bit of family history with the subject, and there’s a little easter egg in the video. My great-grandfather makes an appearance. He was the British delegate on the Reparation Commission after the First World War. But can you guess which one he is in the photo?)
Grandpa is in the bottom row, second from the right. Let me know if I got it right? 😁
No, I don't think Russia should. My reasoning is that the idea itself of reparations is a type of block to the progress of peace. The government and the people need an easy way out, being told that once the war ends, they'll be forced to pay X amount of dollars makes people even more entrenched in their views. Peace is what's ultimately important and we have to make it as easy as psychologically possible for Russian people to want that, that's what I believe.
That's a very cool family history, your great-grandfather is in the front row, second from the right. Weren't all these opposition concerns about reparations also the same concerns given in the past? Russia is already seizing western assets, maybe not governmental but certainly from the private sector. I don't see why the west can't go to the court beforehand and get a decision?
I think the west has been walking on eggshells this entire time only to eventually cave and grant what they have been resisting. How many lives could have been saved if the west had some kahunas on day one and supplied all that Ukraine needed. Have a great weekend Prof. hope the weather is nice in your neck of the woods.
PS your great-grandfather would be proud of the work you do; you certainly are appreciated during these times.
I don't think Russia or NATO should pay for rebuilding Ukraine. The CIA should be responsible for that.
🌝🌝🌝🌚🌚🌚🎃🎃🎃
The same people who are advocating reparations for Ukraine from Russia are very silent on the same question regarding the Vietnam war and the USA. Silence on the USA in case of Grenada in the 1980s. Silence or complete aggression against the idea of reparations for descendants of the victims of slavery and the Atlantic slave trade. Silence on European colonial powers (France, Great Britain, Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain, Portugal, Germany) and their destruction/raping of former African, Caribbean, Asian, and Pacific Islands colonies. Why the righteousness now?
Reparations are something imposed on a defeated nation, so selling the lion skin before the beast is slain.
It's important to consider what framework is appropriate beforehand given the side doing the contemplating is concerned with how well whatever they impose is in accord with the good functioning of the current international system.
@@professorquarter you current framework is wishful thinking🤣
@@CGplay186 Perhaps, but it's best to have this sort of contingency thoroughly debated beforehand so that the most just action can be taken if needed.
Russia has to pay, why make other nations pay for repair?
Russia is already seizing assets , they’ve already done the worst : if Russia doesn’t pay, then who does pay?
I live on a railway where no train has run for 50yrs...pehaps you could start your repreations to Vietnam there or perhaps a thousand other places or pay for the 300 Vietnamese that are killed every yr from your unexploded ordinance
Yes.. And the Vietnamese did nothing to Americans.
@@richiesd1 ага, так это вьетнамцы вторглись в США? Вот в чем дело, оказывается!
@@williamridgeway4315 , haha. Why don’t you ask the Vietnamese? Or does everything in the world go by the American/Western perspective?
Btw, I talked to many Vietnamese in Vietnam. Americans bombed civilian infrastructure and deprived civilians of water, electricity for decades.
@@richiesd1 Do you mean "the NORTH Vietnamese did PLENTY OF HARM to the SOUTH Vietnamese and South Vietnam found a mighty champion in the USA" or are you happy to peddle cheesy myths instead ??
I am not sure who is the ‘you’ is in the comment. I am not American. I am British. We had nothing to do with what happened in Vietnam. Britain sat out that war.
Unless you can get nato boots on Moscows red square I don’t believe Russia will pay a single ruble.
Yeah and when that happens then we will be living real life Fallout
@@t.c.4321 this will never happen
And if NATO manages to billet itself in the Kremlin, nobody will want rubles.
There are the frozen Russian assets in Europe.
@@ferencdeak8784 the author explained that it is risky
Of course, this talk of -reparations- goes over well in the West but for many people beyond the West, they want to know: When does the US pay operations to Iraq, Syria, Vietnam, Cambodia, Afghanistan, and more. They ask why the US is exempt from the -Rule-based order- that it talks about so much? Because Ukraine is on the border of RUssia, its pretense for invasion is far more plausible than the US invasions.
The US pays considerable amounts in aid money. This is often forgotten. And this money doesn’t just go to countries that have been affected by wars where the US played a part, but also helps to rebuilt many countries affected by conflicts it wasn’t involved in.
@@JamesKerLindsay this is a lie. US gives loans with an interest which do not cover the incurred damage
@@JamesKerLindsay Prof James, your perspective, and that of Western elites, is finding no traction in the Global South. That should be cause for reflection regarding Western double standards in international relations. Deep reflection.
I disagree with you on this point as well @@JamesKerLindsay
Crickets is you answer. Same way, when you ask how is kosovo allowed to be independent but Crimea not. 🤡
There is definite credence to the claim of selective reparations. No clearer example than Iraq.
To be fair Biden has created a fund to be given to Iraqis and Afghans
but he doesn't want to give it to them now because he knows it will just be taken by the current governments of both of those countries
because the current governments are both of those countries don't give a crap about the welfare of their own citizens so that fund is just sitting there frozen and accumulating interest
Iraq is an entirely different case, as is the current war in Gaza, if you need another example. Iraq is a very poor example.
@@toby9999😂😂😂😂
- "No clearer example than Iraq."
If that's the clearest example you have, then your case is pretty weak. Ukraine is a peaceful democracy that wasn't a threat to Russia or anybody else. Iraq was a brutal and aggressive dictatorship that was a threat to the (already weak stability) of the region.
I'm not arguing for or against the war in Iraq, but just pointing out the silliness of your example. Iraq also would never even consider demanding reparations, as it would very soon face stronger cases against itself brought by Iran, Quwait and other countries it attacked in recent history for no reason. Also brutally repressed ethnic groups inside Iraq could very well make demands of their own. Because of the invasion the Iraqi people also got rid of a cruel, long standing dictator who held the country under his iron fist. They probably couldn't have done that themselves.
@@adoatero5129Ukraine is a democracy 😂😂😂 it's a perfect joke since even zelensky himself is a comedian. Ukraine a democracy 😂😂😂
United Kingdom, as a part of NATO military, invaded the following countries, just in the last 25 years: Bosnia and Herzegovina, Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya (air space invasion), Syria.
All mentioned invasions are illegal under International law, as United Nation's Security Council never approved any of those invasions.
Yes, James Ker-Lindsay - a UK citizen makes a video about Russian reparations.
What about reparations of upper mentioned countries taken from UK?
It is called hypocrisy. A core principle of NATO.
He literally mentioned this. Did you not even watch the video before commenting?
Here is a list of countries russia has invaded the past 30 years Russia occupied Transnistria. ...
1992-1993 - Russia provoked the Abkhazian war. ...
1994-1996 - first Russian-Chechen war. ...
1999-2009 - second Russian-Chechen war. ...
2008 - Russian-Georgian war. ...
2015-2022 - Russia's invasion of Syria.
And obviously Ukraine and Georgia
Africa also are waiting for reparations. No to double standard.
Reparations from the Arab nations for 1000 years of arab slave trade?
For?
@@DerDop US CIA interventions and neocolonialism in form of the IWF debt trap.
They get enough. It's called international aid. And it was Africans that sold the slaves to Europeans, and Arabs of course but you probably chose to forget that part. So why reward them for enslaving their neighbours ?
@@DerDop for France's colonization. France really sucked a lot out of Africa, not just snails out of their shell.
Russia may also take action against European monetary assets
Already has, there are currently no European monetary assets in Russia, which remain in European hands.
@@Vordigon1 It's strange, why didn't the "lights of democracy" like my comment, which was deleted? He's probably not "democratic" enough... lol...
First Russia has seized European assets without compensation before the war began through nationalisation of joint ventures, etc.. Second it's a question of value, Russian assets in Europe are greater than European assets in Russia. Third European governments can afford to compensate European investors, Russia cannot do the same since it's out of money, the seized assets are largely state owned, and the private assets belong to those that run the country in the first place.
Hahaha because Russia is such a weak little cowardly bully, that because it started an illegal war it thinks Europe are attacking it by donating weapons to the attacked country.
@@Matt_The_Hugenot Can tell you in more detail exactly WHICH assets Russia seized and WHEN?
This "civilized" American-European monkey house has imposed sanctions against Russia since 2014
Will American and British government pay Libya Syria Iraq Niger Vietnam Sudan Afghanistan China Serbia
I don’t think I have an opinion as to whether the assets should be seized or not. However, any argument, the West makes as to the morality of the situation is laughable. After what the United States is allowing to happen in Gaza, we have lost the moral high ground to such luminaries as turkey and South Africa. Any claim to any sort of moral right by the United States is, on its face, not worthy even of contempt.
As I point out, I think we need to be careful with the ‘what about the US argument’. We are discussing reparations. The US has a history of paying for reconstruction and recovery, often in conflicts that it had no part in. It is one of the largest aid donors in the world. You can find the data here. www.foreignassistance.gov/cd It includes Palestine. (Under the heading West Bank and Gaza.)
@@JamesKerLindsay Sir, Do you think charity and reparations are the same?
@@crackpot0236excellent,he is totally confused professor for real ,he keep pointing out nonsense so called charities the USA is dumping to zeep their 👄.
He knows better .
@@crackpot0236 yes he thinks exactly that.
@@JamesKerLindsay the largest recipients of US aid (once you exclude the Marshall plan) is Israel and Egypt (for doing Israels bidding). The money given to Palestine goes to support the bantustan govt in Ramallah for collaborating with the zionists.
If the West wants Russia to pay, is the NATO going to pay reparations to the Iraqis?
I think it is worth pointing out that the US has paid vast amounts of development aid to Iraq. And it still does. The invasion may have been wrong, but the US has paid large sums towards reconstruction and recovery. But the question here is about Ukraine. How should Russia be made to pay?
@@JamesKerLindsayI don't think that will bring back the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who died as the result of the US-UK invasion.
Or pay reparations to Serbia, Afghanistan, Vietnam, Cambodia, and DOZENS more.
No, it won’t. But let’s not also forget that these countries weren’t peaceful democracies beforehand. And let’s certainly not forget what happened with Iraq under Saddam Hussein, a man who caused the deaths of millions by starting the Iran-Iraq war and then invaded Kuwait. He also tortured and killed his own people and carried chemical weapons attacks on Kurds. He was a threat to international peace and security and to Iraqis.
@TheTobs50 Again, the US and EU has paid vast sums of aid to many of these countries.
Have reparations for Vietnam, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Libya, etc been paid? How about the actual instigators of this Ukraine war? No?
The US has an enormous aid budget. It has spent hundreds of billions on reconstruction and recovery in many countries, often in states destroyed by conflicts it wasn’t involved in. The US rebuilt Europe after WWII. Russia has no such record.
@@gorantamburic2000 You are just a bot.
@@JamesKerLindsay I mean that's literally untrue. The Soviets had the Molotov Plan after WW2 which was of course less succesful than the Marshall Plan but you cannot deny its existence. Also the Soviet Union subsidized the economies of the Eastern Bloc nations during the Cold War and the collapse of this relationship partly led to the economic downturn after the collapse of the Eastern Bloc.
@@TSEliot1978 I would hardly assess the Soviet reconstruction in the same way. One just needs to look at the outcome. The Soviets effectively occupied most of Eastern Europe (albeit accepting that British, France and the US occupied West Germany). And the Molotov Plant was only introduced used after the USSR rejected the Marshall Plan for areas under its control.
@@JamesKerLindsay When anglosaxon is born, the lie is born.
When will US pay for its incessant wars ? It did not for Vietnam Afghanistan Yougoslavia
Russia is on the way to make the usp a usual country. And after that the usp will pay for everything they've done historically.
Afghanistan? The Russians also have to pay there.
If you look at history, it's always the losing the side who has to foot the reparations bill.
*Looks at Marshall Plan*
@@m.a.118 You don't have the slightest idea what the Marshall Plan is and why the US empire installed it, do you?
@@m.a.118Marshall plan was nothing close to a reparation. It was aid used to create industries to boost the economies of European countries allied to the US to counter Soviet influence.
America lost in Vietnam, arguably in Iraq & Afghanistan too.
@@shakiMiki Depends on the perspective. Winning wars is never the goal, endless wars that cost trillions of tax payer dollars are.
Maximum damage has been done, Millions of civilians have been murdered.
In that they were quite successful.
Please make a video about the Palestinians right to get reparation from Israel, USA, Britain, German, and all of the other former colonial powers who have stolen their land, forced them to live under apartheid m, keep selling weapons to Israel, and the over 75 years of torture and unaliving they endure.
Ukraine stands a good chance of paying for post conflict reconstruction of Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson.
I see the russki ruble patrol is alive and well. Take your 15 rubles and drink lots of vodka comrade. I mean lots of it all at once until you see your ancestors
@@atomm3331 вы по себе людей не судите. Русские не платят за грязные комменты. Это прерогатива страны которые развязала десятки войн. Начиная с коренного населения Америки.
Hasn't Russia already confiscated Western assets?
It has frozen a lot of them as well. I don’t think it has confiscated them as yet as it knows it would invite retaliation.
@@JamesKerLindsayit has confiscated many companies under forced / compulsory purchase and confiscated $10 billion of planes belonging to Ireland alone- there were hundreds more.
Any future re-entry of Russia to global economy & lifting the sanctions will be contingent upon reparations to all affected.
@@JamesKerLindsay
My oppinion is that, this analyse should be modified by this way: 1) instead of word Russia to use word NATO, 2) instead of word Ukraine to use word Serbia (or FR Yugoslavia), 3) instead of years 2022, 2023 or 2024 to use year 1999. And only with those changes this "analyse" would have sence. Serbia has sufered "illegal agression" from NATO countries (without permission of UN SC and without attacking any NATO member state) and had over 150 billion material war damage plus over 3000 people dead and many more wounded, plus plus even more people died from uranium munition used during bombing of Serbian towns. When FR Yugoslavia officialy asked from UN Court of justice to force NATO to pay war compensation, the answer of the Court was that the Court is not autorised to such a legal process. And that is a message to whole free world about fairness and principness of western legal bodies under UN umbrela.
You do realise that the United States and EU have given vast sums of development aid to Serbia after Milošević was ousted? I work on the Balkans. (And I was critical of Kosovo’s independence.) But, I find it interesting that when Serbs are asked who has helped them the most they list Russia. In fact, it’s nowhere near as much as the West. And I think that many Serbs also selectively forget what Milošević did. He is responsible for much of the chaos and destruction as Yugoslavia collapsed. Many feel that Serbia is the country that should be paying. All this is to say that while I accept that Serbia feels aggrieved, it only tells itself part of the story. Many in ten country tend to forget the damage it caused, and overlook how much assistance it has received since then, including significant EU money to help with European integration.
@@JamesKerLindsay Changing the thesis is not an answer, it's rather avoiding of the argumented answer. The main point of the author's video analyse is "Justice", "Legality", "Morality" on the confiscating of Russian property from the Western countries in order to make Russia to "pay" for its "aggression war" against Ukraine. When I changed the names of the subjects by remembering on the case of 1999 aggression of NATO 19 countries against one single Yugoslavia which was unpunished by any world court, or any other institution, what I got as an answer is "Serbia got financial help form West after Milosevic was thrown down (not saying that we got 90% of that help as credits with interest rate 4% and up, not saying exact amount of 15 billion € what is just 10% from war demage that NATO caused to Serbia while throwing 75.000 tons of bombs on Serbian towns). By following that same logic of thinking Russia is very willing to give Ukraine a credit of few billions $ as "financial help" after President Zelenski is thrown down from power and Ukraine accept the fact that they shouldn't challenge the "great power" in its geopolitical agenda.
@@bakisastilom Please remind this forum what Serbia had been doing in Kosovo prior to the NATO intervention. Did NATO intervention occur in a vacuum? Were there diplomatic efforts to resolve issues prior?
Let's also not forget what Serbia had been doing in Bosnia earlier too.
@@nigelgarrett7970 I am very glad to explain, it's not hard when the facts are transparent for any check. To explain the case of Bosnia and Kosovo man must return into 6th century when Serb south Slavic tribes came to Balkan peninsula from Carpathian mountains, they settled themselves on the current territory of Kosovo, central Serbia, North Macedonia and Bosnia. Since 6th century until 13th century Serbs were investing blood and hard work in protecting those lands from neighbouring powers. In 13th century Serbs were the only Balkan nation to confront to enormous Turkish Otoman army. After the battle of Kosovo 1389 when 50% of Serbian male population died as a soldiers who were defending its land, its christian religion and Europen continent we lost the battle but we killed Turkish sultan and more then half of its army. From 13th century until 1912 we were submitted to genocide, ethnic cleaning and religious convertion into Islam from Turkish authorities. Many times we were raising rebellions against Turks and every time were supported in every means only from Russian Empire. In Balkan wars 1912-1913 Serbs have finally liberated our people on Kosovo and North Macedonia. The Albanians who were Turkish supporters and collaborationists for about 7 centuries (from 13th until 20th century) were submitted finally to the same regim of life like they were making to Serbs. In the first World war Serbian people lost 1.3 million of its population from the genocide made by Austrians, Germans, Albanians and Bulgarians (40% of total population). Serbian aim was primarily creation of "6th century Serbia" or some are calling it "Great Serbia" but the Croatian and Slowenien Slavic brothers were pleasing us to create a joint state of Yugoslavia because their lands would be otherwise shared between Hungary and Italy. We helped them unfortunately. In the Kingdom of Yugoslavia brother love broke very fast and we Serbs were seen as a oppressors in stead of saviours from Italy and Hungry. In the Second world war we Serbs lost 1.7 million of our population. Croats, Albanians and Bosnian Muslims were main collaborationists of Nazy Germany in commiting genocid against Serbian people. After WW2 newly established Communist Yugoslavia led by Croat Josip Broz Tito wanted to stop serbian revanchism and they have split country into 6 republics with strong federal government in Belgrade. Under the policy of "Weak Serbia - strong Yugoslavia" inside Serbia were created two autonomous regions (Vojvodina and Kosovo and Metohia). Each of 6 Republics had its constitution in which were precisely described how they can leave Yugoslavia and become independent country. 1/3 part
@@nigelgarrett7970 part 2/3
According to the Constitution of Socialist Republic of Slovenia, the people of Slovenia have right on self-determination if they want it. Slovens have used their right according to Socialist Constitution and President of Serbia Slobodan Milosevic was not against that. In the federal Yugoslav government led by Croat Ante Markovic they decided to send Yugoslav people's Army to stop Slovenian secession. Milosevic was very furious when he heard about Jugoslav Army Intervention in Slovenia and he was the one who has all credits for peaceful withdrawal of Yugoslav Army from Slovenia. Later came Macedonia, according to the Constitution of Socialist Republic of Macedonia, the Macedonian people just like Slovenian people have right for independence. In Macedonia was referendum for independence 1991 and again thanks to Serbian President Milosevic Jugoslav Army has peacefuly withdrew from Macedonia. Than came Croatia, in Croatia were living 25% of Serbs (1.000.000) and in WW2 Croats killed 700.000 Serbs in concentration camp called "Jasenovac", Yugoslav President Tito (1945-1980) has made Croatian Socialist Constitution on very specific way. There was written that Croatia is a Republic of Croat and Serbian people and each decision can be made only if 51% of Croat parlamentaries and 51% of Serbian parlamentaries vote YES. In the Constitution of Socialist Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina were written that any decision can be made only if 51% of Bosniaks (Muslims), 51% of Serb and 51% of Croat parlamentaries vote YES. In 1991 Serbian President Milosevic was very relaxed cause he knew that by such decision making system Croatia and Bosnia will stay in Yugoslavia. The war started when Croats supported by Germany and US were ignoring Serbian vote NO in Croatian Parlament, same happened in Bosnian Parlament, Serbian vote NO was ignored. Therefore President Milosevic had to help Serbs in Croatia and Bosnia in order not to be genocided third time in history. (next part 3/3 Kosovo 1999)
I sense a "two weighs, two measures" attitude, once again. I mean: did we, the West, pay for all the damages of the wars we've engaged in?
Yes, in a way. The US, Britain and EU pay vast amounts in development aid. This not only goes to countries where they have been involved militarily, but also goes to rebuild many countries destroyed by conflicts where they played no role. I think we need to be careful. It’s easy to present the West as bad. But it is only honest also acknowledge the part it plays in helping many countries.
It doesnt matter if all of it goes corrupt leaders.@@JamesKerLindsay
You should know that Russia took a lot as reparation from countries it occupied after WW2. It is only just it is too made to pay reparations. You only know the history of Western countries, so you only compare with that, but if you informed yourself on what happened after WW2 to countries abandoned beyond the Iron Curtain, you would find out how they were economically despoiled (is this the correct word?) by the Russians , who even relocated entire factories as spoils of war. As a Romanian, I would also like to bring to your attention that in WW1, whyle being allied to the Russian Empire, we send 94 traincars full of gold from the National Bank reserve for safekeeping in Russia, together with art treasures and the crown jewels, only to never see them again, with the exception of a few much to famous to be kept. To this day they have not returned our treasure!
@@mimisor66 I agree with Russia paying reparations but that doesn't mean the west shouldn't.
@@JamesKerLindsay The question was not if they provide development aid - after all, Russia also gives development aid, so, again, that same reasoning could be used, then. It's about paying for all the damages they do when waging war. And the answer to that is a definite no. You know this as well as I do. If you don't believe me, ask Vietnam.
BTW, I'm from the West myself. I'm not portraying "them" as bad. I'm portraying "them" as hypocritical. And rightfully so. Just like all the rest, I don't give our own politicians any slack, just because they're "ours". Russia is no saint, but neither are we, and I'm getting pretty sick of our constant one-sided arguments and excuses, why we can do what another can't. I value the logic and rationality of an argument above a tribal feeling of "we're the good ones and they're the bad ones, and therefor everything we say goes" mentality.
Thanks for a balanced discussion but I think you missed one important economic argument against confiscation. The use of the dollar as the international currency is already threatened and setting aside property rights would definitely hasten that outcome. It would be an own goal of historic proportions .
Thanks. Great point. I did touch on this, albeit indirectly. As I mentioned, there is an expectation that the EU and US are safe havens for assets. That would be put at risk they confiscated assets. And you are right, this could have very serious knock on effects for the dollar and the euro. This was why Lagarde also warned against eroding the international legal order. But it is good that you spelled it out.
@@JamesKerLindsay Hey James. I love your channel. Could you do an video on what would happen if the dollar stopped being the reserve world currency, so people can finally see what a dangerous game they're playing?
@@rickb9327 Шикарно было бы снять видео о том,как штаты развалятся после отказа всех стран использовать доллар ,грязную зеленую бумажку)))
what about reparations for 🇵🇸 stop the hypocrisy!
The level of hypocrisy displayed by them is truly astounding, as they have revealed themselves to be both frauds and hypocrites. However, it is important to note that the situation in Ukraine cannot be compared to the horrific events in Gaza.
Hypocrice..!
Well..
Here ,we must thank the Russian foreign minister mr.Lavrov.
Right with the beginning of their illegal invasion against Ukraine, the man mentioned about the Cyprus issue, and how all those western countries hypocrites are still have their eyes,ears and Mouths completely shut about. !
Thank you sir..! .mr.Lavrov
Cypriot
You can ask the Israelis about that. But then in return Palestinians should probably also pay for the terrorist attack by their government
I absolutely sympathize with the Palestinians and I think the war is horrible. But why is Hamas so hell-bent on continuing the war???
The are sacrificing their own people and they know it and don't care. Even if Israel stops, Hamas won't.
@@achmedaan government? i thought humus was a trrrrr group?
Vietnam? Laos? Cambodia?
I have never heard of a single family who received compensation from USA and the West.
The US pays vast amounts of money in development aid.
@@JamesKerLindsayno it does not. It uses organizations like IMF to loan in $ in return for market reform so US corporations can exploit those economies
@@JamesKerLindsayWe all know USAID is more of a bribe with lots of strings attached, similar to what China does with their "friendly loans", than reparations...
@@JamesKerLindsay , that’s not the same as compensation to actual victims of bombing and killings. - people whose houses very destroyed and family members murdered. Think about it objectively… for example China built Laos a modern high speed train, 5G mobile networks, etc… what has the USA done to improve people’s lives?
Plus discretionary development aid is not the same as humiliating, legally mandated reparation payments to victims.
Did America give reparations to Afghanistan, Iraq?
Not directly. But it has paid huge amounts in terms of aid to the countries.
@@JamesKerLindsay РЕЕ on "great" brittain 😂
Why US did not pay any reparations for the death and destruction during their war operations in Livia, Siria, Aphganistan, Irak? Is it time for a general principle of reparations to these countries?
Всем пожелателям российских компенсаций следует захлопнуть свою ненасытную варежку. И открыть ее не раньше, прежде чем Россия предъявит счет за разрушенный Донбасс, за 8-летнюю экономическую блокаду Крыма и Донецкой/Луганской народных республик, за ущерб от НЕЗАКОННО введенных санкций
cry more!
The US lost against Vietnam and never ended up paying reparations. Why would we expect Russia, currently gaining ground in Ukraine, to be made to pay reparations. It's not even clear that European countries want to keep the current sanctions against Russia, let alone force it to pay reparations.
Gaining ground? You mean how Ukraine is retaking the territory that Russia spent thousands of soldiers to gain? Also the US supported an internationally recognized state against it's enemy (and internal guerillas). You might think it was right or not. But that is the fact. The US didn't invade north Vietnam to make it the 51st state, did not kidnap thousands of children and, as far as I know, didn't steal Vietnamese toilets to take them home
And Europe is pretty united to keep the sanctions against the last European nation that abolished serfdom, since the country of putlerism is bent on reinvading both Poland and the Baltic states
@Konstantin2004 how many Vietnamese civilians did the Americans kill? Let me know when the Russian total gets somewhere near that total. I dont expect to hear from you
Moscow has also lost a total of 15,319 armored combat vehicles, 7,984 tanks, 19,078 vehicles and fuel tanks, 857 anti-aircraft warfare systems, 359 military jets, 326 helicopters and 28 warships as of 06/19/24. Glorious🎉
The double standard aka hypocrisy
Should Russia pay reparations?
This question in return reflects many so-called war circumstances; for example, should the U.S pay all reparations for the great losses of Vietnam War, Iraq war, Libya, etc and should German pay reparations for the losses of the world war II? Should Islael pay reparations for brutal killing Palestinians and destruction of Gaza? Should Ukraine pay reparations for killing more than 14,000 people in Donbass? so on and so forth.
I covered all this in the video. But if you believe that the US should pay elsewhere (and in many ways it has through vast amounts of aid money) then I presume that you agree that Russia should also pay for the reconstruction of Ukraine, through direct reparations or also by channeling aid money to the country?
It’s delusional to expect Russia to pay.
there's going to be some sort of duty levied on Russian/EU trade I imagine.
@@edc1569More Russian central bank assets being seized
The US owes Ukraine reparations. This war would not have happened without NATO eastern expansion. Good luck trying to get anything.
A likely scenario is that the war will only end with a ceasefire. The part of Ukraine under American, Western influence will be rebuilt with Western money, while the West will not contribute to the reconstruction of the part under Russian administration, it will be Russia's task and financial burden.
Did the US pressure countries to join NATO? Or did they choose to apply?
Lets just take exemples for other conflicts
1) US war in Vietnam :
Did the US pay war reparations to Vietnam? No, they did not.
2) Did the US pay war reparations to Iraq/ Vietnam? No, they did not.
3 ) Did israel pay war reparations or help rebuild Gaza for the infinite times they have destroyed It, never, in fact they have asked arab countries to pay, and now with the last gaza genocidal war, Israeli elites when they talk about after they dont consider paying anything…
3) Did Israel Pay syria for war reparation and for the seize of Gollan Heights ? No they didn’t…
So if on the previous conflicts caused by the West, we have never heard of reparations payment, why would russia pay now ??
Сначала ЕС должна выплатить репарации России за неудобства. )
Were there war reparations after the Vietnam war ended ? Vietnam , Cambodia and Laos were never compensated for damages suffered in the wars against France and USA ! How about Yugoslavia , Iraq , Libya , Afghanistan ? The NATO countries never paid a dime ! How about Israel , will they be force to pay war reparations ?
You forgot all the countries where Russia waged war. If so, then everyone should pay, or not
Wait a minute you telling me 200,0000 Russians soldiers died and only 31 ,000 Ukrainian soldiers died come on you make no sense at all
No. Listen again. I said that the 31,000 stated by Zelenskyy has been widely disputed.
Please do a video on whether America should pay reparations on their invasion of Libya,Iraq and Afghanistan.
I have addressed this many times already in the comments.
Unless Russia lose this war and surrender without conditions, you cannot force them to pay war reparations.
I mean the US lost the Vietnam war and paid no reparations.
Well you can, if you want to sell gas, then this duty is levied on it for example.
Let me dispel this mythology right now, because I can't believe people have forgotten what actually happened. The US did not "lose" the Vietnam War. The US left Vietnam in March of 1973 with a treaty in hand that stated that North Vietnam and the Vietcong would respect South Vietnamese sovereignty and the issue of Vietnamese reunification would be resolved through a democratic, diplomatic process. So when we left Vietnam, we did so understanding that our mission of defending South Vietnamese sovereignty had succeeded. Therefore, we didn't "lose" the Vietnam War, we left it thinking that we had won. The Nixon Administration even actually called March 29, 1973, "VVN Day." Just shy of two years later, in December of 1974, North Vietnam reneged on the treaty, invaded South Vietnam and, by April of 1975, had conquered it. So what most call "The Vietnam War" was actually two wars. The First Vietnam War, which started in 1954 and ended in 1973, was a victory for South Vietnam and its allies, at least inasmuch as they prevented a North Vietnamese conquest of the South. And the Second Vietnam War, which started in December 1974 and ended in April 1975, was a victory for North Vietnam and its allies, as it conquered South Vietnam. The United States took part in the First Vietnam War as one of South Vietnam's allies, and in that war our side was victorious. Right or wrong, the United States was not a participant in the Second Vietnam War, so we actually didn't lose anything.
I understand, there was an American military presence in Saigon at the beginning of the 1970s, but by mid decade, the American military presence was gone, the place was under a communist flag and it had been renamed "Ho Chi Minh City." I can definitely see how a someone unfamiliar with the details can interpret that as a defeat. But to do so is to forget the specific events that took place and their chronology. But back to the point, we actually did NOT lose the Vietnam War, so we owe no one reparations for anything. Thank you.
@@benjauron5873 No matter how hard you try to spin it, it was a loss. If it was up the US, they would have never back down. They accomplished and gained nothing in this war. So yeah they signed an agreement that didn't make them lose the face but it was definitely their loss.
@@benjauron5873 that is the most cope response I've ever seen 🤣
@@donrog5035 oh look another "UNitEd StateS Badd SOo RuSsIa NooT bAdDD" .. well by your logic why should germany pay reperations after ww2 because russia hasnt paid ukraine for starving over a million of its own people.. . do you realize how ignorant your OG comment is? or do you just love ruzzia that much?
Дорогие друзья, очевидно репарации выплатит поверженная сторона, в данном случае это,союз Европы.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 And even if they win, Russia is gone. The entire ethnicity is gone. Can you move?
Ты для начала победи Россию, клоун...)
Истинно.
stealing the interest is still theft, not a compromise
Tell that to your countrymen stealing fridges, wahshing machines, and toilets.
Don't dreams too much that Russia pays.
Russia should not pay for anything, simple.
Why not? Serious question.
@@JamesKerLindsay Because your little "country" will pay, simple 🤡
@@JamesKerLindsayBecause Israel does not pay. Why should Russians pay? As far as Israel is concerned, you are not saying that it should pay war reparations. When it comes to the Russians, you believe they should pay war reparations. Don't you think this is ironic? Does the concept of evil vary across states? Is it good if Israel does this? Would it be bad if the Russians did this? Sorry, but first the British. French. Americans. Israelis must pay compensation for the crimes against humanity they committed. Then we will all try to make the Russians pay for this.
Germany and the USA have also to pay reparations for Gaza and their leaders must face trial in front of the ICC for complicity in war crimes.
This is not a discussion about Gaza. I posted a video about Gaza reconstruction a few weeks ago. (Which most of my viewers who often raise Palestine on other videos seemed to ignore.) Let's focus on Ukraine and the myriad of important and complex issues I tried to raise in this video.
Correct me if I am wrong but is it not important to win the war before file for any reparations?
Thanks. That’s the interesting point about the current debates. In the past, this would have been the case. But the modern international system is highly interconnected. Russia has many assets in the West. Some have suggested that these should be seized now to pay for the war. This is the why the discussion over reparations is happening now. Ukraine needs funds and there is a way to get hold of this money. But, as I explained, it carries serious questions.
@@JamesKerLindsay well that is a mambo jumbo thing.. unless the defeated side signs any reparation agreement ending a conflict... taking money us simply theft or confiscation at best..
@@JamesKerLindsay The West has about the same amount of assets in Russia. Which will be seized in retaliation, as authorities clearly said. Long live the dollar reserve system, good luck =)
Забудьте о выплатах как страшный сон! Вам Россия ничего не должна и ничего не будет выплачивать!!! Кто вы такие чтобы вообще открывать рот! Вы должны выплатить всему миру!!!
uh are we salty
Этот человек ни слова не говорит о Палестине. Он никогда не обвиняет Израиль. Он говорит, что все немного сложно. Обвинять Израиль непросто. Не существует военного преступления, которого бы не совершил Израиль. Это знает даже человек, который немного думает. Но по какой-то причине этот господин не знает. Но когда дело доходит до России и Ирака, все становится проще, и они могут сказать, что эти государства совершили военные преступления. Он говорит, что Россия должна выплатить компенсацию. На видео о вторжении в Ирак президентом Ирака является Саддам. Он бросал на курдов химические бомбы и т. д. Вот почему США вошли в Ирак. Те же США почему-то не могут войти в Израиль, который использует запрещенные фосфорные бомбы. Он не говорит, что Израиль должен выплатить военную компенсацию.....
First USA, France and UK should start paying back to places like Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine, CFA Franc nations, India and every damn meddling they have done, then perhaps Russia should consider.
Its too bad you dont see when the west does the same or worse, some objectivity wont hurt
No. I see it. But I also see that tje argument is more nuanced than many would like to present it as being. The West is by far the largest aid donor in the world. The US has done bad things. But it has also paid huge sums to countries across the world, often to help rebuild countries after wars it had no part in.
@JamesKerLindsay their money won't bring the dead to life or repair a society they have broken, with some things money doesn't help.
@@Nikola-eg5tpTheir situation looks like this. You are crippling a person. later as an apology. You put a few coins in your pocket. Then, you become financially dependent on yourself by using that financial aid. If America provides financial aid to a country, it means buying off many people in those countries. That money does not go to war losses. An autonomous administration supported by America is being established there. and this administration acts in the interests of America. Because you serve whoever you take the money from. If he gives money, it means he accepts that he is guilty. If it's a crime, why are you doing it? If you are doing it. Then why do you condemn Russia? Don't you think there's something in this? Last question for the video narrator...
As soon as we’ve paid full financial reparations to Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam and all our colonial conquests….then we’ve every right to ask that of Russia for Ukraine.
I think you’ll find that the US has paid vast amounts of development aid to these states. Also, the US has a long history of paying aid to many other states, including the reconstruction of warm-torn countries that it had nothing to do with. Just consider the Marshall Plan for Europe after WWII. The US has down wrong, but we should also bear in mind that it has helped a lot of countries. Far more - both in absolute and relative terms - than Russia ever has.
@@JamesKerLindsay Understood, but one might argue that this is simply a clever form of economic imperialism. In Iraq, for example, the US oil companies took full and enduring control of the Iraqi oil industry, post the conflict. Look also at the scale of US interests now in Japan, Germany and South Korea. Unconditional aid, reparations and spoils of war are very different things.
The alternative is that the US does nothing. Then it would be accused of selfishly ignoring world problems. Unfortunately, this isn’t a debate that it can ever ‘win’. In reality, it is a complex issue. But it would be good if those who shout against the US and the West in general would consider the broader debate. And, again, it’s worth remembering that Russia gives almost no aid, and China is notorious for linking its aid to development projects that it can step in to seize when the country in question can’t repay its debts. In many ways, this is far more exploitative than US development assistance.
@@JamesKerLindsay I’m no Putin fan or apologist, but I happen to believe that the West’s whole approach in Ukraine is also misguided, immoral and dangerous….but you’ve already responded twice so I’ll leave it there, with due thanks and respect for this and all your work. 👍
@@hisdadjames4876 Thanks. I know we differ on this. I think Russia is fundamentally undermine international law in a way that is dangerous for the entire system of international security. But always happy to have a polite exchange. Sadly, it’s become rather rare on the channel, to the point that I am seriously considering whether to even continue with it.
Это может прозвучать забавно, но в России очень следят за терминами, и если и ждать от России в будущем каких-то денежных переводов, то не под видом "репараций", поскольку проигрыша армии как такового нет (да и сам проигрыш российское государство никогда не признает при любом исходе), а путём, например, заключений выгодных для Украины контрактов по транзиту газа (не опять, а снова), или, скажем, закрытия её долгов перед внешними партнёрами в знак "доброй воли" и, что более вероятно, в обмен на снятие санкций. Изъятие активов же приведёт к раздражению тех международных игроков, которые считают коллективный Запад не меньшим виновником этой войны.
Спасибо, Профессор, за видео! Посмотрел до конца и всем рекомендую!
Thank you.
❤PUTIN ❤
Да, да пришло время. Кто проигрывает, сдается, капитулирует - тот и платит репарации.
А кто-нибудь вообще верил, что Украина выиграет?
Пенсию Джонсона и Байдена надо направить в счет репараций.
Vollhorst
salty russian! 🍿🍿🍿🍿
@@pinktfatrabbit Salty Anglo-Saxon?
Seizing Russian assets in the West as payment for reparations is no doubt very tempting now but I agree it will undermine confidence in the West in a real way. Using the lifting of sanctions as a way is a better option, imo.
GAZA?
Please, please, please can we focus on the topic at hand? Gaza is important. I have made many videos about it. But this was about Ukraine. Really, I appreciate comments, but can we try to keep them focused. It becomes impossible to manage if on every topic people just shout "Ukraine", "Palestine", "Kosovo" in response to any and every issue.
I thought the obvious answer was Yes Reparations. But you’ve put a lot of extra light on the subject and displayed just how complex this really is. Very well done!
Thank you so much. I thought it was important to open up the debate. I support reparations. But I can also see the problems associated with them, as well as the difficulties of some of the ideas being put on the table.
If not Russia then who? Who will pay for the damage? The victim? The west?
It's kind of funny. The assumption is that Russia will lose, which isn't going to happen. So it's a fairy tale to expect them to pay.
In any case, what can putler do against the west confiscating Russian properties (like the Ruzzians have done with western properties)? Also, how is Russia supposed to "win" when they can barely take a couple of km or frontline? And need north korea to send them antiquated weapons?
@@Konstantin2004But taking the assets by the west will only make stronger in the future as most of the rich will keep the money in Russia instead of investing it abroad
@@Konstantin2004 Take a look at the frontline and numerical reports; it's beyond ridiculous to expect Ukraine to handle a front of that size, even with all the help they receive. Second, the world isn't solely the West, which seems to be overlooked. Assessing this war is incredibly complex, but one thing is clear: Ukraine cannot achieve the victory that the West anticipates.
@@boombang857 it's also ridiculous to expect putler to be able to take all, or even just slightly more or Ukrainan territory than they already have considering their problems getting even slight advances
@@boombang857 also, except the iranians mullahs and Kim jong un, what other nations are actively supporting Ruzzia?
James, great topic and you covered the "two edge sword" impacts of Russian owned assets outside of Russia extremely well.
Freezing of aseests was a wise move at the outset of this situation, but we must address that most of these "assets" are property own by individuals who are Russian. If the assets are soverign holdings of the Russian state, it falls in a different catagory of consideration. Regardless of owernship these assets are in numerous countries and fall under the individual jurdistiction of the property rights laws in those locations.
The rights to the ownership of property (land tenure & title) are a cultural foundation to the success of Western nations. Appropriation of assets who happen to be individuals who are Russians, must follow established legal processes in each nation where they are located. Even the seizure of intrest earning from this property must also be fully adjudicated by individual state's legal processes.
Russia is the Aggressor State in this situation, however the issue of assets is highly complex & nuissanced. Defense of Western liberal values is equally applying the law to the situation regarding property owned by Russians or the Russian state outside of Russia.
Retrograde legislation passed by nations after Russia's invasion of Ukraine that targets Russian property is only a mechanism of legal theft. These kind of actions undermind the concept of property ownership in the West. Doing so is a betrayal of the idea of Western values, and smacks of convenient hypocrisy.
In the United States the ACLU has famously defended evil characters right to free speech despite the evil speech being vile to all of society. But as in that situation the individual "right" is more imporant then the person. So we must acknowledge that despite Russia's evil actions in Ukraine we in the West must adhear to the concept of property rights of Russian individuals & the Russian state and any processes to sezie property MUST be adjudicated legally with the laws in place prior to Russia's invasion in February 2022. Undermining that concept of the safety of property ownership, as you well stated, opens up Pandora's box and in effect is a contributing factor to the destruction of liberal Western values, prosperity and success. Excellent topic to present. As always thanks for the great platform your podcast provides.
Very good take! I agree.
Thanks, Andrew. I agree. We do need to be very careful when considering these situations. I just wish there more thoughtful comments like this. Sadly so much has been whataboutism, often from people who clearly didn’t bother to watch the video.
Yes Russia must pay but USA must also pay no double standard should be used because it doesn't show fairness/justice
Are you talking about Afghanistan and Iraq? We already did. We invested as much money into rebuilding Iraq and Afghanistan per month as we've given to Ukraine in the last 2.5 years. Any monetary debt we have to those countries is paid in full and then some.
@@benjauron5873А фото восстановленного есть? Школы, больницы, дома?
@@benjauron5873 and Lybia not only for the USA but any country which may fight other country or influence a war like in Rwanda and DRC case
You mean all that money that went to U.S companies to rebuild Iraq and local corrupt warlords?. Is that your idea of rebuilding and reparations?
The whole idea of international law is pretty weak. Its an anarchy out there. In practice, the fact that China and Saudi Arabia oppose seizing Russian assets seems like a good argument that it is the right thing to do. The general idea of reparations from a country is pretty sketchy. Do the populace bare responsibility for actions taken by the state? It seems more plausible to break up states that engage in wars that would lead to reparations.
Breaking up such states would certainly serve as a much harsher example for would-be aggressors. However, it would be necessary to take good care of the security situation while doing so.
Let's be frank here. Reparations would serve to be "just" to Ukraine as a secondary objective. Firstly, by forcing Russia into a Weimar-esque situation, throwing the Russian economy into the furnace, it will massively destabilize Russia and likely lead to a "grassroots" chain of protests leading to regime change. Fomenting this process has been the US' MO since the Arab Spring, HK umbrella movement, and Maidan, (and a failed attempt in Belarus). This has quietly been the wests objective with Russia since 2008 I suspect as well. Not only to "get rid of Putin", but deprive China of a massive strategic ally, member of BRICS, and counterpart to China within the SCO. Since Russia is politically stronger than it was in 1996 (When the US interferred in Russian elections by supporting Yeltsin), economically straving Russia is only way to try and oust Putin, which that has been the end game for over 15 years now.
Can you give me a link to where you buy your tinfoil hats?
@@AlexxAmadeoWell if we can assume Russia interfered in the 2016 election, backed the freedom convoy movement, and is involved in subversive activities... What makes you think the US isn't? it's not a tin foil hat if you've actually read a history book about US clandestine operations since 1945. Go ahead, look up "US involvement in Russian election 1996" or Operation Mockingbird, or The Department of Strategic Influence, or pretty much any point of Latin American history... You know actually being crititical doesn't make everyone an Alex Jone when you actually *read* up on the history of US foreign policy.
@@AlexxAmadeoSadly I left that at home. But I have several books on the history of US foreign policy which was part of my degree.
@@m.a.118 Ah yes, you’re college-educated, just like the “Queers for Palestine” crowd. Good for you, buddy, good for you.
If the sanctions are never lifted, it's 100x worse than reparations.
And why should they.
Funny joke! Russia is growing and becoming more self-sufficient in all areas with the help of its BRICS partners. It is right now in the transition phase to become fully independent from the west. It is the best thing, Putin said, what could ever happened to Russia.
It's not 1995 anymore. Russia of course lost its best markets (EU) but they found new one in Asia. They will survive just fine.
Russian economy is growing by over 3% per year, which is an answer in itself.
@@TSEliot1978there is an opportunity cost which was correctly pointed out by the OP.
Don't pay & "survive just fine" vs pay & resume normal global trade relations.
The choice will be up to them.
Remember, North Korea is also surviving just fine.
@@jacqdanieles same goes for Ukraine. They can negotiate a peace deal and eventually go back to normal, or continue fighting and be just fine. Only it will be a lot less fine than Russia
The US has spent huge amounts for reconstruction in both Iraq and Afghanistan. The money was not called reparations but it was many billions of dollars Probably not that well spent or managed, but huge amounts all the same.
Thank you. That's what I said.
It is not true concerning Iraq. The US and UK paid only inadequate funds for the reconstruction of the country after their unjustified full-scale invasion of the country, in which up to 1 million people lost their lives and the country was(and still is) heavily devastated.
@@hplarsen34 Are you some kind of internationally known expert on these matters? Search for getting-reconstruction-right-and-wrong-lessons-from-Iraq on Google (I can't post a link here)
There is a very notable difference in taking someone elses money, and spending it on your own contractors and spending your own money, largely - again - on your own contractors (as done by the US in Iraq).
If Russian assets are seized say good by to US dollar hegemony.
This whole discussion makes me think of the Versailles treaty put upon the German government after WW1. The payments along with other factors (Looking at you France) helped drive extremism in Germany and was used as much political fodder for Hitler's rise to power. It also hobbled the nascent democratic-ish government there. That's why I think it's much better to use the funds now and hurt an aggressive Russia during the war rather than wait for the shooting to stop and hobble whatever government led to a peaceful outcome.
This.
Thanks. This is a really great argument. Imposing reparations on a defeated side can indeed set in place the sense of victimisation. Maybe it is better to find a way to impose the costs on an aggression while they are doing it. The only problem is that this carry deeper risks for the US and EU. If they confiscate the funds, then they will lose their reputation as a safe place for assets. This could strengthen other places. Then again, there are only so many places where it could go.
@@JamesKerLindsayExactly. And that's why I think the "losing trust" argument is not a very good one.
@@JamesKerLindsay where would capital flow to? The PRC where the CPC can do as it pleases, with China having closed financial markets? Brazil, India, South Africa...now we are getting into laughable territory. The only markets deep enough, liquid enough with enough trust is the USA, and to a lesser extent the EU euro-zone.
@@JamesKerLindsayJust look at mBridge progress and BRICS, look at the price of gold.
The reputational damage has already been done. Now its but a matter of timelines
Wow I never knew the concept of reparations to be so complicated because I was one of the initial supporters that yeah it seems right to me make Russia pay but I didn't know it could potentially have for reaching consequences that could affect all of us in negative ways
Thank you so much for enlightening me
Thanks. It is indeed a more complex problem than it seems, isn’t it? I am reminded of what happened with Germany. As I mentioned, my great-grandfather was the chief British delegate on the reparations commission. I remember my grandfather always used to tell me that his father felt that France was going too far. It was obvious at the time that it was too punitive. On the other hand, how can a country launch a war of aggression and not be forced to pay something towards it?
It seems to me that the time for discussion of reparations is at the peace negotiating table. Seizing assets is a good way to make sure that nobody trusts you with their money. It seems like a shortsighted decision to me.
- "It seems like a shortsighted decision to me."
Commenting without knowing what you are talking about is short sighted. The assets haven't been seized (did you even watch the video). They are only frozen, and the accumulated interest is going to be given to Ukraine.
Frozen and utilised to fund a war against the asset's original owner - if that's not effective seizure idk what is.
We'd be doing X and calling it Y. No one believes it my guy.
@@adoatero5129 Stealing the interest is still a theft
@@aleksandrpulnikov684 I studied the matter a little more, and what to my understanding (as a non-lawyer and non-economist) actually is given to Ukraine now is a loan against the accumulated interest, not the interest itself. What will happen in the future is that international court will either decide that Russia will have to pay reparations for the damage caused by its illegal war against Ukraine, or that it doesn't have to pay. If Russia has to pay, and Russia pays, the frozen assets with interest will be unfrozen after full payment of reparations. If Russia doesn't pay them, the assets will be legally confiscated and loans given to Ukraine will be paid from them. Especially Europe (where large majority of the funds are) wants everything to happen legally, so it's likely that that's also how they will happen.
@@adoatero5129 Any manipulation with assets without the owner's consent is a theft. You won't fool anyone. So watch how money flows out of Europe. Congrats, this is already happening.
Regarding legality, NATO has been stealing daily 80% of the Syrian oil production for over 10 years. this is an open theft conducted by NATO and approved by NATO. why am I not surprised that none of international courts all located in NATO countries sees absolutely no problem with the NATO's theft of vital resources of the independent country of Syria?
Seizing Russian assets will not undermine the sense of investor security. If they are seized, it would not send the signal that investments are not secure, just investments made to support a country that conducts such egregious violations of international order and peace. Investors are not stupid; they understand this.
@@dimushka383 They will know that if they engage in illegal operations like Russia, then yes, they will know that their funds will be seized. Are you saying that those non-European countries are intrinsically corrupt? Smart investors will not invest in countries that will do that. And they shouldn't.
it's a mute point until there is a resolution.
Thanks. But as I mentioned, it is already being discussed. The problem is whether to confiscate the assets, or merely use the interest and profits earned on them.
Где репарации Германии фашистов убивших замученных в концлагерях искалеченных угнанных в Германию !!! Может пора спросить репарации с Германии
Thanks as always Prof 👍🏻🇦🇺👍🏻
Reparations have worked out so well in history
Yes and no. But does this mean that countries that start wars and cause huge damage should not have any responsibility to pay for the death and destruction caused?
7:59 they may be inevitable but rather unjustified. Russia started a war of aggression against Ukraine but Israel was the one attacked on 7.10. What kind of message will it deliver? Ukraine is definitely not Gaza..
Yeah exactly, why are people so inclined as to reward terrorism?
As he says in the video, that isn't NECESSARILY the most important thing. You only have to read comment sections on this channel to see comparisons drawn with other conflicts, including those that Russia and China have little interest in other than around this question. Whether those comparisons are justified or not, it seems evident that a very large number of people do believe that something like the NATO bombing of Serbia falls under the same category as what Russia is doing in Ukraine. That is an important consideration.
@@professorquarter I understand. That's why I said even though some ppl may equate Ukraine to Gaza, that comparison isn't true.
yah but the United States accused Israel of crimes against humanity before the 7.10 attack. From that perspective the 7.10 attack is a response to crimes against humanity
@@MarkVrem there are no ifs and buts for the types of rape, kidnappings & tortures by Hamas. Don't excuse their behavior.
Where the heck you got the info from???? Let me laugh a little 😅😅😅
A strange and immature comment. I show the sources for the information I provide. If there’s anything you feel is inaccurate, point it out and provide alternative sources for that information. That’s what serious, grown up people do when they are trying to have an informed debate.
Should note that $3bn per year is destined to fall given lower interest rates. The reality is we are really just taxing profits from investments from the clearing house. Instead of these tax revenues flowing from Euroclear to the Belgian government, they are going to issuer of the loan. Still not sure if we agreed upon who is putting up the money or on the hook for the debt, as Europe and the US were wanting the other to hold the bag. Looking at the price of gold and central banks buying it, there already is a lot of damage being done to the global financial system. In the grand scheme of things $300bn isn't a lot of money and is a pittance to what could be lost if we lose investor confidence. Especially if you are a country like the UK who has a negative current account balance and needs foreign direct investment.
The sides can haggle over exactly how much money Russia should have to pay, but the fact that Russia owes Ukraine reparations is self evident. It's not even open for debate. As for US paying reparations to Iraq and Afghanistan, we already did. We invested as much money into rebuilding Afghanistan and Iraq per month as we've given to Ukraine in the last 2.5 years. As for Israel paying reparations to Gaza, of course. Once Hamas has been eradicated and the Strip is placed under an Israeli provisional administration, the Israelis should definitely invest a lot of money into revitalizing the territory. That's in their best interests.
US investment money into its (former) servant states is not equal to reparations, which come as a huge humiliation for the imperialist countries. Has US ever paid reparations for its nuclear attacks on Japan? Has it ever paid money to all the southern countries after it has created its CIA attacks to overthrow governments and wreck chaos? No, it has not. I truly wish for a peaceful world, which is guided by UN principles. But the US is as bad or even worse than China and Russia. And believe me if I tell you that the US rather falls apart sooner than your wishful thinking about Russias falling apart.
Reparations is not investment. I don’t burn your house down, built a new one and ask you to pay the rent.
If the US started paying reparations for all the countries it annihilated it would go bankrupt very quick. Truth is neither Russia nor the US, or Israel paid and won't pay jackshit. This is just wishful thinking from westerners.
Out...of...your....mind
The USA has acted as an aggressor against other countries before. The Dominican Republic, Grenada, Nicaragua, Panama, Serbia did not receive reparations. For Nicaragua, the international court has already made a decision on the payment of war reparations, but the USA refuses to implement this.
Let’s not forget that Ukraine would probably spend a considerable amount of its budget on the military even after the war.
Ukraine would for many decades distrust the Russians. And spend hundreds of billions in the military.
Excellent point.
Yes, it is a difficulty, especially if Ukraine has to remain neutral. This is why Ukraine wants to join NATO, then it would be enough to maintain a smaller army due to collective defense. It's just that NATO expansion was one of the root causes of the war, so it's not certain that this is the solution. Perhaps other security guarantees could be a solution, which would be acceptable to both Ukraine and Russia.
America should pay
They wanted the war, started the war, encouraged the war
Evidence?
@@gorantamburic2000 If it is so obvious then why can't anyone provide any evidence?
Typical Kremlin gaslighting. I suppose the troops that invaded weren't ruzzian ...
@@gorantamburic2000 Provide evidence or delete your account.
@@nigelgarrett7970 easily. the next day after Russia acknowledged DPR and LNR and signed a treaty with them, Ukraine started a massive artillery barrage along the whole frontline. Ukraine would never have done any of such moves without a prior consultation with US and NATO
The greatest damage is the lives lost and lives destroyed. If you ever traveled in much of the Former USSR you know it is mostly old soviet apartments and buildings which needed to be torn down. You can buy a summer home (starting at) $1,500 a village home for 8 K and an apartment in a medium-sized apt in city for 15k (East Urakne 2020)
Reparations are for the winning side. and to say that Ukraine is gonna win even with all of the western aid is not backed by any factual numbers behind it. That’s just my realist perspective on things
I love how people in this comments section somehow ignore the fact the US has an immense aid budget. If you include the UK and EU then it's even bigger.
Thanks. I agree. It is incredible. The sums are enormous and much of it is for reconstruction and recovery. It doesn’t justify conflicts, but it does say that it is wrong to suggest that the US and others don’t pay anything. I actually posted a comment on my community tab. The contortions that people went to arguing that it didn’t count, it was still evil (even to countries where they never been to war), etc. was incredible.
you know what the difference was in ww1 and ww2? they didnt decide to make them pay until surrender terms were imposed. not stealing it from them so that ukraine can pay for the war itself. why does there seem like a whole lot of unprofessionalism going into this from the west?
"Normalising relations" with Russia means that Russia must not object to NATO expansion. This is USA's goal. Basically Russia must be subdued. However, the "contract" won't say this.
Yes Russia has to pay for all the damages.
What cused and triggered this war? Is the USA's hand, NATO incursion closer to Russia be the main factor? PLIZ make some vedios on these question. Thank you.
James is master of critical thinking, one of the best. In was enjoyment to listen
Thank you so much. I really appreciate it. This is one of those topics where the answer seems really straightforward, to both sides, but is far more complex than most realise. I hope I at least brought out some of the issues.
Not always though
A comment deficient in critical thinking....
Я начала ненавидеть английский язык! Учите русский!
Professir James never fails to deliver
Thank you so much!
Tento tárajko žije na Marse? Naozaj netuší význam slova realita ?
You break it, you buy it. That's the rule in shops in Australia. ruSSia MUST pay!!!
Moscow doesn't need an incentive to talk. It needs incentives to get its troops out of Ukraine.
what's your suggestion?
@@sergeipetrov_rzn
I don't think there are any good options.
I think the overriding issue is long-term nuclear risk. Nuclear blackmail has been a key part of Russia's approach. If Russia succeeds because of it, even if it's only a costly partial success, that will increase the incentive for other countries to acquire large numbers of nuclear weapons. MAD didn't work very well between two blocs; we survived the Cold War by luck on several occasions. With the same kind of arsenals held by many countries, we would have no chance of surviving. And I think that pretty much anything is less bad than nuclear omnicide.
So I think the least-bad option for the rest of the world is a boil-the-frog strategy, crossing each supposed "red line" in a trivial way, then ramping up gradually, then moving on to the next one. The important thing is that no particular step in the process is so bad for Russian decision-makers that a firm commitment to suicide is ever their least-bad option, but the whole process leads to unconditional surrender. That means a _lot_ of deaths, both Ukrainian and Russian, that ought to be preventable but I don't see any way of preventing them.
Getting to unconditional surrender requires the carrot as well as the stick, so we should commit to a Marshall Plan for Russia (as well as Ukraine). It would be very costly, and it would take political will that we're not likely to have, but I don't see any less-bad options that have even that much chance of working.
Это по крайней мере хамство. Как только запахло жаренным, Вы вспомнили о деньгах. А когда Вы вкладывали деньги на войну в Украине, о чём думали? Я знаю. Думали что выиграете и доходы к вам рекой потекут. Так что Вы получите дырку от бублика. А обо всем остальном надо было думать в 2014 году. Поезд уехал. Прсщяйте господа!
You do you think you are to demand a nation pay reparations?
Strange comment. I am someone who looks at international relations and key issues going on in the world. Many people laughed that Russia should pay reparations for Ukraine. I explored the complexities of that. I’m not sure you understand this UA-cam thing.
why do you care my little russian bot
Lots of good arguments for both wiews here. To me it all boils down to what kind of relation do Russia want to have with EU, UK, USA, and other democratic western nations that have paied for the survival of Ukraine, after the war is over. To me is obvious that they can not run from this bill.
The winner can do what they like
Russia won’t accept Ukraine joining NATO anymore that the U.S would have accepted Canada or Mexico joining the old Warsaw Pact. Great powers will not tolerate direct threats right on their border. It’s not that hard to understand.
And when was Ukraine going to join NATO? Despite Bush, it was never going to happen. Until the Russian invasion. Now it looks inevitable.
The usp will pay for the reparation. Come here to this comment in ca 5-7 years and you will see.
The very consideration of stealing someone else's money has ruined your reputation already. In Syria NATO (or US, which is the same thing) has been stealing oil and gas for a decade, and does not feel obliged to pay for anything. Does that improve your reputation? Did you pay for ruining Iraq or Syria or Libya or Serbia?
Going to ignore what your country has been doing in Syria?
@@0816M3RC My country was officially invited by the internationally recognized government of Syria in order to help fighting terrorists. NATO invited itself to Syria, which it also did earlier in Libya and in Serbia
So Syria and the sovereign right to request Russian help, but Ukraine didn’t have the sovereign right to join NATO?
@@JamesKerLindsay
NATO is presumably a defensive alliance. You should ask people of Serbia, Libya, Syria, Iraq and many other places what do they think on this funny matter. You attacked so often, but you never actually defended. Serbia did not attack you, but you ruined Serbia and annexed its part. And you attack under false pretexts which your rich fantasy generously provides you with. Your throw excuses that US provides financial help later to these countries, which is a blunt lie. US offers loans with interest. The combined amount of those loans is a tiny fraction of the incurred damage. During your safari in Iraq you killed over 1mln civilians for no reason and you have a nerve to speak of human rights. In Syria you have been stealing oil and gas for over 10 years. You do not steal just some oil, you have been stealing 80% of Syrian daily oil production. And yet you have a nerve to speak of international laws. NATO is a dangerous gang bullying and killing everyone in its path. This is a universal perception of NATO and the exact reason, why NATO's sanctions against Russia do not work. Obviously, Russia has every right to be concerned with a thug on its border.
When Ukraine as a republic within USSR issued a declaration of independence, it stated that Ukraine was a neutral state with no intention to join alliances. Regions of Ukraine voted for that declaration and that independence. Also, Russia did not have a problem with a neutral Ukraine and later this was Russia's main requirement during negotiations in Istanbul in 2022, in return Russia agreed to withdraw its forces to 2022 borders. In confirmation of this and after a preliminary agreement was established, Russia withdrew from Kiev, Sumy and Chernigov. But this was sabotaged by US and UK. One of the Ukrainian participants openly admitted to Boris Johnson convincing Ukrainian officials into fighting. If it was not for NATO thousands of people would have lived and dozens of towns would not be destroyed. So it is NATO who must pay for the damage.
Speaking of human rights, you are ignoring a simple fact that Ukrainians do not want to fight. There are no volunteers into the Ukrainian army for over a year. Men are being hunted across Ukraine and forced into the fight. There are tons of videos showing how Ukrainians resist mobilization, how they are trying to escape the country.
NATO claims that it is helping Ukraine in its fight against Russia, but in reality NATO only supports the expired Zelensky. Zelensky uses his gestapo to gather common people and feed them to the front in order to assure the continued stream of money from NATO. he remains in power for as long as the fight continues. NATO is perfectly cool with that. NATO does not care about common Ukrainians, as it never truly cared about human rights, but wants to prolong the fight and postpone its inevitable defeat.
Given this new situation, eastern and southern regions of Ukraine must have a possibility to reconsider whether they want to stay in such a country, or possibly succeed. Kosovo was granted this right, so the same must be applicable to those regions.
@@JamesKerLindsay Which international law entitles NATO to steal 80% of Syrian oil production?
When it comes to Russia itself paying reparations (instead of them being take from the frozen assets) I don't see how that could happen under any even remotely realistic scenario. Let's consider a few:
1) Russia wins.
->
It won't pay.
2) A settlement is reached which preserves at least a large part of Ukraine (granting Ukraine a partial, or at least a moral victory).
->
To reach this, Russia needs to have enough incentive to agree. This would probably include at least no reparations, return of the frozen assets, and a lifting of the more significant sanctions.
3) Ukraine achieves a complete military victory pushing out Russian forces from all of Ukraine.
->
Russia can just retreat inside its borders and refuse a settlement that includes reparations. Even with such a complete victory, Ukraine almost certainly wouldn't march on Moscow to enforce reparations. Also, reparations probably can't be very significant if e.g. lifting of sanctions would be enough to make Russia agree to them.
4) Russia sinks into civil unrest and chaos.
->
There won't be effective government in Russia that could impose the cost of sanctions on the populace.
5) Russia becomes bankrupt and destitute.
->
It can't afford to pay, at least not without foreign aid and no one would probably aid Russia just so it could pay.
The destruction Russia has visited in Ukraine is not collateral damage. The attacks on civilian housing and infrastructure are the point. Russia's model for victory is to use terror to force a surrender. They've engaged in all manner of war crimes as part of their strategy, including murder, sexual assault, looting, perfidy and more. Since the EU, NATO and other allies have imposed sanctions on Moscow, and the Russian state will want those lifted at the end of the war, that gives the West leverage to demand reparations for Kyiv if the Moscovites wish to ever access the world's financial systems again.
Someone had to pay and it has to be Russia: if Russia doesn’t pay; then who?
It's not that clear. NATO also used the same strategy to defeat Serbia in 1999, by bombing critical infrastructure, bridges, power plants, oil refineries, transformer stations, and power lines to paralyze the country, prevent normal civilian life, and achieve its capitulation. This can be considered a terrorist bombing, but the attacker can also say that these facilities also serve the army and the military industry, so they are legitimate targets.
There were 14,000 victims of the war in eastern Ukraine, that's all the dead. Of these, approximately 3,000 were civilian victims and they were Ukrainian citizens, both of Russian and Ukrainian ethnicity.
I would agree. I suspect that one way or another, Russia will have to pay something. But I’m not sure it will come anywhere close to the 490 billion dollars that the World Bank estimates is needed.
@@ferencdeak8784 And most of those casualties were caused by Russian backed separatists.
The only country that received reparations from Germany was Israel. All the others caved in, or accepted humiliating terms, taking machines, grants, favourable loans and stories of German remorse. Some countries were in such disasterous shape that they accepted loans instead of reparations, just to end hunger. And it just proves what we historians already know - it doesn't matter who won the war on paper, what matters is that Germany won in essence. They were happy to pay to relocate all the German Jews to another continent, as for the rest of us - how are we gonna collect if they simply say "no"? So, Europe simply accepted what they could've get - humiliating handout from the ww2 winner. What else?
РЕПОРАЦИИ ПЛАТИТ ПРОИГРАВШАЯ СТОРОНА.
That means as from you.
@@pinktfatrabbit yes, pink fat rabbit, if that makes you sleep tighter, lol.
Because most deaths are from Artillary shelling and RU is using many more shells than Ukraine, it only stands to reason that Ukraine has lost as many as Russia and probably a lot more. It bothers me that the West downplays the losses, presumably to shield UA and the West from knowing the huge cost that Ukraine has paid and obviously will keep paying.
They have actually started rebuilding Mariupol. There are many locals documenting it online. So sure they will rebuild but what is now Russia. Reparations are paid by the losing country, so it might be Ukraine with Western money will have to pay some type of reparations to Russia. There is no path for Ukraine to win this war.
The Russians will never give back the four regions they now consider Russia the only question will be where does the front line freeze.
confiscating russian assets will be nail in the coffiin for Europe especially for the UK.