Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Russia invades Ukraine (24/02/2022)



The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
26,116
West is BEST
Looks promising. Now, shut up Truss. Liz giving it the big un this morning “we will not reward aggression” etc. SHUT.UP. You bloody fool.
 








Herr Tubthumper

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jul 11, 2003
62,609
The Fatherland


Happy Exile

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 19, 2018
2,129
"UK received the most favourable rating of the 60 countries evaluated by the FATF in the preceding five years in regard to its policies to combat money laundering"

Please do some research before blithely posting baseless rhetoric.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Hmmm. That's a bit unnecessarily aggressive and suggests you need to do a bit more research, not Thunder Bolt - policies are one thing. Effective implementation is another.

e.g. the independent and hugely respected Royal Institute for International Affairs published a report that explained how it's entirely possible to have great policies and simultaneously be the money laundering capital of the world, actually dissected the FATF rating you quote for the fallacies it has, and said among other things: "UK regulations, while strong on tackling organised crime, are ill equipped to prevent capital flight from kleptocracies."

Basically that's what our regulations do: if you're in organised crime they will do a good job at preventing laundering. If you're an oligarch or some other hugely wealthy figure with the backing of a nation state then there's little to stop you. This is why so much Russian and Middle Eastern money ends up in London.

A Conservative MP has even recently admitted it - I don't think anyone seriously doubts it.
 




The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
26,116
West is BEST
Errr... that's her job.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

It’s really not. It’s the opposite of her job. When it looks like other people’s negotiations are working, you employ some diplomacy. You do not start making provocative remarks when a situation looks like it may, may, be calming down.
 


Happy Exile

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 19, 2018
2,129
Chatham House

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

The same Chatham House I've just quoted (the Royal Institute) and the report which concludes with this statement?: "Despite much rhetoric and progress on paper, the UK remains a safe haven for dirty money, a great deal of which comes from Russia and Eurasia. As we have shown, it is not just money that is laundered, but also reputations."

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/12/uks-kleptocracy-problem/06-conclusion-and-recommendations

I hope you'll have the grace to apologise to [MENTION=14365]Thunder Bolt[/MENTION] for suggesting they do more research.
 
Last edited:






beorhthelm

A. Virgo, Football Genius
Jul 21, 2003
35,994
Basically that's what our regulations do: if you're in organised crime they will do a good job at preventing laundering. If you're an oligarch or some other hugely wealthy figure with the backing of a nation state then there's little to stop you. This is why so much Russian and Middle Eastern money ends up in London.

A Conservative MP has even recently admitted it - I don't think anyone seriously doubts it.

worth reiterating not all oligarchs (or oil princes) necessarily have the backing of a nation state, and come to UK precisely because of the freedoms we afford.
 


The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
26,116
West is BEST
A weak and greedy government make for a busy launderette. Free service washes available. Dot Cotton with a fag on in the corner optional.
 


Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,938
Surrey
What is ruled out today could be a different story tomorrow. Just because for example Boris Johnson says one thing today doesnt mean he'll say the same thing tomorrow.

I dont play anyones line. Russia are interested in making Ukraine theirs while several Western countries have a century old dream to colonialise Russia.

It's the whole very one-sided "we're the good guys and they are the bad guys" shit I'm opposing as this idea is the reason people accept wars.
You regularly come across as a gobby teenager who thinks he knows it all when it is crystal clear to everyone reading that you know absolutely nothing at all of which you're talking.

This bit is particularly laughable: "several Western countries have a century old dream to colonialise Russia." Absolutely hilarious drivel.
 
Last edited:




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,938
Surrey
Errr... that's her job.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
True enough, except it might be better if Truss acknowledge how little influence we have on this particular spat. We only take 3% of our gas from Russia, unlike Germany. And then there's the whole Brexit thing which has weakened our influence further. She should be acting more as a commentator on these things rather than as if she's some big player when she clearly isn't. Talking as if she's put down a list of demands is absolutely laughable, especially given the context that the Russian foreign minister said it was like a deaf man talking to a dumb person or some such. It couldn't have been any more withering about UK influence.
 


Eric the meek

Fiveways Wilf
NSC Patron
Aug 24, 2020
7,044
This sounds promising...

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Yes, it could be. But why do they seem to be having a re-think?

It might be that some eleventh-hour diplomacy by the west actually worked.
Or some unreported threat we made, veiled or otherwise, was deemed too dangerous to risk.
Or it might have been the intention of the Russians not to invade all along. I remember someone on here saying they use brinkmanship (as well as all their other negotiating tactics).

What if they moved all their troops to the Ukrainian border, in an 'invasion-ready' mode, to make it appear that they were about to invade?

That would test the response of NATO, test the unity of NATO, test what responses/threats NATO would make in the event of invasion, and put us all on the back foot.

Next time they want to invade another country, they know what the price will be.
 






Paulie Gualtieri

Bada Bing
NSC Patron
May 8, 2018
10,592
Well yes, exactly Dazzer...but will we do it? I doubt it. Sadly the UK is open for investment, from anyone, especially corrupt investment, anytime. It drives me mad.

68 new entities on the UK consolidated list (Russian included) just this morning. We have the pleasure of finding such matches and instigating freezing of accounts if confirmed. Was hoping to leave early today for tonight’s game!
 


heathgate

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 13, 2015
3,855
The same Chatham House I've just quoted (the Royal Institute) and the report which concludes with this statement?: "Despite much rhetoric and progress on paper, the UK remains a safe haven for dirty money, a great deal of which comes from Russia and Eurasia. As we have shown, it is not just money that is laundered, but also reputations."

https://www.chathamhouse.org/2021/12/uks-kleptocracy-problem/06-conclusion-and-recommendations

I hope you'll have the grace to apologise to [MENTION=14365]Thunder Bolt[/MENTION] for suggesting they do more research.
Its certainly an evolving policy, relatively new in its implementation from a point in time when London was an attractive hone for investment of I'll gotten gains,... there is always going to be a period of catchup where historical illicit financial movements are discovered, investigated and addressed....these characters are backed by creative money movers, tracking back these historic transactions is not a simple task.

To simply say we are the laundering capital of the world is disingenuous and actually inaccurate.



Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 


heathgate

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 13, 2015
3,855
Yes, it could be. But why do they seem to be having a re-think?

It might be that some eleventh-hour diplomacy by the west actually worked.
Or some unreported threat we made, veiled or otherwise, was deemed too dangerous to risk.
Or it might have been the intention of the Russians not to invade all along. I remember someone on here saying they use brinkmanship (as well as all their other negotiating tactics).

What if they moved all their troops to the Ukrainian border, in an 'invasion-ready' mode, to make it appear that they were about to invade?

That would test the response of NATO, test the unity of NATO, test what responses/threats NATO would make in the event of invasion, and put us all on the back foot.

Next time they want to invade another country, they know what the price will be.
So it's a win win for the west then.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
 


A1X

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Sep 1, 2017
20,492
Deepest, darkest Sussex
several Western countries have a century old dream to colonialise Russia.

Hi, Masters in 20th Century history with an emphasis on Russia post-1917 and the Cold War here.

Just wanted to chip in and say you're talking utter bollox. Only one European leader of the last century has wanted to "colonise Russia". The shouty guy with the silly moustache, big in central Europe in the 1930s. Didn't work out too well for him. Worth also noting several of his henchmen and buddies tried to get the other western Allies (including the USA) to wage war against the Soviet Union in 1945. If the west seriously, as you claim, wanted to colonise Russia, that was their ideal chance to do so The fact they not only didn't but fought with Russia speaks volumes.

You might think you're the great expert on everything but actually no, you really aren't.
 




raymondo

Well-known member
Apr 26, 2017
7,299
Wiltshire
A weak and greedy government make for a busy launderette. Free service washes available. Dot Cotton with a fag on in the corner optional.

Well said...and if you make a few donations to the refurbishment of the launderette, and help entrench it's management, we'll overlook that you stole the coins you're putting in the machine
 


Paulie Gualtieri

Bada Bing
NSC Patron
May 8, 2018
10,592
Hmmm. That's a bit unnecessarily aggressive and suggests you need to do a bit more research, not Thunder Bolt - policies are one thing. Effective implementation is another.

e.g. the independent and hugely respected Royal Institute for International Affairs published a report that explained how it's entirely possible to have great policies and simultaneously be the money laundering capital of the world, actually dissected the FATF rating you quote for the fallacies it has, and said among other things: "UK regulations, while strong on tackling organised crime, are ill equipped to prevent capital flight from kleptocracies."

Basically that's what our regulations do: if you're in organised crime they will do a good job at preventing laundering. If you're an oligarch or some other hugely wealthy figure with the backing of a nation state then there's little to stop you. This is why so much Russian and Middle Eastern money ends up in London.

A Conservative MP has even recently admitted it - I don't think anyone seriously doubts it.

Also See Transparency Internationals Corruption index and the EU list of High Risk third countries for money laundering. The latter changed its view on known US states (Delaware) and the UAE who were upset with the rating, which was strangely downgraded!
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here