>

Ooo, modern day privateers.
Can someone explain what kind of assets could be seized and sold and would it work out? >

Short answer: no, neither in the short nor long term. Not unless, by some miracle, the owner country agrees to it (and even then).
EU already admitted they can't just seize the state-owned assets and use them as they see fit, because even by the current, ahem, flexible legal standards, it would be stealing. The only thing they did cook up so far is forcibly investing the money in question, give the interest rate to Ukraine and return the rest.
With private assets, it's slightly easier to do, but here another problem arises. The moment USA/EU state out loud they can seize anything belonging to a citizen of nation they don't like, no sane person from South America, Asia and Africa (from anywhere, really) will ever store all of their fortune in a NATO country again, and over time, neither will their countries. Simply because a precedent has been set.
In other words, seizing and selling it all is possible, and you can't imagine a greater Christmas gift for China, which will then become a very, very attractive alternative with the slogan "at least WE will not confiscate everything from you illegally". >


In other words, seizing and selling it all is possible, and you can't imagine a greater Christmas gift for China, which will then become a very, very attractive alternative with the slogan "at least WE will not confiscate everything from you illegally".

do you know anything about China's stance on getting money out of the PRC?
also were would these wealthy individuals invest in? chinese megacorps like Evergrande? >

This madness keeps up, we may find out soon.
IIRC getting money out of anywhere is a challenge. At least it was the last time I asked; the more shady your income is, which is not uncommon, the harder it will be to take it out of whatever country you choose. Nobody likes losing investments. >

You could have also just said "no".
Let me tell you, that China does not compare to any of the NATO countries and most rich people will very likely still bear that risk

will ever store all of their fortune in a NATO country again

this is not how wealthy people manage their assets. they diversify their portfolios across industries, asset types and obviously different geographical regions / markets. they also have trust funds and charities set up in order to be able to more or less "freely" move their money around. >

Honestly even Carlos Ghosen (sp?) raised a lot of flags in Japan, and Japan is one of the more friendly Asian countries for westerners. 
He really raised the flag after being held with no due process against prosecutors who have a 99%+ conviction rate and questioned him 8+ hours a day for hundreds of days, regardless of his guilt.
I’d much rather have my money in one of the least friendly nato countries than Russia / China etc. >


Carlos Ghosn

had to look him up, interesting case but has not very much to do with the discussion at hand, as japan did not directly seize his assets and the root cause seems to be an internal power struggle at Nissan.

I’d much rather have my money in one of the least friendly nato countries than Russia / China etc.

if you have an ETF in your portfolio, you are most likely already invested in China without directly having your money in this country. i think the US & EU should go to great lengths taking oligarch money. this would most likely only affect 1-2% of the global population if that >

No more ETFs currently. Well, I should rephrase, I have a very tiny account (<2% of cash) with probably some mixed ETFs, but it’s not my gig. I do however get the “foreign taxes paid” and other stuff with my taxes.
I brought up Ghosn because of the major differences his case highlights in the way things are done.  I’m sure as a result of his flight he had some Japanese assets that were seized (or seized beforehand), I mean he was on house arrest there and I highly doubt he still owns the house. 
China is like the Nth degree because in China, people can’t take their own money out of their own accounts (which ironically Lebanon also has a major crisis, where Ghosn is now). 
China will turn your travel authorization on your phone red so you can’t even go to the bank to protest. Russia just pushes you out a window. 
I agree with you, but I think my point is that in Russia / Asia, people don’t really care who you are or where you’re from, if it suits them, they will probably take action against you when convenient. It’s the “price of doing business” in those countries, which can sadly be everything. >


Russia / Asia, people don’t really care who you are or where you’re from, if it suits them, they will probably take action against you when convenient.

i totally agree, we just need to look at all the deaths of russian functionaires and for china, Jack Ma is a prominent example. >

Jack ma is an amazing Chinese example actually. Literally went from being on top of the world to (relatively) slaughtered by the CCP and basically having his assets broken up.
Edit: and all he did was take aim at the Chinese banking system. >

Do it. What are they gonna do, Invade a country? >


Russia is going to nuke us all over this! Panic! Terror!

every time any aid to Ukraine is discussed >

If they wanted to actually use nukes, we'd all already be dead right now. >

That's what I've been telling, but there's no convincing people that are scared out of their minds. Every single step to the victory needs a special campaign of calming them down and telling that nukes are not going to fly if Ukraine received 30 year old decommissioned field rockets. >

As a left-wing American, the one thing I hate most about other leftists here is their extremely weird tankie-level obsession with being anti-NATO. I actually find myself agreeing with the more milquetoast liberal/centrist types because they are generally extremely strongly in favor of giving aid to Ukraine.
The leftists are always pearl clutching about how NATO is "enabling imperialism" or something. >


The leftists are always pearl clutching about how NATO is “enabling imperialism” or something.

These people aren't merely liberal, they're radicalized and have lost touch with reality. They think that it's not worth protecting your country's interest on the world stage because it's mean.
Amazing that these people can make such comments while enjoying the the comfort of living in a country that is one of the most powerful in the world thanks to those "meanie imperialist" policies. >

I say go for it, but I don’t know if you can resell a US Congressperson. >

… or what the free market value of one Tucker Carlson is. >

Maybe someone wants to buy them in bulk? >

I’d be perfectly happy with a return to manufacturer for scrapping. >

Looks at Kaliningrad
Looks at Poland
Looks at Germany
Looks back at Kaliningrad >

I wonder how hard Kalingrad would fight if they knew they were going to be repossessed. >

I don’t
Not a lot of mystery surrounding that one… >

they are certainly not done blowing up the Ukraine yet >

All assets russia has abroad should be seized. At the very start they stole billions worth of airplanes and billions more of investment worth into their oil projects. Russia started the asset seizure, now they need to be taught a lesson. >

Its almost like this happened somewhere before and it ended horribly... oh yeah, it was germany, and it played a large role in hitler rising to power... >

Ukraine is the only opportunity the world has left to build a carbon neutral economy. It can't afford to rebuild what it was and the world needs a testing ground for life without fossil carbon that experiences winter. >

As demonstrated with Venezuela, asset seizures are perfectly legal provided that there are suitable claims for damages and loss, which Ukraine has in spades.
All state owned assets seized abroad from Russia, Belarus, and Iran should be on the table. >

Of course we can make up laws that make it sound good, laws are just words written in a certain order.
The problem is trust. A lot of countries are doing business and keeping assets in the reach of us in the West right now, since we are trusted. And we benefit immensely from it. If we signal that "BTW, if you're a douche we'll change the terms and take what we can" that signals that we are untrustworthy.
You wouldn't keep your money in a bank that spent all your neighbours money just because your neioghbour is an ass. How ill you know if you're an ass? What if that weird manager (/president) takes power again and thinks you're an ass? Our whole legacy stands and falls with accountability and contracts.
Sell that legacy, trust and all that business for a one time blow? We probably make more money in the long run by donating the amounts ourselves and keeping the investements/business here. So what we do now is smart, freeze assets to hinder Russia, donate our own money to Ukraine, and keep most of the trust (freezing assets is not a perfect look, but it can't be seen as stealing). >

These aren’t “made up” laws. 
Mechanisms for addressing liabilities and losses is part of the legal system and it increases and enhances the trust in those nations.
If you damage someone else’s assets, you compensate them.
Only an idiot would move their assets from highly regulated, reliable nations to a corrupt tyranny. It’s why these corrupt regimes love to transfer their money outside their own shit holes to begin with.
This fear around damaging trust is nonsensical and anyone who is bothered by it should definitely take all of their assets and store it in China, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, or wherever they think is “safer”. >

We're talking about assets like other countries dollar reserves. And if we can seize all USD, why would the world keep trading oil in USD or stipulating payments for loans in USD? China and India are already talking about trading in other currencies because of this issue.
Our actual experts have chosen to tread very carefully for good reason and the hallmark of an expert is to express themselves carefully and nuanced.
If you take a controversial issue and claim it's nonsensical calling everyone else idiots it's not exactly a sign you have a complex understanding of the matter.
And when you utter "China, Venezuela, Zimbabwe or whatever" with contempt you do not appreciate that you are basically telling these countries to not trust themselves. You take their trust in us for granted, exactly the issue at hand. And I don't think you can fathom how dependent the US Economy is to for example China at the moment. Your trade is at a net deficit and your industries are very exposed to foreign trade. >

An asset is an asset. Your focus should be on the countries causing the damages and losses, not the compensation for it. The onus should be on them to avoid those claims. Compensation for losses is not theft. 
This issue is nonsensical because it is brought up by those on the political fringe who think a bunch of corrupt or despotic countries need this issue to push their perpetual aims of unseating the US as a unipolar power. 
The “trust“ of tyrannic or corrupt regimes is not required, only their compliance. >

I applaud your pathos, although this discussion is meaningless if it is just about how you wished that things worked. Your last sentence is just weird. Our liberal doctrine builds on the foundation of cooperation and trade. If you want a country that demands compliance to personal moral values instead of actual agreements you might enjoy it better in the countries you despise.
Calling a measured response "political fringe," (like the experts in charge probably isn't) trying to paint everyone who isn't a warhawk as immoral is the reason we still fight so many stupid wars. Americas (or Russias, most recently) quest for "compliance" in other countries have cost millions of lives and trillions of dollars in the last decades. And that has amounted to nothing but nonsense.
And you still haven't faced how the US would fair without Chinese or Indian trade at the moment. Enforcing compliance on the world... >

The United States and it’s economic allies are more than half the worlds trade, represent nearly all of the global firepower, and nearly all of the major technological advances.
Lawful, democratic countries are part of that alliance and that is what the liberal doctrine of cooperation and trade is founded on. Tyrannic regimes like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran can either get on board for a better future or fuck off.
I know this might upset the tankies and idiotic sycophants these countries like to promote in the West but that is the reality we live in. Communist regimes, Fascist regimes, Kleptocracies and so on are not partners, they are adversaries to be managed and destroyed where able. >

You still actually believe that an open trade war with India and China would not lead to a major recession for all parties? What are they teaching in American colleges?

Lawful, democratic countries are part of that alliance and that is what the liberal doctrine of cooperation and trade is founded on. Tyrannic regimes like Russia, China, North Korea, Iran can either get on board for a better future or fuck off.

Short answer: That's not how it works no. We intentionally intertwined our economies with those of adversaries after the cold war in order to stop a possible WWIII. The fact we can't and they can't "demand compliance" without prior terms or agreements is our system working as intended. Forcing people to the diplomatic table.
Shorter answer: No bro. >

The topic is about freezing assets which has nothing to do with a trade war. The notion of dealing with these other corrupt or despotic regimes only comes up because you believe they are legitimate and equal, they are not.
Their trust is not required, only their compliance. They cannot make demands because they do not have sufficient military or economic power, which they would have otherwise used to enslave others in addition to their own. Every time these regimes have some semblance of power they invariably shape it to their destructive ends. As seen with Russia, intertwining economies with adversarial regimes was a mistake. >

I thought we had differing opinions but we just live in different worlds. I studied international relations and political philosophy for a while and have traveled to some of the countries that you mention and I don't agree at all, I would say our influence has been waning. The past couple of decades democracy is fading, fewer and fewer countries want to be like us. Now more than ever we are in need of soft power and diplomacy to regain position, not threaten trade partners with military force.
You want to blackmail the whole world and actually believe that would lead to them wanting to trade more with you on your terms? We tried that already and the whole world remembers. Meanwhile China are making rather clever business deals all through Africa, Asia and Europe and they never tie deals to moral issues in your country. Just shrewd business deals, always thinking of a strategic outcome 20 years down the line. Look at all Chinese infrastructure projects in Africa at the moment.
If you're not going engage any of my points but just state your opinions of "we are strong, so we can do whatever we want" as hard fact I think we just won't agree on this issue. >

“Germany open to seizing russian assets”… seriously, what are you waiting for, the Ukrainians, are fighting to help all of European countries, to keep Putin at bay >

Ah yes... state-sponsored robbery. >

No one will trust the west again if they do this, america is shootin itself in the foot >

They threw their last cards back in March 2022. Now the whole world knows that USA and western Europe are a bunch of weak cowards. It's for the better, I am transferring all my investments to civilized nations like Russia, Japan and China. I am not letting my stuff being confiscated by Zionists in the west. Let them fall on that hill 60 years from now when they will be broke. >

I look forward to your tales of Chinese real-estate investments on r/wallstreetbets >

Hell yeah brother. it’s the least we should do quite honestly. They need to be fucking put in their place >

You may be unaware but Germany paid extensive reparations. Further legitimizing use of Russian money for Ukraine.
But given your comment history it’s safe to say you knew that and just like to spew propaganda in support of genocidal regimes.