Connect with us

Red Pill


Brilliant comments on Zerohedge sum up the pathetic and desperate EU attempt to freeze Russian assets

The asset freezes enforce a judgment in Khodorkovsky’s favor that is procedurally flawed, grotesquely biased and still under appeal. It also contradicts a far more balanced and proper judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. Zerohedge commenters pounce on the EU criminality.




By now most readers of this site should be well aware of the EU’s latest childish and illegal attempt to humiliate Russia by seizing assets in Belgium and France during the showcase St. Petersburg Economic Forum. What the entire incidence shows us is how desperate the west is getting in trying to stick it to Russia.

It also shows all Europeans to what length the Brussels will go to help one of their own, in this case convicted mafia boss and tax evader Mikhail Khodorkovsky…a man so vile that for nearly the entire 1990’s he stole billions from the Russian state while watching his very own citizens suffer from poverty.

The EU loves to help these guys…as far as their very own citizens struggling to find work and make a living…not so much.

Zeroehdge comments on this story were outstanding…

NoDebt – New cold war.  Only this time it’s the West that is banging the heel of its shoe on the podium and screaming incoherently.

Latina Lover – The western banksters are getting increasingly desperate. Stealing Russia’s assets in Europe via a EU kangaroo court will further increase Putins support, as even more Russians realize they are at war with the USSA/EU.  The actions was launched to piss on Putin at the Russian Economic Forum, but also to distract the sheeple from the Grexit.

froze25 – Bilderberg just finished up, the bankster troops have their marching orders.  Let the games begin.  I would stock up on canned goods and water quickly.  Ammo too.

suteibu – This is an old trick.  The US played this same gambit against Japan in the late30s/early 40s.

To assume they are tinkering with something that could spin out of control is naive.  This is their path to war, their game of chicken in which Russia will either bow to them or they will wage war.

Latina Lover – Stealing Russia’s assets is a desperate move to prop up the failing central bankster ponzi system. Without new assets, the ponzi scheme will collapse.

PutinReloaded – It’s only the US needs that needs a war. Russia can just stay firm and coplete the de-dollarization of Eurasia, by then the US wil have melt like wax.

Savyindallas – They have no choice. They have pretty much looted and stolen all there is to steal from their own people.

Brazen Heist – Even a 15 year old can see this was a politicized move made in distaste. So far I see its the Western governments that are the offensive ones, the ones losing control, the ones having a go and playing with fire…they are desperate for conflict….Russia, China just react defensively to this shit-slinging, and get lambasted by the “free” press for standing up to the shit show narrative most sheeple are expected to swallow.

Savyindallas – As can be seen here on ZH, more and more people in the West are siding with Russia, as we see the insanity of Western governments that are acting against the best interests of their own people. Here in America we are saddled with tens of trillions of debt that eventually must be repaid -all for the benefit of billionaire Oligarchs who have been looting this country. Same goes for Europe. And what is the Oligarchs solution?   -massive third world immigration to balkanize the western nations in their strategy of divide and conqu  -and the establishment of a Police State to control the civil unrest which is to come.

Dubaibanker – Bravo Russia! Keep showing the middle finger and stand for your independence and rights!

The fact that G-7 nations keep provoking Russia shows that Russia is moving ahead wisely and in a direction where it protects the rights of its own citizens and also be insulated from any international collapses.

Last 1.5 years, Russians have sold or are continuing to sell all real estate globally, massively reducing travel overseas, closing overseas bank accounts, using tax amnesty in Russia since Dec 2014 and hence strengthening the domectic economy.

At a time, when all countries need more tourism or more real estate buyers, such actions by EU and US are causing themselves more harm than to Russia!


Alexander Mercouris:

News about the freezing of Russian assets in France and Belgium will come as no surprise to anyone who has followed the Khodorkovsky case.

The asset freezes will almost certainly be relaxed or lifted over the new few weeks because they are legally dubious.

To understand why, it is necessary to explain the nature of the case.

First, I should explain that there are two completely different judgments by two completely different courts in the Khodorkovsky case.

The first was made by the European Court of Human Rights. The second was made by the International Commercial Arbitration Tribunal in the Hague

The right of the European Court of Human Rights to look into Khodorkovsky’s case is undisputed.

The European Court of Human Rights administers the European Convention of Human Rights. Russia has signed and ratified the Convention and is bound by it. The Convention requires Russia to prosecute its cases properly and to ensure that any case brought to trial is conducted properly and fairly.

The European Court of Human Rights decided that the case Russia brought against Khodorkovsky by and large met those criteria. It decided that Khodorkovsky is a crook who defrauded the Russian state of billions by engaging in massive tax evasion. It decided that the Russian state was right to bring legal proceedings against him. The claim it did so for purely political reasons — because Khodorkovsky was a political threat to the Russian government — is untrue.

Though the European Court of Human Rights decided that the conduct of proceedings Russia brought against Khodorkovsky on the tax evasion charges was by and large fair, it did identify certain serious procedural mistakes committed by the Russian authorities in their haste to act against Khodorkovsky and his company Yukos. It awarded Yukos’s shareholders $1.9 billion in compensation.

The right of the Hague Tribunal to look into Khodorkovsky’s case is by contrast hotly disputed, and not just by the Russians.

It claimed the right to do so on the strength of Russia’s signature to the EU’s Energy Charter.

Russia did sign the Energy Charter but refused to ratify it. Russia has insisted that it is not bound by the Energy Charter.

Up to now this has been accepted by everybody – including the EU. Indeed the EU constantly complains about it.

A string of top lawyers, not all of them Russian (one was a top British barrister) advised the Hague Tribunal that Russia is not bound by the EU’s Energy Charter and that the Hague Tribunal therefore has no standing to hear the case.

The Hague Tribunal paid no attention and incredibly decided that Russia is bound by the Energy Charter and that it would hear the case.

Having made that frankly astonishing decision, the Hague Tribunal then proceeded to hear the case.

The European Court of Human Rights, when it looked into the case, refused to retry the whole case against Khodorkovsky, saying this was a matter for the Russian courts. It looked instead into whether the case against Khodorkovsky in Russia had been properly and fairly conducted. It decided that by and large it was.

The Hague Tribunal simply ignored what the Russian courts did and proceeded to retry the whole case. It did not explain its grounds for doing so. On the face it of that looks like a gross violation of Russia’s sovereignty and of Russia’s right to try its own cases in its own courts.

Having made that equally astonishing decision, the Hague Tribunal then accepted uncritically the evidence of Khodorkovsky and Nevzlin (Yukos’ vice president) that the case against Khodorkovsky was politically motivated, ignoring all evidence to the contrary, even though it was forced to admit that Khodorkovsky and his company Yukos had arranged their tax affairs in a way that broke Russian law.

Not surprisingly, given the obvious bias, the Hague Tribunal then decided the case against Russia and said Yukos had been illegally seized.

Where the European Court of Human Rights awarded Yukos’s shareholders $1.9 billion, the Hague Tribunal then awarded them a whopping $50 billion – an amount it did not explain and which is completely unprecedented in any legal judgment.

The judgments of the two courts therefore completely contradict each other.

No jurist comparing the two courts would have any doubt that it is the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights that is the better, more legitimate one.

Not only is the European Court of Human Rights a much more prestigious and authoritative court than the Hague Tribunal. As the court set up to administer the European Convention of Human Rights it is also the only proper court to decide what ought to have been the only valid question in the case – which was whether the case brought against Khodorkovsky in Russia was properly and fairly conducted or not.

By contrast the judgment in the Hague Tribunal is not only wrong but grotesquely biased – to the point of absurdity.

Russia has made it clear it will not pay either judgment.

It is right not to pay the Hague judgment, which is wrong and absurd.

As for the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, I suspect the reason the Russians refuse to pay this judgment is that they suspect that the person hiding behind the “Yukos shareholders” (and who would in the end get most of the money) is none other than Khodorkovsky himself.

The asset freezes in France and Belgium were made under the Hague judgment, not the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights.

What is bizarre about that is that the Hague judgment is under appeal. The much smaller — and better — European Court of Human Rights judgment is not under appeal since Russia’s appeal against that judgment has been rejected.

The asset freezes do not just affect the property of the Russian government. They affect the assets of all sorts of other Russian individuals and entities, including the Orthodox Church. As these had no part in the Khodorkovsky case and no connection to Yukos, there were no legal grounds for freezing their assets. Doing so was illegal.

Russia has had to face this sort of thing before – legally dubious and in some cases straightforwardly illegal asset freezes directed not just at the Russian state but at Russian individuals and entities, made on the strength of biased and legally dubious judgments.

They should be seen for what they are – acts of harassment directed at Russia during times of international tension.

In this case the asset freezes seem to have been timed to coincide with the EU’s decision to extend the sanctions against Russia and with the opening of the economic forum in St. Petersburg, whose mood some people obviously wanted to spoil.

The Russians know how to deal with this sort of thing. As Russian officials have said, they were expecting it.

There are numerous legal countermoves they can take, especially when some of the asset freezes are obviously illegal, and when they are made to enforce an obviously biased judgment, which is under appeal.

The Russians have also made it clear that they have no intention of paying the sums awarded under either judgment.

Though legal action of one sort or another will doubtless go on for a long time, the eventual outcome is not in doubt .

The Yukos shareholders — whether or not Khodorkovsky is behind them — will see at most only a fraction of the money they are claiming, and quite possibly nothing.



Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

Leave a Reply

8 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
0 Comment authors
x4cwym845tx4f8w4fw84rffw485fedw3cm9wy7vf5kcwxjc3ytxk0crtsxergsdmxcn5w7xmwncwexnicensrgffgxnc5bsxnrbscngfrfgc4ecgdgfccn2785xdnwdc5bwedsj4wsndb Recent comment authors
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

[…] tendencies spread beyond Ukraine. This latest push by the Pentagon comes as Russian assets were seized in Belgium, France, and Austria in connection with Moscow’s unwillingness to comply with what […]


[…] Brilliant Readers’ Comments Sum up the Ridiculous EU Attempt to Freeze Russian Assets (Source) […]



[…]below you’ll come across the link to some web sites that we believe you should visit[…]



[…]Here is a superb Weblog You might Uncover Intriguing that we Encourage You[…]



[…]that will be the finish of this report. Right here you’ll obtain some websites that we think you will appreciate, just click the links over[…]



[…]we prefer to honor a lot of other world-wide-web internet sites around the internet, even though they aren’t linked to us, by linking to them. Under are some webpages really worth checking out[…]



[…]just beneath, are a lot of entirely not associated sites to ours, nonetheless, they’re surely worth going over[…]


“Transphobic” Swedish Professor May Lose Job After Noting Biological Differences Between Sexes

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded”



Via Zerohedge

A university professor in Sweden is under investigation for “anti-feminism” and “transphobia” after he said that there are fundamental differences between men and women which are “biologically founded” and that genders cannot be regarded as “social constructs alone,” reports Academic Rights Watch.

For his transgression, Germund Hesslow – a professor of neuroscience at Lund University – who holds dual PhDs in philosophy and neurophysiology, may lose his job – telling RT that a “full investigation” has been ordered, and that there “have been discussions about trying to stop the lecture or get rid of me, or have someone else give the lecture or not give the lecture at all.”

“If you answer such a question you are under severe time pressure, you have to be extremely brief — and I used wording which I think was completely innocuous, and that apparently the student didn’t,” Hesslow said.

Hesslow was ordered to attend a meeting by Christer Larsson, chairman of the program board for medical education, after a female student complained that Hesslow had a “personal anti-feminist agenda.” He was asked to distance himself from two specific comments; that gay women have a “male sexual orientation” and that the sexual orientation of transsexuals is “a matter of definition.”

The student’s complaint reads in part (translated):

I have also heard from senior lecturers that Germund Hesslow at the last lecture expressed himself transfobically. In response to a question of transexuallism, he said something like “sex change is a fly”. Secondly, it is outrageous because there may be students during the lecture who are themselves exposed to transfobin, but also because it may affect how later students in their professional lives meet transgender people. Transpersonals already have a high level of overrepresentation in suicide statistics and there are already major shortcomings in the treatment of transgender in care, should not it be countered? How does this kind of statement coincide with the university’s equal treatment plan? What has this statement given for consequences? What has been done for this to not be repeated? –Academic Rights Watch

After being admonished, Hesslow refused to distance himself from his comments, saying that he had “done enough” already and didn’t have to explain and defend his choice of words.

At some point, one must ask for a sense of proportion among those involved. If it were to become acceptable for students to record lectures in order to find compromising formulations and then involve faculty staff with meetings and long letters, we should let go of the medical education altogether,” Hesslow said in a written reply to Larsson.

He also rejected the accusation that he had a political agenda – stating that his only agenda was to let scientific factnot new social conventions, dictate how he teaches his courses.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Kavanaugh Accuser’s Classmate Backs Off Claims She Heard About Alleged Assault

“That it happened or not, I have no idea,” Cristina King Miranda told NPR’s Nina Totenberg. “I can’t say that it did or didn’t.”

The Duran



Authored by Amber Athey via The Daily Caller:

A classmate of Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is backing off of claims that she knew anything about an alleged sexual assault committed by Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Cristina King Miranda, who attended high school with Ford, wrote on Facebook this week that she heard school rumors about an incident involving Kavanaugh and Ford back in the 1980s. Miranda later deleted the post and said she did not want to talk to the media about her claims.

However, Miranda spoke to NPR on Thursday and clarified that she has no information about an alleged assault.

“That it happened or not, I have no idea,” Cristina King Miranda told NPR’s Nina Totenberg. “I can’t say that it did or didn’t.”

Miranda’s new statement directly contradicts her Facebook post, in which she wrote, “The incident DID happen, many of us heard about it in school.”

“In my post, I was empowered and I was sure it probably did [happen],” Miranda told NPR this morning. “I had no idea that I would now have to go to the specifics and defend it before 50 cable channels and have my face spread all over MSNBC news and Twitter.”

Miranda said the Senate Judiciary Committee reached out to her after her post but that she would not testify if asked.

Dr. Ford previously said she had not told anyone about the incident until a therapist meeting in 2012. Ford also said the incident happened during the summer, contradicting Miranda’s assertion that she heard rumors about it in school.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Pat Buchanan: “The Late Hit” On Judge Kavanaugh

Wha exactly is professor Ford’s case against Judge Kavanaugh?

Patrick J. Buchanan



Authored by Patrick Buchanan via

Upon the memory and truthfulness of Christine Blasey Ford hangs the Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh, his reputation and possibly his career on the nation’s second-highest court.

And much more. If Kavanaugh is voted down or forced to withdraw, the Republican Party and conservative movement could lose their last best hope for recapturing the high court for constitutionalism.

No new nominee could be vetted and approved in six weeks. And the November election could bring in a Democratic Senate, an insuperable obstacle to the elevation of a new strict constructionist like Kavanaugh.

The stakes are thus historic and huge.

And what is professor Ford’s case against Judge Kavanaugh?

When she was 15 in the summer of ’82, she went to a beer party with four boys in Montgomery County, Maryland, in a home where the parents were away.

She says she was dragged into a bedroom by Brett Kavanaugh, a 17-year-old at Georgetown Prep, who jumped her, groped her, tried to tear off her clothes and cupped her mouth with his hand to stop her screams.

Only when Kavanaugh’s friend Mark Judge, laughing “maniacally,” piled on and they all tumbled off the bed, did she escape and lock herself in a bathroom as the “stumbling drunks” went downstairs. She fled the house and told no one of the alleged rape attempt.

Not until 30 years later in 2012 did Ford, now a clinical psychologist in California, relate, in a couples therapy session with her husband, what happened. She says she named Kavanaugh as her assailant, but the therapist’s notes of the session make no mention of Kavanaugh.

During the assault, says Ford, she was traumatized. “I thought he might inadvertently kill me.”

Here the story grows vague. She does not remember who drove her to the party. She does not say how much she drank. She does not remember whose house it was. She does not recall who, if anyone, drove her home. She does not recall what day it was.

She did not tell her parents, Ford says, as she did not want them to know she had been drinking. She did not tell any friend or family member of this traumatic event that has so adversely affected her life.

Said Kavanaugh in response, “I categorically and unequivocally deny this allegation. I did not do this back in high school or at any time.”

Mark Judge says it never happened.

Given the seriousness of the charges, Ford must be heard out. But she also needs to be cross-examined and have her story and character probed as Kavanaugh’s has been by FBI investigators as an attorney for the Ken Starr impeachment investigation of Bill Clinton, a White House aide to George Bush, a U.S. appellate judge and a Supreme Court nominee.

During the many investigations of Kavanaugh’s background, nothing was unearthed to suggest something like this was in character.

Some 65 women who grew up in the Chevy Chase and Bethesda area and knew Kavanaugh in his high school days have come out and spoken highly of his treatment of girls and women.

Moreover, the way in which all of this arose, at five minutes to midnight in the long confirmation process, suggests that this is political hardball, if not dirt ball.

When Ford, a Democrat, sent a letter detailing her accusations against Kavanaugh to her California congresswoman, Anna Eshoo, Ford insisted that her name not be revealed as the accuser.

She seemingly sought to damage or destroy the judge’s career behind a cloak of anonymity. Eshoo sent the letter on to Sen. Diane Feinstein, who held it for two months.

Excising Ford’s name, Feinstein then sent it to the FBI, who sent it to the White House, who sent it on to the Senate to be included in the background material on the judge.

Thus, Ford’s explosive charge, along with her name, did not surface until this weekend.

What is being done here stinks. It is a transparently late hit, a kill shot to assassinate a nominee who, before the weekend, was all but certain to be confirmed and whose elevation to the Supreme Court is a result of victories in free elections by President Trump and the Republican Party.

Palpable here is the desperation of the left to derail Kavanaugh, lest his elevation to the high court imperil their agenda and the social revolution that the Warren Court and its progeny have been able to impose upon the nation.

If Kavanaugh is elevated, the judicial dictatorship of decades past, going back to the salad days of Earl Warren, William Brennan, Hugo Black and “Wild Bill” Douglas, will have reached its end. A new era will have begun.

That is what is at stake.

The Republican Senate should continue with its calendar to confirm Kavanaugh before Oct. 1, while giving Ford some way to be heard, and then Kavanaugh the right to refute. Then let the senators decide.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!
Continue Reading


Your donations make all the difference. Together we can expose fake news lies and deliver truth.

Amount to donate in USD$:

5 100

Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...
Validating payment information...
Waiting for PayPal...


Quick Donate

The Duran
Donate a quick 10 spot!


The Duran Newsletter