It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This Means War: US To Target Putin's Personal $40 Billion Stash

page: 4
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 02:36 PM
link   
I remember Putin's net worth jumping recently and I believe it had something to do with his investments.

www.celebritynetworth.com...




posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 05:06 PM
link   
a reply to: Kevinquisitor

His "investments"? I guess the KGB pension plan is a wee bit better than the CIA's. Or is it his salary as President?

However, I agree with the poster that says publish it, if it's true. Then again, saying their gonna jump it, is publishing it after a fashion.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Things are getting interesting. You take a billionaires personal wealth away and there is going to be payback. Putin's not going to let this go easy.

Remember China and Russia could speed up the process to getting the world off the dollar as the world reserve currency. That would be catastrophic.

Also, Putin is smarter than Obama, so this move by Obama will backfire.

Obama by stating that the U.S. is a Superpower and that Russia is a regional power was not a smart thing to do.

Now Obama is going after Putin's personal money. Again, not smart. There will be retribution!

These are provocative and inflamatory actions. Looking like Obama is wanting Putin to retaliate so that he(Obama) can then escalate things further.

Who losses? The peoples of the U.S. and Russia and beyond.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

A couple of points I'd like you to clarify.

First being you being ashamed of US/UK actions. In your opinion, how should these two countries addressed an enemy/adversary that doesn't fight under Marques of Queensbury rules? How does one fight an non-military action constrained on your side by rules and the other doesn't?

Second, I see a distinction between economic vulnerabilities and military capability. Debt is paper. The same as the paper those "rules" where written on that were ignored. That debt can also be ignored....especially when there's war.

Third and last, I fail to see any vulnerability, at least U.S. wise. Food, oil, infrastructure-even now- technology, in most cases, all lie in the U.S. favor. Those abundances can be forwarded to the UK without much difficulty as well.

Is the U.S. as dominant as 20 years ago? Of course not. The gap is still wide, from what I can see.

There's an old maxim in the military, "honor the threat". I believe I follow that mentality and am not blind to U.S. weaknesses. Even now, I see the U.S., at least for now, well beyond any sane action by Russia against the U.S. or it's immediate allies.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   
It's none of ANYONE's business about Putin's PERSONAL wealth! He's a person with money in the bank. Why would the USA have any say-so when it comes to his personal finances? This just makes me scratch my head.

Stories like these, if true, just confirm (to me anyway) all those conspiracy theories about the NWO and Illuminati may in fact be true after all. How could one country or president of a country have any say so in someone's personal finances, especially if that person doesn't even live in your country?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 08:17 PM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck

Financial sanctions are nothing new. Freezing assets etc. Though it is a cowardly approach. Effectiveness questionable.

Targeting Putin's personal assets is a foolish move. Putin is not an angry bitter man. He will not get mad he will get even. It will only embolden him more.

If that is what they want to happen... Go for it.

I'm sure Putin has other assets no one can touch. So it would be a counterproductive strategic failure which may make things worse not better.


They can't be that stupid... Can they?



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

A couple of points I'd like you to clarify.

First being you being ashamed of US/UK actions. In your opinion, how should these two countries addressed an enemy/adversary that doesn't fight under Marques of Queensbury rules?

You may have mistaken what I was referring to on that. Hubris or arrogance isn't about rules vs. no rules, but about showing our enemy some basic respect.

I'll say again what I've said before. When Saddam Hussien invaded a little country and turned his few units toward Saudi, the United States assembled roughly 500,000 men and support people to..not invade a hostile nation...but simply sweep and clear a very small one. The elder Bush was nothing like Junior and had been to war. He'd been shot down by the Japanese and swam for his life.

He appreciated the fact we COULD LOSE....and so, he stacked SO much force as to insure we COULDN'T LOSE. Look at Panama for a repeat of the doctrine. Both operations were successful without much qualification, because overkill to absurd levels insured a very fast, very one sided fight.


What happened when the US kinda fell into Vietnam? Understimated men who lived in holes, shot at our machines of war with bows and arrows or small arms most of the time. At the end, those simple people had quite the public celebration at our Embassy..or former Embassy. Iraq II...We went in with forces a number of good knowledgeable men said was woefully short ..and sure enough, we won against an army that dissipated like smoke in many cases ...but couldn't keep museums from being looted to the ground. The US underestimated what fought us for years after, too. "Bring it on". You recall that from Bush? He's also in a later video directly commenting how much he came to regret saying it.

Hubris leads to bad situations we can't get out of, much less see any success in.



Second, I see a distinction between economic vulnerabilities and military capability. Debt is paper. The same as the paper those "rules" where written on that were ignored. That debt can also be ignored....especially when there's war.


When the US was a producer nation with it's own foundries and mines for all the basics in abundance, and finished material plants to take it all in for coiled steel and everything else to make the end results ...ALL within our borders or immediate allies... Economics WAS a secondary thing in the worst case. We could, if it ALL went to hell, close our borders, thumb our nose and say 'call us when it's over'.

Now? We depend on sources all over the market and world for this part and that or major assemblies for major systems on what would support a war effort. Interrupt shipping and commerce across both oceans (a war here would be a war on all levels) and the US has one heck of a problem. Immediately or in very short order. We flat don't HAVE the whole cycle from raw to finish product on very much anymore. Not to any one thing, and that's where world economics mean everything.



Third and last, I fail to see any vulnerability, at least U.S. wise. Food, oil, infrastructure-even now- technology, in most cases, all lie in the U.S. favor. Those abundances can be forwarded to the UK without much difficulty as well.

Food isn't a vulnerability, we're already in crisis. California is in profound drought condition for their Central and Salinas valley areas, and I don't even want to know what current outlook is for the growing east of L.A., down and across to Yuma. Something tells me, alls not well....and headlines certainly confirm it lately. It's getting to be cheaper at Farmer's Markets on some things.

How much more interruption would it take for physical shortages? Production to Consumption numbers run real close right now, as prices reflect. Ground Round garbage grade is running what? $5 or more a lb? That's not profit taking, that's a scary sign of the market behind it.


The U.S. is making statements and pronouncements like we still had the military strength of the early 90's. We simply don't. Then the buffoons spent years "redefining" the military for quick, hop to hop peacekeeping and stabilization roles. Anyone recall the extensive work on that over the last decade? Oooops...

This ain't peacekeeping we're getting into...and we're vulnerable alright. Just my opinion.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 08:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: lovebeck
It's none of ANYONE's business about Putin's PERSONAL wealth! He's a person with money in the bank.


Seriously? If Obama or any U.S. President had 40 billion dollars in the bank.. you wouldn't question it, and would feel it shouldn't be questioned? I think at a minimum, the people of Russia have a vested interest in knowing how Putin accumulated his wealth. Of course, since the government is pretty much a mafia organization, it's not hard to guess.

They have flat-out stolen multi-million dollar businesses.. taken ownership of them.. on baseless and wrongful accusations of tax fraud, among other things. Of course he is a billionaire. I'd be surprised if 1% of his money was legitimately earned.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 09:24 PM
link   
a reply to: fleabit

Former VP Dick Cheney's net worth after leaving office is reported to be around $90 million... But his Halliburton raked in an estimated $39.5 billion from the Iraq war.



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 09:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit


I'd be surprised if 1% of his money was legitimately earned.


No, no...Putin was on the up and up with all business transactions during and after his time in the KGB.


No doubt he is living the posh life.

edit on 21-4-2014 by Rosinitiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 21 2014 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: lovebeck

I made it to the last page of the thread before someone asked the question I had from the beginning ... how on earth could the U.S. touch Putin's money in a bank in Switzerland?



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 12:51 AM
link   
a reply to: Wrabbit2000

I appreciate the clarification.


Let me rebut. Bush1 had senior commanders who had suffered through the Vietnam War. Powell, Schwarzkopf and many, many others.

Vietnam was lost not due to a lack of "respect" towards the enemy. It was political. Johnson, Westmoreland and Kissinger being the culprits. Senior Bush left, after a clear cut mandate supported and restricted by the coalition had been given the commanders, all aspects in planning and execution to his commanders...he got the hell out of the way!

Bush Junior inherited a military less than 50% in size than Bush1 left. The Clinton administration having cut, massively, that force-yes, the fall of the Soviet Union played a large role- and it's war time commanders.

The U.S. didn't mess up in Iraq by underestimating the Iranians. It took multiple stupidities to take a largely supportive Iranian population and disaffect them.

Again, political! In this case not Bush Juniors doing. It was the civilian appointee overseeing the non-nation-building nation building. Disbanding the remaining Iranian military leaving them unemployed, idle, broke and frustrated, We didn't even do that to the Nazis after defeating Germany!

In the second term, being overly loyal and trusting in the first term, Bush replaced the civilian with Petraeus. A general. Things turned around quickly.

Bush's failure wasn't rhetoric, he was convinced/believed he lacked the political support to address Iran and Pakistan's interference, active or passive.

But enough on Bush.( I mention him only in response to you who have avoided Clinton and Obama's contributions to this current mess.)

On infrastructure, manufacturing any lack we have currently due to "imports" is worse in Russia, They flat out can't match our equipment. As far as building them on our own the fact is there is no nation anywhere near "prepared" for a major war. Period. Assuming that I'm correct on that assessment, then no one and I mean no one can "turn it on" faster than the U.S.. The gaps are still much less than the infrastructure that is still in place and it can be turned around fast.

Financial? I flat out disagree with you. Money, debt, economies...all are arbitraries, fiats, ideas backed by confidence. All are trumped by war.

We continue the attrition of our military and yet increase overall expenditures by trillions, all it would take is a fraction currently spent elsewhere lining pockets to take all the already prototyped/developed military systems sitting on hold and mass produce them. Easy!

It worked against the Soviet Union and would work against the Russians now...at least to the point of not daring to take the U.S. on assuming not a collapse as before.

California drought? Yep, a factor. However, the biggest issue isn't drought, it's redirecting the current supply to maintain river flow and fish breeding levels. There is more than sufficient water still available for maintaining ag. levels. Aqua filter systems are hurting big time, but that's more a future problem solvable with desalination plants and some help from Canadian water diversion southward.( XL pipeline's future use? Water instead of oil??)

Washington, Arizona, et al are booming in ag expansion and as usual, imports from the south are cheaper. Food is a non-issue.






edit on 22-4-2014 by nwtrucker because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 01:21 AM
link   
This whole charade is another episode to distract us and put the tension on the world . So that they can work this out to put more rules in place and dampen our freedoms .



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 02:11 AM
link   
a reply to: freakjive

Good I hope they take all that crook's money and give it to the poor people in Russia. Piece of trash shouldn't be able to profit off of a countries treasury.




Putin was asked why the US can do whatever it wants and no one punishes them, while attempts are being made to punish Russia. - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

When the USA invaded Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 Russia gave her blessing to the USA to carry out it all. Russia even gave the USA their old air bases from their wars with the same country. So it would seem Russians are just as big as hypocrites as USA.
Oh yeah USA wasn't punished because they was smart enough to stage an attack instead of just invading.
edit on Apram46Tue, 22 Apr 2014 02:15:46 -050015Tuesday by Masril because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: freedomSlave
Really he has 40 billion in personal wealth I really question that .


Why not? Bill Gates has $76 Billion for his Net Worth, Warren Buffett has 62.5 Billion as his Net Worth, and neither of these own a country, where it would be easy for such an unquestioned leader such as Putin to embezzle or to run guns, drugs or whatever shady deal he wanted to and make $40 Billion. Seems plausible to me.



posted on Apr, 22 2014 @ 11:52 PM
link   
a reply to: freakjive

It seems silly to announce ones intentions before carrying them out, why would the USA give Putin a heads up before going after his bank account? So he can then quickly withdrawal his funds ? Makes no sense other than propaganda. It's faker than pro wrestling IMO Obama and Putin are probably playing golf together laughing at us. The us financed this thing in its inception helping create it.

edit on 22-4-2014 by DarthFazer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: DarthFazer

It's not like he can just pop down the ATM or quickly log on to his online banking portal and make a transfer.

Huge amounts like this need time to move, for many reasons - they may be in an account that does not allow immediate withdrawals, be in an investment fund and take time to liquidate, or be tied up in stocks and bonds that one cannot quickly dispose of.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 12:20 AM
link   
So ...

1. The banker of those that want to hide it are just going to start sanctioning its own customers. Hello I think not, all its customers would abandon it. I mean that's the point of a Swiss bank account... am I wrong? If the US could start grabbing Swiss accounts, then the swiss bank will cease to exist.

2. So the US has announced its going to grab Putins assets? Wouldn't he move them since he has been warned? As with other Russian Politicians and businesses?

Also... could someone actually provide a reliable link to the 40 Billon Putin is supposedly worth? The top head of state in the world is only worth 30 BIllion... they are in ...surprise the middle east



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 12:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Reinmax

Recently, the Swiss have signed agreements with other countries to be more open, to help against laundering and generally not be so bloody-minded when it comes to hiding ill-gotten gains.

Also, the US can pull the strings with regards to the systems used to move capital. They don't need to actually have access to the money itself, just stop it moving.



posted on Apr, 23 2014 @ 12:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: fleabit

originally posted by: lovebeck
It's none of ANYONE's business about Putin's PERSONAL wealth! He's a person with money in the bank.


Seriously? If Obama or any U.S. President had 40 billion dollars in the bank.. you wouldn't question it, and would feel it shouldn't be questioned? I think at a minimum, the people of Russia have a vested interest in knowing how Putin accumulated his wealth. Of course, since the government is pretty much a mafia organization, it's not hard to guess.

They have flat-out stolen multi-million dollar businesses.. taken ownership of them.. on baseless and wrongful accusations of tax fraud, among other things. Of course he is a billionaire. I'd be surprised if 1% of his money was legitimately earned.


Everyone knows how his money was urned he has rich and powerful friends who took over soviet state owned companies.And for his continued support he gets stock options and flat out payments. Ita all above board in Russia because they dont have things like anti trust laws. So is it illegal no not in Russia Is it shady very but again not our country.



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join