this post was submitted on 07 Jul 2025
626 points (99.2% liked)

World News

48224 readers
1783 users here now

A community for discussing events around the World

Rules:

Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.


Lemmy World Partners

News !news@lemmy.world

Politics !politics@lemmy.world

World Politics !globalpolitics@lemmy.world


Recommendations

For Firefox users, there is media bias / propaganda / fact check plugin.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/media-bias-fact-check/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Vladimir Putin’s government has launched an aggressive campaign to nationalize the assets of Konstantin Strukov, one of Russia’s richest men and the owner of the country’s largest gold mining company. The move marks a sharp escalation in the Kremlin’s efforts to extract wealth from within its own elite as the financial toll of the war in Ukraine deepens.

Strukov, whose fortune is estimated at over $3.5 billion, is the founder of Yuzhuralzoloto—a gold empire built over decades with strong ties to the Kremlin. But on July 5, his private jet was grounded by Russian authorities as it prepared to leave for Turkey. His passport was reportedly seized, and the aircraft barred from departing.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 5 points 1 day ago (3 children)

Smaller scale millionaires perhaps. Once they go multinational, it becomes very difficult to significantly harm them even if one country decides to dispossess their business. This has already happened to large corporations that exist today through nationalization at various places and points in time. E.g. Shell after Venezuelan oil nationalization.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 5 points 1 day ago (1 children)

A billionaire cannot exist in 2 countries at the same time. It doesn't matter if his company is multinational, he isn't.

If you jail that billionaire, which is not hard as a state if said billionaire resides in your country, you can "convince" him to give even assets in foreign countries.

That's why they removed his passport.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Right but how do you make most countries want to arrest them? We currently don't have a setup allowing for this if no international criminal offenses are involved. It only happens if the billionaire resides mostly in an "authoritarian" country where they could get "arbitrarily" arrested. The rest of the world isn't currently setup to do this. I'm not saying it can't be setup or shouldn't be setup like that.

[–] calcopiritus@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

The comment you replied to originally was talking about why billionaires should support a democratic society.

If the society is not democratic, it would be authoritarian. Therefore what I explained could happen.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Yes. Of course what you said could happen. My point is that in the current status quo there's still plenty of non-authoritarian countries and billionaires are still operating on easy-to-jump-ship basis when they destroy one democracy or another for increased profit. So I think that's why this cost isn't factored in. Competition for increased profits dominates. If we're left with only a few democracies that tolerate billionaires, then that calculus could change. It's similar to capitalism's treatment of any finite resource - plunder that bitch till there's nothing left, then deal with the consequences. If we don't, the other guy would do it and we'd lose on the profit, and the other guy gains power over us given by the newly acquired capital.

[–] MrMakabar@slrpnk.net 5 points 1 day ago

That requires rule of law to actually work. Putin is well known to murder problematic oligarchs. Combined with some proper blackmail, that tends to work very well.

[–] HubertManne@piefed.social 3 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Not if its the home nation. Shell was a us company in venezuela but if the same thing happened in the US the owners would be lucky to get out of the country with what they could carry and if they worked fast enough maybe they could have a small fraction of what they used to.

[–] avidamoeba@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

Yes, of course.