NFR Feeling sorry for Abramovich

[Snibbo]

Long read but worth it

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1509186801688211456.html

[Craven Mad]

Read the title and thought you were a cog in the Russian propaganda machine. Opened the article and was relieved to be wrong!

[kiwian]

Very interesting article and easy to understand. RA is a stooge of Putin.

[bencher]

1. I think the "war criminal" remark is quite possibly libellous - I would guess the author is relying on the sanctions to prevent RA from funding litigation, although libel claims can also be carried out using conditional fee agreements, so they should consider carefully whether they want to stick with their position there
2. People are not as black and white as this article wishes to portray them. RA made a large (seven figure) donation to a Holocaust Memorial organisation not that long ago, and has donated significant sums to charity generally.
3. The Ukrainian government disapproved of some of the sanctions against RA as they said he was helpful in arranging peace talks with Russia.
4. This is Putin's war; I don't for a minute think RA wanted this war.

[blingo]

1. I think the "war criminal" remark is quite possibly libellous - I would guess the author is relying on the sanctions to prevent RA from funding litigation, although libel claims can also be carried out using conditional fee agreements, so they should consider carefully whether they want to stick with their position there
2. People are not as black and white as this article wishes to portray them. RA made a large (seven figure) donation to a Holocaust Memorial organisation not that long ago, and has donated significant sums to charity generally.
3. The Ukrainian government disapproved of some of the sanctions against RA as they said he was helpful in arranging peace talks with Russia.
4. This is Putin's war; I don't for a minute think RA wanted this war.

+1

[Rupert]

1. I think the "war criminal" remark is quite possibly libellous - I would guess the author is relying on the sanctions to prevent RA from funding litigation, although libel claims can also be carried out using conditional fee agreements, so they should consider carefully whether they want to stick with their position there
2. People are not as black and white as this article wishes to portray them. RA made a large (seven figure) donation to a Holocaust Memorial organisation not that long ago, and has donated significant sums to charity generally.
3. The Ukrainian government disapproved of some of the sanctions against RA as they said he was helpful in arranging peace talks with Russia.
4. This is Putin's war; I don't for a minute think RA wanted this war.

I thought the "war criminal" description was aimed at Putin. As I consider both Blair and Bush jnr to be war criminals for starting a pointless war (Iraq), I see no issue with tarring Putin with the same brush.
Large donations to worthy causes can be for PR purposes, or this may be genuine. Who knows? Even the most evil of despots have their good side. Hitler loved his dog, for example. It doesn't make up for the Holocaust or the European tour he sent his army on.
The man may well have been helpful in starting peace talks, however if he was also helpful in starting the war in the first place by maintaining Putin in power for two decades, then how does that make him a good guy? He is the weasel who gets the bully to pick on you, then jumps in to calm things down when it goes much further than he honestly expected it to, and he realises he will suffer repercussions too.
Fully agree this is Putin's war. I dare say a lot of his supporters are horrified by the rash decision Putin made, and I dare say they swallowed his distorted view of reality about how swift and bloodless it would be, but until and unless they grow a pair and stop supporting him, they are still his spear carriers.

[bencher]

1. I think the "war criminal" remark is quite possibly libellous - I would guess the author is relying on the sanctions to prevent RA from funding litigation, although libel claims can also be carried out using conditional fee agreements, so they should consider carefully whether they want to stick with their position there
2. People are not as black and white as this article wishes to portray them. RA made a large (seven figure) donation to a Holocaust Memorial organisation not that long ago, and has donated significant sums to charity generally.
3. The Ukrainian government disapproved of some of the sanctions against RA as they said he was helpful in arranging peace talks with Russia.
4. This is Putin's war; I don't for a minute think RA wanted this war.

I thought the "war criminal" description was aimed at Putin. As I consider both Blair and Bush jnr to be war criminals for starting a pointless war (Iraq), I see no issue with tarring Putin with the same brush.
Large donations to worthy causes can be for PR purposes, or this may be genuine. Who knows? Even the most evil of despots have their good side. Hitler loved his dog, for example. It doesn't make up for the Holocaust or the European tour he sent his army on.
The man may well have been helpful in starting peace talks, however if he was also helpful in starting the war in the first place by maintaining Putin in power for two decades, then how does that make him a good guy? He is the weasel who gets the bully to pick on you, then jumps in to calm things down when it goes much further than he honestly expected it to, and he realises he will suffer repercussions too.
Fully agree this is Putin's war. I dare say a lot of his supporters are horrified by the rash decision Putin made, and I dare say they swallowed his distorted view of reality about how swift and bloodless it would be, but until and unless they grow a pair and stop supporting him, they are still his spear carriers.

I didn't say he's a good guy. I'm calling for some nuance. Comparing RA with Hitler who liked dogs is not nuance. I'm saying it's not helpful to divide the world into good/bad. People are all grey, do some good, some bad, some good-bad (i.e. actions which may be good for one person and bad for another). I'm not a RA supporter (it seems clear he profited enormously from government corruption)  but I don't see the value in this article which aims to turn RA into some kind of arch-puppeteer. Frankly, if it isn't itself antisemitic, it certainly has the potential to generate antisemitic responses.

[Snibbo]

1. I think the "war criminal" remark is quite possibly libellous - I would guess the author is relying on the sanctions to prevent RA from funding litigation, although libel claims can also be carried out using conditional fee agreements, so they should consider carefully whether they want to stick with their position there
2. People are not as black and white as this article wishes to portray them. RA made a large (seven figure) donation to a Holocaust Memorial organisation not that long ago, and has donated significant sums to charity generally.
3. The Ukrainian government disapproved of some of the sanctions against RA as they said he was helpful in arranging peace talks with Russia.
4. This is Putin's war; I don't for a minute think RA wanted this war.

I thought the "war criminal" description was aimed at Putin. As I consider both Blair and Bush jnr to be war criminals for starting a pointless war (Iraq), I see no issue with tarring Putin with the same brush.
Large donations to worthy causes can be for PR purposes, or this may be genuine. Who knows? Even the most evil of despots have their good side. Hitler loved his dog, for example. It doesn't make up for the Holocaust or the European tour he sent his army on.
The man may well have been helpful in starting peace talks, however if he was also helpful in starting the war in the first place by maintaining Putin in power for two decades, then how does that make him a good guy? He is the weasel who gets the bully to pick on you, then jumps in to calm things down when it goes much further than he honestly expected it to, and he realises he will suffer repercussions too.
Fully agree this is Putin's war. I dare say a lot of his supporters are horrified by the rash decision Putin made, and I dare say they swallowed his distorted view of reality about how swift and bloodless it would be, but until and unless they grow a pair and stop supporting him, they are still his spear carriers.

I didn't say he's a good guy. I'm calling for some nuance. Comparing RA with Hitler who liked dogs is not nuance. I'm saying it's not helpful to divide the world into good/bad. People are all grey, do some good, some bad, some good-bad (i.e. actions which may be good for one person and bad for another). I'm not a RA supporter (it seems clear he profited enormously from government corruption)  but I don't see the value in this article which aims to turn RA into some kind of arch-puppeteer. Frankly, if it isn't itself antisemitic, it certainly has the potential to generate antisemitic responses.

Nowhere does the author compare Abramovich to Hitler. I think they put forward a convincing case that  he is a key enabler and major beneficiary of Putin's power

[Rupert]

I didn't say he's a good guy. I'm calling for some nuance.

I agree you did not say that, and I am sorry if I muddied the waters in my attempt at brevity.

However, I do not think Abramovich is some sort of innocent bystander, caught up in events which he had no hand in, however unintentional on his part. I am sure he is very personable, polite, a philanthropist, a gentleman towards the fairer sex, etc. I am also sure he has blood on his hands over this war. However, I have no issue with you or anyone else holding a different opinion to mine. That, after all, is one of the defining features of a democracy, such as the UK or Ukraine.

[bencher]

1. I think the "war criminal" remark is quite possibly libellous - I would guess the author is relying on the sanctions to prevent RA from funding litigation, although libel claims can also be carried out using conditional fee agreements, so they should consider carefully whether they want to stick with their position there
2. People are not as black and white as this article wishes to portray them. RA made a large (seven figure) donation to a Holocaust Memorial organisation not that long ago, and has donated significant sums to charity generally.
3. The Ukrainian government disapproved of some of the sanctions against RA as they said he was helpful in arranging peace talks with Russia.
4. This is Putin's war; I don't for a minute think RA wanted this war.

I thought the "war criminal" description was aimed at Putin. As I consider both Blair and Bush jnr to be war criminals for starting a pointless war (Iraq), I see no issue with tarring Putin with the same brush.
Large donations to worthy causes can be for PR purposes, or this may be genuine. Who knows? Even the most evil of despots have their good side. Hitler loved his dog, for example. It doesn't make up for the Holocaust or the European tour he sent his army on.
The man may well have been helpful in starting peace talks, however if he was also helpful in starting the war in the first place by maintaining Putin in power for two decades, then how does that make him a good guy? He is the weasel who gets the bully to pick on you, then jumps in to calm things down when it goes much further than he honestly expected it to, and he realises he will suffer repercussions too.
Fully agree this is Putin's war. I dare say a lot of his supporters are horrified by the rash decision Putin made, and I dare say they swallowed his distorted view of reality about how swift and bloodless it would be, but until and unless they grow a pair and stop supporting him, they are still his spear carriers.

I didn't say he's a good guy. I'm calling for some nuance. Comparing RA with Hitler who liked dogs is not nuance. I'm saying it's not helpful to divide the world into good/bad. People are all grey, do some good, some bad, some good-bad (i.e. actions which may be good for one person and bad for another). I'm not a RA supporter (it seems clear he profited enormously from government corruption)  but I don't see the value in this article which aims to turn RA into some kind of arch-puppeteer. Frankly, if it isn't itself antisemitic, it certainly has the potential to generate antisemitic responses.

Nowhere does the author compare Abramovich to Hitler. I think they put forward a convincing case that  he is a key enabler and major beneficiary of Putin's power

The comparison point was in relation to Rupert's comment that I quoted.
I also think that the article, whilst attempting to appear comprehensive, actually misses out some relevant points. For example, RA came into wealth during the Yeltsin era, before Putin was in power. Many oligarchs from the Yeltsin era were targeted by Putin or somewhat forced to toe the line. If you listen to, for example, Bill Browder, he provides some interesting details on the relationships between Putin and oligarchs. It seems likely RA has been an enabler of Putin, but I'm not certain he is a beneficiary; I think he chose to not go to war with him like some, who ended up imprisoned, exiled or poisoned. That may have been cowardice, but it is a relevant factor, and why I think the article is somewhat flawed.

[RaySmith]

Surely the main point is that Abramovich, like other 'oligarchs' mentioned, was a beneficiary of the knockdown, carried out corruptly it's said, sale of Russian state assets after the collapse of the Soviet Union - and that's how he got his billions

"Roman Abramovich is the reason why Putin is still in power. He plays a crucial role in sustaining Putin's regime for the past 22 years. Abramovich is Putin's ultimate wallet, the ultimate source of bribes, a person who can hold and control strategic assets on Putin's behalf.
This is how oligarchy in Russia works.
Many years ago Putin sat all the oligarchs at the table and said: if you give up all of your political ambitions, I will give you a way to enrich yourself. Knock yourselves out, take as much money as you want, but do not question my power."

Isn't the point that he's not impartial in peace negotiations, but I don't think  the piece is saying he can't be involved in them - well, you can see him as representing  Russia and Putin.

Does it matter whether or not he's a nice  guy, giving money to the Holocaust Museum - (I think he may be Jewish), though that can be seen a a PR thing anyway, but he likely genuinely wishes everything could go back to where it was before this invasion, with everything that's happened to him and his interests, and  had no influence on Putin's decision to take this action - a decision generally seen as a terrible one, whether you admire Putin, or not.

[Hugh Gentry]

1. I think the "war criminal" remark is quite possibly libellous - I would guess the author is relying on the sanctions to prevent RA from funding litigation, although libel claims can also be carried out using conditional fee agreements, so they should consider carefully whether they want to stick with their position there
2. People are not as black and white as this article wishes to portray them. RA made a large (seven figure) donation to a Holocaust Memorial organisation not that long ago, and has donated significant sums to charity generally.
3. The Ukrainian government disapproved of some of the sanctions against RA as they said he was helpful in arranging peace talks with Russia.
4. This is Putin's war; I don't for a minute think RA wanted this war.

In relation to your point number 2 the Holocaust donation was made in order for him to get his israeli passport, masquerading a family history of shepherdic Jews from 400 years ago, which is why the Rabii in Israel is being investigated. Like you say, easy to take things on face value.

[bencher]

1. I think the "war criminal" remark is quite possibly libellous - I would guess the author is relying on the sanctions to prevent RA from funding litigation, although libel claims can also be carried out using conditional fee agreements, so they should consider carefully whether they want to stick with their position there
2. People are not as black and white as this article wishes to portray them. RA made a large (seven figure) donation to a Holocaust Memorial organisation not that long ago, and has donated significant sums to charity generally.
3. The Ukrainian government disapproved of some of the sanctions against RA as they said he was helpful in arranging peace talks with Russia.
4. This is Putin's war; I don't for a minute think RA wanted this war.

In relation to your point number 2 the Holocaust donation was made in order for him to get his israeli passport, masquerading a family history of shepherdic Jews from 400 years ago, which is why the Rabii in Israel is being investigated. Like you say, easy to take things on face value.

This post is totally wrong (wasn't planning on posting any more on this thread but had to correct these inaccuracies here).
He has had Israeli citizenship for a few years, since 2018. He was entitled to it under Israeli law and there is nothing sinister about that. You have confused it with the recent story about Portuguese citizenship based on supposed descent from Portuguese Jews, which, while theoretically possible, seemed far fetched and surprising when I first read it. The point of that was to have EU citizenship. I suspect it was some creative history to take advantage of the Portuguese rules. He has regularly donated to Holocaust related causes and it is nothing to do with the Portgual thing. I am starting to sound like his PR team, but I don't particularly like him, just don't like inaccurate or unnuanced reporting.

[MartyFFC]

Pretty much every Russian billionaire is in Putin's contact list; it's either that or they end up in prison or worse face-down in the Volga

[filham]

Can't get my head around all of this being linked to football. Oh come back Tommy Trinder and the Deans we could relate to those people.

[RaySmith]

Wasn't it the Mears family who owned Chelsea for years?