Cont: The Russian invasion of Ukraine part 7

[SpitfireIX]

I think a lot of it is that the US, (along with the UK and EU I'm sure) has laws against taking bribes with respect to companies investing in foreign countries. You can, actually go to jail for opening a business in Zimbabwe where you had to fork over some cash to the local bureaucrat for the right to do so. Russia and China probably have no such restrictions. Corruption is absolutely rampant in most of Africa.

Your overall point is a good one, but the hilited is not necessarily so, at least with respect to the US. Paying "grease money," that is, paying officials to do things they're supposed to do anyway, such as issue business licenses, does not violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

I would also add that the fact that Russia and China are unlikely to complain about countries' human-rights records or anti-democratic policies tends to make them more attractive partners to many third-world dictators.

 

[lobosrul5]

Your overall point is a good one, but the hilited is not necessarily so, at least with respect to the US. Paying "grease money," that is, paying officials to do things they're supposed to do anyway, such as issue business licenses, does not violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

I would also add that the fact that Russia and China are unlikely to complain about countries' human-rights records or anti-democratic policies tends to make them more attractive partners to many third-world dictators.

If Zimbabwe has a 100k charge for a foreign business to start up a mine, thats fine. If the local guy says the license might take years and years, unless he has a shiny new Merc to drive to work in; giving him one violates the FCPA.

ETA: and then yeah theres the other end of it. Using literal slave labor in the mine is just fine by China or Russia.

 

[theprestige]

Your overall point is a good one, but the hilited is not necessarily so, at least with respect to the US. Paying "grease money," that is, paying officials to do things they're supposed to do anyway, such as issue business licenses, does not violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

If you say so. I've been through compliance training with US employers, that was very clear about this kind of thing being against the law. I'll take the word of an amoral profit motivated corporation over some anon rando on the internet who tells me it's totally legal, in this matter.

Though I guess it might be a trained professional kind of thing. Maybe our rank and file got the "play it safe" training, while the company's combat accountants were read into whatever loopholes they could be trusted to exploit without too much blowback.

 

[SpitfireIX]

If Zimbabwe has a 100k charge for a foreign business to start up a mine, thats fine. If the local guy says the license might take years and years, unless he has a shiny new Merc to drive to work in; giving him one violates the FCPA.

No, in this case, the Mercedes is most likely a grease payment.

A grease payment, also known as a facilitation payment or a speed money, is a small payment made to an official or government employee to expedite or secure the performance of a routine government action that is already required by law or regulation, such as obtaining permits or licenses, processing paperwork, or expediting shipments through customs. Grease payments are legal in some countries, including the United States, as long as they are not used to secure a government contract or as a quid pro quo for an illegal or non-routine action.

In practice, an agent in another country may ask you for additional money to process paperwork. According to FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report, the grease payment is generally paid to a lower level worker to grant the license. It’s a license that isn’t discretionary. You’re pretty much guaranteed to get it as long as you submit that proper paperwork. But the grease payment itself is paid directly to that official.

You would have been able to get that license or that next step in the process anyway, whether you pay the payment or not. The biggest thing the grease payment does is to make it go a little faster.

On the other hand, a bribe is a payment or gift given to an official or a person in a position of trust in order to influence their decision-making and secure favorable treatment that is not already required by law or regulation. Bribes are illegal under the FCPA and are considered a form of corruption. The bribe is paid to get something that you couldn’t otherwise obtain. So, in the case of the bribe, you pay the bribes to an influential official or the decision maker, not the lower level worker who is processing the paperwork. You are giving payments to someone who has discretion in making a decision. This is someone who could say yes or no to your application.

The key difference between a grease payment and a bribe is that a grease payment is a legal payment made to expedite a routine government action, while a bribe is an illegal payment made to influence an official or secure non-routine or illegal treatment.​

 

[lobosrul5]

No, in this case, the Mercedes is most likely a grease payment.

A grease payment, also known as a facilitation payment or a speed money, is a small payment made to an official or government employee to expedite or secure the performance of a routine government action that is already required by law or regulation, such as obtaining permits or licenses, processing paperwork, or expediting shipments through customs. Grease payments are legal in some countries, including the United States, as long as they are not used to secure a government contract or as a quid pro quo for an illegal or non-routine action.

In practice, an agent in another country may ask you for additional money to process paperwork. According to FCPA Compliance and Ethics Report, the grease payment is generally paid to a lower level worker to grant the license. It’s a license that isn’t discretionary. You’re pretty much guaranteed to get it as long as you submit that proper paperwork. But the grease payment itself is paid directly to that official.

You would have been able to get that license or that next step in the process anyway, whether you pay the payment or not. The biggest thing the grease payment does is to make it go a little faster.

On the other hand, a bribe is a payment or gift given to an official or a person in a position of trust in order to influence their decision-making and secure favorable treatment that is not already required by law or regulation. Bribes are illegal under the FCPA and are considered a form of corruption. The bribe is paid to get something that you couldn’t otherwise obtain. So, in the case of the bribe, you pay the bribes to an influential official or the decision maker, not the lower level worker who is processing the paperwork. You are giving payments to someone who has discretion in making a decision. This is someone who could say yes or no to your application.

The key difference between a grease payment and a bribe is that a grease payment is a legal payment made to expedite a routine government action, while a bribe is an illegal payment made to influence an official or secure non-routine or illegal treatment.​

Under the FCPA, grease payments don’t change the outcome of the foreign official’s decision. If they did, the payment would instead be considered a bribe, and therefore illegal.

https://www.secwhistleblowerattorne...ween-fcpa-grease-payments-and-foreign-bribes/

So legal if the official could only delay the license, and illegal if he could squash it?

What a nutty world we live in.

 

[quadraginta]

Under the FCPA, grease payments don’t change the outcome of the foreign official’s decision. If they did, the payment would instead be considered a bribe, and therefore illegal.

https://www.secwhistleblowerattorne...ween-fcpa-grease-payments-and-foreign-bribes/

So legal if the official could only delay the license, and illegal if he could squash it?

What a nutty world we live in.

Or if he could somehow expedite it rather than letting it go through regular channels.

 

[SpitfireIX]

Under the FCPA, grease payments don’t change the outcome of the foreign official’s decision. If they did, the payment would instead be considered a bribe, and therefore illegal.

https://www.secwhistleblowerattorne...ween-fcpa-grease-payments-and-foreign-bribes/

So legal if the official could only delay the license, and illegal if he could squash it?

What a nutty world we live in.

There are some grey areas, but in general, yes.

 

[theprestige]

So the FPCA is just as corrupt as the corruption it enables. Anywhere in the west, if a public official were withholding or expediting the rule of law based on private contributions to their personal income, they'd be done for corruption and their clients for bribery.

And, again, I've worked for global corporations that have been absolutely clear that these kinds of payments are not allowed.

 

[Doubt]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...across-a-suspected-minefield/?sh=f57673a37698

Videos Russian troops posted online on Thursday depict an old Ukrainian BMP-1 fighting vehicle rolling from a treeline across an open field. It’s likely the 1960s-vintage, 14-ton infantry fighting vehicle is crewless. At least one person is visible running away from the IFV, apparently after jamming the throttle and bailing out.

Just saw this today. Somebody was talking about sending captured Russian armor into the minefields.

Unmanned BMP 1 did not hit a mine and fell into a tank ditch after crossing the suspected minefield.

Fake minefields are a real thing. US army engineer manuals even used to describe how to do it.

 

[Aridas]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davida...across-a-suspected-minefield/?sh=f57673a37698



Just saw this today. Somebody was talking about sending captured Russian armor into the minefields.

Unmanned BMP 1 did not hit a mine and fell into a tank ditch after crossing the suspected minefield.

Fake minefields are a real thing. US army engineer manuals even used to describe how to do it.

It was an okay way to test Russian defenses, really. The complete failure of the Russians to stop it sorta is pretty telling, though.

 

[a_unique_person]

It was an okay way to test Russian defenses, really. The complete failure of the Russians to stop it sorta is pretty telling, though.

It could have been a trap. Denis had said there was an attack that failed when a large force of armoured vehicles moved into a preset artillery fire zone.

 

[jeremyp]

Um...have you been reading the recent posts in this thread?

Russia is not on the offensive. What's your point?

 

[jeremyp]

Why not use captured Russian tanks to clear mines? They do not need to be fully functional. The only requirement is that they are mobile, and can be steered remotely. The Ukrainian operators can drive these hulks backwards and forwards on minefields until they get blown up.

The Russians may even be tempted to fire artillery at these rogue tanks, revealing their position to Ukrainian counter-artillery.

Ukraine uses Russian tanks as, well, tanks.

 

[jeremyp]

It was an okay way to test Russian defenses, really. The complete failure of the Russians to stop it sorta is pretty telling, though.

The ditch stopped it. Probably the line of "dragons' teeth" behind the ditch would have done too.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

It could have been a trap. Denis had said there was an attack that failed when a large force of armoured vehicles moved into a preset artillery fire zone.

Any likely avenue of approach will have probably artillery trained on it. That's not so much a trap as just a well-planned defense.

 

[Aridas]

Any likely avenue of approach will have probably artillery trained on it. That's not so much a trap as just a well-planned defense.

Should have, at least. Ukraine has been whittling down their artillery at quite the pace. It is certainly possible that there was intent to lure a larger force in before striking, of course, but that's the kind of thing that requires evidence to take seriously. In this situation, Ukraine is advancing on a number of fronts and there's no good reason to assume that the failed attack in question was at this location. Ukraine lost an unfortunate amount of armor in an attack to the southeast of Robotyne by the look of it, for example.

As it stands, it quite indicates that that position was temporarily not being actively defended, which rather suggests that Ukraine's thinned out Russian manpower quite a lot due to the constant Russia attempts to counterattack instead of relying upon on the greater attrition potential of their fortifications.

The ditch stopped it. Probably the line of "dragons' teeth" behind the ditch would have done too.

Quibble accepted. You're correct, but with that said, the correction misses the point. Russian forces weren't the ones that stopped it, as they would normally be expected to do.

 

[quadraginta]

Russia is not on the offensive. What's your point?

That's an astoundingly tiny hair you are splitting. You must have special tools.

 

[Andy_Ross]

Russian President Vladimir Putin has said he does not reject the idea of peace talks on Ukraine.

Speaking after meeting African leaders in St Petersburg, he said African and Chinese initiatives could serve as a basis for finding peace.

President Putin also said it was hard to implement a ceasefire when the Ukrainian army was on the offensive.

Kyiv says it will not concede any territory but Moscow says Kyiv must accept its country's "new territorial reality".

Mr Putin told the late-night press conference on Saturday that there were no plans to intensify action on the Ukrainian front for now.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66351867

 

[Andy_Ross]

Moscow drone attack briefly shuts Vnukovo airport

Russia has accused Ukraine of a drone attack on Moscow that damaged two buildings and briefly shut one of the city's airports.

Flights were briefly suspended from Vnukovo Airport, southwest of the city centre, and incoming planes were redirected to other airports.

In a statement, the defence ministry said the "attempted terrorist attack" had been "thwarted".

Russia's defence ministry says Ukraine also carried out an overnight drone attack on Crimea

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-66352765

 

[gnome]

President Putin also said it was hard to implement a ceasefire when the Ukrainian army was on the offensive.

It is not so difficult if you order a withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukraine. I bet they would agree to a cease fire to allow an orderly removal.