Elvira Nabiullina, an idiot as the Russian central banker

So that’s the Russian response to European permanently freezing the huge amount of 300 billion USD equivalent of assets? To sue them? That’s on par with the situation that got them there, idiocy-wise...

On December 12, the European Union agreed to indefinitely freeze Russian central bank assets held in Europe, probably in view of using the cash to help Ukraine against Russia, with a major loan package for Kyiv. To do so, EU states aim to put to work some of the Russian sovereign assets they immobilized after Moscow's 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

The EU governments agreed to immobilize 210 billion euros ($246 billion) worth of Russian sovereign assets for as long as needed instead of voting every six months on extending the asset freeze.

This sum is taken out of the approximately amount said to be over 300 billion dollars, most of it held by Euroclear, a private company with several branches, holding some assets for the Russians, among others, as a depository and for future transactions. They intermediate the buying and selling of bonds, stocks, hard currencies and gold, forming the bulk of Russian state assets.

Now, how did the Europeans get their hands on such a big Russian treasure? Through their fault, namely by the chief of their central bank. The governor of Russia’s central bank, Elvira Nabiullina, didn’t recall the assets when she knew the war was about to start. So, the debut of the war caught her with her pants down: over $300 billion of Russian assets in foreign hands…

Yet she is still the governor of the central bank, as if nothing happened, position from which she further undermines the Russian economy. By limiting to the extreme the money supply, and by maintaining the freedom of exchange versus the major currencies. People and businesses looking to borrow in Russia can only do so at enormous rates, close to 30% annually.

What was the Russian state response to this de facto expropriation? It was as lame as they come, and even this joke of a response didn’t come from the state itself, but rather from the central bank. Russia's central bank filed, the same day, a lawsuit in Moscow against Brussels-based Euroclear, which houses most of the frozen Russian assets that the EU wants to use to finance aid to Ukraine.

„Due to the unlawful actions of the Euroclear depository that are causing losses to the Bank of Russia, and in light of mechanisms officially under consideration by the European Commission for the direct or indirect use of the Bank of Russia’s assets without its consent, the Bank of Russia is filing a claim in the Moscow Arbitration Court against the Euroclear depository to recover the losses incurred,” the central bank said in a statement. Good luck too that, your chances are zero...

Thus, the imbecile Nabiullina, who got caught by the beginning of the war with 300 BILLION dollars of Russian money in enemy hands (money gone for good), wasn’t bothered by anybody in Russia for the huge loss for which she is directly responsible… I don’t think there is one single other country where a person losing 300 billion dollars would have kept his/her job.

The Russians hold little hope for the money to be returned. The Trump’s 28-point „peace” plan calls for ALL the money (300 billion dollars) to end up under American control, and be used partially for Ukraine (with the US sharing in the profits), partially in joint operations US-Russia. No Russian disputed this point as being ludicrous… They are ready to waive the money away.

This is not the single example of huge imbecility at the helm of the Russian state without any accountability.

Kiril Dimitriev, in full or partially, the inept 28-point Trump peace plan – tantamount to a Russian capitulation – and presented it to Putin, who was about to sign away ALL territories in former Ukraine, which would have received the status of occupied lands (“de facto“) legitimizing any future attempts to return them to the rightful, “de jure“, owner, Ukraine, and to give American mineral rights in Russia proper, to give all Ukraine to the US as guarantor, with the implied right of having armament and troops on Ukraine.

Miraculously, he too STILL has his job.

I can add another name of an impostor: Margarita Simonyan, head of RT, who splashed a lot of cash on American minor pseudo-influencers (but I mean A LOT of cash) with zero effect and zero rationale. Apparently, she paid 150,000 dollars participation fee (at a RT conference/event) to general Flynn, of all people. Some time ago, it’s true.
How can Russia have such brilliant engineers and technical people and such utterly incompetent dimwits in leading position of economics and management?

Asupra unei probleme de civil de la cel mai recent concurs de admitere în magistratură

Prezint o problemă de drept civil care a figurat ca subiect la lucrarea scrisă din cadrul Concursului de admitere în magistratură, organizat în perioada 25 iulie 2024 - 27 martie 2025, soluționată greșit de comisia de elaborare a subiectelor (greșeală menținută și de comisia de soluționare a contestațiilor la barem).

Enunț și cerință:

Subiectul 1 pct. 1. Arătați motivat dacă poate fi atrasă răspunderea civilă delictuală pentru fapta lucrului în sarcina propietarului unui magazin, față de un pieton care se împiedică accidental în fața vitrinei și o sparge, rănindu-se.

Soluție barem:

Nu poate fi atrasă răspunderea civilă delictuală a proprietarului magazinului (20% din punctaj) deoarece nu există obligația de reparare a prejudiciului pentru fapta lucrului, atunci când acesta este cauzat exclusiv de fapta victimnei înseși (80% din punctaj).

După contestație, se menține soluția, astfel:

„Candidatul a criticat subiectul de concurs din perspectiva inexistenței, în opinia sa, a posibilității ca o vitrină a unui magazin să fie construită, în prezent, din sticlă casabilă, motiv pentru care spargerea vitrinei în ipoteza subiectului denotă faptul că aceasta era impropriu fabricată.

Rezolvarea acestui subiect de concurs trebuia însă să pornească de la scenariul indicat: o vitrină a unui magazin s-a spart ca urmare a acțiunii victimei, care s-a împiedicat accidental și a lovit, în cădere, vitrina.

Datele subiectului de concurs nu furnizează informații cu privire la materialele de fabricație ale vitrinei sau la împrejurarea că aceasta ar fi fost proiectată și construită cu încălcarea unor dispoziții legale în materie; de altfel, aceste dispoziții legale nu au fost indicate, în concret, de către candidat și oricum nu făceau parte din cuprinsul tematicii aferente concursului.

De asemenea, în cuprinsul aceleiași contestații, candidatul a arătat că „din perspectiva victimei, e un caz fortuit, nu propria faptă”.

Cerința subiectului de concurs a constat în indicarea, în mod argumentat, dacă, în cazul expus, poate fi angajată răspunderea civilă delictuală pentru fapta lucrului, iar nu pentru fapta proprie. Prin urmare, rezolvarea subiectului de concurs impunea analiza condițiilor răspunderii civile delictuale pentru prejudiciul cauzat de lucruri, precum și a eventualelor cauze exoneratoare a unei răspunderi de acest tip.

Potrivit art. 1376 alin. 1 Cod civil, oricine este obligat să repare, independent de orice culpă, prejudiciul cauzat de lucrul aflat sub paza sa.

Acest text legal reglementează condițiile necesare angajării răspunderii civile delictuale pentru prejudiciul cauzat de lucruri, și anume: existența unui prejudiciu; existența unui raport de cauzalitate între prejudiciu și lucru (prejudiciul să fi fost cauzat de un lucru); cel a cărui răspundere juridică se pretinde a fi angajată să fie paznicul juridic al lucrului respectiv.

În conformitate cu art. 1380 Cod civil, în cazurile prevăzute la (...) art. 1376, (...) nu există obligație de reparare a prejudiciului, atunci când acesta este cauzat exclusiv de fapta victimei înseși ori a unui terț sau este urmarea unui caz de forță majoră.

Ca atare, fapta victimei nu constituie o condiție pentru angajarea răspunderii civile delictuale pentru prejudiciul cauzat de lucruri, ci o cauză exoneratoare a unei atare răspunderi. Ceea ce a determinat fapta victimei nu prezintă relevanță juridică sub aspectul existenței acestei cauze exoneratoare de răspundere”.

Am redat integral „motivarea” pentru că multa lume are încă iluzia că magistratura e apanajul celor inteligenți (și morali, dar asta e o altă poveste...). Nu e adevărat, aveți aici o mostră de cumplită imbecilitate; aceasta reprezintă norma în justiție, regula, nu excepția.

Din capul locului precizez că fapta victimei înseamnă aici intenție sau culpa lata, asimilată dolului (intenției). Să acuzi victima care alunecă și cade „accidental” de faptă proprie înseamnă să nu cunoști absolut deloc răspunderea civilă.

Nu e nici măcar neglijență, ci caz fortuit. Cum s-a specificat în contestație, din perspectiva victimei, e un caz fortuit, nu propria faptă. Rezultă din însuşi enunţ. „Se împiedică ACCIDENTAL în faţa vitrinei care se sparge” nu e „fapta victimei”. E un eveniment aleatoriu, un accident, accidental, ceea ce înseamnă un caz FORTUIT (a se vedea Dex online: https://dexonline.ro/intrare/accidental/243), din mii de indivizi ce trec pe stradă zilnic prin faţa vitrinei, statistic unul se loveşte de aceasta din când în când, verificaţi în calculele actuarilor de la societăţile de asigurare. Credeți că li se refuză despăgubirea de asigurator, dacă riscul era asigurat? Desigur că nu...

Să exagerăm ipotezele de lucru pentru a pune în evidenţă principiul. Este regula de interpretare reductio ad absurdum. Deci înlocuim sticla casabilă, din care zidul exterior al „lucrului” e format, cu un zid de suliţe sau ţepuşe metalice, foarte ascuţite, aranjate orizontal în zid şi la distanţa mică una de alta, în locul vitrinei. La orice atingere victima moare sigur. Să înţelegem că victima care se împiedică şi cade în suliţe moare din propria culpă şi nu dintr-un viciu/fapt al lucrului construit impropriu?!

Dar sunt și alte discuții de făcut – comparați ce spun cu „raționamentul” comisiei (astea motivează la fel și când admit și când resping, „motivarea” fiind identică, aceeași, la fel de ineptă întotdeauna).

Caracterul nepotrivit al lucrului – și ilegal – face ca subiect să fie nerealist, imposibil, greșit. NU EXISTĂ în practică. Vitrina la stradă din sticlă casabilă e un scenariu nu doar nerealist, ci chiar imposibil. Vitrina trebuie să conţină sticlă incasabilă. Enunţul este deficitar şi nerealist şi ignoră regulile de construire a unei vitrine stradale şi regulile de autorizare, PUG-urile şi regulamentele de urbanism locale. De oriunde din lume. Scenariul e nelegal, sigur sunt normative de construcţie în sensul acesta.

Lucrul e impropriu, ceea ce atrage răspunderea pentru acesta. Nu este vorba despre fapta victimei, ci despre un lucru impropriu, un defect de proiectare şi construcţie sau doar de construcţie, vitrină cu sticlă casabilă.

Construcția spațiilor comerciale și desfășurarea de activități comerciale în spații cu vitrină la stradă sunt activități supuse autorizării. Nu există nici măcar o singură vitrină la stradă cu sticlă casabilă în Bucureşti, în ţară sau în lume. Nici măcar un singur caz, nu se autorizează activități care pun în pericol trecătorii (și care invită spargeri).

Se reproșează de comisie că „aceste dispoziții legale nu au fost indicate, în concret, de către candidat”; este vorba despre dispoziții normative de rang inferior legii, care reglementează cum trebuie să fie un atare lucru. Nu se puteau indica regulamentele locale deoarece orașul nu era indicat. Dar acestea există peste tot, comisia trebuia să verifice dacă nu cunosc un lucru atât de elementar...

The 28-point “peace” plan is a monument of stupidity and most people missed its real meaning

The 28-point “peace” plan (Trump’s) is a big scam for Russia; it equals the biggest Russian capitulation possible. I argue here that this plan is so disastrous for Russia that is tantamount to a huge defeat. Russia is deprived of its money, a lot of the claimed territory, puts everything under the control of the US (arch enemy!) and gains absolutely nothing.
America emerges as the huge winner. After fighting for decades cold and hot wars to keep them afar, the Americans are suddenly on Russia’s doorstep. And Russia opens the door.
Europeans and Ukrainians initially misread this plan, might just yet begin to understand how stupid Russia really is in drafting and reading “deals” … See Minsk, whether in doubt.
The European big honchos, who would like to pull a fast one over the Russians, failed to recognize the wonderful opportunity this plan presents in this regard…
The Ukrainians also, were not able to discern the overall benefits for them (the plan makes them the victors of a lost war) and the multiple bad wording that allows them to procrastinate forever and backtrack on everything…
Most of the points are ambiguously formulated and no implementation of them is handy or even possible, but the plan can be summarized as follows:
- No money returned to Russia;
- No land recognized to Russia;
- Legitimizes American presence in Ukraine;
- Gives US a hefty foot in the mineral sectors of both countries;
- Makes America a pile of money from both belligerent sides;
- No significant changes otherwise.
About the nature of the plan
This plan is mandatory, it requires no further documents or negotiations. This is stated expressly in the 27th and 28th points:
“27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations.
28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.”
Of course, as elsewhere in the plan, even here inconsistencies do appear. What is the Peace Council? Who make up this “council”? Who appoints it? What are its rules? What sanctions “will be imposed for violations”? By whom? Who enforces the “sanctions”? How?
Such ambiguities abound throughout the document, proving an ample scope for later revisionism. But this ceasefire and the retreat thing are final.
About its interpretation
We should only refer to the wording therein. At the moment there is no other extrinsic document in relation to which this plan should be construed. Nor it’s sure such an element would ever occur. We should not read it through the lens of our personal hopes, either. Just the written text.
In every agreement, the principal problem it’s the order of executing the obligations. What is the succession of the obligations, who does what first, and second, and third etc.?
Any contract puts such a problem, that’s why we have exceptio non adimpleti contractus as a valid defense to oppose to someone who asks our obligation to be executed. We can say: you first. That’s why stipulating such an order is paramount.
We don’t have such a step-by-step program here. We don’t know the order, the sequence of executing the obligations. Furthermore, there are provisions depending entirely on third parties. How could such a plan ever be implemented? What if, exempli gratia, NATO doesn’t include a special provision in its charter regarding Ukraine (prohibiting its accession). What if that amendment is voted against? The ceasefire was already implemented and the possession of the lands had long ago switched hands.
One example
To see just how stupid this document is, I will start with one clear example of incompetence. The point number 10 states that:
“10. The US guarantee:
- The US will receive compensation for the guarantee;
- If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee;
- If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked;
- If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.”
By this plan, Ukraine losses American guarantee (what if the US refuses to give up the guarantee?) only if they launch a missile at Moscow or St Petersburg (and even then, if the launching is “without cause”?!). Per a contrario, everything else is permitted?!
Under this plan, Ukraine can take missile pot-shots at any Russian city but Moscow and St Petersburg, be them with or without cause, and at Moscow and St Petersburg when the missile launching against these two targets are “with cause”, and the US security guarantee to Ukraine will still be valid. Ridiculous.
What is the “decisive coordinated military response” should Russia invade Ukraine? From whom and coordinated with whom? Europe?
What “guarantee” means here? What does the “guarantor” do before, during and after the “guarantee” is activated? Of course, this is the pretext for moving in US troops and ammunition (not NATO, but American).
Think about the US as “guarantor”, them being who started the conflict and fought it all the way through a proxy…
As for the tangible assets, the plunder, the spoils of war, land and lucre, money, let’s see who gets what:
Russian money, 300 billion USD, gone for good
The thoroughly incompetent governor of the Russian central bank managed to get caught by the beginning of the war with 300 billion dollars Russian assets in enemy banks. What happened to her after such an epic failure? Nothing, she is still in the same position, further undermining the Russian economy each passing day.
Regarding this money, the plan states that:
“14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:
- $100bn (£76bn) in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine;
- The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100bn (£76bn) to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine's reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.”
So, the funds will be used, but will not be returned! Never. Russia doesn’t get back any of its frozen money. Of that, 100 billion dollars goes to the US to administer and reap part of the benefits (50% of the “profits”), for reconstruction of Ukraine (who, probably, gets the other half of the profits). Europe is to add the same amount, implied from the same (Russian) money. Europeans only put forth one third of the Russian money, 100 billion, again under American supervision. The remaining 100 billion dollars again goes to be administered by the US as a mutual fund for projects involving both Russia and the US (presumably the Alaskan undersea tunnel, among others).
Land, not obtained by Russia
Russia at the moment holds territories in Kharkov (significant), Dnepropetrovsk, Sumy (to a lesser extent), after winning them on the battlefield. All these are to be retroceded to Ukraine, for good and de jure (in law).
Russia gets the remaining of the Donetsk and the tiny bit of Lugansk still in Ukraine’s hands. But only de facto and as a demilitarized zone. The territories exchanged are approximately equal quantitatively.
Also, Russia consents to broke their own Constitution by giving up the territories not yet conquered, but Russian according to the Russian law, in Zaporizhia and Kherson.
Moreover, Ukraine’s sovereignty is recognized, and guaranteed, whereas all Russian-held territories in former Ukraine (including Crimea!) get the status of occupied territories (de facto) and not territories held by virtue of law (de jure).
You have right here in this “peace” plan, the seeds of the future conflict, after Ukraine, Europe and America get a rest and set their agenda straight.
Military assets/bases
Point number 8 states that: “NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.”
NATO-related things were always promised multiple times before and each time the promise was broken. It’s no different this time, just a piece of paper signed, nothing.
Apparently, this corresponds to Russia’s aspirations. But just at the first cursory glance. In reality, the plan does not exclude all member state’s troops. The plan precludes only NATO troops in Ukraine. NATO is an international organization. Any reference to NATO understands the international organization, which is distinct from its components, and does not refer to each and every member. So, American troops are not prohibited; the US can station any troops or armament.
The member states are distinct from the organization and are subjects of International Law in their own individuality (as is NATO itself a – distinct - subject of International Law). The US has a lot of bases in the world without any connection with NATO. So has, exempli gratia, France.
Ukraine will be flooded with personnel and material from a lot of countries acting on their own, especially the US, the minute Russia withdraws from the territories it undertook to return. There will be no NATO in Ukraine, but there will be the US (guarantor!), France, the UK, Poland, Turkey and who not.
Furthermore, the NATO Treaty does not prohibit individual states to get involved in offensive wars, aiding a side to a conflict, providing military and economic aid etc. That’s why some NATO states organized themselves – in this conflict - in small groupings to lead an aggressive policy against Russia (for example, the coalition of the willing).
The plan also specifies that there will be no further NATO enlargement, again, many times promised before… If you trust these guys.
At the same time, NATO can’t station troops, but it can circulate them through Ukraine, at will. The movement of troops is not forbidden and is, thus, permitted.
As for Ukraine itself, it gets to keep a huge army, arguably more than it has at the current time. At the same time, Ukraine has no ban on re-armament. Ukraine is not prohibited to re-arm and gets to keep a huge army, that means a certain future war, to get the de facto foreign held territories under Ukrainian de jure control.
And 600,000 troops is more than Ukraine has at the moment. But how can you verify the size of the Ukrainian army? Can you tell if they are 600,000 or 800,000 or a million? No practical way of telling...
More absurd provisions in the military domain. Point 9 states: “European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.” Really? Poland is demilitarized at this moment? European fighter jets are prohibited up until now? What is this? Probably some provision to bulk up the accord to mask the huge Russian renunciations; smoke and mirrors. Another example:
“17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.”
What has this to do with Ukraine? Why do you need Ukraine’s signature on it? Why Russia and the US don’t agree these between themselves?
It’s sad to realize just how stupid are the people in charge of planetary events that could eventually lead (a not so distant eventuality) to life extinction… We all have skin in the game. The whole skin, that is.