5 ms·

> It also has contracts with Gazprom in Russia with guaranteed Prices and Deliveries. Is anyone under an illusion that Gazprom in Russia will honor these contr

by maratc 5y ago

> It also has contracts with Gazprom in Russia with guaranteed Prices and Deliveries. Is anyone under an illusion that Gazprom in Russia will honor these contracts, now that their branch was seized? And if not, what methods are there to enforce these contracts? The Russians seized the planes, which can fly but need spares and checks. The Germans seized the pipelines and the storage. Both have some utility in the interim, but both are ultimately useless.

zmgsabst 5y ago
“We seized your property under exigent circumstances, but you better honor your contracts rather than cancel them under exigent circumstances!” - NATO, apparently delusional The idea people will “honor” contracts while you’re (illegally) seizing their property in effort to enact an economic siege of their nation is mental illness — either delusions or megalomania. That strategy doesn’t make sense. I’m personally sad to see how deluded US and EU leaders are.
- maratc 5y ago
  NATO has nothing to do with buying or selling gas.
- op00to 5y ago
  I'm sorry, what did NATO seize again? It was Germany. Germany is not NATO. If you're going to participate in the discussion, at least keep your actors straight.
- kadoban 5y ago
  Okay, then Russia can keep their gas and have even lower income of cash (which they need to pay debts, by the way).
  - neilwilson 5y ago
    Why do they need to 'pay debts'? Russia has just had its foreign reserves frozen. Those are debts too, which the West has repudiated. Why shouldn't Russia do the same in reverse? Countries export solely to gain imports if they have any sense. If there are no imports to be had - due to sanctions - then there is no need to export. Far better, from Russia's point of view, that the oil is left in the ground, and the workers redeployed elsewhere. To the war effort for example.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - kadoban 5y ago
      They _want_ to pay their debts, to preserve better borrowing terms in the future and to not look bad. If you research at all you'll see that they're actively trying to pay their debts to avoid default.
    - yywwbbn 5y ago
      If those workers are fine with a substantial fail in their QoL. It’s gonna be most painful for the oligarchs and people in their environment who are used to consuming massive amounts of foreign goods. Btw even the USSR which was generally much more autarkic couldn’t survive without foreign currency for energy exports. What makes you think modern Russia could? Also it was illegal for workers to leave Russia back then, unlike now (so assuming there are countries willing to accept them they might be more likely to choose that over ‘being redirected to work in the war industry’.
      - neilwilson 5y ago
        "It’s gonna be most painful for the oligarchs and people in their environment who are used to consuming massive amounts of foreign goods." If 'tax the rich' works and reduces the power of the rich, then hasn't the West just taxed the rich of Russia and reduced their power to remove Putin? Democrats can't have it both ways. They propose a billionaire tax in the USA to reduce the power of the rich to interfere with people in charge, then actually implement a billionaire tax in Russia and expect it to increase their ability to interfere with people in charge. It's an illogical position to hold. "Btw even the USSR which was generally much more autarkic couldn’t survive without foreign currency for energy exports. What makes you think modern Russia could?" If there are sanctions in place, what are they going to spend the 'foreign currency' on? You can't eat dollars. "so assuming there are countries willing to accept them they might be more likely to choose that" The 'leave for other countries' is a globalist position. Most ordinary people are rooted in social support constructs on the ground. They don't leave, and prefer their own country. In fact the attitude to those who leave from those who remain is likely to be good riddance to bad rubbish.
  - maratc 5y ago
    > then Russia can keep their gas I guess the answer to that would be "and Germany can keep their cash and maybe have to burn it to heat homes or generate electricity"? The war we're seeing (the economic war) is a point of mini-singularity, where a lot of we know to be true about the world is invalid. Such as an assumption that a state having debts will actually pay them.
    - kadoban 5y ago
      Except they're actively trying to pay them, so apparently it is true.
      - maratc 5y ago
        for now
        kadoban 5y ago
        What will change?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- JumpCrisscross 5y ago
  > while you’re (illegally) seizing their property This is nonsense. Gazprom Germania attempted an illegal transfer of ownership. From what I can tell, Germany isn't appropriating anything. It's just seizing control in a regulatory measure.
- dirkt 5y ago
  Tageschau (extremely reliable source) says > Da die Gazprom Germania GmbH jedoch kritische Infrastruktur betreibe, müsse jeder Erwerb durch einen Nicht-EU-Investor vom Ministerium genehmigt werden. Unklar sei, wer wirtschaftlich und rechtlich hinter den beiden genannten Unternehmen stehe. Zudem habe der Erwerber "die Liquidierung der Gazprom Germania angeordnet, was, so lange der Erwerb nicht genehmigt ist, nicht rechtmäßig ist". (Use Google Translate etc.) So the sale had to be ratified by the ministry, which didn't happen. Gazprom ran afoul of the law, the government stepped in and took over temporarily. But of course this is the internet, the more radical nonsense you spread, and the more emotional outrage your project, the more clicks you get... [1] https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gazprom-germania-107.html https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gazprom-ger...
dathinab 5y ago
> Is anyone under an illusion that Gazprom in Russia will honor these contracts, now that their branch was seized? In this case because both parties need it (for now) even through currently neither of them wants it. (Russia needs the money, Germany the Gas, if Russia could afford it they would already have cut of Gas to destabilize Germany. If Germany could afford it they would already have cut payments to force Russia to stop the war.) Also I think some people misunderstand what sizing means in this context it doesn't mean "hey this is now ours" but is much more subtle and complex, and most important temporary by nature.

by maratc 5y ago

zmgsabst 5y ago

“We seized your property under exigent circumstances, but you better honor your contracts rather than cancel them under exigent circumstances!” - NATO, apparently delusional The idea people will “honor” contracts while you’re (illegally) seizing their property in effort to enact an economic siege of their nation is mental illness — either delusions or megalomania. That strategy doesn’t make sense. I’m personally sad to see how deluded US and EU leaders are.

maratc 5y ago
NATO has nothing to do with buying or selling gas.
op00to 5y ago
I'm sorry, what did NATO seize again? It was Germany. Germany is not NATO. If you're going to participate in the discussion, at least keep your actors straight.
kadoban 5y ago
Okay, then Russia can keep their gas and have even lower income of cash (which they need to pay debts, by the way).
- neilwilson 5y ago
  Why do they need to 'pay debts'? Russia has just had its foreign reserves frozen. Those are debts too, which the West has repudiated. Why shouldn't Russia do the same in reverse? Countries export solely to gain imports if they have any sense. If there are no imports to be had - due to sanctions - then there is no need to export. Far better, from Russia's point of view, that the oil is left in the ground, and the workers redeployed elsewhere. To the war effort for example.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - kadoban 5y ago
    They _want_ to pay their debts, to preserve better borrowing terms in the future and to not look bad. If you research at all you'll see that they're actively trying to pay their debts to avoid default.
  - yywwbbn 5y ago
    If those workers are fine with a substantial fail in their QoL. It’s gonna be most painful for the oligarchs and people in their environment who are used to consuming massive amounts of foreign goods. Btw even the USSR which was generally much more autarkic couldn’t survive without foreign currency for energy exports. What makes you think modern Russia could? Also it was illegal for workers to leave Russia back then, unlike now (so assuming there are countries willing to accept them they might be more likely to choose that over ‘being redirected to work in the war industry’.
    - neilwilson 5y ago
      "It’s gonna be most painful for the oligarchs and people in their environment who are used to consuming massive amounts of foreign goods." If 'tax the rich' works and reduces the power of the rich, then hasn't the West just taxed the rich of Russia and reduced their power to remove Putin? Democrats can't have it both ways. They propose a billionaire tax in the USA to reduce the power of the rich to interfere with people in charge, then actually implement a billionaire tax in Russia and expect it to increase their ability to interfere with people in charge. It's an illogical position to hold. "Btw even the USSR which was generally much more autarkic couldn’t survive without foreign currency for energy exports. What makes you think modern Russia could?" If there are sanctions in place, what are they going to spend the 'foreign currency' on? You can't eat dollars. "so assuming there are countries willing to accept them they might be more likely to choose that" The 'leave for other countries' is a globalist position. Most ordinary people are rooted in social support constructs on the ground. They don't leave, and prefer their own country. In fact the attitude to those who leave from those who remain is likely to be good riddance to bad rubbish.
- maratc 5y ago
  > then Russia can keep their gas I guess the answer to that would be "and Germany can keep their cash and maybe have to burn it to heat homes or generate electricity"? The war we're seeing (the economic war) is a point of mini-singularity, where a lot of we know to be true about the world is invalid. Such as an assumption that a state having debts will actually pay them.
  - kadoban 5y ago
    Except they're actively trying to pay them, so apparently it is true.
    - maratc 5y ago
      for now
      - kadoban 5y ago
        What will change?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
JumpCrisscross 5y ago
> while you’re (illegally) seizing their property This is nonsense. Gazprom Germania attempted an illegal transfer of ownership. From what I can tell, Germany isn't appropriating anything. It's just seizing control in a regulatory measure.
dirkt 5y ago
Tageschau (extremely reliable source) says > Da die Gazprom Germania GmbH jedoch kritische Infrastruktur betreibe, müsse jeder Erwerb durch einen Nicht-EU-Investor vom Ministerium genehmigt werden. Unklar sei, wer wirtschaftlich und rechtlich hinter den beiden genannten Unternehmen stehe. Zudem habe der Erwerber "die Liquidierung der Gazprom Germania angeordnet, was, so lange der Erwerb nicht genehmigt ist, nicht rechtmäßig ist". (Use Google Translate etc.) So the sale had to be ratified by the ministry, which didn't happen. Gazprom ran afoul of the law, the government stepped in and took over temporarily. But of course this is the internet, the more radical nonsense you spread, and the more emotional outrage your project, the more clicks you get... [1] https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gazprom-germania-107.html https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gazprom-ger...

dathinab 5y ago

> Is anyone under an illusion that Gazprom in Russia will honor these contracts, now that their branch was seized? In this case because both parties need it (for now) even through currently neither of them wants it. (Russia needs the money, Germany the Gas, if Russia could afford it they would already have cut of Gas to destabilize Germany. If Germany could afford it they would already have cut payments to force Russia to stop the war.) Also I think some people misunderstand what sizing means in this context it doesn't mean "hey this is now ours" but is much more subtle and complex, and most important temporary by nature.