5 ms·

> A small correction - Russia cut off EU from gas, not the other way round Do people in Europe actually believe that to be the case? Is this yet another "Russi

> A small correction - Russia cut off EU from gas, not the other way round Do people in Europe actually believe that to be the case? Is this yet another "Russia blew up its own billion dollar industry" thing again? > it will probably lead to Russia cutting off the gas supply So, the supply disruptions have absolutely nothing to do with Europe freezing payments and accounts, as well as disrupting all the ecosystem around the industry with sanctions? You can't really live in a reality where you both claim yourself to be a victim of a countries supply disruptions and lead an economic war against it, right? How is that not doublethink? > The ballsy part was that EU was leading a foreign policy (support for Ukraine) We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements. "Ballsy" is an ironic way to describe this situation, especially when any talk of negotiations or even a ceasefire gets shunted at.

_kbh_ 3y ago
> We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements Which was the right thing to do, we always knew Russia would invade again and any peace agreements with Russia aren't worth the paper they are written on. Russia already broke the previous agreement they had with Ukraine to never invade the country anyway. So why would this time be any different?.
- foverzar 3y ago
  > Which was the right thing to do Not for people of Donetsk. > Russia already broke the previous agreement they had with Ukraine to never invade the country anyway. I am not that good of a legal expert to track each and every treaty, but I doubt that there was an agreement formulated exactly like that. For example the Budapest Memorandum article 3 was technically broken when Europe and the US were fast to support a coup in Ukraine. > So why would this time be any different? Because this essentially legitimises Russia's motive for the war.
  - _kbh_ 3y ago
    > Not for people of Donetsk. It was 100% right thing to for the people of Donetsk, who got invaded by Russian forces in 2014. > I am not that good of a legal expert to track each and every treaty, but I doubt that there was an agreement formulated exactly like that. For example the Budapest Memorandum article 3 was technically broken when Europe and the US were fast to support a coup in Ukraine. So because the US / Europe broke the Budapest Memorandum the Russians can also break every single part of it because they feel like it?.
    - foverzar 3y ago
      > It was 100% right thing to for the people of Donetsk, who got invaded by Russian forces in 2014. They got invaded by the new Ukrainian government's "anti-terrorist" forces, consisting largely of shady shaved-head guys with very particularly thematic tattoos - as no one else wanted to take part in that senseless bloodshed. Look, I recognise your username and I am well aware on your views on the matter. We've already clashed multiple times and there is really nothing to discuss when you insist on dismissing the idea that people who overwhelmingly voted for president elect in 2014 might not be happy with the fact that some mob had stolen their country. Keep in mind that people can live in a single country and have different preferences and political opinions. That is absolutely normal and expected in a normal situation, and even more so, much more sharply, during a revolution. I don't get how can anyone imply monolithicity in 2014 Ukraine.
      - _kbh_ 3y ago
        > Look, I recognise your username and I am well aware on your views on the matter. We've already clashed multiple times and there is really nothing to discuss when you insist on dismissing the idea that people who overwhelmingly voted for president elect in 2014 might not be happy with the fact that some mob had stolen their country. Ah yes the country was stolen by the people such a novel idea, I understand you're mad because the Russian puppet got ousted for going against the people then ran away to his masters in Moscow. But please keep telling me how the 'Ukrainian rebels' in Donetsk were using Russian air defence systems and then electing to put a former Russian FSB agent in as head of the military. Totally sounds like a civil war right?.
The_Colonel 3y ago
> Do people in Europe actually believe that to be the case? Of course. > So, the supply disruptions have absolutely nothing to do with Europe freezing payments and accounts, The gas was being paid for. There's basically no time or casual connection to frozen accounts. Bulgaria was e.g. one of the first cut-off countries despite not freezing any accounts. > You can't really live in a reality where you both claim yourself to be a victim of a countries supply disruptions and lead an economic war against it, right? I'm not playing the victim card. Europe did what it did, knowing the probable consequences. All I'm saying is that it was Russia who stopped pumping the gas, not Europe. > We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements. Nice try at throwing the blame everywhere, maybe people will forget that that Russia is invading Ukraine for the 3rd time in the last 10 years. But sure, it's Germany who is the bloodthirsty country. I don't believe Merkel anyway. Her foreign minister Steinmeier (current German president) has been actively pushing for Minsk-2 implementation. I believe she just tries to whitewash herself.
- foverzar 3y ago
  > The gas was being paid for. There's basically no time or casual connection to frozen accounts. EU sanctioned Russia's foreign assets and froze accounts, preventing Russia from using it's funds. Gazprom was specifically sanctioned as a government-related entity. I am not making this up, I am googling as I type: "was gazprom sactioned by EU?", "was russia accounts frozen by EU?", etc. All of this is public information. Unless you claim that this had happened in some other plane of the multiverse, this IS your time and casual connection. Moreover, this is literally not paying - these funds remain in the EU economy, kept reinvested by bankers who manage them while boosting EU liquidity. > Bulgaria was e.g. one of the first cut-off countries despite not freezing any accounts. Is Bulgaria not a EU state that paid in EUR to Gazprombank’s Luxembourg-based accounts? The whole "payment with roubles" shenanigans were meant as a bypass for these sanctions (again, not making this up, it was specifically the EU officials who assessed this procedure as "breach of sanctions" https://www.ft.com/content/aa0d294b-0982-4f94-a327-a93300444083 https://www.ft.com/content/aa0d294b-0982-4f94-a327-a93300444... ) > I'm not playing the victim card. Europe did what it did, knowing the probable consequences That's exactly what you are doing. Either EU decided to engage in an economic war with Russia, willing and aware of possible consequence, or "evil Russia unexpectedly stopped dealing with us" - pick one, both is doublethink. > All I'm saying is that it was Russia who stopped pumping the gas, not Europe. That is quite an ironic statement, given all the background of the Nord Stream 2 story. > maybe people will forget that that Russia is invading Ukraine for the 3rd time in the last 10 years When you start to remembering things that didn't actually happen - it's a bad sign, man. Sorry, I just had too many conversations like that, discussing the collapse of the Ukrainian government and all the following events and each time it boils down to dehumanising huge chunks of Ukrainian population that was not happy about the fact that their elected government (try overlaying Ukraine's 2010 election map on the map of the present conflict) was brought down. > I believe she just tries to whitewash herself. I doubt that anyone around the world, besides a small European corner, sees it as whitewashing and not as legitimising Russia's actions. You can't act like a guarantor of peace and then confess that you were totally lying without hurting your credibility. Just think how this looks from an outsider's perspective: Russia claims that Ukraine wants to genocide people of Donetsk and isn't going to resolve this peacefully with Minks agreements as it promised to, and then European leaders go "yeah, we were totally preparing Ukraine for war all while dragging time under the guise of a peace agreement".

_kbh_ 3y ago

> We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements Which was the right thing to do, we always knew Russia would invade again and any peace agreements with Russia aren't worth the paper they are written on. Russia already broke the previous agreement they had with Ukraine to never invade the country anyway. So why would this time be any different?.

foverzar 3y ago
> Which was the right thing to do Not for people of Donetsk. > Russia already broke the previous agreement they had with Ukraine to never invade the country anyway. I am not that good of a legal expert to track each and every treaty, but I doubt that there was an agreement formulated exactly like that. For example the Budapest Memorandum article 3 was technically broken when Europe and the US were fast to support a coup in Ukraine. > So why would this time be any different? Because this essentially legitimises Russia's motive for the war.
- _kbh_ 3y ago
  > Not for people of Donetsk. It was 100% right thing to for the people of Donetsk, who got invaded by Russian forces in 2014. > I am not that good of a legal expert to track each and every treaty, but I doubt that there was an agreement formulated exactly like that. For example the Budapest Memorandum article 3 was technically broken when Europe and the US were fast to support a coup in Ukraine. So because the US / Europe broke the Budapest Memorandum the Russians can also break every single part of it because they feel like it?.
  - foverzar 3y ago
    > It was 100% right thing to for the people of Donetsk, who got invaded by Russian forces in 2014. They got invaded by the new Ukrainian government's "anti-terrorist" forces, consisting largely of shady shaved-head guys with very particularly thematic tattoos - as no one else wanted to take part in that senseless bloodshed. Look, I recognise your username and I am well aware on your views on the matter. We've already clashed multiple times and there is really nothing to discuss when you insist on dismissing the idea that people who overwhelmingly voted for president elect in 2014 might not be happy with the fact that some mob had stolen their country. Keep in mind that people can live in a single country and have different preferences and political opinions. That is absolutely normal and expected in a normal situation, and even more so, much more sharply, during a revolution. I don't get how can anyone imply monolithicity in 2014 Ukraine.
    - _kbh_ 3y ago
      > Look, I recognise your username and I am well aware on your views on the matter. We've already clashed multiple times and there is really nothing to discuss when you insist on dismissing the idea that people who overwhelmingly voted for president elect in 2014 might not be happy with the fact that some mob had stolen their country. Ah yes the country was stolen by the people such a novel idea, I understand you're mad because the Russian puppet got ousted for going against the people then ran away to his masters in Moscow. But please keep telling me how the 'Ukrainian rebels' in Donetsk were using Russian air defence systems and then electing to put a former Russian FSB agent in as head of the military. Totally sounds like a civil war right?.

The_Colonel 3y ago

> Do people in Europe actually believe that to be the case? Of course. > So, the supply disruptions have absolutely nothing to do with Europe freezing payments and accounts, The gas was being paid for. There's basically no time or casual connection to frozen accounts. Bulgaria was e.g. one of the first cut-off countries despite not freezing any accounts. > You can't really live in a reality where you both claim yourself to be a victim of a countries supply disruptions and lead an economic war against it, right? I'm not playing the victim card. Europe did what it did, knowing the probable consequences. All I'm saying is that it was Russia who stopped pumping the gas, not Europe. > We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements. Nice try at throwing the blame everywhere, maybe people will forget that that Russia is invading Ukraine for the 3rd time in the last 10 years. But sure, it's Germany who is the bloodthirsty country. I don't believe Merkel anyway. Her foreign minister Steinmeier (current German president) has been actively pushing for Minsk-2 implementation. I believe she just tries to whitewash herself.

foverzar 3y ago
> The gas was being paid for. There's basically no time or casual connection to frozen accounts. EU sanctioned Russia's foreign assets and froze accounts, preventing Russia from using it's funds. Gazprom was specifically sanctioned as a government-related entity. I am not making this up, I am googling as I type: "was gazprom sactioned by EU?", "was russia accounts frozen by EU?", etc. All of this is public information. Unless you claim that this had happened in some other plane of the multiverse, this IS your time and casual connection. Moreover, this is literally not paying - these funds remain in the EU economy, kept reinvested by bankers who manage them while boosting EU liquidity. > Bulgaria was e.g. one of the first cut-off countries despite not freezing any accounts. Is Bulgaria not a EU state that paid in EUR to Gazprombank’s Luxembourg-based accounts? The whole "payment with roubles" shenanigans were meant as a bypass for these sanctions (again, not making this up, it was specifically the EU officials who assessed this procedure as "breach of sanctions" https://www.ft.com/content/aa0d294b-0982-4f94-a327-a93300444083 https://www.ft.com/content/aa0d294b-0982-4f94-a327-a93300444... ) > I'm not playing the victim card. Europe did what it did, knowing the probable consequences That's exactly what you are doing. Either EU decided to engage in an economic war with Russia, willing and aware of possible consequence, or "evil Russia unexpectedly stopped dealing with us" - pick one, both is doublethink. > All I'm saying is that it was Russia who stopped pumping the gas, not Europe. That is quite an ironic statement, given all the background of the Nord Stream 2 story. > maybe people will forget that that Russia is invading Ukraine for the 3rd time in the last 10 years When you start to remembering things that didn't actually happen - it's a bad sign, man. Sorry, I just had too many conversations like that, discussing the collapse of the Ukrainian government and all the following events and each time it boils down to dehumanising huge chunks of Ukrainian population that was not happy about the fact that their elected government (try overlaying Ukraine's 2010 election map on the map of the present conflict) was brought down. > I believe she just tries to whitewash herself. I doubt that anyone around the world, besides a small European corner, sees it as whitewashing and not as legitimising Russia's actions. You can't act like a guarantor of peace and then confess that you were totally lying without hurting your credibility. Just think how this looks from an outsider's perspective: Russia claims that Ukraine wants to genocide people of Donetsk and isn't going to resolve this peacefully with Minks agreements as it promised to, and then European leaders go "yeah, we were totally preparing Ukraine for war all while dragging time under the guise of a peace agreement".