3 ms·

Total trade with Russia in 2024: $3.5bn Total trade with Ukraine in 2024: $2.9bn https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/russia-and-eurasia http

Total trade with Russia in 2024: $3.5bn Total trade with Ukraine in 2024: $2.9bn https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/russia-and-eurasia https://ustr.gov/countries-regions/europe-middle-east/russia... So, Ukraine will get an exemption, too, right? Because their trade is even a mooter point, right? Right?!

pembrook 1y ago
This is down from $23B in 2019, and is basically just fertilizer and minerals used to make fertilizer. Fertilizer is not sanctioned due to the fact it’s needed for food security in the EU (surprise suprise, the EU is not just insecure domestically in terms of military and energy and technology, but also in terms of fertilizers needed to grow food, fantastic governance they have over there…leaving potash mining or nat gas extraction to other countries does look good for those domestic net zero calculations though!).
- tashbarg 1y ago
  This reply makes the mootest point of all the moot points.
- Towaway69 1y ago
  EU peace is assured by inter-locking trade within the block. Countries within the EU are gently encouraged to trade essential goods with one another instead of producing them themselves. This policy dates back to the end of WW2 as an attempt to prevent one country getting too aggressive and hence starting another war. Since the fall of the wall, Russia was seen as a legitimate trading partner for the block and, in the long term (just as Türkiye), as member of the block. Hence sourcing fertiliser from Russia was taken to be a strategic positive since it tired Russia to Europe.
  - kolanos 1y ago
    > Hence sourcing fertiliser from Russia was taken to be a strategic positive since it tired Russia to Europe. And you still defend this as a strategic positive?
    - Towaway69 1y ago
      I think we should be aware of history, that does not imply acceptance nor agreement. Instead had I said this ten years ago, the majority of politicians in the EU would have been d’accord. What does that imply about our political systems? There have been a bunch of alliances in Europe over the centuries, none have been permanent.
    - poincaredisk 1y ago
      It was a rational and logical thing to do, assuming Russia wants prosperity. Sadly, it turns out people with power in Russia don't really care about that for regular people. So... I think it was a good thing after all. It could've worked out, and bring us peace. A moonshot with great payoff but some chance of failing is often a risk worth taking, HN should know that :)
DanielVZ 1y ago
I don’t see Ukraine on the list at least. But I do see this as a win for Russia in the destabilization of the Western economy.
- StormChaser_5 1y ago
  It's on the list. They have to pay 10%
  - DanielVZ 1y ago
    I stand corrected

pembrook 1y ago

This is down from $23B in 2019, and is basically just fertilizer and minerals used to make fertilizer. Fertilizer is not sanctioned due to the fact it’s needed for food security in the EU (surprise suprise, the EU is not just insecure domestically in terms of military and energy and technology, but also in terms of fertilizers needed to grow food, fantastic governance they have over there…leaving potash mining or nat gas extraction to other countries does look good for those domestic net zero calculations though!).

tashbarg 1y ago
This reply makes the mootest point of all the moot points.
Towaway69 1y ago
EU peace is assured by inter-locking trade within the block. Countries within the EU are gently encouraged to trade essential goods with one another instead of producing them themselves. This policy dates back to the end of WW2 as an attempt to prevent one country getting too aggressive and hence starting another war. Since the fall of the wall, Russia was seen as a legitimate trading partner for the block and, in the long term (just as Türkiye), as member of the block. Hence sourcing fertiliser from Russia was taken to be a strategic positive since it tired Russia to Europe.
- kolanos 1y ago
  > Hence sourcing fertiliser from Russia was taken to be a strategic positive since it tired Russia to Europe. And you still defend this as a strategic positive?
  - Towaway69 1y ago
    I think we should be aware of history, that does not imply acceptance nor agreement. Instead had I said this ten years ago, the majority of politicians in the EU would have been d’accord. What does that imply about our political systems? There have been a bunch of alliances in Europe over the centuries, none have been permanent.
  - poincaredisk 1y ago
    It was a rational and logical thing to do, assuming Russia wants prosperity. Sadly, it turns out people with power in Russia don't really care about that for regular people. So... I think it was a good thing after all. It could've worked out, and bring us peace. A moonshot with great payoff but some chance of failing is often a risk worth taking, HN should know that :)

DanielVZ 1y ago

I don’t see Ukraine on the list at least. But I do see this as a win for Russia in the destabilization of the Western economy.

StormChaser_5 1y ago
It's on the list. They have to pay 10%
- DanielVZ 1y ago
  I stand corrected