sorry that's not clear to me. Between whom?

Between some European states and Ukraine.

02.01.2005 Interview with Sergej Lavrov by the German business newspaper Handelsblatt:

Question: Does the right to sovereignty also mean for Georgia and Ukraine, for example, that Russia would have nothing against their accession to the EU and NATO?

Lavrov: That is their choice. We respect the right of every state - including our neighbors - to choose its own partners, to decide for itself which organization to join. We assume that they will consider for themselves how they develop their politics and economy and which partners and allies they rely on.

https://amp2.handelsblatt.com/politik/international/handelsblatt-interview-mit-aussenminister-lawrow-russland-oeffnet-ukraine-den-weg-in-die-nato/2460820.html

SSU said that joining Nato would lead to Russia attacking Finland? Really, ssu? — Christoffer

It's here — Isaac

Russia has constantly threatened Finland and Sweden with "serious military and political repercussions" if they join NATO. For years now, actually. — ssu

Oh boy, Isaac.

Russia has genuinely said that, yet "serious military and political repercussions" doesn't mean Russia will attack Finland. Actually very typical nonsense from you, so enough with your rubbish counterarguments and twistings of what people say.

From Interfax:

March 12 (Interfax) - Finland and Sweden's possible accession to NATO would have serious military and political consequences and require Russia to take retaliatory measures, Russian Foreign Ministry Second European Department Director Sergei Belyayev said.

"It is obvious that Finland and Sweden's joining NATO, which is a military organization in the first place, would have serious military and political consequences requiring use to revise the entire range of relations with these countries and take retaliatory measures," Belyayev said in an interview with Interfax.

My quoting this statement (and there are others), doesn't mean that I'm saying that Russia will attack Finland. But of course you will just twist things.

Besides, several counties (among the UK) have given security guarantees for both Sweden and Finland now for the time the countries apply for membership. So let's see what those retaliatory measures are.

From today:

Finland should join Nato to better handle its security, said the country's Prime Minister and president in a joint declaration on Thursday morning.

Sanna Marin (SDP) and Sauli Niinistö said they had come to the conclusion after a wide-ranging debate on security policy following Russia's renewed attack on Ukraine.

"Now that the moment of decision-making is near, we state our equal views, also for information to the parliamentary groups and parties. NATO membership would strengthen Finland’s security," read the statement.

"As a member of NATO, Finland would strengthen the entire defence alliance. Finland must apply for NATO membership without delay. We hope that the national steps still needed to make this decision will be taken rapidly within the next few days."

serious military and political repercussions" doesn't mean Russia will attack Finland. — ssu

So what would the military repercussions be then?

As I said, they've indicated they don't want to give such assurances to Ukraine.

Not sure what you are trying to say here.

The Europeans are saying to UK/US: "the goal is to repel the invasion, not to 'bleed Russia', so don't get too excited." What I would like to know now, is: have US/UK media reported that call, or not?

Apparently they have relayed neither Macron's nor Draghi's remarks of yesterday.

And that poses a problem to me: it looks like the US and UK are trapped into just as much of a controlled media as Russia right now... As during the war on Iraq, the US and UK press now behaves as subservient to political power and thus betrays its mission, which is to critique inform and educate independently from political power.

Seems Chomsky did get that right, irrespective of his obsession with the evils of the US making him unable to understand popular support to NATO in Europe.

So what would the military repercussions be then? — Isaac

We shall see, now that Finland has applied.

We shall see, now that Finland has applied. — Olivier5

I suspect nothing since we know Russia lies through their teeth and uses propaganda and information as tools of war. The medium is the message. It's not what they say that is important it's how its used. To threaten Finland and Sweden of action if we join Nato is not to say that they will attack if we join Nato, but to deter us from joining in order to win against us with a pure propaganda game. But they will probably don't do anything if we join because it is just as suicidal as attacking any other Nato member. However, when their military power is built up again and if we don't join, they have an opening to attack because they know they can't just use the propaganda game to deter us from joining.

This is why joining right now is the only option, because Russia is weakened and sitting around waiting for some other ideal time to join would be downright stupid. And if Finland joins but Sweden doesn't, annexing Gotland would be an extremely important strategic point for Russia, especially to place nukes on. It would flank most regions of northern Nato members. So, that's why I said we have little choice but to join now. Russia is too dangerous to wait for them to recover before trying to join any kind of security.

Maria Alyokhina, the leader of the Pussy Riot band, escaped Russia by disguising herself as a food courier to avoid Moscow police, the New York Times reports.

Alyokhina was set to spend 21 days in a penal colony, but she left the country before Moscow police detained her.

The Pussy Riot's leader threw on the food courier disguise to avoid the Moscow police who were staked outside of her friend's apartment where she had been staying, the New York Times reports.

She left her cellphone behind to trick the police and avoid any tracking.

A friend then drove Alyokhina to Russia's border with Belarus and she traveled to Lithuania within a week.

The music band Pussy Riot, which was founded back in 2011 in Russia, is known for its protest songs and concerts that promote civil liberties.

Russia is too dangerous to wait for them to recover before trying to join any kind of security. — Christoffer

I agree. It's now or never.

So what would the military repercussions be then? — Isaac

Well, starting from the things they already have said: deploying more nukes to Kaliningrad and perhaps to the Finnish Border. I guess the obvious thing would be to reinforce the air defenses in the Leningrad area and basically put more troops on the border. Assuming when they aren't fighting in Ukraine anymore.

And of course if you forget the actual events, Putin can now declare this as obvious proof that the West is out to get Russia. Yet the truth is that without the invasion of Ukraine, neither the Swedish or Finnish administrations, which both are lead by social democrats, wouldn't have made such a move and opted to use the "NATO option".

The probability of a military attack against Finland or Sweden is low. But at least the military here understands it's a possibility. Reservists are called to exercises far more frequently than before.

I guess the obvious thing would be to reinforce the air defenses in the Leningrad area and basically put more troops on the border. — ssu

It will also stretch the Russian army thin, they will put more of their GDP into military development, which in turn will strain society. The positive outcome of this might be that the population suffers and rally against the government. Much of the pressure before the Soviet Union fell came from the mothers of deceased soldiers who earlier were strong supporters of that regime, the same can happen with this conflict and if not with this conflict then with the upcoming economy stretching thin as Russia tries to squeeze as much as they can into the military. As I've been saying, a Russian revolution would be better for the world and for Russia itself. Maybe it could be the last breath of old imperial thinking in Russia moving into a much more balanced and functioning society. But that's just too much optimism. Russia will probably just be like North Korea, maybe even best buddies with them, as have been hinted by their communication with each other. I don't think China will dare to touch Russia after this. They have collaborations with North Korea, but they treat it very hush-hush so as to not complicate things with their relation to the rest of the world.

perhaps — ssu

I guess — ssu

And yet apparently thinking "military repercussions" might mean an attack is

typical nonsense — ssu

The hubris is unbelievable. You come up with a load of armchair speculation ranging from the motives of leaders, the military tactics of armies, political strategies, economic repercussions... And then have the shameless ego to assume literally any other such guesswork is "nonsense". It just beggars belief.

You've created this post hoc narrative where Russia's capabilities and intentions fit exactly the course of action you've already decided you prefer (and no other), and you don't even seem to see how ridiculous that sounds in an environment of widely disagreeing expert opinion.

It's fascinating to be part of, I have to say.

The hubris is unbelievable. You come up with a load of armchair speculation ranging from the motives of leaders, the military tactics of armies, political strategies, economic repercussions... And then have the shameless ego to assume literally any other such guesswork is "nonsense". It just beggars belief. — Isaac

:up:

@Isaac keeps misunderstanding others, all the time, that's what he does here. He's good at it. I guess it stems from 'the will to be dumb', the desire for obscurity and doubt, the fear of clarity. What he calls 'hubris' is exactly that: clarity of thought, and he's pissed when you clarify things.

keeps misunderstanding others, all the time, that's what he does here. He's good at it. I guess it stems from 'the will to be dumb', the desire for obscurity and doubt, the fear of clarity. What he calls 'hubris' is exactly that: clarity of thought, and he's pissed when you clarify things. — Olivier5

It's so much easier to misunderstand and keep your narrative than to understand and challenge yourself. It's a bias that most people do and it's what philosophy aims to bypass. But clearly, there's no philosophy in this thread, the setting is set to "common internet forum mode".

the setting is set to "common internet forum mode". — Christoffer

We can do better than that. Even @Isaac can, I suspect. This is an important topic, about war and peace, life and death, far more important than any 'philosophical zombie'. Hence this thread should be better curated than others, not abandoned by the mods as it is now.

Irrespective of any moderation, we as a group can decide that this topic deserves better than that. We can raise the bar, if we all agree.

keeps misunderstanding others, all the time, that's what he does here. He's good at it. — Olivier5

Claiming to be 'misunderstood' is a fallback of edgy artists and adolescents going through their goth phase.

If you want to avoid misunderstanding, perhaps focus more on clear articulation and less on bizarre insults, shitposting cartoons, and discussion of Hungarian bathhouses...?

...

It's so much easier to misunderstand and keep your narrative than to understand and challenge yourself. It's a bias that most people do and it's what philosophy aims to bypass. — Christoffer

his thread should be better curated than others, not abandoned by the mods as it is now. — Olivier5

This is priceless. In consecutive comments we've got @Christoffer complaining about people dogmatically keeping their narrative, and @Olivier5 complaining about thread quality...

The same people who, respectively, haven't changed a single iota of their narrative despite 200 pages of multi-partisan commentary, and who thought it would be funny to do a little skit about anal rape.

Do you two even have mirrors? Do you read what you write, or are really so self-absorbed you can't see how you're perpetrating the exact crimes you're accusing everyone else of? Is it the pace of commentary that's the problem, the emotional nature of it...?

Why so aggressive all the time? Why can't you just agree to disagree in a cool headed manner? Keep some sense of humour; try and understand others.

Why so pissed?

What is it to you if the Swedes and Finns join NATO, for instance? Would it peel some skin off your nose? What do you care for their policies and alliances?

Anyway, this is a fun read about recent German cowardice, among other things:

https://newleftreview.org/sidecar/posts/return-of-the-king

If Germany had the courage to ask for a say on the American-Ukrainian strategy, nothing like this appears to have been on offer: the German tanks, it seems, will be handed over carte blanche. Rumours have it that the numerous wargames commissioned in recent years from military thinktanks by the American government involving Ukraine, NATO and Russia have one way or other all ended in nuclear Armageddon, at least in Europe.

...De-industrializing Russia, à la von der Leyen, will not be possible anyway as China will ultimately not allow it: not least because it needs a functioning Russian state for its New Silk Road project. Popular demands in the West for Putin and his camarilla to stand trial in the International Criminal Court in The Hague will, for these reasons alone, remain unfulfilled.

...Ukrainian politics apart, an American proxy war for Ukraine may force Russia into a close relationship of dependence on Beijing, securing China a captive Eurasian ally and giving it assured access to Russian resources, at bargain prices as the West would no longer compete for them. Russia, in turn, could benefit from Chinese technology, to the extent that it would be made available. At first glance, an alliance like this might appear to be contrary to the geostrategic interests of the United States. It would, however, come with an equally close, and equally asymmetrical, American-dominated alliance between the United States and Western Europe, one that would keep Germany under control and suppress French aspirations for ‘European sovereignty’.

This being a far more astute analysis than @Christoffer's completely naive and frankly delusional idea that "China won't dare to touch Russia after this".

What can be learnt from this thread: Countries are evil. Organizations are abominable (well, military ones at least). People are fassholes. Or just stupid. — jorndoe

In other words, much cynicism has been spilled and spent here, as if hope was an offense.

China is well poised to 'buy' Russia, I agree. Ultimately, their eyes are on Siberia.

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Aj5wnc3mI00J:https://newleftreview.org/issues/i234/articles/peter-gowan-the-nato-powers-and-the-balkan-tragedy+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&

Another fun read on how the West - that is to say, NATO under US leadership - effectively ensured that the Yugoslavian massacres would be as horrendous as they were:

There is a powerful impulse within the electorates of the nato states for their governments to give a lead to the world and really help the less fortunate overwhelming majority of humanity to improve their lives and strengthen their security and welfare. But we must bear in mind two unfortunate facts: first, that the nato states have been and are hell-bent on exacerbating the inequalities of power and wealth in the world, on destroying all challenges to their overwhelming military and economic power and on subordinating almost all other considerations to these goals; and second, the nato states are finding it extraordinarily easy to manipulate their domestic electorates into believing that these states are indeed leading the world’s population towards a more just and humane future when, in reality, they are doing no such thing.

The fate of Yugoslavia in the 1990s has been a classic case of this general story. nato electorates thought their states were trying to help in Yugoslavia, even if they were not ‘doing enough’. In reality, Western policies promoted the descent into barbaric wars. There are occasions when advanced capitalist countries will help the populations of other states. But these occasions are rare, namely when the welfare of the populations of these other states is a vital weapon in a struggle against another powerful enemy. This applied to us policy towards Western Europe when it was threatened by Communist triumph in the early post-war years. The welfare of the people of Yugoslavia has been irrelevant to the nato powers in the 1990s because these powers have faced no effective enemies whatever.

...It is surely right that institutions should be built that can put a stop to such acts of political violence and can punish their perpetrators. But we face an acute dilemma when we confront this task because we know enough about the dynamics of politics to be able to identify not only the perpetrators of atrocities, but the international actors who helped and continue to help create the conditions in which such perpetrators arise. And, in the Yugoslav case, the Western powers, by their deliberate acts of commission and omission, played a central role in creating the conditions in which barbaric acts were bound to flourish.

History repeats itself.

In favor of Russia, I can only say that as long as there is no plausible prospective of re-integrating Russia in the world economy, while addressing in a less confrontational way their security concerns at the border, Russia will remain an issue, even if we could get rid of Putin. Besides the risk for a Russian revanchist comeback (maybe with the help of China or India), Europe can't fully rely on the Americans at the prospect of having Trump (or Tucker Carlson?!) as US President at the next round.

the risk for a Russian revanchist comeback — neomac

Yes. Don't redo the mistake of the Versaille treaty.

And Lavrov’s comments? — Punshhh

You said "Putin's threat". Lavrov is not Putin. And you're not saying which of "Lavrov's comments" you're referring to. One of them was:

When the risks (of using nuclear weapons - ed.) are very, very substantial, I would not like these risks to be artificially inflated, and there are many people willing to do so. The risk is grave, it is real, it can not be underestimated - Interview with Channel One Russia, April 25, 2022

Nuclear war: Lavrov says “the risk is real” - Ukrainian Pravda

Russia's Lavrov: Do not underestimate threat of nuclear war - Reuters

The "threat" here seems to be meant in the more general sense of threat to both sides from a possible nuclear war. And he says that Russia stands for ruling out the threat of nuclear conflicts despite high risks at the moment and wants to reduce all chances of "artificially" elevating those risks.

Of course, this was blown out of proportion by NATO propaganda, but many, including Boris Johnson, have actually dismissed the idea of a "threat" of nuclear escalation. James Heappey (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces) told the BBC that there was a “vanishingly small” possibility of Russia using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine.

Moreover, NATO's war on Russia had already started and kept intensifying which means that there wasn't much fear of Russian nuclear strikes.

would you contemplate the possibility to make Crimea a neutral state independent from Ukraine and Russia? — neomac

See, statements of that kind suggest either (a) that you aren't following the discussion and are just trolling for the sake of it, or (b) that you're some kind of CIA-NATO bot.

My position has always been that every country and continent should belong to its rightful owners. In fact, long before the Ukraine conflict.

So, OF COURSE, I would contemplate Crimea as an independent state if that's what Crimeans want, in the same way I think countries like Tibet, Cyprus, Kurdistan, and continents like Europe, Africa, etc., should be independent. That's why I'm against imperialism, be it American, European, Russian, Chinese, Turkish, or whatever.

I never said Crimea must belong to Russia. It's the NATO Nazis that are saying Crimea MUST belong to Ukraine!

What I'm saying is that Russia has more of a claim on Crimea than Ukraine has. So, no, I'm NOT denying independence to Crimea at all. It is YOU who is denying independence to Tibet, Cyprus, Kurdistan, etc. You even got mad at the thought of it, which exposes your inconsistency and hypocrisy in addition to your inability to read and think! :rofl:

Interestingly, there are three NATO activists here (including yourself) and all three got mad at the thought of China returning Tibet to the Tibetans, Turkey returning Cyprus to the Cypriots, etc. And without offering any explanation.

Anyway, as I said, I don’t see what you’re contributing to this discussion because all you seem to be doing is regurgitate the NATO Troll’s anti-Russian propaganda and disinformation.

I think even the blind can see that this is a war between Russia and NATO. You’re trying to reduce it to an issue between Putin and Ukraine in order to deflect attention from the West’s involvement and criminal culpability.

Unfortunately for NATO activists and trolls, the OP says to discuss NATO’s manoeuvres. And this is what I’m doing.

The fact is that NATO has been around for a very long time and that it was created for the express purpose of containing Russia.

The NATO website says very clearly:

Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay was NATO’s first Secretary General, a position he was initially reluctant to accept. By the end of his tenure however, Ismay had become the biggest advocate of the organisation he had famously said earlier on in his political career, was created to “keep the Soviet Union out, the Americans in, and the Germans down.”

Lord Ismay – NATO

Ismay was a representative of British imperial interests. He had been State Secretary for the Committee of Imperial Defence and was appointed by none other than Churchill, another arch-imperialist.

Though being an empire, Britain at the time was bankrupt and totally dependent on US financial assistance, which essentially made it a client-state of America. NATO, therefore, represented Anglo-American imperialist interests and as such its objective was to contain and, eventually, destroy all countries that were opposed to Anglo-American interests. The main opponent at the time was Communist Russia a.k.a. Soviet Union (USSR).

NATO showed its true colors after the dissolution of the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union was what Reagan called the Evil Empire, and NATO’s purpose was to “keep the Soviet Union out of Europe”, then NATO should have disbanded when the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991.

NATO not only failed to disband, but actually increased its members from 15 to 28 (!) countries, starting with Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic, which became members in 1999. Why was it necessary for NATO to almost double its membership when its stated target, the Soviet Union or “Evil Communist Empire”, no longer existed?

According to CIA-NATO disinformation and lies, NATO after the Cold War expanded because Eastern European countries like Poland were so scared of Russia that they begged NATO to allow them to join.

However, Poland may have had other reasons for joining, such as financial assistance. The real question for the purposes of this discussion is not why Poland joined but why NATO thought it was in its own interest to invite Poland to join. Not what a small country like Poland wanted, but what the already huge NATO Empire wanted.

NATO wanted to expand eastward because Russia’s western borders had moved further east, leaving a vacuum that NATO, as an imperialist and expansionist organization, was eager to fill. Moreover, the very fact that NATO moved its defense line eastward means (1) that NATO continued to regard Russia as enemy even after Russia had ceased to be Communist, and (2) that NATO had no intention to stop expanding eastward.

The fact is that contrary to CIA-NATO propaganda and lies, NATO is not some philanthropic organization whose expansion is somehow driven by the needs of countries that apply for membership. Its expansion is driven by its own agenda which is to promote the interests of its creators, America and its client-state Britain.

As in the case of Poland, CIA-NATO disinformation and lies claim that Ukraine wanted to join NATO. But this doesn’t mean that this is not what NATO itself wanted, nor does it exclude the possibility that Ukraine wanted to join because it was being encouraged or pushed to do so by NATO.

Indeed, steps to incorporate Ukraine into the NATO Empire were already taken at the NATO summit of July 1990, held in London, when NATO leaders proposed cooperation with all countries in Central and Eastern Europe.

It is important to carefully follow what happened next:

24 August 1991, Ukraine declared itself independent from the Soviet Union.

8 December 1991, Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine, which had been the original founding members of the Soviet Union, established the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to replace the Soviet Union.

20 December 1991, NATO created the North Atlantic Cooperation Council in which Ukraine and the other CIS countries were invited to participate.

So, we can see that NATO had planned to incorporate Ukraine (1) even before Ukraine became officially independent, and (2) at a time when Ukraine had willingly joined Russia and Belarus in the Commonwealth of Independent States!

Up to this point, Crimea had not been a major problem as relations between Ukraine and Russia had remained friendly. Russian President Yeltsin recognized Ukraine’s independence unconditionally, but in hindsight this seems to have been a mistake because some unresolved issues remained in relation to (1) Soviet nuclear weapons stationed in Ukraine, (2) the Black Sea Fleet, and (3) Crimea.

On December 30, 1991, Ukraine and Russia signed the Minsk Agreement in which it was agreed that Russia would be given charge of all nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil. But in February 1992 Ukraine announced its intention to pursue a NATO Membership Action Plan (MAP). This transformed all the above issues into major problems.

On May 23, 1992 Ukraine signed the Lisbon Protocol in which it agreed to return the nuclear weapons to Russia. Later that year, Ukraine changed its mind and claimed ownership of the nuclear warheads. In April 1993 it declared that it would only return some of the nuclear weapons. This unexpected move by Ukraine was criticized by both Russia and the US (which was acting as mediator), and the problem continued to fester.

An agreement was reached in the 1994 Trilateral Statement between Ukraine, Russia, and the US for Ukraine to return the weapons in exchange for security assurances and economic support from Russia and the US.

The Black Sea Fleet problem was temporarily resolved with the Partition Treaty of 1997 which divided the fleet and allowed Russia to use some of the Crimean naval bases.

But Crimea itself remained a major problem. The Soviet Union under Khrushchev had “gifted” Crimea to Ukraine in 1954. This may have made sense for inter-Soviet administrative purposes, as Crimea was geographically closer to Kiev than to Moscow. However, in May 1992, after Ukraine’s independence, the Russian parliament declared the “gifting” of Crimea to Ukraine illegitimate.

More important, and what CIA-NATO propaganda attempts to cover up, Crimea which at the time had an ethnic-Russian majority and a small Ukrainian minority, had started its own movement of independence from Ukraine. Already on July 16, 1990, Crimea had declared its state sovereignty. On January 20, 1991, i.e., prior to the dissolution of the Soviet Union (USSR) and even prior to Ukrainian independence, the Crimeans voted to become an autonomous republic as they had been before being “gifted” to Ukraine, and this was granted by the Soviet leadership.

Therefore, when Ukraine became independent, Crimea remained an autonomous republic within Ukraine. Moreover, it continued its efforts to become independent. On February 26 1992, the Crimean parliament renamed the Autonomous Republic of Crimea, Republic of Crimea, and on May 5 it proclaimed self-government and enacted a separate constitution to that of Ukraine. Ukraine dismissed Crimea’s action as illegal and although the Crimean parliament created the post of President of Crimea in 1993, in 1998 Crimea was pressured by Ukraine to rename itself Autonomous Republic of Crimea.

After its annexation by Russia in 2014, Crimea reassumed the name of Republic of Crimea as enacted by the Crimean parliament in 1992.

The basic historical timeline of Crimea is as follows:

5th century BC: Greeks begin to establish colonies on Crimea’s southern coast.
47 BC – 330 AD: Roman Empire.
330 AD – 1204 AD: Byzantine Empire. Important trade hub between the Rus and the Greeks.
950 AD – 1204 AD: Part of Crimean interior controlled by the Rus.
1239 AD – 1441 AD: Interior under Turco-Mongol Golden Horde.
1204 AD - 1475 AD: The south under (Greek) Empire of Trebizond and Principality of Theodoro.
1475 AD – 1774 AD: Ottoman Empire.
1778 AD – 1917 AD: Russian Empire.
1921 AD – 1945 AD: Autonomous Republic within Russian Soviet Republic (Russian SFSR).
1954 AD – 1990 AD: Transferred to Ukraine within the Soviet Union (USSR).
1991 AD – 2014 AD: Autonomous Republic within Ukraine. Attempts to become independent.

IMO the historical facts show (1) that Crimea had never been Ukrainian (even in demographic terms) in the first place, (2) that Crimea saw itself as a separate state from Ukraine after Ukrainian independence from the Soviet Union (and even before), and (3) that the Crimea issue was not created by the current Russian state and even less by Putin who wasn’t even in power at the time.

So, basically, you haven’t got a leg to stand on … :smile:

Italian PM Draghi Now Supports Ruble Payment Scheme for Russian Gas
By Charles Kennedy - May 11, 2022, 5:30 PM CDT

As the European Union warns companies against paying for Russian gas in rubles, Italy’s prime minister has stated the opposite, saying that European companies are free to pay in Russian currency without finding themselves in breach of sanctions that lack clarity.

“There is no official pronouncement of what it means to breach sanctions,” Draghi said during a press conference on Wednesday, as reported by Bloomberg. “Nobody has ever said anything about whether ruble payment breach sanctions.”

The Italian prime minister also claimed that “most of the gas importers” had already opened ruble accounts with Russian Gazprom.

On Tuesday, VNG, one of Germany’s largest importers of natural gas, reportedly opened a ruble account with Russian Gazprombank, which will see its euro payment converted into rubles in line with Russia’s scheme to bypass sanctions.

VNG was the second German company to have done this. In pril, German Uniper also said it was preparing the necessary accounts for the ruble payments.

The scheme, devised by Russia, envisions national gas purchasers opening two separate accounts with Gazprombank–one in euros or dollars and a second in rubles. Payments are made to the first account and then converted to rubles and transferred to the second account.

"To pay in rubles — if this is not foreseen in the contract — is a breach of our sanctions," European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said two weeks ago. "Companies with such contracts should not accede to the Russian demands."

Several EU countries will have to renew supply contracts with Gazprom by the end of this month.

What I have referred to nonsense is you saying I have said that Russia will invade Finland. I've only quoted what Russian officials have said.

"Russia will" is definitive. What I've said that a military response is unlikely. Russia is already engaged in one war. A hybrid response is far more probable. And a political response is very probable.

perhaps
— ssu

I guess
— ssu — Isaac

How Putin exactly will respond we cannot know. So saying "perhaps" isn't hubris.

You come up with a load of armchair speculation ranging from the motives of leaders, the military tactics of armies, political strategies, economic repercussions... — Isaac

?

Obviously you simply do not know anything about such issues as military tactics, and obviously think that others are as ignorant as you. As usual, we do quote or make references to sources.

That's why I'm against imperialism, be it American, European, Russian, Chinese, Turkish, or whatever. — Apollodorus

Then only a few sentences later:

What I'm saying is that Russia has more of a claim on Crimea than Ukraine has. — Apollodorus

:snicker:

Or earlier, of the Russian expansionism according to our troll:

As for Siberia, most of it was uninhabited land that the Russians gradually colonized and took over, no big deal. — Apollodorus