|
In order to maintain some kind of respectable thread quality and to show some respect for those who lost friends in this tragedy, we're forced to enact a hard line policy for this thread. Any posts holding an opinion on who is responsible or making an accusation that is not held by neutral media will be banned. Policy is in effect from page 27 onwards. Specifically, citing a Ukrainian or Russian source for your claims is going to get you banned. Opinions/facts/accusations arising from neutral media sources (i.e. media whose country of origin is not Ukraine, Russia or one of its puppet states) will be permitted. This policy extends to all forms of media; if a youtube video or picture has not come through a neutral media source then don't post it or you'll be banned. If you wish to discuss this policy please use this website feedback thread. Updated policy on aggressive posting and insults. |
On August 10 2014 17:28 PaleMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2014 01:42 Cheerio wrote:On August 08 2014 23:17 oldgregg wrote:On August 08 2014 21:40 Cheerio wrote:On August 07 2014 15:40 MikeMM wrote:On August 07 2014 07:28 Simberto wrote:
When a dictator attacks his neighboring countries, "undermining his position" is usually not a bad idea. Because if you support him in doing so, he has no reason to stop, and will continue until he reaches a point where someone opposes him. History has shown time and time again that the people who manages to subdue a whole country are never content with what they control, they always want more and more, until they clash with someone who is strong enough to oppose them. Do you understand that this dictator can also mean USA and EU? In the past years USA and EU send their troops in many countries and subdued them. And since public opinion supported that USA and EU got much more bolder and last year decided to expand their influence and bring Ukraine in EU. To do that USA and EU helped to organize revolution and overthrow Yanukovich. EU continues to expand. And now there is even no need to send troops to gain control of the country. It can be achieved with economic and political pressure. Russia didnt want this conflict at all because there is absolutely nothing to gain from it. On the other hand USA and EU now have Poroshenko as their puppet president and can easyly have millitary bases in Ukraine. One year ago the situation in Ukraine was stable but it was USA and EU who destabilized it by pushing Ukraine very hard to sign an agrement with EU. At the end Yanukovich didnt sign it and that pissed off politics so much that they did everithing in their power to help opposition organize revolution. Is this how they describe the conflict on the russian TV? Probably not. It sounds pretty accurate though. Placing these events in the recent historical context is important in a complex situation such as this No, it's not. Euromaidan happened because the country was fed up with a criminal running the state. A few million people took an active part in Euromaidan movements in different cities and towns while more than half of the country supported them. Some of those were willing to die to make a change. This is what drove Yanukovich out, not the EU and USA wanting it. And since Yanukovich pledged himself to Russia before he fled, while the winning force was pro-EU, Putin was very angry at Ukraine and decided to punish it. This is your actual historical context. No, ukrainian media controlled by oligarchs (who in turn controlled by EU and US cause they keep their funds and assets in the western structure) just told you that you should go to Maidan and jump there crying "Those who don't jump are russians". And since most of the people are easily controlled by the media they went to Maidan and did what they did. In the result - you have corrupted thief and criminal Poroshenko (i think he is on par with Yanukovich or even worse) and civil war. GJ, exactly what US wanted from you.
Is that what russian media says you? Looks like people belive it.
|
Russian Federation1953 Posts
On August 10 2014 18:22 TheBloodyDwarf wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2014 17:28 PaleMan wrote:On August 09 2014 01:42 Cheerio wrote:On August 08 2014 23:17 oldgregg wrote:On August 08 2014 21:40 Cheerio wrote:On August 07 2014 15:40 MikeMM wrote:On August 07 2014 07:28 Simberto wrote:
When a dictator attacks his neighboring countries, "undermining his position" is usually not a bad idea. Because if you support him in doing so, he has no reason to stop, and will continue until he reaches a point where someone opposes him. History has shown time and time again that the people who manages to subdue a whole country are never content with what they control, they always want more and more, until they clash with someone who is strong enough to oppose them. Do you understand that this dictator can also mean USA and EU? In the past years USA and EU send their troops in many countries and subdued them. And since public opinion supported that USA and EU got much more bolder and last year decided to expand their influence and bring Ukraine in EU. To do that USA and EU helped to organize revolution and overthrow Yanukovich. EU continues to expand. And now there is even no need to send troops to gain control of the country. It can be achieved with economic and political pressure. Russia didnt want this conflict at all because there is absolutely nothing to gain from it. On the other hand USA and EU now have Poroshenko as their puppet president and can easyly have millitary bases in Ukraine. One year ago the situation in Ukraine was stable but it was USA and EU who destabilized it by pushing Ukraine very hard to sign an agrement with EU. At the end Yanukovich didnt sign it and that pissed off politics so much that they did everithing in their power to help opposition organize revolution. Is this how they describe the conflict on the russian TV? Probably not. It sounds pretty accurate though. Placing these events in the recent historical context is important in a complex situation such as this No, it's not. Euromaidan happened because the country was fed up with a criminal running the state. A few million people took an active part in Euromaidan movements in different cities and towns while more than half of the country supported them. Some of those were willing to die to make a change. This is what drove Yanukovich out, not the EU and USA wanting it. And since Yanukovich pledged himself to Russia before he fled, while the winning force was pro-EU, Putin was very angry at Ukraine and decided to punish it. This is your actual historical context. No, ukrainian media controlled by oligarchs (who in turn controlled by EU and US cause they keep their funds and assets in the western structure) just told you that you should go to Maidan and jump there crying "Those who don't jump are russians". And since most of the people are easily controlled by the media they went to Maidan and did what they did. In the result - you have corrupted thief and criminal Poroshenko (i think he is on par with Yanukovich or even worse) and civil war. GJ, exactly what US wanted from you. Is that what russian media says you? Looks like people belive it.
nope, since russian media are under oligarchs too they definitely don't say this
they say smsthing about nazis, russian language being supressed etc. etc.
|
On August 10 2014 17:28 PaleMan wrote:Show nested quote +On August 09 2014 01:42 Cheerio wrote:On August 08 2014 23:17 oldgregg wrote:On August 08 2014 21:40 Cheerio wrote:On August 07 2014 15:40 MikeMM wrote:On August 07 2014 07:28 Simberto wrote:
When a dictator attacks his neighboring countries, "undermining his position" is usually not a bad idea. Because if you support him in doing so, he has no reason to stop, and will continue until he reaches a point where someone opposes him. History has shown time and time again that the people who manages to subdue a whole country are never content with what they control, they always want more and more, until they clash with someone who is strong enough to oppose them. Do you understand that this dictator can also mean USA and EU? In the past years USA and EU send their troops in many countries and subdued them. And since public opinion supported that USA and EU got much more bolder and last year decided to expand their influence and bring Ukraine in EU. To do that USA and EU helped to organize revolution and overthrow Yanukovich. EU continues to expand. And now there is even no need to send troops to gain control of the country. It can be achieved with economic and political pressure. Russia didnt want this conflict at all because there is absolutely nothing to gain from it. On the other hand USA and EU now have Poroshenko as their puppet president and can easyly have millitary bases in Ukraine. One year ago the situation in Ukraine was stable but it was USA and EU who destabilized it by pushing Ukraine very hard to sign an agrement with EU. At the end Yanukovich didnt sign it and that pissed off politics so much that they did everithing in their power to help opposition organize revolution. Is this how they describe the conflict on the russian TV? Probably not. It sounds pretty accurate though. Placing these events in the recent historical context is important in a complex situation such as this No, it's not. Euromaidan happened because the country was fed up with a criminal running the state. A few million people took an active part in Euromaidan movements in different cities and towns while more than half of the country supported them. Some of those were willing to die to make a change. This is what drove Yanukovich out, not the EU and USA wanting it. And since Yanukovich pledged himself to Russia before he fled, while the winning force was pro-EU, Putin was very angry at Ukraine and decided to punish it. This is your actual historical context. No, ukrainian media controlled by oligarchs (who in turn controlled by EU and US cause they keep their funds and assets in the western structure) just told you that you should go to Maidan and jump there crying "Those who don't jump are russians". And since most of the people are easily controlled by the media they went to Maidan and did what they did. In the result - you have corrupted thief and criminal Poroshenko (i think he is on par with Yanukovich or even worse) and civil war. GJ, exactly what US wanted from you.
I find it disturbing that after everything we know about Yanukovich there are still people who think it took a major outside influence to drive him out. Tells you lots of the standards they hold for their government.
|
it has nothing to do with the government. the vast majority of people are just to passive and to self-serving to start something by themselves. they'll choose immigration over revolution any day (excluding extremists/hard nationalists here).
the beginnings of something is always premeditated. the momentum it gains later, could be attributed to the people, but without that organized initial spark, it would have never happened.
|
On August 10 2014 20:54 xM(Z wrote:
it has nothing to do with the government. the vast majority of people are just to passive and to self-serving to start something by themselves. they'll choose immigration over revolution any day (excluding extremists/hard nationalists here).
the beginnings of something is always premeditated. the momentum it gains later, could be attributed to the people, but without that organized initial spark, it would have never happened.
But there are sparks happening every day in western countries. Demonstrations are very common. The gaining momentum is much more rare.
Therefore, the momentum is the important part. The growth of a demonstration into more permanent protests, into a chain of demonstrations and so on is what defines public unsatisfaction with something (even though how many actually agrees is much more difficult to pinpoint). The something is usually difficult to specifically assess since people will demonstrate for different reasons, but when it has chained past the mass demonstration point, it is usually clear in what area the dead rats are buried.
|
the momentum could easily be faked/driven by media outlets.
if you have demonstrations but no momentum is because the spark starters didn't have power over media channels; that shows even more that the ones who start a movement/revolution need to have some weight to begin with to be able to drive/fuel/lead such a momentum.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On August 10 2014 16:14 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2014 09:04 LegalLord wrote:On August 10 2014 07:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 06:38 LegalLord wrote:
The thing about a food ban is that it hits a few countries, those with minimal heavy industry, very hard. That includes Poland, West Ukraine (most industry is in the east), and Latvia + Lithuania. Russia can't hit Europe without cutting gas, which would hurt Russia just as much. Seems to be a pretty well-considered move, politically. But they're hurting the "wrong" countries. If they're trying to make retaliatory measures, then neutral nations should be the least affected. That's the problem with the choice for foodstuffs. Hurting the intended countries the least is counter-productive. I've been thinking this since the late 2000s, but how I see it, Russia's economic plan during the 2000s was to become a functional country again, in the 2010s to assert some financial and economic muscle (which we've seen them do with some other European countries), and in the late 2010s/2020s, produce huge economic growth and developing the economy in a way such that they can hurt belligerents with them only minimally hurting Russia. The first two phases we've already seen transpire. The third phase, assuming it happens, is going to be a scary time for Russian enemies, but they seem headed down that route, especially as they're starting to open up larger-scale trade in Asia and basically anywhere else that's friendly/neutral with Russia. But, right now is too soon for them to try to muscle against the combination of USA and US "allies" in Europe. Very stupid move on the Kremlin's part, I would say. But the Ukrainian government is even stupider. Their recent threat to cut off oil/gas supplies from Russia to the rest of Europe will piss off not just Russia, but everyone else in the continent. It would be a good "justification" for Russian intervention in Ukraine along with the "humanitarian" mission. It's almost like Poroshenko is trying to shoot himself in the foot. Well, the way I see it is this: In the short run, there is no way the United States can be hurt by Russia's actions. The biggest thing that will hurt them is if the outcome of this crisis is the creation of Novorossiya. How would that hurt the US? Russia has another region sucking oil money out of the central treasury. Crimea expects 3 billion in annual transfers. If you take the terrorist enclave at its maximum control thats 4 million people, so another couple billion. If you are talking about Putin's fantasy of restoring all of South and East then thats 20 million. Even more Russian rubles down the drain. For the Americans there is no way to be hurt except maybe emotionally and even then, not really, they arent particularly vested in EU's project to ensure they dont border instability Show nested quote +
Sooner or later, the soldiers (and/or mercenaries?) will lose motivation to fight - a few hundred of them fled into Russia just a few days ago. Their threat to block the pipeline was probably made as a last resort because they really can't keep this up for too long.
Those soldiers retreated into Russia because Russian artillery was too much, then they all were sent back to Ukraine and went back to the front. Looking at the wave the Ukrainian Army has advanced in the last 2 months -- while getting paid almost nothing -- seems to suggest moral is pretty high.
Well, the anti-fascists in East Ukraine actually want to make their own country, not become part of Russia. If that requires a loan, at least it's more noble and reliable a cause than paying Yanukovich $15 billion that won't ever be repaid. Not bank-breaking, and certainly not the kind of outcome the US would want. And of course, without the East industry, Ukraine is just farmland.
Fleeing into Russia because of Russian artillery fire? That sounds like a fantasy to me. And if an army couldn't keep its soldiers from deserting in just two months during summertime, then it is beyond incompetent. A few more months of heavy casualties against a clearly weaker force that never had a chance of military victory to begin with, and we'll see what happens.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/08/10/us-ukraine-crisis-idUSKBN0GA0C620140810
(Reuters) - A Ukrainian military spokesman on Sunday dismissed a call for a ceasefire by a separatist leader, saying this could only take place once rebels had shown "white flags" and surrendered.
Meanwhile the separatists stepped back from their earlier talk of a possible ceasefire and said the Ukrainian army had first to end military action.
Government forces on Sunday tightened the circle around the rebels' main redoubt, the big industrial city of Donetsk. Residents there reported heavy shelling from early in the morning.
A senior leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People's Republic had said on Saturday that the rebels were ready for a truce with government forces to allow humanitarian aid to be brought in.
Replying to a journalist's question on Sunday, military spokesman Andriy Lysenko said: "If there is this initiative, it should be carried out by practical means and not by words - by raising white flags and by putting down guns."
"We have not seen these practical steps yet," he said.
In a statement released later the rebels said they remained ready for a temporary truce to head off "a humanitarian catastrophe".
But they added defiantly: "As long as the Ukrainian army is continuing military action there can be no ceasefire."
Well there goes the last real chance of maintaining Ukraine's territorial integrity. I hope they realize that defeating the anti-fascists won't just magically make everything better.
|
On August 10 2014 23:29 xM(Z wrote:
the momentum could easily be faked/driven by media outlets.
if you have demonstrations but no momentum is because the spark starters didn't have power over media channels; that shows even more that the ones who start a movement/revolution need to have some weight to begin with to be able to drive/fuel/lead such a momentum.
examples?
On August 10 2014 23:43 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2014 16:14 Sub40APM wrote:On August 10 2014 09:04 LegalLord wrote:On August 10 2014 07:18 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On August 10 2014 06:38 LegalLord wrote:
The thing about a food ban is that it hits a few countries, those with minimal heavy industry, very hard. That includes Poland, West Ukraine (most industry is in the east), and Latvia + Lithuania. Russia can't hit Europe without cutting gas, which would hurt Russia just as much. Seems to be a pretty well-considered move, politically. But they're hurting the "wrong" countries. If they're trying to make retaliatory measures, then neutral nations should be the least affected. That's the problem with the choice for foodstuffs. Hurting the intended countries the least is counter-productive. I've been thinking this since the late 2000s, but how I see it, Russia's economic plan during the 2000s was to become a functional country again, in the 2010s to assert some financial and economic muscle (which we've seen them do with some other European countries), and in the late 2010s/2020s, produce huge economic growth and developing the economy in a way such that they can hurt belligerents with them only minimally hurting Russia. The first two phases we've already seen transpire. The third phase, assuming it happens, is going to be a scary time for Russian enemies, but they seem headed down that route, especially as they're starting to open up larger-scale trade in Asia and basically anywhere else that's friendly/neutral with Russia. But, right now is too soon for them to try to muscle against the combination of USA and US "allies" in Europe. Very stupid move on the Kremlin's part, I would say. But the Ukrainian government is even stupider. Their recent threat to cut off oil/gas supplies from Russia to the rest of Europe will piss off not just Russia, but everyone else in the continent. It would be a good "justification" for Russian intervention in Ukraine along with the "humanitarian" mission. It's almost like Poroshenko is trying to shoot himself in the foot. Well, the way I see it is this: In the short run, there is no way the United States can be hurt by Russia's actions. The biggest thing that will hurt them is if the outcome of this crisis is the creation of Novorossiya. How would that hurt the US? Russia has another region sucking oil money out of the central treasury. Crimea expects 3 billion in annual transfers. If you take the terrorist enclave at its maximum control thats 4 million people, so another couple billion. If you are talking about Putin's fantasy of restoring all of South and East then thats 20 million. Even more Russian rubles down the drain. For the Americans there is no way to be hurt except maybe emotionally and even then, not really, they arent particularly vested in EU's project to ensure they dont border instability
Sooner or later, the soldiers (and/or mercenaries?) will lose motivation to fight - a few hundred of them fled into Russia just a few days ago. Their threat to block the pipeline was probably made as a last resort because they really can't keep this up for too long.
Those soldiers retreated into Russia because Russian artillery was too much, then they all were sent back to Ukraine and went back to the front. Looking at the wave the Ukrainian Army has advanced in the last 2 months -- while getting paid almost nothing -- seems to suggest moral is pretty high. Well there goes the last real chance of maintaining Ukraine's territorial integrity. I hope they realize that defeating the anti-fascists won't just magically make everything better.
It did in the territories taken away from the separatists.
|
As soon as the separatists are out of the picture and a decent control over the area is obtained by Ukraine it will give room for Ukraine to improve other areas. War is expensive. Being able to lower those costs for a country on the brink of bankrupcy is significant. When that is said, getting some stability back is only going to be the first of several major obstacles. The decentralisation, some of the more nasty reforms and a slow mending of the relations with Russia has to happen at some point. It is not going to be a cakewalk on easystreet from here. But disarming the militants in Eastern Ukraine has to happen as a step towards reaching the other goals.
|
On August 10 2014 23:43 LegalLord wrote:
Well, the anti-fascists in East Ukraine actually want to make their own country, not become part of Russia.
Huh? Where did you imagine this from, the Russian supported terrorists are clear that (a) they expect to join Russia as soon as they achieve independence (b) they expect massive Russian support. Thats not just implied, they literally have said that over and over. But lets say your fantasy scenario is true, how does this hurt America again? How will they repay that Russian money? Eastern Oligarchs use their control of kyiv to get free energy, is Russia going to continue that subsidy?
Fleeing into Russia because of Russian artillery fire? That sounds like a fantasy to me. And if an army couldn't keep its soldiers from deserting in just two months during summertime, then it is beyond incompetent.
1. Its what they reported, that they were attacked by Russian artillery and retreated into Russia
2. They have not deserted, they have already been repatriated and are back at the front
|
On August 11 2014 01:13 Cheerio wrote:Show nested quote +On August 10 2014 23:29 xM(Z wrote:
the momentum could easily be faked/driven by media outlets.
if you have demonstrations but no momentum is because the spark starters didn't have power over media channels; that shows even more that the ones who start a movement/revolution need to have some weight to begin with to be able to drive/fuel/lead such a momentum.
examples?
in the now defunct Maidan thread, there were pages upon pages of arguments and debates about the amount of people actually present there vs the ones reported by various media outlets.
hundreds vs thousands vs hundred of thousands.
|
Sanctions, what sanctions?
ExxonMobil starts drilling in Russia
Officially, Rosneft and its CEO Igor Setchin are on the 'black list' of these so called targeted sanctions, but why would the US follow their own rules...
|
On August 11 2014 03:38 xM(Z wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2014 01:13 Cheerio wrote:On August 10 2014 23:29 xM(Z wrote:
the momentum could easily be faked/driven by media outlets.
if you have demonstrations but no momentum is because the spark starters didn't have power over media channels; that shows even more that the ones who start a movement/revolution need to have some weight to begin with to be able to drive/fuel/lead such a momentum.
examples? in the now defunct Maidan thread, there were pages upon pages of arguments and debates about the amount of people actually present there vs the ones reported by various media outlets. hundreds vs thousands vs hundred of thousands.
So what are you saying? How many people actually participated in Euromaidan movements all over Ukraine?
|
On August 11 2014 04:14 lord_nibbler wrote:Sanctions, what sanctions? ExxonMobil starts drilling in RussiaOfficially, Rosneft and its CEO Igor Setchin are on the 'black list' of these so called targeted sanctions, but why would the US follow their own rules...
According to the article the deal doesn't violate the sanctions that were imposed.
|
It’s why this week’s energy sanctions largely sidestep Russia’s current oil and gas output, opting instead to limit energy technology critical to its future.
It's only new oil field exploitation technical know-how. The sanctions on Russia feels really really weak. It's almost like offering symbolic support while trying to maintain business as usual.
|
On August 11 2014 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2014 04:14 lord_nibbler wrote:Sanctions, what sanctions? ExxonMobil starts drilling in RussiaOfficially, Rosneft and its CEO Igor Setchin are on the 'black list' of these so called targeted sanctions, but why would the US follow their own rules... According to the article the deal doesn't violate the sanctions that were imposed.
Because it's an US source. 
Wouldn't want the reader to overburden with conflicting thoughts.
|
On August 11 2014 06:57 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2014 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 11 2014 04:14 lord_nibbler wrote:Sanctions, what sanctions? ExxonMobil starts drilling in RussiaOfficially, Rosneft and its CEO Igor Setchin are on the 'black list' of these so called targeted sanctions, but why would the US follow their own rules... According to the article the deal doesn't violate the sanctions that were imposed. Because it's an US source. Wouldn't want the reader to overburden with conflicting thoughts.
Do you have a source that supports your assertion the Exxon-ROSNEFt drill in the arctic violates the sanctions?
|
On August 11 2014 06:57 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2014 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 11 2014 04:14 lord_nibbler wrote:Sanctions, what sanctions? ExxonMobil starts drilling in RussiaOfficially, Rosneft and its CEO Igor Setchin are on the 'black list' of these so called targeted sanctions, but why would the US follow their own rules... According to the article the deal doesn't violate the sanctions that were imposed. Because it's an US source. Wouldn't want the reader to overburden with conflicting thoughts.
It's also the source that you chose to post 
|
On August 11 2014 07:03 Sub40APM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2014 06:57 lord_nibbler wrote:On August 11 2014 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 11 2014 04:14 lord_nibbler wrote:Sanctions, what sanctions? ExxonMobil starts drilling in RussiaOfficially, Rosneft and its CEO Igor Setchin are on the 'black list' of these so called targeted sanctions, but why would the US follow their own rules... According to the article the deal doesn't violate the sanctions that were imposed. Because it's an US source. Wouldn't want the reader to overburden with conflicting thoughts. Do you have a source that supports your assertion the Exxon-ROSNEFt drill in the arctic violates the sanctions?
Wikipedia and the related sources [1] [2]
But hey, that is a full list of about 40 people and 20 firms, easy to miss Russia's largest oil company on it...
PS: I remember some US posters in this very thread getting all uppity about France's planed delivery of battle ships to Russia last week. 'Closing the ranks' and 'standing firm against Putin' and all that.
|
On August 11 2014 07:22 lord_nibbler wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2014 07:03 Sub40APM wrote:On August 11 2014 06:57 lord_nibbler wrote:On August 11 2014 06:03 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On August 11 2014 04:14 lord_nibbler wrote:Sanctions, what sanctions? ExxonMobil starts drilling in RussiaOfficially, Rosneft and its CEO Igor Setchin are on the 'black list' of these so called targeted sanctions, but why would the US follow their own rules... According to the article the deal doesn't violate the sanctions that were imposed. Because it's an US source. Wouldn't want the reader to overburden with conflicting thoughts. Do you have a source that supports your assertion the Exxon-ROSNEFt drill in the arctic violates the sanctions? Wikipedia and the related sources [1] [2]But hey, that is a full list of about 40 people and 20 firms, easy to miss Russia's largest oil company on it... PS: I remember some US posters in this very thread getting all uppity about France's planed delivery of battle ships to Russia last week. 'Closing the ranks' and 'standing firm against Putin' and all that.
Well, the link that you provided just repeats what you said earlier, that Exon-Rosneft are working together and that Rosneft is on sanctions list. You havent provided a link that explains how Exon working together with Rosneft violates the sanctions..
seems like you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US sanctions are designed. The US banned certain Russian entities from the Western dollar denominated capital markets. No one is stopping Rosneft from selling oil on the markets or hiring Western contract providers. Since Sechin isnt the majority owner of Rosneft, the ban on doing business with him as a person does not extend to Rosneft as a corporation.
The reason why its not a total ban is also obvious, because there are further pressure points to go, which would be a total ban on all cooperation. At which point Exon would be in violation of the sanctions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
