NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On May 21 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote: Can someone explain what's the difference between EU companies paying in EUR/USD (with the prices set in EUR/USD) and those currencies being converted to RUB on their Gazprombank accounts vs. those companies paying in EUR/USD and Russia doing the conversion elsewhere?
money is never merely money, the domination of US dollar is an economical weapon，that's why euro is EU currency not dollars.
On May 21 2022 20:32 Gahlo wrote: Nobody wants RUB because of this war. So if a group that's trading with Russia wants EUR/USD it can be difficult to get a good conversion rate. By EU companies paying in EUR or USD, Russia can avoid the hassle of trying to get somebody to accept their currency as payment, and then hand off that money in a separate transaction.
Umm, Russia wants to be paid directly in RUB, not EUR/USD, but the EU has resisted that. The prices for gas/oil imports in the contracts are set in EUR/USD. As per those contracts, the gas/oil is considered to have been paid for once the EU companies have transferred the specified amounts of EUR/USD. Russia can use whatever conversion rate it wants. Why does it matter if the conversion is done on those Gazprombank accounts then?
On May 21 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote: Can someone explain what's the difference between EU companies paying in EUR/USD (with the prices set in EUR/USD) and those currencies being converted to RUB on their Gazprombank accounts vs. those companies paying in EUR/USD and Russia doing the conversion elsewhere?
money is never merely money, the domination of US dollar is an economical weapon，that's why euro is EU currency not dollars.
When being paid in USD or euros you dont have a guarantee that you can spend them as the asset freezing has shown. Forcing one to buy rubles guarantees that it can’t happen (or that the freezing can happen the other way).
On second thought there would need to be something else involved for that to work. A commodity maybe or anything that could work as global currency.
On May 21 2022 19:19 Ghanburighan wrote: On a more positive note, from Rainer Saks: + Show Spoiler +
- RU only continues to attack Severodonetsk, UA is pulling back some km from the south-east, while inflicting familiar heavy casualties (1 BTG of troops, 2 BTG of equipment a day). Falling back is uncomfortable, but not yet cause for worry. - RU reinforced the north of Kharkiv, halting UA advancements for now. This helps UA elsewhere. - Azovstal evacuation should be completed, and a prisoner swap is planned. RU will probably delay and manipulate the process, but RU cannot afford botching the whole scheme at this point. - RU missile attacks are petering out, probably due to a lack of stocks and diminished ability to produce more. RU still has 50-40% of its stocks, but it's holding reserves should the war drag out. (This is another reason why countries feel safe from RU attacks - there's not enough equipment, or RU would need to first pull out of UA entirely). - US lend-lease is not yet definite. But if UA receives these capabilities, it's possible to start talking about taking back Crimea. But, currently, UA hasn't even utilized most of what it has received so far.
Original: 21 mai kokkuvõte - vene üksused keskendusid täielikult Severodonetski pealtungile ning ühel suunal saavutasid ka mõningast edu. - Harkivi juures ei ole suutnud Ukraina üksused rohkem edeneda. Aga vene pool on sunnitud siia tooma lisavägesid ja väga korralikke üksuseid, mis kindlasti kergendab ukrainlaste olukorda teistel suundadel - Izjumist Slovjanski suunas ei ole vene pool suutnud pealetungi käima saada. - Severodonetski juures suutsid venelased edasi tungida linnast lõuna poolt - Popasna asulast lähtuvalt. Raske on aru saada, kui kaugele edeneti, kuid Ukraina pool tundub võtma seda asja rahulikult. Siiski on olukord rinde sellel lõigul muutunud ukrainlastele ebamugavamaks. Edasine sõltub sellest, kumb pool suudab reserve paremini kasutada. Kui ukrainlased suudavad vene poole kaotuseid senisel tasemel hoida, ei ole mõne kilomeetri kaupa taganemisel traagilist tähendust. - Mujal Donbassi rinde ulatuses olukord endine - suurtükituli ja luurelahingu tüüpi rünnaku katsed Azovstalist peaks nüüd olema kõik ukrainlased lahkunud. Kindlasti ei toimu väga kiiret vangide vahetust. Ja kindlasti näeme vene poole katseid protsessiga manipuleerida. Ei hakka ennustama, kuidas ja millal see kõik lõpeb. Arvan ainult, et venemaa ei lubada endale ka seda, et ta kogu protsessi nurja ajab. - Lõunarindel rajab vene pool aktiivselt kaitserajatisi. Vene pool üritab veel raketilöökidega häirida Ukraina tagalat ja tekitada mulje, et rünnatakse Ukrainat kogu ulatuses. Siiski on neid raketilööke palju hõredamalt, kui varasemalt. Põhjus ilmsesti arsenalide tühjenemises ja tootmisvõimsuste languses. Kuigi igasugu rakette venemaal on veel üsna palju alles jäänud (5äägitakse ca 50---40% algsest kogusest), siis kokku hoidma peab eelkõige sellepärast, et venemaa pool peab arvestama sõja venima jäämisega. Siin on ka üks põhjus, miks on keeruline minna veel mõnele sõjaliselt võimekale riigile kallale - ründerelvi lihtsalt ei jätkuks. Või tuleks enne Ukrainast kõik väed välja tuua. Valgevene ja Transnistrija suunalt ei ole oht suurenenud. Dessandist Odessa piirkonda praegu rääkida ei ole põhjust. Ajakirjanduses ilmunud info USA uute relvatarnete kohta ei ole siiski veel kindlad otsused. Aga kui selline võime ukrainlastele antakse, oleks võimalik juba rääkida ka Krimmi vabastamisest. Esialgu ei ole Ukraina veel suures osas kasutusele võtnud seda aresnali, mida juba Ukrainasse saadetud on.
Thank you for the translation. I am grateful for any positive news given the precarious situation.
On May 21 2022 20:32 Gahlo wrote: Nobody wants RUB because of this war. So if a group that's trading with Russia wants EUR/USD it can be difficult to get a good conversion rate. By EU companies paying in EUR or USD, Russia can avoid the hassle of trying to get somebody to accept their currency as payment, and then hand off that money in a separate transaction.
Umm, Russia wants to be paid directly in RUB, not EUR/USD, but the EU has resisted that. The prices for gas/oil imports in the contracts are set in EUR/USD. As per those contracts, the gas/oil is considered to have been paid for once the EU companies have transferred the specified amounts of EUR/USD. Russia can use whatever conversion rate it wants. Why does it matter if the conversion is done on those Gazprombank accounts then?
On May 21 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote: Can someone explain what's the difference between EU companies paying in EUR/USD (with the prices set in EUR/USD) and those currencies being converted to RUB on their Gazprombank accounts vs. those companies paying in EUR/USD and Russia doing the conversion elsewhere?
money is never merely money, the domination of US dollar is an economical weapon，that's why euro is EU currency not dollars.
How is that relevant, though?
It doesn't make a difference. It's purely symbolic. Only if European countries were forced to pay in rubles at the official exchange rate would it matter but that's not the case.
On May 21 2022 21:59 Vivax wrote: When being paid in USD or euros you dont have a guarantee that you can spend them as the asset freezing has shown. Forcing one to buy rubles guarantees that it can’t happen (or that the freezing can happen the other way).
On second thought there would need to be something else involved for that to work. A commodity maybe or anything that could work as global currency.
How can this money be frozen and why would the currency make a difference. As far as I can understand, the frozen assets were held in various Western banks/central banks. How would the West freeze transfers sent to Gazprombank?
On May 21 2022 20:32 Gahlo wrote: Nobody wants RUB because of this war. So if a group that's trading with Russia wants EUR/USD it can be difficult to get a good conversion rate. By EU companies paying in EUR or USD, Russia can avoid the hassle of trying to get somebody to accept their currency as payment, and then hand off that money in a separate transaction.
Umm, Russia wants to be paid directly in RUB, not EUR/USD, but the EU has resisted that. The prices for gas/oil imports in the contracts are set in EUR/USD. As per those contracts, the gas/oil is considered to have been paid for once the EU companies have transferred the specified amounts of EUR/USD. Russia can use whatever conversion rate it wants. Why does it matter if the conversion is done on those Gazprombank accounts then?
On May 21 2022 21:00 fakovski wrote:
On May 21 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote: Can someone explain what's the difference between EU companies paying in EUR/USD (with the prices set in EUR/USD) and those currencies being converted to RUB on their Gazprombank accounts vs. those companies paying in EUR/USD and Russia doing the conversion elsewhere?
money is never merely money, the domination of US dollar is an economical weapon，that's why euro is EU currency not dollars.
How is that relevant, though?
It doesn't make a difference. It's purely symbolic. Only if European countries were forced to pay in rubles at the official exchange rate would it matter but that's not the case.
On May 21 2022 20:32 Gahlo wrote: Nobody wants RUB because of this war. So if a group that's trading with Russia wants EUR/USD it can be difficult to get a good conversion rate. By EU companies paying in EUR or USD, Russia can avoid the hassle of trying to get somebody to accept their currency as payment, and then hand off that money in a separate transaction.
Umm, Russia wants to be paid directly in RUB, not EUR/USD, but the EU has resisted that. The prices for gas/oil imports in the contracts are set in EUR/USD. As per those contracts, the gas/oil is considered to have been paid for once the EU companies have transferred the specified amounts of EUR/USD. Russia can use whatever conversion rate it wants. Why does it matter if the conversion is done on those Gazprombank accounts then?
On May 21 2022 21:00 fakovski wrote:
On May 21 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote: Can someone explain what's the difference between EU companies paying in EUR/USD (with the prices set in EUR/USD) and those currencies being converted to RUB on their Gazprombank accounts vs. those companies paying in EUR/USD and Russia doing the conversion elsewhere?
money is never merely money, the domination of US dollar is an economical weapon，that's why euro is EU currency not dollars.
How is that relevant, though?
It doesn't make a difference. It's purely symbolic. Only if European countries were forced to pay in rubles at the official exchange rate would it matter but that's not the case.
How are they purchasing the Rubles?
They are paying in EUR/USD. Then Gazprombank converts EUR/USD payments to RUB. The prices were agreed in EUR/USD so, as far as I can tell, it will be the Gazprombank that will take the hit in case of any exchange rate shenanigans. Russia can't claim that the EU companies have not paid in full by using their arbitrary exchange rate because the contracts are not denominated in RUB. If they tried that, they'd get sued into oblivion.
On May 21 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote: Can someone explain what's the difference between EU companies paying in EUR/USD (with the prices set in EUR/USD) and those currencies being converted to RUB on their Gazprombank accounts vs. those companies paying in EUR/USD and Russia doing the conversion elsewhere?
money is never merely money, the domination of US dollar is an economical weapon，that's why euro is EU currency not dollars.
Euro is EU currency because America isn’t in Europe. Why would they use a currency of a different country that is nowhere near them. Please try to think before you post.
Counterattacking into the territory of the country that is currently using their own territory to attack and invade your own territory is a perfectly valid strategy in a war. It is in fact the grand strategic defence doctrine of every modern military for conventional warfare since WW2 including Russia itself, or even since supply lines for was a thing.
Ukraine has been very much hampered by fears of nuclear escalation, by presumably advisors who have set conditions, who have limited their choice to strike some very juicy centres of supply in Russia which are being used for their invasion into Ukraine, likely in return for continued aid. This is very much a restriction, such that Ukraine cannot do much but hope Russia will lose manpower before they do as Ukraine cannot do anything but fight Russia to a standstill whilst finding it slow and difficult to regain territory under such conditions. Russia appears to be undergoing the strategy of advancing at a snails pace, perhaps to regain confidence in morale, but to put things in perspective, to merely advance half a kilometer a day (a 5 min walk) over a broad front over the course of a year is half of Ukraine gone.
Russia is freely and happily applying strategic bombing across the breadth of Ukraine hitting railways, major roads, airfields, centres of training and supply, air defence centres and other high value targets, almost all the way to the Polish border. By contrast Ukraine has barely struck a few miles out of their own border and frontlines at about thrice the distance of conventional artillery, barely conducting strikes and air interdiction at the operational level of war.
However there is some limited evidence that the Russian military is slowly learning lessons, learning in a gruesome fashion with their own body bags. When the Russian military has fully absorbed lessons, and the restraints emplaced by the Russian security service that deliberately curtails the Russian military are taken off to allow the Russian military more freedom to effectively operate, as can be seen by appointing an actual military officer to oversee the invasion rather than the uncoordinated attacks seen in the first month, the danger becomes that the Russian military will become that much more effective.
When that happens, major counterattacks and strikes into Russian operational areas that happen to be in Russia will be needed as when it no longer becomes politically palpable to restrain Ukrainian strategy to such an extent as to deliberately avoid counterattacking and interdicting to certain territories. I don't see anyway for Ukraine to not do so without what can best be described as providing Ukraine to complete parity in equipment rather than what is merely essentially mostly infantry equipment so far.
Britain has proposed to start sending weapons, and soldiers to train in Moldova.
(Reuters) - Britain wants to send modern weaponry to Moldova to protect it from the threat of invasion by Russia, The Telegraph reported, citing Foreign Secretary Liz Truss.
She told the newspaper that Russian President Vladimir Putin was determined to create a "greater Russia" even though his invasion of Ukraine had failed to achieve quick success.
Russia has called the invasion it launched on Feb. 24 a "special military operation" aimed at disarming Ukraine and ridding it off radical anti-Russian nationalists. Ukraine and its allies have dismissed this as a baseless pretext for war.
Moldova, which borders Ukraine to the south west, is not a member of the NATO alliance.
Truss said talks were taking place to make sure that Moldova's defences could deter any future attack.
"I would want to see Moldova equipped to NATO standard. This is a discussion we're having with our allies," she told The Telegraph.
"Putin has been absolutely clear about his ambitions to create a greater Russia. And just because his attempts to take Kyiv weren't successful doesn't mean he's abandoned those ambitions," she said.
If Truss's plans are adopted, NATO members would provide modern weaponry to Moldova, replacing its Soviet-era equipment, and will train soldiers on how to use it.
On May 21 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote: Can someone explain what's the difference between EU companies paying in EUR/USD (with the prices set in EUR/USD) and those currencies being converted to RUB on their Gazprombank accounts vs. those companies paying in EUR/USD and Russia doing the conversion elsewhere?
money is never merely money, the domination of US dollar is an economical weapon，that's why euro is EU currency not dollars.
Euro is EU currency because America isn’t in Europe. Why would they use a currency of a different country that is nowhere near them. Please try to think before you post.
I suggest you to read some books on currency wars , it would be helpful to comprehend what I really suggested.
On May 21 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote: Can someone explain what's the difference between EU companies paying in EUR/USD (with the prices set in EUR/USD) and those currencies being converted to RUB on their Gazprombank accounts vs. those companies paying in EUR/USD and Russia doing the conversion elsewhere?
money is never merely money, the domination of US dollar is an economical weapon，that's why euro is EU currency not dollars.
Euro is EU currency because America isn’t in Europe. Why would they use a currency of a different country that is nowhere near them. Please try to think before you post.
I suggest you to read some books on currency wars , it would be helpful to comprehend what I really suggested.
It would also help if you wouldn't just make suggestions and instead fully explain what you want to say. You just drop ominous hints and leave the interpretation and filling of gaps to the reader. This gives off 'I am just asking questions' vibes. For now I am just gonna assume that you either don't have a clear understanding of any of these topics, and throw out things that seem smart to you, or that you are deliberately trying to derail and bait people.
Good thread on the end of the battle for Donbas. Crucially, RU is still contained and UA isn't rushing into a counteroffensive without an advantage. While RU has more artillery for the upcoming line fight, UA has better intelligence, better artillery with Western help and the ability conduct operations behind enemy lines. Time to settle down for the long haul over the summer. As long as UA actually receives aid in the near future.
On May 21 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote: Can someone explain what's the difference between EU companies paying in EUR/USD (with the prices set in EUR/USD) and those currencies being converted to RUB on their Gazprombank accounts vs. those companies paying in EUR/USD and Russia doing the conversion elsewhere?
money is never merely money, the domination of US dollar is an economical weapon，that's why euro is EU currency not dollars.
Euro is EU currency because America isn’t in Europe. Why would they use a currency of a different country that is nowhere near them. Please try to think before you post.
I suggest you to read some books on currency wars , it would be helpful to comprehend what I really suggested.
It would also help if you wouldn't just make suggestions and instead fully explain what you want to say. You just drop ominous hints and leave the interpretation and filling of gaps to the reader. This gives off 'I am just asking questions' vibes. For now I am just gonna assume that you either don't have a clear understanding of any of these topics, and throw out things that seem smart to you, or that you are deliberately trying to derail and bait people.
On May 21 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote: Can someone explain what's the difference between EU companies paying in EUR/USD (with the prices set in EUR/USD) and those currencies being converted to RUB on their Gazprombank accounts vs. those companies paying in EUR/USD and Russia doing the conversion elsewhere?
money is never merely money, the domination of US dollar is an economical weapon，that's why euro is EU currency not dollars.
Euro is EU currency because America isn’t in Europe. Why would they use a currency of a different country that is nowhere near them. Please try to think before you post.
I suggest you to read some books on currency wars , it would be helpful to comprehend what I really suggested.
You suggested that the reason the EU doesn’t use the currency of a different unrelated country is because the US dollar is a weapon which implies that were it not a weapon it would be completely rational for them to use the dollar. But presumably not the peso or pound. Your post was nonsense. It starts with the dollar being the assumed default currency for Europe and extrapolates based on an imagined rejection of this default dollar.
Russia has one last offensive that can turn things around in Donbass where they've achieved a breakthrough and can surround a number of Ukranian troops. I don't think even if the breakthrough around popasna succeeds as wildly as it should that it makes up for the multiple BTG's that they've lost in repeated failed bridging attempts. Going forward they will need to do a lot more successful bridging operations and the American M777's in the area simply won't allow them to happen.
Not sure if it was already mentioned, but it looks like Ukraine has made a definitive decision that peace negotiations cannot include surrender of any land that was lost. A year long war is starting to look very probable.
On May 21 2022 20:02 maybenexttime wrote: Can someone explain what's the difference between EU companies paying in EUR/USD (with the prices set in EUR/USD) and those currencies being converted to RUB on their Gazprombank accounts vs. those companies paying in EUR/USD and Russia doing the conversion elsewhere?
money is never merely money, the domination of US dollar is an economical weapon，that's why euro is EU currency not dollars.
Euro is EU currency because America isn’t in Europe. Why would they use a currency of a different country that is nowhere near them. Please try to think before you post.
I suggest you to read some books on currency wars , it would be helpful to comprehend what I really suggested.
You suggested that the reason the EU doesn’t use the currency of a different unrelated country is because the US dollar is a weapon which implies that were it not a weapon it would be completely rational for them to use the dollar. But presumably not the peso or pound. Your post was nonsense. It starts with the dollar being the assumed default currency for Europe and extrapolates based on an imagined rejection of this default dollar.
If someone is interested in the subject, Bretton woods and the Nixon shock come to mind. Not like he explained how it is related to the thread, but yeah, there are reasons why the EUR exists, and it is not only geographical convenience.
EPT
