Hacker News Reader

Comment by excitom | Hacker News Reader

> It has a particularly strong use case in Finland which sees long and very cold winters, and was recently cut off from Russian gas supplies over a payments dispute.

Well I guess that's one way to characterize war-related sanctions and their side effects.

View on HN

It's factual. The gas supplies in question were not covered by sanctions, but Russia tried to unilaterally switch to being paid in roubles and were told to go batter sand (bada bum tssh).

> gas supplies in question were not covered by sanctions, but Russia tried to unilaterally switch to being paid in roubles

I don’t think this is a very honest characterization:

Russia demanded payment on their terms only after they were kicked out of SWIFT and their reserves frozen by foreign banks.

I don’t think I’d describe that change in payment terms in response to bank sanctions as “unilateral” or unrelated to sanctions.

Gazprombank is still in SWIFT

Given reports that the Russian military may be paying soldiers through Gazprom, that probably won't last much longer.

https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-gazprombank-sanctions-funds-...

> Russia demanded payment on their terms only after they were kicked out of SWIFT and their reserves frozen by foreign banks.

If only there was something Russia could do to stay in SWIFT and not be hit by sanctions....

Why stay in SWIFT when it's been demonstrated that they can be cut off from global supply on the whims of the US administration? That one decision did more for the death of the American empire than any other.

I don't think "whims" means what you think it does.

What do you think it means?

What do you think China and India think it means?

Just restate the obvious: Russia has invaded Ukraine.

It was a joint decision, taken by the US administration, the EU council, the UK and Canada in response to the Russian invasion of Ukraine -- not just something the Americans came up with.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine was the unilateral issue here, everything else was a response to that. But either way I'd characterise this as a 'payment dispute' because the issue was how Russia wanted to be paid, not that Finland was barred from paying them at all.

There is nothing unilateral in two imperialist powers fighting. Just like there was nothing unilateral in WW1 or WW2.

Sure, the start of World War 2 was very multilateral: Poland wanted not to get invaded, Nazi Germany and the USSR both disagreed.

The parallels with the current situation are left up to the reader.

What about https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

Do you really think that WW2 happened over whether Poland would be invaded? I think you are confusing cause and effect.

Same as thinking that WWI happened due to the assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand.

"only after they were kicked out of SWIFT and their reserves frozen by foreign banks."

This is a response to an invasion of another country. Maybe I'm reading your tone wrong but "only after" seems to imply this was unjustified or at the least had no reason behind it.

I think their point was less to assign blame, but whether or not it was war related.

The parent's use of "only after" doesn't sit right

It implies a forced (no choice) reaction to an unjust or unexpected cause. A more neutral tone would have just said "after"

"I ran from the police after they pulled me over for speeding"

"I ran from the police only after they pulled me over for speeding"

I think your example negates your point.

I don't read that as the speaker being forced to run, or that being pulled over was unjust.

It describes the order of operations. The fact that someone ran only after being pulled over could be very relevant.

That's fair. Maybe it's because I only qualify "after" with "only" if I'm making some point.

I agree that there is a second part, conditionally. It Implies that you would not have run if you had not been pulled over- which is true!

The same holds true for Russia. They would not have demanded payment in rubles if they had access to Swift.

The problem is that people confuse conditionality and moral justification.

I would not have run if they never pulled me over is no more of an excuse then I would never have shot him if he didn't look at me weird.

Something can be conditional and true but still a bad reason.

I remember in a different way.

Gas related banks were not included in first SWIFT sanctions, other banks were.

They were only after Russia pretended to be paid in rubles. Of course that demand was driven by sanctions.

If fact that gas related banks were left out of first sanctions was quite controversial, many saw that as a weak european move as europe is still unable to live without russian gas.

It’s possible to be factual and dishonest at the same time.

> war-related sanctions and their side effects.

Tick

In a similar vein, I find it quite curious/strange/amazing is that Russian gas has continued to flow through Ukraine during this war. Russia wants the cash and Ukraine does not want to shut off Europe from the gas until Europe does not want the gas to flow. I believe that Russia is still paying Ukraine gas transport fees. Realpolitik in action.

That is nature of things. The spice must flow.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com