> A small correction - Russia cut off EU from gas, not the other way round
Do people in Europe actually believe that to be the case? Is this yet another "Russia blew up its own billion dollar industry" thing again?
> it will probably lead to Russia cutting off the gas supply
So, the supply disruptions have absolutely nothing to do with Europe freezing payments and accounts, as well as disrupting all the ecosystem around the industry with sanctions?
You can't really live in a reality where you both claim yourself to be a victim of a countries supply disruptions and lead an economic war against it, right? How is that not doublethink?
> The ballsy part was that EU was leading a foreign policy (support for Ukraine)
We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements. "Ballsy" is an ironic way to describe this situation, especially when any talk of negotiations or even a ceasefire gets shunted at.
> Do people in Europe actually believe that to be the case?
Of course.
> So, the supply disruptions have absolutely nothing to do with Europe freezing payments and accounts,
The gas was being paid for. There's basically no time or casual connection to frozen accounts. Bulgaria was e.g. one of the first cut-off countries despite not freezing any accounts.
> You can't really live in a reality where you both claim yourself to be a victim of a countries supply disruptions and lead an economic war against it, right?
I'm not playing the victim card. Europe did what it did, knowing the probable consequences. All I'm saying is that it was Russia who stopped pumping the gas, not Europe.
> We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements.
Nice try at throwing the blame everywhere, maybe people will forget that that Russia is invading Ukraine for the 3rd time in the last 10 years. But sure, it's Germany who is the bloodthirsty country.
I don't believe Merkel anyway. Her foreign minister Steinmeier (current German president) has been actively pushing for Minsk-2 implementation. I believe she just tries to whitewash herself.
> The gas was being paid for. There's basically no time or casual connection to frozen accounts.
EU sanctioned Russia's foreign assets and froze accounts, preventing Russia from using it's funds. Gazprom was specifically sanctioned as a government-related entity. I am not making this up, I am googling as I type: "was gazprom sactioned by EU?", "was russia accounts frozen by EU?", etc. All of this is public information.
Unless you claim that this had happened in some other plane of the multiverse, this IS your time and casual connection. Moreover, this is literally not paying - these funds remain in the EU economy, kept reinvested by bankers who manage them while boosting EU liquidity.
> Bulgaria was e.g. one of the first cut-off countries despite not freezing any accounts.
Is Bulgaria not a EU state that paid in EUR to Gazprombank’s Luxembourg-based accounts?
The whole "payment with roubles" shenanigans were meant as a bypass for these sanctions (again, not making this up, it was specifically the EU officials who assessed this procedure as "breach of sanctions" https://www.ft.com/content/aa0d294b-0982-4f94-a327-a93300444... )
> I'm not playing the victim card. Europe did what it did, knowing the probable consequences
That's exactly what you are doing. Either EU decided to engage in an economic war with Russia, willing and aware of possible consequence, or "evil Russia unexpectedly stopped dealing with us" - pick one, both is doublethink.
> All I'm saying is that it was Russia who stopped pumping the gas, not Europe.
That is quite an ironic statement, given all the background of the Nord Stream 2 story.
> maybe people will forget that that Russia is invading Ukraine for the 3rd time in the last 10 years
When you start to remembering things that didn't actually happen - it's a bad sign, man. Sorry, I just had too many conversations like that, discussing the collapse of the Ukrainian government and all the following events and each time it boils down to dehumanising huge chunks of Ukrainian population that was not happy about the fact that their elected government (try overlaying Ukraine's 2010 election map on the map of the present conflict) was brought down.
> I believe she just tries to whitewash herself.
I doubt that anyone around the world, besides a small European corner, sees it as whitewashing and not as legitimising Russia's actions. You can't act like a guarantor of peace and then confess that you were totally lying without hurting your credibility.
Just think how this looks from an outsider's perspective: Russia claims that Ukraine wants to genocide people of Donetsk and isn't going to resolve this peacefully with Minks agreements as it promised to, and then European leaders go "yeah, we were totally preparing Ukraine for war all while dragging time under the guise of a peace agreement".
> Gazprom was specifically sanctioned as a government-related entity.
Gazprom was sanctioned in February 2022, Bulgaria was cut off from Russian gas in September 2022, with most other countries still buying Russian gas for months. Why specifically Bulgaria (whose role in freezing the assets was minimal) and why 6 months later? There's simply no connection to the frozen assets.
> Either EU decided to engage in an economic war with Russia, willing and aware of possible consequence
That's what I've been saying since my first comment from this thread - EU engages in economic war, but cutting out the gas was not an EU action, it's the Russian retaliation.
> When you start to remembering things that didn't actually happen - it's a bad sign, man.
Wait, you're claiming that Russia did not invade Ukraine?
> You can't act like a guarantor of peace and then confess that you were totally lying without hurting your credibility.
More like an appeaser of the imperialistic invader / aggressor.
> Russia claims that Ukraine wants to genocide people of Donetsk
Oh right, 2013 Donetsk was the scene of a genocide while 2022 Mariupol is the face of liberation. Honestly can't fathom this doublethink.
> Bulgaria was cut off from Russian gas in September 2022, with most other countries still buying Russian gas for months. Why specifically Bulgaria (whose role in freezing the assets was minimal) and why 6 months later?
Google tells me that it was April, not September. I assume September was when the long-term contract had expired. Google also tells me that the payment scheme was finalised by Russia also in April.
I also see that it wasn't "specifically Bulgaria", but also Poland, and by that time a few of other European countries had already switched to a new scheme. So no, there is nothing specific about Bulgaria.
> That's what I've been saying since my first comment from this thread - EU engages in economic war, but cutting out the gas was not an EU action, it's the Russian retaliation.
So let me get this straight: when you block your credit card and e.g. Spotify stops providing a service to you - is it a normal and expected business practice, or is it a sinister retaliation?
EU leaders just plainly shot Europe in a foot and now try to shift responsibility on evil Russia, as it totally should have continued to pump gas for free.
> Wait, you're claiming that Russia did not invade Ukraine?
Well not 3 times. If you count it like that, that means you dismiss and ignore the revolution, the civil war and all the people who were not happy about the fact that some mob had stolen their country.
> More like an appeaser of the imperialistic invader / aggressor.
"imperialism" in this case is merely a narrative to dismiss the actual substantial causes for the war. Imperialists don't plead for peace agreements in a wake of war.
> Oh right, 2013 Donetsk was the scene of a genocide while 2022 Mariupol is the face of liberation. Honestly can't fathom this doublethink.
That's because you are making wrong assumptions here. First of all, it's not some childish tale of oppression and liberation and thankfully back in 2013 Ukraine was not successful, so Donetsk didn't turn into a scene of genocide in its common sense. Secondly, it's one thing to invade a country unprovoked, and it is a completely different thing to push the frontlines away from your borders and people who associate themselves with you onto the people who are gathering strength for their "final solution of Donetsk problem" all while acting like they are totally peaceful good guys (well not really, only on the higher political levels).
It's just... Remember when Macron had leaked the private conversation he had with Putin just before the war, where Putin said that Zelensky isn't going to fulfil Minks agreements and is preparing for war, and Macron replied something along the lines of "have faith and patience". Remember how everyone was like "hurr-durr, stoopid Russia, we see through your bullshit"? Well now it turns out that Putin was telling the truth and Macron was full of shit in a room full of journalists. What the hell?
And let's be honest, it's not 2013 Donetsk, it's 2013-2022 Donetsk. Enough time for a child to be born and grow up enough to go to school, without ever in their life knowing peace and not war - go figure which is more tragic.
> Well not 3 times. If you count it like that, that means you dismiss and ignore the revolution, the civil war and all the people who were not happy about the fact that some mob had stolen their country.
I find it strange that the people in this civil war, where somehow instantly trained on complicated Russian military equipment, procured enough of this equipment to fight and then when they captured enough ground they eventually installed get this.
A former Russian FSB agent as the head of the military. Thats totally what happens in a totally 'real' civil war right.
> trained on complicated Russian military equipment
What complicated Russian military equipment? Hypersonic missiles? Any other equipment designed in Russian Federation that was actually used in combat even after the full-scale war had started? Or is it all old Soviet stuff, the same stuff that Ukraine uses? The country that had conscription service which implies that a substantial number of adult men in Ukraine are trained to operate this equipment?
> procured enough of this equipment to fight
Donetsk had military installations. Even a whole military academy, AFAIK. Though I don't doubt that Russia had started supplying DNR under the table at some point.
> A former Russian FSB agent as the head of the military.
Seizing an opportunity for themselves. Given the specific ideological matter along which the Ukraine had been torn, this isn't an unimaginable thing.
> Thats totally what happens in a totally 'real' civil war right.
Define "real"? Is the civil war in Syria real? Was the civil war that had collapsed the Russian Empire real? If it is the foreign influence that confuses you - that is actually an expected thing: In most cases the sides of the civil war gravitate to nearest opposing poles of power, with the exception for secluded places like America.
It's important not to be dismissive of the fact that the root cause of all the problems is that people in Ukraine can not agree on a sustainable way to run their country and that people in Donbas have no less rights then the people who pushed for the revolution. Everything else is just bullshit that distracts everyone from what's important - the people.
> Define "real"? Is the civil war in Syria real? Was the civil war that had collapsed the Russian Empire real? If it is the foreign influence that confuses you - that is actually an expected thing: In most cases the sides of the civil war gravitate to nearest opposing poles of power, with the exception for secluded places like America.
A war that isn't started by a foreign power to try and destabilise the country is what id call a 'real' civil war, and it's clear the one in Ukraine was started by Russia.
> It's important not to be dismissive of the fact that the root cause of all the problems is that people in Ukraine can not agree on a sustainable way to run their country and that people in Donbas have no less rights then the people who pushed for the revolution. Everything else is just bullshit that distracts everyone from what's important - the people.
The root cause for a lot of it is Russian interference just like it is in what is it now? 4?, 5? post soviet states now.
> and it's clear the one in Ukraine was started by Russia.
Clearly it wasn't Russia who started a revolution in Ukraine, was it? This is just going in circles, really. You are just avoiding the wrong-think of even assuming that just as there were people passionate about Euromaidan, there might have been others that had the opposite view. You are denying the nature of what a revolution is.
> Russian interference just like it is in what is it now? 4?, 5? post soviet states now.
Well sure, the Soviet Union had been dissolved like shit and Russia will inevitably be tied into every other issue, that's one of the reasons CSTO exist.
Honestly, if "interference" is actually a principal problem, it is kinda ironic that it's only Russia that bothers you.
> We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements
Which was the right thing to do, we always knew Russia would invade again and any peace agreements with Russia aren't worth the paper they are written on. Russia already broke the previous agreement they had with Ukraine to never invade the country anyway.
> Russia already broke the previous agreement they had with Ukraine to never invade the country anyway.
I am not that good of a legal expert to track each and every treaty, but I doubt that there was an agreement formulated exactly like that. For example the Budapest Memorandum article 3 was technically broken when Europe and the US were fast to support a coup in Ukraine.
> So why would this time be any different?
Because this essentially legitimises Russia's motive for the war.
It was 100% right thing to for the people of Donetsk, who got invaded by Russian forces in 2014.
> I am not that good of a legal expert to track each and every treaty, but I doubt that there was an agreement formulated exactly like that. For example the Budapest Memorandum article 3 was technically broken when Europe and the US were fast to support a coup in Ukraine.
So because the US / Europe broke the Budapest Memorandum the Russians can also break every single part of it because they feel like it?.
> It was 100% right thing to for the people of Donetsk, who got invaded by Russian forces in 2014.
They got invaded by the new Ukrainian government's "anti-terrorist" forces, consisting largely of shady shaved-head guys with very particularly thematic tattoos - as no one else wanted to take part in that senseless bloodshed.
Look, I recognise your username and I am well aware on your views on the matter. We've already clashed multiple times and there is really nothing to discuss when you insist on dismissing the idea that people who overwhelmingly voted for president elect in 2014 might not be happy with the fact that some mob had stolen their country.
Keep in mind that people can live in a single country and have different preferences and political opinions. That is absolutely normal and expected in a normal situation, and even more so, much more sharply, during a revolution. I don't get how can anyone imply monolithicity in 2014 Ukraine.
> Look, I recognise your username and I am well aware on your views on the matter. We've already clashed multiple times and there is really nothing to discuss when you insist on dismissing the idea that people who overwhelmingly voted for president elect in 2014 might not be happy with the fact that some mob had stolen their country.
Ah yes the country was stolen by the people such a novel idea, I understand you're mad because the Russian puppet got ousted for going against the people then ran away to his masters in Moscow.
But please keep telling me how the 'Ukrainian rebels' in Donetsk were using Russian air defence systems and then electing to put a former Russian FSB agent in as head of the military.
Do people in Europe actually believe that to be the case? Is this yet another "Russia blew up its own billion dollar industry" thing again?
> it will probably lead to Russia cutting off the gas supply
So, the supply disruptions have absolutely nothing to do with Europe freezing payments and accounts, as well as disrupting all the ecosystem around the industry with sanctions?
You can't really live in a reality where you both claim yourself to be a victim of a countries supply disruptions and lead an economic war against it, right? How is that not doublethink?
> The ballsy part was that EU was leading a foreign policy (support for Ukraine)
We now publicly (thanks to Merkel's and Hollande's confessions) know that EU had been preparing to a full scale war under the guise of peace agreements. "Ballsy" is an ironic way to describe this situation, especially when any talk of negotiations or even a ceasefire gets shunted at.