undefined | Better HN

0 pointszmgsabst3y ago0 comments

“We seized your property under exigent circumstances, but you better honor your contracts rather than cancel them under exigent circumstances!”

- NATO, apparently delusional

The idea people will “honor” contracts while you’re (illegally) seizing their property in effort to enact an economic siege of their nation is mental illness — either delusions or megalomania. That strategy doesn’t make sense.

I’m personally sad to see how deluded US and EU leaders are.

0 comments

JumpCrisscross3y ago

> while you’re (illegally) seizing their property

This is nonsense. Gazprom Germania attempted an illegal transfer of ownership. From what I can tell, Germany isn't appropriating anything. It's just seizing control in a regulatory measure.

op00to3y ago

I'm sorry, what did NATO seize again? It was Germany. Germany is not NATO. If you're going to participate in the discussion, at least keep your actors straight.

maratc3y ago

NATO has nothing to do with buying or selling gas.

dirkt3y ago

Tageschau (extremely reliable source) says

> Da die Gazprom Germania GmbH jedoch kritische Infrastruktur betreibe, müsse jeder Erwerb durch einen Nicht-EU-Investor vom Ministerium genehmigt werden. Unklar sei, wer wirtschaftlich und rechtlich hinter den beiden genannten Unternehmen stehe. Zudem habe der Erwerber "die Liquidierung der Gazprom Germania angeordnet, was, so lange der Erwerb nicht genehmigt ist, nicht rechtmäßig ist".

(Use Google Translate etc.)

So the sale had to be ratified by the ministry, which didn't happen. Gazprom ran afoul of the law, the government stepped in and took over temporarily.

But of course this is the internet, the more radical nonsense you spread, and the more emotional outrage your project, the more clicks you get...

[1] https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gazprom-ger...

kadoban3y ago

Okay, then Russia can keep their gas and have even lower income of cash (which they need to pay debts, by the way).

neilwilson3y ago

Why do they need to 'pay debts'?

Russia has just had its foreign reserves frozen. Those are debts too, which the West has repudiated. Why shouldn't Russia do the same in reverse?

Countries export solely to gain imports if they have any sense. If there are no imports to be had - due to sanctions - then there is no need to export. Far better, from Russia's point of view, that the oil is left in the ground, and the workers redeployed elsewhere. To the war effort for example.

yywwbbn3y ago

If those workers are fine with a substantial fail in their QoL. It’s gonna be most painful for the oligarchs and people in their environment who are used to consuming massive amounts of foreign goods.

Btw even the USSR which was generally much more autarkic couldn’t survive without foreign currency for energy exports. What makes you think modern Russia could? Also it was illegal for workers to leave Russia back then, unlike now (so assuming there are countries willing to accept them they might be more likely to choose that over ‘being redirected to work in the war industry’.

1 more reply

kadoban3y ago

They _want_ to pay their debts, to preserve better borrowing terms in the future and to not look bad. If you research at all you'll see that they're actively trying to pay their debts to avoid default.

maratc3y ago

> then Russia can keep their gas

I guess the answer to that would be "and Germany can keep their cash and maybe have to burn it to heat homes or generate electricity"?

The war we're seeing (the economic war) is a point of mini-singularity, where a lot of we know to be true about the world is invalid. Such as an assumption that a state having debts will actually pay them.

kadoban3y ago

Except they're actively trying to pay them, so apparently it is true.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

JumpCrisscross3y ago

> while you’re (illegally) seizing their property

This is nonsense. Gazprom Germania attempted an illegal transfer of ownership. From what I can tell, Germany isn't appropriating anything. It's just seizing control in a regulatory measure.

op00to3y ago

I'm sorry, what did NATO seize again? It was Germany. Germany is not NATO. If you're going to participate in the discussion, at least keep your actors straight.

maratc3y ago

NATO has nothing to do with buying or selling gas.

dirkt3y ago

Tageschau (extremely reliable source) says

(Use Google Translate etc.)

So the sale had to be ratified by the ministry, which didn't happen. Gazprom ran afoul of the law, the government stepped in and took over temporarily.

But of course this is the internet, the more radical nonsense you spread, and the more emotional outrage your project, the more clicks you get...

[1] https://www.tagesschau.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/gazprom-ger...

kadoban3y ago

Okay, then Russia can keep their gas and have even lower income of cash (which they need to pay debts, by the way).

neilwilson3y ago

Why do they need to 'pay debts'?

Russia has just had its foreign reserves frozen. Those are debts too, which the West has repudiated. Why shouldn't Russia do the same in reverse?

yywwbbn3y ago

1 more reply

kadoban3y ago

maratc3y ago

> then Russia can keep their gas

I guess the answer to that would be "and Germany can keep their cash and maybe have to burn it to heat homes or generate electricity"?

kadoban3y ago

Except they're actively trying to pay them, so apparently it is true.

1 more reply

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse