Cutting Russia off from SWIFT a “matter of days” – euro zone central banker(reuters.com)
reuters.com
Cutting Russia off from SWIFT a “matter of days” – euro zone central banker
https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/cutting-russia-off-swift-matter-days-euro-zone-central-banker-2022-02-26/
203 comments
neverminder(14)
https://archive.is/22B4o
I am wondering if this automatically means Russia will switch off gas supplies? Understandably, how Europe will pay for Russian gas when SWIFT is switched off, and probably Russia won't be sending gas for free?
SWIFT is just a messaging system, they can probably still use Telex which is the precursor to SWIFT.
I'm reasonably sure that the point is not to make Russia use Telex instead of SWIFT. The point is to stop Russia from transacting in dollars.
> the point is not to make Russia use Telex instead of SWIFT
I believe it is. Nobody is threatening sanctioning Russia's energy sector à la Iran.
I believe it is. Nobody is threatening sanctioning Russia's energy sector à la Iran.
I'm reasonably sure that those calling for Russia's ban from SWIFT are doing so precisely for that reason. They may not understand that banning them for SWIFT doesn't exactly accomplish that, but that's the motivation for the call.
> may not understand that banning them for SWIFT doesn't exactly accomplish that
There are numerous workarounds. Most involve Russia submitting to China. Given how unpredictable Putin’s become, that’s preferable to them being a regional power.
There are numerous workarounds. Most involve Russia submitting to China. Given how unpredictable Putin’s become, that’s preferable to them being a regional power.
Or CIPS which will likely undercut this attempt of isolating Russia’s financial system.
> Or CIPS which will likely undercut this attempt of isolating Russia’s financial system
This is almost expected. The calculation being that Russia is safer as a Chinese vassal than a regional power. Settling via CIPS is also more burdensome and thus expensive than settling via SWIFT.
This is almost expected. The calculation being that Russia is safer as a Chinese vassal than a regional power. Settling via CIPS is also more burdensome and thus expensive than settling via SWIFT.
He might, though that would also cost russia dearly because all countries like germany that are dependent on russian gas will a) be royally pissed and b) make sure they lower their dependence on russian gas in the future. And russias economy is really dependent on their natural recourcess export
> And russias economy is really dependent on their natural recourcess export
Russia has been described as “a gas station run by a mafia masquerading as a country that happens to have nuclear weapons”, which isn’t far from the truth.
Russia has been described as “a gas station run by a mafia masquerading as a country that happens to have nuclear weapons”, which isn’t far from the truth.
By the late senator and Vietnam war veteran John McCain. I didn't quite like him but he was right with the mafia part.
I do wonder just how much German sentiment has shifted.
From the leaked clips of a high ranking German officer saying "Putin just wants respect" before the war. Now seeing a large shift amongst those I follow on twitter in German who were previous anti-action.
Assuming SWIFT access is cut, and then the Natural Gas supplies are turned off is there another escalation back? Assuming the US/EU can rally their resources how do they mount a quick recovery from the loss of natural gas which will certainly be devastating. Even if the Nuclear plants in process of decommissioning are reversed(if possible) I'm not sure how the EU gets through the next six months without a ton of pain.
From the leaked clips of a high ranking German officer saying "Putin just wants respect" before the war. Now seeing a large shift amongst those I follow on twitter in German who were previous anti-action.
Assuming SWIFT access is cut, and then the Natural Gas supplies are turned off is there another escalation back? Assuming the US/EU can rally their resources how do they mount a quick recovery from the loss of natural gas which will certainly be devastating. Even if the Nuclear plants in process of decommissioning are reversed(if possible) I'm not sure how the EU gets through the next six months without a ton of pain.
> Assuming SWIFT access is cut, and then the Natural Gas supplies are turned off is there another escalation back?
Sure. We could sanction their oil and gas industry. Like we've done to Iran. There's also a whole world of plausibly deniable black ops stuff we could do to mess with their infrastructure.
Sure. We could sanction their oil and gas industry. Like we've done to Iran. There's also a whole world of plausibly deniable black ops stuff we could do to mess with their infrastructure.
Winter is almost over, that helps a lot.
The winter here in the Netherlands is also really mild. I'm in a 4th floor apartment with the main room facing the sun with all windows. if I clothed a bit warmer than normal I could go without gas until winder ends.
Of course not everyone lives in a small apartment facing the sun but still.
Of course not everyone lives in a small apartment facing the sun but still.
I echo this sentiment, and I am from Poland, with much colder winters. We could stop using it for heating, spend the year preparing for winter, spend a lot on insulation and then electricity, and dress warmer -- but we'd reduce the dependence on Russia. Totally worth the trouble and hardships, and long overdue.
I think for many Putin actually invading Ukraine was simply unthinkable.
Sure, some saber rattling and destabilization, but outright war?
US intelligence was not always credible, so when they presented facts that conveniently benefited American interests (shale gas export), people were sceptic.
That allowed Putin to prepare an invasion in plain sight.
Sure, some saber rattling and destabilization, but outright war?
US intelligence was not always credible, so when they presented facts that conveniently benefited American interests (shale gas export), people were sceptic.
That allowed Putin to prepare an invasion in plain sight.
State invades other states and I don't know why it is unthinkable. All major powers already know about the plan at least vaguely beforehand.
Perhaps everyone thought Russia was Saber rattling in January when they gave a 1 week deadline to NATO saying they would invade if they didn't receive it.
That said, following Russia demand, the US president went national TV and announced that Russia will likely invade Ukraine and the US will not go in.
That said, following Russia demand, the US president went national TV and announced that Russia will likely invade Ukraine and the US will not go in.
We need to see action and follow-ups instead of just words.
I think a lot of people, without meaning to be disrespectful of Ukrainian identity and sovereignty, looked at the conflict in the Donbas and Crimea and thought:
"well, this isn't really acceptable in terms of respecting settled borders but the reality is that at least a very substantial percentage of the local population does want to be part of Russia so it isn't the worst thing in the world and probably Putin will move troops into areas he de facto controls or slightly expand borders there".
That doesn't make those things ok but it does put in a long list of other conflicts where the on-the-ground reality is complicated.
Many of us also have mixed feelings of at least partial support about other re-arrangements of sovereignty whether that is ethnic separatism within a country with a quasi-federalist state like Spain (i.e. Basque or Catalan) or other cases like South Sudan or even Kosovo where NATO actively carved out an ethnic statelet by helping an organisation that for all its roots of legitimate popular support was at least... organised-crime adjacent.
The speech that Putin gave though was not about border adjustment but about a denial of any kind of Ukrainian nation identity or nationhood. He wasn't saying, "the Russia / Ukraine border should be 10 or 20 km West of where it is" which might be unacceptable to a hardline territorial integrist or to Ukraine but is within the normal bounds of nation state conflict, he was saying "there is no Ukraine at all, it's not a real nation, they have no right to any kind of state" and that crosses many, many lines that are not crossed by taking territory here or there.
Not trying to make taking "taking a province or two" look like acceptable behaviour but I think that it's important to put previous and current EU/NATO positions in the context of the full horror of what he is now proposing to do which is to permanently destroy a nation state. Even the Ukrainian government didn't really believe this was how it was going to go.
"well, this isn't really acceptable in terms of respecting settled borders but the reality is that at least a very substantial percentage of the local population does want to be part of Russia so it isn't the worst thing in the world and probably Putin will move troops into areas he de facto controls or slightly expand borders there".
That doesn't make those things ok but it does put in a long list of other conflicts where the on-the-ground reality is complicated.
Many of us also have mixed feelings of at least partial support about other re-arrangements of sovereignty whether that is ethnic separatism within a country with a quasi-federalist state like Spain (i.e. Basque or Catalan) or other cases like South Sudan or even Kosovo where NATO actively carved out an ethnic statelet by helping an organisation that for all its roots of legitimate popular support was at least... organised-crime adjacent.
The speech that Putin gave though was not about border adjustment but about a denial of any kind of Ukrainian nation identity or nationhood. He wasn't saying, "the Russia / Ukraine border should be 10 or 20 km West of where it is" which might be unacceptable to a hardline territorial integrist or to Ukraine but is within the normal bounds of nation state conflict, he was saying "there is no Ukraine at all, it's not a real nation, they have no right to any kind of state" and that crosses many, many lines that are not crossed by taking territory here or there.
Not trying to make taking "taking a province or two" look like acceptable behaviour but I think that it's important to put previous and current EU/NATO positions in the context of the full horror of what he is now proposing to do which is to permanently destroy a nation state. Even the Ukrainian government didn't really believe this was how it was going to go.
Europe has been looking for alternate suppliers. See https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2022-01-31/u-s-lo... for instance.
I think these steps are escalating the crisis.
I think invading a country is an escalation.
It's also business logic 101 to have alternatives.
NATO's reason to exist is literally because of Russian threat.
It's also business logic 101 to have alternatives.
NATO's reason to exist is literally because of Russian threat.
I agree with all of that. And the troop buildup had already happened back then. But the current invasion deeper into Ukraine hadn't.
The US is also really dependent on the flow of dollars going through SWIFT. Kicking countries out means alternatives have to come online. If those get too popular it poses a huge threat to the entire US dollar reserve currency system.
It's not kicking countries out, it's just kicking Russia out. It will be a blow for all the Western countries and banks conducting business with Russia, but a necessary one.
India and China will still trade with Russia. Europe is not a single entity also. They need Russian gas now just as much as before.
SWIFT is not just for dollars. I used it to transfer Euros and GBP.
The reason people like the US dollar is not just because SWIFT exists.
The reason people like the US dollar is not just because SWIFT exists.
It's not just dollars that are flowing via SWIFT. SWIFT is what blockchain wants to be, it's a way for banks to send and receive funds of many currencies.
SWIFT is a messaging system.
The actual transfer of funds is performed with correspondent banks, but they won't perform the transfer if the government says that they cannot have accounts opened by banks from other nations, then that's up to that government, not SWIFT.
SWIFT is being used as "shorthand" to mean that Russian banks will be cut off from the world financial environment. They will have to evade those sanctions via, for example, trading with multiple hops through China, if China allows them to.
SWIFT is a messaging system.
The actual transfer of funds is performed with correspondent banks, but they won't perform the transfer if the government says that they cannot have accounts opened by banks from other nations, then that's up to that government, not SWIFT.
SWIFT is being used as "shorthand" to mean that Russian banks will be cut off from the world financial environment. They will have to evade those sanctions via, for example, trading with multiple hops through China, if China allows them to.
It'll be great in the long term finding different sources and fuels.
Seems like Putin missed a trick by not kicking this off in November. With a whole winter of gas supply issues in store the EU would be walking on egg shells even more than they have been.
Regardless, it seems like a small price to pay for solidarity with the Ukrainian people.
Regardless, it seems like a small price to pay for solidarity with the Ukrainian people.
Also, it's almost spring... Although I did wake up to snow on the ground this morning.
Seems like Putin didn't want to piss off Xi by starting a war before/during Xi's "look at how great we are" Olympic Games.
Seems like Putin didn't want to piss off Xi by starting a war before/during Xi's "look at how great we are" Olympic Games.
> Seems like Putin didn't want to piss off Xi by starting a war before/during Xi's "look at how great we are" Olympic Games.
And it'd seem that Putin favors dates like 22.02.2022 for some strange reason.
Russia launched their full-scale invasion of Georgia on 08.08.2008, too.
And it'd seem that Putin favors dates like 22.02.2022 for some strange reason.
Russia launched their full-scale invasion of Georgia on 08.08.2008, too.
Dear god, if this all turns out in the end to be the fancy of some Rasputinesque numerologist with the Kremlin's ear...
I think he was hoping to avoid this war. It was an option, obviously, but not a preferred one.
https://www-bazonline-ch.translate.goog/abschreckende-kriegs...
He could have and can still stop the invasion at any time. Don't paint him as having to do something "inevitable."
This link reads to me like Putin propaganda justifying an unprovoked invasion by claiming Russia as the supposed victim of western aggression.
You can blame the experts (do google their backgrounds) cited in that article for trying to avoid this war.
So, it was unavoidable for Putin yo invade Ukraine because a few countries were joining a military club he doesn't like? And shelling and using clusters bomb on civilians was also unavoidable?
Hard to fight a war in bitter cold although that is less of a problem when the entire force has vehicles than it was during Napolean's invasion.
I am curious why he didn't wait longer. Maybe he chose now to make the crossing of rivers easier. Also, ISTR that when the snow melts the roads there get so muddy they are almost unusable.
I am curious why he didn't wait longer. Maybe he chose now to make the crossing of rivers easier. Also, ISTR that when the snow melts the roads there get so muddy they are almost unusable.
Dec-Feb is better cause the ground is frozen so the heavy machinery won't be stuck in mud. Currently is warm, Russian army has a problem and have to use roads for tanks, which means they are easer pickings.
The same way the Soviet Union paid for Western goods. Shipments of gold, or exchange of goods of equivalent value.
Yes I think that's the idea and the reason why it's taking a while to set up. Maybe they'll take bitcoin? It will be a test of whether this can really be a backup form of payment against the will of states.
I’m sure there are other channels but I’m pretty sure cryptocurrency markets have enough liquidity to prop up gas payments.
If this goes through and BTC price starts spiking, I’d interpret that as a signal that it is happening, which would be a validation for Bitcoin playing a significant role in avoiding banking restrictions.
If this goes through and BTC price starts spiking, I’d interpret that as a signal that it is happening, which would be a validation for Bitcoin playing a significant role in avoiding banking restrictions.
If Europe stops buying Russian gas (a big if, and something that might happen later rather than sooner), are there other countries which would buy it? China, for instance?
Probably, but this would hurt Russia immensely. Currently there is not much infrastructure to support delivery of that much more gas to China, so it would need to be built and that would probably take years.
At the same time, it would hurt Europe more than Russia in the short-term. (But it might be really worth it in long term)
At the same time, it would hurt Europe more than Russia in the short-term. (But it might be really worth it in long term)
that would probably take years.
We underestimate Chinese productivity at our own peril.
While we deal with this Ukraine/Russia thing, it would be unwise to not wargame out some 'humor me' scenarios.
"I know the Chinese could never build that much infrastructure in the short term. But 'humor me', what if they can?"
We underestimate Chinese productivity at our own peril.
While we deal with this Ukraine/Russia thing, it would be unwise to not wargame out some 'humor me' scenarios.
"I know the Chinese could never build that much infrastructure in the short term. But 'humor me', what if they can?"
If they can build it, they still do not have the demand for that much extra gas, probably just little.
The Chinese government is despicably authoritarian, but unlike Putin, they are not crazy and they are playing it long-term.
They won't condemn Russian invasion too harshly, but they don't want to break energy supply chains from West to help out a not-exactly-friendly state (just an enemy of an enemy).
The Chinese government is despicably authoritarian, but unlike Putin, they are not crazy and they are playing it long-term.
They won't condemn Russian invasion too harshly, but they don't want to break energy supply chains from West to help out a not-exactly-friendly state (just an enemy of an enemy).
good.
Then shut down the airspace for all Russian planes in EU, close ship waters and seize money of all Putin's friends.
What will EU get for this?
In the short term, sanctioning an action in a civilized manner that used to be a casus belli. In the long run, not allowing Russia to further modernize their military and likely preventing a nuclear war by not emboldening Putin to attack Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland or Poland at some point in the future because of previous inaction.
Wait did you understand the question, what will EU get?
EU is not afraid of russians or nukes.
EU is not afraid of russians or nukes.
You don't see how sanctioning an action that in the past used to be reason for war and likely preventing nuclear war in the future is something positive? Geopolitics is not your strength, is it?
Well, to make it simple for you, EU gets a weak Russian military in the future, which is very desirable.
Edit: Oh, I see. I've replied to another 4 day old account. What a coincidence!
Well, to make it simple for you, EU gets a weak Russian military in the future, which is very desirable.
Edit: Oh, I see. I've replied to another 4 day old account. What a coincidence!
As i said EU is not worried about Russians. What else?
The EU is not worried about Russia? From where on earth did you get this bizarre and obviously false view? Every Eastern EU country is extremely worried about Russia right now and NATO has sent reinforcements to them.
Russia has no power for full invasion of Ukrain let alone EU, so your view is false.
Whether you're trolling or not, you also genuinely don't understand the current situation. So I'll explain it in more detail to you. Putin and other key members of the Russian government have just proven to be unreliable persons who cannot be trusted and negotiated with. This makes future ways to deal with Russia extremely difficult. It is also unrealistic to expect that this is going to get better, the older Putin gets. On the contrary, if he stays in power indefinitely we can expect his revisionary pseudo-historic views and his disrespect for national sovereignty to increase. His successor might even be worse, given the poisoned political climate in Russia today. However, Russia is a major nuclear power. There is a realistic worry within the EU and NATO that Russia would get emboldened by past lackluster responses and risk a calculation that attacking a smaller NATO country might not invariably activate nuclear defense plans.
All of this taken together makes imposing heavy sanctions on Russia essentially inevitable. They are the only civilized response available, and not doing anything could have fatal consequences far beyond the EU. Governments across the world rightly realized now - unfortunately, too late - that the comparatively weak response to the 2014 annexation of Crimea has emboldened Putin to order a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. They will not repeat this mistake.
Edit: Looks like a consensus has been reached and Russia is about to get excluded from SWIFT.
All of this taken together makes imposing heavy sanctions on Russia essentially inevitable. They are the only civilized response available, and not doing anything could have fatal consequences far beyond the EU. Governments across the world rightly realized now - unfortunately, too late - that the comparatively weak response to the 2014 annexation of Crimea has emboldened Putin to order a full-scale invasion of Ukraine. They will not repeat this mistake.
Edit: Looks like a consensus has been reached and Russia is about to get excluded from SWIFT.
>> What will EU get for this?
> In the short term, sanctioning an action in a civilized manner that used to be a casus belli. In the long run, not allowing Russia to further modernize their military and likely preventing a nuclear war by not emboldening Putin to attack Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland or Poland at some point in the future because of previous inaction.
The EU nomenklatura gets to pat themselves on the back, and that's about it.
How will sanctions prevent Russia from "further moderniz[ing] their military"? They can probably get whatever tech they need from China now, if they were previously getting it from the West.
How will sanctions prevent "a nuclear war by not emboldening Putin to attack Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland or Poland at some point in the future because of previous inaction"? If Putin attacks another country, there won't be any more sanctions to enact, and these actions have demonstrated a fundamental unwillingness to engage militarily (e.g. Germany wouldn't even send Ukraine even small guns, so instead they promised * 5000 hats*, which they also apparently failed to deliver).
> In the short term, sanctioning an action in a civilized manner that used to be a casus belli. In the long run, not allowing Russia to further modernize their military and likely preventing a nuclear war by not emboldening Putin to attack Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland or Poland at some point in the future because of previous inaction.
The EU nomenklatura gets to pat themselves on the back, and that's about it.
How will sanctions prevent Russia from "further moderniz[ing] their military"? They can probably get whatever tech they need from China now, if they were previously getting it from the West.
How will sanctions prevent "a nuclear war by not emboldening Putin to attack Latvia, Estonia, Lithuania, Finland or Poland at some point in the future because of previous inaction"? If Putin attacks another country, there won't be any more sanctions to enact, and these actions have demonstrated a fundamental unwillingness to engage militarily (e.g. Germany wouldn't even send Ukraine even small guns, so instead they promised * 5000 hats*, which they also apparently failed to deliver).
> How will sanctions prevent Russia from "further moderniz[ing] their military"? They can probably get whatever tech they need from China now
Modernizing a military is extremely expensive and Russia will not be able to afford it. This is crucial, given that Russia is waging aggressive wars within Europe.
Modernizing a military is extremely expensive and Russia will not be able to afford it. This is crucial, given that Russia is waging aggressive wars within Europe.
> Modernizing a military is extremely expensive and Russia will not be able to afford it. This is crucial, given that Russia is waging aggressive wars within Europe.
IIRC, Russia gets most of its money from selling gas and oil. If Europe won't buy it, China will. I don't think this will really affect what the Russian government can afford.
IIRC, Russia gets most of its money from selling gas and oil. If Europe won't buy it, China will. I don't think this will really affect what the Russian government can afford.
It will substantially affect what the Russian government can afford. There is no doubt about it.
> It will substantially affect what the Russian government can afford. There is no doubt about it.
No, there is doubt about it. There's a lot of bluster about the effectiveness of sanctions, but frankly, I'm skeptical. It sounds like politicians puffing up the actions they're willing to take.
No, there is doubt about it. There's a lot of bluster about the effectiveness of sanctions, but frankly, I'm skeptical. It sounds like politicians puffing up the actions they're willing to take.
> * It sounds like politicians puffing up the actions they're willing to take.*
I agree with that. Maybe I should have said that there is no other civilized response available than imposing heavy sanctions. Even a slightly weaker Russian military and some impact on Russian oligarchs may be better than nothing to prevent future misjudgments about the prospects of waging 19th Century territorial wars in the 21 Century.
I agree with that. Maybe I should have said that there is no other civilized response available than imposing heavy sanctions. Even a slightly weaker Russian military and some impact on Russian oligarchs may be better than nothing to prevent future misjudgments about the prospects of waging 19th Century territorial wars in the 21 Century.
> Maybe I should have said that there is no other civilized response available than imposing heavy sanctions.
That's kind of the problem, though. The catalog of "civilized responses" may not be up to the task of responding to these events, and being constrained to them prevents effective responses.
> Even a slightly weaker Russian military and some impact on Russian oligarchs may be better than nothing to prevent future misjudgments about the prospects of waging 19th Century territorial wars in the 21 Century.
Sometimes "better than nothing" rounds down to nothing. You might end up having more "19th Century territorial wars" because you let the war itself.
IMHO, the only thing right now that has a realistic chance of preventing another one of these wars from happening is a military failure by Russia. Right now that depends on the Ukrainian state acting on its own without much support from Europe.
That's kind of the problem, though. The catalog of "civilized responses" may not be up to the task of responding to these events, and being constrained to them prevents effective responses.
> Even a slightly weaker Russian military and some impact on Russian oligarchs may be better than nothing to prevent future misjudgments about the prospects of waging 19th Century territorial wars in the 21 Century.
Sometimes "better than nothing" rounds down to nothing. You might end up having more "19th Century territorial wars" because you let the war itself.
IMHO, the only thing right now that has a realistic chance of preventing another one of these wars from happening is a military failure by Russia. Right now that depends on the Ukrainian state acting on its own without much support from Europe.
I don't know how much this will influence possibilities of Russia buying military equipment from China, but China officially stated today that they don't support this invasion.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-26/china-dis...
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-02-26/china-dis...
Not sure what your question means. One presumes that the EU's goal here is the obvious one, namely to make trade increasingly harder for Russia until they stop invading other countries.
To "impose a sanction" in this context is to apply a costly restriction to yourself, using the negative effect your self-restriction has on other parties to punish those parties, usually hoping that the negative effect is worse for them than it is for you. Any given trade happens because both parties want it; artificially making trade harder makes both parties worse off. The EU does not have to benefit from the intervention at all; they are apparently willing to pay that cost to make trade harder for Russia.
To "impose a sanction" in this context is to apply a costly restriction to yourself, using the negative effect your self-restriction has on other parties to punish those parties, usually hoping that the negative effect is worse for them than it is for you. Any given trade happens because both parties want it; artificially making trade harder makes both parties worse off. The EU does not have to benefit from the intervention at all; they are apparently willing to pay that cost to make trade harder for Russia.
Bankrupt Russia's oligarchs and Putin will be dead within a week.
Just saying.....
Just saying.....
We should not make offensive moves - down that path lies further escalation.
We need to isolate Russia using non-violence. Primarily, refusing to buy their oil and gas.
Remote bricking all iOS devices in Russia would be an offensive escalation because it would directly harm Russian assets.
Barring Russia from SWIFT… does that amount to a refusal to trade with them? That feels appropriately non-violent, but I’m unsure exactly what it would involve.
We need to isolate Russia using non-violence. Primarily, refusing to buy their oil and gas.
Remote bricking all iOS devices in Russia would be an offensive escalation because it would directly harm Russian assets.
Barring Russia from SWIFT… does that amount to a refusal to trade with them? That feels appropriately non-violent, but I’m unsure exactly what it would involve.
> Remote bricking all iOS devices in Russia would be an offensive escalation because it would directly harm Russian assets
It's still nonviolent.
It's still nonviolent.
So right to repair right out of the window?
> right to repair right out of the window?
This...never existed in a military/geopolitical context? Does Ukraine get to sue Russia for materiel it's blowing up?
This...never existed in a military/geopolitical context? Does Ukraine get to sue Russia for materiel it's blowing up?
I don't see the connection, but I know of a bunch of people who'd be pretty mad about how a corporation can remotely cut off an entire country's digital access.
> know of a bunch of people who'd be pretty mad about how a corporation can remotely cut off an entire country's digital access
Of course. Same with SWIFT cut-off.
Doing it in a way that is not arbitrary would be key. (I don't know how one would do that. There is no precedent for that type of action, and it is not being seriously considered by senior policymakers.)
Of course. Same with SWIFT cut-off.
Doing it in a way that is not arbitrary would be key. (I don't know how one would do that. There is no precedent for that type of action, and it is not being seriously considered by senior policymakers.)
[deleted]
Not really, remotely disabling the mobile phones of ~every medical doctor, firefighter, and EMS in a country of a hundred and fifty million people with no warning would likely cause on the order of 10k deaths.
It would be more deaths in 24h than the entire Ukraine invasion so far.
You can pretend such would be nonviolent, but it's basically a terror attack on civillian medical infrastructure.
It would be more deaths in 24h than the entire Ukraine invasion so far.
You can pretend such would be nonviolent, but it's basically a terror attack on civillian medical infrastructure.
The powers that be have decided cyber "war" isn't actually war. This stuff happens even in peacetime, and shots are never fired over it.
There are no "powers that be," this is just a popular reduction used to construct simple thoughts.
There are humans, existing in a complex society. All meaning is negotiated all the time. All the expectations of behaviour from which your confidant hueristic analysis springs are at all times liable to be contradicted. For instance, few would have thought that the "powers that be" would permit massive conventional war in Europe at this late date.
There is no platonic, eternal, divine legal system in which we encode what is and isn't actually war or which escalations are permissible in discrete scenarios.
There are humans, existing in a complex society. All meaning is negotiated all the time. All the expectations of behaviour from which your confidant hueristic analysis springs are at all times liable to be contradicted. For instance, few would have thought that the "powers that be" would permit massive conventional war in Europe at this late date.
There is no platonic, eternal, divine legal system in which we encode what is and isn't actually war or which escalations are permissible in discrete scenarios.
> Remote bricking all iOS devices in Russia would be an offensive escalation because it would directly harm Russian assets.
This would also be helping the Russian government prevent the spread of information outside of their own sources, regarding the conflict.
This would also be helping the Russian government prevent the spread of information outside of their own sources, regarding the conflict.
You’re right that this is a form of escalation. You’re right to see danger in such further provocation of a nuclear rival - of an autocrat lost in historical delusion and bloody revanchism.
I believe you’re wrong to think the escalation is inherently a mistake, or never a path out of conflict. It is common wisdom to observe that bullies may only be stopped with escalatory tactics.
So it seems to me that the West must find some way to show a spine and push back, short of open war. The alternative cedes European hegemony, and the fate of those democracies, to Moscow’s cold hands.
I believe you’re wrong to think the escalation is inherently a mistake, or never a path out of conflict. It is common wisdom to observe that bullies may only be stopped with escalatory tactics.
So it seems to me that the West must find some way to show a spine and push back, short of open war. The alternative cedes European hegemony, and the fate of those democracies, to Moscow’s cold hands.
Have to wonder what the end goal is here. Putin is human, but he’s also pretty calculating in his actions.
People have mentioned before China’s competing system to SWIFT and this move potentially being to their benefit. You also have the EU and US spinning up their wheels against a boogeyman, which in some ways, has the effect of strengthening and/or testing their relationships.
In other ways, it forces the West into really tough and expensive policy positions, with plenty of opportunity to damage relationships as well.
Perhaps it really is just as simple as they wanted to prevent Ukraine from joining the EU/NATO. Maybe it’s a mixture of all the above.
Blinken mentioned it - and I agree - that I don’t see whatever plan that’s currently underway as intentioned to stop at Ukraine.
People have mentioned before China’s competing system to SWIFT and this move potentially being to their benefit. You also have the EU and US spinning up their wheels against a boogeyman, which in some ways, has the effect of strengthening and/or testing their relationships.
In other ways, it forces the West into really tough and expensive policy positions, with plenty of opportunity to damage relationships as well.
Perhaps it really is just as simple as they wanted to prevent Ukraine from joining the EU/NATO. Maybe it’s a mixture of all the above.
Blinken mentioned it - and I agree - that I don’t see whatever plan that’s currently underway as intentioned to stop at Ukraine.
> have to wonder what the end goal is here
Convince the oligarchs they're richer with Putin dead than alive.
Convince the oligarchs they're richer with Putin dead than alive.
I think bladegash was talking about what Putin's goal was.
Convince the oligarchs they're richer with Ukraine out of NATO than in it, because gas?
My wild guess is that Putin's goal has always been cleansing the power circles of the oligarchs who got there in the 1990s, and now that he's running out of time as he's getting old, he needs help in that from the West. Now he might be betting that the sanctions will mostly target these oligarchs and make the country _really_ unattractive for them, whereas an average Russian anyway has no assets abroad and doesn't travel much, and therefore won't notice the difference, as energy and food are abundant domestically. If that's his plan, there should be no need to go beyond Ukraine.
Putin has been preparing to be cut off from SWIFT since it was first touted in 2014.
That was the time to do something unexpected. Now it’s already been accounted for.
That was the time to do something unexpected. Now it’s already been accounted for.
Just donated US$150 to UNHCR’s Ukraine program while I still can. Don’t know if online bank card payments will still work after SWIFT is disabled for us.
If you care, you could do that too.
If you care, you could do that too.
> don’t know if bank card payments will still work after SWIFT is disabled
Russia is being threatened with cut-off, not Ukraine.
Russia is being threatened with cut-off, not Ukraine.
Exactly.
I think the implication is that throwaway290 is in Russia
Even though they affect me personally, I understand sanctions directed at Russia as a whole more so than sanctions that hurt innocent people who happen to live in territories occupied by Russia/separatists. (Back when Crimea was annexed, everybody with billing address there had their existing banking cards shut off; freelancers with addresses in Crimea, Donbas etc. are long banned from online marketplaces. It did not affect me, but I never understood the intent.) Luckily, I don't have my own family to support.
Remember when the rest of the world imposed punitive sanctions on the US after they invaded Iraq and Afghanistan?
No. Me neither.
No. Me neither.
There are two purposes to sanctions.
The first is to harm the enemy. Cutting Russia off from SWIFT does that. The second is to reduce moral culpability. The idea that we shouldn't let our work, our infrastructure, be used to further aims we find detestable.
The former is an exercise in balancing costs and benefits. In this, the evidence for cutting Russia off is mixed--they will likely develop a vassal relationship with China that offsets the cost enough to let the regime survive. The latter is an exercise in measuring evil and involvement. In this, the evidence is fairly clear.
Adding an automatic off-switch triggered by total withdrawal from all of Ukraine, including Crimea, or Putin's surrender to a NATO member (or evidence of his death) would give the whole thing a sharper edge.
The first is to harm the enemy. Cutting Russia off from SWIFT does that. The second is to reduce moral culpability. The idea that we shouldn't let our work, our infrastructure, be used to further aims we find detestable.
The former is an exercise in balancing costs and benefits. In this, the evidence for cutting Russia off is mixed--they will likely develop a vassal relationship with China that offsets the cost enough to let the regime survive. The latter is an exercise in measuring evil and involvement. In this, the evidence is fairly clear.
Adding an automatic off-switch triggered by total withdrawal from all of Ukraine, including Crimea, or Putin's surrender to a NATO member (or evidence of his death) would give the whole thing a sharper edge.
I'm pretty sure Russia is close to boiling over this. If the tanks roll through Kyiv and start shooting inside the city we might see massive protests in Russia.
I agree. His regime will be in a corner. What could happen then worries me to no end. We're in uncharted territory. We've never pushed things this far with a nuclear power.
> We've never pushed things this far with a nuclear power
The USSR literally collapsed. Pakistan has danced with a new regime a decade. We're in highly, highly risky territory. But it's not unprecedented.
The USSR literally collapsed. Pakistan has danced with a new regime a decade. We're in highly, highly risky territory. But it's not unprecedented.
In what way have "we" pushed things here. Ukraine voted for independence back in the early 90s by an overwhelming majority in all areas, including those currently "recognized" by Russia.
Ukrainians want all the benefits of EU membership, and they gave up their nuclear weapons on the promise of security from Europe, the US, and Russia.
Putin's "history" is nonsense.
Ukrainians want all the benefits of EU membership, and they gave up their nuclear weapons on the promise of security from Europe, the US, and Russia.
Putin's "history" is nonsense.
Why the wait? It only allows funds to move in the meantime. If it's going to be cut off there should be no warning.
It's just your classic, "it's not so simple" problem. SWIFT has endpoints just like any other protocol. Someone's job right now is to compile a list of endpoints (aka banks) that are to be cut off and then it'll be someone else's job to approve that list. Then there will be negotiating and agreements and whatnot.
My bet... Everything just settles via Armenia, Egypt, and China via netting agreements... No impact.
> via Armenia, Egypt, and China via netting agreements
Nobody argues alternatives don't exist. Russia will pivot to China.
But for all our gripes with Beijing, they're a more rational regime than Putin's. (See: North Korea.) Russia being their vassal is better than the nonsense they are today. And China's systems are more expensive than SWIFT, which will reduce Russia's proceeds.
Nobody argues alternatives don't exist. Russia will pivot to China.
But for all our gripes with Beijing, they're a more rational regime than Putin's. (See: North Korea.) Russia being their vassal is better than the nonsense they are today. And China's systems are more expensive than SWIFT, which will reduce Russia's proceeds.
Indeed, I see your point.
China’s reaction to this crisis has elucidated for me the fact that its government is a complex institution with separate power bases (cf. Putin’s lonely autocracy).
It’s clear that at least some of those nodes earnestly hold the principle of always-sacrosanct sovereignty which is a cornerstone of China’s foreign policy (and of its criticism of the West), and are not pleased with the hypocrisy now inherent in their alliance.
China’s reaction to this crisis has elucidated for me the fact that its government is a complex institution with separate power bases (cf. Putin’s lonely autocracy).
It’s clear that at least some of those nodes earnestly hold the principle of always-sacrosanct sovereignty which is a cornerstone of China’s foreign policy (and of its criticism of the West), and are not pleased with the hypocrisy now inherent in their alliance.
Yes, it seems that Russia needs China way more than China needs Russia.
China is an empire on the rise, Russia is one in the throes of death. Russia will eventually have to choose between Europe and China.
This smells like a delay to let the wealthy get their money out of Russia, etc.
However that is not a bad thing if they can drain Russian bank?
Based on that other article, SWIFT cutoff will only cost Russia 5% GNP ( https://archive.today/XqZzK )
The far bigger better news to me is France started seizing physical assets like I hoped all the countries would start doing, if we aren't going to put boots on the ground then the "blood" must be from assets even if Russia counters and seizes foreign assets too.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/02/26/france-sei...
However that is not a bad thing if they can drain Russian bank?
Based on that other article, SWIFT cutoff will only cost Russia 5% GNP ( https://archive.today/XqZzK )
The far bigger better news to me is France started seizing physical assets like I hoped all the countries would start doing, if we aren't going to put boots on the ground then the "blood" must be from assets even if Russia counters and seizes foreign assets too.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2022/02/26/france-sei...
[deleted]
More like a delay to get everything worked out there isn’t a button to push to cut a country off SWIFT each institution with access to SWIFTnet would have to do it on their end.
Russia has huge foreign currency reserves this is the main goal of this sanction it would prevent them from using their reserves to sustain their own economy whilst their own currency collapses.
Russia has huge foreign currency reserves this is the main goal of this sanction it would prevent them from using their reserves to sustain their own economy whilst their own currency collapses.
Despite what people think kicking Russia from swift is not good. This means that lots of companies who sold to Russia will not get paid. Europe will also jave problems to pay for gas: paying with gold is a bad idea. Oligarchs will buy from Chinese resellers.
Abetter option would be go ban companies from doing business in Russia.
Bankrupting European and US comapnies that sold to Russia (and now wait for money) wont help.
Also banning fron swoft means that the big companies will still find ways to trade. Trade with them is not forbidden. I can easly see them asking to send money to some third party bank (China, North Korea) who will act as an intermediary.
Abetter option would be go ban companies from doing business in Russia.
Bankrupting European and US comapnies that sold to Russia (and now wait for money) wont help.
Also banning fron swoft means that the big companies will still find ways to trade. Trade with them is not forbidden. I can easly see them asking to send money to some third party bank (China, North Korea) who will act as an intermediary.
> Bankrupting European and US comapnies that sold to Russia (and now wait for money) won't help
Why? They're culpable. I'm going to lose money on my investments in Russia. Shame on me.
Why? They're culpable. I'm going to lose money on my investments in Russia. Shame on me.
If you sell lipstick or Gucci bags to Russia you probably get paid 30-90 days after delivery.
Same for iphones or cars.
Even if you sell Steam games it might take few days until you receive the money (assuming you dont park it in Russia for tax reasons).
An Iran style ban on sales is much better than this SWIFT blockade.
Same for iphones or cars.
Even if you sell Steam games it might take few days until you receive the money (assuming you dont park it in Russia for tax reasons).
An Iran style ban on sales is much better than this SWIFT blockade.
> An Iran style ban on sales is much better than this SWIFT blockade
I’m advocating for placing the Russian central bank on the SDN list. Hell of a lot more than either. We could tolerate rations against the Nazis but can’t stomach a few months of invoices lost?
I’m advocating for placing the Russian central bank on the SDN list. Hell of a lot more than either. We could tolerate rations against the Nazis but can’t stomach a few months of invoices lost?
WOOP! We got it!
Why not punishing only the government: cancel all visas to the people working in the gov and especially their family. So no more rich gov kids in Western universities, etc.
I find a little unfair to punish people to push them in the streets and have them arrested, tortured or "administratively" punished (remember what happen after the Turkey coup in 2016? Military were punished but also many people working in the public sector.)
I find a little unfair to punish people to push them in the streets and have them arrested, tortured or "administratively" punished (remember what happen after the Turkey coup in 2016? Military were punished but also many people working in the public sector.)
When you start a war of aggression you calculate in that there will be sanctions against your own people. This is first and foremost on Putin. Not that he cares, and probably not that this will be a popular sentiment in Russia.
The alternative to sanctions is a shooting war, it is probably a good idea to put as many steps in between that point and now as we can, who knows, there might be someone with a change of heart high enough up in the Russian ranks that it makes a difference.
The alternative to sanctions is a shooting war, it is probably a good idea to put as many steps in between that point and now as we can, who knows, there might be someone with a change of heart high enough up in the Russian ranks that it makes a difference.
Sanctions are a form of economic warfare: they are intended to make broad swaths of the population suffer, with the goal of producing general discontent. A discontented civilian population means an unpopular war, and unpopular wars are harder to wage. Or so the theory goes.
I can only see a list of suffering people without expected outcome: North Korea, Venezuela, Iran, URSS, Cuba, etc.
(Genuine question to History geeks) Do we have an exemple of mass sanctions on a country that worked? Why are we repeating strategies that do not seem to work?
Theses sanctions seems to be designed to only short term please the people/voters/journalists of the sanctioning countries but are terrible to the sanctioned country/people long term without solving anything.
(Genuine question to History geeks) Do we have an exemple of mass sanctions on a country that worked? Why are we repeating strategies that do not seem to work?
Theses sanctions seems to be designed to only short term please the people/voters/journalists of the sanctioning countries but are terrible to the sanctioned country/people long term without solving anything.
I'm not enough of a history buff to say whether sanctions are consistently successful. But I will point out that the point of (broad) sanctions isn't to win wars: it's to punish governments by punishing their people, who are then expected to pressure the government to acquiesce.
Among the targets of US sanctions in the last 50 years, contemporary Russia is somewhat unique: it has a relatively large and urbanized middle class, one that's used to the benefits of global trade and cheap European travel. Sanctions that hurt those people seem, on face value, more likely to impact Putin's decision making than e.g. sanctions on North Korean peasant farmers.
Among the targets of US sanctions in the last 50 years, contemporary Russia is somewhat unique: it has a relatively large and urbanized middle class, one that's used to the benefits of global trade and cheap European travel. Sanctions that hurt those people seem, on face value, more likely to impact Putin's decision making than e.g. sanctions on North Korean peasant farmers.
Exactly. And ban re entry for a decade. When oligarch kids start showing up in mother Russia and bitching to their parents, it might help the privileged oligarchs realize they don’t have impunity outside their bubble and nobody outside Russia cares about their influence whatsoever.
Just Devil's Advocate, but what do we do if those oligarch kids simply go hang out and party with their Chinese and Indian counterparts in Shanghai instead?
Part of the problem here is that we are not the only game in town anymore.
Part of the problem here is that we are not the only game in town anymore.
Oh yeah, Chinese school sounds like lots of fun.
[deleted]
[deleted]
The problem is that rich gov kids would go to China or India then. Which is the fundamental problem of all these sanctions. Ultimately it's counter productive to push Russia into closer relationships with our rivals. And it hurts twice because it does so at some economic cost to the EU/US.
The path we're on is the worst for everyone involved.
The path we're on is the worst for everyone involved.
Rich people don’t want to go to China or India, and I think if you compare the offerings of the West versus these other two countries for just a moment, you’ll understand why.
Russia is a classic abuser, the only way out from a relationship like that is to walk away regardless of the personal cost.
Russia is a classic abuser, the only way out from a relationship like that is to walk away regardless of the personal cost.
>Rich people don’t want to go to China or India, and I think if you compare the offerings of the West versus these other two countries for just a moment, you’ll understand why
That's not really the point
>Russia is a classic abuser, the only way out from a relationship like that is to walk away regardless of the personal cost.
How exactly can the Ukraine walk away from Russia? Its impossible. So long as Russia has an army & a willingness to use it every country will have a relationship with them whether they like it or not.
That's not really the point
>Russia is a classic abuser, the only way out from a relationship like that is to walk away regardless of the personal cost.
How exactly can the Ukraine walk away from Russia? Its impossible. So long as Russia has an army & a willingness to use it every country will have a relationship with them whether they like it or not.
Another perspective: Russian society as of now is mostly an bubble. They don't have media that talks about the war their country started. Cancelling SWIFT is giving them something they cannot silence away in order to maintain the bubble.
Cancelling SWIFT would be a very clear signal to all people in Russia that their government overstepped a line. Without punlic support from the public an offensive war is way harder to pull off.
Cancelling SWIFT would be a very clear signal to all people in Russia that their government overstepped a line. Without punlic support from the public an offensive war is way harder to pull off.
> They don't have media that talks about the war their country started
Stop spreading misinformation, this is not true.
This is basically the only thing that all russian-speaking media outlets are talking about. Plus, there is nothing preventing one from opening reddit and seeing what the western media has to say.
On the other hand, people in the West seem to be completely (and willingly!) disconnected from the situation in ru-net.
Stop spreading misinformation, this is not true.
This is basically the only thing that all russian-speaking media outlets are talking about. Plus, there is nothing preventing one from opening reddit and seeing what the western media has to say.
On the other hand, people in the West seem to be completely (and willingly!) disconnected from the situation in ru-net.
I am not a Russian and don't live in Russia, so maybe the reports I read about are faulty, e.g.: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/26/propaganda-fil...
I will just give you some context:
Most news outlets in Russia nowadays aren't even registered as proper media, so they couldn't care less for any "propaganda filters".
The article tries to assert that there is a huge difference between a perception of a "military operation" and a "war", but in Russian "military" and "war" is the same word (the same word root): "военная", "война" -- so everyone is just calling it "war".
As an example, take look at this article (vc is a massively popular news/blogs site): https://vc.ru/finance/371584-glavnoe-v-ekonomike-na-fone-voy... -- use google translate to see what words are used and what people have to say in the comment section.
Plus, consider that Telegram is massively popular in Russia, people just subscribe to whatever they want and read whatever they want, wheteher it's RT, Reuters, or stuff like this: https://t.me/worldprotest or https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFcF8lv6w7Y4RfSW5Q or https://t.me/svtvnews or, on the other hand, stuff like this: https://t.me/Doninside
I would actually argue that Russians have much more sources of information available: Russian, Ukraininan, Western, independent. The evident post-truth politics from all sides breeds radical skepticism. The current situation is far from what can be called "a bubble", probably even further from what is happening in the rest of the world.
Most news outlets in Russia nowadays aren't even registered as proper media, so they couldn't care less for any "propaganda filters".
The article tries to assert that there is a huge difference between a perception of a "military operation" and a "war", but in Russian "military" and "war" is the same word (the same word root): "военная", "война" -- so everyone is just calling it "war".
As an example, take look at this article (vc is a massively popular news/blogs site): https://vc.ru/finance/371584-glavnoe-v-ekonomike-na-fone-voy... -- use google translate to see what words are used and what people have to say in the comment section.
Plus, consider that Telegram is massively popular in Russia, people just subscribe to whatever they want and read whatever they want, wheteher it's RT, Reuters, or stuff like this: https://t.me/worldprotest or https://t.me/joinchat/AAAAAFcF8lv6w7Y4RfSW5Q or https://t.me/svtvnews or, on the other hand, stuff like this: https://t.me/Doninside
I would actually argue that Russians have much more sources of information available: Russian, Ukraininan, Western, independent. The evident post-truth politics from all sides breeds radical skepticism. The current situation is far from what can be called "a bubble", probably even further from what is happening in the rest of the world.
This is really interesting to me. The "matter of days" matters a lot. Pull the plug NOW.
Am I the only one which is surprised that Putin actually invaided Ukraine? It is true that majority of people in Ukraine are very much against Putin but they are very much connected with Russia so this looks like killing your own people.
So when Lukasenko dies then Russia will invaide Belarus and kill bunch of people who they don’t like Putin?
So when Lukasenko dies then Russia will invaide Belarus and kill bunch of people who they don’t like Putin?
We have had thirty years of peace among the great powers. It’s been seventy years since armies last clashed in conventional, large-scale armored warfare on European soil - or perhaps anywhere.
Through these years humanity learned to expect perpetual and cold stalemate as an inevitable paradigm between Russia and the West.
Over these generations, humanity has on average become wealthier and more educated and more democratic - all correlates of robust peace between nations.
You’re not the only one surprised. I have little doubt that everyone, even the CIA analysts generating grim predictions before the invasion, was at some level unable to believe something like this was possible in 2022.
We can still hope to prove it was the absurd strategic mistake our intuition had hoped it was.
Through these years humanity learned to expect perpetual and cold stalemate as an inevitable paradigm between Russia and the West.
Over these generations, humanity has on average become wealthier and more educated and more democratic - all correlates of robust peace between nations.
You’re not the only one surprised. I have little doubt that everyone, even the CIA analysts generating grim predictions before the invasion, was at some level unable to believe something like this was possible in 2022.
We can still hope to prove it was the absurd strategic mistake our intuition had hoped it was.
I just read this :
https://twitter.com/i/status/1497252061678813187
EXCLUSIVE: I have been given a copy of document issued today by Russian Ministry of Health. It indicates Russia is anticipating a massive medical emergency & has ordered health organisations to immediately identify medical staff ready to relocate & work.
Why doesn't this scare people to death?
Why doesn't this scare people to death?
Your question is rhetorical - forgive me.
> Why doesn't this scare people to death?
The human hierarchy of fear seems sorted by proximity and tractability, not a rational calculus of risk and probability. Abstract threats, or those percieved unavoidable, might inspire only apathy.
And indeed, what can I possibly do about rumors of Russia considering nuclear war? I've kept Potassium Iodide stocked since 2014, which seemed practical and easy.
> Why doesn't this scare people to death?
The human hierarchy of fear seems sorted by proximity and tractability, not a rational calculus of risk and probability. Abstract threats, or those percieved unavoidable, might inspire only apathy.
And indeed, what can I possibly do about rumors of Russia considering nuclear war? I've kept Potassium Iodide stocked since 2014, which seemed practical and easy.
No, many people were surprised. However, they weren't paying attention and the invasion has been obvious for months. Dec. 21st: https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1473362460673515527
Regarding Lukashenko, I have a contrarian theory that Lukashenko actually considers himself justified in rigging elections, authoritarianism, and Putin-alignment because being a Putin patsy dictator is preferable for the Belarusian people over democratic change that would result in the same fate for Belarus as Ukraine is experiencing. (his thoughts, not mine, although a weak case could be made)
Regarding Lukashenko, I have a contrarian theory that Lukashenko actually considers himself justified in rigging elections, authoritarianism, and Putin-alignment because being a Putin patsy dictator is preferable for the Belarusian people over democratic change that would result in the same fate for Belarus as Ukraine is experiencing. (his thoughts, not mine, although a weak case could be made)
Lukashenko is not doing well health wise. And yes it does seem like is the only one keeping Belarus independent and not Putin’s “dump ground”.
Thanks for that Twitter link, that's a really good thread from Dec. 21st. I learned a lot from it even now. Although even Alperovitch said "He is unlikely to invade Western Ukraine": https://twitter.com/DAlperovitch/status/1473366370666614784.
Not just you, most Ukrainians were surprised too.
If you want a short summary of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, I suggest this presentation/speech by John Mearsheimer - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrMiSQAGOS4 - he explains it really well.
I would be very surprised if this happened. This would mean that European economies won't get their invested money back and also won't be able to pay for services. Extremely highly unlikely. Even if Europe replaces Russian LNG with American it will still be at least 3x-5x the current price.
This sounds like a great way to encourage the development of a parallel economy and criminal network.
Anyway, this should surely be good for Bitcoin, right?
Anyway, this should surely be good for Bitcoin, right?
I find it strange that nobody talks about the SWIFT alternative Russia and China have been working on since 2013, Russia’s System for Transfer of Financial Messages (SPFS).
If I understand correctly, there're already 23 countries with banks that have adopted SPFS, including Switzerland and Germany... so a SWIFT ban will only have a short-term negative effect on their economy and finally would be a big nudge towards building stronger Russian-Chinese ties in the future. Don't know how smart that is long-term, to be honest.
If I understand correctly, there're already 23 countries with banks that have adopted SPFS, including Switzerland and Germany... so a SWIFT ban will only have a short-term negative effect on their economy and finally would be a big nudge towards building stronger Russian-Chinese ties in the future. Don't know how smart that is long-term, to be honest.