excerpt from the official website of the Ministry of Finance:
https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy0624
"Today, Treasury is reiterating through FAQs that energy payments can and should continue. General License 8A permits what are commonly known as “U-turn transactions,” where payments related to energy are processed through non-sanctioned, third-country financial institutions, enabling the continuation of transactions that support the flow of energy to the market. For example, a company purchasing oil from a Russian company would be able to route the payment through a non-sanctioned third-country financial institution as an intermediary for credit to a sanctioned financial institution’s customer in settlement of the transaction."

more on the topic
https://mailbd.net/technology/the-us...-russia-20991/
https://thenewsglory.com/the-us-trea...l-from-russia/

 

I noticed you referred to both “the invasion” and “military operation.” It has been reported in the U.S. that the Russian media must us the term “special military operation” and that “invasion” and other such negative descriptions are not permitted in the media. Do you see any truth to that?
official name = "special military operation", used in official documents, references to official statements, press releases, and similar cases.
In general, the Western tendency to come up with neutral names for natural objects here on Russian soil seems ridiculous. A Negr in Russia is a Negr, not an African American. Because we do not put insult or negativity in this name. A woman is a woman, not a menstruating person. By the way, if you tell a Russian woman that she is a menstruating person, you risk losing your front teeth. Mom is mom. Russian is Russian. An invasion is an invasion. Nobody will quibble.

Obviously, militarily, it is an invasion. I wonder how the Russian government justifies that? Vague allusions to history will not be convincing. One argument I have heard is that ethnic Russians are being rescued, but those are rebels against their own internationally recognized sovereign state. I can see how they dislike some things that have happened or expect to happen.
I have already mentioned that a large part of society supports the military operation. It is strange for you, but only because you see what is happening from a certain angle. In addition, it is unlikely that the average American knows where Ukraine is at all, its history and connection with Russia. A little later, I plan a short digression into history for your understanding of events. Of course, if I will be allowed and you are ready to get acquainted with it.
I'll put it another way: you guys absolutely support the US invasion of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, etc. And I will answer for you - because you are Americans, because in this way the US government protects its interests, because it is patriotic and democratic. And those who think otherwise - they do not understand or are deceived. This choice is as old as the world, it is respected and cannot be blamed, this is how our life works. We are on our own side and don't really think that the concept of "good" and "bad" is essentially just an abstraction. The character of one of the films says: "The dagger is good for the one who has it, and bad for the one who does not have it at the right moment."

My parents suffered foreign occupation of their homeland in their youth. Because of that perhaps I am more aware of the blessings lf peace and comfort I have enjoyed though my life, and more cognizant of just how much misery humans are capable of imposing on one another.
I had several grandmothers and only one grandfather. Because the rest of my grandfathers died defending Russia, and Ukraine, and Belarus (and Europe, to be honest) from German/fascist occupation. Now in Ukraine, the direct descendants of the same soldiers of the Red Army are fighting with the direct descendants of the soldiers of the SS troops. Not a figure of speech - the real direct descendants of SS soldiers and the like.

 

if you sent something, it didn't come
there is a place in the box, if it is still relevant - send

 

Thank you. Interesting. And ironic.

You may have misunderstood. I wondered if it was true that your press must say only “special military operation” and not use such terms as invasion. Does it seem to be true with the media complying?

In the U.S. the “N word” is universally regarded as hate speech and so offensive that to write the word or speak it would, with few special exceptions, disqualify one from respect in just-minded society.

It is easy to misunderstand the motivates of ”political correctness.” Often a commonly used neutral term is transformed (though incivilities in discourse) into a pejorative, a term of derision. Then, the considerate thing to do is to find a new neutral term. This is simple respect for the feelings of the people being described - a civility. There are many many examples of this, and finding neutral terms is an ongoing process. “Lame” became “crippled” became “handicapped” became “disabled” became “people with disabilities” or “differently abled.” It is forgivable to find humor in this, but the intent is always respect.

Ironically, “political correctness” was not always such a term of derision; it was more a wry self-criticism of its practitioners. It was made an object of derision as a tactic to discredit the viewpoints of those who would practice it. The introduction in this Wikipedia entry sums it up much better that I can:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness

Women still call themselves women here, as do others. The term “menstruating person” has its place, but if someone has convinced you that we all must use that term, I think they may be having a little fun with you.

Not really. And those who disagree are free to write about their opposition and to peaceably demonstrate publicly. But those efforts are often pointless, because it is money that’s making those decisions, and controlling how dissidents are portrayed. Yes, there is alway the “My country, right or wrong” component. But unbridled nationalism is a dangerous thing that can enable abominations.

I wonder I’d you are able to view this, which seems to be written with a fair degree of objectivity.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-u...-idUSKCN2LK00F

The essence of what I tried to send is in my prior comment, where after carefully reviewing the rules of engagement, I found the courage to make it public. But it’s good to know your mailbox is now available.

 

Thanks, very interesting read.

Sorry, I played allegory and did not directly answer your question about the term "invasion" or "intrusion". I will try again.
So: The term "special military operation" or "military operation to denatzinalize Ukraine" (from the word "Nazism") is used in official documents, press releases, etc.
The term "invasion / intrusion" is not prohibited and, as far as I know, it is not specifically designated in any way in the regulatory documents. From correspondence with you, I got the impression that the term "invasion" has a negative connotation in English, demonizing the "invading" side. In Russian, the term "invasion", although it does not carry an aura of nobility, does not denote anything particularly bad.
Thus, the Russian press has the right to use the term "invasion" and sometimes does, and also uses any other terms that describe the introduction of troops into Ukraine. I want to specifically draw your attention to the fact that when I mention "Russian Press" I mean the entire set of media, including opposition publications, accredited foreign media, Internet media that have officially received the status of mass media. Official media and press holdings, of course, too.
Censorship: I didn't immediately understand, but your question seems to be aimed precisely at this. No censorship. I don't know whether to be happy about this or upset. In the conditions of the information war of the superpowers, it would be nice to strengthen censorship. The government is not doing this yet. True, new laws have been adopted. For example, spreading fake news about the Russian army is now considered a criminal offense. The glorification of Nazism is now also a criminal punishment. In practice, almost no prison, so far only fines. But some media have announced a suspension of activities, which is tantamount to admitting that they have spread false information in the past. Other opposition media that do not stoop to lies will apparently now get their audience.

 

Or potentially it's those media outlets saying, we'd rather say nothing than lie as telling the truth is now against the law. How can you tell the difference?

Ira

 

The truth is a stubborn thing, like an awl in a sack. Sooner or later he will pierce a hole and show his brilliant point.
If you are far away and can't get information from anywhere but the media, you'll be in the dark for quite some time, but not forever. If you are in the thick of things, or at least nearby, no media will fool you. Why the media when your friends and neighbors are direct participants in the events?

 

Because they have their own point of view.

"Invasion" is not really bad except in the context of no provocation, other than Imperialism.

Politically speaking there is very little difference between National Socialism and Collective Socialism. It is a hot button to people that have had horrendous experience with that "invasion". In the US "Nazi" is a pejorative term for ignorant bullies, not the emotional meaning to Europeans; we didn't get "invaded" or "subjugated" in WWII.

In the US we see Communism (Russia the concept) more of a threat than Nazism (Germany the country). The terms don't mean the same thing to us as they mean to Europeans.

I have not seen any evidence of a threat from Ukraine toward Russia. Please enlighten me, we don't get all the sides here. Seems like the Russians are afraid that Ukraine is going to become a Nazi threat and start taking over the world; from here we see the opposite.

No, we did not universally support our invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan; we do support the individual troops that are ordered into the conflict. That may look like the same thing to an outside observer.

My father was a career Marine (33 years, 3 wars). He absolutely did NOT support the war in Viet Nam. but he did serve his tour there. At that time the public did confuse confuse the troops with the mission, there was much disrespect for the returning soldiers and most of them hated the mission.

 

Come on buddy.

I'll tell you everything tonight. I wanted to do this on non-working days to get time to put together some links to facts and documents. You understand - The topic is sensitive and I don't want to be suspected of bias.

But! No problem, you can find links yourself in the archives and from serious authors, just don't look for them in the media. Sorry, but the text will be long, I am a detailed person and do not want to cover the subject in parts. I hope you have the patience to be attentive and read to the end.



What is Ukraine.

1. The very word "Ukraine" is of Russian origin. It translates as the outskirts, the edge of land ownership, the border. “Оkraine” sounds. If you copy and paste in the google translator "Окраина", you will get the translation. You will probably object: “Оkraine” sounds different than “Ukraine”. The first letter is different. I explain: the word Ukraine came into use several centuries ago, the language is a living and not static phenomenon, it is transformed from generation to generation. I am sure you sometimes do not understand what teenagers say on the street - this is the transformation of the language.

2. Thus, a Ukrainian is a resident of the outskirts of the country. For example, I am a Uralets or Uralian. I live in the Urals and have a unique Ural charm. You know that in Russia there are Siberians (inhabitants of Siberia), Far Easterners, Kubans, Pomors and many others. These names characterize not only the area of residence, but also the features of the mentality, appearance, dialect. A familiar analogy to you is a Texan, a Texas resident with his own manner of speaking and a special Texan character (I hope I gave a good example, in fact I am not very familiar with real life in the USA). But the Texan is still an American. A Siberian, Pomor, Ukrainian or Uralets still consider themselves Russian.

3. “Ukrainians do not consider themselves Russians, there are simply ethnic Russians in Ukraine” - such is the opinion in the West. It is assumed that there is a separate Ukrainian ethnic group and a separate Russian ethnic group. This is not true. Or rather, only partly true. I explain: as I already mentioned, several centuries ago, border territories in the west of Russian lands began to be called Ukraine. These were undeveloped places where the power of the state was weak. In your history, there was also such a phenomenon, it is called the "Wild West". Ukraine was the Russian "Wild West". Just as your Wild West bordered on the possessions of enemy Indian tribes, the Russian Wild West also came into contact with hostile peoples. Only they weren't savages with bows and arrows. These were European enemies - at different times the Teutons and Levonians, Poles and some other Catholics, Swedes, Anglo-Saxons and French, Ottomans and other unpleasant audience. By the way, quite cruel, with the fires of the Inquisition, with sophisticated torture, with impalement and other attractive achievements of Western culture. Naturally, in such an interesting place as Ukraine, the people did not have the opportunity to be bored. One war smoothly turned into another, the short days of peace gave way to another invasion of the enemy or a retaliatory raid on enemy territory. Men did not part with weapons, which literally became an element of clothing. In these numerous skirmishes, settlements and entire regions changed hands, from the jurisdiction of one monarch to the jurisdiction of another monarch. Don't think it's ancient history. The penultimate redistribution took place after the victory over Hitler, when part of the Polish and Hungarian lands became part of Ukraine, and part of the Ukrainian lands was transferred to Poland. The last redistribution of the lands under Ukrainian jurisdiction took place a little later, when the Soviet leaders Lenin and Khrushchev attached some primordially Russian provinces to Ukraine, incl. Crimea. Lenin pursued the goal of replenishing the illiterate farming class with a politically loyal proletariat. Khrushchev's motives are mysterious. Perhaps the fact that Khrushchev was a native of Ukraine explains what happened.

Important!!! In all the times I describe, including the Soviet era, Ukraine was just a province, one of the western regions with more or less autonomy rights, but never a separate sovereign state.

4. For the first time Ukraine became a sovereign state in 1991 and today it has been in existence for 31 years. By historical standards, this is a baby in need of a mother's boobs. In the West, there is an impression that Ukraine has always been a homogeneous old European country. In fact, Ukraine is a patchwork quilt consisting of fragments of defeated empires inhabited by peoples who do not like each other and are always ready to do bad things to their neighbor. The very border that I wrote about at the beginning still exists in the minds of people, sometimes it seems to me that at the gene level. The East of modern Ukraine and its center are predominant the Russian population: Russian names and surnames, Russian mentality, Russian language in everyday life, Russian books, Russian songs, etc., but with a distinctive Ukrainian accent (remember the Texan?). In recent centuries, the inhabitants of these central and eastern lands were called the inhabitants of the border, Ukrainians or Little Russians. And even earlier, the inhabitants of these lands were called jastRussian! Because these lands are the historical heart of Russia and Kyiv is the ancient capital of Russia, Moscow was strengthened much later. The west of Ukraine is inhabited by "Westerners" - I don't know exactly their pedigree. It seems to be a mixture of some kind of Carpathian ethnic groups, some believe that they are descendants of the Czechs or even the Celts. It seems to me that Westerners are closer to Romanians or Gypsies, in any case they are not Russians and many of them are not Orthodox Christians. Even the west of Ukraine is inhabited by ethnic Hungarians, Poles, Bulgarians. Many of them are traditionally hostile to Russian culture, which is natural, because these people are the descendants of the defeated enemies of Russia. Add here the huge Jewish and Tatar diasporas, which are traditionally strong and live compactly. Thus, by the end of the 20th century, Ukraine resembled modern New York - the law theoretically works, but it is not recommended to come to a foreign area, there is a risk of not returning home.

5. The strategic position of the lands that today are called Ukraine has always been and remains very attractive. Russia and the Collective West really want to control this place and actively dispute this right with each other. Over the past millennium, an unpleasant trend has generally developed: at least once a century, Europe unites under the command of the next ruler and rushes to the east in order to be ****ed by Russia again. Either this is masochism, or the inability to draw conclusions - but time after time another invasion army migration under the surface of ground and embarks on a peaceful mission, begins to fertilize Russian soil. Perhaps that is why Russia and Ukraine are the main food suppliers on the planet. At the gene level, a Russian person has an understanding that one day he will have to take up arms and take part in the next expulsion of the invader. There is no confusion, no regret about the changed life, there is a well-established behavioral matrix: 1) forget internal disagreements for a while, 2) come to the mobilization point, 3) mount a horse / plunge into a tank, 4) move west.

 

6. Over time, there was an understanding in the West that only Russians can defeat Russians. So the Western civilization had a need for Ukrainian Nazism. An elegant idea: to convince part of the Russian population that they are not Russian and send them to fight against the Russians. As you already understand, Nazism received a breeding ground in the Ukrainian cauldron of warring peoples. The ideologists of the Austro-Hungarian Empire before the 1st World War were the first to introduce it. They were not interested in Russia standing up for Serbia and spent a lot of money to instill in the minds of Westerners the idea of their exclusivity. Western farmers were told that they deserved much more than just picking the ground. Their skulls differ in shape from the skulls of their eastern neighbors, their destiny is not to brandish a shovel, but to lead slaves. Fragile minds liked this idea, especially since the neighbors are really somehow wrong, and they say the wrong thing, and pray to the wrong gods. The result of the 1st World War is known, the Austro-Hungarian Empire ceased to exist. But the ideology took root among the Westerners and part of the ethnic Russians. In the 1940s, Hitler revived Nazi sentiments on the territory of Soviet Ukraine. He reasoned simply, the Austro-Hungarian method turned out to be effective, most of the work has already been done, you just need to move in the same direction and receive dividends. This is how the OUN/UPA units manned by Ukrainian fighters, the Ukrainian units of the Wehrmacht, the SS division "Galicia" and other military and paramilitary formations under the command of Hitler appeared. It must be said that the idea of defeating the Russians with Russian forces did not work in those days either. All these Ukrainian Nazis were not combat-ready and could not resist the Red Army in real battles. But they were very effective as the guards of concentration camps, rear troops, and in general were very useful in the destruction of the non-Aryan population: Russians, Poles, Jews. When Hitler got his bullet, the Ukrainian Nazis tried to escape to the west. Some managed and now live in Europe, Canada, USA. A certain number were killed in battles, the rest went to the tribunal. The surviving Nazis received lengthy prison sentences, served time in prisons, and returned to their villages. At the same time, they were offended by the Soviet government, associating it with the Russian ethnic group, did not abandon the Nazi ideology, and raised their children in the same spirit.

7. By the time independent Ukraine appeared, an undisclosed community of the descendants of the Hitlerites and admirers of Nazi ideas flourished in some of its territories.

Now I will be very restrained in my assessments, because it will be about the USA today. I need the most to convey information directly to you in a way that does not hurt your feelings. I value good relations with you and other guys and the last thing I want to offend anyone is a careless word. If, however, my words seem offensive to you, do not give vent to emotions. I'm not going to cause negativity to anyone.

And so, our days. The great game of chess continues. On the eastern flank is still the same Russia. On the western flank, the new Western leader is the United States in commonwealth with NATO. The strategically important square of the chessboard called Ukraine is still attractive to both. It must be said that at the end of the 20th century, the Russian player made several weak moves and lost the initiative. The West immediately took advantage of this and placed its own piece on the strategic Ukrainian square - an ordinary pawn, but with great opportunities to turn into a passed piece. The idea is good, the pawn is a rather weak piece. It's not a pity to lose her. But as long as it is in the center of the board, it creates a serious destabilization. If the opponent tries to destroy it, he will fall into a trap, since the pawn is protected by stronger pieces. If the enemy does not try to destroy the Ukrainian pawn, a strategy for further offensive can be built around this pawn.

I will not claim that the US government openly supports the Ukrainian Nazis. It wouldn't be true. I believe that the American and European elites prefer not to notice the torchlight processions in Kyiv, the glorification of Bandera and Shukhevych, Nazi slogans and the swastika on regular troops' jackets. You know that the US government openly calls Russia its enemy both publicly and in doctrinal documents. Therefore, what has been said should not confuse you. Alas, this is how things really are. The expectation is that either the Nazis will provoke the enemy of America into a mistake, or Russia will spit on decency, once again crush all the Nazis like rats and receive accusations of aggression and economic sanctions. The American people and the American government are indifferent to both. So let them beat each other to death, it's not a pity. Donbass was at the center of this confrontation.