Russia To Allow Crypto Payments in International Trade To Counter Sanctions (yahoo.com) 114
Russian lawmakers passed a bill on Tuesday that will allow businesses to use crypto currencies in international trade, as part of efforts to skirt Western sanctions imposed after Russia's invasion of Ukraine. From a report: The law is expected to go into force in September, and Russian central bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina, one of the backers of the new law, said the first transactions in cryptocurrencies will take place before the end of the year. Russia has faced significant delays in international payments with major trading partners such as China, India and the United Arab Emirates after banks in those countries, under pressure from Western regulators, became more cautious.
"We are taking a historic decision in the financial sphere," the head of the Duma lower house of parliament, Anatoly Aksakov, told lawmakers. Under the new law, the central bank will create a new "experimental" infrastructure for cryptocurrency payments. Details of the infrastructure have yet to be announced.
"We are taking a historic decision in the financial sphere," the head of the Duma lower house of parliament, Anatoly Aksakov, told lawmakers. Under the new law, the central bank will create a new "experimental" infrastructure for cryptocurrency payments. Details of the infrastructure have yet to be announced.
Okay well (Score:2)
Since Crypto is not actually anonymous and all transactions are necessarily public record, I guess we'll just have to sanction and/or seize the property of the crypto exchanges that are, ironically, the linchpin of the whole system.
Whoops.
=Smidge=
Re: (Score:2)
But yeah, blockchain transactions are hardly anonymous these days, but if it's just because the banks are being overly cautious & this provides a way to circumvent those banks, it could work.
Just goes to show the kinds of people that blockchain attracts, you know, war criminals, organised crime, oligarchs, etc..
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Okay well (Score:5, Insightful)
Putin's KBG will be involved in more 'extracurricular activities' than usual. Either to catch those involved in thefts, or to make sure Putin gets his cut.
But really, all this is doing is proving the point: cryptocurrencies are a scam used primarily for crime and money laundering.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
State actors can do a lot (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, but while the FSB would certainly be willing to do stuff like that, we shouldn't ascribe to it superhuman capabilities. Tracking down and unmasking a organized crime ring in another country is a tall order, even if that is a largely open country.
Also, likely some of the groups hacking the Russian exchanges will have connections to agencies with "national means".
Re: (Score:3)
The exchange that is in Russia, do you mean? They're gonna send the FBI to Russia?
No, the onus will be on the exchanges operating in countries that do have sanctions against Russia to prove they're not enabling circumvention of the financial sanctions.
Russia's shitcoins aren't worth anything if you can't turn them back into cash outside of Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
One particular crypto really is anonymous [invidious.private.coffee] with an encrypted blockchain [invidious.private.coffee] and many dozens of .onion nodes [monero.fail].
For the last few years vendors on Darknet marketplaces use it preferably or even exclusively.
SHUM! [shum.fyi]
Re: (Score:2)
The entire point of a blockchain - a necessary precondition of its function - is that you have an indelible ledger of transactions. Onion nodes don't help either because each block necessarily includes a sender, amount, and recipient.
Fundamentally crypto isn't any more anonymous than an IP address, and this is entirely be design. It's necessary to trust it as a currency. You can obfuscate, but that's not anonymous. What's that mantra again? Obfuscation is not security? And as soon as you try to move the fun
Re: Okay well (Score:1)
The "shit just got real" moment for regulators (Score:1)
You can only ignore a new technology that allows an international money transfer free-for-all for so long until eventually, your enemies publicly use it to bypass war sanctions. Time for first-world countries to choose, are they finally going to terminate cryptocurrency trading with extreme prejudice like they did with all prior Internet funny-money schemes, or allow the public mockery of any control over international finance to reach its peak?
I've argued that cryptocurrency != currency. (Score:3)
Re: I've argued that cryptocurrency != currency. (Score:2)
Russia isn't a super power. They aren't even a local power.
Re: (Score:2)
Crime is the one good use case for crypto, and that is exactly what Putin intends to use it for.
Easier way to counter sanctions (Score:5, Informative)
Leave Ukraine and stop the war you started.
Re:Easier way to counter sanctions (Score:4, Insightful)
It's far, far past that. I think Putin's over-committed and failure is not an option. His grip on power will weaken if he calls for a retreat... and the invasion of Ukraine was because he and the rest of the oligarchs were killing Russia by bleeding it so badly they needed a new territory to exploit to prop it up.
The only way to stop the war now is Putin's assassination and his replacement demonizing him to avoid blame, and honestly I thought the right people in Russia would have figured that out over a year ago... so Putin's obviously crafty enough to prevent it.
Re: (Score:1)
There are 2 other ways the war can stop.
Russia can be defeated on the battlefield.
Ukraine can be defeated on the battlefield.
Waiting for a unique event like an assassination isn't a plan. And the people you seem to think should be assassinating him are making big bucks and living the life with him in charge. They have no reason to care about the bloody stalemate going on in Ukraine.
Re: (Score:3)
And the people you seem to think should be assassinating him are making big bucks and living the life with him in charge.
Well there was this one guy named Yevgeny... [pbs.org]
Re: (Score:1)
>They have no reason to care about the bloody stalemate going on in Ukraine.
The end is near for Russia, the absolute authoritarian /absolute kleptocracy model is only sustainable for a relatively short period.
All directions are downward for Putin, but a smart oligarch might figure out they could drain a little less blood from Russia, sacrifice Putin to the wolves, and keep the game going for the rest of their life for themselves.
That was my perhaps naÃve hope for Ukraine, anyway.
Re: Easier way to counter sanctions (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Russia can be defeated on the battlefield.
Ukraine can be defeated on the battlefield.
In either case, Putin will then have a NATO country on his border, just as he feared.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Sadly, Russia is a (failed but still) nuclear power. The tier-1 countries in the world aren't going to do something that Putin or his potential successors see as an existential threat, even though Russia has fallen from "superpower" to "near peer" and now "second tier falling fast."
The real world powers are hoping that they can wait him out, that the cancer will end Putin quietly and the worst they have to deal with is infighting among his wannabe-successors. If they try to directly assassinate Putin, the
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
dropping a coupla hundred weapons on the Kremlin may be the smarter move.
Brilliant. Let's start WW3 and get nuked because you only have one left-wing source of news and you're easily manipulated. Russia has nuclear subs, ICBMs, strategic bombers, and hypersonic nukes. There is no defense against ICBMs, genius. You wouldn't even have time to hear about it on the news and celebrate before you were vaporized in a millisecond by the retaliation.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I'm more of the opinion they'd be lucky to have an ICBM left than can leave a silo or launch tube, even luckier if it had a working warhead.
Those things are hellishly expensive to maintain and not only does Russia not have the budget for it, but everybody who can get away with it steals to get by. If you could steal from the nuclear warhead budget, you'd kind of be a fool not to - if they fail on deployment, you're already about to die in a nuclear war anyway. You might as well have some extra wealth unti
Re: (Score:2)
Considering how long it took Russia to get nominal control over Donetsk, that is hardly anything to cheer. For being the supposed second largest army in the world, its performance could only be called pathetic. What was the Ukrainian army had been gelded by the Russian puppet Yanukovych and others. After all, if you're taking orders from Moscow, why bother having a decent army? That it took Russia
Re: (Score:2)
If this is what you call winning, I'd hate to see what you call losing.
*YAWN* A bunch of cherry picked opinions don't change reality. What I call winning is the fact that they took over the territory they said they wanted, held it, still hold it, and forced the Ukrainians to disastrously endure the results. In case you didn't hear, they are pulling old men off the street to fight in Ukraine, too. I never said Russia was winning efficiently (and I personally don't care) or without any impact on their domestic side. I just said they are winning and they are, in fact, doing so. [www.nzz.ch] D
Re: (Score:2)
*YAWN* A bunch of cherry picked opinions don't change reality. What I call winning is the fact that they took over the territory they said they wanted, held it, still hold it, and forced the Ukrainians to disastrously endure the results. In case you didn't hear, they are pulling old men off the street to fight in Ukraine, too. I never said Russia was winning efficiently (and I personally don't care) or without any impact on their domestic side. I just said they are winning and they are, in fact, doing so. Do you see how that linked map shows "Russia Advances" in the legend but there is no such symbol for Ukraine? Yeah. That's because they don't need one.
Nobody is "winning". Both sides are losing people and material in a grinding war of attrition with no end in sight. The present rate of Russian advancement is insufficient to have meaningful strategic significance. The rate of loss of Russian material is unsustainable. Soviet legacy stockpiles will be mostly gone within the next year and a half.
Any side can advance if they are willing to suffer commensurate losses. Ukrainians are currently on defense content to let Russia attrit itself with their signa
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is "winning".
Conveniently moving goalposts doesn't change the facts either. If you truly believe this, then why not support a cessation to shipping weapons to Ukraine and stop the attrition? They will be forced to negotiate a peace without a constant flow of aid. That means an end to the death on both sides. However, I suspect that you're not truly for peace and you just want a way to hop around a bit longer on the back foot you find yourself standing on, rhetorically.
Both sides are losing people and material in a grinding war of attrition with no end in sight.
One side is accomplishing it's strategic objectives
Re: (Score:2)
Conveniently moving goalposts doesn't change the facts either.
You must have me confused for someone else.
If you truly believe this, then why not support a cessation to shipping weapons to Ukraine and stop the attrition?
I support sending more weapons to Ukraine to break the stalemate and kick the Russians out of Ukraine which does not belong to them. I think they would have a blast with some rapid dragons, thousand additional Bradley's, field testing a few hundred PrSM in Ukraine... you know just to work out the kinks. There is a lot of shit just sitting in warehouses collecting dust that could be put to good use in Ukraine and BTW is far cheaper vs paying to have EOL kit decomm
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All I hear is the boring sounds of tap dancing shoes...
Did you have anything substantive to add?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously he doesn't. Of course, it does not appear that he has at all through the entire conversation. It's pretty clear you're dealing with someone who can't actually argue his case against the points you brought up, so he just deflects and plays stupid games.
Re: (Score:2)
What I call winning is the fact that they took over the territory they said they wanted, held it, still hold it, and forced the Ukrainians to disastrously endure the results.
If they still hold that territory in ten years they will still be dying to do so, just like Afghanistan. Actually the Ukrainians are making Afghanistan look like a nice picnic.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Are you suggesting the true and proven "peace in our time" strategy, Neville?
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, Neville. Now, wash your mouth and go to bed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't be dumber and crazier than you, retard.
Re: (Score:2)
We owe them nothing.
Well, then you should not have participated in having them give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees. As it stands, the US clearly owes them security. If you just want to renege on your international agreements, then you need to give them their nuclear weapons back. Of course, those went to Russia, but the US has plenty, so they could just send Ukraine maybe fifty nuclear warheads and be done with it.
Also, do you understand your $175 billion figure? For example, how much of that actu
Re: (Score:2)
Well, then you should not have participated in having them give up their nuclear weapons in exchange for security guarantees.
We didn't give them any security guarantees. None. Zero. You need to actually read what the Budapest Memorandum [wikipedia.org] is and what it says. Hint: it gives absolutely zero security guarantees.
As it stands, the US clearly owes them security.
On what basis? Why? They have no signed treaties approved by our elected representatives in Congress (as required by our Constitution) with us which guarantee their security under any circumstances.
you need to give them their nuclear weapons back.
We didn't take them. The Russians accepted them after the Ukrainians agreed to hand them over. We gave them some weak tea about "W
Re: (Score:3)
We didn't give them any security guarantees. None. Zero. You need to actually read what the Budapest Memorandum [wikipedia.org] is and what it says. Hint: it gives absolutely zero security guarantees.
Maybe use the full name instead of just "Budapest Memorandum". It's actually the "Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances". It's right there in the first line of the Wiki article you link. You did, in fact, give them security guarantees jointly with Russia and the UK and later France and China.
We gave them some weak tea about "We'll go talk to the UN if anyone breaks our agreement."
So, you feel no shame or obligation at all about your role in disarming Ukraine? It's very obvious that Ukraine would never have given up the nuclear weapons without the belief that the US was meant to protect them
Re: (Score:2)
Unlike you, I've read the whole thing. This is the part where I say "prove it". You've said this now twice. Prove it. Prove it by quoting the document and showing where it says we owe them money or troops for security. Just stop lying and quote chapter and verse otherwise you're just a liar who continues lying. No more assertions that it says what you hope it does. Cite something, quote something, or just stop lying.
Good grief you're obtuse. You claimed that the US had not given Ukraine security guarantees, but it's right there in the name of the memorandum. Is it because it says "assurance" rather than "guarantee"? That's just semantics. No, the agreement does not specifically specify money or troops, but it quite obviously conveys an obligation. Or do you really think that Ukraine would have given up its nuclear weapons in exchange for nothing?
Here is the strongest statement from the actual text of the agreement and as anyone (besides perhaps ignorant warmongering mediaphiles like you) can see, it's not anything close to saying we'll send money or troops:
"The United States of America, the Russian Federation, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland reaffirm their commitment to Ukraine, in accordance with the principles of the CSCE Final Act, to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine."
Good grief. I'm not going to say that there's anything specifically in the
Re: (Score:2)
Writing a novel about "what they thought you meant" isn't going to make the document say what it does not. Quote it. Stop giving me a novella of your worthless opinions and prove me wrong. Quote the document. If you're so convinced due
Re: (Score:2)
You're a liar and your tapdancing and tying yourself into knots trying to avoid quoting the document. I've asked probably half a dozen times to quote the Budapest Memorandum where it says that we gave security assurances of troops or money to Ukraine. It does not say that.
I'm the one tap dancing? You're the one who claimed that the Budapest Memorandum did not grant security guarantees to Ukraine. I never claimed that there was a specific section with specific requirements for money or troops, just that there was a clear obligation towards Ukrainian sovereignty in the agreement. People involved in the actual negotiations, like the former President of Ukraine, have stated that they feel cheated because there was a clear understanding in the negotiations that security assurance
Re: (Score:2)
I'm the one tap dancing?
Truth hurts? Is that why you're such a liar?
You're the one who claimed that the Budapest Memorandum did not grant security guarantees to Ukraine.
That's right. I'm still claiming that. Quote the document and show where it says we'd give them security guarantees. Just quote it and show us. You're a liar and you cannot do it because you're lying about what it says. Quote it and prove me wrong.
I never claimed that there was a specific section with specific requirements for money or troops,
Tippity tappety tap dance. Nice moving goalpost. You say on one hand that the US owes Ukraine security "guarantees" (even the silly misleading title says "assurances") then claim that anything that could be realistical
Re: (Score:2)
Truth hurts? Is that why you're such a liar?
What's so depressing about your kind is that you think this whole "I'm rubber and you're glue...' thing is an effective method of debate. You can't make a convincing argument, so you resort to childish jeers and taunts.That doesn't win you debates, it just makes you look like a fool.
That's right. I'm still claiming that. Quote the document and show where it says we'd give them security guarantees. Just quote it and show us. You're a liar and you cannot do it because you're lying about what it says. Quote it and prove me wrong.
I have already done that you moron. I have quoted the title of the document. Let me do it again since you're clearly a bit slow. "The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances". The word guarantee and assurance are essentially
Re: (Score:2)
I have quoted the title of the document. Let me do it again since you're clearly a bit slow. "The Budapest Memorandum on Security Assurances". The word guarantee and assurance are essentially synonyms in this context if you're argument is just some super-literal idiocy. The point is, it's right there in the title: "Security Assurances"
So, let me get this straight. The best you've got is the title of the document? The title which gives no actual assurances we'd send money or troops for a document that actually says we'll file a UN report, means we need to send $175B dollars to Ukraine and continue to support the proxy war? I guess you probably think "The Patriot Act" was for Patriots, eh? How fucking stupid are you that you'd take a title, with absolutely no details, and think it could be broadly applied to mean Ukraine has any right to $
Re: (Score:2)
So, let me get this straight. The best you've got is the title of the document? The title which gives no actual assurances we'd send money or troops for a document that actually says we'll file a UN report, means we need to send $175B dollars to Ukraine and continue to support the proxy war?
There you go tap dancing again. I very clearly quoted you saying that the Memorandum did not grant security guarantees. Now I'm going to clearly quote you from the previous post where you said:
Quote the document and show where it says we'd give them security guarantees
Once again, that's right in the title of the document, but also in various places throughout the document. What you keep doing is trying to shift the goalposts by tacking on a requirement that _YOU MADE UP_ that the text specifically call for money or troops. You're very clearly wrong, but you keep trying to shift th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're just talking in circles at this point and taking too long to do it.
You keep accusing me of exactly what you're doing. This is going in circles because of you, not me. You want desperately to be right, but I never claimed what you're saying I claimed. The only actual claims I made were true and you were incorrect and you can't seem to handle it.
The Budapest Memorandum doesn't actually promise any money or troops and no amount of lying will change that.
Once again, that's your straw man argument, not what I claimed.
As for the rest of your nonsense, you're a sick piece of garbage.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's pretty much the same way I feel about your insults, but I felt I should respond in kind. Once again this whole thing is pointless because you're either too functionally illiterate or simply too obtuse to understand that what I am saying is that, despite it not being spelled out in exact words, there is a clear obligation, not to mention an over-riding self-interest, for the US to provide real security support for Ukraine. As it happens, it's pretty clear that the majority of the US government agrees
Re: (Score:2)
As it happens, it's pretty clear that the majority of the US government agrees with me on that, not with you
Being a warmonger is easy and trendy. You're standing with the majority, the mob, the conformists and yes-men. You're pro-war. You're pro-government. Those are all worse than any of the insults you've deserved so far, but go ahead, be a retard celebrating his dunce-hat and wear it all like a badge of honor. Do a little dance if you need to, but I'm just shaking my head with a mix of pity and disgust.
there is a clear obligation
No, there isn't. You can call a treaty "The Contract for Utopia" or "The Agreement to Make it Absolutely All
Re: (Score:2)
Being a warmonger is easy and trendy. You're standing with the majority, the mob, the conformists and yes-men.
You keep using words that you apparently don't understand the meaning of. The word "monger" means a dealer. Someone who sells the thing that they are a monger of. Compare, for example, to fishmonger. So, a warmonger is someone involved in the selling of weapons or who directly personally profits from war in some way. For example, Uncle Sam, selling meat to the army, or Raytheon, or Boeing or Daddy Warbucks. The word can be extended to politicians whose districts or cronies profit from the military as well.
Re: (Score:2)
So, a warmonger is someone involved in the selling of weapons or who directly personally profits from war in some way.
Despite some interesting pretzel etymology, the dictionary disagrees with you and nails you as a warmonger. [merriam-webster.com] The first definition is "one who urges or attempts to stir up war". So, all that word salad just to get busted by the dictionary. SMH.
with your obscene gloating over Ukrainian women ending up as sex-slaves and the like
You're the one advocating the policies that got their men killed. Who is actually obscene, here?
While the document says in other places
Despite your zillion-word replies you still have quoted nothing but the document title.
as well that it grants security guarantees
What kind? Which ones? Quote the document where it says what they are.
does this just come down to cowardice
Of getting nuked?
Re: (Score:2)
Despite some interesting pretzel etymology, the dictionary disagrees with you and nails you as a warmonger. [merriam-webster.com] The first definition is "one who urges or attempts to stir up war". So, all that word salad just to get busted by the dictionary. SMH.
Oh, Webster's. They're more of a "pop" dictionary, but whatever. It still does not describe me. I'm not to stir up war. The war is already going on. You do understand that Russia invaded Ukraine right? I'm not trying to "stir up" a war. The war is already happening. The war will continue to happen with or without external support for Ukraine. I am just in favor of helping Ukraine. That's not stirring up war. You're a very confused person.
You're the one advocating the policies that got their men killed. Who is actually obscene, here?
No I'm not, you moron. I am advocating giving them the tools to protec
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong. It's being spent on one of the most corrupt governments on the planet.
By what metric have you determined Ukraine has one of the most corrupt governments on the planet? Their 2023 CPI score is 104 of 180 meaning at the very least 76 countries are judged to be more corrupt than Ukraine. Can you offer any credible objective measure you believe supports your "one of the most corrupt governments" claim?
when it could be used to help Americans who need it badly these days.
Why stop at Ukraine? One can easily make the same statements in relation to the entire US defense budget. Who needs a military when there are starving strippers to feed?
One thin
Re: (Score:2)
By what metric
By this metric [transparency.org] In 2022, Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index Ukraine scored 33 out of 100, ranking 122nd out of 180 countries. They are more corrupt, now, because they've suspended elections.
One can easily make the same statements in relation to the entire US defense budget.
Well, we have the right to defend ourselves. So, I suppose the defense budget should be slightly higher than zero, but a helluva lot less than it is now, for sure.
One can easily make the same statements in relation to the entire US defense budget.
Well, not the entire budget, we have to defend our own country, too.
there are also substantial increases in weapons sales from foreign allies
Substantial, but not $107B, that's for sure. As an anti-war kinda guy
Re: (Score:2)
By this metric In 2022, Transparency International's Corruption Perception Index Ukraine scored 33 out of 100, ranking 122nd out of 180 countries. They are more corrupt, now, because they've suspended elections.
Why are you misreading outdated 2022 data (rank is 116 not 122) when it is 2024 and I provided the latest information as of 2023 for Ukraine? The 2023 CPI rank is 104 of 180 meaning at the very least 76 countries are judged to be more corrupt than Ukraine. This does not constitute "one of the most corrupt governments on the planet"
My question remains can you offer any credible objective measure you believe supports your "one of the most corrupt governments" claim? Thus far it's looking like the answer is
Re: (Score:2)
Corruption Is an Existential Threat to Ukraine, and Ukrainians Know It [foreignpolicy.com]
A YEAR AFTER MAIDAN, UKRAINE IS STILL THE MOST CORRUPT COUNTRY IN EUROPE [transparency.org]
Al Jeezera says Ukraine has long been associated with corruption and oligarchy [aljazeera.com]
There are 177 references on the Corruption in Ukraine [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia page which also says "According to a poll conducted by Ernst & Young in 2017, experts considered Ukraine to be the ninth-most corrupt nation from 53 surveyed.".
Keep
Re: (Score:2)
I guess all these guys are wrong/crazy, too, eh?
Corruption Is an Existential Threat to Ukraine, and Ukrainians Know It
A YEAR AFTER MAIDAN, UKRAINE IS STILL THE MOST CORRUPT COUNTRY IN EUROPE
Al Jeezera says Ukraine has long been associated with corruption and oligarchy
There are 177 references on the Corruption in Ukraine Wikipedia page which also says "According to a poll conducted by Ernst & Young in 2017, experts considered Ukraine to be the ninth-most corrupt nation from 53 surveyed.".
You made a specific claim asserting without evidence Ukraine is "one of the most corrupt governments on the planet" nobody is arguing Ukraine is not corrupt as shit and doesn't have major issues with corruption.
Ukraine while improving rapidly in recent years still very much suffers from high levels of corruption. The US and other allies have repeatedly publicly spoke to concerns of corruption in Ukraine including during Blinkin's recent trip to Ukraine which in part was focused on corruption related issue
Re: (Score:2)
They are going to reap the whirlwind, in any case, no matter how many angels you try to pack onto the head of a pin. All those millions of refugee Ukrainian women better find a po
Re: (Score:2)
Nice tap dancing. Do you have the little metal tips on your shoes to make it more dramatic?
If you have something substantive to say then say. I have no interest in your bullshit.
Here you are left mincing words where "corrupt" versus "one of the most corrupt" is a difference without a distinction and it's pathetic.
Being less corrupt than 43% of all countries does not make Ukraine "one of the most corrupt governments on the planet". There is no credible means of parsing or spinning your language in a way that would bring it into consistency with available evidence.
They are going to reap the whirlwind, in any case, no matter how many angels you try to pack onto the head of a pin. All those millions of refugee Ukrainian women better find a pole and start dancing (daddy just got blown up by a hypersonic missile).
An unprovoked war of conquest is waged against a country. Entire cities and towns have been razed to the ground, millions of people have been displaced, tens of thousan
Re: (Score:2)
An unprovoked war of conquest is waged against a country. Entire cities and towns have been razed to the ground, millions of people have been displaced, tens of thousands of civilians
Fuck those beggars. They definitely provoked it with their shelling in Donbas and elsewhere after repeated warnings from Russia to stop. The coup in 2014 certainly also provided some provocation. It didn't come from nowhere like you morons keep repeating. It doesn't mattter how much you lie about it. People were paying attention and saw exactly what happened. They got themselves into a big conflict thinking the US and EU would back them up and that they could potentially drag us all in (they wanted to join
Re: (Score:1)
I think you are right, though also wrong... I think the people who would arrange for a trigger to be pulled are also the people who would be afraid of who would slide into the created power vacuum. Now, if you flew a coupla dozen stealthy bombers over the Kremlin and dropped leaflets saying, "Hey, stop this shit or we will stop you" in Russian of course, that may have some set of effects, one of which may be for Putin to rethink his situation, though, honestly, dropping a coupla hundred weapons on the Kremlin may be the smarter move. Turn the whole complex into rubble.
Yeah, I said it. Let the hate mail come.
So, General Fuckwit, explain to your fellow US citizens which coastal cities you're prepared to sacrifice. Just New York and LA?
Re: (Score:2)
It's far, far past that. I think Putin's over-committed and failure is not an option. His grip on power will weaken if he calls for a retreat...
Agreed, but Russia still has plenty of high-story windows Putin can throw opponents out of.
USA did not achieve a military victory over USSR. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
No joke Canada and South America should worry (Score:2)
Dictators usually need to counteract their mismanagement through imperialism. You have to send your armies to go plunder in order to cover up your incredible incompetence at running a country.
Re: (Score:1)
This war will end and it will end with Ukraine giving up territory. It's that simple. A cease fire with those terms has already been on the table and rejected following pressure from the U.S. and U.K.
Re: (Score:2)
This war will end and it will end with Ukraine giving up territory.
This war will end and it will end with Russia leaving Ukraine and paying reparations for the death and destruction they caused. It's that simple.
Re: (Score:1)
The war started as a civil war within Ukraine following a violent overthrow of the democratically elected government. Now you might say that Russia had no right to involve themselves in that war, but that is up for debate.
Re: (Score:3)
The war started as a civil war within Ukraine following a violent overthrow of the democratically elected government.
This again is factually incorrect. The war with Russia started during Maidan in which the sitting president (A Russian puppet) whose own party left him completely lost his legitimacy and fled like a coward. The president was then Impeached/fired/kicked to the curb by vote of the Ukrainian parliament 328 to 0. There was no overthrow of government, there was no coup.
Asserting this constituted a violent overthrow would be the equivalent of saying had Nixon not resigned and was instead successfully impeached
Crypto isn't magical (Score:3)
It's a financial instrument, there will be an exchange. And especially in the amounts Russia would try to move, very traceable in a public ledger.
I wouldn't want to be the guy found making black market deals with Russia via Bitcoin. I doubt it would go well.
Re: (Score:2)
the amounts Russia would try to move, very traceable in a public ledger.
One small problem: they don't give a fuck and are nuclear armed. What are we going to do in retaliation, exactly?
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong end of the transaction; it'd be the guy in a country that cares that deals with the fallout.
Russia needs crypto to deal with countries that are refusing to deal with it - it doesn't need it for China, North Korea, or Iran... and probably has ways of working with Hungary.
Not even if you had Presidential Immunity? (Score:2)
Sorry, with President Trump giving a recent speech on the subject (?) [wired.com], I just had to ask.
(and before anybody says anything - since he wasn't convicted by Congress, he's still "President Trump". I hate it as much as anybody, but it's still so.)
Re: (Score:2)
Not all cryptocurrencies have public ledgers. Some offer truly anonymous transactions, such as Monero and Zcash. Bitcoin is often laundered by simply exchanging it into Monero and then back out.
Not the blackmarket (Score:2)
I wouldn't want to be the guy found making black market deals with Russia via Bitcoin. I doubt it would go well.
From the summary:
These aren't transactions from parties in countries that have sanctions on Russia, they're transactions between China and other countries that don't have sanctions. The problem is the traditional global payment networks are controlled by the West. The crypto net
This is just money laundering (Score:3)
Yes. Yes they have. (Score:2)
Payments from Russia to China can take up to half a year to process, and most bank transfer are returned [businessinsider.com]. This is due to the sanctions the West has imposed on Russia for its invasion. Every time Russia tries to find a new way to route money, it gets smacked down.
Earlier this month, a top Russian banker said the sanctions-evading methods should be made a "state secret" because they keep getting shut down so fast.
"Whatever steps we take, we can see that the reaction is very quick," said Andrei Kostin, the CEO of VTB Bank, Russia's second-largest lender.
With as slow as crypto is to process, this isn't going to help the situation.
How will this work? (Score:2, Interesting)
The way I understand it is that Russia wants to buy stuff but can't because of sanctions. If the intent of using crypto is to bypass the sanctions, who is going to be stupid enough to give Russia actual physical things in exchange for a series of ones and zeroes?
Especially given that those ones and zeroes can't easily be exchanged for real money since by trying to do so you tank the market for ones and zeroes while using the equivalent of a small nation's electrical generation capacity in the process.
Maybe
One possible scenario (Score:2)
If the intent of using crypto is to bypass the sanctions, who is going to be stupid enough to give Russia actual physical things in exchange for a series of ones and zeroes?
Especially given that those ones and zeroes can't easily be exchanged for real money since by trying to do so you tank the market for ones and zeroes
TFA doesn't say, but here's one possible scenario:
1. Bitcoin/Monero/whatever is mined inside of Russia
2. The importing firm exchanges RUB for the miner's crypto
3. Money transfer occurs on the blockchain (this is where the sanctions are avoided).
4. The recipient, perhaps a Chinese firm, exchanges the BTC received for CNY at an exchange.
As for tanking the price of the crypocurrency, sure, that could be a problem, but in large, lopsided volumes. But the TFA says that the government will allow (not force) busin
Re: How will this work? (Score:2)
They can pay bribes to right wing politicians again. They are really suffering without their patron
Re: (Score:2)
I think the issue is that most of the intermediaries in the world banking system are constrained by the sanctions. Even if a bank is in China, it still wants to stay in the good graces of the West and therefore has pressure to abide by the sanctions. A crypto transaction between Russian and Chinese businesses would get around this issue of requiring the intermediary bank.
Is it why Trump loves crypto now? (Score:3, Funny)
Is it the reason why Trump loves crypto now?
He was against but changed mind couple days ago...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he was talking at a crypto event to crypto enthusiasts. I doubt Trump has any understanding of crypto, but he usually knows enough not to insult his audience. Usually.
"I will be a Bitcoin President" --DJ Trump (Score:2)
Is it the reason why Trump loves crypto now?
He was against but changed mind couple days ago...
DJ Trump, last Sunday Jul 27, 2024, "I will be a Bitcoin President" [youtube.com]
Lets be clear. (Score:2)
Russia does not have a problem receiving shipments of anything. They have a problem paying for it later. Credit can only go so far. We are not talking about the government proper either but actual free market businesses. The government can trade oil for anything. Including bitcoin. Bitcoin accounts don't tell you who owns them. Russia can set up an infrastructure to anonymize transactions from their country and any one else in the world that would also care to do so. Russian businesses transactions still go
Time to sell that Crypto (Score:2)
It is very interesting that this revelation coincides with Trump announcing that the US must have a strategic stockpile of Bitcoin. I bet one of his big donors would love to dump their massive stash of Bitcoin.
As a US taxpayer, I don't want my tax dollars put into something as risky as Bitcoin. Something is rotten here, I can smell it.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude that's not why crypto was invented. Slashdot has been following it since the early days and we have overlap with the cipherpunk community that birthed it.
Now if you want to talk about why people are pushing crypto well after it's proven to be useless as a normal currency for buying normal goods and services. Yeah fucking absolutely everyone involved is a fool, hopes to make someone a greater fool, or doesn't want to pay taxes