Timeline for ELI5: Why is Russia's requirement for oil to be paid in Roubles abnormal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 2, 2023 at 20:12 | history | edited | sfxedit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 31 characters in body
|
| Jan 31, 2023 at 20:46 | history | edited | sfxedit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 45 characters in body
|
| Jan 31, 2023 at 19:53 | comment | added | sfxedit | Russia didn't ask for payment in Rubles directly so there was nothing to ignore (that is the part that was fudged a little by the west). It asked them to pay in Euros itself. But to a Russian bank account. And that would be converted to Rubles But their "payment obligation" would only be considered fulfilled when the conversion to Rubles happened. It is because Russia demanded payment this way, some Russian banks had to be exempt from sanctions. (In fact, I would say there was a collusion between Russia and EU to negotiate such a loophole because neither really wanted to cross a line). | |
| Jan 31, 2023 at 19:34 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | I think it was mostly sidestepped before going to court by ignoring Gazprom's demands and sticking to payments in $, as per contract. So, if you ask for rubles, and you don't get it, is there contract breach? Plus, I think a massive part of the motivation ascribed to Russia at the time was to keep the ruble from collapsing, something you only mention in passing (the ruble being a flakey currency being a prime previous motivation for getting paid in $ and Euro). Like I said, upvoted, on its own terms, for reminding us that not all reality is based on Western media. | |
| Jan 31, 2023 at 19:33 | comment | added | sfxedit | address any technical aspects of the payment process and only refer to ‘amounts being paid’ into a specified bank account ... The payment obligation is usually deemed as fulfilled as soon as the payment reaches the bank account nominated by the seller. If the payment method and obligations are not clearly defined in a contract, that means it can be changed. And that is what Russia did. At best, it can be termed as a minor contract dispute. | |
| Jan 31, 2023 at 19:32 | comment | added | sfxedit | I was trying to point out that there wasn't any "contract" breach as the EU claimed (and you wrote in your answer), because otherwise they would have simply taken Gazprom to court for contract violation. Note the paper I cited says: The method for payment is usually addressed in little detail in GSAs. Some contracts require payment to be executed by ‘bank transfer’ (which is sometimes further qualified as ‘direct’, ‘electronic’, or other). It is not unusual to see contracts that do not (contd.) | |
| Jan 31, 2023 at 19:19 | comment | added | Italian Philosopher | Seems more of an addition than something I can incorporate. First - do you remember that some of the Russian banks involved in energy sales were exempt? Second, the deposit $ into RU bank, which converts to rubles isn't really breaking contract and I am not sure that the whole controversy started that way: IIRC first it was change contract rubles only, then it settled to $ which will be rubled behind the scenes. In all cases? Some cases? Dunno. Still qualifiers you bring here are worthwhile - upvoted. Last, while RU funds got seized RU seized Western jet airliners and corporate assets | |
| Jan 31, 2023 at 3:59 | history | answered | sfxedit | CC BY-SA 4.0 |