[HN Gopher] BP quits Russia in up to $25B hit after Ukraine inva... ___________________________________________________________________ BP quits Russia in up to $25B hit after Ukraine invasion Author : vitabenes Score : 236 points Date : 2022-02-27 18:42 UTC (4 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.reuters.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.reuters.com) | xanaxagoras wrote: | Is it crazy to think that someone is reimbursing them for this | loss, like Western governments perhaps? Or maybe its some kind of | opportunity cost calculation at the behest of some ESG man behind | the curtain? Not the be too conspiratorial, but I'm trying to | make sense of walking away from that kind of money, assuming of | course that this is complete and utter bullshit: | | > "I have been deeply shocked and saddened by the situation | unfolding in Ukraine and my heart goes out to everyone affected. | It has caused us to fundamentally rethink bp's position with | Rosneft," BP Chief Executive Bernard Looney said. | rich_sasha wrote: | They are probably selling at a heavy discount. Ie making a | loss. | olliej wrote: | I mean the correct action is to require Russia to pay for all | damages they have caused. | | They should be required to pay for the reconstruction of | Ukraine. | | They should be required to compensate Ukrainians for the people | they choose to kill. | | They should be required to disarm, as they have demonstrated | they are willing to invade peaceful countries, without any | reason other than a desire to conquer. | beejiu wrote: | This follows political pressure in the past few days. | | "BP left the meeting with no doubt about the strength of the | Business Secretary's concern about their commercial interests | in Russia." | (https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/europe/390852/bp- | ceo-r... | | That obviously a bit cryptic, but I don't think this decision | is purely altruistic on BP's part. | Dwolb wrote: | Reduction in net income at least, but I don't know their | finances well enough to know if it's useful. | trhway wrote: | imagine in 1945 looking at the pull out of investments in 1939 | from Germany. | Oberbaumbrucke wrote: | Yes, everyone's pension fund. | arbuge wrote: | > Is it crazy to think that someone is reimbursing them for | this loss | | Yes, that would be pretty crazy. They're taking a loss of up to | $25B on their books as per their statement today, at the end of | this quarter. | | "Reimbursing" here would mean never disclosing a donation of | that amount on their books, or laundering it somehow, which | would be massively illegal besides being impractical. | xanaxagoras wrote: | I dunno how impractical it would be. A few no bid contracts | that overpay and you're pretty much good to go. | [deleted] | crate_barre wrote: | It's not crazy to think that. 25bn can be recompensed in | alternate contracts by the West. Like hey BP, you are first in | line for Shale operations we're reopening. | | Biden is a hard ass about Russia, and Putin knows it. | arbuge wrote: | I don't see how this hurts anyone except BP shareholders. | | It certainly doesn't hurt the Russsians in any way I can see. It | seems to me that some Russian individual or organization, perhaps | the Russian government itself, will now just scoop up the stake | in question on the cheap (or for free), at their expense. | woodruffw wrote: | We're not privy to the exact reasons for BP's decision, but one | plausible explanation: if their internal risk analysis | indicates that their share is going to become worthless, then | it makes perfect sense for them to divest from it. The | shareholders take a hit, but it's a small hit compared to | having that money evaporate entirely. | | Besides, given the soaring price of oil, I'm sure they'll find | a way to make that money back. I'm not exactly worried about | BP's financial security or that of its shareholders. | narrator wrote: | War is bad for business, or is it? There is some deep irony here. | | The Russian nationalists just kicked out foreign ownership of | their oil sector and they didn't even have to deprive anyone of | their property rights. The foreigners gave up their stake on | their own initiative. | stjohnswarts wrote: | It depends on what business you're in my friend, the military- | industrial-political complex is certainly watching this with a | smile and wiping their greedy little hands together in | anticipation. | chevman wrote: | The Russian market is going to zero Monday morning so get out | while you still can! | | Going to be an interesting week :) | 01100011 wrote: | Cynical traders will still take the long view and buy the dip. | AniseAbyss wrote: | When you're too insane to deal with even for oil companies... | dev-3892 wrote: | in what direction does money flow as a result of this? | | I'm kind of an idiot when it comes to finance, and to my | uninformed eyes, this looks to me like a $25bln gain for Rosneft. | Is that the case? | Jyaif wrote: | I believe so. Rosneft being state-own, this looks like a 25 | billion gift to Russia. There must be something that I don't | understand. | rlpb wrote: | In accounting terms, you might consider the stake to have | been bought for 25 billion at the time, but now it's being | considered worthless (or maybe even a liability) by BP, so | something of no (dollar) value is being given to Russia. The | loss in value might be considered to have occurred as a | result of recent events. | | Edit: note that I have no idea of the value myself. I'm just | saying that if you were to accept BP's view, then they're not | necessarily giving Russia a gift of any kind. | simonh wrote: | BP still owns the shares, and on the future this could still | give them a claim against Rosneft so this is not a gift to | anyone. | kavalg wrote: | how so? | simonh wrote: | Using laws. Russia has not germ entirely cut off from | international trade, and the UK government will back up | BPs interests. Nothings been gifted to anyone, the | headline is highly misleading. | ivan_gammel wrote: | It would be such a gift at current share price. But Rosneft | will probably become much cheaper. | | 1. Their current production capacity in Russia will decline, | since they won't be able to receive new equipment and spare | parts. | | 2. Their exports capacity may be reduced if more sanctions | will come. | | 3. Their cashflow will be heavily impacted by sanctions. They | may not be able to receive money or spend them on domestic | market (eg pay salaries). | | 4. Their foreign investments may be frozen or they may be | forced to sell. | dchichkov wrote: | This might be what the current dictator in that country | wants - reduce the dependency on the imported components. | And increase the percentage of state ownership of the | natural resources. | petre wrote: | This is probably the last time Putin uses Russia's | resources to blackmail the EU. That's why he attacked | Ukraine: he knew the window of opportunity to transform | it into a Russian vasal state like Belarus is closing | fast, so he picked the last refuge of the incompetent: | violence. The EU won't build any ICE vehicles running on | oil derivates after 2030, China is already ahead of them | in this sectorand Germany just changed course with its | plans to use Russian gas as for decarbonization after the | invasion of Ukraine. China is also going to pay a lot | less than the EU for Russian gas and there only so much | pipeline capacity to deliver it. Russia basically just | became dependent on China economically, just like | Kazahstan and Mongolia. They have just invested $11.6B in | a pipeline that will basically sit unused and will waste | the rest of their dwindling treasury reserves on the war | effort. | rnk wrote: | I wish this was true, but if they wait a few more years | and do it again but win in 1 or 2 days they could still | get away with it. I don't see this as their last | dangerous takeover, as long as Putin is around. | baq wrote: | yeah, it isn't $25B anymore. | Jyaif wrote: | Of course, but it's not worth $0 either. And when the | restrictions against Russia are lifted the value will be | back up. | selectodude wrote: | Nowhere, they just abandoned the stake and gave the shares back | to Rosneft. BP already paid somebody $25bn for the stake years | ago and they are writing down the value of that stake to zero. | senko wrote: | Wher did you read that? I don't see that anywhere in BP | statement. | | What the statement says is they're removing themselves from | the board (so can't be considered to having any control over | Rosneft), and readjusting the shares value. | | To me this reads as they're going to be a passive investor in | Rosneft (and possibly sell the shares as quickly as | possible), not that they're _gifting them to Putin_. | | Statement here: https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/news- | and-insights/pre... | selectodude wrote: | "The change in accounting treatment also means that bp will | no longer recognise a share in Rosneft's net income, | production and reserves" | | If they were still a passive investor, they would still get | a slice of revenue. They're totally divesting. | kgwgk wrote: | I don't think that you understand what "change in | accounting treatment" means. | | Usually, when a company owns AAPL shares, for example, | they do not include in their revenue or net income their | "share" of Apple's revenue or net income. They just | consider the value of the shares and the dividends they | get. | | But when some conditions are met they do. From their | annual report: | | Significant judgement: investment in Rosneft | | Judgement is required in assessing the level of control | or influence over another entity in which the group holds | an interest. For bp, the judgement that the group has | significant influence over Rosneft Oil Company (Rosneft), | a Russian oil and gas company is significant. As a | consequence of this judgement, bp uses the equity method | of accounting for its investment and bp's share of | Rosneft's oil and natural gas reserves is included in the | group's estimated net proved reserves of equity-accounted | entities. If significant influence was not present, the | investment would be accounted for as an investment in an | equity instrument measured at fair value as described | under 'Financial assets' below and no share of Rosneft's | oil and natural gas reserves would be reported. | | Significant influence is defined in IFRS as the power to | participate in the financial and operating policy | decisions of the investee but is not control or joint | control of those policies. Significant influence is | presumed when an entity owns 20% or more of the voting | power of the investee. Significant influence is presumed | not to be present when an entity owns less than 20% of | the voting power of the investee. | | bp owns 19.75% of the voting shares of Rosneft. Rosneft's | largest shareholder is Rosneftegaz JSC (Rosneftegaz), | which is wholly owned by the Russian government. At 31 | December 2020, Rosneftegaz held 40.4% (2019 50% plus one | share) of the voting shares of Rosneft . IFRS identifies | several indicators that may provide evidence of | significant influence, including representation on the | board of directors of the investee and participation in | policy-making processes. bp's group chief executive, | Bernard Looney, was approved as a member of the board of | directors of Rosneft in June 2020 as one of bp's two | nominated directors. bp's other nominated director, Bob | Dudley, has been a member of the Rosneft board since | 2013. He is also chairman of the Rosneft board's | Strategic and Sustainable Development Committee. bp also | holds the voting rights at general meetings of | shareholders conferred by its 19.75% stake in Rosneft. | Transactions by Rosneft in its own shares during the year | have increased bp's economic interest in Rosneft to | 22.03% (2019 19.75%). bp's management considers, | therefore, that the group has significant influence over | Rosneft, as defined by IFRS. | mxschumacher wrote: | that does not mean that they are selling their Rosneft | shares to Rosneft | selectodude wrote: | They're not selling their shares to anybody. They're | abandoning them. Rosneft, for obvious reasons, owns all | the shares that aren't owned by anybody else so Rosneft | gets control the shares back. | kgwgk wrote: | You seem very confident for someone who doesn't | understand what he's talking about. | | If BP is "abandoning their shares", what do you thing | that they mean by "the fair value of bp's Rosneft | shareholding at 31 March 2022"? | | "First, it is expected to give rise to a non-cash | adjusting item charge at the time of the first quarter | 2022 results, representing the difference between the | fair value of bp's Rosneft shareholding at 31 March 2022 | and the carrying value of the asset. At the end of 2021 | this carrying value stood at around $14 billion." | mxschumacher wrote: | there is simply no information available on what will | happen to the shares, so your insistence is irritating. | If the shares were dissolved, the other owners (such as | the Russian government) would end up with a larger stake. | | If a sale is taking place, the question is: to whom and | for how much (Rosneft shares have been under fire on | Thursday and Friday, along with all the other Russian | stocks) | kasey_junk wrote: | And a big company dumping their sales on the market would | add further downward pressure. | | It's really odd this threads insistence that shares are | going to be "given" back to the company as the story | doesn't say that and it's not what it typically means to | exit a position. | senko wrote: | Divesting usually means selling. | | No way in hell they're just giving them back to Rosneft. | lazide wrote: | That's not necessarily what that means - it means they're | not going to attempt to get (or claim on their books) | anything from Rosneft. If, for example, they never expect | to get paid any of those amounts (even if technically | owed them), they would also do that. | SahAssar wrote: | Didn't Rosneft then gain whatever those shares are worth now? | I get that they lost a strategic partnership, but the | immediate effect is a gain for Rosneft, no? | ComputerGuru wrote: | Yes, it's basically a free buyback (reverse effect of stock | split/dilution). | spaetzleesser wrote: | That seems really weird. why give them a free gift? I | suspect there must be more to this. | gambiting wrote: | The gift is worth nothing or actually worse, BP pulling | out reduces the value of all of their other shares too. | Tenoke wrote: | Surely (if that's really the case) just selling on the | market and crashing the price would've hurt them even | more. I'd normally expect that'd also make BP at least a | bit of money but I have no idea about the complex | accounting and tax situation when doing it this way. | | Either way, at minimum it's a gift of not crashing the | price. | VBprogrammer wrote: | In theory perhaps but it's a pretty damning indictment of | their near term prospects so I would be surprised if they | gain anything when the dust settles. | SahAssar wrote: | In terms of market cap, sure. But isn't part of owning a | significant chunk of a company some voting power too? If | the end goal of sanctions is to influence behavior then | isn't it weird to give up voting power in a business in | the sanctioned country? | | I'm by no means knowledgeable about this stuff, so please | correct me if I'm wrong. | lazide wrote: | For that voting power to exist, you'd need to be able to | exercise it and/or have someone in the appropriate | jurisdiction with power who would back up your claim to | do so. | | Realistically, that isn't happening anytime in the | foreseeable future. | SahAssar wrote: | I still don't get how this is a logical path. If BP | wanted to hurt Rosneft wouldn't keeping the shares but | announcing that they saw them as worthless except as a | tool to influence russia be more impactful? Or any other | path that would indicate their lack of trust in the | company but still retain a way to influence it if that | door opened again? | | Even if BP considers the shares and the voting power | completely and utterly worthless the other owners of | Rosneft apparently don't and giving back the shares gives | the other shareholders larger ownership of the company | for free. | lazide wrote: | BP, per the article, has not decided what they will do | exactly - "[...] without saying how it plans to extricate | itself." | | They just don't want to be involved anymore. | | Realistically if they keep their shares, they'll get | hounded by everyone to do said influencing or whatever, | which would be really irritating for them I imagine. But | maybe they will put them in a drawer somewhere in the | basement and tell everyone to screw off. Who knows. They | say they don't know right now. | FastMonkey wrote: | Rosneft is a publicly traded company. When you "exit" a | position, that usually means you sell the shares onto the | market. Public shares are traded on a secondary market, so if | they do that some other investors would be buying them. I | haven't looked into this story that deeply, but I think it's | unlikely that they would be striking a good deal with Rosneft | to sell them directly back to the company. Rosneft may decide | to buy the shares back from the market itself. | | Edit: looking at the BP disclosure, they've decided to make the | accounting changes that show they're going to sell the stake, | they'll likely be looking for a smart way to offload the | shares, probably to some large buyer (not just pressing sell on | some brokerage account). | | Edit 2: the $25B figure isn't really that accurate. Before this | all kicked off, Rosneft had a market cap of around $70B,and BP | held about 20%, or $14B. The article sums BP's carrying value | for the company ($14B, coincidentally I think), and an | accumulated foreign exchange loss of $11B, which had already | been charged to equity. The current market cap of Rosneft is | about $30B,so the actual hit to BP sharebolders will be | something like $8B if they could sell at current prices. | lottin wrote: | So were does the loss come from exactly? Were the shares that | BP held not marked to market already? | kgwgk wrote: | > Were the shares that BP held not marked to market | already? | | No, they were treated using the equity method: | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equity_method | lazide wrote: | In accounting terms, if they already recognized the asset | at x value, or paid x amount for it, any amount less than x | is considered a loss. | | Depending on what goes on here market wise before they can | exit their ownership stake (if they haven't already!) is | what will decide how big a loss this is. | FastMonkey wrote: | It's like a loss you would make if you bought a stock for | $20 and sold it for $18. Someone else buys it for $18 and | it might go up or down from there. Rosneft got their money | back when they initially sold the stock to the market. | | I think BP is a UK company and I'm not that familiar with | the specifics of their accounting system. In the disclosure | they say they considered that they had "significant | influence" which is an IFRS accounting term. That would | mean (as simply as I can explain it) that the initial | purchase is recorded at cost with their share of Rosnefts | profits and dividends recorded against that holding (along | with a large bundle of other accounting details). | ratsmack wrote: | I think there is an SEC rule that prevents large block trades | from happening on the open market. Many of these are done | behind the scenes or during aftermarket hours, but always | have to be approved by the SEC. | htrp wrote: | >I think there is an SEC rule that prevents large block | trades from happening on the open market | | Not quite an SEC rule, just self interest. | | You want to get the best price for your stake and your | options are to liquidate over the course of a few days in | the open market (in which case word gets out) or private | placement (usually the best option). | zaphar wrote: | BP is not a US company nor is Rosneft. There is no reason | the sale has to happen on an SEC controlled market. SEC | rules do not necessarily apply here. | MrPatan wrote: | Didn't they just said they couldn't sell it (who'd buy?) and | they just taking it "off the books" and will just stop claiming | the money from the dividends? | | So now Rosneft gets to keep more money? They did a stock | buyback for free? That'll learn'em! | stjohnswarts wrote: | You got to solute them for this. While they'll get to write it | off as a loss they still will be paying a lot for this. "Write | offs" aren't cheap like a lot of the internet seems to think. | tobyhede wrote: | BP is probably just getting ahead of the game. The value of this | investment is likely to be predicted to plummet and need to be | written off anyway. The EU will need to dramatically reduce | energy dependence on Russia after this. There will no popular | support and the long term strategic implications make it | untenable. | TedShiller wrote: | The financially correct way to do it would be to wait for it to | plummet first before writing it off. So no, you don't want to | get "ahead of the game" in the accounting sense. | UnlockedSecrets wrote: | What are the effects of doing it now versus later? | baq wrote: | but it has already happened. show me (or them) a bidder. no | one in their right mind would buy a russian asset after what | happened a few hours ago and likely what will happen in | retaliation. | mytailorisrich wrote: | The value of their investment will be known when they find a | buyer... | | I don't see too many organizations interested at the moment. | Chinese would be the most likely candidates but they may also | be wary and stay away for the time being. Or they can pretty | much give their shares away to the Russian government or sell | them to some Russian organization at a massive discount. | foobiekr wrote: | It will take a decade to reduce their energy dependence. | ajross wrote: | Less, if Russia resolves its governmental intemperance first. | | The events of the last few days make it at least plausible | that Putin's days are numbered. If so, that's very bad in | terms of absolute apocalyptic risk, but probably a good thing | as measured by expected outcome. The chances of getting a | stable democracy in the next decade might be, I dunno, 40% or | greater (and those of dying in a nuclear fireball surely | under 1%, right?). So as geopolitics it's probably a mistake, | but as investment decisionmaking I think it makes sense. | trhway wrote: | >Russia resolves its governmental intemperance first | | i see the history of the last 30+ years as clear indication | that Russian society is progressively becoming less and | less able to manage large issues. As result i think there | is high probability that Russia will breakup after that | catastrophe of Ukraine war similar to USSR after | Afghanistan (the key to such breakup isn't external forces, | instead it is clear disillusionment with existing power). | For example, the Far East in particular has no good | connection to Russia (and Putin was basically trying to buy | them up by sending money which will definitely become | problematic once the war related bills, like compensation | to Ukraine, start to hit the treasure) while say getting | high-speed rail Vladivostok-Dalyan/Bejing would include it | into the Pacific ring of the future boom of economic | development. | petre wrote: | China is already buying off ex Soviet satellites like | Kyrgystan and Mongolia. Kazahstan is also economically | dependent on China. If Japan is given any reason to rearm | itself to the teeth again (like a Chinese invasion of | Taiwan) and Russia breaks up, they'll almost certainly | retake Sakhalin and Kurlil islands back. The rest will | probably all become China satellites, except maybe for | South Korea. | rnk wrote: | I'm hoping that Russia actually attacking Ukraine against | the strong wishes of the world will cause a similar | desire to reign in China and protect Taiwan and other | small country democracies. Strategic ambiguity didn't | work in Ukraine and it won't work in Taiwan either. | Eventually China will attack. So let's get over our fear | there and just sign a mutual defense treaty. Ideally we | form a NATO of the Pacific with SK, Japan, Australia, NZ, | and many other small countries. It would drive China bat | shit insane with anger, but they are just going to do | what they want eventually unless we get together and stop | them. | jmnicolas wrote: | > The events of the last few days make it at least | plausible that Putin's days are numbered. | | Citation needed. I believe Putin enjoys a very strong | approval in Russia and I have never read or see anything | that could disprove it (except from self styled experts | that are notoriously clueless about everything). | | For a comparison there were just hundreds of protestors in | Moscow on a 12 millions pop. This is nothing. | | I visited quite a few Russian blogs with the help of a | translation plugin, I didn't see anything looking like they | disapprove, on the contrary most of them ask why it took 8 | years. | baybal2 wrote: | > Citation needed. I believe Putin enjoys a very strong | approval in Russia | | His approval rating is as genuine as his 146% election | victories https://bloknot.ru/wp- | content/uploads/2016/03/rostovsakaya-1... | digitalsushi wrote: | Does someone sharing their opinion that something is | possible need a citation? | bnlxbnlx wrote: | from what i read anti-war protesters in russia get | arrested. so the threshold to show one's disapproval with | the invasion is fairly high. | ozfive wrote: | Nothing stoping Russians from starting sabotage | operations internally in protest. | rich_sasha wrote: | Russia has basically never had a democratic government, | perhaps except during the 90s. There is no tradition of it. | It's current form of government is more like the fiefdoms | of Tsarist Russia: the Tsar giveth and the Tsar giveth | away. | | Russian may want democracy (though do we know that they | do?), but there's more than just Putin in the way. | rsynnott wrote: | I mean, there was no tradition of democracy in Korea or | China, but South Korea and Taiwan transitioned reasonably | successfully to democracy in the 80s and 90s | respectively. It has been done. | | For that matter, a number of Soviet successor states are | successfully functioning democracies. | thow-58d4e8b wrote: | Not sure about South Korea, but Taiwan's democracy is | kind of a joke. Since the end of the WW2, the grand total | of the number of parties holding power is...two - DPP and | KMT. | | There are no differences between them in foreign affairs. | Both favor wage suppression policies. Both favor currency | manipulation to suppress consumption in order to help | exporters. None of them is doing anything about the worst | housing crisis in the world, leading to a demographic | suicide of the country - fertility rate is below 1.3 for | 20 years and counting. In many way, it's a choice between | Pepsi and Coca-cola | klyrs wrote: | So, it's a joke largely in the same way that democracy is | a joke in the united states. | rnk wrote: | Agree, the above comment (2 above) was inaccurate, | extremely misleading. Taiwan is absolutely a free and | open democratic country as is Korea. It's pretty | inconceivable that someone who is not a democratic or | republic candidate would be elected president in the US | or win congress. Korea has at least been successful at | convicting previous leaders when they were taking bribes | or doing other illegal stuff, including the leader of | Samsung. The US could do a lot better there. | | Before the KMT lost power I think it was reasonable to | see Taiwan as a one party state, but no longer. You are a | little ambiguous in the "two countries" do things, but I | guess you mean Korea and Taiwan. Yeah, both countries are | not paradises that have solved all issues, but they keep | improving their freedom, industrial bases, and living | standards for the average person. Is that true for the us | - we should aspire to do that. Instead we have people | arguing on school boards whether books that dare to | discuss slavery or jim crow laws should be discussed at | all. We aren't clearly moving to be a better society with | that kind of stuff. | ozfive wrote: | Absolutely and Americans are waking up to this fact now | with a terrorist faction taking power in the Republican | party. | Applejinx wrote: | But would this faction be as terrorist as they are | without extensive Russian effort to ensure that they are? | I'm skeptical. | | Given that this is hardly unique to the US, I think | Russia is reaping the whirlwind: they've been up to this | sort of thing pretty much everywhere. This is not the | WWIII. They have been waging the WWIII already, this | whole time, in relatively novel ways, with a lot of | success... until now. | | And it's been the kind of success that is short-sighted: | got their way again and again at the cost of building | enormous hostility, which is now rebounding upon them. | Russia made this bed and all of this is not that much of | a surprise, really. | rnk wrote: | The potential has been there to go way out crazy in the | Republican party for a long time, remember Pat Buchanan? | He was a legit threat, but didn't have the crazy wacko | charisma that Trump has, that dictator tough guy thing | down that appeals to so many conservatives apparently. | The thing I suspect Russia did do was take advantage of | facebook and q-anon type stuff. | pcwalton wrote: | South Korea and Taiwan currently have more functional | democracies than the United States does. The Economist's | Democracy Index classifies Taiwan and South Korea as full | democracies, while the US is a flawed democracy: | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index | rich_sasha wrote: | Taiwan, I don't really know about now, but I'm pretty | sure it wasn't an overnight adoption of democracy in the | 1940s. It took time, a small few generations, to get to | that point. | | It might be similar in Russia, though I'd imagine the | heavily entrenched establishment, with massive reliance | on various police forces, lends itself less to rapid | democratisation-though you never know. | oblio wrote: | Well, you could say that for sure it can be done, because | we didn't really have democracies before 1776, excluding | some super short and unstable versions, and democracies | with universal suffrage are even newer, after about 1900. | | According to the Democracy Index, ~75 countries are full | or flawed democracies, so 75 countries made the leap. | rich_sasha wrote: | Most strong democracies were born through a very long and | drawn out process of democratisation. UK Houses of | Parliament date back to 13th century; of course at that | point there was no democracy, but a tradition of open | debate on government is very old. | | In fact in the UK it's probably hard to pinpoint where | real monarchy ended and democracy started. The monarch | had less and less power over time, and an increasingly | wide circle of privileged voters held more and more | power. | | Many struggling democracies had to make that leap much | more quickly and often the failures of democracy are to | do with the cultural remains of the previous systems. | thow-58d4e8b wrote: | Russia in the 90s wasn't a true democracy either. US | press liked to depict Yeltsin as a democrat because he | was weak and subservient, but his methods of power were | deeply autocratic. Yeltsin ordered artillery shelling of | the parliament in 1993, killing 140 people. Had elections | in 1996 been fair, they'd highly likely mean the return | of the Communist Party to power, so he rigged them in all | sorts of grotesque ways (naturally, western leaders | praised him for it). As his incompetence grew more and | more untenable, he threw the hot potato to Putin and | resigned | vkou wrote: | This is largely accurate - and it's also worth mentioning | that 90s Russia was an absolute hell-hole. | | Whether people approve or disapprove of Putin, a lot of | them remember what life was like before he became Tsar- | for-life, and it isn't something that most of them want | to tangle with again. | thelittleone wrote: | Source? Genuinely curious. Surprised EU membership doesnt | mandate controls on economic dependency. | qiskit wrote: | More like as britain takes russian assets via sanctions, the | russians will offset it by taking british assets. So all | british assets in russia/ukraine are already lost just like all | russian assets in britain are lost. | | This is just something their PR team put together to get some | good publicity. Like paying media to rename the "BP oil spill" | to "Deepwater oil spill". Like branding their company as a | green eco-friendly after said BP oil spill. Still one of the | largest oil companies in the world, but they are green eco- | friendly. | ryder9 wrote: | onethought wrote: | That's not how sanctions work. They aren't seizures, the | assets just can't be moved. Long term sanctions (like Iran | and North Korea) might feel like seizures, but technically if | they were ever lifted the assets have to be returned. | | Banks of course can pad their balance sheets with this stuff, | so I guess that side is seized. | gruez wrote: | >This is just something their PR team put together to get | some good publicity. Like paying media to rename the "BP oil | spill" to "Deepwater oil spill". | | Source? I did some rudimentary checking and what you're | describing seems like revisionist history and/or conspiracy | to me. I checked the news section from wikipedia on that | date[1], and it's referred to as "Explosion on Deepwater | Horizon drilling rig", with no references to BP (in the | title, there are references in the body). The linked sources | also do the same. The same lack of BP reference also applies | to NPR which had stories from the AP[2] as well as new | orleans public radio[3]. Maybe BP bribed all of them, but | that seems hard to believe. Looking at the wikipedia page | and/or news articles, you can find a less sinister | explanation for why it wasn't called the BP oil spill: the | drilling rig was owned and operated by Transocean, not BP. | | [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Current_events/Apr | il_... | | [2] https://web.archive.org/web/20100421145719/https://www.np | r.o... | | [3] https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126 | 183... | filomeno wrote: | > There will no popular support and the long term strategic | implications make it untenable | | People just want cheap prices for gas, oil... We don't care too | much about what happens in Ukraine, we just want to pay our | bills. Nobody is going to be cold or hungry just to harm | Russia. Capitalism wouldn't exist otherwise, and capitalism is | just what the EU is about. | delegate wrote: | I think you're not getting the full picture. A dictator with | thousands of nukes has gone rogue, saying and doing crazy | things, eg. is unpredictable. Capitalism works in peaceful | times, it stops when tanks are rolling by. | filomeno wrote: | The only thing I remember, is that the only time nuclear | weapons were used, it was not Russia nor the USSR. To me it | doesn't look unpredictable at all: Ukraine has long been | warned that joining NATO poses a threat to Russia and that | they should remain neutral. Yet they decided to continue to | provoke Russia (just for the interest of the US) and now | they get what they were looking for. | rnk wrote: | Russia said don't join Nato or we'll destroy you, | Ukraine. And then Russia attacks Ukraine anyway. So what | would be different if Georgia, Ukraine, and the other | smaller democratic survivors of the USSR join NATO? | Russia will still want to attack them. | | Edit - one more thing, Russia said it threatens us if | NATO is right next door to us in Ukraine. So Russia wants | to take over Ukraine, and they'll be right next door to | NATO in Poland. They were already right next door to | NATO. | filomeno wrote: | > Russia said don't join Nato or we'll destroy you, | Ukraine. And then Russia attacks Ukraine anyway | | They wanted some guarantee that Ukraine would remain a | neutral country, and the response they got was that | Ukraine was going to join NATO. Even more, NATO's | secretary general said not only Ukraine can join NATO, | but also, NATO's presence in eastern Europe was to be | strengthened. If that was meant to avoid a military | conflict, I think they were very wrong. | yrgulation wrote: | I have a feeling BP will be paid back from a Russian war | reparations package. Call it a hunch. | rmbyrro wrote: | Before that Russia would need to actually lose the war, which | is highly unlikely, considering Ukraine is fighting on its | own.. | buitreVirtual wrote: | BP and others could be still be paid from confiscated | Russian assets in Europe. | yrgulation wrote: | Either that or the bet is that it collapses from within. | After the soviet union collapsed, russia took over all | soviet countries debts upon itself, effectively paying | war reparations. Could be similar now. If there is a coup | or some dramatic change it would pay some sort of | penalties for the current war. | scottLobster wrote: | Ukraine is fighting with the open support of pretty much | every advanced military in the developed world. They've got | armed drones from Turkey, Javelins from the US/UK, the | freaking EU of all organizations is saying they'll send | them fighter jets. Even Germany is sending weapons. | | Combine that with the apparent intense Ukrainian morale and | Russian military incompetence/lack of will, Ukraine winning | is not entirely out of the question. Even if they lose they | seem fully prepared to commit to an insurgency, which given | said international support and direct borders with NATO | would be the best equipped insurgency in history. | | Never mind the potential effects of the sanctions, which | are truly massive in scope. | | Ukraine could very well be the rock that breaks Russia's | teeth. | sharpy wrote: | I think we underestimate how much this matters to Russia. | They might indeed feel there is an existential threat to | them (the elites, not Russia the country), if they let | the countries on their periphery join EU/NATO, and become | democracies, what guarantees do they have that it won't | happen in Russia, and that a day of reckoning won't come | for them for looting the motherland? | | And given the relative weakness demonstrated by the west | in recent history (such as abandoning Afghanistan) they | might judge that in the end, the rest of world won't have | the stomach for any costly intervention. | | Sending the weapons to Ukraine amounts to little, in the | face of overwhelming Russian military advantage. Given | the likely goal of establishing pro-Russian government in | Ukraine, and the long history of association, Russian | forces are being rather "gentle" compared to what they | demonstrated elsewhere, but if it comes to it... Ukraine | cannot win without real support (as in boots on the | ground) from the west, and nobody wants to contemplate | that. | scottLobster wrote: | Did sending weapons to Afghanistan amount to little, in | the face of the overwhelming Russian military advantage? | And Ukraine is a lot closer (physically and culturally), | and the support a lot more open, than Afghanistan. | | As for the Russian Oliagarchs, if their concern was | eventual revolution in Russia it looks like they may have | just brought that day closer rather than pushed it out. | They clearly weren't expecting a response of this | magnitude, the question is when they choose to cut their | losses. | smoe wrote: | I don't think Ukraine will win a normal war against | Russia, but will have to shift to more guerrilla warfare | soon. But on the other hand, is Russia willing to occupy, | likely for years, the second largest country of Europe | with a population of 44 million to keep the established | pro-Russian government actually in power? So far, it | doesn't look like Ukrainians would just accept a puppet | president, even if all the mayor cities would have been | taken. | hinkley wrote: | I am going to be shocked if it doesn't come out that | Poland didn't at least send some consultants in to | discuss guerilla tactics. | | My friend in college was a son of Polish dissidents. He | didn't like to talk about it in too much depth but I got | some impressions, and it sounds like his granddad was one | of those people in the movie they made recently about the | Polish resistance hiding in the woods during the Cold | War. | logifail wrote: | > the freaking EU of all organizations is saying they'll | send them fighter jets | | For clarity, and despite Macron's urgings, the EU doesn't | yet have an air force it can send anywhere. | | It does have the Common Security and Defence Policy[0]: | | "The CSDP involves the deployment of military or civilian | missions to preserve peace, prevent conflict and | strengthen international security in accordance with the | principles of the United Nations Charter. Military | missions are carried out by EU forces established with | secondments from the member states' armed forces" | | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Security_and_Def | ence_Po... | scottLobster wrote: | https://www.barrons.com/news/eu-countries-to-send- | fighter-je... | | It was the EU "High Representative of the Union for | Foreign Affairs and Security Policy" speaking for various | EU members. | anxrn wrote: | They appear to have said [1] they'll supply (finance + | deliver) aircraft (which presumably the Ukrainians have | the expertise to operate, per [2]). They have not said | they'll send in an air force (operated by non- | Ukrainians), which as you point out, they don't yet have. | | [1] https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/eu-close- | airspace-russi... [2] https://www.barrons.com/news/eu- | countries-to-send-fighter-je... | petre wrote: | There are remaining MiG operators in Central and Eastern | Europe. These planes have been converted to use NATO | warheads and will be phased out anyway. Ukrainians pilots | are already accustomed to them. | NicoJuicy wrote: | I think winning could be done by 2 ways: | | - holding out long enough, if it depleets Russia of | resources ( aided with sanctions) | | - internal protests in Russia ( considering huge amount | of relatives on both sides), that goes out of control - I | don't know if this is realistic though. But I think the | relative factor between those countries ( family members) | can outwit the propaganda factor | | Those Ukranians are though as hell though. I'm sure we | are seeing a more 'positive' side of them ( if that's | possible in a war), but they aren't backing down. | Uttermost respect for their president too. He seems to | have a deep understanding of how he can reach the world. | secondo wrote: | I don't get why're being downvoted. Without doubt a series of | governments were looped in on this decision - naively | assuming one or several did not initiate it in the first | place - to ensure alignment on current matters and there is | no chance BP did not take the opportunity to ensure alignment | on future matters. | ascii_pasta wrote: | I have a feeling, call it a hunch. | | becuase the post adds nothing and is simply a post for the | sake of posting. | iandanforth wrote: | FWIW I hadn't considered there would be a war reparations | package that would benefit companies like this. So useful | for the naive/ignorant? | agumonkey wrote: | those frozen assets will ease the process I assume | huhtenberg wrote: | They were effectively forced to do this by the UK government. | | https://www.bbc.com/news/business-60548382 | kristianp wrote: | https://archive.is/g6uKc | jka wrote: | "I have been deeply shocked and saddened by the situation | unfolding in Ukraine and my heart goes out to everyone affected. | It has caused us to fundamentally rethink bp's position with | Rosneft," BP Chief Executive Bernard Looney said. | | Narrowing in on the words "fundamentally rethink": I suppose that | could indicate that BP did not anticipate this series of events | unfolding, and that this decision to retreat was not planned in | advance? | asplake wrote: | BP was already (Friday) under some political pressure: | https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-60526891 | jfengel wrote: | An awful lot of people never expected it to get this far. They | expected it to be a threat to achieve concessions. | | The actual attack forces a very broad reconceptualization of | how Russia intends to relate to the rest of the world. It is | much more hostile than their previous incursions, because this | was someone the West considered an ally and possibly even a | NATO member. This is incredibly dangerous in a way nobody | expected them to risk. | prewett wrote: | I think people paper over the dark side of human nature. | Sometimes people do bad things not out of ignorance, but out | of a desire to do bad things. It seemed pretty obvious to me | that Putin was going to invade: you don't mass 200,000 troops | on the border and start making justifying noises if you | aren't planning on invading. Putin followed the pre-invasion | script of pretty much every invasion in the past couple of | hundred years that I'm aware of. | ip26 wrote: | I doubt many desire to do bad things, but rather desire the | spoils of bad things & find ways to self-justify. | olliej wrote: | Meanwhile Apple, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Visa, Mastercard, | ... all continue to do business with them. | | "Cool" | CPLX wrote: | I've read this a few times and as far as I can tell there's no | substantive change in ownership planned. It appears to be | something done entirely as a paper transaction like a journal | entry. | | They are going to write off the investment on the books and no | longer recognize the associated pass through revenue and so on. | | But as far as I can tell they aren't going to _do_ anything. It's | all an adjustment to financial statements. | | If someone more experienced with this kind of public company | jargon speak wants to come in and correct me then great but | that's sure what it seems like is happening. | | I think it's literally just an internal accounting adjustment. | FastMonkey wrote: | They've made the accounting changes that show they may sell. | Instead of telling investors "we are holding a significant | portion of rosneft and intend to hold it for the foreseeable | future", they will now be saying "we hold shares of Rosneft | that are worth $X on the market, and we will sell them if we | think we will get a reasonable price". | rvba wrote: | This journal entry means a nice tax loss for years to come - so | no corporate income tax to be paid? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2022-02-27 23:00 UTC)