Elerond

Considering that Lviv is 1200 km away from Donetsk, it shows that Russia declaration that they will concentrate to liberation of Donbas does not really mean anything That is lie considering that they use artillery and missiles against residential areas in cities that they are sieging . https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-60695465

Video is clearly fake as Russia has told us that they have destroyed Ukraine's communication systems

For short term it may help prevent ruble from crashing, but it means that Russia loses it main source of foreign currency, which would mean that their economy has higher risk to crash if they in any point lose their energy export. It also increase volatility of their foreign trade as they have less foreign currency to use in case ruble's value drops in some point.

Everyone who commits war crimes should be charged of crimes they have committed, but sad reality is that currently only losers of wars involving small nations are ones that face such charges. And even with them most of crimes go without charges or even investigations.

There is no war crime tribunals against USA or Russia without someone else taking over them as neither one recognizes authority of ICC

It name is Uncle Ivan, so hard to say

Why would India be sanctioned when Russian oil is not target of sanctions? US just does not buy it anymore. Saudi Arabia and China have had talks about yuan trade now for 6 years (talks started in 2016). Even though Saudis aren't happy with US, main driver behind their talks with China come economic factors US imports of Saudi oil has decreased to fourth what it was thirty years ago (from 2 million barrels per day to 500k barrels per day). China buy now about 1.76 million barrels Saudi oil per day (25% of all exported oil from SA). China, Japan, South Korea and India buy 65% of SA's oil, which means that dollar trade causes unnecessary overhead in the trades, but Saudis have so far preferred dollar because they have imported so much stuff from USA, but now most of their imports come from China, which makes yuan more attractive, even though they aren't as good as dollars to trade with other countries and it is more volatile than dollar which could cause economic issues for SA. Saudis are also aware that majority of European and US car manufactures are looking to stop manufacturing petrol/diesel cars in next 10-15 years, so predictions says that demand for oil is decreasing in US and Europe, so it does not look like that they will found new demand for their oil in Europe and US, so they have already started to look other markets for their oil. Saudis also would like China to stop supporting Iran, so they are also using switch to yuans as negotiation tool with China to ensure that Iran will face trade problems even if they are able to come some deal with US and EU. Now Saudi Arabia would probably like to prevent Russian oil from Indian markets as they currently together with Iraq India's biggest suppliers where Russian share of Indian oil markets is currently ~2%.

There is also this "The biggest sticking point remains Russia’s demand that Ukraine recognise its 2014 annexation of Crimea and the independence of two separatist statelets in the eastern Donbas border region." Which means that Ukraine needs to give up three of it ten biggest cities Mariupol, Luhansk and Donetsk

Oil price dropping like stone because Chinese economy is predicted to crash because of Ukraine war (@Darkpriest style reading of news ) https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/mar/14/uk-petrol-prices-diesel-experts-tell-mps-russia-ukraine

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2022/mar/14/uk-petrol-prices-diesel-experts-tell-mps-russia-ukraine

Maybe problem is that you don't understand points made

How much money average Chinese person has compared to average US person? Natural resources have habit to produce money to selected few who own them, where rest of the country benefits only little about them. Meaning if you take all money that there is to be have from natural resource, that amount needs to be less than the amount of that people get from products that are made from those natural resources because otherwise those products would make loss and their production would end. And then there is capitalistic death wheel, where country that sell natural resources buys the products that were made of those resources, which leads situation where they need to sell amount of natural resources needed for multiple products in order to buy one product.

But is UK that is suffering because of oil price not USA. And MBS and BoJo have increased UK - Saudi Arabia trade in past couple years, even so much that BoJo intervened in mentioned trade of Newcastle United

Didn't BoJo help Saudis to take over Newcastle United when Premier League blocked them buying it? So I don't see why he now would have issues with Saudis.

yes that increases profit of higher layer

Reason is heart of capitalism, every time you add layer in production chain you add layer that makes more money than lower layer.

Germany is heavily invested on producing their energy with gas and they have driven down their alternatives, like they are still continuing their plan to shut down their nuclear reactors during this year, even though their energy prices have been in increasing several years now. Building power plants take some time and it cost money, which is why Germany does not want immediately change source of their energy as they have option not to do so. Germany could reverse it decision to shut down nuclear plants and increase production in its coal plants. Remove all limitations from its coal mines, but it does not want because they think they can still do their move to renewable energy in next three decades and use their natural gas as transition time strategy. So they are willing to buy gas from Russia just so that they don't need to do immediate actions that cost money and go against their past decision about their energy production. But question on who Russian will sell their gas if Germany (and other European countries don't buy it). As they don't have infrastructure to deliver it anywhere else and they ability to build such infrastructure is heavily hindered by hits their economy has taken from sanctions and they don't have domestic production for necessary parts to build such infrastructure. And if we don't count in struggles they have in delivering gas and oil to elsewhere, there is question of where to sell it. China is willing to buy it but cheaper price than what Europe is currently paying and there is same situation with India. As both of them are looking new sources to make their energy cheaper. So if Europe doesn't buy gas and oil from Russia, then Russia is in situation where they need to spend billions to build new delivery infrastructure just to get less money they are currently getting. Considering that EU is producing almost twice as much wheat than it uses, it can easily keep bread and other agricultural foods in reasonable prices, even if they need to move from artificial fertilizers back to natural fertilizers and more sustainable cultivation, and still produce more than needed from current fields. Of course such jumps aren't easy and cost money when done in short order, which is why it looks like that many farmers will not sow all their fields this year, causing jump to crop futures, but that is temporal even in scenario in which EU can't buy any fertilizers from Russia. Bigger problem about food prices hit to countries that don't produce enough themselves to feed their population and have relied on buying food from Ukraine and Russia. If trade sanctions against Russia last for long time it there will be problems with Russian wheat exports even if they don't have any issue with production, because so much world transport capacity is in hands of countries that have put sanctions on Russia. As wheat in Russian silos does not help people in Africa if there is very limited capacity to transport it to Africa.

Consumer. They can change their economy much easier than the producer. There is reason why USA is rich where countries that produce goods and natural resources it use are poor

CIPS has big dollar problem Largest Chinese export partners United States: US$452.6 billion (17.5% of China’s total exports) Hong Kong: $272.7 billion (10.5%) (Which largest trading partner after China is USA) Japan: $142.6 billion (5.5%) (Which largest trading partner after China is USA) Vietnam: $113.8 billion (4.4%) (Which largest trading partner is USA) South Korea: $112.5 billion (4.3%) (Which largest trading partner is USA) Germany: $86.8 billion (3.4%) (Which largest trading partner is USA) Netherlands: $79 billion (3%) (Which largest trading partner is USA) United Kingdom: $72.6 billion (2.8%) (Which largest trading partner is USA) India: $66.7 billion (2.6%) (Which largest trading partner is USA) Taiwan: $60.1 billion (2.3%) (Which largest trading partner after China is USA) Singapore: $57.5 billion (2.2%) (Which largest trading partner after China and Hong Kong is USA) Malaysia: $56.4 billion (2.2%) (Which largest trading partner after China and Singapore is USA) Australia: $53.5 billion (2.1%) (USA is forth largest trading partner) Russia: $50.6 billion (2%) Thailand: $50.5 billion (2%) (Which largest trading partner is USA) But luckily USA is not vindictive against countries that try to avoid its rules

It is just realism what is current state of affairs, not some ideological pipe dream that people forget as soon as it goes against their own opinions how things should be. And it is not really EU, but it member states together deciding sanctions as EU does not have such powers even though people/countries always want to credit it for decisions that they made but don't want darken their name with them. Meaning it is not Ursula von der Leyen people should be mad about the RT/Sputnik bans even though she told about them to public. Shooting messenger usually don't lead better policies. And people now waking up reality that human rights are very conditional when they have voted for anti-human rights politicians in past decade because they don't want refugees in Europe. And politician that oppose sanctions against Russia and Turkey when they censor media and prevent ECHR giving them any sanctions. And politician that who make laws that prevent forbid religious apparel. Politician who for 'economic' reasons oppose building alternates for oil and gas in energy production. And politicians that oppose billionaires hiding their assets, founding shell companies that are owned by fictional people and are part of larger shell company that is also owned by fictional people which is owned even larger shell company and thousands of these shell companies somehow have their addresses in same building. And politician that prevent all regulations for buying and owning estate leading housing prices go sky high so that investors can make money and people be dammed and can always sleep under bridge at least until even that is too expensive for them. And now people are so surprised that politicians aren't hold back by watered down human rights and principals that they themselves wanted to water down because they protected people they didn't like. People seem to have naive thinking that politicians are guided by higher principalities and morality, and there is no need for people's rights until it is too late. Bold part is just fact, there is no need to hide your feelings about EU.

But it is, which is why Russia and Turkey are able to censor their people so effectively even though they are under European court of human rights. EU has avoided using it ability to censor outlets so far, but now they decided to use tactics perfected by Russia in past two decades against Russia. Of course it is slippery slope and easily lead more censorship in future, but as now it is accordance of European human right principalities and EU laws.

It is quite difficult to shot tank 0.5 km away with NLAW or some other light anti tank weapon. NLAW's maximum range is 1km and it is effective from 20m-800m. And it is not like Ukraine has NLAW's to waste, so they most likely take high risk in order to make sure that they destroy their targets instead of waste shots.

Considering that message which I answered was "All you "Give me liberty give me death!1" people should be outraged. " , American 1st amendment is the we should look for guidance. But my interpretation is based on on European and universal human rights. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights: Freedom of expression 1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises. 2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary. Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 19 Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. About EU's decision to ban RT and Sputnik, it is one of those difficult questions where multitude human rights are in conflict with each other. EU banned RT and Sputnik for pro war propaganda, as it is seen that people's right for free speech can be limited when said speech is in support for breaking other people human rights in fundamental way (in this case Ukraine people rights given in article 3 in UDoHR and article 2 in ECoHR ).

RT is not only medium that youtube doesn't allow on their site. They have moderate their content from beginning based on what they think is good for their platform. So I am not sure why people now think that youtube censor some media outlet when they have censored millions and millions users and outlets for decades. Is it because they don't publish videos from outlet that has multiple tv channels, web pages and had for some reason been censored by YouTube even though they have broken YouTube rules multiple times which would have lead permanent ban for your normal user

Free speech is about government preventing people expressing their opinions, which includes not publishing messages from the government. So in this case freedom of speech is on side of YT and against RT, which is government owned media and government that owns it prevents people expressing their opinions in multitude of ways.