You see, we might all cheer at the sight of ‘US and UK toughen sanctions on Russian oil industry’ (at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn8xlj9kkkmo) and it would have been swallowed by a lot of people, if it weren’t for the fact that I gave light to the story of Politico in ‘Is it merely political?’ On October 6th (at https://lawlordtobe.com/2024/10/06/is-it-merely-political/) where Politico (at https://www.politico.eu/article/vladimir-putin-war-economy-pain-saudi-arabia-sink-global-oil-prices-energy-russia-opec/) introduced us to loopholes. This story is less than 3 months old. And guess what, there is no mention of of loopholes in that story, as such we can assume that they haven’t been dealt with. And the setting of ““Taking on Russian oil companies will drain Russia’s war chest – and every ruble we take from Putin’s hands helps save Ukrainian lives,” said Foreign Secretary David Lammy.” Is as I see it ‘a load of bollocks’. We see the mention of “the UK will join the US in directly sanctioning energy companies Gazprom Neft and Surgutneftegas” but the setting that we have known of for about 3 months, where Politico gives us “A loophole allows middlemen in countries like Turkey, China and India to refine Russian oil in petrol and diesel before selling it elsewhere — exempt from sanctions. According to a report first seen by POLITICO” as such we can ask America and the United Kingdom, so what about the loophole? The fact that it wasn’t mentioned is likely because it was never dealt with. So the one BBC page is as useless as a Watt meter in a wind farm.
And when we consider that Turkey and India were not ‘tempered’ in processing Russian oil, was it therefor not done, or was it met with too strong opposition? The fact that Jake Lapham did not pursue this little detour makes for a lot more issues than you and me can fathom at the moment. So was this article any thing more than a waste of space?
I will let you decide, but take into account that the loophole was ‘shunned’ for the longest of time by the media at large. Therefor we can assume that they prefer to cater to big business and a lot less to informing the audience. So did anyone follow up with Gabriel Gavin, Eva Hartog and Geoffrey Smith of Politico? I reckon that the larger papers didn’t bother, as they want to appease certain parties and this article might be a little embarrassing to their stake holders.
I let you shift out what is real and what is not. The BBC lacks the parts that I lightened months ago on the premise of an article by Politico, a media party that has proven themselves a mere dozen times over. So where do you stand? And for those who want to state that it is about gas and not about oil. The Russian war Machine needs the revenue of both, and if one remains operational the Russian war machine goes on.
Have a great day.
Lawrence van Rijn - Law Lord to be 