Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Lord Thesaurian]

Lol, all of these are incredibly reasonable requests.

If you say so.

Pretty sure we know what Russia was offering at the time.

To not invade Ukraine.

Conceding something Putin could not achieve if he were to completely steamroll and annex Ukraine is not a good trade for his refraining from the attempt. Why give away for free something that is worth 300k casualties etc etc to him? Unless we’re making moral arguments here, Moscow would have to give something to NATO that is worth total withdrawal from Eastern Europe. Russia is not the USSR and can’t credibly threaten NATO at a scale that would put at risk even a majority of territories Moscow is flat out demanding as a buffer zone.

[Love Mountain]

If you say so.

Conceding something Putin could not achieve if he were to completely steamroll and annex Ukraine is not a good trade for his refraining from the attempt. Why give away for free something that is worth 300k casualties etc etc to him? Unless we’re making moral arguments here, Moscow would have to give something to NATO that is worth total withdrawal from Eastern Europe. Russia is not the USSR and can’t credibly threaten NATO at a scale that would put at risk even a majority of territories Moscow is flat out demanding as a buffer zone.

Well, that depends on how you view Foreign Policy. We've discussed this before and you know that I can completely see the cynical interests at play for Washington.

Yes. Why give something away when you can make Russia bleed for it instead?

[Lord Thesaurian]

Yes. Why give something away when you can make Russia bleed for it instead?

A more accurate question might be how NATO giving everything away improves the geopolitical position of anyone but Russia, or how the lack of any reciprocal incentive highlights NATO’s cynicism and Moscow’s sincerity. Surely the expectation isn’t that NATO values Russian and Ukrainian lives more highly than Russians and Ukrainians do?

[Love Mountain]

A more accurate question might be how NATO giving everything away improves the geopolitical position of anyone but Russia, or how the lack of any reciprocal incentive highlights NATO’s cynicism and Moscow’s sincerity. Surely the expectation isn’t that NATO values Russian and Ukrainian lives more highly than Russians and Ukrainians do?

NATO wouldn't be giving up a geopolitical position. NATO is the one trying to change the status quo by moving more troops closer to Russia, by inviting Russia's neighbors to join an anti-Russian alliance.

The expectation here is that NATO stop building more military infrastructure closer and closer to Russia's borders.

[fkizz]

Well Finland joined NATO recently (add Sweden too, Erdogan is delaying the most he can so far), despite Finland history of not needing NATO even in Cold War.
Kremlin's habit of scaring/intimidating its neighbours with "might makes right" logic creates this results.
Of course, because "political infallibility" at Kremlin no one did any wrong decision ever, so all the blame goes to NATO.

[Love Mountain]

Well Finland joined NATO recently (add Sweden too, Erdogan is delaying the most he can so far), despite Finland history of not needing NATO even in Cold War.
Kremlin's habit of scaring/intimidating its neighbours with "might makes right" logic creates this results.
Of course, because "political infallibility" at Kremlin no one did any wrong decision ever, so all the blame goes to NATO.

Kremlin's "wrong decision" in Ukraine was failing their regime change operation. They suffered significant long-term damage because of that failure.

In terms of decision-making preventing Ukraine from joining NATO is the correct choice, as opposed to slowly letting it become a NATO FOB.

Finland was already de-facto a NATO member since the USSR collapsed. It happened almost instantly. Cooperation started in the mid-90s with dialogue and joinining the PfP program. But it only increased steadily from then on. Finland has been basically practicing NATO inter-operability for the last 15-20 years. It has been, in all but name, a NATO member. Don't believe me? The Finish Department of Foreign Affairs literally had an 80 page document openly bragging about it. Saying how joining NATO would require almost no work in terms of becoming militarily and politically integrated. In addition to that, Finland has been an EU member since the 90s, and a signatory to the CSDP, the EU Defense Pact. Also another problem for Russia.

Finland joining NATO doesn't really change the strategic calculus for Russia, though it is obviously not ideal.

[Lord Thesaurian]

NATO wouldn't be giving up a geopolitical position. NATO is the one trying to change the status quo by moving more troops closer to Russia, by inviting Russia's neighbors to join an anti-Russian alliance.

Russian domination over Eastern Europe hasn’t been the status quo since the end of the last geopolitical era decades ago.

The expectation here is that NATO stop building more military infrastructure closer and closer to Russia's borders.

Not to beat a dead horse, but to be specific, the expectation is NATO withdraw from over a dozen countries and recognize Russia’s “right” to do special military operations in not just Ukraine but in any former Soviet state. There would no longer be any modern relevance to the existence of NATO as a defensive alliance and no US ally with half a brain would expect us to hold up our end of a mutual defense treaty under pressure going forward. That’s a loss of geopolitical position by any definition I can think of, for which no compensation is even offered.

The point is, Moscow’s “treaty” was for domestic consumption, not a serious proposal any peer competitor would accept, so I don’t agree with the notion that NATO had a chance to secure some kind of lasting diplomatic victory and chose war instead. If unilaterally abandoning mutual defense treaties en masse is something states do for the sake of unenforceable de escalation, the US has no business maintaining the appearance of a military presence outside our own borders - and maybe we don’t. The decadence and paralysis of the liberal establishment is as big or bigger threat to the US led order as China or Russia. But for my part, I’d rather try and fail than not try at all. Support for Ukraine in its fight for survival has been the best investment of US military capabilities and material since the end of the First Cold War, and it’s a shame it’s been too small to help them fight indefinitely, before the invasion and after.

[Love Mountain]

Russian domination over Eastern Europe hasn’t been the status quo since the end of the last geopolitical era decades ago.

Yeah, just like NATO bases on Russia's direct border wasn't the status quo.

Just like Georgia and Ukraine as a NATO member wasn't the status quo.

Russia didn't request "please let us dominate Eastern Europe". Russia explicitly requested to stop NATO expansion and NATO infrastructure on its border.

Not to beat a dead horse, but to be specific, the expectation is NATO withdraw from over a dozen countries and recognize Russia’s “right” to do special military operations in not just Ukraine but in any former Soviet state. There would no longer be any modern relevance to the existence of NATO as a defensive alliance and no US ally with half a brain would expect us to hold up our end of a mutual defense treaty under pressure going forward. That’s a loss of geopolitical position by any definition I can think of, for which no compensation is even offered.

The point is, Moscow’s “treaty” was for domestic consumption, not a serious proposal any peer competitor would accept, so I don’t agree with the notion that NATO had a chance to secure some kind of lasting diplomatic victory and chose war instead. If unilaterally abandoning mutual defense treaties en masse is something states do for the sake of unenforceable de escalation, the US has no business maintaining the appearance of a military presence outside our own borders - and maybe we don’t. The decadence and paralysis of the liberal establishment is as big or bigger threat to the US led order as China or Russia. But for my part, I’d rather try and fail than not try at all. Support for Ukraine in its fight for survival has been the best investment of US military capabilities and material since the end of the First Cold War, and it’s a shame it’s been too small to help them fight indefinitely, before the invasion and after.

This doesn't make any sense.

Why should Moscow offer compensation to a "defensive" alliance? Moscow didn't ask NATO to let it invade its neighbors, because NATO is not its neighbor. Georgia is not in NATO, Ukraine is not in NATO, Moldova is not in NATO. If NATO is a "defensive alliance" then things that Russia does to non-NATO members aren't any of their concern.

What Moscow is explicitly telling NATO, is that it needs to stick to its original mission and the original status quo. Which is to stay out of Russia's business. But that's not what NATO did. NATO did the exact opposite by trying to stick its nose specifically into Russia's borders and security interests.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Russia didn't request "please let us dominate Eastern Europe". Russia explicitly requested to stop NATO expansion and NATO infrastructure on its border.

To recap what I’m referring to:

A revision of the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, which regulates the military activities and cooperation between NATO and Russia, and a withdrawal of NATO's infrastructure and capabilities from the territories of the former Soviet Union.

A recognition of Russia's special interests and role in ensuring security and stability in the post-Soviet space, and a respect for its sovereignty and territorial integrity, including over Crimea and Donbas.

“Please let us dominate Eastern Europe” (as our sphere of influence) is an accurate summary because that’s what the above means.

Why should Moscow offer compensation to a "defensive" alliance?

Because the Kremlin demanded NATO pull out of 12+ member states instead of defending them, and recognize Russia’s Monroe Doctrine in Eastern Europe.

If NATO is a "defensive alliance" then things that Russia does to non-NATO members aren't any of their concern.

I suppose the above is facetious but suffice to say Georgia and Ukraine applied for membership before they were invaded, and naturally, are of some concern to the alliance. I’ll also note NATO didn’t declare war on Russia in response, because no, they aren’t members.

What Moscow is explicitly telling NATO, is that it needs to stick to its original mission and the original status quo.

NATO was conceived as a mutual defense alliance against the possibility of attack by third parties, especially the USSR. As the successor state to the USSR, Russia openly asserts its right to the former’s sphere of influence. Thus states within that historical sphere of influence are motivated to apply for NATO membership by concerns similar to those of the original members. That is the status quo. If Russia wants NATO to unilaterally change that status quo, abolish Article 10 and abandon members, the Kremlin might consider offering something in return. Or, it could and has chosen war - something it reserves the right to do throughout the former Soviet space.

[Love Mountain]

To recap what I’m referring to:

“Please let us dominate Eastern Europe” (as our sphere of influence) is an accurate summary because that’s what the above means.

Not at all.

Because the Kremlin demanded NATO pull out of 12+ member states instead of defending them, and recognize Russia’s Monroe Doctrine in Eastern Europe.

That doesn't make any sense. "NATO troops" are by definition member-state troops. Russia didn't demand disarmament. They demanded that United States not build a missile defense complex in Poland, for example.

I suppose the above is facetious but suffice to say Georgia and Ukraine applied for membership before they were invaded, and naturally, are of some concern to the alliance. I’ll also note NATO didn’t declare war on Russia in response, because no, they aren’t members.

I don't really understand why you're bringing this up. There is no state of war between NATO. The question at hand is NATO expansion and why Russia demanded that it stop.

NATO was conceived as a mutual defense alliance against the possibility of attack by third parties, especially the USSR. As the successor state to the USSR, Russia openly asserts its right to the former’s sphere of influence. Thus states within that historical sphere of influence are motivated to apply for NATO membership by concerns similar to those of the original members. That is the status quo. If Russia wants NATO to unilaterally change that status quo, abolish Article 10 and abandon members, the Kremlin might consider offering something in return. Or, it could and has chosen war - something it reserves the right to do throughout the former Soviet space.

Russia didn't say that it wanted a sphere of influence, it already had one. That's why it was a status quo.

What Russia demanded was a stop to NATO expansion, which is the destabilizing event at play.

[Lord Thesaurian]

That doesn't make any sense. "NATO troops" are by definition member-state troops. Russia didn't demand disarmament. They demanded that United States not build a missile defense complex in Poland, for example.

It was a rattled off list of demands the Kremlin knew would be rejected, written and published like a press release for domestic consumption on the eve of an invasion that was inevitable. Therefore I don’t think it’s useful to debate the hypothetical details of “a withdrawal of NATO infrastructure and capabilities from the territories of the former USSR” since that would not be acceptable to a defensive alliance that counts a dozen or more of those countries as members. Suffice to say that it’s inaccurate to characterize Moscow’s demands as “the status quo” because these are what the Kremlin wants as a status quo, not what it actually is or has been since Moscow was the capital of a superpower.

[Love Mountain]

It was a rattled off list of demands the Kremlin knew would be rejected, written and published like a press release for domestic consumption on the eve of an invasion that was inevitable. Therefore I don’t think it’s useful to debate the hypothetical details of “a withdrawal of NATO infrastructure and capabilities from the territories of the former USSR” since that would not be acceptable to a defensive alliance that counts a dozen or more of those countries as members. Suffice to say that it’s inaccurate to characterize Moscow’s demands as “the status quo” because these are what the Kremlin wants as a status quo, not what it actually is or has been since Moscow was the capital of a superpower.

In order to debate something, it would actually have to be accurately presented. I went ahead and dug up the 8 point list of demands made by the Kremlin in December, 2021.

The parts that you could've misconstrued as Russia demanding "disarmament" is Point 3; "Parties do not use the territory other States to prepare or execute attacks against each other, or other actions affecting the fundamental security interests of the other party." Point 4; United States commits to exclude further expansion in the Eastern direction; specifically states that were previously part of USSR. United States will not establish military bases on territory of states that were previously part of the USSR and not members of NATO or use their infrastrcture for any military activities and will not develop military cooperation with them." Point 5; "Parties will refrain from deploying their armed forces and weapons, including within international organizations; military alliances; or coalitions; in areas where such deployment would be perceived by the other party as a threat to its national security; except for such deployment within the national territories of the parties. Parties will refrain from nuclear armed heavy bombers, heavily armed warships; beyond national territorial waters." Point 6; Parties will not deploy ground based IRBMs and SRBMs outside of national territories. (essentially renewing the INF treaty)." Point 7. concerns more nuclear arrangements.

Nowhere did Russia demand disarmament. It would in effect, freeze the status quo as it was in 2021, it would even prevent Russia from invading Ukraine.

So no, I find your reading of Kremlin's demands completely inaccurate.

[Lord Thesaurian]

In order to debate something, it would actually have to be accurately presented. I went ahead and dug up the 8 point list of demands made by the Kremlin in December, 2021.

I don’t see anything in there that suggests the wiki is inaccurate, but sure. Per the references you’ve given, namely Article 5, the US would be barred from deploying coalition forces or weapons anywhere “perceived” to be a threat to Russia, in addition to being expected to prevent expansion of the NATO in Article 4. The second treaty with NATO proper would categorically bar the alliance from conducting “any military activity” in former soviet states (Article 7). This includes over a dozen existing NATO members.

The Parties that are member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization shall not conduct any military activity on the territory of Ukraine as well as other States in the Eastern Europe, in the South Caucasus and in Central Asia.

I’ve gone over this several times now. Please be specific about what you consider inaccurate.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The US therefore wouldn’t even be able to withdraw from the alliance it is expected to not participate in, as it would be expected to uphold commitments that affect the rest of NATO. The US also has hundreds of military installations and perpetual global deployments outside its borders that can be “perceived” as a threat to Russian security interests and therefore subject to Russian veto under the treaty. The Russians have little or nothing of similar scale and gravity to reciprocate with.

Nowhere did Russia demand disarmament. It would in effect, freeze the status quo as it was in 2021, it would even prevent Russia from invading Ukraine.

Not true.

[Love Mountain]

I don’t see anything in there that suggests the wiki is inaccurate, but sure. Per the references you’ve given, namely Article 5, the US would be barred from deploying coalition forces or weapons anywhere “perceived” to be a threat to Russia, in addition to being expected to prevent expansion of the NATO in Article 4. The second treaty with NATO proper would categorically bar the alliance from conducting “any military activity” in former soviet states (Article 7). This includes over a dozen existing NATO members.

Existing NATO members are an exception to these rules, it's written explicitly into it and "any military activity" is not what it says. What it says is, "United States will not establish military bases on territory of states that were previously part of the USSR and not members of NATO or use their infrastrcture for any military activities and will not develop military cooperation with them."

This is specifically aimed states like Ukraine and Belarus, as well as those in the Caucasus.

I’ve gone over this several times now. Please be specific about what you consider inaccurate.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The US therefore wouldn’t even be able to withdraw from the alliance it is expected to not participate in, as it would be expected to uphold commitments that affect the rest of NATO. The US also has hundreds of military installations and perpetual global deployments outside its borders that can be “perceived” as a threat to Russian security interests and therefore subject to Russian veto under the treaty. The Russians have little or nothing of similar scale and gravity to reciprocate with.

I would suggest you re-read this treaty again then.

The US wouldn't be able to "not participate" in the alliance. That's not what is written. It does not forbid United States to have global deployments or bases. There are qualifiers attached to these conditions.

Not true.

Then please point out the specific text where it says so.

[Lord Thesaurian]

Existing NATO members are an exception to these rules, it's written explicitly into it and "any military activity" is not what it says. What it says is, "United States will not establish military bases on territory of states that were previously part of the USSR and not members of NATO or use their infrastrcture for any military activities and will not develop military cooperation with them."

That is a separate clause in the US treaty, not the NATO one I referenced. I already quoted the relevant portion. We know what the context of “no NATO military activity in Eastern Europe” in Article 7 is, because Article 4 of the same treaty specifically demands the alliance disarm and scale back that military activity to where it was in 1997, not 2021.

The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.

https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso...90803/?lang=en

This is why I included a map of over a dozen NATO countries that joined after 1997 following accusations of inaccuracy or misinterpretation. If the proposed treaty doesn’t mean what it says, that’s not an interpretive problem.

The US wouldn't be able to "not participate" in the alliance. That's not what is written. It does not forbid United States to have global deployments or bases. There are qualifiers attached to these conditions.

What is written is the following:

The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and armaments, including in the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in the areas where such deployment could be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.

https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/rso...90818/?lang=en

The qualifier is “anywhere outside national territories” not “anywhere outside NATO member territory as of December 2021.” Like I said, the problems you are pointing out are, if anything, problems with the verbatim treaty language you’ve insisted upon using. If I were being extremely generous I might entertain the possibility of a translation problem, but I don’t think that’s the issue. I agree the qualifiers you’ve intuited would be useful to specify in great detail and within each clause if these “treaties” were in fact a serious offer up for extensive renegotiation delaying the Ukraine invasion indefinitely.

[fkizz]

Finland joining NATO doesn't really change the strategic calculus for Russia, though it is obviously not ideal.

Alright. Your point kinda ignores the whole Kekkonen rule "intermediary" period, and its legacy potential (now already lost) but you say there's no problem in NATO expanding as long as its Finland.

But what about Sweden joining NATO too?

[Love Mountain]

That is a separate clause in the US treaty, not the NATO one I referenced. I already quoted the relevant portion. We know what the context of “no NATO military activity in Eastern Europe” in Article 7 is, because Article 4 of the same treaty specifically demands the alliance disarm and scale back that military activity to where it was in 1997, not 2021.

I don't see where the treaty indicates for someone to disarm in Article 4.

This is why I included a map of over a dozen NATO countries that joined after 1997 following accusations of inaccuracy or misinterpretation. If the proposed treaty doesn’t mean what it says, that’s not an interpretive problem.
What is written is the following:

The qualifier is “anywhere outside national territories” not “anywhere outside NATO member territory as of December 2021.” Like I said, the problems you are pointing out are, if anything, problems with the verbatim treaty language you’ve insisted upon using. If I were being extremely generous I might entertain the possibility of a translation problem, but I don’t think that’s the issue. I agree the qualifiers you’ve intuited would be useful to specify in great detail and within each clause if these “treaties” were in fact a serious offer up for extensive renegotiation delaying the Ukraine invasion indefinitely.

This is the full text of Point 5 that you referenced.

"The Parties shall refrain from deploying their armed forces and weapons, including within the framework of international organizations, military alliances or coalitions, in areas where such deployment would be perceived by the other Party as a threat to its national security, with the exception of such deployment within the national territories of the Parties.

The Parties shall refrain from the flight of heavy bombers equipped for nuclear or non-nuclear weapons and the presence of surface combatants of all classes, including within the framework of alliances, coalitions and organizations, in areas, respectively, outside the national airspace and outside the national territorial waters, from which they can hit targets on the territory of the other Party.

The parties maintain a dialogue and cooperate to improve mechanisms for preventing dangerous military activities on the high seas and in the airspace above, including agreeing on the maximum approach distance for warships and aircraft."

NATO allies can deploy their armed forces in weapons in other NATO states, except where it might be a threat to Russia. Vice versa, Russia cannot move its forces to another country like... Ukraine or Belarus without NATO's permission.

The exception to this is national borders. I.E. Belarus can move its troops in Belarus and so can Poland.

So no, I don't see your problem.

Alright. Your point kinda ignores the whole Kekkonen rule "intermediary" period, and its legacy potential (now already lost) but you say there's no problem in NATO expanding as long as its Finland.

But what about Sweden joining NATO too?

What about it? It's even more integrated than Finland.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I don't see where the treaty indicates for someone to disarm in Article 4.

If you can connect this assertion with the earlier reference to the US treaty, I might be able to see how you arrived at the conclusion. In the meantime, Articles 4 and 7 of the NATO treaty are examples corroborating the summary from the wiki:

A revision of the 1997 NATO–Russia Founding Act, which regulates the military activities and cooperation between NATO and Russia, and a withdrawal of NATO's infrastructure and capabilities from the territories of the former Soviet Union.

You might consider this reasonable, but we can dispense with the notion of inaccuracy, never mind freezing things as they were in 2021.

NATO allies can deploy their armed forces in weapons in other NATO states, except where it might be a threat to Russia. Vice versa, Russia cannot move its forces to another country like... Ukraine or Belarus without NATO's permission.

The exception to this is national borders. I.E. Belarus can move its troops in Belarus and so can Poland.

So no, I don't see your problem.

I’d just be repeating myself, so I’m sorry you can’t see it. As you helpfully emphasized, a deal that says the US can’t deploy its armed forces anywhere outside its national borders perceived by Moscow as a threat is no deal at all. It’s an example of how unreasonable these proposals are, and that’s how they were received at the time.

Russia said on Friday it wanted a legally binding guarantee that NATO would give up any military activity in Eastern Europe and Ukraine, part of a wish list of security guarantees it wants to negotiate with the West.

Others would imply the removal of U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe and the withdrawal of multinational NATO battalions from Poland and from the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania that were once in the Soviet Union.

"Moscow has not only been asking for things it cannot get, but in a way they know will ensure they cannot attain them. Serious negotiations are done behind closed doors. Something is very wrong with this picture, the pol(itical) side appears to be a smokescreen,” Michael Kofman, a Russia specialist at Virginia-based research organization CNA, wrote on Twitter.

Sam Greene, professor of Russian politics at King's College London, said President Vladimir Putin was "drawing a line around the post-Soviet space and planting a 'keep out' sign".

"It's not meant to be a treaty: it's a declaration," he said. "But that doesn’t necessarily mean this is a prelude to war. It’s a justification for keeping Moscow’s hair-trigger stance, in order to keep Washington and others off balance."

https://www.reuters.com/world/russia...ng-2021-12-17/

These are all things I’ve discussed. If it’s wrong and the proposals were in fact an incredibly reasonable missed opportunity, the Kremlin failed spectacularly to give that impression.

[fkizz]

What about it? It's even more integrated than Finland.

Well if there's no problem with Sweden and Finland, then it's all alright.

[Ludicus]

L_202302878EN.000101.fmx.xml - EUR-Lex.europa.eu.

Amending Regulation (EU) No 833/2014 concerning restrictive measures in view of Russia’s actions destabilising the situation in Ukraine

The price cap mechanism provides that specific projects that are essential for the energy security of certain third countries may be exempted from the price cap agreed by the Price Cap Coalition. Decision (CFSP) 2023/2874 extends the exemption provided for in relation to the Sakhalin-2 (Сахалин-2) Project, located in Russia, until 28 June 2024 to ensure Japan’s energy security needs.

Japan's Mitsui says no plans to exit Russia's Sakhalin-2

India turns Japan into a borderline Russian ally

Unlike many European countries that have reduced their dependence on Russian energy supplies, Japan has increased its purchases of Russian natural gas over the past year…The Sakhalin projects, which involve the exploration and extraction of oil and natural gas off the coast of Sakhalin Island, have become an essential source of energy for Japan. As you may already be aware, India has shown sharp prudence amidst the Russo-Ukrainian war and has been purchasing Russian oil at a steep discount since Western powers imposed sanctions on the Kremlin, attempting to reduce its ability to raise funds for its war against Ukraine. It may well be the case that the Japanese PM was inspired by India’s strategic procurement of oil and energy resources from Russia and has followed suit.

Sakhalin exception

(...) Still, Japan got only 1.46% of its oil imports from Russia in 2022, and not all came from Sakhalin.
“The decision to keep stakes in Sakhalin-1 and 2 and exempt its actions from the G7 oil price cap, is notably contradictory,” Wrenn Yennie Lindgren, a researcher for the Norwegian and Swedish Institutes of International Affairs, told AFP.
It “undermines the moral and values-based diplomacy that it is pledging to strengthen during its (G7) presidency”, she added.

How Russian oil is reaching the U.S. market through a loophole in the embargo.

After Russia invaded Ukraine, the U.S. and European allies banned the import of Russian oil and natural gas. But a new report reveals that fuel made in part from Russian crude is still ending up in American gas tanks.
After the invasion of Ukraine, the U.S. banned the direct import of Russian oil. However, other countries that then started buying that oil can legally refine it and sell it to the U.S. That's the refining loophole…
Global Witness found, between January and September of this year, the U.S. imported 30 million barrels of fuel from refineries running on Russian oil. In total, that crude arrived in at least 13 cities in seven states.
Among the companies importing that oil, BP, Sunoco, and Shell.

---
Edit,

Also- true or false, I don’t know- according to the Hindustan Times, “The EIA data also revealed that the US paid a premium for the Russian oil, as one barrel cost $74 in October and $76 in November, well above the “price cap” of $60 per barrel set by the US and its allies in 2022”.

Is it true? or not?
But we can say for sure that the imposition of sanctions resulted in a fiasco, with Russia finding alternatives to dispose of its hydrocarbons. According to the Financial Times,Almost no Russian oil is sold below $60 cap, say western say western officials