#9421 ·
quietviper0 said:Maybe give that article another read, perhaps with a bit more focus on what it’s actually saying this time?
Let me break it down for you...Moscow believes they will finish the year with an annual Rupee surplus exceeding 40 billion dollars, if such a mechanism were to be established
Shortly after the invasion of Ukraine last February, India began exploring ways to settle accounts with Russia using Rupees, but no agreements have actually been finalized in that currency yet...
We don't want to push for Rupee settlements anymore; the mechanism simply isn't working. India tried everything we could to make it happen, but it didn't help...
So, could you please clarify how they can "continue with this model" when, according to the very source you're quoting, they haven't even successfully implemented the model in the first place? It's all a bit confusing...
I don't think Lavrov would agree with you. Or does he not even know they haven't started trading in Rupees yet?
In this news report, Lavrov stated:
"Russia has accumulated billions in Rupees in Indian banks that it cannot use," said Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Friday, pointing to the growing trade surplus, according to Bloomberg News. "That's the problem," Lavrov said on the sidelines of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation meeting. "We have to find a way to use that money. To do that, the Rupees need to be converted into another currency, and discussions about that are happening now."
What billions of Rupees is Lavrov talking about if, according to you, "only dollars have been flowing" so far?
From the sentence We no longer want to push for settlement in Rupees; that mechanism simply isn't working. India has tried everything we could to make it succeed, but it didn't help, you've twisted the point to claim they never traded in Rupees at all. Why would someone who has *never* traded in Rupees not want to force settlements in Rupees anymore?
If they never traded, why say "NO LONGER"?
So you have Lavrov's statement right there, which completely contradicts the narrative you're trying to sell.
How about you try reading with some actual comprehension?
You have an article from our half-literate journalist that you can spin however you want, but you also have a direct quote from your foreign policy "master strategist" that you absolutely cannot strip from its context.