I feel you are going to change the subject... Are you running out of arguments about Ukrainian debt?
What's left to discuss? You state matter-of-factly that Ukraine owes Russia a debt, but it's all a blatant lie.
For there to be a debt, there must first be a lender, a borrower, and a non-coercive agreement between them. But what I see, is an abuser. Russia is the abuser, and they are using their overwhelming dominance and strength to rape Ukraine. And you dare to speak in terms of a 'debt' that the victim
owes to you rapists?
When I speak of Russia attempting to drive the Ukrainians into debt slavery, and exploit them for endless cheap labour disguised as "trade agreements" with the Russian Federation, you keep ignoring it.
So why should I waste any more words on Russian internet scoundrels who more loyal to Putin and his scummy regime than his wife?
I'm afraid that you have been utterly misinformed about the opportunities for a debt to spring up. You don't necessarily need a lender and a borrower for "there to be a debt". Russia is not a lender, and Ukraine is not a borrower. Russia had been selling gas to Ukraine according to a contract signed between them. And Ukraine was a buyer, and if a buyer doesn't pay up, he becomes a debtor (without lending and borrowing involved). As simple as that
I guess you should be more precise about the terms you use in respect to their meaning...