NIS - Naftna industrija Srbije

[dragan]

Posle prekida platnog prometa ne znam ko će hteti da kupi ruski deo od 56% . . . osim Srbije.

 

[forest]

Posle prekida platnog prometa ne znam ko će hteti da kupi ruski deo od 56% . . . osim Srbije.

Pa i ovako nece niko. Niti oni hoce da ga prodaju zato sto znaju da novac ne moze da stigne do njih.

A i iz drugih razloga. Njima je NIS logisticka baza obavestajnog delovanja. I da propadne drzace operativce tu, samo ce da ih prebace sa platnog spiska NIS-a na platni spisak fsb-a.

 

[Ar4]

Od prekida dotoka nafte preko JANAF-a ne postoji kupac za NIS. Kome treba rafinerija nafte pod Američkim sankcijama bez nafte.

 

[dragan]

Pa i ovako nece niko. Niti oni hoce da ga prodaju

Meni odgovara na nema kupca, pa da Srbija ponovo bude vlasnik NIS-a, milom ili silom.

 

[Ar4]

Meni zvuči realnije da gradimo novu rafineriju sa Kinezima nego da ova država preuzme NIS.

 

[forest]

Ja davno rekoh NIS ce propasti ali ce ostati Ruski.

 

[Diego]

Od prekida dotoka nafte preko JANAF-a ne postoji kupac za NIS. Kome treba rafinerija nafte pod Američkim sankcijama bez nafte.

Ova zamena teza se provlači stalno i na temi i u medijima. Novi kupac dogovori cenu i uslove > traži se amin od OFAC-a > ako odobre ide prodaja i promenom vlasništva se skidaju sankcije, to ide vrlo lako (primer je Dodik i njegov ekipa kojima su skinute sve sankcije jednom odlukom). Ako se OFAC ne usaglasi sa prodajom onda neće biti zaključen deal i nema tog novog kupca. Tako da ko god eventualno ozbiljno planira kupovinu naravno da će prvo sačekati da se dobije saglasnost ofac-a.

 

[Ar4]

Kongres je nadležan za ukidanje sankcija a oni mogu da imaju drugačiji stav od OFAC-a jer ne glasaju na zvonce. To je još jedan od razloga zašto NIS nema kupca.

Btw. ne terajte me ponovo da postavljam linkove i dokazujem da je zaista kongres nadležan. Sankcije uvedene 10. januara su "trump proof" upravo jer je prethodna administracija tako obezbedila kontinuitet kaznene politike prema Rusiji.

 

[Прле]

Meni zvuči realnije da gradimo novu rafineriju sa Kinezima nego da ova država preuzme NIS.

За НИС не знам, могуће је, али да се слажем да треба правити још једну рафинерију - поодавно већ треба.

 

[Whiplash]

Sve dok uzimamo ruski gas od prodaje i nacionalizacije NIS-a nema ništa.

 

[Ar4]

Mislim da će vlada doneti uredbu koliko i kome MOL i drugi uvoznici smeju da prodaju goriva, tako da mogu i male pumpe da kupe.

To će im biti "rešenje" za gorivo kada NIS prestane da radi.

Imaće efekat kao ona uredba o ograničenju marže.

 

[Прле]

О па то ограничење је баш помогло. Шта год да власт ради, све је неко муљање, и заштита великих, на терет народа.

 

[VeniVidiVici]

Prvi put u istoriji im je onemogućen dotok nafte iz JANAF-a za vreme rata, sankcija i raspada Jugoslavije.

Drugi put sada.

Što bi ameri rekli, kada me prvi put pređeš, sram da te bude. Kada me drugi put pređeš (izigraš) sram mene da bude.

Oba buta iste partije bile na vlasti - SNS i SPS u svojim raznim oblicima.

 

[Whiplash]

"Fajnenšel tajms": ADNOC iz Emirata najbliži kupovini NIS-a - Vreme

„Adnoc" je favorit za kupovinu ruskog udela u Pančevačkoj rafineriji, dok Beograd i dalje čeka odluku Gazprom Nefta pod američkim sankcijama.

vreme.com

 

[Diego]

Kongres je nadležan za ukidanje sankcija a oni mogu da imaju drugačiji stav od OFAC-a jer ne glasaju na zvonce. To je još jedan od razloga zašto NIS nema kupca.

Btw. ne terajte me ponovo da postavljam linkove i dokazujem da je zaista kongres nadležan. Sankcije uvedene 10. januara su "trump proof" upravo jer je prethodna administracija tako obezbedila kontinuitet kaznene politike prema Rusiji.

Ko je skinuo sve sankcije Dodiku, saradnicima i njihovim firmama, u jednom danu sve? Hvala.

Evo da pomognem:

https://ofac.treasury.gov/recent-actions/20251029

 

[Ar4]

Ko je skinuo sve sankcije Dodiku, saradnicima i njihovim firmama, u jednom danu sve? Hvala.

Dodik nije bio pod istim sankcijama. On je bio pod sankcijama vezanim za Balkan a ne za Rusiju.
Drugačija izvršna odredba je u pitanju. Ako meni ne veruješ istraži sam ili pitaj nekog OFAC advokata.

Što bi ameri rekli, kada me prvi put pređeš, sram da te bude. Kada me drugi put pređeš (izigraš) sram mene da bude.

Oba buta iste partije bile na vlasti - SNS i SPS u svojim raznim oblicima.

Pa da, odlagali su NIS-u sankcije mesecima u nadi da će glavni Ruski agent u Srbiji da se "uzme u pamet."

Kao što su se nadali da će onaj Ruski agent iz '99 potpisati Rambuje i preći na Američku stranu.

Za SPS+SNS jedino daje rezultate zavrtanje j*** kako bi narod ista dobio da ih smeni na ulici. Nakon nekoliko godina u najbolju ruku.

 

[Diego]

Dodik nije bio pod istim sankcijama. On je bio pod sankcijama vezanim za Balkan a ne za Rusiju.
Drugačija izvršna odredba je u pitanju. Ako meni ne veruješ istraži sam ili pitaj nekog OFAC advokata.

To je proturena priča tamo negde u januaru, u praksi OFAC ima autoritet da delistira enitete sa SDN liste, tu dolazi do konsultacije sa State Departmentom ali nije potrebno da Congress zaseda zbog NIS-a.

https://www.state.gov/sanctions-delisting

• Congressional Notification (High-Profile Cases): When OFAC intends to remove a major entity (like UC Rusal in 2019) designated under authorities like CAATSA, it must notify Congress 30 days in advance.

A teško da je tamo neki NIS “major entity” za SAD.

 

[Ar4]

To je proturena priča tamo negde u januaru, u praksi OFAC ima autoritet da delistira enitete sa SDN liste, tu dolazi do konsultacije sa State Departmentom ali nije potrebno da Congress zaseda zbog NIS-a.

https://www.state.gov/sanctions-delisting



A teško da je tamo neki NIS “major entity” za SAD.

Spojler: k thanks bye

Here is the explanation you can use. You can copy-paste the sections below or use them to build your argument.
The key piece of "ammunition" you need is CAATSA Section 216.
Most people think the President or OFAC can just "sign a waiver" to lift sanctions whenever they want. That is generally true for other countries, but Russia sanctions are different because Congress passed a specific law to handcuff the President’s ability to lift them unilaterally.
Here is the step-by-step logic to destroy their argument:

1. The Evidence (The Tags Matter)​

Point to the specific program tags in the text you provided: UKRAINE-EO13662 and RUSSIA-EO14024.

• These aren't just random codes; they determine which law governs the sanctions.
• EO 13662 is the critical one here. It was originally issued in 2014 regarding the Ukraine crisis.

2. The Law (CAATSA Section 216)​

In 2017, Congress passed the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA).

• Section 216 of CAATSA explicitly strips the President of the power to quietly lift Russia-related sanctions.
• It legally mandates that before the Executive Branch can terminate or waive sanctions imposed under Executive Order 13662 (which NIS AD is listed under), the President must submit a report to Congress.
• Congress then has a review period (typically 30 days) during which they can pass a "Joint Resolution of Disapproval" to block the President from lifting the sanctions.

3. The "Ignorant Person" Explanation​

Here is a draft you can post:

"You are missing the legal mechanism here. Look at the OFAC tags for NIS AD: UKRAINE-EO13662 and RUSSIA-EO14024.
Because NIS AD is sanctioned under EO 13662, the President effectively cannot lift these sanctions without Congress. Under Section 216 of CAATSA (2017), the administration is legally required to notify Congress before terminating sanctions under this specific order. Congress then has a review period where they can vote to block the removal.
This isn't a standard administrative delisting; it is a statutory requirement built specifically to prevent the White House from easing Russia sanctions without legislative oversight. So yes, it absolutely involves Congress."

Summary Table for Clarity​

If they still argue, show them this breakdown:

Sanction Program on NIS AD	Legal Requirement for Removal
UKRAINE-EO13662	Congressional Review Required (CAATSA § 216)
RUSSIA-EO14024	Congressional Review Required (Covered under Russia-related actions)

Next Step: Would you like me to find the specific text of CAATSA Section 216 so you can quote the exact statute directly?

---

Here is the text you need. Copy and paste this directly into your reply to shut down the argument.
The "Smoking Gun" Text:
You can cite Public Law 115-44 (CAATSA), Section 216.

Title: CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF CERTAIN ACTIONS RELATING TO SANCTIONS IMPOSED WITH RESPECT TO THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
Section 216(a)(1) — Reporting Requirement:
"Notwithstanding any other provision of law, before taking any action described in paragraph (2), the President shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees and leadership a report that describes the proposed action and the reasons for that action."12
Section 216(a)(2)(A) — Actions Described:3456
"An action described in this paragraph is... an action to terminate the application of any sanctions described in subparagraph (B)."78910
Section 216(a)(2)(B) — 1112Which Sanctions Are Covered?1314
"The sanctions described in this subparagraph are... sanctions provided for under... the Executive orders codified under section 222..."
Section 222(a) — Codification of Executive Order 13662:
"United States sanctions provided for in... Executive Order No. 13662... as in effect on the day before the date of the enactment of this Act, shall remain in effect."

---

How to use this in your reply:​

"You are claiming the President can just waive this. You are wrong. Read the law.
1. NIS AD is sanctioned under UKRAINE-EO13662. (Check the OFAC listing).
2. CAATSA Section 222 explicitly codifies EO 13662 into law, removing it from pure executive discretion.
3. CAATSA Section 216 explicitly states that 'Notwithstanding any other provision of law,' the President cannot terminate these sanctions without submitting a report to Congress, triggering a 30-day review period where Congress can vote to block it.
This is not a debate about opinion; it is a matter of statute (Public Law 115-44)."
Next Step: Would you like me to verify if there have been any recent amendments to CAATSA that might have changed this mechanism (highly unlikely, but I can double-check)?

 

[Diego]

Ok ako tako kaže Chat GPT, on je poznat da je nepogrešiv. A mi ćemo videti koja je tačna procedura jednom kad se desi (nekad)…

 

[Diego]

Evo šta je meni odgovorio npr:

https://chatgpt.com/share/69396d7e-3700-8006-a974-6877539a41c1

…

Special Case: CAATSA Restrictions

Some sanctions tied to Russia-related actions fall under the CAATSA law. Under CAATSA:

• The President cannot lift sanctions broadly without notifying Congress, and Congress can object.
• But individual removals (such as a single company proving it no longer meets listing criteria) can still be handled by OFAC without congressional approval

So for NIS AD:
Congress does not need to sign off
✔ OFAC can delist if legal criteria are met (e.g., change in ownership/control)

 

[Ar4]

Gemini 3 Pro. Sve navode možeš ručno da proveriš.

Ključne su izvršne odredbe po kojima je NIS sankionisan.

RUSSIA-EO14024; UKRAINE-EO13662

Onda pitaš Google, GPT, šta god da li je potreban kongres ili ne.

https://sanctionssearch.ofac.treas.gov/Details.aspx?id=52141

Program:

RUSSIA-EO14024; UKRAINE-EO13662

 

[Diego]

Kaže i dalje ne treba, neko laže majku mu…

Does Congress Approve Delisting Under These Orders?

NO. Congress does not approve removals under EO 14024 or EO 13662.

Congress only gets involved when:

• The President tries to lift broad categories of Russia sanctions, not individual cases
• Reports on sanctions are required under laws like CAATSA

Individual delistings remain authority of OFAC.

 

[Ar4]

Postaviš u bilo koj GPT pitanje tipa "NIS AD is listed under programs RUSSIA-EO14024 and UKRAINE-EO13662, let me know if Congress is involved in the removal of those sanctions"

Ili pejstuješ OFAC-ovu stranicu I pitaš "Based on programs under which NIS AD is sanctioned, let me know if Congress is involved in the removal of those sanctions."

Sanctions List Search

Spojler: Gemini 3 Pro

Yes, Congress is involved in the process of removing sanctions for entities listed under these specific programs.
Because NIS AD (Naftna Industrija Srbije) is listed under EO 13662, the President cannot unilaterally remove the sanctions without notifying Congress and allowing time for a potential objection.1


Here is the breakdown of the legal mechanism that forces Congressional involvement:

1. The "Anchor" Law: CAATSA Section 2162​

The key legislation is the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA), passed in 2017.3 Section 216 of this act explicitly limits the President’s power to relax Russia-related sanctions.4

• Codification: CAATSA passed the sanctions from Executive Order 13662 (the Ukraine-related order under which NIS AD is listed) into federal law. This means they are no longer just "Presidential orders" that can be easily undone with a signature; they are now statute.5
  
  
  
• Review Requirement: Before the Executive Branch (OFAC/The State Department) can terminate sanctions or remove a specific entity like NIS AD from the list, the President must submit a report to Congress justifying the decision.6
  
  

2. The Congressional Review Process​

Congress does not necessarily have to "approve" the removal (vote "yes"), but they have the power to disapprove (vote "no").7

• Notification: The President notifies Congress of the intent to remove the sanctions.8
  
  
  
• Waiting Period: Once notified, Congress has a 30-day window to review the decision.9
  
  
  
• Joint Resolution of Disapproval: During this window, if Congress disagrees with the removal, they can pass a "Joint Resolution of Disapproval."10 If this resolution passes both the House and Senate and is signed into law (or enacted over a veto), the President is legally blocked from removing the sanctions.11
  
  
  
  
• Inaction: If the 30 days pass and Congress does nothing, the Executive Branch is free to proceed with the removal.12
  
  

3. The Dual-Listing Complication (EO 14024 vs. EO 13662)​

You correctly noted that NIS AD is listed under two programs:

• RUSSIA-EO14024 (The newer 2021 Biden-era order).
• UKRAINE-EO13662 (The older 2014 order codified by CAATSA).

While the President has more flexibility with the newer EO 14024 (since it was issued after CAATSA), the fact that NIS AD is also listed under EO 13662 binds the action to the stricter CAATSA rules. You cannot effectively "clear" the entity without lifting the 13662 designation, which triggers the Congressional review described above.13

Summary​

If the U.S. administration wanted to remove sanctions on NIS AD today, they would have to file a report with Congress explaining why. Congress would then have 30 days to block that move if they chose to do so.

 

[roger34]

Do sada ste miglu ručno da potražite Congress i delist u tim dokumentima…

 

[neshaoct]

Postaviš u bilo koj GPT pitanje tipa "NIS AD is listed under programs RUSSIA-EO14024 and UKRAINE-EO13662, let me know if Congress is involved in the removal of those sanctions"

Namerno nisi hteo da pitanje bude u skladu sa onim što inače pričaš na temi - da će Kongres trebati da se sastane i da glasa o skidanju NIS-a sa te liste - ali čak i sa ovom promenjenom formulacijom koju si naveo ''if Congress is involved in the removal of those sanctions'', opet se dobije drugačiji odgovor od onoga koji ti ovde uporno navodiš kao apsolutnu istinu:

...the formal process for removal of designations under NIS AD (and more broadly under the sanctions programs tied to Office of Foreign Assets Control / U.S. sanctions law) does not require a full vote of Congress for each company; rather, it is up to the Executive Branch - but Congress plays an indirect oversight / enabling role.

...removal of a designation like that of NIS AD under EO 13662 / 14024 would typically be handled within the Executive Branch (e.g., Treasury/OFAC), not via a new congressional act or vote. Congress could influence removal indirectly - via new laws, or political / oversight pressure - but it doesn’t automatically get to approve or reject each removal.

...The listing (or delisting) of companies under EO 13662 or EO 14024 is primarily an Executive decision (via OFAC), not a Congressional vote.

@Igor
Kad se ovako jasno vidi da lik ima samo jedan motiv za pisanje na ovoj temi, hoćeš li ga ostaviti da i dalje piše=laže, i time mu dopustiti da veoma negativno oblikuje sadržaj ovog Foruma i utiče negativno na njegov renome, ili mu to više nećeš dopustiti (al' ne samo na 30 dana pa onda opet isto, već mislim na trajno rešavanje problema otvorenog laganja)?

Ako on već može ovako otvoreno da piše=laže na ovoj temi, onda bi možda trebali svi da pišemo svuda po Forumu prvo šta nam padne na pamet, ili šta bi sve voleli/želeli/ubeđeni smo da je tako i sl. Ako se dozvoli ovo drugo, onda BeoBuild Forum postaje ordinacija za ludake koji mogu ovde pisanjem svojih deluzija da se leče... a to valjda nije primarna uloga ovog Foruma.