Russia has invaded Ukraine

[ohmymimi]

Not a shot fired. Putin outwits the West and who/what will stop him getting his way?

of course, with full knowledge of Russia that the debt will be created by the few people at the top of Ukrainian govt, and not minding - as in their eyes the debt made it even more possible to control Ukraine. This has been the usual Soviet central-power-system way of doing things. Bribe everyone at the top in neighbouring small countries. Choose to support those leaders who are bribeable.

This would be funny if it weren't for the fact that the US govt is planning to use my tax dollars to bribe left, right and centre. As long as it doesn't support Russia, the US will pay it.

There is an incredible amount of cognitive dissonance going on here.

Does Ukraine need oil and gas?
Yes.
How much does that cost and where can it be bought?
That remains to be seen.
Welcome to post Soviet reality.

If I were a member of OPEC I would want my money up front for delivery to Ukraine.

'If I were a member of OPEC I would want my money up front for delivery to Ukraine.'

They will try to use EU and US taxpayer money to pay for it. But the EU had no money, that is why it could only offer Ukraine $800 million as opposed to the $15 billion that Russia offered it.

Ukraine will end up far worse under this new government of bankers and oligarch backed politicians. It does not have the sophisticated industries that can compete with the EU, and is reliant on trade with Russia. Its people will end up in worse poverty than they are in now and they will emigrate to EU countries to escape. The bankers and cute hoors will have sold Ukraine off for a pittance and eventually the people will realise it and kick them out. But the plutocrats and planners will be happy as they will have weakened Russia.

That sounds like a repeat of what happened in Russia in the Yeltsin years under the loving guidance of Jeffrey Sachs shock therapy nearly destroyed Russia in every way, and led to the growth of a kleptocracy. All very well and mighty fine how satisfying to finally destroy the Evil Empire, etc., -- until nuclear weapons went missing and former Soviet scientists went abroad to the highest bidders just to get paid.

Russia will not be weakened by this. The demand for Russian oil and gas grows as the economies of India and China blaze ahead. And where else is Europe going to go for oil and gas?

'That sounds like a repeat of what happened in Russia in the Yeltsin years under the loving guidance of Jeffrey Sachs -- shock therapy nearly destroyed Russia in every way, and led to the growth of a kleptocracy.'

Exactly. That is the way it is always done. The vulture capitalists move in and eat the carcass and loot everything that isn't bolted down.

Some articles are saying that is what is what was done in Latvia too. I don't know anything about Latvia, but it wouldn't surprise me because that is how it is always done.

Yes, Europe will be weakened by this, but that is probably part of the plan too. The Russian have said that they will sell their oil to China, so they won't suffer.

Of course, the goal is really to topple Putin so that they can get their hands on Russian assets, oil and gas and loot Russia. It all depends on how popular Putin is in Russia.

His popularity has increased now as he is standing up for Russia.

But there were large protests against Putin a few years back and the metropolitan elite are against him and some oligarchs are against him. He recovered his popularity among the workers and peasants and ordinary people by becoming more conservative and going back to traditional values and promoting Russian Orthodoxy etc.

But the plan is to hit him with economic sanctions and destroy him by economic means and if ordinary people start suffering economically then they will join the metropolitan elite and turn against him.

hopeful goat
Defending racist and fascist leanings and apologizing for Nazi collaboration... The attitudes of people in xxxxxx are clearly about one group trumpeting over dignity and livelihoods of another under cover from a powerful patron

I certainly do not defend these actions, of which both Russia and Ukraine have been guilty, among a great many other nations.

However I am especially revolted by a large and powerful nation invading a poorer and smaller neighbour and using ultra-nationalism as its excuse. We've seen it happen too many times before.

The US does not have much skin in the game. Europe does. The US has already given itself the largest deficit the world has ever known, I was not expecting them to donate half a day's deficit to prop up a country of little significance to them. It's much more likely that Europe will try to give some aid and make some loans, and will try to make them conditional on a reduction in the corruption of the previous kleptocracy. Russia leads the world in billionaire gangsters and corrupt government so is unlikely to give a lead in that respect.

How is it any different from using proxies in Kiev to do your invading for you?

('I think Yats is the guy. He has economic experience and governing experience. He is the guy.')

Ukraine is of huge significance to the US as a geopolitical prize and because they will foist missile shield missiles on Ukraine as the price of oil. They will support any politician in Ukraine who will deliver enough stability to ensure the missiles are sited there. They will overlook any right wing leanings or previous associations with crooks or thugs. The US does not care about the deficit when it comes to the blind spot of Russia.

Good luck to anyone trying to reduce a culture of corruption. That is not going to happen. If anything, the availability of a line of credit from abroad tends to increase rather than decrease the tendency to be corrupt. Look at Ireland.

The state of Illinois has sent four out of its last seven governors to prison for corruption Otto Kerner, Dan Walker, George Ryan and Rod Blagojevich. Trials of Chicago aldermen accused of accepting bribes and Mafia involvement provide constant ongoing entertainment on the local news, and the occasional trial of local US congressmen livens things up from time to time. It's like whack a mole one goes down and another pops up to take his place. And that is just Illinois.

Russia does business all over the world. Those directly engaged in business with Russia do not necessarily grow wealthy beyond their wildest dreams. A country where there is little or no rule of law is one where individuals amass vast wealth while the majority remain poor. Over twenty years of power swinging east and west in Ukraine (and clearly not all governments were puppets of Putin either)
eh? this comparison/analogy is completely incorrect. Russia doesn't just 'do business' in Ukraine. It was all one country and politically pretty much remained so in the sense that Russia STILL made decisions in Ukraine all of this time (before Putin others did). No other country beyond former Soviet republics is under Russian control to this extreme extent. ALL the Ukrainians leaders so far where approved by the Russian to continue various beyond-law trade creating oligarchs on both sides! The whole concept of oligarchs is there because of corruption stemming from the Soviet Union and branching out to forner republics and their convenient for Russia leaders.
I'm not saying that US citizens have to pay Ukraine's debts, but the US givt offered help to support Ukr population because it was not the fault of the people that a Russian-imposed corrupt govt defaulted while all the money gone to private accounts - same as Russian oligarchs stole from pension funds in the past (Abramovich).
That's why people wanted to have a fresh govt WITHOUT links or approvals from Putin. Otherwise it will stay the same. That's why Yatseniuk has a chance. There is also Poroshenko who is a factory owner but not corrupt and above voard (plus giving many jobs via the succesful factory).
The people didn't want violent revolution, they were standing on Maidan for months (I mean the crowds, not the radicals), and demanded Yanukovich to go, if he went there wouldn't have been an armed coup, the protests on this scale should haev made them to either bring election much more forward than December! If he was creating the debt and stealing, i.e. doing illegal things, why the heck should everyone obediently wait till elections? I'm sure there aer mechanisms in democratic countries to remove leaders who are seriously corrupt, sometimes people stand down (like in the UK from various posts, incl ministers, if dodgy info on then comes to light - misdeeds on much smaller scale sometimes, but Yanoukovich would NOT stand down. People were fed up to be just disregarded and used. I've heard enough from people actually living in Kiev of many sectors of population, but especially under 50s, I' mafarid the revolution was the only option if no appeals worked - but as I say no one wanted it to be violent apart from radicals - it was NOT violent for whole three months of stand off. And that statred when - whenb he didn't sign the EU agreement but went with Russia again - because Russia had him under their thumb which everyone knew. Some in the east might not have minded, but other areas are not so pro russian that they could tolerate this never-ending control.

I meant either they should have brought the elections much more forward than next Dec, or Yanoukovich should have stood down.
Possibly the Irish still thought the law works in their country and maybe the elections weren't too far away. It's a lot worse in Ukraine. People can not survive on a pension. Though I admit I don't have inside knowledge of the Irish life like I do of Ukraine/russia, but I bet it's still no comparison re democracy.

claig they are not going to topple Putin. Russian will never let Americans to come and loot the country, they aer very tough and unforgiving people when it comes to defending their pride (somewhat fragile at that, so there is an agressive element). It will take the whole generation change for him to stop being popular with those who lived in Soviet times. He's very much reviving those 'moral values' but with a nod to modern world. He's much better than any previous post-soviet leaders, mind. He's managed to restore patriotic feelings after Russia was seen as a dump for a while. The majority in Russia are not democratically-minded to western degree, but they do want to see laws working against crime. He reflects all that.
But hear him on the gay issue. You have to laugh! He disapproves of same sex marriages because they don't produce children, yet he doesn't officially disapprove of gays having sex basically (ridiculous coy silences there too). As if if he stops gay marriage, they will start marrying opp sex and producing children. But in Soviet times it was really unheard of and seen as mortal sin or something, so his stance appeals to all the older generation again. They even think he's a bit liberal because he 'has to be'. In brief he's seen as someone who understands Russian and is 'their lad'.
Young progressive thinkers or liberals - yes, many of them in MOscow but not much beyond. He jailed Pussy Riots (over-reaction, anyone?) but religious people like it). In Sochi gay bars exist only in secret, because of general hostility. So the progressive minority doesn't sway the vote.

Missiles in Ukraine. As a very popular orator of Russian Duma mr.Zhirinovsky said, 'it's no matter to us whether the missiles are in the Baltic states or in the Ukraine' - and they are already in the Baltics, takes no time to fly from there. He says that yes the US may want to hit Russia financially so that Russia has to spend yet more on weapons, but then it goes both ways. Do you really think that the US will start war with Russia? that would be madness and idiocy. If it's just intimidation, stupid again as it will go both ways, plus Europe won't be too pleased having US missiles all around and more!
math, do you not for a minute think that US is actually interested in spreading democracy, and helping out small countries who crave the democracy and decent way of life which the West takes for granted and which doesn't exist there - because it's under the thumb of dictatorial Russia. Do you hear the interviews with normal people in Ukraine and non-soviets of crimea, and before that in baltic states who simply want human rights and lack of corruption? Let the US help, Russia really is a murky dark guy - once you really know all about it! If it suits the people there - it's hteir business, but they have no right to keep the former republics on this short leash. They want help, and that's their choice. Us helped the Baltic states - they are not complaining about US interfernce, and there was no war either, yet they got their freedom.

oh and by the way, not letting the international or UN convoy of observers in Crimes - it's a joke! Eveb if you can argue that Russia may see Ukrainian current govt as unlawful, they have no reason or excuse not to let the UN unarmed observers in. Oh wait, they do have a reason, they are an agressor who is used to grab what they want and not give a f* about what agreements they signed even on international level with UN memer states. More and more troops arriving now. How do you think the 40% of crimeans feel now? like it will be a fair referndum? anyone allowed to monitor that?

The expectation created by the media in Ukraine is astonishing. When the BBC shows interviews with students, they all say that by signing the association agreement they will be ' living in Europe'.

Somebody needs to tell them that they will always live in Ukraine.

The Romanians and Bulgarians are still living in Romania and Bulgaria and those two countries are still the two most corrupt in Europe...

Hopefulgoat, the Bandera group were a tiny minority of the Ukrainian population, and by 'tactical' bbc meant that they were too scared of the Soviet occupation so they wanted Hitler to win. Yes, disraceful piece of history. It's absolutely ridiculous to say that they led the revolt of the whole central and western Ukraine now! The vast majority are not apologists for Bandera, whereas the young generation don't even know what they are. The vast majority, and especially the young want to live in a lawful country where european laws and human rights work. It's NOT ABOUT NATIONALISM, as I said before majority in Kiev speak russian, they just don't want control from an undemocratic country like russia is now or like the USSR was. They just want out, they have no interest in reviving fascism. You should visit Ukraine and see how nice and kind the people are, they'd be appalled (the crowds who stood on maidan for months, all sections of society) that they aer being grouped with nazis. Neither they will vote for anyone from the right wing party to be a president - you'll see.

Hopefulgoat

I blocked out the false suggestion that it applied to Ukraine and not to Russia.

I am by no means a Nazi apologist. Unlike Claig, I recognise that the Russian a dominated Soviet Union formed an alliance with Nazi Germany, and started sharing out the weaker countries of Europe between them. Only when Germany invented the Soviet empire did it start to fight them. Claig tried to claim a virtue for Russia fighting Germany during WW2.

Russia also has a long and shameful history of antisemitism, as does the Ukraine. Russia still has neo-nazis and extreme nationalism.

I see obvious parallels between the German invasions, for example of Poland by both Germany and the Soviet union, and the genocide both are guilty of, sixty years ago, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine today.

I am no apologist for either.

living in Europe means being part of europe. Euro laws will apply, that's what they mean. Ukraine is not the same as romania/bulgaria, it has better resources in terms of education and industry, and much bigger population which is harder to control (unlike romania where it's almost family clans). Bulgaria may be corrupt but the level is nowhere near Ukraine and russia as they are. Even the fact that people can leave and work anywhere in europe doesn't allow for that level of control of the population and therefore corruption.

Yep. many and strong neo-nazi groups in Russia now.

The vast majority are not apologists for Bandera, whereas the young generation don't even know what they are.

Isn't that exactly the disgrace - they made Bandera a national hero and didn't educate the young generation about the Nazis crimes. Young people must know what Banderas did and what the swastika means! Now militias with swastika on their sleeves march in central Kiev and the Ukrainians don't seem to be troubled by this. Why? They must be disgusted and protest against them. That is what democracy is - responsible civil society. Brits organise demonstrations against the extreme right.

the Bandera group were a tiny minority of the Ukrainian population
So why are they now over-represented in the government?

the young want to live in a lawful country where European laws and human rights work. It's NOT ABOUT NATIONALISM
The European law and human rights respect the dignity and identity of minorities. When you introduce laws that take away from native Ukrainian citizens the right to speak and teach their native language to their children, to speak their native language in government business, you order to destroy their monument and rename their streets - this is the most barbaric and oppressive trumpeting of the winner group over another. A ritualistic deprivation of dignity and relegation to second class citizens. This is racism and fascism, not democracy and human rights.

In UK we provide interpreters to people who don't speak English and need to use the NHS. In Ukraine the new government ordered the health service to remove Russian version from their website... this is fascism.

Oligarchs exist where there is greed and not a lot of law. For example, the US in the late 19th and early 20th century before antitrust legislation and the rise of unions. It is really juvenile to point fingers at Russia, blame Russia for everything that is wrong with Ukrainian political culture, and claim to be perfectly capable of having a government without corruption, an end to rule by oligarchs, etc., and that once Russia gets its dirty hands off Ukraine the pure saintliness of Ukrainians will come shining through.

Ukraine is responsible for payment of debt, full stop. You may not have liked the previous government, but the current one has to pay. Not liking the previous government or believing it was corrupt does not excuse Ukraine from paying. If Ukraine does not come up with the money then Ukraine will not be able to find gas or oil elsewhere.

It is complete nonsense that Russia controlled Ukraine for twenty years.

Carnegie Endowment assessment of Ukraine is not as starry eyed as yours, Beagles.

From March 9, 2012

'Economically, Ukraine has grown along with the region. As such, growth rates have not been low, but they come after the economically devastating 1990s and are not built on a sustainable foundation. For years Russia provided Ukraine with underpriced gas while Ukraine’s export prices increased rapidly. Over the decades Ukraine, however, grew dependent on oil and gas coming from Russia, at almost no cost. Today, 70 percent of gas consumed in the country is imported. But the terms of trade improvements this provided, like other economic windfall gains, are fortunate only if well handled. Unfortunately, Ukrainian economic policy was unable to make proper use of the windfalls of the 2000s....

...From these beginnings, Ukraine had to create a functioning democratic state, a vibrant civil society, and a competitive economy integrated with both post-Soviet and European markets. What has been achieved should not be underestimated. The divide between the mostly Ukrainian-speaking west and north and the Russian-speaking east and south has not proven impossible to bridge. Unlike in Russia, Ukraine has had genuinely competitive politics. There is a lively civil society, and the economy has gotten back on its feet to a degree.

Yet, not only was Ukraine’s starting point modest, the country was also exceptionally badly hit by the disorganization of the early transition. As nation building came to dominate the first years following Ukraine’s independence, politics were in continued turmoil and centered around jockeying for power. Economics therefore suffered...'

'Ukraine’s economy contracted annually between 9.7 and 22.7 percent in 1991–1996. The country experienced hyperinflation and an exceptionally huge production decline for a country not ravaged by a major war. Official GDP collapsed by almost half from 1990 to 1994, and slow decline continued throughout the decade. Economic growth would not resume again until 2000. The budget deficit was, at 14.4 percent of GDP, exceptionally large. Barter and the use of surrogate moneys and foreign currencies prevailed. Ukraine had introduced a sovereign currency, the hryvnia, but it was little used. A shadow economy swelled and compensated for an unknown share of the economic collapse.

Ukraine thus ended up in a vicious, difficult-to-break circle. Political instability hindered the building of functional administrative institutions like tax authorities, and escaping into the untaxed shadow economy was easy. Corruption also helped ease that transition. As the tax base grew narrower, attempts to increase tax revenue often meant that what could be taxed was taxed too heavily. This again forced many citizens and companies into the shadow economy. In the process, any respect for law tended to evaporate. This was not a good environment for competition, investment, and growth of new industries...

...Behind the facade of an electoral democracy, both inherited and newly arisen economic structures held on to actual power. These usually regionally based structures are more often than not personified as oligarchs controlling key industries of the country. Sometimes the dividing line between legitimate capitalists and plain criminals is blurred, and elected politicians may be little more than covers for their interests...'

Read on. It is a sober, clear-eyed American assessment penned long before the US threw caution to the wind and decided the business of America is fomenting revolution.

While Ukraine rearranged the deckchairs or put another way, it played kick the can for twenty years, Russia has reassessed its economy and general direction. Russia is committed to diversification and modernisation of its economy.

'As the [Russian] economy was correctly expected to grow faster, maintaining export volumes would demand an evident increase in energy efficiency. Finding new export commodities would be good—that is, diversification, in the Russian political vocabulary—but obviously the scale of matters was such that Russia would remain dependent on resource exports for decades to come. The much-needed energy efficiency demanded a huge change in the whole of economy and society—as in Ukraine—a process known in Russia as modernization. For social and political stability to remain, modernization had to be state-led and top-down. Whether Russia’s future would be based on resources or on the better use of them, the state had to lead the society, according to the Putin regime.

The first necessary condition for modernization was to raise domestic gas and consequently power prices. A roadmap for doing that was accepted in late 2006, and an evident conclusion emerged. If Russians had to pay more, there was no reason why Belarusians, Ukrainians, and others should continue to be subsidized. Speed of change would vary for perceived political and strategic reasons, but the general trend was inevitable. This then would be the post-Soviet price revolution: higher prices for basic commodities and lower ones for manufactures—unless breakthroughs in competitiveness emerged.

The processed-goods exports of post-Soviet producers would compete against Chinese and other emerging-market goods. The prospects were not good for the Ukrainians. China’s share of Russia’s imports has surged, and that of Ukraine has declined. Ukraine could readily turn to the European market to sell its metals and grain, but not its manufactured products.

All of this meant that preconditions for the Ukrainian curse would cease to exist. Ukraine’s terms of trade would change from a windfall to a downpour of cold rain. And Ukraine had not made the necessary domestic reforms to prepare for such a turn of events.

The simple Russian proposition has had dramatic consequences for Ukraine. There have been aspiring political leaders who have thought that the Russian decision may be turned or at least postponed by playing on the Slavic or Eurasian Union cards: Ukrainians will continue to entertain prospects of Eastern integration if Russia continues postponing inevitable price hikes. Trying to avoid the price revolution is surely seen by some inside Ukraine as a potent argument for joining post-Soviet reintegration schemes, like Belarus has done. And clearly, most if not all in the Kremlin would have nothing against gathering together all the lands of ancient Rus. But many of them do not wish to do it on terms that run against Russia’s basic economic interests, diversification, and modernization...

...In 2009, as GDP declined and the hryvnia weakened, external debt stock was 91.5 percent of GDP and 191.6 percent of annual exports—clearly an unsustainable level for Ukraine. In late 2011, Ukraine’s official reserves were some $30 billion. Paying back its debt—barring a further accelerated depletion of foreign exchange reserves—will be close to impossible without fresh foreign finance, preferably in the form of disbursements from the IMF.

A two-year IMF stand-by arrangement, put in place in 2008, provided exceptional access to financing that was crucial in helping Ukraine through the Great Recession. In particular, it helped to prevent a banking crisis. In many respects, however, Ukraine reneged on its commitments, and the program went off-track very soon, as a 2011 IMF evaluation concludes. This holds for fiscal, exchange rate, and monetary policies, but in particular for the energy sector.

In 2008, Ukraine committed itself to phasing out all gas subsidies in three years, but little was done on that front. For some specific industries, gas prices were actually decreased in 2009. Ukrainian households still pay traditionally extremely little for the gas their everyday life depends on. At end of the year, gas prices for households accounted for about one-fifth and those for utilities for one-third of import prices. Following this, there was little left of Ukraine’s credibility as a policy program partner.

Yet, another stand-by arrangement amounting to $15.3 billion was somewhat surprisingly approved by the IMF on July 28, 2010. The IMF disbursed $3.4 billion by December 2010, and in August 2011 a second arrangement review was postponed to November of that year. But the IMF mission arrived and departed without reaching common understanding with the Kiev authorities. Though Ukraine must also show how it intends to remedy the built-in fiscal dilemmas of a large shadow economy and huge pension commitments, the main issue of contention was, once again, the domestic gas price for households and utilities.

Officially the low gas prices are justified as poverty alleviation, but it is difficult to imagine a less effective and less equitable pro-poor policy. The gas price subsidy is widely viewed as a way to line the pockets of oligarchs, not help the poor. The practice is also a key hindrance to improved energy efficiency, which is badly needed in Ukraine. Oligarch-owned industries are the biggest sources of inefficiency, having survived and even succeeded for decades due to hugely underpriced energy. Inefficient industries have not lived in a real market environment: as gas prices to industries have been raised, subsidies have been channeled through the budget and the financial system. On top of that, raising prices before the 2012 and 2013 parliamentary and presidential elections is not a particularly good strategy for winning votes in a country accustomed to populist policies.'