The Situation in the Ukraine. #22

PapaDragon wrote:
Is this accurate?

http://newsru.com/finance/16nov2015/credit.html

Yes its true.

Russia has saved ukraine from default and agreed to restructure its debt.

So, where does that leave the cunning plan now then?

It seems putin has done the regime in kiev a huge favour today,hardly fits in with what many on here said whilst gloating about winter and debt.

Rodinazombie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Is this accurate?

http://newsru.com/finance/16nov2015/credit.html

Yes its true.

Russia has saved ukraine from default and agreed to restructure its debt.

So, where does that leave the cunning plan now then?

It seems putin has done the regime in kiev a huge favour today,hardly  fits in with what many on here said whilst gloating about winter and debt.

Might not be quite like that. There are probably good and bad issues here.

First we don't know what levers were applied onto Russia to agree. Almost certainly they were told that the IMF would change its rules to allow money to still flow to Ukraine in the event of default and that there would be some kind of blowback onto Russia should the IMF be forced to do this. Bear in mind that the Russian economy is not yet properly insulated from 'shit' sent at it from the West.

Second, we don't know what Russia got out of it, either financially in terms of protection for that loan and its interest (the loan was a good deal financially for Russia), or otherwise.

Just look at how the US/Europe is swinging round to + Russia in Syria. An accident? Or reward?

PapaDragon wrote:

JohninMK wrote:

Rodinazombie wrote:

PapaDragon wrote:
Is this accurate?

http://newsru.com/finance/16nov2015/credit.html

Yes its true.

Russia has saved ukraine from default and agreed to restructure its debt.

So, where does that leave the cunning plan now then?

It seems putin has done the regime in kiev a huge favour today,hardly  fits in with what many on here said whilst gloating about winter and debt.

Might not be quite like that. There are probably good and bad issues here.

First we don't know what levers were applied onto Russia to agree. Almost certainly they were told that the IMF would change its rules to allow money to still flow to Ukraine in the event of default and that there would be some kind of blowback onto Russia should the IMF be forced to do this. Bear in mind that the Russian economy is not yet properly insulated from 'shit' sent at it from the West.

Second, we don't know what Russia got out of it, either financially in terms of protection for that loan and its interest (the loan was a good deal financially for Russia), or otherwise.

Just look at how the US/Europe is swinging round to + Russia in Syria. An accident? Or reward?

Highlighted key parts and agree with you completely.

Loan or no loan, this winter will be a nightmare for population in 404, next one even more so. Economy is gone and not coming back, population is about to follow...

Not enough to make a difference.

Treacherous move by the Russian government, it's an abandonment of the Donbass's population who get shelled by a Ukrainian state that is kept alive on life-support by the West - and by Russia now too it seems.
It should be noted that the West cares only about itself and could give a shit about either Russian victims of terrorism or civilian casualties in the Donbass; they must not be given an inch either in the Ukraine or Syria. They are not to be trusted and they are certainly not to be partnered with, except in matters of temporary convenience.

The Ukrainian government should be forced into bankruptcy as quickly as possible and every effort has to be made to collapse the economy there, and all terrorists must be wiped out in Syria (since our government made the somewhat dubious decision to get involved there, there's no turning back now) with or without Western co-operation.
If the IMF has to be embarassed and forced into openly supporting a bankrupt state, while putting the hurt on Russia - then so be it; this is really a very small price to pay for further detaching the G7 dominated financial systems from the de-facto standard as the control mechanism of the world.

Walther von Oldenburg wrote:

KoTeMoRe wrote:

SturmGuard wrote:I have an impression that T-80U and T-80UD were the best Cold War tank designs (firepower, mobility, protection across frontal arc vs both KE and CE etc.), on the other hand, how much of UAF T-80s are those variants or based upon them? I am familiar with the poor performance in Chechnya, but no tank design would perform well if employed in such way.

Are T-80B or T-80BVs any better than T-64BV when it comes to protection and firepower?

Protection is irrelevant in this. The Ukrainians sent Bulat's those got hit and disabled with mass fire and the mop up crews blew them to bits. No piece of hardware is going to change a fight in this war. The superior level of organization the NovoRussian/Russian troops displayed was key to their successes. Same for now, no matter what wuderwaffle is sent by country 404, they will be sent back with the check.

The T80 is a better tank, but those were more expensive to use than T64's, that's why the Ukrainians and Russians were relying on olrder tanks (T64 & T72 respectively) for the bulk of their armour. It's simply a matter of economy now. So a better tank gotten out of storage isn't exactly the way I'd fight this war.

T-72 has much better ammo layout, making catastrophic explosions less likely in case of armor penetration.

Yeah that's what people said about the Abroomz too, including impenetrable by Konkurs...The Yemeni Science Class showed it was BS. It simply doesn't matter, layout or not, the chance of getting a penetrating hit that kills your tank in a T-series is almost equal.

Look the at those Anti-RT protests and their seize which was mentioned in german misinformation TV as reaching several ten thousands.

Look at their faces anyone want to guess where this people come from with their bad english?

Really I come back home after work and am faced with this news; what bloody BS is this.

First Putin is licking the West's arse in Syria, offering to solve problems; migrants and terrorist threats - that affect them a lot more than they affect us.
Now he's giving the Ukrainian government a pass when it quite clearly owes us money and its sponsors quite clearly have the capacity to pay it; why is it WE should be the ones paying for the Ukraine's bankruptcy exactly? Why is it OUR money that has to be restructured?

I would suggest making a formal complaint. Write letters and demand that Russia does not make these moves.  I also disagree with it.

sepheronx wrote:I would suggest making a formal complaint. Write letters and demand that Russia does not make these moves.  I also disagree with it.

No doubt, if it gets answered at all - it will be answered with proclamations about how Ukrainians are our brotherly people and all this irrelevant nonsense.
We're fighting against the Ukrainian government, not its people - Russia seems to have problems admitting that and adopting the policies that need to be adopted.

flamming_python wrote:First Putin is licking the West's arse in Syria, offering to solve problems; migrants and terrorist threats - that affect them a lot more than they affect us.
Now he's giving the Ukrainian government a pass when it quite clearly owes us money and its sponsors quite clearly have the capacity to pay it; why is it WE should be the ones paying for the Ukraine's bankruptcy exactly? Why is it OUR money that has to be restructured?

The Russian government has from the beginning tried to reconcile with the West and allowing Poroshenko to survive (recognition of the post-Maidan election results, letting Kiev get away with the constant violation of the Minks accords, gas discount) in order to prevent more instability in the Ukraine.

After reading through here: http://sdelanounas.ru/discussions/view/?id=552
I can see why Russia may have done it this way.

Essentially, Ukraine was stating that it wasnt government debt but private and were going to go to court over it. And since the court is western, they will side with Ukraine, and Russia wont get its money back while Ukraine could still borrow (this was evident that would be the case as it was reported about how IMF were going to keep giving loans anyway).

This offer will then force both Ukraine and west to recognize the debt as gov debt and that they will have to repay it.  But this is an offer and they have till December 5th to agree to it or not.  So this restructuring is viewed as two things: 1) Russia will be guaranteed to get its money back and (2) Russia is viewed as more friendly to the west.  But if Ukraine so chooses to not agree to this, then Russias previous stance holds.

Will there be interest collected as well? Dont know.

It seems that there are no licking of boots or anything but a way of guaranteeing money back.  Ukraine was going to forgo its debt to Russia.

As well, the Syria thing, it is now the west turning to Russia over this. Now it seems they are not going to go after Assad like previously claimed.  This is good for both as let the US and west waste money while Russia builds up Assad and help regain territories much closer by. But I doubt cooperation will actually expand and it is all words.

I would still though write a letter and ask why Russia is giving so much leway to Ukraine and its actions, and demand to stop calling them brothers, as this isnt how real brothers should act.

flamming_python wrote:Really I come back home after work and am faced with this news; what bloody BS is this.

First Putin is licking the West's arse in Syria, offering to solve problems; migrants and terrorist threats - that affect them a lot more than they affect us.
Now he's giving the Ukrainian government a pass when it quite clearly owes us money and its sponsors quite clearly have the capacity to pay it; why is it WE should be the ones paying for the Ukraine's bankruptcy exactly? Why is it OUR money that has to be restructured?

I have always said this: Sooner or later and one way or the other, Ukraine will return to Russia's orbit. Remember the Orange revolution (Yushenko and co.)?

The $ 3 billion is just a tool. It will restructured to be paid over three years. Interest will be charged of course.

Putin made concessions and got the West to make concessions too: Obama, Cameroon and Hollande have stopped their "Assad must go" rhetoric.

This is all politics, you win some and loose some.

sepheronx wrote:After reading through here: http://sdelanounas.ru/discussions/view/?id=552
I can see why Russia may have done it this way.

Essentially, Ukraine was stating that it wasnt government debt but private and were going to go to court over it. And since the court is western, they will side with Ukraine, and Russia wont get its money back while Ukraine could still borrow (this was evident that would be the case as it was reported about how IMF were going to keep giving loans anyway).

This offer will then force both Ukraine and west to recognize the debt as gov debt and that they will have to repay it.  But this is an offer and they have till December 5th to agree to it or not.  So this restructuring is viewed as two things: 1) Russia will be guaranteed to get its money back and (2) Russia is viewed as more friendly to the west.  But if Ukraine so chooses to not agree to this, then Russias previous stance holds.

Will there be interest collected as well? Dont know.

It seems that there are no licking of boots or anything but a way of guaranteeing money back.  Ukraine was going to forgo its debt to Russia.

As well, the Syria thing, it is now the west turning to Russia over this. Now it seems they are not going to go after Assad like previously claimed.  This is good for both as let the US and west waste money while Russia builds up Assad and help regain territories much closer by. But I doubt cooperation will actually expand and it is all words.

I would still though write a letter and ask why Russia is giving so much leway to Ukraine and its actions, and demand to stop calling them brothers, as this isnt how real brothers should act.

Think this might form part of Russia's view (from Interfax in Kiev) on the debt, almost 'put up or shut up' in tone. Can't see much 'giving the Ukrainians a pass' in these words.

Russia waiting for guarantees from West on Ukraine creditworthiness – Putin

Western partners need to reinforce confidence in the Ukrainian economy with the appropriate guarantees, Russian President Vladimir Putin said.

"If our partners think that Ukraine's creditworthiness will grow, and they are assuring us of this, this means that they believe it, and if they believe it, let them guarantee it. If they can not give guarantees then that means they don't believe in the future of the Ukrainian economy," Putin told reporters in Antalya. However, the president added that if the Western partners assure Russia of what does not exist, then "it is bad for our Ukrainian partners." "We think that this is actually possible and we don't see any problems with sharing risks among partners," Putin said.

This is what they reported 50 minutes earlier


Putin counting on western guarantees for Ukraine debt

Russian President Vladimir Putin said he was expecting the United States, European Union or international financial institutions to provide guarantees for the payment of Ukraine's $3 billion debt to Russia.

"We've requested these guarantees from the U.S. government, or the European Union or a major international financial institution," Putin told reporters following the G20 summit. "And we're hoping this issue will be resolved before the beginning of December this year," he said.

This timeframe was determined "with account taken of the International Monetary Fund's schedule." "I discussed this issue with Ms. Lagarde today 'on the move', but we still negotiated with the U.S. president and finance minister as well," he said, adding that "the proposal was met with interest." "We agreed with our partners that we would discuss our proposals in more detail soon," he said.

sepheronx wrote:After reading through here: http://sdelanounas.ru/discussions/view/?id=552
I can see why Russia may have done it this way.

Essentially, Ukraine was stating that it wasnt government debt but private and were going to go to court over it. And since the court is western, they will side with Ukraine, and Russia wont get its money back while Ukraine could still borrow (this was evident that would be the case as it was reported about how IMF were going to keep giving loans anyway).

How is that supposed to be bad?

If the West has the nerve to try that (and recent statements suggested that it wouldn't), it would harm it more than it would harm Russia - the whole reason the world settles disputes in London is because the courts there are viewed as impartial and independent of politics. Take that away, and London will not look so enticing as a legal centre. This will do far more damage than the $3 billion non-payment to Russia (which I don't doubt, Russia will quickly find a way to get back by simply adding it to what the Ukraine must pay to Russia for gas; and British court rulings will no longer be relevant for Russia anymore on this count or any other). Perhaps not immediately, but the damage will be more than paid back in the momentum it would add to the establishment of alternative BRICS global instruments and multinational structures.
More than that, whatever the court ruling; Russia's demand and Ukraine's de-facto default will still massively damage its investment prospects and economy. Investors have a mind of their own, they are smart people and tend to see through political rulings and games.

This is called asymmetric warfare. This is called fighting by attrition. Russia is not prepared to fight, and it is not prepared to incur attrition if it means that the other side suffers more.

But it is a fight that must be fought - Russia simply does not have the ruthless leader in charge that it needs. It has this 'disbalance' opponent feint moves in other directions Judo Master BS.

TheArmenian wrote:I have always said this: Sooner or later and one way or the other, Ukraine will return to Russia's orbit. Remember the Orange revolution (Yushenko and co.)?

Poor Russia, stuck with a nation-sized liability.

Not quite. We already have seen the effects of how the western court system works and its so called "objectiveness" on the recent Yukos case.  And people in the west still go on to say that the Hague is objective and that they are rightfully punishing Russia, even if the BS was handed to them on a platter.

As well, Ukraine made it clear that they viewed the loan as a bribe to Yanukovich and that was the route US and others were gearing towards as well.  This offer guarantees that the debt is held by the current government, while handing out an olive branch for PR (useless imo) gains.  But no one agreed to it yet, and we need to see by Dec 5th.  Ukraine would have defaulted on it otherwise, Russia loses $3B and Ukraine just gets more printed money.  I think the Rus government saw that and we all saw how impartial western courts really are and how they get away with it.

Only problem now is about the public viewpoint.  The Just Russia party and Liberal democratic party will definately try to use this against Putin and call him soft.  But I can see the technicalities as to why he did it.  It isnt a win for Russia really, but neither a loss since if they agree to this, Russia gets their money back. Or, Ukraine still defaults cause it will fall under all the other combined debt Ukraine holds.

sepheronx wrote:Not quite. We already have seen the effects of how the western court system works and its so called "objectiveness" on the recent Yukos case.  And people in the west still go on to say that the Hague is objective and that they are rightfully punishing Russia, even if the BS was handed to them on a platter.

As well, Ukraine made it clear that they viewed the loan as a bribe to Yanukovich and that was the route US and others were gearing towards as well.  This offer guarantees that the debt is held by the current government, while handing out an olive branch for PR (useless imo) gains.  But no one agreed to it yet, and we need to see by Dec 5th.  Ukraine would have defaulted on it otherwise, Russia loses $3B and Ukraine just gets more printed money.  I think the Rus government saw that and we all saw how impartial western courts really are and how they get away with it.

Only problem now is about the public viewpoint.  The Just Russia party and Liberal democratic party will definately try to use this against Putin and call him soft.  But I can see the technicalities as to why he did it.  It isnt a win for Russia really, but neither a loss since if they agree to this, Russia gets their money back. Or, Ukraine still defaults cause it will fall under all the other combined debt Ukraine holds.

I might be English but I disagree. The two Courts and the plaintiffs are quite different. In the Yukos case TPTB in the shape of Rothschild were in it up to their wallet, so it was a done deal before it even started, even ignoring the fact that it is a supra national Court so beholden to no country. The High Court in London is a totally different kettle of fish. This is, above all others, TPTB's commercial court. As such it has to be prime in the world, its decisions have to be without question as in many ways their financial world depends on its writ.

In this case, and this is what must really get Kiev's goat, not only is this an 'insurance policy' loan written by Moscow but Russia enacted it in a particularly skilful and no doubt expensive way. Not under the Law of Ukraine or Russia as you might expect, which might have been queried in the future like now, but, as I understand it, under English Trust Law via a 250 year established, pillar of the English financial community, Trust Company. Perhaps this is why Kiev tries to call it a commercial rather than sovereign loan. However, not a lot of axe to grind in England on this one, its a winner if it goes to court!

If this is indeed Russia making an offer to settle under new terms, incidentally very different from the commercial loans deal, the timing is spot on. The last thing that Russia would have wanted was at the end of next month to be seen as a hard nosed pitiless banker calling in a debt, on a country that it calls a 'brother', that it knew couldn't pay. You can imagine the headlines. No, this is Russia extending the hand of friendship, Kiev might have slaughtered many in the East but this is diplomacy, let's look to the future. Oh yes, that is where Kiev is on the hook for three more years of six monthly interest and annual capital repayments - the pain will seem like it never stops. This is revenge served very cold.

Now, there is what could well appear to many in the International community as a fair offer, it certainly comes in under the various $1B loan guarantees that the US has been giving, on the table, with time ahead of the next IMF meeting to get a deal done. It kicks the can down the road, but not too far, punting it straight into the (reluctant) arms of the West putting them into quite a difficult position, as Putin implied. They either support the Ukraine that the West created or what? Whilst trying not to mention the new Russian/Chinese international banks, Russia tells the world that they, the IMF etc sell out their friends?

Some might regard this as a classic.

I don't think I will agree with the whole london court system.  I have seen how the Litvenanko ordeal stood out and it made me sick, so I trust London's justice system no different than any other nation in the west - political at best.

But even if that, it appeared that IMF was more than ready to accept the default of Ukraines debt, hence why there were complaints ranging from Russian and Zerohedge about how that is against IMF rules.  Yet IMF was ready to break those rules with no peep from US.  Add to that, Ukraine wouldn't be stating it would take Russia to court over its repayment of debt if it knew it would lose entirely (this isn't like the claim to take Russia to court over Crimea and such, as it would be different outcome for sure).  So I think there may have been guarantees to Ukraine that it could default on that debt and be viewed as Yanukovich debt/bribe and nothing the London court could do about it.  It would ultimately hurt Ukraines investments potential so hence why they are awaiting Russia's move.  In this case, Russia made a move that made the most sense I suppose.  Let them pay back the debt but in installments (I do wonder, and if proven guaranteed, that they get interest rates on those) and also admittance that the loans are government and not private thus they cannot simply default on them without the repercussions.

sepheronx wrote:I don't think I will agree with the whole london court system.  I have seen how the Litvenanko ordeal stood out and it made me sick, so I trust London's justice system no different than any other nation in the west - political at best.

But even if that, it appeared that IMF was more than ready to accept the default of Ukraines debt, hence why there were complaints ranging from Russian and Zerohedge about how that is against IMF rules.  Yet IMF was ready to break those rules with no peep from US.  Add to that, Ukraine wouldn't be stating it would take Russia to court over its repayment of debt if it knew it would lose entirely (this isn't like the claim to take Russia to court over Crimea and such, as it would be different outcome for sure).  So I think there may have been guarantees to Ukraine that it could default on that debt and be viewed as Yanukovich debt/bribe and nothing the London court could do about it.  It would ultimately hurt Ukraines investments potential so hence why they are awaiting Russia's move.  In this case, Russia made a move that made the most sense I suppose.  Let them pay back the debt but in installments (I do wonder, and if proven guaranteed, that they get interest rates on those) and also admittance that the loans are government and not private thus they cannot simply default on them without the repercussions.

The English criminal court system is quite different from the commercial courts. One is absolutely key to TPTB the other is irrelevant as they generally are above it.

I keep saying 'English', it is actually England and Wales. Scotland and Northern Ireland have subtly different systems. The Supreme Court here is the only UK court able to rule, as a Court of Appeal, over all UK Law.

Yeah, everything that Russia does is a cunning plan.

Man, Monarchist was right.

flamming_python wrote:Yeah, everything that Russia does is a cunning plan.

Man, Monarchist was right.

Again Russia appears to be doing everything to assist while Ukraine will default anyhow. Plus Putin makes the EU and USA guarantee payment. Interest payments still must be paid on time.

flamming_python wrote:Yeah, everything that Russia does is a cunning plan.

Man, Monarchist was right.

I wouldnt go that far, but ive always been certain that if he could give up novorossia in order to return to the status quo he would do so in an instant. However the damage to his popularity stops him from doing that. He neither planned or desired the war in ukraine, that was a big cockup that got out of hand, if you notice its only when moscow got in serious position of power over the rebels that they were forced into these minsk agreements.

What riles me, is how he us happy to go on a military adventure in the middle east, doing the wests job for itand cleaning up their mess, yet with ukraine while russians wete being killed left right and centre all at the control of the usa, he still calls them his partners and officially do nothing militarily. I for one would much rather have seen the RuAF carrying out strikes on ukrainian targets rather than in syria., and i can imagine thats a view shared by wuite a lot of people.

Rodinazombie wrote:What  riles me, is how he us happy to go on a military adventure in the middle east, doing the wests job for itand cleaning up their mess, yet with ukraine while russians wete being killed left right and centre all at the control of the usa, he still calls them his partners and officially do nothing militarily. I for one would much rather have seen the RuAF carrying out strikes on ukrainian targets rather than in syria., and i can imagine thats a view shared by wuite a lot of people.

Is this May 2014?

We have been more than 100 times over this. We have been over this at MP.net, TheMess for a brief moment and then here. I thought we all agreed that using the RuAF against Ukrainian targets would bring use close to a European war, god forbid WWIII. In any case, if he'd used every asset of the Russian military at that time, not only would he scare the shit out of Europe. He'd also lose many of his key allies like China.

Honestly guys. This is geopolitics. If you think Putin folded completely and no deal-in-exchange was offered then you still don't understand how this Grand Game works. I shiver at the thought of ever reading some of you during WWII when Zhukov decided to abandon Kiev.

Military adventure? The Gen. Staff is using minimum amount of assets with maximum effect. If he decides to put boots on the ground and by that I mean, regular soldiers to fight against those scumbags then I'll reconsider what I'm saying. Considering the successes of the SAA and its allies, this won't be a very long war.

I am less concerned about ukraines debt issue, because they will default no matter what and 2bln will do jack shit, you can't even run Luxembourg with such money and it has no war, no jews and nazis in its government waging genocide on germans for US interests.

What i am concerned about is that the little spoiled crap shit US was always against russias bombing of their little terrorits in Syria, then out of sudden a false flag in paris happens and all the entire west automatically for just 127 lifes of nobodies are willing to overthrow their own plans of not trying to overthrow assad, russia has found an opposition in Syria where no opposition exists and is willing to cooperate with the evil US and its terrorist organisation NATO despite fully being aware that this subhuman scum are the founders of ISIS, Al-CIAda, Al-Nusra and FSA?

That smells like betrayel. In fact some said both sides are just playing charadee like US parties of demorats and refucklicans and that is an absolutley irrational move from both but a very rational move for the thesis that they were always the same party and just acting to be versus mode.

I think that will get very interesting in next 5 years.


It is a very scurile setting we are in.

US gears up for WW3 in Europe, more nukes to germany, build up of an ABM/IRBM system in east europe, overthrowing ukraine a russian country and using jews and nazis to run that crap and start war on russian border and out of sudden one little worthless false flag on french people and that is all it takes to make west and east best buddies. How many thousand russians died in genocide of west and their oligarch jews in ukraine? How many hundred russians died in airplane in a terror attack by the West? How many have died in Syria for their little actors called "moderate rebels"?

Now like never before i would be willing to sacrifice entire fucking human population just to be sure that they die, regardless of the rest of humanity just start already all strategic nukes and i will die happily in the knowledge that subhuman scum dies and never reaches their goal.

Hell i think i should get strategic nukes my self to assure that there will be never a fucking NWO.