The Situation in the Ukraine. #22

Yo guys, has it even occurred to you that making Ukropia default isn't going to suddenly make them vote Parashenka out of office? Did you ever think for a moment that Russia was going to allow Ukraine to have the much needed default that easily and pin it on Russia.

This is an own goal from Ukraine. They were yelling Rashka doesn't gib more time. Russia just gave them enough rope to hang. I was of the opinion that a real default was going to be salutatory. But it never was allowed to become a real default. Ukraine amidst a civil war managed to have its currency not founder. It managed to have a limited dip in GDP while all indicators were flashing red.

Ukraine isn't going down, even if it goes down for real.

I understand why Russia gave up the dumb option.

Neutrality wrote:

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.

My question is what will Russia gain from this? The only thing I can think of is Ukraine exchanging some of it's defense industries (i.e. Ivchenko Progress, Antonov) in return to right off some of it's debt, but that's doubtful. VVP isn't infallible, he's made plenty of mistakes in the past.

magnumcromagnon wrote:My question is what will Russia gain from this? The only thing I can think of is Ukraine exchanging some of it's defense industries (i.e. Ivchenko Progress, Antonov) in return to right off some of it's debt, but that's doubtful. VVP isn't infallible, he's made plenty of mistakes in the past.

I will be honest. At this point I have no clue what the end goal is and what the possible deal-in-exchange could be. My closest guess is based on the sudden change of tone from Obama, Cameron and now Hollande even asking Russia to be included in the anti-ISIS coalition. It's the recognition of Russia as a global player in solving international issues and puts a firm checkmate on Obama's "isolation" game against Russia. Ukraine's debt isn't going anywhere. In fact, if you look at it from a certain perspective, it allows Moscow to keep the rope around Kiev for slightly longer. No matter how you look at it, 1 billion is still a crapload of money. And don't be mistaken. This is still a proposal and Kiev hasn't officially accepted this yet.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Neutrality wrote:

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.

My question is what will Russia gain from this? The only thing I can think of is Ukraine exchanging some of it's defense industries (i.e. Ivchenko Progress, Antonov) in return to right off some of it's debt, but that's doubtful. VVP isn't infallible, he's made plenty of mistakes in the past.

This isn't a mistake, it's simply making life less difficult for people that are in need. Default Ukraine, take the "blame", cause more sanctions. As Werewolf said, Ukropia is already at default level, yet IMF and C° aren't letting the ball drop. If this was Greece, Task Force Austerity would be dismantilng the Acropolis to recoup the losses. Ukraine is going to face tougher times, but this isn't going to change the current level of distrust vs Russia. Worse, it's only going to make things better for Parashenka.

Neutrality wrote:

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.

With regard to military action against ukraine, im not saying that putins course was the correct one of not, i was specifically talking about what i wanted. The war was very personal for me and i wont be happy unless every scumbag that started it, who committed war crimes against the civilian population are hanging from a tree. That clearly is not realistic, so i agree that putin had to be clever about it.

However, its extremely frustrating to see what appears to be concession after concession given to the ukrainians.

Rodinazombie wrote:
With regard to military action against ukraine, im not saying that putins course was the correct one of not, i was specifically talking about what i wanted. The war was very personal for me and i wont be happy unless every scumbag that started it, who committed war crimes against the civilian population are hanging from a tree. That clearly is not realistic, so i agree that putin had to be clever about it.

However, its extremely frustrating to see what appears to be concession after concession given to the ukrainians.

Oh man, believe me. Every time I watch Grishanov's music videos with images from the war, my blood boils. Moscow is using the best diplomatic strategy it can in this case IMHO. It doesn't give reason to Kiev to add more fuel to the fire so that they can say "look, the big Russian bear has indebted us all!!" or something like that. Moscow is betting on the Ukrainian people, whatever of the sane people that's left there. If Germans were able to wake up from their Nazi utopia then so will the Ukrainians (the ones in the East at least).

Ukraine will always be a neighbor of Russia. Ukrainians will always be Slavic brothers and sisters of Russians. These two facts will never change. No matter how America tries to make Ukrainians hate Russians. As the old saying goes, time will heal all wounds. The relationship between Ukraine and Russia will improve with time as heads cool.

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

Man, Monarchist was right.

Monarchist wasnt right.  And no one said this was a cunning plan either.  Geeze man, get a hold of yourself.

This is simply Russia trying to make the debt official Kiev government debt and to prevent them from turning around and getting it to be none government debt so Russia loses all $3B and there is nothing lingering over Kievs head that is Russian anymore.

It isn't a cunning plan or anything but a last attempt to make sure Russia gets its money back and as well, prevent it from being thrown out the window and everyone forgets about it like Kiev was trying to do.

I understand the frustration as I would like to see Russia try to default Ukraine now, but that wont happen and you know that.  US has been injecting just enough to get Ukraine to survive and EU was injecting the rest along with IMF.  None of these entities were going to stop.  And how could they?  They can print money for forever.

As werewolf said, Kiev is going to default anyway regardless of restructuring the debt.  If they agree to this debt restructuring from Russia, then that means the overall debt will increase on the government.  If interest is still being applied, Russia will get more than $3B.  But by sounds of it, they are already prepared for Ukraine to default.  Just that, instead, they will possibly get some good PR out of it as well, get a solid confirmation of the debt being government based.

I am surprised no one here saw this from a mile away.  Neither did I really.  Even with the whole Kiev constantly shouting that the debt isn't government based and that they would take Russia to court over it.

If you feel this is still a bad option, than please provide the details as to why and go to your local congressman/woman and explain why.  Write letters to both current government and opposition and hope that such an idea gets thrown out.

As well, this isn't instituted yet as Kiev has to decide.

ultron wrote:Ukraine will always be a neighbor of Russia. Ukrainians will always be Slavic brothers and sisters of Russians. These two facts will never change. No matter how America tries to make Ukrainians hate Russians. As the old saying goes, time will heal all wounds. The relationship between Ukraine and Russia will improve with time as heads cool.

I feel that it may never get to that as Ukraine`s leaders will be hand picked by the west like it is in Croatia, Cechz Republic, Romania, etc.  And Relations will always suck regardless what people think.

Edit: This quoting system is broken it seems.

I have this feeling yats the treasonous rat will try anything to botch the offer.

Lately I have "let's get this over with" feeling about this situation with Kiev and Donbass. Just march towards Kiev and hang some idiots. Well, all of them. Grab some american piglets in the process, handle the fall out, and go on fixing a broken country, which soon will be utterly broken.

Yeah, I'm fantasizing but wouldn't that be nice, right?

This was going o be a long one bot I trimmed it down for everyones sake. Long story short:

-This is an offer, Kiev has yet to say yes or no.

-IMF already said they will literally break trier own rules to help Kiev dodge the payment. This is significant.

-In this situation Russia needs to adapt.

-Russia could insist on payment. They will not get the money and Kiev will be given a free pass.

-IMF would be exposed as frauds that they are. What will change? Absolutely nothing, sheep worldwide will still borrow.

-Russia could take this to court. They will lose, even in London. London is in UK after all.

-Losing in London means that UK loses all credibility as legal and financial center. What will change? Absolutely nothing, all countries, even good old BRICS, will still send untold billions to UK.

-What they can do is what sephrenox said: leave the debt in place and play the good guy. Let Porky & co continue to take the heat from population. Personally could not care less about fate of the aforementioned population but in this case sheep cannot blame Russia for Kiev's fu*kups and neither can EU. Give them rope and all that.

-Continue supplying NAF and wait. Kiev and Ukraine are still spinning down the toiled and war is still only way to deflect guilt and responsibility. If they go for it they get eviscerated and whole thing goes back to beginning.

-We all agreed several times before that this process (partition of Ukraine in my view) will last years, lets not all go full ultron again and expect everything to be over in couple of months.

-Game is clearly rigged when one of the players can change the rules if he dislikes the outcome. Russia need to complete this match to the best of it's abilities and after that create it's own rules. They already started, they need to press on.

All the arguments about "cunning plans" "zrada" "peremoga" and endless talk of economics will end soon enough in the burning hulks of ukrops tanks and BMP on the fields around Telmanovo, Starobeshevo and Mikhailovka.

Khepesh wrote:All the arguments about "cunning plans" "zrada" "peremoga" and endless talk of economics will end soon enough in the burning hulks of ukrops tanks and BMP on the fields around Telmanovo, Starobeshevo and Mikhailovka.

Got some fresh news? I personally love the sight of burning ukrops in the early winter....

Khepesh wrote:All the arguments about "cunning plans" "zrada" "peremoga" and endless talk of economics will end soon enough in the burning hulks of ukrops tanks and BMP on the fields around Telmanovo, Starobeshevo and Mikhailovka.

That's the only thing that counts.

PapaDragon wrote:

Got some fresh news? I personally love the sight of burning ukrops in the early winter....

It is only as I have said before that Poroshenko must act if he is to take all Donbass. If he sits in Kiev and does nothing he has lost, if he attacks and looses, well, he has lost of course, but at least attacking gives him some form of chance, and even in military defeat, providing he avoids military coup or revolution in Kiev, can play the victim card. "Look, I tried, but you know, what can be done against entire Russian Army?". Clearly a major defeat on the battlefield is not what he wants or needs, but it can, if he survives, be an excuse to stop this ATO, and if he is removed it would be a benefit to his succesor that they no longer have a hot war to deal with, a sort of local cold war, but that would probably be acceptable.

At Minsk I said that everything will go quiet as far as major actions until late August, and that was against my own instincts as I thought a May or June attack was more likely. We now know that it was for late August, and then cancelled. But look what happens now, it is very clearly not "rogue" radikal elements as Kiev tries to say, so why the attacks, even if low level, what purpose if not a build up for an offensive. It could be said that if Poroshenko was going to attack then it would be out of the blue, no warnings, but he cannot build up the forces at the front for this without it being obvious what was about to happen, but by gradually increasing the tension he injects this element of doubt, will he, won't he, and increases the pressure on VSN who have to be permanently prepared for an assault while ukrops, even if the frontline soldiers do not know what is happening, know they have the advantage of being the attackers and so have less tension. "Operation Storm" has been often used as an analogy of what may happen, and as often dismissed as being a totaly different situation by some, but I think we will see a variation of "Operation Storm" before long.

magnumcromagnon wrote:

Neutrality wrote:

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.

My question is what will Russia gain from this? The only thing I can think of is Ukraine exchanging some of it's defense industries (i.e. Ivchenko Progress, Antonov) in return to right off some of it's debt, but that's doubtful. VVP isn't infallible, he's made plenty of mistakes in the past.

No doubt this has something to do with Putin's conversations with Obama in the G20 (mentioned as concerning both Syria and the Ukraine); rather than any sort of direct negotiation with the Ukraine. Obama and pals gave leeway on Assad, and Putin agreed to lay off the Ukraine a little.

End result - Russia keeps mopping up the West's mess in Syria, and in return it gets.. an obligation to not collapse the hostile Ukrainian government into default?
Wat?

PapaDragon wrote:
This was going o be a long one bot I trimmed it down for everyones sake. Long story short:

-This is an offer, Kiev has yet to say yes or no.

-IMF already said they will literally break trier own rules to help Kiev dodge the payment. This is significant.

-In this situation Russia needs to adapt.

-Russia could insist on payment. They will not get the money and Kiev will be given a free pass.

-IMF would be exposed as frauds that they are. What will change? Absolutely nothing, sheep worldwide will still borrow.

-Russia could take this to court. They will lose, even in London. London is in UK after all.

-Losing in London means that UK loses all credibility as legal and financial center. What will change? Absolutely nothing, all countries, even good old BRICS, will still send untold billions to UK.

-What they can do is what sephrenox said: leave the debt in place and play the good guy. Let Porky & co continue to take the heat from population. Personally could not care less about fate of the aforementioned population but in this case sheep cannot blame Russia for Kiev's fu*kups and neither can EU. Give them rope and all that.

-Continue supplying NAF and wait. Kiev and Ukraine are still spinning down the toiled and war is still only way to deflect guilt and responsibility. If they go for it they get eviscerated and whole thing goes back to beginning.

-We all agreed several times before that this process (partition of Ukraine in my view) will last years, lets not all go full ultron again and expect everything to be over in couple of months.

-Game is clearly rigged when one of the players can change the rules if he dislikes the outcome. Russia need to complete this match to the best of it's abilities and after that create it's own rules. They already started, they need to press on.    

Of course a lot will change - Russia will no longer deal with the IMF, and no longer do court cases in London. That's already more damage to them, than the $3 billion that Russia will lose.

Where Russia leads, eventually the BRICS will follow - it's in their best interests to set up alternative financial and legal instruments, and an excuse for it is all the better.

I stand by my point, Russia is not willing to wage the battle that needs to be waged, against its beloved Western partners.

You seem to have problems looking at the actual issue and are quickly jumping to conclusions.  You dont know what has been said at G20, and as well, it has been given to you on a plate of the circumstance.  As well, it is clear that the west doesnt give a shit if Russia uses them or not and that was clearly evident when IMF agreed to help Ukraine even if it defaulted on the loan.

Please explain to me how this is wrong and it helps Ukraine?
- guarantee to make the loans government and to prevent Ukraine from weasling out of paying debt.
- adding it to the total government debt Ukraine has to pay back next year $18B
- Gaining PR
- Getting money back

As well, Iran was booted out of pretty much all foreign organizations and that didnt change a thing. Since no alternative is in place yet, Russia would have faced an issue.  As Papa said, IMF knows the risks and was willing to break the rules to help the US vassal Ukraine.

Have you submitted your complaint to the gov as well as opposition? Start a petition online and try to promote it.  If it gets enough views and signatures, then the gov will see it isnt a popular move.  But from what I am reading, it is the only plausibal option for Russia now.  And as mentioned a dozen times already, Ukraine will have to agree to it first.

War is a series of moves and countermoves. Seems for now Germany and the US are keeping Ukraine's afloat to avoid defeat through economic collapse. That leaves the military option

This is a week old but still interesting

http://slavyangrad.org/2015/11/10/aggravation-of-the-situation-around-donetsk/

flamming_python wrote:..................................................

Of course a lot will change - Russia will no longer deal with the IMF, and no longer do court cases in London. That's already more damage to them, than the $3 billion that Russia will lose.

Where Russia leads, eventually the BRICS will follow - it's in their best interests to set up alternative financial and legal instruments, and an excuse for it is all the better.

I stand by my point, Russia is not willing to wage the battle that needs to be waged, against its beloved Western partners.

Nothing can damage London, no matter what happens everyone, BRICS countries first among them, will still flock to send their cash over there.

Russia does need to establish alternative financial and legal instruments with BRICS and others but they can't do it in couple of weeks. Keep in mind that China, India and everyone else have little interest in ethno-historic intricacies of Russia's near abroad.

PapaDragon wrote:

flamming_python wrote:..................................................

Of course a lot will change - Russia will no longer deal with the IMF, and no longer do court cases in London. That's already more damage to them, than the $3 billion that Russia will lose.

Where Russia leads, eventually the BRICS will follow - it's in their best interests to set up alternative financial and legal instruments, and an excuse for it is all the better.

I stand by my point, Russia is not willing to wage the battle that needs to be waged, against its beloved Western partners.

Nothing can damage London, no matter what happens everyone, BRICS countries first among them, will still flock to send their cash over there.

Russia does need to establish alternative financial and legal instruments with BRICS and others but they can't do it in couple of weeks. Keep in mind that China, India and everyone else have little interest in ethno-historic intricacies of Russia's near abroad.

Why so much faith in London?
Why do you believe that non-Westerns would respect its authority after it has shown that it is deeply partisan?

It is useless to talk about alternatives if there is no willingness to make first steps.

Well, time will tell. Since it was Russias idea with China tp set up an alternative to IMF. Then later went on to state it will compliment IMF. There are works for lots of alternatives for Russia. But that doesnt mean many will join up to counter London.

I am copying post by user NickUnderscore from other forum about those 3 billion:

Further look behind the numbers and it becomes clearer.

In August this year the Ukrainian Govt came to agreement with the majority of the bond holders (~$18b). This concluded with an agreed 20% (was 40% on proposal) haircut and Ukr debt servicing would be frozen for the next four years (2019/20).

This was a key condition on the IMF ($40bn) refinancing support programme. Note; Russia (approx $3bn) refused to participate. In fact, the RF threatened to take the Ukrainian Govt through the UK courts to test the T&C's of the bonds (which was an empty threat in reality and would prove fruitless).

This offer essentially ensures that Russia (as a private creditor on the $3bn) will be paid back within the next 4 years and not after, as per the conditions the IMF programme requires. You will also note the offer puts Russia above all other bond holders, when the majority of said bond holder, have agreed to a restructure..

Lastly, to accept this offer would double Ukrainian debt servicing reqs.. Interestingly, that $3bn bond due to Russia - is maturing next month...

The way I think this will play out is like this -

Ukrops will not get the IMF loan, Syria will go hot and Ukrops will stop getting media attention (which my western standards means that they wont be getting any more funding).

As a result Ukraine will be left helpless - and brotherly Russia will come to the rescue.

This is one thought.

The other one is - nothing will change - the conflict will go cold and Parashko will make a ton of money selling his Roshen chocolates to his own fucking people while ukrops keep shelling Donbass.

Any update on Gennaidy's posts ?? The ones he said he would make on the state of affairs ??

PapaDragon wrote:
I am copying post by user NickUnderscore from other forum about those 3 billion:

Further look behind the numbers and it becomes clearer.

In August this year the Ukrainian Govt came to agreement with the majority of the bond holders (~$18b). This concluded with an agreed 20% (was 40% on proposal) haircut and Ukr debt servicing would be frozen for the next four years (2019/20).

This was a key condition on the IMF ($40bn) refinancing support programme. Note; Russia (approx $3bn) refused to participate. In fact, the RF threatened to take the Ukrainian Govt through the UK courts to test the T&C's of the bonds (which was an empty threat in reality and would prove fruitless).

This offer essentially ensures that Russia (as a private creditor on the $3bn) will be paid back within the next 4 years and not after, as per the conditions the IMF programme requires. You will also note the offer puts Russia above all other bond holders, when the majority of said bond holder, have agreed to a restructure..

Lastly, to accept this offer would double Ukrainian debt servicing reqs.. Interestingly, that $3bn bond due to Russia - is maturing next month...

The point is not to get the 3 billion back, it's to force the Ukrainians to default, to force the West to double down their hand, and in general to do as much damage as possible and embarass as many people as possible.
But mainly just to damage the Ukraine and its government, wreck its economy and through it its warfighting capability.

I can live without the 3 billion back. I can't live with the Ukraine's army of fanatics and war criminals shelling the Donbass again, and again, and again, and again.