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.