Voices from Russia

Sunday, 29 October 2017

Steinmeier vs Klimkin: Why Kiev Will No Longer Receive Money From the West

________________________

In recent days, there have been three different, but significant and interrelated events. German Federal President (former Foreign Minister) Frank-Walter Steinmeier made a working visit to Moscow. The Ukrainian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Pavel Klimkin, paid a similar visit to Berlin. The head of the board of Naftogaz Ukrainy Andrei Kobolev said that, according to Kiev, the first stage of the Turkish Stream will be operational by 2018, after which the Ukraine will lose a minimum of 500 million USD (29 billion Roubles. 3.32 billion Renminbi. 32.44 billion INR. 640 million CAD. 650 million AUD. 430 million Euros. 380 million UK Pounds) in annual transit fees. This is about a quarter to a fifth of the total amount of 2-2.5 billion dollars (116-145 billion Roubles. 13.28-16.6 billion Renminbi. 129.76-162.2 billion INR. 2.56-3.2 billion CAD. 2.6-3.25 billion AUD. 1.72-2.15 billion Euros. 1.52-1.9 billion UK Pounds) that Kiev still earns on the transit of Russian gas to the EU. Kobolev was also concerned that if the second stage of Turkish Stream enters into operation, and it should by the end of 2019, then the total losses of the Ukrainian budget will amount to 1 billion USD (58 billion Roubles. 6.64 billion Renminbi. 64.88 billion INR. 1.28 billion CAD. 1.3 billion AUD. 860 million Euros. 760 million UK Pounds), and the annual earnings will drop to 1-1.5 billion USD (58-87 billion Roubles. 6.64-9.96 billion Renminbi. 64.88-97.32 billion INR. 1.28-1.92 billion CAD. 1.3-1.95 billion AUD. 860 million-1.29 billion Euros. 760 million-1.14 billion UK Pounds). However, Kobolev didn’t say a word about the Nord Stream-2. Nevertheless, in the last two years, Kiev has focused its main attention on it, and disrupting this project has become almost a Ukrainian national ideal.

In an attempt to persuade Germany to abandon the project, Kiev enlisted the support of Poland, the Baltic states and, most importantly, the USA. Washington actively pressured its German partners, even threatening the companies involved in financing the project with sanctions. America had a double interest. Firstly, it was necessary to save at least partial funding for its Ukrainian project, which was dying from lack of money, at the expense of Russia. The payment for gas transit isn’t the only reliable source of foreign exchange earnings in the Ukrainian budget. Besides that, there are remittances from Ukrainians working abroad, but their volume is more difficult to plan, and the people really don’t want to share their foreign exchange with the state. Secondly, the USA hoped that faced with inevitable problems from the Ukrainians (the usual theft of gas in winter, the deterioration of the Ukrainian gas transportation system, as well as serious political risks) and without alternative ways of delivering gas to the EU, Gazprom would lose part of its European market. The resulting vacuum would allow the Americans to offer more-expensive but politically-correct North American gas as a replacement.

The final success of the fighters against Nord Stream-2 was Denmark’s passing of a law to block the construction of a gas pipeline in its waters. This can’t stop the project; it only creates some additional (but surmountable) difficulties. We can say that the Danish incident was a consolation prize for those who lost the fight for blocking Nord Stream-2. They didn’t achieve their goal but received some moral satisfaction. Since Nord Stream 2 should be operational in 2019, Berlin had a need to inform its Kiev clients about the fundamentally changing geopolitical situation. Starting in 2020, Germany won’t have to deal with the Ukraine as an indispensable partner. Yet, it was also necessary to save face and demonstrate that “support for the reform policy” allegedly pursued by Kiev is still relevant, and show that Germany hasn’t changed its position on the Crimea and the Donbass, despite their wholehearted participation in Russian gas pipeline projects that bypass the Ukraine.

To this end, the Germans simply summoned Klimkin to Berlin, where, according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, he held meetings with politicians representing the ruling coalition, discussing with them the problems of the settlement in the Donbass, the implementation of the Minsk agreements, the Crimea, and further extending reforms. They issued no joint statements and signed no documents. That is, the usual briefing of an official representing a client-state took place. If you translate the double-talk of the foreign press release into normal language, you’ll surmise the contents of the briefing. Berlin informed Klimkin that the Ukraine would have to carry out its “reform policy” at its own expense. The West not only won’t extend any more credits, it’ll end payment for gas transit to the Ukraine in the next two years. They’ve resolved everything involved with Nord Stream-2, so Kiev had better not cause trouble for Berlin.

As a consolation prize, Berlin guaranteed its unchanged position on not recognising the accession of the Crimea to the Russian Federation (which in reality doesn’t give anything to Kiev, for Siemens turbines will still go to the peninsula) and on the Donbass. As a result, Berlin would continue to insist on the preservation of anti-Russian sanctions. However, this is only moral satisfaction for Kiev. Note that the sanctions don’t oppress Russia at all, but only encourage the import substitution policy. Moscow derives more benefits than it does costs from the sanctions restrictions. On the other hand, the EU has costs and no positives. Finally, the annual extension of anti-Russian sanctions requires the consensus of all EU members. It’s enough for one member-state to oppose them (those who oppose them have been around for a long time) and the sanctions will simply lapse, as has already happened with the restriction of the rights of the Russian delegation to the PACE. Until now, Berlin has successfully suppressed such dissent in the EU. However, over the long haul, it can simply “fail” to convince its junior partners in the EU, without violating commitments made to the Ukraine, whilst strictly adhering to the advocacy of sanctions.

In this respect, Steinmeier’s visit to Moscow is symbolic. On the one hand, the Federal President is a purely decorative office in the German political system, a sinecure for honoured political retirees. On the other, Steinmeier suddenly told the press that he intends during his meeting with President Putin not to limit himself to a formal ceremonial conversation, but to focus on the German position about the Crimea, the Donbass, and sanctions. One could assume that the German President, who, by the way, is the last active politician of those who acted as guarantors of the agreement between Yanukovich and the opposition that opened the door to the February 2014 coup in Kiev, was once again trying to probe Putin’s position to see whether his position has softened. However, German politicians of all levels, including the Bundeskanzlerin, have done this so many times that no one has any such hopes. At the same time, against the backdrop of Steinmeier’s formally rigid statements, the German press wrote effusively about how he loves Russia and how he wishes to restore normal relations. This is a perfectly obvious hint that it isn’t important what he specifically said says about Berlin’s commitment to supporting the Ukraine, but what he says to whom, how he says it, and in what context.

Steinmeier, speaking of his commitment to sanctions, always emphasised that he stated his personal position, but the German government determined German foreign policy. All this took place against the background of Berlin’s continuing commitment to the completion of Nord Stream-2. Well, the general warm background of the German press hinted that it wasn’t necessary to take too much stock in the repetition of old shop-worn clichés. In principle, cooperation is developing, this is the main thing, but Germany has to observe certain forms. Judging from the despair of Andrei Kobolev, who preferred to remain silent about the Nord Stream-2, expressing timid hope with regard to Turkish Stream, that maybe at least the second stage won’t be in operation soon, everyone in Kiev understands the truth. The West will continue to mouth the same shibboleths for a while until it finds an excuse to nullify its obligations. However, there’ll be no more money. Absolutely none.

28 October 2017

Rostislav Ishchenko

RIA Novosti

https://ria.ru/analytics/20171028/1507743082.html

Advertisements

Saturday, 28 October 2017

EuroCollapse: Will the EU Follow the USSR?

Filed under: EU,politics — 01varvara @ 00.00
Tags: , , ,

________________________

The Catalan independence movement in Spain and the Venetian and Lombard autonomous regions in Italy concerned some observers. They’re worried that the EU might be falling apart at the seams of nationalism just as the USSR did before it. In and of itself, there’s nothing new in the fact that differing degrees of separatism are present within the EU, but it nowadays seems like everything is quickly coming to a head and that these movements are enjoying more support than ever before. Part of the reason behind this rests in the popular perception that the EU in its present format is as ineffective as the USSR was in its dying days and that the growing squabbles between some regions and their national governments might presage the unravelling of the bloc as a whole.

It’s pertinent to mention that Western Europe has yet to see a revision of its post-World War II borders, unlike Eastern Europe, which underwent German Reunification, the dissolution of the USSR and Yugoslavia, and the dismembering of Serbia, which is why the latest developments in this part of the EU are attracting so much attention. Catalunya has a chance at becoming independent, but Madrid is doing everything in its power to prevent this from happening. As for the regions of Northern Italy, they only want more autonomy, but granting them more independent control over their finances could put the country on a slippery slope since it might interfere with Italy’s budget allocations to the poorer regions of the south and eventually provoke a counter-reaction there.

The prevailing theme amid all this geopolitical speculation is the very essence of nationalism itself, the modern manifestation of which came to the fore of the European mentality only in the 19th-century. Nowadays, people presume that nation-states such as Spain, Italy, France, and even Germany are united entities, though this conclusion overlooks some of the stronger regional identities within their borders and the “economic nationalism” that they’ve acquired in recent years. As ethnic-regional and economic fault lines in the EU widen as a result of the financial and migrant crises, Brussels is beginning to look just as powerless as Moscow was in the post-Cold War twilight years of the USSR when its own identity crisis became uncontrollable.

28 October 2017

Andrew Korybko

Sputnik International

https://sputniknews.com/radio_trendstorm/201710281058595952-eurocollapse-will-the-eu-follow-the-ussr/

Fr Vsevolod Chaplin: The Western Élites are Moral Savages

Catalunya says “yes” to independence… the Western oligarchs say “no”… which side are YOU on?

________________________

The Western ruling élites are heirs of barbarians; they’re nothing but savages… moral savages. They’re solid supporters of “morality?” What Hottentots! If Kosovo proclaims independence, they call it “good”. If Catalonia proclaims the same thing, why, they call it “bad!”

28 October 2017

Fr Vsevolod Chaplin

Facebook

A Day of High Drama: What Do We Know So Far About the Catalan Push for Independence?

________________________

The Spanish-Catalan crisis seems to be escalating to the point-of-no-return. Supporters of independence called for a “campaign of disobedience” following Madrid’s move to dissolve the region’s parliament and impose direct rule. Here’s a short summary of what happened in Spain on Friday.

Catalonia seems dauntless in its efforts to break away from Spain. Secessionists called on fellow Catalonians to disobey the decision of the Spanish central government to impose direct rule over the rebellious region. The Catalan National Assembly, which hopes to achieve political independence for the region, urged civil servants not to follow orders from the Spanish government and opt for “peaceful resistance”. Antonio Barroso, Managing Director and Deputy Director of Research at Teneo Intelligence (advisory firm focusing on Eurozone and political and economic developments in Southern Europe and France) suggested in a note to Reuters:

Demonstrators might try to prevent the police from removing Catalan ministers from their offices if the central government decides to do so. This increases the risk of violent clashes with the police.

The Saddest Day in Spain’s History

Friday, 27 October 2017, went down as one of the saddest days in Spain’s modern history. Just hours after the Catalan parliament declared the region an independent nation from Spain in a secret ballot, Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy dissolved the regional legislative body, sacked its President Carles Puigdemont as well as its police chief, and stripped the province of its autonomy. In a televised address, Rajoy stated that Madrid would take over the Catalan administration and that central government ministries would directly assume its powers until snap regional elections on 21 December. Central administrators will take control of the regional police force, Mossos d‘Esquadra. If deemed necessary, national police would replace local elements. They’re already on site, as Madrid deployed them there for the 1 October independence referendum. According to reports, the Spanish Economy Ministry has already increased its control over regional finances in an attempt to prevent the use of state funds for a possible secession bid. Madrid will try to maintain full financial control over the region; reportedly, it’s started paying directly for essential services.

Following the decision of its parliament, thousands of Catalans gathered in Sant Jaume Square in front of  Catalan regional headquarters in Barcelona, celebrating their independence and shouting “liberty”. Judging by the mood of the crowd, many media sources suggested that there’d “almost certainly be resistance in Catalonia to any move to impose Madrid’s rule over the province”. Ousted Catalan President Puigdemont tweeted:

Catalonia is and will be a land of freedom. In times of difficulty and in times of celebration. Now more than ever.

On Sunday, the Barcelona-based newspaper El Periodico published the results of an opinion poll, which revealed that a snap regional election would probably have results similar to those of 2015. In that election, a coalition of pro-independence parties formed a minority government.

Reaction to Catalan Independence Push

Many Twitter users have already suggested that Catalonia will eventually gain independence, as the USA, Ireland, and a number of other countries once did. Meanwhile, the President of the European Council, Donald Tusk, said:

The independence vote changed nothing and the EU would only deal with the central government.

As for other world’s powers, the UK also voiced its reluctance to recognise the region’s sovereignty. The USA, Germany, France, Cyprus, Turkey, and Mexico said they backed the unity of Spain. However, Željka Cvijanović, Prime Minister of Republika Srpska, suggested that her region could become the first to recognise Catalan independence. On the other hand, Serbia said it supported the territorial integrity of Spain. The South Ossetian Foreign Minister Dmitri Medoev echoed the decision of Republika Srpska.  He told Sputnik on Saturday that South Ossetia is ready to consider recognising Catalonia’s secession from Spain if it receives a corresponding request from the region’s authorities.

28 October 2017

Sputnik International

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201710281058616274-catalonia-spain-independence-timeline/

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.