Four Uncomfortable Truths About Ukraine

[cancel2 2022]

As Russia tightens its grip on Crimea, the European Union and the U.S. are poised to hand over billions in aid to Ukraine’s new leadership. The interim government in Kiev, led by Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and acting President Oleksandr Turchynov, has promised, in Yatsenyuk’s words, to pursue “real reforms to stabilize the Ukrainian economy” while strengthening ties with the country’s European neighbors. Will they deliver? Here are four unpleasant truths about Ukraine and the people now running it.

1. Many of the new leaders helped shape policies that turned Ukraine into an economic basket case.
Yatsenyuk, Turchynov, Finance Minister Oleksandr Shlapak, and others in the interim government served in key roles under former President Viktor Yushchenko and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Their post-Orange Revolution regime prolonged the country’s disastrous track record on economic management.
Like their post-Soviet predecessors, they failed to curb rampant corruption and tackle economic inefficiency, while propping up the hryvnia currency and doling out crowd-pleasing increases in social spending, leaving the state with massive budgetary and trade deficits. Ukraine, a country of 45 million people with rich agricultural land and a large industrial base, is now Eastern Europe’s poorest country, apart from tiny Moldova.

2. Ukraine has squandered a staggering amount of foreign aid.
The EU has provided Ukraine with €13.8 billion ($19.1 billion) in grants and loans since 1991. Aid from the International Monetary Fund, and from individual governments that include the U.S., pushes the total well over $30 billion. On top of that, Ukraine has received massive aid from Russia in the form of discounted natural gas—a subsidy totaling $200 billion to $300 billion since 1991, says Emily Holland, a specialist on energy policy in the region who is a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin. Add it all up, and Ukraine has gotten far more aid than any country in the former Soviet Union, she says. And where has it gone? “Into the pockets of an incredibly corrupt political elite and oligarchs,” says Holland. The EU and IMF say that any new assistance will be conditioned on strict adherence to a reform program. But a previous IMF bailout was derailed after Ukraine failed to follow through with reforms. As for the oligarchs? The new regime has appointed some of them to key regional government posts in eastern Ukraine.

3. The new government is a fragile coalition that includes some pretty scary elements.
When Vladimir Putin says there are far-right extremists running Ukraine, he isn’t completely wrong. It’s true that Tymoshenko’s Fatherland party, the mainstream opposition to former President Viktor Yanukovych, is the largest single bloc in the new government. But politicians from Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist party with ugly neofascist tendencies, also got important jobs, including deputy prime minister and chief of national security. Some other, smaller parties are even more extreme. Even if they tone down their rhetoric, Svoboda and its allies are strongly populist and are likely to bail out of the coalition if it inflicts economic sacrifices demanded by Western donors, says analyst Lilit Gevorgyan of IHS (IHS) in London. Public unhappiness with painful reform measures could spark social unrest, which could even lead some parts of eastern Ukraine to seek union with Russia, Gevorgyan says. “The Russians can just sit on the side and watch as it unravels,” she says.

4. Ukraine needs Russia.
Even as it seeks closer ties with Europe, Ukraine can’t afford to turn its back on its huge eastern neighbor. For starters, it gets more than half its natural gas from Russia. The EU couldn’t help much if Moscow turned off the tap—though it’s unlikely to do so, since Russia ships gas to Western Europe via Ukrainian pipelines. Nor can the EU suddenly absorb the $15 billion in iron, steel, grain, and other products that Ukraine annually sells Russia, its biggest trade partner. And for all the anti-Moscow rhetoric heard during the recent protests, the two countries have deep historical and cultural ties. Some 8.3 million Ukrainians, almost one-fifth of the population, described themselves in the country’s last census as ethnic Russians, while some 1.9 million of Russia’s citizens say they are ethnic Ukrainian. Ukrainians, in their conflict with Russia, “are almost universally seen as the good guys,” Bloomberg News commentator Leonid Bershidsky writes.

In the West as well as in Russia, black-and-white depictions of the conflict make it harder to resolve, he says. “Putin is now fighting a public relations war against the entire West, and Ukrainians are developing a siege mentality that undermines democratic governance and fills media with as much virulent propaganda and disinformation as Kremlin-controlled Russian TV carries.”

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...most%20popular

[Taft2016]

5. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the newly independent Ukraine found itself in possession of a nuclear arsenal. In the 1994 Budapest agreement, the USA, UK, and Russia agreed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine ceding its nuclear arsenal to Russia.

That territorial integrity has now been violated by one of the signatories, and the remaining signatories are standing by idly.

In the future, how will the USA assure existing and developing nuclear powers (No. Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan) to abandon nuclear proliferation with assurances of territorial integrity against outside aggressors? The USA no longer has any legitimacy on that front.

[Taft2016]

3. The new government is a fragile coalition that includes some pretty scary elements.
When Vladimir Putin says there are far-right extremists running Ukraine, he isn’t completely wrong.

This article, and the Bloomberg piece linked to it, apparently ascribe to the old Soviet sawhorse that nationalism, xenophobia, racism, and bigotry are the defining characteristics of "far-right extremists."

Forget the fact that virtually every 20th century far-left government utilized the same tactics sans nationalism. Forget that the article described Ukraine as bankrupting itself with expensive government social programs. Forget that Ukraine is not militaristic and expansionist....

This is a "far-right extremist" government.

This nothing but setting the table for us to calmly accept yet another disastrous foreign policy failure.

[Granule]

As Russia tightens its grip on Crimea, the European Union and the U.S. are poised to hand over billions in aid to Ukraine’s new leadership. The interim government in Kiev, led by Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and acting President Oleksandr Turchynov, has promised, in Yatsenyuk’s words, to pursue “real reforms to stabilize the Ukrainian economy” while strengthening ties with the country’s European neighbors. Will they deliver? Here are four unpleasant truths about Ukraine and the people now running it.

1. Many of the new leaders helped shape policies that turned Ukraine into an economic basket case.
Yatsenyuk, Turchynov, Finance Minister Oleksandr Shlapak, and others in the interim government served in key roles under former President Viktor Yushchenko and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Their post-Orange Revolution regime prolonged the country’s disastrous track record on economic management.
Like their post-Soviet predecessors, they failed to curb rampant corruption and tackle economic inefficiency, while propping up the hryvnia currency and doling out crowd-pleasing increases in social spending, leaving the state with massive budgetary and trade deficits. Ukraine, a country of 45 million people with rich agricultural land and a large industrial base, is now Eastern Europe’s poorest country, apart from tiny Moldova.

2. Ukraine has squandered a staggering amount of foreign aid.
The EU has provided Ukraine with €13.8 billion ($19.1 billion) in grants and loans since 1991. Aid from the International Monetary Fund, and from individual governments that include the U.S., pushes the total well over $30 billion. On top of that, Ukraine has received massive aid from Russia in the form of discounted natural gas—a subsidy totaling $200 billion to $300 billion since 1991, says Emily Holland, a specialist on energy policy in the region who is a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin. Add it all up, and Ukraine has gotten far more aid than any country in the former Soviet Union, she says. And where has it gone? “Into the pockets of an incredibly corrupt political elite and oligarchs,” says Holland. The EU and IMF say that any new assistance will be conditioned on strict adherence to a reform program. But a previous IMF bailout was derailed after Ukraine failed to follow through with reforms. As for the oligarchs? The new regime has appointed some of them to key regional government posts in eastern Ukraine.

3. The new government is a fragile coalition that includes some pretty scary elements.
When Vladimir Putin says there are far-right extremists running Ukraine, he isn’t completely wrong. It’s true that Tymoshenko’s Fatherland party, the mainstream opposition to former President Viktor Yanukovych, is the largest single bloc in the new government. But politicians from Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist party with ugly neofascist tendencies, also got important jobs, including deputy prime minister and chief of national security. Some other, smaller parties are even more extreme. Even if they tone down their rhetoric, Svoboda and its allies are strongly populist and are likely to bail out of the coalition if it inflicts economic sacrifices demanded by Western donors, says analyst Lilit Gevorgyan of IHS (IHS) in London. Public unhappiness with painful reform measures could spark social unrest, which could even lead some parts of eastern Ukraine to seek union with Russia, Gevorgyan says. “The Russians can just sit on the side and watch as it unravels,” she says.

4. Ukraine needs Russia.
Even as it seeks closer ties with Europe, Ukraine can’t afford to turn its back on its huge eastern neighbor. For starters, it gets more than half its natural gas from Russia. The EU couldn’t help much if Moscow turned off the tap—though it’s unlikely to do so, since Russia ships gas to Western Europe via Ukrainian pipelines. Nor can the EU suddenly absorb the $15 billion in iron, steel, grain, and other products that Ukraine annually sells Russia, its biggest trade partner. And for all the anti-Moscow rhetoric heard during the recent protests, the two countries have deep historical and cultural ties. Some 8.3 million Ukrainians, almost one-fifth of the population, described themselves in the country’s last census as ethnic Russians, while some 1.9 million of Russia’s citizens say they are ethnic Ukrainian. Ukrainians, in their conflict with Russia, “are almost universally seen as the good guys,” Bloomberg News commentator Leonid Bershidsky writes.

In the West as well as in Russia, black-and-white depictions of the conflict make it harder to resolve, he says. “Putin is now fighting a public relations war against the entire West, and Ukrainians are developing a siege mentality that undermines democratic governance and fills media with as much virulent propaganda and disinformation as Kremlin-controlled Russian TV carries.”

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...most%20popular

Apparently Ukraine needs the US as well. I hope we have enough money to help them spend their way out debt.

[Mott the Hoople]

As Russia tightens its grip on Crimea, the European Union and the U.S. are poised to hand over billions in aid to Ukraine’s new leadership. The interim government in Kiev, led by Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and acting President Oleksandr Turchynov, has promised, in Yatsenyuk’s words, to pursue “real reforms to stabilize the Ukrainian economy” while strengthening ties with the country’s European neighbors. Will they deliver? Here are four unpleasant truths about Ukraine and the people now running it.

1. Many of the new leaders helped shape policies that turned Ukraine into an economic basket case.
Yatsenyuk, Turchynov, Finance Minister Oleksandr Shlapak, and others in the interim government served in key roles under former President Viktor Yushchenko and former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. Their post-Orange Revolution regime prolonged the country’s disastrous track record on economic management.
Like their post-Soviet predecessors, they failed to curb rampant corruption and tackle economic inefficiency, while propping up the hryvnia currency and doling out crowd-pleasing increases in social spending, leaving the state with massive budgetary and trade deficits. Ukraine, a country of 45 million people with rich agricultural land and a large industrial base, is now Eastern Europe’s poorest country, apart from tiny Moldova.

2. Ukraine has squandered a staggering amount of foreign aid.
The EU has provided Ukraine with €13.8 billion ($19.1 billion) in grants and loans since 1991. Aid from the International Monetary Fund, and from individual governments that include the U.S., pushes the total well over $30 billion. On top of that, Ukraine has received massive aid from Russia in the form of discounted natural gas—a subsidy totaling $200 billion to $300 billion since 1991, says Emily Holland, a specialist on energy policy in the region who is a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin. Add it all up, and Ukraine has gotten far more aid than any country in the former Soviet Union, she says. And where has it gone? “Into the pockets of an incredibly corrupt political elite and oligarchs,” says Holland. The EU and IMF say that any new assistance will be conditioned on strict adherence to a reform program. But a previous IMF bailout was derailed after Ukraine failed to follow through with reforms. As for the oligarchs? The new regime has appointed some of them to key regional government posts in eastern Ukraine.

3. The new government is a fragile coalition that includes some pretty scary elements.
When Vladimir Putin says there are far-right extremists running Ukraine, he isn’t completely wrong. It’s true that Tymoshenko’s Fatherland party, the mainstream opposition to former President Viktor Yanukovych, is the largest single bloc in the new government. But politicians from Svoboda, an ultra-nationalist party with ugly neofascist tendencies, also got important jobs, including deputy prime minister and chief of national security. Some other, smaller parties are even more extreme. Even if they tone down their rhetoric, Svoboda and its allies are strongly populist and are likely to bail out of the coalition if it inflicts economic sacrifices demanded by Western donors, says analyst Lilit Gevorgyan of IHS (IHS) in London. Public unhappiness with painful reform measures could spark social unrest, which could even lead some parts of eastern Ukraine to seek union with Russia, Gevorgyan says. “The Russians can just sit on the side and watch as it unravels,” she says.

4. Ukraine needs Russia.
Even as it seeks closer ties with Europe, Ukraine can’t afford to turn its back on its huge eastern neighbor. For starters, it gets more than half its natural gas from Russia. The EU couldn’t help much if Moscow turned off the tap—though it’s unlikely to do so, since Russia ships gas to Western Europe via Ukrainian pipelines. Nor can the EU suddenly absorb the $15 billion in iron, steel, grain, and other products that Ukraine annually sells Russia, its biggest trade partner. And for all the anti-Moscow rhetoric heard during the recent protests, the two countries have deep historical and cultural ties. Some 8.3 million Ukrainians, almost one-fifth of the population, described themselves in the country’s last census as ethnic Russians, while some 1.9 million of Russia’s citizens say they are ethnic Ukrainian. Ukrainians, in their conflict with Russia, “are almost universally seen as the good guys,” Bloomberg News commentator Leonid Bershidsky writes.

In the West as well as in Russia, black-and-white depictions of the conflict make it harder to resolve, he says. “Putin is now fighting a public relations war against the entire West, and Ukrainians are developing a siege mentality that undermines democratic governance and fills media with as much virulent propaganda and disinformation as Kremlin-controlled Russian TV carries.”

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...most%20popular

I have grave concerns about the US loaning large sums of money to a nation that is essentially a cleptocracy.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

5. When the Soviet Union collapsed, the newly independent Ukraine found itself in possession of a nuclear arsenal. In the 1994 Budapest agreement, the USA, UK, and Russia agreed to respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for Ukraine ceding its nuclear arsenal to Russia.

That territorial integrity has now been violated by one of the signatories, and the remaining signatories are standing by idly.

In the future, how will the USA assure existing and developing nuclear powers (No. Korea, Iran, India, Pakistan) to abandon nuclear proliferation with assurances of territorial integrity against outside aggressors? The USA no longer has any legitimacy on that front.

The Budapest agreement was just that, an agreement, it was never a treaty, or even a congressional-executive agreement, it does not have the strength of alliance or international law.

As for Ukraine, I think they themselves contributed to this crisis. Crimea was originally part of Russia, was populated mostly by Russians, given to Ukraine by a Soviet dictator as an act of goodwill when Ukraine had no sovereignty and such a grant meant little. When, under the initial constitution of Ukraine (which granted Crimea a degree of autonomy), the Crimeans elected their first president by a resounding 72.9% of the vote, and he was, of course, pro-Russian, and desiring of Crimean independence or full accession to Russia, what was Ukraine's response? They unilaterally dissolved his government and weakened Crimean autonomy. They refuse to even speak or negotiate about the matter, they treat the national right to self-determination and a people's right to choose their own destinies as non-issues that will go away if ignored long enough. And when the constitutional authorities keep the people down long enough, it is inevitable that non-constitutional matters will be resorted to.

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I have grave concerns about the US loaning large sums of money to a nation that is essentially a cleptocracy.

They're poor and populous, basically the biggest eyesore in Europe. It's not surprising they get so much aid, most of these sorts of programs are need based, after all.

[cancel2 2022]

You need somebody like Peter Hitchens to talk some sense about Ukraine.

Stupidity and ignorance rule the world. The trouble is that the stupid and the ignorant think that they are clever and well-informed. Take Mrs Hillary Clinton, next President of the United States and former chief of American foreign policy. She has directly compared Russia’s Vladimir Putin to Hitler. And she has compared events in Crimea to the Czech crisis of 1938. Dozens of other politicians and grandiose journalists are currently doing the same.

It’s the one thing they think they know about history – that Britain’s pathetic Neville Chamberlain didn’t stand up to evil Adolf Hitler in 1938 at Munich over Czechoslovakia, so making Hitler believe that he could take over the world. And that the brave Winston Churchill then saved the world. Almost no part of this legend is true. Even those bits that are true are misleading, with one exception. Hitler was certainly evil. But so was Stalin, the communist mass-murderer who ended up as our main ally in the fight against Hitler. If we had gone to war to save Czechoslovakia in 1938, we would have been beaten. We had no proper army. Nor did the USA, whose army at that time was about the same size as Portugal’s. When we later went to war to ‘save’ Poland, we didn’t in fact save it at all, leaving it to be bombed, starved and massacred by Hitler, carved up between Germany and the USSR and later swallowed whole by Stalin. And we were beaten – just not actually invaded.

Churchill was indeed a great man, but his achievement was to secure our bare survival, which came at the desperate cost of our national wealth and our empire. Later in the war, Churchill appeased Stalin by giving him the whole of Poland and Eastern Europe. Just like Chamberlain at Munich seven years before, he had no choice. The Yalta conference, which finalised these arrangements, was as disgracefully self-interested as Munich.

Yet the silly, half-educated politicians of today still like to pose as tough guys with the following formula, addressed to anyone who suggests that Russia might have a case over Ukraine and Crimea. It goes: ‘Putin is Hitler. You are Neville Chamberlain. I am Winston Churchill – hear me roar.’

Apart from knowing nothing about European history, and apart from their bone-headed inability to distinguish Christian Russia from the communist USSR, these people also don’t understand what is going on in Ukraine. It never occurs to them that Russia has good historical reasons to fear its neighbours. It never crosses their mind that the borders drawn by the victorious West in 1992, like those drawn at Versailles in 1919, are an unsustainable, unjust mistake. They never ask why Britain (or the USA) should be hostile to Russia, or what the quarrel between us actually is. What is it to us whose flag flies over Sevastopol? Yet it matters greatly to those who live there. They cast every Russian action as evil, and every Ukrainian action as saintly. The world is not like that.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...#ixzz2wpxT2gyY
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

[Taft2016]

The Budapest agreement was just that, an agreement, it was never a treaty, or even a congressional-executive agreement, it does not have the strength of alliance or international law.

Regardless. Assurances of territorial integrity made to nuclear powers surrendering their arsenals are now meaningless.

The world now has no carrot, only stick.

[Mott the Hoople]

They're poor and populous, basically the biggest eyesore in Europe. It's not surprising they get so much aid, most of these sorts of programs are need based, after all.

They are and it would be great if that money went into general circulation and it is probably better to prop them up in this manner than to witness their complete economic collapse but it's galling as hell to see that aid money be essentially stolen by a clique of corrupt politicians.