The less Americans know, the more they want to intervene

Must be 18 to enter! Talk about anything but Football

Moderator: Team Captains

User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

If Ukraine were to align with Russia, it could maintain subsidies, but there would be no prospects for growth. Driving toward Europe, however, could rejuvenate Ukraine. Kiev must follow the path of Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

By 1990, at the end of the Soviet era, the per-capita regional product of the Ukrainian Soviet Republic was 6 percent higher than that of socialist Poland. International Monetary Fund data from last fall show that Poland’s regional per-capita product is three times larger than Ukraine’s. Ukraine is the only post-Soviet nation that has not returned to the standard of living of the Soviet period, and it borders countries that live two to three times better than they did in socialist times. It is natural that Ukrainians see their future with Europe — not just because democracy is better than authoritarianism and the rule of law is superior to arbitrary rulings but also because E.U. investment and technologies could boost Ukraine’s economic development and make people more prosperous.
Putin is annexing an economically needy region, Crimea.
In seeking Ukraine’s eastern regions, Russia is fighting for an unjust cause in political terms — and a wrong one in economic terms. Lenin wrote that politics is the most concentrated expression of economics. If Vladi­mir Putin were to heed Lenin, he would see that integrating eastern Ukraine and Crimea into Russia, or their emergence as quasi-autonomous client states, would cost Moscow tens of billions each year in subsidies and create competition with Russian metal-processing, chemical, tourist and other businesses.
Not surprising. And most amusing.
Russia has no economic growth, and its population is declining. It is losing about $70 billion a year in capital flight. Little wonder it is seeking to expand. Yet no matter how successful Putin’s military exercises may look, annexing Ukraine could hasten the end of his empire.

Audacious as it may seem, a European Ukraine without Crimea would do much better economically than a Ukraine that maintains its current borders and totters between Europe and Russia. In claiming eastern Ukraine, Russia is fighting for financially insolvent economies that resemble its own. Even if part of Ukraine votes to integrate into Russia, the losers would be area residents and Russians — not the Ukrainian nation.
Well done, Vladimir. Grab that piece of land. Oh, it's a poisoned pawn? It's an economic albatross? It's a dead weight economically? Too bad ...
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.

Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.

Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html
For Putin, a possible Pyrrhic victory

By David Ignatius, Published: March 12E-mail the writer

It’s still possible to imagine a fuzzy, face-saving compromise in Ukraine: Crimea would have a new, quasi-autonomous administrative status blessed by Moscow and Kiev. The problem is that few analysts think Russian President Vladimir Putin will swallow this diplomatic pill.

Secretary of State John Kerry will make one more try, seeing his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in London on Friday; Kerry hasn’t ruled out traveling on to see Putin himself. But that’s unlikely to stop the planned referendum Sunday in which Crimeans are almost certain to vote to break away from Ukraine.

What happens next, if Putin doesn’t take Kerry’s “offramp”? That’s quite literally a guessing game for the Obama administration. Officials can’t be sure how the Russian leader will move; they hope the West will stay united in imposing punitive sanctions, but that unity can’t be guaranteed. Above all, U.S. officials are assessing whether the Ukraine crisis will mean a real breach in U.S.-Russian relations — one that could torpedo joint diplomatic efforts over Syria and Iran — or whether common interests can prevail.

You hear two strains of opinion about Putin from administration officials and other foreign policy analysts. For simplicity’s sake, let’s summarize these two views as “Putin is strong” and “Putin is weak.”

Those who see the Russian leader playing a strong hand argue that he has been readying such a military intervention for more than a decade. He invaded Georgia in 2008 and faced little Western opposition. He has now used military force to protect Russia’s interests in Ukraine and, perhaps, other neighboring states — prompting talk of sanctions but no serious military response. He has shown that a dictator’s bullying tactics can be successful.

The alternative view of a weak Putin begins with the fundamentals: Russia is in political, economic and social decline. Putin’s abrasive tactics, far from intimidating Ukraine, led its people to depose Russian-backed President Viktor Yanu­kovych last month and form a new government. By his truculent behavior, Putin has driven Russia’s neighbors closer to NATO. A weak Putin, in this view, has stumbled into the very situation he most fears.

My guess is that Putin will be a winner only in the short run. The negatives for Russia have probably increased because of the events of the past month. Russia has likely lost most of Ukraine as a buffer state, even if it claims Crimea as a consolation prize. The world simply isn’t moving Russia’s way.

A small sign of Putin’s long-term problem is that both China and Japan have pulled back from Moscow, thanks to the Crimea adventure. China fears that the Crimean secessionist movement could be a model for Tibet; Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who had been warming to Putin, has shown solidarity with America and Europe.

Will the Ukraine crisis prove a major turning point, tipping the world toward a new Cold War? Despite the obvious dangers of confrontation, many analysts say that’s unlikely. Should Crimeans endorse independence as expected, the Russian parliament may raise the ante by voting to annex the region. But what may follow is a period in which the region’s status is legally undefined and the United States continues to seek a compromise between Kiev and Moscow. Putin could disrupt that by encouraging unrest in Russian-speaking cities of eastern Ukraine, such as Donetsk and Kharkiv — and threatening further intervention. But that risky course is unlikely.

U.S. officials also doubt that Russia will sabotage the chemical-weapons disposal agreement in Syria or the international negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear program. Putin has a personal stake in both, and they are symbols of Russia’s influence. If he were to scuttle such diplomacy, it would deepen Russia’s isolation.

Putin must also be careful about the domestic consequences of his Crimea putsch. Yes, it has brought him popularity in Russia as a tough, nationalistic leader. But it may also encourage secessionists in Dagestan, Chechnya and other potential breakaway regions.

The Ukraine showdown, in a sense, has been a confrontation, as Kerry argues, between a 19th-century worldview and a 21st-century approach. Putin’s moves on the ground have been decisive, with immediate impact. The U.S.-led response has been collective, deliberative and slower to emerge. The world was impressed initially by the “shock and awe” of America’s military intervention in Iraq in 2003. One thing on which Putin and President Obama can agree is that the benefits of that military intervention didn’t last.
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.

Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.

Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4621
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

South Pender wrote:
Sir Purrcival wrote:China is still key in all of this IMO. They have been largely mute on the issue because they are in a damned if you do, damned if you don't position. They have been on an increasingly friendly basis with Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union but they don't dare proclaim open support for Russia's actions and most assuredly the referendum because of issues like Tibet. If they were endorse the Crimea referendum option, then what is to stop Tibet from claiming the same opportunity? As a result, you have seen some very neutral statements from the Chinese encouraging diplomatic solutions to the crisis and so on.
It seems the other way around to me. If China is to be seen as at least consistent, they would support Russia's annexing of Crimea, since they did exactly that with Tibet. Tibet didn't ask for a referendum to join China, and if they held any sort of referendum now, it certainly wouldn't be to join another large country. For China to support the West would likely be seen as monumentally hypocritical. Of course, consistency has never got in the way of self-interest in world affairs

I agree that the West won't go military over Crimea. It will be written off. The larger question is what further adventures Russia has in mind. If they next go into Eastern Ukraine and try to take that back, you might see some serious NATO action.
They can't be seen to be endorsing this "referendum" type of annexation. Essentially Russia is saying that if the majority of Crimea voted "No", then they would respect that vote. China would want no part of that kind of democracy regarding Tibet. Quietly they probably don't have much of an issue with Russia's actions but publicly they will take the neutral road. They don't support the west but they aren't that keen on the Russian approach either.
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

You hear two strains of opinion about Putin from administration officials and other foreign policy analysts. For simplicity’s sake, let’s summarize these two views as “Putin is strong” and “Putin is weak.”

Those who see the Russian leader playing a strong hand argue that he has been readying such a military intervention for more than a decade. He invaded Georgia in 2008 and faced little Western opposition. He has now used military force to protect Russia’s interests in Ukraine and, perhaps, other neighboring states — prompting talk of sanctions but no serious military response. He has shown that a dictator’s bullying tactics can be successful.

The alternative view of a weak Putin begins with the fundamentals: Russia is in political, economic and social decline. Putin’s abrasive tactics, far from intimidating Ukraine, led its people to depose Russian-backed President Viktor Yanu­kovych last month and form a new government. By his truculent behavior, Putin has driven Russia’s neighbors closer to NATO. A weak Putin, in this view, has stumbled into the very situation he most fears.

My guess is that Putin will be a winner only in the short run. The negatives for Russia have probably increased because of the events of the past month. Russia has likely lost most of Ukraine as a buffer state, even if it claims Crimea as a consolation prize. The world simply isn’t moving Russia’s way.
I tend to agree with these viewpoints.
A small sign of Putin’s long-term problem is that both China and Japan have pulled back from Moscow, thanks to the Crimea adventure. China fears that the Crimean secessionist movement could be a model for Tibet; Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, who had been warming to Putin, has shown solidarity with America and Europe.
Putin is apparently reaching out to China for support re the developments in Crimea. I expect China will stay silent. They are compromised. And China, for its part, is trying to slowly integrate itself into the modern world. It can hardly afford to support a pretty much universally disapproved action in Eastern Ukraine.
Putin must also be careful about the domestic consequences of his Crimea putsch. Yes, it has brought him popularity in Russia as a tough, nationalistic leader. But it may also encourage secessionists in Dagestan, Chechnya and other potential breakaway regions.
No trust for Putin. And independence rises on the agenda for other regions.
The Ukraine showdown, in a sense, has been a confrontation, as Kerry argues, between a 19th-century worldview and a 21st-century approach. Putin’s moves on the ground have been decisive, with immediate impact. The U.S.-led response has been collective, deliberative and slower to emerge. The world was impressed initially by the “shock and awe” of America’s military intervention in Iraq in 2003. One thing on which Putin and President Obama can agree is that the benefits of that military intervention didn’t last.
Yes. Measured response. Involving the US of course, but also Europe and Japan.
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.

Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.

Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/rig ... t/?hpid=z3
McCain to GOP: Get your priorities straight!

By Jennifer Rubin

March 14 at 9:45 am

By Thursday afternoon, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) had had enough of posturing by fellow Republicans and their opposition to urgently needed Ukraine aid and Russian sanctions. The bill will now be delayed 10 days during a Senate recess, leaving Ukraine hanging as Russian troops mass on its border. “What has happened? Where are our priorities? . . . You can call yourself Republicans, that’s fine, because that’s your voter registration. Don’t call yourself Reagan Republicans,” he declared. He was channeling disgust among conservative foreign policy experts over the GOP’s hang-up over International Monetary Fund rules. (“Is the IMF whether it is fixed or not more important than the lives of thousands of people?”)

A conservative foreign policy think tanker disputed even the rationale for opposing the IMF funding. He told me, “There is no reason to oppose the IMF reform. It merely rationalizes voting percentages based on size of economy. This gives Brazil, China, India, et al, a slight rise, at the expense mostly of Europe. The U.S. share falls from something like 17.4 to 17. It doubles the amount of everyone’s contributions. I have yet to see anyone explain why this is bad. And our friends around the world are dumbfounded that we would oppose [it].” McCain echoed this argument on the floor.

Republicans who stalled the bill did not even have intellectual consistency going for them. If their complaint was about adding extraneous material to the bill, they shouldn’t have larded it up with a provision to block the Internal Revenue Service from going after political nonprofits. And even if one had a complaint, was it worth keeping funds from flowing to Ukraine? As for the House bill, McCain pointed out that it lacked sanctions language to punish Russia.

All in all it was a shabby performance by some Republicans. Most surprising was Florida’s Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), whose opposition sounded like it came from FreedomWorks’s talking points. His spokesman seemed put out that attention was focused on him when other Republicans also opposed the measure. The think tanker retorted, “Rubio is the one who made Ukraine his big cause this month. . . . [T]his is when we need just a modicum of courage.”

This is, as a Senate aide in favor of the bill said, one more “fool’s errand,” since the bill passed 14-3 in committee and has well over 60 votes to pass. It will get done, but in the meantime Ukraine may be invaded.

If a senator wants to pose as a foreign policy guru then he can’t merely give nice speeches. His votes — whether on Syria, Ukraine, sexual assault in the military or any other dicey matter — have to reflect his stated views. It’s no defense to say, “But I gave nice speeches!” That’s a self-indictment.

Foreign policy is often controversial or poorly understood by voters; there is often no political reward in sticking up for national security. If there is always an excuse for voting no — and there always is in the world of imperfect legislation — then your record turns out to be no different than that of committed isolationists.

McCain is right on this, and the conservatives who delayed the vote are in a poor position to cite the president for weak leadership. They’d do well to look in the mirror on that charge.
Sometimes I think John McCain is missing a few bolts. But at other times, he stands up and shows his humanity, his sense of proportion, his fairness, his ability to see beyond party agenda. :thup:

Jennifer Rubin is a conservative columnist.
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.

Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.

Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

WestCoastJoe wrote:Sometimes I think John McCain is missing a few bolts. But at other times, he stands up and shows his humanity, his sense of proportion, his fairness, his ability to see beyond party agenda. :thup:
McCain has been consistent in his urging of stronger foreign policy vis-a-vis Russia. He has been the main supporter of admitting Georgia to NATO. McCain is a moderate Republican in contrast to the real extremists in the Tea Party like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, Michele Bachmann, et al. I like McCain and admire him greatly. I loved his book Faith of My Fathers: A Family Memoir (written with Mark Salter).
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9789
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

I see on Facebook an observation that the US and west have no issue rushing money in the billions to the Ukraine but the US won't help their own cities and states on the verge of bankruptcy.

Similarly the child and people poverty issue is not that the world can't afford to make sure folks don't go hungry but these issues get ignored.

I'm annoyed that the Canadian gov't's commitment to the fight on terror was morphed by Chief of Staff Rick Hillier into fighting Afghans who have been fighting foreign aggressors for centuries as fighting for a part of their population is a national sport and we spent some 18 billion on the fighting plus more on projects there - yet 85% of the heroin that flows into Canada comes from that country. Why not buy the crop like the UK suggested but the US rejected and use it for legal means?

Imagine if the USA didn't spend all that money wrecking Iraq what they could have done at home with it?

The west created this problem in the Ukraine in the last fall by demanind the Ukraine choose Russia or the west. Putin is wrong to invade but he doesn't want NATO that close to him when the old battle line was in Berlin for NATO and now it's his new neighbour. I'm with those who suggest they didn't need to push for a decision that is now about to wreck that country.

In the US all politics is local and no issue internationally is for more than how it plays out on the evening news.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
South Pender
Legend
Posts: 2779
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2012 9:24 am
Location: Vancouver weekdays; Gulf Islands on weekends

Toppy Vann wrote:I see on Facebook an observation that the US and west have no issue rushing money in the billions to the Ukraine but the US won't help their own cities and states on the verge of bankruptcy.

Similarly the child and people poverty issue is not that the world can't afford to make sure folks don't go hungry but these issues get ignored.

I'm annoyed that the Canadian gov't's commitment to the fight on terror was morphed by Chief of Staff Rick Hillier into fighting Afghans who have been fighting foreign aggressors for centuries as fighting for a part of their population is a national sport and we spent some 18 billion on the fighting plus more on projects there - yet 85% of the heroin that flows into Canada comes from that country. Why not buy the crop like the UK suggested but the US rejected and use it for legal means?

Imagine if the USA didn't spend all that money wrecking Iraq what they could have done at home with it?

The west created this problem in the Ukraine in the last fall by demanind the Ukraine choose Russia or the west. Putin is wrong to invade but he doesn't want NATO that close to him when the old battle line was in Berlin for NATO and now it's his new neighbour. I'm with those who suggest they didn't need to push for a decision that is now about to wreck that country.

In the US all politics is local and no issue internationally is for more than how it plays out on the evening news.
Good points about our spending priorities. However, another question is this: If the EU is willing to put $15B into saving Ukraine, why has the US agreed to only $1B? It's in the best interests of everyone in the West to see Ukraine break free of the Russian influence and form a buffer between Europe and Russia. Russia's desire for hegemony over all Slavic states is a threat to the West.

Frankly, I don't recall the West putting pressure on Ukraine to choose between the West and Russia (this point has been raised before). The way it looks to me is that the majority of Ukrainians wanted to create stronger ties to the West, but were prevented from this by Yanukovych's taking of the Russian bribe of $15B. Now that Yanukovych is gone--at the request of Ukrainians--they are now free, unless invaded by Russia, to carry out their desired course of action. The West needs to make sure this happens.
User avatar
Toppy Vann
Hall of Famer
Posts: 9789
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:56 pm

Actually there is NO one Ukraine and given the ethnic mix and World War role of Russia fighting vs Germany there are at least two views where possibly 50% want closer ties to the west and the other half to Russia.

Let's not forge Madelaine Albright told Russia during her term as Secretary of State in the Clinton era that NATO is not against Russia and opened the possibility of Russia eventually a partner.

The US have a huge problem with funding for a number of reasons:
1. they're kind of tapped out and people there are tired of foreign wastage of their tax dollars. The funding of the Ukraine is not like fighting a foreign war. US companies can't make money off that.
2. all politics is local. No US President or party is the key to a Senator or Congressmen's election - it's local and to get elected they must reflect and pander to local interests only.
3. USA doesn't have the same interests as EU countries have as Russian natural gas comes via Ukraine and pipelines.

Putin also is quite possibly trying to regain some lost glory by adding the bread basket back to the fold. He also doesn't trust Obama - views him as weak. Weak is true as their Constitution gives him far less power than most think a President would have. Trust is more complex in part based on the public statements the smooth talking President makes only to find his actual policies don't reflect his ongoing spin.

EU has far more flesh in this game than does the USA as Russian interests and nations like Germany running high on exports need the gas to run the plants.

Note how the US dialed down their threats vs. Russia as Russia notes there will be consequences like raising prices or selling to other countries.

The more countries rely on each other for business - the less likilood there will be a war. We don't need another Cold War.
"Ability without character will lose." - Marv Levy
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/16/world/eur ... ?hpt=hp_c2

No surprise. Crimean Tartars are boycotting the vote. As are many ethnic Ukrainians.

A CNN team photographed one voter dropping two pieces of paper into the ballot box. LOL
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.

Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.

Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/15/news/ec ... ?hpt=hp_c2
Crimea: Economic fallout of a 'yes' vote

By Alanna Petroff and Mark Thompson @CNNMoney March 16, 2014: 4:50 PM ET

LONDON (CNNMoney)

Preliminary results showed the Ukrainian region of Crimea voted overwhelmingly on Sunday to join Russia, a move that could tip Europe back into a Cold War with its powerful eastern neighbor.

The West has called the vote illegal, saying Russian military activity in Crimea violates Ukraine's sovereignty and will influence the outcome of the referendum.

U.S. and European leaders say Russia will pay a price for annexing Crimea, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel has warned of a potential "catastrophe."

As Crimean leaders move forward with their all-but-certain plans to join Russia, the fallout could ultimately affect economic growth, trade, investment and energy supplies.

Sanctions: Western powers may move as early as Monday to impose sanctions against leading Russians.

Europe and the U.S. would probably limit restrictions initially to travel bans and asset freezes on select individuals close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Russia has said it will retaliate in kind.

The focus on individuals, rather than Russian companies or trade, reflects concern that a new Cold War could hurt the region's fragile economic recovery.

Russia's economy: While sanctions would hurt both sides, Russia would suffer much more than the West, analysts say. The European Union's exports to Russia account for 1% of EU gross domestic product. Russian exports to the EU are worth nearly 15% of Russian GDP.

Former Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, now an economic adviser to Putin, said even limited sanctions would hit foreign and domestic investment in Russia. Western banks are already shutting off credit lines. Kudrin was quoted by Russian media saying the economy may not grow at all this year as a consequence of the current tension.

Russian markets are reeling. The main stock market index has fallen by roughly 20% this year, and the ruble has plunged to record lows against the dollar. Investors pulled $33 billion out of the country in January and February, and that figure could hit $55 billion by the end of March, according to Russian investment bank Renaissance Capital.

Russia will also face a hefty bill for supporting Crimea. The region currently depends on Ukraine for roughly 70% of its budget, 90% of its water, and most of its energy and food supplies.

"It will be a great problem for [Russia] to supply ... all these necessary daily products for the population," said Yaroslav Pylynskyi, a director at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Helena Yakovlev Golani from the University of Toronto estimates Russia will want to commit roughly $10 billion annually over the next five years to build infrastructure, support pensions and pay social benefits to the region's 2 million people.

Energy supplies: As long as the crisis doesn't spill over into other parts of Ukraine, analysts believe a full scale trade war should be averted and Russia will keep pumping critical supplies of energy to Europe.

In its weakened economic state, Russia can't afford to lose export revenues. And the threat of a suspension of gas supplies is less potent than the last time it happened -- in 2009 -- because European gas stockpiles are higher and the weather is getting warmer.

Related: 4 reasons Russia will keep gas flowing

Europe's economy: European markets could suffer modest and short-lived losses from the chill in relations with Russia, given close business and trading ties. Germany would be most exposed -- it has more than 6,000 companies active in Russia.

Still, economists expect the fallout to be contained. Berenberg's Holger Schmieding said the hit to Germany's economic growth would be at most 0.1% to 0.2% over the next 12 months, assuming the crisis is limited to Crimea. That would leave the European recovery intact.

Ukraine: With or without Crimea, Ukraine will need billions in financial support over the next few months to get back on its feet.

The EU has offered Ukraine $15 billion over the next two years, in the form of loans, grants, investments and trade concessions. The U.S. has promised $1 billion in loan guarantees, and the World Bank is talking about backing infrastructure and social security projects worth $3 billion.

A team from the International Monetary Fund has been on a fact-finding mission in Kiev since March 4. The IMF said Thursday the team would stay until March 21 to begin negotiations on a program of support and economic reform.

-- CNN's Isa Soares contributed to this report.
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.

Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.

Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

German Chancellor Angela Merkel has warned of a potential "catastrophe."
As Crimean leaders move forward with their all-but-certain plans to join Russia, the fallout could ultimately affect economic growth, trade, investment and energy supplies.
Sanctions: Western powers may move as early as Monday to impose sanctions against leading Russians.

Europe and the U.S. would probably limit restrictions initially to travel bans and asset freezes on select individuals close to Russian President Vladimir Putin. Russia has said it will retaliate in kind.

The focus on individuals, rather than Russian companies or trade, reflects concern that a new Cold War could hurt the region's fragile economic recovery.

Russia's economy: While sanctions would hurt both sides, Russia would suffer much more than the West, analysts say. The European Union's exports to Russia account for 1% of EU gross domestic product. Russian exports to the EU are worth nearly 15% of Russian GDP.

Former Russian Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin, now an economic adviser to Putin, said even limited sanctions would hit foreign and domestic investment in Russia. Western banks are already shutting off credit lines. Kudrin was quoted by Russian media saying the economy may not grow at all this year as a consequence of the current tension.

Russian markets are reeling. The main stock market index has fallen by roughly 20% this year, and the ruble has plunged to record lows against the dollar. Investors pulled $33 billion out of the country in January and February, and that figure could hit $55 billion by the end of March, according to Russian investment bank Renaissance Capital.
Russia will also face a hefty bill for supporting Crimea. The region currently depends on Ukraine for roughly 70% of its budget, 90% of its water, and most of its energy and food supplies.

"It will be a great problem for [Russia] to supply ... all these necessary daily products for the population," said Yaroslav Pylynskyi, a director at the Woodrow Wilson Center.

Helena Yakovlev Golani from the University of Toronto estimates Russia will want to commit roughly $10 billion annually over the next five years to build infrastructure, support pensions and pay social benefits to the region's 2 million people.
Energy supplies: As long as the crisis doesn't spill over into other parts of Ukraine, analysts believe a full scale trade war should be averted and Russia will keep pumping critical supplies of energy to Europe.

In its weakened economic state, Russia can't afford to lose export revenues. And the threat of a suspension of gas supplies is less potent than the last time it happened -- in 2009 -- because European gas stockpiles are higher and the weather is getting warmer.
Europe's economy: European markets could suffer modest and short-lived losses from the chill in relations with Russia, given close business and trading ties. Germany would be most exposed -- it has more than 6,000 companies active in Russia.

Still, economists expect the fallout to be contained. Berenberg's Holger Schmieding said the hit to Germany's economic growth would be at most 0.1% to 0.2% over the next 12 months, assuming the crisis is limited to Crimea. That would leave the European recovery intact.
Ukraine: With or without Crimea, Ukraine will need billions in financial support over the next few months to get back on its feet.

The EU has offered Ukraine $15 billion over the next two years, in the form of loans, grants, investments and trade concessions. The U.S. has promised $1 billion in loan guarantees, and the World Bank is talking about backing infrastructure and social security projects worth $3 billion.
Way to go, Vladimir. At some point, seeming decisiveness and boldness just might be impulsiveness and stupidity. And motivations might be as juvenile as beating your own chest. Sochi? Toxic mess. $40 billion dollars of corruption from a $50 billion dollar cost. Crimea? Economic burden. Western antipathy. Even Russian disagreement within Russia. Way to go. Build your legacy. On the other hand, you and your cronies are unspeakably rich through corruption. What do you guys care, beyond your own wealth?
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.

Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.

Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
User avatar
Sir Purrcival
Hall of Famer
Posts: 4621
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2003 11:48 am
Location: Comox Valley

There is little doubt Russia will fair far worse in the long run but if history is any kind of teacher, it is the rank and file that will pay most dearly for Putin's actions. The elite within Russia will continue to be the elite and the government there will remorselessly suppress any dissension from those who are being the most affected.

Anyone think the math is off here. According to CBC, 95% of voters chose the Join Russia option. Supposedly an 80% turnout. Population is about 2 million. Only 58% of the Crimean population is ethnic Russian. Approximately 1.6 million voters in total if you go with 80% turnout.

Lets say that all 58% voted to join Russia = About 930,000 Russian Voters. We know that it is probable that the Ukraine's and Tartars either didn't vote or voted in very low numbers. That means that they are suggesting that a of the non ethnic Russians who supposedly voted whatever their number actually was (approx 440,000 if you accept their turn out numbers) that roughly 420,000 of them voted for the Russian Option as well. Now admittedly, math isn't my strongest suit but does that seem highly improbable?
Tell me how long must a fan be strong? Ans. Always.
TheLionKing
Hall of Famer
Posts: 25103
Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 10:13 pm
Location: Vancouver

Hohum, what a surprise
User avatar
WestCoastJoe
Hall of Famer
Posts: 17721
Joined: Mon May 22, 2006 8:55 pm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/nat ... ml?hpid=z1
U.S., E.U. announce sanctions following vote in Ukraine

By Griff Witte and Karen DeYoung, Monday, March 17, 6:56 AME-mail the writers

LONDON — The United States and the European Union on Monday slapped sanctions on Russian and Ukrainian officials deemed to be responsible for Crimea’s effort to join Russia, following through on a pledge the West had made before Sunday’s referendum.

The sanctions ordered by the Obama administration include asset freezes and a ban on travel to the United States for seven Russian and four Ukrainian officials. The sanctions by the European Union apply to 21 officials, although the officials have not yet been identified.

The announcement came as E.U. foreign ministers met in Brussels to decide how hard to push Moscow a day after Crimeans voted to secede in a referendum that was condemned in Washington and in capitals across Europe.

The Obama administration promised last week to exact a cost if the vote in Crimea were held — even before new Russian military exercises on Ukraine’s eastern and southern borders and Saturday’s seizure of a Ukrainian gas plant just beyond Crimea’s northern boundary.

The question for the West is whether harsh retribution now will make Putin more or less likely to desist from further action. Although he has so far been impervious to American and European threats, U.S. officials think that the cost the upheaval has already imposed on the Russian economy will become unbearable if Putin does not yield.

The West could also suffer costs if Russia cuts off energy supplies to Europe and further squeezes the Ukrainian economy. But Western officials say that is a price they are willing to pay and have pledged economic support to Ukraine.
John Madden's Team Policies: Be on time. Pay attention. Play like hell on game day.

Jimmy Johnson's Game Keys: Protect the ball. Make plays.

Walter Payton's Advice to Kids: Play hard. Play fair. Have fun.
Post Reply