EPTWhat does that mean in a nutshell? The Ukrainian govenment decided to withhold the hope of raising living standards and human rights that the association agreement would bring. With the effect of the protests you see now.
Ukraine Crisis - Page 2
| Forum Index > Closed |
There is a new policy in effect in this thread. Anyone not complying will be moderated. New policy, please read before posting: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewpost.php?post_id=21393711 | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
What does that mean in a nutshell? The Ukrainian govenment decided to withhold the hope of raising living standards and human rights that the association agreement would bring. With the effect of the protests you see now. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Anyway I'd like to see Ukraine integrate the UE but I've noticed that the protests have quite a few Svoboda flags, and they apparently are an extremely nationalistic, far right group. Any Ukrainians care to explain what's up with those guys taking part of the protest? Are they pro-UE, which I doubt, or are they just opposed to the strong Russian influence in Ukrainian politics? Or do they just want to topple the government regardless of the reason? | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On December 04 2013 16:45 Silvanel wrote: The quote make it sound like this is some new devlopment. It isnt. We knew it all along. Yet Western Europe seem surprised every time it happens. The quote explicitly stated this: "not that this was entirely unknown before". Read carefully before calling BS. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On December 04 2013 23:30 Dangermousecatdog wrote: But for some reason the leaders of Ukraine decided to hold off on the first hurdle, a free trade agreement, which alone can raise living standards There is a common acceptence in Ukraine that the free-trade agreement would be not enough to raise the living standards right off. There will be a pretty tough transition period for Ukraine while investmets come in and modernization is taking progress. On the other hand the investors are pretty reluctant to invest in a hugely corrupt country which has become Ukraine under Yanukovich. On the other hand pretty much any educated person understands that integration into EU is the way to go and there is no better way for Ukraine in the long run. | ||
|
Shield
Bulgaria4824 Posts
Nevertheless, having entered EU, it certainly limits their (Russia's) options to abuse their power. I just wish the West helped us more to get more independent. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
A Ukrainian-EU free trade agreement done over Russia's head will force Russia to throw up customs barriers against the Ukraine, damaging Ukrainian trade with her primary trading partner. There is nothing particular villainous about this, yet the organs of the EU have been playing the trump of historical Russophobia to deliver journalistically impressive, but politically meaningless moral pressure. Ideally, the Ukraine would want to expand ties with both the EU and Russia, and the EU has already adhered to the dictum that such expansion requires negotiations in a tri-lateral format, incorporating Russia, rather than excluding it. P.S.: According to Azarov, the Ukraine's trade with the CIS has shrunk by a quarter in this year alone. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On December 05 2013 00:07 Djzapz wrote: Anyway I'd like to see Ukraine integrate the UE but I've noticed that the protests have quite a few Svoboda flags, and they apparently are an extremely nationalistic, far right group. Any Ukrainians care to explain what's up with those guys taking part of the protest? Are they pro-UE, which I doubt Yes, they are very much pro-EU. | ||
|
Roman666
Poland1440 Posts
On December 05 2013 02:33 MoltkeWarding wrote: Russia's position is entirely reasonable: the Ukraine cannot be in a customs union simultaneously with Russia and the EU, without circumventing Russian-EU trade barriers, therefore the Ukraine joining a European free trade zone is not merely a bi-lateral concern, especially not in the case of Russia and the CIS, which trades more volume with the Ukraine than the EU combined. A Ukrainian-EU free trade agreement done over Russia's head will force Russia to throw up customs barriers against the Ukraine, damaging Ukrainian trade with her primary trading partner. There is nothing particular villainous about this, yet the organs of the EU have been playing the trump of historical Russophobia to deliver journalistically impressive, but politically meaningless moral pressure. Ideally, the Ukraine would want to expand ties with both the EU and Russia, and the EU has already adhered to the dictum that such expansion requires negotiations in a tri-lateral format, incorporating Russia, rather than excluding it. P.S.: According to Azarov, the Ukraine's trade with the CIS has shrunk by a quarter in this year alone. However Russia and CIS have nothing to offer in the long run. I witnessed it first hand, how Poland 2004 accession changed the infrastructure here. What will Russia offer the Ukraine? Gas, fuel, free trade zone? To trade what? Look at where Ukraine is now, trading mostly with Russia. They have $7K GDP per capita right now, you think this will change when they join customs union with Russia? The current outbreak at Ukraine is caused by a short term thinking of Yanukovych, who is scared to lose next elections, because he thought that people will blame him for worsening the country overall condition in the short term. However, he miscalculated the backlash his decision caused, not to sign agreement with EU. No amount of BS talk about that EU did not offer enough money will change that. Not when there is a rampant corruption spread everywhere. I don't think that Ukraine needs and wants a shit load of money, they rather need a chance to set things straight. And I do not think that their chances for better future lay with Russia. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/What Ukrainians want/9237925/story.html The first question was framed: If there were to be a referendum on the question should Ukraine join the customs union with Russia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan, would you vote for it, against it, or decline to vote? The results showed 40.8 per cent in favour and 33.1 per cent opposed. ... Broken down by region, support for joining the customs union was very high in the East (64.5 per cent), high in the South (54 per cent), moderate in the Centre (29.6 per cent), and lowest in the West (16.4 per cent). Looking at the age demographics, it is the older generation that is mainly in favour, including almost half of those over 70, and decreasing with each age group to 32.1 per cent among those aged 18 to 29. ... Turning to the results for a referendum on Ukraine joining the European Union, 39.7 per cent were in favour and 35.1 per cent opposed. Support came chiefly from West (66.4 per cent) and Centre (43.4 per cent), while only 18.4 per cent of those living in the East were supportive. Over half of those aged 18 to 29 backed the idea, but only 28 per cent of those aged over 70. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
However Russia and CIS have nothing to offer in the long run. I witnessed it first hand, how Poland 2004 accession changed the infrastructure here. What will Russia offer the Ukraine? Gas, fuel, free trade zone? To trade what? Look at where Ukraine is now, trading mostly with Russia. They have $7K GDP per capita right now, you think this will change when they join customs union with Russia? The Ukraine has nothing to trade with either the EU or Russia, and has a spiralling current accounts deficits with both sides. As far as exports go, the Ukraine is dependent on industrial products of Donets basin, which is tied to the Russian market. The reason is the same reason that the Russian government does not wish to open their borders to European products: neither Russian nor Ukrainian industry can survive in a free trade zone with the EU, but they are closer in competitive strength with each other. Trade complementarity is the ideal, not the transfer of structural welfare funds. It's ironic that Russia is being accused of bribery, when the same kind of thing is being pushed from the other side. | ||
|
Roman666
Poland1440 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:33 MoltkeWarding wrote: The Ukraine has nothing to trade with either the EU or Russia, and has a spiralling current accounts deficits with both sides. As far as exports go, the Ukraine is dependent on industrial products of Donets basin, which is tied to the Russian market. The reason is the same reason that the Russian government does not wish to open their borders to European products: neither Russian nor Ukrainian industry can survive in a free trade zone with the EU, but they are closer in competitive strength with each other. Trade complementarity is the ideal, not the transfer of structural welfare funds. It's ironic that Russia is being accused of bribery, when the same kind of thing is being pushed from the other side. You don't seem to get the larger picture here. The free trade zone with EU is just a beginning to possible accession to EU in the future. In the short run, yes you are right, it would be ideal for Ukraine to complement the trade with Russia with trade with EU. However, this will not happen and they need to make a choice. And Russia is not bribing anyone, they are strongarming, as they always did. I do remember what kind of empty threats they went with when Poland and the rest of former Soviet Block joined NATO and afterwards EU. And now they are one of the largest importers of Polish food products. | ||
|
Grettin
42414 Posts
Towering over his fellow protest leaders, reigning world heavyweight boxing champion Vitali Klitschko has emerged as Ukraine's most popular opposition figure and has ambitions to become its next president. Thanks to his sports-hero status and his reputation of being a new pro-Western politician untainted by Ukraine's frequent corruption scandals, Klitschko, 42, has surpassed jailed former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko in opinion polls. As massive anti-government protests continue to grip Ukraine, Klitschko is urging his countrymen to continue their fight to turn this ex-Soviet republic into a genuine Western democracy. "This is not a revolution. It is a peaceful protest that demands justice," Klitschko told The Associated Press in an interview Wednesday. "The people are not defending political interests. They are defending the idea of living in a civilized country." Full article: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/boxing-champ-turns-opposition-leader-ukraine | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On December 05 2013 02:33 MoltkeWarding wrote: Russia's position is entirely reasonable: the Ukraine cannot be in a customs union simultaneously with Russia and the EU, without circumventing Russian-EU trade barriers, therefore the Ukraine joining a European free trade zone is not merely a bi-lateral concern, especially not in the case of Russia and the CIS, which trades more volume with the Ukraine than the EU combined. A Ukrainian-EU free trade agreement done over Russia's head will force Russia to throw up customs barriers against the Ukraine, damaging Ukrainian trade with her primary trading partner. There is nothing particular villainous about this, yet the organs of the EU have been playing the trump of historical Russophobia to deliver journalistically impressive, but politically meaningless moral pressure. Ideally, the Ukraine would want to expand ties with both the EU and Russia, and the EU has already adhered to the dictum that such expansion requires negotiations in a tri-lateral format, incorporating Russia, rather than excluding it. P.S.: According to Azarov, the Ukraine's trade with the CIS has shrunk by a quarter in this year alone. Can blackmail be reasonable?.. Currently Ukraine has an observer status (signed May 2013) with Customs Union but there are little perks of that if any. In the months preceding the Vilnius summit Ukrainian exporters constantly had problems getting their products into Russia as suddenly overnight hundreds of Ukrainian products became incompatible with Russian (and CU) standards (standards didn't change in the period). We are not talking about some naturally occuring economic processes when Ukrainian goods can't compete on CU market because the customs payments are rising or similar economic influences. We are talking about administrative liquidation of access for Ukrainian goods to the Russian (CU) market. And this is only a hint of what will follow if Ukraine actually signs the treaty with EU. And this is coming from a country that is a WTO member. How reasonable is that? | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:33 MoltkeWarding wrote: The Ukraine has nothing to trade with either the EU or Russia, and has a spiralling current accounts deficits with both sides. As far as exports go, the Ukraine is dependent on industrial products of Donets basin, which is tied to the Russian market. The reason is the same reason that the Russian government does not wish to open their borders to European products: neither Russian nor Ukrainian industry can survive in a free trade zone with the EU, but they are closer in competitive strength with each other. This is short-term thinking. Poland wasn't that much well prepared either when they joined EU yet their GDP has trippled since then (or since they became associated member). | ||
|
radiatoren
Denmark1907 Posts
On December 05 2013 03:21 MoltkeWarding wrote: As a matter of public opinion, Ukrainians are, as expected, split down the Dniepr, despite attempts by our media to create a monolithic impression upon the world: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/op-ed/What Ukrainians want/9237925/story.html ... ... Well, the regional differences are completely as expected: The closer to the countries, the closer to their mentality. What is somewhat surprising is the difference between different age-groups. My guess is that younger people in the country are much more idealistic and have some trust in democratic means and some day a less corrupt political elite, while the very slow and painful transition from communism has hurt the older peoples belief in progress. I am not sure the blackmailing Russia, "Europas last dictatorship" Belarus and the oil-rich and very corrupt semi-democracy Kazakhstan are the countries with the brightest future or the best structure for trading. EU might hurt a lot more on the short term, but the longer term prospects seem much more tolerable. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On December 05 2013 05:10 radiatoren wrote: Well if you look at the last page quite a few people pointed out that EU is good choice but in the long-term. If you are 70 with medical care in the country quite mediocre you just don't have time to get to the promised land, you want a larger pension right here right now.Well, the regional differences are completely as expected: The closer to the countries, the closer to their mentality. What is somewhat surprising is the difference between different age-groups. My guess is that younger people in the country are much more idealistic and have some trust in democratic means and some day a less corrupt political elite, while the very slow and painful transition from communism has hurt the older peoples belief in progress. | ||
|
Djzapz
Canada10681 Posts
Seems strange considering that the UE doesn't tend to like those kinds of groups... | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
Can blackmail be reasonable?.. Currently Ukraine has an observer status (signed May 2013) with Customs Union but there are little perks of that if any. In the months preceding the Vilnius summit Ukrainian exporters constantly had problems getting their products into Russia as suddenly overnight hundreds of Ukrainian products became incompatible with Russian (and CU) standards (standards didn't change in the period). We are not talking about some naturally occuring economic processes when Ukrainian goods can't compete on CU market because the customs payments are rising or similar economic influences. We are talking about administrative liquidation of access for Ukrainian goods to the Russian (CU) market. And this is only a hint of what will follow if Ukraine actually signs the treaty with EU. And this is coming from a country that is a WTO member. How reasonable is that? Russian reactions to positive momentum in Ukraine-EU negotiations this summer leading up to the Vilnius summit were reasonable, whereas the manner in which they have underlined their attitudes is only parochial. Accession of the Ukraine to Vilnius would have subjected the Ukraine to EU standards and regulations, effectively paving the way for the erection of trade barriers with Russia. Armenia's entry into the Russian customs union had similarly jettisoned Armenian-EU Free Trade talks, but the reciprocal situation is much more sensitive, because of relative Russian weakness. The truth is that the Ukrainian economy had been traditionally subsidised by fiscal transfers from Russia in the form of price caps on energy supplies, which was traded for industrial goods below equilibrium rates of exchange. The relative weakness of Ukrainian manufacturing, and the relative strength of Russian energy are not predicated upon a novel development of Russian strong-armed tactics. They emerged from the pattern of inter-Republic trade normalised in the Soviet Union, and are preserved on more or less the same terms, with the exception that today, there is no incentive for Russia to subsidise Ukrainian energy supplies without political pay-off. Conjuring Poland, although Poland had the most conservative and least successful of the Central European shock therapies, there was still a large degree of privatisation of small and medium sized assets, evenly distributed among Poles via voucher-auctions. The Ukraine had attempted to maintain of overvalued industries which had traditionally only been viable in conjunction with massive Russian fiscal transfers. It is probably possible to introduce shock therapy into the Ukraine, but the social consequences will be the same as those Poland suffered on a greater scale: massive unemployment and emigration, especially in the East, and an immediate deterioration of the Ukraine's ability to pay its bills to Russia, for whom there is no real alternative in the energy sector. | ||
|
Cheerio
Ukraine3178 Posts
On December 05 2013 06:43 MoltkeWarding wrote: Conjuring Poland, although Poland had the most conservative and least successful of the Central European shock therapies, there was still a large degree of privatisation of small and medium sized assets, evenly distributed among Poles via voucher-auctions. The Ukraine had attempted to maintain of overvalued industries which had traditionally only been viable in conjunction with massive Russian fiscal transfers. It is probably possible to introduce shock therapy into the Ukraine, but the social consequences will be the same as those Poland suffered on a greater scale: massive unemployment and emigration, especially in the East, and an immediate deterioration of the Ukraine's ability to pay its bills to Russia, for whom there is no real alternative in the energy sector. The metallurgical plants (and other big companies included in the production cycle) have had a huge profitability when I last checked at 2010, sometimes over 50% (before taxes). Clearly the high gas price has hit them, but I don't believe they are any close to going bust. Also the metallurgy is by far the main consumer of Russian gas, Ukraine actually covers what it's population consumes by it's own mining. So even if the production output on the East will go down, so will the energy bills to Russia. | ||
|
PaleMan
Russian Federation1953 Posts
![[image loading]](http://img4.joyreactor.cc/pics/post/%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%84%D0%BA%D0%B8-%D0%95%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BC%D0%B0%D0%B9%D0%B4%D0%B0%D0%BD-974394.gif) | ||
| ||
