Ukraine Crisis - Page 231

Or they could just kick out putin and blame the whole thing on him.

On March 07 2014 08:43 Saumure wrote:
Was not really specified who said what. But it doesn't really matter, because if Russia and the Russian billionaires sell, China could not afford not to sell... (edit: hypothetically ofc, I don't want to get in any trouble here)

On March 07 2014 08:56 m4ini wrote:


Most likely by far the best solution, but also the most unlikely to happen.

On March 07 2014 08:58 Cheerio wrote:

I don't really see why would USA be scared of that. A bond is basically somebody's debt. If your current debt holder decides to sell it (clearly at a discount) to somebody else, why would you freak out? It probably hurts the seller more than anyone else, and clearly I can't imagine a worse debt holder for USA than Russia. And for China the smart thing to do would be not sell, but buy the debt Russia is selling. Unless they know something about WW3 coming or USA going bancrupt, but in that case they should be selling debt already.

On March 07 2014 09:54 Dracover wrote:


I'm no expert but my normal mans understanding is there will be too much liquidity and create chaos in finance markets.

e.g.
If all your investment banks of the world bought all the bonds Russia and China, where will the money come from?

On March 07 2014 10:03 Sub40APM wrote:

Why would they buy them at face value? If there is suddenly a bunch assets of the same class being forced-sold into the market the only way it works is...if its at a discount
Its a two way street, there isnt some button that says "dump treasuries" that instantly transforms your bonds into money.
But it gets even more complicated than that, if Russia is embargoed -- who can buy this debt? Not banks that want to do business with the American fedwire system.

On March 07 2014 11:31 Dracover wrote:



Also your link doesn't make any sense. Is it supposed to represent the asset side or the liability side of the balance sheet.

the Federal reserve issues government securities

I don't see how the federal reserve has any cash to do some large scale buy back.

On March 07 2014 11:37 Sub40APM wrote:

It does not. It issues money, government securities are issued by the US Treasury department.


The federal reserve literally creates money out of thin air, it never doesnt have 'cash on hand.'

On March 07 2014 12:04 darkness wrote:
Also what bothers me is that, as I've expected, China may team up with Russia and that could be one deadly co-operation.

On March 07 2014 12:04 darkness wrote:
Also what bothers me is that, as I've expected, China may team up with Russia and that could be one deadly co-operation.

On March 07 2014 12:21 SilentchiLL wrote:


China would never go to war with anybody over such a trivial russian interest like that.
Economically China has way more connections with the west than with Russia, they may agree with Putin and back him up in a lot of things, but China wouldn't go to war with the west for him.

On March 07 2014 12:04 darkness wrote:
I know diplomats are trying to prevent a war, but I thought the west has developed more war toys since the Cold War, which may still be true except they may not want to reveal their cards now. Unfortunately, they do not seem to scare Russia as of now.

Also what bothers me is that, as I've expected, China may team up with Russia and that could be one deadly co-operation.

One thing that makes Vladimir Putin mad is the feeling that he is being deceived. We saw that with Libya in 2011. Moscow was persuaded not to block a UN Security Council resolution on a no-fly zone to protect civilians. But Nato's military action led to regime change and the death of Col Muammar Gaddafi - far beyond what Russia had expected. It helps explain why Russia has been quick to veto resolutions on Syria.

On Ukraine, too, President Putin feels the West has tricked him. Last month he sent his envoy to Kiev to take part in negotiations on a compromise agreement between President Viktor Yanukovych and the opposition. That deal, brokered by foreign ministers from Germany, France and Poland, envisaged early elections, constitutional reform and a national unity government.

So far Russia's actions in Ukraine have been assessed mainly in terms of its international relations.

From that perspective, Russia's actions do not look very rational and foreign commentators have explained them in terms of President Vladimir Putin's anger and feelings of humiliation after the overthrow of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. But I would focus on domestic political considerations as a driving force.

The economy has already shrunk for two consecutive quarters. The rouble is weakening, causing expectations of growth in inflation.

Russia's ministry for economic development has revised downwards its short-term forecasts on an almost monthly basis.

According to the most recent forecast by the independent Gaidar Institute for Economic Policy last month, the Russian economy will not grow faster than 2% per year until 2016, even with a best-case scenario of growing quasi-state investment, an improving investment climate and small business growth.

The regime had to do something about these: either by improving the economy at the expense of weakening its control over it, or by focusing on the image of an external enemy and consolidating the nation around the leader.

Russia appears to have made its choice, passing a very important fork in the road, by choosing to tighten the screw and switching to a different model of relations between state and society rather than liberalising the economy and improving the investment climate.

The final stage can be traced back to the start of last autumn, first with the Kremlin's appointment of Mr Putin's former deputy chief of staff Vladislav Surkov as his personal aide; then the very serious reshuffle at Russia's Ria Novosti news agency; and finally the intense pressure placed on two largely independent media outlets, Dozhd TV and Echo Moskvy Radio.

The paradox is that sanctions placed on the elite could serve Mr Putin's goal of closing Russia and creating a siege mentality.

Amid the ocean of candles and flowers, at one of the dozens of shrines to dead anti-government protesters, shot during Kiev's horrific violence, there was a small plastic Israeli flag.

It was for Alexander Scherbatyuk, a Jewish-Ukrainian Afghan war veteran.

Inside the columned central hall of Kiev's city council, an activist base of operations, hung a giant banner with a Celtic cross, a symbol of "white power," and an American confederate flag.

Over the doorway was an immense portrait of Stepan Bandera, the Ukrainian nationalist partisan leader during World War Two, who at one point was allied with the Nazis.

These two images illustrate how complex and contradictory is the subject of the far right in Ukraine's mass protest movement, the Euromaidan.

Their role in ousting the president and establishing a new Euromaidan-led government should not be exaggerated.

But, as the second image shows, nor should their involvement be played down, especially now they have assumed key ministerial posts.

Euromaidan officials are not fascists, nor do fascists dominate the movement.

Contrary to some claims, ethnic Russians and Russian-speakers are not being attacked or under threat of violence. And anti-Semitism has played absolutely no role in the demonstrations and government.

Euromaidan has been a movement supported by just under half of Ukrainians according to a recent poll - representing a broad swathe of Ukrainian society: Russian and Ukrainian speakers; east and west; gay and straight; Christians, Muslims and Jews.

In four years, Svoboda has gone from a fringe party - receiving less than 2% in presidential elections - to a major player in Ukrainian politics. Its members control six positions in the new government, including deputy prime minister, general prosecutor and defence.

But Svoboda members come in different shapes and sizes, with many people joining for its anti-corruption stance. Lately it has been toning down its nationalist rhetoric, in what may be an effort to go more mainstream. Moreover, it supports EU integration - an exception among Europe's far right.

Ultra-nationalist parties, such as France's National Front, are a fact of Europe's present political landscape. Take out the word "Ukrainian" and many of Svoboda's beliefs are widespread throughout the region and beyond. Especially in Russia.

For Ms. Stent and other professional Russia watchers, the phone has been ringing off the hook since Ukraine became a geopolitical focal point. “It’s kind of a reunion,” she said. “Everyone comes out of the woodwork.”

But while the control of Crimea by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia has brought America’s Russia experts in from the cold, the news media spotlight has also showed important shifts in how American academics and policy makers think about Russia, not to mention the quality and quantity of the people doing the thinking. Among those experts, there is a belief that a dearth of talent in the field and ineffectual management from the White House have combined to create an unsophisticated and cartoonish view of a former superpower, and potential threat, that refuses to be relegated to the ash heap of history.