The question is what role the Ukraine is to play if integrated into the European trade area. Currently, Ukraine's metallurgical industry is by far the country's largest source of foreign currency, accounting for about a third of total exports. Industrial products in total probably account for two-thirds. The only other significant export is agriculture, which is even more dependent on the Russian market.
Say the figures are as follows:
- Between 1993 and 2011, the Ukraine has reduced its natural gas dependency from 3.2 trillion cubic feet to 1.6 trillion per annum. - This has been accomplished by a corresponding reduction of Ukrainian consumption, from a peak of 3.9 trillion cubic feet in 1993, to 2.3 trillion in 2011 -The Ukraine's natural gas dependency is therefore close to two-thirds, whereas her oil dependency is approximately three-quarters -Ukrainian Industry accounts for close to half of her natural gas consumption.
From these, we can gauge that the old Soviet symbiosis between Ukrainian metal and Russian energy has never been dissolved. Industry is dependent on Russian fossil fuels, Russian fossil fuels can only be paid for with industrial export.
Within this symbiosis, the Ukraine cannot even hold its own without reverting to old Soviet trade patterns, with Russia overpaying for Ukrainian exports, while subsidising Ukrainian energy. The hopelessness of this position is self-evident, and people will be naturally excited by the mirage of alternatives - any alternative.
Kiev estimates that upgrading to EU standards would cost Ukraine €14.7bn a year.
Regardless of whether this is exaggerated, it will be an enormous sum set against total state revenues of €32 billion, against which there is already a 4% deficit.
It is clear that the EU must bankroll the Ukraine's accession, but in Vilnius it has only promised €600 million. The bidding was simply too low for the plan to be realistic.
On December 05 2013 14:54 PaleMan wrote: I wish all the best to our ukraininan brothers, but they want to buy a ticket to Titanic which EU is
Yes. Its crazy to want to have access to a market of 500 million consumers who are all, at the poorest, 5x as rich as Ukrainians. What does Russia offer? Brezhnev 2.0. style subsidizing of industries that arent competitive for the benefit of their oligarch owners and continued corruption of the state that leads to emigration of the best and the slow death of the rest.
On December 05 2013 14:54 PaleMan wrote: I wish all the best to our ukraininan brothers, but they want to buy a ticket to Titanic which EU is
Yes. Its crazy to want to have access to a market of 500 million consumers (Russia+Kazakhstan+Belarus and others) who are all, at the poorest, 5x as rich as Ukrainians. What does EU offer? Some credits and standards which will lead Ukraine to complete degradation for the benefit of stronger EU countries like Germany and France and continued corruption of the state that leads to emigration of the best and the slow death of the rest.
fixed for ya bro
on a seriuos note nobody in EU needs what Ukraine produces, all the ukrainians can do is already done better in EU
On December 05 2013 14:54 PaleMan wrote: I wish all the best to our ukraininan brothers, but they want to buy a ticket to Titanic which EU is
Yes. Its crazy to want to have access to a market of 500 million consumers (Russia+Kazakhstan+Belarus and others) who are all, at the poorest, 5x as rich as Ukrainians. What does EU offer? Some credits and standards which will lead Ukraine to complete degradation for the benefit of stronger EU countries like Germany and France and continued corruption of the state that leads to emigration of the best and the slow death of the rest.
fixed for ya bro
on a seriuos note nobody in EU needs what Ukraine produces, all the ukrainians can do is already done better in EU
Combined population of those countries is less than 250 million and depends wholly on oil and gas. They have the same corrupt and incompetent industries that dominate Ukrainian industry and law, so joining them will just entrench failure. Slovakia and Poland produced nothing that the EU wanted when they joined as well. Then the German and French industries moved in, and EU bureaucrats made sure they werent robbed blind by incompetent and corrupt courts. Now both countries are booming. But enjoy your union of presidents for life. I hear when Putin leaves you can have Batko next, and then the Khan since he'll live forever. Mustaches and marching for everyone!
On December 05 2013 14:28 MoltkeWarding wrote: The question is what role the Ukraine is to play if integrated into the European trade area. Currently, Ukraine's metallurgical industry is by far the country's largest source of foreign currency, accounting for about a third of total exports. Industrial products in total probably account for two-thirds. The only other significant export is agriculture, which is even more dependent on the Russian market.
Say the figures are as follows:
- Between 1993 and 2011, the Ukraine has reduced its natural gas dependency from 3.2 trillion cubic feet to 1.6 trillion per annum. - This has been accomplished by a corresponding reduction of Ukrainian consumption, from a peak of 3.9 trillion cubic feet in 1993, to 2.3 trillion in 2011 -The Ukraine's natural gas dependency is therefore close to two-thirds, whereas her oil dependency is approximately three-quarters -Ukrainian Industry accounts for close to half of her natural gas consumption.
From these, we can gauge that the old Soviet symbiosis between Ukrainian metal and Russian energy has never been dissolved. Industry is dependent on Russian fossil fuels, Russian fossil fuels can only be paid for with industrial export.
Within this symbiosis, the Ukraine cannot even hold its own without reverting to old Soviet trade patterns, with Russia overpaying for Ukrainian exports, while subsidising Ukrainian energy. The hopelessness of this position is self-evident, and people will be naturally excited by the mirage of alternatives - any alternative.
Kiev estimates that upgrading to EU standards would cost Ukraine €14.7bn a year.
Regardless of whether this is exaggerated, it will be an enormous sum set against total state revenues of €32 billion, against which there is already a 4% deficit.
It is clear that the EU must bankroll the Ukraine's accession, but in Vilnius it has only promised €600 million. The bidding was simply too low for the plan to be realistic.
You realize that no amount of money pumped into currently corrupt Ukraine's economy will change anything? The whole point of association agreement was not about amount of money EU will give to Ukraine, it was all about giving chance to the Ukraine.
Joining CU with Russia will destroy the Ukraine's economy, making it even more dependent on Russia. Oligarchy in Ukraine has no interest in joining it, the best for the oligarchy would be status quo. It is them who call the shots in the country now, and that is why Ukraine did not join CU and will not join it. They would not be able to withstand the competition with their richer Russian oligarchs. There is a power play in motion in Ukraine, with Yanukovych trying to assert his power, keeping the oligarchs on a leash by not signing the agreement and threatening them with CU. Given the two choices it is better for Ukrainian oligarchs to join EU than to enter a free trade zone with Russia, where they would be bought off and their businesses trampled into the ground.
The bottom line is Yanukovych rejected the association agreement because the EU made him a deal he could not accept. Russia's position merely reinforced that line. While money would not guarantee success, the lack of money guaranteed the rejection of the agreement last week.
I would like to know by what prophetic vision you can foresee that "Joining CU with Russia will destroy the Ukraine's economy, making it even more dependent on Russia." That it will be more dependent on Russia is self-evident, but it does not follow that this will destroy the Ukraine's economy.
On December 05 2013 16:38 MoltkeWarding wrote: The bottom line is Yanukovych rejected the association agreement because the EU made him a deal he could not accept. Russia's position merely reinforced that line. While money would not guarantee success, the lack of money guaranteed the rejection of the agreement last week.
I would like to know by what prophetic vision you can foresee that "Joining CU with Russia will destroy the Ukraine's economy, making it even more dependent on Russia." That it will be more dependent on Russia is self-evident, but it does not follow that this will destroy the Ukraine's economy.
I disagree that the lack of money was the cause of rejection. He knew very well this was negotiable only to some extent and used it as an excuse for rejection. It is not black and white, give money/no money and I explained the reasoning for my opinion.
Sorry for the poor wording. What I meant that there will be no Ukraine owned business, which I explained too. It will be owned by Russian oligarchs in the long term, and there will be little to no gain for Ukraine from it.
The tanks are on the move from Crimea Peninsula to Kiev. The Crimean officials acknowledged that they will be used for the protection of public order in Kiev. While the Military told the press the units are not headed to Kiev and this is merely for the training purposes.
On December 04 2013 16:15 Silvanel wrote: Also its isnt about eurozone. EU and euroze are tottaly different things.
" Furthermore, Russia made it clear to the rest of the planet that the only way it can succeed in its neighborhood is not through the attractiveness of what it has to offer, but through blackmail and coercion. Not that this was entirely unknown before, but the utter crassness of the Ukraine case will make many governments in the region and elsewhere think twice about their dealings with Moscow. " This is BS. Every neighbour of Russia already knew this, for decades in for centuries. Russia loves to strongarm everything. They respect only strenght, given the choice between negotataing and forcing someone they will choose force. Its only western countries that begin to understand this. Still they will forgot this lesson after few quite years. Its always the same.
This is some next level mental gymnastics. Russia's coercion IS BASED ON WHAT IT HAS TO OFFER. They're not saying they're gonna invade Ukraine if it signs the deal, they're saying more expensive natural gas and trade barriers. That's what they're currently offering.
On December 05 2013 14:54 PaleMan wrote: I wish all the best to our ukraininan brothers, but they want to buy a ticket to Titanic which EU is
Am I surprised that a Russian is against EU? Not at all. You and that moron Putin just want to control the East. Sorry but you're losing hard. Bulgaria got into EU a long time ago, Ukraine doesn't want you either. Sure Russia still has puppets in the eastern countries. However, slowly but surely countries become more independent.
Oh yeah, sitting in Bulgaria, eating turkish tomatoes and feeling independent
To my ukrainian bros: just answer one simple question for yourself. Remember Yushenko? He was super pro EU and USA. What prevented EU to approach Yushenko and ask him to sign all those euro-integration papers? He'd do this in a minute, without any hesitation. Right right?
But truth is EU doesn't really need Ukraine, that's why they approach Yanukovich with euro-integration as soon as they saw Ukraine slowly drifting to the Customs Union. The main reason of all this to prevent CU become very powerful economic and political force in the region.
And read at least some excerpts from those association papers. Only obligations and no rights at all.
And the most funny thing - you probably think there will be no visas with EU? Sorry to disappoint this will never happen
On December 08 2013 17:24 PaleMan wrote: Oh yeah, sitting in Bulgaria, eating turkish tomatoes and feeling independent
To my ukrainian bros: just answer one simple question for yourself. Remember Yushenko? He was super pro EU and USA. What prevented EU to approach Yushenko and ask him to sign all those euro-integration papers? He'd do this in a minute, without any hesitation. Right right?
But truth is EU doesn't really need Ukraine, that's why they approach Yanukovich with euro-integration as soon as they saw Ukraine slowly drifting to the Customs Union. The main reason of all this to prevent CU become very powerful economic and political force in the region.
And read at least some excerpts from those association papers. Only obligations and no rights at all.
And the most funny thing - you probably think there will be no visas with EU? Sorry to disappoint this will never happen
Why the papers haven't been signed 9 years ago? Because Ukraine's law system was a complete shit compared to EU standards. The amount of reforms they had to undertake was not doable in one day, one month and even one year. They still have a lot to do, but are at least ready to sign off the first agreement.
Your statement about the CU being very powerful economic and political force. While the political part is somewhat correct, it certainly would not be a powerful economic force. Putin and his two lapdogs, one being a last dictator in Europe and second coming from country with so-so democracy will not build any powerful economic force. Let just start with domestic demand on goods. How do you propose to increase that when the wealth share is so disproportional there? Belarus, where 5% of nation holds 95% of the whole wealth? What will the 95% of people do, eat raw bread and flush it with tap water? Is that how you generate domestic demand and build a powerful economy? And that is only one of many factors you need to consider.
Do you know that 5% of earth population hold 95% of the whole wealths? Thats how capitalism works. Rich gets richer.
Now answer your question yourself: What will the 95% of people do, eat raw bread and flush it with tap water? Is that how you generate domestic demand and build a powerful economy?
On December 08 2013 18:15 Roman666 wrote:
Why the papers haven't been signed 9 years ago? Because Ukraine's law system was a complete shit compared to EU standards. The amount of reforms they had to undertake was not doable in one day, one month and even one year. They still have a lot to do, but are at least ready to sign off the first agreement.
Yushenko was president from 2005 to 2010. 2010 was 9 years ago? Ok.
So 3 years ago (2010) Ukrainian law's system was a complete shit? And now in 2013 its awesome, right? Don't be stupid, it's still the same. And if you are EU and you want to assosiate some country, you will do it even if they have super shitty laws there.
Srsly guys you forgot how to use your brains. Propaganda has you.
On December 08 2013 18:23 PaleMan wrote: Roman, are you serious?
Do you know that 5% of earth population hold 95% of the whole wealths? Thats how capitalism works. Rich gets richer.
Now answer your question yourself: What will the 95% of people do, eat raw bread and flush it with tap water? Is that how you generate domestic demand and build a powerful economy?
On December 08 2013 17:24 PaleMan wrote: And the most funny thing - you probably think there will be no visas with EU? Sorry to disappoint this will never happen
What about Moldova and Georgia, with they get no-visa in the near future?
EPT
