Came across this column about the Ukrainian crisis in The Independent (UK) a few minutes ago:
So the new government in Ukraine, however it’s made up, will be given the briefest of ritualistic honeymoons before Russia uses every instrument at its disposal to try to make it fail. Unfortunately, Russia holds most of the economic cards. Ukraine’s coffers are almost empty, and the old guard is busy looting what is left. It has less than $18bn (£10.9bn) in hard currency reserves, its currency is dropping and immediate debt-repayment needs are more than $10bn.
Russia tied Ukraine to a $15bn bailout deal in December, which is parcelled out by the month to maximise leverage, and periodically suspended whenever the opposition looked like getting the upper hand. But Russia’s real aim was to provide just enough money to support the old semi-authoritarian system (helping Viktor Yanukovych pay the police) and keep Ukrainian society post-Soviet, that is, still dependent on government. So Ukraine’s new leaders will have to be honest and say their aim is to dismantle both. They cannot declare victory now, but will have to plead for popular support during what will be two or three difficult years.
And if the West is serious about an alternative deal, Ukraine needs a lot of money fast. Fortunately, the West would no longer be throwing it down the black hole created by the old regime. Rest of essay
15, 25, or 30 billion dollars goes a long way in keeping Ukraine from sliding back on the side of Russia. Do you vote for that aid or not? Serious question.
11 comments:
What are the resources or benefits going to be for the U.S.?
If the uprising is based on ideaology as stated, where would the money go, and what control would the U.S. have? Putin has out manuveared Obama and the U.S. in virtually every aspect. With the benefits accruing to Russia, they aren't giving up easily. I empathize with the Ukranians, but don't see a good outcome for the US.
There are consequences for NATO's evil plan to "contain" Mother Russia. Besides, who's gonna' launch all of those CIA surveillance satellites into orbit?
I give up. Maybe Captain Kangaroo.
Who the hell expects a congressman to be an expert on Ukraine?
They didnt know where it was!!!!
Ukraine won't be voting in Chris' election. But the MS coast will. This election is over. I'm glad he stumbled now instead of in DC.
I doubt ten percent of the congress knows where the hell it is. Is it worse than a president believing we have 47 states? Probably not.
I doubt ten percent of the congress knows where the hell it is.~Anon
Ukraine is game to you?
I think Barry thinks we have 57, not 47.
The total number is closer to 79 which includes all the NATO regimes, Colombia and Israel.
Right, 57. He was only chanelling John Kerry Hinds when he slipped into the ditch of 57 varieties.
Nonetheless, we are snivelling over rat shit, as Obama has 'issued a stern warning to Putin' and that will resolve this blip.
breitbart.com eating up Cochran again.
"Last year, while Cochran ultimately voted against final passage and final cloture on the Gang of Eight bill, he did vote to advance the bill on the “motion to proceed.” That procedural measure, which passed without much opposition 82-15, allowed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid to take the bill to the floor and maneuver it through an organized process to take it to final passage of the bill, 68-32.
Jordan Russell, Cochran’s campaign spokesman who originally made the claim about Cochran's voting record on immigration, did not respond to a request for comment."
Post a Comment