Thread: Is default of Ukraine inevitable?

He also says that he thinks that there are only two ways to avoid default

Obama has to overcome his intrinsic protestant stinginess and shell out for at least $20 billion. Soros made all the calculations long ago. There is no other way out to save his puppets. It’s a trick-or-treat dilemma exacerbated by European fatigue from never ending financial demands of the Ukraine.))
Soros Says Russia in Ukraine Poses Threat to EU Existence - Bloomberg

And he also predicts that Russia would actually push Ukraine to default and that's the goal of Putin

Putin’s goal is a regime change that will be totally unacceptable for Obama, like the Right sector or some other outright neo-nazi. And imminent default is a definite step toward the direction. Pro-Russian government is improbable in the foreseeable future due to many obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by diogen_

Obama has to...

Hmm, why do you think the US should pay for Ukraine? What would that achieve, besides lost money?

Originally Posted by diogen_

Putin’s goal is a regime change that will be totally unacceptable for Obama, like the Right sector or some other outright neo-nazi. And imminent default is a definite step toward the direction. Pro-Russian government is improbable in the foreseeable future due to many obvious reasons.

I would partially disagree
I don't think the Right Sector or other neo-nazi would be acceptable by anybody, they would pose serious threat for all neighbor countries.
I would agree that changing government is a goal. There is no need to set pro-Russian government, reasonable government would be enough to work with. Right now Ukraine does not have reasonable government, at least judging by the budget and goals current Ukrainian government is anti-Ukrainian

PS: Soros obviously does not want to lose money, so he would come with any propaganda to prevent the default.

Originally Posted by hddscan

Andrey Illarionov - Andrey Illarionov - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

On January 3, 2005 Illarionov resigned from his position as presidential representative to the G8.^[2] On December 21, 2005, Illarionov declared "This year Russia has become a different country. It is no longer a democratic country. It is no longer a free country". The Washington Post reported that he had cited a recent report by the U.S.-based and government sponsored Freedom House.^[3]

What do you think?

Come on, surely you can smell this 1000 miles away! Freedom House should rightfully be called Foreign Policy Agitation and Propaganda Department of the United States. That is what it is. He is more or less a defector, or was always working for the US and left Russia when it became a bit hot around his ears.

...former economic policy advisor to Vladimir Putin. Currently works in the Center for Global Liberty and Prosperity at the Cato Institute in Washington

He's sold out. Sure he could be right, but why do you think he is in the USA working for a libertarian think tank?

Think about how much you would trust an ex American politician doing the same thing in Russia or China. Made some comments about how America is no longer a democracy, and then turned up writing pieces about the evilness of the USA in some enemy state's papers.

This practice is vintage from the Cold war days. Defectors are notorious for saying exactly what is expected of them. I am not saying he can't have some valid points, but rest assured his output is expected to fit a certain narrative, or it wouldn't be published. If he doesn't stick with the agenda he won't receive his salary or fee or however they renumerate him.

We get tricked into thinking that what these sponsored parrots who write these type of articles are the real deal. They are not.

Just so we are clear on what the deal is with this and similar articles.

To answer the question>
No I don't think Ukraine will default, they will get just enough money to prevent that, while sinking into really bad poverty.

They probably lost a lot of their Russian export markets and their products are difficult to export to Europe. How are they going to make money?

Ukraine will be a basket case of the EU and USA and used as a pawn in the geopolitical game against Russia.

Probably some limited EU money will be used to keep paying the national debt, but not much more. US promises of practical help for normal people are largely empty, however they might get "help" with the military, weapons etc.

I feel really bad for the people there - they have been tricked into destroying their own country with this coup d'etat and what happened after.

Ukraine is among top three countries that have high default probability
default.png

Source - https://www.dbresearch.com/servlet/reweb2.ReWEB?rwnode=DBR_INTERNET_EN-PROD$NAVIGATION&rwobj=CDS.calias&rwsite=DBR_INTERN ET_EN-PROD

Originally Posted by Hanna

That is what it is. He is more or less a defector, or was always working for the US and left Russia when it became a bit hot around his ears. ...

He's sold out. Sure he could be right, but...

We get tricked into thinking that what these sponsored parrots who write these type of articles are the real deal. They are not. ...

Hanna, your views are so strictly one-sided and so dismissive for being an outside observer that I, for example, do not know what to think of you. And you do not even notice that some of your statements fragrantly contradict one another. Much of your conclusions are just double guessing IMO. I appreciate your interest in politics but could you please have some respect, we are not ignorant here.

Originally Posted by hddscan

Hmm, why do you think the US should pay for Ukraine? What would that achieve, besides lost money?

-political gain: They expand their zone of control, undermining the zone of influence of the principal adversary. American global leadership is confirmed once again.
-military gain; they can deploy anti-missile shield in the Ukraine in the future, protecting the territory of the allies from Russian nukes.
-electoral gain for the next elections: US foreign policy under Democrats can bring better results than that of Republicans.
-geopolitical gain: save Europe from Putin’s supposed encroachments (if they believe in what Ukrainians shout out loud on every occasion and without thereof ).
-emotional gain: outsmart Putin, revenge for Snowden, Asad, etc
- a few shale gas depositories for Baiden’s son to boot.

Originally Posted by hddscan

I would partially disagree
I don't think the Right Sector or other neo-nazi would be acceptable by anybody, they would pose serious threat for all neighbor countries.

I don’t expect for them to rule for too long. They would probable resume the full-scale war with people’s republics and facilitate collapse of the state. After their inevitable defeat (which is self-evident without external support) some painful issues including Krim status may be resolved faster than if the conflict is going to be frozen on the current stage. Sanctions also would make less sense for Europe and can be dropped off as early as in March.

Originally Posted by hddscan

I would agree that changing government is a goal. There is no need to set pro-Russian government, reasonable government would be enough to work with. Right now Ukraine does not have reasonable government, at least judging by the budget and goals current Ukrainian government is anti-Ukrainian

I believe Ukrainians are too “hyped up” about Putin to have reasonable government at the moment.))

Originally Posted by diogen_

-political gain: They expand their zone of control, undermining the zone of influence of the principal adversary. American global leadership is confirmed once again.
-military gain; they can deploy anti-missile shield in the Ukraine in the future, protecting the territory of the allies from Russian nukes.
-electoral gain for the next elections: US foreign policy under Democrats can bring better results than that of Republicans.
-geopolitical gain: save Europe from Putin’s supposed encroachments (if they believe in what Ukrainians shout out loud on every occasion and without thereof ).
-emotional gain: outsmart Putin, revenge for Snowden, Asad, etc
- a few shale gas depositories for Baiden’s son to boot.

ok, sounds plausible but history shows that the US rarely wants to spend money on other countries to achieve desired goals but rather try to get it done by somebody else.

Originally Posted by diogen_

I believe Ukrainians are too “hyped up” about Putin to have reasonable government at the moment.))

IDK about that. I think many Ukrainians don't trust their MSM anymore. Also if default would have happened then Ukrainian government would be a "larger evil"
And here is something you wouldn't see every day

Во время недавнего визита президента Украины Петра Порошенко во Львов один из жителей города назвал его «предателем» и отказался пожимать протянутую руку главы страны.

«Я вам руку пожимать не буду, потому что вы предатель!», — сказал житель Львова. Собравшиеся раскритиковали главу государства за то, что при его правлении налоги, в том числе акцизы на топливо, растут быстрее, чем при его предшественнике Викторе Януковиче.

http://russian.rt.com/article/67639

Originally Posted by hddscan

I don't think the Right Sector or other neo-nazi would be acceptable by anybody, they would pose serious threat for all neighbor countries.

If they are against Russia, they are good, remember? Goes for anyone from Caucasus terrorists, to bin Laden or Khodorkovsky.

So these people are not real Nazis, that's just Russian propaganda...!
When they march with swastikas and salute Stepan Bandera they are just expressing their zeal for democracy and against Putin's dictatorship.

But seriously if you read between the lines - the hot shots in the EU know that Ukraine is run by crooks and ultra nationalists. In any other country they would oppose and condemn it, but in Ukraine the recipe seems to be to pretend the problem doesn't exist. And media is playing along, apart from RT which is in serious trouble with Ofcom and others regarding their European broadcasts. They could get banned from the UK for example.

Some journalists do know the situation in Ukraine, but they seem to know they can't write front page stories about it. If you see anything from there which is actually factual, it's a small piece in a bad spot. The bit that's true is squeezed between the normal rhetoric about aggressive Russia, Putin the dictator who invades other countries etc.

Czechs and Hungarians are beginning to wake up to the agenda with Russia, with Milos Zeman and Viktor Orban. Marine le Pen in France and several of the so called "nationalistic populist parties" are warning against listening to the agitation about Russia and Putin. In Germany people seem to be generally aware of what's going on.

Originally Posted by Hanna

If they are against Russia, they are good, remember? Goes for anyone from Caucasus terrorists, to bin Laden or Khodorkovsky.

So these people are not real Nazis, that's just Russian propaganda...!

I don't think the EU would be happy to have ultra radicals on their borders, so I suspect some resistance from Europe would have happened.

Originally Posted by Hanna

But seriously if you read between the lines - the hot shots in the EU know that Ukraine is run by crooks and ultra nationalists.

I think it is not many ultra nationalists in Ukrainian government at the moment and they actually have failed during elections dramatically, showing that Ukrainian people are not ready to accept them, so I think it is not a catastrophe just yet.