Ukraine in EU? Yes or no? (2014, country, people, German)

[erasure]

Originally Posted by Kulakovskyi

I don't label nations. Are you once again projecting a stereotype of a russophobe on me or are you just trying to say that calling all Ukrainians prostitutes is acceptable?

Of course you do. "Russia is this, Russia is that, and EU is this and that" - just watch your own posts. Of course you imply the political circles in Russia ( and EU) - that's quite understandable. And that's what Pigeonhole was talking about as well, and he is basically right in his observations; *Ukrainians" - (i.e. those in charge,) indeed were bargaining both with Russia and EU, looking who'd offer the higher price for Ukraine.

General Secretary was an appointment for life, with Khruschev being the only exception.

Yes, but what were the exact reasons for appointing this or that General Secretary, what rules had to be followed? That's a mystery for generations to come, and the fact that Khrushchev has been removed from his post tells right there, that THERE WERE lines not to be crossed ( what lines exactly - the humankind will never know for sure.)

And what makes you think that there are no obscure rules for retaining power in modern Russia? Maneuvering between the oligarchs, the silovikis, and the voters doesn't seem like an easy exercise to me.

There are no "obscure" rules here - as I've said, it's all about money (and hence power.) Unlike in Soviet times.

Yea, right, perhaps the only right conclusion here is that Ukrainians are actually dying to join the Russia-led Cleptocratic Union.

No, the only right conclusion here is that PART of Ukrainians are dying to join the EU, while the other part has no any particular interest in it. In the same manner as PART of Russians supports Putin and thinks that he is a great leader and other part doesn't think so at all.

Seriously, so miners will now decide for the whole country simply because otherwise they might be left at a disadvantage? Well, too bad for them then, because they are not the only ones who have a say in this.

If miners jobs is a big chunk of what keeps Ukrainian economy afloat, then yes, their opinion matters big time. If not - then their voice is just the voice of part of Ukrainian population that I've mentioned above.

And, by the way, if you just have to use my name to personify your stereotypes, please at least put in the effort and spell it correctly.

Oh but I can't))))
See, my last name is spelled the same way as yours with "y," but darn Americans keep on switching it to "i" instead, so now I've started making the same mistake))))

[Muscovite]

Ukraine have great climate, touristic attractions, good wines. But it did not nothing to advertise it. Even Georgia did more, I agree. But the leaders of the Orange Revolution were incompetent.

Have a nice day!

[Kulakovskyi]

Bulgarians have a healthier lifestyle, drink less, and thus live longer than Ukrainians, the climate is healthier too.

So you are saying that life expectancy is therefore irrelevant when comparing international standards of living? Ok. Then again, why bring up HDI index in the first place if you are saying that its components are irrelevant.

But the economy is almost as much in a mess as Ukraine's, and doing no better than neighbouring Serbia, Turkey or Macedonia which are no EU-members.

1) Again, Bulgaria is the poorest country of the EU and it suffered a lot from the spillover of the recession in peripheral Europe (due to its close economic ties with Greece and Italy). I don't understand why you keep bringing it up as if it was a representative example of the effect that EU membership has on the economies of its new members. Why not look, for example, at Poland, Czech Rep., Estonia or even Romania as well?
2) Like I said before, economically Bulgaria is far ahead of Ukraine. It's also ahead of Serbia and Macedonia:

2012 GDP PPP per capita ranking
#69 Bulgaria - $14,103
#84 Serbia - $10,722
#87 Macedonia - $10,465
#106 Ukraine - $7,295

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You failed to convince me that Belarus has a parasitic economic model.

1) Most of the goods exported from Belarus are uncompetitive on global markets due to poor quality/high price, or both. The only reason why Belarus is able to find buyers for those uncompetitive goods is because of preferential terms of trade that the country enjoys with Russia and, to a lesser extent, other CIS countries. This essentially constitutes a subsidy to Belarussian companies paid out of Russian consumers' pockets.
2) Petrochemicals is one of the largest exports categories for Belarus (https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/bo.html). Yet, the country's O&G reserves are not sufficient to meet even its domestic demand. Surprising, isn't it? Then how does Belarus manage to export petrochemicals in such high volumes? That's actually not very difficult when Russia sells you oil at below-market prices (Russia doesn't levy any export tax on oil exported to Belarus). This artificially boost profit margins for Belarussian refineries and the entire petrochemical sector, which historically was one of the primary drivers of economic growth in that country. It looks like there is not a whole lot of analysis on this topic in English-language media, but this article at least gives some idea about how this scheme works - Belarusian Solvents: A Tricky Path to Economic Growth | Belarus Digest - News and Analysis of Belarusian Politics, Economy, Human Rights and Myths
3) Given 1) and 2), I think the conclusion that Belarus's economy is not scalable (there is only so much uncompetitive stuff Russia can buy and there is only so much tax revenue Russia can choose to forgo) and parasitic in nature is fair

Ukraine is a big country with a big population, but without natural resources and quite poor. The main interest Europe has in the Ukraine is because, as you said, it is a transit route for Russian gas...

I actually think that the humanitarian aspect is at least as important. No one wants to have another Syria or Afghanistan with millions of refugees, drug trafficking, etc. at its borders.

Russia just last week promised billions of aid to Ukraine, much more than the EU was prepared to offer. Of course he did so for geo-political reasons, but the EU did so too for geo-political reasons.

It was billions in loans (and we can only hypothesize about the terms), not aid. And it looks like they even managed to embed a put option in the Eurobonds they are buying from Ukraine, so that they could cause Ukraine to default whenever they feel like it. The EU, on the other hand, is not in the business of distressed lending. Besides, the EU did help Ukraine resume its negotiations with the IMF, but Yanukovich was clearly not interested in borrowing from an institution that actually cares about where its money goes.

Why? Ukraine can apply the same economic model as Belarus, both republics are comparable and were more or less on the same level untill the 80's. And the economic succes is not only due to Russian oil and gas, because the economy recovered quickly from the 2011 crisis.

Belarus "recovered" in 2011 only after Moscow put it back on life support with its subsidies. As I have shown above, Ukraine is simply too big for an economic model that relies on preferential terms of trade with a single market (CU) and subsidies from Moscow.

Nowadays salaries are back on the same level. It means the economic system of Belarus is sustainable.
It's going on for almost two decades now, and can also survive a sudden drop in Russian gas and oil subsidies, unlike the Ukraine.

If anything, the crisis of 2011 proves that Belarus is non-functional without Russian subsidies.

Anyway I can only say that most Ukrainians were very unimpressed by the economic achievements of the "orange revolution". That's why most voted for Yanukovich during elections considered free and fair by the EU observers.

Yea, we all know how well that worked out: According to a Oct. 14 poll conducted by Kiev-based Razumkov Center, only 25 percent of Ukrainians polled said they would vote for Yanukovych in a second-round presidential election in 2015 (Yanukovych Is No Alpha Male | Opinion | The Moscow Times)

But so did inequality. People voted Saakashvili out and voted for the man favored by Moscow, not because they were so happy with Saakashvili's policy. Probably he would have been voted out 4 years ago but at that time he falsified the elections and persecuted the opposition to his regime. In general most Georgians consider the rose revolution to be a failure.

In your previous remark you appealed to the EU observers, so, I take it, you trust their opinion. Did they find Saakashvili's second elections to be falsified? Then why do you choose to trust them in Yanukovich's case, but not when it comes to Saakashvili?

And, yes, there was no significant increase in inequality (let alone an increase comparable to the increase in GDP). GINI in Georgia, by year (GINI index | Data | Table)
2003 - 40.4
2012 - 42.1

it is not a rumor, it's a fact that he fled Georgia, to the US. NOT because Georgians love him so much...

Was he officially declared persona non grata by Georgian authorities? Maybe he was formally accused of some kind of wrongdoing in Georgia? If not, then it's simply rumors not worthy of a serious discussion.

But at least the maffia ruling Ukraine now is a bit better at managing the economy as the maffia ruling Ukraine untill 2008. Both of them are corrupted tough.

Economic growth under Yanukovich:
2012 +0.2%
2013 +0%
Sovereign credit rating under Yanukovich:
Caa1, down from B2.

it's not about being slavic or orthodox, it's because a large part of the Ukrainian population are pro-Russian and very similar to Russians, so the EU is afraid of a Troyan horse. (one single EU-member can block all decisions if they want to)

Exactly the same myth as with Slavic people and Orthodox Christians ("Trojan horse", different culture, etc.). It's unfalsifiable, so I of course can't disprove it. Just want to point out that historically Serbia is probably the most pro-Russian country there is, yet it's on its way to become a member, probably sometime in the next decade.

There's nothing wrong with that, but maybe you're not really in touch with what, for example, mine workers in Lugansk think about the whole situation...

I am in touch with lots of folks in generally pro-Russian Odessa, but I am well aware that my circle, or anyone else's circle for that matter, is not representative, which is why I cite all those polls rather than say something like "All Ukrainians clearly support the Association Agreement, because all people I've talked to do."

[Kulakovskyi]

Originally Posted by erasure

Of course you imply the political circles in Russia ( and EU) - that's quite understandable. And that's what Pigeonhole was talking about as well, and he is basically right in his observations; *Ukrainians" - (i.e. those in charge,) indeed were bargaining both with Russia and EU, looking who'd offer the higher price for Ukraine.

He/she was referring to Russia as "Russia", not "Russians", and the EU as "the EU", not "Europeans". Therefore, in this context, I interpret his remark about "Ukrainians" being "greedy, bitchy prostitutes" as one targeted at Ukrainians, not the political circles.

Yes, but what were the exact reasons for appointing this or that General Secretary, what rules had to be followed?

What were the exact reasons for appointing Putin the President after Yeltsin left the office?

That's a mystery for generations to come, and the fact that Khrushchev has been removed from his post tells right there, that THERE WERE lines not to be crossed ( what lines exactly - the humankind will never know for sure.)

What does the fact that Yeltsin resigned tell you then?

There are no "obscure" rules here - as I've said, it's all about money (and hence power.) Unlike in Soviet times.

Why did Yeltsin resign if everything is so easy?

If miners jobs is a big chunk of what keeps Ukrainian economy afloat, then yes, their opinion matters big time

Coal mining in Ukraine is largely unprofitable and subsidized from the state budget ("Since 2009 the government has spent 60 billion hryvnia on coal subsidies" - Ukraine's Illegal Coal Mines Lure Desperate Workers - Businessweek).

[boxus]

Originally Posted by Muscovite

Ukraine have great climate, touristic attractions, good wines. But it did not nothing to advertise it. Even Georgia did more, I agree. But the leaders of the Orange Revolution were incompetent.

Have a nice day!

I have never seen Ukrainian wine here in the US, but have seen plenty of Georgian wine (the real, not the Kindzmarauli made in Bulgaria). I have never seen Ukrainian wine anywhere outside Ukraine, not saying it does not exist, just testament to how the industry has not made its presence known enough.

Moldovan and Georgian wine are my favorites.

[Marmel]

Originally Posted by Kulakovskyi

Belarus "recovered" in 2011 only after Moscow put it back on life support with its subsidies. As I have shown above, Ukraine is simply too big for an economic model that relies on preferential terms of trade with a single market (CU) and subsidies from Moscow.

If anything, the crisis of 2011 proves that Belarus is non-functional without Russian subsidies.

That's true, actually. The recent years have clearly shown that our (i.e. Belarusian) economy is flawed and can't be sustainable without massive Russian subsidies.
Just yesterday, Putin announced that Russia would loan up to 2 more billions of dollars to Belarus during 2014. If this decision hadn't been taken, we'd probably see another big devaluation of Belarusian Ruble quite soon.
it's called "money in exchange for kisses" -- Putin just needs to keep Belarus in the Russian sphere of influence and is ready to pay for that.
Lukashenko doesn't want to change the economic system as he's afraid that he might lose control over the economy, and therefore over the country itself. And for him, power is everything. Above al, he's just interested to keep his power as long as posible. So he prefers to keep the status quo with the help of Russian money -- different loans, low prices for gas/oil etc.
Probably he'd even be happy to see Ukraine moving to Europe. Then Russia would not give money to Ukraine and probably would have more resources to feed Belarus.

[Muscovite]

Marmel

Probably he'd even be happy to see Ukraine moving to Europe. Then Russia would not give money to Ukraine and probably would have more resources to feed Belarus.

Well, so if Ukraine turns its back to Russia now, it will strength Lukashenko. He will be alone with P. and N.

But he is not eternal. Maybe he will not be the president forever.

If Ukraine wants to help Belarus to be more democratic (and some Ukrainians say so), maybe it's better to wait.

Maybe it's better for Ukraine to wait, to prepare, to decide in which things it can cooperate with Europe. Maybe Klitchko has some plan, but I don't see it.

I am not against Ukraine in the EU. I am against hysteria. And some people are indeed in hysterical state of mind, writing open letter to the USA, despite it's between the EU and Ukraine, not the USA, and so on.

[erasure]

Originally Posted by Kulakovskyi

He/she was referring to Russia as "Russia", not "Russians", and the EU as "the EU", not "Europeans". Therefore, in this context, I interpret his remark about "Ukrainians" being "greedy, bitchy prostitutes" as one targeted at Ukrainians, not the political circles.

All right, if you prefer to think that he referred to you as "greedy bitchy prostitute" (you are a Ukrainian after all, right?) who am I to argue? If that's what you wish to think - go for it, I have no intention to insult you, I simply hoped for more common sense in this situation.

What were the exact reasons for appointing Putin the President after Yeltsin left the office?

There were two reasons behind it;
1. After all the plundering and killing have been done and the country came to ruin, the only way familiar to Yeltsin to retain ( or rather to re-establish) any kind of order was to put in charge someone familiar with the old Soviet methods of "establishing the order." The former KGB officer with experience of service abroad sounded like a salvation in this situation to Yeltsin.
2. Since Yeltsin himself participated in this plundering, and since these policies approved by him brought the disaster of unprecedented scale, he knew that if any person without personal connections to him could come to power, Yeltsin was running a risk to pay with his life ( and life of his family) for all the crimes committed during his governing. Putin promised security both for his family and his money.

What does the fact that Yeltsin resigned tell you then?

Why did Yeltsin resign if everything is so easy?

You need to understand that Yeltsin was a hick out of sticks; a person totally incompetent to lead Russia in such difficult transitional period. Clinton's administration took advantage of his incompetence and used him to achieve its own goals, which basically brought Russia to ruin. Yeltsin couldn't comprehend for quite some time where all these "economic reforms" were leading to; when he finally did, he basically hit the dead end and drunk himself to death, hated by his own population with passion. As the old saying goes - "the road to hell is paved with best intentions," that's why he couldn't even hold back tears during his official speech of resignation on the national TV.
So all this as you can see is quite logical and explainable, yet I still repeat that I wouldn't be able to explain what exactly brought Khrushchev to power, or what kept him there for so long. I wouldn't have a clue as well what were the exact reasons why Brezhnev had been chosen as replacement instead of anybody else - that's as I've said has little to do with common logic, since that particular group of people had their own mysterious ways)))

Coal mining in Ukraine is largely unprofitable and subsidized from the state budget ("Since 2009 the government has spent 60 billion hryvnia on coal subsidies" - Ukraine's Illegal Coal Mines Lure Desperate Workers - Businessweek).

I understand all that, but there is no magic wand to fix it the way you see it fit ( other than huge investments, which neither the US nor the EU are ready to shell out.) In fact Russia was in similar situation in many ways; the only big difference between Russia and Ukraine were those natural resources coveted by the West.

[takeo3]

=Kulakovskyi

1) Again, Bulgaria is the poorest country of the EU and it suffered a lot from the spillover of the recession in peripheral Europe (due to its close economic ties with Greece and Italy). I don't understand why you keep bringing it up as if it was a representative example of the effect that EU membership has on the economies of its new members. Why not look, for example, at Poland, Czech Rep., Estonia or even Romania as well?

Romania is not doing much better than Bulgaria. These other countries have little in common with the Ukraine. Culturally western, and even before their entry in the EU richer than the Ukraine and heavily interconnected with economies of rich countries(Sweden and Finland in the case of Estonia, Germany in the case of Poland and Czech). Eventough, I went from the Ukraine to Poland a few years ago, to Lublin, also lots of poverty there, it came as a surprise to me that living standards are not really higher, eventough statistics suggest otherwise. But in poland the rich part is bordering Germany. Ukraine has no borders with any western country.

2) Like I said before, economically Bulgaria is far ahead of Ukraine. It's also ahead of Serbia and Macedonia:

2012 GDP PPP per capita ranking
#69 Bulgaria - $14,103
#84 Serbia - $10,722
#87 Macedonia - $10,465
#106 Ukraine - $7,295

List of countries by GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But most of that money doesn't stay in the country, which is obvious if you visit Bulgaria.
For example about half of real estate is owned by Brittish, Germans, etc. Ordinary Bulgarians don't live much better than ordinary Ukrainians, as I demonstrated salaries are about the same, eventough life in Bulgaria is more expensive.

1) Most of the goods exported from Belarus are uncompetitive on global markets due to poor quality/high price, or both.

Not really, for example Belarus tractors and fertilisers are famous and sold worldwide. The money goes straight into the pockets of the state, and is invested in the economy and living standards, it doesn't go to some offshore foreign account as in the Ukraine or Russia. I couldn't think of any Ukrainian product famous all over the world, except perhaps weapons and women.

The only reason why Belarus is able to find buyers for those uncompetitive goods is because of preferential terms of trade that the country enjoys with Russia and, to a lesser extent, other CIS countries. This essentially constitutes a subsidy to Belarussian companies paid out of Russian consumers' pockets.
2) Petrochemicals is one of the largest exports categories for Belarus (https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/bo.html). Yet, the country's O&G reserves are not sufficient to meet even its domestic demand. Surprising, isn't it? Then how does Belarus manage to export petrochemicals in such high volumes? That's actually not very difficult when Russia sells you oil at below-market prices (Russia doesn't levy any export tax on oil exported to Belarus).

Since the problems with Russia in 2011, Belarus has to pay more for Russian oil and gas. Despite this, the economy recovered. many American economists don't like the belarussian model, as it is a counterexample of their fetishism about privatisation and neo-liberalism (as is China by the way, where all banks and big companies are state owned, as in Belarus).

By the way, even if it profits from better conditions than the ukraine due to their better relationship, there is nothing preventing Ukraine from doing the same. Yanukovich made a very good deal last week with Putin and this for sure is going to help the Ukrainian economy.
Numbers of protestors on maidan are dwindling since, Ukrainians choose for the wallits instead of fake European ideals.

It was billions in loans (and we can only hypothesize about the terms), not aid. And it looks like they even managed to embed a put option in the Eurobonds they are buying from Ukraine, so that they could cause Ukraine to default whenever they feel like it.

Still, it's a lot of money and noone can seriously say this is not going to help Ukraine, which was almost broke.

The EU, on the other hand, is not in the business of distressed lending. Besides, the EU did help Ukraine resume its negotiations with the IMF, but Yanukovich was clearly not interested in borrowing from an institution that actually cares about where its money goes.

The IMF forced a policy on Russia and the Ukraine in the 90's which was simply desastrous. (privatising the whole economy, which ended up in the hands of a few tycoons). So they have very little legitimacy in these countries.

Belarus "recovered" in 2011 only after Moscow put it back on life support with its subsidies. As I have shown above, Ukraine is simply too big for an economic model that relies on preferential terms of trade with a single market (CU) and subsidies from Moscow.

not necessarily. If Ukraine joins the eurasian costums union, it will get the same treatment as Belarus.

If anything, the crisis of 2011 proves that Belarus is non-functional without Russian subsidies.

once again, the economy of Belarus is not only about reselling Russian oil and gas. Belarus is a big exporter of industrial products, mainly to Russia but also to the third world and to the West. You can find Belarussian tractors all over the world.

Yea, we all know how well that worked out: According to a Oct. 14 poll conducted by Kiev-based Razumkov Center, only 25 percent of Ukrainians polled said they would vote for Yanukovych in a second-round presidential election in 2015 (Yanukovych Is No Alpha Male | Opinion | The Moscow Times)

Well, let's wait untill 2015. if the majority wants him out, they will vote him out. Untill that time he has the democratic legitimacy to rule the country as he sees fit.

In your previous remark you appealed to the EU observers, so, I take it, you trust their opinion. Did they find Saakashvili's second elections to be falsified? Then why do you choose to trust them in Yanukovich's case, but not when it comes to Saakashvili?

They had reason to protect their ally, Saakashvili, while Yanukovich is harly a western puppet, but considered Putin's man. Yet even in the West there was growing criticism on the autocratic leadership of Saakashvili and the oppression of opposition and rallies. Saakashvili simply whiped the opposition from the streets, put their leaders behind bars (where they were tortured, this documentory caused great upset in Georgia, it was the beginning of the end for Saakashvili and his regime).

And, yes, there was no significant increase in inequality (let alone an increase comparable to the increase in GDP). GINI in Georgia, by year (GINI index | Data | Table)
2003 - 40.4
2012 - 42.1

inequality was already big under Shevarnadze. But somehow I trust my own observations more. The city center looks ok, but once you take the metro to outlying areas or you go to the countryside, Georgia is very poor, poorer than the Ukraine by the way. It was also a very bombastic regime, with a George W. Bush bulvar, old people were denied carreer because "too Soviet", the study of Russian language was discouraged, Saakashvili even proposed to replace Russian by Ukrainian... eventough Russian is the lingua franca in the Caucasus, and the only way Russians, Armenians, Ossetians, Azeri, etc. can communicate. Everything is indicated in English, they made a "wine route"as in California yet noone speaks a word of English and there are no tourists...

Was he officially declared persona non grata by Georgian authorities? Maybe he was formally accused of some kind of wrongdoing in Georgia? If not, then it's simply rumors not worthy of a serious discussion.

There were investigations going on, and in the press many people were calling for his arrest, it was just a matter of time bevfore he would have to pay for his crimes.

Exactly the same myth as with Slavic people and Orthodox Christians ("Trojan horse", different culture, etc.). It's unfalsifiable, so I of course can't disprove it. Just want to point out that historically Serbia is probably the most pro-Russian country there is, yet it's on its way to become a member, probably sometime in the next decade.

Serbia might be pro-Russian, the culture, history and economy is quite different from Russia's, unlike the Ukraine. It's also a small country.

I am in touch with lots of folks in generally pro-Russian Odessa, but I am well aware that my circle, or anyone else's circle for that matter, is not representative, which is why I cite all those polls rather than say something like "All Ukrainians clearly support the Association Agreement, because all people I've talked to do."

[/quote]

the polls show that the opinion in Ukraine is divided, generally the West want closer links to the EU and the south and east to Russia. The majority voted for Yanukovich during last elections, as many people were disappointed in Yuchtchenko and Timoshenko's policy. If you want Yanukovich out, don't vote for him in 2015, that's the way democracy works.

[sw1992]

today/ Kiev/ "europeans"