Yanukovych

Foreign Minister Lavrov speaks to UN Security Council on Ukraine, September 23, 2026

Posted by

0

From the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation

Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s remarks at a meeting of the UN Security Council on Ukraine, New York,
September 23, 2026:

I would like to begin with expressing gratitude to our Western colleagues, primarily European ones. Let me explain.

If not for them, the situation in Ukraine would have remained in limbo, and the people of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya would have been deprived of the right to choose.

Back in 2004, when Ukraine was forced to hold the illegal third round of presidential elections, Brussels decided to fully clarify the matter, demanding that Ukrainians make a choice between Russia and Europe. In 2013, when public unrest was orchestrated in Kiev to demand the immediate signing of the Ukraine-EU Association Agreement, Brussels insisted on its approach to the matter, completely disregarding its obligations under the CIS Treaty on a Free Trade Area. Assuming leadership of the February 2014 negotiations between the legitimate president and the opposition, Europeans secured a crisis settlement agreement, under which Viktor Yanukovych accepted all their conditions, including the creation of a national unity government that was to prepare an early presidential election provided that both the authorities and the opposition immediately renounce any violence. That document was signed on February 21, 2014, under the official guarantees of Germany (Frank-Walter Steinmeier), Poland (Radoslaw Sikorski) and France (Laurent Fabius). However, on the night of February 22, 2014, the opposition trampled on these guarantees and its own commitments, seizing government buildings and announcing the establishment of not a “national unity government” but a “government of victors.” As they say, feel the difference.

As for the guarantors of the agreement, which the putschists trampled down, Paris stated with a straight face as soon as February 23, 2014, that the nascent democratic transition meets the aspirations of the Ukrainian people.

Britain could not stand idly by, of course. Foreign Secretary William Hague stated on February 22, 2014: “Events in the last 24 hours show the will of Ukrainians to move towards a different future.” He said about Yanukovych on February 24, 2014, that “his authority is no longer widely accepted in Ukraine as a legitimate President.”

A bit later, on March 1, 2014, Chancellor of Germany Angela Merkel joined in: “We must provide all-round assistance to the striving of the Ukrainian people for freedom and democracy.”

The new authorities in Kiev, emboldened by the free hand granted by the West, immediately declared the goal of terminating the status of the Russian language, and responded to the protests of people in Crimea and Donbass against the bloody coup by denouncing them as terrorists and sending groups of armed fighters and regular army units, including artillery and aviation, against them. This resulted in the Crimean referendum on its independence from the openly Nazi regime that seized power in Kiev, and on its reunification with Russia.

If Europeans had not been cheating but would have forced the opposition to honour the agreement signed in February 2014 under the guarantees of Berlin, Paris and Warsaw, Ukraine would have retained its territorial integrity within the 1991 borders, which Zelensky and his Western patrons dream of. But Europeans could not suppress their inherent instinct to lie and to achieve their goals by criminal means.

A year later, the Minsk Agreements, which Berlin and Paris strongly requested, were signed. They were signed on February 12, 2015, and on February 17, 2015, they were unanimously approved by the UN Security Council at Russia’s initiative. It should be noted that under Article 25 of the UN Charter, member states “agree to accept and carry out the decisions of the Security Council.”

However, President of Ukraine Petr Poroshenko categorically refused to do that, and his patrons in Berlin and Paris did not even try to reason with him. When Emmanuel Macron assumed office in France, there was a surge in traditional French activity. On December 19, 2019, the Normandy Four (Germany, France, Russia and Ukraine) held a summit in Paris, where the Kiev regime was represented by Vladimir Zelensky, who had come to power under the high-sounding slogans of establishing peace and good-neighbourliness with Russia and putting an end to attacks on the Russian language. They adopted a declaration that reaffirmed the need to ensure strict compliance with the Minsk Agreements, including to enshrine the special status of certain Donbass areas in the Constitution of Ukraine. This status did not imply anything extraordinary – only the right to use the Russian language and establish local self-governments.

Had the 2015 Minsk Agreements, which were reaffirmed in Paris in 2019 when Zelensky was president, were fulfilled in accordance with the requirements of the UN Security Council, Ukraine would have remained within the 1991 borders, with the exception of Crimea, of course, and everyone is fully aware of this. However, Europe did not allow this again. As Angela Merkel, Francois Hollande and Petr Poroshenko admitted after leaving office, they never planned to implement the Minsk Agreements they signed. They only needed time to flood Ukraine with weapons. A very candid confession. All those meetings, like the one in Paris, were only needed to feign intense diplomatic activity, using it as a cover for building up the anti-Russia campaign.

In December 2021, NATO and the Biden administration arrogantly rejected Russia’s proposals to reach an agreement based on mutual respect for the security interests of Russia, the countries of Europe and North America. From a practical standpoint, preparations were underway to have Kiev take over Donbass territories which were outside of its control. In February 2022, to prevent the Western scenario from materialising, we were forced to launch the special military operation. Just one week into it, the Ukrainians requested talks. We agreed. After several rounds of negotiations in Belarus and Istanbul, Ukraine came forward by proposing the key settlement principles, and our negotiators accepted them. The main provisions provided for asserting Ukraine’s neutrality, recognising the reality on the ground, while also setting forth collective security guarantees as a reliable safeguard for preventing any future military escalation, provocations or aggressive undertakings. The Ukrainian and Russian delegations initialled the document, but everyone knows how the events unfolded from that point. The then UK Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, prevented the Ukrainians from entering into a legally binding agreement based on the text as suggested and initialled by Kiev. Instead, he urged Ukraine to fight back. Europe de facto agreed with London’s position.

Had this initialled agreement been executed as a treaty and honoured, Ukraine would have remained within its 1991 borders, minus Crimea and a part of Donbass.

After that, Europe continued “to contribute to peace efforts” following the August 2025 summit meeting between President Vladimir Putin and President of the United States Donald Trump in Alaska. At the summit, the President of Russia accepted Washington’s proposals with their compromises, as he has said many times. The leaders of Russia and the United States made it clear during their joint press conference in Anchorage that an agreement of principle had been reached, and President of the United States Donald Trump made the same point in his statements the following days.

Unnerved by these developments, Europe rushed to persuade the President of the United States to back out of his own initiative, just like Boris Johnson forced Ukrainians to withdraw their own proposals in Istanbul. A European squadron was instantly dispatched to Washington with a mission to do everything to make sure that any further efforts to fulfil the Anchorage agreements stalled. As a result, during the Group of Seven Summit in Evian and the NATO Summit in Ankara in June 2026, Emmanuel Macron and other Western leaders were boasting about burying Anchorage, while alleging that the United States was firm in its commitment to siding with Ukraine.

When Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner once again visited Moscow recently, they reaffirmed Washington’s interest in facilitating a settlement for Ukraine. Just as President of the United States Donald Trump said after the Anchorage meeting in August 2025, everyone agrees that what was needed was not some kind of a ceasefire deal, but a lasting peace treaty between Russia and Ukraine to end the war for good.

Russia is ready to hold talks to reach this kind of a just and sustainable peace, just as President Vladimir Putin has said on multiple occasions. He set forth the objectives that must be reached to achieve this goal with abundant clarity in his program-setting speech in June 2024. That said, considering our negative experience, we will not make any pauses in the special military operation during talks, regardless of their format. However, this is what Europe is after, with the same straightforward goal of getting a respite and replenishing the Kiev regime’s depleted war arsenals. Having found itself in this dire situation, it has switched to what amounts to outright terrorism.

Apart from guaranteeing Russia’s security interests, the special military operation’s objectives include ensuring that all the rights of Russian and Russian speakers are fully respected not only in Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya, but also on the territory of Ukraine where there are still laws in force as encouraged by the West to fully cancel the Russian language in all spheres, including education, mass media, culture and in everyday life, while also outlawing the canonical Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Having started in 2017, the effort to adopt these laws by far pre-dates the special military operation. But Europe and NATO stayed silent.

At the same time, there was a legislative effort to encourage Nazi ideology and practices. It culminated with Vladimir Zelensky and other regime officials taking a knee to honour the remains of Hitler’s accomplices. These remains received what amounted to royal honours when they were transferred from Europe to be reburied in Kiev. Moreover, they plan to create what they call a Pantheon of Ukrainian Heroes based on these devilish tombs on the territory of the Kiev-Pechersk Lavra, which is a sacred site for all Orthodox believers. It is saddening that our former allies with whom we fought against Hitler and Nazism have been condoning these undertakings.

The West, and above all – the European Union, is ever ready to speak about human rights at every conceivable opportunity. Yet in relation to the Kiev regime, one never hears that phrase. Russia insists on the strict observance of Article 1 of the UN Charter, which requires all states to respect human rights and fundamental freedoms without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion. We understand that with regard to sex (gender), the Kiev regime looks more to Europe for guidance, but where language and religion are concerned, no subterfuge will avail them here. When we draw attention to the unacceptability of the ban on the Russian language and the UOC, we are told, at best, that when a comprehensive settlement is reached, this aspect will be taken into account “in the package.” Yet the requirements of the UN Charter cannot be made the subject of bargaining. They must be upheld unconditionally, without any caveats. Those who cosset the Kiev regime are duty-bound to ensure that this is done. In practice, however, Ursula von der Leyen and other figures in Brussels and across European capitals declare with fervour that Ukraine is moving towards the European Union and must continue to be supported with funds and weapons, because – note well – “Ukraine is defending European values.” This implies that racism, the persecution of the Church and its clergy, and the glorification of Nazism in the loathsome, bestial forms of Ukrainian nationalism are the very values on which the European Union today rests. President of Finland Alexander Stubb recently made a wistful confession: “Western countries are now learning more from Ukraine than Ukraine is learning from them.”

Nowhere in the world, save for Ukraine, is an entire language banned. This is to say nothing of the fact that it is one of the official languages of the UN. One can speak Arabic and Farsi in Israel, and Hebrew – in any Arab country and in the Islamic Republic of Iran, where there is a Jewish community with its own synagogues. Even in Ireland, one can speak English. Yet in Ukraine, Russian is banned, and, as we understand it, the members of the EU and NATO are perfectly content with this. They even take their cue from Vladimir Zelensky – as the Baltic states do.

Naturally, I cannot fail to mention the position of the guardian of the UN Charter – the Secretary-General of our Organisation. For a long time, since the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, he and his official representatives have repeated one and the same thing: “The conflict must be settled on the basis of international law, the UN Charter, the relevant General Assembly resolutions , and the principle of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” In response to our regular remarks, including those addressed personally to Mr António Guterres, pointing out that the Charter contains a whole series of other principles, including the right of nations to self-determination and respect for the right to one’s native language and religion, we were told that the formulation regarding Ukraine was “well-considered and not subject to change.”

When President Donald Trump announced that Greenland could well become part of the territory of the United States, the official UN spokesperson was asked at a press conference what he thought about this. He replied: “The matter must be resolved on the basis of international law, the UN Charter, the principle of the territorial integrity of Denmark and the right of the population of Greenland to self-determination.”

During the press conference held on January 29 of this year, António Guterres was asked: “Does the UN believe that the right of self-determination applicable to Crimea and Donbass?” The Secretary-General replied (I am compelled to quote him in full): “We have had very interesting discussions on this. And there are two principles that are essential. First principle is territorial integrity of states. The other principle is self-determination of peoples. But, self-determination of peoples has a number of requisites. So, the way it is defined has a number of requisites. And after a very careful study by our Office of Legal Affairs, it is our position that the principle of self-determination does not apply in the situations of Crimea and Donbas. So, in that situation, the principle that prevails is the principle of the territorial integrity of Ukraine.” If anyone has understood a word of that, I envy them.

As we can see, Greenland is not Crimea nor is it Donbass, and “never the twain shall meet.” We await the continuation of this “soap opera” with keen anticipation; it will be interesting to hear the Secretariat’s reaction to possible questions from journalists about the plans of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

We hope that the new Secretary-General will return the language used in the statements of the Secretariat’s official representatives to the international legal mainstream.

This might perhaps also help our Western colleagues, above all the European ones, to return to the realms of reality and to realise what consequences their reckless course of unstinting support for Ukrainian Nazism is leading to, and has already led to.

In conclusion, I will once again refer to the consensus Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. The Declaration clearly stipulates that the principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity are applicable to those states which comply with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples and have a government representing the whole people inhabiting the given territory, without distinction as to race, creed or colour. It seems to me that it is obvious to all that the Kiev regime cannot be considered a government representing the interests of the inhabitants of Crimea, Donbass and Novorossiya, whom it has branded “terrorists, subhumans and creatures.”

https://mid.ru/en/press_service/vizity-ministra/2146984/

Also
https://consortiumnews.com/2026/09/23/what-lavrov-told-the-un-security-council/
with video

The $160 Billion cost: Why Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych spurned EU’s offer, on 20 Nov. 2013

Posted by

0

Why didn’t Yanukovich tell the Ukrainian people? Why did he keep this information hidden?

By Eric Zuesse
March 27, 2015
Global Research

“Burying the lede” is a way that ‘news’ professionals hide or “bury” things while ‘reporting’ on them; and the biggest example of this in modern times occurred when Germany’s Spiegel (Mirror) magazine headlined its cover-story on 24 November 2014, ”Summit of Failure: How the EU Lost Russia over Ukraine.” On the magazine’s front cover, it was instead bannered as “Kalte Krieger — Geschichte einer Machtprobe: Wie Merkel und Putin Europa an den Rand des Abgrunds brachten” which translates as: ”Cold Warrior — History of a Showdown: How Merkel and Putin brought Europe to the Edge of the Abyss.” This was a very lengthy report, 7,000 words, but the historically blockbuster revelation in it, which the global press has ignored, and/or themselves buried by similarly mentioning it without headlining it or leading with it (nor even linking to it), was this (which would have been a fair headline for that news report, since it’s 99% of that news-report’s real value): “EU’s Offer to Ukraine Would Have Cost Ukraine $160B.” (I hope that the headline that I used above is even better, however.)

And, so: now you know why, on 20 November 2013, Yanukovych turned that offer down — and the rest was history (the “Maidan” demonstrations, and all the rest, producing the Ukrainian civil war, and the new and much hotter version of the old Cold War, including all of those economic sanctions against Russia, and the resulting boom in nuclear weapons on both sides, and the thousands of corpses in the eastern Donbass region of what used to be Ukraine).

This blockbuster revelation was in merely a brief, 231-word passage within the 7,000-word article, and nothing further was said about it than these mere 231 words.

Here it is (as given in Spiegel’s online English edition of the article’s second half — and the article’s first half was here, but it contains nothing of this blockbuster revelation):

Kiev, Presidential Palace

Nov. 19, 2013

At Barroso’s behest, Füle traveled to Kiev once again to meet with Yanukovych – and the Ukrainian president got straight to the point. In talks with Putin, Yanukovych told Füle, the Russian president explained just how deeply the Russian and Ukrainian economies are interconnected. “I was really surprised to learn about it,” Yanukovych said. … “There are the costs that our experts have calculated,” Yanukovych replied. ”What experts?” Füle demanded to know. The Ukrainian president described to his bewildered guest the size of the losses allegedly threatening Ukraine should it sign the agreement with the EU.

Later, the number $160 billion found its way into the press, more than 50 times greater than the $3 billion calculated by the German advisory group. The total came from a study conducted by the Institute for Economics and Forecasting at the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine and it was a number that Yanukovych would refer to from then on.

“Stefan, if we sign, will you help us?” Yanukovych asked. Füle was speechless. ”Sorry, we aren’t the IMF. Where do these numbers come from?” he finally demanded. “I am hearing them for the first time.” “They are secret numbers,” Yanukovych replied. “Can you imagine what would happen if our people were to learn of these numbers, were they to find out what convergence with the EU would cost our country?”

Though that was a poorly-written passage, it does clearly state why Yanukovych couldn’t possibly have accepted the offer. The passage makes no connection between, on the one hand, “the Russian president explained just how deeply the Russian and Ukrainian economies are interconnected. ‘I was really surprised to learn about it,’ Yanukovych said,” and, on the other, “‘There are the costs that our experts have calculated,’ Yanukovych replied.”

Did Putin’s statement cause Yanukovych to request this new analysis from Ukraine’s National Academy of Sciences? We just don’t know. The reporters didn’t say. Maybe they didn’t even wonder about that. All that the article tells us is: the latter scientific institution calculated that if the EU’s offer were to be accepted, the cost to Ukraine would be $160B.

Why, then, was this blockbuster news-item buried, so that virtually no one noticed it? Perhaps the key passage to provide a hint to explain this burying (which hint appears in the article’s first half) was “Berlin continued to focus its efforts on Tymoshenko [whom the Ukrainian government had imprisoned on a corruption conviction, but Merkel — like Obama — was insisting that she be freed from prison], it failed to recognize the real danger: The Russian Federation’s power play.” The only actual “power play” that the article describes from Russia was “the Russian president explained just how deeply the Russian and Ukrainian economies are interconnected. ‘I was really surprised to learn about it,’ Yanukovych said.” Apparently, Putin’s “danger,” his merely “explaining” that, was, to the writers of the Spiegel ‘news’ report, a “power play.” The anti-Russian slant is blatant there.

In other words: This article’s writers, evidently, needed to find a way to present a negative view of Russia, and especially of Putin. Therefore, focusing their story and presentation around this particular blockbuster revelation (which went in the contrary direction) was out of the question for them — and especially for their employer.

So: now you know why Yanukovych, the very next day after his learning about the $160B price tag of the EU’s offer, turned it down, and also why this revelation is still news, more than a year later — just as it was news to me until I happened upon it only today.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

 

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-160-billion-cost-why-ukraines-viktor-yanukovych-spurned-eus-offer-on-20-nov-2013/5439125

Oleg Tsarev: Five conclusions on Ukraine as the plunder continues

Posted by

0

End of the life cycle of the project “Ukraine is not Russia”
Конец жизненного цикла проекта «Украина не Россия»

by Oleg Tsarev, Chairman of Novorossiya Parliament, for vz.ru
December 19, 2014

——————————————————————————

It has been a year since many Ukrainians came out on the Maidan, wishing to “improve life” in their own understanding, namely by integrating Ukraine into Europe. One can already make an assessment of the consequences but, to put it mildly, they are not encouraging.

First Conclusion: Maidan was very well prepared

The preparations did not begin with Victoria Nuland’s cookies but much earlier, with Kravchuk and Kuchma who generously handed out national properties to “their own people”, with Yushchenko who delivered the coup de grace both to the economy and the military, and with Yanukovych, who placed his “overseers” in all regions of the country.

Only in the last 15 years infrastructure wear and tear increased from 40% to over 80%. As a result by early 2014 Ukraine reached a pre-default stage. Gold and hard currency reserves shrank to 15 billion dollars, the country’s inability to fulfill its financial obligations increased to 65%, reaching an almost absolute record.

By comparison, the media is reporting that Russia is considered to be at 17% risk of default. Yet Ukraine’s total debt to all creditors is, by Ukrainian standards, astronomically high at $65 billion.

What did Ukrainians receive in return? The budget started delaying even the most important payments to the regions and to the population, the hryvnia already lost almost half of its value against the dollar and 42% against the euro.

The fall of Ukrainian currency is accompanied by growth of retail prices. Inflation already reached 20%.

Second Conclusion: Ukraine was subsidized by Russia during its entire independence period

This took mainly the form of lowering the price of energy.

The total level of subsidies exceeded $100 billion, and when Tymoshenko signed her “prison contract” forcing Ukraine to genuinely pay for gas, Ukraine’s budget instantly developed a “black hole” under the name of “Naftogaz” which amounts to 4-5% of the country’s GDP.

Of course, the national treasury did not empty itself out overnight, Yanukovych also made a contribution to that. However, right now the treasury is being filled by a massive currency emission by the National Bank of Ukraine which, according to Tymoshenko itself, is nearly equivalent to the entire national budget, exceeding $300 billion. Which spells a financial doom for the country.

Third Conclusion: The Plunder Continues

And it is continued by the followers of the kolomoyskiys, the poroshenkos, the yatsenyuks who came to power in the aftermath of the Maidan.

It all began with the transferring out of the country of Ukrainian gold reserves, and is continuing through profiteering on supplies to the combat zone, pumping out of petroleum needed to maintain the “Ukrnafta” oil pumping machinery, and by theft of 5 billion cubic meters of natural gas belonging to Firtash (originally purchased by a $1.4 billion credit from Gazprombank in order to preserve Ukraine’s chemical industry).

They do not shy away from direct seizure of factories belonging to their competitors. The most recent major seizure took place in Odessa, at an oil refinery.

Fourth Conclusion: “Western partners” are strenuously pretending that everything is all right

Unlimited currency emission and the de-facto freeze of hard currency markets, the banks’ inability to return deposits, the inability to fulfill budget obligations, all of that is being ignored. The International Monetary Fund does not even have, by its own mandate, the right to give money to a country in the middle of a war.

But the markets cannot be fooled. The interest rates on Ukraine’s Credit Default Swaps (CDS), Eurobond interest rates and internal currency obligations are beating all records, indicating that a default is inevitable. Business publications (The Economist, Der Welt, and others) are beginning to prepare investors for the inevitable: if Ukraine is not given, say, another 20-25 billion dollars in the nearest future (and this in addition to the IMF and EU assistance to the tune of $37 billion), Ukraine will declare bankruptcy.

The interest of a one-year Ukrainian bond increased from 10% at the beginning of 2014 to the unheard of 27% today. Analysts cannot recall another such massive jump.

The same is true for Ukraine’s default risk assessments. At the beginning it was rated at 49%, which is high enough, but during the period of greatest tensions with Russia the indicator jumped to 60%.

Fifth Conclusion: Ukraine has no money

The currency reserves of the National Bank of Ukraine are microscopic, and almost entirely consist of securities which nobody else wants (there are rumors that $6 billion of currency reserves were traded for shares in Lehman Brothers which went bankrupt in 2008), the exporters are not selling their hard currency since they themselves are struggling, and importers cannot obtain hard currency even for critical purchases.

At the same time Kolomoyskiy is supplying substandard body armor at their weight in gold and is increasing the capital of his own Privat Bank, while at the same time reducing tax obligations to the state.

Ukraine is bragging that it increased exports this year, forgetting to add that it accomplished that feat by exporting the last of its grain reserves. As to what will happen in the spring and how the people of Ukraine will be fed, it does not seem to concern the government.

No Coal for Power Plants and None in Sight

The Donbass coal cannot be purchased for ideological reasons since, according to Yatsenyuk himself, that would be “financing terrorists.” The entire energy sector of Ukraine is sustained by supplies of nuclear fuel from Russian Rosatom (which represents nearly 50% of energy production in Ukraine).

The winter is coming, yet ‘the provision of heating of the population’ (as Klitchko famously said before) is still under question.

The efforts of the new Ukrainian ruling elite include not only the attempts to hurt Russia and the owners of Ukrainian Eurobonds (half of the total of $17.5 billion is owned by the US-based Templeton Fund), but also their own citizens, otherwise the Ukrainian “bust-out” might fail.

They are even attempting to cut off the untamed Donbass from the Ukrainian financial system and close government offices and banks in the Donetsk and Lugansk Republics. That is to say, to abandon to their fate more than 4 million of our citizens by claiming that Donbass is not making budget contributions. And those are the policies which, in their view, are supposed to revive Ukraine’s economy.

Kiev is accelerating its own collapse

Donetsk alone fulfilled 89.2% of its budget contributions in 10 months. Yet now the retirees are being told that their pensions are not being paid by Kiev since June because allegedly Donbass has not been making transfers to the national budget. This despite the fact that since January Donetsk alone transferred 5.519 billion hryvnia, of which 4.746 billion went into the national pension fund.

One should also add that Donbass represents almost a third of Ukraine’s industry, nearly all of its coal, and a fourth of its exports.

Only one conclusion can be made on the basis of the above: a crisis is coming, and it will take many forms.

  1. The paralysis of the budget and the banking system. Default before individual depositors (which already took place as far as the inhabitants of Crimea and Donbass are concerned). Multi-month delays in the payment of salaries, pensions, benefits. The seizure of industries belonging to the competition (mainly Firtash, Akhmetov, the Yanukovych group). Plunder of the remnants of state property. The ultimate bankruptcy of Naftogaz.

But the key element of the process of the collapse of the economy is the default by the state before its own people, which can take place not only in the form of direct failure to fulfill social obligations but also through hyperinflation. This would represent a total war, aimed against one’s own country.

  1. Possibly (in parallel or slightly later) a chaotic external default, which may be triggered by the collapse of the IMF program (the next tranche was delayed until Kiev satisfies at least some of IMF’s conditions). Once that happens, Ukraine’s Gas Transit System will be snapped up for pennies (that system is only needed as long as an agreement with Gazprom exists), alongside other remaining “gems”.
  2. A total war against Novorossia (or Russia) is possible as a consequence, or an attempt to delay a complete economic collapse and chaos. After all, one can never blame the Maidan for anything. But will the people fall for it?

***

Right now Ukraine needs an injection of at least 100-120 billion dollars, which could prevent a sharp economic collapse. In the absence of such an injection the country’s GDP is likely to drop by 50%, implying the collapse of the country’s whole economy.

The final destination on this path is a catastrophe and complete bankruptcy, which would be an unprecedented trial not only for the people of Ukraine, but also for Russia, Europe, and the entire world. But the crisis can no longer be stopped; one could still try to switch course to a pro-Russian, Anti-Maidan one, but that is out of the question for those who have inspired the Maidan.

And therefore a collapse is not to be avoided.

 

Translated for FortRuss.blogspot.com

http://fortruss.blogspot.com/2014/12/ukraine-plunder-continues.html — translation — Ukraine: The Plunder Continues
http://www.vz.ru/opinions/2014/12/19/721135.html?google_editors_picks=true

 

Washington seeks an excuse to wage a nuclear war on Russia “We’re close to the precipice. Will the public remain silent?”

Posted by

0

Posted on Global Research, December 17, 2014
By Eric Zuesse
http://www.globalresearch.ca/washington-seeks-an-excuse-to-wage-a-nuclear-war-on-russia-were-close-to-the-precipice-will-the-public-remain-silent/5420283

The world is more nervous about the drift toward nuclear war between the U.S. and Russia than at any time since 1962’s Cuban Missile Crisis. When French President Francois Hollande urgently side-tracked his return-flight from a diplomatic mission recently, in order to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin at Moscow’s Vnukovo Airport, at a private room that had been scoured ahead of time to eliminate any possible bugging devices, there was speculation as to what had caused Hollande’s sudden detour, and there were even rumors of a possible cause being an American “false-flag” event in the works to be blamed on Russia as a pretext for going to war against Russia, just as Russia had been falsely blamed for the Ukrainian military’s downing of Malaysia’s airliner MH17 onJuly 17th. All that was publicly released about the two-hour meeting were platitudes, hardly anything that would have justified side-tracking Hollande’s flight so as to surprise intelligence agencies and be able to meet the Russian leader in an untapped room.

The level of fear is certainly rising on both sides. On the U.S. side, the CBS News Poll in summer 2007 found 6% of Americans calling Russia an “enemy”; seven years later, that same figure was 22%. However, what is not rumor nor fear, but proven fact, by Obama’s own actions as will be documented here, is that he wants a war against Russia and is trying hard to get Europe (including Hollande) onboard with this goal in order to win it; and that America’s Republican Party want this at least as much as he does, though the American public do not. Continue reading →