IMF $1bn Ukraine tranche postponed after trade blockade - Polidicks

[quote][B]The meeting on the IMF’s new loan to Ukraine has been postponed following Kiev’s decision to legalize a trade blockade on rebel-held parts of the country. The decision is expected to hurt Ukraine’s already ailing economy.[/B] [img]https://cdn.rt.com/files/2017.03/original/58c939a6c3618803798b4643.jpg[/img][img]https://cdn.rt.com/files/2017.03/original/58ce884ac46188c8068b4570.jpg[/img] The International Monetary Fund (IMF) Executive Board was expected to discuss a new $1 billion tranche to Kiev on Monday, but the event has disappeared from the calendar On Thursday, the Ukrainian National Security Council decided to suspend trade dealings with rebel-controlled parts in the east of the country. [B]The move follows actions of paramilitary groups of Ukrainian nationalists, who blocked railway transportation between the two parts of the country about two months ago. The blockade was justified by the nationalists as a “patriotic measure” meant to stop “treacherous trade with the terrorists [a reference to rebels in eastern Ukraine].” Some Ukrainian MPs who won their seats following the armed coup in Kiev in 2014 supported the action.[/B] Kiev was apparently reluctant to restore trade ties through police action, even though the blockade threatens the Ukrainian energy sector, which relies on coal mined in rebel-controlled territory. After weeks of inaction by the Ukrainian government, rebel authorities declared a change of management at businesses which had been operating on their soil, but under Kiev’s jurisdiction. The arrangement was beneficial for both parties, as Kiev could tax the plants and secure coal, and the rebels preserved jobs, which are scarce in the war-devastated region. The Ukrainian Finance Ministry estimated on Friday that the trade blockade may cost the country 1.3 percent of its GDP.[/quote] [url]https://www.rt.com/business/381305-ukraine-imf-loan-blockade/[/url] [url]http://www.reuters.com/article/ukraine-eurobonds-imf-idUSL5N1GX3FN[/url] [url]http://www.brecorder.com/2017/03/20/339730/imf-delays-ukraine-loan-in-response-to-trade-block/[/url] Soo in short, Ukraninan goverment decides that the most logical thing in aproach of situation, is to legitimise actions of militia, and it bit them in their asses. Pardon for a title fuck up, i'll ask mods to edit to avoid confusion.

I mean, I don't blame them. Typically you don't engage in free-enterprise and trade with people who are actively subverting, resisting and would willingly engage in armed conflict with your standing government. Particularly when, as your snippet puts it, "rebel authorities declared a change of management at businesses which had been operating on their soil, but under Kiev’s jurisdiction." Unless I missed the part where, during our Civil War, the North and South continued to freely exchange goods, like guns, cotton, slaves, and rice.

[QUOTE=Crazy Ivan;51988371]I mean, I don't blame them. Typically you don't engage in free-enterprise and trade with people who are actively subverting, resisting and would willingly engage in armed conflict with your standing government. Particularly when, as your snippet puts it, "rebel authorities declared a change of management at businesses which had been operating on their soil, but under Kiev’s jurisdiction." Unless I missed the part where, during our Civil War, the North and South continued to freely exchange goods, like guns, cotton, slaves, and rice.[/QUOTE] If you'd read carefully you'd notice that rebel's move comes as responce to Ukrainian Goverment inaction. Not to mention that donbass supplies rest of Ukraine with coal, soo if anything you can blame Ukrainian goverment for being soo scared of radicals thst they 'd rather shoot themselves in a foot. There are also reports of Poroshenko moving his belongings to Spain doo maybe new uprising is not soo far.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;51990344]If you'd read carefully you'd notice that rebel's move comes as responce to Ukrainian Goverment inaction. Not to mention that donbass supplies rest of Ukraine with coal, soo if anything you can blame Ukrainian goverment for being soo scared of radicals thst they 'd rather shoot themselves in a foot. There are also reports of Poroshenko moving his belongings to Spain doo maybe new uprising is not soo far.[/QUOTE] Not to mention Donbass supplies Russia with coal. Oh wait.

[QUOTE=Stopper;51990637]Not to mention Donbass supplies Russia with coal. Oh wait.[/QUOTE] what is that has to do with Russia? Last time i checked it was Ukraine suffering energy crisis from blockade, soo why you even bring this up? It's like you people specifically ignore the main message - ukranian goverment's inaction toward provocative measures by radicals now affects Ukraine on a whole new level.

[QUOTE=karimatrix;51990689]what is that has to do with Russia?[/QUOTE] Really? REALLY? [B]REALLY?![/B]

[QUOTE=Stopper;51990796]Really? REALLY? [B]REALLY?![/B][/QUOTE] Yes, really, topic is in regard of [B]UKRANIAN[/B] radicals blocking coal routes that is followed by legitimisation of said actions by [B]UKRANIAN[/B] goverment, that resulted in postponing of IMF money to [B]UKRAINE[/B] and energy crisis in [B]UKRAINE[/B] If all you can do is try to drag back this to ukraine-russia relationships then you are not contributing anything to discussion but shifting attention from the issue.

I think there's a very simple solution to this whole Ukraine mess, and the situation for Eastern Europe in general: transfer all areas over 60% ethnic Russian to inside Russia's borders and sign treaties with a number of post soviet states allowing Russia to station forces there, similar to how America does in Britain, in exchange for guarantees to not interfere in their domestic politics.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51990959]I think there's a very simple solution to this whole Ukraine mess, and the situation for Eastern Europe in general: transfer all areas over 60% ethnic Russian to inside Russia's borders and sign treaties with a number of post soviet states allowing Russia to station forces there, similar to how America does in Britain, in exchange for guarantees to not interfere in their domestic politics.[/QUOTE] Yeah that sounds like a terrible idea because every post Soviet state would lose territory that is rightfully theirs. Also the last time the Soviets were stationed in the counties promising not to interfer led them to joining the USSR and many train rides to the Gulags.

[QUOTE=Mr.Goodcat;51990966]Yeah that sounds like a terrible idea because every post Soviet state would lose territory that is rightfully theirs. Also the last time the Soviets were stationed in the counties promising not to interfer led them to joining the USSR and many train rides to the Gulags.[/QUOTE] If these territories are more than 60% ethnic Russian there is a compelling argument (at least for nationalists like me) that they are not "rightfully" belonging to anyone other than Russia. Also, Russia today is a democracy with an elected government, (elected by far greater margins and with more continuing popularity than many of our own western leaders I might add) no need to worry about gulags or any of that shit.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51990994]If these territories are more than 60% ethnic Russian there is a compelling argument (at least for nationalists like me) that they are not "rightfully" belonging to anyone other than Russia. [/quote] Nationalist != ethnic nationalist (what you seem to be advocating for) Why should ethnicity/genetics determine governance or membership of a state? The state doesn't intrinsically represent the ethnicity of the people living in the state, 1 Russian is different from another Russian, some parts of Russia don't even have an "ethnic Russian" majority yet they're still a part of Russia. I'm half polish, half british; where do I belong? This (as I suspect you intended) opens up a whole bag of worms regarding stopping immigration (I'm certain that secretly or subconsciously you made these statements as an argument to stop immigration) and it also creates a... problem - if we follow your idea of ethnostates then the ownership of an area would change as the demographic changed, so it would likely lead to governments discriminating against minorities to stop from them breeding to keep control over an area. All in all ethnostates are a terrible idea. All in all it would lead to far more racism and discrimination. White nationalists advocate for this exactly btw. Nations divided on an ethnic/racial basis. [editline]21st March 2017[/editline] On topic: Ukraine should get the militias back under control, remove road blocks, ask for UN help establishing a demilitarized zone to stop fighting. Then enter talks with the separate regions to determine a future peace deal/federalisation procedure or an internationally monitored, UN sanctioned secession referendum. We need the UN in there since its clear that the rebels/Russia and Ukraine/militias won't stop fighting and taking pot shots. If there were UN forced (mix of EU countries + Russia) then both sides would be unwilling to fire upon the peacekeepers for fear of attacking their own allies. One things for certain Ukraine needs to sort out its militia issues - they're are run by absolute shitbags with no interest in Ukraine or its people, just private armies serving the agendas of rich oligarch who fund them. Some of them are literal fucking nazis. Ukraine needs to regain central control.

Who cares about the IMF tranche? It won't go towards paying for anything productive and I will end up having to pay it back for decades anyway. I'd rather they cancel the whole thing , I don't want it, and fuck the IMF

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51990994]If these territories are more than 60% ethnic Russian there is a compelling argument (at least for nationalists like me) that they are not "rightfully" belonging to anyone other than Russia. Also, Russia today is a democracy with an elected government, (elected by far greater margins and with more continuing popularity than many of our own western leaders I might add) no need to worry about gulags or any of that shit.[/QUOTE] A history of imperialism and forced population redistribution does not automatically entitle Russia to land not belonging to it. Might may have made right with regards to Crimea where Russia didn't need a legal basis for what it did, no one was in a position to stop it, but with regards to Baltic NATO members Russia hasn't got a leg to stand on.

[QUOTE=Laserbeams;51991032]Who cares about the IMF tranche? It won't go towards paying for anything productive and I will end up having to pay it back for decades anyway. I'd rather they cancel the whole thing , I don't want it, and fuck the IMF[/QUOTE] IMF forcing Ukraine to privatise a bunch of its services ending up with the oligarchs owning more and becoming more powerful. IMF has done nothing but increase the corruption there and the debt will be a burden in Ukraine for decades. Germany have her debt forgiven and it helped the country immensely, instead of the IMF making debt peons of entire countries we should be aiming for mutual development and growth with new markets and opportunities. The whole thing seems like more of a scam/political control scheme/mass privatisation/short term "fuck over countries 4 monies" scheme rather than a fund to aid development.

Ukraine is such a shithole. God bless anybody born there, any sane person would not father/mother a child in that shithole.

[QUOTE=chernisreal?;51991052]Ukraine is such a shithole. God bless anybody born there, any sane person would not father/mother a child in that shithole.[/QUOTE] What the fuck? Correct me if I am wrong but until the Crimea situation unfolded wasn't Ukraine a decent place to be? Isn't most of it still a decent place to be?

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51991069]What the fuck? Correct me if I am wrong but until the Crimea situation unfolded wasn't Ukraine a decent place to be? Isn't most of it still a decent place to be?[/QUOTE] No it's not. The corruption was the same before/after the turmoil. Population decline shows how much of a shithole people think it is: [IMG]https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/bialik-feature-ukraine-1.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1[/IMG]

[QUOTE=chernisreal?;51991076]No it's not. The corruption was the same before/after the turmoil. Population decline shows how much of a shithole people think it is: [IMG]https://espnfivethirtyeight.files.wordpress.com/2014/05/bialik-feature-ukraine-1.png?quality=90&strip=all&w=575&ssl=1[/IMG][/QUOTE] OK, I can accept that but it's still not correct to be saying people shouldn't be having children over there because of hardship. That's a fairly fucked up thing to say in my opinion.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51991087]OK, I can accept that but it's still not correct to be saying people shouldn't be having children over there because of hardship. That's a fairly fucked up thing to say in my opinion.[/QUOTE] I think it's fair. I would not want to be born in Ukraine. I'd rather have my mother be an illegal immigrant than be born in Ukraine.

[QUOTE=chernisreal?;51991052]Ukraine is such a shithole. God bless anybody born there, any sane person would not father/mother a child in that shithole.[/QUOTE] You're not completely wrong, but that doesn't make it any less of a fucked up thing to say

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51990994]If these territories are more than 60% ethnic Russian there is a compelling argument (at least for nationalists like me) that they are not "rightfully" belonging to anyone other than Russia. [B]Also, Russia today is a democracy with an elected government, (elected by far greater margins and with more continuing popularity than many of our own western leaders I might add) no need to worry about gulags or any of that shit.*[/B][/QUOTE] Blissfully stupid arguments like this are the [I]reason[/I] that the Soviet Union (headed by Russia) carried out [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russification"]Russification.[/URL] They knew that people, not to be unfair, like you, would simply go, "well the land's full of Russians, why not simply let the Russians have it?" Because if we [I]ever[/I] gave land to people solely because it was full of them, then [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsylvania_Dutch"]Pennsylvania should have belonged to the Kaiser.[/URL] It's only because of Russia's looming, meddling and terrifying presence that anyone even contemplates, "just let 'em have it." [QUOTE=BlackMageMari] Correct me if I am wrong but until the Crimea situation unfolded wasn't Ukraine a decent place to be? Isn't most of it still a decent place to be? [/quote] Much like many Eastern European nations, it really depends where you lived. Central and Northern Ukraine suffered because Soviet era agricultural and economic policies destroyed the farmland, then unregulated free-enterprise in the 90's and early 00's did away with what was left. Western Ukraine, in particular places like Lviv, remained prosperous because it's a western gateway for commerce, and they modernized rapidly, allowing a tech sector to grow. Likewise, Eastern Ukraine was heavily industrialized under the Soviet Union for a whole host of reasons, and did well. However, corruption was endemic, and the '08 Financial Crisis caused many people to (rightfully) try to figure out where [I]their[/I] money was going. All in all, Ukraine had a pretty deep hole to come out of before it began a proxy-war with a Regional Superpower, former Global Superpower. Indeed, Ukraine was not quite, "nice," but it wasn't (and still isn't, again depending on where you live), "a shithole," at least, not comparable to a lot of the failed or formerly failed states of Eastern Europe. Much of the perception of Ukraine's failings have to do with the fact that Ukraine has 1) Lost it's key industrial sector 2) Is now a country split between wealthy haves in the west, and have-nots in the former middle. Arguments about the contemporary Ukraine's corruption, or the (laughable) belief that there's an impending second revolution are, in my judgement, mostly fostered by the continued campaign of destabilization, interference and subversion that Russia carries out with only the thinnest pre-text of plausible deniability. Never mind the fact that the Eastern Rebels, suspiciously, typically take the form of Pro-Russian/Minimal Autonomy rebels, and the high-profile Rebel leaders that were Minimal-Russia/Pro Autonomy have all, mysteriously [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arsen_Pavlov"]blown up,[/URL] even while in highly secure places. *On second read, I decided to footnote this bolded part. You have got to either be a comical Russian shill, or blisteringly [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_freedom_in_Russia"]naive.[/URL]

I see, thanks for that Ivan. I must admit I thought that things had improved a bit more after the revolution there in '04.

[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51991069]What the fuck? Correct me if I am wrong but until the Crimea situation unfolded wasn't Ukraine a decent place to be? Isn't most of it still a decent place to be?[/QUOTE] nah ukraine is a proper shithole. Granted it's not one of the worst countries in the world or the worst in Europe. Out of all the ex-USSR states it's probably one of, if not the, most worst off countries.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51990959]I think there's a very simple solution to this whole Ukraine mess, and the situation for Eastern Europe in general: transfer all areas over 60% ethnic Russian to inside Russia's borders and sign treaties with a number of post soviet states allowing Russia to station forces there, similar to how America does in Britain, in exchange for guarantees to not interfere in their domestic politics.[/QUOTE] russia is already too fucking big I don't get why any idiot supports the idea of biggering Russia considering its already far too vast to be actually run as a proper country

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51990994]If these territories are more than 60% ethnic Russian there is a compelling argument (at least for nationalists like me) that they are not "rightfully" belonging to anyone other than Russia. Also, Russia today is a democracy with an elected government, (elected by far greater margins and with more continuing popularity than many of our own western leaders I might add) no need to worry about gulags or any of that shit.[/QUOTE] yes because russia is a bastion of transparency, open debate, free press, free speech and has a thriving multiparty system... oh wait its an authoritarian sinkhole pretending that putin is democratically elected each time, going so far as to rewrite the term rules explicitly so he can keep running for president

[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51991017]Nationalist != ethnic nationalist (what you seem to be advocating for) Why should ethnicity/genetics determine governance or membership of a state?[/QUOTE] In a region where being a minority has historically involved being a victim of a number of bad things including outright genocide, membership in a state can serve as either prison or sanctuary. You can say that ethnicity/genetics [B]shouldn't[/B] matter in regards state politics, but the point is that, in that part of the world at least, it [B]does[/B]. [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;51991017]This (as I suspect you intended) opens up a whole bag of worms regarding stopping immigration (I'm certain that secretly or subconsciously you made these statements as an argument to stop immigration) and it also creates a... problem - if we follow your idea of ethnostates then the ownership of an area would change as the demographic changed, so it would likely lead to governments discriminating against minorities to stop from them breeding to keep control over an area. All in all ethnostates are a terrible idea. All in all it would lead to far more racism and discrimination. White nationalists advocate for this exactly btw. Nations divided on an ethnic/racial basis.[/QUOTE] This comes back to the whole thing about white people being afraid of being a minority, which is what that whole JonTron thing centered around. I'll try to explain what many on the left/center/moderate right don't seem to "get" about this: No white person in white-majority countries goes to bed worrying about whether tomorrow is the day the majority decides to turn on people like him. They don't have to worry about living in a multi-ethnic society where the largest group is only a plurality (Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary) which could collapse as soon as just one of those groups decide they don't want to be a part of it anymore. There is inherent insecurity in being a minority (or even a plurality) whoever you are. This is taken up to eleven in eastern Europe, where very old and bitter feuds still exist to this day.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51992051]In a region where being a minority has historically involved being a victim of a number of bad things including outright genocide, membership in a state can serve as either prison or sanctuary. You can say that ethnicity/genetics [B]shouldn't[/B] matter in regards state politics, but the point is that, in that part of the world at least, it [B]does[/B].[/QUOTE] The line between ethnic Ukrainians and Russians in Ukraine is extremely blurry and it usually comes down to self-identification. It is a complete non-issue false dichotomy that was forced upon us by our politicians seeking to divide the population into "pro-russians" and "ukrainian nationalists", and this false dichotomy blew up straight into everyone's face when Russia decided to use it for its own goals.

[QUOTE=Araknid;51991165]nah ukraine is a proper shithole.[/QUOTE] If there's a post not to take serious it's this one.

[QUOTE=Whoaly;51992051]In a region where being a minority has historically involved being a victim of a number of bad things including outright genocide, membership in a state can serve as either prison or sanctuary. You can say that ethnicity/genetics [B]shouldn't[/B] matter in regards state politics, but the point is that, in that part of the world at least, it [B]does[/B]. This comes back to the whole thing about white people being afraid of being a minority, which is what that whole JonTron thing centered around. I'll try to explain what many on the left/center/moderate right don't seem to "get" about this: No white person in white-majority countries goes to bed worrying about whether tomorrow is the day the majority decides to turn on people like him. They don't have to worry about living in a multi-ethnic society where the largest group is only a plurality (Yugoslavia, Austria-Hungary) which could collapse as soon as just one of those groups decide they don't want to be a part of it anymore. There is inherent insecurity in being a minority (or even a plurality) whoever you are. This is taken up to eleven in eastern Europe, where very old and bitter feuds still exist to this day.[/QUOTE] So because you fear hypothetical discrimination you advocate for a system which would have actual systematic discrimination against minorities? [sp]^not a straw man^ since an ethnostate would necessarily have state endorsed discrimination against minorities for fear that minorities become a majority and the state would lose power over resources/land. It would also create lots of tension between ethnic groups leading to discrimination and conflict.[/sp] Consider looking into "veil of ignorance" as a means of examining at your proposal. You are advocating for a system as someone who would directly benefit from that system at others expense, based on genetics. Imagine you didn't know your position in the system you are proposing. Would you still advocate for it?

[QUOTE=Zang-Pog;51995670]It just seems [I]stupid[/I] to support any kind of growth, because Russia is not that great of a country right now. Shouldn't they focus on fixing all the human rights issues and other "minor" difficulties before even thinking about expanding even further[/QUOTE] the only reason why "expance" grown into reunion with Crimea is to maintain Black Sea Fleet's presence instead of NATO. It's the same reason why Russia will never accept DNR\LNR as part of Russia even if they'd wish for it cincerely. Expansion was not a goal, but rather a reaction, a consequence. With Buffer Zone reestablished (Ukraine not joing EU/NATO any time soon) and influence in Syria, there is no need for a new drastical measures.