I picked this up from Forbes through this Forum's friend, Galyna, who is an occasional visitor here. It gives a great perspective on understanding the underpinnings of the current Ukrainian upheaval.
Confused About What's
Happening In Ukraine? Here Are
5 Things You Should Know
by Mark Adomanis, Contributor
The drama that is currently unfolding on the streets of Kiev has understandably drawn an enormous amount of media attention. At a time when the EU is in such a funk, and when its diffidence in dealing with the aftereffects of the financial crisis has caused it to lose the faith of so many Europeans, it’s more than a little heartening to see hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians out in force demanding a chance to integrate with it.
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration, though, to say that until the recent protests Ukraine was simply not on many peoples’ radars. So for the sake of everyone’s understanding here are five important things that you should know about Ukraine that help to put its current travails into perspective.
1) Ukraine has stark regional political differences
The image below is an electoral map of the 2010 presidential elections that pitted the now current president Viktor Yanukovych against the now jailed Yulia Tymoshenko. Red is Tymoshenko and blue is Yanukovych, and the darker the color the stronger their level of support.Kiev, the scene of the most
significant of the ongoing protests is the small white blob in slightly northwest of the center and was firmly in Tymoshenko’s camp.
The fact that Kiev didn’t vote for Yanukovych doesn’t make the protests there unimportant, but it is worth keeping in mind that Kiev was never a fan of his to begin with. Yanukovych’s power base has always been located in the country’s south and east. So far, there haven’t been any noteworthy protests in the Russian-speaking industrial regions that pushed him into office, suggesting that his core of supporters has not (yet!) deserted him.
2) Ukraine’s economy got clobbered by the financial crisis, and still hasn’t recovered
After a strong burst of growth during the 2000′s Ukraine’s economy shrank by almost 15% in 2009, making it one of the world’s worst performers. Since then it posted a few years of decent growth but has recently slumped back into stagnation. The current unrest obviously has political causes as well, but
Ukraine’s sclerotic economy also helps to explain why people are so fed up.
3) Ukraine’s currency (the Hryvnia) has a totally crazy and increasingly indefensible peg to the US Dollar
What do exchange rates have to do with street protests? Well part of the reason that Ukraine’s economy has been so weak is that its currency is hugely overvalued. Ukraine has an informal peg of roughly 8 to the dollar, a level that has been essentially unchanged since 2009. The US dollar has actually fared
quite well over the past few years, and so Ukraine’s currently has been appreciating in comparison to those of its neighbors (depressing exports and encouraging imports).
Yanukovych has been desperate to avoid devaluation because of the enormous short-term harm to living standards and the enormous political damage to him and his party. This is why Ukraine has been so focused on finding a better “deal” from Europe or Russia, and why it has been so insistent on short-term infusions of resources: Yanukovych will do whatever he can to postpone devaluation until after the 2015 presidential election but he needs a big wad of cash in order to do so.
4) Ukraine is running out of money
During the boom years of the 2000′s Ukraine built up a reasonably large cushion of foreign currency reserves. However it has been relentlessly burning through these reserves since early 2011, and they are approaching a critically low level. At some point in the near future Ukraine will need to stop living beyond its means, but this will obviously have a negative impact on the broader economy and on popular living standards. Yanukovyh, therefore, has been determined to postpone the day of reckoning for as long as possible in the hope that he will be able to arrange a cash infusion from the Russians or the Europeans.
5) Ukraine’s population is in free fall
You often hear Ukraine described as an “eastern European nation of 45 million people,” but it wasn’t all that long ago that it was a nation of more than 50 million. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine’s population has been in a relentless and unending decline.
What relevance does this have to the street protests in Kiev? Well even someone as demographically-focused as myself can’t draw a direct causal link between demographic decline and political instability, but the fact that Ukraine is quickly emptying out is worth keeping in mind when one thinks about the country’s future course.
Ukraine is not a “prize,” it’s a rapidly aging society that is one of the most demographically unstable in the planet.Regardless of whether Ukraine integrates with Europe or with Russia it is going to face massive challenges from a shrinking and aging workforce.
Ops Note: I tried to put these attachments to line up with the points. Perhaps a moderator could do that for me as I don't know how.
Here you go Jone
Confused About What's
Happening In Ukraine? Here Are
5 Things You Should Know
by Mark Adomanis, Contributor
The drama that is currently unfolding on the streets of Kiev has understandably drawn an enormous amount of media attention. At a time when the EU is in such a funk, and when its diffidence in dealing with the aftereffects of the financial crisis has caused it to lose the faith of so many Europeans, it’s more than a little heartening to see hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians out in force demanding a chance to integrate with it.
I don’t think it’s an exaggeration, though, to say that until the recent protests Ukraine was simply not on many peoples’ radars. So for the sake of everyone’s understanding here are five important things that you should know about Ukraine that help to put its current travails into perspective.
1) Ukraine has stark regional political differences
The image below is an electoral map of the 2010 presidential elections that pitted the now current president Viktor Yanukovych against the now jailed Yulia Tymoshenko. Red is Tymoshenko and blue is Yanukovych, and the darker the color the stronger their level of support.Kiev, the scene of the mostsignificant of the ongoing protests is the small white blob in slightly northwest of the center and was firmly in Tymoshenko’s camp.
(http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac150/clmontes/Figure1_zps5e3cf55a.png)
The fact that Kiev didn’t vote for Yanukovych doesn’t make the protests there unimportant, but it is worth keeping in mind that Kiev was never a fan of his to begin with. Yanukovych’s power base has always been located in the country’s south and east. So far, there haven’t been any noteworthy protests in the Russian-speaking industrial regions that pushed him into office, suggesting that his core of supporters has not (yet!) deserted him.
2) Ukraine’s economy got clobbered by the financial crisis, and still hasn’t recovered
After a strong burst of growth during the 2000′s Ukraine’s economy shrank by almost 15% in 2009, making it one of the world’s worst performers. Since then it posted a few years of decent growth but has recently slumped back into stagnation. The current unrest obviously has political causes as well, but Ukraine’s sclerotic economy also helps to explain why people are so fed up.
(http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac150/clmontes/Figure2_zps5bf6a588.png)
3) Ukraine’s currency (the Hryvnia) has a totally crazy and increasingly indefensible peg to the US Dollar
What do exchange rates have to do with street protests? Well part of the reason that Ukraine’s economy has been so weak is that its currency is hugely overvalued. Ukraine has an informal peg of roughly 8 to the dollar, a level that has been essentially unchanged since 2009. The US dollar has actually fared quite well over the past few years, and so Ukraine’s currently has been appreciating in comparison to those of its neighbors (depressing exports and encouraging imports).
(http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac150/clmontes/Figure3_zps0cf742f5.png)
Yanukovych has been desperate to avoid devaluation because of the enormous short-term harm to living standards and the enormous political damage to him and his party. This is why Ukraine has been so focused on finding a better “deal” from Europe or Russia, and why it has been so insistent on short-term infusions of resources: Yanukovych will do whatever he can to postpone devaluation until after the 2015 presidential election but he needs a big wad of cash in order to do so.
4) Ukraine is running out of money
During the boom years of the 2000′s Ukraine built up a reasonably large cushion of foreign currency reserves. However it has been relentlessly burning through these reserves since early 2011, and they are approaching a critically low level. At some point in the near future Ukraine will need to stop living beyond its means, but this will obviously have a negative impact on the broader economy and on popular living standards. Yanukovyh, therefore, has been determined to postpone the day of reckoning for as long as possible in the hope that he will be able to arrange a cash infusion from the Russians or the Europeans.
(http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac150/clmontes/Figure4_zps22511789.png)
5) Ukraine’s population is in free fall
You often hear Ukraine described as an “eastern European nation of 45 million people,” but it wasn’t all that long ago that it was a nation of more than 50 million. Ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Ukraine’s population has been in a relentless and unending decline.
What relevance does this have to the street protests in Kiev? Well even someone as demographically-focused as myself can’t draw a direct causal link between demographic decline and political instability, but the fact that Ukraine is quickly emptying out is worth keeping in mind when one thinks about the country’s future course.
Ukraine is not a “prize,” it’s a rapidly aging society that is one of the most demographically unstable in the planet.Regardless of whether Ukraine integrates with Europe or with Russia it is going to face massive challenges from a shrinking and aging workforce.
(http://i894.photobucket.com/albums/ac150/clmontes/Figure5_zpsc4a18688.png)
he has not, to date, exceeded his authority
(http://inmoscowsshadows.files.wordpress.com/2013/12/berkut2.jpg)
McCain is on a plane.
He looks a lot like :D:
(http://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR9tkuJw99neD2aJvWkfnZ-dM5ek6m6cINAUlRlD83r5hB3JQ8_)
But not as funny, probably :-\.
He looks a lot like :D:
(http://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR9tkuJw99neD2aJvWkfnZ-dM5ek6m6cINAUlRlD83r5hB3JQ8_)
But not as funny, probably :-\.
we agree Sandro
He looks a lot like :D :
(http://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR9tkuJw99neD2aJvWkfnZ-dM5ek6m6cINAUlRlD83r5hB3JQ8_)
But not as funny, probably :-\ .
You would not say that if you had seen his Presidential campaign.
Now find 19-21 August of 1991, the 3 day coup against Gorbachev which ultimately led to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Bush I was president and he infuriated many in Congress by wisely choosing restraint against immediately recognizing the independence of the Baltic states.
Perhaps we should recall our Ambassadors from the Baltics and negotiate with them only through the Kremlin to honor the spirit of this interpretation of Reagan.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sowpvuK-co8
all they did was change the lyrics :rolleyes:
It is not inaccurate in the least.
Clinton, HW Bush, Obama and W Bush - 4 different presidents and 4 different approaches to Russia.
1) Obama - let's address Obama first because he is the least American, most incompetent of the 4 and most Stalinist president in history. So its easy to differentiate his approach and dismiss it. He wants a nuclear free America. He sent negotiators to Russia to affect this. He doesn't care if the Russians cheat in nuclear disarmament. he tried the re-set several times. Putin loathes him but Medvedev got along with him fine. The lack of diplomatic progress in pursing Russian national interest are solely because of Putin. Putin has placed his own personal pleasure at humiliating our President - a traitor, a coke addict and closet homosexual. Russia had more diplomatic success in pursing Russian national interest with Medvedev and you know it.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02592/Obama-Putin1_2592981b.jpg)
2) HW Bush - you praise him but you don't differentiate or frankly praise him enough for pursuing policies - that I personally disagree with but that you liked.
(http://www.achievement.org/achievers/bus0/large/bus0-022.jpg)
3) W Bush - you have to appraise W Bush before and after the Orange Revolution and through the lens on Condi Rice - a former Sovietologist who has botched everything she has put her hands on. Before the Orange Revolution, W and Putin had a great relationship. Putins' way of regarding every political enemy as a terrorist as well as Putin's support for Central Asian dictators disconcerted W Bush. After the Orange Revolution, the animosity was open but W couldn't operate because of his failures to affect political and military victories in Iraq and political and military progress in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He abandoned Musharraff in Pakistan and couldn't respond to the Georgian war which he was responsible for in part for provoking.
(http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-07/03/xinsrc_012070403025890652312.jpg)
4) Of the 4 presidents, Clinton had the most leverage and had the most impact. He dealt with Yeltsin mostly. He is responsible for the expansion of NATO, the EU and the response in the Balkans which we abdicated our foreign policy to the Saudis. The loss of life and the genocide that he did mostly nothing about is something I strongly object to as an American. Your lack of critical analysis on the Clinton years and silence on Yeltsin who was president of Russia btw, diminishes your argument.
(http://www.frederickbernas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/yeltsin-clinton.jpg)
I understand that you chaff at the chance to punch Mr. Putin in the jaw
I don't trust Vladimir Vladimirovich.
(http://jesuslordofall.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/vkyslm.jpg)
Putin has done a lot of things that I admire. I don't necessarily object to his pursuit of a string Russia policy especially in central Asia as a check against Islamic fundamentalism and Chinese commercial colonization. One can admire an adversary though continue to oppose him.
(http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/underwire/2013/04/PussyRiot.jpg)
For instance, I see Barack Obama as a greater threat to US security than I do Putin. I admire Putin more than I do former President Bill Clinton, because former President Bill Clinton is not and has never been a man of honor.
(http://static.themoscowtimes.com/upload//photos/large/2000_08/2000_08_26//26seq12.jpg)
(http://static.themoscowtimes.com/upload//photos//large/2000_09/2000_09_21//21kursk2.jpg)
I oppose Putin and Putinism because he is not a democrat, he imprisons and sometimes kills people he disagrees with. He has re-established Brezhnev-Stalinist corruption that Gorbachev and Yeltsin tried to dismantle. He says he is an opponent of Oligarchs but his combat of Oligarchy has manifested itself in him becoming the biggest Oligarch. He failed to save the Kursk sailors in compartments 08 & 09, he carried out false flag attacks on his country to whip up anti-Chechen feeling for another war, he killed Litvinenko, Politkovskaya and 26 journalists and counting. He has slandered, robbed and imprisoned Khordovkovsky. He has imprisoned Pussy Riot. Look at what he did to Medvedev, Luzhkov and what he is doing to Navalny. I am not a fan of most of these people especially Pussy Riot or Luzhkov who has destroyed most of Moscow. But what I do want is the rule of law to be applied to everyone and freedom of speech - the freedom to rationally follow one's conscience.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02002/Anna-Politkovskaya_2002682b.jpg)
If you think that Putinism is just a domestic threat, ask that same question to a Georgian, a Chechen, a Belarussian democrat or a Ukrainian.
(http://en.ria.ru/images/17815/24/178152431.jpg)
China threatens our regional interests in Asia. We can compete with them on the world stage everywhere else because when asked an African, Asian or European all things equal, would you rather do business with an American firm or a Chinese firm, they want to do business with us. China controls a lot of US policy through lobbying, corruption and undue influence. If I were a Putinist, I would call that meddling. But as a democrat, I'd call that part of the civic discourse and can easily overcome that with education, advocacy and paying off our national debt.
(http://www.veteranstoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/yushchenko.jpg)
Putin not Russia is our greatest geopolitical threat.