More Bad News for Russia

[JayH]

I would post more material giving current info but there is no easy way to post a summary .
Anything longer sees the morons here running off to tell tales -- like little children.
Fact is --Russia has already reduced pensions in a time of inflation and rising costs.

Written last year.
Russia 'could run out of cash reserves over the next year'
Pension pots may have to be raided to cover budget shortfalls

The Russian government is ploughing through its foreign exchange reserves at such a fast rate that it could use up its rainy day fund by 2017, government officials have claimed.

Despite being a major oil producing nation, pension pots may have to be raided to cover budget shortfalls, on which much of the reserve funds have already been spent.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/russia-money-reserve-fund-2017-assets-oil-prices-recession-sanctions-a7313236.html

[msmob]

Fact is --Russia has already reduced pensions in a time of inflation and rising costs.

They did ? ...

Please show evidence of this 'reduction' ...

The govt actually  'bribed' pensions with a 5000 R one off payment bonus in Jan 2017

For sure, the Kremlin have a big problem .. an aging population, nearly 40 percent of voters of pensionable age
- due to pension eligibility being amongst the lowest age commencement - 55 and 60 years old, female / male, respectively AND taking on Crimea and Donbas pension payouts

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/europpblog/2016/09/08/russia-pension-dilemma/

JayH, why spoil your stance with the introduction of inaccuracies ? 

[jone]

In a clearly bi-partisan effort, Congress today passed significant sanctions against Russia.  In a curious move, the Democrats were given the victory by the Republicans and invited to present it to the American people.  Significant to the bill was the inability for Trump to waive portions of the Sanctions unless submitted to Congress.  Congress then has 30 days to agree or disagree. 

Clearly Congress wants the last word on Russian Sanctions.  Moreover, the vote count was significant enough that they can override a Presidential veto.

While this is not a defeat for the President, it is significant effort by Congress to impose its will in lieu of tampering by the President. 

*** I spoke a little out of hand.  The agreement on the legislation was reached.  However, the final bill has not wound its way through both houses yet.

[JayH]

In a clearly bi-partisan effort, Congress today passed significant sanctions against Russia.  In a curious move, the Democrats were given the victory by the Republicans and invited to present it to the American people.  Significant to the bill was the inability for Trump to waive portions of the Sanctions unless submitted to Congress.  Congress then has 30 days to agree or disagree. 

Clearly Congress wants the last word on Russian Sanctions.  Moreover, the vote count was significant enough that they can override a Presidential veto.

While this is not a defeat for the President, it is significant effort by Congress to impose its will in lieu of tampering by the President. 

*** I spoke a little out of hand.  The agreement on the legislation was reached.  However, the final bill has not wound its way through both houses yet.

This has been ongoing for some time --the idea that Trump could remove ( & was try to) Russian sanctions unilaterally was the spark to   get moving.It does also contain sanction issues on other countries.
The Trump Whitehouse is opposing having the power of the President to remove sanctions removed.
Just another of so many questions about the Trump Russian connection that makes a full investigation necessary.

Bipartisan group agrees on Russia sanctions for meddling in election


The review requirement in the sanctions bill is styled after 2015 legislation pushed by Republicans and approved in the Senate that gave Congress a vote on whether then president Barack Obama could lift sanctions against Iran. That measure reflected Republican complaints that Obama had overstepped the power of the presidency and needed to be checked by Congress.

According to the bill, Trump is required to send Congress a report explaining why he wants to suspend or terminate a particular set of sanctions. Lawmakers would then have 30 days to decide whether to allow the move or reject it.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/22/bipartisan-group-agrees-on-russia-sanctions-for-meddling-in-election

[ML]

A note of caution here.

Court appeals filed to contest whether President has authority to limit Immigration, etc.

Similarly, President could appeal to Courts to contest whether Congress has authority to limit his ability to impose/lift sanctions, etc.

[jone]

This has been ongoing for some time --the idea that Trump could remove ( & was try to) Russian sanctions unilaterally was the spark to   get moving.It does also contain sanction issues on other countries.
The Trump Whitehouse is opposing having the power of the President to remove sanctions removed.
Just another of so many questions about the Trump Russian connection that makes a full investigation necessary.

Bipartisan group agrees on Russia sanctions for meddling in election


The review requirement in the sanctions bill is styled after 2015 legislation pushed by Republicans and approved in the Senate that gave Congress a vote on whether then president Barack Obama could lift sanctions against Iran. That measure reflected Republican complaints that Obama had overstepped the power of the presidency and needed to be checked by Congress.

According to the bill, Trump is required to send Congress a report explaining why he wants to suspend or terminate a particular set of sanctions. Lawmakers would then have 30 days to decide whether to allow the move or reject it.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jul/22/bipartisan-group-agrees-on-russia-sanctions-for-meddling-in-election

FAKE NEWS ALERT!  Please show where the President has tried to have Russian Sanctions removed.  Please also show where the President has said he opposes this legislation.   This is very typical of liberals - they take real news and then throw in something to make the President look bad. 

[jone]

A note of caution here.

Court appeals filed to contest whether President has authority to limit Immigration, etc.

Similarly, President could appeal to Courts to contest whether Congress has authority to limit his ability to impose/lift sanctions, etc.

ML, it would work the same way that sanctions for Cuba require Congressional action to remove.

[JayH]

FAKE NEWS ALERT!  Please show where the President has tried to have Russian Sanctions removed.  Please also show where the President has said he opposes this legislation.   This is very typical of liberals - they take real news and then throw in something to make the President look bad.

You want to dispute that?  Put that on the list ( the lists is getting longer everyday) of  how you make incorrect and wrong statements.

"Fake" news allegation --is the hiding place for those that want to deny the inconvenient reality . What has been labeled "fake" by Trump-- and his apologists --has repeatedly been confirmed at a later stage.

Trump had removing Russian sanctions very high on his "do" list on assuming the Presidency  -- and has made several attempts already.
You think I am wrong?  Wait & see who proves to be correct --it will come out  and be clear at some stage.

[jone]

They never said it, Jay. You did. Put up or shut up.  it really is annoying for an Australian to come on the forum and say stuff about the the President that DIDN'T happen.  So, if you can actually point to news articles to back up your claim, put them here on the forum. 

For the record:

1.  Trump has endorsed the current sanctions against Russia.  Perhaps you missed his speech in Poland.

2.  The President has not come out against the legislation.   

[JayH]

They never said it, Jay. You did. Put up or shut up.  it really is annoying for an Australian to come on the forum and say stuff about the the President that DIDN'T happen.  So, if you can actually point to news articles to back up your claim, put them here on the forum. 

For the record:

1.  Trump has endorsed the current sanctions against Russia.  Perhaps you missed his speech in Poland.

2.  The President has not come out against the legislation.

Why don't you say "it never happened" if that is what you believe?
It is really annoying to see a mindless American being so ignorant of what is happening on his doorstep .

I have made it clear in the past --I am not going to run around finding information that is available to all -- and have already posted about.
Given the ongoing investigation -- a very substantial part of what I have said -- will be confirmed in due course. For the time being -- I am over hearing all the "fake" allegation when you,others,Trump,Fox  choose to be so obtuse .
Now go climb out on a limb-- tell me again -"it has never happened"?

[jone]

Why don't you say "it never happened" if that is what you believe?
It is really annoying to see a mindless American being so ignorant of what is happening on his doorstep .

I have made it clear in the past --I am not going to run around finding information that is available to all -- and have already posted about.
Given the ongoing investigation -- a very substantial part of what I have said -- will be confirmed in due course. For the time being -- I am over hearing all the "fake" allegation when you,others,Trump,Fox  choose to be so obtuse .
Now go climb out on a limb-- tell me again -"it has never happened"?

So, getting to the bottom of the legislation (that Jay says the President opposes - and is unwilling to source his information) here is the article from the NY Times today explaining that, in spite of limiting the President's ability to conduct foreign policy, the President supports the legislation going forward.

Now I guess the NYT seems to be claiming that Jay's allegation is fake as well.  But, hey, that's just me.  I put up an honest account of where I saw the legislation a day ago, Jay claims that Trump was against the legislation because he doesn't support the sanctions, and I claimed that Jay was not honest with the forum.

Now maybe people can see why we Americans get upset with foreign nationals who claim they know our political process better than we do.  Frankly, I don't know of any Americans who do that with other countries.  Especially when they have the facts wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/23/us/politics/trump-russia-sanctions.html

“The administration is supportive of being tough on Russia, particularly in putting these sanctions in place,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders, the new White House press secretary, said on “This Week” on ABC. “The original piece of legislation was poorly written, but we were able to work with the House and Senate, and the administration is happy with the ability to do that and make those changes that were necessary, and we support where the legislation is now.”

It can be safely argued that the NY Times will still cast the President's support on this bill in the worst possible terms.  But, simply put, the President will sign the agreed upon legislation - no matter what Jay says.

Inasmuch as you, Jay, are too busy to provide the links, I have provided it for you....

That's twice today that someone has taken you to the woodshed.  You need to change your posting style.

[msmob]

Frankly, I don't know of any Americans who do that with other countries.  Especially when they have the facts wrong.

Oh, I don't know, Jone -  I have seen plenty of 'bollox' written about Brexit and UK immigration policies ...by non UK nationals and UK nationals - this is not aimed at you.

Whilst, I think Trump is a total twat and wonder how Americans (and British) manage to end with inept leaders  - I rarely post on here - as I await the findings pf investigations - THEN we'll know what is 'fake news'

In the meantime:

I have made it clear in the past --I am not going to run around finding information that is available to all -- and have already posted about.

Actually, JayH - you do run around - often posting inaccurate info - that means so good stuff you post gets 'lost' -" the boy crying Wolf"...

When your inaccurate  'news' articles are busted, you rarely admit it - or learn to be more careful....

[JayH]

So, getting to the bottom of the legislation (that Jay says the President opposes - and is unwilling to source his information) here is the article from the NY Times today explaining that, in spite of limiting the President's ability to conduct foreign policy, the President supports the legislation going forward.

Now I guess the NYT seems to be claiming that Jay's allegation is fake as well.  But, hey, that's just me.  I put up an honest account of where I saw the legislation a day ago, Jay claims that Trump was against the legislation because he doesn't support the sanctions, and I claimed that Jay was not honest with the forum.



It can be safely argued that the NY Times will still cast the President's support on this bill in the worst possible terms.  But, simply put, the President will sign the agreed upon legislation - no matter what Jay says.

The biggest laugh is you-- talking about being honest to this forum.
Your patent lying is a matter of record.

Your comments in various posts above are clearly proven WRONG by news this week. Just another exampleof how you are clueless in understanding current situation.I your haste to attack me you have climbed out on a rotten limb !

2 issues --firstly  -I asked are you disputing what I said --ie Trump has attempted to remove Russian sanctions?(Note-- you assail me ,but are not prepared to say it did not happen--but happy to accuse me of "making it up"

Secondly -- the current legislation to prevent Trump removing sanctions -- are you seriously saying Trump is not and has not attempted to stop it?
I note your selective acceptance of NYT being god on THIS issue--but on nothing else !!
 


Congress sends Russia sanctions bill to Trump, but it’s unclear whether he will sign it
The administration has said that the president may veto a bill increasing sanctions against Russia, Iran and North Korea, despite there being veto-proof majorities in both the Senate and House. The Senate voted to pass the bill Thursday, two days after the House passed it 419-3.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/

[JayH]

In the meantime:

Actually, JayH - you do run around - often posting inaccurate info - that means so good stuff you post gets 'lost' -" the boy crying Wolf"...

When your inaccurate  'news' articles are busted, you rarely admit it - or learn to be more careful....

Needless to say Moby is too stupid to see facts unfolding and jumps in to troll me again.

For those that dont see it--Moby thinks he is the only one that should know anything about the FSU--the fact is that his is now a narrow exposure. He constantly shows his lack of knowledge or understanding;
Combined with his desire to make every thread about him -- it is boring,tedious.

[msmob]

The biggest laugh is you-- talking about being honest to this forum.
Your patent lying is a matter of record.

This is your MAJOR weakness - when you are busted for conclusions based on duff info - you tell us you only source the info - don't check it ..

So... here is the latest Sberbank 'Ivanov index'  ... Consumer confidence of the bank's clients .

The bad news - for those in power - who told Russians they would stamp on it ..  is that CORRUPTION is the main bug-bear ..


http://sberbank-cib.ru/eng/about/news/index.wbp?number=2590
 

[JayH]

Just for the record -- and to illustrate how far some of the crap above aimed at me is -- Trump by numerous reports -- only signed this bill with a loaded gun pointed at his head . The bi partisan support was designed to outflank him with overwhelming common sense  -- and leave Trump no option but to sign.
Anyone that thinks otherwise is away with the Trump fake fairies.
Note --the story confirms what I said above-- despite those that accused me of making it up.

Russia sanctions: Trump signs bill imposing new measures

Donald Trump has grudgingly approved a package of new sanctions on Russia that limits his own authority to reverse or relax them, signing the bill behind closed doors and voicing strong objections to the measures.

Trump took the unusual step of issuing two statements to accompany his signature, in which he said he had given his approval “for the sake of national unity” while calling the congressional bill “seriously flawed” and “clearly unconstitutional”.

In a sign that the president might seek to mitigate the impact of the bill in its implementation, he said would give “respectful consideration to the preferences” expressed by Congress in its provisions but would “implement them in a manner consistent with the President’s constitutional authority to conduct foreign relations”.


Russia cuts US diplomatic presence in retaliation for sanctions

Trump had little choice but to sign the bill, which also includes expanded sanctions on Iran and North Korea. It was passed in the Senate by 98 votes to two and in the House of Representatives by 419 to three, so a presidential veto would have been easily overturned by a Congress that is wary of Trump’s ties to Moscow.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/aug/02/donald-trump-sanctions-russia-signs-bill

[BillyB]

Trump thinks he could do what Obama couldn't in resetting relations with Russia. Naïve just as Obama was. Only one percent of America's politicians thought the bill wasn't worth approving. Those few may have disagreed with sanctions on all, some, or one of the three nations getting sanctioned.

[JayH]

May it be the first of many more .
The more disruption and isolation that Russia receives will only accelerate the demise of the Putin kleptocracy.


Russian banks cut off from SWIFT for working in Crimea

The main Russian bank working in Russian-occupied Crimea and one other have been informed that the company providing their connection to the SWIFT network will terminate its services from 31 August.  According to Vedomosti’s two unnamed sources, Finastra has taken the decision because both the Russian National Commercial Bank [RNCB] and Tempbank, in which Russia’s Central Bank has introduced temporary administration, are under international sanctions.  In the case of RNCB, this is specifically over its work in Crimea.

http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1503759946

[AkMike]

According to one fresh report about the Kerch Bridge fiasco..

      One support sunk a meter and anotuher one sunk 1/2 meter

Work has stopped and the workers were told to keep their lips sealed. Like that happened eh? 


You'll need to use your translator.

http://www.infoaccent.net/chast-kerchenskogo-mosta-ukhodit-pod-vodu-raboty-ostanovleny/?_utl_t=fb

[msmob]

May it be the first of many more .
The more disruption and isolation that Russia receives will only accelerate the demise of the Putin kleptocracy.


Russian banks cut off from SWIFT for working in Crimea

The main Russian bank working in Russian-occupied Crimea and one other have been informed that the company providing their connection to the SWIFT network will terminate its services from 31 August.  According to Vedomosti’s two unnamed sources, Finastra has taken the decision because both the Russian National Commercial Bank [RNCB] and Tempbank, in which Russia’s Central Bank has introduced temporary administration, are under international sanctions.  In the case of RNCB, this is specifically over its work in Crimea.

http://khpg.org/en/index.php?id=1503759946

Perhaps you'd have been better to read the original article, JayH ? ..The source ?

http://www.vedomosti.ru/finance/articles/2017/08/24/730906-krupneishii-rossiiskii-bank

IF you had, you'd have understood that a western software firm decided not to co-operate with it's Russian partner- having done a risk assessment - re it possibly being in breach of sanctions.. and that the bank would be able to use other firms software... but it would cost tens of thousands of dollars..   IF you cared to check  RNSC was already affected by the sanctions and could not use SWIFT... 

So.. not more 'bad news'.. Just more ill-researched cutting and pasting..

[msmob]

According to one fresh report about the Kerch Bridge fiasco..

     One support sunk a meter and anotuher one sunk 1/2 meter
Work has stopped and the workers were told to keep their lips sealed. Like that happened eh? 


You'll need to use your translator.

http://www.infoaccent.net/chast-kerchenskogo-mosta-ukhodit-pod-vodu-raboty-ostanovleny/?_utl_t=fb

Mikey,

I don't know if your story is factual -  these photos suggest shipping is passing under the railway span - just fine...There is no maritime info that there is a danger to shipping or that the passage to the Asov Sea is closed..

http://www.most.life/novosti/novosti/bolshoj-desantnyj-korabl-azov-vpervye-proshel-pod-arkoj-krymskogo-mosta/

[AkMike]

It didn't say it was the main span now did it?   Nor was naything mentioned about shipping being hindered..   

[msmob]

It didn't say it was the main span now did it?   Nor was naything mentioned about shipping being hindered..   

Work hasn't stopped, either ..     on either bridge...   As I keep saying this is Putin's vanity project ..it cannot fail ))

[AkMike]

Any proof of all phases going on and not just most?

[BdHvA]

There are two bridges being built side by side one for vehicles and the other for rail service. The article indicates the vehicle bridge sank before it could be lifted onto the support pylons, but the image shown is of the rail bridge.

The image that msmob posted is indeed the rail bridge, looking proud. On the web site there is only a visualization of the road way. What if anything has happened is unknown.