dagblog - Comments for "The IMF’s New Cold War Loan to Ukraine"

MARIUPOL (Ukraine) (AFP) -

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:09:08 +0000

In reply to The IMF’s New Cold War Loan to Ukraine

MARIUPOL (Ukraine) (AFP) - The European Union adopted new sanctions against Moscow on Monday despite the leaders of Russia and Ukraine vowing to uphold a truce aimed at halting a devastating five-month war.

https://news.yahoo.com/eu-unveil-russia-sanctions-ukraine-truce-teeters-...

Ukraine Can't Afford the IMF

A Guy Called LULU — Thu, 11 Sep 2014 18:40:54 +0000

In reply to The IMF’s New Cold War Loan to Ukraine

Ukraine Can't Afford the IMF's 'Shock Therapy'

Economic austerity ruined post-Soviet countries in the 1990s. Why are the same policies being forced on Ukraine today?

Ukraine's government is in the middle of implementing a set of stringent economic reforms agreed to in April with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in exchange for a $17 billion bailout. Although Kiev has been commended by the IMF for a "bold economic program," the loan's terms, combined with Ukraine's political and economic crisis, are a recipe for disaster.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2014/09/10/ukraine_cant_afford_the...

First, I live in a country

Anonymous PP — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 20:10:27 +0000

In reply to Good to hear from you and

First, I live in a country that gets lots of Ukrainian guest workers. I know pretty well what Ukrainians want, I think - it's not that different from most anyone else. Safe European Home, as The Clash hammered out.

"Bias" - such as using a term like "ethnic cleansing" in an exaggerated, misleading way. Did Kiev send Russians/Russian-speaking Ukrainians running for the borders the way that Milosevic drove Albanians from their homes? Rather not - aside from areas where separatists had taken up arms, occupied buildings, forced local citizens to play along in rebellion or risk the worst. Does Counterpunch use "ethnic cleansing" to describe the Tatars who fled Crimea after Putin annexed it?

Re: Greece, Goldman Sachs helped it cover up excessive loans so it could take on more - double, tripple dipping. Perhaps "known knowns" to some, but I'm sure there were a few banks that wouldn't have extended more credit knowing how big the real debt crush was. Here's a bet without looking - that Counterpunch trashed the IMF & Germany for not bailing out Greece fast and big enough.

Yes, the IMF is made up of western organizations primarily. But I still have more faith in Ukrainians pulling it together than I do in Greece becoming a good member of the EU.

What led to Maidan? Probably some US funds to support popular local sentiment for joining the EU and more democratic reforms.. Good for us - better than supplying weapons to Syrian rebels or using our "no flight zone" to bomb government troops and remove Gaddafi.

Good to hear from you and

A Guy Called LULU — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 17:29:22 +0000

In reply to Counterpunch's bias is

Good to hear from you and thanks for responding. That said, there is not much you said here that I can agree with unless a clarification makes me read it differently.

Counterpunch's bias is flagrant - "junta" here, "junta" there. The "civil war" is fairly contained in scope - like Sri Lanka had for 20+ years.

I'll try to be clear, partly by working at defining terms. Bias is a tricky word. I might use it casually not intending the negative connotation of the dictionary description but just to identify what I see as a common or usual leaning of thought which I might then justify or might use as an accusation. I am not sure how you intended the word but I will use the dictionary definition going forward in this comment.
"Bias, prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair". Included in that definition is the word 'prejudice' which is defined as, "Preconceived opinion that is not based on reason or actual experience." So, the author may be biased in one or many ways, I could not know, but I do not see any strong and certainly not conclusive evidence of it here in what He wrote.
The publication, Counterpunch, certainly demonstrates an inclination or a tendency or a predisposition or a proclivity or a propensity towards criticism of some U.S. government actions. So do I, in case you haven't noticed, but I do not consider that I hold a [bad-connotation defined] 'bias' that is intentionally unfair or prejudiced, although maybe wrong of coarse, and I do not consider that that I am prejudiced in opinions or that my opinions are ones which I do not come to with [an attempt at] reason or as a reaction to actual experience. Looked at that same way, I do not think Counterpunch does either.
None of what I read in the article can fairly be described as demonstrating 'flagrant bias, IMO. "Flagrant ... of something considered wrong or immoral) conspicuously or obviously offensive.'
Maybe offensive to someone who thinks that neither the U.S. nor the IMF in this case, could/would/did use its power in a wrong or counter-productive way because they had the power to use it to play bullying politics in favor of their political or ideological position. We would surely agree that Russia would do the same if they were in position to.

Counterpunch's bias is flagrant - "junta" here, "junta" there. The "civil war" is fairly contained in scope - like Sri Lanka had for 20+ years.

The Ukraine government was, by definition, overthrown and replaced by a flagrant junta/coup. That action did bring about a civil war that is ongoing. Being contained does not mitigate existence and does not help those directly involved and does not assure that it will not break out into a larger and vastly more destructive confrontation between outside forces with either real or concocted reasons/justifications to be involved.

Sure there's politics - but I also don't buy that Ukraine's a worse case than Greece which was keeping double sets of books to hide debts, focused on only 2 industries - tourism + shipping, and rampant with tax evasion up to 50% of its citizenry.

Hidden books could be used as an excuse for having made a bad loan though I doubt that that was not a 'known known'. Making a far riskier, and, relatively speaking far bigger, loan to a recipient that is obvious for anyone to see in an even worse financial state begs some questions as to reason or justification or motive. One question that is begged if the loan seems to have huge political implications and could be seen as propping up one side of a civil war is who has the power within the IMF to choose to make that loan? Who is playing power politics with the IMF as one of its tools? Of course that is only likely to become a question for those who do not like the course of the politics in play.
A quick scan of the Wikipedia chart on percentage of votes held by the various governments participating in the IMF shows that, in descending order of voting power, the U.S., Japan, Germany, France, United Kingdom, Italy, and Canada have togethr approximately 42% of the votes in the IMF. Russia has 2.39% and China has 3.81%. Ukraine is not listed, too small a voting block which cuts off at 30 countries and at o.7% voting power in chart. It is one of the 138 other countries which in total have 23,5% of the voting power at IMF. My inclination is to assume I know who is swinging big when deciding to throw good money after bad in Ukraine but which helps to enable the fight to go on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Monetary_Fund

But hey, the left's found a whipping boy, might as well keep whipping.

Is the whipping boy you refer to Putin or Obama or someone else or some other entity? I can't tell.

Hopefully Ukraine will get on fast-track talks to the EU and this issue will go away.

You do know, I am sure what started the protests which turned into killing by both sides and then became a successful coup which then kicked off a civil war, don't you? I too hope the problems in the Ukraine go away in the sense that at least the war stops but I don't see a quick near term alignment with the EU as something which will help that come about.

A bit o/t, but I think I

Bruce Levine — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 12:49:48 +0000

In reply to This loan is bound to create

A bit o/t, but I think I heard Kissinger say on one of the Sunday TV shows that he felt that Ukraine should evolve into something like Austria was back in the day -- kind of like a neutral buffer between East and West. He could be correct, of course, but how would you ever get there?

I'm not sure that it's fair to treat this is as a Cold War loan, even though the players are the same, etc. There is the issue of nation-state territorial integrity that Russia is toying with; it's not flaunting a nuke thank heavens, but if history is any guide at all it is hardly prudent be messing with that concept -- even in Ukraine.

Counterpunch's bias is

Anonymous PP — Wed, 10 Sep 2014 10:21:10 +0000

In reply to The IMF’s New Cold War Loan to Ukraine

Counterpunch's bias is flagrant - "junta" here, "junta" there. The "civil war" is fairly contained in scope - like Sri Lanka had for 20+ years.

Sure there's politics - but I also don't buy that Ukraine's a worse case than Greece which was keeping double sets of books to hide debts, focused on only 2 industries - tourism + shipping, and rampant with tax evasion up to 50% of its citizenry.

But hey, the left's found a whipping boy, might as well keep whipping. Hopefully Ukraine will get on fast-track talks to the EU and this issue will go away.

This loan is bound to create

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:52:28 +0000

In reply to The IMF’s New Cold War Loan to Ukraine

This loan is bound to create even more dissension among IMF staff economists than broke out openly over the disastrous $47 billion loan to Greece – at that time the largest loan in IMF history – prompted a 50-page internal document leaked to the Wall Street Journal acknowledging that the IMF had “badly underestimated the damage that its prescriptions of austerity would do to Greece’s economy.” staff economists blamed pressure from eurozone countries protecting their own “banks [that] held too much Greek government debt. … The IMF had originally projected Greece would lose 5.5% of its economic output between 2009 and 2012. The country has lost 17% in real gross domestic output instead. The plan predicted a 15% unemployment rate in 2012. It was 25%.[2]