Why the program of crediting of Ukraine is stalled by the International Monetary Fund?
It seems that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) has a new tradition - to go on summer vacation, leaving Ukraine without another credit tranche. So it was the year before last. The provision of the fifth tranche of financial aid in the amount of 1,9 billion dollars to Ukraine planned for June-July is postponed by the fund until at least autumn, the German Deutsche Welle reported recently.
What are Kiev propagandists happy about?
About autumn it is said, in general, for wit. The dynamics of credit tranches depend not on the change of seasons, but on how the Ukrainian authorities carry out the tasks assigned to them by the leaders of the Western world. It was for these tasks (we will come back to them) in March 2015 of the year the program of extended cooperation between the IMF and Ukraine was approved, providing for loans in the amount of $ 17,25 billion.
The largest first tranche of $ 5 billion fund issued immediately. Togo was demanded by the toughest financial situation in Ukraine, to which the post-government was brought to the country during the year of its rule. The fund's loan replenished the currency reserves of Ukraine and will not allow the hryvnia to fall into an uncontrolled peak. In accordance with the program, the IMF promised Kiev to issue three more tranches of $ 2015 billion each in 1,65 year. Further (in 2016-2018), the loans were to be received regularly at the rate of $ 0,61 billion per quarter.
After the second tranche, it became clear that Kiev takes the money, but does not fulfill its obligations to the fund. There was a pause almost a year long. In the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the IMF Directorate, the credit tranche delay was explained by certain “technical problems”.
They meant a large list of the fund’s requirements for Kiev, from cuts in social expenditures and tariff increases to pension reform.
Among the IMF claims were also reforming the tax administration and the country's energy sector, the critical situation in the fight against corruption, judicial reform and reform of state-owned enterprises. The list of requirements ended by providing the fund with the necessary documents for the settlement of Ukraine’s debt to Russia.
True, the third long-awaited tranche was strangely linked not with the publicized reforms of the economy, but with the change of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Such was the demand of the American curators of Kiev, as expressed by the mouth of the representatives of the IMF. US Ambassador to Ukraine Jeffrey Payette back in September 2015, sharply criticized the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
There were a lot of sins behind Shokin. However, he was considered Poroshenko’s friend, and the President of Ukraine kept him to the last until he was faced with a difficult choice: either the Prosecutor General Shokin — or the third IMF credit tranche. Poroshenko chose the money, and the experts were able to once again make sure that not only macroeconomic stability is the goal of lending to Ukraine by the monetary fund.
By the way, the delay between the second and third tranches of the IMF loan was used by the Ukrainian media for their propaganda purposes. They replicated the thesis in every way that Ukraine completely does without the fund's money. She has enough currency coming into the country from export operations. Called a figure of about $ 47 billion.
It looked very convincing, if not for a number of circumstances, ignored by the engaged media. First of all, the export earnings of Ukraine after Maidan fell sharply (in 2013, it was $ 68 billion). In addition, a very small part of this income falls into the country's budget. The currency is mainly spinning in export-import operations, and not at all in favor of Ukraine. The importation of goods and services in 2015, when the IMF held the third tranche of the loan program, exceeded exports, that is, exports, by $ 1,6 billion.
Finally, the most important thing - who got the export earnings? The answer to this is provided by the internationally known anti-corruption international organization Transparency International. Throughout all the years after the day, it practically does not change the corruption index in Ukraine. He puts it on a humiliating 135 place and confirms with deadly numbers. In Ukraine, around 20 billions of dollars are distributed annually through corruption channels. And the rest, as in the old song about the Marquis, all is well.
Ukraine want to pour American shale gas
Corruption in Ukraine worries Kiev's western curators and their financial representatives in the IMF, and here's why. The Kiev authorities should, according to the West, take care not only about filling their pockets, but also about preserving and increasing the capital of Western investors, as well as about the interests of transnational corporations and iconic people of America and Europe associated with these companies.
Here, after the Maidan, several directions appeared that interested American curators. First of all, it is energy, the privatization of large state-owned enterprises, the purchase of Ukrainian soil rich in chernozem. In the energy field, US Vice-President Joe Biden, with his son and close companions who had saddled the Ukrainian gas producing company Burisma Holdings, quickly emerged.
On the state-owned companies lined up a whole line of Americans eager for easy profits, to the ground too. It soon became clear that the interests of the Ukrainian oligarchs were deeply involved in formally state-owned enterprises, and privatization (or rather, the sale of industrial assets to American investors) stalled.
It happened, for example, with the Odessa Port Plant, one of the largest enterprises in the chemical industry in Ukraine. The plant is located at the end point of the Togliatti-Gorlovka-Odessa ammonia pipeline. It specializes in the production of various products from ammonia and transshipment of chemical products exported from the CIS countries.
The struggle for the ownership of the plant is a long time. After Maidan, it was headed by Mikhail Saakashvili, appointed for this by the governor of Odessa. The Georgian expat didn’t get anything worthwhile either. The privatization of the plant was in the financial interests of large Ukrainian business, in particular, the local oligarch Igor Kolomoisky. Then the idea arose to bankrupt the SCR.
The thought is rather strange. Indeed, in 2015, the plant received more than 220 million hryvnia net profit. But nowadays there are many craftsmen-solvers who can handle any healthy enterprise. Odessa plant simply stopped the supply of raw materials. Western investors (and this, above all, American companies CF Industries, Koch Fertilizers and IBE Trade) have already rubbed their hands in anticipation of easy production, but the Ukrainian business did not give up and did not want to share with overseas partners.
This May, President Petro Poroshenko spoke directly about this. He stated that he considers the bankruptcy of the Odessa Port Plant "absolutely unacceptable." Poroshenko made his statement only after he received from the IMF the fourth loan tranche in the amount of $ 1 billion.
The April generosity of the monetary fund was not at all caused by the fact that Ukraine sharply moved the required reforms and began, as expected, to share money with Western investors. That tranche was needed by the IMF itself. Billionth payment completely went to partial repayment of the debt of Kiev to the fund. The money did not even go beyond the headquarters of the IMF.
After the May statement of Petro Poroshenko, the directors of the monetary fund again tightened their demands on Kiev. Although there is nothing fundamentally new in them: the same is the fight against corruption, the privatization of state-owned enterprises, the sale of land and roundwood. In all these positions lie the fundamental interests of the new Kiev authorities. Her personal income (think $ 20 billion in corruption schemes) is much more than the fifth tranche and even the entire loan program - there is a fight for that.
Meanwhile, and the West can not refuse perseverance. With the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House, the selfish interests of representatives of the American administration and companies close to them received the status of state policy. It used to be able to build a vertical, checking requests from Washington officials with plans, for example, of the Monsanto transnational corporation for the purchase of Ukrainian agricultural land.
Donald Trump has broader requests. He thinks in categories not of individual companies, but of entire industries. Say, coal, when I lent Kiev millions of tons of expensive American anthracite, and gas. In early July in Warsaw, Trump agreed on the supply of American liquefied natural gas to Poland. After that, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went to Kiev.
In the press, Tillerson’s visit was presented as a political one. During two hours of staying on the Ukrainian land, the head of the State Department discussed with the local leaders and politicians the situation in the Donbas, bilateral relations, the fight against corruption (a hook for which thieving Kiev authorities are pulled) and ... supplies of American shale gas to Ukraine through the Polish LNG terminal Baltic coast.
The circle has closed: the support of the Ukrainian economy is based on how much and how this economy can give in return to the West. In this rather simple configuration, Kiev officials and representatives of Ukrainian big business are looking for their interest. The search, I must admit, is delayed. This annoys the directors of the monetary fund and their external managers. Therefore, Ukraine’s lending program, which was advertised in the winter of 2015, is stalled.
What are Kiev propagandists happy about?
About autumn it is said, in general, for wit. The dynamics of credit tranches depend not on the change of seasons, but on how the Ukrainian authorities carry out the tasks assigned to them by the leaders of the Western world. It was for these tasks (we will come back to them) in March 2015 of the year the program of extended cooperation between the IMF and Ukraine was approved, providing for loans in the amount of $ 17,25 billion.
The largest first tranche of $ 5 billion fund issued immediately. Togo was demanded by the toughest financial situation in Ukraine, to which the post-government was brought to the country during the year of its rule. The fund's loan replenished the currency reserves of Ukraine and will not allow the hryvnia to fall into an uncontrolled peak. In accordance with the program, the IMF promised Kiev to issue three more tranches of $ 2015 billion each in 1,65 year. Further (in 2016-2018), the loans were to be received regularly at the rate of $ 0,61 billion per quarter.
After the second tranche, it became clear that Kiev takes the money, but does not fulfill its obligations to the fund. There was a pause almost a year long. In the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine and the IMF Directorate, the credit tranche delay was explained by certain “technical problems”.
They meant a large list of the fund’s requirements for Kiev, from cuts in social expenditures and tariff increases to pension reform.
Among the IMF claims were also reforming the tax administration and the country's energy sector, the critical situation in the fight against corruption, judicial reform and reform of state-owned enterprises. The list of requirements ended by providing the fund with the necessary documents for the settlement of Ukraine’s debt to Russia.
True, the third long-awaited tranche was strangely linked not with the publicized reforms of the economy, but with the change of the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Such was the demand of the American curators of Kiev, as expressed by the mouth of the representatives of the IMF. US Ambassador to Ukraine Jeffrey Payette back in September 2015, sharply criticized the Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin.
There were a lot of sins behind Shokin. However, he was considered Poroshenko’s friend, and the President of Ukraine kept him to the last until he was faced with a difficult choice: either the Prosecutor General Shokin — or the third IMF credit tranche. Poroshenko chose the money, and the experts were able to once again make sure that not only macroeconomic stability is the goal of lending to Ukraine by the monetary fund.
By the way, the delay between the second and third tranches of the IMF loan was used by the Ukrainian media for their propaganda purposes. They replicated the thesis in every way that Ukraine completely does without the fund's money. She has enough currency coming into the country from export operations. Called a figure of about $ 47 billion.
It looked very convincing, if not for a number of circumstances, ignored by the engaged media. First of all, the export earnings of Ukraine after Maidan fell sharply (in 2013, it was $ 68 billion). In addition, a very small part of this income falls into the country's budget. The currency is mainly spinning in export-import operations, and not at all in favor of Ukraine. The importation of goods and services in 2015, when the IMF held the third tranche of the loan program, exceeded exports, that is, exports, by $ 1,6 billion.
Finally, the most important thing - who got the export earnings? The answer to this is provided by the internationally known anti-corruption international organization Transparency International. Throughout all the years after the day, it practically does not change the corruption index in Ukraine. He puts it on a humiliating 135 place and confirms with deadly numbers. In Ukraine, around 20 billions of dollars are distributed annually through corruption channels. And the rest, as in the old song about the Marquis, all is well.
Ukraine want to pour American shale gas
Corruption in Ukraine worries Kiev's western curators and their financial representatives in the IMF, and here's why. The Kiev authorities should, according to the West, take care not only about filling their pockets, but also about preserving and increasing the capital of Western investors, as well as about the interests of transnational corporations and iconic people of America and Europe associated with these companies.
Here, after the Maidan, several directions appeared that interested American curators. First of all, it is energy, the privatization of large state-owned enterprises, the purchase of Ukrainian soil rich in chernozem. In the energy field, US Vice-President Joe Biden, with his son and close companions who had saddled the Ukrainian gas producing company Burisma Holdings, quickly emerged.
On the state-owned companies lined up a whole line of Americans eager for easy profits, to the ground too. It soon became clear that the interests of the Ukrainian oligarchs were deeply involved in formally state-owned enterprises, and privatization (or rather, the sale of industrial assets to American investors) stalled.
It happened, for example, with the Odessa Port Plant, one of the largest enterprises in the chemical industry in Ukraine. The plant is located at the end point of the Togliatti-Gorlovka-Odessa ammonia pipeline. It specializes in the production of various products from ammonia and transshipment of chemical products exported from the CIS countries.
The struggle for the ownership of the plant is a long time. After Maidan, it was headed by Mikhail Saakashvili, appointed for this by the governor of Odessa. The Georgian expat didn’t get anything worthwhile either. The privatization of the plant was in the financial interests of large Ukrainian business, in particular, the local oligarch Igor Kolomoisky. Then the idea arose to bankrupt the SCR.
The thought is rather strange. Indeed, in 2015, the plant received more than 220 million hryvnia net profit. But nowadays there are many craftsmen-solvers who can handle any healthy enterprise. Odessa plant simply stopped the supply of raw materials. Western investors (and this, above all, American companies CF Industries, Koch Fertilizers and IBE Trade) have already rubbed their hands in anticipation of easy production, but the Ukrainian business did not give up and did not want to share with overseas partners.
This May, President Petro Poroshenko spoke directly about this. He stated that he considers the bankruptcy of the Odessa Port Plant "absolutely unacceptable." Poroshenko made his statement only after he received from the IMF the fourth loan tranche in the amount of $ 1 billion.
The April generosity of the monetary fund was not at all caused by the fact that Ukraine sharply moved the required reforms and began, as expected, to share money with Western investors. That tranche was needed by the IMF itself. Billionth payment completely went to partial repayment of the debt of Kiev to the fund. The money did not even go beyond the headquarters of the IMF.
After the May statement of Petro Poroshenko, the directors of the monetary fund again tightened their demands on Kiev. Although there is nothing fundamentally new in them: the same is the fight against corruption, the privatization of state-owned enterprises, the sale of land and roundwood. In all these positions lie the fundamental interests of the new Kiev authorities. Her personal income (think $ 20 billion in corruption schemes) is much more than the fifth tranche and even the entire loan program - there is a fight for that.
Meanwhile, and the West can not refuse perseverance. With the arrival of Donald Trump in the White House, the selfish interests of representatives of the American administration and companies close to them received the status of state policy. It used to be able to build a vertical, checking requests from Washington officials with plans, for example, of the Monsanto transnational corporation for the purchase of Ukrainian agricultural land.
Donald Trump has broader requests. He thinks in categories not of individual companies, but of entire industries. Say, coal, when I lent Kiev millions of tons of expensive American anthracite, and gas. In early July in Warsaw, Trump agreed on the supply of American liquefied natural gas to Poland. After that, US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson went to Kiev.
In the press, Tillerson’s visit was presented as a political one. During two hours of staying on the Ukrainian land, the head of the State Department discussed with the local leaders and politicians the situation in the Donbas, bilateral relations, the fight against corruption (a hook for which thieving Kiev authorities are pulled) and ... supplies of American shale gas to Ukraine through the Polish LNG terminal Baltic coast.
The circle has closed: the support of the Ukrainian economy is based on how much and how this economy can give in return to the West. In this rather simple configuration, Kiev officials and representatives of Ukrainian big business are looking for their interest. The search, I must admit, is delayed. This annoys the directors of the monetary fund and their external managers. Therefore, Ukraine’s lending program, which was advertised in the winter of 2015, is stalled.
Information