Tilanne kuumenee Ukrainassa (Katso ohjeet alusta!)

[xor_rox]

Ei taida auttaa se kuuluisa voissa paistaminenkaan Venäjän tilanteeseen eikä sitä voita taida edes ollaakkaan kun on ne tuontirajoitukset.

No kyllä on vaikea keksiä, miten Venäjä saataisiin enää osallistumaan konkurssin kustannuksiin.

Facing default, Ukraine calls for foreign funding

"In order to survive, in order to prevent a default, we need an international donor conference, the adoption of a Ukrainian recovery plan at this conference, and the help of our Western partners," Yatseniuk told parliament.

Suoraan sanottuna meidän tilannetta tuskin tekisi yhtään huonommaksi se, että Kiovassa alkaisi vilistä pieniä vihreitä miehiä. Tulivat sitten idästä tai lännestä.

[törö]

^ On hyvin vaikea keksiä mitään tahoa EU:n lisäksi joka haluaisi Urkainan elätettäväkseen.

Hyvällä tuurilla se saisi vuokrattua kiinalaisille, mutta sitä ennen pitäisi jotenkin saada ukrainalaiset olemaan ihmisiksi.

[xor_rox]

Rauhannobelilla palkittu kenialaistaustainen on taas puhunut. Nyt vissiin Kiinastakin on tullut jenkeille jonkin sortin ongelma - ebolan, ISISin ja Venäjän ohella.


Obama says will press China on trade and Russia on Ukraine (video)

(http://hommaforum.org/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=89991.0;attach=38212;image)

ROUGH CUT (NO REPORTER NARRATION) EDITOR'S NOTE: VIDEO IS INTERNET QUALITY U.S. President Barack Obama said the United States will continue to press China on its currency, protection of intellectual property and state-owned businesses ahead of bilateral trade talks next week.

"The key with China is to continue to simply press them on those areas where trade is imbalanced, whether it's on their currency practices, whether it's on IP (intellectual property) protection, whether it's on their state-owned enterprises," he said at a meeting of the President's Export Council.

At the same meeting on Thursday Obama expressed caution about the possibility of the United States adding more sanctions against Russia for its incursion into Ukraine because it could cause divide Washington and Europe.

With some lawmakers on Capitol Hill considering more sanctions, Obama told the President's Export Council that the current path he is taking, in which the United States operates largely in lockstep with Europe, eventually will force Russian President Vladimir Putin to reconsider the wisdom of going into eastern Ukraine.

What ultimately will lead Putin to make a strategic decision, he said, is if Putin recognizes that Europe and the United States are standing together over the long haul.

[xor_rox]

RT:n raportti Putinin vierailusta Intiaan on mielenkiintoinen. Intiassa nimittäin Venäjä nähdään täysin eri valossa, kuin meillä täällä, tai etenkin USA:ssa. Olkoon propagandaa tai ei, se on kuitenkin fakta.

Venäjän ja Intian välille on syntymässä vahvoja taloudellisia yhteyksiä, etenkin puolustus- ja energia-aloilla (ydinvoima + kaasu), mutta muillakin. Intia on valtava maa ja erittäin vahva kumppani Venäjälle. Teknologinen osaaminenkin on Intiassa jo suhteellisen korkealla.

On aivan käsittämätöntä, ettei ulkopoliittinen johtomme huomioi tätä mitenkään. Varsinkin, kun Suomi on pahoissa talousvaikeuksissa ja Aasia-yhteydetkin Nokian jälkeen vähentyneet voimakkaasti.

Russia & India sign deals on nuclear power, energy, defence

[törö]

^ Obaman kannatuksen romahtaminen ennätyslukemiin kertoo miten Ukrainan kriisi USA:ssa oikeasti nähdään.

USA on vai tullut vedetyksi mukaan muiden kehittelemään sotkuun ja sinnittelee mukana saadakseen aikaan järkevän ratkaisun, koska on melko selvää ketkä joutuvat tekemään likaiset työt jos homma riistäytyy käsistä ja NATO lähtee apuun.

EU-tyypit eivät osanneet entisen Jugoslaviankaan tapauksessa tehdä muuta kuin huudella neuvoja ja puristella muniaan.

Venäjälle taas tärkeintä on, ettei ongelma leviä sen puolelle, joten se tukee tällaisessa tapauksessa sitä osapuolta, joka sattuu olemaan rajan toisella puolella, mutta esiintyy kumminkin ulkopuolisena, joka yrittää sovitella tilannetta.

Jos löytyisi idioottivarma keino, jolla USA voisi vetäytyä tilanteesta ilman että sitä vedettäisiin siihen taas mukaan sitten kun muut ovat saaneet homman leviämään lopullisesti reisille, niin se olisi näyttänyt Ukrainalle keskisormea jo kauan sitten.

[Punaniska]

RT:n raportti Putinin vierailusta Intiaan on mielenkiintoinen. Intiassa nimittäin Venäjä nähdään täysin eri valossa, kuin meillä täällä, tai etenkin USA:ssa. Olkoon propagandaa tai ei, se on kuitenkin fakta.

Venäjän ja Intian välille on syntymässä vahvoja taloudellisia yhteyksiä, etenkin puolustus- ja energia-aloilla (ydinvoima + kaasu), mutta muillakin. Intia on valtava maa ja erittäin vahva kumppani Venäjälle. Teknologinen osaaminenkin on Intiassa jo suhteellisen korkealla.

Ikään kuin nämä yhteydet eivät olisi syntyneet ilman Ukrainaakin. Intialla on esimerkiksi jo kauan ollut sekä amerikkalaista että venäläistä  hävittäjäkalustoa.

[xor_rox]

RT:n raportti Putinin vierailusta Intiaan on mielenkiintoinen. Intiassa nimittäin Venäjä nähdään täysin eri valossa, kuin meillä täällä, tai etenkin USA:ssa. Olkoon propagandaa tai ei, se on kuitenkin fakta.

Venäjän ja Intian välille on syntymässä vahvoja taloudellisia yhteyksiä, etenkin puolustus- ja energia-aloilla (ydinvoima + kaasu), mutta muillakin. Intia on valtava maa ja erittäin vahva kumppani Venäjälle. Teknologinen osaaminenkin on Intiassa jo suhteellisen korkealla.

Ikään kuin nämä yhteydet eivät olisi syntyneet ilman Ukrainaakin. Intialla on esimerkiksi jo kauan ollut sekä amerikkalaista että venäläistä  hävittäjäkalustoa.

Kyllä kyllä, mutta pointti olikin, että taloudellinen yhteistyö vahvistuu Ukrainan kriisistä huolimatta. Lisäksi olisi mielenkiintoista kuulla, millä valuutalla kaavaillut 12 ydinreaktoriprojektia ja Intialle toimitettava energia maksetaan. Dollareillako?

[törö]

Intia on myös kasvava talousalue, koska siellä luodaan vauhdilla uusia työpaikkoja yksityiselle sektorille.

Niinpä sieltä ei ostovoima ole ihan äkkiä loppumassa kesken, toisi kuin Euroopasta, joka alkaa olla yksi suuri velaksi elävä julkinen sektori.

Tulevaisuudessa Intia tekee vielä hyvät rahat myymällä kehitysmaalaisen kukkarolle sopivia autoja ja puhelimia Eurooppaan, jossa näitäkään ei olla tajuttu kehittää itse.

Myös Afrikasta löytyy sen verran markkinoita intialaisille nykyinnovaatioille, että intialaisia varten voidaan kohta alkaa kehittää hintavampia mallistoja.

Kaupankäynnissähän nämä olivat taitavia jo silloin kun foinikialaiset hallitsivat Euroopan taloutta.

Arkistoista on myös löytynyt diplomaattien arvioita, joiden mukaan Rooman valtakunnasta saattaa vielä joskus kehittyä merkittävä kauppakumppani, mutta sitä ei koskaan tapahtunut.

[hattiwatti]

RT:n raportti Putinin vierailusta Intiaan on mielenkiintoinen. Intiassa nimittäin Venäjä nähdään täysin eri valossa, kuin meillä täällä, tai etenkin USA:ssa. Olkoon propagandaa tai ei, se on kuitenkin fakta.

Venäjän ja Intian välille on syntymässä vahvoja taloudellisia yhteyksiä, etenkin puolustus- ja energia-aloilla (ydinvoima + kaasu), mutta muillakin. Intia on valtava maa ja erittäin vahva kumppani Venäjälle. Teknologinen osaaminenkin on Intiassa jo suhteellisen korkealla.

On aivan käsittämätöntä, ettei ulkopoliittinen johtomme huomioi tätä mitenkään. Varsinkin, kun Suomi on pahoissa talousvaikeuksissa ja Aasia-yhteydetkin Nokian jälkeen vähentyneet voimakkaasti.

Russia & India sign deals on nuclear power, energy, defence

Tässä varsinainen julistus aiheesta. Lainaan poliittisesti olennaisia pointteja.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Text-of-India-Russia-joint-statement/articleshow/45474559.cms

Global order and world peace

22. Reaffirming their commitment to upholding the principles of international law and promoting the central role of the UN in international relations, India and Russia will work together to promote a polycentric and democratic world order based on shared interests of all countries. The two countries will work for democratization of global political, economic, financial and social institutions so that these institutions better represent the aspirations and interests of all segments of the international community. India and Russia oppose economic sanctions that do not have the approval of the United Nations Security Council.

23. The sides reaffirmed the need for UN Security Council reform in order to make it more representative and effective in dealing with emerging challenges. They agree that any expansion of the Security Council should reflect contemporary realities. In this context, the sides will work together to ensure reforms of the UN Security Council. Russia will extend its support for India's candidature for permanent membership of the Council.

24. The two countries will consult and coordinate in multilateral fora such as G20, EAS, BRICS and RIC. Russia looks forward to India becoming a full member of the SCO following the completion of all required negotiations procedures. The sides support the evolution of an open, balanced and inclusive security architecture in the Asia Pacific region based on collective efforts, considering legitimate interests of all states of the region and guided by respect for norms and principles of international law.

25. The leaders condoled the loss of life in senseless terrorist acts in recent days in Jammu & Kashmir, India and in Chechnya, Russia. They believe that the nature and spread of international terrorism in recent years, as demonstrated by developments in their shared neighbourhood, require global resolve and cooperative measures of the international community without double standards or selectivity. The threat to all humanity posed by terrorism justifies a collaborative approach, in accordance with international law and the Charter of the United Nations, putting aside differences and tensions between countries and regions in other political and economic areas. The sides agreed to work together for the adoption of the Comprehensive Convention on International Terrorism by the 70th Anniversary Summit of the UN. The leaders expressed hope that all safe havens and sanctuaries for terrorists will be wiped out without delay and terrorism would be completely eradicated from the common region within a decade.

26. The leaders welcomed the peaceful transition of political authority in Afghanistan and called upon the international community to join efforts to support reconstruction and economic development in that country and to continue capacity building of its national security forces. The sides hope to see an Afghanistan that would within a decade flourish as a prosperous hub for trade, industry and energy.

27. As two states possessing advanced technologies, India and Russia have converging interests in preventing the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This is reflected in their participation and positions in international fora such as the Conference on Disarmament, IAEA, Global Initiative to Combat Nuclear Terrorism and stringent national export control measures. The Russian side confirmed its support to India's intention to seek full membership in the Nuclear Suppliers Group and its readiness to facilitate positive decision of the Group on this matter. Russia also supported India's interest in full membership in the MTCR and Wassenaar Arrangement.

28. As responsible users of outer space, India and Russia share substantive interests in the long-term sustainability of outer space activities and in maintaining outer space for peaceful purposes. They will work together in the UN Committee on Peaceful Uses of Outer Space in Vienna, the Conference on Disarmament in Geneva, the UNGA First Committee in New York and other fora to advance their shared interests.

29. Information and Communication Technologies (ICTs) are transforming this world and playing a vital role in development. The sides will collaborate to promote safe, secure and sustainable use of ICTs globally, including through the UN.

30. In the backdrop of regional issues and conflicts, the leaders voiced their strong conviction that political dialogue and negotiation should be the sole means of resolution of conflicts, rather than military force.

Ja joitain silmään pistäviä irtopointteja:

13. India and Russia recognize the importance of the Arctic and the contributions in promoting cooperative activities to address Arctic issues by the Arctic Council, given that Russia is a member and India has joined as an observer in May 2013. The sides agreed to facilitate scientific cooperation to study the challenges (like melting ice, climate change, marine life and biodiversity), facing the rapidly-changing Arctic region.

Mielenkiintoista näin suomalaisena, että jollain Intialla on selkeä arktisen alueen politiikka kun meillä ei. Näin sitä käy jos ei ole suvereeni valtio.

14. Given the strategic importance of rare earth minerals and their economic and commercial utility, the sides will enhance cooperation in rare earth minerals' mining, technology development and research. They will explore joint development of technologies for processing rare earth materials.

Näitä harvinaisia maametalleja, jotka mm. Intian IT-teollisuudelle välttämättömiä on erityisesti Suomessa, joka on surutta luovuttanut maansa ulkomaisten kaivosyhtiöiden vallattavaksi ja pilattavaksi. Ja TTIP - sitten tuo vielä sijoittajasuojan ympäristötuhojen tekemiseen. Miksei meillä ole mitään tämänkaltaista manifestia aiheesta. Kaivospolitiikkamme todellisuudesta kirjoittaa usarissa tänään Timo Isosaari: http://iitimo.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/182170-suomen-tie-kehitysmaaksi-katkaistava-valittomasti

12. The sides will intensify bilateral scientific and technological interaction to increasingly focus on innovative, high-technology sectors and their commercial applications. They will further develop various support mechanisms for joint research. Their bilateral scientific and technological collaboration will cover frontier areas, such as environmental science, power sector (including alternative sources of energy), energy efficiency and energy security, information and communication technologies, nanotechnology and new materials, engineer science, bio-energy, nano-biotechnology, bio-equipment and affordable diagnosing equipment for healthcare and agriculture. It will be aimed at creating institutional linkages between scientific research institutions of the two countries. In view of the importance of safeguarding food security, the sides would expect to conduct further joint research in the fields of horticulture and biotechnology. They will exchange scientific and technological manpower to build capacity for exchange of knowledge most relevant to the economies of the two countries. Further academic exchanges will also be promoted through schemes for visits by scientists that will enhance human resource capacity building in the science and technology sector. An action plan on this subject will be prepared.

Ois kiva jos Suomikin voisi tehdä noin, mutta Stubbilainen regiimi ei ikinä sellaiseen suostu.

[hattiwatti]

Koska Intia-Venäjä kuvio on nyt tällä hetkellä kuuminta hottia maailmanpolitiikan suunnan määrittäjänä, ja koska meidänkin erkkomedia / corporate media on aiheesta aivan kuutamolla, niin kaivetaan muualta mitä siellä suunnitellaan, olennaisia kohtia painottaen:

http://indian.ruvr.ru/2014_12_05/Interview-of-Ambassador-of-India-P-S-Raghavan-5833/

QUESTION 1: Your Excellency, Ambassador, could you tell what are the main bilateral cooperation matters will be discussed in India during the upcoming visit of the Russian President Vladimir Putin? What results does India expect from the Russian official visit?

Answer: This is the first India-Russia Summit with the new government in office in India. The two leaders have already met twice this year but the Annual Summit gives them the opportunity to comprehensively review the current status of our relations, which cover virtually every area of human endeavor, and to articulate their vision for the course of our strategic and privileged partnership in the coming years. Besides, we expect that at the Summit a number of decisions would be made to further strengthen our cooperation in the field of defence, nuclear energy, space, trade & investment, hydrocarbons & other natural resources, science & technology, health, education, media and culture. There are particularly exciting opportunities to enhance our economic cooperation to the level commensurate with the complementarities between the economies of our two countries.


QUESTION 2: Russia for the past few years has intensified its strategic cooperation with the East. Does India, as a growing nation and an economic power, want to be a part of this growing activity?

Answer: History, geography, politics, economy and culture link India intimately with the Southeast Asian and East Asian regions. We are already engaged with our eastern partners - both bilaterally and multilaterally. The recent visits of our Prime Minister to Japan and Myanmar (for the India-ASEAN & East Asia Summit, where he met the leaders of countries of the region) are indicative of the depth and priorities of our relationship with the region. We have also had important visits to India from the region, including that of the President of the People's Republic of China. At the ASEAN Summit in Myanmar, our Prime Minister unveiled the 'Act East' policy to begin a new era of economic development, industrialization and trade ties with our eastern partners.

QUESTION 3: What are the perspectives of India joining the Eurasian Economic and Customs Union in the nearest future?

Answer:We have been in regular discussion with the Eurasian Economic Commission about measures to strengthen the economic engagement between India and the Customs Union, which will soon become an Economic Union. We expect to create concrete institutional mechanisms soon for structured discussions on this between India and the Union.


QUESTION 4: Your Excellency, what impact may western sanctions against Russia and Russian sanctions against the EU (that were imposed in response to the American and the EU sanction regime) have on the Russian-Indian bilateral interaction? What are the industries that have the greatest potential in current conditions?

Answer:The relations between India and Russia have always been characterized by long-standing friendship and mutual trust. Our relations are not determined by external factors. We continue to make strong efforts to strengthen our bilateral interactions, particularly by increasing trade exchanges and exploring avenues for stepping up mutual investments.


QUESTION 5: As for the Russian-Indian economic cooperation, experts from both sides agreed on the fact that it does not fit with the current level of political partnership. What are the reasons for the slow grow of our economic cooperation?

Answer:I believe that the main reason is lack of full awareness about opportunities available in the Russian market for the Indian business community and vice-versa. Other than this, all conditions are in fact very favorable to a quantum jump in trade and investment flows. Our bilateral relationship is strong; we have regular people-to-people exchanges and many cultural affinities; and there are complementarities in our economies that encourage mutually beneficial economic exchanges. I think more regular exchanges of business delegations and participation in business-to-business meetings should promote this objective. We are working on a number of initiatives to promote more efficient information flows between the two countries, including stronger cooperation between regions.


QUESTION 6: Your Excellency, can you share your opinion on current level of the Russian-Indian political partnership?

Answer:India and Russia have enjoyed a long-standing relationship of friendship and mutual trust, spanning over many decades. It is a partnership built on shared convictions, strategic convergences and identity or similarity of use on major issues of international concern. Our political relations are reflected in an extensive network of bilateral consultations mechanisms, as well as cooperation within the United Nations, G-20, BRICS and a number of other formal and informal multilateral groupings. Our political relations are enriched by regular exchanges of high level bilateral visits, including at the highest levels and between our Parliaments. Besides the practice of Annual Summit meetings, which has continued since 2000, our leaders also meet in various other settings. Our PM and President Putin have already met twice in the last six months – on the sidelines of the BRICS Summit in July and at the G-20 Summit in November. Our PM also met the PM of the Russian Federation on the margins of the East Asia Summit in November. We are confident that the forthcoming visit to India of the President of the Russian Federation will provide fresh impetus to our already vibrant bilateral relations.


QUESTION 7: As far as the Russian-Indian Corridor is concerned, many experts believe that it can do wonders and boost the mutual trade volumes between two countries. What needs to be done in order for this transit route to become an active instrument of our economic cooperation?

Answer:Recently, the Ministry of Commerce & Industry of Government of India had conducted a trial run on the proposed International North-South Transport Corridor. The results of the study indicate that there will be considerable saving in the transportation time as well as the freight cost if the cargo is exported from India to Russia through this corridor which will start from Mumbai to Bandar Abbas port in Iran, pass through Iran and then to Astrakhan in Russia over the Caspian Sea. We need to encourage exporters, freight forwarders and shipping companies to use this route in order to make it financially viable. The route has the potential to transform trading relations between our two countries.



QUESTION 8: Your Excellency, these days Russia and China have been very successful in using their national currencies in mutual trade. Is there an intention to shift to national currencies of India and Russia from dollar in bilateral trade?

Answer:India and Russia are working towards use of national currencies in bilateral trade. The Reserve Bank of India and the Central Bank of Russia are in the process of evolving modalities for settlement of transactions in national currencies. We feel that trading in local currencies will help enhance our bilateral economic and trade relations.

QUESTION 9: During the last visit of the Russian Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Rogozin to India in June countries discussed the possibility of Sukhoi Superjet 100 (SSJ-100) planes to be assembled in India. Do we witness a shift in bilateral ties with the emphasis on military cooperation between two counties?

Answer:Since the coming to office of a new government in India, India and Russia have been in discussions on a number of new economic cooperation initiatives. The 'Make in India' initiative launched by our PM in September this year has received an enthusiastic response in Russia. We are discussing a number of proposals for joint manufacturing in India for systems and equipment, both for defence and for civilian applications. This has included aircraft and helicopters. We are confident that in the near future, we will take up a number of such projects for joint manufacturing.

..... 

QUESTION 12: On the 6th BRICS summit in Brazil the group of countries signed the document to create the US$100 billion BRICS Development Bank and a reserve currency pool worth over another US$100 billion. In the light of the event, what are the perspectives and a role of BRICS at the world arena?

Answer: There is immense potential for intra-BRICS cooperation, as they constitute over 30% of the world land area, 42% of population and 21% of the global GDP. Besides, as our Prime Minister noted at the BRICS Summit, the member countries can intensify cooperation on counter terrorism, cyber-security, climate change, reform of the UNSC and in shaping the post-2015 development agenda, as well as the international trade regime under the WTO, so as to restore a climate of peace and stability in the world.

QUESTION 13: BRICS partners plan to establish a system of multilateral swaps that will allow to transfer resources to one or another country. Experts believe that if the current trend continues, soon the dollar will be abandoned by most of the economies-members of BRICS. Can you share your opinion regarding this trend?

Answer:That is a very large question. I would like to focus on our bilateral situation. As I mentioned, India and Russia have been discussing trade in national currencies as an initiative to significantly increase the volume of bilateral exchanges of goods. Our Central Banks have recently set up a Joint Working Group to work out modalities. There have also been talks between the Export-Import Bank of India (EXIM Bank) and the Vnesheconombank for a guarantees cooperation arrangement, by which they would facilitate loans in local currencies for Indian and Russian companies seeking to invest in each others' countries. This arrangement could boost mutual investment.
Read more: http://indian.ruvr.ru/2014_12_05/Interview-of-Ambassador-of-India-P-S-Raghavan-5833/

[akez]

Wall Street Journalissa oli mielenkiintoinen artikkeli geopoliittisesta pelistä ja uusista orientaatioista. Tuolla aiemmin kerrotaan IL:n jutussa, että "Soinin mukaan Venäjän väläyttämää etupiirijakoa ei voi millään hyväksyä." Silti WSJ:n artikkeli kertoo nimenomaan etupiirijaoista, mitkä jutun mukaan vaikuttavat olevan jo selvät (liekö nimet jo alla papereissa a la Ribbentrop?). Katsellaan nyt vaan, milloin ja miten EU vetäytyy Ukrainasta, ilmapiiri nimittäin näyttää jo jotenkin lientyneen, vaikka sanoma-konserni vielä jaksaa jatkaa.

EU Aims for Influence A Little Closer to Home

After Ukraine, EU Looks for Influence in Areas Like the Balkans

Dec. 11, 2014 http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-aims-for-influence-a-little-closer-to-home-1418333271?KEYWORDS=eu+mogherini+balkan

For the past 18 months, Brussels has been absorbed by a struggle with Russia over European Union efforts to deepen economic and political ties with Ukraine and other former Soviet republics—its so-called Eastern Partnership project.

The outcome of that clash remains uncertain—not only in Ukraine, but in the likes of Georgia and Moldova, where Russian pressure and influence remain significant.

As it draws lessons from that crisis, the EU is recalibrating its goals. A new European Commission team is looking to exert influence in areas where they have real leverage—chief among them, the Balkans.

EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and the commissioner in charge of enlargement talks, Austria's Johannes Hahn, have promised to prioritize the region. The two made an early trip to Bosnia last Friday to ease a political stalemate that has blocked the country's EU path for years.

The challenges the EU faces in the region are significant: economic stagnation, entrenched corruption and Russia's ability to complicate the region's European path all pose threats. Meanwhile, many EU member states are skeptical about further enlarging the bloc—something Brussels has said won't happen in the next five years.

Yet many believe the EU has the leverage to induce the kind of change in the Balkans it was unable to deliver in Ukraine. The ability of Ms. Mogherini and Mr. Hahn to harness that influence will shape the legacies they leave in 2019.

After a year where "all the attention was stolen by Ukraine and by the Eastern Partnership and by Georgia," said one senior EU diplomat, the focus is shifting. This is an area "where there is a legacy, where there is a process and where there is a clear perspective" for change.

The situation in the region varies hugely. Croatia and Slovenia are in the EU. Serbia and Montenegro have started accession talks and Albania and Macedonia are in a pre-negotiation 'candidate' status where they prepare for membership talks. Bosnia is stuck whereas Kosovo has taken important first steps down its EU path.

All the countries in the region have at least the prospect of EU membership, something which was never true for Ukraine or Georgia, and there remains a solid base of support for pursuing it. In some ways, the plethora of problems the region faces—high unemployment, weak judiciaries and corruption—make the EU a more powerful pull-factor. The bloc is also easily the region's number one trade and investment partner, facing much less competition from Russia.

"The EU perspective enjoys very overwhelming public support here," said an EU diplomat in the region. "The politicians here know in their heart of hearts that there is no other real option."

EU projects and aid can make a visible difference in the small Balkans nations in a way the billions of euros the EU is pouring into Kiev's cash-starved central government coffers, may not. The commission has earmarked close to €4 billion ($4.95 billion) for regular programs, loans and grants for Albania, Bosnia, Kosovo, Macedonia and Serbia by 2020.

Whatever the anxieties about EU enlargement, there is a broad consensus within Europe that over time, the Balkans has a future in the bloc. As the EU clash with Russia over Ukraine has sharpened, Berlin has played an increasingly visible role in pushing for regional integration, diplomats say. A prominent Balkans summit in Germany in August set out various investment and reform ideas.
(...)

Jutun mukaan EU-komissio kaavailee antavansa 4 miljardia euroa Albanialle, Bosnialle, Kosovolle, Makedonialle ja Serbialle. On se jännä, kuinka tuolla ilman demokraattista vastuuta toimivalla komissiolla näyttää olevan pohjattomalta vaikuttava rahapussi, josta voi jakaa rahaa myös EU:n ulkopuolelle ja ympäri maailmaa. Milloin tavallinen veronmaksaja mahtaa havahtua? Ei me tuollaiseen Euroopan unioniin silloin aikoinaan liitytty.

[Tykkimies Pönni]

ilmapiiri nimittäin näyttää jo jotenkin lientyneen

Onko taistelut seis, kun ei ole mitään kuulunut ainakaan pariin viikkoon?

[akez]

^ Kyllä siellä Ukrainassa edelleen taistellaan ja konfliktia riittää*, mutta yleisesti ottaen on aistittavissa maailman media seuraamalla (konsernisanomia lukemalla voi syntyä toisenlainen kuva, mutta en sitä juuri seuraa), että aivan kuin jokin "pohjavire" laajemmissa kuvioissa olisi jo muuttunut, joka voi kertoa siitä, että jotakin "strategisia päätöksiä" on tehty. Esim. ent. kom. Mogherini ja EU-laajentumiskomissaari kävivät äskettäin Turkissa ja oli ollut puhetta Turkin lähenemisestä EU:hun ja suhteiden tiivistämisestä. Laajentumiskomissaari nosti esiin myös toiveen Turkin EU-jäsenyydestä. Turkkia ei kovin asia ole enää viime aikoina kiinnostanut. Saas nähdä, miten asiat kehittyvät.

* UNN kertoo, että separatistit ovat viime vuorokauden aikana ampuneet 11 kertaa ATO-joukkojen asemiin tykistöllä ja kranaatinheittimillä.

Siitä ei nyt aina tiedä kuka siellä on ampunut mitä ja ketä, mutta aika varma voi olla, että ammuttu on.

EDIT lisäys

[akez]

Tuolla vähän aiemmin Wall Street Journalin jutussa oli puhetta EU:n laajenemistavoitteiden revisioinnista. Seuraava Saksan Merkelin puheita koskeva juttu näyttää vahvistavan tämän arvion. EU-laajenemisen painopiste siirtynee nyt Balkanille (ja Turkkiin), joka johtanee automaattisesti tilanteen lientymiseen isojen pelureiden kesken, mutta Ukrainan sisäiset kähinät tuskin tuohon loppuvat.

Merkel: EU Association Agreements With Ex-Soviet Countries Not Anti-Russia

German Chancellor Angela Merkel stated that the association agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova are not directed against Russia and also stressed the importance of maintaining a dialogue on trade cooperation between the EU and Russia.

Sputnik 13.12.2014  http://sputniknews.com/europe/20141213/1015812227.html

MOSCOW, December 13 (Sputnik) – The association agreements between the European Union and some former Soviet countries are not directed against Russia, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said in a video podcast published on her official website Saturday.

"It is clear – the association agreements with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova are not directed against Russia; on the contrary, this is about closer links between the economic areas. And in this regard, Russia should not be excluded," Merkel said, adding that the EU would like to have good partnership relations with Russia.

Merkel also stressed the importance of maintaining a dialogue on trade cooperation between the EU and Russia, as well as between the EU and the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU).
(...)

Merkel sanoo, että Ukrainan, Moldovan ja Georgian assosiaatiosopimusten tavoitteena on luoda vain läheisimpiä suhteita talousalueiden välillä, eivätkä ne ole suunnattu Venäjää vastaan. WSJ:n jutussa taas todetaan, että "For the past 18 months, Brussels has been absorbed by a struggle with Russia over European Union efforts to deepen economic and political ties with Ukraine and other former Soviet republics—its so-called Eastern Partnership project." Pientä eroavaisuutta siis havaittavissa versioissa.

EDIT pieni korjaus

[xor_rox]

Tuolla aiemmin lainattu Laura Solanko totesi Nabucco -putkihankkeen (Nabucco pipeline) olevan kuollut ja kuopattu.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/80/Nabucco_Gas_Pipeline-en.svg/1100px-Nabucco_Gas_Pipeline-en.svg.png)


Deutsche Welle kertoo kuitenkin nyt, että Eurostoliitto on valinnut strategiseksi partnerikseen energia-asioissa Azerbaijanin. Kuten aiemmin jo saatiin tietää, niin Venäjä ei Mogherinin mukaan ole strateginen partneri Eurstoliitolle. Enää.

EU turns to Azerbaijan for gas

The EU is considering plans for a new pipeline to enable gas imports from Azerbaijan. The push comes in the wake of Russia's decision to cancel the South Stream pipeline project.

EU Energy Commissioner Maros Sefcovic said Tuesday that a new high-level working group would be set up to advance the integration of central and south-eastern European gas markets and pipeline networks. As part of the effort, Sefcovic discussed proposals to link Azerbaijan's gas fields by pipeline with European markets.

The move is partly in response to the uncertainty generated by Russia's surprise decision to scrap the South Stream pipeline project that it had agreed with the EU. Several EU member states that had invested in the South Stream pipeline, or stood to benefit from it - including Austria, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, Italy, Romania and Slovenia - asked Sefcovic to reach out to Russia and discuss whether it might reconsider its decision.

[...]

Azerbaijan an important card in Europe's energy supply poker game

The EU's "Energy Union" policy - one of the new EU Commission's key priorities - proposes integration of central and southeastern European gas markets and diversification of Europe's gas supplies.

In line with that priority, Commissioner Sefcovic met with Azerbaijan's President Ilham Aliyev in Baku on December 1st, to discuss energy cooperation.

Sefcovic said at the meeting in Baku that agreement between the EU and Azerbaijan on the so-called Southern Gas Corridor was of strategic importance. The discussion hints at the possibility of replacing the Russian-linked South Stream gas pipeline project with an alternative pipeline project that could connect Azerbaijan to Europe without crossing Russian territory.

Azerbaijan and the EU had already signed a Memorandum of Understanding on a strategic partnership in energy. By making energy deals with Azerbaijan, the EU will benefit by diversifying its gas supplies - resulting in less reliance on Russia - and Azerbaijan will be able to increase its revenues from gas exports.

Kysymys kuuluu, että onko Nabucco kaivettu haudastaan?

[xor_rox]

Päivän talousuutiset Ukrainasta kertovat positiivisesta ja erityisen nopeasta kehityksestä. IMF:n kakkosmies suorastaan ällistyi huligaanien päättäväisyydestä maan reformoimiseksi. Tai ainakin heidän visiostaan tjsp.

IMF deputy 'impressed' by Ukraine's move toward reform

(WASHINGTON) - The International Monetary Fund's number two said on Saturday he was "impressed" by war-torn Ukraine's plans for economic changes aimed staving off bankruptcy and a foreign debt default.

The IMF, which this year granted Kiev $17 billion (13.6 billion euros) in financial aid over two years as part of a broader $27 billion global rescue package, has expressed fears that the former Soviet country may need an additional $15 billion in immediate aid.

David Lipton, the IMF's first deputy managing director, travelled to Kiev on Saturday to meet with President Petro Poroshenko, Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk and members of their economic team.

"I was impressed by their vision for an economic transformation of Ukraine, and by their commitment to decisive, front-loaded implementation of their reform agenda," he said in a statement.

He said an IMF team was expected to wrap up technical discussions by the end of next week, while a mission to conduct policy discussions as part of the Fund-supported program is set to return to Kiev early next year.

But he gave no indication as to whether additional loans to Ukraine were being planned.

Poroshenko said in a statement posted on his website that he had assured Lipton of Ukraine's commitment to full cooperation with Fund's austerity demands.

He added that Lipton appeared impressed by a new cabinet appointed earlier this month that includes two Western investment bankers -- one from Lithuania and the other the United States -- serving as economy and finance ministers.

"We now have a very professional team that is focused on results," Poroshenko said in the statement.

Ukraine's foreign lenders, which besides the IMF include the European Union, World Bank and Japan, want deep cuts to welfare services and a hike in energy prices to help balance the books.

The architects of the aid package had hoped to use it as an incentive for Ukraine to wean itself off communist-era subsidies long abandoned by its smaller but now far better-off neighbours in eastern Europe.

The IMF also wanted to see loss-making state firms privatised and graft that has permeated both ministries and local governments comprehensively punished instead of having their wrongdoings swept under the rug.

But few of those steps have yet been taken.

Minäkin olen kuin ällikällä lyöty nyt. Maan talousjohdossa istuu USA:n edustaja liettualaisine marionetteineen. Samaan aikaan maan jäljellä oleva varallisuus halutaan yksityistää. Kulta jo vietiin ja maa ajettiin sisällissotaan. Mitä vielä voitaisiin tehdä maan ryöstämiseksi?

Nyt kun Suomi on ajautunut historiansa pahimpaan lamaan, niin emmekö mekin voisi kutsua seuraavan hallituksen talousministeri USA:sta? Samalla ratkeaisi Talvivaaran sotku ja monet muut valtion omistusohjaukseen liittyvät pulmat.

[hattiwatti]

http://michael-hudson.com/2014/12/backfired/

U.S. New Cold War policy has backfired – and created its worst nightmare

1. The world's geopolitics, major trade patterns and military alliances have changed radically in the past month. Russia has re-oriented its gas and oil trade, and also its trade in military technology, away from Europe toward Eurasia.

The result is the opposite of America's hope for the past half-century of dividing and conquering Eurasia: setting Russia against China, isolating Iran, and preventing India, the Near East and other Asian countries from joining together to create an alternative to the U.S. dollar area. American sanctions and New Cold War policy has driven these Asian countries together in association with the Shanghai Cooperation Organization as an alternative to NATO, and in the BRICS moves to avoid dealing with the dollar area, the IMF and World Bank austerity programs.

Regarding Europe, America's insistence that it join the New Cold War by imposing sanctions on Russia and blocking Russian gas and oil exports has aggravated the Eurozone's economic austerity, making it even more of a Dead Zone. This week a group of Germany's leading politicians, diplomats and cultural celebrities wrote an open letter to Angela Merkel protesting her pro-U.S. anti-Russian policy. By overplaying its hand, the United States is in danger of driving Europe out of the U.S. economic orbit.

Turkey already is moving out of the U.S.-European orbit, by turning to Russia for its energy needs. Iran also has moved into an alliance with Russia. Instead of the Obama administration's neocons dividing and conquering as they had planned, they are isolating America from Europe and Asia. Yet there has been almost no recognition of this in the U.S. press, despite its front-page discussion throughout Europe and Asia. Instead of breaking up the BRICS, the dollar area is coming undone.

This week, President Putin is going to India to negotiate a gas and arms deal. Last week he was in Turkey diverting what was to be the South Stream pipeline away from southern Europe to Turkey. And Turkey is becoming an associate of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization integrating the BRICS in a defensive alliance against the United States, now that it is obvious that it has no chance of joining the EU.

A few months earlier, Russia announced the largest oil and gas trade and pipeline investment ever, with China – along with a transfer of missile defense technology.

2. There has been almost no discussion of this vast geopolitical realignment in the U.S. media, largely because it represents a defeat for the New Cold War policy pushed by the neocons over the past year, ever since Russia convinced President Obama not to go to war in Syria, which had been a neocon military aim.

Their response was to isolate Russia and economically attack its trade and hence balance-of-payments strength: its gas and oil trade with Europe. Last February, U.S. diplomats engineered a Pinochet-style coup d'état in Ukraine, and used this as a lever to reverse Europe's buildup of trade with Russia.

The aim was to punish Russia's economy – and in the process to press for a regime change against Putin, putting in place a more pro-U.S., neoliberal Yeltsin-style regime by causing a financial crisis.

The assumption underlying this policy was that since the Soviet Union was dissolved in 1991, Russia was turning toward Europe to re-integrate its economy and society. And Europe for its part sought to make Russia its main energy supplier – of oil as well as gas, through new pipelines being built to circumvent Ukraine. Northstream ran via the North Sea to northern Europe. Southstream was to be built via Bulgaria and Serbia to southern Europe – mainly Italy and Austria.

Germany for its part looked to Russia as an export market, to earn the rubles to pay for Russian gas and oil. Other European countries stepped up their agricultural trade with Russia, and France agreed to build the enormous Mistral aircraft carrier. In short, the ending of the Cold War promised to bring a much closer economic and hence political integration of Russia with Europe – cemented largely by a gas pipeline network.

3. U.S. Cold Warriors have tried to disrupt this trade. The plan was to isolate Russia and lock Europe into the U.S. economy. The dream was to export U.S. shale gas to Europe, squeezing out Russia and thereby hurting its balance of payments.

This was always a pipedream. But what U.S. heavy-handed military confrontation with Russia really has done is to drive a political wedge between the United States and Europe. Last week, Putin gave a speech saying he found little point in negotiating with European politicians, because they simply followed U.S. orders via NATO and by U.S. pressure on German politicians, French politicians and other European politicians.

In following U.S. New Cold War confrontation, Europe has been acting against its own economic interests. Its neoliberal Third Energy law has effectively blocked Russia from having any economic gain in selling more gas to Europe.

4. Rentier pipeline politics
The U.S. neoliberal plan has been to insist on non-Russian control of the pipelines that would carry Russian gas and oil to Europe. The idea is to use this pipeline as a tollbooth to siphon off the revenue that Russia had hoped to receive from Europe.

Here's the best way to understand what has occurred. Imagine that the United States had a law that owners of buildings could not also own the elevators in them. This would mean that the owners of the Empire State Building, for instance, could not own their elevators. Some other investors could buy the elevators, and then tell the building's renters or other occupants that they would have to pay a fee each time they rode up to the 40th floor, the 50th floor, the 60th floor, and so forth.

The result would be that instead of the landlord receiving the rental value of the Empire State Building, the elevator owner could demand the lion's share. Without access, the building would be a walk-up and its rents would fall – unless renters paid the elevator tollbooth.

This is what would happen with an oil pipeline owned by parties hostile to Russia. It is to avoid this that Gazprom insisted on building its own pipeline, under Russian control, to prevent rent-extracting investors. When Europe sought to block this by pretending that "free markets" meant separating pipeline ownership from the gas suppliers, it was trying to carve out a rent-extraction opportunity to siphon off Russian gas revenue.

The European Commission earlier had pressed an anti-Gazprom policy last year, in the process of imposing its austerity program on Greece. It insisted that Greece pay the IMF for having bailed out foreign bondholders by selling off assets in the public domain. The largest asset was Greece's oil rights in the Aegean and its commercial oil-related infrastructure. When Gazprom was the largest bidder, Europe blocked the sale. The result has been to impose even deeper austerity on Greece, polarizing that nation's politics in an increasingly anti-EU and anti-IMF stance – and hence, anti-US Cold War politics.

5. What is occurring is a radical shift in U.S.-European diplomacy – in a way that according to textbook theory is inherently unstable and unworkable.

Europe has inverted the major textbook premises of how national diplomacy is conducted. Instead of basing this diplomacy on economic and commercial interests, it is subordinating these interests to U.S. control. And as for Europe's membership in NATO, instead of viewing military policy as an arm of foreign diplomacy, it is subordinating economic diplomacy, trade patterns, gas and oil supplies, export markets for industry and agriculture all to serve NATO's military ends.
The objective no longer is military security as originally was the logic for NATO. Europe's economic realignment against Russia threatens to bring military conflict directly into the continent as a result of the proxy war in Ukraine.

It has been said that nations do not have friends or enemies, only national interests. Most of these are economic. But today in Europe, German Chancellor Merkel seems to be ignoring German and other European economic interests. Still obsessed with her hatred of the East German Communist regime, she sees in Russia only an enemy, not an economic market and supplier of raw materials and customer for German manufactures and technology. Likewise, her political love for the United States deems it Europe's natural friend, without taking into account how its New Cold War policy toward Europe – "Let's you and Russia fight" – undercuts European continental interests and exacerbates its austerity.

The United States for its part has adopted von Clausewitz's statement that war is an extension of foreign policy by other means in a very limited form: war seems to be the only lever that the United States is using in its foreign policy these days. And lacking an ability to mount a ground invasion, its only real threat is to tear economies apart by aerial bombing, as it has done to Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and now Syria – and is doing by backing a proxy war in Ukraine.

[hattiwatti]

Heh, vanha inkeriläismummokin on näemmä rekrytty 'Putin-trolleihin' kuten persu-penaalin terävimpiin kyniin kuuluva Reijo Tossavainen haukkana ehti jo huomaamaan:

http://viovio.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/182283-geopoliittista-shakkia

Geopoliittista shakkipeliä

Länsi on tukenut Ukrainan "demokraattista kehitystä" miljardeilla dollareilla. Tämä politiikka kulminoitui Ukrainan "kansannousuun", joka ajoitettiin Venäjän olympialaisiin.

Yhden osapuolen tukeminen toista vastaan Ukrainan kriisissä on heiluttanut geopoliittista tasapainoa. Vai olemmeko siirtymässä uuteen geopoliittiseen tasapainoon? Tai jopa uuteen maailmanjärjestykseen, jota ei hallitakaan geopolitiikalla.

Venäjä vastasi omalla geopoliittisella siirrolla: Krimin haltuunotto.

South-Stream kaasuputki ei toteutunut; muodollisesti siksi, että se ei täyttänyt EU:n energiadirektiiviä. Suurin kaasuputken vastustaja taisi kuitenkin olla USA, jonka monikansalliset yhtiöt tarvitsevat uusia markkinoita Amerikan kasvavalle öljyn ja kaasun tuotannolle.

Euroopan energiadirektiivi käytännössä mahdollistaa vain sellaisen raaka-ainekaupan, jossa meidän yhtiömme "auttavat" kohdemaata rikastumaan investoimalla tuohon valtioon. Meikäläiset öljy-yhtiöt rakentavat vieraaseen maahan infrastruktuurin öljyn pumppaamiseksi maasta. Meikäläiset kuljettavat öljyn pois maasta ja käyttävät sen. Kun öljy loppuu, kohdemaa työllistää itse itsensä siivoamalla jäljet. Tämä toimintamalli on jo kaivostoiminnassa nähty hyväksi ja toimivaksi tavaksi "auttaa" kehittyviä maita.

Venäjän toinen siirto: Kaasuputki Turkkiin.

Mielestäni kaasuputken vetäminen Turkkiin on merkittävämpi geopoliittinen siirto, kuin oli Krimin haltuun ottaminen.

Turkki tuo vuosisatainen Euroopan vihollinen ja valloittaja! Ottaako se kaasun avulla jälleen hallintaansa osan Eurooppaa: Kreikan, joka ei omin avuin pysty tulemaan toimeen. Ennen pitkää EU:n voimavarat ehtyvät jatkuvasti lisääntyvään Kreikan tukemiseen; olisi omiakin asioita hoidettavana (ja Ukrainan kaasulaskukin pitäisi maksaa). Kuka silloin ottaa harteilleen Kreikan elättämisen.

Entä Kreikka? Alkaako se kiristämään EU:lta lisää apua, jotta ei joutuisi Turkin vaikutuspiiriin? Onko Kreikan tulevaisuus tässä. Käydäänkö sen hallinnasta huutokauppa EU:n ja Turkin välillä. Turkilla kaasu ja EU:lla romahtaneet pankit ja talous sekaisin.

Ymmärtävätkö eurooppalaiset johtajamme, mitä seurauksia heidän päätöksillään on sadan vuoden aikavälillä? Tai edes kymmenen?

Tässä vielä linkki mielenkiintoiseen Henry Kissingerin hastatteluun.
Haastattelun toinen osa.

[hattiwatti]

Merkel sanoo, että Ukrainan, Moldovan ja Georgian assosiaatiosopimusten tavoitteena on luoda vain läheisimpiä suhteita talousalueiden välillä, eivätkä ne ole suunnattu Venäjää vastaan. WSJ:n jutussa taas todetaan, että "For the past 18 months, Brussels has been absorbed by a struggle with Russia over European Union efforts to deepen economic and political ties with Ukraine and other former Soviet republics—its so-called Eastern Partnership project." Pientä eroavaisuutta siis havaittavissa versioissa.

Sampo Terhon kanta oli käytännössä sama kysyttäessä kuin Merkelin, että nämä sopparit vain luovat vapaakauppaa ja muuta kivaa, eivätkä mitään syvempää integraatiota. Tuntui, että selkeästi vältteli koko ikävän aiheen käsittelyä, ja onhan vapaakauppa-alue niin ihqu ajatus. Vaikka tämä nyt on noin vaatimattomasti EU:n keskeisin juttu tällä hetkellä, ja muuten sitä mitä persut ovat sivumennen aina vastustaneet. Ja aivan erityisesti Nigel Farage, jonka toverina Sampo on pitkään ollut.  Tuli myös vahva tunne, että onhan se ehkä parempi jos Terho siirtyisi tänne Suomeen puuhastelemaan vaikkapa autovero-kysymyksen parissa kun viettää aikaansa hankalan EU:n ulkopolitiikan kanssa, kuten on onneksi tekemässä.

Totuushan on, että jahka sopparit on allekirjoitettu, syvempi integraatio alkaa ihan NATO-päämajasta saneltuihin geopoliittisiin intresseihin perustuen. Varsinkin Georgiaa kannattaa tutkia; mitä ihmettä EU siellä tekee? Sen sijaan maalla on jenkeille tärkeä merkitys BTC-putken läpikulkureittinä, Nabucco-putken (Venäjän kiertämiseksi) tärkeänä osana, ja erityisesti myös hyökkäysbasiksena Irania vastaan tehtävään iskuun - mikä johti lyhyehköön sotaan. Mun mielestä Sampossa oli ongelmallista, että mies on NATOn kannattaja, mutta tuli tunne ettei halua tietää kunnolla mitä kaikkea peliä siihen kuvioon liittyy EU:ta apunakäyttäen, vaikka esimerkiksi Nigel Farage on asioista puhunut jo vuosia kriittiseen sävyyn.

Valitettavaa, että juuri jenkit tietävät aiheesta enemmän ja avoimemmin sen kertovat, sillä onhan varsinkin Georgian kuvio juuri heidän, eikä Euroopan. Siksi jostain jenkkilehdistöstä voi lukea aineistoa, jota ei kotimanteereemme poliitikot tunnu myöntävän.

[xor_rox]

Jenkeissä - kuten täälläkin - on ilakoitu öljyn hinnan laskulla. Kusi lämmitti hetken housuissa, mutta sitten...

Junk Bonds Backing Shale Boom Facing $11.6 Billion Loss

Bond investors who helped finance America's shale boom are facing potential losses of $11.6 billion as oil prices plummet by the most since the credit crisis.

The $90 billion of debt issued by junk-rated energy producers in the past three years has fallen almost 13 percent since crude oil peaked in June. Halcon Resources Corp. (HK), SandRidge Energy Inc. and Goodrich Petroleum Corp. have been among the hardest hit as OPEC's refusal to ease a supply glut pushed prices to a five-year low of $66.15 a barrel last week.

The oil selloff is deepening concern among bond investors that the least-creditworthy oil explorers will struggle to pay their obligations and prompt bankers to rein in credit lines as revenue slumps. Halcon, SandRidge and Goodrich are among about 21 borrowers operating in the costliest U.S. shale-producing regions that will be unprofitable if crude oil falls below $60 a barrel, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

"We are concerned that there will be defaults and that was even before oil fell as much as it has," Ivan Rudolph-Shabinsky, a New York-based money manager at Alliance Bernstein Holding LP, said in a telephone interview. "There was too much money going into this space that would have resulted in problems long term -- now that timeline has been accelerated."

[...jatkuu...]

Fall in oil price threatens high-yield bonds

Tumbling crude oil prices are threatening to destabilise the US high-yield bond market, which has provided billions of dollars to finance the North American shale energy revolution.

The price of West Texas Intermediate crude has dropped 36 per cent since the start of May. This development has repercussions for the US junk bond market, where energy is the largest sector with a weighting of around 15 per cent.

[...jatkuu...]

[hattiwatti]

^^^ Yep, joku oli laskenut, että öljyn hinta alle 70 taalan pistää domino-nappuloiden tavoin jenkkien shale-oil firmat konkurssiin. Niillä kun on valtavasti velkaa, sillä tämä kuviohan on vain asuntokuplan jatkettua, FEDin ilmaisella rahalla luotua - tosin sillä erotuksella, että shale-oil ja shale-gas sijoitukset sentään tuottavatkin jotain. Mutta ainakin liuskekaasua on myyty tappiolla, koska kyseessä on finanssikupla. ja siksi vahva paine saada ylituotantoa purettua Eurooppaan. Shale oil on voitollista, mutta ei ihan näillä hinnoilla.

Paljonhan puhutaan, että tässä olisi yritystä laittaa Venäjän ja Iranin talous nurin siten, että molempien arkkiviholliset USA ja Saudit pyrkisivät painamaan hinnat alas - näinhän Reaganinkin aikana Neuvostoliitto kaadettiin. Nyt homma voi kusta reisille jenkkien osalta, ja ehkäpä Saudit haluavatkin tehdä kakkaa jenkkien shale-oil industrylle.

Tässä ulkopoliittista näkökulmaa liittyen Iran-Saudi - skismaan:

http://blogs.rediff.com/mkbhadrakumar/2014/12/11/saudi-oil-and-the-shiite-crescent/

Having said that, the big question is how much of a lethal blow the Saudis could be inflicting on the Iranian economy by keeping the oil prices low?

The fact of the matter is that Tehran anticipates a prolonged period when oil prices may remain low and is ably adjusting to the new reality. The Iranian budget which has been presented in the Majlis in Tehran last week suggests that the economy can absorb the body blow from the Saudis. Some indicators:

Despite a 28 percent decline in the base crude oil price, the budget projects only an 8% decline in oil and gas export revenues.
The defence and security expenditure increases by 32 percent ($12.6 billion).
Infrastructure expenditure will increase by 25 percent.
The economy has succeeded in reducing its dependence on oil income to somewhere around one-third of all income. Tax revenues and proceeds of privatization amply compensate for the shortfall in oil income, as non-oil exports have done well and are expected to register a 20% growth in the coming year. (See an analysis on the subject, here.)
Put differently, Tehran knows that time is working in its favor and the sanctions regime is becoming increasingly irrelevant. Ironically, the Western sanctions may have helped Iran to emerge as the only petrodollar state in the region with a diverse industrial base and indigenous military capabilities to safeguard its national security.

Putinin uutistoimisto propagoi FEDin osuutta asiaan:
http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20141211/1015719480.html

The Federal Reserve is currently doing little to prevent the blooming sector of the national economy from turning into a bubble. The interest rate is dangerously low, possibly fueling the 'shale bubble', similar to the dotcom bubble and real estate bubble, both of which maimed the economy at their time.

The oil boom of the last couple years in the United States has happened due to two main reasons: a technological breakthrough and cheap credit. While the former is undoubtedly a global-scale scientific achievement, bearing benefits to humanity, the latter was possible due to the Fed's ultra-low interest rate, which provided large volumes of cheap money. However, the Fed has gradually been tightening up since October last year, possibly preventing the economy from overheating.

Nonetheless, as the QE ended this autumn, Fed monetary tightening halted, with the shale boom continuing, bringing the US oil production to its record high since 1983 and driving oil prices to their lowest since 2009. In these circumstances, the Fed's protraction in further tightening, namely the interest hike, may transform the shale boom into a 'shale bubble'.

Itävaltalaisen taloustieteen näkökulmasta:

http://www.prudentbear.com/2014/12/the-bears-lair-oil-free-market-is-bad.html#.VI3EmtKsVA1

In the late 80s and the 90s, marginal supplies were profitable at $10 a barrel. Today that figure is more like $70. There is a certain amount of further efficiencies that can be gained from experience, so the initial estimates of $80 a barrel at which fracking and oil shale made sense were probably a little high.
.....
However, once the oil price falls below $70, the economic ill-effects for the U.S. of being the world's high-cost oil producer kick in. Investment in the oil sector becomes hopelessly unprofitable, so a wave of bankruptcies must result. In the Austrian economic analysis, the U.S. and Canadian investment in fracking, tar sands and deep-sea drilling becomes "malinvestment" that must be liquidated.

[hattiwatti]

^ Kyllä siellä Ukrainassa edelleen taistellaan ja konfliktia riittää*, mutta yleisesti ottaen on aistittavissa maailman media seuraamalla (konsernisanomia lukemalla voi syntyä toisenlainen kuva, mutta en sitä juuri seuraa), että aivan kuin jokin "pohjavire" laajemmissa kuvioissa olisi jo muuttunut, joka voi kertoa siitä, että jotakin "strategisia päätöksiä" on tehty. Esim. ent. kom. Mogherini ja EU-laajentumiskomissaari kävivät äskettäin Turkissa ja oli ollut puhetta Turkin lähenemisestä EU:hun ja suhteiden tiivistämisestä. Laajentumiskomissaari nosti esiin myös toiveen Turkin EU-jäsenyydestä. Turkkia ei kovin asia ole enää viime aikoina kiinnostanut. Saas nähdä, miten asiat kehittyvät.

Tämä on mielenkiintoinen käänne kaasuputki-saippuaoopperassa, että Turkkia nyt kosiskellaan taas EU jäseneksi. Oma oletukseni oli, että Turkin EU-jäsenyys jäisi unholaan lopullisesti, kun Putin esti maata käytettäväksi Venäjän kaasun kiertämiseen. Toisaalta, epäilin myös, että Turkki mahdollisesti myös peruu kyseisen aiesopparin jos vain sille tehtäisiin vastineeksi Euroopan veronmaksajille kalliiksi käyvä tarjous josta ei voisi kieltätyä. Ja nyt asiat näyttävätkin kehittyvän tähän suuntaan. Mahdollisesti syynä mikä on saanut Brysselin norsunluutornikerman hyppimään pitkin seinä on Moskovan lobbaama optio Turkin liittymisestä SCO:hon mikä ilmeisesti tarkoittaisi eroa NATOsta (mitä tulikuumaa aihetta kotimaisessa NATO-keskustelussa ei tietty huomioida mitenkään). Tällöin on varmasti käsky Atlantin takaa Brysselille käynyt, että Turkki takaisin ruotuun, maksoi mitä maksoi, ja siitä islamisaatiosta ei saa nyt välittää saatikka Turkin ISIS-tuen kaltaisista tyhjänpäiväisyyksistä - SCO-integraatio on pysäytettävä hinnalla millä hyvänsä!

Enkä epäile, että kävi miten kävi, Turkki tulee voittamaan jotain EU:n kustannuksella. Niillä on nyt semmoinen asema. Toisaalta, vittuako tuonne on oikeasti pakko anneksoitua, sillä eihän sitä tavallisesta kansasta halua kukaan, joskin poliittisesta eliitistä kyllä.

Niin ja hommaforumin olemassaolon tarkoitus on aina ollut pelko Euroopan islamisaatiosta. Todellinen Iso Kuvio tämän suhteen on Turkin EU-jäsenyys, joka aidosti antaisi islamistiselle, ISIS:tä tukevalle hallitukselle erittäin suuren vallan Brysselissä. Kaikki muu on vähäpätöistä tämän rinnalla. Ja kaiken takana: kaasuputket.

Niin, Halla-Ahokin muuten on ryhmässä, joka haluaa Turkin Eurostoliittoon, kuten Washingtonista on aina käsketty. Ja Halla-Aho onkin - Ukrainan kysymykseen liittyen - hehkuttanut brittikonservatiivien vetämää ECR-ryhmäänsä semmoiseksi, ettei kuulemma tarvitse hävetä!

Suomessa viime keväänä Terhon & persujen ja Simon Elon vieraana ja kehuttavana ollut 'valovoimainen' Daniel Hannan kertoo aiheesta mielenkiintoista.

http://simonelo.puheenvuoro.uusisuomi.fi/166545-brittimeppi-daniel-hannan-nakee-suomen-euroeron-mahdolliseksi

Sain tänään kunnian isännöidä kahta valovoimaista miestä, brittimeppi Daniel Hannania ja talousasiantuntija Heikki Koskenkylää eurovaalitilaisuudessani Helsingissä. Teemana oli "Uudistajien Eurooppa".

http://standforpeace.org.uk/turkophilia/

Britain's  Conservative Party has spuriously praised the Turkish government as an example of 'democratic Islamism' while deliberately ignoring its villainy.

In late March, Umut Oran, deputy chairman of Turkey's political opposition, the People's Republican Party, denounced a decision by the British Conservative Party to welcome Turkey's ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP), led by Prime Minister Erdogan, into the 'Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists' – a pan-European coalition of political parties ostensibly dedicated to defending "freedom of the individual."

The British Conservative Party's embrace of the AKP took place just days after President Erdogan banned Twitter and YouTube in Turkey as "a matter of national security."

Opposition leader Umut Oran stated that the union of political parties would mean "sharing the crimes" of the Turkish Government, and that, "No one believing in the fundamental values of democracy in Europe can approve of Erdogan's practices."

Although President Obama, among others, describes the Ankara regime as an example of "moderate Islamism," Erdogan does not limit himself solely to containing free expression: senior terror leaders, such as Hamas operative Saleh al-Arouri, have found refuge in Turkey; Turkish air raids have killed scores of Kurdish civilians on the Turkish-Iraqi border; and counter-terror experts regard the Turkish terror-fundraising charity IHH as, essentially, an arm of Erdogan's government.

Some British parliamentarians – usually robust opponents of despotism, bigotry and terror – appear to suffer a blind spot where Turkey is concerned. British Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan, as a salient example, has built a strong reputation with his work exposing the corruption of the European Union, or warning of the danger posed by a nuclear Iran.

Following the introduction of the AKP into the Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists, however, Hannan, who is also secretary-General of the pan-European group, declared the Alliance valued having a "positive relationship with Ankara" and that, "present developments should, however, be seen in the context of a decade of democratic and economic reforms by the AKP, including lifting broadcasting restrictions and addressing discrimination against Kurds."

Hannan is founding member of Conservative Friends of Turkey and a self-proclaimed "Turkophile." This adulation appears to extend to Turkey's Islamist government. During mass protests in Turkey against the government in 2013, Hannan claimed that the mainstream media was "lying" and that it is "offensive to liken this government in Turkey, which is without question democratic, to neighbouring autocracies." Hannan has separately praised the Turkish government's response to the Syrian refugee crisis as "heroic."

Hannan strongly advocates Turkish accession to the European Union, despite his long campaign to have Britain leave it. He has justified this support by claiming Turkey safeguarded Europe's flank "against the Bolshevist tyranny; we may one day ask them to do the same against the Islamic hegemony and the Islamist Jihadi hegemony. I think that they deserve better than the way they have been treated."

To claim that Turkey is a safeguard against Islamist hegemony is to contradict the unavoidable problem of Turkey as a leading supporter of Islamist hegemony.

Hannan's seemingly blind support for the current repressive Turkish Government seems to be mostly based on an infatuation with Turkey itself rather than an implicit defence of AKP Islamism. In terms of realpolitik, though, the difference matters little; the effect is the same.

The AKP government certainly regards Britain's Conservatives as an important ally of sorts. In February 2014, Turkish minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu conveyed Turkey's gratitude for Britain's unwavering support for Turkey's bid to become a European Union member.

British Conservative politicians are aware of the change Turkey has undergone since the AKP came to power in 2002. When the Conservatives took power in 2010, it was not mere happenstance that David Cameron chose a Turkish audience to claim, while standing alongside Erdogan, that Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip had turned the territory into a "prison camp."

In 2010, Turkey's AKP represented the face of "democratic Islamism," and the Conservative government was keen to extend a hand.  In 2011, Foreign Secretary William Hague penned a comment piece in the Daily Telegraph, which declared that a "new special relationship" with Turkey was "vital for our economy, vital for our security and vital for our politics and our diplomacy."

Hague proudly proclaimed that, "Our counter-terrorism experts met in London last week to discuss how we can strengthen cooperation in countering radicalisation and tackling the scourge of PKK terrorism."

PKK terrorism refers to the Kurdistan Workers Party, a Marxist terror group that the British have never considered to pose a security concern. Nevertheless, in 2013, the British government proudly announced that, "Thanks to rapid action by the UK security authorities in recent years, the amount of funds raised by the Kurdistan Workers' Party or PKK in London has diminished rapidly."

Real security concerns for Britain — not discussed as part of the "new special relationship" — might, however, have included the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas and Al Qaeda – all of which have reportedly benefitted from the support of the Turkish government and the government-aligned IHH; and all of which raise funds in London.

British Conservatives are serving to legitimize a Turkish political ideology connected to terrorism abroad and repression at home. The West's relations with the Muslim world may comprise a web of tangled alliances and distrust, but there is an importance difference between tolerating despotism and enabling it. The current British government, despite Turkey's increasingly apparent connections to terror, are continuing to do the latter.

Geopolitiikan peruste on: koska kaasuputket, joko Venäjä tai Turkki syvemmin integroitava EU:hun, kaasuputkien sisällölle on taattava vapaa liikkuvuus. Tällä hetkellä se osa poliittista eliittiä joiden kanssa Halla-Aho & muut nuivat kimpassa on sitten valinnut jälkimmäisen vaihtoehdon, kuten Washington on aina käskenytkin.

[törö]

Tää metka protesti Brittien pornolakien tiukentamista vastaan on jäänyt Suomessa aika vähälle huomiolle, vaikka siitä kyllä jaksetaan kohkata vieläkin, että Venäjällä päätettiin jotain vuosi sitten, ettei alaikäisiä saa yrittää käännyttää homoiksi. Lievää kaksinaismoralismia havaittavissa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EmsbBMDvyQ

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/howaboutthat/11289635/Porn-protest-bring-your-coat-and-wrap-up-warm.html

[hattiwatti]

Ei se olekaan kaasu, vaan se on kivihiilen pula, mikä voi tehdä kylmän talven:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/26/ukraine-crisis-coal-idUSL6N0TG19820141126

Emergency measures include cutting consumption and public information campaigns to save energy, while in the long term the Kiev government is trying to raise energy prices to market levels to end a culture of energy waste based on decades of unrealistically cheap energy.

Anthracite, or hard coal, is used in Ukranian power plants but it makes up around only 1 percent of world coal reserves and is only mined in just a handful of countries. Ukraine's ability to pay for that coal is also hampered by its weak currency.

Ukraine can import electricity from Russia and the energy ministry said on Wednesday it will allow this, but in limited quantities.

[Sivustakatsoja]

Rauhanhieronta on vaikeaa... Sen jälkeen kun Kiovan ja separatistien Donestkin lentokentällä taistelevien joukkojen johtajat (jälkimmäisiä edusti "Motorola") tapasivat ja kättelivät, puhuen tahdostaan lopettaa sotiminen, alkoi Kiovan joukoissa nimienkeruu listaan, joka vaatii kyseisen Kiovan joukkojen johtajan eroamista.

Asiaa sivuten pari kohtalaisen tuoretta videota Donetskin lentokentältä, yksi kummaltakin puolelta:

• Ukraine Today -kanavan 6.5-minuutin raportti.
  
  
  
  • Videon kohdasta 3:25 eteenpäin esitetään kartalla Kiovan näkemys aiheesta, mikä osapuoli pitää hallussaan mitäkin osaa.
• 15-minuuttinen video, joka näyttää separatistien puolta (vanha terminaalirakennus).

[xor_rox]

Ukraina on vaihtamassa ydinpolttoainetoimittajansa venäläisestä (TVEL) yhdysvaltalaiseen (Westinghouse), kuinkas muuten. Minusta asiassa kannattaisi nyt kuunnella venäläisiä, vaikka sitten hampaat irvessä. Tämän muutoksen tuuli saattaa nimittäin puhaltaa meille asti.


Ukraine may lose $11-13 bln if its citizens are banned to work in Russia - PM

Bishkek (AKIpress) - Ukraine is running the risk to lose 11-13 billion U.S. dollars if its citizens are banned to work in Russia.

"For many Ukrainian, work in Russia is the only source of subsistence," but "only thanks to Ukraine's actions, Russia will have to cut off this source," Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev warned in his article published in the Monday issue of the Nezavisimaya Gazeta daily on Monday.

The Ukrainian authorities, which are declaring their "European choice" for the country are repeating mistakes of former President of that country Viktor Yanukovich, said Medvedev, reports TASS.

Abstracts from the in    terview to come put in the Monday issue of the newspaper were posted on its website on Sunday.

"Speaking of the "European choice" and possible joining the European Union in the next few years, the Ukrainian leader may be repeating Yanukovich's mistake," the Russian prime minister noted. "With the only difference that having realized his error, Yanukovich found courage to try to suspend this process."

"The current leaders however are trying not to focus attention of their nation on "details." They are silent about the fact that Ukraine does have all the standard liabilities of a candidate for the European Union membership whereas it has no candidate status," Medvedev stressed.

PM Medvedev said Ukraine's switch to use upgraded nuclear fuel from the United States at its nuclear power plants (NPP), built in the Soviet times, might bear dangerous consequences. "We cannot but be concerned with the intention of the Ukrainian authorities to undermine production cooperation in the sphere of nuclear energy."

"The grim example of the dangerous impact of politics on the economy may be found in attempts to upload American fuel in Soviet-made power units of the Ukrainian NPPs," Medvedev said.

The Russian prime minister said he was positive that "experiments conducted under pressure from the US manufacturers were technically unsafe," adding that "attempts to substitute Russian produced nuclear fuel with the American were already made earlier in Ukraine and Eastern Europe, for instance, in the Czech Republic."

"And these experiments resulted in serious technical problems and shutdown of reactors," he said.

US-based Westinghouse and Ukraine's national nuclear power company Energoatom have been cooperating on nuclear fuel supplies since 2000 and in April both companies extended a contract on supplies for Ukrainian nuclear power plants until 2020.

Energoatom and Westinghouse initially launched a project for diversifying nuclear fuel supplies in a bid to reduce Ukraine's energy dependence on neighboring Russia.

Russia's manufacturer of nuclear fuel, TVEL, was formerly the major fuel supplier for Ukrainian nuclear power plants.

Energoatom CEO Yury Nedashkovsky said in mid-September that supplies of Russian fuel for Ukrainian nuclear power plants did not cease and were delivered in line with the schedule.

Safety concerns regarding Ukraine's switch to the US supplied nuclear fuel were repeatedly voiced by Russian experts and some officials, including by Sergey Kiriyenko, the head of Russian state-run nuclear corporation Rosatom.

The world's worst nuclear accident happened in 1986 in Ukraine, at the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. The explosion there and ensuing fallout from the critical nuclear meltdown contaminated vast areas in the then-Soviet republics of Ukraine, Belarus and Russia.

Nuclear Power Plants in Ukraine (red)
(http://www.insc.gov.ua/maps/ukraine.jpg)

[xor_rox]

[...] Esim. ent. kom. Mogherini ja EU-laajentumiskomissaari kävivät äskettäin Turkissa ja oli ollut puhetta Turkin lähenemisestä EU:hun ja suhteiden tiivistämisestä. Laajentumiskomissaari nosti esiin myös toiveen Turkin EU-jäsenyydestä. Turkkia ei kovin asia ole enää viime aikoina kiinnostanut. Saas nähdä, miten asiat kehittyvät.

Tämä on mielenkiintoinen käänne kaasuputki-saippuaoopperassa, että Turkkia nyt kosiskellaan taas EU jäseneksi.
[...]

A country without the deep-seated corruption of nearby 'European' states and the religious radicalism of its Middle Eastern neighbors, Turkey is back in business. It also has the potential to become the dominant power in its hinterland, if it isn't already. 

Relations between Moscow and Ankara have been making headlines due to a new gas deal which will replace the ill-fated South Stream project. Nevertheless, from a Turkish perspective, warmer relations with Russia are part of a greater pivot to Eurasia. After flirting with Europe for decades and being constantly spurned, Turkey no longer seeks to be an attachment to a failing EU. Indeed, many Turks expressed the view that being rejected by Brussels has turned out to be a lucky escape.

"Imagine being tied to that now? Paying for Greece and all the other bankrupt places? We were blessed. They wouldn't accept us because we were too big and too Muslim. Now we don't feel like supporting their stagnant economies," as one Black Sea coast politician put it. 

While Europe has spent six years flailing around for solutions to its economic malaise and lurching from one crisis to another, it's been another story entirely in Turkey. Its economy grew by 9.2 percent in 2010, with a projected four percent increase this year. By contrast, the EU managed a meagre two percent in 2010, and an astonishingly paltry 0.1 percent is predicted for 2014. Thus, it's fairly clear that Turkey benefits from keeping the Brussels behemoth at arm's length.

Now, thanks to the collapse of Russia-EU relations, Ankara has very cleverly positioned itself as a major energy conduit to Europe, dramatically adding to its collection of bargaining chips. Once upon a time, Turkey would have probably used this advantage to increase its hopes of joining the EU – but now it will be used as leverage in other areas.

Turkey may also be a potential member of an expanded BRICS alliance, as it continues to slide away from its Cold War position in the pro-American camp. The nation is transitioning from being a relatively poor, 20th century backwater to a revanchist major power in the 21st.

[jatkuu]

Minusta on hienoa, että Turkki ei ole Eurostoliiton jäsenvaltio. Olisi hienoa, jos Suomikaan ei olisi.

[Sivustakatsoja]

Turkey may also be a potential member of an expanded BRICS alliance, as it continues to slide away from its Cold War position in the pro-American camp. The nation is transitioning from being a relatively poor, 20th century backwater to a revanchist major power in the 21st.

[jatkuu]

Minusta on hienoa, että Turkki ei ole Eurostoliiton jäsenvaltio. Olisi hienoa, jos Suomikaan ei olisi.

Turkissa on tällä hetkellä jotain samaa kuin Venäjässä. Juurihan uutisoitiin siitä, kuinka Turkissa oli ratsattu/pidätetty USA:ssa maanpaossa olevan Fethullah Gulenin kannattajiksi katsottuja toimittajia yms. Erdogan on syyttänyt Gulenia aikeista järjestää vallankaappaus Turkissa. Erdoganista olisi siis muodostumassa Turkin Putin ja Gulenista Turkin Kasparov/Khodorkovski.

Turkin hallitus on ilmeisesti sanonut, että Gulenin toimet ovat jonkinlainen salaliitto lännen pompoteltavaksi suostumatonta Turkkia vastaan. Lisäksi, samankaltaisesti kuin Venäjällä puhutaan "viidennestä kolonnasta", Turkissa on puhuttu "sisäisistä vihollisista". Tämä kertonee siitä, että Turkki ja Venäjä tulevat olemaan kavereita jatkossakin. Yhteinen vihollinen yhdistää jne. Alla ote ratsioita/pidätyksiä koskevasta BBC:n uutisesta:

Analysis by Mark Lowen, BBC News, Istanbul

The timing of these arrests isn't coincidental. It's almost a year to the day since the biggest corruption scandal in Turkey's modern history exploded. Recep Tayyip Erdogan, then prime minister, now president, was targeted, along with his inner circle. Four ministers were forced to resign. It was widely believed the government wouldn't survive.

Extraordinarily, Mr Erdogan managed to turn it around, declaring war on what he called a "parallel state": followers of his one-time ally Fetullah Gulen who he said were plotting a coup. He fired thousands of police officers and prosecutors. This is stage two: arresting the critics.

Turkey already ranks 154th of 180 in the press freedom index compiled by Reporters without Borders. Human rights organisations raise concerns that freedom of expression is under attack in a country seeking EU membership.

But the Turkish government says it's a conspiracy against a country that won't toe the West's line. It talks of the "enemy within" which must be eradicated. Today's move will fuel international concerns of an eroding democracy here.

[hattiwatti]

Kun mietiskelen asiaa vähän syvällisemmin, niin väite taitaakin olla lähes totta. Oikeastaan se USA:n kataluus konkretisoituu ilmiöön nimeltä "liuskeöljy". Vaikka Putlerin sotilasesikuntien suunnittelutyö oli muuten täydellistä ( vrt. esim Krim), niin liuskeöljyn katastrofaalinen vaikutus Venäjän sotatalouteen jäi liian vähälle huomiolle. Koko karmeus tuli esiin eilen. OPEC maat eivät supistaneet tuotantoaan ja öljyn hinta tipahti välittömästi jopa alle 70 taalan. Liuskeöljy aiheuttaa erään arvion mukaan päivittäisen 2 miljoona barrelin ylituotannon ja hinnan odotetaan tippuvan alle 60 taalan lähiaikoina.

Öljyn hinnan laskuun liittyy monenlaisia "salaliittoteorioita". Jotkut sanovat, että taustalla olisi USA:n ja sen liittolaisten Venäjää kohtaan kohdistama isku. Jotkut taas sanovat, että kyseessä onkin OPEC-maiden (jossa Venäjäkin oli neuvotteluissa) sopima keino asettaa paineita USA:n liuskeöljyn tuottajille. CNBC uutisoi asiasta otsikolla Will OPEC bankrupt US shale producers?.

OPEC's contentious decision to keep its production target, leaving the market with a supply glut, could trigger a wave of debt defaults by U.S. shale oil producers, warn analysts.
...
Neil Beveridge, senior oil analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein, told CNBC the plunge in oil prices raises the risk of bankruptcy for U.S. shale players.

"While production growth is very strong [in North America], remember if you look at the debt situation for a lot of these companies, there is a lot of distressed debt," said Beveridge.

"$68 a barrel is not economical for a lot of these shale oil wells. CDS [credit default swap] spreads and yields on some of the debt are rising very quickly, because at these kinds of oil prices you are going to see producers go bankrupt," he added.

Since 2011, U.S. energy firms have ploughed some $1.5 trillion into ramping up their operations, taking on a large share of debt to do so, according to Alliance Bernstein.
...

Eli Alliance Bernsteinin mukaan USA:ssa on investoitu viimeisten 3 vuoden aikana "vaivaiset" 1500 miljardia USD liuskeöljyprojekteihin. Onnea ja menestystä noiden maksuun, jos öljyn hinta pysyy alhaalla hiemankin pidempään.

And Sechin says that Russian oil companies are accustomed to dealing with sharp price fluctuations. "A decline in the price of oil, even below $60, isn't so dramatic for us that it would require immediate cuts" in production, he told Bloomberg.

Eli voipi olla ettei se Moskovan Maidan nyt ihan kuitenkaan nurkan takana odota.

Kyllä ainakin tämän linkin mukaan kyseessä olisi enemmän OPEC-maiden isku USAn liuskeöljytuotantoa vastaan. Toki sunni-petromonarkiat tykkäävät kurmoottaa myös arkkivihollistaan Irania ja sen turvaajaa Venäjää, mutta mitä ilmeisimmin USAn finanssikuplalle rakennettu kallishintainen liuskeöljytuotanto saisi eniten turpiinsa. Muu maailma, ja varsinkin Intian ja Kiinan kaltaiset isot kehitysmaat hyötyvät taas öljynhinnan laskusta, kuten onneksi tällä kertaa Suomikin.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-14/u-a-e-says-opec-won-t-change-output-even-if-price-drops-to-40.html

OPEC will stand by its decision not to cut output even if oil prices fall as low as $40 a barrel and will wait at least three months before considering an emergency meeting, the United Arab Emirates' energy minister said.

"Our expectation in OPEC is that after 2020, the oil industry in the U.S. will decline" due to the nation's low reserves, he said. The U.S. won't become self-sufficient in oil and will continue to depend on Middle Eastern supply, he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/12/14/us-opec-oil-badri-idUSKBN0JS06F20141214

However Saudi Arabia's oil minister Ali al-Naimi had told last month's OPEC meeting the organization must combat the U.S. shale oil boom, arguing for maintaining output to depress prices and undermine the profitability of North American producers, said a source who was briefed by a non-Gulf OPEC minister. 

[Jukka Wallin]

Sampo Terhon kanta oli käytännössä sama kysyttäessä kuin Merkelin, että nämä sopparit vain luovat vapaakauppaa ja muuta kivaa, eivätkä mitään syvempää integraatiota. Tuntui, että selkeästi vältteli koko ikävän aiheen käsittelyä, ja onhan vapaakauppa-alue niin ihqu ajatus. Vaikka tämä nyt on noin vaatimattomasti EU:n keskeisin juttu tällä hetkellä, ja muuten sitä mitä persut ovat sivumennen aina vastustaneet. Ja aivan erityisesti Nigel Farage, jonka toverina Sampo on pitkään ollut.  Tuli myös vahva tunne, että onhan se ehkä parempi jos Terho siirtyisi tänne Suomeen puuhastelemaan vaikkapa autovero-kysymyksen parissa kun viettää aikaansa hankalan EU:n ulkopolitiikan kanssa, kuten on onneksi tekemässä.

Totuushan on, että jahka sopparit on allekirjoitettu, syvempi integraatio alkaa ihan NATO-päämajasta saneltuihin geopoliittisiin intresseihin perustuen. Varsinkin Georgiaa kannattaa tutkia; mitä ihmettä EU siellä tekee? Sen sijaan maalla on jenkeille tärkeä merkitys BTC-putken läpikulkureittinä, Nabucco-putken (Venäjän kiertämiseksi) tärkeänä osana, ja erityisesti myös hyökkäysbasiksena Irania vastaan tehtävään iskuun - mikä johti lyhyehköön sotaan. Mun mielestä Sampossa oli ongelmallista, että mies on NATOn kannattaja, mutta tuli tunne ettei halua tietää kunnolla mitä kaikkea peliä siihen kuvioon liittyy EU:ta apunakäyttäen, vaikka esimerkiksi Nigel Farage on asioista puhunut jo vuosia kriittiseen sävyyn.

Valitettavaa, että juuri jenkit tietävät aiheesta enemmän ja avoimemmin sen kertovat, sillä onhan varsinkin Georgian kuvio juuri heidän, eikä Euroopan. Siksi jostain jenkkilehdistöstä voi lukea aineistoa, jota ei kotimanteereemme poliitikot tunnu myöntävän.

Seurasin Sampo Terhon EU vaalikampanjaa läheltä. Itselleni jäi toisenlainen kuva hänen oletetusta Nato myönteisyydestä. Hän muistaakseni sanoi, että hän olosuhteiden pakosta pitää Natoa ainoana Euroopan rauhan takeena.