Let us check what Putin really said at the annual VTB show:
"I would like to note that the economy is gradually recovering nonetheless. However, the rates of this recovery are in question and everyone knows why ..." Yes, your bad economic policy. en.kremlin.ru/events/preside…
"I would like to ask the Government – I address my colleagues in the Government of the Russian Federation – to prepare within a week an updated plan of action to counter the risks of the spread of the new coronavirus strain."
A typical Putin Stalinist measure.
Putin: "a distinctive feature of the current situation is the high inflationary pressure" blaming "the extremely soft budgetary policy in most developed countries"
What about the Russian oil and gas squeeze? Why talk about the truth?
"First, our long-term priority is the growth of the share of infrastructure investment in the GDP."
So why have you, Putin, minimized Russian investments for the last two decades?
Putin: "Second, we support investment aimed at making positive social and environmental changes in our country, which meets the sustainable development goals that Russia plans to achieve."
Why lie so blatantly? You have no shame?
Putin: "Third. Digital transformation, the introduction of new technologies in all spheres should give a boost to the development of the national economy, should increase labour productivity and people’s incomes." Everybody says so, but Russia does the least.
Putin: "Fourth. The banking sector and the stock market play an important role in the recovery of the Russian economy and in putting it on a long-term growth trajectory." They are all shrinking because of the Putin anti-capitalist policy.
Why lie so blatantly. VVP?
The obvious conclusion is:
Why would anybody be so stupid as to invest in Russian equities?
There is one rational answer:
The yields are so high because of price per earnings being so low. Why not take the money and run?
Few take Russian shareholding seriously any longer.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
The German government non-paper published by Axios @zacharybasu (congratulations!) is astounding (presuming it is correct), containing four lies on its first page. documentcloud.org/documents/2111…
1. First German government lie: "NoS2 at present no threat to Ukraine as long as a reasonable gas transit is ensured." No reasonable gas transit through Ukraine can be assured when NS2 is brought into operation
2. Second lie: "Cooperation ensures that Russia does not use energy as a weapon."
Russia has useds energy as a weapon in Eastern Europe since the US-German statement was signed on July 21. Why do you lie so blatantly?
Russia is dangerous because it is a declining power, but it has disproportionately strong military power. It has an obvious incentive to use this power before it loses more military heft because its economic stagnation caused by authoritarian kleptocracy & Western sanctions.
Remember that World War I was started by Austria-Hungary, a declining power, that declared war on Serbia just because of a terrorist killing. Pompous declining powers tend to become risk loving, just like investors close to bankruptcy.
The obvious response to a declining power is to deter it with convincing military force & political will. Right now, Ukraine is the battle front. The US, UK & Canada seem to have got the message, but are France & Germany fully aware as yet?
Noteworthy from Zelensky's 4th press conference:
"No alliance negotiations with Kolomoisky already for two years" = did so earlier.
Defense of Yermak as usual, his deputy Tatarov suspected of corruption, and Ruslan Demchenko, 1st dep sec of National Defense & Security Council responsible for intelligence, that journalist Yuriy Butusov claims is Russian agent.
Very weak statements on the National Bank of Ukraine. Zelensky claimed the situation was bad before (when it was excellent), but it is still not good (after he has weakened it). No clear statement on governor Shevchenko.
Germany's new coalition agreement between SPD, the Greens and FDP is quite detailed and specific with 177 pages.
The long foreign policy chapter is appropriate called: "Germany's Responsibility for Europe and the World" spd.de/fileadmin/Doku…
1. The US is not criticized but almost missing, mentioned 9 times, transatlantic 7 and NATO 11 times, while it is all about Europe, cited 254 times. Clearly, the Germans dare not rely upon the US any longer. Within the EU, two countries are praised, France and Poland.
2. The emphasis lies on values: democracy, peace, welfare, freedom, human rights, rule of law and multilateralism. But also on a "strategically sovereign EU." The coalition wants to develop and strengthen the EU in all conceivable regards.
The news about the planned Russian military attack on Ukraine end January-early February continues to come from all kind of sources. You don't announce a war 3 months ahead unless you enjoy enormous overweight as the US did in the Gulf and Iraq wars.
Instead, I think the Kremlin is checking the many weaknesses of the West and will hit where these weaknesses ar the greatest, and there are so many soft targets or low-hanging fruits.
Closest to my interests, Europe has made so many mistakes in its energy policies, so why not let them fail: Too small reserves, uncertain supply contracts, vulnerable markets leading to both shortages & high prices, ultimately breaking up the EU market model.
Suddenly, Washington's many pro-Putin advocates have presented a flow of articles arguing that the West should stop supporting Ukraine & instead listening to Putin's wise advice. One of the worst is Rand's Samuel Charap, so let us check his arguments. politico.com/news/magazine/…
1. Charap claims that the US policy of offering "sticks to Moscow and carrots to Kyiv" has failed. Western sanctions and mainly US military support stopped the Russian military expansion in Ukraine from February 2015. That is not bad, but Charap clearly wants more for Moscow...
2. Charap continues "The risk of a major war seems real enough to justify a new U.S. approach. The current policy of threatening punishments and bolstering Kyiv might be morally justified, but it is highly unlikely to alter Putin’s calculus." Charap wants the US to abandon peace?