Quote: On Friday, oil jumped by more than $3 after a US military vessel fired on an Iranian boat in the Gulf, fuelling concerns about a conflict escalating between Washington and Tehran.
Nymex June West Texas Intermediate jumped $3.32 to a session high of $119.38 a barrel yesterday before easing back to trade $3 higher at $119.06, up 2 per cent this week. ICE June Brent surged $2.66 to $117.00 a barrel, up 2.7 per cent this week.
Oil hit a record $119.90 a barrel on Tuesday amid concerns about the outlook for supplies from Saudi Arabia, production disruptions in Nigeria and evidence of strong demand from China.
Adam Sieminski, of Deutsche Bank, said the cost of getting oil out of the ground was rising rapidly - around 20 per cent annually - and the price could reach $150 a barrel in another five years. "There is a huge risk that the oil price will continue to escalate until it gets to some level, perhaps $200 a barrel, when demand will finally collapse," said Mr Sieminski.
US petrol prices reached the $3 a gallon level for the first time this week and Nymex May RBOB unleaded gasoline spiked to a record $3.0815 a gallon yesterday, up 3.1 per cent this week.
Gold firmed 0.6 per cent to $890.25 a troy ounce yesterday, down 2.8 per cent this week. Some traders think the dollar could be close to a turning point if the Federal Reserve signals an end to interest rate cuts next week, and this may be deterring some investors from opening new long positions in gold.
In agricultural markets, US wheat prices dropped to a five-month low after Ukraine eased restrictions on exports. The move by one of the world's largest wheat exporters could put pressure on Russia to remove its export tax. CBOT May wheat fell 6.2 per cent to $8.16 a bushel this week.
Some US corn plantings have been delayed by rain and farmers are watching weather forecasts anxiously. CBOT May corn dipped 2.2 per cent to $5.86 a bushel this week. Rice traded at record levels with indicative prices for Thai medium-quality white rice, the global benchmark, quoted above $1,000 a tonne. Exporters offering rice to Japan at $1,300 a tonne were rejected.
http://search.ft.com/nonFtArticle?id=080426000121&ct=0
.
Saturday, April 26, 2008
Friday, April 25, 2008
Russia heats up frozen conflict
Quote: The trouble with frozen conflicts is that they seldom stay that way. The unrecognised rebel region of Abkhazia looks like being the latest that could easily tip back into violence.
Georgia and Russia are at loggerheads over the territory, once the holiday playground of Moscow's elite. Georgia accuses Russia of creeping annexation, Abkhazia accuses Georgia of provocation and Russia is merrily exploiting their antagonism to demonstrate that it remains the dominant power.
Moscow has chosen an acutely sensitive moment, when Georgia is in the throes of a hotly disputed parliamentary election, to step up its formal ties with the secessionist republic. Tbilisi is incensed; the US, Nato and the European Union have expressed concern. That was before Monday, when a Georgian unmanned reconnaissance aircraft was shot down - allegedly by a Russian MiG-29 - over Abkhazia. Yesterday the United Nations Security Council held a closed session at Georgia's request to hear the claims and counter-claims.
"It's a very bad game that Moscow is playing," says Giorgi Baramidze, Georgia's deputy prime minister. "It is very dangerous and provocative. Russia is flexing its muscles. It is a challenge for the west."
Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, says he is being reasonable and legal, acting to protect Russian citizens in those regions. He adds that Georgia should never be flying aircraft over Abkhazia, in terms of the UN-secured ceasefire there.
Yet the Russian action is also a deliberate response to two other western moves in recent weeks, seen as hostile in Moscow: the US-backed decision by Kosovo, supported by most of the EU, to declare unilateral independence from Russia's ally Serbia; and the tentative agreement by Nato allies at their Bucharest summit to open the door to eventual membership for both Georgia and Ukraine.
It may well be more. Mr Putin seems to have opted to back hard-liners in Moscow, who favour de facto annexation of Abkhazia while stopping short of recognising independence, presenting a fait accompli to his successor, Dmitry Medvedev. Cooler Russian analysts have argued against any action that would appear to encourage self-determination for a former Soviet region. After all, just such an action was the excuse for two wars in Chechnya.
The Abkhazian conflict goes back to the 19th century, when thousands of Abkhazians were deported or forced to flee when they resisted Moscow's rule. In the Soviet era, Stalin subjected them to forced Georgianisation, closing Abkhaz language schools, and then encouraged further mass migration of other minorities to repopulate the region.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, resurgent nationalism tipped Georgia and Abkhazia into a civil war. Today there are still at least 200,000 refugees in Georgia. For Tbilisi, it is a burning issue of national pride: no party in the election is prepared to defend Abkhazian independence, or Russia's actions. They are convinced that Russia is stirring it up.
Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian president, has offered a form of federal state, with a guaranteed post of vice-president for Abkhazia, and a veto on any changes to the constitution. But it seems it is too late. The Abkhaz population is trapped between a desire to escape Georgia, and fear of being sucked back into Russia.
http://search.ft.com/nonFtArticle?id=080424000213&ct=0
.
Georgia and Russia are at loggerheads over the territory, once the holiday playground of Moscow's elite. Georgia accuses Russia of creeping annexation, Abkhazia accuses Georgia of provocation and Russia is merrily exploiting their antagonism to demonstrate that it remains the dominant power.
Moscow has chosen an acutely sensitive moment, when Georgia is in the throes of a hotly disputed parliamentary election, to step up its formal ties with the secessionist republic. Tbilisi is incensed; the US, Nato and the European Union have expressed concern. That was before Monday, when a Georgian unmanned reconnaissance aircraft was shot down - allegedly by a Russian MiG-29 - over Abkhazia. Yesterday the United Nations Security Council held a closed session at Georgia's request to hear the claims and counter-claims.
"It's a very bad game that Moscow is playing," says Giorgi Baramidze, Georgia's deputy prime minister. "It is very dangerous and provocative. Russia is flexing its muscles. It is a challenge for the west."
Vladimir Putin, Russia's president, says he is being reasonable and legal, acting to protect Russian citizens in those regions. He adds that Georgia should never be flying aircraft over Abkhazia, in terms of the UN-secured ceasefire there.
Yet the Russian action is also a deliberate response to two other western moves in recent weeks, seen as hostile in Moscow: the US-backed decision by Kosovo, supported by most of the EU, to declare unilateral independence from Russia's ally Serbia; and the tentative agreement by Nato allies at their Bucharest summit to open the door to eventual membership for both Georgia and Ukraine.
It may well be more. Mr Putin seems to have opted to back hard-liners in Moscow, who favour de facto annexation of Abkhazia while stopping short of recognising independence, presenting a fait accompli to his successor, Dmitry Medvedev. Cooler Russian analysts have argued against any action that would appear to encourage self-determination for a former Soviet region. After all, just such an action was the excuse for two wars in Chechnya.
The Abkhazian conflict goes back to the 19th century, when thousands of Abkhazians were deported or forced to flee when they resisted Moscow's rule. In the Soviet era, Stalin subjected them to forced Georgianisation, closing Abkhaz language schools, and then encouraged further mass migration of other minorities to repopulate the region.
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, resurgent nationalism tipped Georgia and Abkhazia into a civil war. Today there are still at least 200,000 refugees in Georgia. For Tbilisi, it is a burning issue of national pride: no party in the election is prepared to defend Abkhazian independence, or Russia's actions. They are convinced that Russia is stirring it up.
Mikheil Saakashvili, the Georgian president, has offered a form of federal state, with a guaranteed post of vice-president for Abkhazia, and a veto on any changes to the constitution. But it seems it is too late. The Abkhaz population is trapped between a desire to escape Georgia, and fear of being sucked back into Russia.
http://search.ft.com/nonFtArticle?id=080424000213&ct=0
.
Kiev move sees cost of wheat fall
Quote: Wheat prices fell to a six-month low yesterday after Ukraine, one of the world's largest exporters of the grain, cut back its restrictions on exports.
Ukraine's return to the global market came on top of prospects of a bumper crop in breadbasket areas such as the Black Sea basin, Canada and the European Union, prompting some analysts to say the worst of the wheat price inflation was now over.
In Chicago, wheat prices fell to $8.04½ a bushel, the lowest level since November and 40 per cent below the $13.49½ a bushel record set in February. In Paris, milling wheat dropped to €187.25 a tonne, the lowest level since July.
However, wheat prices remain 70 per cent above their level a year ago and well above their historical average of $3-$4 a bushel. Executives from the food industry said it was unlikely consumers would benefit soon from the drop in wholesale costs as bread companies had not yet passed on previous price increases.
Ukraine said it would allow exports of 1.2m tonnes in the next two months, up from a previous quota of just 200,000 tonnes.
Sorin Vaslobal, of Paris-based cereals broker Plantureux, said Kiev's decision could trigger a domino effect. "We see Ukraine's move as applying pressure on Russia to remove its 40 per cent export tax," he said. Argentina and Kazakhstan have also restricted their wheat exports.
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have asked agriculture commodities exporters to scrap or at least ease their foreign sales restrictions.
The International Grains Council yesterday said the global wheat crop will hit a record 645m tonnes this year, up from 603.5m tonnes in 2007, as weather improves and farmers sow more wheat at the expense of crops such as corn. Luke Chandler, a cereal analyst at Rabobank in Sydney, said: "Wheat prices are expected to ease in the second half of 2008 as a potential record-breaking world wheat crop looms."
http://search.ft.com/nonFtArticle?id=080425000167&ct=0
.
Ukraine's return to the global market came on top of prospects of a bumper crop in breadbasket areas such as the Black Sea basin, Canada and the European Union, prompting some analysts to say the worst of the wheat price inflation was now over.
In Chicago, wheat prices fell to $8.04½ a bushel, the lowest level since November and 40 per cent below the $13.49½ a bushel record set in February. In Paris, milling wheat dropped to €187.25 a tonne, the lowest level since July.
However, wheat prices remain 70 per cent above their level a year ago and well above their historical average of $3-$4 a bushel. Executives from the food industry said it was unlikely consumers would benefit soon from the drop in wholesale costs as bread companies had not yet passed on previous price increases.
Ukraine said it would allow exports of 1.2m tonnes in the next two months, up from a previous quota of just 200,000 tonnes.
Sorin Vaslobal, of Paris-based cereals broker Plantureux, said Kiev's decision could trigger a domino effect. "We see Ukraine's move as applying pressure on Russia to remove its 40 per cent export tax," he said. Argentina and Kazakhstan have also restricted their wheat exports.
The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have asked agriculture commodities exporters to scrap or at least ease their foreign sales restrictions.
The International Grains Council yesterday said the global wheat crop will hit a record 645m tonnes this year, up from 603.5m tonnes in 2007, as weather improves and farmers sow more wheat at the expense of crops such as corn. Luke Chandler, a cereal analyst at Rabobank in Sydney, said: "Wheat prices are expected to ease in the second half of 2008 as a potential record-breaking world wheat crop looms."
http://search.ft.com/nonFtArticle?id=080425000167&ct=0
.
Nick Louth: A bread and better punt
Quote: Food supplies across the world have become very tight. With 30 per cent of this year’s US maize crop disappearing into vehicle fuel tanks – aided by a federal biofuel subsidy – farmers there have been rushing to grow maize instead of soyabeans, wheat and other cereals. The result has been soaring prices, which have proved catastrophic for poorer nations.
Piling into commodity futures might yield a profit, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable helping raise prices. What I’d like is to invest in a company that helps increase the supply of cereals to ease the shortages.
That is what attracted me to Landkom, an Aim-listed Ukrainian farming group, in which I bought shares at 78p in January. Landkom is destined to be the largest grain producer in Europe and will drag Ukrainian farming practices and output into the 21st century.
In 1991, when Ukraine got independence, the government split up land ownership, allocating a hectare per person, with disastrous results. Access to capital was poor, many farms fell into disuse and output slumped. As a result, 40 per cent of Ukraine’s fertile black soil has been lying fallow for eight to 10 years, according to Libertas Capital, Landkom’s broker. Wheat output from the former “bread basket” plummeted from 50m tonnes at the end of the Soviet era to 20m tonnes in 2000.
Landkom has spent years stitching together rental agreements to turn a patchwork of smallholdings into a 62,500ha farm. With modern machinery and practices, it is expecting a 47,000 tonne harvest of wheat and rapeseed oil in 2008. This will increase to 1.2m tonnes in 2013.
Based on prices of $225 per tonne for wheat and $438 for rapeseed oil, revenues are expected to soar from $16.2m in 2008 to $317m in 2013. These are now very conservative figures. The May 2008 delivery futures prices for wheat and rapeseed oil are $320 and $620 per tonne respectively, 50 per cent above assumed projections. And though the world price of wheat has recently fallen, Ukraine’s decision this week to end an export ban is good news for Landkom as it gives the company access to these higher global prices.
Farming isn’t rocket science, but costs can be hard to control. I took a hard look at Landkom’s projections. Land rental is very cheap in the Ukraine, $50 per ha has been agreed in the first year, and $35 in subsequent years. In Canada or Australia, you would be talking about $60-$70.
Labour is much cheaper in Ukraine than in rival regions, so overall costs are competitive. According to the Scottish Agricultural College, average production costs per hectare for wheat (aside from land) are $100 in Ukraine, compared with $160 in the UK or US.
A bigger risk is politics. Landkom needs to stay on the right side of local politicians. By offering to pay a 25 per cent tax and employ 900 staff it has made a good start.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc70c588-12e4-11dd-8d91-0000779fd2ac.html
.
Piling into commodity futures might yield a profit, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable helping raise prices. What I’d like is to invest in a company that helps increase the supply of cereals to ease the shortages.
That is what attracted me to Landkom, an Aim-listed Ukrainian farming group, in which I bought shares at 78p in January. Landkom is destined to be the largest grain producer in Europe and will drag Ukrainian farming practices and output into the 21st century.
In 1991, when Ukraine got independence, the government split up land ownership, allocating a hectare per person, with disastrous results. Access to capital was poor, many farms fell into disuse and output slumped. As a result, 40 per cent of Ukraine’s fertile black soil has been lying fallow for eight to 10 years, according to Libertas Capital, Landkom’s broker. Wheat output from the former “bread basket” plummeted from 50m tonnes at the end of the Soviet era to 20m tonnes in 2000.
Landkom has spent years stitching together rental agreements to turn a patchwork of smallholdings into a 62,500ha farm. With modern machinery and practices, it is expecting a 47,000 tonne harvest of wheat and rapeseed oil in 2008. This will increase to 1.2m tonnes in 2013.
Based on prices of $225 per tonne for wheat and $438 for rapeseed oil, revenues are expected to soar from $16.2m in 2008 to $317m in 2013. These are now very conservative figures. The May 2008 delivery futures prices for wheat and rapeseed oil are $320 and $620 per tonne respectively, 50 per cent above assumed projections. And though the world price of wheat has recently fallen, Ukraine’s decision this week to end an export ban is good news for Landkom as it gives the company access to these higher global prices.
Farming isn’t rocket science, but costs can be hard to control. I took a hard look at Landkom’s projections. Land rental is very cheap in the Ukraine, $50 per ha has been agreed in the first year, and $35 in subsequent years. In Canada or Australia, you would be talking about $60-$70.
Labour is much cheaper in Ukraine than in rival regions, so overall costs are competitive. According to the Scottish Agricultural College, average production costs per hectare for wheat (aside from land) are $100 in Ukraine, compared with $160 in the UK or US.
A bigger risk is politics. Landkom needs to stay on the right side of local politicians. By offering to pay a 25 per cent tax and employ 900 staff it has made a good start.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fc70c588-12e4-11dd-8d91-0000779fd2ac.html
.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Ukraine feels strain as inflation soars
Quote: Vasyl Kuznetsov, a cash-strapped Ukrainian pensioner, makes no bones about his views of spiralling food prices as he shops for groceries in Kiev’s Volodymyrsky market.
“This bazaar should be demolished and those responsible for these prices jailed,” says the 77-year-old, standing in front of a meat counter. “How can we survive and buy meat when it has doubled in the past year to nearly $10 per kilogram? Everything has gone up – cooking oil, my electricity and gas bills. I can’t even afford to buy meat for this week’s Easter holidays.”
While inflation is re-emerging as an economic threat around the world, it is hitting Ukraine particularly hard. At 26 per cent year-on-year, last month’s jump in consumer prices was Europe’s biggest and among the highest in the world, excluding crisis-stricken states such as Zimbabwe.
Among stable economies only Venezuela, with 29 per cent, saw higher inflation. Asia’s largest increase was Vietnam’s 11 per cent rise.
Ukraine is not unique in central and eastern Europe. Inflation is high in some of the European Union’s new member states, including the Baltic states (11-17 per cent last month) and Bulgaria (14 per cent). In Russia, the region’s biggest economy, it is 13 per cent. Hans-Jörg Rudloff, chairman of Barclays Capital, told a Russia business conference: “Inflation clearly is a bigger problem right now than the slowdown of economic activity around the world.”
Like other countries, the region’s high-inflation states also face rising global food and energy prices. But it is clear that domestic economic developments are adding fuel to the flames. Some neighbouring countries have so far managed to keep a tighter lid on prices – in Poland, last month’s inflation was just 4.1 per cent.
To an extent, Ukraine is a victim of its own success – its high inflation is partly a by-product of rapid economic growth, which has averaged nearly 8 per cent annually since 2000, despite the political upheavals associated with the Orange Revolution. Economic growth has been accompanied by rapid credit growth, with the money supply rising at 50 per cent a year since 2004 as companies boost investment and householders spend on everything from cars to kitchens.
Moreover, successive governments have struggled to control inflation in the face of pressures to boost public spending. This year, the government is budgeting for a 43 per cent social spending increase, including a 37 per cent pensions’ rise and a 32 per cent increase in the minimum wage. While overall budget deficits have been kept in check, thanks to soaring tax revenues, cash has flowed into consumers’ pockets.
These effects have been compounded by a foreign exchange regime under which the hryvnia is tied to the US dollar. To prevent currency appreciation against a fast-depreciating dollar, the central bank has bought dollars and sold hryvnia, importing inflation. The foreign exchange reserves are up from $9.5bn in 2004 to about $35bn (€22bn, £18bn).
As elsewhere in the region, the global credit crunch is now damping credit growth. Economic growth is forecast to ease this year to about 5 to 5.5 per cent and inflation to slow in the second half. But it may still end the year near 20 per cent – far above the official 9.6 per cent target.
The authorities are taking action, with the central bank raising the discount rate from 10 to 12 per cent this week, tightening bank lending controls and preparing to widen the hryvnia’s trading band against the dollar.
Meanwhile, the government is cutting the planned budget deficit from 2 per cent to 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product. The International Monetary Fund wants bigger cuts but, with presidential elections due in late 2009, politicians are loath to squeeze the economy hard.
“This government is taking action and has the experience to cope with the situation,” a senior government official says.
But Kamen Zahariev, Kiev head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, says: “Inflation remains a huge worry for everybody.”
It is a particular worry for the poor, who are especially exposed to upswings in food and energy prices. Ukrainian food prices have risen even faster than general prices – climbing 42 per cent in the year to March. While other European countries are also seeing such effects, the impact is hardest in Ukraine since food accounts for a bigger part of household spending than in richer states.
So far, like Mr Kuznetsov in the market, Ukrainians are complaining about prices but not coming out on the streets.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a6c78cc-1233-11dd-9b49-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
.
“This bazaar should be demolished and those responsible for these prices jailed,” says the 77-year-old, standing in front of a meat counter. “How can we survive and buy meat when it has doubled in the past year to nearly $10 per kilogram? Everything has gone up – cooking oil, my electricity and gas bills. I can’t even afford to buy meat for this week’s Easter holidays.”
While inflation is re-emerging as an economic threat around the world, it is hitting Ukraine particularly hard. At 26 per cent year-on-year, last month’s jump in consumer prices was Europe’s biggest and among the highest in the world, excluding crisis-stricken states such as Zimbabwe.
Among stable economies only Venezuela, with 29 per cent, saw higher inflation. Asia’s largest increase was Vietnam’s 11 per cent rise.
Ukraine is not unique in central and eastern Europe. Inflation is high in some of the European Union’s new member states, including the Baltic states (11-17 per cent last month) and Bulgaria (14 per cent). In Russia, the region’s biggest economy, it is 13 per cent. Hans-Jörg Rudloff, chairman of Barclays Capital, told a Russia business conference: “Inflation clearly is a bigger problem right now than the slowdown of economic activity around the world.”
Like other countries, the region’s high-inflation states also face rising global food and energy prices. But it is clear that domestic economic developments are adding fuel to the flames. Some neighbouring countries have so far managed to keep a tighter lid on prices – in Poland, last month’s inflation was just 4.1 per cent.
To an extent, Ukraine is a victim of its own success – its high inflation is partly a by-product of rapid economic growth, which has averaged nearly 8 per cent annually since 2000, despite the political upheavals associated with the Orange Revolution. Economic growth has been accompanied by rapid credit growth, with the money supply rising at 50 per cent a year since 2004 as companies boost investment and householders spend on everything from cars to kitchens.
Moreover, successive governments have struggled to control inflation in the face of pressures to boost public spending. This year, the government is budgeting for a 43 per cent social spending increase, including a 37 per cent pensions’ rise and a 32 per cent increase in the minimum wage. While overall budget deficits have been kept in check, thanks to soaring tax revenues, cash has flowed into consumers’ pockets.
These effects have been compounded by a foreign exchange regime under which the hryvnia is tied to the US dollar. To prevent currency appreciation against a fast-depreciating dollar, the central bank has bought dollars and sold hryvnia, importing inflation. The foreign exchange reserves are up from $9.5bn in 2004 to about $35bn (€22bn, £18bn).
As elsewhere in the region, the global credit crunch is now damping credit growth. Economic growth is forecast to ease this year to about 5 to 5.5 per cent and inflation to slow in the second half. But it may still end the year near 20 per cent – far above the official 9.6 per cent target.
The authorities are taking action, with the central bank raising the discount rate from 10 to 12 per cent this week, tightening bank lending controls and preparing to widen the hryvnia’s trading band against the dollar.
Meanwhile, the government is cutting the planned budget deficit from 2 per cent to 1.5 per cent of gross domestic product. The International Monetary Fund wants bigger cuts but, with presidential elections due in late 2009, politicians are loath to squeeze the economy hard.
“This government is taking action and has the experience to cope with the situation,” a senior government official says.
But Kamen Zahariev, Kiev head of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, says: “Inflation remains a huge worry for everybody.”
It is a particular worry for the poor, who are especially exposed to upswings in food and energy prices. Ukrainian food prices have risen even faster than general prices – climbing 42 per cent in the year to March. While other European countries are also seeing such effects, the impact is hardest in Ukraine since food accounts for a bigger part of household spending than in richer states.
So far, like Mr Kuznetsov in the market, Ukrainians are complaining about prices but not coming out on the streets.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/2a6c78cc-1233-11dd-9b49-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1
.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
Svoboda Activists Throw Eggs At Regions Party Members During Ground-Breaking Ceremony For Building Monument To OUN-UPA Victims In Luhansk
April 23 activists of the All-Ukrainian Union Svoboda threw eggs at the Regions Party members during a ground-breaking ceremony for building a monument to victims of the organization of Ukrainian nationalists and the Ukrainian insurgent army (OUN-UPA) in the Moloda Hvardia public garden in the centre of Luhansk.
While MPs Oleksandr Yefremov and Viktor Tikhonov and also chair of Luhansk regional council Valerii Holenko delivered speeches at the stone laid for future monument to OUN-UPA victims, a column of Svoboda representatives began to approach them.
They were carrying the party flags and crying out: "Glory to Ukraine, glory to the heroes!".
Some of the Regions Party members immediately stood in file in order not to let the column to the improvised stage and to the stone.
The Regions Party representatives, in order to howl down Svoboda slogans, began to sign the song Victory Day and also accuse the opponents of betraying their Motherland.
Then the file of the Regions Party members with some policemen began to press back Svoboda activists.
During this, the opponents were outraging each other and Svoboda representatives threw several eggs at the Regions Party file.
Police stepped in to the conflict and prevented the scuffle.
Before long Svoboda representatives left the public garden.
http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/119043.html
.
While MPs Oleksandr Yefremov and Viktor Tikhonov and also chair of Luhansk regional council Valerii Holenko delivered speeches at the stone laid for future monument to OUN-UPA victims, a column of Svoboda representatives began to approach them.
They were carrying the party flags and crying out: "Glory to Ukraine, glory to the heroes!".
Some of the Regions Party members immediately stood in file in order not to let the column to the improvised stage and to the stone.
The Regions Party representatives, in order to howl down Svoboda slogans, began to sign the song Victory Day and also accuse the opponents of betraying their Motherland.
Then the file of the Regions Party members with some policemen began to press back Svoboda activists.
During this, the opponents were outraging each other and Svoboda representatives threw several eggs at the Regions Party file.
Police stepped in to the conflict and prevented the scuffle.
Before long Svoboda representatives left the public garden.
http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/119043.html
.
Razumkov Center Poll: Tymoshenko Bloc, Party Of Regions, Our Ukraine - People's Self-Defense, Communist Party, Lytvyn Bloc Enter Rada
Quote: Respondents were asked what party or bloc they would vote for if elections to Verkhovna Rada held soon.
28.3% said they would vote for the BYT, 26.8% for the Party of Regions, 8.4% for OU-PSD, 5.8% for the Communist Party, and 5.1% for the Lytvyn Bloc.
1.7% would vote for the Socialist Party, 1% for the All-Ukrainian Union Svoboda, and 0.4% for the Progressive Socialist Party.
1.9% of the pollees would support some other party or bloc, 9.2% would vote against all, and 11.4% failed to answer.
As Ukrainian News earlier reported, according to a poll the Razumkov Center conducted early in February, 30.2% of respondents were ready to support the BYT at a parliamentary election, 23.1% the Party of Regions, 10.1% OU-PSD, 5.1% the Communist Party, and 3.7% the Lytvyn Bloc.
http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/118752.html
.
28.3% said they would vote for the BYT, 26.8% for the Party of Regions, 8.4% for OU-PSD, 5.8% for the Communist Party, and 5.1% for the Lytvyn Bloc.
1.7% would vote for the Socialist Party, 1% for the All-Ukrainian Union Svoboda, and 0.4% for the Progressive Socialist Party.
1.9% of the pollees would support some other party or bloc, 9.2% would vote against all, and 11.4% failed to answer.
As Ukrainian News earlier reported, according to a poll the Razumkov Center conducted early in February, 30.2% of respondents were ready to support the BYT at a parliamentary election, 23.1% the Party of Regions, 10.1% OU-PSD, 5.1% the Communist Party, and 3.7% the Lytvyn Bloc.
http://www.ukranews.com/eng/article/118752.html
.
Monday, April 21, 2008
RUSSIA AGREES WITH UNJUSTIFIED COMPROMISES;
Quote: NATO eastward expansion and the possible entrance of Ukraine into the alliance worries the Russian authorities. Defense and foreign ministers of Russia spoke about this topic after the summit in Bucharest in a harsh way. It was stated clearly that NATO eastward expansion was not in the interests of Russia and our country would respond to such actions adequately and not necessarily with military methods alone. Meanwhile, it seems that Moscow does not abandon the hopes that Kiev will revise its plans of possible membership in NATO. This aspect and other problems of the Russian-Ukrainian relations (border demarcation, status of the Kerch Strait, trading economic cooperation, Black Sea Fleet, Russian language etc) was in the focus of attention of Russian and Ukrainian foreign ministers Sergei Lavrov and Vladimir Ogryzko during their meeting in Moscow last week.
Despite the hot rhetoric in relations between Moscow and Kiev after the summit in Bucharest, as well as the actions of nationalists in Ukrainian parliament demanding early withdrawal of the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimea, before the beginning of negotiations both foreign ministers announced that there were no problems in bilateral relations that could not be solved in a diplomatic way. Problems of the Russian-Ukrainian relations were discussed for about three hours. However, no certain results were achieved. Along with this, there is an impression that Moscow has evidently made some concessions. For example, against the background of the harshness towards a possible membership of Ukraine in NATO demonstrated by Russia previously, the Russian Foreign Minister decided to compromise and agreed to discuss the topic of entrance of Ukraine into the alliance further. Commenting on the NATO problems discussed during the meeting with Ogryzko, Lavrov said that in the future, the parties would conduct additional consultations dedicated to this topic.
Lavrov said, "At the consultations our experts will be prepared to outline the Russian concerns in detail to the maximum extent and to try to make Ukrainian authorities hear these concerns and to take them into account in practical actions." Thus, Moscow demonstrates a stance that the issue of possible eastward expansion of NATO is settled already and it is concerned only about taking Russia's interests into account in this. Ogryzko promised that these interests would be taken into account and that membership of Ukraine in NATO "does not threaten" Moscow with anything. According to him, this was the main goal of the dialogue.
In the past, Gorbachev was given assurances that after breaking the Berlin Wall and reunion of the two German states, NATO would not expand and would not threaten Moscow too. However, this did not happen.
Observers also noticed the fact that in Moscow, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister acted actively and defended his interests firmly. A day after the negotiations in Moscow, it became known that in the course of negotiations Kiev imposed on Moscow discussion of a memorandum on withdrawal of military units of the Russian Black Sea Fleet from their permanent bases on the territory of Ukraine until May 28 of 2017. Kiev actually hinted to Moscow that after that time Russia would have no chances to leave its fleet in Crimea. So far, there has been no reaction of the Russian party to this memorandum but officials of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry are convinced that consultations with the Russian Foreign Ministry about this document may begin already in July of 2008.
Incidentally, while the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations were going on in Moscow, in Sevastopol, Ukrainian nationalists picketed the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet demanding early withdrawal of the Russian fleet from the territory of the Ukraine. Such demands fit the plans of the incumbent Ukrainian authorities aimed at accelerated entrance into NATO because the Ukraine will hardly be admitted to the alliance if a foreign fleet is based on its territory.
During the meeting of the foreign ministers, the Ukrainian party also manifested harshness with regard to other issues, for example, during the discussion of the maritime borders in the Azov and Black seas and the status of the Azov Sea.
The Ukrainian Foreign Minister announced, "We proceed from a very simple truth: the state border should be drawn in the Kerch Strait. After that will be the issue of establishing a corporation that will work on the issues related to activities of this channel." Meanwhile, Russia does not consider the Kerch Strait to be a channel. Lavrov says that "such terms as "channel" and "corporation" can be taken as a hint at privatization of the Kerch Strait. It turns out that we are offered to pay for the passage of ships through the Kerch Strait." Officials of the Russian Foreign Ministry say that this should not be.
Commenting on the situation regarding the Kerch Strait, Lavrov announced that "We advocate that, like in case of the Azov Sea waterways, the decision be based on the principles coordinated in the agreement of the presidents fixed in the document of 2003. For us it is fundamental to have our waterway in the Kerch Strait to ensure unopposed sailing in Russian waters for Russian ships from the Black Sea to the Azov Sea. This is a mandatory condition for the provision of our security."
Meanwhile, there are grounds to presume that Ukraine will hinder the discussion of the issue of the Kerch Strait deliberately. It has a sufficiently strong argument for this that is not discussed in public but is present during discussions a priori. This is the existence of significant oil and gas reserves in the Kerch Strait. American company Vanco is currently doing geological exploration of the seabed of 12,960 square kilometers in the Kerch Strait in a unilateral manner according to an order of Kiev. Vanco promises that if the geological exploration is successful, the hydrocarbon reserves will fully guarantee energy independence of Ukraine. According to forecasts, reserves of the seabed in the Kerch Strait are estimated at approximately 300 billion cubic meters of gas and 136 million tons of oil. At any rate, are these reserves fully Ukrainian?
The Russian Foreign Ministry reported that the stance of Ukraine with regard to regulation of the issues related to the Kerch Strait is the following: between the former Soviet republics of Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Ukraine was a kind of administrative border in the Kerch Strait. Russia said that in the Soviet Union no administrative borders were drawn between the union republics on inland sea waters. Hence, there were no legitimate documents of union or republican level fixing the separating line in waters of the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait. Hence, Russia cannot recognize the so-called "line of guarding of the state border" established by the Ukrainian party in 1999 in a unilateral way in these waters. Moscow proceeds from the provision of the treaty on cooperation in use of the Azov Sea and Kerch Strait of 2003 saying that these waterways are historically inland waters of Russia and the Ukraine. If these are inland waters of the two countries they should divide the natural resources equally.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:778671756&start=31
.
Despite the hot rhetoric in relations between Moscow and Kiev after the summit in Bucharest, as well as the actions of nationalists in Ukrainian parliament demanding early withdrawal of the Russian Black Sea Fleet from the Crimea, before the beginning of negotiations both foreign ministers announced that there were no problems in bilateral relations that could not be solved in a diplomatic way. Problems of the Russian-Ukrainian relations were discussed for about three hours. However, no certain results were achieved. Along with this, there is an impression that Moscow has evidently made some concessions. For example, against the background of the harshness towards a possible membership of Ukraine in NATO demonstrated by Russia previously, the Russian Foreign Minister decided to compromise and agreed to discuss the topic of entrance of Ukraine into the alliance further. Commenting on the NATO problems discussed during the meeting with Ogryzko, Lavrov said that in the future, the parties would conduct additional consultations dedicated to this topic.
Lavrov said, "At the consultations our experts will be prepared to outline the Russian concerns in detail to the maximum extent and to try to make Ukrainian authorities hear these concerns and to take them into account in practical actions." Thus, Moscow demonstrates a stance that the issue of possible eastward expansion of NATO is settled already and it is concerned only about taking Russia's interests into account in this. Ogryzko promised that these interests would be taken into account and that membership of Ukraine in NATO "does not threaten" Moscow with anything. According to him, this was the main goal of the dialogue.
In the past, Gorbachev was given assurances that after breaking the Berlin Wall and reunion of the two German states, NATO would not expand and would not threaten Moscow too. However, this did not happen.
Observers also noticed the fact that in Moscow, the Ukrainian Foreign Minister acted actively and defended his interests firmly. A day after the negotiations in Moscow, it became known that in the course of negotiations Kiev imposed on Moscow discussion of a memorandum on withdrawal of military units of the Russian Black Sea Fleet from their permanent bases on the territory of Ukraine until May 28 of 2017. Kiev actually hinted to Moscow that after that time Russia would have no chances to leave its fleet in Crimea. So far, there has been no reaction of the Russian party to this memorandum but officials of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry are convinced that consultations with the Russian Foreign Ministry about this document may begin already in July of 2008.
Incidentally, while the Russian-Ukrainian negotiations were going on in Moscow, in Sevastopol, Ukrainian nationalists picketed the headquarters of the Black Sea Fleet demanding early withdrawal of the Russian fleet from the territory of the Ukraine. Such demands fit the plans of the incumbent Ukrainian authorities aimed at accelerated entrance into NATO because the Ukraine will hardly be admitted to the alliance if a foreign fleet is based on its territory.
During the meeting of the foreign ministers, the Ukrainian party also manifested harshness with regard to other issues, for example, during the discussion of the maritime borders in the Azov and Black seas and the status of the Azov Sea.
The Ukrainian Foreign Minister announced, "We proceed from a very simple truth: the state border should be drawn in the Kerch Strait. After that will be the issue of establishing a corporation that will work on the issues related to activities of this channel." Meanwhile, Russia does not consider the Kerch Strait to be a channel. Lavrov says that "such terms as "channel" and "corporation" can be taken as a hint at privatization of the Kerch Strait. It turns out that we are offered to pay for the passage of ships through the Kerch Strait." Officials of the Russian Foreign Ministry say that this should not be.
Commenting on the situation regarding the Kerch Strait, Lavrov announced that "We advocate that, like in case of the Azov Sea waterways, the decision be based on the principles coordinated in the agreement of the presidents fixed in the document of 2003. For us it is fundamental to have our waterway in the Kerch Strait to ensure unopposed sailing in Russian waters for Russian ships from the Black Sea to the Azov Sea. This is a mandatory condition for the provision of our security."
Meanwhile, there are grounds to presume that Ukraine will hinder the discussion of the issue of the Kerch Strait deliberately. It has a sufficiently strong argument for this that is not discussed in public but is present during discussions a priori. This is the existence of significant oil and gas reserves in the Kerch Strait. American company Vanco is currently doing geological exploration of the seabed of 12,960 square kilometers in the Kerch Strait in a unilateral manner according to an order of Kiev. Vanco promises that if the geological exploration is successful, the hydrocarbon reserves will fully guarantee energy independence of Ukraine. According to forecasts, reserves of the seabed in the Kerch Strait are estimated at approximately 300 billion cubic meters of gas and 136 million tons of oil. At any rate, are these reserves fully Ukrainian?
The Russian Foreign Ministry reported that the stance of Ukraine with regard to regulation of the issues related to the Kerch Strait is the following: between the former Soviet republics of Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and the Ukraine was a kind of administrative border in the Kerch Strait. Russia said that in the Soviet Union no administrative borders were drawn between the union republics on inland sea waters. Hence, there were no legitimate documents of union or republican level fixing the separating line in waters of the Azov Sea and the Kerch Strait. Hence, Russia cannot recognize the so-called "line of guarding of the state border" established by the Ukrainian party in 1999 in a unilateral way in these waters. Moscow proceeds from the provision of the treaty on cooperation in use of the Azov Sea and Kerch Strait of 2003 saying that these waterways are historically inland waters of Russia and the Ukraine. If these are inland waters of the two countries they should divide the natural resources equally.
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=574&topicId=100007539&docId=l:778671756&start=31
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)