The thing that I don’t quite understand is why someone who’s financial interests are about selling pipes to Russian companies will found the Yalta European Strategy to increase ties between the EU and the Ukraine?
While this is an interesting conversation to have, I should point out that I no longer claim any sort of special knowledge due to being from that part of the world, or being able to read Russian language news. This is the sort of question you need a highly paid analyst for.
Pinchuk seems smart (I have read an interview of his). I think he basically realizes people like him do best in the long run in a legally stable environment, which means EU and not Russia. The issue with Russia is very weak institutions, that is a government of men and not laws. Bad for business (though well connected people can become very rich in such an environment, crucially they cannot reliably count on staying rich, or free, or alive).
This is the sort of question you need a highly paid analyst for.
To me it seems like a straightforward question. Russian mainstream media probably won’t ask it but there might be good blogs who do.
As far as I understand the situation at the moment and please correct me if I got something wrong or missed something important:
The EU proposed an association agreement last year that would have integrated the Ukraine into military exercises with EU countries and that would prevented the Ukraine from having a trade free agreement with Russia.
The Ukrainian president Yanukovych said no. Then the Yalta group headed by Pinchuk got angry. Europe didn’t wanted to do that much about it but the US was willing to spend 5 billion to buy a revolution to switch the regime of Yanukovych with one that would accept the association agreement.
From an EU perspective, we have enough trouble on our own supporting countries like Greece but there are still US policy makers who believe in cold war containment, so they choose to play strongly. Figures like George Soros are willing to fund related courses.
Pinchuk made his money with selling pipes but owns 1⁄3 of the Ukrainians media. For a while he was in parliament but he thinks he can do more working outside of it. He also made Time 100 most influential people once, his company was the first to go to Davos. He knows the US people, he signed Bill Gates pledge. He does a lot to combat AIDS but a lot of his charitable donations go into building civil society organisations that serve his political ends which happens to get the Ukraine into EU.
He wasn’t just a passive spectator. “We were on the phone constantly–with businessmen, with politicians, with our Western and Eastern friends, discussing what all of us could do.”
Other interesting information from the article:
Pinchuk’s fortune is tied to trade with Russia. Lest he forget that, Vladimir Putin’s regime recently imposed crippling tariffs on his core asset, the steel tube company Interpipe.
Recently is an interesting word. Having a date would be nice to understand the timeline of events better.
It seems very much like someone overplayed their hand. They gave weapons to facists that aren’t really nice. They didn’t anticipate that the Crimerian government rather wants Crimeria to be part of Russia than of the Ukraine. The didn’t anticipate that Russia can just move in and take Crimeria.
Given what happened in Georgia that seems stupid on the part of the US but it’s the US.
The alternative is that Pinchuk was angry at Russia for the tariffs and therefore gave the US bad intel about Crimeria to get them into play.
The thing that I don’t quite understand is why someone who’s financial interests are about selling pipes to Russian companies will found the Yalta European Strategy to increase ties between the EU and the Ukraine?
While this is an interesting conversation to have, I should point out that I no longer claim any sort of special knowledge due to being from that part of the world, or being able to read Russian language news. This is the sort of question you need a highly paid analyst for.
Pinchuk seems smart (I have read an interview of his). I think he basically realizes people like him do best in the long run in a legally stable environment, which means EU and not Russia. The issue with Russia is very weak institutions, that is a government of men and not laws. Bad for business (though well connected people can become very rich in such an environment, crucially they cannot reliably count on staying rich, or free, or alive).
To me it seems like a straightforward question. Russian mainstream media probably won’t ask it but there might be good blogs who do.
As far as I understand the situation at the moment and please correct me if I got something wrong or missed something important:
The EU proposed an association agreement last year that would have integrated the Ukraine into military exercises with EU countries and that would prevented the Ukraine from having a trade free agreement with Russia.
The Ukrainian president Yanukovych said no. Then the Yalta group headed by Pinchuk got angry. Europe didn’t wanted to do that much about it but the US was willing to spend 5 billion to buy a revolution to switch the regime of Yanukovych with one that would accept the association agreement.
From an EU perspective, we have enough trouble on our own supporting countries like Greece but there are still US policy makers who believe in cold war containment, so they choose to play strongly. Figures like George Soros are willing to fund related courses.
Pinchuk made his money with selling pipes but owns 1⁄3 of the Ukrainians media. For a while he was in parliament but he thinks he can do more working outside of it. He also made Time 100 most influential people once, his company was the first to go to Davos. He knows the US people, he signed Bill Gates pledge. He does a lot to combat AIDS but a lot of his charitable donations go into building civil society organisations that serve his political ends which happens to get the Ukraine into EU.
Forbes description of Pinchuk during the crisis:
Other interesting information from the article:
Recently is an interesting word. Having a date would be nice to understand the timeline of events better.
It seems very much like someone overplayed their hand. They gave weapons to facists that aren’t really nice. They didn’t anticipate that the Crimerian government rather wants Crimeria to be part of Russia than of the Ukraine. The didn’t anticipate that Russia can just move in and take Crimeria.
Given what happened in Georgia that seems stupid on the part of the US but it’s the US. The alternative is that Pinchuk was angry at Russia for the tariffs and therefore gave the US bad intel about Crimeria to get them into play.