Poll: Most Ukrainians want a unified country

[dipsydoodle]

Last edited Thu May 8, 2014, 05:13 PM - Edit history (1)

Source: Yahoo News / Associated Press

KIEV, Ukraine (AP) — A strong majority of Ukrainians want their country to remain a single, unified state and this is true even in the largely Russian-speaking east where a pro-Russia insurgency has been fighting for autonomy, a poll released Thursday shows.

The survey results were released just hours before the pro-Russia forces in eastern Ukraine said they would go ahead with a referendum on autonomy planned for Sunday, ignoring Russian President Vladimir Putin's call to delay the vote.

The poll by the Pew Research Center in Washington found that 77 percent of people nationwide want Ukraine to maintain its current borders, and even in the east the figure is 70 percent. Only among Russian speakers does the percentage drop significantly, but it is still over half at 58 percent.

The central government in Kiev has the confidence of only about 41 percent of Ukrainians, with a sharp divide between the west of the country, where support is 60 percent, and the east, where it is 24 percent, according to the poll. DONETSK, Ukraine (AP) -- A strong majority of Ukrainians want their country to remain a single, unified state and this is true even in the largely Russian-speaking east where a pro-Russia insurgency has been fighting for autonomy, a poll released Thursday shows.



Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/poll-most-ukrainians-want-unified-country-070053718.html

---

edited - AP reused their original link for a different subject.

Original narrative from 12 hours ago here :

The survey results were released as the pro-Russia forces were considering whether to go ahead with a referendum on autonomy planned for Sunday in defiance of a call from Russian President Vladimir Putin to delay the vote. A decision was expected later in the day.

The organizers have said the referendum was on whether to give the eastern regions more autonomy within Ukraine, but they have left open the possibility of using it to seek independence or annexation by Russia. Many fear that such a vote could be a flashpoint for further violence between Ukrainian troops and the militants who have seized government buildings in about a dozen cities in the east.

Putin's comments on Wednesday appeared to be an effort to step back from confrontation with the West over Ukraine. He also declared that Russia has pulled its troops away from the Ukrainian border, although NATO and Washington said they saw no signs of this.

[joshcryer]

1. I think it's between econmic ties to EU/US/NATO or Russia/Eurasia.

Though I don't think people who back pro-Russia economic ties know the Eurasia agenda or they'd think twice. I've seen many pro-Russia protesters, some armed, not even call for unification for Russia but federation and more autonomy, stuff like that. I think a large part of this is due to Kiev's absolute incompetence, and their failure at messaging, as well as their failure to treat the armed separatists more like the BLM is treating Cliven Bundy. Cracking down won't work, you have to seek the political solution.

Thankfully Putin has seen that an invasion is unsustainable so has to move to a long track, let the May 25 elections go forward, and continue keeping a cultural divide and ethnic divide prospering through low level propaganda. If Kiev knows what's best it'll recognize Crimea as legitimate (even though it's not), in exchange for Putin recognizing the elections. Then Kiev can work to unite eastern and western Ukraine. If they don't, then all will go to shit in a hand basket in a few short years and eastern Ukraine goes to Russia.

[dipsydoodle]

5. The general background re. economic ties was as follows.

Russia's interest was in Ukraine becoming a member of the CIS and obviously Ukraine staying out of NATO. Russia is a close second to the US as the world's largest arms suppliers - much of that production is in east Ukraine and Putin expressed concern on that subject last year. It will take Russia 2 years to replace that production moves for which are already afoot. As a CIS member Ukraine would have had highly preferential gas supply terms as do the other members.

The EU's interest was increasing trade with Ukraine , use of Ukraine's gas tanks for storage when gas prices in the summer when prices historically have been lower and becoming a Ukraine member of NATO. The existing trade imbalance between the EU and Ukraine is c. $10billion pa. The EU's interest is in exports to Ukraine , not imports from Ukraine and hence the balance will widen. The EU does not represent a replacement market or goods previously exported to Russia. Use of the gas tanks was agreed yesterday http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/naftogaz-ukrainy-discusses-holding-reformation-pumping-to-underground-storage-facilities-with-representative-of-european-commission-346898.html I'm guessing that will be gas paid for by other EU countries and hence not open to misappropriation / non payment by Ukraine.

Joining the EU trade agreement has an adverse effect on the east of Ukraine not necessarily applicable to the west of Ukraine - easily summed up as being worsening employment levels when the markets to Russia are lost. Even the IMF has expressed concern with regard that by acknowledging that loss of those markets will considerably increase bailout costs / loan requirements.

Early days Russia suggested a triple Ukraine / EU / Russian CIS agreement. but that was dismissed.

[joshcryer]

6. Putin wanted the EU talks stopped.

And basically to go back to the drawing board. I don't see why Ukraine's gas and industry deals couldn't go ahead as well as the EU deal. If anything was dismissed it was Kiev unilaterally ceasing the 3 year talks on the EU deal and going to Moscow. Putin's billions no doubt made that viable.

[dipsydoodle]

7. Russia only supplies gas at preferential terms to CIS member states.

That is achieved by a combination of reduced gas price by Gazprom and removal of duty by the Russian government. Check out how much Armenia pays sometime.

Ukraine wanted / still expects both worlds : EU trade agreement AND subsidized gas. In the words of the prophet - tough.

[joshcryer]

14. Pretty sure Yanukovych just wanted to get re-elected.

He saw the EU deal wasn't the best and if he accepted it Russia would drop the gas subsidy and screw Ukraine over, that's a no win right there.

Yanukovych could have taken the EU deal with a modification clause, telling Russia that he would find a compromise solution for Russia's side of things. The biggest problem for Russia is that the EU trade deal had more than just "we'll buy and sell you stuff" it require Ukraine to start standardizing on a whole host of trade issues.

* Revamping their agriculture systems to meet EU standards (whoops, the oligarchs don't like that one, can't have the agriculture sector scrutinized and improved).
* Setting up transaction services in compliance with EU standards (whoops, the oligarchs don't like that one, can't have transactions monitored and audited).
* Requiring that Ukraine follow EU intellectual property laws (whoops, the oligarchs can't allow intellectual property laws to be respected).

The DCFTA put a wrench into Russia's Eurasia agenda, if they then went to Ukraine, after it passed, and said, "Hey, we'll give you a several billion dollar loan if you do a trade deal with us" then Ukraine would say "well, we'll do it, but it has to meet the constraints of the DCFTA, so we can't have unsanitary agriculture, if we trade it has to be on a transaction service compliant with EU standards, etc."

I blame Russia, not the EU or the US for the failure to make a trilateral agreement.

[dipsydoodle]

16. Wasn't so much "the EU deal wasn't the best"

The exact point at which the late November 2013 talks collapsed was when the EU offered only a derogatory one billion Euros to tide Ukraine over despite the clear need for c. 8 billion to get them best part of the way through 2014.

Notwithstanding other issues which resulted in his demise he had no alternative at that point other than to leg it which is exactly what he did. He was also acutely aware of the conditions the IMF would attach to loans having already rejected those twice over the years - Russia subsequently seemed a better way out, without onerous conditions affecting the population , to such loans.

I remain fascinated with Russia having had the sense to have the $3 billion loan of the $15 billion promised , in the form of bonds, being made subject to English law and Ukraine's debt : GDP ratio not exceeding 60% - cute move that . I wonder who'd advised Russia on that subject

With regard "Revamping their agriculture systems" that may be read as changing their laws so that agricultural land can be sold and the EU dictating Ukraine's selling prices for produce.

[joshcryer]

29. IMF is giving 17 billion.

I find it hard to believe they were going to only give $1 billion...

[dipsydoodle]

30. Confirmation here from Nov. 27th 2013.

EU leaders gather in the Lithuanian capital Vilnius on Thursday and had expected to greet the Ukrainian there as a partner in a far-reaching accord that would extend EU democratic values deep into former Soviet territory.

They will instead face a hard-nosed, Soviet-style ruler who has turned summit preparations into a geopolitical bargaining game, keeping a weather eye on his support among powerfully rich business "oligarchs" as he aims for re-election in 2015.

The burly 63-year-old will still attend the summit despite not signing the pact. Instead, fellow leaders will hear a jarring message that can be summed up as: "If you want to keep me from doing a deal with Russia, put up more cash."

"Candy in a pretty wrapper" is how Yanukovich described on Tuesday the financial assistance of 610 million euros ($827 million) repeatedly offered by Brussels. Shifting Ukraine's economy onto European Union standards would require not less than $20 billion per year, he said.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/11/28/us-ukraine-eu-yanukovich-idUSBRE9AR04E20131128

Even more than I recalled - Yanukovich used a figure of $20 billion PER YEAR.

In May the EU increased their offer of loans to $15 billion . Shame they didn't do that last November - may have avoided this mess. That's in ADDITION to the IMF funds. Much of those amounts will actually be used to service and repay existing debt.

UPDATE 2-EU offers Ukraine $15 bln, but help hinges on IMF deal http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/05/eu-ukraine-support-idUSL6N0M227R20140305

Aggregate sum they will need is foreseen to be c. $220 billion - try servicing and paying that lot back without being OWNED.

[joshcryer]

31. So they sign a trade agreement with a bankrupt country?

The money was clearly to keep Ukraine alive until the rest of the IMF details could be worked out.

Also, $17 billion sounds about right now with Crimea annexed. It may well have been $20 billion before.

[dipsydoodle]

32. There is a paradox

inasmuch the IMF has already mentioned that the loans agreed assume no further losses in the east. The IMF said that iIn the event of such losses loan requirements would increase : not reduce.

I can only assume that would be due to less exports / tax revenues from the industrialised east. Seems odd because because even left intact Ukraine's exports will fall if they lose the Russian markets.

off topic - Ukraine has now told Gazprom to whistle with regard payment in advance for gas so not sure what will happen come June 1st.

[joshcryer]

33. Fair enough.

I simply don't think Crimea was a net positive for Ukraine though, so I think losing Crimea meant the overall need for money was reduced (though probably not $3 billion). The east has most of the industry though, so obviously if you lose that, you need bigger loans.

But you can't ignore that the IMF loans were yet to be made. They may have been Putin's $15 billion without the loan guarantees. It may have only been $10 billion. It wasn't like the EU was going to go "$1 billion, have a nice day." It was, "$1 billion, IMF austerity." Whatever it was going to be, it wouldn't let the country fall into despotism. The IMF didn't let Greece fall into chaos even though Greeks (particularly rich Greeks) weren't paying their fair share. In fact, the IMF loaned over $100 billion Euros to save Greece (no doubt to save the Eurozone from catastrophe), but it came at huge debt reductions.

Putin may have made the nicer deal, but only because, and you've yet to convince me otherwise, he was leveraging Ukraine's gas and Ukraine had quite possibly the worst gas contract ever (they should've made it clear in the contract that any "losses" would be held by a Gazprom insurer, not Ukraine; I still don't think the "losses" were real; I think an oligarch decided to line his pockets, Ukrainian or Russian, who knows).

[dipsydoodle]

37. Comparisons with Greece are difficult.

In the case of Greece there was much in the way of debt being either written down or written off. In the case of Ukraine the IMF has already been made clear that neither will occur - all loans must most definitely be satisfied as agreed.

From memory the structure of at least the initial IMF funding will be based on :

Years 1 and 2 - no service payments so presumably interest rolled over.

Years 3, 4 and 5 - service payments including interest paid twice a year and full debt settled at end of year 5.

Interestingly the interest rate is only 3% which is even lower that the figure of 5% Russia used for the $3billion loan which was considered to be low given Ukraine's credit rating. The IMF and EU are both aware that at least initial loans , across 2014 ,will be used mainly to settle current debt -c. $8 billion by this autumn.

Russia's offer was only better than that of the IMF because it lacked austerity strings. It was worse inasmuch it would've lacked the account management which the IMF will install to help ensure the funds are not misused / misplaced.

[pampango]

2. BBC: Pro-Russia rebel vote to go ahead

Pro-Russian activists in eastern Ukraine have said they will not postpone a referendum on independence planned for Sunday.

The decision comes one day after Russian President Vladimir Putin urged delaying the vote to create the conditions necessary for dialogue.

In what appeared to be a further shift in Russian policy, Mr Putin also said on Wednesday that this month's presidential elections in Ukraine were a move "in the right direction".

His remarks came days after his spokesman said holding such an election would be absurd.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-27320806

Something tells me that the "pro-Russia forces" believe that their referendum will show something entirely different than "a strong majority of Ukrainians want their country to remain a single, unified state and this is true even in the largely Russian-speaking east ...". We shall see if they can get close to the 95% that the referendum in Crimea achieved.

It will be interesting to see what election monitors there are in eastern Ukraine this weekend and all over Ukraine on May 25.

[joshcryer]

3. 800,000 #referendum ballot papers destroyed by fire

Sarah Rainsford ?@sarahrainsford
#Donetsk Peoples' Republic says 800,000 #referendum ballot papers destroyed by fire started by 'unknown' people. Reason 2 delay vote?

We'll see if Putin allows it. I don't think Putin wants them to have a vote that looks so staged it's not even a joke with maybe a few tens of thousands showing up at most.

[davidpdx]

4. Well once accidents like that start happening you have to question whether it's going to be rigged

by the pro-Russia side. The question is whether they will claim more or less than 97% of the people approved it.

[The Magistrate]

8. No Question, Sir: A Vote Under Present Conditions In the East is A Rigged Vote

The tally to be reported will have been decided before the first vote is cast, and will be reported whatever an actual count might have shown the real totals to be.

[Igel]

27. That's what the referendum will show.

The same people who are telling newspapers what not to print, shutting off channels that don't express the right viewpoint, who blockaded a newspaper today for not being properly compliant, who are putting up the "vote for independence" billboards, who are running the "army" and the "political" branches of the Donetsk People's Republic are the ones maintaining the voting rolls and will be counting the vote.

They are the people. Everything they do is "the people's will." When they kidnap a deputy on 5/7 and the body is found on 5/9, it's the "people's will."

And those who disagree aren't part of the people, so what you do to them--disenfranchise them, marginalize them, even beat them ... it's okay. If they're not part of "the people" they're not "people." And it's okay to kill animals.

The referendum will include only highly Russian-speaking areas. It will not be fair or unbiased. And when the vote to declare independence is handily won, then the oblasts will be indissoluable. Those who didn't vote, those in non-Russian-majority areas, will have no choice. The arguments for self-determination, for what the local people want, won't matter. The narod, the "people", are clearly urban and only urban.

[The Magistrate]

9. This Obviously Makes Hash Of The 'Go Putin!' Cheer-Leaders' Position, Sir

When people are asked whether they support or feel favorably about a government, a good portion will answer as if they have been asked 'is this government doing a good job, do you like the way things are going?' There is a lot not to like about the performance of the interim government, and chief among them is that it has not been able to do a very good job of preserving order, which is the chief, most basic requirement of a government. A government which cannot maintain order opens questions about it competence and even its legitimacy.

This suggests two things, none of which the 'go Putin!' cheerleaders will like.

First, that had the interim government in Kiev done a better job of cracking down on separatists, it would probably register as a good deal more popular than it does now, and that in all regions, not just the west.

Second, that the claim the interim government in Kiev is a pack of blood-thirsty fascists, so popular among the 'go Putin!' cheer-leading crew, is industrial grade nonesense. Otherwise, they would have resorted to force, not only earlier, but in greater quantity and to much greater effect.

It hardly needs to be said that if the figures from the poll are accurate, any honest referendum in the east will come out a thumping 'no' to secession. Nor does it really need to be said that the people throwing the projected referendum will report its result as a solid endorsement of secession. And I have every expectation that when they do, the 'go Putin!' crew will cheer that 'fascism' has been rejected in east Ukraine....

[dipsydoodle]

10. Poll: Most Ukrainians support full or partial refusal of gas purchases from Russia

Most Ukrainians believe that Ukraine should fully or partially refuse purchase of Russian gas. These data are taken from a survey by the Rating sociological group, promulgated at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/poll-most-ukrainians-support-full-or-partial-refusal-of-gas-purchases-from-russia-346943.html

makes me wonder about their polls.

As of June 1st all purchases from Russia will be payment in advance.

There is a complete absence of any intelligent suggestions as to where alternatives would come from. Reverse feeds from EU member states are restricted in volume by an unwillingness by those states to breach the terms of their own contracts with Gazprom. I sometimes have to wonder whether or not Ukrainians are a full shilling / 10 cents on the subject of a basic need - warmth. Seven months time winter will be back there.

[The Magistrate]

11. People Often Answer a Different Question Than the One They Are Asked, Sir

Asked 'should Ukraine stop buying gas from Russia?', most people answer either the question 'should Ukraine stop sending money to Russia?' or the question 'should Ukraine do something that might punish Russia?'. In present conditions, the answer to those questions will certainly be 'damn straight!'

[dipsydoodle]

12. Yes but come the winter they might conclude

that cutting off one's nose to spite one's face isn't necessarily a wholly good idea

[The Magistrate]

13. Possibly, Sir

But that does not alter present feeling, and that will certainly be great resentment at Russia's interference and threatening behavior.

In the long run, Russia will find its blatant use of energy exports for political blackmail erodes its customer base, as people seek secure and reliable suppliers and new supplies, which they may well be willing to pay a bit more for, as a species of insurance against interruption of the flow.

[joshcryer]

15. Putin certainly likes leveraging that one.

[Adrahil]

19. Ah I see...

... you advocate political subservience in exchange for gas from Moscow?

That's essentially what Moscow demanded, and Yanukovych agreed to.

[dipsydoodle]

20. Not particularly.

Just pointing out a fact of life. Their population will understandably take it out on their government if they lack heat next winter.

Aside from that Russia demanded nothing of the sort. All they really expect is to be paid for gas supplied - hardly unreasonable given I can find no record of Russia being registered as a charity.

Winter is coming so they best just deal with it.

[Adrahil]

21. OK, but....

...I do find it curious that you don't seem to have a harsh word for Putin's Moscow in leveraging such an important commodity as imperialist tool.

I do agree that that the Ukrainians are facing such "facts," though it seems to me this whole situation could have easily been avoided by Putin.

I wanted to add, I've actually enjoyed your posting on this topic lately. I'm finding it more thoughtful than some other folks I could mention, even if I frequently disagree.

[dipsydoodle]

22. Its not so much I don't have a harsh word for Russia -

more that I regard Ukraine as being a complete fucking nuisance.

[Adrahil]

23. Welp, it is. But for the people living there, this is DEADLY serious. NT

[dipsydoodle]

24. I sympaphise with their population

who I do not believe have a real understanding of current events.

[joshcryer]

28. Ukraine a nuisance for being leveraged by Russia.

Cute. An entire country. Talk jingoism...

[dipsydoodle]

17. On the subject of gas

Europe and Ukraine actively stocking Russian gas awaiting transit crisis.

European countries and Ukraine are actively increasing imports of Russian gas in anticipation of a new transit crisis that could erupt from the beginning of June. According to live data from the Central Dispatching Department of the Fuel Energy Complex of Russia, Russian gas exports for the first five days of May increased compared to comparable days last year by 16%.

http://www.kyivpost.com/content/business/europe-and-ukraine-actively-stocking-russian-gas-awaiting-transit-crisis-346972.html

June reference may relate to June 1st being the date at which Gazprom will only supply Ukraine in return for advance payment.

[joshcryer]

34. I suspect they're going to see if Russia charges market rate.

If Russia decides to keep overcharging Ukraine they can adapt accordingly.

Ukraine can then go "we won't buy Russian gas, we'll buy reimported gas from EU; which incidentally came from Russia, but oh well."

[dipsydoodle]

35. Worth noting though

that reverse feed supplies from Europe will be at THE market price albeit that gas will be priced below the $487 : most likely c. $400. There are however volume limits on which Slovakia and Poland are able to supply as neither are prepared to breach their own contracts with Gazprom. Aside from that they will be reverse feeding what is supplied to them via Ukraine, neither country is on Nord Stream, so if the supply is shut by Gazprom due to Ukraine's belligerence there will be nothing to reverse feed. Either / both Poland and Slovakia will supply in specified bulk unit numbers given 48 hours notice giving them an element of control regarding payment - don't pay / don't get.

The EU Energy Minister has already told Ukraine that they are definitely to settle the current debt with Gazprom. Last time Ukraine played up and the supply ceased for some days German industrial production fell by 25% for that duration.

[joshcryer]

38. No doubt Russia is going to get paid.

I don't doubt that at all. And a lot of it will come from the IMF money. And Ukrainians aren't going to like it. Who would've thought electing oligarchs gets you fucked over?

[freshwest]

39. 'Last time Ukraine played up and... supply ceased... German industrial production fell by 25%...'

Isn't this why Germany went solar? And aren't they doing very well?

Alternatives could help put Ukraine and the EU countries not depend on Russian gas. I think this is where the investment should go, not in the blackhole of fossil fuels.

Here, alternatives have worked and we need less fossil fuels. Sounds like a win-win. Combining that with conservation, which IIRC, Ukraine did not use to reduce their fuel costs.

Not that natural gas isn't a fine thing for heat, but it's not the only thing as the technology becomes avaiable to reduce its use.

Any news on that? And thanks for your threads and your patience.

[dipsydoodle]

40. From January this year :

Germanys shift to renewable energy was once Angela Merkel’s flagship policy - now it has become her biggest headache.

“For me, the most urgent problem is the design of the energy revolution,” said the German Chancellor in her first television interview after being re-elected last month. “We are under a lot of pressure. The future of jobs and the future of Germany as a business location depend on it.”

She is not wrong: Europe’s largest country and economy faces a crisis. Such is the mess over energy that the future of Germany’s much-vaunted economic competitiveness is now seriously threatened.

Ms Merkel is currently Europe’s most popular leader but there is a growing backlash against her ill-thought-out energy policies.

And, to cap it all, policies hailed as saving the world from climate change have, in fact, increased CO2 emissions.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/10577513/Germany-is-a-cautionary-tale-of-how-energy-polices-can-harm-the-economy.html

And from last month - April :

Germany boosts wind power at green energy summit

Germany's wind power industry has emerged victorious at Tuesday's (01.04.2014) energy summit in Berlin. The talks brought together German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the country's 16 state premiers.

The country is planning a shift away from fossil fuels and nuclear power. "We have now made the first big step to safeguard the energy transition," said German Economics and Energy Minister, Sigmar Gabriel.

Gabriel's initial plans to reform the country's Renewable Energy Act (known locally as the EEG) had included drastically reducing subsidies for renewable energy power systems and capping the rollout of domestic wind power to 2500 megawatts per year.

But, southern German states like Baden-Württemberg rejected the plans. They argued that this would effectively destroy the renewable energy technology market they have built over years. States like Lower Saxony and Schleswig-Holstein were also angry, saying the new plans would reduce their ability to create power in the wind-intensive northern states.

http://www.dw.de/germany-boosts-wind-power-at-green-energy-summit/a-17536470

In general, as far as I'm aware , wind generated energy there is directed towards industry due to its higher current cost. Solar generated energy in the southern states may eventually give rise to the grid ceasing to economic and shut down as a result in some areas.

They're cynics anyway - they increased imports of nuclear energy from the Czech Republic and France.

As to what will eventually happen in the UK goodness only knows given they've recently discovered enough coal under the North Sea to last 100 years.

Fairy stories regarding the US exporting LPG to Europe to replace dependence on Russia are just that - fairy stories. Would take about 15 years to accomplish complete with an horrendous byproduct :

Foreseen to require 400 super tankers , most of which don't currently exist and. one single super tanker emits the annual equivalent of 50,000,000 cars....................do the maths. 'Nuff said.

[Iterate]

41. Don't hang your hat on that Telegraph piece -it's terribly biased

Last edited Sat May 10, 2014, 03:05 AM - Edit history (1)

First, the economy.

German competitiveness hard to improve upon
In February, Yergin told the Wall Street Journal that “Germany should scale back its plans for expensive renewables and complement the drive with more domestic natural gas production.” And from the World Economic Forum in Davos, he reported in January that Germany’s economic competitiveness was at stake, particularly in light of lower energy prices in the US. Strangely, he did not add that what the Forum itself found: Germany is the fourth most competitive country in the world, even ahead of the US.

To be fair, Yergin also quoted German Industry Minister Sigmar Gabriel, who conjured up the threat of “dramatic deindustrialization.” But the concern makes little sense.

Let’s start off by recognizing that Germany actually still has a lot of industry to lose, though the Energiewende has been going on since at least 1991 or 2000, depending on which legislation you start with. In 2012, industry made up 19.1 percent of the US economy, 21 percent of the UK’s economy, and 28.1 percent of the German economy.

Next, let’s acknowledge that Germany’s neighbors would love for the Germans to be less competitive. The unemployment rate ((~5% with a skilled labor shortage)) is at its lowest level since reunification more than two decades ago. Tax revenue hit a record high in 2013. Germany’s Finance Minister recently announced the first balanced budget since 1969. German businesses are doing so well that the country posted a record trade surplus last year. The surplus almost reached three percent of GDP, a record not only for Germany, but for any country anywhere throughout history. Yet, we read that US investors are worried about German energy policy.

http://energytransition.de/2014/04/energy-transition-german-economy-never-healthier/

As far as the Berlin energy summit goes, that was right after the new government was formed, with a lot of claims and positioning right at the time when some there was also a overdue review and adjustment of energy policy. It wasn't a mess, and there was no long-term abandonment of policy or goals, just ordinary German politics. Even Baden-Württemberg was satisfied in the end, if that's possible.

And France is a net importer -the French/Czech nuclear salvation never happened.

West Germany imported Russian NG throughout the cold war without interruption. Demand has been flat in the past two years, mainly because of the collapse of the carbon market and the transition to renewables and reduced consumption. The move away from Russian gas began in 2010-2011 because of the supply interruption threats in 2006 and 2009. Russia came to be seen as an unreliable trading partner.

I don't know where you get your LNG numbers, but it doesn't matter. No one in their right mind would take that idea seriously anyway. Plenty of easily ignored nonsense originates in the US from crass opportunism, especially from the right.

The coal-gas-nuclear industry in the US, UK, and Russia are constantly and breathlessly predicting doom for Germany. It gives a warped picture.

[Nye Bevan]

18. If the people of Northern Maine wanted to break away and become part of Quebec,

I imagine that most people in the United States would oppose this. So I find this unsurprising.

[Jemon]

25. You changed the title of the story

Use the right one.

[The Magistrate]

26. When He Posted It early This Morning, Sir, It was The Right Headline

The wire service sites update all day, adding to the stories and often changing the headlines as they do.

[Bosonic]

36. Something's going down in Mariupol

Last edited Fri May 9, 2014, 06:32 AM - Edit history (2)

Sporadic gunfire

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/newsfront4

Firefight as separatists trying to take Mauriupol militia station. 8 separatists dead and unknown number of wounded

https://twitter.com/BSpringnote/status/464711987822604288

[Sunlei]

42. They have worked for decades towards their full EU membership. Putin didn't want that!!

Take a look at Ukraine in the right side drop down list of countries. Take a look at Russia and the USA EU partnerships, aswell

http://europa.eu/index_en.htm