Excerpt:
Now, let's talk about the money. Here, everything adds up to a fairy tale. Instead of giving money directly to Yanukovych, Putin is buying Ukrainian Eurobonds worth 15 billion, which instantly raises their price by almost 6%. These 6%, as stockbrokers say, easily cover the deficit in the Ukrainian budget. That is, Putin didn't give money, but he solved the problem.
However, there is a nuance. As soon as Putin announced the placement of funds in Ukrainian Eurobonds, their price immediately jumped. But did Putin actually buy them, or is he just planning to? If he is only planning to, he will have to buy them at a high price. And here, a certain story emerges, which happened a few days ago. We suddenly learned that the American investment company "Franklin Templeton" bought Ukrainian debt securities worth $5 billion, which, according to reports, is 20% of the national debt.
From the comments:
Franklin Templeton, as far as I know, carries out speculative transactions on behalf of anonymous clients. That is, someone knew that Putin would promise to buy Ukrainian bonds and that they would rise in price after that. And they bought them in advance, just before the announcement, in order to resell them profitably. And make about a billion in a month.
But who could have known about Putin's decision not only before it was announced, but also before the meeting where this decision was agreed upon? Wasn't it Putin himself? Or someone close to him? Or maybe this operation was carried out by some Russian structure, such as the Central Bank?
It's very profitable: through front companies, they bought Ukrainian bonds, officially announced the intention to buy Ukrainian bonds on behalf of the Russian Federation, withdrew money from American jurisdiction for these purposes, and sold the bonds purchased through front companies. Making a billion in profit. And then we will decide: whether to buy Ukrainian bonds at all, and if so, in what tranches and within what timeframes?
In short, they made a good profit by deceiving the Americans and Europeans.
Added 33 minutes ago
Well, it's all in theory, but in practice, quantity doesn't always mean quality. A clear example: Russia (who would have thought?!), with a population of over 100 million, has a low standard of living, not to mention the rapid decline in this very population. Or India - the second most populous nation on the planet, if I'm not mistaken, but they live like paupers. But in Austria, with a population smaller than that of Kyiv, there is some kind of unhealthy order. I'm not even talking about Switzerland and the like.
I am interested in how the lives of the population of Ukraine and Russia will improve specifically after the unification (if I understand you correctly, and you meant ordinary people)? At whose expense? Is there a development plan?
2) Lowering prices for gas and other export goods reduces production costs.
3) Simplification of relocation and employment, reduction of bureaucratic red tape in this matter.
4) A single currency reduces losses and delays in conversion, simplifies bill payments, and reduces risks caused by exchange rate fluctuations.
5) The absence of inspections at the border reduces logistical costs and reduces the time for transporting people and goods.
6) For a number of goods, it is not necessary to build separate factories in each state, but to use one factory that serves the entire country. Reduction of costs due to production volume.
7) Reduction of expenses on the state apparatus - duplicate ministries, consulates, etc. become unnecessary.
That is, this is not manna from heaven that falls into your hands, but an optimization of economic processes that increases the efficiency of doing business, thereby increasing well-being.
8) The absence of Maidan protests. I understand that for some this is a plus, but for the economy it is objectively a minus.
Well, firstly, I would not compare monarchy and communism with modern democracy in Russia. The interests are different now.
Secondly, you yourself have a lot of problems, both economically and infrastructurally. And you want to help other countries? Maybe you should put things in order at home first?
I don't believe that Russia is so eager to share its invaluable experience and lift Ukraine to new heights. Rather, it seems that Russia needs Ukraine for the same reason that the United States does - as a source of raw materials.
In your article, it is directly stated that industry is needed.
46 million new slaves, that's not a bad appendage either.
And, of course, to take control of the local capital - that's sacred!
Oh, and of course, to move NATO missiles further away and put their own in their place, how could we do without it...
So, no matter how you look at it, you still have a lot of work to do (first of all, on yourselves) to convince us that it will be better for us with you. So far, there is no such trend... unfortunately.
