And in Russia

Government borrowing costs are spiking.


Source: FT.

From FastFT:

The Russian central bank’s intervention has bolstered the rouble today, but the country’s government bonds are tumbling.

The 10-year Russian local government bond yield has rocketed 60 basis points to 11.76 per cent, the highest since 2009, as investors dump their holdings en masse.

The dollar denominated 10-year bond yield rose 7 bp to over 6 per cent.

The rouble is the worst performing major currency in the world today, and has only been hauled off its record low by a series of central bank interventions in recent days. The latest data indicate that it spent $1.9bn on December 3 to buttress the currency.

Investors are still dumping their Russian bond holdings, however, as fears grow over the financial and economic impact of the sliding oil price and of western sanctions over Moscow’s support for Ukrainian separatists.

43 thoughts on “And in Russia

    1. genauer


      Putin “having a weak hand”. I am not so sure.

      When I plot the Ruble to Dollar exchange rate, divided by the Brent price, I get practically the Russian inflation.

      The currency decay is mirrored by other countries, depending on commodity exports, like Brazil, just that the Iron Ore price slump started earlier this year.

      Simple game plan for the Russian central Bank:

      – They have to run at least a slight CA (current account) surplus.
      – Exports are > 50% oil and related.
      – Imports are cut by some 25% due to sanctions and counter sanctions (especially with Europe)
      – Government debt due in foreign currency (USD and EUR) is only about 20 b$ for the next 3 years
      – China provided some upfront pay of 25 b$ for the new gas pipelines, and a 25 b$ swap agreement, together with some plans for common navy manouevres in the mediterranean in 2015, has a nice ring to it, repaying the US visit to Sochi in February 2014 with 200 Sino-Russian nukes parked 15 miles away from Rome.

      Russian imports were about half and half USD and EUR related , makes some 33% price increase, as of today : – ), some 15% import share of GDP, add 33% * 15% * half to the inflation of prior 6.5% makes 9% inflation now. On top of this you add 20 – 30 % tax (e.g., and those 11.5% give the investor NOTHING, and that also means that Russian Government borrowing costs, properly accounted for, after tax and inflation, are NOTHING.

      And the inflation makes the existing debt go away much faster, kinda like what folks here think will follow at the end of QE : – )

      oil price is set by others, exchange rate follows oil by the requirement of a slight CA surplus, inflation rate follows by import/export fractions, real central bank rate must be not more than 2 % negative, after inflation and tax, or people start hoarding stuff

  1. Steven Kopits

    Genauer –

    I took Putin’s Crimea-is-our-Jerusalem speech to mean he was prepared to negotiate eastern Ukraine away. If he got Crimea for the lifting of sanctions, that’s a very good year for Russia.

    My problem with current policy is that it de facto anticipates Iraq-style (Saddam era), indefinite sanctions on Russia. I see several problems with this.

    If I were Putin, no way, no how would I give back Crimea short of a military defeat. Therefore, sanctions won’t achieve that goal, no matter how long they are in place. Until Ukraine split off twenty years ago, Crimea was part of Russia since the times of Catherine the Great. He’s not going to hand it back, period, unless taken by force.

    However, NATO has not shown the stomach for a military confrontation. So that means Russia remains in de facto control of eastern Ukraine and full control over Crimea, and sanctions stay in place pretty much forever. In doing so, the reality on the ground will cede eastern Ukraine to Russia. For now, Crimea is ‘sacred’. Go out a decade, and Donetsk will be sacred. Meanwhile, a low level conflict will continue to simmer in Ukraine, with 1000 death reported there since the start of the cease fire. It could easily flare into a full military confrontation down the line. Therefore, failure to make a deal by the western powers also carries a cost and risk.

    Putin may not want to negotiate. That’s easily ascertained. But I think he sees the situation in Russia deteriorating, and it will get worse. Putin knows that. If he can come away with Crimea, he’s a star. If Russia continues under sanctions, his position and legacy are at risk.

    He’ll come to the table.

    1. jonathan

      I think Putin’s aims are flexible but I agree his main goal has been to gain approval for annexing Crimea. He went overboard about the spiritual importance, especially since the area was switched from Russia to Crimea in 1954. I think he’s leery of breaking apart Ukraine further in the name of minority Russians because that’s the opposite of Russia’s position with its own regions that want to separate.

  2. genauer


    when you look at the Minsky protocol and other stuff, I do not think that Putin ever wanted any part of the Ukraine.

    The place is a mixture of western polish/lithuanian/ukrainian catholic and more easter oriented (former, to some degree orthodox)
    And that hatred is somehow deep seated but dangerous, see former National Security Council Director Samuel Huntington “Clash of Civilizations”

    But that is a continous change of mix over 500 km

    Former US ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock:

    After the assault on the Black Sea fleet, the Crimea is forever Russian, anything else is a delusion for Kiev.

    I think all what Putin wants is a safe 500 km Buffer Zone for NATO troops (and ABM missiles) and language respect for the > 80% russian speakers in eastern ukraine.
    Fair enough. The US did not tolerate russian nukes in the Cuba Crisis.

    When the Russians stationed the SS-20 missiles in the 70ties, we answered with Cruise misseles and Pershing 2 “Nachrüstungsbeschluss”

    But the folks in Kiev who toppled a democratically elected president Yanukovich in unconstitutional ways, and partially violent, did never try to negotiate with the other 49 %. Just calling them terrorists.

    I will not sacrifice the bones of a single pomerian grenadier for that.

    Russia has a balanced budget, just about 10% GDP as debt, that can be easily printed, just compare that to the Fed with the QE volume.
    Russia has a few little SWFs on the side, which can be tapped, in time honored ways, Poland did the same last year … : – )

    Gov debt coming due in USD , I see 2 mere b$ in 2015 and in 2017 each. 3 in 2018, 2 in 2019, with reserves of > 400 ahem.

    Private corporation debt, hmmm, larger, but what if they can’t service it? Bankrupt, wipe out especially foreign stock and bond holders,
    and the fresh capital, then provided by the Russian government translates into OWNERSHIP, or ….. ?

    In the moment the talk is about a 3% GDP cut max in Russia. Looking up the IMF 2014 WEO, even a 10% cut would throw the Russians back to 2011 levels.
    Compare that to the US, which is in 2014 just back to 2007 levels.

    Most food stuff (with the notable exception of buckwheat : – ) is cheaper this year. Globally corn, wheat, rice, soy, 20% and more

    In Europe I dont buy any of the above in larger than retail sizes of 19 cents for kg flour, but dairy is down by 20% due to embargos by Russia
    59 cent for a liter milk, 85 cent for butter

    When the Ukraine goes bankrupt in mid 2015, at 1/3 of Russian living standards, because the IMF required reforms demand another 10% cut, the mood in the rest of Ukraine could swing significantly. When you take a closer look at votes and voter participation, Kiev does not even now have a majority in “Novo Russya”

    1. Steven Kopits

      Don’t kid yourself: Ukraine had been part of Russia since 1667.

      Here’s Zbigniew Brzezinski’s view, from his 1997 book, “The Grand Chessboard” in which he wrote, “Ukraine, a new and important space on the Eurasian chessboard, is a geopolitical pivot because its very existence as an independent country helps to transform Russia. Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire… However, if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources as well as access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia.”

      I imagine Putin knows this.

        1. Steven Kopits

          Why wouldn’t I care to know?

          I certainly accept that Ukraine’s borders have been moved around a good bit over time. (As I Hungarian, I am aware we used to own part of it!) However, most of Ukraine had been in Russian possession since the 1600s, the majority of the speakers have spoken Russian (if other languages as well), and Ukraine is central to Russia as a great power.

          Please don’t misunderstand me. I was among the hawks against Russia. But, having lived and worked in Hungary for 15 years, I have some feel for the eastern European mentality, of which the Russian version is, let’ say, a bit more basic. But just because I oppose Putin’s aims doesn’t mean I don’t understand his goals. Although am a New England Patriots fan (24-14 over San Diego, did I mention that?), doesn’t mean I don’t understand the desire of the Packers to win the Super Bowl. Nor is the desire of the Packers for home field advantage lost on me.

          Similarly with Putin. The man has an ego, some real vanity. (Did you ever see Brezhnev with his shirt off?) He has ambitions and wants to be remembered as Putin the Great. That involves reconstructing Great Russia. That’s the way to think about it, in my opinion. And that poses both threats (Moldova’s next on the list), and some real opportunities (Putin needs to be liked). That’s my framework of analysis.

          1. Anonymous

            Why should you care?
            And still not true. Here are some maps:
            1600s — — seems like Poland-Lithuania has the bigger portion of “Ukraine”
            1700s — — seems like Poland-Lithuania and Ottomas still have a bigger portion
            1751 — — some more maps

            Don’t know why and what you’re trying to say in the rest. Those who don’t have an ego don’t become leaders, what’s your point?

          2. Steven Kopits

            I am saying that Russia has as good on claim on Ukraine as anyone else. If you let the Russians enforce that claim, they will.

  3. PeakTrader

    It was a dumb idea to impose sanctions on Russia, because they also hurt the E.U..

    Our ally the Saudis reducing oil prices was a smart move, which helps the E.U., and also hurts Iran and Venezuela.

    I still think the U.S. and E.U. should’ve built air bases around Crimea after it was annexed, to protect the rest of Ukraine.

    Then, we would’ve had a valuable bargaining chip.

    1. Ulenspiegel

      Peak Trader wrote: “It was a dumb idea to impose sanctions on Russia, because they also hurt the E.U.”

      Maybe we have different definitions for sanctions. Of course sanctions hurt the imposing side, however, clever sanctions hurt the opponent more.

      “I still think the U.S. and E.U. should’ve built air bases around Crimea after it was annexed, to protect the rest of Ukraine.”

      Nonsense, Ukraine is neither NATO nor EU. There is absolutely no need for any military stunts. A good strategy puts own strength against the opponents weakness, military threads would have been a gain for Putin.

      The more clever and cynic move would have been to let Russia occupy larger parts of the Ukraine, the burden of the acquired economic shithole would outweight any advantages.

      You still do not understand that Ukraine was 2011/12 part of the Russian sphere, i.e. Putin is now minimizing LOSSES. Or is for you the acquisition of the Krim in exchnage for the rest of Ukraine a gain?

      1. PeakTrader

        So, your solution is to give up more ground.

        The reality is Russia gained Crimea, and the West lost credibility under the Budapest Memorandum.

        We responded to Russia’s bold move with a weak move.

        Russia has beaten the U.S. and E.U..

        1. Ulenspiegel

          Peak Trader,

          Ukraine was until 1990 a part of the SU, afterwards considered part of the Russian sphere of influence. Since 2012 Russia has lost most of this buffer.

          It is nonsense to claim that we are losing ground. Putin has to make huge investments to maintain less than he had in 2012, not a convincing business model.

          Russia under Putin has some weaknesses and we should simply avoid a strategy that allows putin to cover these weaknesses with martial behaviour, i.e. defending Mother Russia against western agression. Fighting where he has no real advantages is much better.

    2. PeakTrader

      Of course, Putin took Crimea, because he knew there’d be a weak response, after Obama’s “line-in-the-sand” was crossed in Syria.

      It was an unnecessary crisis, like the crises in the Middle East (including the refugee crisis).

      Moreover, Afghanistan is starting to spin out of control, and China has become more aggressive.

      A lot of people are suffering.

  4. Ricardo

    Russia tried good old western EQ to stimulate their economy. The resulting ruble slide was huge. They have now started to actually use their foreign exchange to stabilize the ruble. This is not a bad thing as implied in the article but is a sign they will do what is necessary to stabilize the ruble. The biggest problem they face is low oil prices but how long can prices remain below the cost of production for marginal producers? If the Russians are also pulling back on the supply of rubles we should soon see stability. I am not saying that is good or bad, only the truth. Today socialist and communist countries seem to understand monetary policy better than the western economies.

  5. genauer


    1. some more comments on the FT link at the start.

    a) The Financial Times (FT), like “The Economist” belong to the Pearson Group, same folks who sell GMAT and similar tests and preparation for it.
    In the last few years they have gone from somewhat respectable /restrained to pretty hard selling english propaganda and war mongering.
    Some english PM Cameron wants to blackmail the rest of Europe wit a veto demand gainst EU Commision chief Juncker.
    The FT smears him as an alcoholic, liar. claims that Angela Merkel has somehow promised Cameron something, etc. etc.

    b) Every Sunday evening, one of their editors , Wolfgang Münchau, trots out the next proposal for financial crime,

    c) Given the inflation and tax, the present russian interest rate is just the logical consequence of ZERO net benefit/cost.
    Where is the evidence of their “Investors are still dumping their Russian bond holdings2 ?
    When I take a look at the volume in
    I just see 3 green up arrows indicating high volume, bacvk in September and October

    2. The Ukraine is not and will not be anytime soon a member of NATO nor EU
    Germany and others have vetoed that in 2008 and again in 2014, and will continue to do so.

    The best thing the Ukraine can hope for, perfect behavior assumed, is to put in a formal application for EU in 2020.

    3. The problem of Ukraine is the rule by oligarchs, and those are more entrenched than ever.
    The North stream gas pipeline directly between Russia and Germany was , at higher cost at the bottom of the Baltic Sea, specifically built to circumvent the Ukraine , and Poland too, to prohibit more blackmail, with which that lovely Julia made her first billion.

    The Ukraine is an economic basket case, notorious for resisting IMF programs, and has in the last 10 months done nothing to improve on their economy. Just waiting for European handouts, and already starting that they need more, that they are somehow in their phantasies entitled to more.
    Their strategy is to pick fights, get the EU and NATO drawn in, and than apply the barn store rule “you break it , you own it” to become a client state, endless demands for support and endless complaining that this is not enough, just like Greece.

    Of that ilk we have already way more than enough in the EU, especially in the South / East

    1. Steven Kopits

      This is the flip side of ceding Crimea: Ukraine becomes, in effect, a European protectorate. There’s no point in ceding Crimea unless you’re going to put US fighter jets into eastern Ukraine to deter a repeat of the recent Russian invasion. And there’s no hope of ever getting out of Ukraine if its own government remains corrupt, incompetent and broke. So Europe (the IMF) is pretty much left to run the fiscal show in Ukraine. And of course, an FAA would properly be the central pillar of any economic intervention in Ukraine. In any event, the difficult negotiation, in my opinion, would not be with the Russians, who would happily take half a loaf at this point. Rather, it is the effective takeover of Kiev which would be resisted by the Ukrainian government itself.

  6. genauer


    and why should Europe let this happen, to add the Ukraine as a client state, a “protectorate” as you call it. What is in it for me?

    And what has this to do with stuid and dangerous things the US might do?


    I got an answer from the German Statistics office to your question from last Thursday.
    The difference between the statista graph (based on the statistics office) and the table is how stuff is counted.
    Something imported from China via the Netherlands is counted in the graph as NL, but in the table as China.

    In German:
    “Die Differenz der Einfuhrergebnisse in der Pressemitteilung und in der Publikation zu den Handelspartnern hat methodische Gründe. Die Einfuhrergebnisse in der Pressemitteilung werden nach dem Versendungslandprinzip, die Ergebnisse in den sonstigen Veröffentlichungen (z.B. in den Fachserien) nach dem Ursprungslandprinzip veröffentlicht.

    Als Beispiel:
    Eine chinesische Ware wird über die Niederlande (Verzollung in NL) nach Deutschland importiert.
    Die Einfuhranmeldung erfolgt mit Ursprungsland China und Versendungsland Niederlande.
     In der Pressemitteilung wird diese Position den Niederlanden, in der Fachserie China zugerechnet.”

    1. Ulenspiegel


      thanks a lot for the clarification of these differences in numbers.

      Now the for me tricky question: What does this mean for the trade balnace discussion between Germany and the Euro zone members?

      Could you give some explanations?

      1. genauer


        that means formally, the official way, as those things are counted usually, YOUR statista link showing balance in the EuroArea is OK. looking “nicer” for the claims against Germany.

        de facto, the Netherlands and to a lesser degree others are just a pass through, and the REAL trade is more like the my link to the table showing a trade surplus of Germany with the Eurozone in line with thee total trade.

    2. Steven Kopits

      Ulen –

      There is precious little in it for either of us. However, if you’re taking the view that you condone Russia’s actions in Ukraine–well, I don’t.

      So we’re left, I think, with two choices:

      1. Sanctions forever. This will make life difficult in northern Europe for the next decade at least, and will have the practical effect of ceding eastern Ukraine to Russia. On the other hand, it may discourage Russian adventurism elsewhere, eg, Moldova. That is current NATO policy de facto.

      2. Cede and deter. Cede Crimea and a lifting of sanctions for eastern Ukraine and Ukraine in NATO. To make this strategy viable, you must be willing to deter Putin with military force. That involves forward positioning assets.

      Don’t want conflict? Well, then you’ve chose Option 1. Open-ended sanctions which could last a very long time.

      Now, there is another problem with Option 1. ISIL has stated that is has smuggled nuclear materials into Europe, with which it could pretty easily build a dirty bomb. If such a bomb goes off in a major capital, then NATO will move to full war footing within days. Then it’s not about containing ISIL, it’s about invading Syria and Iraq and destroying ISIL outright. I’d say the odds of this look more than 50/50 if I believe what ISIL is telling us.

      So, how do you want Russia postured during this period? Do you want a model with moving parts? Or do you want the Russians on the sidelines?

      1. genauer


        where did you get this very weird claim “ISIL has stated that is has smuggled nuclear materials into Europe,” from ? Faux News, Michigan Militia ?

        NATO will certainly not move on false, unsubstantiated claims, and especially if this risk some nuclear global war.

        The US & UK government & media have been caught with blatant war lies in the run up to Iraq 2003 and have to show proof in the future

        The remaining Ukraine is an economic and character basket case, nobody wants, just 7 month later they need the next 15 billions, and not a single economic reform in 10 months.

        These guys must be vetoed against EU and NATO membership for at least the next 30 years.

        Just look at Greece, the mother of all delusional, parasitic members
        (over 100% GDP transfers got from the EU !
        All in the name of “cohesion”

        today, bank lost their >20 % in one day

        You just have to read economics blogs from there , or even a “conservative” news outlet like
        pondering plotting “a grand strategic alliance with China against Germany” versus the dream opportunity of “the Russian scenario”, not knowing whom to slander more, “how Washington uses the IMF like a Trojan horse to manipulate Europe.” or better slander Germany, with the money, and plotting the ” idea of a Greek-American alliance against Germany”

        I just dont wanna see, hear, or read of all that ilk anymore, and trade peacefully with other honest people in China, India, Brazil

        1. Steven Kopits

          On ISIS nuclear threat in Europe:

          If ISIS has the materials, this would not be particularly difficult to do. Here’s where they got some uranium:

          It would not be difficult to move the material into Europe: By boat from Lebanon to the, say, the Croatian coast. There are no borders and no checkpoints from there to the English Channel.

          What is the true risk of this? And how bad could it be? Hard to say. But it could be plenty to inflame public opinion. If a dirty bomb went off in, say, Paris or Vienna…well, I think it would be a big deal. And I believe NATO would mobilize to remove ISIS directly.

      2. Ulenspiegel

        Steven Kopits,

        we maintain the economic sanctions for a few years and cede the Crimea. I am a fan of realpolitik.

        The take-home message for Putin or another Russian government is that unconventional forms of warfare can be used by others too, and they should understand that there are effective non-military options for the EU/NATO, and NATO/EU is willing to use them, even if this means pain. Not more not less.

        Ukraine is no loss for NATO or EU, it was never part of one of these organisations. I strictly oppose NATO membership of this country as long as Russia is not member, I also oppose EU membership for Ukraine which comes since The Treaty of Lisbon with clear military implications.

        My personal POV: I did my military service near the Elbe river in Lower Saxony in 1986, my hometown would have been battlefield on day 4 of an WWIII.
        Only four years later the Warsaw Pact disintegrated and the SU lost threefold: Huge loss of manpower, huge losses of industrial capacity and the military border shifted almost 500 km eastwards. A few years later most former WP countries were memebers of the NATO. That was a clear improvement, achieved without (hot) war.

        One can add, that with WWII as historical background there is (hopefully) no chance that Germany would support any military confrontation with Russia for Ukraine in the next years. Ukraine is not worth it.

        The presented ISIL thread is pure hyperbole. The ISIL guys are a military issue for governments in the ME, not for Europe.

  7. genauer


    that “nuclear threat” is not “hard to say”, but very easy to dismiss as obvious complete bollocks.
    I have a physics PhD, my first university internship in a nuclear Reactor (“Atom-Ei”) was 29 years ago.
    My first industry work was at a location within a third ring of air defense.
    40 kg low grade Uranium is just boring. The only way to kill a single person with that is, to throw that stone with high speed against his head : – )

    This is just the typical ruse, RUSI desinformation, as for the Iraq 2003 war, habitual shameless liars. The second the typical hasbara.

    To add to Ulenspiegel, my hometown would have been overrun probably in the first 2 days, and the position where I served the fatherland was a prime target, my life expectancy was 2 days after start of conflict. We were on the first dozen list of being thoroughly, repeatedly bombed and then attacked by Russian airborne, very tough cookies, we knew.

    Maybe that is the difference between Germans and Americans. For us War in our home or close to it, is serious business, which has to be adressed with calm, care and seriously. Americans are often either careless or nervous nellies.

    1. Steven Kopits

      If that’s the case, Germans have been extraordinarily careless to let Russia so far into Ukraine. If you are afraid of the Russians, who have an economy less than half the size of yours, then you need to up your defense spending and find some spine.

      We’ll revisit the uranium case if a dirty bomb goes off in Munich or Berlin, No. 4 and No. 1 on the target list for ISIS, I would think. Then we’ll see what kind of patience the German people have. (For the record: ‘Low rent’ targets: Athens and Budapest. High value targets: Berlin, Paris, Vienna, Munich, in that order.) You think the uranium story is real? I would bet it is. We know they have the uranium. and it’s pretty easy to move it into the Continent. And if that’s the case, you’re going to have a Day of the Jackal thing in Central Europe real soon.

  8. Ulenspiegel

    Steven Kopits,

    your source in respect to Uranium only states that 40 kg uranium compounds from Mossul University were lost to ISIS.

    Uranium compounds are not that uncommon in a univertsity, they are used in various fields, e.g. microscopy, chemistry, we have many kg of uranyl compounds. They would only become a national thread when the uranium could be enriched. With their natural level of radioactivity they are only dangerous when you swallow them. Here other non-radiactive stuff is much much more dangerous.

    I have not found any indications that the lost uranium compounds were enriched. Do you have better information?

  9. Steven Kopits

    You don’t need to enrich uranium to make a statement. Perhaps Germans would take it in stride if 40 kg of uranium were blown around Alexanderplatz. I don’t think we Americans would take it lightly if it blew up in Times Square. The US would be on full war footing in short order. Just like 9/11.

    Here are the folks you’re dealing with: “ISIS wants $1M for Foley’s body”

    1. Ulenspiegel

      “You don’t need to enrich uranium to make a statement. Perhaps Germans would take it in stride if 40 kg of uranium were blown around Alexanderplatz.”

      What is the use of a statement that can easily be ignored? You have to inflict real damage, to make your point.

      I am quite confident that even a conventional terror attack with 20 dead civilians would not lead to a stupid war the guys are hoping for. They only win when you give them more more attention than they deserve, IMHO simply ignoring them is the best course of action at the moment. They are no military thread to us.

  10. genauer


    your links are to lunatics web-sites.

    Even faux news rejects that kind of hilarious panic mongering

    We have 4 Million tons of stuff like that sitting around in just 5 kilometer distance (Freital, Coschütz-Gittersee)

    Doing some old fashioned fertilizer/gasoline bomb is much easier and gives you a lot more bang for the buck.

    Again, We will not spoil our blood and treasure for a few lunatics, we will not get drawn into other peoples wars.

    1. Steven Kopits

      “we will not get drawn into other peoples wars’

      Yes, President Obama said the same thing about Iraq, and yet, there we are.

      As for ‘other people’s wars’, you’re suggesting that Germany doesn’t even want to be involved in its own wars. Ukraine is just next door. It is a critical German security policy issue.

      On the other hand, if Germany wants to roll over, well, east Germans are well aware of what it means to live under Russian rule. (And so do we Hungarians.)

  11. genauer


    how many years ago did you leave Hungary? What percentage minority do you believe shar your opinion? Please provide some evidence / link for that.
    Last time looked, Victor Orban was just re-elected with a 2/3 majority, just bought 2 new nuclear plants from Russia, with the accompanying Russian capital invest, and is fuming about the EU interference with the South Stream Pipeline.

    To your “east Germans are well aware ” I can show you,
    an ultra conservative German news outlet, which now routinely cuts all comments on their very numerous anti-Russian hate mongering articles.
    It is a total embarassment. But even they say, and that is in full agreement with what I hear here in east-German Dresden,

    “Es ist eine Art Grundkonsens im Osten, für Putin und für Russland Sympathie aufzubringen.” translates to : There is a fundamental consensus in the East [Germany], to have Sympathy for Putin and Russia

    “Putin als Bedrängter gesehen wird, der gezwungen sei, sich zu verteidigen” translates to “Putin is seen as attacked, and forced to defend himself”

    From a western German point, to clarify some of your earlier misunderstanding, when one million top notch Russians were standing with 3 times as many tanks than us in 20 miles distance, we didnt loose our calm determination, so why now, and now neither this donbass nor western iraq is our cause.

    1. Steven Kopits

      Actually, western Iraq is your cause. Germany is up to its neck in various sorts of anti-ISIS initiatives.

      1. genauer


        you are again shifting topics, because you have long lost contact to Hungary, and never understood Eastern /Western Germany in the first place.

        You are a part of the US oil industry , and those kind , especially including the coke snoring, corrupt biden side would love to have good german soldiers die for their profits and defend their oilfiield against the indigeneous population.

        The “dirty bomb” and other stuff is just some ultra cheap scare mongering, typical for notorious dishonest anglo-american government agencies.

        Your “up to your neck” is just another desperate phantasy of you and people like you. Lay of the drugs and face reality.

        1. Steven Kopits

          I am indeed not only part of the US oil industry, but also the US finance industry. Seeking Alpha has just asked me to be a contributor.

          As for Germany and Iraq, I Googled it. Try it yourself. Germany is heavily involved.

          1. genauer

            I actually expected you to write a comment like this.

            This vage “google it” is the typical continuation, when people are caught making wild claims without any evidence (like your hungary and eastern Germany), and the claims of the lunatic fringe links (dirty bombs) are easily debunked.

            Whether writing for “seeking alpha” makes you part of the “finance industry” is may be in the eye of the beholder.

            16 years ago I also listed to the stock news on TV in the Gym, and went to sites like “seeking alpha”. You writing there gives me a nice confirmation for my opinion about the quality there.

Comments are closed.