Greece

[American Patriot]

Is THIS what the 2Billion rounds of DHS ammo and nearly 3000 MRAPs working in tandem. with weaponized drones are for?

I'm going to post a note I just sent to some other people in reponse to what you just asked.

Balloons.... Pretty Balloons:
They are going up guys, big, bright, red balloons with flags on them.

1. Syria has reports of Chemical weapons
2. Marines have died “in a training incident”
3. Cyprus and the EU is about to explode because of stolen money.
4. Tomorrow MY state’s Governor signs the magazine ban law.
5. Russia is BEHIND all of this…..

I really think this is the “event” we’ve been expecting. It’s too much to imagine that right in the middle of March that the EU steals all that money. Granted much of it belonged to people who it was taken from by the government and given as “pensions” and “retirements” originally, but it’s in the bank accounts of people who are citizens of the EU. If it can happen in ONE place in the EU the whole EU can be affected (and will be). If Russia is behind this and possibly the chemical weapons then it is a “trigger event”.

We had “drawn a line” about chemicals. Though the lines move constantly, I suspect this is to get the US military somehow involved. If that happens it will escalate. You all KNOW it will escalate.

Of course, usually when I predict something, it never happens. Let’s hope that is true this time.

================================

I JUST heard the Russians are making claims it was the Rebels. The Syrian official news is saying the same thing.

I think this is a "trigger" event to get something happening. A cascade effect perhaps.

[American Patriot]

A Bank Levy in Cyprus, and Why Not to Worry

By ANDREW ROSS SORKIN

• Filip Singer/European Pressphoto Agency
  
  
• Yiannis Kourtoglou/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
  
  
• Petros Karadjias/Associated Press
  
  
• Yorgos Karahalis/Reuters
  
  

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4

A rally against the deposit tax in front of Cyprus’s Parliament on Monday drew about 800 participants.






Never mind.
The last 72 hours have been filled with breathless proclamations of impending disaster after the European Union and International Monetary Fund indicated that they planned to take money directly from depositors with bank accounts in Cyprus as part of a bailout of that country.


Analysts and politicians compared the bailout plan, the first to include a levy on deposits that were considered to be insured, to government-sponsored larceny, and said it would cause a run on banks across Europe, if not a full-fledged global crisis.



“The very nature of banking has been shaken to its roots with this decision, for banking depends upon trust,” Dennis Gartman, the investor, wrote in a note to his clients. “Trust that has now been shattered; torn asunder, broken … destroyed.”


Jim O’Neill, chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management, called the decision an “astonishing move” with “little thought of contagion to the rest of the euro zone, and indeed perhaps the world.”


Mark J. Grant, a market commentator who has been predicting an economic apocalypse in Europe for years, went so far as to compare the terms of the bailout with “rape.” He said: “Pay attention please. The European Union and the European Central Bank and the I.M.F. have just advocated the confiscation of private property for their own indulgence.”


Even President Vladimir Putin of Russia got into the debate, given that much of the deposits in Cypriot banks are Russian. “Mr. Putin said that such a decision, if adopted, would be unfair, unprofessional and dangerous,” a spokesman said.
And yet here we are. And, well, nothing bad has happened.


There have been no re-enactments of “It’s a Wonderful Life,” with people lined up around banks in Italy or Spain — considered the next dominoes, if you believe the doomsayers. The stock markets in Europe dropped less than 1 percent. In the United States, investors shrugged their shoulders, too.


Why?


While the bailout of Cyprus is a fascinating case study and raises interesting theoretical questions about moral hazard for policy wonks and talking heads, here is the reality: It is largely irrelevant to the global economy. Cyprus is tiny; its economy is smaller than Vermont’s. And the bailout is worth a paltry $13 billion, the equivalent of pocket lint for those in the bailout game.


Even the larger issue about bailing out a country by taking money from depositors — which quickly created outrage around the world — seems overblown.


The worry is that the European Union and I.M.F. have created a dangerous precedent by making depositors share in the pain of the bailout. Historically, the goal of bailouts has been to raise confidence in banks so depositors don’t flee. The approach in Cyprus is at odds with that notion, raising questions about whether future bailouts in countries like Spain and Italy — if they are needed — could affect depositors.


The alarmist thinking is that depositors will move their money from troubled banks, creating a death spiral.


Even in the United States, some commentators used the Cyprus bailout as a scare tactic about what they speculated could eventually happen here.


“An executive order issued by the president to debit taxpayer bank accounts during a future financial emergency is entirely possible,” Andrew Gause, author of “The Secret World of Money,” said in a news release.


But, in truth, the smart money knows that the bailout of Cyprus says very little about future actions.


“I would assume that anyone in Spain, Portugal or elsewhere who knows about the taxation of Cypriot depositors also would know that the Cypriot banking system is a very different animal than anywhere else in the euro zone,” Erik Nielsen, chief economist at UniCredit, wrote in a note to clients.
Mr. O’Neill of Goldman also acknowledged: “I am sure it will not set a precedent.”


Cyprus is unique. Besides being tiny, its banking system looks different from those in most other countries. Much of the big money deposited in its banks is from foreign investors, including Russians who have long been suspected of money laundering. Those investors had fair warning that Cypriot banks were troubled. The issue has been simmering for six months. But those investors left their money in the bank, in part because they were gambling that the banks would be bailed out at no cost to them. If the current plan is approved, depositors will have lost that bet.


Worse, the strategy employed in the bailout of Greece — in which bondholders of its sovereign debt were paid less than face value — will not work in Cyprus. Cyprus’s banks own much of the country’s debt, so any effort to reduce that debt by forcing debt holders to accept less would only make the banks more troubled.


Given the brutal history between Russia and so much of Europe — and speculation that so much of the money is ill gotten — it is clear why it would be so politically unpalatable to countries in the euro zone, Germany in particular, to bail out Russian depositors. And even if the move were to create a run on the banks in Cyprus, the contagion would be limited.


There is very little chance that politicians would ever choose to use the model they developed in Cyprus in a country like Italy or Spain, where a run on the banks would have such profound implications. By the way, if you’re wondering why investors left so much money in troubled Cypriot banks, here’s a trivia question: Would you have been better off leaving your money in a bank in the United States or in Cyprus over the last five years?


The answer: You would have been better off in Cyprus, even after the bailout, when your money was “confiscated.” If you had 100,000 euros in a Cypriot bank account over the last five years, where the interest rate has averaged about 5 percent, you would have about 127,600 euros today. Even after the bailout, which would require you to give up 10 percent of your deposit — 12,760 euros — you would be left with 114,840 euros. The American bank? The $100,000 you deposited at Bank of America five years ago is about $105,100, at the going rate of about 1 percent interest a year.

[American Patriot]

The answer: You would have been better off in Cyprus, even after the bailout, when your money was “confiscated.” If you had 100,000 euros in a Cypriot bank account over the last five years, where the interest rate has averaged about 5 percent, you would have about 127,600 euros today. Even after the bailout, which would require you to give up 10 percent of your deposit — 12,760 euros — you would be left with 114,840 euros. The American bank? The $100,000 you deposited at Bank of America five years ago is about $105,100, at the going rate of about 1 percent interest a year.

Really? Does anyone realize what was just said? This is "normal" and you should EXPECT to give up some of your money you rich fuckers. God.

Leave the money in the banks alone.

[Malsua]

Well, what he's saying is that in the US, we're already getting our savings confiscated. Essentially the banks are taking our deposits, loaning them out, fractionally, I might add, and then charging us fees to access our money.

My checking account does not pay interest. I have a savings account. At one point in the past year, saving up for our house addition, we had 20k or so in there for nearly a year. We made about $200 in interest income on that. The bank however, turned that 20k into a 200k loan to someone who is paying 4-5% interest on it. If the 200k was paid to someone who owned their house and they stuck it into the bank, it was loaned out again. 200k turns into 2 million in loans. 2 million turns into 20 mill, into 200 mil, into 2 billion, not far down the road. As far as I can tell, I'm personally responsible for the entire us economy due to fractional lending.

[American Patriot]

My checking accounts pay more interest than my savings accounts. That's weird.

[American Patriot]

As far as I can tell, I'm personally responsible for the entire us economy due to fractional lending.

Which is EXACTLY why Cyprus is in deep, deep shit right now.

[vector7]

Fed Judge Rules your Bank Accounts Are Not Your Property, Banks Are Not Responsible If They Lose Your Funds!!!

August 11th, 2012

GAME OVER

RED ALERT: It’s Open Season on All Customer Funds

Posted by Ann Barnhardt – August 10, AD 2012 3:33 PM MST

The NFA is collusion with the Banksters, government and judiciary have achieved their goal. The entire concept of “customer segregated funds” is officially, completely, legally dead.

Guys, it is OVER. I know that many of you are still cowering in normalcy bias, unable to deal with reality, unable to face the world as it is, but you have GOT to snap out of it. The marketplace is DESTROYED. You CANNOT be in these markets. All legal protections are now officially gone.

Do you remember how I told you about the Ponzi scheme that imploded in 2007 called “Sentinel Management Group” that stole over $500 million in customer funds? The NFA was the auditing regulator of Sentinel, and the NFA admitted after the Sentinel Ponzi imploded that they signed off on their audits even though the NFA claimed not fully understanding Sentinel’s books or accounting methods. In other words, the NFA didn’t really audit Sentinel at all – they just PRETENDED to audit them, drew up some forms, had some robosigners sign off, and then just hoped that when the shit hit the fan, everyone in the industry would be so terrified of the NFA that no one would hold the NFA accountable for their criminal malfeasance – or even talk about it.

Sentinel took customer segregated money and fraudulently used it as the collateral on a loan from Bank of New York Mellon for $312 million to fund their own in-house proprietary trading operations. When the Sentinel Ponzi collapsed, BNYM sued to go to the front of the line of creditors – ahead of the customers of Sentinel whose money was fraudulently used as collateral, which has now been “linguistically sanitized” into the word “hypothecated”.

The federal appeals court ruled yesterday that not only does BNYM stay at the front of the line, but that using customer segregated funds as collateral is NOT a crime, and that co-mingling customer segregated funds with proprietary funds is NOT fraud.

Here is the Reuters piece.

Read this quote from the ruling, which is, in essence, the entire financial market paradigm being guillotined:

That Sentinel failed to keep client funds properly segregated is not, on its own, sufficient to rule as a matter of law that Sentinel acted ‘with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud’ its customers.

U.S. Circuit Judge John D. Tinder

What this means is that even if Jon Corzine is somehow dragged into court by private citizens, because you know damn good and well that the Justice Department will never, ever touch him, Corzine now has a legal precedent, likely from a bribed or otherwise coerced Federal Appeals Court, explicitly stating that an FCM can use customer deposits to pay its debts, and that the customers themselves are subjugated and have basically no legal right to their own monies, no matter what the law says, or what legal assurances, claims or guarantees are made to that customer about their funds held with an FCM or any other brokerage or depository institution. The “secured” party at the front of the line will always be the mega-bank who made the fraudulent loan using the stolen customer funds as collateral.

In other words, all customer funds in the United States are now the legal property of JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, BNYM, or whichever megabank is the counterparty on the loans the FCM or depository institution takes out in order to fund its mega-levered proprietary in-house trading desks.


National planning Cyprus-style solution for New Zealand

Tuesday, 19 March 2013, 11:32 am
Press Release: Green Party 19 March 2013
National planning Cyprus-style solution for New Zealand

The National Government are pushing a Cyprus-style solution to bank failure in New Zealand which will see small depositors lose some of their savings to fund big bank bailouts, the Green Party said today.

Open Bank Resolution (OBR) is Finance Minister Bill English’s favoured option dealing with a major bank failure. If a bank fails under OBR, all depositors will have their savings reduced overnight to fund the bank’s bail out.

“Bill English is proposing a Cyprus-style solution for managing bank failure here in New Zealand – a solution that will see small depositors lose some of their savings to fund big bank bailouts,” said Green Party Co-leader Dr Russel Norman.

“The Reserve Bank is in the final stages of implementing a system of managing bank failure called Open Bank Resolution. The scheme will put all bank depositors on the hook for bailing out their bank.

“Depositors will overnight have their savings shaved by the amount needed to keep the bank afloat.

“While the details are still to be finalised, nearly all depositors will see their savings reduced by the same proportions.

“Bill English is wrong to assume everyday people are able to judge the soundness of their bank. Not even sophisticated investors like Merrill Lynch saw the global financial crisis coming.

“If he insists on pushing through this unfair scheme, small depositors can be protected ahead of time with a notified savings threshold below which their savings will be safe from any interference.”

Dr Norman questioned the Government’s insistence on pursuing Open Bank Resolution when virtually no other OECD country uses it.

“Open Bank Resolution is unprecedented in the world. Most OECD countries run deposit insurance schemes which protect people’s deposits up to a maximum ranging from $100,000 – $250,000,” Dr Norman said.

“OBR is not in line with Australia, which protects bank deposits up to $250,000.

“A deposit insurance scheme is a much simpler, well-tested alternative to Open Bank Resolution. It rewards safe banks with lower premiums and limits the cost to taxpayers of a bank failure.

“Deposit insurance will, however, require the Reserve Bank to oversee and regulate our banks more closely – a measure which is ultimately the best protection against bank failure.”

[vector7]

Nigel Farage Message To Europeans: "Get Your Money Out While You Can"

03/19/2013

In Nigel Farage's first TV appearance since the Cypriot wealth tax was announced, the Englishman pulls no punches. In all his years and all his experience of the desperation of the European Union's leadership "never did [he] think they would resort to stealing money from people's savings accounts." The simple fact is that they know they cannot let any country leave, no matter how small, for "once one country goes, the whole deck of cards will come tumbling down." There is now "clear irreconcilable differences" between the North and the South of Europe and now that they have done this in one country, "they are quite capable of doing it in Italy, Spain and anywhere." The message that sends to people is "get your money out while you can." As far as his British constituents, he strongly recommends George Osborne (UK Chancellor) urge ex-pats to remove all their money and do monthly transfers from home. "Do Not Invest In The Euro-Zone," he concludes, "you have to be mad to do so - as it is now run by people who do not respect democracy, the rule of law, or the basic principles upon which Western civilization is based."

"They are propping up a Eurozone that, in the end, will collapse in disastrous failure and they are prepared to do anything to do so."

5 minutes of reality from a European MP - must watch...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JMf_KwQ2Xlk

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2013-03-19/nigel-farage-message-europeans-get-your-money-out-while-you-can

[vector7]

Rumor Post:

Russian Leader: - Get All Money Out Of Western Banks Now!


A Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) “urgent bulletin” being sent to Embassies around the world today is advising both Russian citizens and companies to begin divesting their assets from Western banking and financial institutions “immediately” as Kremlin fears grow that both the European Union and United States are preparing for the largest theft of private wealth in modern history.

According to this “urgent bulletin,” this warning is being made at the behest of Prime Minister Medvedev who earlier today warned against the Western banking systems actions against EU Member Cyprus by stating:

“All possible mistakes that could be made have been made by them, the measure that was proposed is of a confiscation nature, and unprecedented in its character. I can’t compare it with anything but ... decisions made by Soviet authorities ... when they didn’t think much about the savings of their population. But we are living in the 21st century, under market economic conditions. Everybody has been insisting that ownership rights should be respected.”

Medvedev’s statements echo those of President Putin who, likewise, warned about the EU’s unprecedented private asset grab in Cyprus calling it “unjust, unprofessional, and dangerous.”

According to Kremlin sources, though, President Obama’s sudden visit to Israel this week, the first he has made since being elected in 2008, was to personally warn top Israelis of his regimes “plan” to begin confiscating his citizen’s bank deposits too.

Interesting to note is that the Obama regimes “master plan” to steal their citizen’s wealth that is no longer protected was detailed by the global management consulting giant, and the world's leading advisor on business strategy, The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) who in their 2011 September report titled Collateral Damage: Back to Mesopotamia? The Threat of Debt Restructuring warned of the US governments plan confiscate up to 30% of not just the Americans people bank accounts, but also of their other wealth.

To the evidence that the masses of Americans or Europeans average citizens will begin protecting themselves against this apocalyptic outcome their remains little evidence as their so-called “mainstream” media continues to cover-up this coming catastrophe. But, and as Russia has now warned, the time for protecting oneself is fast running out, and the only survivors will be those who listened.




Russian Leader Warns, “Get All Money Out Of Western Banks Now!”

A Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) “urgent bulletin” being sent to Embassies around the world today is advising both Russian citizens and companies to begin divesting their assets from Western banking and financial institutions “immediately” as Kremlin fears grow that both the European Union and United States are preparing for the largest theft of private wealth in modern history.

According to this “urgent bulletin,” this warning is being made at the behest of Prime Minister Medvedev who earlier today warned against the Western banking systems actions against EU Member Cyprus by stating:

“All possible mistakes that could be made have been made by them, the measure that was proposed is of a confiscation nature, and unprecedented in its character. I can’t compare it with anything but ... decisions made by Soviet authorities ... when they didn’t think much about the savings of their population. But we are living in the 21st century, under market economic conditions. Everybody has been insisting that ownership rights should be respected.”

Medvedev’s statements echo those of President Putin who, likewise, warned about the EU’s unprecedented private asset grab in Cyprus calling it “unjust, unprofessional, and dangerous.”

According to Kremlin sources, though, President Obama’s sudden visit to Israel this week, the first he has made since being elected in 2008, was to personally warn top Israelis of his regimes “plan” to begin confiscating his citizen’s bank deposits too.

Interesting to note is that the Obama regimes “master plan” to steal their citizen’s wealth that is no longer protected was detailed by the global management consulting giant, and the world's leading advisor on business strategy, The Boston Consulting Group (BCG) who in their 2011 September report titled Collateral Damage: Back to Mesopotamia? The Threat of Debt Restructuring warned of the US governments plan confiscate up to 30% of not just the Americans people bank accounts, but also of their other wealth.

To the evidence that the masses of Americans or Europeans average citizens will begin protecting themselves against this apocalyptic outcome their remains little evidence as their so-called “mainstream” media continues to cover-up this coming catastrophe. But, and as Russia has now warned, the time for protecting oneself is fast running out, and the only survivors will be those who listened.

MORE HERE

http://government.ru/eng/docs/23432/

[vector7]

Dmitry Medvedev's interview with European media



Transcript:
Dmitry Medvedev: Good afternoon everyone. I’m at your disposal. Let’s get to work.

Question (as translated): The first question is about Cyprus. You and President Putin have criticised the EU decisions. Don’t you think that the EU may be displeased with this and that the recent events may undermine trust between Russia and the EU in the long term perspective? Won’t that hurt relations between Brussels and Moscow?

Dmitry Medvedev: This is what I think – in trying to settle the debt problem, the European Union, the European Commission and the Cypriot Government are now behaving like an elephant in a china shop. Perhaps they miss the crisis and forgot what happened several years ago… I think all possible mistakes that could have been made under the circumstances have already been made. Among other things, these mistakes have undermined trust in financial institutions and not only on Cyprus. This is the reason for our stark assessment.

Naturally, we support attempts to put finances in order and make banks healthier and more open about account holders and beneficiaries. All these measures are absolutely normal but they should not lead to the destruction of the banking system. Regrettably, now the banking system on Cyprus is in a very difficult position and has actually been suspended, not to mention the fact that this EU member is on the brink of default. Therefore, we believe it is necessary to discuss such decisions with the interested parties, rather than make the excuse that it is inappropriate for Cyprus to discuss this with someone else. So let the EU make all the decisions – but I’m not sure this is good.

Will this affect our future relations? We must wait for the final decisions. No doubt, these events are a source of concern for everyone in the EU and may trigger a new series of local financial crises.

Now I will speak about what is happening there. I have already given my assessment and you have mentioned it. The proposed measure is tantamount to expropriation and confiscation. It is absolutely unprecedented. I cannot even compare it with anything except for some decisions made by the Soviet authorities at some period that did not bother about people's savings. But we live in the 21st century in conditions of a global market economy and we all insist on respect for property rights and basic provisions on bank regulation.

Surprisingly, the idea of this withdrawal blocked the operation of all banks on Cyprus, including the biggest ones and banks with Russian capital that are normal and healthy and have no problems with balances or taxes. But they are unable to operate – their activities have been suspended. I am referring to current operations, not withdrawal of some percent from deposits. These banks perform an enormous amount of transactions, and all of them are controlled by the bank management. If their operation remains suspended, they will sustain huge damages, and the entire Cypriot banking system will no longer exist. It will simply cease to exist and some of our colleagues in the EU are outspoken about this. Apparently, the aim is to destroy it. In their opinion, this will benefit the EU economy and will help settle the crisis.

There will be other consequences as well – if such problems emerge, a vast number of clients representing government agencies, and probably some private companies, will take the matter to court. I’m sure they will sue the Republic of Cyprus and those who were involved in starting this fairly difficult period.

Naturally, we have our own reasons and national interests when it comes to Cyprus, because some of our banks keep their assets there. Many Russian entrepreneurs operate on Cyprus and far from all of them want to hide themselves behind the screen of its special jurisdiction. No, it is simply convenient to do business there. You know that many companies operate via SPV, and this is common international practice. We have a treaty on avoiding dual taxation with Cyprus but I don’t know whether we will need it under the circumstances. Maybe it will make sense to discuss its denunciation. There may be very many consequences. Therefore, I’d like to repeat that it is necessary to proceed with the utmost caution. A delegation of several Cypriot ministers – the finance minister and some other officials – is now visiting Russia.

First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov met with them in accordance with my instructions. They are continuing to discuss the issue. I hope they end up making a well thought-out decision, one that will help Cyprus out while also preventing our relations with the EU from turning sour. Let me remind you that we are scheduled to meet with European Commission officials tomorrow evening and again for talks the day after tomorrow.
And, given the recent developments, the situation surrounding Cyprus will be high on the agenda, of course.

Question: Mr Prime Minister, some progress has been made in negotiations on the possibility of dropping visa requirements between Russia and the EU. Can the Russia-Belarus Union State have any relevance for further talks, do you think? In Belarus, there is a mixed attitude toward that process. How important may this be as a factor, in your view?

Dmitry Medvedev: I’ll speak about the visas first. We have been in talks on that issue with our EU partners for quite a while now; that dialogue got underway in 2007, as far as I remember. We’ve been trying to boost it, and I have personally taken some efforts toward that goal. There are two tracks here. One track is about scrapping visas for EU nationals visiting Russia and Russian nationals travelling to Europe. We’ve made some headway along this track. For instance, in 2011 we agreed on what is known as a list of common steps. But there are also some problems – certain areas where our talks are stalled.

EU negotiators say some of the EU member states remain unconvinced about the validity of the objectives that are being pursued. I can only reaffirm that visa-free travel is in the best interest of Russia and the EU alike. Both sides stand to benefit. Five million Russians come to visit European countries every year and as many EU nationals visit Russia. So it would be mutually beneficial. At this point, the ball is in the EU’s court, so to speak. We’re waiting for them to finalise and voice their position, along with a plan of action. We are major trade partners and have a great many ties. The reciprocal benefits are obvious; there’s no need to try to sell the idea to each other.

As for the second track, it’s about easing visa requirements for certain categories of travellers. We’ve come some way on that already, reaching agreements on certain applicant groups. But this second track is no substitute for the first one. Rather, this is an auxiliary path, not the main road. Having said that, we’re continuing to actively negotiate here as well.

As for the Union State of Russia and Belarus, that’s quite an old alliance. Some processes within it move more quickly, others, more slowly. We stage various events. A session of the Russia-Belarus Supreme State Council took place a short while ago, with all the key officials, Russian and Belarusian, in attendance. We are continuing our cooperation; this is a form of integration that allows us to solve a whole number of issues. It cannot serve as a substitute for integration in the Customs Union and in the Common Economic Space, but this is a way for us and Belarus to reintegrate together.

Does this have any impact on visa-related negotiations? I’ve always believed that there’s no direct influence. Because, at the end of the day, it’s on behalf of the Russian Federation that we are talking with the EU, not on behalf of the Union State. Our Belarusian partners have not given us any instructions to this effect. And then again, the Union State of Russia and Belarus doesn’t deprive Russia of its sovereignty with regard to international law, so it will continue its visa dialogue with the EU as a sovereign state. And Belarus, of course, has every right to its own dialogue; there’s nothing wrong with that.

Question: Mr Prime Minister, I’d like to ask a question concerning our closest neighbour, Ukraine. Ukraine is not as important to us as a transit country now that we have the Nord Stream and the South Stream under construction. That said, Russia’s involvement in Ukraine’s gas supply system is on the agenda. Is this still a relevant issue for us? And what kind of format would be acceptable for our potential involvement in such a gas supply consortium? Would you agree to a trilateral model, with the involvement of European partners?

Dmitry Medvedev: First of all, Ukraine is of great interest to us as a partner, that’s for sure. Our interest has not waned, because Ukraine is our closest neighbour and a country with which we have an affinity and close partnership in a whole range of areas. But the topic of natural gas has changed somewhat in recent time. Admittedly, after the Nord Stream was launched and reached its maximum capacity last year, and the construction of the South Stream got underway, also last year, the prospects of our gas relations with the EU changed. And now, indeed, this issue is no longer as relevant as it was a few years ago. Having said that, we’re willing to discuss with our Ukrainian partners any issues related to integration.

As for the consortium, the Ukrainians should first of all try to understand what they really need. If they want this consortium to be bilateral or trilateral, they should make it appealing for us. Because this isn’t a must to us at the moment; we feel no urge to join in. But if some interesting projects are offered, if we get a sense that we are being considered for involvement as full-fledged long-term partners, we will resume negotiating the possibility, of course.

By the way, I recently had a conversation on this issue with the Ukrainian Prime Minister and his deputy in charge of the gas sector. Naturally, this is also discussed at the presidential level. President Yanukovych raised the issue during his latest visit to Russia. But, as I said, the offer they make us should be attractive. And it will be attractive only if we understand that there are guarantees for our interests – those of Gazprom and the state as a whole. And how can our interests be guaranteed? By ensuring that we do not enter into a situation in which we risk being excluded from the consortium, or having it qualified as contradicting certain EU regulations, for example, or as not being in line with the Energy Charter Treaty.

So, an alliance between Russia and Ukraine can in this case be formed only on condition of Ukraine’s withdrawal from a whole number of institutions, including the Energy Union accession accord. That is, if Ukraine is interested [in our involvement]. If not, then we’ll go our separate ways and Ukraine could then remain in any international alliances as it sees fit, with this being its right as a sovereign country. But if we enter into an alliance, we should make sure our interests are upheld. Talks on this issue continue; Ukrainian partners send us signals every now and then but the process hasn’t advanced beyond those signals so far. Well, we’ll see as we go along.

Question: Speaking of Cyprus, is Russia willing to provide some additional aid for it, through Gazprombank or some other Russian banks? And what should Russia expect in exchange? Offshore operations with natural gas on Cyprus, perhaps?

Dmitry Medvedev: Cyprus is a member of the European Union, and it is the EU that formulates its proposals. Another thing is that, as I said, they should be formulated with care, otherwise we may become witnesses to a new stage of the international financial crisis. Initially we agreed with our EU partners that they would prepare a set of measures to restore Cyprus’ solvency (the country is, indeed, in an extremely critical condition financially) and we would then consider that package to decide whether our involvement was feasible. Let me remind you I had a $2.5 billion loan disbursed to Cyprus several years ago. That is to say we are contributing to Cyprus’ bailout one way or another. And we’re willing to discuss the issue further. In which form can this be done? Today, our [EU] partners have brought along a whole package of proposals, including a set of material assets that they believe Russia could consider buying.

So it’s EU proposals that should come first, preferably in line with the norms of civilised co-existence and with universally acknowledged norms of international law and national legislation, as well as with the EU member states’ constitutions and civil codes, guaranteeing the immunity of private property. We’ll respond when we have something fresh on the table. So far, we haven’t been offered any fresh ideas.

You’ve mentioned deposits, including gas ones. That’s not so simple. First of all, I have only a vague idea of their value. And, secondly, we know there are some problems with Turkey there. So, as I said, the issue is a complicated one. But we’re willing to hear whatever proposals the Cypriots have and will try to understand their reasoning.

The situation is complicated because… When answering the first question, I forgot to say it’s obvious that whatever decision is made – taxing the bank deposits (something I would qualify as theft) or stopping short of that measure – Cyprus is in for mass withdrawal of cash and capital flight will weaken its banking system even further. Once again, if that is the idea behind the EU decision, then this decision is a strange one. Very strange indeed. There will be an adverse effect in any case. Our objective now should be to try to reduce those negative implications to a minimum both for Cyprus and the global financial system. We’ve made so much effort in recent years trying to rebuild it, restoring investor confidence. I can remember all those G8 and G20 discussions about the importance of restoring trust. Well, it’s something very easy to destroy and restoring it can take years.

Question: Have you given any thought to the naval base in Cyprus?

Dmitry Medvedev: We’re willing to consider various options. But I’d like us all – the journalists, our readers, and all those who care - to understand that Cyprus’ problems are up to Cyprus to resolve. With Cyprus being an EU member state, the European Union could offer a helping hand. And then, there are some third countries with vested interest in Cyprus. These, too, may contribute, but they shouldn’t be expected to play any major role here.

Question: Mr Medvedev, you have repeatedly said that you believe in the future of the euro, and there’s no need to review the share of the euros in Russia’s reserves. Isn’t the Cyprus precedent a good enough reason to rethink this approach?

Dmitry Medvedev: I would like to stay optimistic on this account, but I have to admit that this is something to ponder. If this is possible in Cyprus, why not in Spain, Italy, or any other country faced with financial problems? Next thing you know, they will begin to seize deposits. This is something to ponder. Nothing has changed so far. I mentioned on several occasions that 41% or 42% of our reserves are denominated in euro. That’s a lot of money. Just like any other country, Russia wants to operate in a predictable environment. The proposal that was made is not just unpredictable; it shows a degree of incompetence. I will not go deep into this now, but I’ll say it to my old friend Jose Manuel Barroso when I meet with him tomorrow morning.

Question: Do you think that Russia is being blackmailed by the steps that they intend to carry out in Cyprus? Is there a way out of this situation?
Dmitry Medvedev: I think that the rumours about the specific deposits that are indicative of semi-legal schemes for withdrawing money from Russia are exaggerated; they are not as big as they claim they are, because a lot of our public companies have accounts in Russian and foreign banks, which is convenient for obvious reasons. It has always been a convenient jurisdiction for carrying out standard transactions, including the acquisition of shares and servicing current financial and economic activities. Therefore, this issue should be further looked into. One thing I can say for sure: Russia would benefit greatly if they could give us all of this information about the people who withdrew money from our economy, so that we could assess their actions properly and hold them accountable for their actions. Perhaps, this money would return to Russia. Overall, this campaign could eventually benefit us because some of the money will go back to Russia. But let me stress again: I’m not talking about illegally exported capital. Let them look into the circumstances, establish the beneficiaries and locate them. We are all for it. We didn’t start talking about the need to relieve the global economy of offshore operations for nothing.

By the way, we should look at places other than Cyprus as well. There are many special jurisdictions in the world. We need to understand whether the British Virgin Islands are better or worse than Cyprus, or the Bahamas, or something else? There should be no double standards here. We might as well decide to create a special offshore zone in Russia and lure in lots of international capital. I‘m just thinking out loud about offshore zones, but still ...

So, speaking about making the situation more transparent, we are all for it. Most importantly, we should avoid the disruption of normal operation of the financial system, because a large number of Russian open public entities are working via Cyprus. They have their money blocked for no particular reason, because the source of this money is obvious. This money is legal and is used by state-owned entities. That's why we have to take such a tough stance with regard to the events in Cyprus and the Cypriot debt.

Shall we talk about something else? Or will it be just Cyprus?
Question: Last thing about this issue. It may have sounded a bit provocative, but for the German public ... Why should German taxpayers save Russian assets and accounts in Cyprus?

Dmitry Medvedev: Here's the deal. I don’t think you can frame the question in this way and ask why anyone should pay for someone else. The question should be put differently: are we following the rules or not? Why have we created the banking rules and international conventions? What’s the point of participating in the International Monetary Fund? What are our meetings and discussions about the development of the international financial system for? I believe we are doing all this to make it clear, transparent and civilised. Thinking that this is some kind of payment for the benefit of some Russian deposit holders is as valid as an assumption that someone is paying for British deposit holders who also have a strong presence in Cyprus. The number? Well, we need to specify it. I think that this is idle talk based on emotions, not an understanding of the real problem. It’s easy to destroy the financial balance and extremely difficult to restore it. That's what everyone should keep in mind: those who make decisions in the European Union and individual EU taxpayers.

Question: I would like to ask what Russia thinks about the third energy package. This is an important issue, I think, and Russia does not agree with it. Why do you think Europeans should reject it? The third package, for example, allows Poland to buy gas from Germany cheaper than from Gazprom, and even Ukraine could theoretically benefit from using European gas hubs. Why doesn’t Russia want to adapt to the third package in the gas trade?

Dmitry Medvedev: We are not opposed to adapting. Moreover, we are not opposed to the third energy package. We understand that regulating gas supplies to its territories is the sovereign right of the European Union. But we are against certain provisions of the energy package, which, we believe, undermine our interests, and are, by the way, inconsistent with some basic documents, including the framework agreement between Russia and the EU and some bilateral agreements.

We are talking about the third energy package as a way to resolve certain problems. We are not trying to get into the jurisdiction of the European Union, but we thought it would be appropriate to discuss certain things with us because we are an important supplier of energy to Europe. We supply one third of its gas and oil. But we are not an exclusive partner, of course, because Europe, all EU countries, have an option to buy the remaining 70% from other counties.

Therefore, we do not have a monopoly, even though we are a major participant of the European energy market. That is why I have repeatedly told my colleagues during Russia – EU summits and during Russian Government - European Union meetings that we want you to hear us. We do not mind that, in some cases, individual states receive cheaper gas based on this energy package, no problem. Of course, we are interested in receiving a fair price for our gas based on existing rules. But if there are any schemes that minimise costs, we are all for them. We are also following new trends and ideas that exist in the energy market, so we cannot ask the EU to reject the third energy package. However, we are strongly suggesting that our partners pay attention to the message that we are trying to get across. If we fix certain things, including, for example, supplies to the EU countries’ territories, including the participation of our companies and the possibility to create holding companies, aka vertically integrated companies, which is not to the detriment of the interests of individual consumers, we think it would be more fair and it will take care of our concerns in the area of long-term cooperation. We are interested in long-term cooperation with the EU that will last for decades.

We understand that we can criticise hydrocarbons from the environmental point of view and from the point of view that it is not the most modern type of energy. But what else do we have? Nuclear energy is not used by all countries, but we are all for it. Hydrogen fuel has a long way to go before it becomes a staple fuel for power stations. There is no alternative to hydrocarbons for the next 30-50 years, so let's just be polite with each other.

Question: What would you say, if these issues are discussed within WTO?
Dmitry Medvedev: I’m not sure I understand your question. Do you mean our participation in WTO? What do you mean?

Question: It seemed that you said that the European Union is trying to liberalise the market and you are trying to use the international principles of the law to safeguard your interests within the WTO. Can you answer this question?

Dmitry Medvedev: There is no contradiction between our accession to the WTO and the attempts to liberalise trade regimes, such as to fight protectionism and mutual trade imbalances. There are still specific features of the gas market that cannot be ignored. We cannot apply one-size-fits-all schemes to all energy cooperation formats. If we go back to gas, there are rules for dealing in pipe gas. We, Gazprom, for example, are always criticised for gas price formulas that we use. The Dutch came up with this formula many years ago, and it’s been in use for 30 years without any problem, but now they are saying that Gazprom invented it and it is a secret Russian weapon to bleed poor Europeans dry. All countries have always used this formula. For example, LNG (liquefied natural gas) production is governed by totally different rules. It has its own market which is also developing. Next comes shale gas with its own set of rules. We do not see any prospects there for us, but there will be rules because the product is complicated. On the one hand, it helps individual countries, but on the other hand, it has its own environmental problems, so there may be no single model.

Question: Do you expect any revolutionary changes in the natural gas sector? Aren’t you concerned that these changes, in particular shale gas, are a threat to the Russian market and Russian interests?

Dmitry Medvedev: Shale gas production by hydraulic fracturing had to be invented just to make Russia think about its future. Therefore, assuming that this is a disaster after which Russia will run out of its exports money is wrong, because we must work to improve the structure of our exports and stop focusing on hydrocarbons. That's our major problem, we just have to adjust our economy. But shale gas is still a fairly complicated and controversial issue. We do not know yet how things will turn out eventually. Whatever they say, its production cost is still high compared to field gas production. But I agree that the technology will change. Importantly, innovative technology shouldn’t damage the environment, because risks are high. Anyone who has ever taken an interest in hydraulic fracturing understands that it has the potential to poison vast areas. I hope we will be able to avoid it, Imean all countries that deal with it, the Americans included. Clearly, this technology is far more complex and dangerous than any other, and we need to make sure that it doesn’t cause harm to the environment.

Similarly, we need to improve nuclear technology as it applies to the development of nuclear power engineering. Fukushima has shown that on the face of it the international community is in control of everything, but isolated technical solutions are not sufficient, so everyone scrambled to check the status of their nuclear power plants. I believe that though this was a tragedy, it still had a positive revitalising effect for the global nuclear power engineering.

Question: What about the consequences of using nuclear power plants vs. shale gas production technology?

Dmitry Medvedev: I do not consider myself an expert in the technicalities of gas production, although I was chairman of the board of directors of Gazprom for eight years. My point is that we are sailing uncharted waters. We have been producing gas from gas fields for many years, whereas shale gas production is still new and uses highly sophisticated production processes. I’m not saying that it’s fraught with anything as dangerous as an accident at a nuclear plant.

Nevertheless, this technology is quite sophisticated. And we all simply have to assess its possible impact. You need to realise that this does not mean that Russia is against it. It probably means that natural gas produced by Russia is the only road to happiness, and that everything else is detrimental to our economic interests. We will therefore resist it. No of course, progress cannot be halted.

Question: If there is a sharp drop in oil and gas prices will your economy cope in such a situation? That's the first question I wanted to ask.

Dmitry Medvedev: Of course we are not interested in any kind of rapid avalanche processes because any extremely low or extremely high energy prices are equally bad for the global economy and for the Russian economy. Because when prices are low there is no development and if they are high the same thing will eventually happen. We believe that the current situation with price fluctuations reflects the current market balance. This situation can ensure global economic development and on the whole it helps us to accomplish these objectives. But, of course, rapidly falling prices are a problem for the Russian economy. This was highlighted by our experience in 2008 when the weak spots of the Russian economy were exposed. We have to discuss this honestly and in fact everyone understands this. But this does not only apply to the Russian economy. It concerns all economies that rely on supplies of raw materials. Of course they have all been hit hard. Export-oriented economies faced problems, so we must restructure exports, and we must deal with domestic demand so that international developments do not affect our interests so much.

Question: I would like to move on from these complicated technical discussions and focus on political issues.The European Union and Russia plan to implement a number of projects with no final deadlines. This includes negotiations on a new framework agreement between Russia and the EU member states. What is the reason for delaying the implementation of these projects? Do you see any way out of this blind alley?

Dmitry Medvedev: I like the idea of a partnership for modernisation in principle and because I voiced this idea some time ago together with Mr Jose Manuel Barroso. I would like to remind you that, to the best of my knowledge, this idea was originallyproposed at the 2009 Russia-EU summit in Stockholm and was subsequently formalised, and we have signed a number of agreements and memorandums on partnership for modernisation with European countries. Do I believe that this partnership has failed? No of course not, because we are working very hard. But I would like to remind you that our work includes three policy priorities.

The first priority is the joint technological modernisation of such areas as communications, space exploration and industry, overall anything that is of interest to us and everything which may be of interest to our partners. This includes energy efficiency by the way. The EU has accumulated substantial experience in this field and we face major problems here.
The second priority is partnership in various social welfare projects, which I also consider to be quite reasonable and interesting, especially when it comes to major cultural projects.

And, finally, the third cooperation priority is partnership between professional communities, partnership between those working in universities and partnership between specialists. This is about interpersonal communication, so to speak. On the whole, I believe that we have achieved some quite impressive results here. More and more Russian lecturers and students have started travelling abroad and studying at European universities over the past few years. Many more European professors have started coming to Russia because we have started financing this programme and issuing grants so that academics and professors can come and lecture here. We consider this to be very important.

So I think that on the whole this idea has come off but of course the situation is far from ideal. Our partners are probably not very happy in some cases, and we believe that there is no development. But in any case, as I see it, we cannot go back on those positive achievements of the past few years.

Question: On the situation in Cyprus, energy-efficiency and visa issues …Is it possible to work out a smoother and more direct decision-making procedure in the context of cooperation between Russia and the EU? What do you think about this?

Dmitry Medvedev: I started our conversation with some harsh criticism for some decisions. But of course I realise that our European partners find it quite hard to formulate a consolidated stance. I have repeatedly discussed this issue with my colleagues, including Mr Herman Van Rompuy and Mr Barroso and other European Commissioners and, of course, the leaders of the EU member states. There are 27 EU members, is that right? This really is a very complicated process. It is hard to reach any specific decisions, especially on such sensitive aspects as the economic situation, the financial situation and unemployment. The leader of every European country thinks about this. Therefore we do not underestimate the difficulties faced by the European Union. We would like the EU to find adequate, wise and prompt solutions to all problems. This is a vital interest of ours because we have a huge trade turnover with the EU. The EU is our main partner and we live in a common European home. We have one common European identity. So for us it is very important that the EU overcomes all its problems as quickly as possible. And I also hope that it is important for EU that Russia does not get stuck in any problems because this would eventually hamper the development of Russian-European integration and relations between us.

We regularly speak with our partners by telephone. These discussions are held virtually every week, including discussions with individual European Commissioners and the leaders of the EU and the European Commission. We have held numerous summits. Sometimes it seems that there have been too many of these summits but on the other hand it allows us to accomplish various objectives. A summit involving EU leaders, the President of the European Commission and the President of the Russian Federation was recently organised. We are currently set to hold an inter-governmental summit involving the Commission and the Government of the Russian Federation. These events are being held within two or three months of each other. In June, we will hold the next Russia-EU summit, so in effect we are meeting every three months. These events are quite frequent, but most importantly they need to be productive.

Question: Returning to conflict situations, including accession to the World Trade Organisation, the car-scrapping tax and exorbitant tariffs … How do you respond to the threats coming from the European Union in a number of cases?

Dmitry Medvedev: We respond attentively to all EU questions.The fact is we are partners, not irreconcilable rivals. Of course we will discuss all the issues raised by our European colleagues at this upcoming meeting of heads of government, including the above-mentioned tariff issues, if they affect our colleagues and our friends. We will also discuss the so-called car-scrapping tax. Naturally, we don’t view this as a measure for dealing with rivals. We consider it to be a forced measure that is linked with the need to improve the overall environmental situation. But we also hear your arguments, and of course our decisions will be influenced by various factors, including, naturally, prospects for our work, our cooperation with the EU and the WTO obligations which we have undertaken. We are currently formulating our approach towards these issues and we will outline this approach in the near future.

Question: Mr Medvedev, I would like to ask one more question about Ukraine. You said that you consider the three-plus-one formula to be unacceptable. After that, Prime Minister Mykola Azarov said that Ukraine was considering the status of an observer in an advisory capacity. Do you find this option for involving Ukraine in the work of the Customs Union to be acceptable? And how justified are Mr Azarov’s statements that Ukraine might influence the decision-making process inside the Customs Union under this status?

Dmitry Medvedev: The answer is simple. Of course we would be happy to admit Ukraine. And we are currently formulating the approaches to Customs Union and Eurasian Economic Community membership. There will probably be full membership and observer status, just like in other international integration organisations.

However, observers will of course be unable to influence any processes because they are observers. Naturally we will be very respectful of an observer’s stance and analyse their views. But observers do not vote and they have no specific rights like those exercised by parties to the Eurasian Economic Community or for instance members of the European Union.

There are also all kinds of institutions there, including associated and non-associated institutions. But these institutions do not vote. In the long run, their influence on key and crucial decisions is negligible. That is why each country has to understand what it considers to be important because, as a rule, observer status is motivated by two considerations: To sniff the air, so to speak, and to understand what’s happening.

There is nothing offensive about that, but in that case there will be no advantages. And secondly, this is, of course, only the first stage of joining some integration organisation. Viewed from this perspective, you are welcome. But then we must tell our Ukrainian friends once again that until they join fully – not according to the three plus one formula, but fully – they will not enjoy all opportunities and privileges offered by the Customs Union. They will be an outside party.

Question: President Putin has announced an increase in spending on the military sector of the economy with a view to modernising Russia’s economy. What are the threats which you may face in the future once you have increased your military power?

Dmitry Medvedev: I don't want to involve President Putin here because the decision to build up the military sector was taken when I was President. That is true. It was I who built it all up so I am the main militarist and I argued with some Government members about it and they expressed their disagreement. At one point I even had to sack one of them because he said that he did not agree with some of the decisions taken on the budget. But, speaking straight and simple, we understand what a military sector is in any country, especially in Russia, which is a huge country and a nuclear power. This is not just a pretext for building up some military muscle, it is in effect a step towards the modernisation of the economy itself.

Today I was speaking at an event dedicated to the development of our defence industry sector. All over the world – in Russia, the United States, Britain and elsewhere – the defence sector has always pushed the development of cutting edge technologies. We have jet fighters, space communications and our beloved Internet because they were thought up at some time by the military for their purposes but later proved to be very useful for the whole economy. So by developing the defence sector we are, of course, developing the economy as a whole. To be frank, we faced hard times in the 1990s, we just fell behind, we now have outdated weapons and we need to replace them. We are a normal big country and our current objective is to replace 70% of our weapons by 2020, we must do that. Everyone is doing that, and we are doing it. We did not do it in the 1990s, and now we need to fill this gap.

I see no contradiction here with economic modernisation. Another thing is that there must be no bias and money should also be allocated to other sectors. There is one point I would like to stress: all over the world the defence industry sector is tied up with the state one way or another. In the United States, it is tied up too but less than in other countries. For this reason the state is always directing more money from the national budget into national defence and into rearmament, while a considerable number of other economic projects are financed by private partnerships, private investment. It therefore seems to me that we have not upset any balance yet.

And finally,it is very important this money is spent wisely. It is the responsibility of the state, the responsibility of watchdog agencies, and the responsibility of the Government to see to it that this money is spent on real programmes and spent in accordance with the guidelines we have set for ourselves.

Question: I would like to ask the Prime Minister about one very specific Russian region – Kaliningrad. It is surrounded from all sides except the sea by the European Union. The Union is, of course, very interested in seeing the region develop dynamically. Please could you comment on energy. Is it true that you are discussing with European Union colleagues the possible integration of Kaliningrad’s power grid with Europe’s? Is integration possible with ENTSO-E, which is European?

Dmitry Medvedev: I think if we could reach such a degree of integration between our grid systems and economies, it would be very good news for Russia and for the European nations because we have a shortage of power in some of our regions and shortages in some European territories. Basically, we are prepared to discuss with our European colleagues the issue of local energy shortages, including the supply of our electricity to European countries. That would be a good idea, I think.

Question: Concerning relations between Russia and the EU. There is one issue here which involves many contradictions – human rights and democracy. Is there a shortage of human rights and democratic rule in Russia? If so, how can it be tackled?

Dmitry Medvedev: This question is very hard to answer briefly, but I will try all the same. We hear all sorts of reproaches hurled against us. Some of them are completely wrong and even offensive to our country, but some are probably just – we are not perfect after all, we make mistakes when taking certain decisions and are then forced to put them right.

The issue concerns fundamental points. We proceed from the fact that we share common approaches to the development of the political system and that these are to defend human rights and freedoms and basic constitutional liberties. We are no different to other European countries. We do not perceive for ourselves any separate or special democratic path based on certain Russian specifics. We believe democracy is in general quite a universal thing. But democracy, constitutional order and the political system – and this is also true – bear a national character in every country. Even countries that shared a common history lived through different periods and have their specifics in constitutional arrangements, in the form of rule (be it a presidential or a parliamentary republic), or the political system – I mean the existence of certain political parties, their formation, their participation in political life, and so on. Such nuances are everywhere.

What are our nuances, if any? Whatever you say, we went through a very difficult 20th century. Yes, some countries, like those in Eastern Europe for example, indeed around the whole world, also lived through a far from simple century. But their integration into totalitarian systems of rule was to a far lesser degree than in the case of Russia. In the Soviet era there was no democracy for many years, that is no secret. If we turn our gaze to pre-revolutionary life, we will also see absolutism and no democracy there either, and for understandable reasons. There was a revolution, a struggle for modern political arrangements, but no democracy.

This means only one thing – we are taking the first strides to developing our political system and democratic institutions in this country. We cannot be judged by the highest standards or from the top positions. I suggest this test: if, 100 years from now, there are still problems left, then something must have gone wrong during these years.

But I have always said and I am saying now: our democratic institutions are only 20 years old. And one has to bear in mind that many traditions did not exist at all. This is what makes the Russian state different and it has to be taken into account.

So I would like my European colleagues, friends and partners to hear these arguments from us. Incidentally, we never shy away from constructive criticism. We can react calmly to some things. I have always listened to what the European partners have told me. For example, the justice system, obviously there is much we still need to build up in the justice system, so from that point of view we are very much interested in how the judiciary structures are working in the European countries. There is no need to be shy: we should borrow some traditions, approaches, legal and political traditions.

Question: A technical question. There is a Russian citizen named Gerard Depardieu, I would like to ask about your attitude to him.

Dmitry Medvedev: As a cinemagoer I have always thought of him as a talented actor. I think he remains that; if anything, he is becoming more colourful every year, if you consider his appearance. As for his decision, well, that was his decision. I think that in some ways, it was an emotional decision, but on the other hand it was probably well considered. He is a grown-up man and an established actor, and if he made this decision he must have had his reasons. In any case, the decision taken by the Russian side – it’s the President who grants citizenship here – does not pursue any hidden agenda. A celebrity turned to us for help and I think we could hardly refuse help under the circumstances. I think he will have a very full life in various places in the Russian Federation.

The only thing I would say, and that does not apply to Depardieu, everything is all right as far as he is concerned, but in general I would recommend some of our governors not to be so lavish in presenting apartments because we have a long waiting list for housing, not all people can afford to take out a mortgage, and when some well-healed people get a flat as a gift, this causes social tensions, though of course I have sympathy with someone who wants to please a celebrity.

Question: Mr Medvedev, today the President submitted the candidacy of Elvira Nabiullina for Central Bank chairperson. You have already said that you look forward to close cooperation with her if she is elected to this post. Do you foresee any changes in the Central Bank’s policy?

Dmitry Medvedev: You know, the President and I had discussed the best replacement for Mr Ignatyev (Chairman of the Russian Central Bank). He is an experienced man, but under the law he can no longer remain in this post. Now you see the result of these consultations. I think Elvira Nabiullina is the best candidate because she is an experienced professional. She was a government minister, and she has been the President’s economic adviser. She has extensive experience and I think that is important.

Going back to the Cyprus issue, you know, the head of the Central Bank should not only understand the reserve requirements and what Basel II and Basel III are all about, but it should be a person with broad macroeconomic horizons so as not to take decisions that would throw the situation off kilter.

As for the overall approach, I have talked with Elvira Nabiullina and with Sergei Ignatyev and of course the basic policy must not change, if only because we have covered a very long distance over the past years. On the whole our banking system has in recent years, under Ignatyev at any rate, has proved to be stable. Even during the global financial crisis we managed to get it back to normal fairly quickly and the credit for this must go to Sergei Ignatyev and the people who were involved in making these decisions. Why renounce time-tested approaches?

Question: Mr Medvedev, could you speak as a lawyer and not as Prime Minister about the air crash near Smolensk…

Dmitry Medvedev: You know, I still think that in spite of the problems in the inter-state dialogue between Russia and Poland, in spite of the complicated pages in our history and rather recent tragic events, including the death of President Kaczynski and many Polish officials, we have managed, if you like, to create a new framework of relations. In fact I am very pleased that I have been involved in this. My visit and other meetings with the Polish leaders enabled us to look frankly and in a new way at many problems. True, we have not agreed on everything, we are in the process of political dialogue and by and large everything is perfectly normal. If we continue behaving like this, I think that at some point we will be able to say that the former problems in our relations have gone away and everything is normal. Anyway, we very much count on this – the Government of the Russian Federation and of course, the President, who is in charge of international policy under our Constitution, will do everything towards that end.

[vector7]

“@russian_market: KREMLIN TO "FREEZE ASSETS" OF GERMAN COMPANIES IN RUSSIA AS ANSWER TO EU ON CYPRUS - NEKRASSOV”

Cyprus Market‏@russian_market1 h
PUTIN ORDERS TO DISCUSS RESTRUCTURING CYPRUS LOAN

[vector7]

Have The Russians Already Quietly Withdrawn All Their Cash From Cyprus?

Submitted by Tyler Durden on 03/25/2013 17:00 -0400

Yesterday, we first reported on something very disturbing (at least to Cyprus' citizens): despite the closed banks (which will mostly reopen tomorrow, while the two biggest soon to be liquidated banks Laiki and BoC will be shuttered until Thursday) and the capital controls, the local financial system has been leaking cash. Lots and lots of cash.

Alas, we did not have much granularity or details on who or where these illegal transfers were conducted with. Today, courtesy of a follow up by Reuters, we do.

The result, at least for Europe, is quite scary because let's recall that the primary political purpose of destroying the Cyprus financial system was simply to punish and humiliate Russian billionaire oligarchs who held tens of billions in "unsecured" deposits with the island nation's two biggest banks.

As it turns out, these same oligrachs may have used the one week hiatus period of total chaos in the banking system to transfer the bulk of the cash they had deposited with one of the two main Cypriot banks, in the process making the whole punitive point of collapsing the Cyprus financial system entirely moot.

From Reuters:

While ordinary Cypriots queued at ATM machines to withdraw a few hundred euros as credit card transactions stopped, other depositors used an array of techniques to access their money.

No one knows exactly how much money has left Cyprus' banks, or where it has gone. The two banks at the centre of the crisis - Cyprus Popular Bank, also known as Laiki, and Bank of Cyprus - have units in London which remained open throughout the week and placed no limits on withdrawals. Bank of Cyprus also owns 80 percent of Russia's Uniastrum Bank, which put no restrictions on withdrawals in Russia. Russians were among Cypriot banks' largest depositors.

So while one could not withdraw from Bank of Cyprus or Laiki, one could withdraw without limitations from subsidiary and OpCo banks, and other affiliates?
Just brilliant.

And if there was any doubt that the entire process of destroying one entire nation was simply to punish Cyprus, it can be completely cleared away now:

ECB officials contacted Latvia, another EU country that has received large Russian deposits, to warn authorities against taking in Russian money fleeing Cyprus, two sources familiar with the contacts said.

"It was made clear to our Latvian friends that if they want to join the euro, they should not provide a haven for Russian money exiting Cyprus," a euro zone central banker said.

If one thinks there is any material Russian cash therefore left in Cyprus with this epic loophole in place, we urge them to make a deposit in the insolvent nation. One person who certainly will not be allocating any of his money into Bank of Cyprus is German FinMin Schaeuble:

German Finance Minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said the bank closure had limited capital flight but that the ECB was looking closely at the issue. He declined to provide figures.

Perhaps because if he did, it would become clear that the only entities truly punished by this weekend's actions are not evil Russian billionaires, but small and medium domestic companies, and other moderately wealthy individuals, hardly any of them from the former "Evil Empire."

Companies that had to meet margin calls to avoid defaulting on deals were granted funds. Transfers for trade in humanitarian products, medicines and jet fuel were allowed.

The stealth withdrawals by Russians of course means that the two megabanks are now utterly drained of capital, and that the haircuts on those who still have unsecured deposits with the two banks will be so big it will likely mean a complete wipeout of all deposits. As in 0% recovery on your deposits!

In other words, by now any big Russian funds in Cyprus are long gone, and the only damage accrues to the locals: for one reason because their money over the critical EUR100K threshold has been "vaporized", and for another because the marginal driving force and loan demand creator in Cyprus, the Russians, are gone and are never coming back again.

This is what passes for monetary real-politik in the New Normal - an entire nation becomes collateral when pursuing a wealthy group of people. And the "wealthy group" is victorious in the end despite everything...

If we were Cypriots at this point we would be angry. Very, very angry.

[American Patriot]

Greek unemployment hit new record in May of 27.6%

August 9, 2013 2:25am



ATHENS - Greece's jobless rate hit a new record high of 27.6 percent in May, official national data showed on Thursday as the country staggers under austerity linked to its international bailout.

Record joblessness is a nightmare for Greece's two-party coalition government as it scrambles to hit fiscal targets and show there is light at the end of the tunnel after years of unpopular tax rises and cuts to wages and pensions.

Unemployment rose to 27.6 percent from an upwardly revised 27.0 percent reading in April, according to data from statistics service ELSTAT and was more than twice the average rate in the euro zone which stood at 12.1 percent in June.

The latest reading was the highest since ELSTAT began publishing monthly jobless data in 2006.

Greece and Spain have been hit with similar levels of sky-high unemployment, with latest Eurostat data showing seasonally adjusted unemployment in June at 26.9 percent for Greece and 26.3 percent in Spain.

Spain itself does not publish monthly jobless figures directly comparable to Greece's own data, but Madrid's quarterly data shows its rate peaked at 27.2 percent in the first three months of this year.

"Increased employment in tourism cannot offset the restructuring in many sectors of the economy and continuing weak demand," said economist Nikos Magginas at National Bank.

However, he said improving exports and a strong tourism season would help to contain the further rise in joblessness expected this year.

Tourism accounts for about 17 percent of Greece's economic output and one in five jobs. Revenues are seen rising 10 percent in 2013, to 11 billion euros, on the back of an expected record 17 million visitors.

Data showed that those aged 15 to 24 remained the hardest-hit as the jobless rate for this age group registered 64.9 percent.

With the economy suffering its sixth straight year of recession and 1.38 million people officially without jobs, the pain is felt across the board. Borrowers fall behind on loans and fewer workers pay into pension funds.

A turnaround will take time to be felt in the labor market even if recovery sets in next year as authorities project. The central bank projects unemployment will peak at 28 percent before it starts to decline in 2015.

Scrambling for ways to ease the pain for Greeks, Athens wants to tap about 170 million euros of EU regional development funds to launch job programs and has asked the European Commission to approve the move. — Reuters

[American Patriot]

Population of Greece is about 11.3 million (as of 2011).

That probably means somewhere around 8 million(ish) adult workers (I don't know for sure, that's a guess).
Wait, here we go:

Age structure
0-14 years:	14.3%
15-64 years:	66.6%
65-over:	19.1%

So I'm close I guess... about 75ish percent of the population works (or is of working age, or is probably just out of the working market).

That isn't many people working to support all those Union guys.

[vector7]

Greece threatens to seize German property, Berlin refuses to pay WWII reparations

Published time: March 11, 2015 09:25
Edited time: March 11, 2015 13:54 Get short URL


Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras (Reuters / Alkis Konstantinidis)

Bailout, Conflict, Crisis, Economy, Germany, Greece, Law, Politics, Scandal, WWII

Germany says it won’t pay Greece World War 2 reparations after Greek PM Alexis Tsipras said Berlin is using legal tricks to avoid paying compensation. Germany says it’s honored its obligations, while Greece says it may start seizing German property.


Germany once again dismissed Greek demands to pay reparations for the 1941-44 Nazi occupation of Greece.

"It is our firm belief that questions of reparations and compensation have been legally and politically resolved," said Steffen Seibert, the spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

"We should concentrate on current issues and, hopefully, what will be a good future," Reuters reported him as saying.

A spokesman for the finance ministry said there was no point in holding talks with the Greek government concerning the issue of reparations. The spokesman also added that the demands from Athens were just trying to distract attention away from the serious financial problems the country is facing.

With Germany refusing to budge from its position concerning the payment of war reparations, Greece’s Justice Minister said Wednesday that Athens could start seizing German assets.

Nikos Paraskevopoulos said he was “ready to approve” a Greek Supreme Court ruling in 2000 that would allow the appropriation of assets belonging to Germany’s archaeological school and the Goethe Institute. Proceeds from the property would be used to compensate the relatives of 218 civilians who were massacred by Nazi troops in a village in central Greece in June 1944.

"The law states that the minister must give the order for the Supreme Court ruling to be carried out.... I am ready to give that order," Paraskevopoulos told Antenna TV, AFP reported.

On Wednesday, Berlin rejected the renewed demands.

"It is our firm belief that questions of reparations and compensation have been legally and politically resolved," said Steffen Seibert, the spokesman for German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

A spokesman for the finance ministry also said there was no reason to hold talks with Athens about reparations and called the demands a distraction from actual financial issues facing Greece.

The issue of war reparations dating from the 1941-44 Nazi occupation of Greece is likely to increase already heightened tensions between Athens and Berlin. The two countries are already squabbling over Greek demands to renegotiate the terms of a €240 billion ($260 billion) bailout. However, with Germany showing few signs of leniency, the new left-wing Syriza government has decided to raise the issue of war reparations again with Berlin.

The issue of war reparations dating from the 1941-44 Nazi occupation of Greece is likely to increase already heightened tensions between Athens and Berlin. The two countries are already squabbling over Greek demands to renegotiate the terms of a €240 billion ($260 billion) bailout. However, with Germany showing few signs of leniency, the new left-wing Syriza government has decided to raise the issue of war reparations again with Berlin.

Reichsmarks, now worth roughly $12 billion. The loan was never repaid, while Greece is also seeking further reparations from Germany due to the destruction wrought upon the nation during the Nazi occupation.

"Germany has never properly paid reparations for the damage done to Greece by the Nazi occupation," Prime Minister Tsipras told the Greek parliament Tuesday. "The crimes carried out by the Nazis are still vivid, and we have a moral obligation to remember what the forces did to the country."

Greece has been trying to get Germany to pay war damages for decades, but Athens has never quantified its reparation claims. The movement to get Berlin to pay up has become stronger over the last few years as Athens experiences financial hardships following austerity measures, which were a prerequisite of being given the bailout money, to stop the country from falling into financial ruin.

Tsipras says he will get a parliamentary commission to look into the matter, saying: "After the reunification of Germany in 1990, the legal and political conditions were created for this issue to be solved. But since then, German governments chose silence, legal tricks and delay.”

"And I wonder, because there is a lot of talk at the European level these days about moral issues: is this stance moral?" he said.


​
Payback time? Greek PM seeks reparations over Nazi occupation & war-time loan

Berlin has flatly denied it owes Athens any more money, saying it has already settled its debts following German reunification in 1990. The “Two Plus Four” treaty, which involved East and West Germany, as well as the four occupying nations following the Second World War, France, the Soviet Union, the United Kingdom and the United States, saw them renounce all rights they formerly held in Germany. The document was also approved by Greece, which would effectively draw a line under any future possible claims for war reparations.

Germany says it paid Greece war damages of $25 million in the 1950s, equivalent to $220 million today, and also paid out 115 million Deutschmarks (a sum worth around $230 million today), to victims of Nazi crimes in the early 1960s.

Athens has said it always considered that money as only an initial payment and expected the rest of the money to be paid back following German reunification.

[vector7]

Greece's defence minister threatens to send migrant jihadists to Western Europe if they don't cover their loans

Panos Kammenos, Greece's defence minister, threatens to open country's borders to refugees – including potential members of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) - unless Athens receives debt crisis support

Panos Kamenos, leader of the Independent Greeks party and defense minister of the coalition government Photo: Louisa Gouliamaki/AFP/Getty Images

By Bruno Waterfield, Brussels

5:19PM GMT 09 Mar 2015

Greece will unleash a “wave of millions of economic migrants” and jihadists on Europe unless the eurozone backs down on austerity demands, the country's defence and foreign ministers have threatened.

The threat comes as Greece struggles to convince the eurozone and International Monetery Fund to continue payments on a £172billion bailout of Greek finances.

Without the funding, Greece will go bust later this month forcing the recession-ravaged and highly indebted country out of the EU’s single currency.

Greece’s border with Turkey is the EU’s frontline against illegal immigration and European measures to stop extremists travelling to and from Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) bases in Syria and Iraq.

Panos Kammenos, the Greek defence minister, warned that if the eurozone allowed Greece to go bust it would give EU travel papers to illegal immigrants crossing its borders or to the 10,000 currently held in detention centres.

Related Articles

• 
• Turkey faces refugee crisis as 135,000 Kurds flee Isil
  22 Sep 2014

"If they deal a blow to Greece, then they should know the the migrants will get papers to go to Berlin,” he said.

"If Europe leaves us in the crisis, we will flood it with migrants, and it will be even worse for Berlin if in that wave of millions of economic migrants there will be some jihadists of the Islamic State too.”

Mr Kammenos, who is the leader of the Right-wing Independent Greeks party which is in coalition with Greece’s ruling far-Left Syriza government, said that the EU’s passport free “Schengen” travel zone left the eurozone vulnerable.

"If they strike us, we will strike them. We will give to migrants from everywhere the documents they need to travel in the Schengen area, so that the human wave could go straight to Berlin,” he said.

Last week, Nikos Kotzias, the Greek foreign minister, also told a meeting of his EU colleagues that if Greece was forced out of the euro "there will be tens of millions of immigrants and thousands of jihadists”.

EU officials have been so concerned by the Greek threats that the European Commission last week sought “assurances… that no measures to open up detention centres are being taken”.

Britain would not be as badly hit as Germany if Greece opened its frontier with Turkey as it has retained border controls but the Greek threat would place extra pressure on crossings such as Calais and increase the overall terror threat for all Europe.

Greece and its eurozone creditors agreed two weeks ago to extend the Greek bailout but negotiations with the new government have run in trouble threatening to cut Athens off from funds by the end of March.

[vector7]

Greece 'cannot afford IMF repayment' in June - minister

InvestmentWatch
Submitted by IWB, on May 24th, 2015



*Today, Sunday 5/24 and tomorrow, Monday 5/25 could be the final two days when all of our credit/Debit cards work.

The banking system is facing an unparallelled catastrophe as early as this coming Tuesday and our entire financial system could very well come crashing down without any warning whatsoever.

The trouble has to do with an announcement made today by the Finance Minister of Greece. He appeared on television and stated for the first time publicly “Greece cannot make debt repayments to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) next month unless it achieves a deal with creditors."

This statement today is a defacto DEFAULT on Greece’ sovereign (national) debt. This is no longer something that CAN happen, as of today, it HAS happened! ! ! ! This announcement has now set in-motion a financial calamity that _will_ envelope the world, especially American Banks, which may be forced to HALT ALL LENDING, shut off all access to credit and lock-up depositor accounts as early as this Tuesday. Here’s why:

As a member of the European Union, Greece got to print money; EUROS. The validity of those EUROS is now gone, but they cannot be pulled from circulation because there are so many. Therefore, the VALUE OF THE EURO as a whole, is going to drop off a cliff as a result of Greece defaulting on June 5. This will utterly SLAM banks in the U.S. and others around the world.

Not only is all $320 Billion of Greek debt no-longer-collectible, there are DERIVATIVES against that debt which amount to so much money, banks around the planet can be wiped out in less than one day.

According to the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) at present there are currency derivatives valued at $26.45 TRILLION related to Greek Debt. This was confirmed by the financial mega-site “SeekingAlpha.com” way back in February, just after the snap elections brought the new Greek government to power. (Link Below)

There are also $4 TRILLION in other, non-currency derivatives linked to Greece.

For those who are not aware, a “Derivative” is an investment on the success (or failure) of another investment. Derivatives are actually “bets” that something will succeed/rise or fail/fall. Derivatives involve huge “leverage” meaning investors put down very little cash for the option of controlling ENORMOUS amounts of the underlying investment; in this case, the EURO.

When those betting FOR the underlying investment are WRONG; they must put up more and more cash to cover the loss experienced by the underlying investment because THEY CONTROL IT. They cannot simply walk away from their derivative contract; they’re on-the-hook for the loss.

Do the math: $26.45 TRILLION in EURO CURRENCY Derivatives! the entire 320 billion euros of Greek debt along with 3.4 to 4 trillion of derivatives on Greece and interest rates on Greek bonds etc. THE ENTIRE FINANCIAL WORLD WILL FALL LIKE DOMINOES…. . . . . and it can all start when Asian & European markets open TOMORROW! ! !

Remember, it is the AMERICAN Banks that love to gamble in derivatives. It will be the AMERICAN banks that get taken by storm when this crap with Greece starts to unwind. It will be the AMERICAN banks that shut things off as their exposure to derivatives losses wipe out their balance sheets.

Lest you think this is some exaggeration, consider that the United States government spends about $4 TRILLION a year and the U.S. national debt is $18 TRILLION. People are already recognizing that the US cannot ever HOPE to pay the $18 TRILLION. Now ask yourself: How is the financial sector and its investors going to cope with a detonation of $26.45 TRILLION in currency derivatives plus another $4 TRILLION in derivatives based on Greek debt and interest????? Hint: They can’t.

We’re actually looking at very real financial collapse, striking worldwide, because so many in the financial services industry GAMBLED with derivatives and they have no way to get out of their gamble.

This isn’t some pie-in-the-sky doom bullshit. It is real. Contract law real. Contracts held by BANKS that they cannot get out of.

If I am right — and I have a very good sense about such things — then as early as this Tuesday, access to your credit cards and bank accounts via debit card, could all halt. If you do not have fuel in your car and food in your house when this takes place YOU WON’T BE ABLE TO GET ANY! Credit and Debit cards will be shut off. Checks will not be honored. If you don’t have CASH, you’re shit out of luck.

I am not a licensed financial adviser and so I cannot lawfully give any of you financial advice. I can tell you, however, what I am personally doing: Taking out any cash I have in banks, IRA’s, 401-K’s, Money Market Funds, Hedge Funds, stocks or bonds. It doesn’t matter if I take a loss on any of them — or all of them. The loss I take now will be minor to what’s coming on June 5 . . . or more likely the first business day after, which is June 8. For a lot of people, EVERYTHING THEY HAVE WILL BE WIPED OUT.

My wife and I are heading out right now to fuel up the cars and buy food that can be stored long term: Pasta, Canned Foods/soups, rice, beans, dried milk, plus essentials like toilet paper.

Greek Finance Minister Announcement: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...e-rupture.html

SeekingAlpha BIS analysis: http://seekingalpha.com/article/2897...atives-at-risk

As to what happens next a default to the IMF does not in fact count as a default immediately. We might call it a default event, even a default-like event, not a default. First, the IMF waits 30 days, then informs the Board that the money hasn’t been received. At which point they’ve quite a lot of leeway. While this isn’t formally what happens in reality: if they think that the country is really trying to pay, has paid some of it, then no default is declared, some shuffling of the problem out of the way happens. If they think that the debtor is simply being recalcitrant, then default is declared, although no rich country not in complete extremis has ever done so. What then happens is, although it doesn’t absolutely have to, a triggering of the cross-default clauses. You’re in default to your most senior creditor? And the IMF is your most senior creditor, then you’re in default to them all.

So, even if the IMF isn’t paid on June 5th it’s really July 5th and beyond that the fireworks really start. By which point, of course, one side or the other might have caved, the last tranche of the secnd bailout is delivered, the IMF paid and on the circus goes. Or not, as the case may be.

[vector7]

Greece on brink of being financially ruined



Published on May 25, 2015

Economists warn that Greece is facing financial ruin unless it can strike a deal in the coming days with international creditors to secure bailout funds. Technical teams at the European Commission in Brussels are currently working around the clock to try and find common ground with Greece's anti-austerity government regarding economic reforms that may pave the way for another financial bailout.

[Ryan Ruck]

Futures are showing it doesn't look like it's going to be a good day for the market after Greece's no vote on austerity measures.

[American Patriot]

But, most assuredly, it will be a bad day for some people in Greece. lol

This is going to be a rough ride for that country. They have a HELL of a debt they can't pay.