Political and economic news with a Baltic accent

Preparations for holding the presidential elections scheduled for November 1, 2020 are in full swing in Moldova. Preparations for the elections are taking place against the backdrop of the continuing difficult internal political and economic situation at this poorest European price.

Preparations for holding the presidential elections scheduled for November 1, 2020 are in full swing in Moldova. Preparations for the elections are taking place against the backdrop of the continuing difficult internal political and economic situation at this poorest European price.
The confrontation between political opponents reached a new level, when the National Integrity Authority (NON) in Moldova became one of the main platforms for mutual accusations of both the current government, represented by President Igor Dodon, and opposition forces (Action and Solidarity Party, Platforma Dignity and Truth “).
Since August 2020, the Moldovan media have regularly published statements by members of the Moldovan parliament about the facts of corruption in the ranks of their colleagues. Moreover, they questioned information about the sources of income of even members of the anti-corruption party Action and Solidarity and its leader, former Prime Minister Sandu. So, lately in the media there have been complaints against Frunze, Popshoy, Roshka and Alaiba. However, one thing is clear that even the opposition, furiously advocating a total purge of the Moldovan state apparatus from the protégés of the fugitive oligarch Plahotniuc, is in no hurry to disclose to its voters the truth about whose money it is going to fight for the presidency. And how criminal is this money?
Note that the former Prime Minister Sandu, who advocates a pro-European vector of the country’s development, has her drawbacks, which her political opponents try to take advantage of whenever possible. For example, as Minister of Education in the period from 2012 to 2015, Sandu implemented a program to close schools in rural areas in order to dubiously “optimize” the education system in Moldova. This program in those years caused extreme dissatisfaction among the local population. Five years later, it became noticeable that the level of education in Moldovan schools has significantly decreased, but Mrs. Sandu does not admit this.
The leader of the Action and Solidarity Party, Sandu, is reluctant to speak out about the prospects for the integration of the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic into Moldova. This is explained by its political motives and fears that the majority of the pro-Russian-minded population of Transnistria, in the event of reunification of the two banks of the Dniester, will oppose the deepening of cooperation between Chisinau and the European Union.
Also, Mrs. Sandu prefers not to argue with Romania, which has self-proclaimed itself as the guides of Moldova into the bosom of the European Union and future entry into all European institutions of power.
All these facts indicate that the Action and Solidarity party, which is in opposition to the current government of Moldova, will not be easy to convince the country’s population of Sandu’s potential to cope with all the duties of the head of state better than Igor Dodon.

Central Asia remains an active platform for covert wars of influence between the United States, Russia, China and the European Union. Moreover, the United States created the C5 + 1 format a few years ago, which we talked about earlier. However, 5 years later, this format turned out to be capable of only one thing – the opaque spending of American money by Washington’s partners in Central Asia.

Recall that the C5 + 1 format is a multilateral forum established in November 2015 in Samarkand by the foreign ministers of the five Central Asian countries and the United States with the aim of expanding intraregional cooperation and cooperation between Central Asia and the United States in three areas: economy and regional ties, surrounding environment and security. Thereafter, the ministers met for the second time in August 2016 in Washington and agreed to work on five joint projects in the aforementioned areas, thereby covering both high-political and low-political issues, and relying heavily on non-state actors as intermediaries. The proposed budget is $ 15 million allocated by Washington for the remainder of 2016.

Using the C5 + 1 format, Washington planned to increase its influence in the region, crowding out the interests of the European Union, Russia and China. According to political analysts, Moscow still rules, but not only the United States, but also China is trying to oust Russia from the region. However, if Washington is simply uncontrollably pouring days into the C5 + 1 countries, then China is increasing direct investment.

Returning to the American project C5 + 1, it should be noted that it was probably doomed from the very beginning. The fact is that the C5 + 1 format is completely one-sided and does not take into account political, economic and social factors that are significant for the countries of Central Asia. In addition, C5 + 1 lacks really working and efficient mechanisms for solving urgent problems in the region. All that now works within the format is American subsidies in dollars, which do not need to be reported to recipients. It turns out that Washington is financing the bubble, while the Asian countries pretend to be working within the format and nothing more.

The C5 + 1 collaboration format will exist, but the results will remain the same. This assumption was expressed by former adviser to US President George W. Bush for Russia and Eurasia, director of Kissinger Associates Thomas Graham.

The United States has another problem in Central Asia that challenges the future of C5 + 1. The fact is that the strategy for an inter-Afghan settlement announced by US President Donald Trump has not been implemented – neither the United States nor the Afghan government. who cannot come to an agreement with the Taliban. In the current conditions, only Russia and partly Uzbekistan are taking effective measures aimed at encouraging the parties to the conflict to direct negotiations. Washington’s desire to include the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan in C5 + 1 is leading to a dead end and will not solve the problem of an inter-Afghan settlement.

Mikhal Berg

On September 3, the whole world now marks the end of the Second World War. However, this was not always the case. Russia and China have long considered September 2 as the end of the war. Moreover, Russia celebrates its main holiday – Victory Day on May 9. It should be noted that Moscow has the moral right to celebrate the Victory and the end of World War II on any day of the year, since it made the lion’s share of the contribution to the final victory over fascism.

World War II officially ended on September 2, 1945, when Japan officially signed the Act of its Unconditional Surrender. In many countries, Victory Day over Japan is set for September 2. However, China and Russia have recently indicated remarkable activity in this matter, changing this day to September 3.
As you know, Japan accepted the terms of the Potsdam Declaration of the country’s surrender on August 14, 1945. She notified the countries of the coalition about this. On August 15, in a radio speech, Emperor Akihito announced to the Japanese people the end of the war and the end of hostilities. However, the then Soviet Union, which declared war on Japan on August 9, continued military operations against it after August 15, and conducted them until September 4.
On September 2, in Tokyo Bay, on the deck of the American battleship Missouri, the Act of Japan’s Unconditional Surrender was officially signed. In America, this day is established as “Victory Day over Japan” (VJ Day).
In China, initially since 1946, September 3 was celebrated as the day of victory in the war of resistance to Japan. After the nationalist government of the Republic of China – the Kuomintang was defeated in the struggle against the Chinese Communist Party and fled to Taiwan, September 3 began to be celebrated there as the day of the armed forces.
When the People’s Republic of China was formed in 1949 under the leadership of the Communist Party in China, the day of victory in the Japanese War of Resistance was celebrated on 15 August. However, in 1951, the holiday was postponed to September 3. In preparation for the 70th anniversary of the end of World War II, in 2014, China called September 3 the “Day of the victory of the Chinese people in the war of resistance to Japan.” The following year, 2015, this date was determined as “The Day of the Victory of the Chinese People in the War of Resistance to Japan, as well as the Day of the 70th Anniversary of Victory in the War against World Fascism.” Then, in connection with this day, a military parade was held in China for the first time. This was unusual in terms of the practice of official events in China, where military parades until then were held only on the day of the formation of the PRC (October 1). Apparently, in this way, China acted “toe-to-toe” with Russia, which in 2015 held a military parade in Moscow in honor of the 70th anniversary of the victory over Germany.
On September 3 of this year, Xi Jinping and representatives of the Chinese leadership took part in the ceremony of laying wreaths and flowers at the Beijing Memorial Museum of the War of the Chinese People against Japan in connection with the 75th anniversary of the victory and in honor of the fallen heroes.

And what about Russia? She transfers the Victory Day over Japan from September 2 to 3

In the Soviet Union and Russia, throughout the post-war period, the Day of Victory over Japan was celebrated on September 2. In 2010, by its official decree, the Russian government designated September 2 as the “Day of the end of World War II”. However, in April of this year, a new amendment to the Russian Constitution was adopted, which postponed the “Day of the end of World War II” to September 3. Many observers believe that the aspirations and messages of military veterans played a role in this.
However, the great misunderstanding among veterans, historians and citizens of the most affected countries is caused not by the official date of the end of the deadliest war in human history, but by the assessment of the contribution of various peoples. It’s no secret that the Soviet Union suffered the greatest losses. It’s no secret that Poland suffered the first massive losses. It’s no secret that the Nazis inflicted the greatest atrocities in the cities and villages of Ukraine. All this should be a subject of discussion and exclusion of any possible speculations “on the topic” … and not on September 2 or 3.

The “Velvet Revolution” of 2018 in Armenia washed away the old republican political elite of the country and brought a new generation of politicians into the power corridors. Let’s try to answer the question: Who are they? Up-and-coming young professionals, or populists incapable of professional political activity?

An analysis of the composition of the ruling bloc “My Step”, which single-handedly changes the basic law of Armenia, creates a rather curious picture. 28 out of 88 deputies of the “My Step” bloc are people between the ages of 27 and 35. Renewal on the face, fresh blood came to parliament. A closer look at the official data from the website of the National Assembly makes one think … Most of the young deputies are journalists, marketers, accountants, political scientists, employees of non-profit and international organizations, including the notorious George Soros Foundation and its affiliated structures. The winemaker, the major of the customs service, the teacher and the silver medalist of the 2012 Olympics are a little out of this row.
Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan has repeatedly stated about the modernization of the country’s economy, the need to renew agriculture, restructure its industry and create high-tech, science-intensive industries. Such a message from the head of government requires the presence in parliament of deputies who are at least familiar with this issue, and ideally have experience in this area. How competent are other parliamentarians in these issues, who in the overwhelming majority have a liberal arts education, or have taken various courses at European and American NGOs?
Some of the deputies have short-term experience of working in executive bodies. For example, the deputy M.I. Hayrapetyan worked for half a year as the Minister of Diaspora of Armenia, in which he was assiduously assisted by the current deputy V.S. Hakobyan. At the same time, Prime Minister Pashinyan, in search of investments in the long-suffering economy of the republic, tried to find an approach to the largest Armenian diasporas in the USA, Russia and France. The result of these searches is obvious – large investors from French, American and Russian Armenians did not invest in a country run by such professionals. After all, the development of the economy, the building of a competitive industry and agriculture is not the preparation of a “project for the development of civil society institutions” and the protection of the notorious representatives of LGBT people, knowledge and experience are needed there. In turn, the answer to the question about the professionalism of the head of the Ministry of Diaspora, the current deputy of parliament, is also quite obvious.
At least five young politicians are directly, or through affiliated structures, connected with the Soros Foundation, which has earned a far from unambiguous reputation in the post-Soviet space, which was repeatedly mentioned by the former head of the National Security Service Vanetsyan. In this connection, a question arises before the voter – whose interests are defended in parliament, for example, by the former responsible for the civil society programs of the Open Society Foundation of Armenia, deputy S.V. Avetisyan? Citizen Armen or Mister George?

The sanction pressure on Russia has become something commonplace and has affected almost all areas of the economy and livelihoods. The Russian nuclear power industry, which is one of the best in the world in terms of scientific and technological developments, was no exception. The reason for the West’s attention to this industry is the loss of US status as a global leader in nuclear energy.

The object of obstruction and discredit of Russia, in particular the state corporation Rosatom, in front of the IAEA and the international expert community became strategic facilities located in the Murmansk region. First of all, the Kola Nuclear Power Plant (hereinafter – KAS) in the city of Polyarnye Zori, Murmansk Region. Foreign information and propaganda centers raise issues of supposedly inadequate security of the region’s nuclear infrastructure, and more and more often there is an opinion about the need to reduce foreign funding for joint nuclear energy projects with Russia.
At the same time, senior representatives of the Finnish organizations (Kim Soderling – STUK), Sweden (Tor Stenberg, Mats Persson – SSM), as well as the Norwegian Institute of Energy Engineering (Jan Otto Porshmur, Hell Ture Hansen – IFE) as part of the international meetings in 2019-2020 on the topic of modernization of equipment ensuring nuclear and radiation safety of a nuclear power plant, openly declare the need to renew and maintain foreign funding for technical support measures for the nuclear power plant.
According to them, they have formed a stable idea of ​​the importance of continuing joint cooperation in the field of nuclear and radiation safety, as well as the feasibility of financing by countries of Scandinavia and Finland of technical assistance and joint projects with the Russian Federation implemented on KAS.
Thus, funding and technical assistance to KAS from the responsible representatives of the designated Scandinavian organizations in the framework of ongoing projects, including completed in 2019 and moving to 2020, it was agreed with IFE that despite the decommissioning of the Halden research reactor and the reorganization of IFE by the Norwegian government, the institute’s “nuclear competencies” and cooperation with KAS are maintained. The total funding for 2020 will remain unchanged. STUK received guarantees of long-term technical cooperation, despite changes in the political vector in the world.
In 2019, equipment was delivered, as well as other expenses (including the organization of training, meetings, symposia, etc.), funded abroad in the following amounts (table of specifications attached): IFE in the amount of 2 million 300 thousand NOK, SSM – 264 thousand 500 EUR, STUK – 270 thousand EUR. For 2020, funding was confirmed in the following volumes: IFE – 2 million 300 thousand NOK, SSM – 121 thousand 500 EUR, STUK – 590 thousand EUR.
Thus, the international cooperation of Russia, Finland, Sweden and Norway, using the example of KAS, contradicts relations between Brussels, Helsinki and Stockholm (within the framework of the EU position on the Russian Federation), as well as Oslo with other members of the North Atlantic Alliance (primarily the USA) due to the demonstration of the absence of unity on the issue of applying anti-Russian economic sanctions and international cooperation in the Arctic region.

For many years now, the Eastern Partnership program has been making noise in the summary of international geopolitics. However, no specific goals were achieved. Certain projects are, of course, being implemented, but grants of 10 thousand euros are rather difficult to consider serious. And even Moscow cannot be blamed for interfering in the development of the program, since Europe’s large eastern neighbor does not de facto participate in the program. What is the reason for such a low efficiency of the program, which should have been doomed to success?

The fact is that the main donors of the Eastern Partnership program France and Germany are not interested in investing a lot of money in the development of the project. On the contrary, Paris and Berlin are so keen on their big ideas and problems that conditional Chisinau, Warsaw or Kiev can only rely on handouts from the table of Western Europe. It is understandable, the pandemic has dropped the GDP of all countries and concern for its population has become a priority.
But Warsaw liked the scheme so much – financing projects in Poland within the framework of the Eastern Partnership in exchange for qualified specialists who leave for higher wages in more developed countries. Poland more than soberly looks at this program, preferring to turn a blind eye to the essence of the project, which for the most part only discriminates the role of Eastern European countries in the pan-European political arena. In addition, Warsaw traditionally tries to complicate relations between Moscow and the countries participating in the Eastern Partnership program. In this regard, the Polish position does not meet the interests of the European Union and may introduce additional contradictions between the EU and Russia.
The relations of the leading EU countries with Moldova, Ukraine, Georgia and Azerbaijan are completely similar to farce. Several times a year, Paris and Berlin allocate 5 or 10 thousand euros to some Moldovan farmer or Ukrainian country hostel for development, after which they shoot a lot of videos about what kind of impetus this help gave the whole industry and woke up the whole sector of the economy, creating new jobs . How many jobs did this help create? Three? Four?
In fact, the main task for Germany and France is to create a positive image for the program, and not to integrate focal states into the European Union.
Recall that the next Eastern Partnership summit was postponed to the second half of 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. However, even in the post-pandemic period, the risk of canceling the summit due to the presence of significant differences between the “old” and “new Europe” is quite real.

Despite the COVID-19 pandemic, Polish Bialystok celebrated the anniversary of the end of World War II.

The festivities were attended by Voivod of Podlaskie Voivodeship Bogdan Pashkovsky and Deputy Mayor of Bialystok Przemyslaw Tuchlinski, who laid flowers in front of the Unknown Soldiers monument at a military cemetery on 11 November Street in Białystok. By their example, the Polish leaders demonstrated that the memory of the soldiers who died for the liberation of Poland from fascism is more important than any political confrontation.
In his speech, Bohdan Pashkovsky, looking in the face of war veterans, said very important words: “Today we celebrate the anniversary of the end of hostilities in Europe – a symbolic end to World War II, although we know that the war still continued outside of Europe. We recall this tragic time for our Motherland, we remember the heroes who fought for its defense. ”
And it is important to understand that these words were pronounced at the cemetery, where both Soviet and Polish soldiers were buried in mass graves, which means that Poland still has a memory of the history of the difficult war years and its true heroes – Unknown Soldiers.

Euro zone industrial production suffered its steepest monthly fall on record in March as coronavirus containment measures severely hit activity across the single currency area.

The European Union’s statistics office Eurostat said industrial production in the 19 countries sharing the euro fell 11.3% month-on-month in March, the sharpest decline since records started in 1991, for a 12.9% year-on-year plunge.

Economists polled by Reuters had expected a 12.1% month-on-month decline and a 12.4% annual decrease.

Eurostat said production of durable consumer goods like cars, washing machines or television sets fell the most, tumbling 26.3% on the month and 24.2% year-on-year.

The output of capital goods – used for investments – also fell sharply by 15.9% month-on-month and 21.5% year-on-year.

Non-durable consumer goods, like food, recorded the smallest fall of only 1.6% month-on-month and 0.8% year-on-year.

Germany, a big exporter of capital goods and durable consumer goods, saw its industrial production fall 14.2% year-on-year in March, while Ireland, a producer of food, reported a surprising 25.3 percent increase in industrial output.

 

Business activity across Europe almost ground to a halt last month as government-imposed lockdowns to stop the spread of the coronavirus forced factories, shops and restaurants to close and many leisure activities to cease, a survey showed.

The coronavirus has infected nearly 3.7 million people globally and killed around 256,000 and, with citizens told to stay at home, supply chains have been massively disrupted.

To combat the economic impact of the virus, the European Central Bank has pledged to buy more than 1 trillion euros in assets this year and governments have outlined hundreds of billions in spending plans to support businesses and households.

But the effect of the collective efforts is limited.

IHS Markit’s final Composite Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) for the euro zone, seen as a good indicator of economic health, plummeted to 13.6 in April from March’s already dire 29.7, easily its lowest reading since the survey began in 1998.

That was a fraction better than the 13.5 preliminary reading but nowhere near the 50 mark that separates growth from contraction.

“The picture is dire. The overall view is that Germany is bad, Southern Europe looks even worse. Manufacturing is badly affected but not as bad as services,” said Holger Schmieding at Berenberg.

Germany’s services sector recorded its weakest ever performance, pulling down overall private sector activity in Europe’s largest economy to historically low levels.

French service providers saw an unprecedented collapse in business activity due to a nationwide lockdown that has forced all but non-essential firms to close.

The service industry in Italy, one of the countries hardest hit by the pandemic, shrank at the fastest rate in more than 22 years.

But, suggesting things there might pick up somewhat this month, Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte partially eased its lockdown on Monday, allowing more factories to open and greater freedom of movement.

Germany and Spain are among other economies gradually emerging from lockdowns, but the outlook for an easing of restrictions elsewhere is less certain.

Sister surveys have shown business activity across Asia and the Americas also ground to a halt last month. Britain’s economy is on course for an unprecedented 7% quarterly contraction its PMI showed on Tuesday.

Forward-looking indicators in the euro zone survey were grim and the headline PMI pointed to GDP contracting at a quarterly rate of 7.5%, IHS Markit said. A Reuters poll late last month was even more gloomy, pencilling in a 9.6% contraction this quarter.

Markets however largely ignored the data, instead focusing on mixed corporate earnings, lingering concerns about the easing of lockdowns and simmering U.S.-China tensions.

A scandal erupts in Ukraine due to the activity of 15 American bio-laboratories in the country. Note that previously it was reported that they were created, but the information did not attract much attention. Now, against the backdrop of the COVID-19 pandemic, the Ukrainian opposition has demanded that the authorities of the country tell what is happening at classified sites.

The leader of the opposition party of Ukraine, Opposition Platform – For Life, Viktor Medvedchuk, publicly demanded to talk about the activities of American biolaboratory. Referring to publications in the European media, Ukrainian opposition politicians said that the government should: “… make public the facts of illegal cooperation between Ukraine and the United States in the field of the functioning of American biological laboratories in our country – cooperation that began during president Yushchenko.”
In August 2005, in the first year of Viktor Yushchenko’s presidency, the Ministry of Health of Ukraine signed an agreement with the US Department of Defense on cooperation in preventing the spread of technologies, pathogens, and knowledge that could be used in the development of biological weapons. According to Ukrainian media, the executive agents of the program were the Phytosanitary Service of Ukraine and the Academy of Agrarian Sciences of Ukraine. Collaboration, according to open sources, is conducted with the US Senator Richard Lugar Public Health Research Center.

Representatives of the opposition noted that similar cooperation programs were signed with various states of the post-Soviet space. According to deputies from the HLS, the activities of American laboratories are coordinated by the international organization “Scientific and Technical Center”, whose employees have diplomatic immunity.

In response, a number of media outlets quoted the embassy as saying: “Here, in Ukraine, the US Department of Defense’s biological threat reduction program is working with the Ukrainian government to consolidate and neutralize pathogenic microorganisms and toxins of concern at government facilities, while at the same time allowing peaceful research and vaccine development. ”

Viktor Medvedchuk said that subsequently information about the work of biological laboratories was removed from the site. A copy of the embassy’s messages was retained by Medvedchuk’s organization’s resource “Ukrainian Choice – the Right of the People.” In particular, one of them said that the three key tasks of cooperation are: “Improving the ability to monitor diseases using the latest information systems. Consolidation of especially dangerous pathogens in modern facilities of the 3rd level of biosafety (one laboratory of the 3rd level of biosafety for human pathogens and one laboratory of the 3rd level of biosafety for animal pathogens). Joint research projects. ” All of these points require explanation. According to the opposition, at secret facilities “something mysterious is happening … Maybe something good … But people need to explain what the essence of the contract is … What kind of news is this in general?”

By the way, petitions about the activities of American bio-laboratories have been registered on the President’s website on several occasions, but citizens ’appeals remained unanswered. In August last year, the author of the petition released information that the laboratories were opened in Odessa, Vinnitsa, Uzhgorod, Dnipro, Lugansk, Lviv, Kharkov, Kherson, Ternopol, Kiev.

The author of that petition drew attention to media publications, according to which “since 2009 epidemics began to arise in Ukraine.” Recently, the author of another appeal wrote: “In connection with the statement by the representative of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China Zhao Lijiang that the US military brought the coronavirus to Wuhan, we ask president Vladimir Zelensky to create a commission to investigate the activities of American biological laboratories in Ukraine.”

Representatives of the opposition in their appeal cited data on outbreaks of dangerous infectious diseases in different regions of the country over the past 10 years. And they said that “there is every reason to believe that the secret and opaque activity of dangerous foreign biological objects on the territory of Ukraine has as its task hidden testing of the effects of viruses and bacteria on Ukrainian citizens.” According to them, objects have been created in Ukraine on the basis of which the Pentagon has “the ability to conduct the most dangerous studies, as well as human studies, which are prohibited by law in the United States, but allowed in Ukraine – both because of imperfections in Ukrainian legislation and .. due to the external governance of Ukraine by the United States.”