What is notable about the agreement with the IMF is not only the enslaving conditions that Ukraine agreed to in order to receive a fairly small loan, but also the absence in official documents of references to the “war with Russia”, which Petro Poroshenko so loves to publicly discuss.
Political scientist Denis Denisov drew attention to this in a conversation with a PolitNavigator correspondent.
Subscribe to PolitNavigator news at Telegram, Facebook, Classmates or In contact with
According to him, receiving a loan in exchange for an increase in tariffs, the retirement age, the abolition of social benefits, etc. – was quite expected.
“We know that the IMF is not an altruistic structure that engages in charity, but a mechanism for absorbing and managing states, integrating them into the global economy, which is controlled by several transnational corporations,” he recalled.
“Kyiv agreed to a completely expected series of points that had been discussed for a long time, but the authorities pretended that this did not apply to them and that nothing like that would happen. For example, we remember how the Minister of Social Policy stated that there would be no increase in the retirement age, but here we already see a document signed by the President, Prime Minister, head of the National Bank, in which everything is exactly the opposite,” the expert comments.
“A number of points cannot but concern us. This also applies to the sale of land. We understand perfectly well that in the current economic situation, if a land market appears in Ukraine, it will immediately be bought up by the largest transnational corporations engaged in agribusiness, and Ukrainian black soils will work for third countries.
A very important point is related to the fact that this memorandum assumes the complete privatization of state-owned enterprises. Even those objects that are profitable and could continue to generate income for the state. In particular, we are talking about Energoatom and the Odessa Port Plant - they are already specifically indicated as objects for potential privatization,” Denisov emphasized.
Of particular interest, he said, is that the IMF links problems in the Ukrainian economy not with “Russian aggression,” which Poroshenko constantly refers to, but with corruption of the Ukrainian government.
“It should be especially noted that the preamble of the document talks about the reasons why Ukraine is not succeeding in everything. First of all, it is indicated that one of the main problems is corruption, a very large public debt, a weak business climate and an ineffective public sector. But not a word is said about the conflict in the east, and certainly not about the “aggression of the Russian Federation.”
That is, here we see the traditional approach of double standards for the Ukrainian leadership, when at public events the president constantly talks about some kind of mythical aggression, but as for specific documents, there is not a single word.
This once again shows that all these statements are unfounded, unfounded and can only be used for the public sphere. When the speech touches on specific things, like this memorandum, Poroshenko’s words are not confirmed.
The proof is the consideration of the claim against Ukraine for three billion, when the London court rejected all the arguments of the Ukrainian side, which tried to explain the economic dishonesty in repaying the loan with the same imaginary “Russian aggression,” Denisov concluded.