Three Russian billion: will London set a dangerous precedent to spite Moscow?
Today, September 14, the Court of Appeal of England will have to announce its verdict on the litigation between Russia and Ukraine on the payment of three billion dollars that Kiev owes Moscow - the so-called “debt of Yanukovych”, which the “non-winter” refuses to give away, stubbornly trying to transfer the case to political plane.
Let us briefly recall the history of the issue: it originates in 2013, when the then president of Ukraine was preparing to sign an association agreement with the European Union. He was surrounded by people who were able to quite intelligibly explain to Viktor Fedorovich what this bondage would ultimately lead to (in fact, their full correctness was fully proved by the current catastrophe of Ukraine). The "clear-sighted" Yanukovych postponed the signing of the association, for which he instantly received "mass protests", which became the embryo of a bloody coup d'état inspired by the West.
At this difficult moment, Russia extended a helping hand to its neighbor. At a personal meeting with its president, Vladimir Putin, Yanukovych received more than a generous offer - reducing the price of gas supplied from Russia by 30% and receiving a state loan for a staggering amount of $ 15 billion. All this was to be only the beginning of the broadest economic cooperation, for Ukraine extremely beneficial ...
As we now know, nothing of the kind has happened. “Maidan” won in Kiev, Yanukovych had to flee, and only 3 billion of the promised amount were received - by the Welfare Fund of the Russian Federation on the Irish Exchange, bonds issued by the Ukrainian government at 5% per annum were redeemed for this amount.
The most interesting thing is that at first the “revolutionary” government, headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, recognized this debt, and even began to pay interest on it. However, literally two days before the loan maturity date - December 20, 2015, Kiev suddenly changed its position, and by 180 degrees. Not otherwise, such a decision was made at the direction of the current true owners of the "non-winter", located in Washington. Well, at least - after careful consultation with those.
Russia's completely legitimate demands for the return of three billion were declared "unfounded", and the loan itself was declared a "bribe", which Yanukovych allegedly received "for refusing to sign an association with the EU." Not only that - subsequently Kiev verbiage came to their imagination to the point that Russia imposed a huge loan on him with "blackmail and threats." Almost at gunpoint, Putin personally forced the people to sign papers, huh ... And then the Kremlin also arranged “aggression” - solely so that honest Ukraine would be insolvent. In short - we will not pay a cent, and the point!
Naturally, Russia, which did not agree with such a schizophrenic interpretation of absolutely unequivocal debt obligations, after all attempts to resolve the matter in a good way, appealed to the High Court of London with a claim for the payment of this loan, as well as considerable interest that came upon it. Ukrainian representatives in London started the same song: “aggression”, “bribe”, “know nothing, know”. To which the Russian side replied with absolute calmness:
There was nothing to hide, even the severe judge Blair was forced to admit that all the “arguments” given by Kiev were not within the competence of the English justice, and the lawsuit was examined by a simplified procedure. Naturally, not in favor of Ukraine — but could it have been otherwise in this situation ?! The only thing that saved Ukraine from immediately falling into the “debt hole” was the opportunity to appeal the decision in the English Court of Appeal, which she immediately took advantage of. Based on this moment, the execution of the High Court decision was suspended - as they say, “pending consideration” ... And now the deadline is expiring.
Gossip and controversy are already going on about a possible verdict - only that bets are not being made. However, I’m not sure here - Professor Mike Weibel, by the way, who teaches international law no matter where, but in Cambridge, said this: they say the chance of Ukraine’s victory over Russia in this matter is 1: 5. However, other analysts give even more disappointing forecasts for Kiev. The likelihood that a decision will be made in favor of malicious non-payers of debt is practically nil.
Yes, relations between Russia and Britain today are extremely tense - and this is still very softly said. Nonsensical accusations and threats are heard from London to Moscow almost daily. But this is politics. But the failure to repay public debt is completely different. In this case, it is necessary to remember that the Anglo-Saxon system of law is based on a precedent, as the cornerstone of all jurisprudence there. Well, Russia will be able to slander today ... So its three billion dollars the economy they definitely won’t undermine! And then what? Which country (or countries) will refuse to give back debts to Britain itself tomorrow, referring to this court decision ?!
Some experts in the field of economics predict that the only acceptable solution that Moscow and Kiev can choose for themselves in the event of a practically inevitable victory for Russia may be some kind of netting of debts - for example, those 2.6 billion dollars that Ukrainian Naftogaz seems to have sued with Gazprom in the Stockholm arbitration for the notorious “debt of Yanukovych”. Here, however, everything is not so simple either. Take at least the moment that in the first case we are talking about a dispute between economic structures, and in the second - about debts between sovereign states. Even in the case of some hypothetical agreement, lawyers will break their heads in search of mechanisms for such a “netting”. And the precedent will, again, be created extremely ambiguous ...
One way or another, but the day of judgment for Ukraine comes today. The West can hate Russia as much as you like, but it’s unlikely to give up the principle of “debts to be repaid” even for the sake of this hatred.
Let us briefly recall the history of the issue: it originates in 2013, when the then president of Ukraine was preparing to sign an association agreement with the European Union. He was surrounded by people who were able to quite intelligibly explain to Viktor Fedorovich what this bondage would ultimately lead to (in fact, their full correctness was fully proved by the current catastrophe of Ukraine). The "clear-sighted" Yanukovych postponed the signing of the association, for which he instantly received "mass protests", which became the embryo of a bloody coup d'état inspired by the West.
At this difficult moment, Russia extended a helping hand to its neighbor. At a personal meeting with its president, Vladimir Putin, Yanukovych received more than a generous offer - reducing the price of gas supplied from Russia by 30% and receiving a state loan for a staggering amount of $ 15 billion. All this was to be only the beginning of the broadest economic cooperation, for Ukraine extremely beneficial ...
As we now know, nothing of the kind has happened. “Maidan” won in Kiev, Yanukovych had to flee, and only 3 billion of the promised amount were received - by the Welfare Fund of the Russian Federation on the Irish Exchange, bonds issued by the Ukrainian government at 5% per annum were redeemed for this amount.
The most interesting thing is that at first the “revolutionary” government, headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk, recognized this debt, and even began to pay interest on it. However, literally two days before the loan maturity date - December 20, 2015, Kiev suddenly changed its position, and by 180 degrees. Not otherwise, such a decision was made at the direction of the current true owners of the "non-winter", located in Washington. Well, at least - after careful consultation with those.
Russia's completely legitimate demands for the return of three billion were declared "unfounded", and the loan itself was declared a "bribe", which Yanukovych allegedly received "for refusing to sign an association with the EU." Not only that - subsequently Kiev verbiage came to their imagination to the point that Russia imposed a huge loan on him with "blackmail and threats." Almost at gunpoint, Putin personally forced the people to sign papers, huh ... And then the Kremlin also arranged “aggression” - solely so that honest Ukraine would be insolvent. In short - we will not pay a cent, and the point!
Naturally, Russia, which did not agree with such a schizophrenic interpretation of absolutely unequivocal debt obligations, after all attempts to resolve the matter in a good way, appealed to the High Court of London with a claim for the payment of this loan, as well as considerable interest that came upon it. Ukrainian representatives in London started the same song: “aggression”, “bribe”, “know nothing, know”. To which the Russian side replied with absolute calmness:
This court decides only one question - the presence or absence of debt payable! No political issues, such as the reasons for non-payment of a loan, do not concern him, since they lie completely outside the jurisdiction of this body.
There was nothing to hide, even the severe judge Blair was forced to admit that all the “arguments” given by Kiev were not within the competence of the English justice, and the lawsuit was examined by a simplified procedure. Naturally, not in favor of Ukraine — but could it have been otherwise in this situation ?! The only thing that saved Ukraine from immediately falling into the “debt hole” was the opportunity to appeal the decision in the English Court of Appeal, which she immediately took advantage of. Based on this moment, the execution of the High Court decision was suspended - as they say, “pending consideration” ... And now the deadline is expiring.
Gossip and controversy are already going on about a possible verdict - only that bets are not being made. However, I’m not sure here - Professor Mike Weibel, by the way, who teaches international law no matter where, but in Cambridge, said this: they say the chance of Ukraine’s victory over Russia in this matter is 1: 5. However, other analysts give even more disappointing forecasts for Kiev. The likelihood that a decision will be made in favor of malicious non-payers of debt is practically nil.
Yes, relations between Russia and Britain today are extremely tense - and this is still very softly said. Nonsensical accusations and threats are heard from London to Moscow almost daily. But this is politics. But the failure to repay public debt is completely different. In this case, it is necessary to remember that the Anglo-Saxon system of law is based on a precedent, as the cornerstone of all jurisprudence there. Well, Russia will be able to slander today ... So its three billion dollars the economy they definitely won’t undermine! And then what? Which country (or countries) will refuse to give back debts to Britain itself tomorrow, referring to this court decision ?!
Some experts in the field of economics predict that the only acceptable solution that Moscow and Kiev can choose for themselves in the event of a practically inevitable victory for Russia may be some kind of netting of debts - for example, those 2.6 billion dollars that Ukrainian Naftogaz seems to have sued with Gazprom in the Stockholm arbitration for the notorious “debt of Yanukovych”. Here, however, everything is not so simple either. Take at least the moment that in the first case we are talking about a dispute between economic structures, and in the second - about debts between sovereign states. Even in the case of some hypothetical agreement, lawyers will break their heads in search of mechanisms for such a “netting”. And the precedent will, again, be created extremely ambiguous ...
One way or another, but the day of judgment for Ukraine comes today. The West can hate Russia as much as you like, but it’s unlikely to give up the principle of “debts to be repaid” even for the sake of this hatred.
Information