D
-
Herzlich Willkommen im Balkanforum
Sind Sie neu hier? Dann werden Sie Mitglied in unserer Community.
Bitte hier registrieren
Zypern - Teilenteignung der Bankkunden
- Ersteller Afroasiatis
- Erstellt am
der skythe
Keyboard Turner
griechenland muss dringend mal mit der Türkei hinsitzen sonst seh ich wirklich schwarz!Die Rettungspakete dienen nur zur Versklawung des Volkes,hier werden Deutsche interessen gerettet sonst nichts.Die einzige Lösung ist raus aus der EU und ein Neuanfang,bis dain alle angeblichen hilfen annehmen,einen auf Pleite machen und adios EU!
Cyprus Bailout
21:59 27/03/2013
Bi-weekly column by Fyodor Lukyanov
Tags: crisis, EU, Angela Merkel, Cyprus
The financial crisis in Cyprus has made headlines in Russia for days. At first, the Russian media were surprised by Europe’s seemingly irrational and destructive approach to the relatively small Cypriot problem, but the surprise soon turned to anger at the fact that Europe had informed Russia about its decision post factum and neglected to consult it, even though it was aware of Russia’s interests in Cyprus.
The passions gradually cooled. Some Western journalists were even surprised that instead of threatening retribution after the bailout plans were made public, the Kremlin instructed the Russian Finance Ministry to restructure Cyprus’s debts and to help the EU and Cyprus settle the crisis.
This approach contrasts sharply with the mood last week, when Cypriot Finance Minister Michael Sarris returned from Moscow empty-handed. Many suspect that a deal involving Russian interests was made some time in between. This may be the case, but we will never know for sure, because Vladimir Putin and Jose Manuel Barroso discussed the situation behind closed doors. It is more likely that the Kremlin reviewed the situation and came to an adequate conclusion.
Moscow is not fighting Brussels over influence in Cyprus, which does not have to choose between Russia and the EU, as some journalists with a penchant for dramatization wrote last week. Cyprus is part of Europe’s political and economic landscape, and even if it decides to leave the euro zone, which remains a possibility, it will not have to ply the high seas in search of partners.
Russia knew that assuming responsibility for trying to save Cyprus after the EU and Germany had presented their ultimatum would complicate the political situation and possibly deprive Russia of its investments in Cyprus for good.
Cyprus’s promises of supplying assets in return for Russian help were not entirely honest. If the republic were to default, its assets would become less valuable, but on the other hand, the EU would have likely prevented Cyprus from handing its assets over to Russia. Therefore, Russia decided to wait for an agreement between Cyprus and the EU.
It was also a wise decision to offer constructive assistance. Moscow is not interested in Cyprus’s financial collapse – at least not in the immediate future – not so much because of its assets, but because of Cyprus’s role in organizing financial flows into the Russian economy. At issue are not the criminal origins of these funds, but the drawbacks of Russian legislation that make it easier for businesses to work through offshore accounts.
Russia has unwittingly played a major role in settling the crisis in Cyprus, whose creditors acted tough because of Russian assets and companies registered in that offshore haven. It is difficult to imagine the EU proposing to confiscate part of bank deposits in any other country. But the presumption that “dirty” Russian money allegedly constitutes the bulk of Cyprus’s assets encouraged the EU to insist on that unprecedented measure. Europe claimed that foreign crooks, rather than honest Europeans, would suffer as a result. This is a vivid example of dirty political technologies being put to use.
It appears that Russia, which is officially Europe’s strategic partner, is seen as an aggravating circumstance and an additional problem, rather than as a means of resolving the issue. It is noteworthy that this solution was mostly advocated by Germany, which has been promoting Russia’s interests in Europe. Could this be an element of Angela Merkel’s election campaign? Russia’s distorted image and reputation in Europe have become material factors influencing practical economic and political decisions.
The Cypriot problem is not only important because of the decision to make honest private depositors pay for the irresponsible policy of the national government or supranational institutions – although this decision has come as a shock. This is the first time that a sovereign government has been not simply ordered to change its economic policy, as in the case of Greece, Ireland and Spain, but to abandon the very economic model of its existence. The decision on Cyprus did not aim to secure financial rehabilitation and budgetary discipline or to cut spending. German officials said openly that the Cypriot model is unviable, and hence must be dismantled. This explains the merciless ultimatum and the refusal to negotiate a compromise, although the €17 billion Cyprus has asked for is peanuts compared to the hundreds of billions spent on bailing out Greece and other troubled states.
The architects of European politics have probably seen, at long last, that cosmetic measures will not help and that the system will collapse without a thorough upgrade. Unfortunately for Cyprus, it has been chosen as a site for testing this new approach, which is based on a grim choice: either honor your donors’ (that is, Germany’s) instructions, or jump into the financial abyss. The example of Cyprus is designed to show all potential losers that the time for games is over and that it’s time to obey.
Germany is apparently tired of trying to rectify the mistakes of the 2000s, which saw a slew of hasty and foolish decisions to promote and expand integration. But dissatisfaction with Berlin’s diktat has grown exponentially and will continue to grow, because Germany is only now emerging from the shadow where it has been hiding since the mid 20th century. It is impossible to say if this new age will lead to the development of a powerful European core, which will dictate its rules to the periphery, or if the EU will split into opposing groups. But everyone senses its momentous importance.
Russia’s plans also depend on what happens in the EU. The Cypriot crisis has highlighted two elements of relations in Europe: the very strong, mutual dependence of Russia and the EU, and also the lack of mechanisms for their normal interaction. Despite a large number of formal cooperation institutions, which officials love to pay tribute to, tensions between Russia and the EU have grown in a situation that has a direct bearing on their interests, whereas they should have held consultations to search for a joint solution to the problem at hand.
The relations that these institutions have been developing over the past 20 years resemble an empty nutshell. Its contents have dried up, and it is unclear if a new goal can be found for these institutions. There is hope, though, that now that honest efforts are being taken to rebuild Europe, these cooperation institutions will be overhauled to serve the interests of all closely interconnected parties, rather than continue to simulate progress for the benefit of officials, as has so often been the case in the past.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Is Russia unpredictable? Perhaps, but one shouldn’t exaggerate – its randomness often follows a consistent pattern. But is the world at large predictable? The past two decades have seen all forecasts refuted more than once and have taught us only one thing – to be ready for any change. This column is on what the nations and governments are facing in the era of global uncertainty.
*Fyodor Lukyanov is Editor-in-Chief of the Russia in Global Affairs journal – the most authoritative source of expertise on Russian foreign policy and global developments. He is also a frequent commentator on international affairs and contributes to various media in the United States, Europe and China, including academic journals Social Research, Europe-Asia Studies, Columbia Journal of International Affairs. Mr. Lukyanov is a senior member of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy and a member of the Presidential Council on Human Rights and Civic Society Institutions. He holds a degree from Moscow State University.
Uncertain World: A Framework for a New Europe | Columnists | RIA Novosti
21:59 27/03/2013
Bi-weekly column by Fyodor Lukyanov
Tags: crisis, EU, Angela Merkel, Cyprus
The financial crisis in Cyprus has made headlines in Russia for days. At first, the Russian media were surprised by Europe’s seemingly irrational and destructive approach to the relatively small Cypriot problem, but the surprise soon turned to anger at the fact that Europe had informed Russia about its decision post factum and neglected to consult it, even though it was aware of Russia’s interests in Cyprus.
[COLOR=#838383 !important]© RIA Novosti.
Fyodor LukyanovThe passions gradually cooled. Some Western journalists were even surprised that instead of threatening retribution after the bailout plans were made public, the Kremlin instructed the Russian Finance Ministry to restructure Cyprus’s debts and to help the EU and Cyprus settle the crisis.
This approach contrasts sharply with the mood last week, when Cypriot Finance Minister Michael Sarris returned from Moscow empty-handed. Many suspect that a deal involving Russian interests was made some time in between. This may be the case, but we will never know for sure, because Vladimir Putin and Jose Manuel Barroso discussed the situation behind closed doors. It is more likely that the Kremlin reviewed the situation and came to an adequate conclusion.
Moscow is not fighting Brussels over influence in Cyprus, which does not have to choose between Russia and the EU, as some journalists with a penchant for dramatization wrote last week. Cyprus is part of Europe’s political and economic landscape, and even if it decides to leave the euro zone, which remains a possibility, it will not have to ply the high seas in search of partners.
Russia knew that assuming responsibility for trying to save Cyprus after the EU and Germany had presented their ultimatum would complicate the political situation and possibly deprive Russia of its investments in Cyprus for good.
Cyprus’s promises of supplying assets in return for Russian help were not entirely honest. If the republic were to default, its assets would become less valuable, but on the other hand, the EU would have likely prevented Cyprus from handing its assets over to Russia. Therefore, Russia decided to wait for an agreement between Cyprus and the EU.
It was also a wise decision to offer constructive assistance. Moscow is not interested in Cyprus’s financial collapse – at least not in the immediate future – not so much because of its assets, but because of Cyprus’s role in organizing financial flows into the Russian economy. At issue are not the criminal origins of these funds, but the drawbacks of Russian legislation that make it easier for businesses to work through offshore accounts.
Russia has unwittingly played a major role in settling the crisis in Cyprus, whose creditors acted tough because of Russian assets and companies registered in that offshore haven. It is difficult to imagine the EU proposing to confiscate part of bank deposits in any other country. But the presumption that “dirty” Russian money allegedly constitutes the bulk of Cyprus’s assets encouraged the EU to insist on that unprecedented measure. Europe claimed that foreign crooks, rather than honest Europeans, would suffer as a result. This is a vivid example of dirty political technologies being put to use.
It appears that Russia, which is officially Europe’s strategic partner, is seen as an aggravating circumstance and an additional problem, rather than as a means of resolving the issue. It is noteworthy that this solution was mostly advocated by Germany, which has been promoting Russia’s interests in Europe. Could this be an element of Angela Merkel’s election campaign? Russia’s distorted image and reputation in Europe have become material factors influencing practical economic and political decisions.
The Cypriot problem is not only important because of the decision to make honest private depositors pay for the irresponsible policy of the national government or supranational institutions – although this decision has come as a shock. This is the first time that a sovereign government has been not simply ordered to change its economic policy, as in the case of Greece, Ireland and Spain, but to abandon the very economic model of its existence. The decision on Cyprus did not aim to secure financial rehabilitation and budgetary discipline or to cut spending. German officials said openly that the Cypriot model is unviable, and hence must be dismantled. This explains the merciless ultimatum and the refusal to negotiate a compromise, although the €17 billion Cyprus has asked for is peanuts compared to the hundreds of billions spent on bailing out Greece and other troubled states.
The architects of European politics have probably seen, at long last, that cosmetic measures will not help and that the system will collapse without a thorough upgrade. Unfortunately for Cyprus, it has been chosen as a site for testing this new approach, which is based on a grim choice: either honor your donors’ (that is, Germany’s) instructions, or jump into the financial abyss. The example of Cyprus is designed to show all potential losers that the time for games is over and that it’s time to obey.
Germany is apparently tired of trying to rectify the mistakes of the 2000s, which saw a slew of hasty and foolish decisions to promote and expand integration. But dissatisfaction with Berlin’s diktat has grown exponentially and will continue to grow, because Germany is only now emerging from the shadow where it has been hiding since the mid 20th century. It is impossible to say if this new age will lead to the development of a powerful European core, which will dictate its rules to the periphery, or if the EU will split into opposing groups. But everyone senses its momentous importance.
Russia’s plans also depend on what happens in the EU. The Cypriot crisis has highlighted two elements of relations in Europe: the very strong, mutual dependence of Russia and the EU, and also the lack of mechanisms for their normal interaction. Despite a large number of formal cooperation institutions, which officials love to pay tribute to, tensions between Russia and the EU have grown in a situation that has a direct bearing on their interests, whereas they should have held consultations to search for a joint solution to the problem at hand.
The relations that these institutions have been developing over the past 20 years resemble an empty nutshell. Its contents have dried up, and it is unclear if a new goal can be found for these institutions. There is hope, though, that now that honest efforts are being taken to rebuild Europe, these cooperation institutions will be overhauled to serve the interests of all closely interconnected parties, rather than continue to simulate progress for the benefit of officials, as has so often been the case in the past.
The views expressed in this article are the author’s and may not necessarily represent those of RIA Novosti.
Is Russia unpredictable? Perhaps, but one shouldn’t exaggerate – its randomness often follows a consistent pattern. But is the world at large predictable? The past two decades have seen all forecasts refuted more than once and have taught us only one thing – to be ready for any change. This column is on what the nations and governments are facing in the era of global uncertainty.
*Fyodor Lukyanov is Editor-in-Chief of the Russia in Global Affairs journal – the most authoritative source of expertise on Russian foreign policy and global developments. He is also a frequent commentator on international affairs and contributes to various media in the United States, Europe and China, including academic journals Social Research, Europe-Asia Studies, Columbia Journal of International Affairs. Mr. Lukyanov is a senior member of the Council on Foreign and Defense Policy and a member of the Presidential Council on Human Rights and Civic Society Institutions. He holds a degree from Moscow State University.
Uncertain World: A Framework for a New Europe | Columnists | RIA Novosti
Damien
Ultra-Poster
[h=1]Zypern-Chaos: EU wälzt Schuld auf die Russen-Mafia ab[/h]
© AFP/ Patrick Baz
Mit ihren bolschewistischen Methoden bei der Zypern-Rettung haben sich die EU-Behörden keinen Gefallen getan, schreibt die Zeitung „Nesawissimaja Gaseta“ am Freitag.
Was hat die EU nur dabei geritten, als sie mit der Besteuerung der Bankeinlagen Millionen Bankkunden aus aller Welt einen großen Schrecken eingejagt hat?
Statt dieser Frage auf den Grund zu gehen, spekulieren die westlichen Medien lieber über das „russische Mafia-Geld“ in Zypern. „Zypern muss sich zwischen zwei Alternativen entscheiden: Entweder bunkert es weiterhin die russischen Gangster-Gelder oder es schließt sich komplett Europa an, schließt den größten Teil seines im Schatten befindlichen Bankensektors und stabilisiert seine Wirtschaft“, schrieb die britische „Financial Times“.
„Die Insel Zypern ist ein wichtiges Drehkreuz für Moskaus illegales Kapital“, schrieb die deutsche Tageszeitung „Die Welt“. „Zypern ist eine Waschmaschine für schmutziges russisches Geld.“ Auf illegale Geschäfte in Russland seien in den vergangenen Jahren nach Angaben der Zeitung rund 46 Prozent der Wirtschaftsleistung entfallen.
Die wahren Ursachen der Wirtschaftskrise werden jedoch verschwiegen. Das ist durchaus naheliegend: Denn wie kann man erklären, dass der Geldzufluss in die Banken der Insel ihre Insolvenz verursacht hat? Auch die fragwürdige Herkunft der russischen Gelder ist nicht für die Zypern-Krise verantwortlich, weil dies eher ein Thema für den russischen Fiskus ist.
Vielmehr lässt sich die Zypern-Krise auf den Schuldenschnitt für Griechenland zurückführen. Zyprische Banken hatten sich am griechischen Rettungsprogramm mit 4,7 Milliarden Euro beteiligt. Dass sie bei solchen Verlusten vor der Zahlungsunfähigkeit stehen, war absehbar.
Wenn die EU-Behörden wirklich eine Zuspitzung der Krise verhindern hätten wollen, dann hätten sie das vor einem Jahr viel leichter und günstiger machen können. Denn im Vergleich zur Griechenland-Rettung (130 Milliarden Euro) sind die weniger als 20 Milliarden Euro für Zypern ein Pappenstiel.
Offenbar haben die EU-Behörden kein echtes Interesse an der Rettung Zyperns.
Viele russische Banker glauben, dass die Zwangsabgabe auf zyprische Bankeinlagen keine wirtschaftlichen, sondern eher geopolitische Gründe hat. „Russland wird in den Mittelpunkt gestellt, damit die europäischen Behörden sich nicht die Vorwürfe anhören müssen, sie hätten die Krise provoziert“, sagte Iwan Kibardin (Interkommerzbank).
„Schuld an der Zypern-Krise haben die Länder, die es bei der Gründung der Eurozone verabsäumt haben, viele Konstruktionsfehler zu beheben, die jetzt die Krise verursacht haben“, so Michail Koroljuk (Investmenthaus Solid). „Wenn in den zyprischen Banken nicht nahezu 40 Prozent aller griechischen Schuldenaktiva konzentriert gewesen wären, dann wäre die aktuelle Situation nicht so verheerend. Es stellt sich die naheliegende Frage, ob die Top-Manager der zyprischen Banken wirklich uneigennützig gehandelt haben, als sie ihre Investitionsentscheidungen trafen.“
„In Zypern wurden günstige Finanzbedingungen geschaffen, und das Kapital floss in dieses Land… Wenn die EU-Behörden von der Gefahr für die zyprische Wirtschaft wussten, warum haben sie keine Einschränkungen beschlossen?“, so der Analyst Leonid Matwejew (Alpari). „Jetzt schieben sie einfach ihre Schuld anderen in die Schuhe.“
Sie haben keine Berechtigung Anhänge anzusehen. Anhänge sind ausgeblendet.
© AFP/ Patrick Baz
Mit ihren bolschewistischen Methoden bei der Zypern-Rettung haben sich die EU-Behörden keinen Gefallen getan, schreibt die Zeitung „Nesawissimaja Gaseta“ am Freitag.
Was hat die EU nur dabei geritten, als sie mit der Besteuerung der Bankeinlagen Millionen Bankkunden aus aller Welt einen großen Schrecken eingejagt hat?
Statt dieser Frage auf den Grund zu gehen, spekulieren die westlichen Medien lieber über das „russische Mafia-Geld“ in Zypern. „Zypern muss sich zwischen zwei Alternativen entscheiden: Entweder bunkert es weiterhin die russischen Gangster-Gelder oder es schließt sich komplett Europa an, schließt den größten Teil seines im Schatten befindlichen Bankensektors und stabilisiert seine Wirtschaft“, schrieb die britische „Financial Times“.
„Die Insel Zypern ist ein wichtiges Drehkreuz für Moskaus illegales Kapital“, schrieb die deutsche Tageszeitung „Die Welt“. „Zypern ist eine Waschmaschine für schmutziges russisches Geld.“ Auf illegale Geschäfte in Russland seien in den vergangenen Jahren nach Angaben der Zeitung rund 46 Prozent der Wirtschaftsleistung entfallen.
Die wahren Ursachen der Wirtschaftskrise werden jedoch verschwiegen. Das ist durchaus naheliegend: Denn wie kann man erklären, dass der Geldzufluss in die Banken der Insel ihre Insolvenz verursacht hat? Auch die fragwürdige Herkunft der russischen Gelder ist nicht für die Zypern-Krise verantwortlich, weil dies eher ein Thema für den russischen Fiskus ist.
Vielmehr lässt sich die Zypern-Krise auf den Schuldenschnitt für Griechenland zurückführen. Zyprische Banken hatten sich am griechischen Rettungsprogramm mit 4,7 Milliarden Euro beteiligt. Dass sie bei solchen Verlusten vor der Zahlungsunfähigkeit stehen, war absehbar.
Wenn die EU-Behörden wirklich eine Zuspitzung der Krise verhindern hätten wollen, dann hätten sie das vor einem Jahr viel leichter und günstiger machen können. Denn im Vergleich zur Griechenland-Rettung (130 Milliarden Euro) sind die weniger als 20 Milliarden Euro für Zypern ein Pappenstiel.
Offenbar haben die EU-Behörden kein echtes Interesse an der Rettung Zyperns.
Viele russische Banker glauben, dass die Zwangsabgabe auf zyprische Bankeinlagen keine wirtschaftlichen, sondern eher geopolitische Gründe hat. „Russland wird in den Mittelpunkt gestellt, damit die europäischen Behörden sich nicht die Vorwürfe anhören müssen, sie hätten die Krise provoziert“, sagte Iwan Kibardin (Interkommerzbank).
„Schuld an der Zypern-Krise haben die Länder, die es bei der Gründung der Eurozone verabsäumt haben, viele Konstruktionsfehler zu beheben, die jetzt die Krise verursacht haben“, so Michail Koroljuk (Investmenthaus Solid). „Wenn in den zyprischen Banken nicht nahezu 40 Prozent aller griechischen Schuldenaktiva konzentriert gewesen wären, dann wäre die aktuelle Situation nicht so verheerend. Es stellt sich die naheliegende Frage, ob die Top-Manager der zyprischen Banken wirklich uneigennützig gehandelt haben, als sie ihre Investitionsentscheidungen trafen.“
„In Zypern wurden günstige Finanzbedingungen geschaffen, und das Kapital floss in dieses Land… Wenn die EU-Behörden von der Gefahr für die zyprische Wirtschaft wussten, warum haben sie keine Einschränkungen beschlossen?“, so der Analyst Leonid Matwejew (Alpari). „Jetzt schieben sie einfach ihre Schuld anderen in die Schuhe.“
H3llas
οἶδα οὐκ ^
hast noch nicht erklärt warum griechenland mit der tuerkei hinsetzen soll.
ZX 7R
Glatzen- und Zollstockentwicklerosoarcher
Hier wird immer über Schuld der EU geredet.
Nun gut, Schuld in dem Sinn haben für mich alle. Ob nun das durchboxen der deutschen Intressen ist (wobei die Deutschen und andere Wirtschaftstarke Länder ihre Regeln beim Schulden machen vor über 10 Jahren auch nicht befolgten....kein Ton darüber) oder ob das Korrupte Regierungen sind aus z.b. Griechenland, oder deren Beamte oder deren Bürger, die Steurn hinterzogen.
Wenn wir über Schuld reden....dann war schon der Begin der Währungsunion schuld aus dem Blickwinkel, dass man keine Währungsunion vollziehen kann ohne Finanzunion/Sozialunion mit ein zu beziehen. Auch im Hinblick der verschiedenen Produktivität der verschiedenen Länder. Um nicht Wirtschaftsmentalität zu sagen.
In so einer Diskussionsrunde in der ARD oder ZDF ´TV-Programm:Anne Will (DAS ERSTE) - Merkels Euro-Kurs in der Kritik - sind wir Europas Zuchtmeister? (27/03/2013 - 22:45), weiss nicht mehr, waren mehrere damit beschäftigt über dieses Thema zu reden. Unter ihnen auch ein Deutschgrieche, der es gewagt hat ne Lösung auf den Tisch zu bringen ohne es, leider, beim Wort zu nennen.
Für mich wollte er sagen, das die Lösung nicht nur bei einem Art Marshallplan liegt sondern, dass es ja in Deutschland selbst auch seit der Wiedervereinigung die Lösung gibt! Marshallplan, Länderfinanzausgleich und der uns immer verfolgende Solibeitrag. Ne Vereinigung, was die EU auch ist, bringt gedrungener Masen solche Vorfälle mit sich! Bayer kann auch nicht sagen (auch wenn sie es grad tun, was ich falsch finde) wir wollen nicht zahlen oder nicht so viel. Es müssen andere Lösungen gefunden werden, wenn Berlin z.B. misswirtschaftet. Würde aber keinem der Sinn kommen denen eine Troika zu schicken und denen vorzuschreiben, dass die Berliner nun wenige Rente bekommen sollen. Könnt ihr auch auf die neuen Bundesländer anwenden!
So, sollen wir dann irgendwann sagen, auflösung der Bundesländer? Wie es manche Bayern auch fordern?
Nun gut, Schuld in dem Sinn haben für mich alle. Ob nun das durchboxen der deutschen Intressen ist (wobei die Deutschen und andere Wirtschaftstarke Länder ihre Regeln beim Schulden machen vor über 10 Jahren auch nicht befolgten....kein Ton darüber) oder ob das Korrupte Regierungen sind aus z.b. Griechenland, oder deren Beamte oder deren Bürger, die Steurn hinterzogen.
Wenn wir über Schuld reden....dann war schon der Begin der Währungsunion schuld aus dem Blickwinkel, dass man keine Währungsunion vollziehen kann ohne Finanzunion/Sozialunion mit ein zu beziehen. Auch im Hinblick der verschiedenen Produktivität der verschiedenen Länder. Um nicht Wirtschaftsmentalität zu sagen.
In so einer Diskussionsrunde in der ARD oder ZDF ´TV-Programm:Anne Will (DAS ERSTE) - Merkels Euro-Kurs in der Kritik - sind wir Europas Zuchtmeister? (27/03/2013 - 22:45), weiss nicht mehr, waren mehrere damit beschäftigt über dieses Thema zu reden. Unter ihnen auch ein Deutschgrieche, der es gewagt hat ne Lösung auf den Tisch zu bringen ohne es, leider, beim Wort zu nennen.
Für mich wollte er sagen, das die Lösung nicht nur bei einem Art Marshallplan liegt sondern, dass es ja in Deutschland selbst auch seit der Wiedervereinigung die Lösung gibt! Marshallplan, Länderfinanzausgleich und der uns immer verfolgende Solibeitrag. Ne Vereinigung, was die EU auch ist, bringt gedrungener Masen solche Vorfälle mit sich! Bayer kann auch nicht sagen (auch wenn sie es grad tun, was ich falsch finde) wir wollen nicht zahlen oder nicht so viel. Es müssen andere Lösungen gefunden werden, wenn Berlin z.B. misswirtschaftet. Würde aber keinem der Sinn kommen denen eine Troika zu schicken und denen vorzuschreiben, dass die Berliner nun wenige Rente bekommen sollen. Könnt ihr auch auf die neuen Bundesländer anwenden!
So, sollen wir dann irgendwann sagen, auflösung der Bundesländer? Wie es manche Bayern auch fordern?
Russia’s depositors to pay for Cyprus
March 29, 2013 Evgeny Basmanov, special to RBTH
After a week of debate with the EU and attempts to get additional money from Russian partners, Cyprus had to yield to the demands from Brussels and Berlin and will restructure its banking system, thus inflicting heavy losses on big depositors. Analysts believe this restriction on capital movement may herald the collapse of the eurozone.
Anti-Troika protesters hold a "Hands off Cyprus" banner during a demonstration outside the EU offices in Nicosia on March 24. Source: ReutersThis resolute attitude on the part of EU officials has caused major concerns on European markets: What if the financial escalation in Cyprus is just the first step in Brussels’ campaign to simulate the possible aftermath of the disintegration of the eurozone?
Yet it will be Russian depositors that will foot the bill. Cypriot banks hold an estimated €68 billion ($87.1 billion) in deposits and Russian companies and individuals alone are said to hold more than €30 billion ($38.4 billion) in local banks.
Full story: Cyprus
The €10-billion ($12.8-billion) bailout for Cyprus is a death sentence for the island. Newly-elected President Nicos Anastasiades probably had to make the hardest decision of his life, effectively terminating the country’s most profitable offshore status.
For the first time in the history of the eurozone, national banking institutions are to be rescued by their depositors, who were deliberately put at risk, rather than the shareholders and creditors, who will nevertheless be unable to recover their investments.
The EU and Cyprus have agreed that only the most well-off savers will suffer, as only those holding more than €100,000 ($128,420) with the country’s two biggest banks — the Bank of Cyprus and Cyprus Popular Bank (Laiki) — will be subject to the levy. Whereas the clients of the former may face haircuts of up to 30 percent of their deposits, the customers of Laiki, which had lost €1.8 billion ($2.3 billion) by September 2012, may have to say goodbye to all their savings.
As of today, Russian businesses and officials have no clear idea of the scale of the losses that domestic savers may suffer, as has been confirmed by First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov. The most recent, unofficial estimate is approximately €4 billion ($5.1 billion) in losses.
However, Evgeny Tarzimanov at Moody’s Moscow office believes this forecast to be optimistic. According to some reports, Russian depositors may lose up to 50 percent of their savings. Russian sources on the island say that Russian companies working in Cyprus, accumulating financial resources and making investments will be worst hit.
Experts believe that the tough stance taken by Berlin, which has long insisted (albeit unsuccessfully) on making business transparent in Cyprus, has finally helped Germany kill two birds with one stone. The EU will not only deal with Cyprus’s financial trouble but also dramatically reduce its investment appeal — especially for Russian business.
“We hope that the Cypriot banking system will manage to avert capital flight; even so, we have no hope of new capital inflows. Berlin managed to have it its way, but Germany’s claims against the island are unwarranted,” says Piraeus Bank CEO Constantinos Loizides, who managed to keep his savers’ funds safe, unlike the executives of Laiki and Bank of Cyprus.
The situation surrounding Cyprus with its non-operating banks, savers’ losses and capital controls — which run counter to the fundamental principles of the EU — have prompted some experts to say that Cyprus might just be a rehearsal for collapse of the single European currency.
“The most important characteristic of a monetary union is the ability to move money — without any restrictions — from one bank to another within the currency area," says Guntram Wolff, deputy director of the Bruegel think-tank.
"With capital restrictions, the value of the euro in Cyprus is no longer the same as a euro held by any other bank in the eurozone. Effectively, it means that a Cypriot euro is not a euro any more. By imposing restrictions on capital flows, the ECB has effectively introduced a new currency in Cyprus,” Wolff added.
Strange as it may seem, this is how the euro will die — the eurozone members will not announce their withdrawal from the bloc (given that there is no procedure for cessation of membership in the eurozone), but instead will impose restraints on capital movement and shut national banking systems along state borders.
Analysts believe that this stand by Brussels may be interpreted as a signal for the PIIGS countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain), which may be in for a mass panic among investors and capital flight. If EU officials try to impose controls on capital movement again, the European currency as it is now will never be the same again.
Russia
March 29, 2013 Evgeny Basmanov, special to RBTH
After a week of debate with the EU and attempts to get additional money from Russian partners, Cyprus had to yield to the demands from Brussels and Berlin and will restructure its banking system, thus inflicting heavy losses on big depositors. Analysts believe this restriction on capital movement may herald the collapse of the eurozone.
Yet it will be Russian depositors that will foot the bill. Cypriot banks hold an estimated €68 billion ($87.1 billion) in deposits and Russian companies and individuals alone are said to hold more than €30 billion ($38.4 billion) in local banks.
Full story: CyprusThe €10-billion ($12.8-billion) bailout for Cyprus is a death sentence for the island. Newly-elected President Nicos Anastasiades probably had to make the hardest decision of his life, effectively terminating the country’s most profitable offshore status.
For the first time in the history of the eurozone, national banking institutions are to be rescued by their depositors, who were deliberately put at risk, rather than the shareholders and creditors, who will nevertheless be unable to recover their investments.
The EU and Cyprus have agreed that only the most well-off savers will suffer, as only those holding more than €100,000 ($128,420) with the country’s two biggest banks — the Bank of Cyprus and Cyprus Popular Bank (Laiki) — will be subject to the levy. Whereas the clients of the former may face haircuts of up to 30 percent of their deposits, the customers of Laiki, which had lost €1.8 billion ($2.3 billion) by September 2012, may have to say goodbye to all their savings.
As of today, Russian businesses and officials have no clear idea of the scale of the losses that domestic savers may suffer, as has been confirmed by First Deputy Prime Minister Igor Shuvalov. The most recent, unofficial estimate is approximately €4 billion ($5.1 billion) in losses.
However, Evgeny Tarzimanov at Moody’s Moscow office believes this forecast to be optimistic. According to some reports, Russian depositors may lose up to 50 percent of their savings. Russian sources on the island say that Russian companies working in Cyprus, accumulating financial resources and making investments will be worst hit.
Experts believe that the tough stance taken by Berlin, which has long insisted (albeit unsuccessfully) on making business transparent in Cyprus, has finally helped Germany kill two birds with one stone. The EU will not only deal with Cyprus’s financial trouble but also dramatically reduce its investment appeal — especially for Russian business.
“We hope that the Cypriot banking system will manage to avert capital flight; even so, we have no hope of new capital inflows. Berlin managed to have it its way, but Germany’s claims against the island are unwarranted,” says Piraeus Bank CEO Constantinos Loizides, who managed to keep his savers’ funds safe, unlike the executives of Laiki and Bank of Cyprus.
The situation surrounding Cyprus with its non-operating banks, savers’ losses and capital controls — which run counter to the fundamental principles of the EU — have prompted some experts to say that Cyprus might just be a rehearsal for collapse of the single European currency.
“The most important characteristic of a monetary union is the ability to move money — without any restrictions — from one bank to another within the currency area," says Guntram Wolff, deputy director of the Bruegel think-tank.
"With capital restrictions, the value of the euro in Cyprus is no longer the same as a euro held by any other bank in the eurozone. Effectively, it means that a Cypriot euro is not a euro any more. By imposing restrictions on capital flows, the ECB has effectively introduced a new currency in Cyprus,” Wolff added.
Strange as it may seem, this is how the euro will die — the eurozone members will not announce their withdrawal from the bloc (given that there is no procedure for cessation of membership in the eurozone), but instead will impose restraints on capital movement and shut national banking systems along state borders.
Analysts believe that this stand by Brussels may be interpreted as a signal for the PIIGS countries (Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain), which may be in for a mass panic among investors and capital flight. If EU officials try to impose controls on capital movement again, the European currency as it is now will never be the same again.
Russia
BlackJack
Jackass of the Week
Hab noch nie einen solchen Quasselheini wie Dirk Müller gesehen ... nur Phrasen und heiße Luft
alex281290
Balkaner
Nun was erwartest du jetzt von ihm? Heiße Luft in Taten umsetzen? Sicher der Mann ist nicht gerade schüchtern, aber ist das Gesülze von den Politikern und den ganzen Befürwortern des jetzigen maroden Systems irgendwie besser? Er hat seinen Standpunkt und den vertritt er immer wieder, würde der Euro scheitern wäre Merkel die erste die sich hinter die wütende Meute stellt und schreit "mir nach ich folge euch".