Transparency International ranks Russia’s two state-owned energy giants in the middle of the top 124 world companies for “transparency” because both have adopted detailed anti-corruption rules. The rankings do not ask whether these companies actually comply with their rules. Stock market valuations show the nonsensical nature of the Transparency International rankings. Investors are not willing to bet on the Russian energy giants because they are non-transparent on the most important risks, and they operate as instruments of Kremlin domestic and foreign policy. As such, they must pay the price for Putin’s adventurism in Ukraine and elsewhere.
go to Forbes.com
Paul R. Gregory's writings on Russia, the world economy, and other matters that he finds of interest.
Wednesday, November 26, 2014
Berlin and Washington: The Political Battles That Could Decide Ukraine’s Fate
go to forbes.com
Friday, November 14, 2014
At G20, Will Sanctions Or Casualties Deter Another Russian Invasion?
Contrary to Vladimir Putin’s assurances that “Ukraine  is not our business,” Russia Ukraine  for its Novorossiya ventures, Putin
should receive a frosty reception at the G20 meetings in Australia 
Saturday, November 8, 2014
Kremlin Uses Semantics To Walk Back Recognition of Donbass Elections Before The G20 Summit
The
Kremlin is attempting a shopworn gambit to avoid further sanctions and shield
Putin from world opprobrium at the G20 conference. Putin declares he does not recognize
the illegitimate Donetsk 
go to forbes.com
Thursday, November 6, 2014
Why The Republican Mid-Term Victory Can Change The Balance In The Russian-Ukraine War
Barack Obama can scarcely veto a bi-partisan pro-Ukraine
bill. He can no longer refuse to
supply weapons to Ukraine  because
of his “long-standing concern that arming Ukraine 
would provoke Moscow  into a further
escalation that could drag Washington 
into a proxy war.”  The Kremlin has
nothing more to escalate other than an outright attack on Kiev  or a NATO country. 
An Obama rejection of Ukraine military aid puts him at odds with
powerful Congressional foreign policy voices (Ben Nelson, Sander Levin, Jim
Gerlach, Gerland Connoly, Robert Menendez, John McCain, Bob Corker, to name
just a few), with American foreign-policy (Mike McFaul,
Strobe Talbot,
to name just two) and military (Generals Martin Dempsey, Philip Breedlove et
al.) military establishment figures. A growing consensus agree with former CIA
chief and defense secretary, Leon  Panetta, that we must give Ukraine 
“the means to defend itself.” Likely presidential candidate and former
secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, also sees the anti-Putin writing on the
political wall. She has described
Putin as “a mortal threat to sovereign European countries and U.S.  interests,” to whom we “have
to stand up” and “encircle” and choke off his ability to be so aggressive.”
go to Forbes,com
Tuesday, November 4, 2014
Sham Election Proves Putin Does Not Want A Peaceful Solution In Ukraine
Sunday’s sham elections in Donetsk 
and Luhansk prove Putin does
not want a peaceful solution for the Ukraine 
go to Forbes.com