"We certainly have a tendency towards stabilisation under way, with steel exports picking up in recent months," Oleksandr Shlapak told the Financial Times in an interview. "And, thank God, we are expecting another big harvest after a record last year."
As one of the world's leading steel, grain and chemical exporters, Ukraine's fortunes are heavily dependent on international commodity demand.
Mr Shlapak said industrial production and steel exports - Ukraine's main sources of hard currency - had risen since February, helped by sharp devaluation of the hryvnia.
It was unclear, however, whether the positive data amounted to a sustainable improvement, or a temporary rebound from an artificially low base, added Mr Shlapak.
Kiev halted gas deliveries to industry to keep domestic heating running after Russia cut off natural gas supplies in January. Industrial output contracted 16 per cent month on month in January as the energy crisis exacerbated the effect of waning demand for steel.
"We are expecting improvements in the coming months, but it's hard to say if it is sustainable. Much depends on global demand and other world factors," said Mr Shlapak.
It's interesting to me that you feel the best way to help your client, Mr. Khordokovsky, is by challenging every policy decision made by Medvedev and Putin even when their policies are clearly in the best interest of Russia.
I would suspect that Mr. Khordokovsky would take exception with some of your knee-jerk anti-Russian positions. For example, Mr. Khordokovsky generally supported the decisions made by President Medvedev with regard to the Georgian conflict (you'll remember that this drove La Russophobe crazy and prompted "them" to suggest that Khordokovsky should desire to stay in prison in order to prove his point).
I would suspect that Mr. Khordokovsky would also negotiate as toughly as have the leaders of Gazprom with respect to Ukraine were he in a position to do so. Were Mr. Khordokovsky the CEO of Gazprom what would he do so very differently?
Mr. Khordokovsky may have some really serious beefs with some individual members of the Russian government but he still supports his country and his countrymen of Russia. The same can't be said for you and James.
Therefore, I would suggest that you guys figure out your priorities pretty quickly. Either you are anti-Russian, in which case you have no business representing Mr. Khordokovsky, or you are pro-Khordokovsky, in which case you should make sure your viewpoints are consistent with his before shooting off your mouths on another anti-Russian tirade.
Timothy, thanks for your comment.
It does however seem that you may not be aware of everything we write over here. On this blog we have praised Medvedev, recognized the good work of Shuvalov, given positive appraisals of some of the economic liberals, advocated for the end of Jackson-Vanik (which I see as an insult to all Russian people), and encouraged Russia's ascension to the WTO. The one who is blindly dogmatic is not me.
But more importantly, I would direct you and other readers to the "About Us" section, in which it is expressly written that this blog represents my own opinions and not those of any of my clients.
I think it is a sad state of affairs when criticizing a government (which is what governments are made for) is seen as synonymous with being "anti-Russian." This is not a site which ever takes personal potshots or vicious attacks against individuals, nor will you find the language of hate speech here (though the same cannot be said of many commentators).
Further, I would recommend that you curb your assumptions about my practice, and stick to the discussion of the issues at hand. Right now, this is a blog post about the Ukrainian economy, which has nothing to do with any case or so-called "anti-Russian" argument. If you disagree with what the Financial Times is reporting, then argue it ... we've always had a wide open area for debate here, but unfortunately many commentators lose focus over the issues.
Thanks again, Timothy, for reading the blog and writing in, even if our views are divergent.
I apologize, my comment was meant for the post "Defining Russia's Rational Interests."
I would suggest that there should be a bit of a distinction made between your blog posts and those of James. While I don't know James "from Adam" and I'm sure he's a great guy, I do take strong exception to his constant cynical tone regarding Russia which at times starts to sound a bit similar to that of La Russophobe's tone. I understand that he does a lot of the "heavy lifting" with regard to compiling the daily updates but I would suggest that you take another look to see if the tone of his posts match those of your own.
While I understand that your own blog posts are ostensibly your own private opinions, I'm a bit surprised that you would then put them out there publicly if they were to possibly have a negative material effect on the fate of your client's trial.
You wrote, "This is not a site which ever takes personal potshots or vicious attacks against individuals, nor will you find the language of hate speech here (though the same cannot be said of many commentators)."
Actually, I would argue that James' commentary on Russia, in general, and Putin, in particular, does take potshots. Additionally, I would question why you would promote those commentators whose language gets awfully close to hate speech (read: La Russophobe) by posting links to "their" website in your sidebar and by reprinting blog posts which they have written. Especially, when they so harshly and publicly challenge Mr. Khordokovsky's morals.
To finish, your blog really has a split personality. The daily Business and Energy updates are well done and quite useful but many of the "opinion" pieces are, imho, predictably unfair towards Russia.
I wish your client the best of luck in the months to come and I will continue to read your blog even if it means smoke will be coming out of my ears.
PS: Take a look at your catchpa because, perhaps it's me, but it only works once out of every 10 attempts.
Mr. Post, your phrase -"... I am a bit surprised that you would then put them (private opinions) out there publicly if they were to possibly have a negative material effect on the fate of your client's trial" speaks for itself. Since when something that a lawyer says in his own blog influences the outcome of this or that trial? May be in Russia but not in normal countries. Are you trying to instill fear in us for speaking our own mind and opinions? Fear rules in Putin's Russia not here. I think, Mr. Post, you certainly found your place. What an idiot!
So much for the "no potshots policy" I guess ))))
@voroBey In as much as there is such a thing as a "normal country" Russia is one. Russia is not perfect but then again, no country is perfect.
My point is not that Robert or James should abstain from criticizing Russia when warranted but rather, that they should strive to see Russia for what it is today. Namely, Russia is a country that has made tremendous progress over the last 8 years and a country that still has a lot of potential to further grow over the next 8 years.
The point of Mr. Hart and Mr. Simes' article (see the other blog post ""Defining Russia's Rational Interests") is that too often Russia and Russian policies have been prejudged by those in the West who have an interest in such topics. It is my contention that Russia is honestly trying to engage the West in serious discussions and negotiations and that it does not always have a sinister hidden agenda as is suggested by many Russia Watchers.
Unfortunately, too often folks in the West are blinded by latent hatred and/or fear of Russia based on Cold War stereotypes. Thus, the potential for interesting and constructive dialog is killed even before the parties have had a chance to say hello.
Mr. Amsterdam has a platform of influence amongst the Western crowd of Russia Watchers and I am simply hoping that he and James will use it to further the dialog with Russia instead of scoring cheap rhetorical points by confirming the conventional wisdom about Putin, Medvedev, and Russia. The reality is much more complicated and hopeful.