Ukrainian Parliament introduced a bill to ban all Russian geographic names starting from the XIV century
Yelisavetgrad, Russian Empire (now Kirovograd, Kherson region, Ukraine)
October 30, 2015
Translated by Kristina Rus
Bill No. 3368 was registered in the Verkhovnaya Rada, which prohibits to name Ukrainian cities and streets in honor of anything associated with Russian history since the XIV century until 1917.
This was posted on the official website of the Verkhovnaya Rada of Ukraine.
As stated in the draft law, it is prohibited to assign geographical objects names which are the names or nicknames of monarchs, state, political and military leaders of the Russian (Moscow) Kingdom, the Russian Empire of the XIV-XX centuries, or derivatives of them; the names, consonant with such names or pseudonyms; names, which include elements of the titles of the monarchs of the Russian (Moscow) Kingdom, the Russian Empire of the XIV-XX centuries.
"So the laws regarding totalitarian regimes and fighters for independencereally meet the standards of European practices, it is expedient to prohibit the assignment to geographic objects of names associated with propaganda of pro-Russian imperialism, Russian (Moscow) Kingdom, the Russian Empire of the XIV-XX centuries, during the colonial dependence of Ukraine, which may facilitate the intention to appropriate its territory", — say the authors of the bill.
Among the authors of the project — deputies from all four factions of the ruling right wing nationalistic coalition.
Obviously, the project aims to prevent renaming of Kirovograd to Yelisavetgrad. Although formally the city of Yelisavetgrad was originally not named in honor of the Empress Elizabeth, but in honor of Saint Elizabeth - the saint patron of the Empress.
Thus, the name Yelisavetgrad may be officially banned.
Ukraine Defaults on Russian Loan - And IMF Changes its Rules to Let It Happen
I said that Ukraine’s argument that the debt was a “private” as opposed to a “public” debt looked in legal terms a hopeless one.
The point was that if Ukraine defaulted on a “public” debt, then according to its current rules the IMF cannot proceed with its bailout programme.
Ukraine has now made it utterly clear that it will default on the debt.
A cheeky suggestion from Putin - echoing a suggest that I made in my April article - that the IMF increase its lending by $3 billion so that Ukraine could pay the debt, has gone unheeded.
Instead, caught between the legal reality that the debt is a “public debt” and the political imperative to support Ukraine, it seems - according to comments by Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov and an article in the Wall Street Journal - that the IMF is going to change its rules so that it can go on supporting Ukraine even if it defaults on the debt.
As the Russians correctly say, this is a major precedent that will undermine further the IMF’s credibility at a time when it is being increasingly challenged by the new financial institutions that China is setting up.
It seems a very big price to pay when the cost of avoiding having to make such a precedent is just $3 billion.
What that shows is how unwilling Western governments are to back Ukraine with money - even if doing so avoids putting them in a position where the IMF’s credibility is being put at risk - exposing it as nothing more than an instrument of Western foreign policy.
There will now be a court case in London, which the Russians are certain to win - there being no defence to it.
How the Russians will enforce the Judgment they will obtain - and whether the IMF will become a third party in the case - remains to be seen.