The Economics of Good Team Work – The Easy Way to Improve Business Profits for the Long Term

I wrote this article for the Al Jarida newspaper and it was published on Saturday 21 February 2015.

Jeremiah Josey

This article took a full page to discuss the economics of good team work for a business.

It is published here:

Al Jarida Article

Al Jardia Page 12 - 21 Feb 2015

The Economics of Good Team Work – The Easy Way to Improve Business Profits for the Long Term

How do you improve human group dynamics and allow people be more productive, your business to be more profitable, groups to be self reliant, whilst at the same time have it be more satisfying, more rewarding and straight out more enjoyable for the individuals involved?

The solution: Develop a self organising, collaborative workplace (also known as in the industry as “Sociocracy“.

Many big companies have worked out how to do it, for exBMW at the Globalistample GE, BMW & Semco (a Brazilian manufacturing company). Many more practising the process have registered themselves at WorldBlu.com. While Worldblu calls it “democratic workplace”, it’s really more likely to be collaborative one, since when you have a flexible organisation, it is more likely that 100% consent is necessary to achieve anything, and not merely majority rules – what a democracy is. The key word here is “consent”.worldbluHow to achieve great success, with great results, rewards and satisfaction in a manner which is harmonious to the group, to other participants, and to the world in general? It is not through competition. It is through collaboration.

Much of the presently accepted models in many organisations are military style and competition based. Competition is a poor use of human potential. The autocratic leadership methods necessary lead to almost total staff disconnection. Poor performance, and whip-like management mentality becomes necessary to maintain performance. Such a culture is easy to start, and success may be evident and easy to measure, but it soon grows into a dismal forgotten failure as any long term success measures are applied – staff retention rates fall, production efficiency, product quality, and eventual profits follow soon after. It’s simply a dismal failure at humanity, at being human even. Even for those directly measured to have “succeeded” they experience high stress, poor health and eventual a short, and ultimately an unsatisfying life.

One of the most successful examples of collaboration has been documented by Ricardo Semler with his company Semco, today a billion dollar operation. He wrote two books about it: “Maverick” and “7 Day Weekend” where he explains everything in succinct terms. He took his small family run company and grew it into an international corporation whilst he progressively ceased his day to day operational involvement.

maverick

Semco has no official structure. It has no organizational chart. There’s no business plan or company strategy, no two-year or five-year plan, no goal or mission statement, no long-term budget. The company often does not have a fixed CEO. There are no vice presidents or chief officers for information technology or operations. There are no standards or

Ricardo Semler

practices. There’s no human resources department. There are no career plans, no job descriptions or employee contracts. No one approves reports or expense accounts. Supervision or monitoring of workers is rare indeed. Most important, success is not measured only in profit and growth.” Ricardo Semler, Founder of Semco

I personally have applied Semler’s processes to great success in my own endeavors. For example I’ve taken totally disconnected and non-performing employees, and turned them into stars, “fought” over within the office for new assignments. One of the very useful Semler tools I like to use often is the upward feedback tool. This provided management with very directly, and some times very revealing feedback on their own performance from their staff and employees.

I’ve been searching for a methodical system to describe Semler’s approach, and for a long time I called it “democratic” as he and many others have done. But I’ve never liked that, that word “democracy”. It is essentially a competitive system.

Dubbed “the worst form of government” by Winston Churchill, democratic environments automatically and immediately lead to the oppression of the minority and any group that contains oppression of any kind is never a good thing in the long term.

“Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one Winston Churchillpretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Sir Winston Churchill, Hansard, November 11, 1947

Democracy, by it’s very design, is an oppression regime: the oppression of a few by the many. “This is fair. It’s only natural”, I hear you say, but do you really think so? Is any oppression fair? Of anyone? It is quite plain to see that any minority oppression in a social group no matter how large or small, has an ultimately negative consequence. Suppressed negative thoughts, feelings, and emotions harbored by the minority can only grow and manifest in other forms. The costs – both social and financial, short term and long term – to control, pacify, down-right-openly-oppress increases for the majority. Then something curious happens: the majority find themselves the minority, the minority becomes the majority and the cycle is repeated. Back and forth, back and forth. Those once-were-majority of course hang onto their once-granted-power with great enthusiasm and vigor, as long as they are able. The majority learnt what to do while in power. They learnt the rules of the game. The Occupy Wall Street or “99% protests” were examples that highlighted how a majority can be controlled by a minority. The minority has a much better understanding of the rules.

An another example was the 2008 US election with Obama and McCain running against each other: it was 53% versus 46%. Is that a “democracy” when almost half of the people have to yield their desires for the other half? This is more like a society close to reorganization as the majority may soon become the minority. Such a shifting of power will occur either violently (like has been seen in many Arabic countries with the so called Arab Springs) or passively, as with not-even-newsworthy Iceland. In Iceland the people rejected the debt burden of the banks their brethren in government attempted to impose upon them from the financial meltdown of 2008. They arrested a number of bankers and changed their laws so it cannot happen again!

So, what is it? What is the magic that means a group of people will be inspired to performance, all by themselves, with little external influence, other than maybe “Go!”.

Studies have shown that for complex, creative projects, monetary incentives actually inhibits performance! It’s not carrot and stick that works best where creative thinking is required.

Much has been done on the subject and reading Semler’s “Maverick” and “7 Day Weekend” you’ll understand that it is an evolutionary process, and it occurs by consent of the individuals of the group.

“Consent” a better option.

This is the important word: consent.

Work that recent came to me by the Dutch thinker Gerard Endenburg offers very substantial physical elements to this evolutionary process. A good short summary of this thinking is in “Sociocracy: The Creative Forces of Self-Organization”, by Gerard Endenburg and John A Buck.

gerard Endenburg

These two resources: Semler’s books and Edenburg’s work combined results in a very harmonious outcome: the flexibility of the benefits, and the basic parameters on how to get there.

Endenburg defines four basic concepts for a self-organising group:

Four Principles of Sociocracy

  1. Consent: The principle of consent governs decision-making. Consent means no argued and paramount objection. In other words, a policy decision can only be made if nobody has a reasoned and paramount objection to it. Day-to-day decisions don’t require consent, but there must be consent about the use of other forms of decision-making, for example, for day-to-day operations.
  2. Election of Persons: Election of persons for functions and/or tasks takes place in accordance with the principle of consent and after open argumentation.
  3. Circle: The organisation maintains a structure for decision making, consisting of semi-autonomous circles (i.e. groups of individuals). Each circle has it’s own aim and organises the three functions of leading, doing, and measuring/feedback. A circle makes its own policy decisions by consent, maintains it’s own memory system, and develops itself through integral research, teaching and learning. A circle makes consent decisions only in special circle meetings (also called round table meetings).
  4. Double-linking: A circle is connection to the next higher circle in the organisation with a double link. This means that at least two persons, one being the functional leader of the circle and at least one delegate from the circle, are full members of the next higher circle.

With these four principles in place, more specific actions can occur. Here’s an example of a Sociocratic Circle Meeting, a meeting of consent:

Sociocratic Circle Meeting

  1. Opening round: a time to tune into the members. Like an orchestra just before a concert.
  2. Administrative concerns: such as announcements, time available for the meeting, consent to minutes of last meeting, date of next meeting, acceptance of the agenda.
  3. Content: First agenda item, second agenda item, etc
  4. Closing Round: a time to measure the meeting process. E.g. use of time, did the facilitator maintain equivalence, how could the decision-making have been more efficient, did everyone arrive prepared. Also this is a time to mention agenda items that should be on the agenda for the next meeting.

During the Circle Meeting there will be times to appoint a leader or a task or role or job to an individual. Here’s how it’s done:

Template for Sociocratic Elections

  1. Task: establish the job description and the period of time the person will perform the job.
  2. Ballots: Fill our ballots and hand to the election leader
  3. “Public Gossip”: each person says why they made their nomination
  4. Changes: Election leader asks each person if they want to change their votes based on the arguments they heard.
  5. Discussion: Election leader usually proposes a name after step 4. However they may ask for discussion if the arguments are very unclear – i.e. informal consent has not been reached.
  6. Consent round: Election leader asks each person if he of she consents to the proposed person, asking the person proposed last. If there is an objection, the election leader takes everyone back to step five before trying another consent round.

For making decisions by consent, a sociocratic organisation will operate in the following manner:

Template for making policy decisions by consent

  1. Consent to the issue(s) to be decided. “What’s the concern, problem or challenge?”
  2. Generate a proposal. “What’s our opinion?” Often a person or persons may be asked to prepare a proposal and bring it to the next meeting.
  3. Consent to the proposal. “What is our decision?”
    1. Present proposal – questions and discussion is for clarification only
    2. Quick reactions round – quick feedback about the proposal (intended to illicit the “feeling response”, and not the “thinking response”)
    3. Amendments – proposer amends proposal, if needed, based on the questions, discussions and quick reactions
    4. Consent round – collect and record any objections on a flip chart. No discussion at this time
    5. Discussion – improve proposal to deal with the objections if any
    6. Consent round – Each person indicates their consent to the proposal, with the proposer speaking last. If there are remaining objections, they are recorded (no discussion), everyone goes back to “Discussion”, before trying another consent round.

Implementing a self-organising group requires consent from the people who exert power over the group. Simply stated this means that senior management and/or organisation owners must support Sociocracy. Full stop. No “ifs”, “buts” or “maybes” or even “veto rights”. Otherwise internal fractures will be created when the a circle’s “assumed power” confronts the more senior “declared power”. If that happens, growth is stymied and a slide back to pseudo-autocratic or totalitarianism, or even democratic systems will follow.

The great thing about this Sociocratic process as described by Endenburg, is that it’s an excellent way to get self-organisation into an existing organisation without changing or upsetting the existing power structure. The magic then begins to happen and once the system is running well, initiatives and improvements emerge organically and naturally. There is no revolution, only evolution.

All companies and groups that utilise such or similar systems experience better performance, better products, innovation, higher moral, lower turnover, lower loss, lower costs.

Semler advocates this because, after all, he created the 7 day weekend!

7dayweekend

It is simply the human way to operate.

What could be better?

About the author

Mr. Jeremiah Emanuel Josey is an Australian who has been living in the Middle East for 7 years. Expert in the finance and energy markets, he is the Chairman of Swiss based Meci Group, a business and investment consultancy that operates across the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia.

See www.JeremiahJosey.com and www.Meci-Group.com for more.

meci group

After Oil: Money, Food and Polymers – New Business Activities for the Middle East

I wrote this article for the Al Jarida newspaper and it was published on Saturday 7 February 2015.

This article took a full page as I was developing an argument for Kuwait and other oil rich countries after demand for crude oil declines.

It is published here:

Al Jarida Article

Al Jarida Page 12, 7 Feb 2015

After Oil: Money, Food and Polymers – New Business Activities for the Middle East

Fourteen years ago the former Minister of Oil for Saudi Arabia, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani said that by 2030 oil would remain in the ground because people would not want it. One oil rich country, Iran, is discussing their future budgets without oil. I have written previously about how dramatic falls in energy creation from solar radiation is now a direct competitor to burning fossil fuel. So what can economies that are heavily reliant on oil revenues such as Kuwait do in a post oil world? This is what I will discuss in today’s article.

Based on experience, for a change to take place in any market there must be three major forces that come together at the same time. These three forces are: Economic, Social and Technical. If a market or industry sector has these forces in play, then it will change. Let us look at the oil market and see if these forces are present.

Economically? Yes. Falling prices have made many oil reserves uneconomic. Falling prices of other energy sources drives consumers towards them.

Socially? Yes. Climate change issues are affecting the entire world and reducing carbon dioxide production is now a topic of common discussion. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are both very vocal in the need to curb carbon dioxide emissions immediately. Not next year, but now. Today. Yesterday if they could do it.

Technically? Also yes. Energy can be produced as efficiently from the sun and the wind as it can from fossil fuels (coal, oil and gas).

So it seems the forces are aligned. Hence the market will move. Then the question remains, what does this mean for countries that are heavily reliant upon fossil fuels, especially crude oil, for their state revenues? Something needs to change. Business will have to divest and reinvest in order to create new revenue streams.

There is a catch however, a complex economic catch. In countries where oil revenues provide a lot of state revenues, oil production is also very cheap. For example in Russia, oil production cost is around $15 per barrel. It’s about $10 per barrel in Iran and less than $5 per barrel in Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait. New revenue streams however will come with higher operating costs, high retooling costs (more capital investment) and high human capital retraining costs. Margins will be less. Hence there must be significant increases in revenue by these lower margin activities to cover the revenues lost by a fall in oil demand. It will be difficult.

So with that groundwork laid, I boldly predict that for oil rich states such as Kuwait that once oil demand declines there are three areas that can replace oil revenues. These are:

1. Finance, equity and debt investments, investment yields
2. High value polymer production, taking it beyond low value petrochemicals
3. Aquaculture for high efficiency protein production

These income streams can either occur through private ownership, in which case taxation regimes would be required to provide state revenues. Or the ventures would be state owned and continue to operate much like the oil and gas sector operates now. The later would be a tall order. The economic efficiencies necessary in these new industries will not allow traditional work ethics common with the high margin, easy to produce revenues from crude oil. Therefore state governments will get smaller. The private sector will grow, if it can. Private sector needs three factors in it’s favour to thrive: 1) great infrastructure – transport, communications, access to liquidity; 2) excellent legal systems; 3) low taxes. This is something Dubai has been developing and they appear to be doing well.

Let’s go through each one of these three new revenue options in turn, using Kuwait as an example and the benchmark of $50b – Kuwait’s gross income with crude oil price at $45 per barrel.

1) Finance, Equity and Debt Investments, Investment Yields

Sovereign wealth funds of the Middle East are in an ideal position to expand their operations to replace falling oil revenues. Since 1953, the Kuwait sovereign investment fund has accumulated an estimated $550b in assets. Therefore, quite simply, a 10% yield on investment would replace all present revenues from crude oil.

But can you get such a high yield on so much capital? You can. You can even get more.

Berkshire Hathaway, the very well known investment group established by Warren Buffet in the 1960’s, holds net assets of $484b. Their net revenues have averaged 20% per year for the past 50 years.

This demonstrates that high yields are achievable.

Employing 330,000 people, Berkshire Hathaway presents a viable model for Kuwait moving forward after oil. Raising the level of investment knowledge therefore is an important skill to develop amongst Kuwaitis. The management of such investment could be achieved by creating 100 investment groups each allocated $5b. Each group would be set the target to achieve 20% or more net annual revenues. It would be survival of the fittest. Consolidation, knowledge transfer and then further expansion would increase the performance of the funds and the skills of the investment management teams.

From first hand experience, investment yields greater than 50% are possible when carefully selected and expertly executed.

So the management of money is a viable solution to entirely replace revenues from falling oil demand.

2) High Value Polymer Production, Taking It Beyond Low Value Petrochemicals

Here is a perspective of the use of crude oil in today’s world:

Oil Consumption Breakdown

From Renewable Energy World

The chart shows that 44% of crude oil is consumed as gasoline, 21% as diesel, and 9% as jet fuel. That means that 74% of crude oil is burnt every day, never to return, non-renewable.

Notice that only 2.7% of all production is consumed in the polymer industry – petrochemicals. This is an industry that takes a product with a market value of $0.30 per kg (crude oil), and then, with complex chemical and mechanical processes, produces products that sell for $1, 5, even $17 per kg. This industry is is the petrochemical industry, producing plastics and polymers.

Value adding to crude oil is a straightforward way to increase revenues once you have installed the necessary equipment and have the required numbers of trained personnel.

I have put together the table below to show different polymers with their prices, their world market share and how much of Kuwait’s revenue this would represent.

For example polycarbonate, a transparent, highly impact resistance plastic common in the automotive industry, sells for about $5 per kg.

PTFE, a high tech fluorocarbon polymer sells for about $17.5 per kg.

But the demand for both of these polymers is low compared to crude oil volumes. Even if Kuwait was producing all of the worlds requirements for these two high value polymers, it would not provide any where near the replacement revenue for the State.

Polymer

World Production (million tonnes per year)

Bulk Market Price

($ per kg)

World Market Value

($ billion per year)

% of World Crude Market Value

Profit at 20% Margin

% of Kuwait Income ($45b)

Polyethylene

80

1.7

136

10%

27

60%

Polypropylene

60

1.5

90

7%

18

40%

PVC

43

2.5

108

8%

22

48%

Polyester (PET)

28

2.2

62

5%

12

27%

Polyurethanes

12

2.5

30

2%

6

13%

Acrylonitrile-Butadiene-Styrene (ABS)

7.3

2.5

18

1%

4

8%

Polycarbonate

3.7

5

19

1%

4

8%

PTFE (Teflon)

0.2

17.5

3.5

0.3%

1

2%

Crude Oil (Kuwait)

150

0.30

45

3%

Crude Oil (World)

4,025

0.33

1,328

100%

Prices and quantities are from various years eg 2012, 2013, and 2014 and are indicative only for the purposes of general trends and forecasting for this article. Further details analysis would be necessary to undertake investment level decisions.

When considering what products the petrochemical industry should focus on, the table highlights that advanced polymers are high value but are not high volume. It also highlights the large scale of investment needed to produce a viable revenue source from advanced polymers. Also there is no one single polymer that would replace crude revenues. Instead a mix would be required, determined by market demand, capital expenditure, and feedstock availability.

Let’s consider two countries in the region, Saudi Arabia and Iraq. Saudi Arabia presently produces 75% of all Petrochemicals in the Middle East (and 10% worldwide). In 2013 Saudi petrochemical production was 86.4 million tonnes and the total value was $66.9b. Note that this equates to only $0.77 per kg, so it’s not in high value polymers, but in mid value intermediate polymer feedstock. In Iraq, Shell has just signed a $11b deal with the Iraqi government to build the Basra Nibras complex (operating by 2021). This is a petrochemical facility with a modest 1.8 million tonne per year capacity. Also, it is not making high value polymers, only intermediary polymer feedstock. Further capital investment is required to do higher value adding.

For an exercise, let’s assumed that the profit margin for a basket of high value polymers is 20% and that that basket sells for $2.5 per kg. This includes all capital investment, operations, maintenance and replacement allowance for the equipment (depreciation). Therefore the net profit will be $0.50 per kg. Thus, with 1,000,000 barrels per day of oil (123 million tonnes per year) converted into a high value polymer would yield $26b in net profits per year, or about half of Kuwait state requirements.

So this is possible, though with considerable capital investment and the time to establish it.

3) Aquaculture for High Efficiency Protein Production

What else can these countries do when oil is no longer wanted for burning? Well, it will still remain a low cost source of energy, and that means that other industries can be supported with it. One such industry is aquaculture, the most efficient form of protein conversion of any animal husbandry practice, as the table below highlights:

Feed Conversion Ratios

Animal

Kilograms of Animal Feed to Produce 1 Kg of Animal Meat

Beef

20

Sheep

4

Chicken

2

Fish

1.4

Shrimp

1.1

This is food for thought for oil rich nations with abundance of sunshine, water, and hence cheap energy. Growing fish and shrimp for hungry expanding world markets is a possible viable investment path, especially as the forecasts of collapsing wild fish and shrimp stocks come more frequently into the news.

One of the fastest growing food industries due to it’s high feed conversion ratio is shrimp farming. Iran has increased shrimp production to 8,000 tonnes per year in only about 15 years, and Saudi Arabia is producing about 25,000 tonnes of shrimp per year over a similar time frame.

There are plans for a 9,000 tonne per annum shrimp farm in Iran which will double production from that country and put it on level with Saudi Arabia.

Aquaculture

WorldFishCentre.org

However, growing shrimp is not a replacement for crude oil sales. It’s a supplement.

Here’s why.

The market price for shrimp is around $5 per kg and they cost about $2 per kg to produce. Hence the net margin is $3 per kg.

To produce $1b net profit per year requires 300,000 tonnes of shrimp.

Note that world shrimp production is about 4 million tonnes per year.

About 40,000 Ha is required to produce this much shrimp (if growing white tail vannamei).

The Kuwait land area is 1.782m Ha, so 2.2% of Kuwait’s total area would have to be converted to shrimp ponds.

Incidentally this much land would also produce about 100 GW of electricity if photovoltaic cells where installed. This is the same amount that both China and India are committing to install by the early 2020’s.

So the volume of resources required is large whilst the net return is comparatively low, despite the fact that it is healthy and expanding.

So, there you have it. A stool with three legs provides the greatest stability:

1. Finance
2. Polymers
3. Food

Perhaps fishing and textiles will again be the mainstay for the region in years to come as it was before oil.

Author Deck
Mr. Jeremiah Josey is an Australian who has been living in the Middle East for 7 years. Knowledgeable in the energy markets, he is the Chairman of Swiss based Meci Group, a business and investment consultancy that operates across the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia. See www.JeremiahJosey.com and www.Meci-Group.com for more.

The End of Oil? Oil Pricing for 2015 and the Rise of Solar Energy

I wrote this article for the Al Jarida newspaper and it was published on Saturday 24 January 2015.

It’s a further development of my previous blog on how technology is changing the way the energy market operates and how the oil price may never rise again.

It is published here:

Al Jarida Article

Al Jarida

The End of Oil? Oil Pricing for 2015 and the Rise of Solar Energy

For oil prices, it’s a possible flat line in my opinion. Sideways. In fact with recent dramatic changes in the cost of energy we may be witnessing the end of oil. If oil stays low for long enough it may never rise again.

Said in June 2000, by Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia (1962–86), “Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil – and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the Oil Age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil.”

How so? I hear you ask. How have we reached the end of our modern “Stone Age”?

I say yes. Let’s have a look at why.

Economically, world energy has hit and passed a price equilibrium point between two competing mediums: fossil fuels, and solar energy. This means that how we do busy will change. And it will change rapidly now. For instance, mobile phones took out the land line market in a matter of years once mobile phones became cheap and available enough to do so. They were the better option technically and economically.

Energy from fossil fuels has historically been cheap and this enabled the great economic boom of the past 100 years: a population explosion from 1.7 billion people in 1900 to over 7 billion now, and GDP from $2.7 trillion (adjusted) to over $75 Trillion in roughly the same time period (per capita moving from $1,600 adj. to $10,000). The Green revolution (food production). The Technology revolution (computer development). The Connectivity Revolution (mobile phone & internet) and now the Knowledge revolution (P2P and social networking). All fuelled by cheap energy. And now this low cost energy has engineered it’s own replacement: Solar energy.

Looking closely at Illustration 1 below we see these low fossil energy prices. We also see the rise in crude oil prices to between $10 and $20 per mmbtu that caused the oil shocks of the 1970s. Renewable energy, particularly wind and solar, attempted to rise in this time, but their high technology cost was so great that when oil prices dropped again in the mid 1980’s so did interest in alternative means of keeping us warm, cooking our food and illuminating our homes. Just keep burning fossil fuels was the acceptable, economic solution. That is until now. Solar technology costs have plummeted, especially in the last 6 years, coming from an astronomical $220/mmbtu to now being at the same level as Brent crude and LNG at around $15 per mmbtu. And it’s still falling.

Solar Price Falling

As far as economics go, fossil fuel prices are going the wrong way (up) and solar pricing is going the right way (down).

So what is really happening with the tumbling price of oil? Is Saudi Arabia attempting to displace US supply by shutting down high priced tight oil investments? Are there moves afoot to destabilise the Middle Eastern power base by cutting revenues of Iran for their support of the Syrian regime and other related matters? Are there plans to destroy the asset side of the Russian balance sheet and topple their eastern European hegemony?

Yes, it may be all, or some of these things. For now.

But these are still small compared to the impending impact of economics and the immutable power of the sun. I don’t think that solar prices are having any direct effect on oil demand right now, but I believe that very soon they will. We may find that the price of oil does not rise again, or if it does, not for very long before demand falls for the final time. Remember that more than 40% of crude oil consumption is by passenger vehicles and that’s an important fact when considering the low cost of generating power from the sun.

Led by their wallets, consumers will migrate towards solutions that are supported by lower cost energy and they will seek them out as manufactures support their demands. So it’s just a matter of availability of options. And what is the option for reducing energy costs: locally generated electricity for domestic consumption and electric vehicles or EVs for transport. EVs are 90 percent cheaper to fuel and maintain than gasoline cars (Rocky Mountain Institute).

Those options appear to ready now. Today, EVs can be purchased from many of the major vehicle manufactures from around the world. For instance BMW, Chevrolet, Citroen, Fiat, Ford, General Motors, Honda, Kia, Mahindra, Mercedes Benz, Mitsubishi, Nissan, Renault and Tesla to name a few. In fact BMW are expected to phase out internal combustion engines within 10 years (Baron Funds, September 14, 2014). So that means within the very close and near future, almost half of the demand for crude oil will evaporate. The Sheik’s prediction will come true. And about the image of electric cars, in 2013 the fully electric Tesla Model S won the Car of the Year (Motor Trend) for all car types, not just EVs, and was quoted as being the best car ever tested. Ever!

What continues to drive down the cost of solar energy is mega solar projects and continued large scale PV installations. For example the Indian government has made its intentions clear to have 100 GW of installed generating capacity by 2022 and China are planning 100 GW by 2020. That’s the equivalent of 200 nuclear power stations. And pricing will be around $0.06 per kWh – on a par when levelled with present energy costs (nuclear, coal & LNG).

Is the fall in oil price here to stay. Perhaps not just yet. It depends the uptake of EVs, and that is a matter of their availability. But soon low oil prices will be here to stay.

Our choice in this energy shift is to be leaders or let others lead.

Author Deck

Mr. Jeremiah Josey is an Australian who has been living in the Middle East for 7 years. Knowledgeable in the technology and energy markets, he is the Chairman of Swiss based Meci Group, a business and investment consultancy that operates across the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia.

See www.JeremiahJosey.com and www.Meci-Group.com for more.

2015: The Year For the Downside of Solar Energy and the Upside of Banking

Solar Concentrator

Photographer: Chris Sattlberger/Getty Images

Downside of Solar? Yes, downside.  The side where you slide down and things get easier and more efficient, and lower priced, and better, and people want more of it. That’s what is happening with solar power.  Look at this slope for US energy pricing:

Solar Price Falling

Source: EIA, CIA, World Bank, Bernstein analysis

(Henry Hug, is natural gas, Brent is crude oil, LNG is liquefied natural gas)

This solar slope is definitely a diamond double black run.  (Yes I love skiing).

Notice how the other energy sources are climbing.  That’s cross country skiing and really, a lot of work. The scenery is great though.

So what’s been happening in solar that is different in the other energy sectors: technical advances are improving output, reducing costs. As more people want it, they leave established alternatives and make it main stream.

I’m saying that that is what has happened to solar recently.  I’m just choosing the start of 2015, since, well, its the start of 2015. I’m also suggesting that oil prices may not return to previous highs.  Has the down side been seen yet, no I don’t think so, but it is getting close.

Oil prices may rise again, but not for very long.

Demand for electric vehicles is expected to rise rapidly from 2017.

Nafeez Ahmed and Tony Seba explain why here How Solar Power Could Slay the Fossil Fuel Empire by 2030.

Said in June 2000, by Sheikh Zaki Yamani, former Oil Minister of Saudi Arabia (1962–86), “Thirty years from now there will be a huge amount of oil—and no buyers. Oil will be left in the ground. The Stone Age came to an end, not because we had a lack of stones, and the Oil Age will come to an end not because we have a lack of oil.”

Are we are  getting to about that time the Sheikh mentioned?

See that 44.1% blue pie piece below?  That’s all burnt in passenger cars.

Crude Oil

From Renewable Energy World.

The falling solar prices will lead to distributed energy generation and this will break the hegemony of centralized energy production and reticulation.  This the heart of the world financial system presently. A good example is Africa. It cannot be tamed primarily because it doesn’t have centralized energy infrastructure.  This may appear a little complicated, but stay with me.

This is what I mean by the upside of banking.

The financial system is having it’s own problems and seems on the brink of collapse, as James Quiin, Executive Business Editor of the Telegraph elegantly put it two days ago.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/11321497/Why-2015-could-spell-the-end-for-the-hegemony-of-the-big-banks.html

He covers it well, though I would add that fractional reserve banking is the core of profit generation for the modern banking system, coupled with excessive derivative trading. These two systems are under heavy strain presently.

Changing direction a little further to discuss the upside of banking, I see that the people of China and Russia have a great deal of contiguous history, both recent and ancient: Russia, 1,000 years and China, 5,000 years. This means lots of lessons learnt from the mistakes of their ancestors. For instance in the early 1,000’s and for 500 years China tried and failed with paper money systems 5 times before the people ignored the government and switched to silver for their medium of exchange.  Each successive Chinese government had tried to print their way out of debt. China also has recent living memory failures, similar to Russia.  So I see that they are acting as a group of interested people, as a collective, rather then the haves and havenots system of a monarchical, plutocratic system common in the west presently. For instance, China has a history of executing bankers caught defrauding customers and investors and Vladimir Putin has an approval rating of almost 90%.  So, ostensibly Russia and China are for working for their people and will adopt technologies and social systems that benefit everyone.  So I foresee solar and new financial systems quickly being adopted in these countries.

Moving on…

2015 is also good year to start on the down slope of oil demand, so a new currency won’t be petrodollars.  It will be remain  commodity based, however more likely onto gold and silver. Meanwhile, Russia, Iran and China are active in forging closer ties.  It’s not about competing with the USA business model. These alliances form natural blocks for US companies accessing resources.  For instance Afghanistan has over $1T in gold and lithium deposits…  This is part of the reason why Russia was interested back in the 80’s.

Tom Randle over at Bloomberg made this interesting article about 8 weeks ago:

Every time fossil fuels get cheaper, people lose interest in solar deployment. That may be about to change.

After years of struggling against cheap natural gas prices and variable subsidies, solar electricity is on track to be as cheap or cheaper than average electricity-bill prices in 47 U.S. states — in 2016, according to a Deutsche Bank report published this week. That’s assuming the U.S. maintains its 30 percent tax credit on system costs, which is set to expire that same year.

Even if the tax credit drops to 10 percent, solar will soon reach price parity with conventional electricity in well over half the nation: 36 states. Gone are the days when solar panels were an exotic plaything of Earth-loving rich people. Solar is becoming mainstream, and prices will continue to drop as the technology improves and financing becomes more affordable, according to the report.

The chart below shows how far solar will come out ahead in each state in 2016, assuming a worst-case scenario of lower tax credits. The blue bars show the anticipated cost of solar energy (assuming a conservative 20-year lifespan for the panels) minus average electricity prices. Positive numbers indicate the savings for every kilowatt hour of electricity.

Grid Parity to Reach 36 States in 2016

US Solar Price Parity Chart

Source: Deutsche Bank, EIA. Graph shows LCOE minus average electricity price

Solar has already reached grid parity in 10 states that are responsible for 90 percent of U.S. solar electricity production. In those states alone, installed capacity growth will increase as much as sixfold over the next three to four years, Deutsche Bank analyst Vishal Shah wrote in the Oct. 26 report.

The reason solar-power generation will increasingly dominate: it’s a technology, not a fuel. As such, efficiency increases and prices fall as time goes on. The price of Earth’s limited fossil fuels tends to go the other direction. Michael Park, an analyst at Sanford Bernstein, has a term for the staggering price relationship between solar and fossil fuels: the Terrordome. I’m not sure exactly what that means, but it doesn’t sound very forgiving.

The price of solar will soon undercut even the cheapest fossil fuels in many regions of the planet, including poorer nations where billion-dollar coal plants aren’t always practical.

Solar will be the world’s biggest single source of electricity by 2050, according to a recent estimate by the International Energy Agency. Currently, it’s responsible for just a fraction of one percent.

Because of solar’s small market share today, no matter how quickly capacity expands, it won’t have much immediate impact on the price of other forms of energy. But soon, for the first time, the reverse may also be true: Gas and coal prices will lose their sway over the solar industry.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-29/while-you-were-getting-worked-up-over-oil-prices-this-just-happened-to-solar.html

So, there you have a few changes on the world stage, conveniently coming together at about the same time: the fall of oil, the rise of solar, and the shakeup of the financial system. A good time to plan new investment and business strategies for yourself and your family.

Jeremiah Josey

Meci-Group

Starting out 2015 with an Ode to Unity

New Earth

Today, tomorrow or the next, we will collectively look with our hearts, our minds will be idle. Connecting our third eye through to infinite intelligence, tethering our mind to the guidance of the earth bound resonance we all share from our bodies made from mud, made of this Earth.

This would then become the discussion and preoccupation of the mind: how to improve this connection, this growth, our expansion. This would be the passage for humanity, our quest, our “salvation”.

Then what a vision and a vista will be before us. Then, instant balance would ensue, at all levels, all relationships between all humans, all areas.Jeremiah Josey

Unity.

One.

Everywhere.

Ha! The stronger the mind, the more challenging the quest.

Only when the mind lowers it’s ever vigilant guard, and allows the heart’s soft utterances through to be felt and amplified by this wondrous body we each possess.

Then through all, and as one. Instant balance. Instant full potential expansive life for all species on this but a tiny speck of space dust. A speck of diamond, but a spec no less.

Our minds are brilliant tools. Connect that brilliance to the brilliance of our bodies and soar!

It is all within reach.Smily Earth All inside each of us.

Tether the mind. Release our potential.

Have a happy, happy 2015!

Earth Hands

Seasons Greetings and Financial Events for 2015

Hello!

As we close the chapter on 2014 and turn our attention to what lies ahead for 2015, I think I can safely say that 2014 has been like no other.

I’ve been studying the financial markets for several years and the signs are approaching quickly now that indicate it is important to consider new investment strategies and different attitudes as we move into 2015 and the longer term.

Events like:

- Drop in oil price

- Sanctions against Russia

- US economy no longer able to maintain the look good image

- Trouble in the EU

- Impending collapse of world financial system

This video captures key events coming up:

Watch “Signs US Economy in Trouble, Russian Bear Not Wou…” on YouTube -

http://youtu.be/fAGksbTWdwo

This is scary news however there is a plan that can be followed:

This is what I recommend for 2015.

- Get as much excess cash and equity into silver and gold as you can.  75% silver. 25% gold.

- Focus on maintaining your income and reducing expenses.

- Expect deflation in the short term.  Very low interest rates.  A few months.

- There time enough to get organised.

- Borrow against your availabile equity and buy gold and silver.

- Then hyperinflation will kick in.  Slowly then very fast.  Everywhere.

- Property values will fall in real terms but the hyperinflation will hide it.

- Then sell some of the newly valued gold and silver to pay off the debt.  Because that amount of debt won’t change.

- Then wait for the right time to convert the gold and silver back into cash flow producing assets.

That will be in about 2 or 3 years as long as there is no war with Russia.

Otherwise 10 years…

The video above captures the key events coming up in the next few months:

- Weapons to Ukraine.

- Expected depression in the US xmas spending figures.

- A bankrupt EU.

The signs are indicating that it is time to change investment strategies.

I wish you the best for 2015 and let’s remember that good investors are making money when the markets are up and making much more when markets go down.

Best regards,

Jeremiah Josey
Meci-Group.com

The Speech that Signals the Change of the World and Setting the Scene for the 21st Century.

Address by President of the Russian Federation

Vladimir PutinVladimir Putin addressed State Duma deputies, Federation Council members, heads of Russian regions and civil society representatives in the Kremlin.

 

PRESIDENT OF RUSSIA VLADIMIR PUTIN: Federation Council members, State Duma deputies, good afternoon. Representatives of the Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol are here among us, citizens of Russia, residents of Crimea and Sevastopol!

Dear friends, we have gathered here today in connection with an issue that is of vital, historic significance to all of us. A referendum was held in Crimea on March 16 in full compliance with democratic procedures and international norms.

More than 82 percent of the electorate took part in the vote. Over 96 percent of them spoke out in favour of reuniting with Russia. These numbers speak for themselves.

To understand the reason behind such a choice it is enough to know the history of Crimea and what Russia and Crimea have always meant for each other.

Everything in Crimea speaks of our shared history and pride. This is the location of ancient Khersones, where Prince Vladimir was baptised. His spiritual feat of adopting Orthodoxy predetermined the overall basis of the culture, civilisation and human values that unite the peoples of Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. The graves of Russian soldiers whose bravery brought Crimea into the Russian empire are also in Crimea. This is also Sevastopol – a legendary city with an outstanding history, a fortress that serves as the birthplace of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet. Crimea is Balaklava and Kerch, Malakhov Kurgan and Sapun Ridge. Each one of these places is dear to our hearts, symbolising Russian military glory and outstanding valour.

Crimea is a unique blend of different peoples’ cultures and traditions. This makes it similar to Russia as a whole, where not a single ethnic group has been lost over the centuries. Russians and Ukrainians, Crimean Tatars and people of other ethnic groups have lived side by side in Crimea, retaining their own identity, traditions, languages and faith.

Incidentally, the total population of the Crimean Peninsula today is 2.2 million people, of whom almost 1.5 million are Russians, 350,000 are Ukrainians who predominantly consider Russian their native language, and about 290,000-300,000 are Crimean Tatars, who, as the referendum has shown, also lean towards Russia.

True, there was a time when Crimean Tatars were treated unfairly, just as a number of other peoples in the USSR. There is only one thing I can say here: millions of people of various ethnicities suffered during those repressions, and primarily Russians.

Crimean Tatars returned to their homeland. I believe we should make all the necessary political and legislative decisions to finalise the rehabilitation of Crimean Tatars, restore them in their rights and clear their good name.

We have great respect for people of all the ethnic groups living in Crimea. This is their common home, their motherland, and it would be right – I know the local population supports this – for Crimea to have three equal national languages: Russian, Ukrainian and Tatar.

Colleagues,

In people’s hearts and minds, Crimea has always been an inseparable part of Russia. This firm conviction is based on truth and justice and was passed from generation to generation, over time, under any circumstances, despite all the dramatic changes our country went through during the entire 20th century.

After the revolution, the Bolsheviks, for a number of reasons – may God judge them – added large sections of the historical South of Russia to the Republic of Ukraine. This was done with no consideration for the ethnic make-up of the population, and today these areas form the southeast of Ukraine. Then, in 1954, a decision was made to transfer Crimean Region to Ukraine, along with Sevastopol, despite the fact that it was a city of union subordination. This was the personal initiative of the Communist Party head Nikita Khrushchev. What stood behind this decision of his – a desire to win the support of the Ukrainian political establishment or to atone for the mass repressions of the 1930’s in Ukraine – is for historians to figure out.

What matters now is that this decision was made in clear violation of the constitutional norms that were in place even then. The decision was made behind the scenes. Naturally, in a totalitarian state nobody bothered to ask the citizens of Crimea and Sevastopol. They were faced with the fact. People, of course, wondered why all of a sudden Crimea became part of Ukraine. But on the whole – and we must state this clearly, we all know it – this decision was treated as a formality of sorts because the territory was transferred within the boundaries of a single state. Back then, it was impossible to imagine that Ukraine and Russia may split up and become two separate states. However, this has happened.

Unfortunately, what seemed impossible became a reality. The USSR fell apart. Things developed so swiftly that few people realised how truly dramatic those events and their consequences would be. Many people both in Russia and in Ukraine, as well as in other republics hoped that the Commonwealth of Independent States that was created at the time would become the new common form of statehood. They were told that there would be a single currency, a single economic space, joint armed forces; however, all this remained empty promises, while the big country was gone. It was only when Crimea ended up as part of a different country that Russia realised that it was not simply robbed, it was plundered.

At the same time, we have to admit that by launching the sovereignty parade Russia itself aided in the collapse of the Soviet Union. And as this collapse was legalised, everyone forgot about Crimea and Sevastopol ­– the main base of the Black Sea Fleet. Millions of people went to bed in one country and awoke in different ones, overnight becoming ethnic minorities in former Union republics, while the Russian nation became one of the biggest, if not the biggest ethnic group in the world to be divided by borders.

Now, many years later, I heard residents of Crimea say that back in 1991 they were handed over like a sack of potatoes. This is hard to disagree with. And what about the Russian state? What about Russia? It humbly accepted the situation. This country was going through such hard times then that realistically it was incapable of protecting its interests. However, the people could not reconcile themselves to this outrageous historical injustice. All these years, citizens and many public figures came back to this issue, saying that Crimea is historically Russian land and Sevastopol is a Russian city. Yes, we all knew this in our hearts and minds, but we had to proceed from the existing reality and build our good-neighbourly relations with independent Ukraine on a new basis. Meanwhile, our relations with Ukraine, with the fraternal Ukrainian people have always been and will remain of foremost importance for us. (Applause)

Today we can speak about it openly, and I would like to share with you some details of the negotiations that took place in the early 2000s. The then President of Ukraine Mr Kuchma asked me to expedite the process of delimiting the Russian-Ukrainian border. At that time, the process was practically at a standstill. Russia seemed to have recognised Crimea as part of Ukraine, but there were no negotiations on delimiting the borders. Despite the complexity of the situation, I immediately issued instructions to Russian government agencies to speed up their work to document the borders, so that everyone had a clear understanding that by agreeing to delimit the border we admitted de facto and de jure that Crimea was Ukrainian territory, thereby closing the issue.

We accommodated Ukraine not only regarding Crimea, but also on such a complicated matter as the maritime boundary in the Sea of Azov and the Kerch Strait. What we proceeded from back then was that good relations with Ukraine matter most for us and they should not fall hostage to deadlock territorial disputes. However, we expected Ukraine to remain our good neighbour, we hoped that Russian citizens and Russian speakers in Ukraine, especially its southeast and Crimea, would live in a friendly, democratic and civilised state that would protect their rights in line with the norms of international law.

However, this is not how the situation developed. Time and time again attempts were made to deprive Russians of their historical memory, even of their language and to subject them to forced assimilation. Moreover, Russians, just as other citizens of Ukraine are suffering from the constant political and state crisis that has been rocking the country for over 20 years.

I understand why Ukrainian people wanted change. They have had enough of the authorities in power during the years of Ukraine’s independence. Presidents, prime ministers and parliamentarians changed, but their attitude to the country and its people remained the same. They milked the country, fought among themselves for power, assets and cash flows and did not care much about the ordinary people. They did not wonder why it was that millions of Ukrainian citizens saw no prospects at home and went to other countries to work as day labourers. I would like to stress this: it was not some Silicon Valley they fled to, but to become day labourers. Last year alone almost 3 million people found such jobs in Russia. According to some sources, in 2013 their earnings in Russia totalled over $20 billion, which is about 12% of Ukraine’s GDP.

I would like to reiterate that I understand those who came out on Maidan with peaceful slogans against corruption, inefficient state management and poverty. The right to peaceful protest, democratic procedures and elections exist for the sole purpose of replacing the authorities that do not satisfy the people. However, those who stood behind the latest events in Ukraine had a different agenda: they were preparing yet another government takeover; they wanted to seize power and would stop short of nothing. They resorted to terror, murder and riots. Nationalists, neo-Nazis, Russophobes and anti-Semites executed this coup. They continue to set the tone in Ukraine to this day.

The new so-called authorities began by introducing a draft law to revise the language policy, which was a direct infringement on the rights of ethnic minorities. However, they were immediately ‘disciplined’ by the foreign sponsors of these so-called politicians. One has to admit that the mentors of these current authorities are smart and know well what such attempts to build a purely Ukrainian state may lead to. The draft law was set aside, but clearly reserved for the future. Hardly any mention is made of this attempt now, probably on the presumption that people have a short memory. Nevertheless, we can all clearly see the intentions of these ideological heirs of Bandera, Hitler’s accomplice during World War II.

It is also obvious that there is no legitimate executive authority in Ukraine now, nobody to talk to. Many government agencies have been taken over by the impostors, but they do not have any control in the country, while they themselves – and I would like to stress this – are often controlled by radicals. In some cases, you need a special permit from the militants on Maidan to meet with certain ministers of the current government. This is not a joke – this is reality.

Those who opposed the coup were immediately threatened with repression. Naturally, the first in line here was Crimea, the Russian-speaking Crimea. In view of this, the residents of Crimea and Sevastopol turned to Russia for help in defending their rights and lives, in preventing the events that were unfolding and are still underway in Kiev, Donetsk, Kharkov and other Ukrainian cities.

Naturally, we could not leave this plea unheeded; we could not abandon Crimea and its residents in distress. This would have been betrayal on our part.

First, we had to help create conditions so that the residents of Crimea for the first time in history were able to peacefully express their free will regarding their own future. However, what do we hear from our colleagues in Western Europe and North America? They say we are violating norms of international law. Firstly, it’s a good thing that they at least remember that there exists such a thing as international law – better late than never.

Secondly, and most importantly – what exactly are we violating? True, the President of the Russian Federation received permission from the Upper House of Parliament to use the Armed Forces in Ukraine. However, strictly speaking, nobody has acted on this permission yet. Russia’s Armed Forces never entered Crimea; they were there already in line with an international agreement. True, we did enhance our forces there; however – this is something I would like everyone to hear and know – we did not exceed the personnel limit of our Armed Forces in Crimea, which is set at 25,000, because there was no need to do so.

Next. As it declared independence and decided to hold a referendum, the Supreme Council of Crimea referred to the United Nations Charter, which speaks of the right of nations to self-determination. Incidentally, I would like to remind you that when Ukraine seceded from the USSR it did exactly the same thing, almost word for word. Ukraine used this right, yet the residents of Crimea are denied it. Why is that?

Moreover, the Crimean authorities referred to the well-known Kosovo precedent – a precedent our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation, when they agreed that the unilateral separation of Kosovo from Serbia, exactly what Crimea is doing now, was legitimate and did not require any permission from the country’s central authorities. Pursuant to Article 2, Chapter 1 of the United Nations Charter, the UN International Court agreed with this approach and made the following comment in its ruling of July 22, 2010, and I quote: “No general prohibition may be inferred from the practice of the Security Council with regard to declarations of independence,” and “General international law contains no prohibition on declarations of independence.” Crystal clear, as they say.

I do not like to resort to quotes, but in this case, I cannot help it. Here is a quote from another official document: the Written Statement of the United States America of April 17, 2009, submitted to the same UN International Court in connection with the hearings on Kosovo. Again, I quote: “Declarations of independence may, and often do, violate domestic legislation. However, this does not make them violations of international law.” End of quote. They wrote this, disseminated it all over the world, had everyone agree and now they are outraged. Over what? The actions of Crimean people completely fit in with these instructions, as it were. For some reason, things that Kosovo Albanians (and we have full respect for them) were permitted to do, Russians, Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars in Crimea are not allowed. Again, one wonders why.

We keep hearing from the United States and Western Europe that Kosovo is some special case. What makes it so special in the eyes of our colleagues? It turns out that it is the fact that the conflict in Kosovo resulted in so many human casualties. Is this a legal argument? The ruling of the International Court says nothing about this. This is not even double standards; this is amazing, primitive, blunt cynicism. One should not try so crudely to make everything suit their interests, calling the same thing white today and black tomorrow. According to this logic, we have to make sure every conflict leads to human losses.

I will state clearly – if the Crimean local self-defence units had not taken the situation under control, there could have been casualties as well. Fortunately this did not happen. There was not a single armed confrontation in Crimea and no casualties. Why do you think this was so? The answer is simple: because it is very difficult, practically impossible to fight against the will of the people. Here I would like to thank the Ukrainian military – and this is 22,000 fully armed servicemen. I would like to thank those Ukrainian service members who refrained from bloodshed and did not smear their uniforms in blood.

Other thoughts come to mind in this connection. They keep talking of some Russian intervention in Crimea, some sort of aggression. This is strange to hear. I cannot recall a single case in history of an intervention without a single shot being fired and with no human casualties.

Colleagues,

Like a mirror, the situation in Ukraine reflects what is going on and what has been happening in the world over the past several decades. After the dissolution of bipolarity on the planet, we no longer have stability. Key international institutions are not getting any stronger; on the contrary, in many cases, they are sadly degrading. Our western partners, led by the United States of America, prefer not to be guided by international law in their practical policies, but by the rule of the gun. They have come to believe in their exclusivity and exceptionalism, that they can decide the destinies of the world, that only they can ever be right. They act as they please: here and there, they use force against sovereign states, building coalitions based on the principle “If you are not with us, you are against us.” To make this aggression look legitimate, they force the necessary resolutions from international organisations, and if for some reason this does not work, they simply ignore the UN Security Council and the UN overall.

This happened in Yugoslavia; we remember 1999 very well. It was hard to believe, even seeing it with my own eyes, that at the end of the 20th century, one of Europe’s capitals, Belgrade, was under missile attack for several weeks, and then came the real intervention. Was there a UN Security Council resolution on this matter, allowing for these actions? Nothing of the sort. And then, they hit Afghanistan, Iraq, and frankly violated the UN Security Council resolution on Libya, when instead of imposing the so-called no-fly zone over it they started bombing it too.

There was a whole series of controlled “colour” revolutions. Clearly, the people in those nations, where these events took place, were sick of tyranny and poverty, of their lack of prospects; but these feelings were taken advantage of cynically. Standards were imposed on these nations that did not in any way correspond to their way of life, traditions, or these peoples’ cultures. As a result, instead of democracy and freedom, there was chaos, outbreaks in violence and a series of upheavals. The Arab Spring turned into the Arab Winter.

A similar situation unfolded in Ukraine. In 2004, to push the necessary candidate through at the presidential elections, they thought up some sort of third round that was not stipulated by the law. It was absurd and a mockery of the constitution. And now, they have thrown in an organised and well-equipped army of militants.

We understand what is happening; we understand that these actions were aimed against Ukraine and Russia and against Eurasian integration. And all this while Russia strived to engage in dialogue with our colleagues in the West. We are constantly proposing cooperation on all key issues; we want to strengthen our level of trust and for our relations to be equal, open and fair. But we saw no reciprocal steps.

To be continued…

March 18, 2014, 15:50

The Kremlin, Moscow

http://eng.kremlin.ru/news/6889