Lvivs kommunfullmäktige höll igår ett arbetsmöte med företrädare för de lokala myndigheterna och den svenska ambassaden i Ukraina. De diskuterade samarbetet mellan Sverige och staden. I synnerhet diskuterades möjligheten till samarbete inom miljöteknik och hållbar utveckling, så som att skapa ekologi- och energicenter i stan samt Forum för miljöteknik.
Vid en pressträff efter diskussionerna betonade ambassadens förste sekreterare och ställföreträdare, Henrik Norberg, det svenska stödet till Ukraina:
“En av de viktigaste sakerna för Ukraina just nu är att bli mindre beroende av utländsk energi. I detta avseende har Sverige ganska bra erfarenheter, ganska bra kunnande, och vi delar gärna med oss av den kunskapen.”
Hendrik Norberg informerade även om det kommande Svensk ukrainska Business Forum om energieffektivitet och miljöteknik som kommer att hållas i Lviv 5-6 november.
Yesterday I wrote a short summery on what has been said in Swedish media about Swedbank’s engagement in Ukraine. Today I will continue with a possible interpretation of why Swedbank stays in Ukraine even though they loose a lot by staying.
On the 12th of December Dagens Nyheter, one of the leading newspapers in Sweden, denoted that Swedbank not only looses a lot by staying in Ukraine, but possibly also having a very unique position in comparison to other international banks. Through the the Finicial Cooperation for the World Bank, IFC, Swedbank has got a loan on about half a Billion Swedish Kronen (≈€48 000 000). And even the fact that Swedbank actually violates and working on a high risk level, IFC have no intension in breaking their cooperation with the Swedbank. For instance, 42% of Swedbank debts are risky or even bad. Moreover, the bank also has too much exposure and loans to one single customer. It is however not clear who it is it, but several observers mean it is Sergey Tigipko. This is a clear violation against the agreements with IFC. All this is very agrivating facts and also leads us to the question why Swedbank stays in Ukraine.
Knut Kainz Rognerud imples in his book Det stora bankrånet (The big bank robbery) that Swedbank, and many other Swedish banks, did in fact make the crash in the global finical crisis bigger because the banks gave unwise and very unstable loans. One might ask oneself if this could be the irony of it all. Today it looks like the banks are losing and actually risking a lot, but in a longer perceptive Swedbank will possibly be one of the only international banks left in Ukraine – and will possibly own a great deal of Ukraine’s resources. I would say that this interpretation is not too paranoid, but are only based on the simple fact, that no bank will stay in Ukraine just from pure generosity. Of course they have a greater plan with their engagement, possibly not a “scheme” but at least a plan. And that plan is not open for either of us, but concerns our well-being.
If you have any comments of thought about this let me know. It is possible you have some information I have not, and I would highly appreciate if you would share it with me.