Page 65 - bne_newspaper_February_02_2018

bne February 2018
Opinion 65
expected in April when the US Congress will get a report on Russia’s alleged violation of the 30-year old Intermediary Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. Both Congress and the White House have said that if the violations are proven then they will impose additional economic sanctions. April could be quite a volatile month.
Against this backdrop, President Vladimir Putin is expected to deliver the delayed Federal Assembly Address in February. He may address the escalating sanctions enforcement threat (if the two reports have been published as scheduled) and we may hear if counter-measures are being considered. Up to now the message from the Kremlin has been that “bad politics” should not be allowed damage “good business”. That may again be the message until we get to April and
the almost inevitable escalation over the INF report.
The March 18th presidential election result is a foregone conclusion. Russia does not do Trump or Brexit-style surprises. What is more important is the voter turnout. It needs to
be at least 60% while closer to 70% is ideal. Such a high turnout would strengthen Putin’s position both at home and internationally. The former because it would allow him to push through his preferred policy programme, while the
latter would ensure his status on the international stage.
Broad-brush change
Sometime between the election and inauguration day in early May, we should hear whether there will be a new prime minister or whether Dmitri Medvedev will stay. If asked that question in May 2017, a majority would have answered that a change was inevitable. But today, and with Medvedev now acting with such public confidence, the answer is much less clear.
Once the new or existing premier is confirmed, the question will then be whether there will be changes amongst the ministers or other senior officials. That is important because whatever new policy programme is finally settled on will only get credibility when we see who is put in place to manage it.
A strong line-up will give much greater confidence of progress and effective enforcement than a weak line-up would.
The expectation of a broad-brush change amongst officials has been building for some time. The precedent is based on the extensive changes amongst regional governors and in their administrations. Kremlin officials have been consistent in the message that change not only requires new published plans, but also in the people tasked with making those plans work. Next up should be government and ministry officials and, soon afterwards, senior management shake-ups in the state-owned enterprises. At least that is the message from
the administration.
But, as Lenin once said, “everything is connected to everything else”. Which means we may not hear about personnel changes or the final version of the policy plan for the next presidential
term until the threat of US sanctions enforcement is known and can be assessed. The likely timeline of events suggests that may be closer to the inauguration than election day.
What happens with regard to East Ukraine and the Minsk talks will also be important. The engagement between Moscow and the Normandy Group has been relatively light last year as the EU dealt with Brexit and various key elections. Kyiv has also been calmer in 2017 than in the previous three years. But that
“There is no stated intention to apply sanctions automatically but it will form something of a Sword of Damocles”
also is starting to change. The IMF and EU are starting
to increase pressure for reform progress and public frustration is again evident on the capital’s streets.
2019 is election year in Ukraine for both the presidency (spring) and the Rada (autumn). The current political
and reform stalemate is unsustainable for too far into 2018. The key question for investors in Russia is whether the next moves will improve the likelihood of EU sanctions easing
in 2019 or 2020 or push the EU towards tougher actions against Russia?
All of this comes ahead of the World Cup, which kicks off on June 14th. The almost entirely unfavourable Russia scrutiny has, as expected, already started and it is a reasonable bet that the stories and analysis will get worse and more amplified
up to the event. Almost the best case scenario is that which played out around the Sochi Winter Olympics, in that while the coverage was borderline hysterical ahead of the event
it quietly disappeared during and afterwards. There is little national economic impact from the World Cup and the risks are now almost entirely stacked on the downside in terms of PR and risk perception.
For investors what all this adds up to is a likely return of much greater market volatility in the period from early February
to the World Cup. The cheap asset valuations should prevent much of a sustained downside, i.e. buy the dips, but the big question is whether conditions for a sustained asset valuation rally in the second half and into 2019 can be put in place by the World Cup final whistle on July 15th. There are only so many times one can blame the referee.
Chris Weafer is a founding partner of Macro-Advisory, which helps investors cut though the noise & focus on underlying trends, real political risks, & opportunities in Russia/CIS, Eurasia Union, & Mongolia. Follow him on @ChrisWeafer.
www.bne.eu