Kyiv, November 25 (Interfax-Ukraine) – Hindering of Ukraine's integration into the European Union (EU) complicates the task of attracting financing by Ukraine and could strengthen Russia's political and economic influence on the country, economic experts said at a press conference at Interfax-Ukraine on November 22, 2013.

President of the Center for Economic Development Oleksandr Paskhaver said that the sharp change of the external course gives a signal to global creditors on the weakness of Ukraine and the ineffectiveness of Ukraine's foreign policy.

"This should result in an increase in the cost of loans," he said.

Chairman of the Institute for Economic Research and Policy Consulting Ihor Burakovsky said that the stoppage in Ukraine's integration in the EU puts off the prospect of resuming the financing by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

"We could restore our cooperation [with the IMF] no earlier than [after the first] six months of 2014," he said.

Burakovsky said that in 2014 Ukraine will need $17.4 billion in foreign financing: $9 billion to pay to Russia, $3.6 billion to pay to the IMF and $2.1 billion to pay on eurobonds.

"2014 will be very difficult for Ukraine… The economic problems of the country will only increase," he said.

Paskhaver also said that if the situation worsens, the election targets could pale into insignificance.

Executive Director of the Bleyzer Foundation Oleh Ustenko said that cooperation with the IMF is an urgent issue for Ukraine irrespective of the signing of the Association Agreement with the EU: the requirements of the fund did not change, including the requirements on the flexible exchange rate and the reduction of the budget deficit.

"Money has smell. It's better to receive money from the IMF for Ukraine. The smell of this money for many creditors and investors operating in Ukraine on the emerged markets and EU economies is better than the smell of other money," he said.

Ustenko said that the absence of the financing program with the IMF complicates the process of raising funds from a number of international financial organizations for Ukraine, in particular, from the World Bank, and it leads to the further growth of the cost of borrowing on the foreign market.

"The alternative [for the IMF] is Russia. But here we have a question – would Ukraine like to receive money from Russia. Even with the possible cheapness of the money, an agreement with Russia could not simply be a loan agreement. There could be certain political requirements [that are not favorable for Ukraine]," Ustenko said.

"I think that the position of Russia will be absolutely clear and pragmatic. Partially money and partially an investment package – the entering of the Russian capital into certain Ukrainian enterprises… and certain guarantees [by Ukraine]," Burakovsky said about the Russian direction.

Commenting on the sense of the said guarantees, he said that this could be certain political conditions or certain persons who are to appear in the Ukrainian government.

Burakovsky also said that Russia could give discounts, but the country will not revise the gas contract, which will be an instrument for influencing Ukraine.

Commenting on Chinese loans, he said that the funds could be issued to buy Chinese goods and labor or with the purpose of receiving control over resources.

"Then Ukrainian land and some other things become an asset that could be subject to certain political and economic agreements [with China]," Burakovsky said.

He said that the suspension of the integration process by Ukraine restricts space for maneuver by the Ukrainian government.

He said that Ukraine would not have a chance to receive the required financing from one source: authorities will act in a fire-fighting regime.

Paskhaver said that the assessment of creditors of the country from the point of view of their impact on the national economy is important.

He said that the informal conditions during the financing by Russia could be the key ones and they should be assessed as well.

"They could be more expensive than the loan," Paskhaver said.

Commenting on the reaction to the refusal to continue preparations for the Association Agreement with the EU, he said that it is unlikely that the United States and EU will change their attitude to Ukraine, but it is likely that they will change the policy towards the Ukrainian government.

"They have a rich set of forms for expressing their discontent," Paskhaver said.

He said that irritation of Ukrainian citizens with such a sharp change of the foreign policy could lead to the unpredictable reaction.

"The pirouette was not well thought out from the point of view of social policy. It could result in unpredictable social reactions, and this also costs much, as of social instability is also the increase in the cost of loans. I have no doubts that swaps will go up," he said.

The expert said that the holding of reforms in Ukraine is impossible in the conditions of the absence of trust of citizens to the government, but the policy of receiving trust is not in line with the personal interests of authorities.

"[The problem of the contradiction of goals] cannot be resolved in this situation," Paskhaver said.

Burakovsky said that Kyiv's giving up integration with the EU would hit those of the political allies of Ukraine in Europe that helped to promote the signing of the Association Agreement with the EU.