Thread: Russo-Ukrainian gas quarrell

[quote]
So then why are Belarus' still paying @@@@ all?

Cos Lukashenko sucks Putin's cock and Yushchenko won't.
[/qoute]
Gazprom is the co-owner of Belarussian pipes. The same thing is about Georgia. Ukraine is known to rebuff Russia's proposal to share its pipelines with Russian companies. Whose cock Yushchenko sucks is not a secret, either.

Originally Posted by mishau_

So then why are Belarus' still paying @@@@ all?

Cos Lukashenko sucks Putin's cock and Yushchenko won't.
[/qoute]
Gazprom is the co-owner of Belarussian pipes. The same thing is about Georgia. Ukraine is known to rebuff Russia's proposal to share its pipelines with Russian companies. Whose cock Yushchenko sucks is not a secret, either.

His American wife's

Originally Posted by TATY

Originally Posted by scotcher

Politically demotivated©, I reckon.

The original massive discount was politically motivated, but the conditions under which that massive discount was granted no longer apply, so...

Yes, but it still means it has to do with politics. E.g. Russia says they are bringing the price in line with EU prices. So then why are Belarus' still paying @@@@ all?

Cos Lukashenko sucks Putin's cock and Yushchenko won't.

That's kind of what I was getting at. Sorry for being too oblique.

Anyhoo...

to say that Ukraine is being punished is to look at the situation back-to-front, IMO.

The default level here is not 'what other former Soviet states pay', the default level is market rates. Any discount on those rates is a bonus to whomever receives one. What Belarus pay is between Russia and Belorus, it has @@@@ all to do with Ukraine. Ukraine is not being punished, they are simply no longer being rewarded. That might be semantics, but it's pertinent semantics.

Now, you can argue over whatever it was they were giving Russia in return for that discount rate. In this case I'd say it was probably unswerving loyalty (which is pretty much what Mishau said, but cleaner). In the eyes of Gazprom/ Putin/ Russia, Ukraine have withdrawn that unswerving loyalty, so is it any surprise that Russia has reciprocated by withdrawing their huge discount?

Harsh for Ukraine and her economy, maybe, but tough sh*t, that's the path she (and her people), have chosen.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Originally Posted by TATY

Originally Posted by scotcher

Politically demotivated©, I reckon.

The original massive discount was politically motivated, but the conditions under which that massive discount was granted no longer apply, so...

Yes, but it still means it has to do with politics. E.g. Russia says they are bringing the price in line with EU prices. So then why are Belarus' still paying @@@@ all?

Cos Lukashenko sucks Putin's cock and Yushchenko won't.

That's kind of what I was getting at. Sorry for being too oblique.

Anyhoo...

to say that Ukraine is being punished is to look at the situation back-to-front, IMO.

The default level here is not 'what other former Soviet states pay', the default level is market rates. Any discount on those rates is a bonus to whomever receives one. What Belarus pay is between Russia and Belorus, it has @@@@ all to do with Ukraine. Ukraine is not being punished, they are simply no longer being rewarded. That might be semantics, but it's pertinent semantics.

Now, you can argue over whatever it was they were giving Russia in return for that discount rate. In this case I'd say it was probably unswerving loyalty (which is pretty much what Mishau said, but cleaner). In the eyes of Gazprom/ Putin/ Russia, Ukraine have withdrawn that unswerving loyalty, so is it any surprise that Russia has reciprocated by withdrawing their huge discount?

Harsh for Ukraine and her economy, maybe, but tough sh*t, that's the path she (and her people), have chosen.

Yes, this is what I was getting at in earlier posts. But as I said, its the timeframe rather than the actual price increase.

Originally Posted by scotcher

Politically demotivated©, I reckon.

The original massive discount was politically motivated, but the conditions under which that massive discount was granted no longer apply, so...

You can't copyright that! It's already been coined (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=demotivate)! And to think that I was about to award you "Best Use of a Fake Word" in the New Year!" You were about to join those hallowed few who created "strategery" or "threeve..."

I wasn't to trying to copyright the word 'demotivated', I was copyrighting the phrase 'politically demotivated'.

Originally Posted by scotcher

I wasn't to trying to copyright the word 'demotivated', I was copyrighting the phrase 'politically demotivated'.

Well in that case, your copyright is approved. Scotcher is now the sole proprietor of the term "politically demotivated" on the MR boards. You have been warned. Прикалывайте осторожном!

I have copyrighted Kateryna Yushchenko's penis

Originally Posted by scotcher

The default level here is not 'what other former Soviet states pay', the default level is market rates. Any discount on those rates is a bonus to whomever receives one. What Belarus pay is between Russia and Belorus, it has @@@@ all to do with Ukraine. Ukraine is not being punished, they are simply no longer being rewarded. That might be semantics, but it's pertinent semantics.

Harsh for Ukraine and her economy, maybe, but tough sh*t, that's the path she (and her people), have chosen.

Uh... wake up and smell the fish!

Read the article again:

"Mr. Illarionov said in a radio interview that Ukraine's subsidized rate was essentially a problem of the Kremlin's own creation. Gazprom had agreed to the $50 price in 2004, he said on the Ekho Moskvy radio station, to help a Kremlin-backed candidate in Ukraine's presidential election.

The $50 deal was supposed to last until 2009, he said. But when the Kremlin's candidate lost the presidency to Viktor A. Yushchenko - who wants Ukraine to join the European Union and NATO - the Kremlin changed the rules. Market rates were invoked."

It might look all rosy in your world, but you can't break a contract just because you regret you have made it. Why should the Ukraine pay market price anyway, if 80% of Russian Europe-export gas passes through their territory, doesn't that give them some leverage, say yee?

Me thinks that this is all alot of hot air.

The West will express angrity with Ukraine only when the situation repeats with $50 prices. That's evident, because it's naturally.

Will russian lose the game?
I think "The $50 deal was" really "supposed to last until 2009" and it has been and it is, and probably will be. However, it gives Russia some more room for maneuver. For example, now all Europe has found out how bad it is to deal with artificially revolutionized post-soviet republics such as Ukr. It also a good reason to wobble Ukr now and then and play cat-and-mouse games with it. Ukr's refusals come from its stalemate caused by Ukraine's unskillful goverment and is considered to be a Russian-Ukrainian internal affair. This "of course internal" affair will let Russia loose on political pressure upon U. It's not the proifit, but yet great benefit, eventually more profitable than $230 per 1000 c/m.

Originally Posted by mishau_

The West will express angrity with Ukraine only when the situation repeats with $50 prices. That's evident, because it's naturally.

Will russian lose the game?
I think "The $50 deal was" really "supposed to last until 2009" and it has been and it is, and probably will be. However, it gives Russia some more room for maneuver. For example, now all Europe has found out how bad it is to deal with artificially revolutionized post-soviet republics such as Ukr. It also a good reason to wobble Ukr now and then and play cat-and-mouse games with it. Ukr's refusals come from its stalemate caused by Ukraine's unskillful goverment and is considered to be a Russian-Ukrainian internal affair. This "of course internal" affair will let Russia loose on political pressure upon U. It's not the proifit, but yet great benefit, eventually more profitable than $230 per 1000 c/m.

Whaaa?

I don't really think Europe is so angry with the Ukraine, but more skeptical with Russia as a reliable energy partner...

Yes, all the news in Britain, and from what my Germany friend says about German news place the blame firmly at the doorstep of the Kremlin. But the West love critising Russia, so of course they are gonna side with Ukraine.

Basically it's like a big fat rich kid bullying a little poor kid. We sympathise with the poor kid.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

I don't really think Europe is so angry with the Ukraine, but more skeptical with Russia as a reliable energy partner...

Right. Ignoring the "economic dispute" angle on this one, it simply seems to Westerners that this is the next logical step in the nationalization of the oil-gas sector. Regardless of your position on this, think about it like this for a moment: Russian authorities have shut down Yukos (a very big deal here in the press), were accused of meddling with the Ukranian elections in 04', and now they do this (to say nothing of the Belarus-Russia relationship). Guess what -- that spooks people, however fair or not that may be.

Anyway, I think you're going to end up being just as murky on the final outcome; I would expect that this ends when Ukraine agrees to pay a somewhat higher price -- but nothing like 4x increase. Both sides will claim "victory:" Ukraine will claim that it sucessfully defeated the Russian increase and in doing so helped out all of Europe and the Russians will say they got their rate hike while at the same time acting like a responsible G-8 power...

More from New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/04/inter ... rmany.html

Gas Halt May Produce Big Ripples in European Policy
By MARK LANDLER
Published: January 4, 2006

FRANKFURT, Jan. 3 - Russia's shutdown of natural gas lines to Ukraine lasted less than 48 hours, but the repercussions could last far longer in Western Europe, which also relies heavily on Russian gas.

Even as the flow of gas to Germany, France and other countries resumed at normal levels by Tuesday evening, public officials and energy experts called on the Continent to rethink its energy policy.

Russia's standoff with Ukraine has exposed a deep European dependence on Russia, the officials and experts said. To reduce that vulnerability, they said, Europe should seek out other gas suppliers and develop alternative fuels, like clean-burning coal, nuclear power and renewable energy.

"If Russia is prepared to run the risk of cutting off supplies to its neighbors if they have a disagreement, how reliable are they as a supplier?" said William Ramsay, deputy executive director of the International Energy Agency, which advises 26 industrialized nations. "You have to ask the question."

Russia is virtually the sole supplier of gas to large swaths of Central and Eastern Europe, and to close neighbors like Finland. France and Italy buy between a quarter and a third of their imported gas from Russia.

In Germany, which is by far Russia's largest customer and has made energy the cornerstone of a broad economic alliance with Moscow, some experts said the standoff might even have political implications.

"Germany's alliance with Russia was not just conceived as a commercial deal, but as a way to integrate Russia into Europe," said Alexander Rahr, a Russia expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin. "This could be in jeopardy if the gas dispute continues."

The European Union, he said, is likely to rush to Ukraine's defense in its dispute with Russia over gas prices, giving Germany little choice but to fall in line. And Russia can no longer count on the friendship between President Vladimir V. Putin and Gerhard Schr

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

The $50 deal was supposed to last until 2009, he said. But when the Kremlin's candidate lost the presidency to Viktor A. Yushchenko - who wants Ukraine to join the European Union and NATO - the Kremlin changed the rules. Market rates were invoked."

The appendix#4 with 50$ deal is no more than "филькина грамота".
Juridic explanation is here - http://phorum.proua.com/read.php?1,487762

Texts of the contract - http://pravda.com.ua/news/2005/12/22/36935.htm

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

It might look all rosy in your world, but you can't break a contract just because you regret you have made it. Why should the Ukraine pay market price anyway, if 80% of Russian Europe-export gas passes through their territory, doesn't that give them some leverage, say yee?

Of course does not. Ukraine officialy accepted the European Energy Charter and she cannot block the pipe.

Originally Posted by kalinka_vinnie

Originally Posted by scotcher

The default level here is not 'what other former Soviet states pay', the default level is market rates. Any discount on those rates is a bonus to whomever receives one. What Belarus pay is between Russia and Belorus, it has @@@@ all to do with Ukraine. Ukraine is not being punished, they are simply no longer being rewarded. That might be semantics, but it's pertinent semantics.

Harsh for Ukraine and her economy, maybe, but tough sh*t, that's the path she (and her people), have chosen.

Uh... wake up and smell the fish!

Never mind the fish, treacle, I am not taking one side against the other, just pointing out that this was a totally predictable result of Ukraine's recent political change of direction.

Did anyone really expect Russia to continue to subsidise Ukraine's economy to the tune of billions of dollars a year, given Ukraine's stated desire to join both the EU and Nato and to distance itself from its overbearing neighbour, even at a time when the WTO are trying to force Russia to cut its own domestic fuel subsidies?

Give me a break.

Slightly petty and vindictive it may be, but it wis totally understandable and should have been totally predictable to Ukraine's Powers That Be.

Looks like they might have struck a deal now though:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4579648.stm

The West could be dissapointed by Ukraine only when the price remains $50 and Ukr. That's evident, because it's naturally for every market. It means like this: the price was $50 and everything went well, then Russia does something (f.e. inreases the price for U.) and Europe stops receiveng the gas. Russian is guilty, because it is the initiator of negative changes on the market in ths case. Europe will need status quo.

Now then, let's suppose, the price has not changed, but Ukr. syphones off the gas anyway and Europe stops receiving it again. Then Ukr is guilty in this case, becuase it is not Russia that is the iniciator of negative changes. That's natural for market. Russa would say 'listen, we did totally nothing, so look for disturbers outside Russia, please'

Would russia lose the game if the remainded 50 dollars? By no means!

"The $50 deal was supposed to last until 2009", ok, that's probably so. However, regardess the price - let it be even the same $50 - it gives Russia some more room for maneuver. For example, now all of Europe found out now how bad it is to deal with artificially revolutionized post-soviet republics such as Ukr. It also is a good reason to play cat-and-mouse games with Ukr. Ukr's refusals come from its stalemate caused by Ukraine's unskillful govermening policy and is considered to be a Russian-Ukrainian internal affair. This "of course internal" affair will let Russia loosen political pressure on U. It's not the proifit, but yet great benefit, eventually more profitable than $230 per 1000 cubic meters.

The BBC doesn't write "the Ukraine" and neither do I. А то они нашли тут Судан, едрена вошь. I also say "на(из) Украине (Укарины)" as the Russian I speak is my Russian, not something invented by Ukrainian and other politics, fox 'em all with their innovations in the english and russian languages.

Originally Posted by mishau_

The BBC doesn't write "the Ukraine" and neither do I. А то они нашли тут Судан, едрена вошь. I also say "на(из) Украине (Укарины)" as the Russian I speak is my Russian, not something invented by Ukrainian and other politics, fox 'em all with their innovations in the english and russian languages.

The BBC may not write "the Ukraine", but they sure do say it on TV.

so look for disturbers outside Russia, please

Like Russia would say that. Are they gonng say that to Germany? Their biggest customer?

Like Russia would say that. Are they gonng say that to Germany? Their biggest customer?

There's no reason of it and hardly will. But still. It was Russia that iniciated the price increase. So, no wonder, that Russia was up to its neck in troubles. It would have been quite another matter, if the gas price had remained the same, namely $50, and Ukraine had started stealing Europe's gas all the same.
In that case Russia would not have been implicated in the row at all and Russia might have told anyone 'we didn't do anything, didn't increase the price, didn't reduce the amount of gas in pipes, etc; so solve your problems outside Russia'.

What happened indeed was that once Russia had shaked a trifle the market by their new price policy, the West warned Russia quite justly that they might reconcider reliability on such a partnership. The West said 'do whatever you want, we won't intervene, but provide us with the gas in corpore.' It means that if Ukraine as it has signed the new conrtract goes on with stealing, the EU will blame Ukraine only. That's why Ukraine won't do so anymore (until Russia implements a new price policy ).

But I wonder why NAFTA-gas never proposed to increase the price for the transition. It seems to me that some of NAFTA-gas chiefs were bribed or blackmailed.

Ok, maybe it is a disputable question:

From wikipedia: "In English, the country is sometimes referred to with the definite article, as the Ukraine."

"the Ukraine" seems just much more natural to me than "Ukraine"

"I drove through England" - OK
"I drove through Ukraine" - my ear not like
"I drove through the Ukraine" - my ear like