The ditorial in Le Monde is now up: La guerre du gaz
The diary is also crossposted on dKos for your kind recommendations: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/1/2/9852/35845 In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
This is a direct challenge to nascent American hegemony over the area.
For some strange reason, the Asian continental powers take issue with that, and have decided to do something about it, right now.
Winging it, I'd say they saw the Americans committing to a showdown with Iran, and decided to take advantage of it. Have Keyboard. Will Travel. :)
Oil is being disputed mostly between the West and China (as destinations for the export pipelines). The West scored a big point with the construction of the BTC, but China remains in the game with the Kumkol-China pieline inaugurated last month (not connected yet to the main fields).
On the gas side, Russia has ABSOLUTE control over the resources of the region and this is not goign to change for a long time. BP has a toehold in Azerbaijan (gas to be exported to Turkey), but that's it, and that will be it for the foreseeable future. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
I've been lurking at DailyKos for the past 1.5 years and never posted a comment there. I've been lurking here at Eurotrib since its inception as well. This diary, however, has finally forced me to post a response.
I usually agree with your energy-related analyses, but you have this one completely wrong. You do not understand the situation in Russia.
According to your point of view, Putin is trying to punish Ukraine for leaning closer to the West. Specifically, you seem to be saying that he is retaliating in response to the Orange "revolution" - which was an American-sponsored coup, by the way, which has done nothing but harm the Ukrainian economy and people. We can put this aside, however, because it has nothing to do with the current "crisis".
The real reason for Putin demanding that Ukraine pay market price for Russia's natural gas is that the Russian people are sick and tired of subsidizing countries that continually bad-mouth her in public, yet are more than happy to buy her gas for $50/ 1000 cm and resell it to Hungary, Romania, and Moldavia for $250. Why should Russia subsidize Ukrainian industries and companies, like steel maker Krivostahl, that are in direct competition with Russian industry?
As to your comment to the effect that "Europe should tell Russia to deal with it", most Russians will answer with the following - "If Europe doesn't like it, they can buy their gas from someone else. Enough is enough." You VASTLY overestimate the importance Russia places on gas exports to Europe. Do you honestly think that they are as important to Putin as the domestic perception within Russia that we are being robbed. We would rather turn off the spigot altogether than be paid nothing for our natural resources.
I think you, as are most western Europeans, are extremely biased in favor of Ukraine. You all seem to think that Russia arbitrarily decided to turn off the gas, but we have been conducting negotiations about this with Ukraine since March 2005! You want to talk about Russia's contractual obligations. Oh, boy, that's rich! It is the Ukraine who wants to have her cake and eat it too. The vast majority of Russians could not be happier that Putin has finally cut off the gravy train for our ingrate neighbors to the east.
Ukraine gets 60 bcm per year from Russia - forget the cosy illusion that more than that comes form Turkmenistan, it's really Russian gas. Ukrainians PAY FOR THAT GAS, partly in transit fee offstes, partly in cash - but Gazprom and the Russian State get nothing of this money because it is kept by a few well place individuals who HAVE to be very near the top of Gazprom and the Kremlin. This is money paid by the Ukrainians and stolen from the Russian population by a combination of Russian, Central Asian and Ukrainian criminals.
Should Yushenko succeed in cleaning up Ukrainian gas market practises, the Russian population (or at least Gazprom, an imperfect proxy) would at least benefit a little bit.
Let me say this again - the Ukrainian gas trade is theft by bandits from Russia, not by Ukrainians from Russia. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
BTW 75% of Gazprom's profits originate in Western Europe.
Today's diary faces reality of Gazprom (Kremlin) having cut gas supply to Ukraine for failure to meet a new agreement per year's end. Ukraine as poor man has not been able to pay its bills for gas it got serviced. I personally would cut supplies too when I don't get paid for delivery. I am sure it's mostly politics, complicated by the upcoming Ukrainian parliamentary election in March 2006.
"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason."
▼ ▼ ▼ MY DIARY
All of a sudden you are an expert on the internal workings of Gazprom. My uncle was Deputy Minister of Economics during Soviet times and is now a high-level executive at Gazprom and even he admits that he doesn't know what exactly is going on. Yet Jerome a Paris has proven beyond a doubt that my uncle is a thief who is stealing gas money from the Russian people... This is why I don't post.
You are very much mistaken if you think Yushenko is cleaning up anything. He is just trying to get his piece of the pie. His nationalism will backfire on him, though, when the Ukrainian people realize that he has done nothing but lower their standard of living and sour relations with their neighbor. Not just a neighbor, however, most people in the east of Ukraine identify more with Russia than with their own country - they speak Russian, their children go to Russian language schools, they watch TV in Russian, etc.
As to Gazprom, I did work very closely with several board members for an extended bit of time a few years ago and I know a few things. There are lots of honest, hard working people at Gazprom - I have also written repeatedly that Gazprom is industrially well run and is the backbone of Russia - and that the company held the country together during the 90s, but are you seriously going to tell me that there are no crooks at Gazprom (and the Kremlin), and especially near the top? In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
But in this case billions are being stolen by the Ukrainian side and what Gazprom proposes will stop this.
Ukrainians pay a real price on 35 bcm/y of gas sold by mysterious intermediary companies that get full access to Gazprom's "magistrals" (at no cost) - but Gazprom sees not one cent of that money. Who is stealing THAT money? That's what at stake today. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Ukrainians pay discount price (1/4th of real) to effectively Ukranian company. Gazprom does get transit fee, although from what I gather at 2/3 of the fee Ukraine charges.
Current Gazprom proposals eliminate this business.
I apologize to other readers, but I didn't find skitalets' contact info.
It's difficult to keep in touch with the developments in Russian society, economy and daily life. News items usually don't go beyond a few headlines, with articles written by journalists with Western bias even if they are not on a White House or DoD payroll.
The so-called Orange Revolt in the Ukraine has remained a mystery to me what really happened. USAID and Western NGOs taking part in the election campaign would not be tolerated in reciprocal manner in any U.S. Presidential or Congressional election!
Please keep writing your view, likely easier here at EuroTrib or BooMan's Place, rather that fast track @dKos.
I find it really hard to believe one can just read through during months and not feel eager to join the on-going debates.
I'm not sure I want to "expose myself" in public anymore ;-)
As I said, I usually agreen with Jerome. In this case of the Russia - Ukraine gas situation, however, I think he is too far away to be able to analyse Russia's motives. I don't even know if he speaks Russian. If not, he is getting a very media-biased version -- even worse than his pet case of French bias in British media!
One reason I have been writing with such bluntness on the Russian-Ukrainian spat is that I was on the ground when this crisis was resolved for the first time, in 1994. I spent 6 months in the Kiev office of GDF (Gaz de France) that year. This was the way I had found to be on the ground as I wrote my PhD dissertation on "the independence of Ukraine", and it turned out to be amazingly useful as the gas negotiations were at the core of what made that independence possible. So I spent a lot of time tracking press reports in the Ukrainian, Russian and international press to try to make sense of all the announcements that were made
Now, I would really be curious to know, for instance, what your perspective as a Russian is of, say, Putin's direct role (or lack thereof) in this crisis or where the political relationships among Russia, Belarus and Ukraine are going. Maybe if you write a couple of diaries you'll reveal your area of expertise and people won't think you're just "some Russian".
Then again, contributions shouldn't be measured on their authors' credentials, but on their own merit. En un viejo país ineficiente, algo así como España entre dos guerras civiles, poseer una casa y poca hacienda y memoria ninguna. -- Gil de Biedma
I do speak Russian, I did spend 6 months in Kiev in 1994 working specifically on Russian-Ukrainian relations, and several years (1997-2001) when Gazprom was my main client and I managed the relationship of my bank with them at various levels, including board level.
I am happy to be proven wrong, in that today's situation is really different from that in the past few years when the stakes were exactly the same, but I a mskeptical and you'll have to provide tangible arguments.
I am sorry if I was a bit aggressive in my responses to you, but your accusation that I was anti-Russian missed my point, which is not a criticism of Russia, but an attempt to analyse the motivations of individuals in position of power in Russia and Ukraine and how they use their access to levers of power for what are not necessarily the interests of their country.
I am glad that you posted and questioned me, and I hope that you will continue to do so despite the rough welcome I gave you! In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
And what's wrong with lurking??? S'pose loads of Russians may well read these pages without any desire to join in. D'ya know why? If the core community (Jerome, that Polish lass, Migeru and a couple of others) aren't bitching about Russians, they're bitching about USA. That is European Unoin all about, innit? Sad, actually...
So... why not be a little more consistent in your hatred (fuelled by your greed and your jealousy and some unlucky events from the past)?
Why not choose another language which everybody in Europe may use, say German (ha!), Polish (ha-bloody-ha!) or even French (burst of laughter)? Why not stop using our natural resources like, say, Americans managed to ignore the Olimpic Games in 1980 in Moscow?
My questions are rhetorical but if the bulk of Europeans have the same views as Jerome at al... hmm... i don't think the European Union has a very bright future, you can't build anything which will work reliably on the unstable full-of-hatred full-of-enemies ground. The Soviet Union's past has already proved this.
(are you that man who always calls that froggy Jerome "our leader"?)
How about you show a little respect, or else, f**k off yourself? The world's northernmost desert wind.
I am beginning to lose all respect for Jerome based on this comment on DailyKos:
"As to who can tolerate this situation longer than the other, i would not bet on Russia myself. They are much weaker than they like to pretend. it's only bluster and our own cowardice that lets them get away with so much. If the game becomes hardball/war, they will stop very quickly: because Europe can do the old African routine: deny access to Paris and London to the girlfriends of all the Russian big bosses, and you'll see how long they last..."
Jerome made this ridiculous post in this diary.
I would like you to know, Jerome, that now when we go to Paris and London, we are suprised that they are not up to the level of Moscow. I am not joking. You have not been there since 2001, no? You should go and see what I mean.
I am beginning to lose all respect for Jerome based on this comment on DailyKos
I think that's because you may be reading it from a Nationalistic point of view, when it should be read from a Political/Realpolitik(al) point of view, no? Jérôme isn't targetting Russia, he's targetting one action by the Russian government concerning one industry sector.
It's like the difference between saying France is shit and Chirac is shit, or Americans suck and America sucks.
If you say France is shit, I might get offended if I think you're talking about the inhabitants (but I doubt it, I have some experience in that field which I mention elsewhere in this thread). If you say Chirac is shit, I'll agree!! Now if you talk about France in some geo-political context, I know you won't be talking about the people ... and so I will then either agree or disagree, depending on the context.
It does seem pretty clear that when Jérôme says Russia, he means the government, and he means it only in this particular context. His comment on the old African routine and girlfriends, I read to be about cultural isolation, not about the types of goods found in luxury shops nor about how clean the sidewalks are. i.e. this is regardless of how slick and modern Moscow sidewalks are, and how much dog shit there is on Paris sidewalks.
Now let me reach for my guitar and sing one of my favourite songs ...
Plachyet maladyena jeeeeeeena, plachyet vsyo, kak adin chelyavek ... plink plonk tsoinggg
If it's all about bashing America -- or so you think -- then perhaps I might point out that I'm an American, as are (I believe) DowneastDem, slaboymni, Robert (rdf), and Chris. Migeru earned his PhD from the University of California, if I'm not mistaken. Jerome is a big name at Daily Kos (the largest American political blog on the web). Where is the anti-Americanism? I'd like to think that, as an American who loves what his country is supposed to stand for, I can decide for myself what anti-Americanism looks like, thank you.
And who is "that Polish lass"?
And am I the only one who thought Jerome's comment, about London and Paris being off-limits to the girlfriends of Russian big bosses, was incredibly funny? So this is what Rifkin meant by "waging peace" in The European Dream.
I'm not going to jump into a fight over London, Paris and Moscow, except to say that, if you want to get into a debate on which cities are on a higher level than others, you may want to avoid bringing up Moscow, where the murder rate is three times that of London. Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.
as for not worrying, i think we're all too blase and sanguine about the energy scene in general, with exception of the few like yourself.
an hour ago i heard debate about this on rai 3, and i found myself paradoxically grateful at the amount of concern in some of the speakers' voices.
the writing is on the wall, and denial is becoming daily much less of an option, meanwhile italy lags behind in biodiesel and solar development, and the eu slides on the token kyoto.
what, me worry? "This may be funny, but it ain't no joke." -Greg Palast
As for the gas crisis analysis - yet another reason to come back to Eurotrib after a holiday hiatus. Great analysis and lively back & forth. Nice read!
And Happy New Year to everyone at Eurotrib!
You are absolutely right. If Putin backs off, he will lose a massive amount of support from the Russian people. Expect to see big demonstrations in the street.
By the way, did you know that official rumour has it that Putin will have himself installed as president of Gazprom when his 2nd (and last) term is over? Kind of reminds you of that "market economy" called Germany - with Schroeder taking the plum job after leaving goverment - doesn't it?
We in Russia see what a "genuine market economy" does for USA - with Katrina response, tax cuts for poor, etc. - and we don't want it!!!
I am not sure that the type of economy determines how the government responds to emergencies. Did the Soviet government do any better after Chernobyl disaster than the U.S. administration after hurricane Katrina?
MOSCOW (Energy Bulletin) Nov. 8, 2005 -- The Russian gas monopoly "Gazprom" is considering raising prices for Ukraine three-fold to 170-180 dollars per 1000 cubic meters in contrast to the current price of 50 dollars per 1000 cubic meters. Turkmenistan is also considering raising the natural gas price for Ukraine.
Turkmenistan is discontented with the current level of payments and wants Kiyiv [Ukraine] to pay full price for imported gas. After the last visit of Ukrainian Prime Minister Jurij Jehanurov there were even rumours that Ashgabat, the biggest supplier of natural gas to Ukraine (50%), will stop gas supplies to Ukraine in 2006.
Turkmenistan has an opportunity to feed South Asia's growing gas demand: reserves are huge but these await certification; Turkmenistan's Karakum Desert is rich with gas fields that lie beneath the sand.
The simultaneous price hikes by Russia and Ashgabat allow us to conclude that their actions are fully or partly coordinated. The situation is aggravated by a bilateral agreement between Gazprom and Uzbekistan signed in late September about the use of the transit capacities of Uzbek gas pipelines (50 billion m3 of natural gas per year). The agreement means that Ukraine is fully cut off from the Turkmenistan natural gas supply. Gazprom and the Kremlin can celebrate their triumph over Ukraine.
● Ukraine Stole 100 mln m³ of Natural Gas on New Year's Day -- EU countries react to dispute and cut in gas delivery ● Gazprom Agreement Azerbaijan - 2004 ● Caspian Sea Region: USAID report 2002-2004 (pdf file)
France, Italy, Germany, Hungary and Poland were among those reporting falling volumes.
Hungary says normal gas supplies have now been restored
Russia says it will pump more gas to Europe after various countries said their supplies had fallen by up to 40% after Moscow cut Ukraine's provision.
Russia said it was sending an extra 95 million cubic metres a day, to make up for gas "stolen" by Ukraine.
Ukraine denies it has siphoned off $25m (£15m) worth of gas from a pipeline crossing its territory after Russia cut off its supply in a price dispute.
My diary @BooMan's :: ● Russia Vows to End Gas Shortage to Europe
"I believe that in the end both sides will have to compromise. Ukraine is ready to pay more, but what Russia is proposing [...] seems to be political pressure. Such a [sudden and] large increase does not seem to have any economic justification.
A lot will depend on the stance of the European countries. I constantly watch Russian TV and all the channels are propagating the idea that Ukraine is not ready for any compromise, but rather is stealing gas from the pipelines, which threatens to cause an energy crisis in the entire EU. If the West comes to believe that, it will be very bad.
The legal arguments are on our side - Russia signed a long term agreement with Ukraine on gas delivery before the Orange Revolution. It is true that that agreement was extremely advantageous for us [...] but no one abrogated it. If we were to insist on arbitration at the Stockholm Tribunal - which is seriously being considered in Kiev - we should win the case. The problem is that the proceedings will take months or even years.
The other issue is that it is Russia that is obliged to provide gas to the western countries, not us. Yet Moscow has still not established any agreement with us on the conditions of the transit of gas through the Ukraine for this year. Starting Jan. 1, Moscow is sending gas through the Ukraine illegally. That's not just our problem, but the problem of Moscow's relations with European countries.
[...]
What do you expect from the West?
Zachód może albo się w ogóle nie wtrącać, albo zachęcać obie strony do rozumnego kompromisu. Moim zdaniem ta druga postawa jest oczywiście lepsza. Z wielką nadzieją patrzę na środowe spotkanie Unii Europejskiej w Brukseli w sprawie tego kryzysu. The West can either stay out of it completely, or urge both sides to a compromise. IMO the latter option is better. [...]
How will this crisis affect the political situation in Ukraine? Could it change the result of the March parliamentary elections?
That will depend on the course of events, primarily on whether the government will manage to maintain a more or less stable gas prise. The government claims there shouldn't be a problem in the first quarter, but that's debatable. Part of the electorate will vote for the pro-Russian Regional Party of ex PM Janukowycz as a result of the crisis. On the other hand it was Janukowycz who signed the gas agreement with Russia in 2004. If it was such a good one why does Russia wish to change it? [I assume the good prof is engaging in a bit of snarkiness here]
Radykalne działania Rosji mogą wywołać negatywną reakcję części elektoratu, który na co dzień jest raczej prorosyjski. Dyplomacja rosyjska nie zmieniła, niestety, swojego podejścia do Ukrainy z czasów pomarańczowej rewolucji. A wtedy Rosja swoim zachowaniem bardzo dużo straciła w oczach przeciętnych Ukraińców. Niewykluczone, że teraz będzie podobnie. Ludzie nie są głupi, by uwierzyć, że trzykrotna podwyżka cen gazu nie ma podtekstu politycznego. W dodatku podwyżce towarzyszy antyukraińska kampania w mediach rosyjskich. To wszystko nie sprzyja stabilnym i przyjaznym stosunkom między naszymi krajami. The radical actions by Russia could cause a negative reaction among the generally pro-Russian part of the electorate. Russian diplomacy has unfortunately not changed its approach to Ukraine from the times of the Orange Revolution. Back then Russia's actions cost it a lot of support among ordinary Ukrainians. It may be the same this time round. [...] All of this does not help the chances for a stable and friendly relationship with the two countries. [...]
Interview with Prof. Haran
Here is the main quote I want you to see -> "One of these anti-Russian nationalists was then-Deputy Prime Minister for energy policy Alexiy Ivchenko (since then demoted to a lesser-job as a chief of the NaftaGas consortium). When he visited Russia for crucial talks back in March of 2005, he brought with him a Russian-Ukrainian translator. Since some 95% of Ukrainians speak fluent (if accented) Russian - and those who don't are overwhelmingly village hicks from Galicia - so the decision to only speak to his Russian counterpart through a translator had the main effect of pissing off the counterparty right from the start. But this was only the beginning. Claiming to "break the Russian shackles" and bring in a new, more pragmatic era in joint relations, Ivchenko declared that the Ukraine want to scrap the previous arrangements on gas deliveries, based on barter trade and reduced prices.
Since the previous agreement, valid until at least 2009, was in fact hugely favorable to Ukraine, Russians could not believe their luck. "Are you sure you want to do this?" they asked Ivchenko.
"Of course we do, we're a proud, independent Ukraine," was the essence of Ivchenko's reply.
"Then so be it, we'll start market-pricing gas exports and transit through the Ukraine." The details of the new "realistic" terms remained vague and the issue was shelved - until a couple of months ago, when Gazprom announced a big price hike for the gas supplies to Ukraine, though still well below the European prices."
And here's what Jerome had to say about veracity of eXile's work in a DailyKos comment -> "That sounds (none / 0)
very much possible, and the exile has often been well informed about such tidbits.
In the long run, we're all dead (Keynes) Read more on the European Tribune - bringing dKos to Europe
by Jerome a Paris on Mon Jan 02, 2006 at 11:24:27 AM PDT"
Link for above Jerome comment -> Jerome DKos comment in this diary
Jerome - Why don't you mention this here?
BTW your English grammar is near perfect, where have you mastered the language?
Name: Кристофер Тессон Website: blog (english) Location: Carbondale IL, Russian Federation Birthdate: 1982-06-26
▼▼▼ READ MY DIARY ▼
Скиталец you are most probably a well-travelled person, like many of us here!
And skitalets, your opinion is interesting. I would tend to favour Jérôme's opinion for him being experienced in this field, but I dare say that it's possible that both of you, correction all of us, are way over our heads in this Gazprom matter, and that it's important that we stick around and talk even if sometimes we don't like some things said (for example I usually get goose bumps when people start saying that the French unemployment rate is high, I puff and huff and quickly say "it's been the same for 20 years, you punks", then I slowly start reaching for my gun, which gives ample time for people to retract their comment).
My own response to myself : grow up ! You people on ET are so moderate in your comments, not over-reacting and all that stuff, I'll start to believe you are old middle-aged people (ie above their thirties). Snark When through hell, just keep going. W. Churchill
Well about how to learn control on such issues as "someone else's understanding of your country", I was just lucky to be a member of the original fuckfrance.com when it started, shortly around the beginning of the war in Iraq. I first went there by curiosity, but ended up fighting verbally with the most conservative republican pricks in the world. Ex-marine officers who hated arabs and French people. Average joe schmoes who didn't hate anyone in particular but still believed that France was evil. French people who agreed that France was evil and who were totally pro-Bush.
To fight them I had to turn into them, it was very ugly. But one day, bam! I managed to make peace with some of them, and that day I started liking the place.
(but shortly after that a new wave of idiots joined and started harrassing again and at that point I left, too tired to have to go through the same stuff over and over again).
One thing I learned over there, is how to get people annoyed and angry. It's actually very easy to get people on the defensive. You, for example, can 1) gang up. This consists of teaming up with another person or two and start claiming that "you just owned the other guy haha what an idiot we really got him haha", when in fact the person you're attacking has been carefully arguing, documenting his claims. this gets carefully debating people very angry, particularly when you on the other hand have just been superficial and insulting. Or 2) claim that you've already been through this and that the person in question is boring and invite him/her to re-read everything on the forum. etc etc
And learning all of this, makes you more prepared for it.
I don't recommend this website, if it still exists, for people who are nice, gentle and who think that all of humanity can just get along. It's not full of harmless people. Some people over there really hated our guts and were ready to bomb the shit out of France. Some French people there hated America so much they were ready to go all-out nuclear with them too. A really ugly website. But a good place to learn how to take it easy.
So in essence, you were screwed. Either you retaliated and were no better than them. Or you tried being calm and you were a French surrender monkey.
It took me a few months to find the middle path. Which consisted of ignoring the ones in it for a fight, and trying to settle differences, in a calm manner, with those not in it for a fight. But like I said, I eventually quit because the ones looking for a fight kept on coming, and coming and coming ... endless masses of adversaries. Way too much to handle. The ratio was like 1 Frenchman against 10 Conservative Republicans, and in such circumstances it quickly gets too tedious.
disclaimer: I'm not zen at all, I'm just beginning to get good at knowing how to avoid getting into trouble.
The link to the dKos thread is near the top of this thread.
That Ukrainian guy does indeed sound especialyl stupid, but the Russians had no reason to want to change the terms of the deal, as it is, despite appearances, advantageous to them. You may not believe me when I write this (and it is true that it becomes slightly less advantageous as prices for gas inrease, but it is still a good deal for Gazprom), but I really believe it and I have no agenda in this. I don't work with Russian clients anymore, I have not been in Ukraine in more than 10 years. I am just providing what I think is a reasonably well informed opinion (information on Ukriane, and information on how pipelines tariffs are set elsewhare in the world).
As I said, I'd love to learn from you if you are in a position to comment with insider-y information or simply your Russian perspective. That's what this site is about - everybody can provide information and opinion, and if it's interesting or useful, it is noticed and acknowledged. I certainly don't hold the sole source of wisdom on this site. In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Furthermore, he used to write some exercises on politics, but knowing his words about Putin’s election: “ Since the old tune about “wild bears prowling snow-covered streets of Moscow” is getting a bit stale and little harder to believe these days, a new spin cycle was uniformly adopted by journalistic corps. OK, perhaps Moscow is booming, but if you ever dare to go beyond the Ring Road [insert gloomy and menacing sound-effects here…], there is absolutely nothing but abject poverty and alcohol fumes, and total hopelessness - which, of course, signifies a complete failure of Evil Putin’s resurgent KGB-inspired policies. You might think it is some kind of Sierra-Leone out there – only with much colder climate.”
So, I couldn’t believe that he wrote this paper “Gas Attack! The Ukraine...» Then who wrote this paper? It is evidently that the grandsons of KGB. The text of it is about the same as in the former Soviet newspapers (before Afghanistan aggression in 1979). Knowing Russian, you can see the forums in the electronic version of the main former Soviet gazette “Izvestiya”. The new FSB tactics in Russian is to provocate normal people, using indignant words etc. in forums and desinformations.
PS: Sorry for pigeon English. Per aspera ad astra
It seems to me that your thinking is generally slanted toward economic imperatives at the expense of political ones. Moreover, your argument in this post -- essentially that the gas dispute is a rather secretive financial affair among various Slavic bully boys, is in my opinion a bit off the mark.
In this case, the POV of Kremlin insiders would seem to take precedence -- such as Andrei Illarionov, Putin's hand-picked top economic adviser. Excerpts from an AP report via Forbes:
The company has said the price hike marks a long-overdue transfer to free-market price mechanisms.
However, Andrei Illarionov, a former economic adviser to Russian President Vladimir Putin, said the increase instead was a political move signaling the rise of neo-imperialist trends in Kremlin policy.
Illarionov said the Kremlin had asked him to help cast the price hike as a free-market measure, but that he resigned this week because the move "had no relation not only to liberal economic policy, but to economic policy at all." ...
Illarionov said that in August 2004, Gazprom signed a deal with Ukraine's gas company that envisaged five years of gas supplies at $50 per 1,000 cubic meters - part of the Kremlin's efforts to support presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych, who lost a tense race last fall to the Western-leaning Yushchenko.
"When the political situation changed, they remembered about subsidies," said Illarionov, who long had been a dissenter in the Kremlin, which is dominated by Putin's fellow veterans of the Soviet spy agency KGB.
Illarionov likened Russia's price hike for Ukraine to Nazi and Soviet ultimatums issued to Eastern European nations before their annexation on the eve of the World War II, and urged the Kremlin to step away "from the brink of a precipice that we are approaching so blindly and quickly."
Illiarnov's opinions are hardly singular. Ukrainian media, as well as braver Russian media, broadly see the gas-price attack for what it is: bullying and blackmail, Kremlin-style. (See also Ukrayinska Pravda, one of Ukraine's widest read and most influential publications.) Putin intends to punish Ukraine for deviating to the West. There is hardly more to it than that. The usual suspects rake in their cash along the way.
Yes, certain shady characters along the revenue stream are benefiting hugely, but that's nothing new. This new development is mainly about politics of control via energy supplies, the same game the US is playing.
Putin is playing brinksmanship, insisting on the collapse of Ukraine's new democracy back into Russia's orbit and brutal control. Ukrainians for the most part want OUT and to have a chance for freedom and prosperity -- the central messages of the Orange Revolution. Further, he's warning Europe that Ukraine needs to fall in order for Europe to retain Russian energy supplies.
Bear in mind that Putin is not the sharpest knife in the kitchen, and his new attack against Ukraine and indirectly against Europe may very well prove to be far too ill-conceived and too blunt (stupid, in other words) to be credible as more than another fist or boot in Ukraine's face. It's an old Russian habit towards Ukraine and Ukrainians. Russia's economy would implode without energy exports, and Putin is just dumb enough to try cutting those off if he doesn't get what he wants, that being in this case the return of Ukraine to Kremlin subservience.
(Opining from eastern Urkaine.)
----- ----- The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter. W. Churchill
At least we agree that Jerome does not understand the situation.
We, obviously, do not agree about Ukraine's motives. "freedom and prosperity -- the central messages of the Orange Revolution"? For whom? As long as you are from western Ukraine and not the Russian-speaking eastern part where all of the industry is located. The U.S. State Dept. spent $65 million financing this "revolution".
Meanwhile, we have Ukraine creating monuments to Nazi soldiers. They have this in common with the baltic states You would think that Germany, at least, would speak up against such behavior. But they are too busy voting for baltic states in EU and NATO. Europe has learned nothing. Russia must always save her, as when she stopped the mongolians from taking over Europe. All while Europeans look down their nose at Russia and Ukrainians help the enemy.
I'm not saying that Jerome doesn't understand the situation. Not at all. His economic viewpoint, engendered by his scholarly economic emphasis, leaves a small but not insignificant blind spot regarding the political arena. Jerome's take on the issues at hand are quite plausible, insofar as they go. I argue only that his tendency to interpret things in terms of economics is in this case at the expense of interpreting them polically -- economics and political science both being worthwhile and respectable social sciences. (I'm a behavioral scientist myself, a slightly distinct breed of social scientist....)
Anticipating that you'd likely be among the first to respond, I'm relieved that you attributed only $65 million to the US side (or was it just US State, with other US players to be mentioned later?) Common wisdom and estimates in Ukraine, and in the West, were that Russia had invested around half a billion dollars in pumping Yanukovich into office over Yushchenko. Eight times more, and it still didn't work.
Your last paragraph lost me. Europe et al. may or may not look down their noses at Russia, but notions such that Russia must save Europe somehow is quite out of sync with what the overwhelming majority of Europeans think -- unless I've missed something. If so, I stand to be corrected.
If we start going down the this and that and me and you path, then we'll end up arguing that Charles-Martel saved Russia, but not really because anyhow the King of Russia near then was half-German, or maybe part-Italian, and anyways we owe it all to Kenya since we're all Africans.
You have to stop orienting your thoughts along those lines, skitalets. Imagine if Bush opponents in the USA (half the country) had no chance of being recognized as existing, just because all of the USA could be swept as being "a bunch of Bush-electing fanatics". Wouldn't that be a little sad?
If you're pissed off with Jérôme, let it remain because you disagree with his geo-political arguments in the energy sector, not because you don't like what you think he may have said to your neighbour about your sister who happened to save the life of a Portuguese sailor in the 16th century.
And I know what I'm talking about, I've been cured from overreacting to attacks on my country ever since I visited fuckfrance.com. Now, I know how to differenciate between people and government, and I leave the past in the past. I suggest you try to do the same, it will only make you feel better anyways ... countries are just administrative bits of paper ... it's cultures that are interesting, not countries. And the Russian culture is fascinating to me. To the point where I started taking Russian lessons, I read a lot of classics, watched movies such as "Another day in the life of Oblomov" ... all this having nothing to do with Putin or the Mongols.
Russia saved Russia from Mongol invasions, and with limited success (my dear Russian girlfriend/econ professor from Siberia has very distinctive, though lovely, Mongol features for one example.)
Russia saved Russia from Nazi Germany.
If Europe or anyplace else benefited in either case, it was an accident. Russia never set out to do anything more than protect Russia.
Moreover, by the time Stalin finished (died) and less psychotic minds took over the former USSR, the whole notion of "protection" coming out of Russia sent Sicilian mafia chills down the spine of a West trying to resist Nazi/Communist control. Which was worse, Nazis or Stalinist-bred Communists, is debatable primarily on the basis of video recordings and known mass graves. Be sure to consider the Ukrainian Holodomor, where Stalin intentionally starved to death seven million Ukrainians who dared resist his collective farming enterprise. Or was is six million, as in the Jewish Holocaust at the hands of Nazis? Or was it eight million?
Russia has never, ever intentionally saved Europe or anyone else. Russia has a hard time saving her own people, and as you surely know very well Russia has a long and inglorious history of destroying her own people.
If by any chance Europe is looking down its nose at Russia, I respectfully suggest that it may very well be due to some Russians audacious and self-serving claims that Russians have ever even pretended to care about anyone other than Russians -- and not doing a very good job in that latter case.
Now we have the tupical post KGB insuniations and provocations on the topic!
Yes! Petlura and Bandera are bustards. But they are Ukrainien (ours) bustartds. And only ukranian people could change their attitude for them! Per aspera ad astra
How the people in the know "package" their decision to the public, and how they bring politicians on board, is another topic... In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes
Why, from the Rus - a scandinavian tribe (Vikings, if you will) that settled the Don and created such a wonderful organized society that all came to ask "Can you do the same for us, please' (this was before Cyril and his alphabet BTW)
They also got to nowadays Iraq, but that is another historical story of no relevance to today.
Except for Enoch - he who walked with God - who they brought back.
reading apochryphal history is an excellent antidote to nationalism. You can't be me, I'm taken
