Sevodnya_Net honestly you can spin arround the topic all day but it all comes down to this. Russia pays full cost and without delay for the pipelines. Russia also was charging well below the market price for its gas to Ukraine.What ever the motive,be it for influence or just helping a friend. They at the very least expect regular payment and friendship. If neither is forthcoming then I would expect them to return to the market price and a soverign country like Ukraine paying it.You do not expect Russia to be giving freebies to someone picking a fight with her.Do you?
Now middlemen.what ground do you have to claim that they are corrupt? Also can you tell us which big company does not use middlemen? As for Gazprom being a state monopoly.As you said it is not an issue as many countries have the same type of monoply. IT IS AN EXPENSION OF RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY.No private company will sell anything to anyone well below the market rate in the first place.
".but in the eyes of many it is merely an extension of Russian foreign policy."
And where is the problem with that? Russia uses a state owned company to make politics. Western countries even force private companies to make politics. Banks and High-Technology producers all have to follow US restrictions, otherwise they would be sanctioned in their western markets.
Of course RT is a biased media sourse. I doubt if there is a "media source" in the world which isn't. By and large I don't have a problem with that: RT unashamedly presents the news from a Russian perspective: that as far as I know is in its mission statement. Although I sometimes get irritated by the seemingly endless procession of clone-like "political analysts" who all seem to be spouting the Kremlin line, the fact is Russia is a large and important country and the world media needs a major TV station which presents the news with an alternative slant.
The Ukraine/Russia gas dispute is a lot more complicated than simply Ukraine allegedly refusing to pay the "market rate" (it never did refuse, as a matter of fact). It involves payment processes, corrupt middlemen, and the added complication that Ukraine, since the dispute, gets much of its gas now from alternative sources but all through the same (Gazprom!) pipelines. Not long after the so-called "Orange revolution" Russia suddenly hiked up the price of its gas and demanded immediate payment, then turned the gas supply off and furthermore tried to isolate Ukraine by accusing it of cutting supplies west (as Ukraine in fairness had threatened to do). This tactic of course badly misfired, because even if it wasn't the case that Russia was using gas as a bullying or revenge tactic it "sure as hell" looked that way to many of Gazprom's existing and potential customers. The fact is that Gazprom is a state monopoly - not of itself an issue - but in the eyes of many it is merely an extension of Russian foreign policy.
Quentin, I fully agree with what you said, except for one point: RT cannot become Russia's CNN, because RT is an unbiased media source, whereas you are proposing a media source that tells the Russian point of view, which would not be unbiased. If you are interested in investing in Russia, I'm scouting Russia's Space Tourism Program and Russia's Eco-Tourism Program. Unfortunately it's too late to invest into Sochi Olympics, as the best investments are gone, and Gazprom provides security, but not a huge chance at profit. However nascent Russian industries, (eco-tourism) and industries in which Russia has a clear technological advantage (space tourism) continue to be the Investors' Golden Oppurtunities.
As an American I am perplexed about the controversy that surrounds Russian oil exports to Europe. Our media constantly portrays Russia holding Europe hostage via energy supplies.
I simply do not believe this is the case. Ukraine was purchasing natural gas at below market prices. As was pointed out earlier, why should Russia subsidize a hostile government? I understand the pipeline runs through the Ukraine, but I think they have already been and continue to be compensated for this.
The Russians have reliably delivered energy to Europe ever since the Soviet years. It has even been pointed out by German former Chancellor Schroeder that even during the Soviet collapse energy was reliably delivered. It is also in Russia's best interest to continue to do so even if there are political differences as 25% of their federal budget comes from energy - most of which goes to Europe.
Unfortunately, perception is reality, and like or not media plays a tremendous role in setting the international agenda. If I could recommend something to the Russian government it would be this: Build up and invest in an international news network that rivals the likes of the BBC, CNN, and even Aljizera (which is due to hit cable here in the States shortly). Through this the Russian point of view could be told and understood throughout the world. RT is a good first step, but it needs to be bigger and better.
I have studied Russia for quite some time, and I find that Russian failures and misperceptions are highlighted in Western media (I could speculate because of controlling business interests). Russia has so many good and interesting aspects that are not known, and tremendous potential to be a leader in many fields. The word needs to be spread.
Energy security is just one of the issues that Russia is getting an unfair judgement on here in the West, but it's mainly the perception - not reality
Victor why should Russia be giving them gas under the market value in the first place? If you are sovereign state then be one.On what grounds can a country justify having their economy supported by another? Especially by a country you claim is aggressive to you.
"We need to be NATO to protect us from Russia, but hey Russia help us with financing our economy" Very funny:)
Medvedev had warned Yushchenko that this support ends this year.Yushchenko's reply was "the sooner the better" It made me smile because we all know what will happen next time Russia again tries to raise the prices.
Russia is no doing enough because Russia´s interests start in its own terriory avoiding the inefficient, incompetent, wasteful of energy, system that the Russian Federation has right now.
The Russian Federation expends too much on energy: more oil than Germany even if the German economy is twice larger than the Russian (for example).not to talk about gaz or coal.
The more efficient the Russian distribution system and Russian industrial consumption, the more gaz and oil left for Export at international prices.
So Russia is losing billions as a consequence of lack of efficiency.
Why Russia is not setting a specific LIMITS on levels of gas Ukraine ( and other former soviets states) can get for value under market price, and any additional gas they consume/buy above those levels be based on market price comparatively to european gas price standard?
I am very pleased about Trichet´s press conference today. When he talked about the oil price, he said that it began with increasing demand from emerging countries, but that there would also be anomalies on the supply side which have to do with geopolitics. Usually, when talking about oil price and geopolitics, then one refers to the tensions with Iran, but one does not call it an anomaly. In my eyes, he clearly hinted to an economic warfare which is going on and I remembered Putin´s historical visit to Saudi Arabia and the BRIC countries´action plan because of Kosovo. It seems the free world began already to fight the criminals via the oil price. I will enjoy the scenes of rioting people in western capitals. Bravo Rossija!
We have to share the resources on earth than only the world can be a better place. Mixing politics with trade is not a good option.Europe needs russia and Russia needs europe. http://starvice.blogspot.com
There is an opinion that IMHO needs to be mentioned… “Russia does not owe EU anything it doesn’t owe oil and natural gas. It does not have to provide any guaranties or search for new energy supplies. In fact if Russia would stop supplying EU with natural resources it would starve Europe and Ensure enough of affordable resources for Russian companies and thus Russian economy would become fruitful & highly competitive by comparison, because Europe would be forced to buy from U.S. government=U.S. oil companies, which is same thing, that control about 75% of WORLDs oil and US would have squeezed every Euro out of them charging 400$ a barrel to partially compensate their losses in Iraq.”
I agree!The Baltics,Poland and Ukraine have been used by CIA to create trouble in russia.Indeed what's happening in Georgia is no diffrent! http://starvice.blogspot.com
Russia is increasingly becoming Europe's main energy supplier. Russia appears to be doing its best to maintain the flow of energy but Ukraine has siphoned off energy intended for west and central Europe each time there has been a pricing dispute. Ukraine's orange leadership seems to have found a way of internationalising its dispute with Russia
John I cannt agree more with you that prices should be in euro,after all its already the currency of many countries and by far a more stable currency then the dollar. The USA is the worlds biggest debtor and her foriegn policies are making the whole world pay for her mistakes by using the dollar in directly. However the link you kept is for local prices of products and not the international prices of crude oil which is still traded in dollars,even by the EU. All this is wishful thinking,The USA will never let it happen as lose of the oil dollar will mean total collapse of the USA. There is one conspirecy theory about the war in Iraq that says that Sadam wanted to demand Euros and not dollars for Iraqs oil as a way to get back at the USA for first war.It that way damaging the US economy.
Well you've made a good point. Latvia and Estonia with large Russian populations, if they had allowed referendums, the result may have gone against NATO.NATO claims to believe in democracy yet in Ukraine where 55% are against it according to the opinion polls, and many more undecided, NATO is not interested in public opinion. So it works with a narrow group inside the 'orange' movement and claims that 'Ukraine wants to join NATO'.
The price for a barrel of crude oil should be in euros, not in dollars. That should ease thing down in the financial markets. The EU already seems to do so at http://www.energy.eu/#prices
Rambler Public opinion does not seem to matter. I do not think the government of Ukraine would give the people a referendum on joining or not.Do not remember any before the rest joined NATO.I may be wrong.
I agree that Russia cannot be expected to subsidize neighbouring countries' gas bills. Armenia and Belarus, as was stated earlier are not interested in joining NATO (and neither for that matter is Ukraine, where the majority of the population is opposed to NATO membership). But their gas prices have been hiked all the same. Speaking of NATO, Armenian public opinion is very crtical of that organization because NATO continues to ignore the land blockade imposed by member Turkey against Armenia (Cold War instincts die hard I guess!)
Gazprom is playing silly game. Why did they supply gas to Ukraine while there was no contract? The rules of the game are simple. Gazprom should do it as follows. We have the gas and this is the market price. Do you want to buy gas from us? If Ukraine declines that is their decision.
Under no circumstances that should have any impact on supplies to Europe. If Ukraine sabotage those supplies, that will be a matter for international court to consider.
22 June, 2008, 12:05
Sevodnya_Net honestly you can spin arround the topic all day but it all comes down to this.
Russia pays full cost and without delay for the pipelines.
Russia also was charging well below the market price for its gas to Ukraine.What ever the motive,be it for influence or just helping a friend.
They at the very least expect regular payment and friendship.
If neither is forthcoming then I would expect them to return to the market price and a soverign country like Ukraine paying it.You do not expect Russia to be giving freebies to someone picking a fight with her.Do you?
Now middlemen.what ground do you have to claim that they are corrupt? Also can you tell us which big company does not use middlemen?
As for Gazprom being a state monopoly.As you said it is not an issue as many countries have the same type of monoply.
IT IS AN EXPENSION OF RUSSIAN FOREIGN POLICY.No private company will sell anything to anyone well below the market rate in the first place.
22 June, 2008, 11:34
".but in the eyes of many it is merely an extension of Russian foreign policy."
And where is the problem with that? Russia uses a state owned company to make politics. Western countries even force private companies to make politics. Banks and High-Technology producers all have to follow US restrictions, otherwise they would be sanctioned in their western markets.
21 June, 2008, 19:46
Of course RT is a biased media sourse. I doubt if there is a "media source" in the world which isn't.
By and large I don't have a problem with that: RT unashamedly presents the news from a Russian perspective: that as far as I know is in its mission statement. Although I sometimes get irritated by the seemingly endless procession of clone-like "political analysts" who all seem to be spouting the Kremlin line, the fact is Russia is a large and important country and the world media needs a major TV station which presents the news with an alternative slant.
The Ukraine/Russia gas dispute is a lot more complicated than simply Ukraine allegedly refusing to pay the "market rate" (it never did refuse, as a matter of fact).
It involves payment processes, corrupt middlemen, and the added complication that Ukraine, since the dispute, gets much of its gas now from alternative sources but all through the same (Gazprom!) pipelines.
Not long after the so-called "Orange revolution" Russia suddenly hiked up the price of its gas and demanded immediate payment, then turned the gas supply off and furthermore tried to isolate Ukraine by accusing it of cutting supplies west (as Ukraine in fairness had threatened to do). This tactic of course badly misfired, because even if it wasn't the case that Russia was using gas as a bullying or revenge tactic it "sure as hell" looked that way to many of Gazprom's existing and potential customers. The fact is that Gazprom is a state monopoly - not of itself an issue - but in the eyes of many it is merely an extension of Russian foreign policy.
21 June, 2008, 04:08
Quentin, I fully agree with what you said, except for one point: RT cannot become Russia's CNN, because RT is an unbiased media source, whereas you are proposing a media source that tells the Russian point of view, which would not be unbiased. If you are interested in investing in Russia, I'm scouting Russia's Space Tourism Program and Russia's Eco-Tourism Program. Unfortunately it's too late to invest into Sochi Olympics, as the best investments are gone, and Gazprom provides security, but not a huge chance at profit. However nascent Russian industries, (eco-tourism) and industries in which Russia has a clear technological advantage (space tourism) continue to be the Investors' Golden Oppurtunities.
18 June, 2008, 23:28
As an American I am perplexed about the controversy that surrounds Russian oil exports to Europe. Our media constantly portrays Russia holding Europe hostage via energy supplies.
I simply do not believe this is the case. Ukraine was purchasing natural gas at below market prices. As was pointed out earlier, why should Russia subsidize a hostile government? I understand the pipeline runs through the Ukraine, but I think they have already been and continue to be compensated for this.
The Russians have reliably delivered energy to Europe ever since the Soviet years. It has even been pointed out by German former Chancellor Schroeder that even during the Soviet collapse energy was reliably delivered. It is also in Russia's best interest to continue to do so even if there are political differences as 25% of their federal budget comes from energy - most of which goes to Europe.
Unfortunately, perception is reality, and like or not media plays a tremendous role in setting the international agenda. If I could recommend something to the Russian government it would be this: Build up and invest in an international news network that rivals the likes of the BBC, CNN, and even Aljizera (which is due to hit cable here in the States shortly). Through this the Russian point of view could be told and understood throughout the world. RT is a good first step, but it needs to be bigger and better.
I have studied Russia for quite some time, and I find that Russian failures and misperceptions are highlighted in Western media (I could speculate because of controlling business interests). Russia has so many good and interesting aspects that are not known, and tremendous potential to be a leader in many fields. The word needs to be spread.
Energy security is just one of the issues that Russia is getting an unfair judgement on here in the West, but it's mainly the perception - not reality
15 June, 2008, 05:57
Victor why should Russia be giving them gas under the market value in the first place?
If you are sovereign state then be one.On what grounds can a country justify having their economy supported by another? Especially by a country you claim is aggressive to you.
"We need to be NATO to protect us from Russia, but hey Russia help us with financing our economy" Very funny:)
Medvedev had warned Yushchenko that this support ends this year.Yushchenko's reply was "the sooner the better"
It made me smile because we all know what will happen next time Russia again tries to raise the prices.
14 June, 2008, 14:27
Russia is no doing enough because Russia´s interests start in its own terriory avoiding the inefficient, incompetent, wasteful of energy, system that the Russian Federation has right now.
The Russian Federation expends too much on energy: more oil than Germany even if the German economy is twice larger than the Russian (for example).not to talk about gaz or coal.
The more efficient the Russian distribution system and Russian industrial consumption, the more gaz and oil left for Export at international prices.
So Russia is losing billions as a consequence of lack of efficiency.
13 June, 2008, 22:06
Why Russia is not setting a specific LIMITS on levels of gas Ukraine ( and other former soviets states) can get for value under market price, and any additional gas they consume/buy above those levels be based on market price comparatively to european gas price standard?
05 June, 2008, 14:39
I am very pleased about Trichet´s press conference today. When he talked about the oil price, he said that it began with increasing demand from emerging countries, but that there would also be anomalies on the supply side which have to do with geopolitics. Usually, when talking about oil price and geopolitics, then one refers to the tensions with Iran, but one does not call it an anomaly. In my eyes, he clearly hinted to an economic warfare which is going on and I remembered Putin´s historical visit to Saudi Arabia and the BRIC countries´action plan because of Kosovo. It seems the free world began already to fight the criminals via the oil price. I will enjoy the scenes of rioting people in western capitals.
Bravo Rossija!
28 April, 2008, 14:28
We have to share the resources on earth than only the world can be a better place.
Mixing politics with trade is not a good option.Europe needs russia and Russia needs europe.
http://starvice.blogspot.com
23 April, 2008, 03:14
Dear Ladies & Gentlemen
There is an opinion that IMHO needs to be mentioned…
“Russia does not owe EU anything it doesn’t owe oil and natural gas. It does not have to provide any guaranties or search for new energy supplies. In fact if Russia would stop supplying EU with natural resources it would starve Europe and Ensure enough of affordable resources for Russian companies and thus Russian economy would become fruitful & highly competitive by comparison, because Europe would be forced to buy from U.S. government=U.S. oil companies, which is same thing, that control about 75% of WORLDs oil and US would have squeezed every Euro out of them charging 400$ a barrel to partially compensate their losses in Iraq.”
Best Regards
22 April, 2008, 06:55
I agree!The Baltics,Poland and Ukraine have been used by CIA to create trouble in russia.Indeed what's happening in Georgia is no diffrent!
http://starvice.blogspot.com
26 March, 2008, 11:51
Nabucco trans-Caspian gas pipeline in jeopardy - paper
http://en.rian.ru/world/20080325/102139756.html
Bravo Turkmenistan!
24 March, 2008, 15:47
Russia is increasingly becoming Europe's main energy supplier. Russia appears to be doing its best to maintain the flow of energy but Ukraine has siphoned off energy intended for west and central Europe each time there has been a pricing dispute. Ukraine's orange leadership seems to have found a way of internationalising its dispute with Russia
14 March, 2008, 08:53
John I cannt agree more with you that prices should be in euro,after all its already the currency of many countries and by far a more stable currency then the dollar.
The USA is the worlds biggest debtor and her foriegn policies are making the whole world pay for her mistakes by using the dollar in directly.
However the link you kept is for local prices of products and not the international prices of crude oil which is still traded in dollars,even by the EU.
All this is wishful thinking,The USA will never let it happen as lose of the oil dollar will mean total collapse of the USA.
There is one conspirecy theory about the war in Iraq that says that Sadam wanted to demand Euros and not dollars for Iraqs oil as a way to get back at the USA for first war.It that way damaging the US economy.
13 March, 2008, 23:09
Well you've made a good point. Latvia and Estonia with large Russian populations, if they had allowed referendums, the result may have gone against NATO.NATO claims to believe in democracy yet in Ukraine where 55% are against it according to the opinion polls, and many more undecided, NATO is not interested in public opinion. So it works with a narrow group inside the 'orange' movement and claims that 'Ukraine wants to join NATO'.
13 March, 2008, 21:56
The price for a barrel of crude oil should be in euros, not in dollars. That should ease thing down in the financial markets.
The EU already seems to do so at http://www.energy.eu/#prices
10 March, 2008, 07:14
Rambler
Public opinion does not seem to matter.
I do not think the government of Ukraine would give the people a referendum on joining or not.Do not remember any before the rest joined NATO.I may be wrong.
08 March, 2008, 10:47
I agree that Russia cannot be expected to subsidize neighbouring countries' gas bills. Armenia and Belarus, as was stated earlier are not interested in joining NATO (and neither for that matter is Ukraine, where the majority of the population is opposed to NATO membership). But their gas prices have been hiked all the same. Speaking of NATO, Armenian public opinion is very crtical of that organization because NATO continues to ignore the land blockade imposed by member Turkey against Armenia (Cold War instincts die hard I guess!)
08 March, 2008, 07:47
Gazprom is playing silly game. Why did they supply gas to Ukraine while there was no contract?
The rules of the game are simple. Gazprom should do it as follows. We have the gas and this is the market price. Do you want to buy gas from us? If Ukraine declines that is their decision.
Under no circumstances that should have any impact on supplies to Europe.
If Ukraine sabotage those supplies, that will be a matter for international court to consider.
Post comment