Putin "gave polite advance notice" to Yushchenko

Vladimir Putin and Victor Yushchenko Yesterday afternoon President of Ukraine Victor Yushchenko carried out a telephone talk with President of the Russian Federation Vladimir Putin.

[Smetana]

Interesting how when dealing with gas, Ukraine must deal with the President of Russia. However, the article about the Texas oilman taking on Gasprom, the Kremlin spokesperson stated

"This is a corporate issue," Dmitri Peskov, Putin's spokesman, said. "It has nothing to do with the Kremlin."

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/25/busine...

There is absolutely no transparency with Gasprom. Foreign investors would have to be nuts to try to do business in the energy sector in Russia.

[Baturyn]

To understand the tone of this article better, and the "polite advance notice", this would be the equivalent of your utility company calling and telling you that they will shut off all service the next day unless they get payment before then.

In my area, the utilities are required to provide 2 weeks notice....exclusive of any "politeness" on their part.

With such "polite" relationships and good friendships as Yushchenko and Putin seem to be developing (with a common interest of handicapping Timoshenko) who needs enemies?

[Financial Meltdown]

Baturyn wrote:

To understand the tone of this article better, and the "polite advance notice", this would be the equivalent of your utility company calling and telling you that they will shut off all service the next day unless they get payment before then.
In my area, the utilities are required to provide 2 weeks notice....exclusive of any "politeness" on their part.

I thought communism was dead. How about a two year notice?

[Stefan]

Something makes me believe that if Ukraine withdrew its application for the NATO action group (today), then all these gas problems would go away.

[Baturyn]

That would be nice. Two weeks would suffice, though.

And what does this have to do with communism being dead? I'm talking about common decency and courtesy among people and nations.

[Baturyn]

Stefan wrote:

Something makes me believe that if Ukraine withdrew its application for the NATO action group (today), then all these gas problems would go away.

You're probably right. But then there would be another "issue": language, the Black Sea fleet, WTO, etc. Russia is never satisfied with normal relations. If it is stronger, it seeks to dictate and demand.

The only recourse for Ukraine is to wean itself from any dependency on any Russian resources, trade, etc. This should start with a very sharp reduction in gas usage and intense exploitation of existing gas fields and drilling for new ones.
Its entry into WTO will allow it to trade more freely with countries other than Russia.

[Financial Meltdown]

Baturyn wrote:

That would be nice. Two weeks would suffice, though.
And what does this have to do with communism being dead? I'm talking about common decency and courtesy among people and nations.

Well, if communism were alive and well, they'd be getting gas for free, eh?

I thought two weeks from mid-February were already up.

And a 25% cut if payment isn't made is very courteous, I should think.

Bellyaching should be reserved for hearty laughter. It's much healthier.

[Stefanya]

Smetana wrote:

Interesting how when dealing with gas, Ukraine must deal with the President of Russia. However, the article about the Texas oilman taking on Gasprom, the Kremlin spokesperson stated
"This is a corporate issue," Dmitri Peskov, Putin's spokesman, said. "It has nothing to do with the Kremlin."
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/25/busine...
There is absolutely no transparency with Gasprom. Foreign investors would have to be nuts to try to do business in the energy sector in Russia.

Or maybe, just possibly some foreign investors don't have political axes to grind and are more interested in getting in on gas profits and are sensible enough and intelligent enough to work within the laws of the country they are doing business with instead of sniping at Russia and how business is done.

[Stefanya]

Stefan wrote:

Something makes me believe that if Ukraine withdrew its application for the NATO action group (today), then all these gas problems would go away.

And of course the fact that Ukraine stole gas and didn't make it's payments doesn't have anything to do with it.

You are forgetting that now, communism is dead and capitalism is the bom in the good old post Soviet empire, that countries don't get freebies.

Funny thing how Ukrainians sitting there in Canada want it both ways. If Ukraine is not a part of The Soviet Union anymore and is an independent country then they can be expected to be treated like any other country in Europe, like paying their gas bill.

And I really like your double standard. If the West doesn't like a country they impose sanctions on them. In the USA when France refused to go along with the USA and Bush in its "terror threat war" then French products were shunned, with people dumping French wines and food, and even renaming french fries "freedom fries."

Yet if Russia takes measures against countries who now ally themselves with foreign governments, then its some kind of huge sin and proves how evil Russia is.

Maybe Russia is taking care of itself, just like any other country would.

[Stefanya]

Baturyn wrote:

That would be nice. Two weeks would suffice, though.
And what does this have to do with communism being dead? I'm talking about common decency and courtesy among people and nations.

Like the common decency of nations who were once a part of Russia, even before communism joining NATO and talking about putting missiles in those coutries?

[Stefanya]

Baturyn wrote:

<quoted text>
You're probably right. But then there would be another "issue": language, the Black Sea fleet, WTO, etc. Russia is never satisfied with normal relations. If it is stronger, it seeks to dictate and demand.
The only recourse for Ukraine is to wean itself from any dependency on any Russian resources, trade, etc. This should start with a very sharp reduction in gas usage and intense exploitation of existing gas fields and drilling for new ones.
Its entry into WTO will allow it to trade more freely with countries other than Russia.

That's wonderful. I'm certain that oil and natural gas hungry USA and other western coutnries will be willing to help the Ukraine for altruistic motives of course. However the more break-aways and the more squeeze on Russi, well, how fun, maybe it will end up in a weak enough Russia so that the west, can squeeze out the lion's share of those oil and gas reserves they would like to get their hands on.

Of course that isn't the reason, we want all those countries to join NATO. It's because weare concerned about Democracy in Russia, not being good enough.

[Baturyn]

Financial Meltdown wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, if communism were alive and well, they'd be getting gas for free, eh?
I thought two weeks from mid-February were already up.
And a 25% cut if payment isn't made is very courteous, I should think.
Bellyaching should be reserved for hearty laughter. It's much healthier.

It's a privilege to be dealing with Putin's bill collector....did you circle the mid-February date on your calendar in red?

Let's get one thing straight... Russians have made it very clear that the discounted gas for Ukraine is not Russian gas but is gas which they purchased and re-sold (at a profit) from Turkestan and other Caspian Basin countries. It is priced in accordance with agreements which were reached - not because of Russian magnanimity - but because of Russia's self-interest. They are not doing Ukraine any favors. If Ukraine gets a "break" in price, it is making concessions elsewhere. The "bellyaching" crack is entirely unwarranted. There is no "courtesy" being extended.

[Baturyn]

Stefanya....darling...I don't know where to begin. You overwhelm me.

[Smetana]

Stefanya wrote:

<quoted text>
Or maybe, just possibly some foreign investors don't have political axes to grind and are more interested in getting in on gas profits and are sensible enough and intelligent enough to work within the laws of the country they are doing business with instead of sniping at Russia and how business is done.

Even working within the laws is not enough when dealing with gas Stefanya.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/we...

By the way did you read the article about the Texas man or did you just see something you didn't like and write something off the top of your head?

[Baturyn]

Stefanya wrote:

<quoted text>
And of course the fact that Ukraine stole gas and didn't make it's payments doesn't have anything to do with it.
You are forgetting that now, communism is dead and capitalism is the bom in the good old post Soviet empire, that countries don't get freebies.
Funny thing how Ukrainians sitting there in Canada want it both ways. If Ukraine is not a part of The Soviet Union anymore and is an independent country then they can be expected to be treated like any other country in Europe, like paying their gas bill.
And I really like your double standard. If the West doesn't like a country they impose sanctions on them. In the USA when France refused to go along with the USA and Bush in its "terror threat war" then French products were shunned, with people dumping French wines and food, and even renaming french fries "freedom fries."
Yet if Russia takes measures against countries who now ally themselves with foreign governments, then its some kind of huge sin and proves how evil Russia is.
Maybe Russia is taking care of itself, just like any other country would.

OK..Stefanya....now I'll try to respond to your comments one by one.

Firstly, as regards "stolen gas". Ukraine, like Russia, has thieves and predators in high places. When Putin is estimated to be worth $40-60 billion I assume that his wealth is not derived from shrewd investments or savings from his Presidential salary. However, I do not ascribe Putin's or his KGB's buddies' theft to "Russia". In fact, in all my posts, I sympathize with Russians (as I do with Ukrainians) that so much of their wealth is stolen from them by predators and corrupt officials that bedevil both countries - and a great many others.

So...unless you know for sure that - as a matter of state policy - Ukraine "stole" gas, you may want to re-word your statement. My own recollection is that the Ukrainian government - when informed that some Russian gas that entered into Ukraine's transit system could not be accounted for - agreed that illegal siphoning had been done but could not determine who was responsible and where it went. I assume - in as much as Russia no longer makes allegation of "stolen gas" - that Ukraine has instituted better accountability and controls.

I'm also not aware of Ukraine's not making payments. As far as I know, all outstanding balances had been cleared up as of this morning. I do know that Ukraine had not always made timely payments. But, on those occasions Ukraine's explanation for failing to do so (e.g. disputing the amounts claimed) appear reasonable. Certainly, we all have had experiences in which payments were withheld because of disputes over quantities, documentations, pricing, etc.,

You are making my point in saying that Ukraine has and should have every expectation of being treated
like any other country in Europe. I am not aware of one instance in which Ukraine has sought a privileged or protected status. Would you name me one?

[Baturyn]

The next point you made, Stefanya, is the "double standard" in US policy. I think the "freedom fries" example is a poor one. The spilling of French wines, the renaming of french fries, etc. were all spontaneous manifestations from average Americans still reacting to 9/11. I am not aware of any U.S. government directive telling people to boycott French products. Americans, unlike Russians (or Ukrainians for that matter) tend to take the initiative and express their sentiments without government orchestration.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by Russia "taking measures against countries allying themselves with foreign governments". Before I can answer this one, would you please clarify the nature of these measures, and the countries who have allied themselves with foreign governments?

[Baturyn]

Stefanya wrote:

<quoted text>
Like the common decency of nations who were once a part of Russia, even before communism joining NATO and talking about putting missiles in those coutries?

I assume you are referring to Ukraine's application for a Membership Action Plan with NATO?

You should know, Stefanya, that Russia's collaborative involvement with NATO is far more intense and of longer standing than Ukraine's. There is a Russian representative in NATO. That representative regularly reports on NATO meetings, etc. In fact, just the other day that representative reported that there is no discussion in NATO of Ukraine's entry into NATO.

The point that I'm making is that Russia is perfectly comfortable with its dealings and relationship with NATO, and there is no reason for Ukraine to be shy about increasing its own involvement.

Secondly, Yushchenko has made it very clear that Ukraine - even if it should join NATO - would never allow foreign military bases (especially missiles) on its soil, and the constitution would preclude that from happening.

Thirdly, Stefanya ....an observation. You may feel comfortable that Ukraine was once "a part of Russia", but that is a sentiment not held by many Ukrainians. Despite 400+ years of English rule, very few Englishmen would refer to Ireland as having been "a part of England". Similar observations can be made about other empires and their occupied territories. It should be obvious, by the ground swell of antipathy that Ukrainians are increasingly manifesting towards Russia, that the relationship between Russia and Ukraine has been somewhat different than the relationship between and among various parts of Russia. Although Russians are unwilling to acknowledge that their 350 years of domination has been that of an aggressor against a separate neighboring state, the fact is that many Ukrainians see their relationship in that light.

What it boils down to is simply this. Russia and Ukraine are (thankfully) each going their own way, and Ukraine's decision to become more involved with NATO is part and parcel of its decision to become more integrated into Europe than to turn North or East to Russia or Central Asia. For the present, at least, Ukraine has decided that a preliminary "trial" period with NATO (such as the MAP) is worth pursuing.

[Financial Meltdown]

Baturyn wrote:

<quoted text>
It's a privilege to be dealing with Putin's bill collector....did you circle the mid-February date on your calendar in red?
Let's get one thing straight... Russians have made it very clear that the discounted gas for Ukraine is not Russian gas but is gas which they purchased and re-sold (at a profit) from Turkestan and other Caspian Basin countries. It is priced in accordance with agreements which were reached - not because of Russian magnanimity - but because of Russia's self-interest. They are not doing Ukraine any favors. If Ukraine gets a "break" in price, it is making concessions elsewhere. The "bellyaching" crack is entirely unwarranted. There is no "courtesy" being extended.

No, I didn't circle any dates in 'red', I just read the news.

I frankly don't fathom your logic. Turkmen gas was purchased by an intermediary at the insistance of the Ukrainian client. I assume that Turkemnistan negotiated an agreement with Gazprom that guaranteed their payment. So, are you proposing that if Ukraine stiffs Gazprom, then Gazprom should stiff Turkmenistan?

Given the complex arrangement of musical brokerage, I admit that was an oversimplification yet fundamentally valid.

It's very clear to me that you are proposing that Gazprom be stiffed and that you would be very happy to see Gazprom's reaction be used against it for some disingenuous purpose to turn international opinion against it.

You should polish your act a bit, since Berezovsky has been playing these same stupid games for years.

Frankly, tis entire conversation belongs in the realm of the twilight zone, if not in a Three Stooges revival.

[Baturyn]

Stefanya wrote:

<quoted text>
That's wonderful. I'm certain that oil and natural gas hungry USA and other western coutnries will be willing to help the Ukraine for altruistic motives of course. However the more break-aways and the more squeeze on Russi, well, how fun, maybe it will end up in a weak enough Russia so that the west, can squeeze out the lion's share of those oil and gas reserves they would like to get their hands on.
Of course that isn't the reason, we want all those countries to join NATO. It's because weare concerned about Democracy in Russia, not being good enough.

Quite honestly, Stefanya, I don't think that Russians are interested in or prepared for Democracy. So, you won't get any platitudes from me about the merits of Democracy.

I think that the U.S. is supporting Ukraine's entry into NATO for reasons other than Russian oil and gas. I think that the U.S. sees Russia becoming increasingly autocratic and chauvinistic (which it is) and is doing the normal and necessary thing to limit the threat this may pose to Europe. NATO is relatively harmless....it can't even put together enough troops for security duty in Afghanistan. But NATO membership also involves acceptance of a structure in which the member countries would have a difficult time challenging each other as was the case prior to the 1950s. No NATO member country would consider attacking another NATO member. This simply means that the plague of hundreds of years of wars in Europe ended when NATO was established. To the extent that membership is extended to additional countries, it means that they, too, will be brought into that "structure" of peaceful resolution of conflicts and common security.

[Baturyn]

Well, Stefanya....I hope I have addressed all your comments. Let me know if you need additional clarification.