01-30-2009, 09:44 PM
Many companies had to suffer because of this gas conflict. Those who didn't have losses from this conflict, should be very happy. It's really difficult to understand the value of gas.
Steven Wrote:In order to understand whether we can call a state a terrorist state, we should understand what terrorism means. So terrorism is a systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goal. Now, what was Ukraine's goal in this act?
BK Wrote:SiD:
There IS a really obvious economic and political reason for the gas conflict. Ukraine is one of Russias largest gas customers. In December, while Russia and Ukraine were negotiating the newcontract, the price of oil was falling dramatically. As you know, the price of gas is based on the price of oil with a 3-9 month time lag. Since the price was going down, the longer Ukraine waited, the less it would have to pay once the contract was signed. Ukraine had plenty of reserves and didn't really need a contract right away. This presented Russia with two serious problems. The first, was that it was losing billions for the sales of gas to Ukraine at the current high market prices. Second, Russia would have looked like a complete idiot if it ended up signing a contract with Ukraine for "market prices" of $150 in June. The ONLY way to get Ukraine to sign the contract earlier was to make Europe put pressure on Ukraine by shutting of their gas. If Russia had restored gas when the monitors were in place then Ukraine would simply have waited for the market price to go down. So Russia did not restore the gas. Ukraine had to settle in order to preserve its chances of joining the EU. Russia and Ukrainian each got something. Only Europe lost. Sound plausible to you?
SiD Wrote:BK Wrote:SiD:
There IS a really obvious economic and political reason for the gas conflict. Ukraine is one of Russias largest gas customers. In December, while Russia and Ukraine were negotiating the new contract, the price of oil was falling dramatically. As you know, the price of gas is based on the price of oil with a 3-9 month time lag. Since the price was going down, the longer Ukraine waited, the less it would have to pay once the contract was signed. Ukraine had plenty of reserves and didn't really need a contract right away. This presented Russia with two serious problems. The first, was that it was losing billions for the sales of gas to Ukraine at the current high market prices. Second, Russia would have looked like a complete idiot if it ended up signing a contract with Ukraine for "market prices" of $150 in June. The ONLY way to get Ukraine to sign the contract earlier was to make Europe put pressure on Ukraine by shutting of their gas. If Russia had restored gas when the monitors were in place then Ukraine would simply have waited for the market price to go down before signing a contract. So Russia did not restore the gas. Ukraine had to sign a contract in order to preserve its chances of joining the EU. Russia and Ukrainian each got something. Only Europe lost. Sound plausible to you?
Parhaps, this is good version. But i think in gazprom they can count no less than enyone else and knew that eventually price will go down, why to demand market price still and why to hurt image and partnership with EU consumers for such short timed gain? And than are actions of Ukrain that made everything to make crisis from despute. As you said they are "one of". To do something like that one must be pretty sure that EU is pretty dependent and cant make itself more independent from ones gas anyway to make play worth the cost.
BK Wrote:IF Ukraine and Russia's gas industries were operated by real businessmen instead of being dominated by politicians and corruption (on both sides), there would never have been a shut-off. Europe IS dependent upon Russian gas and will be for at least several more years. But politics had a role too. Maybe Putin decided to take the risk of angering Europe, as he did in Georgia. And IF Europe HAD blamed only Ukraine, then you can be sure that Ukraines chances for entering the EU/NATO would have been destroyed and Europe might even have supported Russian control of Ukraines pipelines. Things happened much too quickly for the shut-off to have been a purely rational business decision. It is also possible that Putin just got angry at Ukraine's games and did something foolish. Only time will tell for sure. In either case, the future will be very interesting for both Russia and Ukraine. I wish you luck!
Quote:IF Ukraine and Russia's gas industries were operated by real businessmen instead of being dominated by politicians and corruption (on both sides), there would never have been a shut-off. Europe IS dependent upon Russian gas and will be for at least several more years. But politics had a role too. Maybe Putin decided to take the risk of angering Europe, as he did in Georgia. And IF Europe HAD blamed only Ukraine, then you can be sure that Ukraines chances for entering the EU/NATO would have been destroyed and Europe might even have supported Russian control of Ukraines pipelines. Things happened much too quickly for the shut-off to have been a purely rational business decision. It is also possible that Putin just got angry at Ukraine's games and did something foolish. Only time will tell for sure. In either case, the future will be very interesting for both Russia and Ukraine. I wish you luck!
BK Wrote:I wish you luck!
Terry Wrote:Quote:IF Ukraine and Russia's gas industries were operated by real businessmen instead of being dominated by politicians and corruption (on both sides), there would never have been a shut-off. Europe IS dependent upon Russian gas and will be for at least several more years. But politics had a role too. Maybe Putin decided to take the risk of angering Europe, as he did in Georgia. And IF Europe HAD blamed only Ukraine, then you can be sure that Ukraines chances for entering the EU/NATO would have been destroyed and Europe might even have supported Russian control of Ukraines pipelines. Things happened much too quickly for the shut-off to have been a purely rational business decision. It is also possible that Putin just got angry at Ukraine's games and did something foolish. Only time will tell for sure. In either case, the future will be very interesting for both Russia and Ukraine. I wish you luck!
the point is that there is no big industry/company/business in the world that is not ruled by a politician/official etc. Corruption persists and will always persist in such industries. Russia, more or less, is still a transition economy, that's why the share of politicians and, generally, politics involved in gas industry is quite big.
BK Wrote:This is true. But the question for Russia/Russians is "transition to what?" From all appearances, Russia is not content to be merely "a" player on the world scene; its goal is to be "number one." One problem is that NO country can be "number one" anymore, or at least not for long. This is something that the U.S. itself recognises and accepts. Another problem is that Russia's infrastructure is underdeveloped. More serious is that Russian politicians (read "Putin") have resurrected the cold war rhetoric of blaming Russia's woes on the "West", and in particular, the U.S. Recently, he has blamed the U.S. for inciting Georgia, the Gas Crisis, the murder of a human rights lawyer and journalists, demonstrations in Moscow and the continuing resistence of would-be breakaway provinces. This is not rational. I used to think that Putin was good for Russia. But now I worry that he has "gone over the edge." I would not be surprised if his protogege soon arranges to replace him ---also in cold war Stalinist style. But this topic is for another forum....
SiD Wrote:BK Wrote:This is true. But the question for Russia/Russians is "transition to what?" ... ... Russian politicians (read "Putin") have resurrected the cold war rhetoric of blaming Russia's woes on the "West", and in particular, the U.S. Recently, he has blamed the West/U.S. for the international boycott of election monitors, for inciting Georgia, the Gas Crisis, the continuing resistence of would-be breakaway provinces, even the murder of a human rights lawyer and journalists and demonstrations in Moscow. ... But this topic is for another forum....
... ... Russia is not some state without interests, pride and history. You friquently write about Russian actions towards EU but do not you want to imagine how EU actions are viewed in Russia? From your posts is like whole world is in prosperity and harmony with perfect political systems, honorable leaders who deside everything just, right and always use deplomacy to settle disagreements and just one KGB dictator is constantly tries to change all to worse.(i simplified but really for me as russian actions of Eu some times looks quite unfriendly, why than should i object if Putin or Medvedev answer in kind? Quite contrary. same with US or any other country.) My opinion is that Russia should not spring out of its hide to be liked by west, east, south or north but needs to persue its interests.
BK Wrote:Sorry for lecturing.... it's my profession) And, in any case, this topic belongs on the "Russia" forum. So if you want to open a new topic there, feel free to do so.
Quote:Far from it! And it was not my intention to insult Russia or even Putin.you just don't want Putin to find and punish you :monstre :haha
Quote:Russians are the most resilient
Quote:... and creative in the world
Faw_Peter Wrote:I heard it's very resistant to bad roads, almost like hammer.