+- Forums (https://eu-forums.com)
+-- Forum: EU Forums (https://eu-forums.com/forum-19.html)
+--- Forum: Hot Topics (https://eu-forums.com/forum-4.html)
+--- Thread: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict (/thread-2356.html)
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - Steven - 01-30-2009
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.
Re: Ukraina is a terrorist state? - Steven - 01-30-2009
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?
Re: Ukraina is a terrorist state? - Ukrainian - 01-31-2009
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?
There is no goal of Ukraine.
Ukraine has the goal for itself: » to create a society where we will be able to judge with the same criteria as you are…
In this situation Ukrainian authorities didn’t make ANY destructive measures against Europeans, in this situation they HAD to save Ukrainian people, whole Ukraine, not divided parts.
THERE IS NO “systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goals”used by Ukraine that is why the name of this topic is wrong.
Here I could meet the discussion from two points of view (in generally): one point, which is European norms point of discussion about Russian-Ukrainian gas conflict and the rest, in main is mentality of former Soviet Union. Please take into consideration:
Ukraine stands between those two points, (I don’t have any right to judge about Russia, it has own way)and in order to judge politicians and authorities you have to understand people because there is no political power without people , even if it takes power from fear of people.
From “outside» point of view you can understand “inside” important point, which is not political point:
The generation of time of Soviet Union is still alive. They built their world and they loose their world and they don’t have any other world. So that was their world:
what” totalitarian system “means in simple words: you have to obey and to build your life in all aspects of your life (your work, friends and society relations, your home’s size in meters (!),your look, your thoughts, your words)as the systems order to you, and in case of disobedience the system punishes you by destructive measures. If you obey you have life in frames of system.
Now, what happens with people if they loose the system? Happiness about the next generation will be free? Or, so known phenomena, “escape from freedom», when they look for the system again and what if they don’t know how else to live?
In case of Ukraine this mentality is a ground for corruptions, which use this people’s thinking, when people cannot protect themselves as they used to obey as slaves, when they don’t feel that they have rights for their own respect, for respect to their land, their fathers, and their opponents even…. And if you will tell them that they steal or they are terrorists, they will believe you!
From other side I cannot keep silence about what “destruction”means in Russia-Ukraine political relations: if Russia use gas as an instrument in order to press on Ukrainian people freedom t, that it is destruction, if they say that it is “too late for Ukrainian people…”(an expression I can read in this forum)then it is destruction, if here is many inner things( which I cannot tell “against my brother” ) instead of help to build ,another parties in our country try to destroy previous party in order to take power, but they don’t know what to do with that power themselves… what to do for sake of Ukraine, not what the system would say to them....
Ukraine is not against Russia. Ukraine is not against any other country. Ukraine just exists, good or bad for somebody else, but Ukraine doesn’t support systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve some goals and doesn’t have any destructive goals on the way to peace and freedom.
I am truly sorry, and, please accept my apologies for I have no possibility, time and moral right to continue this discussion, I stop to post on this forum from this moment.
Re: Russia-Ukraine-EU gas conflict - BK - 01-31-2009
Well Sid, I have tried to explain why Europe BELIEVES that Russia is primarily responsible for the gas shut-off using only the facts that everyone agrees upon. Since we began our conversation the EU has confirmed (1) that Ukraine was not stealing gas for itself after January 1, it only used gas for transit which did not cost Russia anything since its cost would be covered by transit fees. This supports the conclusion that there was no economic reason for Russia to reduce gas supplies or shut-it off to Europe. (2) The EU Commisioner has also confirmed that Ukraine could not deliver the "test delivery" of gas through the route Gazprom selected without shutting off gas to its own people and that Gazprom knew or should have known this, and (3) that are no known technical or economic reasons for Gazprom's refusal to resume full delivery of gas once the monitors were in place. The logical conclusion is that even if Russia did not start the shut-off, it was certainly able to end it a week earlier than it did. No one knows why it didn't and Russia has remained silent.
You are right, there is a lot we don't know. And, like you, I cannot find any rational reason to explain why Ukraine did not sign the contract sooner or why Russia sacrificed billions of dollars and, more important, its reputation, to get its contract with Ukraine. No matter, the world keeps turning!
The next months are going to be very busy ones. EU monitors are still in Ukraine and are expected to stay here. The EU is trying to develop a unified purchasing plan which would make it more difficult for foreign energy companies to "divide an conquer" by negotiating special deals with individual countries like Germany and Italy. The Nabucco project may be revised to significantly increase its capacity. Negotiations are underway to end the blockade on Iranian gas--Gazprom's only real potential competitor. In March, Ukraine, the EU and the U.S. will meet to discuss rennovating and upgrading Ukraine's pipeline and storage system (The U.S. has promised economic and technical support -lets hope that Russia is invited too!) The plan is to better integrate the Ukrainian gas transit system with Europe, which wants/needs access to Ukraines gas storage system. This will effectively end, for now, any plans that Gazprom MIGHT have had to take over Ukraine's transit system and make Europe securer. It will also mean transparency for gas transactions between Russia and Ukraine which is good for eveyone except corrupt politicians and businessment. It may even help improve relationships between our countries, but frankly, I don't expect that to happen as long as the questions about NATO and the Russia naval base remain open.
In the meantime, the world economic crisis continues and no one can predict what will happen tomorrow or even later today. The U.S. may simply begin printing money to more quickly restore its own economy --but at the cost of making other countries pay for their reliance on the dollar. The U.S. accepts that its economic domination of he world is coming to an end. Russia too may be forced to reconsider its own position and goals or it may face the kind of economic meltdown and physical disintergration that it has been forecasting for the U.S. For the first time in over fifty years there is a real threat of war. Russia holds the trigger. Lets both hope it does not pull it. But these are topics for another time and forum. For now, the gas conflict between Russia, Ukraine and the EU are already history.
We live in interesting times my friend. Enjoy!
An explanation - BK - 01-31-2009
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?
Re: An explanation - SiD - 02-01-2009
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?
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.
Re: An explanation - BK - 02-01-2009
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.
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!
Re: An explanation - SiD - 02-01-2009
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!
Thanks.
I am not so optimistick about time but who knows?
btw relations between Russia and Ukrain will be most demaged thing i think AND you can quess who is most interested in vorsen this relations as he is able to justify his political goals. You brought up NATO yourself but frankly any crisis in Russia Ukrain relations is bringing Ukrain closer to NATO not other way and to scare EU with evily intended Russia is in interests of third party you can quess easilly that is conviniently have close ties with present government of Ukrain but that are just speculations. Interesting times as you said
.
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - Terry - 02-02-2009
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.
Re: Ukraina is a terrorist state? - Terry - 02-02-2009
IMO Ukrainians provoked the gas conflict with Russia, so that they come closer to NATO and EU. I wouldn't call this terrorism, but I would definitely say it is not nice to darken someone's reputation (here: Russia) just because you want to reach your target.
Re: An explanation - Max - 02-02-2009
BK Wrote:I wish you luck!
He will need a lot of luck soon to survive. Dollar in Russia rose up twice, from 24 till 40 roubles and this is not the end – it is contained only be administrative resource and enormous currency interventions which eat the rest of Russian currency reserve. If rouble be floating, it would cost three times cheaper already.
Oil and gas export make 95% of overall Russian export. This is so called “putinomics” when energy resources are sold to the West and then all necessary stuff from cars to cell phones and pans is also imported from there. It’s pretty much as Saudi Arabia model only Arabs don’t suffer on mania of majority only because they sell oil to American factories.
In current conditions when oil and therefore gas prices are in deepest down industrial countries will suffer a lot but survive. The energy exporters however will be devastated completely. Since Russia is not able to produce even little percent of its needs soon they will feel real hunger - nothing is produced inside the country and there isn’t money to buy.
Of course Ukraine also doesn’t produce the best cars in world but we are exactly industrial country which gives out metallurgy, electricity, chemistry, agricultural production etc. And reduced prices for energy benefit us, not destroy.
It seems the “ideal storm” declared by Putin in Davos will not destroy great industrial and financial giants of West however it will be mortal for feeble boats of energy suppliers.
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - BK - 02-03-2009
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.
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....
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - SiD - 02-03-2009
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....
I cant say for every one of course as i cant know personal ambitions of Putin or Medvedev but i disagree that to be "number one" is the desirable thing. After all one must take reality into consideration and reality points that Russia would not be player "number one", and why to desire it? Quite other thing that 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.
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - M.Helen - 02-03-2009
I think Terry meant Russia is a country that is in transition from planned economy to market economy. Although the soviet times passed away long time ago, a lot of things in Russia's economy remained the same as they were before.
Re: Russia - BK - 02-04-2009
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.
I most certainly do not think the rest of the world is run by perfect governments and honorable leaders. Far from it! And it was not my intention to insult Russia or even Putin. (I was a very strong supporter of Putin when he was President and believe it or not, I think that Russia holds the key to a world renaissance.) But you are certainly right that, for reasons of history and culture, it is difficult for me to appreciate how European actions affect todays Russians. More importantly, you are 100% right that Europeans do not treat Russia with the same respect and friendliness that they treat each other and other countries. It is not an accident that the EU countries who most oppose Russia today are the former members of the U.S.S.R. Russia, as the leader of the U.S.S.R., ruled by suppression and force and was openly dedicated to the destruction of the West by violent revolution from within. I grew up being told how decadent , evil and doomed democracy and capitalism were. For you, this may be ancient history but for me and others of my generation, it is only yesterday. It may not seem fair to you that Russia has to pay for the sins of the U.S.S.R. but that is the way it is. It will take time to forget (i.e., for me and my generation to die!) :haha . In the meantime, Russia has abundant natural resource, including its people who have proven themselves to be among the most resilient and creative in the world. There are no real threats to Russia's existence as a nation. From my perspective this is a time for Russia to act by rebuilding itself from within, rather than reacting to real and imagined insults from the outside. If that means letting go of some historical associations and ties, as with Ukraine, so be it. Russia's emergence and prosperity does not depend upon maintaining the ties of the past but upon building bridges to the future.
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.
Re: Russia - Max - 02-04-2009
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.
Btw, BK, why you still didn't register as a member? You definitely should move from guest status to citizenship and write some new topics. It's not difficult technically, let me know if you need some help.
As about Russia it seems it's proud by sins of USSR, not ashamed of it. And this is different from rest of company. I guess I mentioned "rail of times" as feature of 30ties in Italy . Unfortunately they really try to build rail to past not to future. And finally people are getting where they want to be.
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - Steven - 02-05-2009
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
As for the fact that Russians are the most resilient and creative in the world, I agree. Their weak part is that their creativity isn't going till the end
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - Max - 02-05-2009
Quote:Russians are the most resilient
This comes from outrageous life conditions which are compensated by enormous vodka drinking.
Quote:... and creative in the world
I wish you to drive their "creative" cars at least once. There are not cars worse all over the World. I know because I had one. These are slop-pails. So where is that complimentary creativity?
The best car ever produced in Russia is completely bought from Chrysler and designed in UK. They even didn’t rack brains to construct it.
No one is afraid of Putin, he is too short to be scary. This is just healthy and sincere loathing.
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - Faw_Peter - 02-06-2009
As far as I know, there is a Russian car called "Niva". I heard it's very resistant to bad roads, almost like hammer.
This is the car
![[Image: niva3.jpg]](http://4wheeldrive.about.com/library/uc/ucgraphics/niva3.jpg)
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - Max - 02-07-2009
Faw_Peter Wrote:I heard it's very resistant to bad roads, almost like hammer.
ALMOST! It just lacks few details of Hammer and just.
This is very old model but it is still in producing. It works with carburetor and it has not even hydro booster of steering wheel. To be honest, there is better modification “Chevrolet - Niva” but it was rebuild and redesigned by American engineers. Rights belong to Chevy of course.
Anyway, what they produce now, all these Ladas, are technically at the beginning of nineties. They are retarded on 15-20 years in average in comparison with normal cars.
Now when Ford and Honda have such problems I really have no idea where they will sell all this lumber. Oops, sorry, they will drive it!
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - Benn - 02-07-2009
On the background of crisis I think it would be easier for them to sell these cars because they are much cheaper than the cars produced in Europe, American or Japan. Just checked in the net, this Niva costs about 7,000 euros, in comparison with hammer 70,000 euros.
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - Max - 02-10-2009
Cheaper regarding Korean and Chinese cars means “still good”. Cheaper regarding Russian cars means complete trash. The problem is very poor technical complex is included in price. Even having low price you can’t sell on market 20 years old solutions.
Mentioned Niva is unpopular and outdated model even in Russia, it’s replaced by Chevrolet modification which is American car actually. Their main hit is Lada in various variants. Yes this car costs around 7 000 Euros. But it’s already bitten by Korean and Chinese competitors… For example in Ukraine factories put together Chevy, Korean Daewoo and Chinese Geely. Last producer gives out models which overcome Lada in all positions but cost only 8-12 000$. Logically, Asians will eat the market pretty soon.
Chevy also is not most expensive brand. Here everyone can get budget Chevy model for 7 000 Euros or even less. Needless to say people choose better quality for lower money, not worse quality for lower money.
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - M.Helen - 02-10-2009
Russia, Korean, Chinese... I see no big difference. This is the same as comparing a 1989 and a 1990 car. Still, maybe I am too much influenced by China's manner of doing anything unqualtatively, that's why I would between a Chinese and Russian car, I would choose the Russian one.
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - Max - 02-11-2009
No problem, only experience is criterion of truth. You really need to check Russian cars in comparison with Chinese, it’s not problem to get test drives anywhere. It will be funny at least.
Consider this. Geely Automobile buys Volvo from Ford so soon this brand will become very active and aggressive. At the same time corporation which produces Lada is on the verge of bankruptcy and already declared 4 day working week. As latest events witness this is pre-default step.
Chinese cars are constructed by Korean and Japanese engineers. Assembling of Chinese workers is much tighter – or how could you explain massive international investments to China labor?
Finally, comparisons of Hyundai and KIA with Siberian cars are a bit… weird. Really.
Re: Russia-Ukraine gas conflict - Guest - 02-11-2009
About competitors-or good or nothing....To see the truth means to have truth inside.