"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT - AUR"
An International Newsletter, The Latest, Up-To-Date
In-Depth Ukrainian News, Analysis and Commentary
"Ukrainian History, Culture, Arts, Business, Religion,
Sports, Government, and Politics, in Ukraine and Around the World"
WE WON'T BE BLACKMAILED FOR LAST YEAR'S CHOICE
Dear Mr Putin, darling Vladimir,
Warmest wishes for the New Year,
A peaceful, undisturbed New Year's day,
Stop worrying if the neighbors will pay.
12 months ago we overthrew a regime
Full of cronies: crooked and mean,
The people rose from their knees
And now you want us to freeze?
Although today it's rather cold
The pipeline will not be sold
The people in Ukraine are strong
and will overcome evil and wrong.
We wish you warmth and delight
May your New Year's day be bright,
But we won't be blackmailed for last year's choice
Freedom - no more fear to express liberty's voice.
(Author's e-mail name is Andy100)
http://www2.maidan.org.ua/news/view.php3?bn=maidan_free&key=1135969482&first=1135978799&last=1135950931
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT - AUR" - Number 630
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Publisher and Editor
Washington, D.C., SATURDAY, DECEMBER 31, 2005
--------INDEX OF ARTICLES--------
Happy New Year 2006
Clicking on the title of any article takes you directly to the article.
Return to the Index by clicking on Return to Index at the end of each article
1. COUNTDOWN TO RUSSIA'S CUTTING UKRAINE GAS HAS BEGUN
Agence France Presse (AFP), Moscow, Russia, Saturday, Dec 31, 2005
2. CLOCK TICKS AWAY ON UKRAINE'S GAS
BBC NEWS, United Kingdom, Saturday, December 31, 2005
3. FORMER TOP KREMLIN ECONOMIC ADVISER BLASTS RUSSIA'S
NEW YEAR DEADLINE FOR UKRAINE GAS PRICE HIKE
Says demand was a sign of resurgent Russian imperialism
"Energy weapons are being used against neighbors."
By Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press Writer
Moscow, Russia, Saturday, December 31, 2005
4. RUSSIA REFUSES TO BACK DOWN IN UKRAINE GAS FIGHT
A Wall Street Journal Online News Roundup
New York, New York, December 31, 2005; Page A10
5. RUSSIA TO HALT GAS TO UKRAINE
By Neil Buckley in Moscow, Raphael Minder in Brussels
and Roman Olearchyk in Lviv, Ukraine
Financial Times, London, UK, Saturday, December 31 2005
6. HOW UKRAINE WILL FARE WITHOUT RUSSIA'S GAS
FINANCIAL TIMES BRIEFING: By Neil Buckley and Thomas Catan
Financial Times, London, United Kingdom, Sat, December 31 2005
7. GAZPROM REFUSES TO BACK DOWN ON UKRAINE
By C.J. Chivers in Moscow, Correspondent, The New York Times
International Herald Tribune (IHT), Europe, Saturday, Dec 31, 2005
8. FEAR OF GAS SHORTAGE AS UKRAINE REJECTS HUGE PRICE
RISE: RUSSIA THREATENS TO CUT SUPPLY AFTER TALKS FAIL
Analyst: Kremlin had no reason to "subsidise a hostile, anti-Russian regime."
Tom Parfitt, Moscow, Luke Harding, Berlin
The Guardian, London, United Kingdom, Sat, Dec 31, 2005
9. PUTIN OFFERS THREE MONTH DELAY ON GAS PRICE HIKE
IF UKRAINE AGREES TO NEW PRICE, OFFERS ENDS SATURDAY
BBC NEWS, UK, Saturday, December 31, 2005
10. GAZPROM CRITICAL TO HOMELAND'S ECONOMY
The state-controlled natural gas supplier is Russia's largest company
Jim Heintz, Associated Press (AP), Moscow, Russia, Fri, Dec 30, 2005
11. PUTIN OK'S 1Q GAS PRICE DEAL WITH UKRAINE IF UKRAINE
AGREES TO PAY MARKET PRICES THEREAFTER
Putin said his offer was only valid until the end of Saturday.
By Vladimir Sachenkov, Associated Press (AP)
Moscow, Russia, Saturday, December 31, 2005
12. UKRAINE PRESIDENT: YEAR '05 ENDING WONDERFULLY
VOWS REFORMS IN '06 TO IMPROVE EVERYDAY LIFE
Associated Press (AP), Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, December 30, 2005
13. "THE OTHER GAS CRISIS"
Ukraine has refused to agree to a 2006 rates schedule with Russia. Those
who believe in free markets & freedom of commerce must side with Russia.
TODAY'S COLUMNIST: M. Ron Wahid
The Washington Times, Washington, D.C. Thu, December 29, 2005
14. CUBIC METERS AS A WEAPON
The pitfalls in using energy resources as political tools
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Bennadi Sysoev
Kommersant, Moscow, Russia, Friday, December 30, 2005
15. RUSSIA WIELDS ITS NEW ARSENAL: FUEL
Poland is among the energy-hungry nations to the west confronting
what some analysts call Moscow's politicized agenda in making deals.
By Jeffrey Fleishman, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California, Friday, Dec 30, 2005
16. ENERGY QUESTION MAY SPELL END OF THE
GOOD LIFE FOR THE WEST
BUSINESS VIEW: by David Montagu-Smith
Independent adviser on international energy issues.
The Times, London, UK, Tuesday, December 27, 2005
17. THE RISE OF GAS PRICES IN UKRAINE: A NECESSITY
TAINTED BY POLITICAL CALCULATIONS
ANALYSIS: by Alexandre Levy, Le Monde
Paris, France, Tuesday, 27 December 2005
Published in English by The Ukraine List (UKL) #374, Article #4
Translated by Catherine Beach for UKL
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Friday, December 30, 2005
========================================================
1. COUNTDOWN TO RUSSIA'S CUTTING UKRAINE GAS HAS BEGUN
Agence France Presse, Moscow, Russia, Saturday, Dec 31, 2005
MOSCOW (AFP) - The final countdown has begun for Russia's politically
charged threat to end gas supplies to neighbouring Ukraine on New Year's
Day unless the ex-Soviet republic agrees to a more than fourfold increase in
prices.
Russia's giant state-owned company Gazprom, which controls a third of the
world's gas reserves, says supplies to the country of 48 million people will
be switched off Sunday at 10:00 a.m. in Moscow (0700 GMT) if Kiev still
refuses the new price.
"The actions will be precise and resolute," Gazprom chief Alexei Miller
warned.
Gazprom wants Ukraine to pay 230 dollars (185-194 euros) per 1,000 cubic
metres (35,316 cubic feet) of gas, up from the current price of 50 dollars
from the start of 2006. The company says that this price merely reflects
standard world rates.
Ukraine says it is ready to pay more but not so quickly and is offering up
to 80 dollars in a preliminary transition period. Moscow has flatly
dismissed the offer.
Officials in Kiev say that industrial centres will see a drop in supplies,
but that ordinary people should notice no difference, as the country has
enough reserves to last the bitterly cold winter. "The people will feel
nothing," Prime Minister Yury Yekhanurov promised. Ukraine is "ready
for any cataclysm."
President Viktor Yushchenko on Friday appointed a new deputy prime
minister with a brief to manage the energy sector and achieve self-
sufficiency for Ukraine "in four years."
There was mounting concern about the possible knock-on effect of the row
for western Europe, which is heavily dependent on Russian energy supplies,
most of which transit through Ukraine.
Miller said Gazprom had a "detailed plan of measures" to guarantee EU
supplies. However the European Commission called a special meeting of its
gas coordination group for Wednesday to discuss how to "deal with all
eventualities."
Polish Economy Minister Piotr Wozniak said that supplies to his country,
which receives 90 percent of its imported gas from the east, were under
threat.
"The harmful potential effects of a fall in deliveries risks being felt in
Poland from the first days of January," he said.
Wozniak added that in the event of supply disruptions, "commercial and
technical conditions" meant Poland would be able to satisfy domestic gas
demand for at least a week.
The European Commission said it was "confident" that the dispute would not
lead to a shortage just as demand spikes in Europe on account of cold winter
weather.
"Even if a limited part of European supplies were to be interrupted, given
the level of gas stocks and supplies from other areas, the (European)
Commission is confident that this would not cause a gas shortage in Europe
in the short term," it said.
There are strong political overtones to what Gazprom says is purely
commercial dispute. Yushchenko came to power almost exactly a year ago in
the pro-Western "orange revolution" that saw him defeat a Russian-backed
candidate in elections and vow to bring Ukraine into the European Union and
NATO.
In March his supporters face a strong challenge in parliamentary elections
that analysts say could signal the comeback of his pro-Kremlin rival Viktor
Yanukovich. -30-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
2. CLOCK TICKS AWAY ON UKRAINE'S GAS
BBC NEWS, United Kingdom, Saturday, December 31, 2005
Time is running out for Ukraine to strike a price deal to avert Moscow's
threat to begin the New Year by turning off gas supplies to its neighbour.
Russia's Gazprom, which provides 30% of Ukrainian gas, wants to replace
the current barter system with market rates for gas and pipeline transit
fees.
The four-fold price hike is unacceptable to Ukraine - the main route for
Russian gas to the West. Both sides show no sign of relenting before the
0700 GMT Sunday deadline.
Ukraine's pro-Western President, Viktor Yushchenko, went on national
television networks on Friday evening to defend his position, saying he
hoped that his personal good relations with his Russian counterpart,
Vladimir Putin, would resolve the dispute.
His appeal earlier in the day for a 10-day stay of execution was rejected
immediately by Gazprom.
The company has invited Russian TV cameras to its headquarters in
Moscow to broadcast the gas supply shutdown live in special news
bulletins on one of the biggest holidays in the former Soviet Union.
Many in Ukraine believe Russia's moves are politically designed to
manufacture a crisis over energy supplies, the BBC's Damian
Grammaticas reports from Moscow.
They believe Mr Putin wants to punish Ukraine for its so-called Orange
Revolution and moves to join the European Union and Nato, leaving
Russia's sphere of influence, our correspondent adds.
'HUMILIATING'
Ukrainian gas industry officials have said the country's heating needs over
the harsh winter can be met from domestic production but supplies to
industrial customers may have to be reduced.
Justifying his rejection of the Russian price hike, Mr Yushchenko said that
he did not want to believe Russia was using gas as a lever to put pressure
on his country. "That frankly humiliates us as a negotiating partner," he
said.
However, Gazprom, he argued, was varying the price of its gas according to
customer and he contrasted the $47 Belarus - a close ally of Moscow - would
be expected to pay per 1,000 cubic metres with the $230 being asked of
Ukraine.
"A price of $230 is unacceptable not because it is high but because there
are no economic grounds for it," he said.
Adding to the pressure, former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko - a leading
figure in the Orange Revolution - said that anyone who agreed to the new
market prices would be a "traitor to Ukraine".
Ukraine, which currently pays $50 per 1,000 cubic metre, has said it is
prepared to phase in world prices gradually and can only raise its payment
to about $80 for now.
It links this figure to Gazprom's offer to raise the pipeline transit fee it
now pays - $1.09 per 1,000 cubic metre per 100km - to about $1.8.
Ukraine has been asking for at least $2.
'NO DISRUPTION'
Russian gas is expected to fetch on average about $240 in the European
Union next year, according to analysts.
Gazprom said it had a "detailed plan" in place to ensure gas supplies
transiting Ukraine would not be disrupted, and said any attempt by
Ukraine to siphon off gas would be "theft".
With Russia supplying about a fifth of the EU's gas, the European
Commission said it was "confident" the dispute would not lead to a
shortage in the short term.
Even if some supplies were interrupted, it added, "the level of gas stocks
and supplies from other areas" would cover this.
President Putin has offered Ukraine credit worth $3.6bn to cover the
new gas cost but this was rejected by Kiev. -30-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GAZPROM'S 2006 TARIFFS PER 1,000 CUBIC METRES OF GAS
Ukraine: US$230; Belarus: US$47; Armenia and Georgia: US$110
Romania: US$280; Average EU charge: US$240
source: AP news agency
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4571030.stm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
3. FORMER TOP KREMLIN ECONOMIC ADVISER BLASTS RUSSIA'S
NEW YEAR DEADLINE FOR UKRAINE GAS PRICE HIKE
Says demand was a sign of resurgent Russian imperialism
"Energy weapons are being used against neighbors."
By Vladimir Isachenkov, Associated Press Writer
Moscow, Russia, Saturday, December 31, 2005
MOSCOW - A former Kremlin adviser denounced Russia's New Year deadline
for Ukraine to accept a massive gas price increase, saying Saturday the demand
was a sign of resurgent Russian imperialism. Europe, meanwhile, warily
watched the standoff amid warnings that its supplies could be affected.
Russia's state-owned gas monopoly, OAO Gazprom, has threatened to cut
supplies to Ukraine Sunday morning if Kiev does not agree to pay $230 per
1,000 cubic meters of gas - more than four times the current price. 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."
"Energy weapons are being used against neighbors," Illarionov said on Ekho
Moskvy radio. "The move toward a policy of imperialism ... has a clear and
high price that will eventually be paid by the citizens of a nation that
embarks on the imperialist path."
Russia supplies about half of the European Union's gas, most of which flows
through Ukraine. Gazprom informed European customers that, once it stops
deliveries intended for Ukrainian use, supplies to other countries could be
restricted if Kiev siphons off gas meant for transit further west, company
spokesman Sergei Kupriyanov said.
Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko's office said his Cabinet introduced
measures to ensure the unhampered flow of gas into Ukraine and its transit
to EU countries until a new contract was signed. But his prime minister has
said Ukraine has the right to take 15 percent of shipments through its
territory as transit fees.
EU Energy Commissioner Andris Piebalgs said he was concerned about the
Russian threat, but was confident an agreement would be reached "and that
Russia and Ukraine will honor their commitments to supply European gas
markets as they have at all times in the past."
The showdown has underlined the tension boiling between the historically
linked, mostly Slavic ex-Soviet republics since Yushchenko won the
presidency a year ago on the wave of the "Orange Revolution" protests
against election fraud. It threatens to dominate the New Year holiday, a big
one in both countries.
Ukraine wants any increase toward world-market prices to be phased in
gradually, and Yushchenko said late Friday that his country could now pay
$80 per 1,000 cubic meters at the most.
Yushchenko was speaking during his televised New Year's address, which
followed a carefully staged TV broadcast by Gazprom's head who emphasized
the company's plans to shut off the valves on New Year's Day.
"The actions will be precise and resolute," said Alexei Miller, reiterating
that the company would halt supplies to Ukraine at 10:00 a.m. Sunday unless
a new contract was signed.
With no sign of progress toward a deal, Yushchenko proposed earlier Friday
to freeze prices for the first 10 days of January to give both countries'
companies extra time to negotiate a deal.
Putin's press service said the Kremlin had not received the telegram
containing the proposal, and there was no reaction from the Russian leader.
But Gazprom criticized the proposal, saying that accepting it could lead to
indefinite delays.
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." -30-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
4. RUSSIA REFUSES TO BACK DOWN IN UKRAINE GAS FIGHT
A Wall Street Journal Online News Roundup
New York, New York, December 31, 2005; Page A10
NEW YORK - Russian authorities refused to ease their tough stance in a
politically charged dispute with Ukraine over gas prices Friday, issuing a
stern new threat to halt supplies to its neighbor on New Year's Day and
criticizing Kiev's call for more time reach a deal.
Ukrainian leaders, meanwhile, tried to reassure the ex-Soviet republic's 48
million people they will not be left in the cold by the conflict that has
underlined the political tension caused by the election of a
Westward-leaning president in Ukraine last year.
The chief of Russia's natural gas monopoly, OAO Gazprom, reiterated that it
will halt supplies to Ukraine on Sunday morning unless a new contract is
signed with its Ukrainian counterpart. "The actions will be precise and
resolute," Alexei Miller said on Gazprom-owned NTV television. The station
cut into a news broadcast to show Mr. Miller live.
Russian authorities are demanding that Ukraine pay $230 -- more than four
times the current price of $50 -- per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. Ukraine
wants a more gradual increase that would bring what it pays closer to world
prices and says $75 to $80 is a fair price for now. The price Russia wants
Ukraine to pay is far higher than it is charging other former Soviet
republics, even those that are seeking, like Ukraine, to shake off Russian
influence and integrate with the West.
Nadia Kazakova, an oil and gas analyst at Alfa Bank in London, said West
European countries would pay an average of $240 per 1,000 cubic meters next
year. Hungary is paying $240 for Russian gas, and Romania will pay about
$280 starting next year, officials said. "There is room for negotiation
between $230 and [a price] which Ukraine might be willing to pay," Ms.
Kazakova said. "Ultimately I think there will be some resolution."
But with no sign of progress toward a deal, Ukrainian President Viktor
Yushchenko proposed Friday that Russian President Vladimir Putin order
both countries' companies to sign a contract in the first 10 days of January,
freezing prices until then, Mr. Yushchenko's office said.
Mr. Putin's press service said the Kremlin hadn't received the telegram in
which Mr. Yushchenko made the proposal, and there was no immediate reaction
from the Russian leader. But Gazprom said it feared the proposal would lead
to indefinite delays.
Meanwhile, Gazprom has warned European importers that natural-gas supplies
may be restricted if Russia makes good on its threat to cut off gas exports
to Ukraine on Jan. 1.
"Gazprom has written letter to all the companies that they supply to tell
them that there is a possibility that they should be forced to cut supplies
to European companies concerned from January 1," a European Union
official told Dow Jones Newswires Friday.
Gazprom later confirmed the letter had been sent and released part of the
text. The letter, which guaranteed delivery of all contracted gas as far as
the Russian-Ukrainian border -- but not farther -- was sent Dec. 28, the
company said. "We cannot completely exclude the risk of unsanctioned
removal of gas from the transit system by the Ukrainian side," the letter said.
The company didn't say which companies received the letter.
In response to the spiraling energy crisis, European government
representatives will meet in Brussels Jan. 4 to coordinate their response to
the impact of a squeeze on Europe's gas supply due to the dispute between
Russia and Ukraine over the price of Russian gas, an EU spokesman told
Dow Jones Newswires. "We want to have a coordinated approach and to
be ready to face all eventualities, meaning of course a shortage of gas
supply for different amounts of time," Amadeu Atafaj Tardio said.
The EU gets about half its gas from Russia, and Eastern European countries
are especially dependent on Russian gas. According to European Commission
figures, Bulgaria, the Czech Republic and Poland bought 97%, 79% and 62% of
their gas, respectively, from Russia in 2003. Among Western European
countries, Germany sourced 39% of its gas from Russia, while Italy drew 28%
of its needs. -30-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: Juliane von Reppert-Bismarck of Dow Jones Newswires contributed to
this article. Write to the Online Journal's editors at newseditors@wsj.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
5. RUSSIA TO HALT GAS TO UKRAINE
By Neil Buckley in Moscow, Raphael Minder in Brussels
and Roman Olearchyk in Lviv, Ukraine
Financial Times, London, UK, Saturday, December 31 2005
Russia was last night preparing to turn off gas to Ukraine tomorrow for the
first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, posing a threat to the
stability of supplies to western Europe.
Moscow stuck to demands yesterday for a nearly five-fold increase in the
price Ukraine pays for Russian natural gas in a move to eradicate subsidies.
But Ukraine insisted it needed a period of transition to market prices to
avoid huge damage to its industry and economy. It was expected to present
a new proposal last night to try to defuse the acrimonious row between the
former Soviet neighbours.
The dispute has demonstrated Russia's increasing self-confidence as one of
the world's biggest energy suppliers, but has provoked alarm in western
Europe, which gets 25 per cent of its gas from Russia - most of it through
the huge Brotherhood pipeline across Ukraine.
The European Commission said it would host an emergency meeting on
Wednesday of energy officials from the 25 EU states to discuss possible
sharing of gas reserves and other contingency measures, should Russia
carry out its threat.
Russia showed no sign of backing down from the threat to stop pumping the
portion of gas usually taken by Ukraine into the export pipeline
from tomorrow, if Kiev does not agree to a price rise from $50 to $230 per
1,000 cubic metres. Viktor Yushchenko, Ukrainian president, said last night
the maximum Kiev was prepared to pay next year was $80.
Alexei Miller, chief executive of Gazprom, Russia's state-run natural gas
company, said its actions would be "clear and resolute", if no agreement was
reached. He rejected a proposal from Mr Yushchenko to freeze current prices
for 10 days while independent experts assessed a fair price - although
Russian president Vladimir Putin had last night given no formal response.
"If Ukraine does not sign a gas delivery contract with us before the
beginning of 2006, all gas shipments from the territory of the Russian
Federation to consumers in Ukraine will be stopped at 10am Moscow
time on January 1," Mr Miller said.
Russian television is preparing to broadcast live the turning off of
supplies at Gazprom's Moscow control room.
Both sides suggested yesterday gas exports to central and western Europe
would not be affected. But Ukraine said earlier this week it had the right
to take 15 per cent of gas passing through the export pipeline as a transit
fee. Gazprom said in a letter to European customers it "could not exclude
the risk" that Ukraine would take gas from the pipeline.
Ukraine gets about 25bn cu m of its 80bn cu m annual consumption from
Russia, with 36bn cu m coming from the former Soviet republic of
Turkmenistan. Officials said yesterday Ukraine had enough gas in
underground storage to enable it to meet its needs through the winter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
6. HOW UKRAINE WILL FARE WITHOUT RUSSIA'S GAS
FINANCIAL TIMES BRIEFING: By Neil Buckley and Thomas Catan
Financial Times, London, United Kingdom, Sat, December 31 2005
[Q] Why is Russia threatening to turn off gas supplies to Ukraine?
[A] Russia has provided its former Soviet neighbours with heavily
subsidised gas since the USSR collapsed in 1991 - partly to keep them
within its sphere of influence. But now it wants to move to market prices,
for what it says are economic reasons. Gazprom, Russia's massive state-
controlled gas company, has already agreed increased prices with several
former Soviet states.
Ukraine says it is being asked to pay far more than any of those, suggesting
the motive is political: to punish it for the Orange Revolution a year ago
that brought the pro-western Viktor Yushchenko to power.
Ukraine is being asked to pay $230 per 1,000 cubic metres of gas - up from
$50 this year. Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia, all now European Union
members, are paying only $110, as is Georgia, which also had a pro-
democracy revolution two years ago. Belarus, loyal to Russia, pays little
over $46.
Mr Yushchenko says Ukraine will move to market prices only over a transition
period. Russia says if Kiev does not agree to higher prices by tomorrow, it
will turn off the tap.
[Q] What does this mean for Ukraine?
[A] Ukraine can probably get by for several weeks. Officials said yesterday
the country had enough gas in underground storage facilities to ensure it
could supply customers until the end of the winter period. Beyond that, it
could struggle. Of the 80bn cu m it uses annually, it buys 25bn cu m from
Russia, and 36bn from Turkmenistan, another former Soviet republic
(though the Turkmen gas travels through Russia via Gazprom's pipelines)
and produces 18bn cu m itself.
[Q] What does it mean for the European Union?
[A] The EU gets a quarter of its gas from Russia - most of it flowing
through the giant "Brotherhood" pipeline across Ukraine. If Russia reduces
the volume it pumps into that pipeline, the result could theoretically be
shortages in western Europe. Both Russia and Ukraine insisted yesterday
supplies to other European customers would not be affected.
But Yuri Yekhanurov, Ukraine's prime minister, said this week Ukraine was
entitled under its current contract with Russia to take 15 per cent of gas
exported across its territory as a transit fee. If the dispute goes on long
enough to deplete Ukraine's underground reserves, it may have to.
[Q] What are the risks for Russia?
[A] Russia sees its huge oil and gas reserves as the key to rebuilding its
international influence. It takes over the rotating presidency of the Group
of Eight industrialised nations tomorrow and has named "energy security" as
one of its main themes. Stopping supplies to Ukraine could tarnish the image
it wants to project as a reliable energy supplier. It may also make the EU
and other international customers think twice about becoming too dependent
on Russia for oil and gas.
[Q] How can Russia cut off its supplies to Ukraine without cutting off
customers at the other end of the Brotherhood pipeline?
[A] Moscow says it will simply reduce the total volume of gas it pumps into
the pipeline by the amount Ukraine normally takes out for its own use. That
way, Moscow says it will still be fulfilling its commitments to its western
European customers at the other end. - and if Ukraine continues to take out
gas, Russia will accuse it of theft and blame it for any disruption to
European supplies.
[Q] How does Russia export its gas?
[A] At present, 90 per cent of Russian gas exports pass through Ukraine. A
second route, the Yamal pipeline, runs via Belarus and Poland to Germany,
while a third runs to the Balkans and Turkey.
Russia recently started building a pipeline under the Baltic Sea that would
bypass its neighbours to reach Germany, Scandinavia and the UK directly.
However, it will not be completed until 2010 at the earliest. Gazprom is
also due to enter the Shell-led Sakhalin-2 project, which will produce
Russia's first ever shipment of liquefied natural gas in 2008 and allow it
to reach Asian markets not connected by pipeline.
[Q] Who are the main recipients of the gas that comes via Ukraine?
[A] Russia supplies nearly a quarter of the gas Europe consumes, according
to the International Energy Agency. In 2003, Russia exported 132bn cubic
metres of gas, of which 33bcm went to Germany, 20bcm to Italy, 10bcm to
France and 13bcm to Turkey. Austria is almost wholly dependent on Russia
for its gas.
[Q] Where else does Europe get its gas from?
[A] Europe consumed 535 bcm of gas in 2004, according to the IEA.
Indigenous production (from the UK, Dutch and Norwegian parts of the
North Sea) accounted for more than 60 per cent of consumption. 10 per
cent came from Algeria and more than 2 per cent from Nigeria. -30-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
7. GAZPROM REFUSES TO BACK DOWN ON UKRAINE
By C.J. Chivers, The New York Times
International Herald Tribune (IHT), Europe, Saturday, Dec 31, 2005
MOSCOW Worries of a winter gas shortage in Ukraine intensified Friday as
Gazprom, the Russian energy giant, renewed its threat to cut the supply
Sunday to Ukraine if it did not accept a nearly five-fold price increase.
The impasse showed no sign of solution. Gazprom rejected an appeal from
Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine's president, to freeze prices and maintain gas
flow through Jan. 10 to allow for further negotiations.
It also said that it had run technical tests and was capable of stopping
flows for Ukraine, through which much of Europe's gas passes, while meeting
export obligations to other countries.
The European Union proposed an emergency meeting of energy officials on
Wednesday. The call reflected worries that the stalled negotiations could
tighten supplies in European countries, many of which buy large portions of
their gas from Gazprom but receive it after it passes through Ukrainian
pipelines.
Ukrainian officials and industry analysts played down the immediate risks,
saying that gas reserves in Ukraine would ensure that its supply was
maintained for at least two days and perhaps longer than two weeks. Europe's
reserves would also prevent any immediate shortages there.
"I hope Gazprom will not turn off the tap," said Valery Nesterov, an energy
analyst at Troika Dialog, a Moscow investment firm. But if the flow is cut,
he added, "they still have the time to negotiate."
The test of wills underscored enmities that have tainted relations between
Ukraine and Russia since Yushchenko and his supporters overturned a
fraudulent election last year, defeating a Russian-backed candidate and
pledging to steer Ukraine toward a more Western foreign policy.
It also marked Russia's willingness to use its state-controlled gas monopoly
as an instrument of foreign policy, even coercion, in dealing with
energy-hungry neighbors.
That policy is not without risk. The Kremlin and its allies at Gazprom have
displayed their strength against Ukraine for the short term. But their
threats against Ukraine, their mocking of Ukrainian proposals and concerns,
and their willingness to foster worries among other gas customers have
raised fresh questions about whether Gazprom, Russia's largest company, is a
reliable energy partner.
The dispute centers on Gazprom's politically influenced pricing system in
which Ukraine, through a deal arranged under former President Leonid Kuchma,
has been paying $50 per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. This reflects Russia's
practice of providing discounted energy to former Soviet republics that
remain within the Kremlin's orbit.
Gazprom, with President Vladimir Putin's approval, has proposed charging
$220 to $230 per 1,000 cubic meters, in line with prices in Europe. Putin
has offered a $3.6 billion loan to Ukraine to help cover the costs, a
gesture variously seen as pragmatic or patronizing.
Yushchenko's government has said Ukraine is prepared to pay more, but not so
much or so fast, and proposed a transition period with a much smaller hike.
Yushchenko has also turned down the loan offer, saying Ukraine should pay
for energy itself, although "at a reasonable price."
Ukraine's volatile domestic politics lie just beneath the surface.
Ukrainian parliamentary elections are scheduled for March 26. The elections
will be accompanied by constitutional changes, negotiated last year, that
will weaken the Ukrainian presidency and strengthen the Parliament and prime
minister.
The combination of the new Constitution and the elections means that the
faces and policies of Ukraine's government could shift remarkably once
again. Russia has made clear of its disaffection with Yushchenko and his
government, and the gas dispute is widely seen as an effort to undermine him
in part to weaken his party's standing before voters.
A gas shortage during heating season could simultaneously tarnish the
revolution, discredit the president and weaken his party, perhaps leading to
a more pro-Russian government in Kiev.
Ukrainian officials have acknowledged the risks. On Thursday, Anatoli
Kinakh, secretary of Ukraine's National Security and Defense Council, said
that if talks broke down, the effects on Ukraine's industry would be severe.
"It is forecast that Ukraine's GDP will decline 4 to 5 percent in 2006," he
said, according to translation by the BBC. "Inflation will be at 27 to 30
percent. The social and economic situation in the country may worsen
significantly." He added: "There is the potential loss of hundreds of
thousands of jobs."
Gazprom has been unflinching. Aleksei Miller, its chief executive,
reiterated the threat Friday. "If Ukraine does not sign a contract on the
purchase of gas in the remaining hours before the start of the new year,
on Jan. 1 at 10 a.m. Moscow time, gas supplies from the territory of the
Russian Federation to Ukraine will be completely cut off." -30-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK: http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/12/30/news/gas.php
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
8. FEAR OF GAS SHORTAGE AS UKRAINE REJECTS HUGE PRICE
RISE: RUSSIA THREATENS TO CUT SUPPLY AFTER TALKS FAIL
Analyst: Kremlin had no reason to "subsidise a hostile, anti-Russian regime."
Tom Parfitt, Moscow, Luke Harding, Berlin
The Guardian, London, United Kingdom, Sat, Dec 31, 2005
Concerns were growing last night that gas supplies to western Europe could
be disrupted, after Russia and Ukraine failed to end a dispute over gas
prices.
The European Union said yesterday it would hold a meeting of energy
ministers next week to discuss the crisis. "The idea is to be ready for all
eventualities and to have a common approach," said Amadeu Altafaj Tardio, a
spokesman for the European commission.
European officials insisted that fuel supplies to a winter-bound Europe were
not likely to be badly affected by the dispute, which followed an
announcement by the Russian state controlled gas monopoly Gazprom that it
was increasing the price of Siberian gas to Ukraine by 360%. The company has
given Kiev until Sunday to comply with the terms.
Ukraine urged Russia to suspend the increase, a demand that Gazprom
dismissed as unacceptable. The EU currently relies on Gazprom for 25% of its
gas supplies. Most of this is transported via Ukraine. If Russia makes good
its threat to cut off Ukraine's supply, it will reduce the amount of gas
sent through the pipeline - which also carries Europe's share.
"The commission is still optimistic that a deal can be reached," Mr Tardio
said. "We have concerns because some member states are more dependent on
Russian gas than others."
Viktor Yushchenko, the president of Ukraine, promised not to impede transit
supplies to Europe. But Gazprom warned that Kiev might divert exports
destined for Germany, Italy and France.
Earlier this week, Ukraine's prime minister, Yuri Yekhanurov, said Kiev
would take 15% of the Russian gas crossing its territory if Moscow cut
delivery for Ukrainian domestic use. A Gazprom spokesman, Sergei
Kupriyanov, told the Guardian it could not prevent Ukraine siphoning
from transit pipelines. "Technically speaking, they could take all the gas,"
he said.
Germany, the company's biggest client, urged Moscow and Kiev to strike a
deal as soon as possible to guarantee uninterrupted delivery. Several German
politicians urged Gerhard Schroder, Germany's former chancellor and soon to
become chairman of the supervisory board of Gazprom's pipeline subsidiary,
to use his influence with Russia's president, Vladimir Putin, to defuse the
row.
If necessary, Gazprom will offset decreased exports to western Europe by
pumping more through its pipeline across Belarus, or using underground
storage reservoirs, it said yesterday.
Britain does not receive direct supplies from Russia, but a drop in supply
to Europe would mean less gas being pumped through the interconnector,
the pipeline that links the UK with the continent. Anthony Brenton, the UK
ambassador to Moscow, called for a smooth resolution of the conflict.
However, negotiations in Moscow ended with no breakthrough. In Kiev, Mr
Yushchenko called for the two countries to extend talks until January 10,
but Gazprom rejected the proposal.
Moscow wants to increase the price Kiev pays for gas from $50 (pounds 29)
per 1,000 cubic metres to $230, which it says is in line with market prices.
The move is widely interpreted as punishment for Ukraine seeking rapid
integration into the EU and Nato. Russia argues it cannot sustain the lower
price.
One Russian MP said that Moscow's refusal to back down risked making it
look like an "energy bully". Relations between the two former Soviet countries
deteriorated after Ukraine's orange revolution last winter. Kirill Frolov, a
Moscow-based analyst, said the Kremlin had no reason to "subsidise a
hostile, anti-Russian regime." (guardian.co.uk/ukraine)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
9. PUTIN OFFERS THREE MONTH DELAY ON GAS PRICE HIKE
IF UKRAINE AGREES TO NEW PRICE, OFFERS ENDS SATURDAY
BBC NEWS, UK, Saturday, December 31, 2005
MOSCOW - Russian President Vladimir Putin has offered to delay a gas
price hike for Ukraine by three months in a compromise to end an
increasingly bitter dispute. Mr Putin made his offer at a meeting of his
powerful Security Council attended by Gazprom head Alexei Miller.
If Kiev signs up to the deal by the end of Saturday, the current price of
$50 per 1,000 cubic metres will remain until April, when it will rise to
$230. Ukraine says the proposed quadrupling of its gas bill is unacceptable.
If no agreement is reached, Russian gas supplier Gazprom plans to turn off
the supply at 0700 GMT on Sunday.
"I instruct the government and Gazprom to ensure gas deliveries in the first
quarter of 2006 with the conditions and rates of 2005, on the condition that
before the end of today the Ukrainian partners sign the contract with
Gazprom's offer for switching to market prices in the second quarter," Putin
said in remarks broadcast by Russian TV. There was no immediate Ukrainian
reaction. -30-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
10. GAZPROM CRITICAL TO HOMELAND'S ECONOMY
The state-controlled natural gas supplier is Russia's largest company
Jim Heintz, Associated Press (AP), Moscow, Russia, Fri, Dec 30, 2005
MOSCOW - Even in a country built on an outsized scale, OAO Gazprom
stands out as a behemoth.
The state-controlled natural gas supplier is Russia's largest company and a
critical element of the country's economy. As holder of the world's largest
gas reserves and supplier of about half the gas consumed in the European
Union, it can throw its weight far beyond Russia's borders.
Gazprom's might is in the spotlight this week in a tense feud with Ukraine
over prices. Gazprom wants Russia's neighbor to quadruple the amount it pays
for gas and says it will stop supplies on Jan. 1 if Ukraine doesn't swallow
the bitter pill.
Ukraine depends on Gazprom for about 30 percent of its gas, but it's not the
only one worried. About 80 percent of the gas that Gazprom sells to the West
goes through Ukraine, and Europeans fear that reducing the amount going into
Ukraine's pipelines could lower the amount they get at the other end.
If Ukraine's refusal to pay the new higher price results in a diminished gas
flow to Europe, that could undermine Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko's
assiduous efforts to court the West. That, presumably would be just fine by
the Kremlin, which has been cold to Yushchenko since he overcame a
Moscow-backed candidate to become president this year.
Gazprom and the Russian government don't put the dispute in political terms,
portraying it as strictly rational economics. Ukraine was recognized by the
EU as a market economy, so it should pay in line with market prices, they
argue. But Russia's commitment to market principles came into question this
week when Gazprom agreed to sell gas to Belarus for just 20 percent of the
price sought from Ukraine - essentially cutting Belarus a break because it
hasn't reformed its Soviet-style command economy.
This isn't the first time Gazprom has cited bottom-line finance issues as
justification for actions that carry a strong political message.
In 2001, Gazprom's media subsidiary took control of NTV, Russia's main
independent television station, citing nonpayment of loans it had made to
the station's holding company. Many analysts saw the move as part of a
Kremlin campaign to muzzle obstreperous media.
NTV had been noted for its critical reporting on the government, especially
the war in Chechnya, but its reporting has softened considerably since the
takeover. It has given notably lengthy attention to the dispute with
Ukraine, including a long segment last week showing Gazprom officials
practising ordering a cutoff of gas to Ukraine.
That footage, from Gazprom's high-tech pipeline control rooms, reinforced
Gazprom's image of power, which the company's statistics also demonstrate.
It claims gas reserves of 28 trillion cubic meters - more than 15 percent of
the world's proven reserves. In 2004, Gazprom reported revenues of 887.2
billion rubles (US$29.5 billion, euro24 billion) and paid 363.7 billion
rubles (US$12 billion, euro9.6 billion) in taxes - about 13 percent of
Russia's national budget for that year.
Sales to Ukraine are a significant part of that wealth: at the current rate
of US$50 (euro42) per 1,000 cubic meters, the 25 billion cubic meters that
Gazprom was to sell Ukraine this year would bring in about US$1.25 billion
(euro1 billion).
Ukraine says it can hold out for months after Jan. 1 on reserves and other
sources of gas and if it hangs tough, Gazprom could lose part of its revenue
stream just as it is preparing to make its shares available to foreigners
next year.
But Gazprom's wide reach may call Ukraine's bluff. That country's single
largest gas supplier is Turkmenistan - whose gas comes through Russian
pipelines. In addition, Gazprom this week said it had struck a deal with
Turkmenistan to buy huge amounts of gas itself, so much that some analysts
suggested Turkmenistan won't be able to supply Ukraine. -30-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Be A Vice-President In Charge Of The Continuing Orange Revolution
========================================================
11. PUTIN OK'S 1Q GAS PRICE DEAL WITH UKRAINE IF UKRAINE
AGREES TO PAY MARKET PRICES THEREAFTER
Putin said his offer was only valid until the end of Saturday.
By Vladimir Sachenkov, Associated Press (AP)
Moscow, Russia, Saturday, December 31, 2005
MOSCOW - President Vladimir Putin offered Ukraine an 11th-hour deal
Saturday in a war of nerves over Moscow's gas-supply ultimatum, ordering
Russia's state-owned natural gas monopoly to maintain Ukraine's current fuel
price for three months if Kiev agrees to pay more thereafter. Putin said his
offer was only valid until the end of Saturday.
There was no immediate indication of whether Ukraine, which faces Russia's
threat to cut off supplies at 0700 GMT Sunday, would accept the deal.
Valentyn Mondriyevsky, a Ukrainian Cabinet spokesman, said that talks were
under way. "Both sides will have to negotiate the exact prices," he said,
according to Interfax and other news agencies.
Gazprom (GSPBEX.RS) has demanded that Ukraine pay $230 - more than
four times the current price of $50 - per 1,000 cubic meters of gas.
"I'm ordering the government and Gazprom to conduct gas supplies to Ukraine
in the first quarter of 2006 on terms and at prices of 2005, if Ukrainian
partners by the end of the day sign a contract proposed by Gazprom to
transfer to free-market prices starting from the second quarter," Putin said
during a session of the presidential Security Council.
"If there is no clear response, we will consider that our proposal has been
rejected."
Gazprom spokesman Sergei Kupriyanov said that Ukrainian negotiators left
Moscow on Friday, and that his company was ready to wait for them through
the end of the day to sign the contract.
Ukraine's president, Viktor Yushchenko, had proposed on Friday to freeze
prices for the first 10 days of January to give both countries' companies
more time to negotiate. The Kremlin had not reacted to the proposal.
Putin said he had discussed the gas situation earlier Saturday in a
telephone conversation with Yushchenko. The Russian leader cast his move
as a friendly gesture intended to help the Ukrainian people.
"Ukraine isn't some abstract leadership, Ukraine is not oil and gas barons
who will protect their corporate or private interests in any case," Putin
said. "Ukraine is, above all, brotherly Ukrainian people and we must think
about the entire complex of relations between Russia and Ukraine."
"All problems can be solved through market approach, and, therefore through
a price Ukraine can afford," Yushchenko said in remarks broadcast by the
TV5 station later Saturday. He didn't elaborate. -30-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
If you are receiving more than one copy of the AUR please contact us.
========================================================
12. UKRAINE PRESIDENT: YEAR '05 ENDING WONDERFULLY
VOWS REFORMS IN '06 TO IMPROVE EVERYDAY LIFE
Associated Press (AP), Kiev, Ukraine, Friday, December 30, 2005
KIEV - Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko said Friday that 2005 is
ending "wonderfully" and pledged to improve living standards with
reforms in public welfare and agriculture in 2006.
In a live interview with leading television stations at the start of the New
Year holiday, Yushchenko said that "next year the government will
undertake massive reforms that will improve everyday life" in his
impoverished country of 47 million.
His remarks came amid a bitter feud over gas prices with Russia that
threatened to halt supplies to Ukraine on New Year's Day.
"We're finishing the year wonderfully. The challenges we are facing are
episodes in our life," he said.
Yushchenko, a reformist former opposition leader, was elected a year ago
following a tumultuous presidential race dubbed the Orange Revolution after
the color adopted by huge crowds that took to the streets to protest against
a fraud-marred election in which his rival was declared the winner. That
results was thrown out by the Supreme Court, and Yushchenko won a revote.
Yushchenko's popularity has fallen since he took office in January.
The president, who is seeking to lessen Russian influence and bring Ukraine
closer to the West, shrugged off the showdown with Russia over the price it
is demanding for natural gas deliveries, saying Ukraine has secured
sufficient supplies from Turkmenistan. At the same time, he said he believes
the dispute with Russia will soon be resolved.
He said that next year Ukrainians "should not do what we did in 2005," an
apparent reference to political infighting that ultimately led to the
collapse of the government of his first prime minister, Yulia Tymoshenko,
his closest ally in the Orange Revolution.
The feuds brought reforms aimed at ultimately joining the European Union
and NATO to a virtual halt. Yushchenko pledged to rejuvenate them,
promising major changes "in the local economy, education, military,
judiciary, agriculture, energy and health sectors."
He also pledged political reforms, more press freedom and improvements in
democratic practices. -30-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Send in a letter-to-the-editor today. Let us hear from you.
========================================================
13. "THE OTHER GAS CRISIS"
Ukraine has refused to agree to a 2006 rates schedule with Russia
A year ago, the West celebrated the Orange Revolution and Ukraine's
re-emergence as a democratic state. This time, however, those who
believe in free markets and freedom of commerce must side with Russia.
TODAY'S COLUMNIST: M. Ron Wahid
The Washington Times, Washington, D.C. Thu, December 29, 2005
Driving to New York City this holiday season? What if you couldn't drive
through New Jersey because that state and New York had been unable to
agree on the tolls at the Lincoln Tunnel? That's not a bad analogy for what
is happening right now, as winter sets in, between Russia and Ukraine in
their dispute over the pipeline bringing Russian gas to Europe and to
Ukraine itself.
The pipeline passes through Ukraine, but Ukraine has refused to agree to a
2006 rates schedule, even with the New Year fast approaching. This
commercial brinksmanship helps no one and has already hurt Ukraine.
It doesn't make sense as a negotiating tactic on a Manhattan transit strike;
it makes even less sense for two developing nations struggling to achieve
economic growth and attract Western investment after 70 years of Soviet
Communism.
Russia holds the world's largest gas reserves and is the second-largest oil
exporter. Up to 80 percent of Russia's gas exports to Western Europe pass
through Ukraine, and this accounts for about 25 percent of Western Europe's
supply of natural gas.
The two sides had originally agreed to sign an agreement by July 1 on gas
rates for 2006. But Ukraine's strategy was evidently to delay. Aleksey
Ivchenko, head of the Ukrainian gas company Naftogaz, was reported by
Kommersant Ukraina in October to have said, "We shall wait until the end
of the year and then if Gazprom will not sign with us the agreement on the
transit of gas, we shall begin technical seizure [of the pipeline]."
The Russian company Gazprom's original proposal was for a gradual gas
price increase, leading to eventual full market rates for its Western
European customers. With soaring world prices, however, that rate is no
longer economical. Ukraine's delays, therefore, did nothing but raise the
cost of gas to Ukrainian customers.
Ukraine's refusal to negotiate a fair agreement in the summer has seriously
hurt its economy and now raises the specter of an energy crisis in Europe
this winter if the parties cannot agree on a rate for transit of gas.
More generally, this kind of attitude hurts Ukraine's reputation in its
efforts to attract Western investment. No foreign investor wants to worry
about whether it can protect its investment in the event of adverse
commercial conditions.
Consider the issue also from the perspective of international politics. If
Ukraine continues to balk at reasonable terms for passage of gas, the
logical alternative is a pipeline through Belarus, Europe's last
dictatorship. Is this truly in Western interests?
Further east, recently, Kazakhstan inaugurated a new oil pipeline to China,
a rapidly expanding market. So it is in the interests of all countries in
Europe, as well as the United States, to keep oil and gas flowing smoothly
on commercial terms to the West.
Commerce in hydrocarbons cannot easily continue if one country uses the
simple fact of geography to exact exorbitant fees from users of the pipeline
in other countries. The United States solved this problem in 1787 through
the Commerce Clause, prohibiting any one state from interfering with
commerce between the states.
Ukraine has a clear right to a toll for the passage of gas across its
territory; in recent years, Ukraine has essentially agreed to barter access
to its territory for below-market prices for gas. That's a logical outcome.
But gaming the system will tempt other countries to do the same, leading
to higher oil and gas prices for all consumers.
Ukraine's policies will raise prices for all, slowing down economies and
discouraging the further Russian investments in energy which will develop
Russian reserves for all consumers, including Americans, in the quickest,
safest, and most environmentally sound manner.
Energy prices are high enough right now without adding excessively high
fees. Energy is like other commodities: If prices rise too high thanks to
punitive tariffs, then consumers will seek alternative sources of supply or
reduce consumption. How does either strategy benefit Ukraine? Does
Ukraine really want an economic slowdown in Europe or to oppose
legitimate Russian commerce?
And how does this stance help Ukraine's aspirations to join the European
Union? Should it not instead seek to ease commercial transactions between
Russia and the EU? If Ukraine wishes to be seen as a "bridge to Europe,"
it should not make using the bridge difficult for either side.
A year ago, the West celebrated the Orange Revolution and Ukraine's
re-emergence as a democratic state. This time, however, those who believe
in free markets and freedom of commerce must side with Russia. -30-
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
M. Ron Wahid is president of Washington-based RJI Capital Corp.,
which focuses on international energy transactions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK: http://www.washtimes.com/op-ed/20051228-095159-1239r.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Send in names and e-mail addresses for the AUR distribution list.
========================================================
14. CUBIC METERS AS A WEAPON
The pitfalls in using energy resources as political tools
ANALYSIS & COMMENTARY: By Bennadi Sysoev
Kommersant, Moscow, Russia, Friday, December 30, 2005
The Kremlin proclaimed a new CIS policy in 2005. In short, official
Moscow undertook to convert its economic influence in the post-
Soviet zone into political influence. But Russia may soon find
itself without either form of influence.
On August 23, shortly before the CIS summit in Kazan, RIA-
Novosti quoted a senior Kremlin official who insisted on anonymity
that Moscow intended to radically change its CIS policy. "Moscow
cannot help disliking the situation when it essentially subsidies
economies of some countries selling them energy resources at a
serious disadvantage to itself" when "some of the new rules are paid
their salaries, openly or covertly, by the Americans," the official
said. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov developed the thesis later that
day. He said that CIS countries should build relations among them
"on the basis of the world practice."
Only later it became clear that the words of the official and
the diplomat had not been a boast after all, that it was the
Kremlin's new policy with regard to former Soviet republics
proclaimed. It was a message to CIS countries that only whichever of
them remained in the Russian orbit could hope to retain economic
privileges and buy energy at a discount. Whichever countries,
however, were bent on rapprochement with the West should prepare
themselves for the worst - bid a fond farewell to cheap Russian gas
with all it implied.
The new policy with regard to the CIS countries was not
generated and formulated overnight. It was the result of a thorough
analysis of color revolutions in the post-Soviet zone. The Kremlin's
analysts drew at least two conclusions.
[1] First, that CIS countries had drifted so far apart that the CIS itself
existed only on paper and that its territory was rapidly evolving into two
camps - pro-Russian and pro-Western. Vladimir Putin's words in
Yerevan in March became the first indication of future changes in the
policy. It was the first time Putin called the CIS "an instrument of
civilized divorce" for the former Soviet republics.
[2] The second conclusion the courtier-analysts drew was even more
far-reaching. The West that has successfully orchestrated
installation of new regimes in Georgia, Ukraine, and Kyrgyzstan and
Moldovan President Vladimir Voronin's "defection" to its side would
not stop at that. On the contrary, the West will continue developing
its success, tearing one country after another from the sphere of
Russian influence. Analysts said that the next color revolutions
could occur in Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Uzbekistan.
More importantly, they became convinced that Russia was the ultimate
target where a new regime might be installed the way they had been
in Georgia or Ukraine in the course of disturbances and instability
caused, say, by deterioration of the economic situation or
aggravation of the conflict in the Caucasus.
The dramatic turn in Moscow's policy with regard to CIS
countries was designed as a means of prevention of this turn of
events.
[DECLARING A GAR WAR ON THREE CIS PARTNERS]
[1] Ukraine became the major target of the Russian offensive. For
starters, Gazprom upped gas price for the Orange Regime from $50 to
$160. While Kiev was screaming bloody murder and objecting, Gazprom
boosted the price to $230. Kiev offered Russia control over 50% of
the domestic gas market in return for the promise to up prices step
by step but the northern neighbor was not interested. Moscow chose
to stick to its new strategy.
It doesn't care that a lot of Ukrainian politicians maintain that Gazprom's
demands are purely political, that this is how the Kremlin makes
preparations for the parliamentary election in Ukraine where it is
determined to exact vengeance for the dismal fiasco of its protege
Viktor Yanukovich in election of the president last year.
[2] Georgia was chosen for the second target. Instead of the
previous $63, it will have to pay Russia $110 for every 1,000 cubic
meters of gas now. Georgian Minister of Economy Kakha Bendukidze
exclaimed "A high gas price is politics!" but the unruffled Kremlin
repeats again and again that no political considerations are
involved.
[3] Moldova is facing a similar problem. The Kremlin hasn't
forgotten or forgiven the slap in its face that took the form of
official Chisinau's demonstrative refusal to sign the Trans-Dniester
conflict settlement plan composed in Moscow. The Moldovan
authorities plead with the Kremlin to up the prices gradually but a
flat "No" is all they hear in response.
Declaring a gas war on three CIS partners, Moscow showered its
faithful allies with boons. President Alexander Lukashenko of
Belarus is once again a fierce pro-Russian due to the forthcoming
presidential election. His country will go on paying $47 for the
Russian gas.
The Russian gas offensive in all fronts at once means changes
in the foreign policy and personnel in charge of it. The Foreign
Ministry has always been the agent of the Kremlin's will in the CIS
until now. These days, however, it is giving way to Gazprom managers
- or so it certainly seems. As far as the Kremlin is concerned,
Gazprom managers wield the only reliable instrument of influence
with the neighbors - gas valve.
In the meantime, the old axiom of intelligence services
(valuable assets have to be cherished) must have occurred to
official Moscow too because it decided not to count on itself alone.
Moscow began recruiting powerful Western politicians for its energy
giants expecting that these politicians will help Russia with
execution of its new foreign policy strategy.
Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi has been considered
the foremost Russian lobbyist in the West until now. The Russian
leader was assisted by his Italian pal on more than one occasion,
and Italian businesses associated with Berlusconi benefited from his
often scandalous but usually pro-Russian statements.
Settling in the new foreign policy strategy, Moscow set out to
reinforce its lobbyist group in the West with two powerful men - ex-
chancellor of Germany Gerhard Schroeder and Don Evans, President
George W. Bush's personal friend and former commerce secretary.
Moscow made them offers no sane man would ever turn own. The former
was offered chairmanship in the committee of shareholders of North
European Gas Pipeline Company, operator of the North European Gas
Pipeline. Evans was offered the post of chairman of the board at
Rosneft. The signing of these two contracts would have guaranteed
the West's benevolence with regard to the new strategy.
Alas, Evans announced on December 20 that he felt he must turn
down Mr. Putin's offer. Evans' decision struck a serious blow at the
new strategy - and not only because it put Schroeder under pressure
(he is told in no uncertain terms to turn down the Russian offer).
It is just that shortcomings of the new Russian strategy become
all too apparent even at the initial phase of its implementation.
Economic leverage is a powerful weapon but not omnipotent at all,
and this is the weakest link in the whole chain of the strategy. The
threat to close gas valve would have been a much more efficient
means of dealing with neighbors that its execution. It is clear that
higher gas prices will foment a crisis in the affected countries.
It is also clear, however, that they will overcome the crisis with help
from Europe and America and that Russia will find itself without the
last leverage with these countries. Moreover, orientation of their
economies in the direction of the West will hurt Russia itself. And
what countries of the CIS that haven't made up their minds on the
Russia vs the West choice yet will see that it is no impossible at
all to do without Russia. (Translated by A. Ignatkin) -30-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
15. RUSSIA WIELDS ITS NEW ARSENAL: FUEL
Poland is among the energy-hungry nations to the west confronting
what some analysts call Moscow's politicized agenda in making deals.
By Jeffrey Fleishman, Times Staff Writer
Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles, California, Friday, Dec 30, 2005
WARSAW - In the crowded hallways of the Polish Parliament, there is
talk of a new Cold War in which the weapons have changed from nuclear
warheads to oil and gas.
The rival in a widening game of pipelines and corporate strategy is Russia
and its empire of energy resources. Ninety percent of Poland's oil and much
of its natural gas flow from Russia. Such equations are distressing for
Poles as they rise in stature in the West while remaining in many ways
subject to the political and economic whims of their past oppressor.
"Russia is exploiting its control of oil and gas as part of its foreign
policy," said Jerzy Marek Nowakowski, a former national security advisor.
"This is an extremely dangerous political instrument. Oil and gas are more
effective for Russia today than its nuclear weapons were during communist
times."
The quest for energy resources in Poland and throughout Europe is unfolding
in tales of untapped reserves, frozen outposts and labyrinthine financial
deals involving historical foes and new world alliances. Since the Cold War
ended 15 years ago, resource-rich Russia has become crucial to a continent
wary of the political chaos and unpredictable markets of the Middle East.
The changes across Eastern and Central Europe, especially the democracy
movements in the former Soviet bloc, are politicizing the dynamics of
energy distribution. Many analysts and legislators say Russia's agitation
over democracy's eastward expansion, and its long-standing unease with the
North Atlantic Treaty Organization at its borders, has persuaded Moscow to
exert power through oil-and-gas diplomacy that rewards friends and punishes
foes.
Such a policy, especially if it led to price increases or cuts in service,
could be disastrous for the fragile economies of Poland, Ukraine and other
nations trying to slip further past Russia's shadow. This week, Russia's
state-controlled Gazprom natural gas monopoly threatened to cut off service
to Ukraine on the first of the year if Kiev did not agree to higher prices.
Russia supplies about one-third of the former Soviet republic's natural
gas, and Gazprom has proposed hiking rates from $50 per 1,000 cubic
meters to about $220.
Higher prices would put Ukraine more in line with rates worldwide, but an
immediate fourfold increase would stun a nation whose costs have been kept
low because of its former ties to Moscow.
Russia informed the Polish government in early November that it would
dramatically raise natural gas prices in 2006. With 18% unemployment and an
economy struggling to modernize, Poland would risk recession if energy
costs escalated too quickly.
Russia and the U.S. have crucial political and energy interests in Poland
and countries to the east and south. Moscow and Washington are competing
for influence with governments from Eastern Europe across the Caucasus and
in the oil capitals of the Caspian Sea region. Polish politicians say
Warsaw's close relationship with Washington should help in its pursuit of
energy sources to reduce its dependence on Russian oil and gas.
Moscow's grip on the Polish market was strongly felt in September, when
Russia and Germany signed a $5-billion deal for a natural gas pipeline to
run under the Baltic Sea. The pipeline will bypass Poland and the Baltic
countries and give Russia access to new markets. Polish political leaders
compared the deal to the 1939 Hitler-Stalin nonaggression pact and
complained that Russia could play political blackmail.
The pipeline is an "attempt by Moscow to divide the European Union by
bypassing Poland and other Central European countries," said Marek Jurek,
speaker of the lower house of Parliament. "Russia needs to accept that old
Soviet bloc countries are now part of the EU. It has to accept that these
changes are permanent and not revert to the revisionist tendencies of a
fallen empire."
Relations between the nations are at their worst point in years. Former
Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski suggested that Russian President
Vladimir V. Putin's gas deal with Germany was punishment for Warsaw's
support of the democratic revolution in neighboring Ukraine. Russia is also
irritated by Poland's new right-leaning government and its close ties to
the U.S.
The mood already was strained in July, when Moscow accused Polish
politicians of stoking anti-Russian sentiment that led to the beatings of
three children of Russian envoys in a Warsaw park. Weeks later, two
Polish diplomats and a journalist were attacked in Moscow.
Polish newspapers have swelled with commentary that Putin, a former KGB
intelligence officer, is mired in the conspiracies and geopolitics of the
past.
"I can't remember such practices against diplomats, even in Berlin when
Hitler was in power," Jaroslaw Kaczynski, leader of the Law and Justice
Party that controls Parliament, told the Polish media. More ill will
surfaced Nov. 4, when Russia celebrated a new holiday: the anniversary of
the 1612 uprising that drove the Polish army from Moscow after years of
occupation.
Poland is finding that the pipelines of today are as potent as the armies
of the past. The 720-mile conduit to be built by Gazprom and two German
corporations strategically cuts Poland out of a sprawling energy grid.
Russia had planned to complete the second leg of a pipeline through Poland
to reach markets in the West. This would have allowed Poles to collect
millions of dollars in transit fees, which will be lost to the
Russian-German project that began construction this month.
Poland has raised the "biggest ruckus," Sergei Kupriyanov, deputy head of
Gazprom's information policy department, said in a recent interview. "Its
rationale is simple, that the construction of such a pipeline on the
[Baltic] seabed rather than on land through Poland deprives it of possible
profits." He added that the German deal gave Gazprom better links to a
wider consumer market in the West.
Some analysts see a more veiled hand at work. "Russia's current government
is pathologically incapable of speaking to the countries of the former
Soviet bloc as equals," said Vladimir Milov, president of the Moscow-based
Institute of Energy Policy. "It wants to be a big brother and dictate its
terms."
Milov said that bypassing Poland was "extremely unsound economically"
and was done for the "sake of political objectives." He said politicizing
energy policy risked destabilization of the market.
The German-Russian deal also underscored the European Union's lack of an
energy security policy for its 25 members. The EU seeks to have its members
act in unison, ensuring that one nation does not hurt another. Negotiations
for the new pipeline showed that Berlin, desperate for cheap energy to
invigorate its economy, put national benefits over the interests of its EU
partners to the east.
It illuminated how energy needs often become the driving force of politics.
Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder and Putin had grown close,
and Schroeder was often criticized in the media for not condemning
Moscow's military campaigns and human rights abuses in the separatist
republic of Chechnya.
Analysts in both nations viewed the pipeline deal as partly a reward for
Schroeder's reticence. The lucrative pact was signed when Schroeder needed
it most 10 days before the election that nevertheless failed to win the
chancellor a third term.
"There's clearly a concern on the part of some EU countries that one or two
countries temper their comments about Russia because of their energy
dependency," said Stephen O'Sullivan, co-head of research for the United
Financial Group in Moscow.
Schroeder's relationship with Putin was further scrutinized this month,
when it was disclosed that the former chancellor had been appointed to head
the shareholders of the consortium overseeing the pipeline's construction.
It was not announced what sum, if any, Schroeder would be paid in the post,
but several German politicians have complained of a conflict of interest.
Antoni Podolski, deputy director of the Center for International Relations
in Warsaw, said: "Schroeder taught us a painful lesson. He showed us how
not to be naive and to act in the national interest. Sometimes we Poles are
too naive, and we believed too much in European solidarity. But because of
the unstable Middle East, Western Europe likes Russian oil and gas even if
this policy is a threat to Poland."
Recent history shows, however, that Russia is not shy about reminding its
neighbors that it controls much of Europe's energy flow.
At the October EU-Russia summit in London, Putin pointed out that Russia
provided 90% of some Western countries' natural gas. "No one's complained
so far," he said.
The president added that new energy projects would allow Europeans to
"control everything from production to the final consumer.. This creates a
completely new situation. So the rumor of Europe's possible loss of its
independence in terms of energy is hugely exaggerated."
Disputes over prices and politics have led to disruption of the natural gas
supply in the past, however. In 1992, Moscow severed gas supplies when
Lithuania ran afoul of Russian political interests in the region. The
hardships that ensued helped the Communists make a stunning electoral
comeback.
More recently, in October, the Lithuanian government briefly detained a
Russian pilot whose fighter jet crash-landed on its territory. Russian
protesters marched to the Lithuanian Embassy in Moscow, carrying signs
that read, "No Pilot, No Gas."
Poland is looking for new energy sources, although it will remain dependent
on Russia for years. They include the possibilities of imports from Norway
and Iran and tapping into the $3.4-billion Caspian Sea oil pipeline that
will begin in Azerbaijan and bypass Russian territory to supply Western
markets.
"We have to coordinate with U.S. companies," said Nowakowski, the
former Polish national security advisor. "There are possibilities opening in
Kazakhstan and gas fields in Turkmenistan." -30-
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writers Kim Murphy and Natalia Yefimova in Moscow and
special correspondent Ela Kasprzycka in Warsaw contributed to this report.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-energywar30dec30,0,3524321.story?coll=la-home-world
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
Power Corrupts and Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely.
========================================================
16. ENERGY QUESTION MAY SPELL END OF THE
GOOD LIFE FOR THE WEST
BUSINESS VIEW: by David Montagu-Smith
Independent adviser on international energy issues.
The Times, London, UK, Tuesday, December 27, 2005
IN HIS 1939 book On the Marble Cliffs, the German soldier and scholar Ernst
Jünger showed how a comfortable, complacent society could sleep-walk into
catastrophe by refusing to read the signs of impending danger.
We may be nearing a Marble Cliffs moment of our own, not just in this
country, but all across the developed world, in terms of the energy outlook.
Since the Second World War, the economic and social progress of the planet,
for better and worse, has been heavily influenced by the policies and
cultural make-up of OECD nations. That progress, if such it be, has been
fuelled largely by supplies of oil and natural gas from parts of the world
over which, in one way or another, OECD members have held sway.
In this process, the main supply source, Opec oil-producing countries, have
with one or two aberrations maintained a moderate stance, with the result
that the cost of "raw" energy has not consistently sustained its real value.
A major reason for this has been the competitive force of non-Opec oil and
gas production.
This comfortable world, as we have known it, is coming to a crucial turning
point. And energy, specifically the cost and security of energy supply, lies
at the apex of this turning point.
The components of the challenge to be faced may be familiar. There are
environmental risks, specifically concerning climate change, and the costs
and technological developments required to address them. There is rampant
growth in new energy demand, from China and India in particular. There is
the fact of depleting OECD reserves of conventional oil and gas. And there
is our increasing reliance on natural gas for power generation. These
problems are being addressed by energy consumers, not least in this country,
in a parochial and superficial manner.
So, while some of the problems, such as Kyoto, have had much attention,
others, such as the long-term security of energy supply upon which our
prosperity has depended, have been neglected. Now, suddenly, new risks are
appearing on the horizon. There are new dangers that could alter our quality
of life over the next 20 years. They could put at risk the comfortable
social order we have created for ourselves, to which most of the rest of the
world has been conditioned to aspire.
A key factor in the changing balances of world energy is Russia, and the
ambitions of President Putin's country to reassert its place on the world
stage by using its growing muscle as a future energy supplier to the markets
of Europe and the US to recover some of the ground and status lost after the
demise of the USSR. President Putin, perhaps tellingly, is reported to have
described the demise of the USSR as the 20th century's "greatest
geopolitical disaster ".
So perhaps we should heed some distant storm warnings. Perhaps we should
worry when President Putin enlists support from a former German Chancellor,
moments after his retreat from politics, and only months after they have,
together, signed a treaty to build a gas pipeline under the Baltic, which
that ex-Chancellor will supervise. Perhaps we should worry when that
pipeline project will be led by an ex-boss of the East German Stasi, whom
Putin met when he himself was a KGB boss.
Perhaps we should be concerned when Putin attempts to recruit a senior US
presidential aide to one of the boards of Rosneft, the Russian oil company
so indecently manhandled back into state control. And when Gazprom threatens
to withhold gas supply from Ukraine - and, hence, indirectly from Europe -
after its electoral escape from the gerrymandering of Moscow's acolytes. And
when Gazprom has declared its intention to control up to 10 per cent of the
gas supply to the US by 2015, as well as up to, if not more than, 30 per
cent of the European gas market.
Perhaps we should be concerned when Russia and China seem to be coming to
recognise the scale of opportunity that a strategic partnership can offer
them in terms of energy security and global influence? And when the US
Department of Energy forecasts that, by 2020, the annual shortfall in Opec
oil production, against global demand, will exceed the biggest-ever
production of Saudi Arabia, the traditional swing producer. And when we
expect Canadian gas exports to the US to dwindle and shortly cease because
of the need for energy for the processing of tar sands.
And perhaps we should worry when all these things are happening in such a
way that we need to recognise that our affluent living standards, which we
all take so for granted, may be under a greater risk now than they have ever
been.
What we believe to have been the definitive triumph of the Western
democratic way over the sterile misery of the Soviet system may be turning
out not to have been the victorious end of the Cold War after all, but just
one battle in an unending struggle for global power and influence.
The key weapon in the battle lines now being drawn is energy. Even if market
forces prevail in setting costs of oil and gas, it seems clear that having
so heavily depleted its own relatively low-cost hydrocarbon reserves, the
OECD will have no influence over the supply or over the very much higher
future costs of that supply.
There is much clamour from parochial vested interests in this country
concerned with renewable energy sources and pursuit of the subsidies that
are a pre-condition of their commercial viability. Environmentalists seem
oblivious to the impact their theories will have on the quality of life as
we know and need it. Meanwhile, European nuclear power groups are
negotiating for the UK power market to be tilted in their favour and
threaten to compromise the Government's latest energy review.
Yet these other hugely important matters attract too little discussion, too
little debate. -30-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Montagu-Smith, independent adviser, international energy issues.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
LINK: http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,9072-1959462,00.html
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
========================================================
17. THE RISE OF GAS PRICES IN UKRAINE: A NECESSITY
TAINTED BY POLITICAL CALCULATIONS
ANALYSIS: by Alexandre Levy, Le Monde
Paris, France, Tuesday, 27 December 2005
Published in English by The Ukraine List (UKL) #374, Article #4
Translated by Catherine Beach for UKL
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, Friday, December 30, 2005
As of January 1, 2006, the Russian giant Gazprom wants to charge Ukraine for
1000 m3 of gas between 220 and 230 US dollars (between 190 and 193 Euros)
up from 50 today (approximately 42 Euros). This tariff, which in Russia is
"domestic," meaning that it applies within its territory, is now obsolete
according to Moscow for this ex-Soviet Republic that wishes to distance
itself from the Kremlin.
In reality, Kyiv never paid a price of 50 dollars per 1000 m3, but was in
the habit, according to an accord that was more or less formalized, of
paying Gazprom "in services," giving transit rights to Russian gas through
Ukraine in the direction of the European Union. This means that they
deducted gas for their domestic consumption from the pipeline (the only one,
other than another in construction under the Baltic Sea that would connect
Germany directly to Russia) used by Gazprom. At the moment of the present
crisis, the Ukrainian authorities announced that this "commission" would
rise to 15% of the flow, a number immediately denied on the Russian side.
"There can be no question of 15%, or 10%, or even 2%," declared the Russian
energy minister Viktor Khristenko, believing the Ukrainian declarations to
be "astonishing." If an intergovernmental protocol is not signed between now
and the end of the year "all gas deductions by Ukraine as of 2006 will be
considered stealing. And with that, Ukraine will be stealing gas destined to
the European Union that it wishes to integrate," added a Gazprom
spokesperson, Sergei Kuprianov.
A LAMB FOR AN AX
In addition, Gazprom is asking that gas from now on be paid in cash and not
"in services." "The time when we exchanged a lamb for an ax is past.
Unfortunately, we must teach Ukraine the basics of a market economy,"
explains Mr. Kuprianov.
However, this agreement had been going on until the regime change in Kyiv,
and President Vladimir Putin has not ceased to declare during his visits to
the Ukrainian capital that the two "brother states" could find a way to work
things out. "You can send us lard and horilka, we can send you gas and oil,"
he joked one day alongside Leonid Kuchma, the former President of Ukraine,
referring to two Ukrainian specialties most appreciated in Russia: salted
meat and vodka. Since then, the defeat of the Kremlin-endorsed candidate,
Viktor Yanukovych, who tried in vain to falsify the elections, provoked the
"Orange Revolution," which saw the election of a pro-European team led by
Viktor Yushchenko.
From Kyiv's point of view the actual crisis is perceived as a retaliatory
measure by the Kremlin against an ex-Soviet republic who considered Ukraine
a "friend," that decided to back away from its sphere of influence. Russian
authorities do not cease to declare that since Ukraine has been recognized
by the EU, which it wishes to integrate as a market economy, it is time that
it acts as such by paying for its gas at competitive prices. Three months
after the Ukrainian legislative elections, this crisis will only serve to
reinforce the pro-Russian opponents to the present government, whose
militants are multiplying their protests to explain that they do not wish to
"die of cold to adhere to NATO."
STRUCTURAL REFORMS
In fact, an increase in gas prices is inevitable in the eyes of not only the
Russian party but of the Ukrainians as well, who admit that the present
circumstances can not last much longer, beginning with President Viktor
Yushchenko, who has tried many times to appease the situation. "The faster
we liberalize the price of gas, the faster we will become competitive," Mr.
Yushchenko revealed. "Unfortunately, the Ukrainian industrial giants have
become accustomed to paying almost nothing for their energy and for that
reason have not invested in the modernization of equipment."
This is an observation shared by many independent experts that hope that the
increase of gas prices will accelerate the pace of structural reforms in the
Ukrainian structural sector. "Until now, Ukraine had nothing to incite it to
reduce its energy consumption and to search for alternate sources of
energy," assessed the World Bank in an end of year report on Ukraine.
"Access to subsidized energy allowed reforms to be pushed back," explained
Paul Bermingham to AFP, Ukraine's overseer for the World Bank. Currently,
"(Kyiv's) intense energy consumption is probably the highest in the region,"
according to the Bank. "For each dollar of GDP, Ukraine consumes four
times the quantity of energy consumed in Germany."
The industrial sector is one of the most wasteful, mainly because of
equipment that dates back to the Soviet era. "The state of the facilities is
such(S) that 70% of energy received is lost," maintains another
representative from the World Bank, Dejan Ostojic.
To be able to begin these reforms, the Ukrainian government asks for the
increase in prices to be progressive and laid out over two or three years,
which Gazprom refuses to do while continuing to threaten to "cut the supply"
as of January 1. This is what Viktor Yushchenko would have had to ask for
when taking the initiative, on December 27 to phone Vladimir Putin, who
appears to be in his favorite position: that of a powerful arbitrator. -30-
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UKL 374, 30 December 2005, Compiled by Dominique Arel, Chair of
Ukrainian Studies, University of Ottawa, 559 King Edward Ave., Ottawa
ON K1N 6N5, CANADA; 613 562 5800 ext. 3692, fax 613 562 5351
For a free subscription to UKL, write to darel@uottawa.ca
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[return to index] [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
=======================================================
HAPPY NEW YEAR 2006 !
========================================================
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT - AUR"
An Agent Of Change
A Free, Not-for-profit, Independent, Public Service Newsletter
ARTICLES ARE FOR PERSONAL AND ACADEMIC USE ONLY
Articles are Distributed For Information, Research, Education
Discussion and Personal Purposes Only
========================================================
SigmaBleyzer/The Bleyzer Foundation Economic Reports
"SigmaBleyzer - Where Opportunities Emerge"
The SigmaBleyzer Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
and The Bleyzer Foundation offers a comprehensive collection of documents,
reports and presentations published by its business units and organizations.
All publications are grouped by categories: Marketing; Economic Country
Reports; Presentations; Ukrainian Equity Guide; Monthly Macroeconomic
Situation Reports (Romania, Bulgaria, Ukraine).
LINK: http://www.sigmableyzer.com/index.php?action=publications
You can be on an e-mail distribution list to receive automatically, on a
monthly basis, any or all of the Macroeconomic Situation Reports (Romania,
Bulgaria, Ukraine) by sending an e-mail to mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com.
"UKRAINE - A COUNTY OF NEW OPPORTUNITIES"
========================================================
UKRAINE INFORMATION WEBSITE: http://www.ArtUkraine.com
=======================================================
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR" - SPONSORS
"Working to Secure & Enhance Ukraine's Democratic Future"
The AUR sponsors will be listed again in the next AUR.
=======================================================
"THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT - AUR" is an in-depth, private,
independent, not-for- profit news and analysis international newsletter,
produced as a free public service by the non-profit www.ArtUkraine.com
Information Service (ARTUIS) and The Action Ukraine Report Monitoring
Service The report is distributed in the public interest around the
world FREE of charge. Additional readers are always welcome.
TO GET ON OR OFF THE DISTRIBUTION LIST
If you would like to read "THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT- AUR"
please send your name, country of residence, and e-mail contact
information to morganw@patriot.net. Additional names are welcome. If
you do not wish to read "THE ACTION UKRAINE REPORT" around
five times per week, let us know by e-mail to morganw@patriot.net. If
you are receiving more than one copy please contact us and again please
contact us immediately if you do not wish to receive this Report.
===================================================
PUBLISHER AND EDITOR - AUR
Mr. E. Morgan Williams, Director, Government Affairs
Washington Office, SigmaBleyzer
Emerging Markets Private Equity Investment Group
P.O. Box 2607, Washington, D.C. 20013, Tel: 202 437 4707
Mobile in Kyiv: 8 050 689 2874
mwilliams@SigmaBleyzer.com; www.SigmaBleyzer.com
=======================================================
return to index [The Action Ukraine Report (AUR) Monitoring Service]
=======================================================