Full Version: The Cold War is over
While attending a conference in Vilnius, Richard Cheney had the following to say about Russia and its recent spat with Ukraine regarding the price of natural gas:
For those unfamiliar with the situation, Russian state-owned natural gas company, Gazprom, has been selling natural gas to Ukraine at heavily discounted rate for years. At some point Russians decided that enough is enough, and asked Ukraine to pay current market rates. Ukraine refused. After months of deliberations, during which Russia even offered $3.6 billion credit to ease the transition to market rates, Ukraine steadfastly refused to pay current market rates, gas supply to Ukraine was cut off on January 1, 2006. After several days, during which Ukraine "withheld without authorization" (or, as Italy called it, "stole") millions of cubic meters of gas intended for Western Europe, an agreement has been reached.
In my opinion, Cheney's remarks highlight a trend in Washington officials' statements, when Russia is blamed for something which would be totally acceptable in any other situation or if different countries were involved.
Do you think that Russia should have continued to supply Ukraine with natural gas at 1/4 of current market rate? Do you see Russian decisions as politically motivated, or business-motivated, or both?
Is there a bias towards Russia from Washington officials? What's the underlying reason for that bias?
I think I've made my feelings clear how I feel regarding the first question. As for the second question: Russia has been buoyed by high energy prices. There has been budget proficits for several years in a row, the country is flush with cash, the economy is strong, an Putin is determined to make Russia a major player on international stage again. Gone are the times when Russia was willing to play the junior role. With their own influence on the world stage siginificantly reduced during the past several years because of the Iraqi war and "weapons of mass destruction" fiasco, U.S. diplomats are doing their best to hinder and reduce Russian influence on the world stage.
QUOTE
No legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation.
And no one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements.
And no one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements.
For those unfamiliar with the situation, Russian state-owned natural gas company, Gazprom, has been selling natural gas to Ukraine at heavily discounted rate for years. At some point Russians decided that enough is enough, and asked Ukraine to pay current market rates. Ukraine refused. After months of deliberations, during which Russia even offered $3.6 billion credit to ease the transition to market rates, Ukraine steadfastly refused to pay current market rates, gas supply to Ukraine was cut off on January 1, 2006. After several days, during which Ukraine "withheld without authorization" (or, as Italy called it, "stole") millions of cubic meters of gas intended for Western Europe, an agreement has been reached.
In my opinion, Cheney's remarks highlight a trend in Washington officials' statements, when Russia is blamed for something which would be totally acceptable in any other situation or if different countries were involved.
Do you think that Russia should have continued to supply Ukraine with natural gas at 1/4 of current market rate? Do you see Russian decisions as politically motivated, or business-motivated, or both?
Is there a bias towards Russia from Washington officials? What's the underlying reason for that bias?
I think I've made my feelings clear how I feel regarding the first question. As for the second question: Russia has been buoyed by high energy prices. There has been budget proficits for several years in a row, the country is flush with cash, the economy is strong, an Putin is determined to make Russia a major player on international stage again. Gone are the times when Russia was willing to play the junior role. With their own influence on the world stage siginificantly reduced during the past several years because of the Iraqi war and "weapons of mass destruction" fiasco, U.S. diplomats are doing their best to hinder and reduce Russian influence on the world stage.
To be fair, Cheney's speech was aimed more at Russian backtracking on democratic reform than it was on oil and gas supplies. Cheney is on a "pro-democracy" tour of Eastern Europe.
Do you think that Russia should have continued to supply Ukraine with natural gas at 1/4 of current market rate? Do you see Russian decisions as politically motivated, or business-motivated, or both?
I don't think Russia should be forced to supply natural gas at below market prices. The decision by Russia is both politically and economically motivated, of course. Nothing is ever black and white.
The Ukraine wants to join NATO, which is an insult to Russia. As such, relations have been strained recently.
The Ukraine also believes that Russia is overcharging for its natural gas--up to $230 per 1000 cubic meters instead of the much lower price that others are charging. The deal that Russia and the Ukraine signed in January states that Russia will sell natural gas to a third party, who will blend it will cheaper Central Asia natural gas and then sell it to Ukraine for $95 per 1000 cubic meters. As you can see, in order to do this, the Russian gas must be much, much higher than supplies from other places.
Is there a bias towards Russia from Washington officials? What's the underlying reason for that bias?
There is a slight bias, but in general I think we want Russia to continue on towards a more democratic system. There is little doubt that Putin put the breaks on reforms and has been very autocratic in some of his decisions, especially regarding elections (or lack thereof).
The US wants (and needs!) to send the message that the current climate is not right and we'd like to see Russia proceed towards a more open and democratic society.
Do you think that Russia should have continued to supply Ukraine with natural gas at 1/4 of current market rate? Do you see Russian decisions as politically motivated, or business-motivated, or both?
I don't think Russia should be forced to supply natural gas at below market prices. The decision by Russia is both politically and economically motivated, of course. Nothing is ever black and white.
The Ukraine wants to join NATO, which is an insult to Russia. As such, relations have been strained recently.
The Ukraine also believes that Russia is overcharging for its natural gas--up to $230 per 1000 cubic meters instead of the much lower price that others are charging. The deal that Russia and the Ukraine signed in January states that Russia will sell natural gas to a third party, who will blend it will cheaper Central Asia natural gas and then sell it to Ukraine for $95 per 1000 cubic meters. As you can see, in order to do this, the Russian gas must be much, much higher than supplies from other places.
Is there a bias towards Russia from Washington officials? What's the underlying reason for that bias?
There is a slight bias, but in general I think we want Russia to continue on towards a more democratic system. There is little doubt that Putin put the breaks on reforms and has been very autocratic in some of his decisions, especially regarding elections (or lack thereof).
The US wants (and needs!) to send the message that the current climate is not right and we'd like to see Russia proceed towards a more open and democratic society.
QUOTE
The US wants (and needs!) to send the message that the current climate is not right and we'd like to see Russia proceed towards a more open and democratic society.
The U.S. wants to ease into shaping public mindset against Russia is what it really wants. Russia has been questionable for years and years... but let's see what new is happening?
Russia isn't getting on board with the wording of the resolution against Iran.
All of a sudden we are concerned about Russia's backsliding progress towards democracy.
This is all about Iran. There may come a time soon where our interests and Russia's interests come to impasse. Russia has a veto, we need to set the ground work that Russia opinion is irrelevant. We did the exact same thing to the U.N. prior to the invasion of Iraq. The ground work is already there for China.... they're communist by their own mouth's and we all know how evil communism is ...right??
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.