map
Our Affiliates
Listen In 28 LanguagesRFE/RL Radio
In 28 Languages

'Berlin Wall's Lessons For Today'

In an op-ed for "USA Today," Jeffrey Gedmin discusses RFE and the role of free media in societies living under repressive regimes. More
More Articles

Features

Have Moscow, Kyiv Crossed The Line In Gas Dispute?

The scene at an Ukrgaztrans main control point on January 6, as the head of Naftohaz, Oleg Dubina (standing) looks on.

January 06, 2009
By Brian Whitmore
As a bitter cold snap settles in on the European continent, Moscow's price dispute with Kyiv has begun to inflict collateral damage.

Russian gas is no longer flowing to Bulgaria, Croatia, Turkey, Greece, or Macedonia. In Austria, Hungary, Slovakia, the Czech Republic, and Romania it has slowed to a mere trickle.

Since the start of the row on New Year's Day, when Russia's Gazprom cut off gas supplies to Ukraine, Moscow and Kyiv have each tried to portray the other as the villain of the dispute and persuade the European Union to take their side.

"Ukraine is appealing to the EU, and it looks like Russia is also playing the Europe card as well," says Volodymyr Fisenko, a Kyiv-based political analyst. "Moscow is trying to discredit Ukraine in the eyes of European consumers of Russian gas."

For days, Brussels refused to be drawn into the game, even as gas shipments began coming up short.

But now, facing shortages across Eastern and Central Europe, Czech officials representing the EU Presidency have called the impasse "unacceptable."

Deputy Prime Minister Alexandr Vondra suggested the EU was loath to be drawn into what it believes is a bilateral business issue.

"Neither the Czech presidency nor the European Commission considers itself to be an arbiter in what we consider, at its core, to be a commercial dispute between Moscow and Kyiv about future gas prices," Vondra told RFE/RL's Russian Service in a January 6 interview.

Privately, analysts suggest the EU has grown deeply tired of what has become a perennial game of energy brinkmanship played at Europe's expense.

The Second Time As Farce

The EU weathered a similar dispute between Russia and Ukraine in 2006, and another threatened cutoff last year. But Federico Bordonaro, a Rome-based analyst with the "Power and Interests News Report," says that this time Moscow and Kyiv have crossed a line.

"They are [both] certainly discrediting themselves," Bordonaro said. "We can quote Karl Marx here and say that when history repeats itself, it ends up being a farce. It is hard to believe that almost every New Year's since 2006, Europe is faced with the possibility of a severe cutoff in gas supplies because Russia and Ukraine aren't able to find a market agreement."

A quarter of Europe's natural-gas supplies come from Russia, and 80 percent of them are pumped through a network of Soviet-era pipelines in Ukraine. The same network also supplies Ukraine's domestic customers.

On January 1, Russia cut off Ukraine's gas supply, saying that Kyiv owed more than $600 million in back debts. Russia is also seeking to raise the price Ukraine pays for natural gas to $450 per 1,000 cubic meters, which is more than twice what Kyiv says it is willing to pay.

Moscow then accused Ukraine of siphoning off 65.3 million cubic meters of gas destined for Europe via the same pipeline system.

In a televised meeting on January 5, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin ordered Gazprom CEO Aleksei Miller to cut off gas delivered to Europe via Ukraine by 65.3 million cubic meters, thereby causing the current shortages in downstream client countries.

Gazprom says it will make up for the shortfall by pumping more gas to Europe via Belarus and through the Blue Stream pipeline under the Black Sea. Analysts, however, say that alternative is a short-term solution at best.

European Splits

Russia says it simply wants Ukraine to pay market prices for gas. Ukraine, however, accuses Russia of using its energy muscle to undermine the country's pro-Western president, Viktor Yushchenko.

Yushchenko is attempting to lead Kyiv into NATO and the European Union and is likely to face off against Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko -- seen as softer on Russia -- in a presidential election next year.

Speaking at a press conference in Kyiv on January 6, presidential economic aide Oleksandr Shlapak accused Russia of using energy as a weapon against Ukraine.

"This is economic pressure on our state and it has nothing to do with real European market prices," Shlapak said. "And as we are facing economic pressure then we have to ask European countries to intervene in the existing situation so we can resolve it together."

Gazprom spokesman Sergei Kupriyanov sought to portray the Russian side as affable partners, telling reporters in Moscow that "Gazprom has been and always will be a reliable gas provider" and that the Russian side is ready "to begin talks at any minute."

A European Union delegation was meeting separately with both Ukrainian and Russian officials on January 6. The EU's energy commissioner, Andris Piebalgs, is due to join EU foreign ministers in Prague for a meeting on the crisis on January 8.

Analysts say European officials understand that Russia is using its energy wealth to pressure Ukraine politically, but they also fault Ukraine for allowing itself to become vulnerable to such pressure.

The gas dispute is all the more fractious because it exploits existing rifts within the EU itself. EU stalwarts like Germany, France and Italy are more eager to maintain good relations with Russia. By contrast, former communist states like Poland, the Czech Republic, and the Baltic countries are historically more sympathetic to Ukraine.

Worry over the current cutoff, however, may trump traditional political causes. Analysts say even Ukraine's allies in Eastern Europe are losing patience with Kyiv.

"The fact of the matter is that the Ukrainian government should know better," says Eugeniusz Smolar of the Warsaw-based Center for International Relations. "On December 31, the Russians will demand, as they do every year, payment for the gas that was delivered. Where is the surprise? Nowhere in the West, regardless of the persuasion of the government, will you find understanding for a situation where you do not pay your bills."

Alternate Pipelines

Analysts say the current crisis could become a watershed that causes both Europe and Russia to rethink their energy policy.

In an effort to decrease Moscow's dependence on Ukraine as a transit country, many observers now expect Russia to step up production on the proposed Nord Stream and South Stream pipelines. Nord Stream would route gas to Europe via the Baltic Sea and Germany, while South Stream would supply Southern Europe via the Black Sea.

On January 3, Vondra warned that Europe could react to the crisis by speeding up construction on pipelines bringing gas from new suppliers by new routes into Europe. One such possibility is the proposed Nabucco pipeline, which would transport gas from Turkey to Europe, bypassing Russia.

The loss of credibility carries costs for both sides. It could deprive Ukraine of crucial support and goodwill from Europe as Kyiv's pro-Western forces, in a season of economic and political uncertainty, seeks greater integration with the EU. And it could derail recent efforts at rapprochement between Moscow and Brussels after relations were severely damaged by Russia's August war with Georgia.

"In the end, I think the Russians have more room to maneuver than the Ukrainians have. But I believe that at the same time, Gazprom will be looked at as a partner that is a bit less reliable than they want us to believe they are," Bordonaro says.
This forum has been closed.
     
Comments
by: elmer
January 10, 2009 14:53
Anton, I don't think it's a surprise at all - roosha is stamping its feet, Putin-poot, with the Napoleon complex, is pouting, and Putin and roosha are more than willing to cut off their nose to spite their face - so that the "rest of the world" remembers with whom its dealing - mighty oily orthrodox mother roosha, dictator of the world.

I think that to say Tymoshenko is using maskva support to get rid of Yushchenko is wrong. Yushchenko's ratings in Ukraine have fallen tremendously, because he betrayed the populace that elected him. He was elected on an anti-corruption, anti-Kuchma platform. Instead, he made an alliance with Kuchma's party - the Party of Regions.

I think the correct take on this is - corruption permeates Ukraine, as it does in all of the former sovok states. There have been moves to get rid of it, but not enough.

RosUkrEnergo is a corrupt entity - it's a slush fund, 50% Ukrainian, 50% rooshan (for the benefit of Kremlin insiders).

What happens if RosUkrEnergo goes away? Well, on the Ukrainian side, that gets rid of Firtash, 45% owner, and Fursin, 5% owner, and Simon Mogilevych, the big fat 300-pound tubby fits in there too.

Firtash funds the Party of Regions - which is still tied in with the Kremlin. If Firtash goes, the Party of Regions loses a huge source of funding. (Political parties in Ukraine are not really political parties as the term is understood elsewhere, and they are not funded as, let's say, in England or Germany or France.)

Putin and his Kremlin boys also lose a slush fund. So the hangup may very well be finding a mechanism to replace the RosUkrEnergo kickback corruption scheme - and trying to hide it at the same time.

by: Andrew from: Auckland
January 10, 2009 14:29
Good points Anton I have to admit! :)

by: Anton from: Auckland
January 10, 2009 04:55
To be honest, I am surprised that this gas crisis goes for so long. It was supposed to be a quick-fix situation, but it turns to be not. At the moment Gazprom loses $150 million a day - but there seems to be no worries expressed on Russian side. This may indicate, I think, that for Russia in this case money does not matter - which makes it a political game, not a business one.

Obviously, Yushenko is a target; but can it be that Timoshenko uses Moscow support to get rid of him? Back in summer, as far as I remember, Gazprom was intensively pumping the gas into Ukrainian storages, so that the country has some resource and can last for some time without supplies (3 months! - if this was premeditated, then EU may need to be also prepared to wait for that long). Other Russia's partner, Germany, also has gas-holders full - and about the others they may care not, considering them unimportant.

If Yushenko is forced to capitulate and accept to pay $450 or even $470 for million cubes, his popularity in Western Ukraine is finished, as he would be immediately seen as a slimeball, who gave in to "Moskals" - but if he resists for too long, then there would be social unrest in the Eastern Ukraine, where Chemical and Metallurgical industries already had to reduce production 50%. In both cases Timoshenko wins, as she may be not against partitioning, as this automatically makes her a President of the Western part or even of Central and Western parts together. Becoming such, she would still keep sole control of the same pipeline, which at her experience and analytical thinking opens Alibaba's cave for her. She's a smart lady!

by: Richard Mimna from: www.herbalindex.com
January 10, 2009 03:26
It seems that the (ex)soviet union did little to improve the quality of living for ANY of it's people. If it did, maybe the Ukraine might not be so destitute. If keeping millions of people locked in fear, poverty and ignorance is somehow a good thing - I don't see it. Russia seems to want what the soviet union wanted - natural resources and a population of sheep. Trying to except (ex)soviet populations as individual governmental systems will require many years of re-education and deprogramming. Putins regime is probably counting on the failure of these countries newly formed governments to cause them to all come crawling back to "mother russia". Yes,Russia probably did crossed the line - but, the (Kyiv) Ukraine has yet to figure out where the line is drawn.

by: rick from: milan
January 09, 2009 07:31
many of you speak about an ucraina pro EU or pro Usa or pro Nato , but truth is that majority of ucrainians people is nothing of all this , for an example only 30% of the population is pro Nato .
In ucraina there is a big problem with a political class that does not respect the wish of the people and this for many years, and when in 2009 there will be the election for the president , all we will see where finish the orange revolution!
I always task that the ucraina is a country with a serious risk of civil war,
with a country divided between a south, midle center and east substantially Russian ,
and the west and midle center substantially Polish

by: Richard Mimna from: www.herbalindex.com
January 08, 2009 03:30
Nabucco pipeline sounds good. The Kremlin has some nasty business ethics. The Ukrainians might want to invest in some windmill generators and solar heat collectors.

by: Anton from: Auckland
January 07, 2009 19:37
On the other hand Gazprom or Russia certainly can not be looked at as a "reliable partner"! Reliable partner was USSR - who established the network of the pipelines, who owned all Russian and Central Asian gas fields, who controlled Eastern European supply routs via Warsaw Pact. After USSR collapsed, European gas supplies entered new reality - Russia has no more leverage over Central Asia and Ukraine, neither it owns the entire pipe network or gas sources.

Given that EU did its best to create a rift between Russia and Ukraine, as well as between Russia and Central Asia, there is a large part of responsibility on it in what is happening today. That policy was shooting itself in a foot.

EU was supposed to establish control over Ukraine as a total or share responsibility with Russia by partitioning it - but there was no political will for this in Europe, and now as a result Ukraine is a loose cannon, run by gangsters and experiencing a full anarchy. EU policies toward Russia and Ukraine were amorphous, indecisive and uncertain - which only proves that EU is not a state in full sense and has no distinctive national interests. Neither it really reflects the opinions of its population, being ruled by the appointed bureaucrats instead of a democratically elected government. Such EU is not a reliable partner for Russia and/or Ukraine, so the accusations may go both ways. If the EU was a real analogue of 4th Reich (i.e. united Europe with German dominance) then there would be no chance for Ukraine disrupting any supplies, but at the moment, say, UK does not care a thing about freezing Austria or Bulgaria, while they are both EU...

Present day wailing of European bureaucrats only adds to Putin's sorrow about the collapse of USSR, and looks completely bizarre - as if they got not what they were after...

by: elmer
January 07, 2009 15:17
Of course they've crossed the line.

This is supposed to be a simply business deal - the sale of a commodity, and the concomitant sale of a service (transit through pipelines).

Instead, the rooshan drama queens surround this whole sale with dreams of world domination, with dictatorial attempts to dictate internal governmental policies in Ukraine and elsewhere, with much posturing as a sort of "Mother Teresa" of the natural gas business, and attempts to really show Europe how tough little KGB guy,Putin, is.

Also surrounding this whole fiasco is - corruption. How does one hide the role of a corrupt intermediary, whether ROSUKRENERGO or some other mechanism, in this whole deal, so that select Kremlin insiders get their cut?

It's a riddle, wrapped in an enigma, wrapped in a mystery. It's really tough work when you try to scim billions of dollars off a gas deal to your buddies in the Kremlin - and to a couple of corrupt oligarchs in Ukraine.

In 2007, ROSUKRENERGO got $4.5 BILLION worth of the gas that was delivered to Ukraine. For what?

ROSUKRENERGO is composed 50% of Kremlin insiders.

Corruption is tough work.

http://www.twq.com/09winter/docs/09jan_ChowElkind.pdf

by: Anton from: Auckland
January 07, 2009 01:41
I would add another dimension to the above: Russia also tries to initiate the rift between EU and US, as well as within EU and NATO. New EU and NATO members like Baltic states, Poland, Czech etc are not really pro-European, but rather pro-American - and Ukraine is about to become another one like that. In Georgian war its President took a clear anti-Russian position, and Putin reacted by stating not that long ago, that Russia would never forget the sales of Ukranian weapons to Georgia - therefore now Ukraine can not expect any mercy from Moscow. This is why it has just signed the Chart with USA, which in fact aggravated its own situation and added to the other motivations, Russia already had to put it down completely.

In geopolitical sense this current situation gives opposite vectors to the interests of the Old Europe (except UK) and New Europe; Old Europe and the rest of NATO and generally Old Europe and USA. After August war there is no more hopes for NABUCCO (as currently its building rout is literally on a gun point), so in order to ensure constant supplies EU must crackdown on the Eastern European members and enforce Nord Stream and South Stream construction.But such disrespect to the new members would place the latter in a second class status, which would enforce anti-EU elements in them and polarize the entire continent. As a result Russia, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium and Greece would strongly shift towards informal alliance with Russia. Obviously their influence on Russia and inside Russia would grow, and if Russia starts to crumble apart, they would receive the first night right in accessing its resources, leaving China and US aside, not saying about Eastern-Europeans. So maybe the present day gas conflict is an attempt of Russia to acquire a sort of insurance of future stability in the upcoming seven lean years, as Old Europe is probably the closest set of cultures which Russia can appreciate.


by: Hryhoriy from: New York
January 06, 2009 21:09
Regarding the latter, Gazprom's troubles go far. It doesn't produce much of the gas it ships to Europe, but markets gas it buys mostly from the Central Asian state of Turkmenistan. In order to obtain long-term rights to that gas, and not have it siphoned off by a covetous West, Gazprom has agreed to pay the Turkmen about $340 per 1,000 cubic meters.

Given market prices, that means that Gazprom might be forced to sell to Europe this year at a loss, unless it unilaterally cuts the price it pays to the Turkmen, who in that case could respond by withholding supplies.

"Gazprom is in a tough spot," says Kenneth Medlock, a natural gas expert at Rice University's James A Baker Institute for Public Policy, who helped me with the calculations for this article. If Gazprom loses the Turkmen supplies, Medlock said, "they are going to have trouble meeting their contractual commitments" to Europe.
     
TEXT SIZE - +
Pipelines & Projects

A factbox on how gas gets to Europe from Russia and some of the new pipeline projects aimed at bringing more Russian gas to Europe and diversifying supplies. More

 

Editors' Picks

Arresting Images

Photos Of The Week Photogallery

President Van Rompuy

'How's That Again?!' Audio

Karzai Inauguration

The Anticipation Of Change Video

Follow Us On Twitter

Keep up-to-date on all the latest news from RFE/RL's broadcast region by following us on Twitter:
~ You can find our instant news feed at @RFE_RLNEWS.
~ An obsessive Kremlin watcher? Follow our blog at @PowerVertical.
~ Human rights abuses chronicled at @RightsWatchdog.
~ News, comment, and the odd silly dictator story at @TransmissionRFE.

Products and services:

RSSMail SubscriptionMobile