Comments (11)

Check out the Global Pulse video on this, showing how different TV news around the world are covering the issue.

Watch it here: http://www.linktv.org/video/3552

I'm an intern with Link TV, the nonprofit that produces Global Pulse. Interesting to see how the rest of the world is reporting on the news.

Why are we blaming Russia when the problem appears to be Germany? There was no problem with Gazprom provisions to the Ukraine until Germany and it's former Chancellor Schroeder made a deal with Russia's Putin to buy 49% of Gazprom. It appears that Germany is using it's ownership to pressure Russia to not deliver these supplies to Ukraine, claiming nonpayment on Ukraine's part. It appears they are also using it to inflame other countries to become involved militarily in the Caucasus/Central Asian corridor, which is benefitting countries like Germany and Japan that have major oil deals with these CIS states.

Why everybody is blaming Russia here? Ukraine has been palling with Bush in the face of Putin. If i was in PUTIN'S shoes i would have closed the tap much earlier- much much earlier. Beggars cant be choosers.

The author had better recheck the sources for this article. While the Ukraine is on shaky financial footing the Russians foray into Georgia almost brought them to the brink of insolvency. The only good solid sources of income Russia has today is the sale of weapons, oil and then this natural gas which is not a product that originates in Russia but is shipped through that country. The Russians are desperate to keep the Ukraine out of NATO.

It looks like Yulia Tymoshenko is just not going to get it done. Which is too bad, because she's such a babe.

The author's article is full of misconceptions and is wrong.

First, who is subsidising who?
The gas is Central Asian - not Russian. So, it would be correct to say Central Asia is subsidising gas to Ukraine, not Russia.
The storage price in Ukraine is only $6.68 Ukraine and $82.50 Germany. The transit fee charged to Russia/Central Asia is only $1.6-1.7 wheras the average price is $4-10 in the EU.

Second, is the price will "bankrupt" Ukraine:
$360- 1st quarter (allegedly 20% discount on market price in quarter 1 of
450)
$270 - 2
$219 - 3
$162 - 4
$218.80 yearly average
But, Ukraine will only buy 5 b cu gas in quarter 1 due to high storage volumes purchased at last years $179.50
Gas to be purchased:
10.5 q. 2
12 q.3
12.5 q.4
Total gas to purchase this year is 40 b. cu.
Total cost is $9.67 billion (this is less than 2008 cost of imported gas of $9.87 billion)

I therefore don't understand the author's conclusion that a) Russia has been subsidising Ukraine (a typical comment from Putin and Gazprom) and that the new gas price will "bankrupt the Ukrainian economy.

The author's article is full of misconceptions and is wrong.

First, who is subsidising who?
The gas is Central Asian - not Russian. So, it would be correct to say Central Asia is subsidising gas to Ukraine, not Russia.
The storage price in Ukraine is only $6.68 Ukraine and $82.50 Germany. The transit fee charged to Russia/Central Asia is only $1.6-1.7 wheras the average price is $4-10 in the EU.

Second, is the price will "bankrupt" Ukraine:
$360- 1st quarter (allegedly 20% discount on market price in quarter 1 of
450)
$270 - 2
$219 - 3
$162 - 4
$218.80 yearly average
But, Ukraine will only buy 5 b cu gas in quarter 1 due to high storage volumes purchased at last years $179.50
Gas to be purchased:
10.5 q. 2
12 q.3
12.5 q.4
Total gas to purchase this year is 40 b. cu.
Total cost is $9.67 billion (this is less than 2008 cost of imported gas of $9.87 billion)

I therefore don't understand the author's conclusion that a) Russia has been subsidising Ukraine (a typical comment from Putin and Gazprom) and that the new gas price will "bankrupt the Ukrainian economy.
not survive the gas price increases?

While you're handing out blame for Russia's phoenix comeback from the ashes, don't forget that lovable puddin'head from Crawford by way of Connecticut, George W. Bush. Bush's lunatic energy policies (summarized as, "find a country with huge oil reserves, make up a reason to invade them and then appropriate their resources for the greater good of American power") are direct and significant contributing factors to Russia's regained international clout - thanks to the soaring price of oil, inspired by the bungled war in Iraq.

That debacle put money in net oil exporter Russia's pockets like nothing else could have done. Money is power. Saakashvilli's stupid lunge to gobble up pro-Russian enclaves, which anyone could have told him would be a hotbed of resentment even if he had been successful, provided Russia a perfect opportunity to flex their considerable military muscle from the vantage point of moral high ground.

As long as tools like Bush and Saakashvilli are writing the script, Russia can't lose.

i thought that george soros and his "orange revolution" had solved all of ukraines problems. but it would seem that the russians have learned an awful lot about how the u.s and its' proxy NGOS do business. after the u.s. raped the russian economy at the behest of the clinton white house and all of the wall street scammers, it has become quite apparent that the russians have stolen a play or two out of our playbook. first georgia-where the tulips are no longer in bloom-now ukraine. and these are just the first two "independant" countries that will recieve this treatment. latvia, estonia, and then lithuania will most likely be next. the russians are back with a vengeance and all of this because of the clintonians, the neo-consevatives and the chicago school of economics liberal fascist elements. the blowback of these failed foreign and economic policy ventures will be tremendous and unstoppable for the foreseable future. we are spread too thin and too economically hamstrung to resist at the present moment.

Ivanckenko, a little biased toward Russia aren't you? Yuschenko might be pro-Ukrainian but that makes him neither anti-Russian nor an American pawn. I'd says its about time for Russia to elect a new president as well since Putin has overstayed his welcome:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7862370.stm

this was quite predictable from the very moment when Yuschenko showed first anti-Russian political signs, but it was great Russian patience to wait until Ukraine 'president' turned completely anti-Russian during the peacekeeping operation in Georgia, during which Ukraine supplied weapons to the aggressor (Saakashvilli).
What is the reason to regret about this Soviet price gifts if even a little child would understand that in order to coexist with Russia peacefully (70% of Ukrainians have relatives in Russia, 30% of Russians have relatives in Ukraine) Ukraine should elect a different president. The time for illusions is over. Being an american pawn is not good for any country.