Posted on 01/01/2006 8:12:56 PM PST by spanalot
"(AP) - 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."
"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.""
(Excerpt) Read more at news.findlaw.com ...
Putin and Chavez should get married
Bump. This'll be good.
Ukraine doesn't like market capitalism.
"Ukraine doesn't like market capitalism."
This is not capitalism - this is an act of war and Putin has lost what little credibility he had after his ham handing the Ukrainian election one year ago.
Unless Illarionov is lying, making a buck has nothing to do with this. Russia is now trying to renege on a signed, sealed and delivered contract.
Not very good capitalism on the part of the Russkies.
Illarionov'd better watch his back now. Indeed, it might be the safest thing for him to do some foreign travel.
Anyone have a link to a copy of the agreement? This "contract" sounds like it had weasel words in it allowing Russia to "adjust" the subsidy or some such, or Illarionov would have put it bluntly that Russia was reneging.
Thanks.
My statement should have been a question rather than a declarative statement.
Here is a reading comprehension exercise for you.
Did the article say Russia was contractually bound to offer gas at $50 for 5 years? Did the article say the contract was broken? The person interviewed explains reasons why the price was increased, but makes no claims that any contract was broken. You did, which means you inferred facts not in the article. Now ponder the word "envisage", and see if that equates to a contractual obligation. What assumptions are you making?
Isn't it interesting how myths get perpetuated?
"Did the article say Russia was contractually bound to offer gas at $50 for 5 years?"
Yes - and here is chapter and verse of the contract.
-----
"- As a matter of fact there is a contract between Naftogas of Ukraine and Gasprom of Russia on volume and conditions of transit of Russian natural gas through the territory of Ukraine for the period between 2003 and 2013. It is currently in effect. I cannot imagine how a public company bound by contract obligations can refuse to fulfill them. I asked the deputy head of Gasprom, Oleksandr Riazanov, during our negotiations in Moscow on December 19 in the presence of the head of the Russian Cabinet Mikhail Fradkov: “Is the contract effective?” And he said: “Yes.”
- Then why do the Russians say that they will stop contract supplies of gas to Ukraine on January 1, 2006?
- One can always find a reason to make a statement. But in article 14 of this contract it is clearly stated that: “This contract comes in effect on January 1, 2003… It remains effective until 10 am on January 1, 2014.” And one more thing: “During the period between 2005 and 2009 the Customer (Gasprom) will sell annually natural gas at the price of 50 US dollars for 1000 cubic meters, which is not subject to change by the parties, from the gas transportation services of Russian natural gas through the territory of Ukraine to ensure the gas balance of Ukraine.”
- What do you think of possible arbitration with Gasprom?
- “Any disputes about these contract or as a result of it are subject to examination and final settlement in the Arbitration Institution of the Chamber of Commerce in the city of Stockholm.” (This is Article 12 of the contract). I am not afraid of possible arbitration. Ukraine has already had a positive experience of arbitration. So if we have to appeal, we know what to do and where to go. "
Puti-put where are you now? Punk ass KGB fella!
I doubt a link can be found to any contract. At this point with each side throwing claim and counter-claim, it would probably be impossible to sift thorough all the BS on the web to find a contract.
We'll have to see what "In News there is no truth; in Truth there is no news" has to say in the upcoming days.
So they get a batch once a year?
"Ukraine doesn't like market capitalism."
HA HA HA, capitalism does not apply to government owned gas.
They probably are already.
"Putin and Chavez should get married"
This is a SERIOUS situation - these damn marxists are finally going to organize worldwide.
If, per quote in #11, the Naftogas/Gasprom contract is subject to arbitration in Swedish court, then it must be on file there - and might be searchable from there.
You quote the contract, but avoid providing a link. What are you hiding?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.