Oh my.
I was thinking more along the line of Log John Silver
"Harrr!'
Posted on 04/13/2014 9:46:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
“Come and get me copper!”
Goering said something similar in effect, and he committed suicide to escape the inevitability of the hangman’s noose his fellow deniers of international law succumbed to.
ping and perfect
My original post on this matter was addressed to WhiskeyX, who said (amongst other things in post #8): "international laws regarding coercive and unreasonable non-market pricing of such goods...." (My bolding.) From that, I drew the reasonable inference that WhiskeyX was saying that Russia was trying to force Ukraine to pay non-market prices for the gas.
The only point I was ever trying to make is that the new price Russia is demanding is the market price of gas in Europe, and that simple fact cannot be simply ignored. I completely agree that contracts and international law cannot be ignored. Not having seen those contracts; I wouldn't presume to argue whether or not they've been violated. As I said, those are not simple facts -- they are the types of things that make lawyers rich.
You’ve completely lost the plot. What you quoted makes my point.
In a few hours, global financial markets will open, including energy-futures markets, so we will soon find out what the world thinks of the events in Ukraine.
Will Europeans panic and sell their holdings, knowing that Vladimir Putin has his finger on a button that could cut off their natural gas supplies? Will others heed the famous advice to ‘’buy when there’s blood in the streets’’ and go on a buying spree?
Only one thing is certain — Vladimir Putin is the smartest leader in the world. He knows how to shape events to achieve his goals. He wanted to be head of the KGB and he succeeded on his own merits — no nepotism, no affirmative action, no family wealth, no corruption that’s ever been made public. He wanted to be Prime Minister of Russia, and he succeeded. He wanted to annex the Crimea to Russia, and he succeeded. If he wants to also annex eastern Ukraine to Russia, he will succeed.
The rest of us relative morons can only sit back and watch. And maybe rue the day we elected a president who is so far out of Vladimir Putin’s league that he’s become an international embarrassment.
no daughters that coplain that the caviar in their school lunches is too salty
Not sure what that means, the special bonds Russia purchased were underwritten in London, making them subject to English law.
Not at all.
Roll tape...
You said the old price was based on a subsidy. Do you know what a "subsidy" means? It wasn't a subsidy.
It was based on a quid pro quo contract.
Do you know the difference between something that is a subsidy and something that is quid pro quo contract?
Russia purchased approximately $3 billion of the special bonds which have a clause making them 'callable' if the debt to GDP level of Ukraine exceeds a certain percentage.
Essentially that means if Ukraine takes another loan out, Russia gets paid off immediately.
The December 2013 loan deal was never completed. Russia never purchased the bonds.
Oh my.
I was thinking more along the line of Log John Silver
"Harrr!'
Perhaps you can document another loan deal. I specifically talking about the Dec. 2013 deal that never happened.
“The only point I was ever trying to make is that the new price Russia is demanding is the market price of gas in Europe, and that simple fact cannot be simply ignored.”
The problem with what you are focusing upon is the fact it amounts to a half truth when looked at in isolation of the overall circumstances, and it is the deceptive inference from such a half truth the supporters of Russia’s aggressions are trying to rely upon in a war of propaganda against the Ukraine. The so-called market price of Europe is distorted by Russia’s deliberate manipulation of those prices, particularly when looking at the market prices around the world.
Poland was mentioned as an example. Poland is paying even more for the Qatari LNG than for the Russian NG, but only to lessen its reliance upon the Russian supplies that are being used as political leverage agaisnt Poland and the other Russian customers. LNG is always considerably more expensive than NG because of the additonal costs associated with its production, sotrage, and handling versus NG from the wellhead to the pipeline. As a consequence the Polish costs for LNG and NG are presently comparable to the extra high prices seen in Asian markets where they too have limited access to sources of NG by wellhead to pipeline sources. Meanwhile, European NG pricing has changed since the Russian interruption of supplies in 2009 by diverging upwards from its former trends following the worldwide crude oil pricing trends and the U.S. pricing levels. This is why the pricing is described as abnormal and the result of Russian market manipulations with its state monopoly and predatory pricing strategies.
“Me and Goering?”
You laugh, but the Romans punished one of their own generals by handing him over to their Celt enemies for punishment in accordance with the extant international law of the period. The Roman general failed to obtain the approval of the Roman Senate before he waged war upon a tribe of the Celts shortly after an armistice had been established between the Roman Senate and the Celtic tribe.
Another case involved Julius Ceasar and his repudiation of his pledge not to retaliate against the pirates who held him hostage for a ransom. In that case it was argued agreements with pirates and brigands did not have to be honored, because pirates and brigands could be killed or enslaved by anyone and anywhere without first seeking authority from the government.
Cool.
Anyone America doesn’t like — we’ll just designate them pirates and brigands.
Then: “Damn the agreements...full speed ahead!”
Back to my main point...that Russia and Ukraine agreed to a 30% reduction in the price of gas for 25 years in excahnge for permission to extend Russia's lease of the naval base in Crimea.
That point stands.
You do make some compelling arguments.
That’s a distinction without a difference. You can call the discount a subsidy, a quid pro quo or you can call it Steve. It matters what happens with the money, not what words you call it. They were paying less than they would have otherwise for political reasons. However, those factors are no longer in play. Now, they will pay rates more in line with other customers, which will be higher than the old rates. My argument doesn’t depend on calling the relationship by a certain word.
That’s the fundamental reality of what is going on, as your quote explained. In the normal way people talk, the new price would be called the more “market based” price.
BTW, subsidies are often quid pro quo contracts of some kind, so that’s a pretty bizarre verbal fallacy to fall back on. You’re argument is like saying “it’s not a Ford, it’s a pickup truck.”
“The problem with what you are focusing upon is the fact it amounts to a half truth when looked at in isolation of the overall circumstances ....”
I agree that I was focused on a single fact. However, if that single fact was a half truth — then if it’s left out, nothing but another half truth is left.
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.