Posted on 04/13/2014 9:46:36 AM PDT by Kaslin
The crisis in Ukraine took a turn for the worse this weekend. Many distinct events are in play. Here are a few top headlines
Armed Men Seize Police Station in Slavyansk
The Wall Street Journal reports Pro-Russia Protests Spread, Police Station Seized.
Pro-Russia protests spread Saturday in eastern Ukraine as armed men, some in unmarked, military-style uniforms, moved to commandeer more government buildings—a dramatic escalation that the Ukrainian government and Washington tied to Moscow.
Ukraine's acting president called an emergency meeting of the country's top security officials in the capital, Kiev, as police clashed with attackers in several spots in the largely Russian-speaking, eastern part of the country.
Some 20 men wearing camouflage, some with military-style equipment and weapons, commandeered a police station and security-service office early Saturday in Slavyansk, a small city that previously hadn't seen the kind of pro-Russian fervor that erupted anew in the area last weekend.
Ukraine's Interior Minister Arsen Avakov said Saturday evening that police were fighting with attackers in the nearby town of Kramatorsk and had repelled a similar attack in a third town, Krasny Liman.
Saturday afternoon, police in Poltava Region said they had stopped several buses carrying what they said were pro-Russian activists carrying gasoline bombs and makeshift weapons. They were headed to Kharkiv, where protests were scheduled. Police detained about 70 of the activists.
Protesters remain barricaded Saturday in the regional government headquarters in Donetsk and the security-service offices in Luhansk, which they had occupied last Sunday. Authorities pushed a group out of a government building in Kharkiv earlier in the week.
Western officials say Moscow has tens of thousands of troops on its side of the border that could invade Ukraine in a matter of hours. Moscow denies that.
Ukraine Prepares Armed Response
Reuters reports Ukraine Prepares Armed Response as City Seized by Pro-Russia Forces.
Armed separatists took virtual control of a city in eastern Ukraine on Saturday and Kiev prepared troops to deal with what it called an "act of aggression by Russia".
Pro-Russian activists carrying automatic weapons seized government buildings in Slaviansk and set up barricades on the outskirts of the city. Official buildings in several neighboring towns were also attacked.
The developments have increased concerns of a possible "gas war" that could disrupt energy supplies across the continent.
Washington backed Kiev's assessment that Moscow was responsible. "Worrisome violence in ... Ukraine today. Russia again seems to be behind it," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on Twitter.
ROADBLOCKS AROUND CITY
On a road leading into Slaviansk, other members of the group, armed with automatic rifles, set up a roadblock and checked vehicles entering the city, a Reuters reporter said.
There was no sign of any Ukrainian law enforcement officials in the city.
Ukraine's Western-backed government warned of tough action if the militants did not lay down their weapons, but it was unclear if the local law enforcement agencies were taking orders from Kiev any more after the local police chief quit.
Kostyantyn Pozhydayev came out to speak to pro-Russian protesters at his offices in the regional capital, Donetsk, and told them he was stepping down "in accordance with your demands". Some of his officers left the building.
The occupations are a potential flashpoint because if protesters are killed or hurt by Ukrainian forces, that could prompt the Kremlin to intervene to protect the local Russian-speaking population, a repeat of the scenario in Crimea.
Ukraine's acting foreign minister, Andriy Deshchytsia, said he had spoken by telephone with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and demanded Moscow stop what he called "provocative actions" by its agents in eastern Ukraine.
Lavrov, in a statement issued by his ministry, said there were no Russian agents in the region and that it would be "unacceptable" if Ukrainian authorities were to order the storming of the buildings.
Ukraine Suspends Gas Payments to Russia
Reuters reports Ukraine Suspends Gas payments to Russia
Ukraine's state-run energy company Naftogaz has suspended gas payments to Russia until the conclusion of price talks, chief executive Andriy Kobolev was quoted as saying on Saturday.
Russian gas giant Gazprom earlier this month increased gas price for Ukrainian consumers to $485 per 1,000 cubic meters (tcm) from $268 for the first quarter, saying Kiev was no longer eligible for previous discounts.
"The question of repayment of debt is directly linked to the maintenance of gas prices at the level of the first quarter," Kobolev told the Zerkalo Nedely weekly in an interview, referring to the original price of $268 per tcm.
"We see no reason to revise the price. We consider the price at around $500 as non-market, unjustified and unacceptable. Accordingly, we have suspended payments for the period of the price negotiations."
Russian President Vladimir Putin warned on Thursday that Moscow could cut off gas to Ukraine, potentially threatening European supplies, but later played down the threat.
"I want to say again: We do not intend and do not plan to shut off the gas," he said on Friday.
Gas Wars
Given that Ukraine has suspended payments, I find Putin's statements puzzling. If Putin will not shut off the gas, then Ukraine has no incentive to pay.
Expect Putin to quickly change his mind about shutting the pipeline if Ukraine does indeed refuse to pay. He will have a legitimate reason.
As for market prices, Russia can charge what it wants in my opinion. Countries can either pay or not pay.
This is the consequence of being dependent on a single supplier.
“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.