Gasprom owns 50% of Rosukrenergo. (Rest by an Austrian company.) RUEnergo IS Gasprom's company. ===
No you are wrong:). Probably took this from ukranian press? They deceive you. Again:).
Really Rusukrenergo (RUE) is the daughter company of Gazprom-BANK not Gazprom:). Gazprom-BANK is the daugther of Gazprom. But Gazprom has no responsibility on the obligations of Gazprom-bank not mention its daugther.
So if RUEnergo doesn't live up to the agreement why should Naftohaz and Gasprom continue their business with each other? ==
Why not if Gazprom didn't violate HIS obligations. Or it will bring the matter in court. Gladly.
He did present that contract. LINK (It even has the same format as this new one.) Like with kids he had highlighted interesting parts.:)==
He didn't present the contract. He just took from context one particular addendant #4 which concerned the gas amounts stolen in 2004. And he pretended to expand this agreement on all deliveries of 2006 years and further which accroding the contract has to be submitted by sides ANNUALLY.
He knew perfectly that his case will not be supported in court. SO he prefer to lie to media instead to go to the court.
SO you see the moral level of new "orange" ukranian goverment? I know you will say that Putin' is not better. But Putin' didn't pretend to be new democratic goverment chose western moral ways.
It is disgusting level of hypocricy isn't it?
Ok, so it's a daughter of a daughter of Gasprom. :)
Why not if Gazprom didn't violate HIS obligations
It's a three way, a regular orgy. :) All three are responsible to keep the agreement alive.
He just took from context one particular addendant #4 which concerned the gas amounts stolen in 2004
I don't see "stolen" gas mentioned anywhere.
and further which accroding the contract has to be submitted by sides ANNUALLY.
What's the point of the first sentence on the second page which sets the price for 2005-2009 at $50 if the price is negotiable every year? Doesn't make sense. It appears that this negates that point about yearly negotiable prices in the original 2003 contract, and because #4 was signed after the 2003 contract, it is the one in power. (second sentence on the second page is just as interesting- if first sentence says Russia would have to sell at $50, second sentence says the price that Ukraine charges for its services is negotiable every year.==>ie. one side, Russia is obligated to sell for a fixed price of $50, even if the contract allows for gas price changes. Po tsymbalam kakaia tsena gaza, dolzhna prodavat' po $50 znachit dolzhna prodavat' po $50.
SO you see the moral level of new "orange" ukranian goverment?...
:) Well, listen, my government would whoop your government's a*s any day ;-)