Talk:Russia–Ukraine gas disputes/Archive 1

Archive 1

Rewrite

I rewrote it in a way I didn't delate anything, just made it easier to read. And it doesn't look anti-Ukrainian anymore, Ihope nobody has a problem with that? Mariah-Yulia 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Toby Douglass, please don't turn this article into a pro-Ukrainian propaganda, according to the bbc the stated owned Naftgaz has admitted that they took gas with was intended for abroard, I think you can't say that the BBC would lie about this. I don't want thise article to become a anti-Ukrainain piece, but not a pro-Ukrainian either. Mariah-Yulia 21:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the course of events material was completely NPOV (with the exception of Naftgaz admitting siphoning, which I'd not heard about, since I stopped following the story in mid-Jan); I think the lady doth protest too much. Source for Naftgaz quote, please? Toby Douglass 21:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4642684.stm: Naftgaz quote, who is "the lady doth", me? Yeah, I'm new to wikipedia (probably not a surprice to you), I think the article is pretty much NPOV now, atleast more NPOV as it ever was! Mariah-Yulia 22:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro

Removed information from the intro with you can find in the rest of the article (if you try hard, it's so strangly build up...), as a proper intro explains only the basic facts. Mariah-Yulia 06:04, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

500%

This artikle is a joke, gazprom changed the price by asking 500% more, why isn't this mentioned in the article. Naturaly Ukraine wasn't happy with that, who the frack would pay 500% more for something right away. Also Ukraine wanted to pay the prize gasprom asked but in steps over a couple of years, this mentioned but... in a way it looks the author never believed Ukraine would do that / where just holding up the negotiotings. Basicly everything that could make anybody understand why Ukraine didn't want to pay (right away) is not mentioned in this article. In my view this article is only written to make Ukraine look like a bunch of criminals! Who wrote this (article) the anti-Ukraine fan-club? Mariah-Yulia 05:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

TBH, Mariah-Yulia, I thought your article material pro-Ukrainian, rather than NPOV. Any kind of bias serves only to disguise the truth from our sight; it is as much as error to lean too far in a direction we might desire as it is to lean too far in a direction we might dislike, for our preference has no involvement with truth, other than to mask it from our sight. Toby Douglass 20:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Voyevoda, I'm not Polish and I'm friends with a Russian-Ukrainian girl so don't go there... Mariah-Yulia 05:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

RU/UA POVs

The article is POV at the moment and needs revision. Russia is not rich enough to lose three billion dollars annually on sponsoring hostile regimes which never miss a chance to spit at her face. --Ghirlandajo 07:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I beleive both the Russian and the Ukrainian POVs should be presented. The Ukrainian one is roughly presented in the article I listed in "external links". We need a reasonable analytical article with the Russian view and develop from there. --Irpen 07:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The nature of your comment indicates a possible lack of objectivity in a POV critique.Toby Douglass 17:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I have too little time to get to this article now, I can offer this links for now:

• Ющенко призывает отказаться от политических спекуляций на газовую тему from Korrespondent.net, a liberal RU language site in Ukraine. Yushchenko's quote from this article "Я думаю, что главное, возможно, это больше всего меня волнует, экономический ответ будет найден, чтобы мы не допустили политизации ни с украинской, ни с российской стороны этого вопроса, политических спекуляций, чтобы у нас не использовалось формирование условий нового рынка как форма политического давления" needs translated and added to balance the Putin's quote, both are clearly relevant.
• Напряжение — $220 from Gazeta.ru, an article in a liberal Russian paper, rather neutral and, perhaps, slightly pro-Russian.
• And refs thereoff.

I won't add this to the article now because I have no time now. Will do later, feel free to use. --Irpen 08:11, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

One more thing. To an unfamiliar reader who doesn't read much news from this part of the world like most of the editors of these topics do, Putin's quote may be misleading. The context is that RU has a huge surplus due to the favorable oil/gas market prices and, if I remember correctly, has now a reserve of unheard of 180 bln USD. Should it be a high priority for the state to combat poverty, this would have been done with or without few extra millions from Ukraine. So, this statement is a political demagogy to a large extent. Of course, RU has the right to try to get the "fair" price for its gas, but presenting this that Russian retirees suffer because of the Ukrainian greed is a political trick, though an understandable one. --Irpen 08:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Very belated seconding of Irpen's analysis. Toby Douglass 20:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed as we connote Western media as authoritative news. How come Russian media, or Ukranian media never get quoted. For that matter both NYT and Washington Post have misled american people, and these two plus BBC have no reason to remain neutral. Hence, it is better to have local small newspaper quotation. -- Worldphrase, Jan 02, 2006.

Your logic is flawed. If we accept your argument that Western media are not neutral it does not follow that a small local newspaper will be neutral (or indeed even accurate, given their resources). As it is, I concur that almost all news sources are biased. The degree and orientation of bias varies (which is why the Russian press is rarely quoted; the State has, since Putin took power in 2000, progressively restricted the press and now it is almost all heavily State controlled; there are for example no more non-State controlled TV stations). I think the best one can do is read up on the history of the countries involved, to obtain context, and then try to pick out the elements of the truth each news source will tend to highlight. Toby Douglass 12:25, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Condi's visit connection

I've reverted the unexplained and unreferenced edits by Ghirlandajo that evidently reflect his pro-Russian POV. As seen from above, he does have one :) First, he deleted the relevant info explaining the UA govt POV. That info wasn't referenced also - which doesn't excuse Mr.Ghirlandajo at all :((. What else should I call such an editing, if not censorship?

Next. He added the following sentence:

Several hours after Condoleezza Rice's visit to Kiev,,

without further developing and referencing the thesis. It could be relevant, if Mr.Ghirlandajo only would make an attempt to prove that Ms.Rice has exclusively and originally influenced the whole Ukrainian politikum in this particular case. Believe me, such an attempt is beyond Mr.Ghirlandajo's abilities, resources and time (unless he's paid for editing WP pages :)) ). For now, the passage is misleading and insulting Ukrainian state as being supposedly controlled bu U.S. govt. I suggest to eliminate all possible attempts to add such thesises on the page. Wishes, Ukrained 15:55, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Ukrained, you misinterprete my edits:

• Firstly, I didn't insinuate anything, I just added data that the Sevastopol lease issue was raised by Ukrainian officials (not "politicians") several hours after Mss Rice's visit. This data is widely known - I took it from Stratfor's latest article on the gas dispute - you may list through the google news as well. [1]
• Secondly, I removed the following unreferenced phrase: "while some have suggested the property could be worth up to $2 billion". It is not clear who suggested this. Village women's talk? Who knows. The fact is, Sevastopol was not administratively a part of Crimea until 1991 and, using your preferred language, "some believe that" Sevastopol is de jure part of Russia still. Therefore, the gossip of what the lease of the Russian territory by Russia might be worth is totally out of place.

Until these issues are addressed properly, I'll have to revert. --Ghirla | talk 16:36, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Mr.Ghirlandajo, I didn't misinterprete anything regarding "Condi". I've said it all above. Please don't take me and other readers for a fool.

However, I changed my mind regarding the price of Sevastopol naval property. Of course you have a right to purge such info - only as long as it remains referenced. OK, let's play by the strict rules. Continuing as such, I'll take part in any WP actions against your wrongdoings - like your repetetive reverts yesterday. Ukrained 10:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Guys, I will jump in later with my input to this article, but as I know you both as reasonable editors, let's keep this discussion collegiate. For now, I would only like to add two links for refs to the last weak's Zerkalo Nedeli:

• One Gas Mask For All
• Ukraine - Russia: A EUROPEAN APPROACH TO Ukraine’s GAS DILEMMA

The first article is more about politics and the second one analizes the economic side and contracts. Free subscription may be required to read the English versions above, but RU/UA versions don't require sibscription and are just a click away. --Irpen 19:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

As I recently found out, Mr.Ghirlandajo is not a reasonable editor :((. Ukrained 10:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Ukrained, you may be mistaken. Ghirlandajo, like all of us, made mistakes too. But as for the link you provided, I am afraid you haven't read it all. I already expressed my opinion about that RfC User_talk:Halibutt#New_Black_Book|here. I will now edit the article somewhat and will post some more comments here later. -Irpen 19:00, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

It should be clear from the article, how these two events: visit of Condoleezza Rice to Kyiv and calls of Ukrainian politicians are related. "In two minutes after Irpen reverted the article President Bush declared a new strategy...". It may well be that Bush declares something shotly after Irpen reverted the article, but it does not mean that this two events are related. "На городі бузина, а в Києві Кондоліза".

Please think what you want to say before you edit.--AndriyK 09:58, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Irpen, you have reinserted the "Condoleezza Rice" part after I have removed it, explaining that it was mentioned by Stratfor. While mentioned by Stratfor, still the connection between these two events is just a speculation, not a fact and therefore it's not notable enough to be mentioned in the article unless explained what the connection was. Don't you think so ? --Lysy ^(talk) 10:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Exactly like AndriyK and Lysy say, Irpen. Please don't make me change my opinion on you. Don't do that again. Ukrained 10:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK, if the connection between my particular edit in WP and the particular news from the White House is made solely by the Wikipedia user:AndriyK, it would indeed in no way give credence to the relationship. If, for whatever reason, a geopilitical forecaster reputed as “Best Intelligence Web Site” by Time Magazine and highly praised by such respected media as Fortune Magazine, Barron's Magazine, The Wall Street Journal that would be a different story.

Lysy, I have no objection to your claim that the connection is only hypothethical and therefore, should be attributed. Hypothesizing by me, you or AndriyK, unlike, by Stratfor, isn't notable. So, we should add a link to the article itself.

Ukrained, while I value the opinion of other editors about myself, I will not compromise on the content in order just to please. However, as most editors know, I am always quite open to discussions and reasonable compromise based on the discussions.

Stratfor is known for its accute geopolitac analysis and its parallels should not be discounted just because someone doesn't like them even though some of its predictions later appeared to be blunders. If anyone doubts that, why not see it for yourself by subscribing to their free weekly newsletter. An example of one of their amazing hits is this analysis published immediately after Yeltsin appointed a known to no one "Mr. Putin" to Prime Ministership which at the time seemed to most just another routine reappointment in a row of Kirienkos, Primakovs and Stepashins, etc.

I am very sorry to see that after I added the information to the article based on various sources that support both the Ukrainian and the Russian view of the dispute some came to delete or distort some of the info I brought in by keeping the other in an obviously POV way. --Irpen

I think you're still missing my point. What does it mean that the Ukrainian statement was connected to CR's visit ? Did the US force Ukraine to make the statement ? Or did they promise something to Ukraine ? What ? Everything is possible but unless we're able to explain this clearly, this is only a speculation, regardless of how reputable the source was. I don't mind having it mentioned in the article, as long as it's accompanied with the information on who is speculating what. --Lysy ^(talk) 20:22, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, I will add a link to a Stratfor analysis to an article itself as per yours and Berkut's request. The access to an original analysis requires supscription, but the Russian tranlsation by inosmi.ru is available with no restrictions. Lysy, we may add the broader discussion of geopolitics to the article if you think it is necessary to elaborate on this. I have no objection. --Irpen 22:32, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Legal issues

The article is still unbalanced, even if we keep biased editors away from pushing the Condi issue. The text doesn't mention the bilateral gas trade agreement, which secures the prices for the next few years. So increasing the price is at Ukraine's good will only. With the understanding of this fact, the whole meaning of the case is changing radically. Somebody should elaborate the issue, if mot me. Ukrained 10:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

World market price for natural gas

Do you have any other sources but Gazprom and yourself asserting that there exists a notion of "world market price for natural gas"? Do you have any other sources but Gazprom and yourself asserting that this price is currently $230 per 1000 m^3? If no, please do not insert you and Gazprom's POV to the article.--AndriyK 20:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC) Well, Gazprom's POV may be there but it should be clearly marked as Gazprom's POV.--AndriyK 20:49, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

AndriyK, please title sections mosre descriptively.

To your question, if you don't know how the world prices for energy resources are usually set, do you know how to use google? --Irpen 21:12, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Dear Irpen, please read Wikipedia:Verifiability carefully. You have to provide references supporting the info you have added to the article. So please use google yourself, if it helps you.

Please note that the question under discussion is "world market price for natural gas and not for "energy resources" in general. Each energy resource may have its own price, but some of them do not have "world market price" because they cannot be transported worldwide and their prices are strongly dependent on the place where they are sold.--AndriyK 21:20, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You are right in that the market price paid by a recipient consists of two components, one of which is transportation. The korrespondent.net article I linked to in the text explains that [2]. You may easily google recent NYTimes, Washington Post and other respectable articles which provide further info. --Irpen 21:27, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Here is one for you: NYTimes: Dispute Over Natural Gas Prices in Ukraine. Here is the mirror if you can't read it at the original site. --Irpen 21:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Both articles you cited cite Gazprom officials. None of two article asertes that the notion of "world market price for natural gas" exists based on any sources different from Gazprom. Please be fair in the discussion.--AndriyK 22:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, and world market price for oil is a fantasy of those bloody Russians from LUKoil... I see some Ukes think that oil and gas are free for everyone to siphon. Unfortunately for the likes of you, the world abides by other rules.--Ghirla | talk 10:05, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, Ukraine should pay world prices for the gas, there are just more benifits vs. the subsidized price. But I don't understand why the price for Ukraine should be the same as for a western European country. Because, if you think about it, when a country in western Europe buys gas, they pay for the gas itself, and they also pay for transit through Russia, Ukraine, Poland, or Belarus. It's only logical that the country that is located closer to the source of gas is able to obtain it cheaper. However, what the truth basically comes down to is that Gazprom wants to control the pipeline system in Ukraine: on numerous occasions they stated that compromise is possible, and that compromise is creating of pipeline consortium. Belarus is the living proof of that. So, prices for 2006: Germany: $160, Baltic states (not exactly friends of RF): $120-125, and Ukraine: $230 [3]. Doesn't make sense, does it? --Berkut 11:48, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ghirl, AndriyK made a valid point about the improriety of using a single source for information, particularly so when that source clearly will have an interest in the information provided being skewed from the truth. Your response does nothing to answer that point but does in fact more deeply illustrate your personal bias in this matter, which appears to be leading you to use unreliable information to justify arguments. Toby Douglass 10:58, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Dear Ghirlandajo, please reserve you personal opinion about other nations for your personal home page. Here in Wikipedia you have to follow theWikipedia:Verifiability policy. If you believe that the notion of "world market price for natural gas" does exist, please confirm it by the apropriate citations. If you believe that the price $230 is commonly used in the world trade for natural gas, please provide the citation. So far we have citations confriming the opposite. If the citations are not given, unverifyable information should be remove from the article or it should be clearly stated that it reflects the POV of Gazprom.--AndriyK 20:14, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Ivchenko

To the best of my knowledge, Ivchenko is still in his chair. It was only a technical replacement reflecting the inner administration processes. Besides, connecting a temporary firing with the speeches of Ivchenko is just another speculation :(( Ukrained 10:30, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to correct this point but Ghirlandajo reverted my changes. In fact there was a reorganization of "Naftohas" menagement. Previously, the head of "Naftohaz" automatically combined his position in the state company with the position in the government (he was a deputy minister) and was appointed by the President. Then it was decided do not combine these two positions. After the reorganazition, the head of is appointed by the Government.

Technically, President dismissed Ivchenko from the position of deputy minister and the head of Naftohazdue to the abolition of the positions he held. Then the Government reappointed him as a head of Naftohaz Ukrainy. In effect, Ivchenko just retained his position.

No source relate this reorganization with any statements made by Ivchenko.

The info in its present form misinforms the reader.--AndriyK 15:28, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I removed all mention of Ivachenko, as he is of tangential interest to the readers of this article and details of his mysterious sacking seem to innerve some of the editors. --Ghirla | talk 16:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

I tried to discuss this point with Ghirlandajo, but he found no arguments except calling me "pernicious troll" [4]. If somebody disagrees with me but is ready to discussion fairly, I would like to here your arguments and see the citations.--AndriyK 16:19, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality

While most of the article is fairly neutral, the last section is not. I have modified it [[5]] and feel it is quite a lot better now but there are still somethings missing which make it not quite neutral. Specifically, when were the Georgia, Moldova and Baltic state contracts signed? Clearly if they were signed a year ago, or even 6 months ago and Russia had no options to renegiate them at this time, they are less relevant since Russia may have changed their minds since they were signed. Furthermore, even if they were signed recently, assuming that they were signed with a minimal of fuss, then it plasible that Russia may be penalising Ukraine for drawing out the negotiations rather then simply agreeing to an increase in the first place and may have agreed to a lower increase if Ukraine had negotiate in good faith rather then making accusations of political motivations. As for Belarus, this section needs to be reworked. Although it mentions the pipeline system, it fails to point out that the move may be economical or geo-political, not purely political since price may be part of the agreement to handover control of the pipeline and not to do with whether the government is pro-Western or pro-Russian. Finally, as for the Turkmenistan issue, logic would suggest it may also be an economocal move. If Russia is able to buy gas from Turkmenistan for $65, and sell it to Armenia, Georgia, Moldova and the Baltic states for $110-$125, and I suspect to Western Europe for a even higher price, and to Ukraine for a price higher then $65 it makes economical sense to buy it from Turkmenistan. We need some more research, some more references etc to consider these issues. unsigned by User:Nil Einne

It may be that the Turkmenistan was politically motivated to sell at 65 USD; certainly, it could sell to the free market at the going rate of 220/230, so it's hard to imagine why else it sell as such a low price. It's important to remember Russia, historically, is imperialistic; I don't think this has changed. Putin is the new Czar. My view is that Russia, as a body politic, regards the neighbouring States as part of its empire. Historically, this means installing a puppet Government along the Russian line (dictatorial/state-centric) which is certainly the case in most of the countries bordering Russia. Certainly the Russian political entity has not and will not accept the loss of the Ukraine; how that will play out in time remains to be seen. I think if the Ukraine gets into NATO and especially the EU and integrates successfully and this state of affairs remains for perhaps fifty years, Russia may then get used to the idea the Ukraine is no longer Russian. Toby Douglass 18:01, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The price of $65 is dictated by low demand and big supply. Keep in mind that the only route to export the Turkmen gas to Europe is through Russia and Ukraine , and Russia has its own gas to export. The price of $65 is even higher than the Ukrainians are paying for the Turkmen gas ($60).(Igny)

This I do not understand. The Russians pay the Ukrainians for use of their pipe network and so are able to sell their gas at the market rate to the West. Given the huge difference between 65 USD (price to Gazprom) and 225 USD (price to market) why doesn't the Turkmenistanian State simply rent pipe capacity? that would surely cost less than the profit they would make. The only reasons I can see for this not occuring is a lack of pipe capacity or that the Russians refuse to make the deal and so force a sale to them at the lower price. Toby Douglass 10:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"It's important to remember Russia, historically, is imperialistic." Most of the world has been historically imperialistic. The West can least take the holier-than-thou route on this one. In the initial stages, they build their economies through colonialism, imperialism and rampant protection of their industries and consolidated it through hypocritical international foreign policy resulting in the deaths of million something which the Western press don't dwell upon too much. They are the masters of double standards and hypocrisy. Anyone who tries to play the same game they have played for centuries is scoffed at and portrayed by their servile but powerful media machine as the "bad guys". Now that their coffers are full and are in a position of strength, they are suddenly "good".

"Third Party"

> It is worth noting that as supply reductions are reported to be occuring, then either the Ukraine (or a "third party") may be
> siphoning off gas, or Russia may be undersupplying and falsely accusing the Ukraine of siphoning.

I find it hard to imagine a third party being responsible. The gas goes into the Ukrainian network and comes out the other end. It's either Naftohaz taking it, or it's not going into the pipe in the first place. Toby Douglass 18:04, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is one method (as described in How Do You Steal Gas From a Pipeline?):

You don't need to be a state-run gas company to steal fuel from a pipeline. In the first few months of 2004, Ukrainian police discovered more than 150 holes in the nation's oil distribution system. Oil crooks there and elsewhere can find an unguarded length of pipe and make their own tap. First they drill a hole most of the way through, and then they use a rubber mallet to crack open the pipe without making a spark. They insert a valve into the hole and then attach it to a tanker truck with a hose. The whole procedure takes about 20 minutes. You can also tap into a pipeline to steal natural gas. --EncephalonSeven 18:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I maintain my argument; I assert a priori that such a process cannot account for such a large amount of gas in such a short time (I imagine fleets of gas tankers lining up in the wilderness at some tiny ad hoc hole), or that it should suddenly have started to remove such a large amount of gas since the Gazprom eliminated the Ukrainian supply from their pumping, or that the Ukrainians would not have noticied such a significant loss between their pumping stations, where one station has the correct amount of gas and the next has in the course of one day 25m USD less. Toby Douglass 18:44, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Siphoning/Supply reductions

Supply reductions are *known* to be occuring - a number of States have reported this. Therefore, either the gas isn't entering the pipeline, or it is and it's being siphoned. This is stark logic - it is improper to water this down by arguing that a third party could be involved or that if siphoning is not occcuring Russia "might be" supplying less gas; there are no "might be"s about it - gas enters the Ukraine pipeline, it comes out the other end; either not enough is going in, or some is being taken out en route. Toby Douglass 18:13, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Gazprom

Huh, I couldn't find this articla and page so i wrote prev. at Gazproms Talk - now don't know if sould I copy it from there in here... :-/ --MonteChristof 23:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Romania is not so affected

http://www.adevarulonline.ro/index.jsp?page=articol&article_id=169768

The worst estimates is about 20% - don't forget Romania is a gas producer as well. Bonaparte talk 09:53, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Friendly prices for an unfriendly country? Russians are NOT that stupid!

Russia is right. You support your good friends, you deal with them on friendly prices, but you do not do that to strangers. Ukraine was a friend of Russia. Then a western-organized regime change was done and Ukraine distanced itself from Russia. They are no longer friends, but strangers, so dealing will be with done at market prices.

IME, countries which regularly alledge events not in their favour to be "Western organized" are run by oppressive Governments which are the source of their own discontent. Russia is a State-centric dictatorship and has been for a thousand years; the Ukraine has suffered terribly under Russian hegimoney and has strived for independence for some centries. Ukrainian *Governments* have been "friendly" to Russia, in that they have been installed with Russian support and so have always been fundamentally pro-Russian or in fact Russia (Khrushchev governed the Ukraine for some time), but the Ukrianian people as a whole are afraid of Russia and with good reason. Toby Douglass 10:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If the west wants Ukraine to belong to the west, EU and america should support Ukraine with the money needed to buy natural gas from russia. Natura gas is a big treasure of russia, with the money they earn by selling it, Russia will become a rich, prosperous country soon. Why should they sell it at loss of profit to a country whose leadership is hostile to Russia? 195.70.32.136 (IP from Hungary-Budapest)10:14, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

I doubt they sell the gas at loss, just a lot less profit. They shouldn't sell gas at subsidized prices to Ukraine, or anyone for that matter. If I was a Gazprom stockholder, I'd be very upset that Belarus is getting gas at $47 be 1000 cubic meters. True, they cooperate with Russia in military sphere, but if I were a stockholder I wouldn't like that potential profits are being lost and Russian government (Russian military) getting some of those profits as an in kind payment for the cheap gas, instead of Gazprom stockholders. --Berkut 10:52, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Like president of Ukraine said. If they (ukrainians) pay then this is the pay of their independence. So, they will pay for it. Either way, they want independence or dependence on Russia? Bonaparte talk 10:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The West is, in fact, fairly ambievelent about what countries do with themselves. The *Ukraine* is desperately trying to get into NATO and the EU to protect itself from Russia. The notion that the West should prop up the Ukraine so that the West can "get" the Ukraine is symptomatic of the Russia outlook, which is essentially "everyone vs Russia"; this outlook is the product of the outside worlds response to a thousand years of Russia being an aggressive, territorially acquisive country with a dreadfully harsh State-centric dictatorship. Toby Douglass 10:44, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Russia is state-centric dictatorship, but only west is worried about it. Russian people are OK with their dictatorship. I wouldnt say that russia is agressive, when USA lead wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and warning Syria and Iran. Russian dictatorship is not the deal of western "democracies", and it is not concerned with the gas deal. If Ukraina is the west, the democracy and so on... let it pay 230. That's so simple... 62.117.94.226 12:11, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

"Yes, Russia is state-centric dictatorship, but only west is worried about it. Russian people are OK with their dictatorship." - this is an absolutely appalling POV. Please read Russian history and understand that in the first place, the statement is incorrect and in the second place, if it were correct, it would be a hideous, horrific, deeply evil thing; it would be as if a child were so abused by its parents that it accepted such treatment as normal and no longer knew to complain. Toby Douglass 12:46, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Russia is territorially aggressive. If you think this is no so, you have not read Russian history. The fact that other states have also led invasions is irrelevent in every way. I would also point out the difference between US and Russian behaviour; the US in general acts for two reasons, a blend of realpolitik and moral outlook, and has never been *territorially aggressive*, it's wars do not lead to an increase in territory run by the US. Russian behaviour been led by a blend of realpolitik and territorially acquisitiveness and it's wars often lead to an increase in territory (nominally, at least, due to guerella efforts) incoporated into the Russian State. Toby Douglass 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Your note that "Russian dictatorship is not the deal of western "democracies", and it is not concerned with the gas deal" is IMO entirely incorrect. Russia clearly *is* concerned, since it has cut off supplies. The question is whether or not Russia is concerned for economic reasons (which are justified) or political reasons (which are worrying). The balance of argument appears to be strongly in favour of a political motivation. Toby Douglass 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Finally, your view "If Ukraina is the west, the democracy and so on..." is symptomic of the Russia outlook; us vs them. The fundamental issue here is the antagonism between Ukrainian independence and Russian territorial acquisitiveness. Russia has always strived for hundreds of years to integrate the Ukraine into Russia. The Ukrainians want independence. The result is conflict. My view in these matters if that if a people wish for independence, then a priori it belongs to them. Toby Douglass 12:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

If they want independence, let them pay independent price. You shouldn't argue with me about russian history and what do russian people want - i am russian. I think i know that a bit better, OK? It is not enough to remember all russian history to understand people's dreams or wishes. Let russians decide what they want - freedom or "state-centric dictatorship". Thank you.62.117.94.226 08:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

The fact you *are* Russian does not a priori mean you know your own history. In fact the distressing truth is that majority of people in every country do not know their own history and your comments regarding Russia make it clear a posteriori that you do not know Russian history.

Your view on the nature of the Russian State is fascenating, however. Russians have never had a choice about the nature of their State, but they are proud of Mother Russia. I have always found it useful to think of States as individual humans; in this case, Russia is deeply flawed, but proud, and so cannot admit to its own flaws and must maintain its behaviour, for not to do so would implicitly be an admission that something is wrong.

Related to this matter, a friend of mine here in the UK is a Russian dissident. She left Russia after considerable persecution in the late 1960s. She knows all about freedom and State-centric dictatorships; while being persecuted by the State for objecting to the actions of the State (for example, long-term incarceration of dissidents in psychiatric hospitals where the "patients" had absolutely no contact with the outside world and were kept drugged, not only to stupify them, but sometimes to inflict great physical pain), she read one of the few (hand-typed) copies of 1984 which were owned by the underground resistance (this was of course on the banned books list).

Russia has never known freedom and now under Putin is essentially back to being in the state in was in prior to the breakup of the USSR and the ascention of Yeltsin; the recent restrictions of civil liberty (the NGO act) are perhaps the final nail in the coffin of post-breakup Russia. Toby Douglass 12:58, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, democracy in Russia has deep historical roots. Key decisions, particularly in the city state of Velikiy Novgorod, were often made through Veche, the people assembly. You can read more about it here - Вече. Victor

I wonder if dear Toby could give me an example of modern Russia (post 1991) being territorially agressive. It would be extremely helpful to give an example of a country which had a strong army and was not trying to expand both its territory and markets --- in any epoch.

Don't feed the trolls. This guy "Toby" seems to have confused Wikipedia with soc.culture.* usenet groups. Let's pardon him this time. --Ghirla | talk 10:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What's special about post 1991? the revolutions Russia has experienced have actually been continuities; they have never caused real change in the social-political landscape. In fact, post 1991, the economic interdepence of Russia and the West, the weakness of the Russian armed forces and the cohesion of NATO (which of course was formed due to the threat of Russian armed forces being used to persue territoral expansion, e.g. an invasion of Western Europe) has, to an extent never before seen, precluded the Russian use of military force as a means to achieve territorial expansion. Nevertheless, circumstances still exist where Western interests and ability to apply influence are sufficiently weak that Russian military force can be applied, as occured and occurs in Chechnya, where enourmous numbers of civilians have been slaughtered in a bloody and horrific war which has politically extremized the local population and which will in the fullness of time lead to further cycles of violence. Hooray for Russia. Toby Douglass 22:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Please everyone, don't feed trolls. --Irpen 05:50, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

map of dependency

According to Romanian CNN partner, Realitatea TV (news cable network) http://www.realitatea.tv/

Gazprom supplies 1/3 of the quantity of gases imported by EU. 90% of exports is done through Ukrainian networks.

Germany - 38 Billion m3

Ukraine - 34 Billion m3

Italy - 21 Billion m3

Turkey - 14 Billion m3

France - 12 Billion m3

List of countries that depend on the ukrainian networks:

Slovakia - uses 100% from natural gas from Russia

Bulgaria - 94%

Greece - 92%

Cehia - 73%

Hungary - 72%

Austria - 63%

Poland - 60%

Bonaparte talk 10:57, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Also prices may be relevant

• Prices (per 1000 m3) in 2005
  • Germany $200
  • Slovenia and Slovakia $180
  • Poland $120
  • Baltic states $85-95
  • Moldavia $80
  • Caucasus states $58-68
  • Ukraine $50
  • Belarus $47
• Price increase for 2006
  • Baltic states $120-125
  • Moldavia $160
  • Caucasus states $110
  • Ukraine $230
  • Belarus $47

Remark: Moldavia and Ukraine have not agreed with the price increase (yet). Belarus gave up the control of Belarusian part of gas pipeline Yamal-Europe.

Source (in Russian): [6]

Igny 23:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Data on world market prices

According to [7] (p.59), net calorific value of Russian natural gas is 38231 kJ/m^3, which is approximately 36.2 million btu (MMBtu) per 1000 m^3. This link, [8], provides data on natural gas futures on NYMEX. As of 1/4/2006, the prices are around $10/MMBtu (which corresponds to $362/1000m^3 for Russian gas). This chart, [9]) is for Feb 2006 Natural gas futures on NYMEX, which shows price fluctuations from $10 to $15 per MMBtu. For Canadian market, see [10] (remark CND/GJ ~ 0.9 USD/MMBtu). More quotes for wholesale prices are at [11], [12]. Also a quote from [13], Spot prices for natural gas in the UK hit a whooping US$20/mmbtu on November 22 and are currently the highest in the world.

Igny 05:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Addenum #4

I am looking into the contract as published by http://www.pravda.com.ua/news/2005/12/22/36935.htm . As I understand it, Russia is paying Ukraine for transporting the Gas in Gas. The price is fixed as $50/1000m^3 and stayes the same. As the transporting price is significantly increases it means that Ukraine is getting more gas for the same amount of transporting. Ukraine is also buying additional gas and this price is sharply increased from $65 to $230, but since Uk is getting now ~12bln m^3 for transporting (and should get ~50% more) and buying only 6-8 bln m^3 the overall balance is not that unfavourable to Uk (in fact according to my calculations Uk should benefit). There is some other factor: by the August 2004 agreement (just before the Ukrainian elections) all the Gas debts of Ukraine were restructured as the advanced payments for transporting and Gasprom insists that this payment means transporting by the old price. Thus, the increment of the supply of the barter gas should be less than 50% for a few years, but still the changes are not that unfavourable to Ukraine as it looks like.

Also according to http://www.gazprom.ru/articles/article16998.shtml Gazprom was still supplying Ukraine with the barter gas for transporting, as well as with the Turkmen gas, it only stop the additional Gas for $65/$230. These are 10% of all the Ukraine gas supplies. Not that bad taking into account that Uk has 8bln m^3 in the underground storage.

Should I put the info in the article? abakharev 07:20, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

For sure! it's crucial insight in the deal that has been struck. Toby Douglass 12:45, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ghirlandajo

You recently restored some material in an [14] with the comment "(restored unexplicably deleted passages)".

This material, in particular the first paragraph, "[...] and subsequent stealing of gas by Ukraine went on to affect numerous other European countries", asserts as fact material which has not been proven in any way. This is I am sure why the material was deleted in the first place.

Further comments that EU Energy Comissioner Andris Piebalgs is "notorious for his Russophobic statements" are made with absolutely no justification or evidence.

This matter is so absolutely clear and straightforward, unsusceptible to confusion or accidental error, that it seems to me your bias in this matter has led you to present allegation or even fabrication as truth because it is line with your personal, pro-Russian POV.

This is utterly unacceptable.

Toby Douglass 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Ivchenko quote

The origin of the quote takes here: [15], with a few other websites also having it [16] (in form of an identical article). From what I can see that Oligarh.net website is notoriously biased against Ukraine and/or its government. Unless anyone can find the same quote from reputable sources, I think the quote should be removed. --Berkut 21:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I second removal. I've been thinking for a little while now that this quote is actually a fabrication. The quote is SO profoundly selfish it's actually ridiculous. No one in their right mind, even if they held such a belief, would voice that belief, because it would so damage their position. I therefore suspect this quote is actually their political intepretation of an actual quote from Ivchenko - e.g. he said something like "we refuse to immediately pay these higher prices and we want higher transit rates" and Oligarh.net gave their intepretation - "Ivchenko says [the Ukraine] will continue to blackmail Russia..." etc. Toby Douglass 22:05, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't see this when editing in the article. I think that if the phrase is attributed and it clearly says that RIAN is the RU state controlled agency, as I made in my last correction it can stay. OTOH, we don't know whether this is indeed a fabrication and "Oligarkh", from what I can tell from its site is rather anti-Ukrainian biased. So, we might remove this thing too.

I agree that we can remove the phrase if it is likely a fabrication. In the latter case, it should be moved to talk, not just deleted. I am not completely sure about the removal and I hope there won't be an edit war about removing/reinserting of the phrase. Generally, I must say, that the article's development with picking up the latest events so quickly, as well as the general overall balance was a success. Perhaps, we should remove "current" in about a week or so. I hope there won't be any new surprised from the politicians of either side. --Irpen 02:42, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

moved from the article: According to RIA Novosti, the Russian state controlled information agency, Oleksiy Ivchenko, the President of Naftohaz, said earlier in 2005 that Ukraine "will continue to blackmail Russia that unless it supplies gas to Ukraine at practically give-away prices, and agrees to pay for transit through the nose, Ukraine will start siphoning EU gas from the pipeline". [17] --Berkut 03:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Introduction rewrite

IMHO the intro had too much detail and not enough over-view. The figures for gas negotiation prices are useful, but are too detailed to be in an introduction. May I suggest a new section describing the detail of the negotiations that occured? Toby Douglass 20:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Since I don't follow recent events, it took me maybe half an hour to figure out that the dispute is over NATURAL GAS and not GASOLINE. In American English gas means gasoline. Can someone clarify this in the introduction? -Iopq 08:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Belarus

For all those that keep pointing to Belarus as being given low gasprices. This link might clarify that a bit. Maybye someone could mention this in the article (in response to this edit) --Hardscarf 14:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

This link and this link say that soon Belarus will pay 3 times as much for gas as today! Mariah-Yulia 00:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If Gazprom triples its gasprice for Belarus that would mean Belarus would have to pay US150 per 1,000 cubic meters while Ukraine pays US95 per 1,000 cubic meters now (right?) Mariah-Yulia 00:45, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

If Lukashenko will not sell or lease Beltransgaz (Belarussian gascompany) to Gazprom yes (see BBC artcle), otherwise the price could still get down I guess. Either way it is not yet non negotiable, as the article states "Moscow intends to possibly triple the price of gas sales to Belarus." --Hardscarf 07:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Better wait for the gasprice to change before mentioning it, I say. It could all change tomorrow and we will probably never know why...Mariah-Yulia 21:39, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

600 million US dollars debt?

I just removed someones statment that Ukraine own Gazprom 600 million US dollars. It had a ref [18] but I dont trust it. BBC never mentions a 600 million US dollars debt, neither does anything I ever written about the gaswar. Has anyone got another reference of a 600 million US dollars debt? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 13:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting is needed

This article is really messy. It consists a lot of repetations (sometimes contradictive to each other), lunsourced information and speculations. All this discussion about world market price is a nonsens without proper explanation what the world price is and how it should be applied in case of country with gas supply agreements consisting extremely complicated pricing model, and lower gas transportation costs. The article needs also better structuring. I tryd to fix some of these things, but it really needs some experienced and dedicated copyeditor.Beagel (talk) 16:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! One of the first things you deleted (I Ain't Mad at Cha)was:

Gazprom Deputy Chief Executive Alexander Medvedev predicted in December 2007 that Germany will probably pay $350 per 1,000 cubic metres in 2008.

That is the world price? I don't understand the price model, so I'm afraid I can't help you there. I'll do what I can! Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:05, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed move

As there is a row of several disputes, I think that more correct title would be Russia–Ukraine gas disputes. Beagel (talk) 23:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As there are no objections, I will make this move.Beagel (talk) 18:31, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

World market price -- comments from the text

There is no that thing as market rate, because most of countries don't have flexibility in the gas market, but only long-term agreements. You may, of course, compare the price for UA and GE, however, you should take into account different amount of transit fees.

When there are more than 30 independent countries over the world consuming your trade and discussing the price with you as well as other several other independent suppliers, you may speak of a "market" price in some sence. Note that unlike oil, where OPEC actually regulates much of the price, in gas market there is only mutual agreements, which is much closer to the actual "market" pricing.

Well, there are prices for 30 different markets, but not a such single world market price as for crude oil. There could be some kind of world market price for LNG, but not for pipeline gas. As pipeline systems are still not very well interconnected, there is still large dependence from one single supplier and no much possibilities for substitute suppliers. Also, most of natural gas (in case of some countries 100%) is supplied according to long-term contracts and not in the spot market. The price formula usually depends of crude and fuel oil average prices. So, I have nothing against comparing the gas price for Ukraine with gas prices for other countries, but please don't talk about world, global etc prices. Beagel (talk) 23:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ukrainian POV

I would say that the article is currently biased towards the Ukrainian POV. For example, it has a whole section on political motivation, yet did not address any issues which Russia raised during the dispute.

• 1. Russians claim that Naftogas has been stealing the Russian gas long before the current dispute by direct siphoning as well as by reexporting the gas to Europe at higher price (with creating fake Ukrainian consumers).
• 2. Providing the gas at discount to the "brothers-Ukrainians" is one thing, but providing the cheap gas to Krivorozhstal (currently owned by an Indian conglomerate) so that it would dump cheap steel back to Russia is quite different.
• 3. At one point, Gazprom offered deep discounts for the gas if Ukrainians gave up part of the control over its gas transport system. They have offered to own the transport system on parity terms, and Ukraine has refused. This partly answers the discussion on Belarus/Ukraine discrepancy. Belarusian transport system is owned by Gasprom and land under the pipelines is under long term lease.
• 4. Section on political motivation is providing arguments to prove that the motivation exists without any counterarguments, which I find highly POVed.
• 5. Regarding the Ukrainian threat to reevalute Sevastopol's lease. The phrase "while Russia resists to any discussions that might affect the conditions of the lease." is rather strange. In fact, Russia linked the long term lease of Sevastopol to the broad agreement of 1997, which also outlined the borders of Ukraine. Ivanov said that any attempt to adjust the lease would be fatal for that agreement and could lead to Russian territorial claims of Crimea. After that statement, Yuschenko backed out and said there will be no adjustments in the lease.

Igny 20:11, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

• 2. I doubt very much that the Kremlin regards the current Ukrainian Government as brothers, which is IMO a major part of the reason for the price hike. Russia has been providing the Ukraine cheap gas for a long time now; the latter argument is therefore invalid.
• 3. Russia has dominated the Ukraine for centries, suppressing independence. The Ukraine finally achieved notional independence with the breakup of the USSR and achieved a much greater degree of real independence with the recent revolution which ousted what was in essence a puppet Government. Given this backround, it is not likely in *any way* that the Ukraine would accept giving up any control over its own energy transportation network to the Russian State gas company; and to be precise, why should it? if the Ukrainians have pipelines, what's so objectionable about them having a rent paid for use?
• 4. The lack of counter-arguments may be simply because they do not exist; Russia's behaviour in this matter is hard to posit as justified by other motives.
• 5. As I understand it, the gas agreement with Gazprom was set in stone until 2009, but Gazprom have unilaterally argued it actually requires annual reconfirmation. The Kremlin is notorious for "linkage" - political bargaining - where issues entirely unrelated to each other are brought together in negotiations. The Ukraine may wish to attempt to play the same game.

Toby Douglass 20:47, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there is a Ukranian POV on this article. I've read the article thoroughly, and it seems to accurately reflect how the mainstream (indeed, Western) media is covering this event. I have not read anything about the Ukrainians stealing gas in the Herald Tribune or the Washington Post, or NRC Handelsblad. You are correct in saying that the Ukranians did not agree to let the Russians run the pipelines on their Territory. Please include that fact in the article if you feel it is not yet adequately represented. I would suggest removing the NPOV tag from this article unless some concrete proof is provided that there is merit to the Russian arguments. Arguments that warrent merit do not include press statements from the Putin government. Jacoplane 01:04, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm removing the tag until more firm and neutral evidence than Putin's statements is provided. --Lysy ^(talk) 01:47, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The accusations that Ukraine steals the gas where voiced by the Russian government many times but there is no other evidence of that. Neverhteless, the fact that Russia makes such accusations should remain in the article while making the source clear. The wording like "accroding to the Gazprom media spokesman..." should be left with such accusations. Similarly, the article should include that Ukraine denies the syphoning. --Irpen 01:56, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it reads: "On January 2, 2006 Russia accused Ukraine of stealing US$25 million worth of gas. This has been promptly denied by Ukraine.". --Lysy ^(talk) 09:24, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

You're thinking in a very correct order but sadly in only one direction. I think you're very wrong when trusting the Ukrainian side in the conflict. Ukrain is a very interesting country if you haven't visitеd it still please do and i'm not talking about Kiev go to the eastern parts see how people live. Every branch of the Ukrainian state is corrupt even more than the russian. If I have to describe Ukrainian state power with only one word it is "parasite". Neutral evidence yes and observers from the EU yes if that doesen't mean "naive tourists with silly smiles" which most often happens. Westerners are so naive when a certain president shows a will to join Nato and EU that doesen't automatically make him a nouble, honest and good man and if he is from an ex-soviet country that in almost every case makes him greedy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.97.220.128 (talk) 15:35, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Putin is finished

The final agreement is a total loss of face for Putin. He was humiliated and had to agree to a price less than half of the original (95 to 230 USD). Now the russian public will turn against him and the army generals will remove him very soon and replace him with a non-afraid leader. Putin should should have learnt from Mr. Kruschev and 1962 Cuba affair that backing off means political suicide in Russia!

Please sign yourself (four tildes) when adding comments. Regarding your comment; much as I would like it to be true, it is IMO exceedingly unlikely to be true. Putin has a very secure grip on power and when operating politically keeps a healthy distance between the actions taken and his own percieved involvement; as such, the general public and to a lesser extent the body politic do not attribute failures directly to Putin. He does not become percieved as incompetent. Indeed, even in the West the degree to which actions by the Russian State are in fact actions by Putin is not recognized. One final note; when Khrushchev backed off in 1962, he may well have saved the world from a nuclear war. Is is imprudent to risk the destruction of the species for the political gain of a country. Toby Douglass 12:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Who is finished now? LOL 81.200.20.164 (talk) 04:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

The check is in the mail?

Ukraine has said that the "check is in the mail" before the New Year, but Gazprom said back then that this money had not yet been received. Is there any updates on whether these funds have yet been received, or whether this appears to have been an excuse that I am sure that most people have used at least once in their lifetime. --Russavia ^Dialogue 14:09, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Money was transferred to RosUkrEnergo because according to the contract of 2006, Gazprom sells its gas to Ukraine not directly, but through this shadow company. It is confirmed by both, RosUkrEnergo and Gazprom, that RosUkrEnergo received this payment. RosUkrEnergo has also confirmed that the money will be on an account of Gazprom by 12 January. Beagel (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Correct, althoug Naftogas refused to pay the December fine, so the check to pay this fine was never mailed... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ukraine is generating the whole problem

The article should be written more careful instead of just jumping to the easy conclusions.

So, Russia is cutting off the supply for Ukraine, yet still sending a certain amount of gas. Ukraine, in shuts down the delivery to cover their own needs. For this you can read this: [[19]]

I contacted the Gazprom representative in Romania, who said that the current situation is not caused by the Russian energy company.

said the Romanian minister. Russia is honoring the whole dead where it can: [[20]]

Poland, which reported a 11 percent drop in deliveries through Ukraine, said Gazprom was covering the shortfall in full by sending gas through a separate pipeline that crosses Belarus. Germany, which gets gas through Belarus, said it was receiving its gas in full.

Romania and the Balkans are affected by the piracy conducted by Ukraine who refuses to pay the price of gas.

In the article it is implied that the russian company of Gazprom is doing the trouble. Actually the South-East Europe is receiving the gas from Russia through two pipelines that pass through Ukraine than Romania. The crossing points from Ukraine to Romania belong and are controlled by the Ukrainian government.

It's all about an unilateral change of terms where a Kiev court invalidated an international contract written under Sweedish law in order to facilitate a better deal for Ukraine: [[21]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.80.24.132 (talk) 01:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Current event template

Why isn't current event template present in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.164.95.180 (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to put a template for the whole article if only one section deals with current events. The template is there (section:Cutting off supply (January 2009)).Beagel (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Currencies

Please mark currencies more clearly.

Several countries use various versions of $. And I do not think Russia nor Ukraine are amongst those. I'll assume it means US$, but that is not clear in this article.

Please standardise, and possibly consider providing details in Euro as this is a European-related affair.--ZayZayEM (talk) 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM states that currency should be identified on its first appearance (e.g. AU$52); subsequent occurrences are normally given without the country identification or currency article link (just $88). In this article the currency first time appears in the section Agreement to end the dispute where it is marked US$1.09. Therefore afterward there is no identification, which dollars. It is also quite obvious that Russia uses US$ and not Canadian or Australian dollars in its trade.Beagel (talk) 05:02, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Linguistic editing required

This is an important topic and it would serve the interests of the Wikipedia community well if a native speaker of English with substantial knowledge of the issues would perform a comprehensive linguistic edit. The current version of this article contains large passages of non-idiomatic English, which are presumably the result of numerous non-native speakers' contributions. While these contributions may be helpful in terms of substantive content, the long relatively unidiomatic passages cause readers - particularly native speakers of English - to get bogged down. I found I had difficulty following the main points, which means that the utility of the article is limited at the moment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.129.236.241 (talk) 11:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I put a tag for copyediting.Beagel (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree. I made same sub chapters, hopefully that will help too. After this dispute is over it might be a good idea to place same facts in a/the footnote section (I'm strongly opposed to just delete information for the sake of readability). — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:21, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yulia Tymoshenko vs. Viktor Yushchenko

At Reuters and BBC and others there have been speculations that the fall out between Yulia Tymoshenko and Viktor Yushchenko has a impact on this crises. I don't agree, the seem closer then before the crises: first a joint statement and together they picked up Mirek Topolanek from the airport [22] and talked to him together [23]. It might be the case that Russian spin-dockers wants to use this crises to tear them apart, but the crises seems to do the opposite. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Tymoshenko and Yushchenko have been at odds since as soon as they realised that they see the world through different orange-tinted glasses, and they would both walk over their own mothers to get what they want. Yulia is no better than Viktor, and vice-versa. And it is nothing to do with "Russian spin-doctors" but everything to do with their own image of self-importance, and what they will do to advance themselves first. Whilst they may have been seen together, this does not mean that everything is hunky-dory in Kiev. --Russavia ^Dialogue 13:04, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well they do seem to operate as a team during this crises, there are no contradictions in (individual) statements from them both. Splitting up the leadership of an opposition group is an old KGB tactic. Yulia and Viktor (probably (Kuchma used it all the time)) know this too, that might be the reason behind the show of unity (or it is genuine, they did unite after all before the last parliamentary election when a lot of people gave up on there partnership too). — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Why "verbal" was removed?

I saw an edit from Beagel removing the word "verbal" from the article, stating that "in Europe, verbal agreement is an agreement". I wonder what was wrong with "verbal". In fact it was a verbal agreement and the word "verbal" didn't not imply it wasn't an agreement after all. Nevertheless, verbal agreements does not have the same juridical power as signed contracts in many countries, so that you can't sue someone, not fulfilling a verbal agreement with you in court, basically because it's extremely hard to find arguments against the claims of mutual misunderstanding etc. That is why you have signed contracts most of the times, particularly if the matter is of utter importance. I think this edit has to be undone. Any serious objections? --ZYV (talk) 19:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If the word "verbal" does not mean it is not an agreement at all, why you need this. Just keep plain and simple. If you can say something without some particular word, you don't need it at all (please see: WP:BETTER). Allowing observers to the metering station is not a legal obligation of Ukraine or Russia, so this is not a legal agreement, but a political agreement. Beagel (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

According to the latest information added to the article it is clear that agreement is verbal because new agreement is presented for Ukraine for signing. So I hope this issue is solved and adding "verbal" does not have any added value.Beagel (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, my point is that they are trying to push it as a legal contractual obligation to prevent groundless unverifiable mutual accusations in future (currently nobody can really prove somebody right or wrong post-factum) and not a political agreement. People invited are not generic political EU observers but the official representatives of gas importing businesses (GDF etc.) and have nothing to do with politics, but all with business. Hence my argument for "verbal" was that it implies that either party can't effectively be sued in EU courts to be proved right or wrong, offering large field for speculations about alleged political agendas of all of the involved countries afterwards (WP:CRYSTAL). --ZYV (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Perfect, the last version is fine with me! Thanks! --ZYV (talk) 19:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Today when I learned that the guys at Kiev finally signed a written agreement I was trying to foresee how long it will take them "to immediately fax this document to Kremlin". Well, I have to say that they exceeded my expectations: faxing a single sheet of paper took them only about 6 hours and according to Interfax-Russia Kremlin now claims that they have added some obscure "gas declaration" to the protocol signed earlier in Moscow, stating that Gazprom recognizes that the accusations of stealing Russian gas are false and the Ukrainian debt will be restructured?! Of course, Gazprom does not want to resume the transit under those conditions. For whom to trust? --ZYV (talk) 18:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Blame the EU. According to the EU press release, the Czech EU Presidency handed over the document "Terms of reference for the monitoring of the transit of natural gas through Ukraine" on Sunday 11 January 2009 in Brussels, at 12.15, to the Head of the Permanent Mission of the Russian Federation to the European Communities Vladimir A. Chizhov, and at 13.00, to the Deputy Head of Mission of Ukraine to the European Union Vsevolod Chentsov. In the presence of a representative of the European Commission, both sides received the original, three-page document, signed by all parties, in two copies. Another two original copies were handed over to the European Commissioner for Energy Andris Piebalgs. Even taking account the 2 hours time difference between Brussels and Moscow, I really can't understand how the delay could be 6 hours.Beagel (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

The Prime Minister of Ukraine is a woman :), but seriously I think we can't trust Naftogas, Gasprom, Ukrainian and Russian politicians in this conflict. That's why I preferred to use Reuters and BBC as sources (unfortunately they tempt to oversimplify things (that's my opinion!)). I think we should wait what they say about it (do it is Sunday so that might take till tomorrow...) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand a expansion of the article with "the Russian Government says that the Ukrainian Government added a protocol too..." is OK of course. Interfax is a reliable source. Didn't the Russian Government added it's own protocols to a deal with the EU about the withdrawal of Russian troops from Abchasia after it was signed by the Georgian Government by the way? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

At least to my knowledge, it was presented that Georgian Government did add the additional clauses to what was known as the Medvedev/Sarkozy protocol, so I am about to identify a familiar pattern here (anyway I think this point has to be discussed elsewhere). Still, I completely agree with you that we should wait for more coverage and reliable sources for this fact before adding this information to the article. --ZYV (talk) 19:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, an article about the negotiations has just been published by Le Monde (a major French newspaper). It also evokes a mysterious "additional clause" but does not cite it, elaborating that Russian authorities claimed that it juridically invalidates major points of the protocol. Still nothing on the subject on France24. I wonder whether it is possible to access the texts of those protocols somehow or they are classified / whatever? Could somebody please point me to the reliable information sources on this point? --ZYV (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I like the way Beagel put the adding protocols information in the article. It would be good to find the text of the agreement. Maybe on a EU website? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if the protocol (agreement or what ever) was signed by Putin and Topolanek in Moscow before it was presented for signing to Tymoshenko, it is even technically impossible to add anything to protocol itself, so it has to be some kind of unilateral declaration by Ukraine as was mentioned by Lavrov (reported by Russia Today). It is very interesting legal question if that kind of unilateral declaration invalidates the protocol or not. By my understanding of international law, it can't nullify the signed protocol, but it is impossible to say without seeing documents. Let see who will first to publish these documents (if anybody). Beagel (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I would really like to hear Ukrainian response to this "declaration(, a copy of which has also been seen by Reuters, stated that Ukraine had not siphoned off any transit gas and that it had no outstanding debts to Russian export monopoly Gazprom -- a central bone of contention between the two countries. It said Russia must supply volumes of "technical" gas, at no cost, to Ukraine to maintain pressure in the pipeline system -- a demand the Russian side rejected.)" But as I read the Reuters news "Gazprom said Ukraine was demanding 21 million cubic metres of technical gas per day -- enough to meet the daily needs of a country like Austria" and not this new protocol, right? I also fail to see why the observers can't get to work, this extra protocol says nothing about them! Looks more like a KGB black-PR move, I also wouldn't be surprised if this extra protocol is 100% fake... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC) Well it is real [24] — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I added Ukrainian response, funny how the Russian leaderships reminds me of 12 year old children... Mariah-Yulia (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cool down; your statements became incoherent, highly POVed and hard to read ("I agree to disagree with Russavia", "Russian leadership reminds me 12 y.o.c.", right after you learn that the addendum is real?!). Also, FYI KGB was superseded by FSB long time ago :-) --ZYV (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Good advice :) I'm starting to use this talkpage to let of steam (that's not what wikipedia is for...........). I'm 11 years old by the way (I wish...) — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Verbal means "in words"; it does not mean oral. Kittybrewster ☎ 23:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup

I cleaned up the current events sections by removing several unnecessary repetitions and wordiness. For this purpose, I moved some block and made some arrangements concerning sections formatting. I am sure all necessary information remained in the article. However, if you think that something important has removed, please indicate this here at the talk page.Beagel (talk) 20:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I quite like how it shapes up, sounds much more encyclopedic and impartial now. Anyway, the following part still confuses me: "President Yushchenko sent a letter to President of the European Commission Jose Manuel Barroso proposing to him that the European Union should be involved in the settlement of the Ukrainian–Russian gas dispute. According to Interfax-Ukraine, this proposal was initiated by the EU.[77]". What is the source of this information about the letter sent to the EC? If it's a reliable source, then it seems like Yushchenko and not EC initiated this proposal? Sorry, that I am asking for advice, but I am trying to avoid making edits myself apart from the grammar and stuff, because I am not a native speaker. --ZYV (talk) 21:29, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

"According to Prime Minister Putin, Ukraine closed the last pipelinethe transit gas to Europe on 7 January 2009 at 7 a.m." -- I think this sentence needs to be reworded. Is it meant to read "the last pipeline of the transit gas"? --ZYV (talk) 21:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Reworded. As about the letter, the source Interfax-Ukraina may have some bias about the topic. The letter was certainly sent, but probably we need some additional sources to verify the content.Beagel (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It is I who have used Interfax-Ukraina a lot as source. Of course they might be bias but it is the Ukrainian branch of a Russian owned news agency and they only report facts witch should be checkable (of course I have no objection to that), so I think there alright. On another note I find Russia Today extremely bias (which is getting more and more used as a source I see). While Reuters, BBC and Interfax-Ukraina where reporting that Ukraine was accused of stealing Russian gas Russia Today was presenting it as a fact.... As I wrote on wikipedia before the freedom of the press in Russia is ranked lower (#144) ten in Ukraine (#92). Editors should keep this in mind. It is worse enough (if?) Russian journalist are a tool of Kremlin propaganda, wikepidia surely shouldn't become it (too?). I'm not the all-seeing eye but from what I read about post-Soviet states it is surely clear W-European sources are more reliable (post Soviet politicians lie a lot to btw, Putin, Yuchenko and (even my own) Tymoshenko might have been lying for weeks so we should be careful quoting them too!). — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, just how are western-sources more reliable than Russian sources? I need only go back to the Georgian attacks on Tskhinvali and the repulsion of Georgian troops by Russia to see exactly how reliable the western-press is. As Mark Ames said, the only thing that stopped the western media from being shown for what they are was the financial crisis in the US, that couldn't have come at a better time for the western media. Or have a look at Karinna Moskalenko, even as the French announced she was not poisoned, the western Press, including the Washington Post (Anne Applebaum anyone?!?) were still directly blaming Putin and his baby-eating security services. All media is biased, that is a fact of life; for example, I lost any respect I ever had for CNN when the US invaded Iraq and Christiane Amanpour stood in front of the camera and stated that we should now not question the war, but support the US troops -- WTF? I've also got a secret to tell you about politicians...they all lie and they are all corrupt, for that is what politicians do and are; on the scum sucking scale politicians are only just above lawyers, and only slightly below journalists. Even Yulia, is it any surprise that the gas queen is also responsible for overseeing the gas industry in Ukraine? As to Russia Today, they are quite up-front in that they state they will present the Russian point of view; this does not mean it is propaganda any more than any other media outlet around the world. For us to use them as a reliable source, one needs to ascertain whether they meet the requirements of a RS, and given the points on there, then yes they do meet those requirements. But as with all things, it should be attributed, and not use fallacies as an excuse to disregard them as a source. What fallacies? Well, yes, Russian TV is near on full state-controlled (REN-TV being one of the major exceptions), however, most people in Russia do not get their news from TV, they get it from newspapers, of which there are more than 50,000 around the country. Take this for example; "In 1997 there were just over 21,000 registered periodicals, virtually no electronic media, and just under 100 television companies. More than half of all media were owned by the state. A decade later, there are more than 58,000 periodicals, 14,000 electronic media, and 5,500 broadcasting companies. The state's share in the newspaper and journal market in 2006 was estimated to be less than 10%, while its share in electronic media, which today reach 25 million people, is even smaller. Today it is not the Russian state but foreign companies that own shares in more than half of all Russian broadcasting companies." I would suggest reading that article, written by an author who "served as the US State Department's special assistant for policy on the Soviet Union under president George H W Bush, and now teaches international politics at the University of Rhode Island.", and it may put many things into perspective as to what is propaganda and what is not, and who is guilty of peddling it. --Russavia ^Dialogue 18:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm reluctant about those so called "Freedom of the press" ratings, because what they usually measure is in fact the deviation of the POV expressed in the specific medias from the POV of the measuring group. You will be surely surprised to learn that the same press audit conducted by the Russian "independent researchers" cite western and particularly Ukrainian press as most biased. Strange, isn't it? Practical conclusion: I think that the best policy for WP is to stick to the verifiable facts (so I agree with Beagel on this Yushchenko letter issue). --ZYV (talk) 18:42, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I preferred to use sources who have nothing to do with the conflict (in other words no Russian or Ukrainian ones) so I tried to use Reuters and BBC as sources as much as I could. Unfortunately they tempt to oversimplify things (that's my opinion!), so leave out facts. The Ukrainian sources I used I did only use to express the opinions of Naftogas, Gazprom and the Ukrainian and Russian politicians. In my view Russia Today is much more a propaganda machine then Ukrainian News Agency and what I (also) heard about Russian press wasn't great either. But I agree to disagree with Russavia. Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Slovakia re-activated shut-down nuclear reactor

News agency of Slovak Republic: Slovakia was forced to shut down two reactors of the Bohunice Nuclear Power Plant by the treaty of accession into the EU. The second reactor was shut down on 2008-12-31. Gas powered plants were established in the meantime. Due to the current crisis Slovak government decided today to restart the recently closed reactor.

I do not dare to touch the article, it is too messy for me. Pavel Vozenilek (talk) 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for note, I also came across this statement and updated the article. StenSoft (talk) 21:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Some key points from the attached Ukrainian declaration to the "Terms of reference for the monitoring of the transit of natural gas through Ukraine" document.

Reuters had it translated, you can find the text here. I already placed it in the article (reference 131). — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

detailed citations please

Please provide full citations with sufficient detail in order to meet Wikipedia:Verifiability needs. While checking the 2006 dispute I could not find several cites. I do not doubt they existed, but the lack of exact titles, dates, names, publisher, etc, makes it difficult to recover deadlinks when the links become stale. In my opinion it is better to be verbose when adding inline cites and let other editors cleanup the cites later. 84user (talk) 15:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

A source familiar with the work of the monitors told Reuters that Russia was providing gas on Thursday, but in a way that made its successful delivery to Europe difficult.

Can this unanimous source be quoted in this article? What do you think? Cause this is clearly a third party who agrees with Ukraine [25]. It is an heavy accusation to Russia... but anonymous... — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is an ambiguous statement. In fact, I have seen numerous references in the press (Western, Russian and Ukrainian) that Gazprom insists on using only the so-called "export pipes" (the pipelines which are more or less disconnected from the pipelines designed for domestic gas delivery and normally used for international transit) until the matter of price is settled, because it fears that the gas will not be accounted properly and paid accordingly. Ukraine claims it is not possible, because Naftogas will be forced to cut the supplies to the domestic consumers. This brings us to the question how come the domestic deliveries now depend on the export pipes?! The very same anonymous experts clarify that after Gazprom closed the tap, Natfogaz had to switch the pipeline network from the normal "operational mode" when the gas is delivered from East to the West to the so-called "reverse mode" when the gas is pulled from the underground storage facilities to the Eastern part from the West instead. If the flow direction is changed and Russia does not provide a substantial additional gas volume, or supply the gas via the domestic network instead of using only the transit pipes as Ukraine suggests, the pressure will fall and the East of Ukraine will be left w/o gas. So in some way, Gazprom does make it difficult for Urkaine to provide the gas, asking to use only export pipelines, but is it really responsible for Ukraine's inability to keep it's gas transit system in a proper working condition? Or is it responsible for Ukraine not to immediately accept the suggestion to use swapping operations (Ukraine delivers the gas to EU from its domestic network, but in exchange Russia supplies the very same volume the way THEY want it to)?

Having that said I am strongly against quoting the "anonymous experts" (even from Reuters) in the article literally. On other hand, it's difficult to explain the situation clearly and neutrally w/o entering in the highly technical and hardly verifiable details. My suggestion is to wait a few days (or maybe a week?) for the situation to become more clear. Do you find it reasonable? --ZYV (talk) 11:55, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is no that thing as "export pipeline" across Ukraine, which is separated from the rest of the pipeline system. Take a look at this map (propose to use 400% size). The gas was done through Sudzha metering station (the northern one between Russia and Ukraine) and had to leave Ukraine through Orlovka metering station (the southern one near to the Black Sea). AS you see, the route is not logical and there are a lot of connections with the rest of the Ukraine's gas grid. At the same time, as the system was switch off of normal functioning, it at first need to be filled to get. From the technical point of view, the route from Sudzha to Orlovka is most complicated and it will disrupt the Ukrainian supplies from its storages in the Western Ukraine to the eastern part of Ukraine, where the largest gas consumers (metal industries) are located, because the need to maintain necessary pressure for the transit. Beagel (talk) 20:20, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Wow, indeed, this map is a treasure! Thank you very much for sharing. I wonder whether it is possible to somehow add this map as a reference to the article (I guess we are not allowed to upload it to the Commons because of the unclear licensing status, aren't we?!).

I agree with you that the notion of "export pipes" in a sense that they are completely isolated from the domestic network almost does not exist, at least in Ukraine (Soviet heritage; no one ever thought to separate them for transit security reasons as Ukraine was part of the USSR). Still there are two bigger pipelines as opposed to the small local branches which were export-oriented (Shebelinka/Sumy -> Uzhgorod to Brotherhood and Shebelinka / Sumy + SOYUZ -> Orlovka to Balkans) and they were designed for the gas to flow from East to the West (arrows on the map), that is what I was referring as "export pipes".

However, I don't see how Sudzha -> Sumy -> Kremenchug -> Orlovka is illogical: the first deliveries are to be made to the Balkan countries which were the most hurt by the severe weather conditions and gas shortage, and Orlovka branch is the shortest and most high-throughput line in this direction, moreover, it appears that it has a reliable metering station. Of course, the pressure will fall and everybody to the East from Krivoy Rog are going to be left on their own, but this will be the case no matter which route to the Balkans they chose, unless Gazprom agrees to fill the whole grid including the smaller domestic branches, and not to supply enough pressure only for the "export pipes" to work?! Could you please shed a light on this issue? --ZYV (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree to wait till the situation is more clear! This is getting a bit to technical for me. Thanks for explaining a "Gas swap"! I didn't get it at first, but now I don't get why Ukraine didn't agree with it (to technical difficult?). — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, I poorly understand the technical difficulties behind the swaps as apparently they do not require for the flow direction to change; if you find some more info on the issue, please share! Maybe we will get some more insight after the talks to be held tomorrow... --ZYV (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Moscow summit

, that seems to have been a complete waste of time. Could anybody find some positive/good news about it? Please share of course. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

Does this article benefit from placing this map in it (it ads context?)? I personal find articles without pictures hardly readable :) I know wiki is not a cartoon book, but no pictures make articles dry as the Sahara...

Countrys with largest reserves of natural gas

— Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally like pictures and particularly I like good maps, but this map has very weak linkage to the topic of this article, if any. I personally can't see any added-value of having this map in the article.Beagel (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is picture wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes&diff=262949378&oldid=262947413

Map of European countries with gas supply cut. Red countries are entirely without gas supply, pink countries' gas supply is not cut entirely but lower than their consumption, grey countries are not affected or have not stated so.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanuan (talk • contribs) 12:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For several reasons. It is not clear if the gas supply cut applies to all gas supplies or gas supplies from Russia or only gas supplies from Russia through Ukraine. In the first case, Slovenia, Croatia, Turkey and probably some other countries are wrong colored because they have other alternative supplies. If it shows supplies from Russia, e.g. Italy has to be should be red-colored, but Turkey should be pink, because it has also direct pipeline from Russia. If the third option, all mentioned countries should be red because there is no supplies through Ukraine at the moment.Beagel (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be that reds have no gas supplies except their storages and pinks have limited supplies (lower than their consumption), so Turkey, Slovenia, Croatia and Romania should be pink. StenSoft (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Ukraine be red too? After all it didn't get gas before the other country's! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it should be pink. Most of its own consumption is supplied by its own production but it needs Russian gas too. StenSoft (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even knew that.... until a friend from Ukraine told me that a couple of says ago... News agency's never mentioning it! Shouldn't that information be put in the article too (+ refs of course)? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also Austria and Hungary have some gas production of their own. Of cause, this is quite limited compared to their total consumption. What kind of color it should be if one affected country supplies some of their gas reserves to other affected country (e.g. Ukraine to Moldova; Hungary to Serbia etc)? Beagel (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, consider, what changes are neaded and I'll do it. --Vanuan (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Joke

Can somebody please explain me how can members of CSIS be Wikipedia reliable source. Aim of CSIS is:

"CSIS was dedicated to finding ways for America to sustain its prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world."

In wikipedia statement of similar organizations can be used only like joke or with aim of writing POV articles.--Rjecina (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason to believe that regarding the dispute between Russia and Ukraine (and citing in this particular article), this particular source is more biased than Ukrainian or Russian sources used in this article? I would like to propose that before removing this source, you would bring it for discussion at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything is OK, because only statement of Chow is not problematic. Problematic/controversial statement which has been against all other sources has been removed by me on 18 January and nobody has missed that--Rjecina (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Make a separate article?

I think the current gas dispute deserves a separate article.

There is also an interesting interview by Andrei Illarionov at Echo of Moscow: here (Russian). Some numbers:

• Ukraine takes 15% of transported gas as payment for the transit, but Russia takes 30% of gas that transported by other countries [apparently Turkmenistan] through its territory.
• Russia wants $418 or 450 per 1000 cubic M of gas from the Ukraine, but it sells gas to Germany for $280 per 1000 cubic M.
• Russia pays to Ukraine $1,7 per 1000m3 for transport, but it pays 2,5 to 3,9 euro to Germany for the same.Biophys (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but lets wait the end of this dispute. This article should be stay parent article with summary sections about 2005/2006 and 2008/2009 disputes and current information should be move to separate articles. But I don't think this is the best time in the middle of conflict to do this. Beagel (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to spin off articles about 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 disputes and include in this article only summary of these newly created articles. While the conflict of 2008-2009 still continues, we should still wait with this; however, there is no reason to wait with 2005-2006 dispute article. I propose to move the current section Dispute of 2005–2006 into the new article Russia–Ukraine gas dispute of 2005–2006 and include here only summary. I propose to put in this article a following summary based on the current text:

If you agree, I will make this move. Beagel (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! I say: go ahead and make the separation! It should make the present article more readable. I agree also to wait for the 2008-2009 separation. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.Beagel (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Spin off article for 2009 dispute has created.Beagel (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)