Imperial gas ambitions

These days we are mostly debating the ways to modernize Ukraine’s gas transportation system (GTS) and the need for Russia’s participation in this process. The opinions are polarized, as is often the case, although under the circumstances one ought to remember the adage that he who does not remember his past has no future.

The Day was recently reminded of this old truth by Ivan DIYAK, a noted Ukrainian politician, member of the Verkhovna Rada (elected there three times running), who is an expert in the energy field. Diyak is a historian and currently an advisor to the president of Ukraine and the chief consultant to the chairman of the board, Naftohaz Ukraine.

Diyak met with The Day’s editor in chief Larysa Ivshyna and presented her with his books, including Khto zakhystyt nash narod i dershavu: shtrykhy do istorii ta siohodennia Kompartii Ukrainy (Who is There to Defend Our People and Our State: Sketches on the History of the Communist Party of Ukraine), Ukraina-Rosiia. Istoriia ta suchasnist (Ukraine–Russia: History and Current Realities), Natsionalne vidrodzhennia chy nova rusifikatsia? (National Revival or New Russification?). All of them, especially his book entitled Piata kolona (The Fifth Column), should be used as a handbooks by all who are really interested in our national history and the people who are concerned about Ukraine’s future. Diyak’s recommendations concerning the relations between Ukraine and the Russian Federation are topical and meaningful.

“I have always tried to find answers to questions relating to our life and political developments by drawing parallels with history,” he says. For example, he applies this method to Russia’s current political course. In his first book Diyak compares the statutes of the Communist Party in Ukraine and Russia. He says that the CPU statute determines the Soviet Union “not as an empire but as a great community composed of brotherly peoples,” whereas the Russian statute has it in black and white that “the Soviet Union was the geopolitical successor to the Russian empire.” Interestingly, when Ivan Diyak gave copies of this book to Ukraine’s leading Communists, Petro Symonenko and Adam Martyniuk, neither had any comments or objections. “They said there was no denying the hard facts. So the whole story is simple and clear,” says Diyak.

He reminds the reader of the existence of the fifth column, the Trojan Horse, the latter-day collaborationists in Ukraine who are serving other countries’ interests. Diyak writes in his book that it is vitally important for Ukraine to find ways to counteract this fifth column.

His book Natsionalna trahedia i borotba za nezalezhnist (National Tragedy and Struggle for Independence) helps understand Ukraine’s historical experience. Here the emphasis is on explaining the reasons behind Ukraine’s political fiascos and their consequences. The author pays special attention to the phenomena of treachery and political ambitions within the Ukrainian elite and their role in the tragedy of the Ukrainian nation. He uses Ukraine’s historical experience as a benchmark for analyzing its current political, cultural, and economic realities. He offers a detailed treatment of current counterparts of negative tendencies that caused Ukraine’s government and people to suffer fiascos in the past and emphasizes the old truth: forewarned is forearmed.

Diyak’s other work entitled Manifest ukraintsia (Ukrainian Manifesto) is the logical sequel to this book. Whereas the first volume identifies the threats facing Ukraine, proceeding from this country’s historical experience, the second one formulates Ukraine’s position that will make it possible to neutralize all such threats. All great European nations embarked on their road to historical victories after clearly formulating and understanding their demands. Diyak expresses his conviction that the Ukrainian nation is no exception, being a member of the European community of nations.

What is happening on the energy market is proof of his other assumption: Ukraine remains in the Russian Federation’s sphere of influence which is a threat to the Ukrainian state. Therefore, any decision in terms of cooperation with Russia has to be made after considering all the pros and cons in the political, economic, and historical domains.

Mr. Diyak, what do you think is uppermost on the Kremlin’s mind in regard to upgrading Ukraine’s gas transportation system?

“Russia is nervous; they are scared stiff by alternatives. The thing is that Russia doesn’t have that much gas left — and it has to reckon with Iran, the Middle East, and Turkmenistan that have more gas fields. Europe has sent all of Russia’s strategy down the drain by agreeing to upgrade Ukraine’s GTS.”

Do you think that Russia will respond to the agreement between Ukraine and the EU by revising the existing gas supply contract?

“Be that as it may, Ukraine remains the [gas/oil] transit country: 80 percent of Russia’s gas is supplied to Europe through our pipeline.”

Could Russia be invited to take part in the upgrading of Ukraine’s GTS?

“It could, but only on partnership terms. If Russia is willing to make investments, we will welcome that and insist on loans that we will be obliged to repay rather than what they want to do now — seizing our GTS. This is against our law. The Russians have chosen another strategy: we won’t let them have our GTS, so they want to get our [gas] consumer market under control, with the aid of RosUkrEnergo or Ukrhasenergo that have started privatizing local gas distribution companies, and so on). Their strategy boils down to something like, ‘May your pipeline rot!’”

What is you main recommendation to our political leadership in terms of gas deals with Russia?

“Make deals only in terms of loans in order to prevent Russians from meddling in Ukraine’s domestic affairs.”

Does Russia have an alternative to Ukraine as a gas transit country and consumer? What do you think of speculations that Russia may reorient toward China, for example?

“How is Russia supposed to supply gas to China? There is no infrastructure.”

Do you mean to say that Russia does not have an alternative?

“It does not at the moment. As long as there two bypassing pipelines are not in place, Ukraine’s GTS will remain the main channel. Russia can pump 50 billion cubic meters through Belarus, that’s all. Even if they decide to build Nord Stream and South Stream, which will be pumping 40–60 billion cubic meters, $40 billion will have to be shelled out. Who will do this? For what purpose? Just to let Putin have a sequel to his aggressive policy in Europe?”

Do you think that Vladimir Putin could be persuaded that the current version of Ukraine’s GTS has a future for Ukraine, the European Union, and Russia?

“You have to realize that Putin is after something else: he wants to revive the [Russian] empire. Russia’s publishing companies are churning out books aimed at rehabilitating Stalin. The press keeps publishing articles that discredit Ukraine, its nation, and its language. Other principles are at play here.”

Should we keep trying to talk Putin into revising his stand under the circumstances?

“The market will make him revise his stand.”

Should Ukraine borrow five billion dollars from Russia under the circumstances?

“I would not do that, especially considering that European banks are offering money. Russia may well use this loan to Ukraine’s detriment. There may well be further encroachments on Ukraine if it has these debts to pay. It is possible to do business if partnership relations are in place; otherwise we should not agree to any ventures.”

Do you think that Ukraine has any prospects of building partnership relations with Russia?

“This is hardly likely. Let me tell you that I knew about [Russia’s] first gas attack in 2006 in the summer of the previous year. I warned them but, unfortunately, no one would listen to me. At the same time, Russia is our neighbor and partner. Our neighborly relations must be equitable and mutually beneficial, which will do good to both countries.”

How do you think this situation will affect the Nabucco pipeline project?

“I think that this project has to be carried out. Europe, however, does a lot of talking without doing anything. Russia, as usual, is doing its best to prevent this alternative project from becoming a reality. The White Stream project proposed by the Ukrainian cabinet has the best prospects for Ukraine and Europe. It envisages natural gas supplies to Europe from the Middle East, which has the world’s largest gas deposits estimated at 76 trillion cubic meters. In this case Ukraine’s GTS and underground gas storage facilities could be put to effective use.”