More questions than answers so far
Experts argue about winners and losers in the gas standoff
At nearly the same time when we learned that the Ukrainian and Russian governments had finally found a compromise in the gas standoff that had sent shivers down Europe’s spine for 10 days, a much less significant cultural-political event became known, which, however, is graphic proof of the psychological roots of the gas problem. At the charity auction “Gogol’s Alphabet” in St. Petersburg, Vladimir Putin’s painting “Patterns” sold for 37 million rubles. This objet d’art has clear political connotations. The painting shows a small window of a village hut decorated with Ukrainian embroidered rushnyky and, for some reason, a large letter У (evidently signifying Ukraine.– Ed.). This is how our country is seen by a leader of the neighboring country that is still aspiring to have brotherly relations with us. It remains a mystery how many days Putin spent on his masterpiece and why he risked presenting his design to the judgment of the entire world.
On January 19 few people in Ukraine knew what the real results of the gas talks in Moscow were. There were more questions than answers in what prime ministers Yulia Tymoshenko and Vladimir Putin told after their completion. The answers are as follows: understanding had finally been reached, gas supply and transit to Europe will be resumed after agreements are signed between the respective companies, and the gas price for Ukraine will be 20 percent lower than what Europe will pay, while Ukraine will keep the transit tariff for Russian gas at the 2008 level. The two masters of intrigue and negotiations relieved some of the tension, while at the same time leaving us with uncertainties that make blood freeze. What is the average European gas price that serves as the basis for further calculations?
The fact that comments from Ukraine’s president came fairly late is another cause for alarm. The president had no special quarrel with the gas deal because otherwise the dissatisfaction would have been expressed immediately. So, in all likelihood, this was not a capitulation, as some experts hastened to say. However, the president did not rejoice or congratulate Tymoshenko in order to avoid hampering the final round of negotiations and the signing of the documents, which are scheduled for Monday afternoon. The admonition was voiced too late for the prime minister to heed it — she was already in Moscow. Tymoshenko was reminded of the need for “symmetrical and synchronous adoption of discounts in the gas price and the transit tariff, starting from 2009,” which would be in line with the Ukraine-Russia strategic partnership and agreements reached in 2008 on the level of the presidents and prime ministers of both countries, as well as on the corporate level.
The Russian side was not blowing the trumpet either, restricting itself to an unofficial comment to the effect that they will still get their money after 2009 when they switch, once and for all, to market formulas (the oil and gas prices are sure to rise).
The only person who ventured some kind of information was Volodymyr Lytvyn, Speaker of Ukraine’s Parliament. He said he had spoken on the topic with Oleh Dubyna, head of Naftohaz, and Kostiantyn Hryshchenko, Ukraine’s ambassador to Russia. Lytvyn said that “if these documents are signed, the [gas] price for the year will be $250.” He appears to support the opinion of the Russian and Ukrainian experts who believe that by its de jure consent to adopt market prices Ukraine received much more than a 20-percent discount. Having gas in its underground storage facilities, Ukraine will not have to buy it from Russia in the first quarter of 2009 when its price will be more than 0 for one thousand cubic meters. The average price for 2009 will be determined by subsequent quarters when the gas price in Europe is likely to drop, following the downward curve of the oil price in the previous months. This is Lytvyn’s opinion.
It appears that the critics of the government will have room for their exercises in connection with the talks. For example, Viktor Yanukovych, the leader of the opposition, deplored the fact that the negotiations started “after such a delay” and in the circumstances when Ukrainian citizens were left without central heating, while plants and factories were being stopped because of gas shortages. In his opinion, the talks themselves are a positive thing, but “as far as the result is concerned, it is nearly impossible to reach it in this complicated situation.” The Regions’ leader is expecting a temporary solution.
Whether it has been achieved is difficult to say because yesterday we did not know the gas price for Ukraine and the source and price of process gas that enables transit. There was no news on whether the Russian monopoly had allowed us to re-export gas to Europe. One thing that was certain was that Ukraine had decided to offer Russia a discount transit tariff. What were we fighting for then and why were Ukrainian plants stopped?
The design of the gas conflict organizers could extend far beyond hitting the Ukrainian economy. On the wave of this crisis Ukrainian parliament passed a law on special commissions, which opens the way for impeachment and, even more importantly, to simultaneous presidential and parliamentary elections. Are we still not tired of anarchy? Moreover, the conflict raised doubts about Ukraine’s relations with Europe and our country’s place in world geopolitics.
In an answer to The Day’s question, Mykhailo Honchar, head of the Nomos Center’s energy programs, said: “I would not want to exaggerate the possible influence of the geopolitical realities. It was very difficult to expect that the Ukrainian side would have any success but this is not because someone did something wrong or failed to do something in these days. Ukraine is now reaping the fruit of political chaos that reigned in 2008 and has put our government in a weak position. Therefore, rgardless of the contract, which no one has seen yet, we can only speak about an apparent victory that has minimized our losses. Our greatest loss is that in the conditions of gas aggression directed against both us and the EU, Ukraine has received only moral support from the EU. Europe’s moves were largely symbolic.”
