Originally posted on Jan. 3, 2006, this article still applicable to the Europe’s dependency on Russian gas today.
So it happened that on the first day of the New Year, Russia’s gas monopoly, Gazprom, shut down gas supply to Ukraine.
“Gas is not flowing at all through some transit routes, which can lead to a fall in pressure in all the pipelines and limit the overall supply of gas to Ukraine and Europe,†Ukrainian gas company spokesman Eduard Zaniuk told the Associated Press. However, he said, “for the people and municipal services there will be enough gas.”
The economic war began when Ukraine did not meet the Dec. 31, 2005, deadline to pay a much higher “market” price for the Russian gas. Russia requested Ukraine pay four times more for gas than it did before.
Gas flows through Ukraine to other European countries, such as Germany, a Russia’s partner in under the Baltic Sea gas line. Germany complained that the amount of gas it received was significantly less than it was promised.
A spokesman for Gazprom said that Ukraine may be stealing Russian gas earmarked for the European partners.
“With the aim of preventing a possible energy crisis, caused by Ukraine illegally taking gas, Gazprom has taken the decision to deliver additional gas into the gas transport system of Ukraine,” Gazprom was quoted in The Telegraph.
“We stress that the additional delivery of gas is not designed for Ukrainian consumers but is meant for delivery to consumers outside the borders of Ukraine.”
Of course, one cannot look at economics of the post-Soviet region without looking at politics.
Ukraine scheduled the parliamentary elections in March. It will be the first voter test for the “pro-democractic” Ukrainian president, who is confident of voctory.
It is one year since the Orange Revolution, when the people elected a president whom the Russian government did not support. Yulia Tymoshenko, one-time prime minister who stood by Yushchenko left the coalition government to run in the elections. Yushchenko’s son was accused of corruption.
And here comes another test in the form of a gas bill. Russia’s move and Ukrainian President Yushcheko’s seeming inability to handle problems with his fellow-Slav is not something you could put on an election poster for the president’s party in the upcoming elections.
But if Russia’s actions are any indication of the political pressure on its neighbors, the Baltic States are antsy in anticipation. It is no wonder that the news is making front-page headlines in Latvia.
Norman Stone in The Telegraph said the Russian imperialism is likely to find support back home as Russians sat and watched the post-Soviet “near abroad” drift closer to Western Europe. He uses the Baltics as an example:
In the Baltic states, now members of the European Union, there are Russian minorities (and in the case of Latvia an only-just minority). There, the Russians are meant to learn Baltic languages that, with the best will in the world, Russians cannot take seriously as cultural vehicles (and the Euro Parliament is strangely silent as to the linguistic oppression that results, whereas there is jumping up and down about Kurdish in Turkey). The Baltic states are in the end pimples on the Russian back and, in their historic role as entry ports to Europe, better off, for themselves and for Russia, as nominally independent entities.
Could Latvia or all of the EU be next?
The Ukraine (with support from its European friends) has won! The Russian bear is no match against the power of Europe!
What has it won? As far as I heard, it will pay 230$ for gas, as Russia wanted.
I heard 90 dollars and they will get four times as much for allowing russia to have their pipe line over Ukrainian territory.
Hmm, don’t know where you heard it. Check this link:
http://boston.metro.us/metro/international/ap/Russia_Ukraine_Gas.html
A quotation:
“Overall, the deal appears to be a greater win for Russia.”
Ukraine will pay 230$ for gas, while transit price for Russia in increased by 47%. But really (in my opinion) the deal is very unclear, and it doesn’t contribute much to treating Russia and Ukraine as reliable partners by their Western neighbors.
this is from the BBC
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4579648.stm
“The overall price Ukraine will pay will be $95 per 1,000 cubic metres. It will also get paid 47% more for transporting Russian gas to Europe. ”
I read your comments to the post ‘How to create a new Latvian citizen’ and has taken a look at your web site. Your attitude to Russia and Russians in Latvia is clear and I’m not going to persuade you to change you mind about this. It’s just pity for me that such a narrow-minded person has come from England (which is known for its tolerance to nationality). Although I may figure out that your current Latvian residence has greatly influenced your attitude to this problem. I may only notice one thing: your point of view (when it comes to Latvian-Russian problem) is unipolar. Try to put yourself into a place of those cursed Russians that you hate so much.
Just where did I say that I hate Russians? Where does my web-site even mention Russians? What I do hate is their arrogant attitude that they are the most wonderful people in the world and that everybody else is untermensch. My point of view is obtained by living with Russians (I have a Russian wife)over the past two years. They take everything Latvia has to offer, but in return only insult ethnic Latvians and the Latvian language. I came to Latvia pro-Russian, as I have been all my life (I was in the English Communist Party) – but since being in Latvia my eyes have been opened. It is the Russians who call every Latvian a Nazi and every Latvian woman a prostitute who are narrow-minded and racialist. I have a open mind to every thing, but what I have seen and heard here has made me very sad. There can be no future for Latvia while such attitudes exist.
A quote from another comment by you: “Yes, there is a large Russian-speaking population in Latvia – most of whom who came as occupiers or as famlies of occupiers – many of whom act as if they were still occupiers.”
Let’s take people who came to work in Latvia and settled there at Soviet time when there was one big country. Are they or members of their families occupiers? Let’s take people who move there with their families because they were on military service. You know, military men don’t have a right of choice – they should move to where they are ordered to. Why are they occupiers? What do you think of this, I wonder?
I’ve spent enough time in Riga, though I never lived there for a long period. I talked to many people who were Russians and Latvians, and I never heard a Russian calling Latvian ‘a Nazi’. There are many narrow-minded persons among both Latvians and Russians, and what those persons say do not necessarily reflect the reality.
Concerning your site, you offer English lessons. You say ‘If you are Latvian, live in Riga and wish to learn…’. Given that in Riga there are more Russians than Latvians, you simply narrow the possible circle of your clients. I’d definitely reject such an offer if I’d live in Riga, since I’m not a Latvian.
Forgive me for chiming in.
As long as we separate people who live in Latvia to ethnic Latvians and ethnic Russians, we will not move forward.
I don’t have a problem with “If you’re a Latvian…” statement. In English, Latvian can be used both to mean a resident of Latvia and a person who is ethnically Latvian. In the old English, it used to be a Lett. I try to make it clear on this site and in this comment if I’m talking about ethnicity or residency.
I cannot say all (insert nationality here) are (insert a claim here). There are Letts who were instrumental in helping Latvia join and continue to exist in the Soviet Union. There are ethnic Russians, or Russophones to be precise, who now work in the Latvian government. It is impossible to separate people based purely on the ending of their last name or a slight Slavic accent in their voices. I personally think it’s a waste of time and intellectual resources.
And, by the way, the term Russophone encompasses the Russian-speaking minority in Latvia, as some of them came from other former Soviet republics whose first language may not have been Russian, but whose language of preference today is Russian.
Regarding workers coming to Latvia from other republics. You may or may not know there was a plan in the late 1980s to build an underground system in Latvia. The plan, incepted by the current socialist leader Alfreds Rubiks called on thousands and thousands of builders to come to Latvia to build this grandious project. Those people would have been assigned to Latvia and would have had no knowledge of the Latvian language. Therefore, it would have made the Letts an ethnic minority in their own republic.
My grandparents speak no Latvian although they are citizens of the country and lived there for generations. Why? It wasn’t required in the Soviet Union.
The nationality trend is changing in Riga. Now Letts superceed numerically other nationalities.
The Nazi argument will float back to top as we approach March 16, a rememberance day for SS Legionares. But as you may notice all those who took part in the SS volunteer division do not wear the SS uniform, while the Soviet veterans as they gather at the freedom monument do. It’s hard to judge which ones were the freedom fighters, but one thing I’m certain, both sides have a right to celebrate their days of rememberance. But as we approach March 16, you’ll see a lot of news stories in the Russia’s media about Nazi veterans coming out and the government encouraging them to do so. While I understand how Russians feel about Nazis, I do not understand a complete misunderstanding of Latvia’s history by the Russian media.
I’m not much for strong labels such as occupiers. I do think those who relocated to Latvia in the Soviet days must undergo a different form of requirements than those who lived in 1940s. It’s called a citizenship law. Non-citizens regardless of their ethnicity must pass a language test and swear an oath to the republic of Latvia. The law has been changed several times, but this requirement is not going to go away. But because majority of Russophone noncitizens believe the citizenship is theirs by right, the naturalization process has been slowing down. And because of the fact that they believe the citizenship is theirs right, I’d say, they reflect an impreialist thinking which is very much alive from the Soviet days. It’s no different than an American tourist in France expecting a French waiter to speak English.
It may be of interest to Dmitry that of the 14 ‘Latvians’ who come to me for private lessons only three have Latvian as their first language – the other 11 are Russian speakers. I did not intend that my mention of English lessons for Latvians would be taken as meaning only for Latvian speakers. Surely every one with a Latvian passport, living in Latvia is Latvian – or am I being too simple?
I don’t see how you can claim citizenship of one nation as a “right,” yet be loyal to another country and identify as a member of another country, especially when that country has acted historically antagonistic towards your adopted homeland.
Can you imagine a Brit settling down in Galway and flying the union Jack, reminiscing about the “good old days” when we were “one big country.”
Somebody is going to have to get off the fence.
Boy, it really is hard to get off of this topic- from the gas pipeline to Latvian- Russian tensions!
I had a very interesting New Year’s eve. I spent it with one ethnic Latvian from Latvia and an ethnic Russian who was born and raised in Latvia but now lives in NYC. Even on New Year’s eve the three of us couldn’t resist discussing the ethnic tension issue. I will say, though, that despite some differing views, we all got along very well (which, of course, there should be no reason not to get along just because of some differing intellectual views). The strangest thing was that the ethnic Russian (despite having lived in Latvia her whole life but for the past few years) had little emotional connection with Latvia and no desire to return, whereas, I (someone who has never lived there) have a strong connection to my “Latvianess†and (at times) a desire to move there. I guess it really shows that because of the ethnic differences in Latvia, many Russian-Latvians do not feel that Latvia is their country and that the parents and grandparents of American-Latvians really did a good job in instilling (brainwashing?) a sense of pride and duty in their children.
The fact that there are some third-generation Latvian Americans who speak perfect Latvian even though they have never been to Latvia still amazes me. I had struggled to find a similar situation among any Russians in the West. Most of often than not, they assimilated and took pn themselves a host country’s culture.
I spoke of this in a recent conversation with my Russian-speaking friend who now lives in Ireland. His response: well, they (the ethnic Latvians) are afraid to lose their culture and language, whereas the Russians don’t have that fear.