What was actually the subject of the gas negotiations led by Ukraine’s Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko in Moscow and what are their outcomes? This is the question that is being asked even by those who attentively followed her visit to the Russian capital. Even the top Ukrainian leaders do not have any concrete information yet. Proof of this is the statement issued last Friday by the head of the Presidential Secretariat, Viktor Baloha, who announced that Tymoshenko will give a detailed report during her traditional Monday meeting with the president and the head of the Verkhovna Rada.
Baloha also unequivocally implied that the results of the prime minister’s two-day visit were poor. “Tymoshenko’s visit to Moscow has proven that a search for the result will be successful only once all efforts are well coordinated and have a single aim.” A masterful politician has to be able to camouflage his main thoughts. Baloha successfully uses this trick by laying particular emphasis on positive aspects of the objects of his critiques. In his opinion, the important thing is for the government to understand the whole range of problems in the relations between Ukraine and Russia in the sphere of gas supply.
“The Cabinet of Ministers has accepted the president’s words that the country cannot live on credit as a drastic directive to pay off all the debts on time. There is no other variant in the further development of relations with Russia in the energy sphere.” Baloha did not waste any time emphasizing that the Tymoshenko meetings and negotiations in Moscow were a sequel to the agreements concluded between Viktor Yushchenko and Vladimir Putin. Above all, this refers to their decision that the gas consumed in 2007 would be paid for according to last year’s contract prices.
The next task of the Cabinet of Ministers is to develop agreements between Naftohaz Ukrainy and Gazprom on the gas supply under the mutually beneficial conditions that were agreed on by both presidents. “The head of state is waiting for concrete offers from the government,” the head of the Presidential Secretariat said.
The competition for gas laurels is also apparent in a statement issued by the Presidential Secretariat, in which an unnamed individual was warned specifically on Feb. 21 about personal responsibility for not adhering to the president’s directives. Was this a preemptive demarche or were there any concrete grounds for this? As far as I remember, there have never been any statements of this kind even during the trips abroad of ex-prime minister Viktor Yanukovych.
Meanwhile, First Vice-Prime Minister of Ukraine Oleksandr Turchynov was acting as a re-broadcaster of Tymoshenko’s gas ideas and her advocate in Kyiv. “We believe there is no need to establish a joint company to assist Ukraine in its work on the domestic market,” he explained to journalists last Friday, declaring that Naftohaz Ukrainy is capable of independent work on the domestic market. In Turchynov’s opinion, during her visit to Moscow, Prime Minister Tymoshenko managed to convey to the Russian side the idea that a change of intermediaries is not a decision. This is what Tymoshenko said in this connection: “During our negotiations with Gazprom, which lasted for many hours, we developed a clear plan for helping Ukraine cast off the yoke that is represented by RosUkrEnergo and UkrHazEnerho.”
There are some indisputable kernels of truth here. But does not this continuing “persecution” of these intermediaries on Tymoshenko’s part conflict with the publicized agreements between the Ukrainian and Russian presidents on the creation of two new joint companies that will be working on the Ukrainian market?
The words of praise that Baloha addressed to Tymoshenko for her competence in paying off the gas debts “in full and on time” are more likely his attempt to present the desired thing as reality. As confirmation of this, one could cite fragments of the president’s uncharacteristically harsh statements that are a direct reminder of the hot summer of 2005.
According to President Yushchenko, the situation where Kyiv is not paying for Russian gas “deserves to be assessed in the most negative way.” “What should be the response to such inconsistent behavior? I say frankly: the vector of decisions that are being adopted can be very broad. And this is a matter of the country’s security, rhythmic supply of resources, and the successful functioning of our economy and other things that perhaps concern the moral-ethical aspect of our relations rather than their applied part,” the president said. This vocabulary, which was broadly used within the period when the early elections were on the agenda, is proof that Yushchenko is furious.
What does the community of experts think about all this? The well-known oil and gas analyst, Mykhailo Honchar, gave his comments to The Day about the results of Tymoshenko’s visit to Moscow. “All the sides taking part in the negotiation process, starting at the level of presidents and prime ministers and finishing with the corporate level, are interpreting the results of the visits to Moscow as beneficial for them. Once again this is proof that no real results were achieved, and there couldn’t have been any. There is no doubt that the negotiation process has started and it is continuing, but it is impossible to effect any fundamental changes within such a short period, even if there were goodwill on both sides. The thing is that the RosUkrEnergo scheme, which was launched in July 2004 and based on an agreement designed for a quarter-century — until 2028 — has become very powerful. Even if both sides manage to come to some sort of agreement, this does not mean that they will be able to implement their decision and change the format of gas relations. And the statements in this connection have a clear PR character, whereas the other side is openly or secretly disavowing them or interpreting them in its own favor. The main reason for this is the lack of transparency in this sector both in Ukraine and the world gas trade. Ukraine is losing out here, especially because it lacks information. Even the European Commission, which generally took Ukraine’s side in 2005-06, is now taking a very cautious attitude.”
