The question of whether countries should have friendly relations not with each but against some country has always been topical. It also has a direct bearing on the problem of dictators, particularly those who for one reason or another may not be considered as such, because in certain countries that play the role of gurus of democracy it is considered that “our scoundrel” is far less of a scoundrel than one that is not ours.
We all know the list of oil-and-gas dictators who are not affected by democratic criticism. Some Americans even blush when this topic is broached. In contrast, those being criticized, the ones in Asian and European countries, always stand a chance. Once they have a quarrel with Russia or suffer any damage from its attempts to impose market energy supply prices, they find advocates in Europe and across the ocean.
What does this have to do with Ukraine, which has also been known to have shown a flattering attitude to some regimes and frowned on certain oppositionists? Naturally, our country, being heavily dependent on Russia’s oil and gas monopoly, cannot do without alliances offering prospects for the diversification of energy sources. But is it worthwhile accepting dubious and unverified political invitations simply because they imply an opportunity to rid oneself of Moscow’s dictatorship? Perhaps it would be more reasonable above all to weigh all the pros and cons?
As readers may have guessed, this rhetorical question addresses not only the statement made by President Viktor Yushchenko on Thursday, when he expressed the hope that the European Union’s energy strategy will not forget Ukraine as a transit country and supported Lithuanian President Valdas Adamkus’s initiative concerning the need to coordinate the efforts of such transit countries as Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania. What is even more surprising is the stand taken by some of our colleagues, who rushed to build a mountain out of this oil molehill, a mountain that can crush the oil and gas supply arrangements made with Russia; arrangements that are sophisticated but advantageous to Ukraine.
Last Wednesday Deutsche Welle’s Ukrainian Service reported that President Adamkus announced in Washington that Lithuania, Ukraine, and Belarus are working on alternative energy supplies through the Lithuanian port of Klaipeda.
What did Yushchenko actually say? He hopes that a special EU strategy concerning the Central Asian region will be worked out soon: “Without a doubt, Ukraine and other transit countries should not be left out of this context.” The president added that these countries must be participants of this strategy and that the point in question is harmonization of interests within the framework of the general European wholesale energy market. Yushchenko believes that this issue requires a separate direction and separate deliberation when elaborating the energy strategy.
In regard to Adamkus’s initiative promising Belarus assistance to transport oil from the Rotterdam oil exchange, the Ukrainian president said that this dialogue should be developed. He also noted that so far there have been no substantial talks on these subjects. “Although there is a degree of understanding, of course...When the emphasis is on a country’s transit activities, the point in question is obviously a separate economy that must be harmonized with a similar economy of our partners,” said Yushchenko, apparently not meaning to be completely understood.
However, this leaves the impression that Ukraine and Lithuania are offering Minsk their services as advocates. The question is whether one ought to interpret the Ukrainian president’s statement in such a point-blank manner, considering that his recent speeches contain a number of statements testifying to Ukraine’s strategic alliance with Russia (above all its oil and gas supplies).
Our head of state is not likely to hint to his ally that we are collaborating with someone against him simply to “keep company.”
However, this is just an assumption on my part and that of our opponents. No one knows what plans and projects are whirling in the heads of our politicians (yesterday it was a gas consortium, tomorrow it can be an about-face and turn into an expensive triple- oil stream).
Real experts in the field of oil and gas arterial pipelines, whom The Day asked for comment, are anything but enthusiastic about the idea of placing this informational bull in an oil china shop. In their opinion, the inflow of oil from Russia for Ukraine and for exports across its territory is noticeably increasing. This oil-advocating fracas can only damage it. The experts also said that the Lithuanian proposal should be studied, but nothing more than that.
