Pipeline Politics
Gazprom Kills Gas Supply to Ukraine
show comments
  • Pete

    The freeloaders bluff was called.

    • ShadrachSmith

      And it is the Greens who have made Europe into energy freeloaders. On a related topic it is NATO that made Europe into defense freeloaders. European politics has freeloading as its fundamental principle. That policy has its own costs, apparently.

  • lukelea

    Maybe we were foolish to encourage the Ukrainian coup and revolution as we have done? Have we encouraged the new Ukrainian government to tone down its military response in the east? There are reports of indiscriminate artillery and bombing? Are they true?

  • Considering how Ukraine has bought gas at below-market prices for ages now (and by below-market, I mean WAY lower than what other European consumers were paying), forgive me if I don’t have too much sympathy about the new Ukrainian regime’s latest whining.

    • LivingRock

      It was in exchange for Russia locating it’s Black Sea Naval Fleet in a Ukrainian base in Crimea per a 2010 agreement. Well, Russia blew that agreement with…you know…the whole invasion thing and taking of the territory. This isn’t about pricing or collection of bills. It’s about wielding power, period.

      • Andrew Allison

        You are overlooking the fact that, as a direct result of the EU’s idiotic attempt to draw Ukraine into its orbit, Crimea voted for annexation with Russia. Also that, in exchange for Ukraine dismantling its nuclear arsenal, the West guaranteed its territorial integrity. Following your logic, the fact that Russia no longer needs to “rent” Sevastopol from the Ukraine is entirely the fault of the EU, which compounded the felony by recommending that Ukraine hold out for the average price it’s paying. It’s unclear which of the two are the more disconnected from reality.

        • LivingRock

          Crimea’s “vote” was under the barrel of an invading Russia gun. The grievances (which really exist or not) of the Crimean people were not handled properly to say the least.

          Russia was also an agreeing party in the 1994 Budapest Memorandum saying they would respect the territorial integrity of Ukraine in exchange for giving up nukes. Oops on that…

          • Andrew Allison

            Crimea was part of Russia until 60 years ago, it’s population is 58.5% Russian, and there was no Russian invasion. While the size of the vote majority was no-doubt influenced by the long-standing Russian presence (there was no invasion), there is very little doubt that the outcome would have been the same absent that influence. The truth is that the annexation of Crimea became inevitable when the pro-Europeans overthrew the Yanukovych government.

  • Andrew Allison

    To argue that, “This is Putin wielding his energy weapon, a tool he’s been menacing Ukraine and the West with from the beginning of this conflict.” is either sophomoric or disingenuous. Ukraine entered into contracts under which it is in default and, regardless of the geopolitical issues, Gazprom is well within its rights. The real problem here is that, thanks to misleading signals from the EU, the new government of Ukraine has consistently overestimated its bargaining power.

  • Jacksonian_Libertarian

    Putin is an Idiot, he is trying to recreate and empire that fell for good reason. Here he is angering the entire West, and turning the Ukraine into deadly enemies. What’s to stop the West from arming the Ukrainians like they did the Mujahideen? Putin could have bought the Ukraine with kindness and economic investment; instead he acts like Stalin and Hitler and just tries to take it in the strong arm method.

© The American Interest LLC 2005-2017 About Us Masthead Submissions Advertise Customer Service
We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.