Talk:Russia–Ukraine gas disputes

New prices

[1] = new price; [2] = what people will pay!

Make a separate article?

I think the current gas dispute deserves a separate article.

There is also an interesting interview by Andrei Illarionov at Echo of Moscow: here (Russian). Some numbers:

• Ukraine takes 15% of transported gas as payment for the transit, but Russia takes 30% of gas that transported by other countries [apparently Turkmenistan] through its territory.
• Russia wants $418 or 450 per 1000 cubic M of gas from the Ukraine, but it sells gas to Germany for $280 per 1000 cubic M.
• Russia pays to Ukraine $1,7 per 1000m3 for transport, but it pays 2,5 to 3,9 euro to Germany for the same.Biophys (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but lets wait the end of this dispute. This article should be stay parent article with summary sections about 2005/2006 and 2008/2009 disputes and current information should be move to separate articles. But I don't think this is the best time in the middle of conflict to do this. Beagel (talk) 05:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to spin off articles about 2005-2006 and 2008-2009 disputes and include in this article only summary of these newly created articles. While the conflict of 2008-2009 still continues, we should still wait with this; however, there is no reason to wait with 2005-2006 dispute article. I propose to move the current section Dispute of 2005–2006 into the new article Russia–Ukraine gas dispute of 2005–2006 and include here only summary. I propose to put in this article a following summary based on the current text:

If you agree, I will make this move. Beagel (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! I say: go ahead and make the separation! It should make the present article more readable. I agree also to wait for the 2008-2009 separation. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 15:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Done.Beagel (talk) 20:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Spin off article for 2009 dispute has created.Beagel (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Why is picture wrong?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes&diff=262949378&oldid=262947413

Map of European countries with gas supply cut. Red countries are entirely without gas supply, pink countries' gas supply is not cut entirely but lower than their consumption, grey countries are not affected or have not stated so.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanuan (talk • contribs) 12:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

For several reasons. It is not clear if the gas supply cut applies to all gas supplies or gas supplies from Russia or only gas supplies from Russia through Ukraine. In the first case, Slovenia, Croatia, Turkey and probably some other countries are wrong colored because they have other alternative supplies. If it shows supplies from Russia, e.g. Italy has to be should be red-colored, but Turkey should be pink, because it has also direct pipeline from Russia. If the third option, all mentioned countries should be red because there is no supplies through Ukraine at the moment.Beagel (talk) 14:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be that reds have no gas supplies except their storages and pinks have limited supplies (lower than their consumption), so Turkey, Slovenia, Croatia and Romania should be pink. StenSoft (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't Ukraine be red too? After all it didn't get gas before the other country's! — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 21:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Well it should be pink. Most of its own consumption is supplied by its own production but it needs Russian gas too. StenSoft (talk) 01:24, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't even knew that.... until a friend from Ukraine told me that a couple of says ago... News agency's never mentioning it! Shouldn't that information be put in the article too (+ refs of course)? Mariah-Yulia (talk) 02:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Also Austria and Hungary have some gas production of their own. Of cause, this is quite limited compared to their total consumption. What kind of color it should be if one affected country supplies some of their gas reserves to other affected country (e.g. Ukraine to Moldova; Hungary to Serbia etc)? Beagel (talk) 18:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Please, consider, what changes are neaded and I'll do it. --Vanuan (talk) 14:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Moscow summit

, that seems to have been a complete waste of time. Could anybody find some positive/good news about it? Please share of course. — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 19:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yushchenko vetoed gas deal last year?

According to Reuters [3]: Last year, Tymoshenko flew to Moscow and agreed a gas deal with Putin, only to see Yushchenko veto it once she returned home. I don't have any recollection of that and couldn't find it on the internet either... does anybody got some insight on this? — Mariah-Yulia (talk) 01:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you have written above.

Thank you for writing this.

I started a section concerning Russian Propaganda using incorrect references. This current article is very libelous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.162.168.156 (talk) 12:35, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

There's noone who is free of their own interests, and Russian propaganda is a cliche of the same sort as imperialist propaganda or Bushists, etc. What's worse, you don't even have a cliche of Ukrainian propaganda, and that makes you think Russia may not depend on Ukrainian gas transport system as much as Ukraine depends on cheap Russian gas.FeelSunny (talk) 19:00, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Joke

Can somebody please explain me how can members of CSIS be Wikipedia reliable source. Aim of CSIS is:

"CSIS was dedicated to finding ways for America to sustain its prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world."

In wikipedia statement of similar organizations can be used only like joke or with aim of writing POV articles.--Rjecina (talk) 16:38, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Is there any specific reason to believe that regarding the dispute between Russia and Ukraine (and citing in this particular article), this particular source is more biased than Ukrainian or Russian sources used in this article? I would like to propose that before removing this source, you would bring it for discussion at the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Beagel (talk) 19:08, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Everything is OK, because only statement of Chow is not problematic. Problematic/controversial statement which has been against all other sources has been removed by me on 18 January and nobody has missed that--Rjecina (talk) 18:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Map

Does this article benefit from placing this map in it (it ads context?)? I personal find articles without pictures hardly readable :) I know wiki is not a cartoon book, but no pictures make articles dry as the Sahara...

Countrys with largest reserves of natural gas

— Mariah-Yulia (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally like pictures and particularly I like good maps, but this map has very weak linkage to the topic of this article, if any. I personally can't see any added-value of having this map in the article.Beagel (talk) 21:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Russian Propaganda

Please read the listed references for the 2008-2009 dispute.

The current 2008-2009 dispute section is blatantly slanderous.

This article reads as if Putin supporters have written libelous Russian propaganda. 125.162.168.156 (talk) 12:32, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Would you please cite specific items you find to expose "Russian propaganda", explain why you think those statements are not objective and propose your versions of those sentences? Otherwise your claims don't even sound convincing. --ZYV (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

The IP editor's argument sounds like a Reductio ad Hitlerum. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 06:34, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting article from Der Spiegel

Translated in English can be found here. Although at the moment don't know what to do with it on wikipedia... besides it is a bit POV-ish... But is a good read for people interested in the subject of this wiki-article. — Mariah-Yulia • Talk to me! 21:40, 8 February 2011 (UTC)