User:LokiiT/stuff
Alleged political motives
[edit]During the dispute, several theories about alleged political motives behind the conflict surfaced, while both countries accused each other of political blackmail.[1][2]
The Times published an article alleging that the key aim of the Kremlin was to stifle the continued expansion of the EU and NATO into Eastern Europe by exposing Ukraine as an unreliable ally.[3] This view was echoed by Vladimir Milov, president of the Institute of Energy Policy in Moscow and former deputy energy minister of Russia,[4] as well as The Carnegie Moscow Center.[5] The US Ambassador to NATO, Kurt Volker, stated that although it was a commercial dispute, he believed that Russia was using the event to gain political leverage.[6] Contrarily, the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies concluded in a report: "We do not believe that the often-cited desire of the Russian government to use energy as an economic or political ‘weapon' against European countries played any part in this crisis."[7]
According to Fyodor Lukyanov, an editor of the journal Russia in Global Affairs, Ukraine was desperate not to pay more for gas due to the poor state of its economy and believed that the longer the conflict dragged on the more the blame would be laid on Russia, which would give Ukraine a position of strength in negotiating.[8] Gazprom deputy CEO Alexander Medvedev suggested that Ukraine's actions were being orchestrated by the United States. The State Department's spokesman Sean McCormack called the allegation "totally without foundation."[9]
On January 14, Prime Minister Tymoshenko said that an agreement with Russia on prices had nearly been achieved, but had been broken up. She laid blame on RosUkrEnergo’s part owner, Dmitry Firtash, former energy minister Yuri Boiko, and former head of the presidential administration Sergei Levochkin, who had lobbied against the agreement, and suggested that President Yushchenko had been complicit. Shortly after, Boiko countered that Tymoshenko herself had been lobbying in the interests of businesses owners Igor Bakai and Viktor Medvedchuk. According to Boiko, Tymoshenko had delayed payment of Ukraine's debts in order to arrange for a company owned by Medvedchuk and Bakai to export large volumes of Russian gas.[10]
During the first week of the conflict, BBC News reflected upon a theory which suggested that Tymoshenko was colluding with the Kremlin. According to the theory, Tymoshenko was to travel to Moscow in the second week of January to sign a deal with the Kremlin and return home as a victor, having saved Ukraine from the imminent disaster.[11][failed verification]
References
[edit]- ^ Cite error: The named reference
rbmwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ "Russian gas to Europe 'blocked'". BBC. 2009-01-13. Retrieved 2009-01-13.
- ^ Roger Boyes (2009-01-07). "Comment: Gazprom is not a market player, it's a political weapon". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-08.
- ^ "Russia-Ukraine feud goes beyond gas pipes". The International Herald Tribune. 2009-01-14. Retrieved 2009-01-14.
- ^ "Analysis: Ukraine may be bigger loser in gas war". Kyiv Post. 2009-01-19. Retrieved 2009-01-27.
- ^ Rory Watson, David Charter (2009-01-08). "Nato warning for Russia over 'political' gas crisis". The Times. Retrieved 2009-01-10.
- ^ Cite error: The named reference
ox11was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
reuters712009was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
reuters130109was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ The Russo-Ukrainian gas dispute of January 2009: a comprehensive assessment, section 7, Oxford Institute for Energy Studies, Retrieved on 2009-10-13
- ^ "Russia looks to re-route EU gas". BBC. 2009-01-02. Retrieved 2009-01-02.