Lights, Camera, Action.
President Dmitry Medvedev on Monday accused Ukraine of seeking changes to a contract for the transit of Russian gas across its territory, the latest row over energy between the two feuding states.
Medvedev told the head of state-run Russian gas giant Gazprom that Russia would not accept any move by the Ukrainian authorities to demand advance payment for the transit of Russian gas to European consumers via its soil.
Gas supplies and transit have been a constant sticking point in relations between Ukraine’s pro-Western leaders and Moscow. A dispute over debts and payments sparked supply cuts which left parts of Europe freezing in January.
Speaking at a meeting at the Kremlin, Alexei Miller, Gazprom chief executive, told Medvedev that Ukraine had sought to change the terms of payment for gas transit fees.
He said that such a change was not stipulated in the current contract.
“As far as an idea of an advance payment for tariffs, then I would like to ask you a simple question — is it stipulated in a contract?” Medvedev asked Miller in televised comments.
After receiving a negative answer from Miller, Medvedev said: “Then don’t pay! There’s a need to act in accordance with the contract that has been signed.
“We’ve specially prepared it, it was born in the throes of pain, has been quite seriously developed and we are currently working in line with it.”
“There’s a need to act in accordance with the contract that has been signed.” Amen. Words to live by: what’s sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, no? Try it some time, Dmitri.
I suggest that Turkmenistan, or any of those who have suffered from Russia’s–and notably Gazprom’s–one-sided interpretations of contracts, throw those words back in Medvedev’s (or Putin’s) face some time soon. And since this little dialog between Medvedev and Miller was recorded for posterity, the Turkmenis (or whomever) should be ready to do a Warner Wolff “Let’s go to the videotape” complete with slo-mo and reverse action in order to make it as embarrassing as possible.
And speaking of recording for posterity, I find these little dramas acted out in Medvedev’s office, or in Putin’s, to be extremely odd. (I remember another scene, during January’s Gas War, involving Putin and Miller, that was similarly stagey.) Can anybody offer an explanation as to why these kind of Kabuki plays are evidently so appealing to Russian audiences? (I presume that Medvedev, Putin, and others would not repeatedly employ them unless they were effective.)
I’m also fascinated by these talks – my feeling is that the primary audience is the Russian elite. It’s a way of signalling Putin or Medvedev’s blessing on a deal, so that all those who are opposed to it, or trying to undermine it, don’t waste their time trying to get access to the top to achieve their goals. These meetings are always the end of a process, not the beginning of one. In Biblical times contracts were concluded in front of the elders of the village, who acted as witnesses and as references in future disputes. There’s a similar role played by “thieves-in-law” as resolvers of issues between warring clans. Basically the issue is that because there is no legal system, and no real procedure for making decision, Russia has to resolve to these primitive methods because they have failed to develop anything better.
In a similar way, Medvedev or Putin will often meet someone like a governor or an oligarch to discuss something completely meaningless. This is again the end of a process – either the governor has been under serious attack, and the meeting is designed to display to all (in Moscow and the regions) that he has successfully fought off the attack, and the same with the oligarch. It’s a bizarre modernisation of Russia’s antiquated political discourse, a bit like seeing a hand-held missile transported by a camel. In a more modern state, the entire policy or personnel fight would have been carried out in public, and it would be clear who won. In Russia, everything is done in secret, and only the result is presented in public.
Comment by Sleeper — September 8, 2009 @ 12:48 am
Thanks, Sleeper. Excellent comment, and fascinating observations. Yes, little morality plays designed to communicate the party line in order to facilitate coordination. Your analogy to contract enforcement is also quite apposite.
Just for the record and as expected Russia undermined OPEC again:
“In no uncertain terms, Russia has been the biggest beneficiary of OPEC’s sacrifice,†said Chris Weafer, chief strategist at UralSib Financial Corp., in an interview in Moscow. “Higher prices have equaled a $20 billion tax windfall.â€
——-
“OPEC-Russia cooperation is just useful theater for both sides from time to time,†said Edward Chow, an analyst at the Center of Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “OPEC folks are pretty savvy and cynical about Russia’s duplicitous behavior, which started in Soviet times. I do wonder how long Russia can play this silly game.â€
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=auRxMACtvfPw
Comment by penny — September 8, 2009 @ 9:42 am
Also, it seems that there is another atavistic element in these dramas–the wise ruler demonstrating his dominance over his supplicants. This seems to betray some insecurity.
This too seems to be another shot in the escalating battle with Ukraine.
Professor wrote:
“Can anybody offer an explanation as to why these kind of Kabuki plays are evidently so appealing to Russian audiences? (I presume that Medvedev, Putin, and others would not repeatedly employ them unless they were effective.)
I agree, Professor.
The “Kabuki plays” are effective because Russians are masters of political marketing, – ability and skills to sell political ideas in order to gain support for the ruling bunch, is that Tzar Nikolai, communists, or current fascist system in Russia.
As everyone here knows, I have nothing against fascism in China, Russia, or United States. All mentioned countries are moving to fascism, – the system of strict government control over capitalist economy. China is visibly much ahead of the pack, with excellent achievements in the economy. Yes, the future of the world is fascism in Italian tradition. Benito Mussolini will have the last laugh from his grave.
OK, I’ve drifted away from the subject. Here is my take.
You said, “This too seems to be another shot in the escalating battle with Ukraine.”
I believe, that is the main purpose, and not the articulation of adherence to sanctity of contracts, – excuse me for lack of right words.
The main purpose of this Kabuki is to keep the hate towards Ukraine simmering. When Russians occupy Crimea, most of the Russians will support the action, because they will have been conditioned to such an action.
This Kabuki is just another evidence that Crimea will go back to Russia before O’Bum is out of the office. Medputin will not let this once-in-a-generation chance to slip away. I’ve got a very strong gut feeling about it.
Also, I think that Russians should be allowed to take Crimea. Immediately after that Ukraine and Georgia should be accepted to NATO in an emergency session, – in order to protect these countries from further abuse.
I believe that NATO should make a statement right now that if Russia occupies Crimea, Ukraine will be accepted to NATO immediately, even though there will be no reasonable way to return Crimea back to Ukraine with military actions. Such a statement would serve two purposes, – (1) to show Ukrainians that full occupation of Ukraine will not be allowed, and (2) to show Russia that there is a line in the sand. The Crimea should be used as a bone to the hungry dog infected with rabies.
If anyone lost the sight of it, The Cold War continues, and it’s history will be written by a victor. The loser will sign on the dotted line.
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 8, 2009 @ 2:39 pm
This article expands on what the first comment touched on – a battle between siloviki, between Putin and Medvedev, over who is to contorl Gazprom.
http://jamestownfoundation.blogspot.com/2009/09/putin-medvedev-brawl-over-gazprom-will.html
I would trust Roman Kupchinsky on this – he is extremely knowledgeable about Gazprom and its shenanigans in Ukraine, and throughout Europe.
Earlier, Putin made a deal to let Ukraine buy less than gas than the contract calls for.
http://www.rferl.org/content/Ukraine_Says_Has_Good_Winter_Gas_Stocks_For_Europe/1816836.html
RFE is also reporting that Putin wants to deepen “business ties” in Ukraine – and Tymoshenko wants to deepen “business ties” in Russia.
Comment by elmer — September 8, 2009 @ 9:35 pm
Dear Professor,
Let me make a suggestion about an interesting subject, – how similar are ideas of fascism and contemporary liberalism in the US.
I’ll explain why I support many ideas of Mr. O’Bum, and what I don’t agree with, and why.
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 9, 2009 @ 1:08 pm
I mean, let’s start a discussion about it.
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 9, 2009 @ 1:09 pm
Michael–
Go right ahead. I’ll just start by saying that I think that there are numerous parallels, as I suggest in the post “Tool Time” that just went up (about 2000 on 9/9).
Thank you, Professor.
I will present my arguments in “Tool Timeâ€, even though I’m somewhat late.
Thomas Friedman expressed his admiration for Chinese fascism so well that there is nothing left to add about similarity of contemporary liberalism with fascism. BTW, I agree with his thoughts. I bet a dollar, in the previous life Thomas Friedman was an Italian fascist.
Comment by Michael Vilkin — September 10, 2009 @ 12:28 am
Here’s a bit more on the Putin-Medvedev fight – but this time, in the context of the Ukrainian presidential elections.
Tymoshenko and Putin made a deal, apparently, to allow Ukraine to take less gas than required under the take-or-pay contract.
Note the last paragraph – Putin apparently wants to loan Ukraine $1.5-2 billion to help Ukraine pay for Russian gas deliveries.
And a warning from Vedomosti – that the money would be diverted to the campaign of one of the Ukrainian presidential candidates.
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews%5Btt_news%5D=35462&tx_ttnews%5BbackPid%5D=27&cHash=454becb365
Comment by elmer — September 10, 2009 @ 2:34 pm
Wow, what a discussion here – the Vive il Duce fascist, the Ukrainian ultranationalist, and the Prof. Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right…
Comment by Steve J. Nelson — September 10, 2009 @ 10:07 pm
Penny,
Why is undermining OPEC, a price fixing international cartel, a bad thing again? Just because Russia does it? Another LR Russia is damned if it does, damned if it doesn’t moment…
Increasing Russian production to undermine OPEC and decouple a bit from the Saudis was exactly what Bush wanted after 9/11. Whether wittingly or unwittingly, Cheney and other high level Russophobes in Washington scuppered that.
Comment by Steve J. Nelson — September 15, 2009 @ 7:35 pm