EU Threatens the Rooskies with a lawsuit

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d5f9962c-e22e-11dd-b1dd-0000779fd2ac.html

I am sure the Russians are quaking in their boots.

EU threatens legal action over gas dispute
By Isabel Gorst in Moscow and Roman Olearchyk in Kiev and Joshua Chaffin in Brussels

Published: January 14 2009 11:31 | Last updated: January 14 2009 12:47

The European Commission is threatening legal action against Russia and Ukraine if they do not restore gas flows to Europe in a sign of mounting frustration at a crisis that has left thousands without fuel in the dead of winter.

”I would like to convey a very clear message to Moscow and Kiev: If the agreement sponsored by the EU is not honoured as a matter of urgency, the Commission will advise EU companies to take this matter to the courts,” Jose Manuel Barroso, the commission president, told the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Wednesday.

“If the agreement is not honoured, it means that Russia and Ukraine can no longer be considered reliable energy suppliers to the EU,” Mr Barroso added.

Meanwhile, in Moscow, Dmitri Medvedev, the Russian president, instructed Gazprom to take legal action against Ukraine to recover $1.1bn worth of losses incurred so far in the dispute.

Mr Medvedev, a former chairman of Gazprom, was speaking the day after the company declared force majeure on its gas sales to Europe, blaming Ukraine for blocking access to markets.

Gazprom opened the gas tap to Ukraine again on Wednesday raising hope of a resumption in supplies to Europe a week after they were halted.

But in a repeat of events on Tuesday, Naftogaz, the Ukrainian state gas company, refused to accept the gas, saying Gazprom had chosen a technically unviable route.

Yulia Tymoshenko, the Ukrainian prime minister, said the pipeline route chosen by Gazprom ”did not permit the transport of Russian gas to the European Union,” and accused Moscow of deliberately complicating the flow of gas through Ukraine’s pipelines.

The continuing dispute between Russia and Ukraine was ”most unacceptable and incredible,” Mr Barroso said.

Officials from European countries worst hit by the crisis rushed to Moscow and Kiev for emergency talks. Robert Fico, the prime minister of Slovakia, which claims to have 12 days of gas reserves left, appealed to Ukraine to release emergency gas supplies from storage during talks on Wednesday morning in Kiev with Yulia Tymoshenko, his Ukrainian counterpart.

Mr Fico later joined the prime ministers of Bulgaria and Moldova in a meeting with Vladimir Putin, the Russian president, in Moscow . Mr Putin accused Ukraine of taking Europe hostage in the dispute about gas supplies. “No country has the right to take other countries hostage, taking advantage of their transit role,” he said.

Viktor Yushchenko, Ukraine’s president, arrived in Poland on Wednesday to shore up support for Ukraine’s position.

I find this particularly rich:
“If the agreement is not honoured, it means that Russia and Ukraine can no longer be considered reliable energy suppliers to the EU,” Mr Barroso added. You thought they would be?

**Kilkrazy**

Obviously this won't work and western Europe will be forced to organise energy supplies which are not dependant on Mr Putin's mood of the month. So in the long run it will be bad news for Russia.

Despite their reputation, it is still something of a paper tiger.

**Frazzled**

Europe or Russia?

**Kilkrazy**

Russia.

Their economy is much smaller and weaker than people think, so is their population.

Europe is a much larger and more robust economic region which if it could get its act together in terms of foreign policy and military cooperation would be kicking butt all over the world. I don't think we are interested in it, though.

**Frazzled**

Of course if they shut off your gas completely you've serious problems, just like we do with Venezuela and the Middle East.

**Destrado**

Frazzled wrote:
I find this particularly rich:
“If the agreement is not honoured, it means that Russia and Ukraine can no longer be considered reliable energy suppliers to the EU,” Mr Barroso added. You thought they would be?

Well, if they were smaller we could just embargo them. But this isn't Cuba, nor are the EU the US.

Because odd as it may be, Russia and Ukraine aren't made of cold-hearted bearded men, they have (obviously) their own interests and agendas, like any other nation. I think this is a educated and smart move, putting some pressure but throught a diplomatic way. On one side, Europe needs the gas, on the other, Russia can't make bread out of all that gas.

**sebster**

Destrado wrote:Well, if they were smaller we could just embargo them. But this isn't Cuba, nor are the EU the US.

Because odd as it may be, Russia and Ukraine aren't made of cold-hearted bearded men, they have (obviously) their own interests and agendas, like any other nation. I think this is a educated and smart move, putting some pressure but throught a diplomatic way. On one side, Europe needs the gas, on the other, Russia can't make bread out of all that gas.

The manoeuvring going on here isn’t between Russia and Europe, it’s between Russia and the Ukraine. Russia accuses the Ukraine of siphoning off oil, which may or may not be true. Europe is just the customer at the end of the line copping it in the shorts.

It isn’t a case of Europe looking to embargo Russia, but just looking elsewhere for its gas supplies. It used other sources throughout the Cold War, and could do so again if the gas continues to be as unreliable as it has been.

And yeah, Russia as a world player is vastly overrated. Their GDP is smaller than Spain, and while their military expenditure sounds pretty impressive (US$50 billion) the US spends around 14 times that, and the EU in total spends around 6 times as much. They’re given greater status on the world stage because certain sections of the world political community need powerful evil nations.

**Miguelsan**

sebster wrote:
And yeah, Russia as a world player is vastly overrated. Their GDP is smaller than Spain, and while their military expenditure sounds pretty impressive (US$50 billion) the US spends around 14 times that, and the EU in total spends around 6 times as much. They’re given greater status on the world stage because certain sections of the world political community need powerful evil nations.

Please don`t go there..... Armies in the EU so much money for so little use (UK excepted) the Government NGOs [faceslap]

M.

**ShumaGorath**

Well, if they were smaller we could just embargo them. But this isn't Cuba, nor are the EU the US.

Oil sales are about the only thing russia has left to rely on in its current economy. If it loses a large amount of that it's in serious trouble. Serious, serious trouble. Its stock market basically disappeared a few short months ago, and over the last decade putins recreational use of bully tactics have engendered considerable fear in western investors. Russia is very much dependent on energy sales.

Please don`t go there..... Armies in the EU so much money for so little use (UK excepted) the Government NGOs [faceslap]

European military power is a joke. They have little will or a functioning method on which to utilize their monetary expenditure, and the political climates of europe can't stomach a prolonged conflict outside of their own borders. Russia, while a bit of a paper tiger is better prepared to wage a war unilaterally then europe is. That said neither is really particularly golden in a comparison between china which has sheer numerical superiority and massive industrial backing and the US which has technological superiority and the combined arms experience continuous conflict brings.

**sebster**

Miguelsan wrote:Please don`t go there..... Armies in the EU so much money for so little use (UK excepted) the Government NGOs [faceslap]

M.

Don't go where? You're interpreting something strange into what I'm saying. I'm not, for instance, lining up national military budgets and stating who could beat who. It doesn't work that way. What I am doing is pointing out where Russia sits as a global power. The numbers here are quite clear, Russia is at best just another country in the world, and is no more dangerous on the world theatre than the UK, Germany, Japan or anyone else in that second tier of powers.

And why 'the UK excepted'? The UK has a long record of boondoggles and failed gear just as long as any other European power. This isn't just a residual from all that old Europe and Bush's war in Iraq, is it?

ShumaGorath wrote:European military power is a joke. They have little will or a functioning method on which to utilize their monetary expenditure, and the political climates of europe can't stomach a prolonged conflict outside of their own borders. Russia, while a bit of a paper tiger is better prepared to wage a war unilaterally then europe is. That said neither is really particularly golden in a comparison between china which has sheer numerical superiority and massive industrial backing and the US which has technological superiority and the combined arms experience continuous conflict brings.

Well yeah, 'Europe' wouldn't wage a war. It would either be individual nations fighting by themselves, or a defensive war as part of NATO, and would therefore include the US as well. But that has nothing to do with anything unless you think someone was talking about 'Europe' marching into Russia to capture gas supplies...

And China could conceivably become the second world military power in medium term, if they keep growing military expenditure at the current rate. But again, my point had nothing to do with lining up countries in some kind of my Dad could beat your Dad exercise, it was always about pointing out where Russia sits in the scheme of world powers. The short answer is that they don't make the list, and have no plausible way of getting there.

What's interesting is to see how many pundits talk about Russia as though the Cold War has returned. Exactly why is an interesting question.

**ShumaGorath**

Exactly why is an interesting question.

It sells. Punditry is not a respectable branch of journalism, its yellow.

te. But again, my point had nothing to do with lining up countries in some kind of my Dad could beat your Dad exercise

Yeah.

**sebster**

ShumaGorath wrote:It sells. Punditry is not a respectable branch of journalism, its yellow.

That's probably all it is. I have a tendency to see deliberate political deceptions and collective lies everywhere, when as often as not its probably something more like crappy journalism.

**ShumaGorath**

Yellow journalism is a deliberate political deception performed by private media. It's also crappy journalism. It isn't really a collective conspiracy, its just the almighty dollar and the joys of unregulated private enterprise stripping the news media of its professionalism.

**Kilkrazy**

The UK gets its natural gas from our own fields and from Norway, so we would be unaffected by Russia shutting off the supply.

However as someone else pointed out, the Russians need to sell their gas. A long term embargo would do no-one any good.

**Velsharoon**

There is human suffering behind this people have to remember- lots of eastern Europeans rely on that gas in the winter.

I can understand Ukraine trying to protect its own but what it should be doing is talking about closer ties with the EU, perhaps with the EU funding the cost of the gas that Russia wants from Ukraine (which is still less than what europe pays). Far as Im concerned the russians are def shooting themselves in the foot.

**Squig_herder**

NATO too is a joke, its design is to try and arrange political barriers and pass paper trying to isolate a "rogue" nation.

America cannot afford another war, especially against russia.

Funny as it may seem, but russians have grown up and fought in russia, they are seasoned at it and will out preform the yank tank [USA] 10 to 1, the logicistics of american sending troops to northern europe is insane as they would have to cross either russian or chinese air/water space, and china will back the Russian Federation.

As it stands russia is the biggest power house and the most military of all nations in eaurope with no equal

**Squig_herder**

Kilkrazy wrote:
However as someone else pointed out, the Russians need to sell their gas. A long term embargo would do no-one any good.

This would only provoke russia and this may lead to an agressive expansion [invasion] of neighbouring counties as defiance/ rsource gathering, and war has always strengthened russia's economy

**Frazzled**

Why should we go to war. Its your problem. Its a commercial problem.

Just the thought of suing Russia is intensely funny. How exactly are you going to collect?

**reds8n**

Well most of the Russian billionaires all live in London.

And we'll just do what we did with Iceland : abuse some anti terrorist legislation and seize their funds.

**Frazzled**

You don't seize Oligarch money. They already have bankers on the lam because they invested oligarch money with Madoff...seriously. Russian mafia makes the Liechtenstein mafia looks like a bunch a panty wastes, and we all know how terrifying the Liechtenstein mafia is...

**reds8n**

Frazzled wrote:You don't seize Oligarch money. .

In soviet UK you do.

No, I agree, it's really a lot of shouting and pen waving followed no doubt by a huge swathe of new laws and administration.

**sebster**

Squig_herder wrote:NATO too is a joke, its design is to try and arrange political barriers and pass paper trying to isolate a "rogue" nation.

America cannot afford another war, especially against russia.

Funny as it may seem, but russians have grown up and fought in russia, they are seasoned at it and will out preform the yank tank [USA] 10 to 1, the logicistics of american sending troops to northern europe is insane as they would have to cross either russian or chinese air/water space, and china will back the Russian Federation.

As it stands russia is the biggest power house and the most military of all nations in eaurope with no equal

That's just stuff you're making up on the spot. It really doesn't relate to reality, does it?

Frazzled wrote:Why should we go to war. Its your problem. Its a commercial problem.

Just the thought of suing Russia is intensely funny. How exactly are you going to collect?

Treaty law and it's enforcement isn't something that was made up yesterday. Its the oldest form of internation law, and has formalised courts set up. If a nation were to refuse payment it opens up the possibility of sanction, of losing its diplomatic standing, of future trade arrangements, and the value of all other treaties. In short, countries always pay up.

Dude, look up Lockerbie and Libya. It's about as extreme example possible, a country didn't want to pay compensation for its terrorist attack and didn't care what anyone thought. But ultimately they were better off returning to the international community, so they paid the couple of billion. And that was Libya, a country like Russia is hardly going to jeopardise its international place over something like this.