Taking into account the kind of car you have is not important, because every time you fill up the tank you’re paying for the equivalent of what a Russian teacher makes a month. You’re also contributing to finance an archaic, inefficient and evil regimen. Russia began its G8 presidency by unleashing a gas-related war with Ukraine. By practically having the monopoly of supplies to Ukraine, Russia believed it could set prices to benefit itself. But, on its part, Ukraine virtually owns other supplies. Therefore, Russia had to give in as soon as gas deliveries to western Europe began to drop.
Today, the Russian economy depends on gas and oil. Since the value of these resources has increased, salaries are raised too and, consequently inflation appears. To limit it, the Russian government credits a part of the profits to a stabilization fund. But, due to the fact that the Kremlin does not trust its own stocks and bonds, the stabilization fund invests in western securities. Thus, the government misses the opportunity to modernize cities, roads, hospitals and universities of Russia. The inflation goes up and the rent is so expensive that the population is forced to commit illegalities or to live in poverty.
Russia is the example of a sad reality of our times: countries that are far from being democracies can develop themselves faster or even more than freer societies. When you have oil, buyers is all you need to be rich. Most countries with rich natural resources are not democratic. Russia used western technology and management practices to develop oil production. The first ones to do it were men like Michael Khodorkovski, who were replaced with better-placed people. But foreign leaders do not pay attention to this; some, like Gerhard Schröder, even manage subsidiaries of Gazprom.
Nowadays, Russia exchanges oil for knowledge-derived products without investing in the formation of its own specialists. It does not have the necessary amount of geologists, economists, lawyers...a gang of politicians is enough for them. In this context, educated people are dangerous and treated and even hounded as suspects, as has been done with the NGOs or opposition parties. Elections are null and void or falsified. And neighbouring countries which have no oil are blackmailed. Since they depend on gas, oil and multinational companies, G8 countries are very tolerant with current president Vladimir Putin. But perhaps the arrogance of Russian leaders has gone beyond what the West is willing to tolerate. Western societies should boycott the Russian gas.

Europe’s sigh of relief when the gas dispute between Russia and Ukraine was supposedly over could even be heard in Kiev. But this settlement, which leaves Ukraine’s energy requirements to the mercy of a nonexistent company linked to a gang of international criminals, brings about more problems than solutions. This is the reason why I have presented a legal action.
The settlement between Ukraine and Gazprom, the Russian state-owned company, leaves Ukraine’s energy-related future to the mercy of RosUkrEnergo, a criminal excrescence attached to our gas company thanks to former president Leonid Kuchma. RosUkrEnergo controls gas imports from central Asia in Ukraine and the agreement signed allows it to keep that control. Since I worked in the gas industry, I know it’s completely corrupted. When I was Prime Minister I demanded an investigation into RosUkrEnergo and I found out who its owners were and what they did to control imports. But, as soon as I was replaced, it was all forgotten. Ukraine’s and Europe’s supplies wont be guaranteed as long as gas is controlled by non transparent companies.
The settlement also brings up the problem with regard to Ukraine’s position in Europe. As any other country, Ukraine’s relations with the rest of the world depend on four factors which are extremely linked: history, patriotism, national interests and geography. Ukraine has an strategic interest in the development of free trade, in open markets throughout the world, in having democratic and prosperous neighbours and in preventing conflicts between the West and Russia to avoid being the battlefield. Risks in the “post-Soviet era” are still serious. Therefore, Ukraine wants to be included in the European Union.
The proposal of making a gas pipeline in the Baltic to deliver gas to Germany in a direct way from Russia without going through Poland, Ukraine, the Baltic states and the rest of Central Europe is risky somehow for it would allow Gazprom to interrupt the supplies to its customers whenever it wishes without jeopardizing its supplies to its favourite western markets. Ukraine tries to guarantee its security and stability. We can’t accept agreements that will leave us at the mercy of non transparent companies.

Between 2000 and 2001, Ukraine and Russia adopted reforms to limit gas prices that benefited the oligarchs. A contract was signed between the two countries as well as an agreement on prices. After the orange revolution, Russia and Ukraine made known their discontent with regard to the said agreement. Russia wanted to have prices similar to those of the market and Ukraine demanded better trade relations. Both demands were understandable.
However, the agreement signed on January 4 and made public by Yulia Tymoshenko brings about many doubts. The contract only covers a six-month period and fixes a price of 95 dollars per 1 000 cubic meters of gas without stipulating what the price will be in the following six months. The agreement also establishes the sale of 34 billion cubic meters when Ukraine needs an additional 21 billion. What’s not included in the contract will be bought from Turkmenistan at 50 dollars per 1 000 cubic meters during six months and at 60 dollars in the following six months. The agreement does not stipulates the cost of transportation in the Russian territory. This means Ukraine buys at a lower price than that of the market for six months but, afterwards, negotiations must be resumed.
Based on the way it’s been written, the agreement affects public company Gazprom but benefits RosUkrEnergo, a private society that, according to Yulia Tymoshenko is owned by people closed to Vladimir Putin, and Igor Seckin in particular.
Nonetheless, and taking into account the way in which it’s been written, the agreement is not bad for Ukraine. The vote of the Parliament against the Ukrainian government is, above all, a sign of changes in the alliance at its very heart.

Russia’s use of gas to exert pressures upon Ukraine has provoked concern in the West. However, pressures upon Georgia are even stronger although less noticed. In Georgia, as well as in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin wants to apply the doctrine of the liberal empire formulated by Anatoli Chubais, chairman of the United Energy System. It’s goal is to create a new Russian empire by means of money and not tanks.
The first stage of this strategy was aimed at controlling the economy of Armenia. Afterwards, it had to be integrated into a unified economic zone with Russia but, in view of the Georgian interests in the country, Tbilisi had to be controlled first. This is what Russia tried to do with political pressures first and economic pressures later. The plan was interrupted by the Rose Revolution but the Russian companies managed to obtain, at least, the shares of the Georgian companies.
The main actor of the Russian foreign policy in Georgia is Gazprom. Its goal is to control the gas industry in Georgia and the gas pipeline that provides supplies to Georgia and Armenia. Russia could succeed in this without the support of the West. It could also count on Russian state-owned bank Vnershtogbank which has already taken control of several banks in Armenia and Georgia. Gradually, Russia extends its imperial influence. An influence which may even include the annexation of Abkhazia.
If the West does not react, the southern part of the Caucasus could become anti-western oriented and then be part of the Russia-Iran alliance.

What did the Russian expect? Since the beginning, it was known that their threat of cutting off gas supplies to Ukraine would have a negative effect on them too. First of all, putting the threat into practice was very difficult. 90% of the Russian gas directed to western Europe goes through Ukraine. What Ukrainians have to do in case of a blockade is to divert that gas by saying they have the right to do it.
Therefore, the only explanation is that the threat had not commercial purposes. It was a punishment of Ukraine for Víktor Yushchenko’s pro-western policy. That’s not a good policy for its only consequence is to weaken Russia’s image as a reliable supplier of gas, an industry where image is vital.
Even during the Soviet era, the USSR was seen as a reliable partner with regard to gas supplies. Russia’s transition to capitalism relieved Europe even more, an Europe that continued developing the use of gas for energy. The United Kingdom did the same thing and the British energy sector increased gas consumption from 1 or 2% in 1980 to 30% nowadays. Consequently, today London depends on Russia too. The gas coming from the Gulf could be used as substitute but it could also be missing. Fortunately, Norway is still discovering more gas reserves.

Russia and Ukraine put an end to their controversies regarding natural gas pricing. Ukraine will pay more, but less than what Russia had demanded at the beginning. That is the good news. The bad news is that the West did not take sides in the outcome.
Gazprom had requested to increase gas prices up to 400% for a Ukraine which is facing financial difficulties. Since Kiev was dependant upon Russia by 30% of its gas, Russia was then expecting to consolidate its presence in Ukraine, undermine the pro-western policy of Víktor Yushchenko and punish the rapprochement of Ukraine to the West. However, Ukraine counterattacked by claiming its sovereignty over the Kerch strait and authorized NATO ships to sail in the Sea of Azov. Ukraine also threatened to withdraw from the CIS. Russia then threatened back, and by doing that, Gazprom showed that it was just a Kremlin’s instrument. The company had ascertained it was willing to adjust its prices as per the World Bank, but it failed to do so with Belarus, an allied of Vladimir Putin. The Russian President was seen as an extorter of funds.
The European Union only assisted Ukraine because its gas supply was compromised and feared a cold winter. The West should do more to help Ukraine and exploit Russia’s ambitions in the international arena and WTO to soothe Russia-Ukraine relations.

The Russian gas seems to be the unexpected and fundamental element that hampers Brussels’s expansionist will to the former Russian protectorates.
Since long ago, the Kremlin has been dealing with a plan conceived by the European Union and NATO to take over the pro-Russian area. In order to face the Euro-Atlantic adventure, the Russian gas seems to be its last card in this confrontation between Moscow and Brussels. The crisis between Russia and Ukraine regarding gas supply represents the sensitive side of the energy equation between Moscow and Europe. The European Union seems unable to defend Ukraine, which is considered, since a year ago, a new ally, because the Kremlin has a lethal weapon in its conflict with Europe, the energy, which would prevent the old continent from supporting Eastern European countries. Besides, the recruitment of various senior European officials and possible recruitment of former US officials by Moscow in the area of hydrocarbons, has shown up to what extend the Russians are planning to use the energy factor to determine its future and that of its enemies.
European sources in Brussels are expecting a fierce war against Russia in the energy sector as of this year. In this regard, Javier Solana, one of whose main objectives is to weaken Russia, still refuses to comment on the current crisis. The Russian energy threat only involves Ukraine, but affects the rest of the allied countries of the EU that depend on the Kremlin’s energy resources. Similarly, some experts talk about Russia’s will to control the whole market of European gas, taking into account the decrease of production in the countries like Norway, the United Kingdom and the Netherlands.
Moscow’s objective, three months before the Ukrainian elections, is to overthrow the current pro-European government. Likewise, the European members in Brussels have eventually started to abandon Ukraine, its allied of yesterday.

The West has always made us believe that we, the Arabs, are the ones who decide everything in the oil market. But it has never been the case. Even worse, the Arabian petro-countries cannot even determine the fate of their own energy sources.
The current oil crisis is, in fact, caused by Russia. But, is it about the Russian state or about its oil companies? It is still unknown. Vladimir Putin seems to have taken full control not only over the Russian state, but also over its oil companies, especially after sending the “Zionist-western” Mijaíl Jordorkovsky to prison.
The US-European rallies against Moscow are normal, even though the latter did not proceed illegally since it has absolute power to sell its gas to Ukraine at market prices, the western market. Doesn’t Russia have the right to prevent Kiev from stealing its gas? Putin should deal with the will of US-European capitalism, whose objective is to devour eastern Europe within NATO. Ukraine has to pay for its treason by joining the new lover. The agents from the West have to know that the latter cannot protect them from cold, and the West itself was born to take and never give anything. The economic situation in Ukraine is increasingly worse. That is why, there is no doubt that the Russian blow is well calculated. Putin wants to remind Ukrainian citizens that they can find a much better heat in the arms of their traditional allied than in those of their enemies.
The major oil companies from the West, whose policies are run by Kissinger, Thatcher, the Bush family and others, are wrong when they believe, after Afghanistan and Iraq were occupied, that they had taken control of the world oil market. The current crisis confirms the concept of US uni-polarity is not exactly like this. The evidence is no other than the questioning of the capitalist system, as a result of a small oil crisis, which can only mean the first blow in a list of Russian measures intended to strengthen Moscow’s power in the international arena.