Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rusyns in Russia are very few, of the order of several hundred, maybe thousands. They are considered mainly the national minority of Ukraine and live in the western parts of Ukraine in Transcarpathia.
Apparently you folks are upset that Gazprom still needs to use Ukrainian pipelines to sell gas to captive customers in central Europe. They can continue to do so but will have to still pay Ukraine to do it. Wail away for all I care...
I don't hear any "wailing" coming from Russia at this point.
Rather a lot of glee and a lot of jokes addressing Ukrainians.
I am not even sure what you are talking about, when you re saying that "Gazprom still needs to use Ukrainian pipelines to sell gas."
The Ukrainian energy specialists are saying quite the opposite, that with completion of Nordstream 2, Russia doesn't need Ukraine any longer for this purpose. As in "doesn't need it at all."
Then Putin is crazy for suggesting that Gazprom will sign an agreement to extend gas transit through Ukraine beyond this year. Perhaps he needs to consult the experts on this forum. Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Austria still get most if not all their Russian gas from pipes through Ukraine. The amount will go down, but the reduction of corruption will even out the revenue for the state. Too bad so sad for the Firtash's of the world. I still don't see why Russians insist Ukraine won't be paid to transit their gas in 2020 but it is happening and I hope it doesn't cause more anguish than it already has.
Then Putin is crazy for suggesting that Gazprom will sign an agreement to extend gas transit through Ukraine beyond this year. Perhaps he needs to consult the experts on this forum. Czechia, Slovakia, Hungary, Romania and Austria still get most if not all their Russian gas from pipes through Ukraine. The amount will go down, but the reduction of corruption will even out the revenue for the state. Too bad so sad for the Firtash's of the world. I still don't see why Russians insist Ukraine won't be paid to transit their gas in 2020 but it is happening and I hope it doesn't cause more anguish than it already has.
No, he is not crazy.
There might be few reasons why he is interested in doing that.
From what I gather on Russian "60 minutes" - initially Russians were interested in short term contract -for a year or so, while making sure that all their gas pipes are completed in time.
Now the reasons are even more interesting I suspect.
Technically speaking, after the completion of Nord Stream 2 and that second rout going via Turkey, Russia really doesn't need Ukraine for transition rout.
It might be still interesting for Kremlin for keep ties to the weakened Ukrainian economy in order to support integration of Donbass. Another reason -to keep Ukraine in its sphere of interest after the current government collapses, and by the way, yet another interest might be to offer lucrative deal for Ukraine to drop the court case ( i.e. the money that Ukraine sued Gazprom for through the European court. Russia appealed of course, so the case will be hanging in the air for years to come, not to mention the counter law suits and the rest.)
So those are few possible reasons why Putin is still keeping the offers on the table.
This is a rough summary but what Europe is suggesting is for Ukraine to disassemble its corrupt pipeline transit company and essentially allow European customers to buy the Russian gas at the eastern border and transit across Ukraine themselves (by leasing the pipes). Ukraine will be paid by Europeans via the lease.
The amount of money is coming way down either way. Gas is worth half what it used to be 5 years ago, so Ukraine and Russia will both see less profits from gas pipelines to Europe in the future. If Ukraine ever fixes their legal encumbrances regarding gas leases, they would be fully gas independent in a few years. This would offset any lost transit revenue which was always used to pay for gas imports anyway...
Poland has announced they are not renewing their contract with Gazprom after its up in 3 years. This represents about 8% of Russia's European exports.
No problem with gas bills. This is a political point, not economic.
No problem with gas bills? How is Gazprom supposed to operate when they don't get paid, especially when there is no certainty that they will recover their money.
It would be like if you lent out money to a friend, and then your friend never gave the money back and just keeps telling you that they will pay you back soon, but he needs some more money in the mean time. His debt to you is useless if he can't pay you back, you can't use that debt as currency.
Why do you think that Naftogas (UA) don't pay to Gazprom (RUS) for natural gas?
If it is true then they must stop delivery. It is a relationship between two business entities.
Russian gas is trending upwards. 4.25 MBTUs as of August and its still cheaper than what America is offering. Europeans can still do math.
Anyway. There has been all kinds of games with gas and Ukraine, played by Ukraine. Because of these games Russia will not be depending on Ukraine as transit country. Why? The nutcases cannot be trusted.
Rewriting, "desovetization", "derussification" of history.
I would like to know what the Russians think of the subject called Historical revisionism. I am thinking specifically of revisionism in 20th century history, and more specifically - to the history of USSR/East Bloc. Since Russia was the center and engine of the so called commie bloc of course it makes sense to ask the Russians and to post it here.
So, what is historical revisionism? Wikipedia says so:
Quote:
term historical revisionism identifies the re-interpretation of the historical record. It usually means challenging the orthodox (established, accepted or traditional) views held by professional scholars about a historical event, introducing contrary evidence, or reinterpreting the motivations and decisions of the people involved. The revision of the historical record can reflect new discoveries of fact, evidence, and interpretation, which then provokes a revised history. In dramatic cases, revisionism involves a reversal of older moral judgments
When did I first encounter revisionism? It did begin during the perestroika, when hitherto muted themes of Soviet history, such as Stalin's dictatorship, repressions, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Katyn's massacre etc., etc began to be revealed. Over time, an approach was added that deliberately sought to challenge all concepts considered official by the USSR. I remember as early as 1990 or 1991 when I read a story in one of our yellow newspapers (which in turn was translated from some foreign, kinda Czech or Polish or similar newspaper) that Yuri Gagarin never went to space and that all that Gagarin's story was just Kremlin propaganda fiction.
Over time, such topics have evolved. A good example of "desovetized" revisionism of local importance is eg the story of Estonian woman Helene "Leen" Kullman, a hero of the Soviet Union. In soviet Estonia some streets, companies and schools were named after him.
In short, the Soviet version was as described here on English Wikipedia:
After the creation of the 7th Estonian Division in December 1941 she soon joined in 1942 and was assigned to a medical battalion as a nurse until she was transferred to the intelligence directorate in April 1942. In September 1942, she parachuted inserted behind German lines in the forest near Tartu. She then began to radio information on the locations and numbers of enemy garrisons, defenses, and ships in addition to information about the presence and degree of ice in areas of the Baltic. In January 1943, she was arrested by the local Gestapo and subsequently shot by a prison guard after she spit in his face.
A few years ago, a story appeared in an Estonian newspaper saying that some Estonian policemen in Nazi German service had admitted that Leen had cooperated with German intelligence and had betrayed all Soviet secrets he knew. And for that, her would have been given a life and given a new name and under a false identity she had actually lived for decades somewhere in the West. Similarly was done with Leen's sister Regina, who was similarly a Soviet spy and was released after being arrested by the Germans.
The story has, let's say a nice russophobic and sovetophobic content of course - to show that the Estonian hero to the Soviets was not really a hero. I am wondering how true it is.
At the international level, the best example of historical revisionism is Viktor Suvorov, a former USSR GRU officer, real name Rezun, an Ukrainian, currently an amateur historian and writer. I said an amateur historian - but I'm afraid his work has been read many times by more people than many works by a professional historians. Unlike other history books written in Russian, Rezun's books are all translated here. and at all they seem to be read with special interest (not to mention with a passion) in other countries of the former Eastern bloc. I've seen them in bookstores in other eastern bloc countries. One of my relatives is married to a Latvian, and when I went to visit them once, I saw that Latvian man ... was reading a book by Suvorov-Rezun in Latvian.
One of Suvorov's main claims, which is repeated from book to book, is that the USSR itself wished to start a war with Germany in 1941. Stalin had allegedly his troops ready at the border, and Hitler simply prevented Stalin's invasion of the USSR.And there are many other claims that generally try to make the USSR victory in war more trivial, more controversial, and so on.
And so on, examples could be given more and more.
How serious do you think such books written in the spirit of revisionism should be taken? Yuri Gagarin's flight - just a fairy-tail from Kremlin?
I would like to know what the Russians think of the subject called Historical revisionism. I am thinking specifically of revisionism in 20th century history, and more specifically - to the history of USSR/East Bloc. Since Russia was the center and engine of the so called commie bloc of course it makes sense to ask the Russians and to post it here.
So, what is historical revisionism? Wikipedia says so:
When did I first encounter revisionism? It did begin during the perestroika, when hitherto muted themes of Soviet history, such as Stalin's dictatorship, repressions, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, Katyn's massacre etc., etc began to be revealed. Over time, an approach was added that deliberately sought to challenge all concepts considered official by the USSR. I remember as early as 1990 or 1991 when I read a story in one of our yellow newspapers (which in turn was translated from some foreign, kinda Czech or Polish or similar newspaper) that Yuri Gagarin never went to space and that all that Gagarin's story was just Kremlin propaganda fiction.
Over time, such topics have evolved. A good example of "desovetized" revisionism of local importance is eg the story of Estonian woman Helene "Leen" Kullman, a hero of the Soviet Union. In soviet Estonia some streets, companies and schools were named after him.
In short, the Soviet version was as described here on English Wikipedia:
A few years ago, a story appeared in an Estonian newspaper saying that some Estonian policemen in Nazi German service had admitted that Leen had cooperated with German intelligence and had betrayed all Soviet secrets he knew. And for that, her would have been given a life and given a new name and under a false identity she had actually lived for decades somewhere in the West. Similarly was done with Leen's sister Regina, who was similarly a Soviet spy and was released after being arrested by the Germans.
The story has, let's say a nice russophobic and sovetophobic content of course - to show that the Estonian hero to the Soviets was not really a hero. I am wondering how true it is.
At the international level, the best example of historical revisionism is Viktor Suvorov, a former USSR GRU officer, real name Rezun, an Ukrainian, currently an amateur historian and writer. I said an amateur historian - but I'm afraid his work has been read many times by more people than many works by a professional historians. Unlike other history books written in Russian, Rezun's books are all translated here. and at all they seem to be read with special interest (not to mention with a passion) in other countries of the former Eastern bloc. I've seen them in bookstores in other eastern bloc countries. One of my relatives is married to a Latvian, and when I went to visit them once, I saw that Latvian man ... was reading a book by Suvorov-Rezun in Latvian.
One of Suvorov's main claims, which is repeated from book to book, is that the USSR itself wished to start a war with Germany in 1941. Stalin had allegedly his troops ready at the border, and Hitler simply prevented Stalin's invasion of the USSR.And there are many other claims that generally try to make the USSR victory in war more trivial, more controversial, and so on.
And so on, examples could be given more and more.
How serious do you think such books written in the spirit of revisionism should be taken? Yuri Gagarin's flight - just a fairy-tail from Kremlin?
In my opinion, there is no revisionism in Russia. Yes, some moments of history are revised from today's point of view, ideological husks are thrown off from some, new circumstances are opened at some moments, but to say that the whole history of Russia is just some kind of Kremlin propaganda is complete stupidity. All the basic principles and milestones of Russian history are still in place. This is Gagarin’s flight and the defeat of fascism in WW2 and all the rest. As for Rezun (Suvorov), no one takes him seriously in Russia for a long time, all his books have long been taken apart and proved a hundred times that they have not a bit of truth in them and they are read just like comics. And it’s clear to the fool that all these books are simply custom-made material from Western intelligence agencies, aimed specifically at Western audiences. Therefore, as a Russian-speaking reader will find 1000 inconsistencies of his data with the data of other Russian-language sources. In my opinion, all this “historical revisionism” is just the inventions of our liberals and Russophobes and nothing more than an attempt to PR against the background of today's Russophobia. And it’s just that it’s now a fashionable trend- “Russia must pay and repent, pay and repent”.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Rewriting, "desovetization", "derussification" of history.
