What Biden in Ukraine and Georgia Shows: Making Up (With Russia) Is Hard to Do

In a two-day swoop, Vice President Joe Biden has single-handedly signaled something about the reset button: While the idea of rapprochement with Russia that he ostentatiously suggested five months ago is romantic, getting back together usually isn't a good idea for divorced couples. They tend to go back to the same old aggravating habits.

In this case, Biden first went to Ukraine, which he assured that Washington isn't recognizing Russia's claimed entitlement to influence over its neighbors. He said that if Ukraine decides to join NATO, the U.S. is behind it. (Thanks to RealClearPolitics for posting the transcript.)

Then today, Biden flew south to Georgia, where he said the same thing: "We understand that Georgia aspires to join NATO. We fully support that aspiration," Biden said.



Almost nothing is guaranteed to raise the hackles of Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin more than the suggestion that Georgia should be permitted to join NATO; a close second would be the same formulation for Ukraine. Russia regards both nations as its own. Indeed, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin responded by saying that Georgia is "remilitarizing" after being pummeled by Russia in a five-day war last August, and saying that Moscow might move to stop it.

So why did the Obama administration choose to put irritating language into Biden's mouth? The answer is realpolitik. Washington truly does want calmer, more constructive relations with Russia. It knows that neither Ukraine nor Georgia are capable of meeting NATO requirements; it also knows that the two aren't welcome as members by much of Europe, which -- there is no delicate way of putting it -- allows Russia to call the shots on issues including further NATO enlargement and the direction of new natural gas pipelines.

Yet, putting aside for now the question of whether NATO in fact should expand further, for reasons of politics and appearances, Washington cannot be seen to be acceding to Russia's wishes. So you have speeches like Biden's in Ukraine and Georgia.

It's true that Biden tried to soften the sting by also suggesting that both Ukraine and Georgia could improve their political systems. Biden also refrained from agreeing to Saakashvili's request for a replenishment of armored weapons, which Georgia all-but exhausted in the August war.

Some of the blogosphere is alight with accusations that Washington threw "another ally under the bus," as Pamela Geller over at Atlas Shrugs put it. Others, such as Robert Antonio Hussain, go the other way. "Why must VP Joe Biden stir up the pot all over again about Georgia, Russia, NATO and Georgian Pres. Saakashvili?" wrote Hussain.

The answer to Geller: No he didn't.

The answer to Hussain: Because he must.

Clowns to the Left of Me, Jokers to the Right

Why has Russia's natural gas dispute with Ukraine stretched out so long?

A key reason is the subtext from Russia's side: an effort once and for all to tar and discredit much-detested neighbors who have become darlings of the West, and end the West's intrusion into Moscow's claimed sphere of influence.

Despite some self-inflicted damage, the gambit so far has been relatively successful.

In the fall, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin and his junior partner, President Dmitry Medvedev, managed through skillful public relations to turn their full-scale invasion of Georgia into a reflection on the sanity of Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili. It was one of those kernel-of-truth cases -- Saakashvili in fact is a rash, immature leader (and may indeed have initiated the original fighting in South Ossetia that preceded Russia's invasion of Georgia proper).
Saakashvili's personality flaws hardly justified Russia's seizure of the Georgian port of Poti and the bombing of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline route, and Putin and Medvedev suffered black eyes. Yet Saakashvili's image in the West and at home was severely -- and perhaps permanently -- damaged. (And, not incidentally, the U.S. was revealed to be largely impotent in what it had hubristically claimed as a pro-Western new region.)

Now, Putin and Medvedev have in their sights another primary local irritant -- Ukraine and its independent-minded president, Viktor Yushchenko. In the latest part of this effort, the Russian leaders are trying to recruit Europe into a strategy of reducing their new dispute with Ukraine to this: Ukraine is a country-size thief.

On its face, what we have is a simple pricing dispute. Ukraine wants to pay close to today's price for its 2009 natural gas supplies, or about $180-$235 per 1,000 cubic meters of gas. But Russia wants Ukraine to agree to what its other European customers are paying based on long-ago negotiated contracts, or about $400 per 1,000 cubic meters.

We've previously discussed the role of personal gain in confounding a settlement to what elsewhere is usually a utility dispute. The two sides seem no nearer to resolving the central pricing disagreement, but increasingly cold Europe has stepped in to at least restore the flow of gas.

Here's where the charges of thievery enter. Russia says it won't restart the general flow of gas because Ukraine is siphoning off volumes for itself; Ukraine denies the accusation, and says it's simply isolating a bit of the gas -- so-called technical gas -- in order to get pressure into the line. Today, Putin and Medvedev met with Europeans in Moscow in an ostensible attempt to break the logjam, but failed.

Here's what Russia proposes: a consortium of European countries will "buy" the technical gas, and thereby "share the risk" with Russia. Italy, Russia's usual partner in its energy-based geopolitical strategies, is the sole foreign recruit thus far.

What would be the outcome of such a consortium if it does fully materialize? It would give de facto international validation to Russia's claim that Ukraine is so untrustworthy that a European consortium is required to mitigate the risk of doing business with it.

It would come again with some damage -- the dispute will go on until the two sides agree on a price, and meanwhile Putin, Medvedev Gazprom and Russia itself would look unreliable.

Yet, strategically Russia would also bring disrepute on a neighbor that until now has enjoyed an irritatingly good image outside the region.

If any of Europe's most important nations were still seriously considering either Ukraine or Georgia as potential members of NATO, these last few months will have made them less open to the idea.

Ukraine and Russia: The Role of a Middleman

Russia has prickly relations with several of its neighbors, but all pale in comparison with its friction with Georgia and Ukraine. Last August, the former resulted in a full-fledged war, and pessimism about the security of the U.S.-backed oil and natural gas corridor connecting the Caspian Sea with the West. Now, the latter -- Russia's long antagonism with Ukraine -- is provoking a similar recalibration of energy security, this time about natural gas supplies to Europe.

I have pointed out the pricing dispute that's raised the temperature between Russia and Ukraine. But Ed Chow, whose activities in Russia on behalf of Chevron in the 1990s I recounted in The Oil and the Glory, thinks something more is afoot. Namely, Chow thinks the issue separating the sides is at least partly who personally stands to gain from a new deal.

Chow and Jon Elkind, another veteran of the 1990s diplomatic conflict with Russia over the Caspian as a member of Bill Clinton's National Security Council, detail the underside of the Russia-Ukraine natural gas game in the latest issue of the Washington Quarterly.

The article notes the role of an opaque middleman company called RosUkrEnergo in the deal. We have discussed RosUkrEnergo at O&G; The Wall Street Journal's Glenn Simpson has done the best ground-breaking work on the company. Half-owned by Gazprom and two Ukrainian businessmen, RosUkrEnergo is the equivalent of a maitre d' who performs no principal role but controls access to the best tables. RosUkrEnergo owns no gas, or pipelines, yet earns a flat 20% take off the top of all the gas sold by Russia to Ukraine.

RosUkrEnergo takes that gas, and sells it. That amounted to a staggering $4.3 billion in proceeds to RosUkrEnergo in 2007, according to Chow and Elkind. How that money is divided has never been explained.

In a phone conversation, Chow notes that Gazprom and Ukraine at one point were just $15 apart in their negotiations -- Russia was demanding $250 per 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas this year, while Ukraine was offering $235. "If that was the only difference, why couldn't they make a deal?" Chow asks. "I suspect the difference was the role that RosUkrEnergo would play."

Chow and Elkind call RosUkrEnergo "shady." "The company’s role is a political bone of contention in that an entity with no assets, no track record, and no transparency was placed at the very center of the Ukrainian gas economy," they write.

Russia-Ukraine: A Market Dispute

Are the Russians and Ukrainians simply fated to go to the mat every year about this time, causing grief to their neighbors? Or is something else at work in their antagonism?

The philosophical answer is that, while it's hard to imagine these two former Soviet states living as friendly neighbors any time soon, the current dispute is a separate matter.

It can be reduced to a difference of outlook: Do you expect oil prices to rise to $60 a barrel this year, or to drop back down to between $30 and $40 a barrel? (Oil has surged in the last two trading days to about $46 a barrel because of the fighting in Gaza.)

In Europe, natural gas prices follow oil, and Russia is clearly of the consensus view that oil will average somewhere in the neighborhood of $60 a barrel this year. That corresponds to a natural gas price of about $350 per 1,000 cubic meters. (Here's the loose formula to get the natural gas price: divide the oil price by six, then multiply the result by 35.3).

Hence the claim by Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin that the demand by Gazprom, Russia's natural gas behemoth, for $250 per 1,000 cubic meters from Ukraine this year amounts to a "humanitarian gesture."

Ukraine, however, has embraced oil's most recent price band. It's arguing that oil will average $40 a barrel this year, or $235 per 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas. That's precisely what Ukraine has counter-offered to Gazprom.

(As a separate matter, if Europe truly is paying $500 per 1,000 cubic meters, as Gazprom has claimed, it is seriously overpaying. That corresponds to $84-a-barrel oil.)

(Another baffling issue is Russia's claim that it's owed a $600 million late fee on top of the $1.5 billion natural gas bill that Ukraine already has paid. That's a 40% penalty, and Ukraine is only a month late.)

The subtext is the nature of the two countries' contract, which is based not on the spot price of natural gas, or a forecast, but a formula that lags current prices by eight months. In other words, when Gazprom is retorting that it in fact could charge Ukraine $418 per 1,000 cubic meters if it so wishes, that's Russia's estimate of the price of natural gas last May.

In the end, look for the two countries to settle some place in the middle, say at $50 a barrel oil, which would entitle Gazprom to charge $294 per 1,000 cubic meters. But don't be surprised if Ukraine bends a bit more toward Russia's demand than a down-the-middle compromise; indeed, I wouldn't be surprised if Ukraine agrees to Gazprom's offer of $250 per 1,000 cubic meters.

The dispute has more bite than previous rows because of the economic times. Ukraine is in an economic fix, as is Gazprom.

Regarding the latter, Gazprom's troubles go far. It doesn't produce much of the gas it ships to Europe, but markets gas it buys mostly from the Central Asian state of Turkmenistan. In order to obtain long-term rights to that gas, and not have it siphoned off by a covetous West, Gazprom has agreed to pay the Turkmen about $340 per 1,000 cubic meters.

Given market prices, that means that Gazprom might be forced to sell to Europe this year at a loss, unless it unilaterally cuts the price it pays to the Turkmen, who in that case could respond by withholding supplies.

"Gazprom is in a tough spot," says Kenneth Medlock, a natural gas expert at Rice University's James A Baker Institute for Public Policy, who helped me with the calculations for this article. If Gazprom loses the Turkmen supplies, Medlock said, "they are going to have trouble meeting their contractual commitments" to Europe.

Showdown in Bucharest

After the spectacle and fireworks of recent years, we're about to see the latest picture of the balance of power in Russia-West relations. The venue will be the NATO summit that begins tomorrow in Bucharest. The issue is whether to advance Georgia and Ukraine's applications to join the military alliance.

The two former Soviet countries want to push forward their status to what’s called MAP – a Membership Action Plan. True membership would come down the road, once they meet the various necessary qualifications. France and Germany oppose moving to a MAP for the two. "France will not give its green light to the entry of Ukraine and Georgia," French Prime Minister Francois Fillon told France-Inter radio. "We are opposed to Georgia and Ukraine's entry because we think that it is not the correct response to the balance of power in Europe, and between Europe and Russia."

Stephen Fidler and Stefan Wagstyl of the Financial Times rang up Georgia's Mikheil Saakashvili, who has a reputation as a hothead, but sounds eminently sensible on this issue. "No matter what some Europeans might be thinking, it's basically giving [Russia] direct veto rights, because that's how they'll perceive it," Saakashvili told the FT.

Saakashvili has that right. Russia’s foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov, suggests that Georgia will use NATO membership to force the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia back into the Georgian fold. This is a red herring – it’s absurd to suggest that NATO would commit troops to crushing Abkhazian or South Ossetian politics. It can't even raise sufficient troops for Afghanistan.

Instead, the issue is simple -- Vladimir Putin wishing to demonstrate Russia’s influence now, and to retain its pressure points on its former colonies in the future.

Saakashvili has done smart political spadework. He has offered power-sharing to Abkhazia, and 500 Georgian troops to Afghanistan. The latter move at minimum could quiet France’s objections.

The ultimate decision will indicate whether Putin has at last succeeded in shifting the balance of power more toward Russia's direction.

Photo: neurmadic aesthetic
Rights: Creative Commons

The Why's of Pipeline Politics

One thing highly unlikely to change under Dmitri Medvedev is Moscow's hard-line energy policy. Indeed, one sometimes gets the impression that Russia wants the West to build pipelines that go around it.

As evidence, take a look at two disputes: Chevron's long-frustrated efforts to ship more oil through a pipeline that technically was built exclusively for its use; and Gazprom's cutoff of natural gas today to Ukraine.

The California company is nothing if not patient and persistent. It's hard to believe that its travails with Moscow have gone on for almost two decades, but it was 1989 when the California-based company first laid eyes on the Tengiz oilfield. The western Kazakhstan field, right next to the Caspian, contains 10 billion barrels of recoverable oil reserves or more, a considerable volume in an industry that regards a 1-billion-barrel field as a supergiant. The final contract awarding Chevron 50% of the field was signed in 1993.

Since then, it's been one stumbling block after another from Russia, which has seen it in its interest to keep Tengiz bottled up. It took eight years before a long-planned dedicated pipeline from the field -- known as CPC -- finally was running. But, while CPC has been producing 320,000 barrels of oil a day, Chevron has always seen Tengiz as at minimum a 700,000-barrel-a-day field, and more reasonably capable of 1 million barrels a day of exports. As of later this year, Chevron is ready for a mid-range production increase to 540,000 barrels a day.

Only, that would require an expansion of CPC, and Russia has blocked it. As the years have gone by, Transneft, which does the negotiating for the Kremlin, has seemed always to have a new demand. When that's met, there's been another. This time, it seems to want Chevron and its partners to finance another pipeline -- a line connecting the Black and Mediterranean seas overland from Bulgaria to Greece.

This isn't public, but Transneft is currently circulating a compromise. People who have received the Transneft memo tell me that Russia is willing to allow Chevron and its partners to raise exports through a process called "de-bottlenecking," which basically means getting the kinks out. The companies could modernize existing pumping stations, but add no new ones. Exports would rise from the current 28 million tons a year to around 38 million tons; that's far less than the 67 million tons a year that the companies seek.

There's no word on whether Chevron and its partners will accept -- they have 30 days to answer -- but it seems unlikely they'll reject it. But what is the ultimate impact of Russia's intransigence? Well, what happens when water is blocked from one drain? It seeks an outlet elsewhere. So look for a greater push for a trans-Caspian oil pipeline from Central Asia to Baku.

Meanwhile, Russia's Gazprom today cut off some 35% of its natural gas supplies for Ukraine. It says its neighbor owes some $600 million for exports this year. Ukraine Prime Minister Yulia Timoshenko disputes the figures. Given that the accounting books are closed to the public, and are disputed by those to whom they are open, there's no way of knowing for sure.

But, while they talk, both Gazprom and Ukraine say their dispute won't again disrupt supplies to Europe (Europe receives more than 30% of its natural gas from Russia, and most of that flows through Ukraine), as they did in 2006. I wouldn't bet on that. Jitteriness in Europe is Ukraine's best leverage over Gazprom.

That's the point of a current natural gas pipeline competition between Russia and the West. Because of its repeated conflicts with Ukraine and others, Russia wants to build a completely new set of natural gas pipelines to supply Europe. But such deepened reliance on Russia makes Europe and the U.S. nervous. So they have mounted a plan to diversify the European supply by going completely around Russia.

Gazprom's latest cutoff will only redouble the European-U.S. effort.

Putin, Utility Bills and Missiles

One still marvels at the notion of the president of a country announcing the successful settlement of a utility bill.

But that’s the way it is in the former Soviet Union, where the failure to pay one’s heating bill is regarded so seriously that the cutoff of service to entire other countries can result. Such as to much of Europe.

With minutes to spare before Russia planned to sever a quarter of the natural gas supply to Ukraine, Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Ukraine’s Yuri Yushchenko today announced that they had resolved their differences. Ukraine would begin to pay off somewhere over $1 billion in overdue bills to the Russian behemoth Gazprom. So, unlike in Russia's 2006 cutoff of gas to Ukraine, Ukraine's and Europe's winter heat will be spared.

That dialogue between nations at the highest levels can be disrupted over such matters is notable to say the least. It’s even more so when one looks just underneath the surface and finds the interest of a shadowy middleman company that, at least so far, Russia is highly resistant to push out of the picture.

This company, called Rosukrenergo (for Russia-Ukraine Energy company), is the official supplier of Turkmenistan’s natural gas to Ukraine. It’s half-owned by Gazprom and only partly unidentified private Ukrainian businessmen.

Who are these men? One has come forward -- a billionaire named Dmitry Firtash. But neither he nor anyone else will confirm who his partners are. One name that appears frequently is mobster Semyon Mogilevich, who before his recent arrest in Moscow was on the FBI’s Most Wanted List, and sought by other countries as well.

It can only be conjectured why actually two layers of middlemen – Gazprom and Rosukrenergo – are required to sell Turkmen gas to Ukraine. It’s also a mystery why Ukraine and Gazprom won’t identify who specifically is controlling – and earning the profit from – half of Ukraine’s natural gas supply.

The mystery is broader because Rosukrenergo also sells Turkmen gas on to Hungary, Poland and Slovakia.

Gazprom has said that, sure, you can cut out Rosukrenergo, but if you do, your gas bill is going to go up. Despite that warning, Yushchenko said today that a committee has been formed to unwind Rosukrenergo’s involvement. He expects it to be completed within a year. Having Putin at his side, he could speak with confidence on the full settlement of this utility issue.

For an excellent backgrounder on this company and its personalities, read pages 49-57 in this 2006 report by Global Witness.

More Missile Diplomacy: In the same news conference, Putin also raised the specter of a fresh missile dispute with the West. He said that, if Ukraine proceeds with the idea of joining NATO, and that if as part of that agreement an anti-missile shield goes up in Ukraine, “This would prompt Russia to take retaliatory action." Specifically, he said that Russia might point its missiles at Ukraine.

I have not heard of a public proposal to make Ukraine a part of the U.S.-proposed missile shield -- which has not yet been proven to work -- but according to a BBC report, Putin said, "I am not only terrified to utter this, it is scary even to think that Russia, in response to a possible deployment of... [parts of the] missile shield in Ukraine... would have to target its offensive rocket systems at Ukraine."

Photo: JeffK
Rights: Creative Commons

The Shadowy Game of Natural Gas

Russia is again threatening to cut off natural gas supplies to Ukraine. It says the reason is accumulated debt on the part of its neighbor. Gazprom, the Kremlin’s stalking horse, says Tuesday morning is the deadline – pay $1.5 billion, or lose a quarter of your supply. Talks are supposed to be going on in Moscow.

No one is opening up his accounting books, so we don’t know the true state of affairs on the two countries’ balance sheet. But there are enough dribs and drabs to get a picture of what’s at least partly going on.

This partial answer is Rosurkenergo. An entirely opaque go-between company – half-owned by Gazprom, and the other half by Ukrainian businessmen – Rosurkenergo buys natural gas from Turkmenistan sells it on to Ukraine.

Ukraine says it will pay off whatever debt it owes if the deal with Rosurkenergo is severed. But last week, a Gazprom official named Ilya Kochevrin told the Financial Times that, if that happens, Ukraine should expect a steep hike in its bill.

That line is probably not straight out of Mario Puzo, but it could be. One might rationally ask why a joint Gazprom-Ukrainian company is more capable of negotiating cheap gas than Gazprom and Ukraine directly.

One thing to note is that it has seemed that the Kremlin is attempting to get a lot of its financial house in order before the ascension of Dmitri Medvedev to the Russian presidency in next month’s elections.

Vladimir Putin, for example, has been peripatetic in his efforts to get Gazprom's pipeline deals with Central Asia and Europe sealed fast.

It’s also been a principal suspicion in the recent arrest of Russian mobster Semyon Mogilevich, an internationally hunted fugitive who lived for years in plain sight in Moscow before Russian authorities miraculously charged him last month with tax evasion. Mogilevich has been linked as a possible shareholder in Rosurkenergo, which if true could mean that his arrest was related to the company, and how and with whom the proceeds are shared.

This is all Kreminology. At the intersection of commerce, crime and geopolitics, such questions in the end get resolved. But what of the collateral victims, such as Europe? Gazprom claims this is just between Russia and Ukraine, and has assured Europe – which receives 80% of its Russian gas through Ukraine – that its supply won’t be affected.

Does anyone really believe that Ukraine won’t pass on the crunch to Europe in order to build up leverage?

Photo: dbking
Rights: Creative Commons

How to Tarnish A Hard-Won Reputation

It's not a household name in the United States, but in the former Soviet Union the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe is a source both of irritation and solace. The distinction depends on whether you are one of the region's autocrats or one of its independent thinkers.

Whichever the case, the OSCE -- financed in large part by the U.S. -- has played a hard-fought, 16-year role as Europe's official conscience.

Until now. The OSCE has bafflingly jeopardized its reputation as Europe's premier human rights watchdog in order to satisfy an understandable if misguided campaign by Kazakhstan for the prized chair of the organization.

Last Friday, the OSCE for publicly unknown reasons succumbed to Kazakhstan's full-court press on the issue, and announced that the Central Asian republic will take over the one-year chair a little over two years from now, in 2010.

Kazakhstan is hardly the region's worst human-rights violator. But neither is its record worthy of holding up as an example, which is what the chair represents. This is a country that has never held a fair election; although President Nursultan Nazarbayev has led the country since 1989, there's no way to know for sure that he actually ever won a contested election.

Nazarbayev has never permitted a genuine opponent to run against him, and like his neighbor to the north, Vladimir Putin, he has routinely beefed up the election results to show swelled support. He recently signed a law allowing him to serve as president for life. And there's no evidence that, short of his own death, Nazarbayev will ever agree to give up the post; to the contrary, the probability is that he'll stay on the job for years to come.

If the OSCE states wished an example from the former Soviet Union, why not choose Ukraine? For all its flaws, it has been holding truly competitive presidential elections for some 13 years. Or better yet, how about Georgia? There, Mikheil Saakashvili has actually stepped down from the presidency in order to run in a snap election next month.

Kazakhstan ran its OSCE campaign through its own offices and the paid help of lobbying groups like APCO in Washington. It's not clear to me what precisely turned the tide, but the OSCE decision is appalling, in my opinion. It will be hard-pressed to recover its reputation.

4 Leaders Try to Offset Russia's Clout

BAKU, Azerbaijan (AP) – Leaders of four former Soviet republics discussed ways to counterbalance Russia's wide influence in the Caspian and Black Sea basins at a summit of their regional grouping.

The summit is the first for the organization, called GUAM, the Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, since its four member countries – Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova – agreed last year to deepen ties and cooperation.
Read the rest of story

From Steve: On the other side of the Caspian, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan still have no concrete link into the Baku-based oil-and-natural gas pipelines to the Mediterranean.

Instead they recently agreed to build another natural gas pipeline through Russia. To the degree that they are seeking leverage against Russian influence of their energy markets, they are doing so by building up transportation with China, and organizing barge traffic to Baku.

But one wonders if this will be sufficient for their long-term economic independence.