So who is in the span of the Stockholm arbitration - Gazprom or Naftogaz?
Stormy emotions over the decision of the Stockholm arbitration on the gas dispute between the Ukrainian "Naftogaz" and the Russian "Gazprom." Emotions were so turbulent that Naftogaz was typical for modern Ukraine, without going into the letter of documents submitted by arbitration, and reading the text diagonally, hitting himself with a heel in the chest, sounded the incredible success of the campaign against the Russian gas giant.
The phrases "we broke the back of Gazprom," and "a little more, and Russia will begin to transfer billions to us," crowned with cries of frantic peremog. Gazprom was silent. Meanwhile, the Naftogaz management was handing out interviews, a spokesman, wiping sweat from a happy forehead, ran from one microphone to another, from briefing to interview and back. And Gazprom was silent again. Already in Russia, representatives of the “vsepropalo” section began to congratulate Naftogaz on their victory, expressing in their hearts about the “loss” of Gazprom. Gazprom was silent here too.
And in Naftogaz, scratching their heads, they began to wonder: why is Miller’s company silent, although it has to tear its hair in all places, beat its head against the wall and look for a revolver loaded with one cartridge. And someone most intelligent in Naftogaz decided that Gazprom was silent for a reason. And as soon as he decided, the cleverest were drawn to re-read the essence of the conclusions of the Stockholm arbitration. And what is hidden in these documents? In order.
So, the main reason for peremog announced by Naftogaz was that the Stockholm arbitration allegedly canceled the “take or pay” contract that was previously entered into the contract on the basis of Gazprom’s claims. The meaning is simple: I ordered some gas volumes - pay for gas volumes, even if you did not use them. It looks tough enough, but no one was forced to sign this contract at gunpoint - they signed it, so be so kind as to execute. Now it turns out that the take-or-pay principle has not been canceled by the Stockholm Arbitration ...
Deputy Chairman of the Board of Gazprom, Alexander Medvedev:
And this is from the release of Naftogaz, which had run pretty ahead, some time before Medvedev’s comment:
All that was missing was the shout "Glory to Ukraine" at the end.
Even Ukrainian economic law experts frankly tracked Naftogaz, announcing the outstanding abilities of its lawyers who only “had enough” hours to thoroughly study more than the 700-page document of the Stockholm arbitration and draw all the necessary conclusions. And while “Naftogaz” practiced in eloquence about where to now “spend” non-existent 44 billion dollars, Gazprom's lawyers studied the materials of the decision. And the materials stated that the item "take or pay" is canceled only in part of the provisions of the contract - in particular, when the volume of unused gas is not less than the specified value. What is the value is not reported. However, it is known that about any “gifts” in the form of revocation (or rather, a ban) of claims in the amount of 44 billion dollars is out of the question.
By the way, in the world practice there are quite a few cases when the principle of “take or pay” is realized in the case when the buying party performs less than 80% of the volume of purchases from the contracted ones. If we are guided by this value, then Naftogaz remains “on the counter” of Gazprom over the past few years, since it unilaterally rejected those procurement volumes that were prescribed in the contract. I bought obviously less than 80% of contract volumes.
By the way, the president of Ukraine and his entourage, as you know, intend to initiate an inspection of the head of “Batkivschyna”, Yulia Tymoshenko, for “high treason”. Poroshenkovtsy incriminates the ex-premier of Ukraine, who at one time signed the contract, “anti-Ukrainian activities”. Like, deliberately signed the same contract, which is now being discussed in Ukraine almost as the main negative of the last 20 years. Moreover, the representative of the Bloc of Petro Poroshenko in the Rada I. Gerashchenko announced that it was precisely because of the contract signed by Tymoshenko with the Russian Federation in Ukraine that the war broke out.
All these statements draw special attention to themselves also because Tymoshenko was sent to prison almost in due time on similar charges, but only from Viktor Yanukovych and his entourage. In the biography of Tymoshenko, there is a case called “under the gas contract with Russia from 19.01.2009”.
Surprisingly, isn't it ... Yulia Tymoshenko was condemned under Yanukovich, including the very contract, then her “democratic forces” (including Mr. Poroshenko) were declared a political prisoner, and then - after Yanukovych's flight - they were released from prison wheelchair rolled onto the Maidan scene as a symbol of the victory of the "new" forces. And now these very “new” forces are telling the whole world that it would be a good idea to put Tymoshenko back into jail for signing a contract on gas supplies from Russia. Is it really that? Does Poroshenkovtsy have a very short memory, and they have forgotten that Tymoshenko did not end up in the colony as a “political victim”, but precisely as a “signer” of the very same contract? Or if Poroshenko now stumbles a political rival behind bars, then it cannot be considered a political prisoner, since Pyotr Alekseevich is a purely European, democratic leader, and not some tyrant, retrograde, Kremlin agent Yanukovych ...
However, it is worth returning to the decision of the Stockholm arbitration. "Naftogaz" cheerfully reported that the arbitrators ordered Gazprom to reconsider gas prices under the contract. Here you can not argue - indeed, there is such - obliged. That's just “Naftogaz” demanded a revision of prices for the last 7 years, and the Stockholm arbitration decided that the revision of prices from the time of the victory of the Maidan will be enough - from 2014 year.
Interestingly, the Stockholm Arbitration, in fact, having decided not to reconsider the price before 2014, takes the side of Gazprom. The fact is that it was Gazprom that, under Yanukovych, demanded that Kiev pay for gas at the price specified in the contract, and Kiev paid at a price that it actually determined for itself. During that time, Kiev saved up more than a billion dollars on contractual non-payment alone. It turns out that Ukraine will have to return this amount. And if you consider that since 2014, Ukraine has almost completely stopped paying for gas, then it will have to fork out not only for the volumes received from Russia, but also to fork out in the format of the “partially” realizable take-or-pay principle that Stockholm has kept in force.
In general, the Maidan specialists ran ahead of the locomotive, and forgot the wise saying of the classic: “How good to be able to read!”
Another thing is that even if they read it, they think they will pay something? - at least in the foreseeable future. I do not think so, let it be my purely subjective opinion. After all, everything will be done to merge again. For this there is a set of marked cards in the form: “Russia is an aggressor”, “Russia cannot be paid, since these were agreements with the bloody regime”, etc. Well, the West will once again support it, until it directly confronts this impenetrable farmhouse (and Kiev now really resembles the village in terms of its “policy”) mentality, when it does not receive not only the promised reforms, but also the money given in loans. They will chew snot and prove that they did not have enough funds for democracy ...
The phrases "we broke the back of Gazprom," and "a little more, and Russia will begin to transfer billions to us," crowned with cries of frantic peremog. Gazprom was silent. Meanwhile, the Naftogaz management was handing out interviews, a spokesman, wiping sweat from a happy forehead, ran from one microphone to another, from briefing to interview and back. And Gazprom was silent again. Already in Russia, representatives of the “vsepropalo” section began to congratulate Naftogaz on their victory, expressing in their hearts about the “loss” of Gazprom. Gazprom was silent here too.
And in Naftogaz, scratching their heads, they began to wonder: why is Miller’s company silent, although it has to tear its hair in all places, beat its head against the wall and look for a revolver loaded with one cartridge. And someone most intelligent in Naftogaz decided that Gazprom was silent for a reason. And as soon as he decided, the cleverest were drawn to re-read the essence of the conclusions of the Stockholm arbitration. And what is hidden in these documents? In order.
So, the main reason for peremog announced by Naftogaz was that the Stockholm arbitration allegedly canceled the “take or pay” contract that was previously entered into the contract on the basis of Gazprom’s claims. The meaning is simple: I ordered some gas volumes - pay for gas volumes, even if you did not use them. It looks tough enough, but no one was forced to sign this contract at gunpoint - they signed it, so be so kind as to execute. Now it turns out that the take-or-pay principle has not been canceled by the Stockholm Arbitration ...
Deputy Chairman of the Board of Gazprom, Alexander Medvedev:
It (the arbitration decision) did not abolish the “take or pay” principle. There is no cancellation of take-or-pay.
And this is from the release of Naftogaz, which had run pretty ahead, some time before Medvedev’s comment:
Stockholm arbitration dismissed Gazprom’s take-or-pay claims. Our company should not 44 billion dollars, which are demanded of us by Gazprom.
All that was missing was the shout "Glory to Ukraine" at the end.
Even Ukrainian economic law experts frankly tracked Naftogaz, announcing the outstanding abilities of its lawyers who only “had enough” hours to thoroughly study more than the 700-page document of the Stockholm arbitration and draw all the necessary conclusions. And while “Naftogaz” practiced in eloquence about where to now “spend” non-existent 44 billion dollars, Gazprom's lawyers studied the materials of the decision. And the materials stated that the item "take or pay" is canceled only in part of the provisions of the contract - in particular, when the volume of unused gas is not less than the specified value. What is the value is not reported. However, it is known that about any “gifts” in the form of revocation (or rather, a ban) of claims in the amount of 44 billion dollars is out of the question.
By the way, in the world practice there are quite a few cases when the principle of “take or pay” is realized in the case when the buying party performs less than 80% of the volume of purchases from the contracted ones. If we are guided by this value, then Naftogaz remains “on the counter” of Gazprom over the past few years, since it unilaterally rejected those procurement volumes that were prescribed in the contract. I bought obviously less than 80% of contract volumes.
By the way, the president of Ukraine and his entourage, as you know, intend to initiate an inspection of the head of “Batkivschyna”, Yulia Tymoshenko, for “high treason”. Poroshenkovtsy incriminates the ex-premier of Ukraine, who at one time signed the contract, “anti-Ukrainian activities”. Like, deliberately signed the same contract, which is now being discussed in Ukraine almost as the main negative of the last 20 years. Moreover, the representative of the Bloc of Petro Poroshenko in the Rada I. Gerashchenko announced that it was precisely because of the contract signed by Tymoshenko with the Russian Federation in Ukraine that the war broke out.
All these statements draw special attention to themselves also because Tymoshenko was sent to prison almost in due time on similar charges, but only from Viktor Yanukovych and his entourage. In the biography of Tymoshenko, there is a case called “under the gas contract with Russia from 19.01.2009”.
Surprisingly, isn't it ... Yulia Tymoshenko was condemned under Yanukovich, including the very contract, then her “democratic forces” (including Mr. Poroshenko) were declared a political prisoner, and then - after Yanukovych's flight - they were released from prison wheelchair rolled onto the Maidan scene as a symbol of the victory of the "new" forces. And now these very “new” forces are telling the whole world that it would be a good idea to put Tymoshenko back into jail for signing a contract on gas supplies from Russia. Is it really that? Does Poroshenkovtsy have a very short memory, and they have forgotten that Tymoshenko did not end up in the colony as a “political victim”, but precisely as a “signer” of the very same contract? Or if Poroshenko now stumbles a political rival behind bars, then it cannot be considered a political prisoner, since Pyotr Alekseevich is a purely European, democratic leader, and not some tyrant, retrograde, Kremlin agent Yanukovych ...
However, it is worth returning to the decision of the Stockholm arbitration. "Naftogaz" cheerfully reported that the arbitrators ordered Gazprom to reconsider gas prices under the contract. Here you can not argue - indeed, there is such - obliged. That's just “Naftogaz” demanded a revision of prices for the last 7 years, and the Stockholm arbitration decided that the revision of prices from the time of the victory of the Maidan will be enough - from 2014 year.
Interestingly, the Stockholm Arbitration, in fact, having decided not to reconsider the price before 2014, takes the side of Gazprom. The fact is that it was Gazprom that, under Yanukovych, demanded that Kiev pay for gas at the price specified in the contract, and Kiev paid at a price that it actually determined for itself. During that time, Kiev saved up more than a billion dollars on contractual non-payment alone. It turns out that Ukraine will have to return this amount. And if you consider that since 2014, Ukraine has almost completely stopped paying for gas, then it will have to fork out not only for the volumes received from Russia, but also to fork out in the format of the “partially” realizable take-or-pay principle that Stockholm has kept in force.
In general, the Maidan specialists ran ahead of the locomotive, and forgot the wise saying of the classic: “How good to be able to read!”
Another thing is that even if they read it, they think they will pay something? - at least in the foreseeable future. I do not think so, let it be my purely subjective opinion. After all, everything will be done to merge again. For this there is a set of marked cards in the form: “Russia is an aggressor”, “Russia cannot be paid, since these were agreements with the bloody regime”, etc. Well, the West will once again support it, until it directly confronts this impenetrable farmhouse (and Kiev now really resembles the village in terms of its “policy”) mentality, when it does not receive not only the promised reforms, but also the money given in loans. They will chew snot and prove that they did not have enough funds for democracy ...
Information