The head of Naftogaz told how he is going to recover money from Gazprom
Yury Vitrenko, commercial director of the Ukrainian company Naftogaz, made an entry on Facebook, which once again exposes the entire inner essence of the Maidan authorities. Essence one: the search for "freebies."
Vitrenko presented his version of how to recover from Gazprom those 2,56 billion dollars, which the Russian company ordered to pay Ukraine Stockholm arbitration. According to Vitrenko, for this, “it is not necessary to pump out gas that goes through Ukraine through a pipe to Europe, but it is necessary to collect amounts for gas after it enters the European market.”
Vitrenko (translated from Ukrainian):
I wonder if Vitrenko understood his own “logic”? After all, the gas from Russia that Europe acquired from Gazprom for itself with its own money comes to Europe. This is what European court will decide to arrest the gas purchased by Europe and for Europe in favor of Mr. Vitrenko and his Naftogaz? Or, according to Vitrenko's logic, should Europe oblige Gazprom for paying gas to Ukraine as a “compensation” for gas sold to European consumers?
Vitrenko presented his version of how to recover from Gazprom those 2,56 billion dollars, which the Russian company ordered to pay Ukraine Stockholm arbitration. According to Vitrenko, for this, “it is not necessary to pump out gas that goes through Ukraine through a pipe to Europe, but it is necessary to collect amounts for gas after it enters the European market.”
Vitrenko (translated from Ukrainian):
“Experts” who receive money from Gazprom twist my words that we will impose penalties on gas owned by Gazprom if Gazprom fails to comply with the decision of the Stockholm arbitration and does not pay us 2,5 billion.
I explain: in this case we will impose penalties on gas owned by Gazprom in European countriesand not in Ukraine.
If Gazprom voluntarily fails to comply with the decision of the Stockholm arbitration, we will apply to the courts in European countries that have ratified the relevant international convention, by enforcing the arbitration decision.
Thus, we are not going to take gas from transit flows to Europe.
It is better for us to impose penalties on gas after it hits the European markets - this is a more effective way to get the funds that we have to pay to Gazprom by international arbitration, and show Europe that Ukraine is a reliable transit country, and Gazprom "- unreliable gas supplier.
I explain: in this case we will impose penalties on gas owned by Gazprom in European countriesand not in Ukraine.
If Gazprom voluntarily fails to comply with the decision of the Stockholm arbitration, we will apply to the courts in European countries that have ratified the relevant international convention, by enforcing the arbitration decision.
Thus, we are not going to take gas from transit flows to Europe.
It is better for us to impose penalties on gas after it hits the European markets - this is a more effective way to get the funds that we have to pay to Gazprom by international arbitration, and show Europe that Ukraine is a reliable transit country, and Gazprom "- unreliable gas supplier.
I wonder if Vitrenko understood his own “logic”? After all, the gas from Russia that Europe acquired from Gazprom for itself with its own money comes to Europe. This is what European court will decide to arrest the gas purchased by Europe and for Europe in favor of Mr. Vitrenko and his Naftogaz? Or, according to Vitrenko's logic, should Europe oblige Gazprom for paying gas to Ukraine as a “compensation” for gas sold to European consumers?
Information