Russia-Ukraine gas disputes

<snip>
The Russia–Ukraine gas disputes refer to a number of disputes between Ukrainian oil and gas company Naftohaz Ukrayiny and Russian gas supplier Gazprom over natural gas supplies, prices, and debts. These disputes have grown beyond simple business disputes into transnational political issues—involving political leaders from several countries—that threaten natural gas supplies in numerous European countries dependent on natural gas imports from Russian suppliers, which are transported through Ukraine. Russia provides approximately a quarter of the natural gas consumed in the European Union; approximately 80% of those exports travel through pipelines across Ukrainian soil prior to arriving in the EU.[1]

A serious dispute began in March 2005 over the price of natural gas supplied and the cost of transit. During this conflict, Russia claimed Ukraine was not paying for gas, but diverting that which was intended to be exported to the EU from the pipelines. Ukrainian officials at first denied the accusation,[2][3] but later Naftogaz admitted that natural gas intended for other European countries was retained and used for domestic needs. The dispute reached a high point on 1 January 2006, when Russia cut off all gas supplies passing through Ukrainian territory.[4] On 4 January 2006, a preliminary agreement between Russia and Ukraine was achieved, and the supply was restored. The situation calmed until October 2007 when new disputes began over Ukrainian gas debts. This led to reduction of gas supplies in March 2008. During the last months of 2008, relations once again became tense when Ukraine and Russia could not agree on the debts owed by Ukraine.[

<snip>
On 8 June 2010, a Stockholm court of arbitration ruled Naftohaz of Ukraine must return 12.1 billion cubic metres (430 billion cubic feet) of gas to RosUkrEnergo, a Swiss-based company in which Gazprom controls a 50% stake. Russia accused Ukrainian side of diverting gas from pipelines passing through Ukraine in 2009.[12][13] Several high-ranking Ukrainian officials stated the return "would not be quick".[14]

Russia plans to completely abandon gas supplies to Europe through Ukraine after 2018.[15][16] Gazprom has already substantially reduced the volumes of gas it transits across Ukraine, and expressed its intention of reducing the level further by means of transit diversification pipelines (Nord Stream, Turkish Stream, etc)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russia%E2%80%93Ukraine_gas_disputes

Trump's base is his buffer to keep from being convicted in the Senate.

Trump has had three rallies this week alone.

The purpose is to consolidate his base and to keep the Senate from convicting him in an impeachment trial.

The base is his insurance policy.

So long as he can put the fear of God in Republicans running for re-election, then he is fairly sure he will never be convicted by the Republican toadies in the US Senate.

Congressman says "Democrats are ready to vote"...

Rep. Ro Khanna of California on CNN this morning said that Democrats were ready to vote on impeachment.

Is he being a little premature?

After Mulvaney's presser yesterday, the Democrats feel they have all the evidence they need to impeach Donald J Trump.

But they still don't know why Giuliani was working in secret in Ukraine? Was it really to find dirt on the Bidens and to find the DNC server? Was it really to uncover corruption?

In my opinion, it would be a mistake to believe that.

Why was Giuliani meeting with Paul Manafort before his trips to Ukraine? He met with him "several times", according to reports.

Why did he choose the two "associates" from Ukraine to work with him? Where did they get their money? Who paid Giuliani the $500,000? Why were only a few State Dept officials directed to report to Giuliani? Why did the two Giuliani "associates" have one-way tickets to Vienna? Why did Giuliani have a ticket to Vienna? There are still a lot of questions that need answers.

There is little doubt but that Rudolph Giuliani has a large role in this conspiracy.

But, if the Democrats impeach now, does the investigation more or less end? There is still a lot to uncover.

If the Democrats are patient, it might make a nice Christmas present?

Speaker Pelosi said there was no "time limit" on impeachment inquiry.

Some reporter asked her if the investigation would need to end to accommodate politicians and political schedules?

She made the distinction between politics and the necessity of defending our Constitution.

She seemed to say that they would continue to investigate so long as they needed to?

They want to get answers to all the outstanding questions, especially about national security matters.

It would make no sense to end it for a political campaign.

The day that shook the White House.

They knew it was going to be bad even before they read Gordon Sondland's opening statement. He had already hinted at what he was going to say. When he said this:

"I also know that party affiliations are set aside when representing the United States. Having served on non-partisan commissions by the appointment of three Democratic governors and on the transition team forOregon Governor Ted Kulongoski, another Democrat, I am well accustomed to working across the aisle. For example, I worked briefly with former Vice President Biden’s office in connection with the Vice President’s nationwide anti-cancer initiative and admire his long record of public service..."

They knew that his testimony could be trouble.

Sondland also testified that he contacted Giuliani at the direction of Donald Trump.

Furthermore, he testified that Giuliani said that the DNC server and Burisma (gas co.) were two important topics to be investigated.

Then, present OMB Director and Acting-Chief of Staff Mick "Moonpie" Mulvaney, came out to spin the testimony that was being given to the Committee at that very moment. First of all, he would throw them a bone. He would let them know that Mr Trump had decided to have next year's G-8 meeting at Mr Trump's golf club, the Doral in Miami. That could distract them from the big message.

Yes, they held up the money for Ukraine's defense for political purposes. That's the way it is. Get used to it. Yes, there was a quid pro quo for getting the money. They wanted the DNC server investigated. Also, the Burisma Gas company.

The White House lawyers were beside themselves. What the hell did he say!? That is not what we wanted. He admitted to just about every charge against them.

The White House is still shaking.

Romney is ready...

Just in case Trump has to be impeached and convicted.

He is ready to rescue the Republican Party if they get themselves in a bind with Trump.

He gave a speech on the Senate floor today that was not complimentary of Donald Trump.

Just so you know.

He is ready to step in.

Behind Closed Doors

G-7 Meeting next year? Why announce it today?

That it is going to be held at Trump's Doral Golf Club?

Hmmm...

It is such an obvious attempt at a distraction, surely no one will be fooled?

""So if Russia wants to get involved with Syria that's really up to them....

This comment by Trump today harkens back to the 2016 campaign, when he said: "Russia, if you're listening..."

Like good mobsters, they can speak in a code that each of them can understand. How would Putin interpret Trump's comments today?

========================================================

<snip>
In his White House remarks, Trump said it didn’t harm U.S. strategic interests if Russia moved into the territory where the U.S. withdrew.

“Syria may have some help with Russia and that’s fine,” Trump said. “It’s a lot of sand. They’ve got a lot of sand over there, so there’s a lot of sand they can play with.”

Trump suggested that Russian involvement in the region would eventually prove costly, drawing parallels with the Soviet-Afghan war in the 1980s.

“It used to be called the Soviet Union, now it’s called Russia for a reason -- because they lost so much money in Afghanistan they had to downsize,” Trump said. “So if Russia wants to get involved with Syria that’s really up to them. They have a problem with Turkey, they have a problem with the border.”

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-10-16/trump-says-russian-syria-expansion-after-u-s-departs-is-fine

Which side are you on?

Are you on the side of America or those that seek to destroy our democracy?

Are you on the side of the oligarchs and international criminals?

Or are you on the side of those that are fighting to protect our institutions and our right to vote?

Are you on the side of those that hide and obfuscate and do harm to our country?

Or are you on the side of those that call for transparency and the truth?

Are you on the side of the liars and the distractionists?

Or are you on the side of those that defend our Constitution?

Are you on the side of those that do not know "fake news" from "real news"?

Or are you on the side of those that believe we are better off with a "free press"?