Atlantic Council

We are seeing a familiar pattern repeating itself. A dispute between Naftohaz and Gazprom leads to an interruption in Ukraine's gas supply. Deliveries to Europe are affected. Russia is criticized for its use of "the energy weapon". Then, everything is patched up, the gas flows again and the West loses interest in the matter until the next dispute flares up.

Russia is threatening to cut off gas flows to Ukraine on January 1 if Kyiv does not fork over $2 billion in late payments and finalize new gas prices for 2009.  However, a stop in gas supplies now will be different than it was in January 2006; this time around Ukraine has amassed enough reserves to get it through the winter (as has Germany). 

Will the U.S. extend security guarantees to Georgia and Ukraine on a bilateral basis?  With NATO MAPs not on the table for the foreseeable future, pacts with the U.S. are emerging in both countries.  However, Ukraine's is nonbinding, and as my colleague James Joyner points out, Georgia's seems largely symbolic.  RFE/RL ran two articles about the deals late last week. 

Moscow and Kiev are once again on a collision course over gas supplies. WaPo: Russia and Ukraine appear to be heading for a new collision over natural gas that could disrupt supplies to Europe this winter, with Russia threatening to stop selling the fuel to Ukraine on Jan. 1 if it does not repay more than $2 billion in debt.

Just days ago, the BBC reported that the leaders of Yushchenko and Tymoshenko's respective parties had agreed to form a new governing coalition after the previous one collapsed in September.  But of course, doubts have already emerged about this arrangement.  Last Monday, Nikolas Gvosdev noted the fragile nature of the new "coalition." 

So the Orange Coalition has pulled itself back together to form a governing majority in Ukraine once again. Somehow "incompetent" Viktor Yushchenko and "traitor" Yulia Tymoshenko (in the eyes of some of the respective partisans of both politicians) are back on the same page.

Washington and London have proposed dropping the NATO MAPs for Georgia and Ukraine, favoring instead an open-ended development plan to bring both countries closer to membership. While Germany and France protest such unorthodoxy, this more flexible approach may allow NATO to prudently balance its interests with Russia and for eventual Georgian-Ukrainian expansion.

NATO forces are looking into alternative supply routes for their increasingly over-stretched forces in Afghanistan, and could turn to countries such as Ukraine and Belarus to provide them. The Guardian:

Four serious attacks on US and Nato supplies in Pakistan during the past month, including two in the past three days, have added to the sense of urgency to conclude pacts with former Soviet republics bordering Afghanistan to the north. Nato is negotiating with Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan to allow supplies for Nato forces, including fuel, to cross borders into Afghanistan from the north. The deal, which officials said was close to being agreed, follows an agreement with Moscow this year allowing Nato supplies to be transported by rail or road through Russia. The deal could allow more fuel for Nato forces to be transported from refineries in Baku, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan. Most of the 75m gallons of fuel estimated to be used by Nato forces annually in Afghanistan comes from refineries in Pakistan.

[...]

Nato officials said yesterday that the organisation is negotiating with Ukraine and Belarus for a land route which, though long, would avoid Pakistan and the pirates of the Gulf of Aden. The officials yesterday played down the strategic significance of Sunday's attack in Peshawar, the Pakistani town on the main transit route through the Khyber pass. But independent analysts described it as a well-planned move, with 100 militants torching more than 100 trucks.

According to a British defense official the attacks haven't made a huge dent to supplies, mainly due to the large amount of traffic passing through the area. Additionally, the contractors NATO hires to deliver supplies to troops are local Pashtun businesses, and it is believed the Taliban could risk a backlash if they continue to target them. More than 70% of the supplies for NATO troops in Afghanistan land at the port of Karachi and are taken to Peshawar, then through the Khyber pass to Kabul. More important cargos are flown in:

More urgent or valuable supplies to Nato forces in Afghanistan are flown in to the Bagram air base near Kabul, and the Kandahar base, which can take large C-17 transport aircraft used by the US and Britain. Hercules aircraft, the workhorse of the RAF, can also land at the British base Camp Bastion, in Helmand province.

But even with extra land routes from the north, more attacks on the overland routes to southern Afghanistan could exacerbate Nato's existing lack of "strategic airlift", UK officials said yesterday.

It's official – NATO will not offer Georgia and Ukraine Membership Action Plans (MAPs), Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer said after a two-day summit of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels. 

On Thursday, Putin fielded three hours of questions live on Russian television and radio, aimed largely at calming fears about the financial crisis.  The Independent published excerpts:

Q: I have two questions.  As New Year approaches, we need to know where to buy a tree.  Second, will Ukraine pay for its gas?

"Every family who wants to have a tree, can have it, a natural or a fake one.  More and more people are using fake trees.  It's an individual choice.  And our Ukrainian partners haven't settled their debt yet, $2.5 billion, this isn't small money, for Gazprom or the country.  We know Ukraine is having bigger problems than Russia, for example, as a result of the financial crisis.  What to do?  Trade doesn't happen for free, you have to pay?  If you go to Germany and say, ‘I want a Mercedes for free'.  Who will give it to you?"

Q: Would you like to see Saakashvili hung by one of his body parts?  [Mr. Putin was reported to have told President Sarkozy of France that the Georgian leader should be "hung by the balls."]

"Why just one part?  But seriously, we all know the tragic news in other parts of the world, in Iraq for example, where American troops went under the false pretence of weapons of mass destruction.  They didn't find the weapons, but they hanged the leader.  I believe it is up to Georgia's people to decide what kind of responsibility must be borne by those politicians who led to these harshest and tragic consequences."