Does Russia Get Along With Any Of Its Neighbors?

[Harovan]

Hey, Russia provides stuff again. Look how they caved in after Barroso and Merkel raised their voices.

[Saras]

Naah, it was our navy approaching Kronshtadt that tipped them over

[Dinner]

Uranium can't completely replace oil. Even though Oerdin called it a "silly comment", you can't drive with it.

I don't believe anyone said that we could 100% remove oil from our economies. That's a nice misreprentation. In any event France has achieved something like 70% of its electricity from nuclear power so it is realistic to dramaticly cut hydrocarbon consumption and greenhouse gas output while still maintaining a very high standard of living.

Lastly you can drive a car with nuclear power. Toyota's new version of the Prius is a "plug in hybrid" meaning you can plug it into a wall socket to charge the battery. If that wall socket is powered by clean nongreenhouse gas producing nuclear power then most of the car's energy use is the battery and not gasoline. In any event technologies like hybrids will help reduce oil consumption.

[Harovan]

The electric car has been mentioned several times within this thread, but as of now its market share is still too small to be a considerable economic factor. This may (and probably will) change in the future, although probably not as fast as it would be good to be (the oil companies will do their best do delay that).

By the way, why do the US import so many oil from Americas favorite "tinpot dictator in the making"? Why do you support Chavez and hate freedom so much?

The answer has also been given in this thread. When there's a balance between supply and demand, it doesn't really matter who buys from whom.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Oerdin


Did you read anything in this thread. I clearly stated that if Russia wants to break the current agreement with Belarus and charge market rates then they should also be forced to pay Belarus's pipeline tax. Russia currently insistes they can charge 400% higher rates but refuses to pay Belarus's oil transport taxes. Fair is fair so if Russia wants to break the old agreement then they should be prepared to pay Belarus's oil transport tax. It is hypocracy to whine when Russia breaks its side of the agreement yet Belarus isn't supposed to do the same. Either the old agreementis good or a new one should be reached and Russia simply cannot refuse to pay the oil transport tax. Russia had refused so Belarus began taking payment in kind by taking oil from the pipeline. If Russia wants to open this can of worms then it must take the downside as well as the upside.

LMAO. It's an interesting opininon but a very uninformed one.

First, since when selling goods for their average market price is considered as "breaking old agreements"? There wasn't any agreement to sell goods for 40% of their market price indefinitely.

Second, Belarus "tax" breaks three agreements with Russia. So, obviously, Russia CAN refuse to pay an illegal oil transport "tax".

Third, there is no such thing in a world practice as a "tax" on transit goods.

[Victor Galis]

Wouldn't it be easier in the mid term to build a pipeline across Latvia and Lithuania into the EU so that they could bully their other neighbors without annoying the EU?

[KrazyHorse]

Third, there is no such thing in a world practice as a "tax" on transit goods.

Uh...yeah, there is.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Ellestar

LMAO. It's an interesting opininon but a very uninformed one.

First, since when selling goods for their average market price is considered as "breaking old agreements"? There wasn't any agreement to sell goods for 40% of their market price indefinitely.

Second, Belarus "tax" breaks three agreements with Russia. So, obviously, Russia CAN refuse to pay an illegal oil transport "tax".

Third, there is no such thing in a world practice as a "tax" on transit goods.

The old agreement going back to the end of the Soviet Union was that Russia would continue to supply subsidized oil to Belarus and Belarus wouldn't tax oil moving through the pipeline. Russia has now broken this agreement so it can't whine when Belarus decides it wants to charge a higher toll on the oil being transported through its national territory. Turn around is fair play.

As for your claim that countries/companies don't charge a fee or toll on the transport of oil via pipeline through their territory... That's just clueless rubbish.

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by Oerdin





The old agreement going back to the end of the Soviet Union was that Russia would continue to supply subsidized oil to Belarus and Belarus wouldn't tax oil moving through the pipeline. Russia has now broken this agreement so it can't whine when Belarus decides it wants to charge a higher toll on the oil being transported through its national territory. Turn around is fair play.

As for your claim that countries/companies don't charge a fee or toll on the transport of oil via pipeline through their territory... That's just clueless rubbish.

Hmm, do you have any links to support your claims?

Clearly, you don't understand what i said. There is an import tax or an export tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax and more precisely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff). There is no such thing as a transit "tax". Let it be a fee, a toll or a donation to Belarus economy, but it's just stupid for a Belarus side to call it a transit "tax".

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Ellestar

Hmm, do you have any links to support your claims?

There is an import tax or an export tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax and more precisely http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff). There is no such thing as a transit "tax". Let it be a fee, a toll or a donation to Belarus economy, but it's just stupid for a Belarus side to call it a transit "tax".

assuming that the company that owns the pipeline is private, and it charges, say, $3 a barrel as a toll or fee, and the govt charges $1 on top of that, despite the govt not owning the pipeline, I think the correct english word for that would be a tax, specifically a transit tax( if it was specifically only applied to shipments that entered and then exited the country - otherwise a pipeline usage excise tax) Im not sure if thats the case in belarus.

[Dinner]

Ellestar, why do you think Russia kept the energy prices so low dispite the fact that it is now almost 16 years since the USSR collapsed? They were trying to maintain influence and places like Belarus recipricated by allowing other CIS states to continue using Soviet area infastructure without forcing them to pay tolls. Putin's actions of the last few years has been responsible for this breakdown.

Sure, Russia has a right to charge market rates for its oil but it is funny to hear Russians whine about how unfair a pipeline use fee/transport tax is.

[Rasputin]

Both are fair and good things Rusia should charge full market prices for oil, and countries with pipeline sthorugh them should charge for the use of the pipes laying on their sovceriegn ground.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Ellestar
Hmm, do you have any links to support your claims?

This would interest me as well.

[Rasputin]

No intrest here

[Ellestar]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
assuming that the company that owns the pipeline is private, and it charges, say, $3 a barrel as a toll or fee, and the govt charges $1 on top of that, despite the govt not owning the pipeline, I think the correct english word for that would be a tax, specifically a transit tax( if it was specifically only applied to shipments that entered and then exited the country - otherwise a pipeline usage excise tax) Im not sure if thats the case in belarus.

Ok, maybe it's the right word for that. But the point is that noone charges such tax. According to a new information i got today, there was no such thing as a transit tax since medieval times (previously i stated that there was no such thing at all).

Originally posted by Oerdin
Ellestar, why do you think Russia kept the energy prices so low dispite the fact that it is now almost 16 years since the USSR collapsed? They were trying to maintain influence and places like Belarus recipricated by allowing other CIS states to continue using Soviet area infastructure without forcing them to pay tolls. Putin's actions of the last few years has been responsible for this breakdown.

So, you have nothing to back up your claim that Russia broken some treaties by charging more for oil and gas? Good enough.

Back to your words - so what? Everyone uses economy for political and military benefits. Russia finally started to do it once again after a long delay, and everyone started to whine. Besides, Russia is paying for infrastructure (maybe not a full average price but it's cheaper to pay a full price for infrastructure and get a full price for oil/gas so your point is irrelevant).

Originally posted by Oerdin Sure, Russia has a right to charge market rates for its oil but it is funny to hear Russians whine about how unfair a pipeline use fee/transport tax is.

It's not "unfair", it's breaks three agreements with Belarus. I don't like to repeat something to people who can't read my posts.