Kommersant: Russia, Ukraine to benefit from Medvedev-Yanukovych deal; Gazeta.ru: Post-Soviet republics face a new re-division; Kommersant: Russia won't take crumbs from NATO's table; RBC Daily: Russia's Gazprom returns to U.S. market; Vedomosti: Russians opt for ready cash.

Kommersant: Russia, Ukraine to benefit from Medvedev-Yanukovych deal

Although it seems Moscow has closed an unprofitable deal with Ukraine, in which it will have to exchange substantial amounts of natural gas for each berth in Sevastopol, the main base of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, this is not so, writes an influential Russian political analyst.

Boris Makarenko, chairman of the board at the Center for Political Technologies, says Moscow previously gave optional fuel and energy price discounts to post-Soviet republics in hopes they would maintain better relations with Russia.

This policy culminated in Russian-Ukrainian gas crises and the constant antics of Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko. A transparent exchange mechanism formalized by the relevant contract is a better and more honest option, the analyst writes.

There is another broader dimension. Ukrainian presidents come and go, but it is not so easy to abolish a long-term interstate agreement. This means that any Ukrainian president will find it much harder to facilitate the country's NATO membership in the next 25 years, the analyst writes.

It is hard to imagine what political and economic price Russia would have to pay if Ukraine joined NATO. Consequently, President Dmitry Medvedev has scored an important symbolic success, the analyst writes.

Ukraine has not miscalculated either and has received affordable and vitally important gas needed by households and industry in conditions of the current financial and economic crisis. Ukrainian-Russian political relations have been normalized. Moreover, Kiev has received better bargaining positions in its negotiations with the West.

Viktor Yanukovych has acted as a bold politician, creating a new reality that cannot be easily undone. Yanukovych probably hopes the deal will be approved by most pragmatic Ukrainians sympathizing with Russia and also counts on his new solid majority in the Verkhovna Rada, the national parliament, the analyst concludes.

Gazeta.ru: Post-Soviet republics face a new re-division

Kurmanbek Bakiyev's refutation of his resignation and the Russian-Ukrainian gas-for-fleet tradeoff marked the beginning of a new round of rivalry in the post-Soviet space, a Russian analyst writes.

Fyodor Lukyanov, editor-in-chief of the Moscow magazine Russia in Global Affairs, writes that Russian-Ukrainian relations are being reset at a truly amazing speed.

Ukraine's economic situation has dramatically deteriorated during the five years of an "orange" government, forcing its new leaders to sign a comprehensive deal to get Russian natural gas cheaper, thereby reaffirming Russia's status as a leading player in the post-Soviet space. But the situation could change if active groups in Ukraine, provided there are any, mount resistance with moral and possibly other kinds of external support.

The problem with Bakiyev is more interesting because it has raised the fundamental question of the sources of legitimacy and rules of the game in the post-Soviet space, the analyst writes.

Moscow acted as the supreme arbiter in the early 1990s. A conflict with it guaranteed insurmountable problems, while its support could keep governments in power. In the 2000s, the function was taken over by European organizations, OSCE, the Council of Europe and the EU, supported by the United States.

For two weeks after the revolt in Kyrgyzstan, the West mulled Moscow's possible involvement in Bakiyev's overthrow. No proof of this has been found, but the developments have taken a surprise turn, the analyst writes.

Bakiyev, who has been evacuated from the conflict zone with the assistance of Russia, the United States and Kazakhstan (the largest Central Asian power and the chair of the regional Collective Security Treaty Organization, CSTO), said in the CIS headquarters that he is the only legitimate leader of Kyrgyzstan.

If he was forced to sign his resignation, this could mean that there is no other legitimate institute of power apart from him in Kyrgyzstan. The interim government has made a big mistake by dissolving the parliament too soon as this has created a legal vacuum until the next election.

This vacuum should be filled by an external arbiter, but Russia does not have a system of institutions that could do so.

The CSTO, the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the CIS do not wield universal, or at least broadly recognized constitutive power. Moreover, no other country apart from Russia is interested in creating a precedent of external legitimization of power, Lukyanov writes.

The evacuation of Bakiyev from Kyrgyzstan has shown that great powers can act jointly to deal with delicate problems.

But the toppled president has provoked a new round of rivalry, possibly at external prompting. Unstable and non-transparent regimes need such rivalry because it allows them to sell their loyalty to the highest bidder.

Avoiding this scenario would be in the interests of both Russia and the Untied States. Otherwise, there will be a new re-division of the spheres of influence, and it will be more unpleasant and possibly more destructive than the previous one, the analyst concludes.

Kommersant: Russia won't take crumbs from NATO's table

Moscow has declined to attend the NATO-Russian Council meeting to be held in Tallinn as part of the two-day informal summit of the alliance's foreign ministers because it was not invited to discuss key issues. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov demanded on Thursday that Russia be included in the U.S. missile shield development and not just called to be informed of an approved project.

One of the key issues on the Tallinn meeting agenda is building a joint Euro-Atlantic missile defense system involving Russia and covering an area from Vancouver to Vladivostok. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen believes Moscow's involvement would be proof of Russia's membership in the Euro-Atlantic "family."

NATO sources told the media that there were no serious technical obstacles to merging the two missile defense systems, which would only require "political will," and that a Euro-Atlantic missile shield could be built within ten years in an optimistic scenario.

Moscow had expected to discuss Rasmussen's proposal made on March 27 at the ministerial meeting of the NATO-Russia Council, but the Russian delegation never went to Tallinn.

"Although the ministerial meeting agenda does include 'burning' issues that are of major interest to Russia, all they offered were crumbs from their table," Russia's NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin told Kommersant.

Sergei Lavrov also made a public assessment of NATO's proposal to build a Euro-Atlantic missile defense system. He said Russia was working closely with the alliance to analyze missile threats. "However, they are simultaneously working on schemes that exclude Russia. This is a small controversy we would like to iron out," he said.

"It is important that the common missile defense system be a truly common project involving cooperation and mutual respect, rather than offer to come and join a decision already made," he added.

Rogozin said NATO's current proposal is more like a propaganda move aimed at "showing that the alliance is open to all options while Russia is the one declining offers of cooperation." "But there is nothing to discuss at this point anyway as we have only seen empty slogans without specific content," the Russian envoy added.

Ruslan Pukhov, director of the Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies, a think tank, said, even if Russia and NATO finally find common ground, a common missile defense project could still be blocked by the new members of the alliance which often try to force the alliance to choose between them and Russia.

RBC Daily: Russia's Gazprom returns to U.S. market

Gazprom Global LNG Ltd, a UK-registered LNG subsidiary of Russia's Gazprom, has agreed with Sempra LNG to supply liquefied natural gas to its Cameron terminal in Louisiana. The two companies signed an agreement on Thursday, while supplies are due to begin in June, GGLNG said in a statement.

The booming development of shale gas production in the United States has led to a sharp fall in the country's demand for natural gas imports. Earlier this year, Gazprom, which planned to control 20% of the U.S. market by 2020, recognized that it had to return the LNG intended for the United States to the Asia-Pacific market. But now the Russian monopoly seems to have regained confidence.

Gazprom Global LNG will send up to two tankers of liquefied gas to the United States monthly. The commodity will be supplied to the Cameron regasification terminal commissioned in July 2009. The facility, located near Lake Charles in Louisiana, unloads 1.5 billion cu ft of LNG per day.

The first cargo is due to arrive in June 2010. The company did not cite the timeframe for the contract but described it as long term. GGLNG has a contract with Sakhalin Energy, the Sakhalin-2 gas project operator, to buy 1 million metric tons of LNG in 2009-2028.

Frederic Barnaud, president and managing director of Gazprom Global LNG, said the deal will help Gazprom expand its presence on the Atlantic LNG market.

The prospects of LNG marketing in the United States are vague at this point. However, the United States may be expected to import at least some liquefied gas to diversify supplies, said Valery Nesterov from Troika Dialog brokerage. The country has several LNG terminals already built, so these have to be used.

So far Gazprom's deliveries will be quite modest, as two tankers a month means about 300 million cu m. Therefore, the monopoly has not taken on a lot of responsibility, but hasn't left the market either.

Price trends are favorable for Gazprom now, Nesterov said.

Last year, the average LNG price at the U.S. Henry hub was $142 per 1,000 cu m, and rose to $154 in March 2010. The U.S. Department of Energy predicts next year's average price at $192.

In Europe, Gazprom is currently selling LNG for $300, said Mikhail Korchemkin, director general of the East European Gas Analysis consultancy. Therefore, it would be more logical for the Russian company to focus on the European market for the time being.

Vedomosti: Russians opt for ready cash

The number of Russians having cash savings has not diminished in the crisis and now accounts for 28% of the adult population. The preferred form of saving cash is in rubles.

This is the conclusion formed by the VTsIOM public opinion agency, which polled 1,600 Russians aged over 18 in 46 regions of Russia in February-March of this year at the request of the Deposit Insurance Agency. The aim was to assess the investment behavior of the population. A similar poll was conducted in 2007. Most respondents (82%) said that their incomes had not changed or changed little in the past year.

Valery Fedorov, VTsIOM general director, explains why only less than one-third of people have savings: "We remain a rather poor country and a considerable part of earnings goes into current expenses, with most Russians finding it hard to put aside a few thousand rubles. The amount people are ready to call their savings is very low - less than 10,000 rubles."

The cash ruble holds first place among the saving methods chosen by Russians. It is the choice of 21% of respondents (three years ago the figure was 26%). Accounts and deposits in banks are the second-most popular option (12% of respondents, against 11% in 2007). Ranking third are savings in foreign cash currency. Their supporters have increased from 1% to 3%. This year's trio of leaders has failed to include investment in one's own business. Three years ago it was chosen by 2%, against 1% now.

"Between November 2008 and February 2009, when the ruble dramatically dropped in value, foreign currency deposits showed a sharp increase - growing from 14% to 31%, with a large proportion of money going into foreign cash currency as a way of hedging against the ruble depreciation," explains Andrei Melnikov, Deposit Insurance Agency deputy director.

"It is odd to save money in foreign cash when one can keep it in a bank and draw interest," says Ilya Zibarev, deputy head of Alfa Bank's retail business division. The share of foreign currency deposits is already on the decline and will continue to do so. Ready money will go the same way, Melnikov believes: the ruble has been slowly, if not steadily, strengthening.

Pollsters say only 1% of respondents save money for investment. "There is no such tradition," Fedorov says. "Even keeping money in a bank is seen by people as a way to ensure money's safety." More often than not, Russians save for a rainy day (24%), for holidays and medical treatment (17%) or for apartment renovation or retirement (15% and 11%, respectively).

April 23, 2010 

RIA Novosti