Archive for July 9th, 2013


50 ways to leave your lover – Gazprom and Ukraine

July 9, 2013

The problem is all inside your head she said to me, the answer is easy if you think about it logically.  I’d like to help you in your struggle to be free – there must be fifty ways to leave your lover“.

Well, perhaps there are not 50 ways for Ukraine to leave its abusive relationship with Gazprom, but there certainly appear to be quite a few – despite there being no progress by the current Ukrainian government in finding legal grounds to break the odious, asymmetrical contract signed by Ms Tymoshenko in 2009.

Hardly hiding  itself within the current – and that which existed at the time the contract was signed in 2009 –  Anti-monopoly laws of Ukraine, Articles 7, 9, 13, 14, 22 and 25 would seem to have been violated.  Also Chapters 3 and 6 of the Ukrainian law on “Protection from unfair competition” – not to mention the law of “Protection of economic competition”, Articles 18, 19, 22, 24 and 25, and sections IV, VII and VIII, also seem to have been impinged.

Yes I know, if that route were taken and used to break or annul the 2009 contract on legalities, in signing it that would make Ms Tymoshenko guilty of breaking and steamrollering over numerous Ukrainian laws – and so perhaps her abuse of office conviction would sit more readily with a wider audience as an umbrella conviction for any or all of what appear to be breaches due to the wording of the signed contract she signed.

If so, then so be it.

However, in the interests or impartiality, under the Criminal Code of Ukraine, the current PGO and current Anti-monopoly Committee would be guilty of negligence Articles 368 and 369 by not exploring these apparent breaches of such an asymmetrical and clearly monopolising 2009 contract as was signed as outlined in the laws, articles and chapters mentioned above.

Now I may not have mentioned 50 ways, but there is certainly room to look at 16 parts of  3 different Ukrainian legislative acts that were current in 2009 when the contract was signed, that would seem break the law and thus provide a method to legally break the contract with Gazprom.

As I do not believe for a moment that these apparent breaches have not been discovered by the current administration, one can only assume that there are those who privately benefit from leaving it as it is, despite publicly decrying it.  Why else have they not been explored and at the very least suspended the Gazprom contract during investigations?

%d bloggers like this: