THE UNION STATE and GAZPROM

The complicated issue over Gazprom raising the prices for gas to Belarus has clouded the already multi-diminsional issue of the future Union-State between Russia and Belarus.

There is no ONE bottom line in the Gazprom debacle, rather there are several viewpoints that should be considered.

The Russian Federation is the rightful owner of its natural resources and ultimately the Russians can sell their property to whomever they choose, and for whatever price they wish. Most people agree with this.

The increased prices of natural gas to Belarus will hurt her and cause her a financial setback. The west, and mainly the United States government will attempt to exploit this injury sustained by little Belarus and drumbeats of these impending attacks can be heard even now.

The Belarusians will survive this economic downturn, this increased expense will cause injury, misery, and general suffering, but these problems will be overcome with Belarusian perserverence and thrift and industry. The Belarusians will survive our/US conditional offers of economic assistance, and they will survive our/US ingenuine democracy cloaked provocations.

A giant portion of the Gazprom natural gas product is sold at cost to the citizens of Russia, this severely limits Gazproms available product that can be sold at a "retail value".

This decision to injure the Belarusian economy by raising gas prices is wrong, and I personally would take an alternate course, but let us examine some of the facets to this decision that aren't widely spoken of.

The Russian economy and Russian people have been suffering and have been trajicly injured by the fall of the USSR. Russian social and economic problems are pandemic and exist as a constant cancre on the Russian Federations gums.

Belarus has preserved her Soviet assets and infrastructure and is not in dire jeopardy of the same types of abscesses gimping Russia.

Belarus is the metaphoric ant that has been saving for winter, and Russia is like the grasshopper who has played all summer. We all agree Russia has not played, but there has been waste and theft in Russia that hasn't taken place in Belarus. (thanks in no small part to Alexander Lukashenka)

It is not fair for Belarus to pay a Western European price for natural gas when she finalizes the Union State with Russia, and it is not absolutely needed for Russian survival, but it is what Belarus must now do.

President Putin understands that The Russian Federation must heal herself, and a very large issue is, where is the Gazprom money going? Does this money go overseas to America or Germany, or does the lions share of Gazprom profits ultimately go to the general welfare of the Russian people.

Yes, Belarus will pay more, but where will this money go? What percentage of the Belarusian increase will go towards the bottom line of American/Western businesses, and what percentage will ultimately strengthen the bottom line and long term health and welfare of Russia herself. It is my opinion that a very large portion of this price increase will ultimately go to the care, maintenence and welfare of the general Russian population in that Gazprom is largely owned by the state, and that Gazprom is heavily hamstringed by low prices to Russian citizens and Russian businesses.

Is it fair that the Belarusians should suffer for the Russians? No, it is not only unfair, but it is trajic and heartbreaking. But it must now be done, AND the Union State must progress.

The Russians and Belarusians must now continue to move forward to their mutual destiny. They must bring the strengths of Soviet Belarus together with the advantages of a modernizing Russia.

There is much talk about a new Soviet Union. People debate about whether or not this is a good idea. Don't forget that even if the Soviet Union had not dissolved, today it would have a markedly different face than the face it displayed in 1986. American has not dissolved, but we have drasticly changed in 20 years. I believe it is correct that the Soviet Union would have also dramaticly morphed had it stayed together. It would have HAD to morph to remain prosperously together on some levels.

I believe it is correct to salvage good ideas from the former Soviet Union and try to bring them into the modern world. It is correct for Belarus to now become a modern Soviet country. By modern, I mean that Belarus should become a clear leader in the world and again remind the world that SOVIET MEANS QUALITY. Belarus is presently very modern by many standards, but now they need to move quickly to the future and allow their investments from the USSR (social and economic) to pay dividends. They must do this without compromising their soverignty or their economic future.

The Union State will not compromise Belarusian soverignty, rather it will offer Belarus some measure of consolidating its global influence with that of Russia to the mutual benefit of Both parties. This is why the US government and the west is oppossed to such a union. It has nothing to do with Belarus' internal level of democracy. American just wants Belarus and Russia seperated so they will not join their collective political, military, and economic capital.

Belarus must guard her economic future in part by not incurring a giant national debt that can never be paid, similar to what we have in the United States.

For example, after WW2 Germany was obviously in terrible condition, but today they are a modern and comfortable country. Their present success sould be partly credited to the post WW2 German governments refusal to accept giant loans that would have to be serviced or paid in the future.

Belarus and Russia need to work together and build a Union State that brings pride to all their citizens. They will have to work through their problems and envision a future that all the world will envy and look to for example.

The precurssor elements are in place for the proposed Union State to be successful far beyond what each country could accomplish on its own.

Clearly the question of Belarusian gas prices should not be considered finally settled by any party. This problem could be cleverly addressed in the future and it is possible that all parties could agree on solutions not visible at this time.

It is also possible that the future increased trade generated by the Union State will more than compensate Belarus in the long term for her immediate financial setback.

Furthermore, there is also the possibility for creative solutions to the Gazprom price dilema that could be authored by third party countries such as Iran, or Venezuela who have ample petroleum reserves and are friendly to Belarus.

The biggest questions on the horizon of the new Union State should be not who pays what for natural gas, but how to bring all of the social and economic resources of these two countries to bear for the purpose of making high quality, and prosperous futures for ALL of the citizens of Russia and Belarus.

The benefits of this future Union State should not be denied because of Russia's incorrect decision about natural gas prices to Belarus.

Michael Miller
Indianapolis
2006