Well its summer, Ukraine is functioning now as a normal country for transit, EU doesn't have billions to throw at Belarus, Russia is the growth partner for the EU, whilst throttling US growth so that the EU can emerge as an equal to the US...... Wow what a trickey outcome to predict! - even a western rating agency might get that one right! but then again - it must be a catastrophic endemic systematic problem threatening the whole collapse of Russia in their eyes. But then again where are their eyes, maybe facing backwards and at a lower level! or maybe watching the something else brown, like a big stuffed envelope full of cash.

Great for Russia for making strategic deal with Ukraine. Now Now, the strong man running Belarus must. This crooked dictator must think twice in his crooked attempt to undermine Russia even has he hosts the very warlord who -with the help of certain foreign agents- is responsible for the bloodshed in Kyrgyzstan. In fact, this dictator is anti-Russian and he failed to realise the blood Russians shed to liberate Belarus from Nazi forces. Again, good for Putin and Russia for always having plan B, C and D in case one of these transit countries try to blackmail Russia in order to extort free access to Russian gas. http://en.rian.ru/russia/20100621/159512960.html

I have a question on this. Why Medvedev's decides...? Isn't it suppose to be the business owner's decision? For example, the CEO of Gasprom (or whatever company that is) or, at least, Putin as a "CEO" of the Russian economy as a whole? Why the business was turned to the political action? This is the root of bureaucracy, by the way, the President Medvedev was talking about so much. Because, now every businessman knows that, unless, he has a deal with politicians (government), he will not have full control if his business.

I'm not sure what exactly Russia is hoping to achieve this time with her 'sanctions'. "Belarus has also mentioned that Gazprom in turn owes it a comparable sum". And this sum, according to Beltrangaz, is equal to the transit debt owed by Gazprom. "Aleksandr Lukashenko failed to bring Belarus closer to the EU..." Not quite. The EU had already expressed its concerns about the Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan Custom Union. The prospect of such a union moves Belarus and Kazakhstan away from the international economic community. A central condition for joining the custom union on Belarusian part is abolition of duties on Russian oil exported to Belarus. Russia refused to do so. Mr Lukashenko stepped away from the key stage of negotiations. Now the timing of these 'unsettled debts'. Russia's confidence at the St.Petersburg Summit has been significantly boosted by forthcoming contracts from the countries of the EU, but Belarus has also turned towards the economic trade with the EU. It would be much more interesting to read a well balanced article about these two allies with "awkward" relations.

Bogdanov Business is always, and i mean, always, political! I think you know this already. This dictator is undermining Russia's economic welbeing. He must stop harming Russia. We love Russia and we want to see Russia get on with the real business of rebuilding the country. If Belarus needs Russian on loan it must ask for it politely. I think the Russians know their moral duty to Belarus and they will give the gas ordinary people of that country, but this dictator is not his endless attempts to harming Russia in more than one way.

Bogdanov, Medvedev is involved, because decisons like this are never just about commerce, yes they are pure commercial deals, but they have the possibility to affect many Belarus, Russian and European lives and also the whole political situation in Europe. In these terms I am glad he is involved and it is not left to CEOs to do what they like and then just expect to walk away when they have possibly caused a major disaster with wideranging consequences. Consider a company like Big Polluter, would it be better to leave them do what they want, cut whatever corners they wanted, expose a huge number of people's livlihoods to risk and in the end destroy them. Without very senior oversight, instead of some regulatory civil servants, too lazy to do the job properly and getting rich on the proceeds. I think when someone is going to make a potentially life changing decision for a large community, then a political leader, elected by the people should have a big say. Maybe if Big Poluter had said to Obama, hey we can save a few million if we risk deploying a faulty BOP and use a particular design of the well, but if it goes wrong we will have a 60,000 barrels a day blowout, and ruin millions of lives, then at least such an earth shattering choice, could be gated by an elected official. Instead of it all going pear shaped and the CEO popping off for some sailing. This is not about a commercial company shipping a couple of crates of plates or spoons, it is about companies that possibly affect milllions of lives. Yes I want it free and easy for companies whose failure and products have no high risk to people, but on the other hand I want more and more regulation and state intervention as the stakes and potential human devastation and affects get bigger and bigger.

@Bogdanov "President Medvedev has ordered Russia's state-owned gas producer..." Key word: state-owned.

Svetlana “The EU had already expressed its concerns about the Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan Custom Union. The prospect of such a union moves Belarus and Kazakhstan away from the international economic community.” Is the above passage passage your own or you are quoting somebody else’s words? at cany case, what do you mean by "International community"? How many members of "the International community" are in the EU zone? And how does proposed custom’s union between Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus pose any "concerns" to the EU or to "the international community" for that matter? Do you think that EU nations- who by and large- take their marching orders from Washington- represent the will of the international community? Europe is impotent and it cannot make independent decisions. Russia must and it often makes pragmatic deals with EU, and U.S but I do not think that Russia is a hostage to the will of Washington in the way EU nations are. Perhaps the EU needs to itself from U.S domination before it can lecture to Russia. Russia must make this dictator pay for his endless double dealings. Russia should take the short term economic hit for long term geopolitical again with this gas war against Belarus.

Robert, Yes, I paid attention on the keyword "state-owned". This is why I mentioned Putin in my original post. I was just thinking, that Medvedev is crossing his area of responsibilities and goes to the Putin's or CEO's of Gasprom territory. PR101, In more or less degree, any business involves politics, if we define politics as establishing rules of the games and, then,... the attempts to violate those rules by one or more involved parties. I was, primarily, referring to the hierarchy of those, who are part of this conflict (President - Prime Minister - CEO), rather than to express my desire to see businesses completely free from politics. I don't like the idea that the top leadership of the country is involved in the micromanagement of enterprises and promoting the fusion of the government and businesses. Because, the end result of this may be either Fascism (where country is controlled by big businesses) resulting in extreme nationalism (which I consider as the biggest danger in the modern world) or Soviet type Socialism where economy is very ineffective due to monopoly, micromanagement, and "fat and lazy" bureaucracy. Count Cash, I think your point is good -- because it may "affect many Belarus, Russian and European lives...". I can accept that as explanation of Medvedev' involvement. But, I always thought, that any good business (especially, involving international parties) should be based on the rules established prior of the business start functioning. Meaning, that politicians should agree about the environment and boundaries in which business operates and, then, just monitor those businessmen. But, not being involved in any low-level decisions. In this specific case, it is 100% business -- no money => no product. Why the President is necessary here?

Bogdanov, I am always heartened to see someone like you really pushing the boundary of business freedom, advocates of this approach always need to be there, to keep questioning, keep being the check and balance for the system. Just like there should be advocates of more control, and those for a middle ground of regulation to ensure freedom. But you understand all this and the political reality in big business. So where we maybe have a difference of opinion on this one is whether turning a major part of a countries energy supply off is 'low-level decisions'. In my book it is quite a major decision. Now I agree totally, that the rules should be set up in advance, and that the process should be deterministic and understood by everyone. However, I also appreciate that in the real big calls in business, affecting say 50,000 lay offs, lack of food or water, bringing countries into interest conflicts ... It is a very lonely position to be the final call; to do it in isolation of key political players and to possibly do something, which may be sub optimally OK but leaves a country or region with an even bigger clean up case afterwards, is not such a smart move Yes you can argue that all this should be taken care of in the pre-negotiations. But my experience is that on a really big call, what was written on paper earlier, becomes a high stakes game, that is not so easy to be black or white on, and which has huge consequences. At this point as a business leader, I am more than happy to have my country with me and the wise cool heads with it. Its just a very personal view based on some JVs.... Its not abdicating responsibility or control, it is more sharing responsibility, transparency and accountability. I worry more about Medvedev suddenly designating the exact businesses we need, setting the volumes.... but we both know about a system like that. So for me its all a matter of degree, and different views! Isn't that open democracy?

Bogdanov I do agree that one must guard against fascism creeping into Russia political hierarchy but the chance this is happening in Russia is very remote. Today, the United States backs up economic interests of U.S corporations with 700military bases around the world and with the barrel of gun and not with market fundamentals. I am certain you know this. Russia had a massive shock from collapse of the Soviet Union and current top leaders of Russia must not allow the market predators to gain their sticky fingers in some of the key resources of the nation until the health and infrastructure of the nation is fully restored. The dictator of Belarus is helping those who want to weaken Russia. He is a double dealers and he needs a lesson or two. Today, is 22 June. It is a day that marks the remembrance and sorrow both for Russia and for Belarus. Russians will never make ordinary people of Belarus suffer but buffoonish dictator of Belarus must stop scuttling Russia’s project of recovery. I think Count Cash summarized brilliantly all the key points to why economic and political objectives are never quite distinct. P.S Svetlana, if there ever was the will of the International community, it was not listen in 2003 when the U.S and British launched illegal war against Iraq. I think “International community” are meaningless. If you mean EU interests then say and not hide this under fake term of the International community.

The EU isn't interested in throwing anything at Belarus. The leadership in Belarus has followed a multi-vectored process that resulted in any number of contradictory statements. The bottom line however is clear. It want's gas on the cheap. The expressions of fraternal solidarity that keep it flowing are the only price their prepared to pay. However most gas to Europe flows through the Ukraine. And its the fate of the last set of political gas tappers in Ukraine that the leadership in Belarus would find instructive. Where are they now? On the political scrap heap. Did European leaders care? Not a jot.

PR101, Sometimes it's necessary to lower your defence barrier in order to understand the rationale behind the latest "gas war". Clearly, Moscow and Minsk are not talking about the amount of mutual debts. The problem for us is that no information is freely circulating on what is really going on behind the closed doors. Today is even more ambiguous than yesterday - the bill is 'lost in the post'?! Creation of the internal regional customs union between the three ex-soviet countries is generally treated by the EU with some caution. Not long ago Russia has been accused of "abusing her power" in the energy market, and as a result of that many countries which are dependant on Russia's gas and oil are still not entirely convinced otherwise. Whether you like it or not, Ukraine has been a 'winner' in the western press. The formation of customs union is based on a free trade areas and the next step is a creation of single economic space/single regional space. The SES makes its members (Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan) more attractive to foreign investors ( international economic community). This is particularly important for Russia in her efforts to join the WTO. There is nothing wrong with that, and we all welcome her aim of accession. What the opponents were saying all along is that no economic parity can be achieved within the SES, mainly because of the unequal development of its members' economies. They also argue that the country with a greater representation is most likely to influence other members in the decision making process. In addition, and I only suspect that this is relevant to Belarus, the customs union with all its unified tariffs will inevitably lead to some sacrifice in sovereignty, which for Belarusians means changes in credit policies and domestic taxes. In my opinion, Belarus was 'told off' by Russia for being disagreeable. And I wouldn't even mention the Bakiyev dilemma for you.

It seems that Pres. Lukashenko is trying to squeeze money out of both sides - Russian and EU. He is acting as if he is desperate and using every lever he can to pry concessions out of both ends of the pipeline transiting Belarus. This year may be his last chance to use gas as blackmail, because when the Nordstream is completed, Russia won't need Belarus transit lines any more.

Russia once again presses to Belarus because of Belarus doesn't want to sign the Customs Union on obviously unprofitable conditions for it. Once again it is possible to confirm that the Union of Russia and Belarus it is faster a myth rather than the reality. Byelorussians have no rights in Russia. And recently they have lost free health services and a maternity benefit. From Russia side it is absolutely unneighbourly relations, and a pure arm-twisting :( I think Belarus should try to find the ways to be less depend on Russia and its resources.

Lukashenko needs to go! The sooner the better.

My warning to Russia has come true. Belarus' president lukashenko is a financial burden, not a business partner! Russia and the Ukraine are improving financial and diplomatic relations. Kazakhstan and Azerbaijan are also doing quite good. Belarus will improve when their troublesome is booted out of power. Good going Gazprom and Russia!! I've always said that Russia has economic potential!

Vlad, if as you asserting joining Custom’s union with Russia and Kazakhstan is not profitable for President Aleksandr Lukashenko what does Russia gains from giving away its gas to Belarus on the cheap? In other words, what in it for Russia in giving Belarus cheap gas if it can technically avoid transiting gas destined for Europe via Belarus? Svetlana I have no inside information to what takes place behind close doors in the Belarus/Russia feud over gas pricing and payment. I do not think I am expected to have this confidential information! I am making my comment on the basis of commonsense that Belarus should know that the gas it wants belongs to Russia and it needs to work with Russia on pragmatic basis rather than trying to undermine Russia. Now, you've reframed with your reference to "the International community" to the EU is “suspicion” of a close cooperation between Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan! This statement is comical. What moral and or political prerogative the EU has over Ex-Soviet space when EU cannot decide its own destiny? Today I read that PACE has invited a terrorist wanted by Russia to a human rights conference. Do you think that Russia has a logical reason to be suspicion of U.S controlled EU and NATO creeping ever so closely to Russian borders?