Jumping in with some info here:

From the Financial Times:

Belarus used to receive Russian crude oil duty free and resold it in the form of refined products at a hefty profit. It was supposed to hand on 85 per cent of the profit to Moscow but had long stopped doing so. (...)On January 1, Russia introduced a standard $180 export duty on its crude oil, depriving Mr Lukashenko of an annual profit of nearly $2bn.

Whatever the cause, this latest interruption of Russian energy supplies to Europe in just over a year is likely to dent further its reputation as a reliable supplier.

So we are told that Belarus has been stealing $2bn from Russia (but that concept of "stealing" disappears as the FT chooses to call "profit" what would be designated as "loot" anywhere else), but that Russia is nevertheless wrong to take action.
So, let's see...

  • the sanctity of contract (so widely used as an argument against Russia in the case of the Sakhalin PSA) would suggest that Russia has a point and that Belarus should not be able to get away with theft. Europe, as the purchaser of stolen goods, might also want to feel slightly embarrassed;
  • Belarus was being subsidized by Russia, and Russia is simply trying to take away these subsidies. Isn't it what the freemarketeers types always argue for? That subsidies are distorting, create perverse incentives, and should be eliminated to allow for a proper allocation of resources? Belarus is currently wasting the cheap oil it gets from Russia. With real prices, it will use less (which will leave more for Europe to buy, btw)
  • Belarus is the country actually using its physical control over pipelines to blackmail Russia. If anyone is using the pipeline/energy weapon, it is Belarus, not Russia. But no, the blame will be put on Russia anyway, because, frankly, who cares about Belarus?
  • there is a market solution: buy Russian oil at the Russia-Belarus border, and deal with Belarus transit (and their own consumption) ourselves, on market conditions or whatever else we manage to do. I'm pretty sure Russia would be extremely happy to do that. (Same with Ukrainian gas, btw);
  • alternatively, we're "free" not to use Russian oil and find other suppliers or, better, not use oil. Isn't it what freemarketeers say about the poor and others when the conditions to purchasing a good become inacceptable - do away with it?

But of course, we cannot "do away" with oil, it's not even considered, so we have to bludgeon Russia and others to keep on supplying us.

More here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/1/9/94633/38095

Hello Jerome,

This Belarus-Russian situation is tailor-made, if it continues to a full-blown crisis, whereby I expect Tom Clancy-type political realignments to occur. Polonium, gunshot corpses in the bloody snow, and various other covert and overt persuasive negotiating skills. Stay tuned.

Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?

Belarus is in the wrong here, clearly, and Europe is just collateral damage. Europe should be pressuring Belarus to play nice, not Russia. Europe could also enter into talks with Russia about building common infrastructure to bypass problematic states and guarantee Russian distribution in the future. That would be a win-win for Europe and Russia. But no, we get the Europeans posturing and playing at morality again.

I absolutely agree. But the russians are also to blame, because they did not give a timely notice to their partners. Even at the price of some delay and more losses from pipedraining, this is what they should have done before shutting it down. This is not the way to keep good relations with your customers and prove yourself as reliable supplier.

The case with Ukraine was slightly different, because then the Russians tried to reduce the supplies to Ukraine only, but the Ukranians continued to drain, what they considered "theirs" and hence the shortages at the other end of the pipe. But it was basically the same unilateral thing, again. In both cases I don't think it was on purpose, I rather see it as a typical socialist style negligence.

I have a hard time feeling sympathetic toward the Russian's clams.

Russia only pays Turkmenistan $65 per tcm for its NG and sells it to Europe for over $200 per tcm. Turkmenistan doesn't like it but has to live with it because it is currently the only way they can export NG.

Now the Russians are objecting because Belarus is retaliating for a unilateral increase in prices by doing to them what Russia is doing to Turkmenistan.

Nobody forces or blackmails Turkmenistan to sell its NG. If they invest in pipelenes as GasProm did they can get the price they want. In contrast forcing your supplier to pay unprecedented charges by stealing his produce and sabotaging his relationship with his partners is an outright blackmail IMO.

There is also another thing you are missing. Gazprom exports to Europe for ~$230/tcm, but 3/4 of its production is sold internally in Russia for ~45$/tcm. Thus the average price it earns is ~$91/tcm and it can be argued that it charges only $26/tcm for Turkmenistan using its infrastructure.

Russia pays Turkmenistan $100 per tcm and not $65. Turkmenistan is in the process of bringing its prices closer to market levels.

http://www2.pravda.com.ua/en/news/2006/9/6/6301.htm