<tit>
WHY DOES KYIV SEEK TO SEIZE OBJECTS OF THE RUSSIAN BLACK SEA FLEET?<stl>The gas conflict between Russia and Ukraine develops into a military conflict
<aut>WPS observer
<src>
It seems that economic and political differences between Russia and Ukraine may develop into a "military conflict". Kyiv has already made first moves and tried to seize hydro-navigation objects of the Black Sea fleet in the Crimea and the Kherson region. Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov stated on January 17, that the Black Sea fleet has the right to protect its objects in Ukraine.
Ivanov said, "The guards of these objects have the right to defend military property. I will not go into details." This means that Russian seamen have the right to open fire in compliance with the Russian military regulations. This is a very courageous statement, which testifies that Moscow does not intend to part with its military objects in the Crimea before 2017.
Kyiv could not help commenting on this statement. Ukrainian defense Minister Anatoly Gritsenko stated, "If the military open fire in the Crimea this will be a verdict to Ukraine, Russia and Europe. I am sure that Kyiv or Moscow will sanction this. There are many problems between our countries but neither problem is worth while using weapons."
In the meantime, Kyiv is sure that hydro-navigation objects of the Russian Black Sea fleet must be passed over to Ukraine. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Boris Tarasyuk made this statement.
He stated on television, "This is a legal process carried out in compliance with Ukrainian legislation." Tarasyuk thinks that Russia does not have sufficient reasons to state that these objects belong to the Black Sea fleet.
The foreign minister noted, "Representatives of the Black Sea fleet must know about responsibility for telling lies. The supplements to the agreement between Russia and Ukraine make no mention about these objects."
The Ukrainian Transportation Ministry also stated that all navigation and hydrographic objects located on the shore, including the Yalta beacon, are Ukraine's property. The ministry states that the Yalta port funded the beacon, paid land taxes and supplies power. He noted that at present specialists of the Ukrainian hydrographic service have access to the beacon.
In the meantime, Russia's position is very strict. Captain Igor Dygalo, aide to the commander-in-chief of the Navy, stated, "The command of the Russian Navy will not change its position regarding the situation over navigation and hydrographic complexes of the Black Sea fleet and the Yalta beacon."
He stated, "This position is based on the agreements concerning the Black Sea fleet, which were ratified by Ukraine. These agreements have become part of international law. This is why all disputes should be settled by the governments, not unilaterally on the basis of the Ukrainian legislation."
So, Moscow and Kyiv do not intend to give up. Why does Kyiv seek to seize these objects? What will happen in the future? Many Russian and Ukrainian politicians are concerned about these questions. Eduard Baltin, former commander of the Black Sea fleet, commented the situation to WPS. He said that Ukraine needs the beacons in order to control the ground-based infrastructure and open beaches. No one cares about security in Ukraine because this country does not have a Navy. The admiral noted that the latest campaign was initiated by the CIA (its director visited Ukraine on December 16).
Baltin said, "Their objective is to ruin the Russian Black Sea fleet." He said that Moscow must make every effort to defend its position in the dispute with Ukraine.
He noted, "Otherwise, US and NATO warships will be stationed in Sevastopol."
Captain Vladimir Pasyakin, a Russian military expert from Sevastopol, said, "all objects located in the Crimea are Russian territory where all Russian laws and military regulations are in force." This is why the expert thinks that it's not ruled out that the sentry will use weapons against attackers. However, Pasyakin thinks that Moscow and Kyiv will settle this matter through negotiations.
The expert noted that relations between Russia and Ukraine aggravate. If Kyiv decides to join NATO, relations will become worse, and this aggravation will be initiated by Kyiv. According to Pasyakin, Kyiv will soon try to increase the rent for the base of the Black Sea fleet to $400 million a year. The Ukrainian defense minister made this statement. It's not ruled out that Russia will decide to leave the Crimea earlier. Eduard Baltin said that Russia could build a similar infrastructure in the Salt Lake district in the Krasnodar region on this money.
In other words, problems of the Black Sea fleet aggravate. Moscow and Kyiv do not intend to make a compromise. No one knows for how long the conflict will last. However, it's obvious that the presence of the Russian fleet in the Crimea will not be as placid as before, and the probability of its early withdrawal from Ukraine increases.
<tit>
NEW TAX CLAIMS STATED AGAINST YUKOSAt the end of 2005, tax agencies stated new claims worth $3.5 billion against YUKOS for 2004. Experts are convinced that the matter is coming to selling out YUKOS in parts.
Having sold Yuganskneftegaz, the main upstream asset of YUKOS, at an auction the state did not trouble the company in 2005, and YUKOS was paying off the tax debt duly. According to a spokesperson for YUKOS, the company paid $21 billion in taxes. Managers started cherishing a hope that they would manage to retain YUKOS. According to President of the company Steven Theede, remaining debts worth about $7 billion could be paid off through sale of some assets in Russia and abroad. Theede meant the 20% stake in Sibneft estimated at $3.7 billion and 23% of preference shares of Yuganskneftegaz worth $3.5 billion. YUKOS expected to receive $2 billion more for a 53.7% stake in Lithuanian Mazeikiu nafta and a 49% stake in Slovak Transpetrol. At any rate, Theede admitted that this plan was impossible without good will of Russian authorities because a part of these assets were seized.
On January 18, the Federal Tax Service (FTS) demonstrated to YUKOS that the authorities were not going to make concessions. According to the company, the FTS stated claims worth 107 billion roubles for 2004: tax arrears amounted to 54 billion roubles, penalties amounted to 11 billion roubles and fines amounted to 42 billion roubles. Of the entire sum, the claim against YUKOS directly amounts to 3 billion roubles and the rest is "the value-added tax (VAT) for the export revenue from sale of oil and petroleum products by independent traders unconfirmed by documents."
YUKOS reported that the FTS arbitrarily called these traders "dependent on YUKOS" and their revenue was simply "mechanically summed up" with the revenue of YUKOS.
According to a manager of YUKOS, the matter is about the companies mentioned in the tax claims for the past few years. For example, this is Energotrade and YUKOS Vostok Trade. The manager explained that the companies bought oil from YUKOS and its subsidiaries in Russia and exported it. Along with this, YUKOS paid the VAT from sale of oil inside of Russia but tax agencies also attributed "turnover of traders" to YUKOS. The source concluded, "The new claims are composed according to the pattern of the past ones: and added that the company would submit its objections to the FTS by January 27.
Yury Vorobyev, lawyer of Baker & McKenzie, explains that export revenue is not taxed by the VAT but to confirm its right for the zero VAT rate an exporter is obliged to submit documents listed in the Tax Code to the tax inspectorate. Vorobyev adds that tax agencies usually seek any formal grounds to deny compensation and the VAT has evidently been calculated for the traders according to the rate of 18% instead of zero. The lawyer presumes that announcing the traders dependent on YUKOS tax inspectors have added their tax obligations to the tax obligations of YUKOS. He adds, "The law does not make provisions for calculation of the tax on revenue of other companies." Valery Tutykhin, partner of John Tainer and partners, adds, "This approach was already used in the YUKOS affair." Then judges announced that YUKOS and its traders were actually one company and on this basis added the tax arrears of the intermediary companies to the tax arrears of YUKOS.
YUKOS already calculated that given such claims, the ratio of the calculated taxes to the revenue will be 8 to 1 and together with fines and penalties, it will be 15.5 to 1.
Experts interpret the actions of tax agencies unambiguously. They say that the state wants to sell out the remaining assets of YUKOS like Yuganskneftegaz has been already sold. Vladimir Milov, President of the Institute of Energy Policy, comments, "Assets may have either the fate of Yuganskneftegaz or they may be bought from the owners and tax claims represent a way to pressurize YUKOS." Among the potential objects for takeover, he mentions Tomskneft, Samaraneftegaz or refineries.
<ref>Vedomosti, January 19, 2006; newsru.com, January 19, 2006
<tit>
WORLD'S FIFTH LARGEST BREWING COMPANY MOLSON COORS QUITS THE RUSSIAN MARKETTo date, Coors was bottled in Kaliningrad at the brewery of PIT but Heineken that recently bought PIT refused to prolong the contract with the competing brewer. Molson Coors explains its departure from Russia by changing the owner of PIT too.
Two sources acquainted with the situation reported that Molson Coors decided to stop its operations in Russia. According to one of the sources, this decision was made back at the end of 2005, in the global headquarters of Molson Coors. The Moscow office of the company was closed in mid-January of 2006.
Molson Coors came to Russia recently, in March of 2005, when it signed an agreement with PIT on bottling of sub-brand Coors Fine Light at the brewery of PIT in Kaliningrad. However, the market share of the brewer was not big. According to Business Analytica, between September and October of 2005, the overall market share of the brand in value terms amounted to a few thousandth fractions of percent and in the segment of imported beer (excluding beer from CIS countries) it amounted to 0.2% of the market.
Paul Hegarty Director for Communications of Coors, confirmed information about departure of the company from the Russian market. Along with this, Hegarty explains this decision by sale of PIT (in the middle of August of 2005, founders of PIT Yevgeny Kashper and Alexander Lifs sold PIT to Heineken for $400 million). Hegarty explains, "Revision of production and distribution of Coors beer in Russia was caused by changing of owners of the company with which the relevant agreement was signed and a possibility of changing of the producer was limited. Proceeding from these factors a decision on closing was made." At any rate, he says that Molson Coors hopes that it will be able to restart production in Russia in the future.
Representatives of the Russian office of Heineken said that they heard about decision of the Canadian company for the first time. Anna Meleshina, PR Director of the Russian office of Heineken stated, "We keep bottling Coors brand in Kaliningrad and are prepared for further negotiations." Meleshina refused to comment on financial terms of the current agreement with Molson Coors. Some experts presumed that the initiative to terminate the contract with Coors belonged to Heineken.
Along with this, some other analysts consider the possible giving up of continuation of bottling of competing beer by Heineken not the main reason for withdrawal of Molson Coors from Russia (moreover so that the company could try to reach an agreement with other large local brewers Krasny Vostok or Ochakovo). According to analyst Olga Samarets, of Finam investment company, Coors came to Russia to late and "by the moment of their appearance there the market was already practically divided by other transnational players."
Samarets also said that beginning of bottling of Coors at the brewery of PIT could be taken as preparation for takeover of this company but Molson Coors "did not dare to take this step or could not offer a sufficient price."
This way or the other, Molson Coors may be content because the Russian experiment did not cost it too much. According to Samarets, the aggregate expenditures of the company on expansion in Russia amounted to $5 million.
<ref>Biznes, January 18, 2006
RVR
