About the roles of personalities in stories

The Russian media (that is, it was a “ businessman ”) reported that V. Yanukovych’s negotiations and D. Medvedev were not marked by anything good. Why is it interesting? Because negotiations are scheduled for Thursday-fifth, and reported already in the morning newspaper today. Well, how is it?

Not only that, there is actually no press there. The meeting did not even come out so as working, but in general situational. It seems that even the final press confront was not supposed, so no one brought his pools there, but then where does the information come from? Well, from sources plus logical conclusions made in the editorial offices.

Sources here are not quite reliable (by definition: how reliable the anonymous source can be?), But the second option is already interesting, because it involves the presence of a frame, inside which conclusions are drawn. The frame, moreover, is not obliged to exactly correspond to reality. Of course, if she does not correspond to her, then the conclusions can come out crooked. This is not the point, because at least some logic will be present in the conclusions, and this is already beautiful in itself.

Background

Until the frame is presented, a short background of this meeting must be reported. The fact that Ukraine wants to lower the price of gas, and Russia does not see the reason to do this is known. It is also known that a few hours after Tymoshenko was sent to the pre -trial detention center, the Russian Foreign Ministry officially stated that her "gas contracts" comply with the legislation of both countries, and Moscow hopes that the trial of Tymoshenko will be fair.

Of course, it is interesting that the statement made a Foreign Ministry, which had previously not been to this topic sideways, but the statement was unambiguously interpreted in the spirit that the Russian Federation was not fighting for Tymoshenko, but for the outcome of the court over it. Well, if it is proven that it did badly, at the conclusion of "gas contracts", then it will also throw a shadow to Russia.

Such an interpretation is not entirely true, because what is the shadow of Russia, which, taking this opportunity (in the person of Tymoshenko), used the situation in its favor? A little differently: if Tymoshenko is condemned in connection with the contract, then there are grounds to protest the contract itself - through, say, Stockholm arbitration. The matter is muddy, no hunt for anyone, but, in fact, about this V. Yanukovych said that some topics are better to make out in a friendly way without bringing the case to the trial.

Disposition

This is also not a frame, but a tactical and technical state of the parties before negotiations. However, this is not a Russian problem, Gazprom as he believed and believes that the contract is in perfect order. The position had to be equipped with the Ukrainian side. Accordingly, N. Azarov, before the meeting, said that today the price of gas for Ukraine is higher than for some consumers in Europe. " Moreover, "even taking into account the discount, which was due to" Kharkov agreements ", the price is now not market."

Actually, Azarov said this a month ago, but the statements did not have any impact on the Russian side. Why repeat yourself? Apparently, this is: if Russia before meeting the presidents declares through the Foreign Ministry according to Tymoshenko, then this must be somehow balance. Whether it will give this effect or not - it doesn’t matter if a counter claim is issued.

But this could be limited to this, and the Azarov (the case was on the Ukrainian-Russian circle of the table on the economy) began to develop a general philosophy on vague grounds: “Sooner or later, an unequal agreement undermines the basis of long-term cooperation. No matter how profitable at a certain stage for one of the parties, the presence of such an unequal or later will undermine the foundations and very seriously demolish the foundations long -term cooperation. "

I wonder to what extent Russia is now worried about long -term relations with Ukraine? But what was said sends Ukraine to a weak position - she publicly declares that oh, how interested in cooperation and let's be friends forever. Moreover, Azarov added only to the words of the non -residents of the agreements that "Ukraine does not ask for any discounts or preferences, but wants to revise gas contracts in order to establish fair conditions of purchase and gas transit." Here is such a thing, after the failure of previous negotiations, in mid -June, he instructed his employees to compare gas prices for Ukraine and other Eurostraus. Judging by the fact that these figures were never published, either his analysts continue to work, or the numbers were not very convenient.

Frame

The frame will be static and dynamic at the same time. First, in the Ukrainian media (in their units), a semantic consensus arose on the topic that Russia was for Tymoshenko because ... (see over). It should be noted that this fact represents the accused in a new perspective. It turns out that if she agrees with accusations against her, she will thereby help the Ukrainian state defending his interests. But denying her guilt, she remains the guide of great -power Russian interests. This topic has not yet quite penetrated the consciousness of Ukrainian journalists and analysts, and for the first time, the Minister of Foreign Affairs in the government of Tymoshenko V. Ogryzko spoke about this during interrogation.

He reasoned this way: the pressure on Tymoshenko was clearly on the Russian side. And if so, then signed agreements violate international norms. Therefore, "I believe that these agreements must be canceled. According to international law, agreements that were signed under the pressure of one of the parties are invalid."

That is, you can protest an agreement if you can prove the fact of pressure from Russia. In other words, Tymoshenko should admit what Ogryzko is talking about, and then specifically inform how exactly the pressure was carried out on it. Moreover, I do not think out here in Ogryzko, he meant just the following option: "Therefore, now we must develop a single position in order to withstand gas aggression from Russia." Tymoshenko’s “Unified Position”, accusations and judge Kireev - sounds fun, but Ogryzko offers just that. Because the corresponding unified position can only be reflected in the court decision, and for this Tymoshenko should take the position of the charges, the UPS!

Now the frame is dynamic, momentary. Namely: a) the case against Tymoshenko was instructed precisely then, so that Ukraine has a reason to appeal to the international court and protest the concluded gas agreement. Therefore, b) on the future fate of Tymoshenko, we must draw conclusions about the success of negotiations.

Regarding further fate, it was not meant some vague future, but a particular Friday, August 12. Because today, on Friday, the Kyiv Court of Appeal was to consider Tymoshenko's appeal to her premises in the pre -trial detention center. That is, the scheme was simplified to the maximum possible situations in these circumstances: if on Friday Tymoshenko is released from the pre -trial detention center, then they agreed in Sochi. It looks beautiful, but too simple.

Well, here

As a result, on Friday, in the morning, the Kyiv Court of Appeal of a complaint against the decision of the Pechersky District Court against the premises of Yulia Tymoshenko refused to take into custody. And Kommersant has already said that he had poorly given the negotiations: “sources” in the governments of the two countries are preparing for a protracted confrontation up to the gas war in the 2012 election winter. ”

Well, if in time, then, then, Tymoshenko was not released after they did not agree. Here, of course, is a classic problem: is it just “after that”, or “because of that”? Well, in general, at first they did not agree, then they did not release, which means that now they will not agree at all. Although, of course, it is not too clear how it would be able to agree in one evening and is it really the whole problem now exactly in it? Of course, this whole frame and its logical consequences are a consequence of several southern and romantic constructions of Ukrainian journalists, prone to reasoning on the constant role of any personality in any story.

And the Russian position here already looks just some kind of northern Protestant: and why on earth did these negotiations lead to something?