Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

[Haykakan]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

So what do you suggest bell? We should dump our security partner for another who provides no security? Just look at what the USA has done to the middle east. The USA is just another empire but it in no way provides us with security from its good friend the Turk. Why would we go with a NPP from them given these circumstances?

Armenia Refused NPP and Satellite Not To Hurt Russians
10 October 2013

http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/country/view/31071

Armenia could have cooperated with the United States over the construction of a new nuclear reactor, communication satellite project, civil aviation, said the ex-charge d’affaires to the United States, ex-head of the Military and Political Department of the Armenian Foreign Ministry, Washington-based political scientist Armen Kharazyan says.
“This is not imagination, all the mentioned issues have been considered with the United States over the past 15 years but Armenia has continuously avoided proceeding with these matters and entering into deals with the Americans. The reason, I think, was psychological (Cold War stereotypes, reluctance to “hurt” Russians),” he noted, adding that as a result no serious project has been implemented in Armenia by any serious American company,” the newspaper reports.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

Artsakh Is An Excuse For Armenian Criminal Oligarchy
Hakob Badalyan
12 October 2013

http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/31086

There is an opinion that the West ran into the unresolved Artsakh issue as Armenia refused to sign the Association Agreement. This opinion is based on threats that came from Russia which used its influence on Armenia’s security.
Is the Artsakh issue the problem? This issue is often presented as the problem of Armenia, a matter of progress of foreign policy, democratization. It is hard to find another society whose social and political leaders would successfully transform the society’s victory to a matter of progress.
Did Artsakh have a big “role” in Russia’s threats? The government is stating this indirectly, announcing that the Customs Union was chosen out of concerns about the security of Armenia.
The government needs to refer to security, hinting at Artsakh.
This is exaggerated indeed. A military clash over Artsakh has acquired strategic importance to Russia. Russia will thereby try to ensure its military presence in Artsakh to the Iranian border, which is the only more or less reliable safeguard for Russia’s foothold in the Caucasus.
Fortunately, however, Russia has limited possibilities now. Besides the Minsk Group co-chairs France and the United States, and the EU that is seeking for mechanisms enabling its long-term presence in the region, Azerbaijan also has a big role. Azerbaijan is well-aware that Russia, not Armenia or itself stands a real chance to win. Turkey also understands this.
In the case of Artsakh the Russian threat is obviously exaggerated. Russia did not need to threaten with defeat of Armenia in Artsakh. Russia had other more substantial leverages. The first is the economic one. And gas is not primary at all. The issues of Armenian migrants and Russia-based Armenian businessmen are primary.
They are now sustaining the Armenian economy because Western investments require the economic environment to comply with more modern rules and conditions. Most Russia-based rich Armenians are coalesced with the Armenian government, and millions of investments are made in return for political quotas. Without these investments and charity Armenia would be in ruins. To this adds remittances without which Armenia will inevitably face default.
It is possible to avoid this with the help of domestic economic and political reforms, market liberation, law enforcement and public administration based on social and national interests. This would boost diversification which would act as a new guarantee of economic security resulting in military and political security.
However, since the ruling elite in Armenia did not display genuine will and ability to carry out reforms, Russian economic pressure worked immediately. It produced the desired effect for Moscow. So, Moscow need not reach for Stepanakert though reaching for Stepanakert remains the ultimate goal of its Caucasian policy which it is now trying to implement through humanitarian mechanisms.
So, there is no need to present Artsakh as an obstacle for the Armenian society. Artsakh is not an obstacle but a military, political and geographical factor which, however, Armenia is not using effectively.
The government prefers referring to Artsakh every now and then because as soon as they confess economic pressure, the issue of their incompetency and accountability will rise. So what is the point in making commitments if the “eternal” issue of Artsakh is a handy tool to whitewash its lack of will?
Meanwhile, the West did not run into the unsettled issue of Artsakh. The West ran into the totalitarian regime of criminal oligarchy.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?


Armenia Refused NPP and Satellite Not To Hurt Russians
10 October 2013

http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/country/view/31071

Armenia could have cooperated with the United States over the construction of a new nuclear reactor, communication satellite project, civil aviation, said the ex-charge d’affaires to the United States, ex-head of the Military and Political Department of the Armenian Foreign Ministry, Washington-based political scientist Armen Kharazyan says.
“This is not imagination, all the mentioned issues have been considered with the United States over the past 15 years but Armenia has continuously avoided proceeding with these matters and entering into deals with the Americans. The reason, I think, was psychological (Cold War stereotypes, reluctance to “hurt” Russians),” he noted, adding that as a result no serious project has been implemented in Armenia by any serious American company,” the newspaper reports.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

Russia Seizes Subsoil of Armenia and Karabakh from Oligarchs

Naira Hayrumyan
11 October 2013

http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/country/view/31079

The parliamentary hearing called by Vardan Aivazyan to discuss issues relating to the subsoil was a signal of a big redistribution of property. Most probably, this is related to Serzh Sargsyan’s decision on joining the Customs Union, which was followed by new processes in both the Armenian economy and politics.
The Armenian economy used to be largely “Russian” but it has been diversified over the past few years. Both local oligarchs and some major western investors have emerged. Now apparently both the western companies and oligarchs are ousted by Russian and pro-Russian businesses.
Recently a Russian company has been said likely to mine in Kajaran. The people of the villages adjacent to the mine were said to oppose, and Vardan Aivazyan has been asked to call the hearings to deprive the Council of Elders of the village of not only a voice but also the right to dividends.
The Armenian subsoil is exploited uncaringly and without observing environmental requirements. The national wealth is extracted from soil and run into the pockets of a group of people whom more Russian companies will be joining. Unlike the Western companies, which cherish public opinion, Russian companies tend to walk across the society.
The process of active exploitation of mines has affected Karabakh as well. The region of Karvachar has been dug far and wide. A new road is being built between Karvachar and Sotk to facilitate transportation of ore from the mine to the enrichment facility. NKR deputy prime minister Arthur Aghabekyan thinks that soon mining will comprise 10% of the GDP.
Whose pockets will the astronomical profits from mines in Armenia and Karabakh go to? Experts say that the Armenian exports to Europe are dominantly the products of mining industry. They say that after Armenia joins the Customs Union, customs duties will rise, and the cost price of products exported to Europe will grow respectively. Or not, in case the Russian companies export those products, which means that mining in Armenia will be dominated by the Russians.
The Russian parliament is likely to draft a law enabling the government to protect Russian economic interests abroad. “The law would vest in the head of state the right to undertake answering steps where appropriate without additional agreements and resorting to “fig leaves” in case of anti-Russian political actions aimed at discrimination of Russian economic interests,” the information note on the draft law states.
It means that Russia reserves the right to take “adequate steps” in case the Armenian state or one of the local oligarchs and western companies wishes to end the monopoly of Russian companies and promote its own interests. So why are you calling occupation integration?

[Eddo211]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

There is soooh much falsehoods, lies, deceptions, and distortions in this, together with such vileness in language and thought and intent, that I've got better things to do than dissect it all. I guess my interest has limits.

Thank God for that......enjoy your vacation from Hyclub laddy and contemplate how the world is ran with full of evil people compared to little Armenia fighting for her survival time enmortal.

Vaya con dios

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

RUSSIAN FORMER AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA IS INDIGNANT AT STATEMENT BY AN ARMENIAN EXPERT IN AN INTERVIEW WITH ARMINFO NEWS AGENCY

by Marianna Mkrtchyan

There is soooh much falsehoods, lies, deceptions, and distortions in this, together with such vileness in language and thought and intent, that I've got better things to do than dissect it all. I guess my interest has limits.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

To tell you honestly, I like Bell's ideas about Armenia's possible strategic plans at time of war with baboonistan. About concentrated damage and breaking of the enemy's will in war continuation. About unproductive and unnessesary thoughts of capturing baku. He has some good ideas and knowledge about lots of other things too. But what bothers me is his cinicism towards the subject he is supposedly expressing himself about. If you are so cynical about something then why are you interested in it? His satirical expressions about "our 3000 yr hystory" leaves me in doubt as to what is his intention? What, we should not be proud of our history? No matter what is happening now, the history is there and need be taken into account for future.
He knows a lot, that is abvious, he is very intelligent also. But expressing ideas is not just enough. Need a little more compassion about subject. Just flat thruths or calculations cannot get to their point without a little bit honey in them.
Sometimes I wonder if he comes here just to destroy a subject. Like human rights or freedoms. Taking a problem in the face and slapping it around is not the way.

That "our 3000 year history" was a phrase used in a post attacking me personally. A country or a person wanting to be taken seriously as a nation or an individual would not go strutting around boasting about "our 3000 year history" in a context of modern-day politics, defense, and international relations - yet many Armenians (the ones here anyway) seem to do exactly that (along with the "first Christian nation" thing). OK, slapping you around the face doesn't work, so what will? Coz you will have to get over doing it or risk seeing the little that is left of Armenia preserved just in a dusty room in a Russian museum along with a lot of other 3000-year-old artifacts from extinct cultures.

And the whole use by you of the word "our", and my use of the word "your" is wrong - and rather silly anyway since very few here live in Armenia, and a declining few were born there. I use "your" because you are using "our" - but it is a discussion subject, not something that should have an "our" or a "your" label on it all the time. Do you think think 5th, 6th or 7th-generation Italian Americans still talk about "our" in relation to anything connected with modern Italy, and claim that they alone have the right, thanks to some distant connection to Italy, to express opinions about what that modern Italy should do and not to?

[Haykakan]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

HRAPARAK: RUSSIA WILL RECOGNIZE KARABAKH'S INDEPENDENCE

13:10 11/10/2013 " DAILY PRESS

There is great probability that what did not happen in case of Armenia
and Karabakh will take place in case of Moldova and Transnistria.

Although Armenian authorities claim that there has been no pressure
from Russia in the issue of joining the Customs Union, Hraparak's
sources say that Russia said the same thing in relation to both
Transnistria and Karabakh.

According to the paper, Russia openly shows that it intends to
recognize the independence of Transnistria just as it recognized the
independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

"Armenia was told clearly that Russia will recognize the independence
of Karabakh, make Karabakh part of the Customs Union and establish
a customs terminal between the "European Armenia" and Customs Union
member Karabakh," the paper says.

http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2013/10/11/hraparak2/

[Haykakan]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

RUSSIAN FORMER AMBASSADOR TO ARMENIA IS INDIGNANT AT STATEMENT BY AN ARMENIAN EXPERT IN AN INTERVIEW WITH ARMINFO NEWS AGENCY

by Marianna Mkrtchyan

http://www.arminfo.am/index.cfm?objectid=B3598AF0-30E9-11E3-9AC70EB7C0D21663

Wednesday, October 9, 17:50

The former ambassador of Russia to Armenia, Vyacheslav Kovalenko,
comments on recent interview by political expert Richard Giragosian
with Arminfo news agency. Here is the full text of his commentary,
as he asked:

"In his recent interview with Arminfo news agency, the head of the
Centre for Regional Studies, Richard Giragosian, has again cast doubt
upon Armenia's decision to join the Customs Union. He said nothing
new. Nevertheless, I think it is important to draw attention on
arguments, which supporters of orientation towards the EU (including
Giragosian) use, saying that the way of further development chosen by
Armenia is wrong. In this context, they separate not only the economic
prospect but also the fact that Armenia lost confidence as a partner
of the western countries. Giragosian regrets that almost four years
of work for signing of the Association Agreement and DCFTA with the
EU which had to be signed in Vilnius in November of the current year,
were in vain. Coming forward from the position of Armenia's patriot,
Giragosian regrets that from now on Brussels will start reducing
its programmes that cost millions EUR, which were earlier foreseen
for making reforms. In such an attitude I see, at least, two moments
which do not enhance Mr Giragosian's "patriotic position". He seems
to forget that not everything is sold in this world for money, that
Armenia is sovereign state which does not accept diktat of the EU, and
its conditions hidden under the pseudo-democratic principle "more for
more". What the EU offered in the form of the association relations,
is not so much good for the national interests of Armenia. Why did
the EU refuse Yerevan's aspiration to preserve its foreign political
course, saying about incompatibility of Armenia's participation in
the European integration and Eurasian processes simultaneously? The
Europeans put the question point-blank" "either-or". which in
fact would mean changing of the political course and canceling of
the allied relations with Russia. Today, Giragosian says quite the
contrary, that just joining the Customs Union will "become a dramatic
changing of Armenia's course". He seems not to be aware that Moscow
but not Brussels accepted both directions (European and Eurasian),
and thought that their simultaneous development is possible as they
replenish each other. Giragosian says nothing about it, but insists
that Russia forced Armenia to refuse the European development course
in order to please its empire ambitions.

Mr. Giragosian is not embarrassed to lie just to help the EU to save
its face. He is not ashamed to call Armenia's position a shame, a
strategic mistake, a lost opportunity. What he wants to say is that
the EU is right in whatever it does, that its policy is a blessing
for Armenia, while the Customs Union is nothing but a mistake for
it. But by saying this he denies Armenia its right to choose.

What has the EU done for Armenia after all? Several millions EUR given
to the country so it could unify the requirements to the products
it makes for export, annual grants of some 200 million EUR, soft
loans the country will have to repay one day and endless promises of
financial assistance and investments. It's not very much, is it?

Kovalenko says that experts, like Mr.Giragosian, blame Russia for
almost all difficulties and problems experienced by Armenia. "There
is no secret in assessment of the trade, economic, and investment
relations between the two countries. Russia is a major foreign trade
partner of Armenia. Its annual investments total 3 bln USD (which is
as much as the USA's investments throughout the period of Armenia's
independence. The private transfers from Russia to Armenia total 3 bln
USD per annum. Russia is the key foreign labor market for Armenia's
citizens. Big Russian investments in energy and communications are
expected in relation to Armenia's decision to join the Customs Union",
he says.

ovalenko thinks that Mr.Giragosian should not frighten Armenia by
hopeless future or loss of opportunities. "European commissioners
realize this and are trying to make adjustments to the work with
Armenia. Giragosian speaks about it frankly, but at the same time,
he editorializes it, stressing that the context of cooperation
will change, new demands will be put forward to the Armenian
Government and the focus will be shifted from the ruling party and
the Government to the opposition. Apparently, this means that the EU
will actively start preparing a "fifth column" inside the country to
trigger anti-governmental sentiments in the civil society and hold
protest actions. Briefly speaking, this will lead to destabilization
of the situation. If it is so, I'd like to recall that almost 80%
of Armenia's citizens consider that the country's accession to the
Customs Union will strengthen the economy and the national security
system of Armenia. This is an important remark and it should make the
Armenian authorities take specific steps to formalize such sentiments
of the overwhelming majority of the citizens and to switch them onto
the track of public movement to support the Eurasian process. One
shouldn't do such things half-way".

[Vrej1915]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

Ինչպես էր 1991 թ. Կրիվոպուսկովը Ղարաբաղում զինաթափում հայերին
Հինգշաբթի, 10 Հոկտեմբերի 2013,

Հայաստանում ՌԴ դեսպանատան խորհրդական Վիկտոր Կրիվոպուսկովը հանդիսանում է այսպես ասած ռուսական «հումանիտար» էքսպանսիայի գերագույն գլխավոր հրամանատարը Հայաստանում:
Կրիվոպուսկովը այդ առաքելությունն իրականացնելիս մեկ անգամ չէ, որ իրեն թույլ է տվել Հայաստանի պետական արժանապատվությունը վիրավորող արտահայտություններ:
Մասնավորապես, հիշարժան է նրա տարիներ առաջ արած հայտարարությունը այն մասին, որ ռուսերեն լեզուն Հայաստանի անվտանգության լեզուն է:
Նա եւս մի քանի նմանօրինակ արտահայտություններ է արել, որից հետո իրեն հարգող ցանկացած ինքնիշխան երկրի իշխանությունը Կրիվոպուսկովից առնվազն կպահանջեր զսպվածություն, կամ ընդհանրապես նրան դուրս կհրավիրեր հանրապետությունից:
Ավելին, Հայաստանը ինքնիշխան երկիր լինելու պարագայում Կրիվոպուսկովին եւ նմաններին հանրապետություն ընդհանրապես չէր էլ թողնի:
Բանն այն է, որ այսօր Հայաստանում ռուսական շահերը առաջ տվող Կրիվոպուսկովը, տարիներ առաջ Լեռնային Ղարաբաղում առաջ է մղել սովետա-ադրբեջանական շահերը: Կրիվոպուսկովը 1990-91 թվականներին եղել է ԽՍՀՄ ՆԳՆ օպերատիվ-քննչական խմբի շտաբի պետ Լեռնային Ղարաբաղում:
Հասկանալու համար, թե ինչ է դա նշանակում, բավական է հիշել Ղարաբաղում այսպես կոչված «անձնագրային ռեժիմի» ստուգումները, որոնց անվան տակ սովետական եւ ադրբեջանական ՕՄՈՆ-ականները զինաթափում էին Ղարաբաղի հայերին, շատերին ձերբակալում, այդպիսով նախապատրաստելով հետագայում հայկական բնակավայրերի վրա սովետա-ադրբեջանական գրոհները:
Այսինքն, ՕՄՈՆ-ականները անձնագրային ռեժիմի ստուգման ներքո զինաթափում էին հայերին, թուլացնում դիմադրությունը, իսկ հետո պարզապես վերցնում բնակավայրերը նրանց ձեռքից:
Եվ ահա այս «սուրբ» գործի հրամաատարներից մեկն էլ եղել է Վիկտոր Կրիվոպուսկովը, որը նույնիսկ գիրք է գրել իր ղարաբաղյան «կենսագրության» մասին:
- See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/arm/0/pol....6gVa1WKM.dpuf