Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Regional geopolitics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: Regional geopolitics

    With eyes on neighbors, Azerbaijan and Israel intensify ties

    By Cnaan Liphshiz September 17, 2013 1:21pm

    BAKU, Azerbaijan (JTA) — With less than a month to go until presidential elections, the moustachioed smile of Ilham Aliyev stares down at his countrymen from giant posters scattered around this bustling metropolis on the Caspian Sea.

    The Azerbaijani president has been in office since 2003 and is widely expected to be re-elected, extending the leadership of the Aliyev clan into its third decade. Aliyev’s father, Heydar, held the post for a decade prior to his son’s ascension.

    Ilham Aliyev’s tenure has brought greater prosperity to this young country, but it has come at a price: Widespread corruption and human rights abuses have earned Azerbaijan a dismal ranking in a survey of democratic standards in 166 countries conducted last year by the Economist magazine.

    But to the West — especially to Israel — Aliyev is a trusted friend and the key to a transformation that has developed oil-rich Azerbaijan from a small nation in Iran’s shadow to a strategic ally and an avid consumer of Israeli arms.

    “The partnership between Israel and Azerbaijan is complicated by political factors, but ultimately it is moving forward because it makes sense from an economical point of view,” said Oded Eran, a former Israeli ambassador to the European Union and ex-director of Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies. “Azerbaijan is reliable enough as a supplier of oil for Israel, and Israel is a reliable supplier of high-tech and arms.”

    Israel has long cultivated ties with this Muslim nation, which has enormous reserves of oil and natural gas and a 380-mile southern border with Iran. The xxxish state opened an embassy in Baku in 1992, just one year after Azerbaijan gained independence from the former Soviet Union.

    But Azerbaijan, mindful of antagonizing its neighbor, the partnership has mostly flourished in the shadows. Azerbaijan still does not have an embassy in Israel, despite expanding bilateral trade now pegged at $3 billion a year. In 2009, Aliyev compared relations with Israel to an iceberg: “nine-tenths submerged.”

    The elder Aliyev, a former KGB boss, handled the relationship with Israel “with great care during those early and unstable times,” according to Avinoam Idan, a senior research fellow at John Hopkins University’s Central Asia-Caucasus Institute.

    In recent years, however, the partnership has grown much more open — and more robust.

    In 2011, the Israeli defense contractor Aeronautics opened a factory for military drones in Azerbaijan. The following year, the state-owned Israel Aerospace Industries sold Azerbaijan $1.6 billion worth of weapons — a deal that amounted to 43 percent of Azerbaijan’s total expenditure on arms in 2012. Azerbaijan now supplies a whopping 40 percent of Israel’s oil consumption.

    In May, Elmar Mammadyarov became the first Azerbaijani foreign minister to visit Israel. Mammadyarov met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Shimon Peres along with a dozen other ministers and promised that the opening of an Azerbaijani embassy was “just a matter of time.”

    Israel’s increasingly cozy ties with Azerbaijan have grown in the wake of a crisis in the country’s relations with Iran. Though traditionally mistrustful of the Islamic Republic’s penchant for exporting revolutionary zeal, Azerbaijan had strived to maintain good relations, signing a non-aggression pact with Tehran in 2005.

    But relations deteriorated in 2009 after Iran cracked down on the large minority of ethnic Azerbaijanis living in Iran. When Azerbaijan protested, Iranian officials threatened to raise territorial claims.

    Israel was named as a factor in the dispute last year when Azerbaijani officials revealed plans by local extremists, aided by Iran, to blow up the Israeli and American embassies in Baku.

    Also last year, Iran accused Azerbaijan of helping Israel assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists and gather intelligence. The situation was inflamed further by a Reuters report that Israel planned to use Azerbaijani airfields in the event of a strike on Iranian nuclear facilities.

    Israeli and Azerbaijani officials denied the report.

    “These reports sound like James Bond stories, and that’s exactly what they are,” said Raphael Harpaz, Israel’s ambassador to Azerbaijan, at his office at the Hyatt Regency Hotel.

    That said, “Azerbaijan has taken a courageous stand against efforts to destabilize the region,” Harpaz added — an obvious reference to Iran.

    Harpaz said anti-Semitic sentiment, prevalent in much of the Muslim world, is virtually nonexistent in Azerbaijan, a secular country with guaranteed freedom of worship and — unlike its abstemious southern neighbor — teeming with bars and nightclubs where scantily dressed women dance to Turkish and Russian pop hits.

    “Azerbaijan’s economic success and relatively liberal attitudes form a contrast with Iran’s restrictive policies and a viable alternative, which is probably making the Mullah regime uncomfortable,” Idan said.

    Despite Baku’s attempts to keep the peace, American diplomats believe Azerbaijan considers Iran “a major, even existential security threat,” according to an assessment in a leaked diplomatic cable from 2009. The country’s cooperation with Israel “flows from this shared recognition,” the cable read.

    Idan says Azerbaijan’s closeness with Israel is actually aimed at a different regional foe: Armenia, Azerbaijan’s neighbor to the west, against whom Azerbaijan has fought two wars in the last century over the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region.

    Aliyev considers the conflict unfinished, which has led to American and European reluctance to sell him weapons he can’t obtain elsewhere. Israel has no such qualms.

    Israel, too, may have broader reasons for cultivating ties with Azerbaijan. The xxxish state has long sought out non-Arab moderate Muslim nations as allies as a counterweight to the hostile Muslim nations that surround it.

    Eldar Mamedov, an Azerbaijan-born political adviser at the European Parliament in Brussels, wrote in January that Israel sees Azerbaijan as a replacement for Turkey, whose once-close partnership with Israel hasn’t recovered from the 2010 storming by Israeli commandos of a Turkish ship bound for Gaza.

    But Fuad Akhundov, a historian and government spokesman, told JTA that personal bonds between xxxs and Azerbaijanis over the centuries has helped cement the bond.

    “xxxs here have always been perceived as promoters of progress, part of the elite, as something which holds potential,” Akhundov said. “These positive feelings had a role in the establishment of warm bilateral ties.”


    Read more: http://www.jta.org/2013/09/17/news-o...#ixzz2fJ9mRVKI

    Comment


    • Re: Regional geopolitics

      Aliyev Defends Axe-Killer’s Pardon, Blasts ‘Armenian Fascism’

      Հրապարակված է՝ 19.09.2013


      Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev has strongly defended his controversial decision to free, promote and reward an Azerbaijani army officer who hacked to death a sleeping Armenian colleague in Hungary in 2004.

      In a speech delivered on Wednesday and reported by Azerbaijani news agencies the following day, Aliyev also alleged that “fascism” has been the dominant Armenian national ideology over the past century.

      “I remember how many unfounded accusations and attacks I faced from hypocritical foreign politicians after the liberation and return to the homeland of the Azerbaijani officer Ramil Safarov,” he said. “The European Parliament even adopted a resolution on this issue and condemned my steps.”

      “But I will repeat with the same determination that Azerbaijan freed its officer, returned him to the homeland and restored justice,” he declared.

      Safarov was sentenced by a Hungarian court to life imprisonment for axe-murdering Armenian Lieutenant Gurgen Markarian during a NATO course in Budapest. Aliyev pardoned Safarov immediately after the Hungarian authorities unexpectedly extradited him to Azerbaijan in August last year. The officer was also promoted to the rank of army major, granted a free apartment and paid eight years’ worth of back pay.

      Safarov’s glorification provoked a furious reaction from Armenia and strong Western criticism.

      Aliyev, who will almost certainly secure a third term in office in an upcoming presidential election, made the remarks as he inaugurated a memorial to the victims to what his regime says was genocide committed by Armenians in northern Azerbaijan in 1918. He said the atrocity was a vivid manifestation of “Armenian fascism.”

      “Armenian fascism once again showed its face in the late 1980s and the early 1990s,” Aliyev said, referring to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

      “The ideology of the modern Armenian state is also based on fascism,” he charged. “I believe that Armenian fascism should be researched by Azerbaijani scholars more thoroughly.”

      Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev has strongly defended his controversial decision to free, promote and reward an Azerbaijani army officer who hacked to death a sleeping Armenian colleague in Hungary in 2004.

      Comment


      • Re: Regional geopolitics

        Դեռ ուշ չէ վերաիմաստավորել Հայաստանում ռուսական բազայի դերը
        Իգոր Մուրադյան
        Երեքշաբթի, 17 Սեպտեմբերի 2013,


        Ռուսական ուղղությունը հատուկ դեր է խաղում ԱՄՆ եւ Թուրքիայի համաձայնություններում եւ ենթադրում է Թուրքիայի ու Ռուսաստանի հետագա մերձեցման բացառումը: Կարեւոր նշանակություն ունի էներգետիկ հաղորդուղիների խնդիրը, եւ Թուրքիան չպետք է մասնակցի եվրոպական ուղղությամբ ռուսական էներգառեսուրսների հաջող տեղափոխման զարգացմանը: Թուրքիան չպետք է նպաստի ռուսական դիրքերի ուժեղացմանը Բալկաններում, Սեւ ծովում, Կովկասում եւ Կենտրոնական Ասիայում:
        Թուրքիան երկար ժամանակ փորձում էր խաղարկել «սիրիական հաղթաթուղթը», Սիրիայի հետ բավական սերտ հարաբերություններ հաստատելով, այդ թվում պաշտպանության եւ անվտանգության ոլորտում, Բաշար Ասադին հավաստիացնելով աջակցության հարցում: Սակայն Թուրքիան շատ արագ փոխեց իր դիրքորոշումը, ինչը չէր կարող կապված չլինել ԱՄՆ հետ պայմանավորվածությունների հետ:
        Անշուշտ, Սիրիայի հանդեպ Թուրքիայի քաղաքականությունը պարունակում է շատ նպատակներ ու խնդիրներ, եւ Ռուսաստանը համարվում է այդ նպատակներից մեկը: Սակայն, ակնհայտ է, որ ամերիկացիների կողմից Թուրքիային Ասադի ռեժիմի դեմ պայքարին որպես գործիք ներգրավելը նպատակ ունի Ռուսաստանի ու Թուրքիայի միջեւ ավելի մեծացնել հեռավորությունը:
        Ռուսաստանի դեսպանատները Լիբանանում, Սիրիայում, Հորդանանում Մոսկվա էին ուղարկում տարբեր տեղեկություններ ու վերլուծություններ այն մասին, թե ինչ է սպասվում Սիրիայի շրջափակմանը Թուրքիային ներգրավելու դեպքում: Մոսկվայում այնքան էլ չէին հասկանում, թե ինչու պետք է Թուրքիան, որն այդքան երկար ժամանակ հարաբերություն էր զարգացնում Սիրիայի հետ, դիմակայության մեջ մտնի նրա հետ, նկատի առնելով նաեւ Թուրքիայի էպատաժային գործողությունները Իսրայելի մասով:
        Ներկայում ռուսական արտաքին քաղաքականության մեջ կասկած չկա Սիրիայի վերաբերյալ ԱՄՆ եւ Թուրքիայի միջեւ լուրջ պայմանավորվածությունների կապակցությամբ, ինչը դարձել է թուրք-ամերիկյան հարաբերությունների կարեւորագույն բաղկացուցիչ: Մեր կարծիքով, ԱՄՆ տվյալ պայմանավորվածություններով ոչ միայն Թուրքիային ներառում է իր գործընկերների շրջանակ, այլեւ այդպիսով ավելի մեծ չափով է մեկուսացնում նրան, հատկապես Մերձավոր Արեւելքում ապագա սպասումների տեսանկյունից:
        ԱՄՆ Ֆրանսիայի եւ եվրոպական այլ պետությունների հետ չունի պարտավորեցնող պայմանավորվածություններ՝ Թուրքիայի հետ սիրիական խնդրի մասով նրանց հարաբերությունների կապակցությամբ: Առկա են խորհրդակցություններ «թուրքական թեմայով»: Սակայն ԱՄՆ եւ Թուրքիայի միջեւ կան համաձայնություններ Սիրիայի հարցում քաղաքականության սկզբունքների վերաբերյալ:
        ԱՄՆ եւ Ֆրանսիան թույլ չեն տալիս ռազմական ինտերվենցիան Սիրիայի դեմ, առավել եւս՝ Սիրիայի դեմ Թուրքիայի ռազմական գործողությունները: Այս կապակցությամբ լիովին պարզ է, որ ԱՄՆ եւ Ֆրանսիան փորձում են առավել մեծ չափով մեկուսացնել Թուրքիային, նրան «փակելով» Մերձավոր Արեւելքի շեմին: Դա նշանակում է, որ ԱՄՆ եւ Թուրքիայի պայմանավորվածությունները չունեն լիակատար համաձայնեցվածության եւ վստահելիության բնույթ:
        ԱՄՆ փորձում է Թուրքիային ուղղել Մերձավոր Արեւելքում Ռուսաստանի ու Իրանի դիրքերի խափանմանը, սակայն, դրանով հանդերձ, թույլ չտալով նրա դիրքերի ուժեղացումը: Դա ԱՄՆ քաղաքականության կարեւոր խնդիրն է Մերձավոր Արեւելքում: Ռուսաստանն, ինչպես միշտ, փրկում է Թուրքիային աշխարհքաղաքական պլանում: Եթե Ռուսաստանը նման եռանդով չփորձեր հաստատել սեփական դիրքերը Մերձավոր Արեւելքում, Թուրքիայի դերը ԱՄՆ ծրագրերում կլիներ զգալիորեն ավելի համեստ, եւ նրա հետ ավելի քիչ հաշվի կնստեին:
        Ռուսաստանն ու Թուրքիան, չնայած նպատակների տարբերությանը, փորձում են, եւ դա նրանց հաջողվում է, հակամարության մեջ չմտնել, համենայնդեպս հրապարակային համատեքստում: Եւ դա հասկանալի է, քանի որ ավելի արմատական դիմակայությունը կհանգեցներ պատերազմի կամ խոշոր հակամարտության:
        Սակայն եթե Թուրքիան վերջնականապես եւ ակնհայտ պարտություն կրի Սիրիայում, նա կնախընտրի սեփական դիրքերն ուժեղացնելու այլ միջոցներ, եւ դա տարածաշրջանի երկրների վատ տեղեկացված կառավարությունների համար կպայմանավորի բավական վտանգավոր նորույթներ տարածաշրջանային քաղաքականության մեջ:
        Այս կապակցությամբ, լավ կլիներ նորովի վերաիմաստավորել Հայաստանում ռուսական ռազմական բազայի նշանակությունն ու իմաստը, Հայաստանի ինքնիշխանության կորստի միտումների պայմաններում:
        - See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/arm/0/pol....mUf9S4Ju.dpuf

        Comment


        • Re: Regional geopolitics

          Originally posted by Vrej1915 View Post
          Le 13 septembre 2013, le journal libanais As-Safir repris et traduit en français par l'agence iranienne IRIB puis par d'autres sites Internet, vient de présenter une version inédite de l'affaire des 2 missiles américains tirés en Méditerranée orientale le 3 septembre dernier.
          Rappel des événements du 3 septembre 2013

          Selon la version officielle qui avait été donnée le jour même par les agences de presse, c'est la Russie qui avait détecté le lancement de ces deux missiles balistiques en Méditerranée, lesquels étaient ensuite « tombés en mer ».
          Si l'on résume leurs différentes dépêches et communiqués, les agences de presse russes et le ministère russe de la Défense avaient précisé :
          que « le lancement, qui a eu lieu à 10H16 de Moscou (06H16 GMT), a été détecté par les stations radar à Armavir (sud de la Russie) » ;
          que « les engins ont été lancés de la partie centrale de la Méditerranée vers la côte est » ;
          qu'il « y a eu en effet deux lancements, ils sont tombés dans la mer » ;
          que « le ministre de la Défense Sergueï Choïgou a informé le président russe Vladimir Poutine, commandant en chef des armées ».
          Selon les agences de presse occidentales, ce n'est que « un peu plus tard » que « le ministère israélien de la Défense a[vait] annoncé avoir mené avec succès dans la matinée un tir de missile radar dans le cadre d'un exercice militaire israélo-américain ».
          Encore un peu plus tard dans la journée, et cette fois-ci de nouveau de Russie, l'agence de presse russe Interfax indiquait que, « selon une source militaro-diplomatique russe, il pouvait s'agir de tirs visant à affiner les relevés météorologiques », et citait une autre source russe affirmant qu'il était « possible que les destroyers de la 6e flotte de la Marine américaine aient tiré à blanc ou des leurres pour tester l'efficacité du système de la défense antimissile syrien. Ces tirs pourraient avoir pour but d'intimider le peuple syrien et désorganiser la communauté internationale ».
          Les informations (non confirmées) du 13 septembre 2013

          Selon les informations parues 10 jours après dans le journal libanais As-Safir (journal dont le titre signifie "L'Ambassadeur"), la réalité aurait été bien différente de cette présentation :
          les deux missiles auraient été tirés par les États-Unis contre la Syrie depuis une base de l'Otan en Espagne ;
          les radars russes les auraient détectés immédiatement ;
          les systèmes de défense anti-missile russes auraient alors été déclenchés, détruisant l'un des deux missiles en plein air et déviant l'autre de sa trajectoire de façon à ce qu'il s'abime en mer" ;
          aussitôt après la neutralisation des 2 missiles, les services du renseignement russe auraient contacté leurs homologues américains pour leur dire que "toute attaque contre Damas est comme si Moscou était pris pour cible " ;
          Obama et les dirigeants militaires américains auraient alors pris toute la mesure, à la fois de l'efficacité du système de défense anti-missile russes et de la détermination de Poutine à aller jusqu'à un conflit planétaire si nécessaire pour empêcher Washington de parvenir à ses buts ;
          les Américains auraient alors demandé au gouvernement israélien de revendiquer le double tir de missile Anchor comme un "test", ce qu'Israël aurait fait pour éviter à Washington une perte irréparable de crédit sur ses capacités militaires.
          Obama aurait réalisé qu'il n'avait plus le choix que d'être contraint à la volte-face diplomatique spectaculaire à laquelle on a assisté. Il se serait mis d'accord avec Moscou sur une tactique de sortie de crise : le gouvernement russe aurait caché la vérité pour éviter l'humiliation aux États-Unis, en échange de quoi Washington aurait donné son accord préalable au scénario consistant à demander à Damas de placer ses armes chimiques sous contrôle international et se signer la Convention de l'ONU sur leur interdiction.
          du coup, - et selon une autre analyse diffusée par IRIB - la Syrie n'aurait plus d'autre solution que de se placer sous le parapluie nucléaire russe.

          Commentaires

          L'avenir dira si cette version des événements est réelle ou si elle est en tout ou partie enjolivée. Force est néanmoins de constater que si ce succès militaire russe se révélait exact, il permettrait d'un seul coup :
          a)- de comprendre le revirement américain à 180°, b)- de mesurer mieux encore les erreurs dramatiques de la diplomatie française, c)- de comprendre pourquoi une partie du Moyen-Orient semble actuellement sur le point de basculer dans l'orbite russe :
          la Syrie ne peut désormais plus rien refuser à Moscou ; il est même probable que, si Moscou l'exige, Bachar-El-Assad sera contraint de céder le pouvoir dans le cadre d'un plan de paix global ;
          l'Iran, qui espère que la Russie va lui livrer des missiles S-300, vient de demander l'aide de Moscou sur la crise nucléaire, et cela d'autant plus que le gouvernement russe semble prêt à signer avec Téhéran un accord pour construire un deuxième réacteur dans la centrale iranienne de Bouchehr
          Chypre, pourtant membre de l'UE, regarde de plus en plus vers la Russie, dont elle vient d'obtenir une renégociation très favorable de ses emprunts, ce qui constitue un message implicite à ses "partenaires européens"
          enfin, l'Égypte elle-même, semblant renouer avec l'époque révolue des années Nasser, vient d'annoncer qu'elle « veut renouer des relations privilégiées avec la Russie ».
          Tous ces événements, mis bout-à-bout, semblent indiquer qu'un changement géopolitique majeur est en cours au niveau mondial. L'époque de l'hyper-hégémonie américaine est irrésistiblement en train de céder la place à une nouvelle époque, pour le plus grand bénéfice de Moscou et de Pékin.


          Ici, c'est la cour des Grands, il n'y a pas de place pour Merkel, Cameron ou Hollande. C'est à ce genre de photo, et au marchandage géopolitique qu'elle révèle, que l'on comprend à quel point les États-Unis sont parvenus à faire disparaître les puissances européennes de la scène mondiale, en les engluant dans une Tour de Babel ingérable à leur botte.
          Quant à la France, au lieu de tenir le rôle traditionnel d'équilibre qui est le sien et qui lui aurait pu lui valoir un retour en force de son influence dans la région et dans le monde, elle poursuit dans sa stratégie suicidaire.
          Devenue une colonie américaine par Union européenne interposée, dirigée par une caste qui se vautre dans la servilité à Washington, s'apprêtant à disparaître davantage encore dans le "Grand Marché Transatlantique", notre pays fait tout bonnement le choix de lier son sort à la puissance américaine en déclin.
          Puissance américaine qui, de surcroît, traite la France comme un larbin dont les avis comptent pour zéro, comme elle vient de le montrer avec une cinglante désinvolture sur cette affaire syrienne.
          Israel conducts joint missile interception test with US in Mediterranean
          DEBKAfile Special Report September 3, 2013


          The US and Israeli Tuesday, Sept. 3, carried out a joint anti-missile missile test in the Mediterranean to prepare for a possible Syrian-Hizballah attack on Israel and Jordan in retaliation for the planned US military strike on Syria. US and Israel officials reported that the Israeli Ankor (Sparrow) was used as the target missile for testing the interceptors.
          According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, the test demonstrated that since delaying his planned strike on Syria last Saturday, President Barack Obama has revised his plans and instead of “a narrow, limited” attack is contemplating a broader offensive for degrading the Assad regime. The arrival of the USS Nimitz aircraft carrier in the Red Sea is further evidence of this intention.
          The missile trial also indicates an updated US-Israeli consensus that Iran, Syrian and Hizballah mean business by the mounting level of the threats to fire missiles at Israel, Jordan and Turkey if the Americans go through with their strike against Syria. Such retaliation cold lead to the Syrian conflict expanding substantially into a regional war, which Moscow, Tehran and Damascus have in the last 48 hours admitted was virtually unavoidable.
          Israel has been using the Ankor as the target missile for its own and US tests of their Arrow-2 .Washington has made no mention of the joint test. It is therefore not known whether American missiles took part in the test. Neither was there any word about whether the test was successful.
          Russia on Tuesday announced that its missile early warning station at Armavir on the Black Sea had detected the launch of two missiles from the central part of the Mediterranean Sea fired towards the Sea's eastern coastline. Armavir was set up to track missile launches from Europe and Iran.
          According to DEBKAfile’s military sources, US warships cruising opposite the Syrian coast and carrying Aegis anti-missile missiles, alongside Tomahawk cruise missiles ready for the strike on Syria, did take part in the test.
          The practice also activated the sophisticated X-band radar system stationed in the Israeli Negev. This system is critical for identifying Iranian, Syrian or Hizballah rockets fired against Israel and Jerusalem and provide 3-5 minutes early warning of an attack.
          The first report of the anti-missile test came from Moscow in a Russian Defense Ministry report that two ballistic missile launches had been detected in the Mediterranean by its Armavir early warning station on the Black Sea. President Vladimir Putin was immediately informed. Armavir was set up to track missile launches from Europe and Iran.

          Comment


          • Re: Regional geopolitics

            Moscow pulls away from Kerry-Lavrov deal on Syrian chemical disarmament.
            Assad gets to keep his WMD

            DEBKA
            September 20, 2013

            Russian leaders finally picked apart the Kerry-Lavrov understanding for Syria’s chemical disarmament - less than a week after it was unveiled in Geneva last Saturday. Thursday, Sept. 19, they slapped down a string of coordinated obstructions. One knockout blow came from President Vladimir Putin, who commented dryly that he could not be 100 percent certain that the plan for the destruction of Syria’s chemical weapons would succeed. “But everything we have seen so far in recent days gives us confidence that this will happen. I hope so,” he said.
            To dispel that hope, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu followed up with a denial of any plans to destroy the Syrian chemical stocks on Russian soil.
            Then, in an interview to Fox News, Syrian President Bashar Assad, in sync with Moscow, asked mockingly: “It [the destruction of poison chemicals] is very detrimental to the environment. If the American administration is ready to pay this money and take the responsibility of bringing toxic materials to the United States, why don’t they do it?”
            Since Russia and the US are the only countries with the industrial-scale capacity to destroy chemical munitions, and their import is banned under US law, Assad’s chemical arsenal is safe.
            In fact, Germany alone has offered to send a small number of chemical experts to Syria, No one else is ready to oversee the complicated dismantling and removal of an estimated 1,000 tons of dangerously poisonous materials, pay for the operation or accept the materials on its soil.
            US Secretary of State John Kerry, seeing his understanding with Sergey Lavrov slipping away, made a desperate attempt to save it. He called a news conference at the State Department Thursday to declare that it was essential the deal be enforced with a binding resolution and that the UN Security Council act on it next week, when the UN General Assembly holds its annual meeting in New York.
            Kerry did not indicate how the US administration would react if the deal fell through or whether the US military option would be revived.
            But it was already clear that his deal with Lavrov was going nowhere, even to the few Obama sympathizers who had hailed the president for finally managing to get Moscow on board for a solution of the Syrian war and the removal of Assad’s chemical arsenal.
            The Syrian ruler calmly told Fox meanwhile that his government was willing to get rid of its chemical weapons but it would be a very complicated operation that would take about a year or more and cost around $1 billion.
            After analyzing his comments, Western intelligence experts told DEBKAfile they had reached two conclusions:
            1. That Assad drew a distinction between his operational chemical arsenal and the stockpiles of those weapons. He is apparently willing to let the first category go, but determined to keep the stocks.
            2. His manner was confident verging on xxxxy, showing he felt certain that he would not be deprived of his chemical capabilities for coming out on top of the Syrian civil war.
            He had no qualms about denying his forces were responsible for the Aug. 21 attack on districts east of Damascus, fully backed by the perseverance of Russian officials in pinning the blame on the rebels.
            As excerpts of his Fox interview were aired, Assad received Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov in Damascus at the head of a large Russian delegation of military and intelligence officers. He used the occasion to complain that he was caught in a cruel vice between al Qaeda and US pressure and expressed the hope that Moscow would be able to “draw a new map of global balance.”
            As the Kerry-Lavrov deal falls apart, it turns out to have been less an agreement and more a loose compilation of limited understandings on the Syrian chemical question, which left unresolved sharp, fundamental disagreements between Washington on Moscow on how it should be handled, particularly at the UN Security Council.
            None of this has stopped President Obama from selling the proposition to the American public and the world that the US-Russian accord for the disposal of Syria’s chemical weapons was a triumphant breakthrough for his administration’s diplomacy, which opened the door to an agreement for resolving the Iranian nuclear issue as well.

            Comment


            • Re: Regional geopolitics

              The Syrian helicopter flight over Turkey fabricated first Assad obstacle to chemical weapons handover
              DEBKA
              September 17, 2013

              Syrian Prime Minister Waal al-Khalqi knew what he was talking about when he said Monday, Sept. 16 that the Assad regime had plenty more assets up its sleeve for harming Israel and achieving strategic balance - even after surrendering its chemical weapons to international control. The Russian ships already on their way to Syria loaded with munitions for Bashar Assad’s army demonstrate the justice of his words.
              Indeed the Syrian ruler would not have agreed to let go of his chemical arsenal without being certain of two major hindrances and two big rewards:
              1. Syria’s chemical arsenal cannot be destroyed in its entirety - only a very small part thereof. Like most of the rhetoric surrounding the issue, the pledge the OPCW chairman Ahmet Uzumcu of Turkey gave the UN Secretary - that “the organization will move swiftly to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapon stockpile” – is more hot air than substance.
              The Organization for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons – OPCW – is a small outfit which lacks the manpower and funds for this Herculean task; America alone is competent to perform it. It goes without saying that the Obama administration is not in the business of deploying thousands of US military personnel on the ground – even if Moscow and Damascus were amenable.
              Washington might conceivably agree to train international personnel in the dismantling of chemical weapons. But that too would take a year or more. Special Syrian rebel units under US-Jordanian command have been taught how to handle chemical weapons in Jordan, but Assad is hardly likely to let them set foot in the country.
              2. The second obstacle was concocted by the Assad regime Monday, by sending an M-17 transport helicopter usable as a gunship against ground targets into Turkish air space. The Turkish Air Force downed the intruder over the southern Malatya region after it failed to heed several warnings, although the helicopter could have been forced to land in Turkey or chased back across the border.
              The Turks therefore fell into the trap laid at their feet by Assad. The incident sent border tensions into a violent tailspin, and provided Damascus and Moscow with the pretext for backing out of the chemical weapons deal under the oversight of an international organization, so long as OPCW was headed by a Turkish official, who is moreover, a close friend of Turkey's anti-Assad Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu.
              2. Before consenting to dismantling his poison gas arsenal, Assad obtained Moscow’s promise in advance, according to DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources, to send his army without delay large consignments of advanced weapons systems.
              Those shipments are presented as compensating the Syrian government for the loss of its chemical option against the Syrian rebels. In fact, Assad comes out of the US-Russian deal not only fortified militarily, but holding a long-life guarantee. Part of his chemical stockpile will remain available to his armed forces and at the same time, they hit the jackpot for top-line items in the Russian armory.
              3. This long-life guarantee was also cemented by the accord US Secretary of State John Kerry signed with Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Geneva Saturday, Sept. 14. The monitoring and destruction of his chemical stockpiles will certainly be protracted. As long as the process drags on, Assad is assured of staying in power, as the only party capable of bringing it to fruition, however slim that prospect is. Without him, the US-Russian accord is dead and buried.
              The report published by the UN chemical experts Monday offered nothing new that was not unknown about his regime’s culpability of the Aug. 21, attack. It did not bother Assad one whit.
              It is therefore hard to see the point of Israel Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon’s remarks that the US-Russian deal for Syria “proved that a credible threat of force could bring about diplomatic solutions for disarming dangerous rogue regimes of weapons of mass destruction.”
              The Geneva accord merely laid the ground for a Western PR campaign under the tutelage of John Kerry to demonstrate a false breakthrough for ending the barbaric Syrian war. However, on the ground, nothing has changed; the war continues with unparalleled savagery and the threats to its neighbors from Syria and the Lebanese Hizballah are still in force.

              Comment


              • Re: Regional geopolitics

                China's Growing Political Role in the Caucasus

                Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 10 Issue: 12
                January 23, 2013 05:56 PM Age: 18 days
                By: Paul Goble


                Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad construction (Source: trend.az)

                China's economic role in the south Caucasus is expanding rapidly, with
                Beijing's investments in Azerbaijan alone now approaching a total of
                one billion US dollars and its bilateral trade with that country
                exceeding that figure on an annual basis. But as impressive as those
                figures are, China appears set to play an even larger political role
                in the region not only because of its interest in the
                Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway as a land route to Europe, but also because
                of its concerns about the ways in which instability there could have a
                negative impact on China
                (https://www.kavkazoved.info/news/201...ragmatizm.html).

                There are at least three reasons for this conclusion, which seems
                counter-intuitive since in their public statements so far, Chinese
                leaders have made it clear that the Caucasus - North and South - is not a
                place that is central to their interests. Indeed, the absence of such
                declarations and Beijing's apparent disinterest constitute the first
                of China's advantages: Unlike the major powers, such as the Russian
                Federation, the United States and France, China does not show itself
                to be and is not viewed by others as being closely tied to one country
                in the Caucasus and thus at odds with others. At a time when many in
                the region are questioning the motives and actions of these other
                powers, that gives Beijing an opening that - judging from its policies
                elsewhere - it is likely to exploit.

                Second, China brings to any discussions in this region two
                extraordinary advantages arising from its own more general approach to
                foreign affairs. On the one hand and in sharp contrast to some other
                major powers, China's leaders are prepared to deal with the
                governments in the Caucasus countries without challenging their
                domestic arrangements or approach to democracy and human rights. They
                focus exclusively on economic and geopolitical interests from a
                realist perspective, something that governments in the region
                appreciate especially as they have been stung by the criticism of
                others.

                And on the other, China brings to the south Caucasus and that region's
                currently frozen conflicts - namely between Georgia and the Russian
                Federation, and between Armenia and Azerbaijan - its unique experience
                of working with Taiwan, a place that Beijing insists is de jure part
                of China, but one that it interacts with as a de facto independent
                country. For Tbilisi, Moscow, Baku and Yerevan, that experience is at
                least suggestive of some of the possible ways forward in dealing with
                the so-called `breakaway' republics of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and
                Karabakh.

                At the same time, the region is beset by growing anger in Baku about
                the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Minsk
                Group's failure to resolve the Karabakh conflict, ongoing fears in
                Tbilisi that Moscow will continue to back Abkhazia and South Ossetia,
                as well as the absence of any outside mediators for any of these
                conflicts who are not viewed by someone as parti pris - Turkey, for
                example, is unacceptable to Armenia. As a result, China is in a
                position to promote itself or even to be asked to play a role in both
                cases that few in the region - and quite possibly few elsewhere or even
                in Beijing itself - now foresee.

                And third, in the South Caucasus as in other regions, China takes a
                long-term approach to all issues. Its leaders do not feel compelled to
                show progress in this or that year but instead work to advance
                Beijing's interests over decades or even longer. Others may seek to
                exploit that approach especially if they are interested in maintaining
                the status quo or oppose a resolution that would change it. But this
                vision gives China some real advantages because it means that
                Beijing's representatives can focus always on their own pragmatic
                interests rather than on playing to the crowd.

                What are Beijing's interests in the Caucasus? The most obvious are
                the expansion of trade with the petroleum-rich Caspian basin
                countries, the establishment of land-based transportation and
                communication links between Asia and Europe (see EDM, January 10), the
                recognition of China as a rising super power, and, above all else,
                political stability and maintenance of the territorial integrity of
                states. And its promotion of these interests over the longer term
                means that China will seek to block the kind of border changes and
                tectonic power shifts that some in the region and beyond appear
                interested in.

                Chinese activities in the South Caucasus are beginning to attract
                attention. But quite clearly, this country's moves deserve to be
                followed closely now that Beijing has shown that it is more than
                prepared to be a new player in the complex geopolitical game in the
                South Caucasus.

                http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=40355&tx_ttnews[backPid]=620

                Comment


                • Re: Regional geopolitics

                  Trend of Decline in Azeri Oil Export: CESD Forecasts decline in oil
                  output by 5% in 2013



                  BAKU. February 7, 2013: Azeri oil export declined by 15.3% in January
                  2013 compared with the previous month according to State Oil Company
                  of Azerbaijan (SOCAR). The company reports that it exported 1.67
                  million tons in January 2013 (compared to 1.976 million tons in
                  December). Last year's highest export occurred in July (2.36 million
                  tons).

                  In January 2013, 2,629 tons of oil was exported via Baku-Novorossiysk;
                  242,339 tons via Baku-Supsa; and 1.439 million via Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
                  (BTC). `Over 2012, it was exported 25.006 million tons of oil,
                  including 2.06 million tons via Baku-Novorossiysk, 2.7 million tons
                  via Baku-Supsa and 20.199 million tons via BTC,' - SOCAR reported.
                  SOCAR says that the MEOD exports both its own oil and oil falling on
                  the share of the government within PSA contracts.

                  The put 2013's projections in perspective, SOCAR's oil products export
                  dropped by 14.1% in 2012, as well - down from 1,448,068 tons in 2011
                  to 1,243,742 tons last year.

                  The assessment model of the Center for Economic & Social Development
                  (CESD) also forecasts decreasing of oil production in Azerbaijan. 50.8
                  million tons oil in 2010, 45.6 million tons in 2011 and 43.9 million
                  tons last year, which was 6.9 million ton less than 2010's output.
                  Meanwhile, the latest predictions confirm that oil production will
                  decrease to about 33 million tons in 2015. Even with current prices of
                  crude oil in the world market, State Oil Fund of Azerbaijan's (SOFAZ)
                  assets will be totally spent within the budget lines if current
                  unbelievable transfer levels persist. Maintaining such a high rate of
                  transfers can result in negative consequences because of cutting
                  budget expenditures due to potential lack of financial resources.

                  CESD is not optimistic about SOCAR's oil output forecast for 2013,
                  which projects an output of 44 million tons of oil in 2013, even
                  though decline in this sector was already registered in the first
                  months of year. CESD forecasts decline in oil output by 5% in 2013
                  based on its econometric models and PSA matrix.

                  According to the Production Share Agreement (PSA), oil reserves turned
                  down starting in 2011. Considering that the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli
                  field currently has 3 billion barrels (of the initial 5 billion)
                  reserve, production in paying quantities from the
                  Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli field is estimated to end in 2019 (3 billion
                  barrel /340 million barrel annual). Given that 2010 was the peak year
                  of Azeri oil production, the descent began in 2011. Of course, the
                  output will not stop immediately, but its reduction by 10 percent a
                  year will be a severe blow.

                  The BTC pipeline extends to 1768 km including 443km in Azerbaijan, 248
                  km in Georgia and 1076 km in Turkey. The shareholders of the BTC Co
                  pipeline company are BP (30.1%), SOCAR (25%), Chevron (8.9%), Statoil
                  (8.71%), TPAO (6.53%), Itochu (3.4%), ONGC Videsh Ltd. (2.36%), ENI
                  (5%), ConocoPhillips (2.5%), Inpex (2.5%), Total (5%) (CESD).

                  Comment


                  • Re: Regional geopolitics

                    SARGSYAN BLASTS MILITARY ALLIES OVER PRO-AZERI STATEMENTS ON KARABAKH


                    NEWS | 24.09.13 | 11:43

                    Photo: www.president.am

                    By Gohar Abrahamyan
                    ArmeniaNow reporter

                    Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan made some tough statements at a
                    session of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) Council
                    in Sochi on Monday, criticizing some members for their statements on
                    the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

                    Sargsyan, who was on a working visit to Russia accompanied by Foreign
                    Minister Edward Nalbandian, said that "contrary to the decisions
                    adopted by ourselves some Member States at other platforms and in
                    other organizations make statements on the same matter that are not
                    consonant with the decisions made within the framework of the CSTO."

                    "Let me give you just one example: in our documents, including in
                    the Moscow statement issued in December last year, we underlined
                    the importance of settling the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict peacefully
                    through the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs on the
                    basis of the UN Charter, principles and norms of international law
                    that specifically relate to the nonuse of force or threat of force,
                    equality of peoples and self-determination, and territorial integrity,"
                    said Sargsyan, according to the official website of the President. He
                    added that in recent years documents have been adopted that, including
                    at the presidential level, selectively, based on suggestions of the
                    Azerbaijani side, single out the principle of territorial integrity.

                    President Sargsyan made the statement perhaps taking into account
                    the fact that three of the CSTO member states, namely Kazakhstan,
                    Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, are also members of the Islamic Conference
                    organization, which has a distinctly pro-Azerbaijani position in
                    the Karabakh issue. Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan are also members of
                    the union embracing Turkic states and their officials have stated in
                    Baku that the Karabakh problem must be settled within the framework
                    of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity.

                    Russia and Belarus, the other two members of the CSTO apart from
                    Armenia, also have friendly relations with Azerbaijan. These two
                    states have regularly sold weapons to Azerbaijan.

                    "Naturally, many countries have their own interests with Azerbaijan,
                    but we cannot in any way agree that this relationship leads to the
                    adoption of documents that affect the security interests of CSTO member
                    states and, in general, are against the organization's reputation,"
                    said Sargsyan, adding that the subject is particularly topical in
                    view of the Azeri president's anti-Armenian rhetoric and against the
                    backdrop of constant threats from the Azeri leadership to use force
                    against civilians in Nagorno-Karabakh.

                    Referring to the Syrian crisis, the president of Armenia confirmed
                    that he welcomes the Russian- American agreements aimed at the peaceful
                    resolution of the conflict.

                    In his speech Sargsyan also sought support from CSTO member states for
                    Armenia's acquiring the observer status at the Shanghai Cooperation
                    Organization (SCO). Sargsyan confirmed Armenia's interest in that
                    organization, which, according to him, has a great contribution in
                    promoting peace, security and stability.

                    The SCO was founded in 2001 and its members are Russia, Kyrgyzstan,
                    Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, China and Uzbekistan; among those having
                    observer status at the organization are Afghanistan, India, Iran,
                    Mongolia and Pakistan. Armenian Prime Minister Tigran Sargsyan
                    expressed Armenia's desire to have an observer status at this
                    organization during his recent visit to China.
                    Hayastan or Bust.

                    Comment


                    • Re: Regional geopolitics

                      IS RUSSIA A FRIEND OR A FOE?

                      By Andranik Khachadoorian

                      Over the past few years Armenia has, both on the political and
                      economic level followed an increasingly pro-European path. The EU
                      finances dozens of NGO's in Armenia that promote the European way of
                      life. The Armenian government itself has on multiple occasions declared
                      that Armenia is an integral part of the European family.While Western
                      countries have mainly been helping Armenia reform and modernize its
                      state structures, Russian-Armenian relations have equally developed
                      over the years, especially in military and energy affairs.

                      Up until today, the relationship between Russia and the EU has remained
                      rather tense; declaring itself a Eurasian country, Russia is trying
                      to maintain and regain lost influence in the Post-Soviet space.

                      Having already launched a Customs Union with Belarus and Kazakhstan,
                      it is now trying to develop a European type of economic and
                      political union, called the Eurasian Union. The EU has also become an
                      active player in the Post-Soviet space, having launched the Eastern
                      Partnership (EaP) initiative governing its relationship with Armenia,
                      Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine. The EaP also
                      provides the platform for the negotiation of the Association Agreements
                      with the aforementioned countries that are also members of the WTO.

                      EU Association Agreement or Eurasian Union?

                      Today, Armenia has become one of the battle grounds where the
                      geo-strategic rivals, Russia and the EU, are fighting for influence.

                      Since 2010, Armenia has been negotiating a new Association Agreement
                      with the European Union, which was intended to replace the EU-Armenia
                      Partnership and Cooperation Agreement (PCA) signed in 1999. The
                      PCA allowed for wide-ranging cooperation in the areas of political
                      dialogue, trade, investment, economy, lawmaking and culture. The
                      new Association Agreement is intended to deepen Armenia's political
                      association and economic integration with the EU; including a Deep and
                      Comprehensive Free Trade Area (DCFTA) that should reinforce regulatory
                      approximation leading to convergence with EU laws and standards. Thus,
                      the Association Agreement can be seen as one treaty with two parts;
                      the (i) political and (ii) the trade related and regulatory framework.

                      At first sight, it seemed the Armenian government was making haste
                      to sign the Association Agreement in Vilnius this November. However,
                      President Serzh Sargsyan's announcement on a visit to the Kremlin
                      that Armenia intends to join the Customs Union and subsequently
                      the Eurasian Economic Union (the continuation of the Customs Union)
                      came as a surprise.

                      Some Armenian officials stated that the Association Agreement could
                      be signed without the economic (DCFTA) component, however Commissioner
                      for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy Å tefan Fule made it
                      clear that this is not possible, as the two parts of the Association
                      Agreement are an integral part of one treaty and cannot be separated.

                      Lessons from the Past

                      During the Fourth General Congress of the Armenian Revolutionary
                      Federation, which took place in 1907, one of the main items on the
                      agenda was the "Caucasian Plan," which called for Armenians to struggle
                      against Tsarist tyranny and buildup socialism in the Caucasus. Armenian
                      military commander, Andranik Ozanyan, opposed this plan arguing that
                      it would weaken the struggle of Armenians trying to liberate their
                      motherland, since Armenia would have too many enemies at the same time;
                      Armenia shouldn't try to alienate Russia as well.

                      After the adoption of the plan, he stated that, "by adopting this
                      (plan), we have already half-buried the Armenian Cause."

                      Unfortunately, time proved him right.

                      The Armenian leadership at that time did not have the political
                      foresight and chose to fight two sides. The Armenian leadership today
                      seems to have no political foresight by trying to constantly please
                      all sides. The similarity between the above-mentioned examples is
                      clear; one remains stuck in the middle. Margaret Thatcher wisely said,
                      "standing in the middle of the road is very dangerous, since you get
                      knocked down by the traffic from both sides."

                      Armenia, geographically located in one of the most politically unstable
                      and dangerous regions in the world, is not able to survive on its
                      own. Turkey is continuing its cultural genocide and is tryingto
                      suffocate Armenia by all means. Azerbaijan is spending billions
                      acquiring military armament and is preparing its population for war.

                      It is of utmost importance that Armenia's foreign policy orientation
                      should be in line with the core issue it faces today, namely its
                      security aspect. Russia is and will remain the only country that
                      is able and willing to provide Armenia with significant security
                      guarantees. As the following proverb aptly says, "better a neighbor
                      who is near than a brother far away."

                      The only reason why Turkey refrained from attacking Armenia in 1993 was
                      their concern as to Russia's response. The only reason why Azerbaijan
                      did not attack Armenia during the Russian-Georgian war of 2008 was
                      because of their concern as to Russia's response.

                      Accordingly, one of the main reasons Armenia exists today and is not
                      overrun by its hostile neighbors is not because Armenia's adversaries
                      are afraid of "Christian" Europe's response - we all know how they
                      responded when Turkey attacked Cyprus - but because they are afraid
                      of Russia's response.

                      In 1918 Diana Agabeg Apcar, Armenia's first female diplomat, wrote the
                      following "...the Armenians on their part have also been guilty since
                      1878 onwards of two gigantic errors. They have trusted and hoped in
                      "Christian Governments." The denseness of the Armenian mind in this
                      connection has been amazing. Armenians have been accredited with native
                      shrewdness but certainly no people could have proved more astonishingly
                      stupid than they have proved themselves on this particular point. The
                      other gigantic error of which the Armenians have been guilty of is that
                      the nation as a whole did not support the Armenian revolutionaries."

                      Recklessly choosing to follow EU's course and so risk losing
                      Russia's security guarantees, would be like promising the Netherlands
                      prospective economic gains on the condition that they remove the dams
                      that protect their country from flooding.

                      Coinciding Interests

                      Why should Armenia try to develop a Western model of "democracy" -
                      meaning being obligated to follow economic and political policies
                      dictated by the EU - if Armenia's economy, according to a research
                      conducted by the EU, will grow only an extra 2.3% in the long-run. Is
                      it really worth antagonizing Russia and losing its much needed security
                      guarantees, all so Armenia could possibly gain an extra â~B¬146 million
                      per annum? The Armenians in Russia send more than â~B¬1 billion in
                      remittances to Armenia each year;Russia could easily decide in the
                      short-run not to turn a blind eye to the illegal Armenian immigrants
                      working in the Russian Federation. Armenia could lose much more than
                      the sorry amount of economic gain that is predicted if Armenia would
                      sign the DCFTA.

                      With whom does Armenia share more coinciding interests? Over the
                      past century up until the present day, the interests of the West have
                      largely been directly opposed to that of the Armenians. For the West
                      (and Turkey), a weak Syria is in their best interests; for Armenia
                      it would be disastrous. For the West, a weak and destroyed Iran would
                      be in their interests; for Armenia it would be terrible. For Armenia,
                      the opening of the Russian-Armenian railway and the construction of an
                      Armenian-Iranian railway section would be heaven sent, as products from
                      Russia would reach the Persian Gulf; for the West, this development
                      is seen as highly undesirable.For the West (and Turkey), a Caucasus
                      with a weak or no Russian presence is their main strategic goal,
                      for the Armenians it would mean their extinction.

                      It's like catching fish; the West tries to lure Armenia away
                      from its safe environment (strong Russian-Armenian relations)
                      by promising all sorts of aid, and when Armenia is lured away far
                      enough, let it be swallowed by a shark waiting close by(Turkey,
                      Azerbaijan). One has to be really naïve to believe that the West
                      took into consideration Georgia's national interests when they were
                      luring them away from Russia; they merely wanted to weaken Russia's
                      presence in the region.Because of the selfish agenda of the West and
                      Tbilisi's shortsighted politicians, Georgia now has permanently lost
                      control of 20% of its territory.

                      Thinking in terms of interests, the calculus is simple; Armenia shares
                      significantly more interests in the region with Russia than with the EU
                      or the U.S. Armenia plays an essential part in providing security to
                      Russia's vulnerable North Caucasus region, curbing Turkish, Western,
                      and Iranian influence in the Caucasus. These coinciding interests
                      need to be fully exploited, which will be difficult to do if Armenia
                      alienates itself from Russia by trying to join a different economic
                      and political union.

                      If Israel manages to obtain tremendous amounts of economic and military
                      support from America by "convincing" them that what is in Israel's best
                      interests is also in the U.S's best interests - even when it is not -
                      one would think Armenians would have an easier time receiving similar
                      support from Russia, profiting from the fact that most of Russia's
                      interests in the region coincide with that of Armenia's. Sadly, this
                      potential is not fully used; both the Armenian government and the
                      Armenian Diaspora are to blame for not making closer Russo-Armeno
                      ties a pan-national priority.

                      Anti-Russian Sentiments

                      Imagine for a moment Russia giving economic and military aid worth
                      billions of dollars to Turkey. Imagine Russia station in gatomic
                      bombs in Turkey. Imagine Russia supporting Islamic fundamentalists
                      in Syria, leading to dozens of Armenians being massacred. Imagine
                      Russia not recognizing the Armenian genocide. Imagine Russian
                      presidential candidates promising to recognize the Armenian genocide,
                      but never following through with their promises.Imagine Russia actively
                      sponsoring and supporting a violent group of activists in Armenia who
                      are grabbing every opportunity to clash with the police and spread
                      social unrest, leading to a divided society and an unstable political
                      environment. Wouldn't all hell break loose in Armenia? Thousands of
                      Russophobes would surface and speak up against Russia and demonstrate
                      in front of the Russian Embassy.

                      If in the above story, you replace Russia with the United States, you
                      obtain a true story. Why isn't anyone in Armenia protesting against
                      the anti-Armenian actions taken by the U.S./EU? You see Russophobes
                      demonstrating in front of the Russian Embassy for things of much less
                      importance.Didn't several so-called analysts criticize Russia, when
                      Russian border guards protecting Armenia's border with Turkey, shot a
                      Turkish shepherd? The "bad" Russians were lying about the incident;
                      they were trying to further provoke Armenian-Turkish "relations,"
                      some political analysts like Ara Papian even saw a Russian conspiracy
                      in this. However, when the Turks admitted that the shepherd used a
                      weapon and shot at the border guards first, the Russophobes suddenly
                      turned silent, as they couldn't criticize Russia any longer.

                      When a Western-supported feminist group ridiculed the Russian Orthodox
                      Church and insulted millions of its worshippers,a group of Armenians
                      - mostly those linked to Western organizations - went to demonstrate
                      in front of the Russian Embassy in Yerevan to demand their release.

                      However, when in the United States hundreds of innocent protesters
                      were severely beaten and put in jail during the Occupy Wall Street
                      protests, not a single Armenian was seen demonstrating in front of the
                      U.S. Embassy in Yerevan.While the U.S. continues to support Islamic
                      fundamentalists, continues to support Turkey, continues its policy
                      of genocide denial,nobody in Armenia is seen demonstrating in front
                      of the U.S. Embassy(the new spokesperson of the US State Department,
                      Doug Frantz, is a notorious Genocide denier). Perhaps it's just easy
                      to make Armenians forget the anti-Armenian policy of the Americans by
                      letting U.S. Ambassador to Armenia - John A. Heffern - occasionally
                      clean a few parks in Yerevan.

                      It seems that this phenomenon of blaming those who protect you, while
                      remaining silent about those who harm you, is quite an Armenian trait.

                      General Andranik was often blamed for all the troubles that befell
                      the Armenians in Western Armenia, all because he took up arms to
                      protect the Armenian peasants from total annihilation. Yet again,
                      Armenians are biting the hand that is feeding them.

                      The Way Forward
                      Hayastan or Bust.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X