The Struggle for Caucasia

[aray]

Re: The Struggle for Caucasia

I think Georgians are playing with the tiger’s nuts. If there is a doubt about heavy Russian involvement in Middle East war, there shouldn’t be any in regards to Abkhazia or South Ossetia. Now when the West is talking about “international police forces” you know what the ultimate goal is. You would think that Georgians will not be that stupid and should realize that they may hurt tiger’s sensitive parts and pay for that, but they have proven otherwise in the past.

http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2006/08/B31289FD-EE2D-4486-A62D-98F60290DAE8.html

[Armenian]

Re: The Struggle for Caucasia

Interesting developments.

Russia-Georgia spy row worsens

Russia has ordered a partial withdrawal of officials and their families in Georgia in a worsening row over the arrest of Russian officers there. The Russian ambassador would also leave Tbilisi, said the foreign ministry. It follows Wednesday's arrests of five Russian military personnel accused by Tbilisi of spying. Moscow is demanding their immediate release. The already tense relations between the two countries have deteriorated over the past week, correspondents say.

The Russian foreign ministry said it decided to begin the evacuation of its personnel because of "a growing threat to their security". It said emergency situations ministry planes would start flying Russian officials out of Georgia on Friday. Moscow also advised all its nationals to avoid trips to Georgia. In another development earlier on Thursday, the Russian embassy stopped receiving documents for issuing visas to Georgian nationals.

Trading accusations

The tensions between the two countries escalated after the arrests of the five Russian military personnel - four officers and an NCO - on suspicion of spying. Georgia is also demanding the handover of another Russian officer who is believed to be inside the Russian army headquarters in Tbilisi, surrounded by Georgian police. Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili said on Wednesday the arrested planned "a major provocation". Mr Merabishvili said they had been collecting information on Georgia's relations with Nato, as well on its sea port and railway infrastructure, opposition parties and army.

"We neutralised a very serious and dangerous group," he said.

Georgia says the five officers are linked to an attack in the town of Gori which killed three police officers and injured dozens of people. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov described the actions as subversive and said they should be taken up by the UN. "It is another manifestation of anti-Russian policy," he said, quoted by Itar-Tass news agency.

Growing tension

Georgia has accused Russia of actively trying undermine its government by backing separatists in the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, says the BBC's Matthew Collin in Tbilisi. Wednesday's arrests coincided with the first official visit by pro-Western Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to a disputed area on the border between Georgia and Abkhazia. Russia said his visit was dangerous and would raise tensions between Russia and Georgia. Tbilisi also says Moscow is waging economic war against the country through embargoes on imports of Georgian products.

Russia has denied the allegations.

Relations between the two nations have become increasingly tense since Mr Saakashvili came to power in 2004, pledging to take the Caucasus nation out of Russia's orbit and join Nato and the European Union.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/h...pe/5389504.stm

[Armenian]

Re: The Struggle for Caucasia

And it gets even more interesting.

Russian-Georgian Spy Scandal Linked To Armenia???

Armenia distanced itself Thursday from the latest upsurge in Russian-Georgian tensions that has been triggered by the arrest of a group of Russian military officers for alleged spying which Georgia says was coordinated by Russian intelligence agents in Yerevan.

Georgian authorities said on Wednesday that they detained four GRU (Russian military intelligence) officers as well as 11 Georgian citizens suspected of involvement in an alleged Russian plot against the pro-Western government in Tbilisi. Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili said they “acted under the leadership from Yerevan” of a top GRU officer whom he identified as Anatoly Sinitsyn. Moscow angrily rejected the accusations, demanding an immediate release of its citizens. Reuters reported that Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov denounced as a "complete outrage" Georgia's action which he said had also included the beating of a Russian officer and six soldiers in a separate incident in the Black Sea port of Batumi.

Officials in Yerevan insisted that Armenia, Russia’s main regional ally, bears no responsibility for the acrimonious scandal. “We have nothing to do with that,” the Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Vladimir Karapetian, told RFE/RL. Colonel-General Mikael, the Armenian chief of staff, echoed the statement, urging journalists not to “jump into conclusions.” He also dismissed as irrelevant the fact that four of the arrested Georgian nationals are reportedly ethnic Armenians.

“They are citizens of Georgia, and I think authorities in Georgia will clear things up,” said Harutiunian. “I think we will be able to say something concrete about this issue after finally understanding what the matter is. It is too premature to comment now.” Asked about the Georgian claims that the alleged Russian espionage was guided from Armenian territory, Harutiunian replied: “They can say anything. What they say is their business. But there has to be evidence.”

Other Armenian officials argued that Yerevan has no control over the happenings inside Russia’s diplomatic missions and military base in Armenia. None of the diplomats at Russian embassy in Yerevan that bears the name Anatoly Sinitsyn, an embassy spokeswoman told RFE/RL. Merabishvili would not say if Tbilisi will raise the issue with Yerevan, and the Georgian embassy in Armenia declined a comment. According to Karapetian, the Armenian government has received no diplomatic notes or other messages from the Georgian side in connection with the affair.

Link: http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeni...3005DE4FC7.ASP

[skhara]

Re: The Struggle for Caucasia

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/09/29/pigshead.shtml

Protesters Throw Pig’s Head at Georgia’s Embassy in Moscow

Created: 29.09.2006 15:45 MSK (GMT +3), Updated: 15:45 MSK, 16 hours 50 minutes ago

MosNews

Activists of a Russian nationalist youth movement have staged a protest action in front of Georgia’s embassy in Moscow. Protesters hurled a pig’s head at the embassy building, breaking the glass window.

The action gathered five activists of Eurasian Youth Union, a radical nationalist organization, Interfax reports.

Georgia said six Russian men were arrested Wednesday at the start of what has become a dispute overshadowing all previous spats between the two former Soviet stable mates.

The confrontation continued as the Georgian Foreign Ministry said Thursday deputy foreign ministers from the two countries, Georgy Mandzhgaladze and Grigory Karasin, would meet in Moscow to discuss the growing furor. However, a source in the Russian Foreign Ministry said the meeting was not on Karasin’s agenda.

The Russian Foreign Ministry also announced Thursday that it was recalling its ambassador to Tbilisi for consultations and was evacuating some embassy staff and all family members over safety concerns.

[Armenian]

Re: The Struggle for Caucasia

Abkhazian-Ossetian-Nagorno Karabakh problem: the US’ Political Fiasco

Three subjects of the ethnic politics, three unrecognized South Caucasian states, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh, are different in many parameters. Each of them has its own peculiar problems, its own unique fate, but also some things in common; and now we are witnessing one more quite special common factor looming large for all: the reality of war — not just minor demonstrative clashes on border but real war.

The South Caucasus is facing a new Abkhaz-Ossetian-Nagorno Karabakh problem – a problem of war that can lead to total fiasco of the policy of the Western community and, first of all, of the US. Obviously, in Georgia the wars will not last for long: from several weeks to several months, with several time-outs. Georgia may well manage to gain control over some new positions in South Ossetia and low-lands in Eastern Abkhazia, but it may also be crushed, with all the three sides sustaining large-scale losses. This may lead to disastrous human casualties in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, who will, therefore, get more yielding in political issues. Depending on the scale and scenario of the war, Georgia may either win — or lose so much that further war will have no sense. Most probably, Georgia’s enemies will manage to retain control over bigger part of their territories. Given more political will, the Georgian army could successfully start war even today. The only factor that might keep the Georgian authorities back is human casualties. However, if Georgia continues building up its army as actively as it is doing now it will shortly have no other decent way as to start new war. The availability of strong forces and growing internal political and social problems will be decisive in the matter.

Azerbaijan is also eager to fight. Azeri generals keep calling for war, thereby, encouraging arms race and military spendings. Now its arms supplier is not only traditional Ukraine but also CSTO member Belarus. The general staffs of two western powers say that in case of active military actions in Karabakh, the Azerbaijani army may well lose their offensive capacity in just three weeks. They say that position war is very inconvenient for Armenia and, therefore, that country will try to knock out Azerbaijan with just one-two heavy blows. Azerbaijan will try to strike the nuclear power plant in Metsamor and some other vital centers in Armenia, in response, Armenia will destroy sea and other oil and gas facilities and oil and gas pipelines in Azerbaijan. In a couple of hours the West will lose $14bln-$16bln and any hope for Caspian oil import in the following 5-7 years. The Caspian Sea will face an ecological disaster. There will be no need for the Armenians to get very close to oil pipelines, they have enough people knowing how to carry out such operations.

Unless supported by Turkey, Azerbaijan may either lose its statehood at all or be given new borders and name – something the Iranians will be really happy to see. With military experts giving advantage to the side who will start the war the first, Armenia has no reason to wait for Azerbaijan’s “victorious march” but will have to start the war itself – at least, three days before the enemy’s planned attack. It is better to have advantage at the front than in the findings of international experts as a victim to aggression. Azerbaijan will lose 25,000-35,000 soldiers and up to 100,000 civilians, Armenia will lose 10-12 times less.

After some delay, the international community will try to stop the war – of course, only when it sees that Azerbaijan is on the verge of a military and national disaster. If the Armenians try to destroy the west-sponsored oil-gas complex, the US and NATO will, most probably, decide to strike a counter-blow on the Armenian positions. This will not lead to Russia’s interference. Russia will interfere only if the Armenian territory is attacked, while the US will interfere if Turkey meddles in or if Armenia gets into an extremely hard situation. In this case, the US will put an end to the war irrespective of its results. Will it be able to? Can the war be avoided at all? – idle question and vain supposition.

All the three problems could never and can never be solved in the format the western community suggests. “Territorial integrity” can be restored only by war. The very thesis and principle of territorial integrity means a war that goes beyond the conventional idea of war and implies genocide and mass deportation as obligatory addendum to military actions. The US has never planned to solve these problems in this way, i.e. to restore the territorial integrity of Georgia and Azerbaijan at any price. The US has already got all it wanted in the South Caucasus, namely, it has already ensured successful oil transportation from the region. The last trifling thing the US had to do was just to gain control – together with the UK — over the “Caucasian Panama Canal.” For this purpose, it carried out a consistent policy from Arytau to Batumi. All the other tasks were either subservient or – if going beyond those tasks – were either ruled out or stifled by feigned political games and endless negotiations. What kind of policy is this? Anti-Georgian, anti-Armenian, anti-Azeri, anti-Russian or anti-Iranian? This policy is purely American. The US is absolutely unwilling to see war in the region. War means the failure of its tremendous efforts to ensure the safe operation of the Caucasian-Caspian, or, more correctly, American-British energy complex in the region. The Americans may want some political tension in some parts of the region but only provided they have full control over them.

Can we assert or deny that by expanding into the South Caucasus the US has been and is partly or fully preventing military actions in the local conflict zones? In the last 15 years the US has failed its policy in a number of regions. Even disorganized, bankrupt and capitulated Iraqi society has proved to be a hard nut to crack for the US. With all its might and power, the US has no sufficient military force for active suppression in even one — not very big – country, and has, in fact, failed to guarantee peace and security in any single country or region it held a military campaign in. Let’s not dwell on the ideological and stylistic differences between the relevant policies of the Republicans and the Democrats.

War is at the door. Despite their strategic interests, the Americans has been led by their partner-opponent Europeans into absolutizing the principle of territorial integrity – something they regard quite cynically. By their political-propaganda games, they have convinced the “victims” that they have the right to use military force to restore sovereignty over their lost territories. The US has come up with dubious initiatives to encourage arms race for ensuring the safety of energy communications – initiatives that have resulted in extreme militarization in the region. We can’t deny the influence of both complex and individual factors on the military-political situation in the region. The positions and interests of the western and eastern great powers are certainly complex factors. However, the region’s countries are becoming a loomingly large source of concern for the US in terms of their plans to resolve their conflicts by war. It couldn’t be otherwise.

By implementing its policy, the US has contributed to the collapse of the CAFÉ Treaty and, together with its Western and Eastern European allies, has launched an arms race in the South Caucasus. The only question is what they are training national armed units for. The US has “guaranteed” that they will not be used in ethnic conflicts. At the same time, the US and NATO are actively stimulating the militarization of the region. No doubt, this is part of the US’ policy to ensure the safety of its oil complex. However, all these efforts are not augmenting the US’ sway or diminishing Russia’s presence in the region, but are, on the contrary, undermining the US’ policy and ruining the oil complex together with the whole “Eurasian corridor” (“corridor” is always something vulnerable, something that leads to war).

This spring the author questioned 88 British and US experts as to security problems in the South Caucasus and the possibility of new wars in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. None of them has denied that the US cannot guarantee non-resumption of war. At the same time, they clearly differentiated two questions: are there enough factors proving that new war is possible and is the US able to prevent this possibility. This refers to all the three conflicts. Pacifist Europe will react to war stoically. Their conservative media will call for interference and protection of oil facilities and pipelines, but no single European soldier will set foot in the region or will come here just to keep peace when the fight is already over. It will be for the US and Russia to react, of course, if Turkey is kept away and Iran is not very active.

Link: http://www.regnum.ru/english/666442.html

[Armenian]

Re: The Struggle for Caucasia

An astounding statement by Levon Melik-Shahnazaryan

U.S. military in Iran is unavoidable, Tehran in its part works out plan of seizing Baku

An U.S. military invasion in Iran is unavoidable, political scientist stated to a press conference in Yerevan. He said, the United States has lost too much recently to withdraw. “The American army comes off second-best in Iraq, which is being provided with arms from neighboring countries. And this is a rather forcible argument for launching a war. In this case Armenia must keep neutrality. However, there exists a danger of radioactive infection. There are 4 nuclear power plants in Iran: Bushehr, which is located rather far away from Armenia, two near Tehran and one in Tabriz. Under unfavorable “wind rose” a strike on the plant in Tabriz may seriously affect Armenia. As to Azerbaijan, Iran’s firs return strike will target exactly that country. Based on my information, which are rather precise, Tehran works out a plan of seizing Baku,” Levon Melik-Shahnazaryan underlined.

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=22619

[melikianAvak]

Re: The Struggle for Caucasia

An astounding statement by Levon Melik-Shahnazaryan

Site is under construction?

[Mos]

Re: The Struggle for Caucasia

however we have fought with the Abkas rebels and to this day there are many armenians who live in Abkasia

[Armenian]

Re: The Struggle for Caucasia

Armenia Concerned at Caucasus Arms Race



Could dissolution of CFE treaty herald outbreak of conflict in the Caucasus?

The sharp rise in defence budgets and accompanying militarization of the countries of the South Caucasus is alarming the international community. Growth in military spending in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia now exceeds GDP growth by 20 to 40 times. For every million inhabitants of the South Caucasus, there are 75 tanks and 85 artillery pieces. This is a much larger proportion than in the three big neighbours of the region, Iran, Russia and Turkey. If you factor in the number of weapons in the three unrecognised separatist territories in the region, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorny Karabakh, the figures rise by around a third.

However, the militarisation of the region needs to be put in a wider perspective. The Stockholm peace institute, SIPRI, calculated that last year world military spending reached 1.2 trillion US dollars, a rise of 3.5 per cent on the year before. That suggests that, despite the end of the Cold War and efforts to put in place a new international security framework, most countries still believe that the best means of preserving their security is maintaining an effective army.

Armenia’s military budget for 2007 was just over 271 million dollars, or 3.5 per cent of GDP. The spending is based on a perceived actual military threat from Azerbaijan and a potential one from Turkey. The Armenian government rejects accusations that it is exceeding the military quotas set by the 1990 Conventional Forces in Europe treaty, or CFE, and says that it is keeping to the limits and preventing a new arms race in the Caucasus. (Azerbaijan for its part accuses the Armenians of maintaining weaponry outside CFE in Nagorny Karabakh. See accompanying article).

Armenia has been accused of militarising the region by receiving Russian weaponry transferred from the former base of the 62nd army in Akhalkalaki in Georgia - now closed - to the Russian military base in Gyumri in northern Armenia. Armenian officials responded to this by saying that most of the equipment transferred was vehicles and ammunition and that all equipment in the Gyumri base remains the property of the Russian armed forces, not of Armenia. They say that the whole process was transparent and agreed with the Georgian government and that it complies with CFE quotas.

Armenia is watching as Azerbaijan sharply increases its military budget year on year and says that their neighbour is breaking its CFE commitments. For example, in 2006 Azerbaijan declared that it possessed 217 tanks and bought 41 tanks from Ukraine and Belarus, thereby exceeding its CFE quota by 38 tanks. Former Armenian defence minister Vagarshak Harutiunian said, “It’s far from clear to what extent the OSCE and NATO can force Baku to keep to the quotas set out in the CFE. In this situation, it is obvious that Azerbaijan should either leave the CFE or observe it properly.”

The Armenians say that Azerbaijan is trying to use its enhanced defence budget, based on increased oil revenues, to try to force them to make unilateral concessions in negotiations over the Nagorny Karabakh peace process. However, they say increased military spending by Azerbaijan is a necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving success should fighting resume. It is worth noting that a large part of Azerbaijan’s military expenditure is being directed towards naval forces in the Caspian Sea – and therefore not against Nagorny Karabakh or Armenia. Disputes over this large and energy-rich basin are a potential source of conflict in the future. Baku is also compelled to keep some of its forces in other parts of the country, such as the southern border, to repel other potential threats.

“The Armenian side in response to Azerbaijan’s purchase of expensive offensive weaponry is giving its preference to cheaper defensive weapons systems,” said Sergei Minasian, a military expert who is deputy director of the Caucasus Media Institute in Yerevan.

“[Armenia] is also using sensibly its membership of the CIS Collective Security Pact and its alliance with Russia. For example at the end of 2006, Baku bought expensive modern MiG-29 fighter aircraft from Ukraine. And just around the same time there was an announcement that the Russian-Armenian anti-aircraft system on the territory of Armenia had been replaced by a more up-to-date system and put on a state of battle alert.”

Both NATO and Russia are contributing to the increased militarisation of the South Caucasus. The argument can be made that both NATO and the CIS Collective Security Pact have their place in the region and the two are in a state of competition for allegiance rather than outright hostility. NATO’s activities in the region have been met with understanding in Armenia, which has hosted NATO training exercises. However, up till now, relative stability has been guaranteed in large part due to a military balance, whose cornerstone has been the CFE treaty. If the CFE treaty begins to unravel that could lead to a destabilisation and rise in tension in the South Caucasus, with the threat of unresolved conflicts flaring up again.

Source: http://www.iwpr.net/?p=crs&s=f&o=337252&apc_state=henh

[skhara]

Re: The Struggle for Caucasia

My personal opinion is that the CFE treaty has no bearing at all on any future developments.