The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[skhara]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Did you notice Sakashvilli's comments about regretting the fallout with Russia? All this after he stated they were going to accomplish everything that aggravates their northern neighbor.

Or how about Poland stating they want to stress good relations with Russia, and re-evaluate the missile defense prospects.

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Bank of NY Russia money-laundering case postponed

Bank of New York stands trial in Russia (Russia Today Video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qubjX...lg/default.jpg

A Moscow arbitration court on Monday postponed until January 21 the Federal Customs Service's $22.5 billion case against the Bank of New York, a lawyer for the service and the bank's spokesperson said. "The bank put forward several motions, including one that put in question whether an American law firm has the right to represent the customs service in this case," said Maxim Smal, a lawyer representing the service. Florida-based firm Podhurst Orseck is representing the service in association with Moscow-based Smal & Partners. "As this is a fairly broad motion, we needed time to familiarize ourselves with it," Smal said. The customs service filed the suit in May, claiming $22.5 billion in damages related to a 2000 money-laundering case in the United States against a Bank of New York vice president, Lucy Edwards. Edwards, a self-described "rogue employee", admitted helping launder $7 billion from Russia in the late 1990s through dummy companies and Bank of New York accounts set up by her husband. A U.S. court sentenced the couple to six months of house arrest, now served, and $725,000 in fines and restitution. The bank for its part paid a total of $38 million in penalties, and signed a deal with the U.S. Department of Justice where it admitted to failures in monitoring its staff, but was never charged with fraud or money-laundering. The customs service claims this deal did not compensate the Russian government for taxes that should have been collected on the transferred funds. The bank has said the case has no merit. "centers on customs duties, and we don't owe any," said bank spokesman Kevin Heine. He confirmed that the hearing had been postponed until next Monday. The figure of $22.5 billion is based on U.S. money-laundering laws, which the service has asked the Russian court to apply. The laws allow prosecutors to seek three times the total amount that was laundered.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/domes...71411020080114

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Russia unveils sanctions in British Council row

Russia Today Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRa0o...&oe=UTF-8&hl=e

Russia on Monday summoned the British ambassador after the British Council defied a government ban and reopened two regional offices, heightening diplomatic tensions between the two countries. Russian authorities also ordered sanctions against Britain's overseas cultural arm.

The Foreign Ministry said no more visas will be issued for new British Council expatriate employees in Saint Petersburg and Yekaterinburg, accreditation renewals for existing employees will be blocked and a tax inquiry will be launched against the Saint Petersburg office. The ministry accused Britain of "premeditated provocation" and said in a statement that if Britain continued to defy Russian orders there could be moves against the British Council's office in Moscow too. The British Council promotes the country's culture and education. It has been involved in a long-running dispute with Russia over its legal status. "We will respond in due course," James Barbour, a spokesman for Britain's ambassador to Moscow Anthony Brenton, told AFP after the envoy was summoned to the Foreign Ministry for talks on the dispute.

"Our position all along has been that any move against the British Council by Russia would be a breach of international and Russian law," Barbour said. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said earlier that the British Council was "fully entitled" to operate in Russia and that the ban was "unacceptable." The Russian order to close British Council branches in the two cities reflects worsening ties since the 2006 murder by radiation poisoning of ex-Russian agent and fierce Kremlin critic Alexander Litvinenko in London. Diplomats were expelled on both sides last summer after Moscow refused to hand over former secret service bodyguard Andrei Lugovoi, the man wanted by Britain for killing Litvinenko.

Litvinenko was killed with radioactive polonium that was slipped into his tea in a London hotel, British prosecutors say. Lugovoi, who was recently elected to Russia's parliament, denies the British charges. Moscow said the British Council ban was in response to Britain's expulsion of the four Russian diplomats. Those expulsions also came on the heels of a spy scandal in 2006 in which Russia accused British diplomats of espionage. The reopening of the offices after a winter holiday break came despite a Foreign Ministry order that the branches of the British Council close from the start of the year. "The British Council wants to continue its work in Russia and Saint Petersburg. We hope we'll find a solution to this," the head of the Saint Petersburg branch, Stephen Kinnock, told journalists.

"The British Council is a non-political independent organisation. We work in the areas of culture and education.... It's really disappointing that we've been dragged into what is essentially a political matter," Kinnock told AFP. Russia has accused the British Council of operating outside its official status and of violating tax regulations, charges the council denies. The council operates as a department of the British embassy under a 1994 accord on cultural, scientific and educational ties. It has greatly scaled back its number of offices in Russia from 15 in 2005 to the current three, although British Council staff insist this is for operational reasons rather than due to pressure by the authorities.

Source: http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5...Q09NKTyZeZBdAg

British Council head detained in Russia

Russia row (Telegraph TV): http://www.telegraph.co.uk/portal/tt...tid=1379245070

The British Council has temporarily closed its offices in St Petersburg after its director was detained for an hour by police. Stephen Kinnock, the son of former Labour leader Lord Kinnock, was held by road police officers last night on suspicion of drunk driving. He was held for an hour before being released with consular help. The Council has said it is "deeply concerned" after it emerged that its staff in Russia had been summoned for questioning by the state Federal Security Service (FSB) and visited at home. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, branded the "intimidation" of Council staff "completely unacceptable" and said the Government was informing the Russian ambassador of its concerns.

"The work of the British Council in Russia is completely legal under Russian and international law, and we think it is very important to defend the integrity of our officials in the work that they are doing," he said. "The only losers from any attack on the British Council are the Russian citizens who want to use it - one and a quarter million last year - and the reputation of the Russian government." A British Council spokeswoman: "We are deeply concerned by both of these incidents. Our main concern is the safety and security of our Russian and UK staff." This afternoon, the St Petersburg operation was suspended "temporarily" because Russian staff were being interviewed.

A spokesman said: "Due to the action taken against us by the Russian authorities, our operation in St Petersburg is temporarily suspended. "This is due to the local Russian staff having to do interviews with and discussions with the FSB. As a result there are not enough staff to manage the office." The British Council has defied Russia, opening its offices in two cities despite an order from Moscow to shut them down. Sir Anthony Brenton, the British ambassador, was summoned to explain why London had ignored the order for the British Council's premises in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg to be closed down from New Year's Day. Sir Anthony received a formal protest from Vladimir Titov, the deputy foreign minister. Afterwards, the ambassador said he had informed Mr Titov that the "British Council is working entirely legally and it will continue therefore to work and any Russian action against it would be a breach of international law".

Sir Anthony added that the British Council was "very helpful to Russia and is actually very popular among the Russian people". For its part, Russia said that Sir Anthony had been informed that the British Council's decision to stay open was an "intentional provocation aimed at inflaming tensions in Russian-British relations". Russia also said that no new visas would be issued for any British Council staff wishing to enter the country. Human rights activists have accused the Kremlin of acting out of spite and of damaging the interests of ordinary Russians, many of whom use the British Council's library and cultural centre.

Britain expelled four Russian diplomats last July after the Kremlin refused to extradite Andrei Lugovoi, a former KGB officer and newly elected MP, who is also the chief suspect in the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the Russian dissident, in London in 2006. Although Russia responded by evicting an equal number of British diplomats from Moscow, President Vladimir Putin played down the row, describing it as a "mini-crisis" and raised hopes that diplomatic ties could improve. Why the Kremlin has decided to resurrect the crisis by turning against the British Council is unclear. Some observers believe that factional battles within the regime could explain the decision.

Hard- liners in Mr Putin's inner circle of former KGB officers might have taken advantage of the souring in relations to target an organisation that they have always regarded as a cover for British intelligence. Officials have accused the British Council of recruiting talented Russian youngsters by offering them scholarships to study in Britain. Seven students have been given one-year bursaries to attend British universities. Others maintain that Britain has been caught in a Kremlin campaign to distract attention from Mr Putin's ambitions to stay in power after a presidential election in March which the constitution prevents him from contesting. Mr Putin has unveiled plans to stay on as prime minister, ruling alongside a hand-picked presidential candidate, Dmitry Medvedev.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wrussia216.xml

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Russian Navy to conduct exercises in the Atlantic next week

Russian warships from the Northern and the Black Sea fleets will conduct joint maneuvers next week in the Atlantic Ocean, the Northern Fleet commander said on Thursday. A Naval Task Force, consisting of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, the Udaloy-Class destroyers Admiral Levchenko and Admiral Chabanenko, and auxiliary vessels, is currently on a two-month tour of duty in the Mediterranean Sea and North Atlantic. Vice-Admiral Nikolai Maksimov, who leads the task force on the tour, said the Moskva guided missile cruiser of the Black Sea Fleet, which left Sevastopol on January 12, was to join the group in the next few days. "We will meet in the Atlantic on January 20 and start a joint exercise," Maksimov said. "The two fleets and strategic bombers will practice interoperability for several days." He said the current expedition to the Mediterranean, which started on December 5, is aimed at ensuring Russia's naval presence "in the key operational areas of the world oceans" and establishing conditions for secure Russian maritime navigation. "I think that after this visit to the Mediterranean and France, the first in 15 years, we will establish a permanent presence in the region," the admiral said. "We have discussed naval cooperation with our French colleagues and they confirmed their readiness to receive our combat ships at French ports in 2008, including at Toulon," he added.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080117/97185129.html

Russian Navy Turns Up Heat

In yet another instance of the Russian military flexing its muscles, Kremlin sources confirm that a "joint naval exercise" will commence in the North Atlantic starting Jan. 20. Elaborating on a brief statement carried by Ria Novosti, Russia's defense ministry announced that a naval task force consisting of the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, the Udaloy-Class destroyers Admiral Levchenko and Admiral Chabenenko, the guided-missile cruiser Moskva and several unidentified "support vessels" will convene in the North Atlantic for "exercises" lasting "several days." Vice Adm. Nikolai Maksimov of the Russian navy's northern fleet will lead the exercises. The admiral is reported to have stated that the upcoming exercises are a prelude to a "permanent" presence in the region. The Russian navy will be joined by elements of the Russian air force, namely Bear and Blackjack strategic bombers. Several "practice exercises" by the Russian air force over the same region since last August, prompted "interceptions" by jets from the Norwegian and British air forces. In each instance, the Russian bombers returned to international airspace when confronted by the British and Norwegian jets. The upcoming military exercises are one of the largest maritime operations by Russia since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. It comes as President Bush prepares his final State of the Union speech. It also follows a recent confrontation between U.S. and Chinese warships in the Strait of Taiwan and the U.S. and Iranian vessels in the Strait of Hormuz.

Source: http://www.newsmax.com/international.../17/65388.html

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Russia hails closure of British Council offices

Britain escalates row with Russia (Russia Today Video): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK66i...&oe=UTF-8&hl=e

Russia claimed victory in its row with the British government's cultural centres on Friday, saying London's decision to close the British Council's regional offices was long overdue. The British Council decided to suspend operations in two Russian cities after staff were summoned for interviews with the Federal Security Service, main successor to the Soviet-era KGB. Russia had demanded the closure of the two offices on the grounds they were operating illegally, in the latest spat in a rift with Britain that started with the London murder in late 2006 of ex-spy Alexander Litvinenko. "Announcing the suspension of operations by the British Council in St Petersburg and Yekaterinburg, the British side has finally done what it should have done long ago," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman, Mikhail Kamynin, said in a statement. Britain on Thursday accused Russia of using Cold War tactics to intimidate British Council staff. Foreign Minister David Miliband called Moscow's actions "reprehensible." In its statement, the Russian foreign ministry hit back at those comments. "Attempts to politicise this theme by the British side, to distort facts and resort to negative rhetoric, are not helping to improve the climate of our bilateral relations in general."

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/topNew...52895020080118

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

The Inevitability And Necessity Of Armenia's Alliance With Russia

All the indicators suggest that Moscow wants to hold Armenia within its political orbit at all costs, even if it means it has to twist a few arms and break a few heads to do so. Taking into serious consideration the volatility of the current geopolitical order in the world today and the overt aggressions emanating from western lead forces, I fully support what Moscow is doing within its zones of influence. Regarding Russo-Armenian relations, there should be no limits set to a true friendship. In getting closer to Russia, Armenia doesn't need to worry about loosing its independence for Moscow is not seeking to incorporate Armenia into its federation. Although Moscow is obviously only concerned about its national interests, their actions are, nevertheless, having positive repercussions for the Armenian Republic.

The Armenian Republic today has political clout internationally and it is untouchable by foreign forces primarily because of its close multilateral alliance with Russia and to a lesser extent, Iran. However, I would like to also address the following concern regarding Armenia's independence. Let's suppose in the future there is another major calamity in the region and Armenia has an option to join the Russian Federation for its survival - I say, why not? In final analysis, in the Caucasus, it's all about survival. In a worst case scenario, I rather have Armenia survive within the Russian Federation as a autonomous region than survive as an Iranian, Azeri or Turkish province.

When you are an impoverished, tiny, landlocked, friend-less and a resources-less country you will tend to seek powerful friends. In this regard, Mother Russia is our only option in the region and, at times, it has been God sent for us Armenians. Obviously, Armenia needs to also maintain close and cordial relations with the West and Iran. However, when it comes to the West, Armenians should 'never' think that their national prosperity, or national existence for that matter, is a subject of concern for Brussels or Washington. In this regard, it is no secret that many within Russia's political/military elite, as well as their intelligencia, realize that Armenia's existence as an independent pro-Russian nation within the south Caucasus is crucially important for Russian national interests.

Russia and Iran have both had long bloody histories of rivalry against Turks. Even today, Moscow and Tehran do 'not' want to see the rise of Azeri/Turkish power in the Caucasus region. Thus, Armenia is the buffer against Turks and their western supporters. This is precisely how Armenia has become a geostrategically pivotal nation for Moscow and Tehran. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that without the Russian/Soviet factor in our national historiography there would not have been an Armenian Republic today.

A point I would like to emphasize: As long as 'true' Russian (Slav/Orthodox) nationalists are in power in Moscow the Armenian Republic has not much to be concerned about.

Although relations between Russia and Armenia today are close and strategic in nature, Moscow was not playing nice with Yerevan for a while. Relations between Yerevan and Moscow were not very stable during the nineteen-nineties. There was a real threat back then that Armenia would brake away from the Russian orbit. Some have even claimed that the parliamentary assassinations in Armenia secured Russia's dominance in Armenia's internal affairs. Reality is that Moscow can make or break nations in the Caucasus, especially now that they have been roaring back to life - with a vengeance. Take a close look at Georgia and Azerbaijan, they have both essentially become hostages to Moscow. Baku nor Tbilisi are able to resist Russian pressure even though they both have direct access to the outside world, and very close alliances/relations with Turkey, EU, USA and Israel. How do you think an impoverished and landlocked Armenia would have faired had official Yerevan opposed Moscow's overtures in Armenia?

Simply stated, Russia wants to control Armenia's energy sector to ensure that Armenia is not able to breakaway from Moscow's orbit and Armenia is in no position today to call the shots with Moscow. In other words, Moscow does not want to place hope in Armenian politicians making the right decisions every few years. By controlling a nation's infrastructure, its lifeline, you secure its allegiance. Taking into serious consideration our people's political shortsightedness and immaturity, I support Moscow's actions in Armenia and I fully support the pro-Russian Hanrapetutyun (Republican) party in Armenia. At this stage in our national development, especially in the Caucasus, Armenia can't allow its citizenry to decide sensitive geopolitical matters. The practice of true "democracy" in a nation like Armenia can potentially prove to be fatal. The sad reality is that Armenians, in general, have revealed that they are incapable of making the right choices in politics.

So, due to the geopolitical nature of the region in question the Armenian Republic has no other choice but to remain firmly in bed with Moscow. In my opinion, in this day in age, when battle-lines are already being draw within various geopolitical theaters around the world, the Armenian Republic 'must' seek to become a Russian outpost. This term - "Russian outpost" - used by a Russian politician several years ago in describing Armenia's relationship to Russia outraged many Armenians worldwide. I ask, why the outrage? Just like western Europe is an American outpost, just like Saudi Arabia is an American outpost, just like Japan is an American outpost, just like Georgia is an American outpost, just like Turkey is an American outpost, etc., Armenia's best bet, its only option today, is to remain as close as possible to the Russian Federation and their regional apparatus.

In my opinion, Yerevan needs to more-or-less distance itself from Washington. Accepting money from official Washington is like taking money from a loan shark. Moreover, the US empire today is on a global rampage of exploitation and bloodshed, and its favorite choice of weapon has been the false notion of bringing "freedom" and "democracy" to the oppressed peoples of the world. However, as we have seen, when Washington's version of "freedom" and "democracy" does not succeed in helping realize its agenda, it soon becomes Washington's "shock and awe" time - like we saw in Serbia and Iraq. The fact of the matter is that Uncle Sam is a sick pervert with a blood lust and he has no place in Armenia's internal affairs. Armenia does not need the "democracy" nor the "freedom" that is exported by Washington - more often than not on the tip of a sharp bayonet. What's more, it does not take a genius to realize that the world's most corrupt, the most undemocratic nations have tended to be Washington's closest partners. Today, the bloodiest and the most destructive entity on earth is the political/military apparatus in Washington.

So be it, Armenia is a Russian outpost - Hurah...

Ideologically and geopolitically Armenia's rightful place is with the Russian Federation. However, Armenia should appreciate Mother Russia for practical reasons as well. In my opinion, the future potentially belongs to Mother Russia. Russia controls the largest oil and gas reserves on earth; Russia controls the largest landmass on earth; Russia controls the largest amounts of natural resources on earth; Russia has managed to monopolize virtually the entire gas/oil distribution of central Asia; Russia has finally been able to brake the shackles of their western antagonists; Russians are now on a fast pace resurgence militarily, politically and economically; Russia controls the politics of the Caucasus; Russia controls the politics of Central Asia; Russia controls the politics of eastern Europe to a large extent; And with their economic/military alliances with China - the 21th century potentially belongs to Russia.

What's more, by far, Russia is Armenia's largest and most lucrative trading partner. Annual trade between Moscow and Yerevan is currently approximately five-hundred million USD and it will most probably reach somewhere around one billion USD in the near future. What's more, Armenia's most affordable source for gas and oil is Russia. What's more, Armenia's only source for affordable and modern military hardware is Russia. What's more, Armenia's only source for nuclear fuel is Russia. And Armenia's only hope in fending off Turkish and/or Azeri aggression in the Caucasus is Yerevan's continuing alliance with the Russian Federation. The only other strategically vital nation for Armenia is Iran.

The hard reality is that a tiny, impoverished and landlocked nation like Armenia does 'not' serve the geopolitical interests of the western world - especially when the Armenian nation has serious problems, historic problems, with the West's most vital allies in the region, namely Azerbaijan and Turkey and to a lesser extent, Georgia. Simply put, Armenia 'only' serves the geostrategic interests of Moscow and to a lesser extent, Tehran. This is the hard reality in the world today. This is our reality in the Caucasus. This is what our national destiny has dealt us, at least for the foreseeable future.

Armenians are naturally concerned about Russia owning a large share of Armenia's energy infrastructure and many of its vital and potentially profitable industries. I agree that these concerns are valid and such a situation may potentially have some longterm negative consequences. In my opinion, however, we need to place this matter in a proper perspective:

Let's make believe that we have a king ruling over a tiny, poor, resource-less, landlocked nation that is blockaded and under the threat of a major war. This nation is located within a hotly contested volatile region. There are foreign forces attempting to cause trouble for the nation internally and externally. The nation is surrounded by unfriendly powers. The nation's industry is dead for it has no secure and/or efficient access to the outside world. The king does not have the means to support his social infrastructure. And he knows well that major powers in the world are in bed with his enemies.... Then a powerful emperor from the north sends the king a proposal: "Pledge your allegiance to us, let us run the infrastructure in your country and we will protect you militarily and we will trade with you." As king, what should he do? Yes, it's a 'very' though call.

The gloomy picture I painted above is not a fairytale nor is it an exaggeration, it is more-or-less the accurate depiction of the geopolitical situation Armenia faces today in the Caucasus. Let's remember that the Caucasus does not allow for mistakes. The last time we made some political mistakes at the turn of the 20th century, look at what happened - 2 million dead and total destruction of our homeland. The ruling administration in Yerevan, for various reasons, personal and political, have decided that the best way for Armenia to go forward is by allowing Russia full access in Armenia. In an ideal political situation I would have opposed such deep levels of Russian control in the Armenian Republic - but politics in the Caucasus is far from ideal.

Nevertheless, the Armenian Republic is not able to utilize its industry effectively. The fact of the matter is, Armenia does not have the resources, it does not have unhindered access routes, it does not have the money, nor does it have the international contacts for its industry to operate independently and efficiently. What's more, Armenia needs to import its energy - gas, oil and nuclear fuel. As I highlighted above, the Russian Federation has more-or-less a monopoly of the region's energy resources and its distribution. As a result, if not Russia, who is Armenia going to rely on for its domestic energy needs? Yes, Armenia has begun dealing with Iran regarding energy, but Iran has serious problems. As we can see, Iran is virtually under siege and if the West could have its way they would cut off Yerevan from Iran in a heartbeat.

What's more, due to Russia's strategic concerns, Moscow does not want to see Yerevan relying on anyone else but Russia. As a result, they are forcing Armenia to allow Moscow to get in on the deal with Iran. So, what can Armenia do at this stage? What options does Yerevan have? Play hardball with Russia by dealing with Azerbaijan and Turkey? I don't think so. Moreover, let us take into consideration that the Russian Federation in its vastness is also an excellent market for Armenian products and a good indirect route to other markets around the world. Therefore, under these prevailing conditions and circumstances in our homeland, why not allow Russia full access into our economy - especially when they are strongly imposing themselves upon us? At the very least, let us find some comfort in the thought that a major superpower today is taking its relationship with the Armenian Republic very seriously.

At this point I would like to also mention that Russia has tended to have internal problem throughout its history. At times, the Russian nation has been very volatile. Russians may be Armenia's dependable partners today but an unforeseen internal problem in the future may change that overnight. This has already happened to Armenia several times in the past. I would like to emphasize yet again that as long as 'true' Russian nationalists are in power in Moscow the Armenia does not have much to be concerned about. Unfortunately, being in the situation it is in today, it is natural that Armenia will be dependent upon a major power for survival. In my opinion, while it lasts, we should take full advantage of our close relations with Russia to strengthen our nation's military, economy and international standing. This way, if the Russian Federation has another one of their internal upheavals in the future our small nation would not be as vulnerable it has been in the past.

Those who bitterly complain about Armenia not having true independence due to the Russian presence in the nation are not taking into consideration the nuances of the region's geopolitical situation. Regardless of how proud Armenians are of their national heritage and fighting spirit, Armenians must realize that Armenia is not a major force on earth today and in an increasingly hostile world Armenia needs big friends. Thus, the inevitability and necessity of Armenia's alliance with Russia. As I said, there should be no limits to a true friendship. As such, I hope to see Russo-Armenian relations realizing their full potential. Nevertheless, this is a very complex topic for it has no easy answers. I realize that with or without Russia, living in the Caucasus has its risks.

Armenian

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Moscow's counter punch...

Russia-Backed Think Tank To Study Western Democracy

A new Russian-backed think tank is being set up to publicly critique the state of U.S. and European democracy as Moscow goes on the offensive to counter what it views as unjustified Western criticism of its own political system. A prominent lawyer says President Vladimir Putin endorsed his plan to open monitoring offices in New York and Paris to study the U.S. and French political systems and recommend improvements. Western criticism of what many see as Kremlin backsliding on democratic principles has long rankled Mr. Putin and his allies. Recently, Moscow has taken a more assertive stance, firing back at countries whose governments have been particularly strident. The skirmishing has deepened the chill in Russia's relations with the West.

Those tensions were underlined yesterday as the British government said it would suspend the work of two Russian offices of its cultural arm, the British Council, citing "blatant intimidation" by Russian authorities. Moscow accuses the organization of tax and legal violations, charges London rejects. "We saw similar actions during the Cold War, but frankly thought that they had been put behind us," United Kingdom Foreign Secretary David Miliband told lawmakers. Seeking to deflect Western attacks on their repressive system, Soviet propagandists frequently took the U.S. and its Cold War allies to task for what Moscow called human-rights violations. This time, the new think tank would provide "constructive" criticism, according to Anatoly Kucherena, the pro-Kremlin lawyer. "You can only be a pupil for so long," said Mr. Kucherena, a well-known trial lawyer named by Mr. Putin in 2006 to a special advisory body. Mr. Kucherena said he presented the idea to Mr. Putin at a meeting at the president's official residence in May and won his support.

A Kremlin spokesman couldn't be reached for comment. But Mr. Putin publicly plugged the idea at a summit in Portugal in October, saying European countries had long had such think tanks in Russia. "It is high time, given our increasing economic and financial potential, that the Russian Federation can do the same thing," he said. Mr. Kucherena said the new organization would scrutinize U.S. election law, the state of human rights, race relations and the American response to terrorism. He said there were troubling questions in all those areas. "The U.S. election system is intriguing," he said. "In a country with such a democratic history it's interesting that the outcome is decided by the electoral college and not by the people."

He questioned the compatibility of capital punishment in some U.S. states with democracy and highlighted problems with America's police and law-enforcement system. He cited the 1992 police beating of Rodney King and the subsequent riots in Los Angeles as an example of difficulties in race relations. The New York and Paris offices of the Institute for Democracy and Cooperation will open with small staffs within two months, he said. Other offices in different European capitals will follow. Mr. Kucherena said he has received no Russian government funding so far, relying instead on contributions from local businessmen he declined to identify.

Mr. Putin has frequently lashed out at what he perceives as democratic shortcomings in the West when faced with attacks on his own record. Last month, he highlighted the problems of the 2000 U.S. presidential election in an interview. At the G-8 summit in 2006, he told President Bush that Russia didn't need the kind of democracy being built in Iraq. He has also publicly suggested that the White House engineered the dismissal of U.S. reporters deemed overly critical of the war in Iraq. After European election observers criticized Russian votes in 2003 and 2004 as falling short of democratic standards, the Kremlin denounced the monitors as biased. The observers canceled plans to study December's parliamentary elections in Russia, blaming Russia for setting up unprecedented obstacles to their mission.

Analysts say Moscow is keen to blunt what it sees as a constant trickle of often-hypocritical criticism. U.S.-based organizations such as Freedom House have regularly derided Russia's political system as an imitation of democracy. This week, the Washington-based think tank described Russia as having an "entrenched authoritarian leadership." It rated Russia "not free," alongside Egypt, Angola and Tajikistan. Mr. Kucherena denounced the Freedom House rankings as biased and said his institute will strive to be more objective. For its part, Freedom House director of studies Christopher Walker said, "We express deep skepticism about this initiative given the profile of the organization and who appears to be behind it."

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...googlenews_wsj

[crusader1492]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Moscow's counter punch...

Russia-Backed Think Tank To Study Western Democracy

A new Russian-backed think tank is being set up to publicly critique the state of U.S. and European democracy as Moscow goes on the offensive to counter what it views as unjustified Western criticism of its own political system. A prominent lawyer says President Vladimir Putin endorsed his plan to open monitoring offices in New York and Paris to study the U.S. and French political systems and recommend improvements. Western criticism of what many see as Kremlin backsliding on democratic principles has long rankled Mr. Putin and his allies. Recently, Moscow has taken a more assertive stance, firing back at countries whose governments have been particularly strident. The skirmishing has deepened the chill in Russia's relations with the West.


Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1200...googlenews_wsj

This is great as it will expose the hypocricy of the western "democracies" by giving them a much needed humility trip.

This critisism may actually be good for western countries as they might heed Russia's critism and take steps to become a true democracy...maybe this will be the impetus for a rose-type revolution in the USA

[Armenian]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

This is great as it will expose the hypocricy of the western "democracies" by giving them a much needed humility trip. This critisism may actually be good for western countries as they might heed Russia's critism and take steps to become a true democracy...maybe this will be the impetus for a rose-type revolution in the USA

I agree. But don't hold your breath for this may only be a publicity stunt by Moscow. At best, they may set up something insignificant merely for symbolic reasons. There is no way for Russia to compete with the vast multi-billion dollar network of western sponsored NGOs engaging in various sociopolitical activities around the globe. Nevertheless, regarding the hypocrisy, double standards and the outright aggression of the western world, the following is an excellent commentary and I urge you all to read it:

Bringing Death and Destruction to Muslims

by Paul Craig Roberts

After pandering to Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert's right-wing government last week, US president George W. Bush carried the Israeli/neoconservative campaign against Iran to Arab countries. Sounding as authentic as the "Filipino Monkey," Bush told the Arab countries that "Iran is the world's leading state sponsor of terror," and that "Iran's actions threaten the security of nations everywhere." To no effect. Every country in the world, except America, knows by now that the US is the world's leading state sponsor of terror and that the neoconservative drive for US hegemony over the world threatens the security of nations everywhere. But before we get into this, let's first see what Bush means by "terrorist" and Iran's sponsorship of terrorism.

Bush considers Iran to be the leading state sponsor of terror, because Iran is believed to fund Hezbollah in Lebanon and Hamas in the Palestinian ghetto. Hezbollah and Hamas are two organizations that exist because of Israeli aggression against Palestine and Lebanon. The two organizations are branded "terrorist" because they resist Israel's theft of Palestine and Israel's designs on southern Lebanon. Both organizations are resistance organizations. They resist Israel's territorial expansion and this makes them "terrorist." They are terrorists because they don't receive billions in US military aid and cannot put armies in the field with tanks, fighter jets and helicopter gunships, backed up by US spy satellites and Israel's nuclear weapons – although Hezbollah, a small militia, has twice defeated the Israeli army. However, Palestine is so thoroughly under the Israeli heel that Hamas can resist only with suicide bombers and obsolete rockets. It is dishonest to damn the terrorist response but not the policies that provoke the response.

The US is at war in Iraq, because the neoconservatives want to rid Israel of the Muslim governments – Iraq, Iran and Syria – that are not American surrogates and, therefore, are willing to fund Palestinian and Lebanese resistance to Israeli aggression. Israel, protected by the US, has disobeyed UN resolutions for four decades and has been methodically squeezing Palestinians out of Palestine. Americans do not think of themselves or of Israel as terrorist states, but the evidence is complete and overwhelming. Thanks to the power of the Israel Lobby, Americans only know the Israeli side of the story, which is that evil anti-semite Palestinians will not let blameless Israelis live in peace and persist in their unjustified terror attacks on an innocent Israeli state.

The facts differ remarkably from Israel Lobby propaganda. Israel illegally occupies Palestine. Israel sends bulldozers into Palestinian villages and knocks down Palestinian houses, occasionally killing an American protester in the process, and uproots Palestinian olive groves. Israel cuts Palestinian villages off from water, hospitals, farmlands, employment and schools. Israel builds special roads through Palestine on which only Israelis can travel. Israel establishes checkpoints everywhere to hinder Palestinian movement to hospitals, schools and from one enclave or ghetto to another. Many Palestinians die from the inability to get through checkpoints to medical care. Israel builds illegal settlements on Palestinian lands. Israeli Zionist "settlers" take it upon themselves to evict Palestinians from their villages and towns in order to convert them into Israeli settlements. A huge wall has been built to wall off the stolen Palestinian lands from the remaining isolated ghettoes. Israeli soldiers shoot down Palestinian children in the streets. So do Israeli Zionist "settlers."

All of this has been documented so many times by so many organizations that it is pathetic that Americans are so ignorant. For example, Israeli peace groups such as Gush Shalom or Jeff Halper's Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions provide abundant documentation of Israel's theft of Palestine and persecution of Palestinians. Every time the UN passes a resolution condemning Israel for its crimes, the US vetoes it. The Palestinian Agricultural Relief Committees' film, The Iron Wall, reveals the enormity of Israel's crimes against Palestine. President Jimmy Carter, Israel's friend, tried to bring peace to the Middle East but was frustrated by Israel. Carter was demonized by the Israel Lobby for calling, truthfully, the situation that Israel has created "apartheid." Historians, including Israel's finest, such as Ilan Pappe, have documented The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, the title of Pappe's book published in 2006.

Israelis, such as Uri Avnery, a former member of Israel's Knesset, are stronger critics of Israel's policies toward Palestine than can be found in America. The Israeli newspaper Haaretz is more outspoken in its criticism of Israeli policies than any newspaper would dare to be in North America or Europe. But it is all to no avail in brainwashed America where Israelis wear white hats and Arabs wear black hats. The ignorance of Americans commits US foreign policy to the service of Israel. As Uri Avnery wrote recently, a visitor from another planet, attending the recent press conference in Jerusalem, would conclude that Olmert is the leader of the superpower and that Bush is his vassal. Americans don't know what terror is. To know terror, you have to be a Palestinian, an Iraqi, or an Afghan.

Layla Anwar, an Iraqi Internet blogger, describes what terror is like. Terror is families attending a wedding being blown to pieces by an American missile or bomb and the survivors being blown to pieces at the funeral of the newlyweds. Terror is troops breaking down your door in the middle of the night, putting guns to your heads, and carrying off brothers, sons, and husbands with bags over their heads and returning to rape the unprotected women. Terror is being waterboarded in one of America's torture dungeons. Terror is "when you run from hospital ward to hospital ward, from prison to prison, from militia to militia looking for your loved one only to recognize them from their teeth fillings in some morgue." For people targeted by American hegemony, terror is realizing that Americans have no moral conscience. Terror is the lack of medicines from American embargoes that led to the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children. When asked by Lesley Stahl if the American policy was worth the children's deaths, Madeleine Albright, President Bill Clinton's secretary of state, said "we think the price is worth it."

In the feeble minds of the White House Moron and his immoral supporters, the massive deaths for which America is responsible, including those inflicted by Israel, have nothing to do with Muslim enmity toward America. Instead, Muslims hate us for our "freedom and democracy," the real threat to which comes from Bush's police state measures and stolen elections. There is dispute over the number of Iraqis killed or murdered by Bush's illegal invasion, a war crime under the Nuremberg standard, but everyone agrees the number is very large. Many deaths result from American bombing of civilian populations as the Israelis did in Lebanon and do in Gaza. There is nothing new about these bombings. President Clinton bombed civilians in Serbia in order to dictate policy to Serbia. But when Americans and Israelis bomb other peoples, it is not terror. It is only terror when the US or Israel is attacked in retaliation.

The Israeli assault from the air on Beirut apartment houses is not terror. But when a Palestinian puts on a suicide belt and blows himself up in an Israeli cafe, that's terror. When Clinton bombs a Serbian passenger train, that's not terror, but when a buried explosive takes out an American tank somewhere in Iraq, that's terror. Aggressors always have excuses for their aggression. Hitler was an expert at this. So are the US and Israel. Unfortunately for the world, there's little chance for change in America or Israel. The presidential candidates (Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich) who would bring change in Washington, without which there will be no change in Israel, are not in the running for their party's nomination. As John J. Mearsheimer noted on January 12, the candidates in the running are as much under the thumb of the Israel Lobby as Bush. The candidates are Bush clones as strongly committed as Bush to hegemony, war, Israel and executive power.

The possible exception is Obama. If he is an exception, that makes him a threat to the powers that be, and, as we might have witnessed in the NH primary, the Republican-supplied, Republican-programmed Diebold electronic voting machines can easily be rigged to deny him the Democratic nomination. Hillary will not resist Israel's wishes, and her husband's presidency bombed at will his demonized victims. There is no essential difference between the candidates or between the candidates and George W. Bush. Alabama Governor George Wallace, a surprisingly successful third party candidate for the presidency, said as long ago as 1968, "There's not a dime's worth of difference between the Democrat and Republican Parties." Today, four decades later, there's not a penny's worth of difference, not an ounce of difference. Both parties have revealed themselves to be warmonger police state parties. The US Constitution has few friends in the capital city.

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/roberts/?articleid=12224

[Illuminator]

Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

The Inevitability And Necessity Of Armenia's Close Relations With Russia

Let me begin by saying that there are no "limits" to a 'true' friendship. Obviously, Moscow is 'not' looking to incorporate Armenia into its Federation. So, don't worry about that occurring. All the indicators are that Moscow merely wants to firmly hold Armenia within its political orbit 'at all costs,' even if it means it has to twist a few arms and break a few heads to do so. In this regard I agree with what Moscow is doing geopolitically in the region. Although they are obviously doing this for their national interests, their actions are, nevertheless, having positive repercussions for the Armenian Republic. The Armenian Republic today has political clout internationally and it is untouchable by foreign forces primarily because of its close military/economic/political alliance with Russia, and to a lesser extent Iran. However, if, let's say, in the future there is another major calamity in the region and Armenia has an option to join the Russian Federation for survival - I say, why not? In final analysis, in the Caucasus, it's all about survival. In a worst case scenario, I rather have Armenia survive within the Russian Federation as a autonomous region than "survive" as an Iranian, Azeri or Turkish province...

When you are an impoverished, tiny, landlocked, friend-less and a resources-less country you will tend to seek powerful friends. In this regard, Mother Russia is our only option in the region and, at times, it has been God sent for us Armenians. Obviously, Armenia needs to also maintain close and cordial relations with the West and Iran. However, when it comes to the West we should 'never' think that our national prosperity, or national existence for that matter, is a subject of concern for Brussels or Washington DC. In this regard, it is no secret that many within the Russia's political/military elite, as well as many in their intelligencia, realize that Armenia's existence as a nation within the south Caucasus is crucially important for Russian national interests. I must also add here that Armenia's national existence serves Iranian national interests as well. Russia and Iran have both had long histories of rivalry against Turks. Even today, Moscow and Tehran do 'not' want to see the rise of Azeri/Turkish power in the Caucasus region. Thus, Armenia is the buffer. This is precisely how Armenia becomes a geostrategically pivotal nation for Moscow. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that without the Russian/Soviet factor in our national historiography there would not have been an Armenian Republic today.

As long as 'true' Russian (Slav/Orthodox) nationalists are in power in Moscow the Armenian Republic has not much to be concerned about.

Your comment about Armenia not being in any position to call the shots with Moscow is dead on target. Although relations between Russia and Armenia today are very close, Moscow was not playing nice with Yerevan for a while. Relations between Yerevan and Moscow were not very stable during the 90s. There was a real threat that Armenia would brake away from the Russian orbit. Some have even claimed that the parliamentary assassinations in Armenia secured Russia's dominance in Armenia's internal affairs. Reality is that Moscow can make or break nations in the Caucasus, especially now that they have been roaring back to life - with a vengeance. Take a close look at Georgia and Azerbaijan, they have essentially become hostages to Russia. They are not able to resist Russian pressure even though they have direct access to the outside world, and very close alliances/relations with Turkey, EU, USA and Israel. How do you think an impoverished and landlocked Armenia would have faired had Yerevan opposed Moscow's overtures in Armenia?

Simply stated, Russia wants to control Armenia's energy sector to ensure that Armenia is not able to breakaway from the Moscow's orbit. In other words, they don't want to place hope on Armenian politicians making the right decisions every few years. By controlling a nation's infrastructure you secure its allegiance. Taking into consideration our people's political shortsightedness and immaturity, I fully support what Moscow is doing and I fully support the pro-Russian Republican party in Armenia, represented by Serj Sargisian. At this stage in our national development, especially in the Caucasus, we can't allow the "people" to decide what to do when it comes to such sensitive geopolitical matters. The practice of "democracy" in a nation like Armenia can potentially prove to be fatal. The sad reality is that Armenians, in general, have time and again revealed that they are incapable to making the right choices in politics.

So, due to the geopolitical nature of the region in question the Armenian Republic has no other choice but to remain firmly in bed with Moscow. In my opinion, in this day in age, Armenia 'must' be a Russian outpost. This term, "Russian outpost," used by a Russian politician several years ago in describing Armenia's relationship to Russia outraged many Armenians worldwide. Why the outrage? Just like western Europe is an American outpost, just like Saudi Arabia is an American outpost, just like Japan is an American outpost, just like Georgia is an American outpost, just like Turkey is an American outpost, etc., Armenia's best bet, its only option today, is to remain as close as possible to the Russian Federation and their regional apparatus. Yerevan needs to more-or-less distance itself from Washington DC. Accepting money from official Washington is like taking money from a loan shark. The US empire today is on a global rampage of exploitation and bloodshed, and its favorite choice of weapon has been the false notions of "freedom and democracy." However, when the "freedom and democracy" weapon does not work, it soon becomes "shock and awe" time like we saw in Serbia and Iraq. What's more, it does not take a genius to realize that the world's most corrupt, the most undemocratic nations have tended to be Washington's closest partners. And the most bloody and destructive entity on earth today is the political/military apparatus in Washington.

So be it, Armenia is a Russian outpost - Hurah...

In my opinion, the future potentially belongs to Mother Russia. Russia controls the largest oil and gas reserves on earth; Russia controls the largest landmass on earth; Russia controls the largest amounts of natural resources on earth; Russia has managed to monopolize virtually the entire gas/oil distribution of central Asia; Russia has finally been able to brake the shackles of their western antagonists; Russians are now on a fast pace resurgence militarily, politically and economically; Russia controls the politics of the Caucasus; Russia controls the politics of Central Asia; Russia controls the politics of eastern Europe to a large extent; And with their economic/military alliances with China - the 21th century potentially belongs to Russia.

What's more, by far, Russia is Armenia's largest and most lucrative trading partner. Trade between Moscow and Yerevan is currently around five-hundred million USD annually and it will most probably reach somewhere around one billion USD in the near future. What's more, Armenia's only source for affordable and modern military hardware is Russia. What's more, Armenia's only source for nuclear fuel is Russia. And Armenia's only hope in fending off Turkish and/or Azeri aggression in the Caucasus is Yerevan's continuing alliance with the Russian Federation. The only other strategically vital nation for Armenia is Iran.

The hard reality is that a tiny, impoverished and landlocked nation like Armenia does 'not' serve the geopolitical interests of the western world - especially when the Armenian nation has serious problems, historic problems, with the West's most vital allies in the region, namely Azerbaijan and Turkey and to a lesser extent, Georgia. Simply put, Armenia 'only' serves the geostrategic interests of Moscow and to a lesser extent, Tehran. This is the hard reality in the world today. This is our reality in the Caucasus. This is what our national destiny has dealt us, at least for the foreseeable future.



Look at it this way: You are the king of a tiny, poor, resource-less, landlocked nation that is blockaded and under the threat of another major war; Your nation is located within a hotly contested region; There are foreign forces attempting to cause trouble for your nation internally and externally; Your nation is surrounded by unfriendly powers; Your nation's industry is dead for it has no stable and/or efficient access to the outside world; You don't have the means to support your social infrastructure; And you know well that major powers in the world are in bed with your enemies.... A powerful emperor from the north sends you a proposal: Pledge your allegiance to us, let us run the infrastructure in your country and we will protect you militarily and we will trade with you...

As king, what do you do? It's a 'very' though call.

And the gloomy picture I painted above is not a fairytale, it is more-or-less the accurate depiction of the geopolitical situation in Armenia today. Remember that the Caucasus does not allow for mistakes. The last time we made some political mistakes at the turn of the 20th century, look at what happened - 2 million dead and total destruction of our homeland. The ruling administration in Yerevan, for various reasons, personal and political, have decided that the best way for Armenia to go forward is by allowing Russia full access in Armenia. In an ideal political situation I would have opposed such deep levels of Russian control in the Armenian Republic - but politics in the Caucasus is far from ideal.



Due to hard realities of our national existence today, the Armenian Republic is not able to utilize its industry effectively. The fact of the matter is, Armenia does not have the resources, it do not have unhindered access routes, it do not have the money, nor does it have appropriate international contacts for its industry to operate independently. What's more, Armenia needs its energy - gas, oil, nuclear fuel - from the outside. As I highlighted above, the Russian Federation has more-or-less a monopoly of the region's energy resources and its distribution. So, who is Armenia to buy oil/gas from? We have begun dealing with Iran, but Iran has serious problems. As we can see, Iran is virtually under siege and if the West could have its way they would cut Yerevan off from Iran in a heartbeat. What's more, due to Russia's strategic concerns, Moscow does not want to see Yerevan relying on anyone else but Russia. As a result, they are forcing Armenia to allow Moscow to get in on the deal with Iran. So, what can Armenia do at this stage? What options does Yerevan have? Play hardball with Russia by dealing with Azerbaijan and Turkey? I don't think so. Moreover, take into consideration that the Russian Federation in its vastness is an excellent market for Armenian products and an good indirect route to other markets around the world. Therefore, under these prevailing conditions and circumstances in our homeland, why not allow Russia full access into our economy - especially when they are 'forcing' us to allow them in? At the very least, find comfort in the thought that a major superpower today is taking its relationship with our homeland very seriously.

At this point I need to mention also that Russia has tended to have internal problem throughout its history. The Russian nation has been very unstable and volatile at certain times in it's history. Russians may be our dependable strategic partners today but an unforeseen internal problem in the future may change that overnight. This has already happened to us several times in the past. I would like to emphasize yet again that as long as 'true' Russian nationalists are in power in Moscow the Armenian Republic does not have much to be concerned about. Unfortunately, being in the situation it is in today, it is natural that Armenia will be dependent upon a major power for survival. In my opinion, while it lasts, we should take full advantage of our close relations with Russia to strengthen our nation's military, economy and international standing. This way, if the Russian Federation has another one of their internal upheavals in the future our small nation would not be as vulnerable it has been in the past.

Those who bitterly complain about Armenia not having 'true independence' due to the Russian presence in the nation are not being realistic nor are they comprehending the nuances and realities of the region's geopolitical situation. A threatened cat cannot threaten a lion. Regardless of how proud we are about our national heritage and our fighting spirit, we Armenians must realize that geopolitically speaking, comparatively speaking, our nation is not a major force on earth today. Nevertheless, this is a very complex topic for it has no easy answers. The comments above are my personal convictions based upon my exposure to and comprehension of the region's history and politics. With or without Russia, living in the Caucasus has its serious risks. I hope I was able to answer your questions.

Armenian

I am trying to figure out if this is an article or if you wrote the entire thing or where does an article begin and end?

Excellent analysis in any case.