The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

An even more significant development coming out of Moscow was a major gas pipeline deal finalized between Russia and Bulgaria. The pipeline in question will be used to transport Russian gas from the Bulgarian Black Sea port of Burgas to the Greek Aegean port of Alexandroupolis. This pipeline will be an alternative route for Russian gas exports and, more significantly, it will be designed to bypass Turkey. The pipeline's construction is set to begin in 2008 and is estimated to be completed by 2011. The geopolitical ramifications of this pipeline is quite significant. With this pipeline Russia is not only engaging EU members Greece and Bulgaria directly, it is bypassing Turkey, its major regional competitor. Moreover, the pipeline deal has left the vulnerable Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline as essentially the only Caspian Sea region energy source still under western control. This is the continuation of Russia's multi-pronged thrust aimed at directly impacting the politics and economy of the European continent by empowering nations of the region that have traditionally had healthy relationship with Moscow. And, of course, Russia is naturally seeking to monopolize the energy distribution networks of the entire Eurasian continent.

In my opinion, these pipeline deals between Moscow and various nations have been geostrategically more significant than the recent "nuclear" comment made by General Yuri Baluyevsky. During that past several years the Russian Federation has managed to cleverly outmaneuver and undermined western interests in the Caucasus, Eastern Europe and Central Asia by reaching strategic agreements with various regional governments. These major intergovernmental agreements more-or-less serve to divert into the Russian Federation the Caspian Sea region's vast gas/oil distribution for subsequent distribution westward (see relevant articles below). These agreements have served to severely undermine western plans for the region as they also serve to weaken the fledgling role the Turkish state had begun to play as a regional hub for oil and gas distribution. As with the Caspian pipeline networks, the geopolitical ramifications of the Bulgarian pipeline agreement is quite significant in that it serves to further strengthen Moscow's monopoly of Eurasia's energy distribution. And now, according to various sources, Moscow is poised to takeover control of Serbia's energy market as well. With these actions Russia has been able to place itself into a firm strategic position, one that will enable it to directly and forcefully impact European affairs.

Armenian

************************************************** *******

Pipeline Cements Russia’s Hold on Europe’s Gas Supply

Russia strengthened its grip on Europe’s energy supplies on Friday as it signed a major gas deal with Bulgaria that analysts said would further undermine the European Union’s attempts to diversify its energy sources. Under the agreement, the $15 billion South Stream pipeline will be built under the Black Sea, allowing Russia to send natural gas directly to Europe through Bulgaria and bypassing Turkey, which has been a crucial transit route for Russia’s gas exports to European markets. The pact, signed by President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia and his Bulgarian counterpart, Georgi Parvanov, was sealed after late-night negotiations with Gazprom, Russia’s state-owned energy monopoly. Mr. Putin and Mr. Parvanov also signed an agreement for the construction of a nuclear power plant, the first Russian one to be built in a European Union country. Construction began in the 1980s but was halted in 1990. Planning for the project was revived in 2003.

The agreement on the South Stream pipeline dealt another blow to Nabucco, a major European Union gas pipeline project designed to diversify energy sources and reduce dependence on Russia. The union intends to buy gas from Iran and Azerbaijan and ship it through Turkey in pipelines that are run to Southern and Western Europe. But disputes over the routes, financing and how to deal with Iran’s nuclear program have delayed the project. Bulgaria, which joined the European Union a year ago, is also a member of the Nabucco consortium. The other countries are Austria, Turkey, Hungary and Romania. Russia has an almost complete monopoly over Bulgaria’s energy market, said Ognyan Minchev, director of the Bulgarian office of the European Council on Foreign Relations. “The E.U., shockingly, acts like a naďve bystander, completely blind to the major strategic reconfiguration that is taking place in the Balkans,” Mr. Minchev said. Under the terms of the South Stream deal, Russia and Bulgaria will each have a 50 percent stake in the Bulgarian portion of the pipeline.

The 560-mile pipeline will cross Bulgarian territory, transporting around 1 billion cubic feet of Russian gas a year. In Bulgaria, it will branch into two spurs: one going west to Italy, the other going north into Austria or Hungary. Analysts said the deal could undermine Bulgaria if it later sought alternative energy sources. “The 50-50 deal is not enough to defend Bulgaria’s national interests,” Mr. Minchev said. Russia is poised to take over the state-owned Petroleum Industry of Serbia, which would increase Gazprom’s influence in the Balkans, analysts said. “What the E.U. lacks is political will in dealing with these energy issues and pushing Nabucco forward,” said Borut Grgic, director of the Institute for Strategic Studies, an independent policy center in Ljubljana, Slovenia.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/19/wo...l?ref=business

Russia's Pre-Caspian pipeline a blow to EU & U.S.

President Putin has signed an agreement with his Kazakh and Turkmen counterparts to build the Pre-Caspian Sea gas pipeline. The U.S. and EU have been pushing for the alternative Trans-Caspian pipeline which would bypass Russia. Russia's Caspian project, known as the Pre-Caspian pipeline is designed to provide huge reserves of gas from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan with a route through Russia to European markets. “This pipeline will provide long-term large supplies of gas to our partners. It will also become a considerable contribution to energy stability in Europe. In a telephone conversation with the President of Turkmenistan we have confirmed our common intention to carry out existing agreements and develop our partnership,” said Putin. “We also discussed our co-operation in atomic energy, in particular the joint construction of an atomic energy station in Kazakhstan and the further integration of the nuclear industrial facilities of our countries.

Source: http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/18749

Russian bonds reinforced

Prime Minister Costas Karamanlis yesterday threw his weight firmly behind Russian President Vladimir Putin during an exceptionally cordial meeting in Moscow where the two leaders agreed to boost bilateral ties, particularly in the crucial energy sector. Karamanlis heaped praise on Putin whom he referred to as «a friend» and congratulated him three times for his landslide victory in parliamentary elections in Russia earlier this month. Karamanlis appeared to plant Greece firmly in Moscow's camp, describing Russia as a «strategic partner.» «The historic ties between our countries are strengthening, particularly in the sphere of energy,» Karamanlis said. His comments followed the signature of a protocol - by Greek, Russian and Bulgarian officials - for the creation of a company to oversee the construction of the much-awaited Burgas-Alexandroupolis oil pipeline. Construction is to begin in the summer.

Source: http://www.ekathimerini.com/4dcgi/_w.../12/2007_91334

Pre-Caspian Pipeline Angers U.S. Because It Does Not Fit Its Policy - Denisov

Russia's agreements with Central Asian countries to build a pre-Caspian gas pipeline "are getting on Washington's nerves" because they do not fit its energy transportation strategy, Russian First Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Denisov told Interfax. "The U.S. has been lobbying the idea of an East-West energy corridor for a long time. Its aim is to arrange the transportation of hydrocarbons from the Caspian region bypassing the territories of Russia and Iran," he said. The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan and Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum pipelines have already been built, the deputy minister said, adding that "this notorious trans-Caspian gas pipeline is intended to support them". "The political motives behind all of these projects are evident. The pre-Caspian pipeline clearly does not fit this concept, which has caused (Washington's) nervous reaction," he said. However, he refrained from commenting on statements by several U.S. officials on the pre-Caspian pipeline. "The decision to build the pre-Caspian pipeline was reached based on a careful calculation both of the benefit to the participants from the implementation of this project, and the conditions required to bring it into existence," Denisov said. He said that possible technical and ecological risks of the project have been reduced to nothing, because the pipeline will follow an existing route along the Caspian shore. "As regards the trans-Caspian pipeline, which is mainly being supported by players outside the region, this route is still primarily virtual," he said.

Source: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007-150-23.cfm

Russian government approves Caspian gas pipeline agreement

Russia's government has approved a Caspian gas pipeline cooperation agreement with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, a senior government official told the president's conference with the Cabinet on Monday. The natural gas pipeline will run from Turkmenistan along the Caspian coast of Kazakhstan and onto Russia, and will pump 10-20 billion cubic meters of gas to Europe via Russia's pipeline network. Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Naryshkin said President Vladimir Putin had instructed the government to make the most of a planned working visit by Kazakh leader Nursultan Nazarbayev in order to move ahead with the implementation of the project. The deputy premier said the agreement also involved a provision on a feasibility study of the project, the implementation of which will begin in the second half of 2008. The document remains to be ratified. ""The agreement is ready for signing,"" Naryshkin said. Russia, Turkmenistan, and Kazakhstan agreed to build the pipeline in May 2007 and were to finalize it in September, but had failed to agree on the price of supplies...

Source: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=158930

Caspian Pipeline Deal Close

Turkmenistan, Russia and Kazakhstan will sign an agreement Thursday to build a natural gas pipeline along the Caspian Sea coast, the Turkmen government said Tuesday. The statement, on the Central Asian nation's official state Web site, came after months of uncertainty. After a preliminary agreement was formalized at a signing ceremony attended by the presidents of the ex-Soviet republics in May, the deal was stalled by disagreements on the price of gas supplies. Late last month, Russia gave in to Turkmen price demands and agreed to pay $130 per 1,000 cubic meters of natural gas in the first half of 2008 and $150 in the second half. Turkmen President Gurbanguli Berdymukhamedov and Russian Industry and Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko discussed the pipeline during talks in the Turkmen capital Ashgabat, the Turkmen state Web site said Tuesday. News that the deal will soon be sealed will likely disappoint the U.S. and the European Union, which have been lobbying for a rival pipeline to be built under the Caspian Sea, bypassing Russia...

Source: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/fn/5387312.html

ANKARA'S NABUCCO POLICY ANGERS SOME

Some European energy experts believe that Russia's latest deals with Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan -- which could jeopardize Turkey's policy of becoming an energy route for Caspian oil and gas, bypassing the strategic and busy Bosporus and Dardanelles straits -- should be seen as a serious blow both to Turkey and the EU's aspirations to reduce reliance on Russian gas and energy. The renewed risks of Russia's increased dominance in the Caspian region first surfaced when Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an agreement with Bulgaria and Greece in March for building the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline to carry Russian oil. Then came the news from Turkmenistan early last week that Putin and the region's main energy producers, Turkmenistan's President Gurbangul Berdymukhamedov and Kazakhstan's Nursultan Nazarbayev, shook hands to build a pipeline along the Caspian Sea coast to ship Turkmen natural gas to Western markets via Kazakhstan and Russia. A few days before, Nazarbayev said at a May 10 meeting in the Kazakh capital of Astana with Russian President Putin, that 17 million tons of Kazakh oil might be used in the Burgas-Alexandroupolis project, the Russian Itar Tass news agency reported. All this news obviously represented a blow to both US and European efforts to secure alternatives to Middle East oil and gas that are intended to be independent from Russian influence, such as US-backed Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, which has started carrying oil to the European markets via Turkey's Ceyhan port in the south. It may be true that the two deals are also expected to reduce Kazakhstan's interest in routes connecting with the BTC pipeline. Russia's deals with Turkmenistan, in particular, also have the potential to affect the Nabucco natural gas pipeline project, which will transport natural gas from Turkey to Austria, via Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary as it is intended to reduce Europe's dependence on Russian gas...

[Armenian]

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

An excellent commentary from a Russian source about Levon Ter Petrosian and the up-coming elections in Armenia. Let's see if this will help some of the mentally retarded idiots in our community take their heads out of their asses:

Armenian

************************************************

Levon Ter-Petrosian as a Tool of Armenia’s Destabilisation

A long awaited happening, the interest to which had been fanned for months, took place in Armenia. On October 26, 2007 former president Levon Ter-Petrosian, currently an actual leader of Armenian National Movement (ANM), the former ruling party made a 90-minute speech in Theatre Square in Yerevan. Despite quite a few logical discrepancies, pseudo-historic excursions, dubious allusions and populist declarations he declared his intention to run for presidency in February of 2008. Many people attended the meeting, but those who are still sincerely fond of the former president were evidently in the minority. There were many people who were there out of sheer curiosity and those who are always displeased with any acting authority.

On the eve of the meeting radical opposition from the pro-Western movement “Alternative” provoked clashes with police, which were immediately taken advantage of for the stirring up the situation, given that usually the authorities do not prevent their opposition from holding meetings, asking them to observe the law and order. Some Armenian media characterise the tactics used by the ex-president and his supporters as the willingness “to aggravate the internal situation, forcing the authorities to make another mistake at any cost.” Unsanctioned meetings, office capture raids and blocking the bodies of state, stirring up of domestic disorder and interference in the work of election commissions can be disguised as “spontaneous” people’s protest. A dramatic rise of foodstuffs prices can stimulate the spreading of rumours about “inevitable” political and socio-economic upheavals. This tactic has been tested many times in the countries where the “colour” coups were organised; in Serbia, Georgia, Ukraine and Kirghizia. An attempt of a coup undertaken by the radical opposition in Yerevan in 2004 (organised, along with others by Aram Sarkisian and Stepan Demirchian, who were seen together with Ter-Petrosian October 26) met with hard but legally correct suppression. Another Western project in the republic was Artur Bagdasarian, who finally discredited himself during the May 2008 parliamentary elections. What are we to expect this time?

The tonality of many statements of “the soft intellectual” Ter-Petrosian proves that the new election campaign will be quite acute. Again, as in the late 1980s, when Ter-Petrosian was desperate about gaining power, the wedge of a slogan “Struggle, struggle till the end!” has been forced in. But the fact that the “mafia-type clan regime” is criticised by none other than the genuine architect of this regime, is amusing. Ter-Petrosian’s call for bringing order to the nation looks especially mocking, given that the destruction of Armenia’s economy and key elements of its infrastructure (except for, maybe, the young national army) during his stint was systemic and targeted. The rampage of arbitrariness was written off as inevitable aftermath of hostilities and Azerbaijanian blockade, which in particular were to deepen the “anti-Karabakhs” sentiment in the Armenian society. Using the Karabakh issue as a springing board for his leap to power, all his years as president Ter-Petrosian was obstinately pushing through his idea of making Karabakh prisoner of Azerbaijan (under the guise of “autonomy”), calling that “realism”. However the fact that head of the Armenian state promised the earth to Ankara, reassuring the nation that a day will come when Turkey would unlock the frontier while Karabakh Armenians were on the brink of a physical destruction, spoke about helplessness and incompetence rather than the pursuance of foreign policies that could meet the nation’s interests…

The 1996 presidential elections were openly falsified to give the victory to Ter-Petrosian; opposition was suppressed never stopping of using tanks. In 1997, when the set off between Ter-Petrosian on the one hand and other members of the political and military establishment on the other became evident, it was exactly the presidential side that resorted to a political combination aimed at the removal of the president’s opponents from the bodies of power. Attempts to provoke a political crisis by way of a series of acts of terror leading the way to a dismissal of prime-minister (Robert Kocharian) or the Minister of Interior and Security (Serge Sarkisian) met with the hard public opposition of Defence Minister Vazgen Sarkisian. And in 1999, shortly before his tragic death, speaking at parliament prime-minister Vazgen Sarkisian said to the nation that the energy crisis was not a result of the Karabakh war. To quote the documents of the interim parliamentary committee that investigated abuse of power at the time: “2058 railway cars with 115,000 tonnes of fuel oil shipped to the Razdan and Yerevan power stations in 1992 were not registered, as well as 1184 tank-cars at the Razdan power station (66,000 tonnes) and 874 tank-cars at the Yerevan power station (49,000 tonnes)…

There were many other facts of this kind. The real cause of the crisis were rampant theft, total irresponsibility and the lack of experience of running the state of the ANM activists. The situation in the republic was precisely characterised by the statement of the former interior Minister Vano Siradegian in one of his interviews when he called the then prime-minister Grant Bagratian, the follower of Yegor Gaidar, “a madman”, who was running the national economy. In turn, Siradegian was accused of organising a series of contract killings, and is now hiding somewhere outside of Armenia. At present, a decade and a half after that many were naďve enough to expect former president Ter-Petroisan to admit his mistakes, recalling the hardships Armenians suffered in the first half of the 1990s. And naturally, their expectations were futile. According to the BBC, he was not going to explain anything, as he did not think it necessary to give explanations in the early 1990s when the country was chilled to the bone without electricity and hot water for three years and when trees were cut in Yerevan for fuel. The former president did not change and did not learn his lessons. He confirmed that at the October 26 meeting saying: ”I am what I am, and that is the way I will stay.”

Robert Kocharian must be right thinking the Armenians do not wish to see a comeback of things of the past. During his stay in Megri, Kocharian made first evaluation of his predecessor’s intentions to return to power. He observed that Levon Ter-Petrosian was not a principal candidate for presidency, so he would hardly be in the focus of public attention. Recalling the sad results of the ANM parliamentary campaign he added:”Seeing that the national economy has been restored, ANM again decided the time came to rob. With their mouths watered, they decided to lean on the resource of the former president. Certain groups in Armenia (a rather small country where informal relations and kinship play an important role) and influential players abroad (also a significant factor) are undoubtedly interested in the “advancement” of Ter-Petrosian. Confidence in self-righteousness of some of the ANM activists is organically combined with the anti-Russian rhetoric of a tonality close to that of their “senior brothers” in Georgia and Ukraine. It is curious to mention that Azeris also back Ter-Petrosian, doing that in a very unusual way. The most frenzied are yearning for blood, while others wage the information war more skilfully, stating in particular that the hypothetical arrival of Ter-Petrosian to power will not be to the advantage of Azerbaijan as the man will – allegedly – rapidly put an end to the Russian presence, maintaining good relations with Washington, thus weakening Baku’s positions in negotiations on Nagorno Karabakh. Such propaganda ambiguities are made largely with an eye to Armenian Internet users who scoop their information from Azeri web sites…

There is no one questioning the importance of combating corruption, protection of human rights and the rights of a citizen, unless that becomes a pretext for interference in internal affairs of another state, a total or partial liquidation of its sovereignty and the formation of a state power system managed from outside. The current Armenian leadership can be assessed differently. It has not yet solved many acute socio-economic problems. For example, the system of central heating in Yerevan that had “passed away” in the “glorious” days of Ter-Petrosian’s rash liberalism has not yet been restored. Karabakh, once a well-developed industrialized suburb of the Armenian capital now looks like a battlefield with its half-broken buildings with yawning broken windows that previously housed production workshops, robbed during the wild privatization campaign. However, one cannot fail but acknowledge positive changes Robert Kocharian spoke about: in 1997 Armenia’s budget amounted to a mere 300 million dollars, whereas in 2008 its revenues are expected to amount to $2.28 billion with expenditure amounting to $2.5 billion. The sizes of state budgets and GDP of Armenia and Georgia are about the same, even though Georgia is in a much more favourable situation, given bigger territory and population, an access to the sea, and its sizeable revenues thanks to implementing together with Azerbaijan and Turkey joint communications projects. Lavish contributions to the current Tbilisi leadership for its anti-Russian line should not be disregarded either (by the way, one of the accusations Ter-Petrosian’s backers lay on the authorities is Armenia’s isolation from these much touted projects). However, expansion of the Turkish capital into Georgia in mid-term perspective can have quite unexpected consequences affecting its ethnic and confessional situation and stability.

Meanwhile to meet its national interests Armenia started implementing its own projects. They include the construction of a natural gas pipeline from Iran to Armenia, potentially with a branch to Europe, and the project of establishing single energy space with Russia, Iran and Georgia, commissioning of a new automobile road crossing the Megri pass in the mountains, plans of installing the second unit of the Metsamor nuclear power station, a petroleum refinery and a railway line from Armenia to Iran. In the times of Ter-Petrosian who cherished the idea of turning Armenia into a “Middle East crossroads “ the like of Lebanon, and who recently stated that the border between Armenia and Iran is effectively non-existent due to the complicated surface geometry of the region, such plans could not be even dreamed of. Peace and stability are required for the implementation of such projects, but given the unyielding stance of Azerbaijan in the issue of Nagorno Karabakh and its rapid militarization, the republic of Nagorno Karabakh in its present-day borders is a significant element of maintaining the balance of forces in the region.

Ter-Petrosian’s chances of winning the election are as good as nil. According to serious observers, in reality he can only count on the support of not more than a fraction of several percents of the electorate. His only hope is provoking meetings in the streets, pumping up destructive emotions, provoking dissent in the armed forces and law enforcement agencies and what is more dangerous, fanning parochial sentiment (for example, using the scenario of Aiastan – Karabakh setoff), the distinguishing feature of Ter-Petrosian’s “leadership” (especially in the last period of his presidency). Such event would inevitably throw the country back to late 1980s, the period of general upheaval, revolution-like street meetings that pushed him up to the top of presidential power in 1991. Such upheavals spell no good whatever.

Significant effort will be made to dupe the republic‘s citizens. This is an organic component of a possible scenario of the internal political destabilisation. The potential role of the indefatigable minority charged ideologically and amply fed from outside in both organisational and financial terms. In the event anyone else but Ter-Petrosian win the elections Western observers could come up with a bulletproof statement acknowledging their results as illegitimate. For greater persuasiveness some exit-pool results can be presented that would allegedly unequivocally support the “right” candidate. The outer legitimisation of the capture of political authority usually goes hand in hand with a strong information and propaganda pressure, including diplomatic channels (statements of official representatives of the U.S. State Department, PACE and OSCE foreign observers). What will be important at that stage will be the final result, hectic work to fit Armenia into the pro-Western “sanitary cordon” along the borders of Russia and Iran, whereas the actual transparency of the elections and presence or absence of falsifications will have no meaning whatsoever?

The Russian presence in the Transcaucasia in the wake of the hasty and ill thought-out withdrawal of troops from Georgia as well as the forced Azerbaijan’s western drift (the summit of “the Caspian group of Five” would hardly reverse this process) is safeguarded, first and foremost, by union relations with Armenia and mutually advantageous cooperation with Iran (which still is to take its final shape). Implementation of major economic projects with the Russian participation in this region is hardly feasible due to the absence of Russia’s firm military and political positions. So Moscow is interested in the maintenance of stability in Armenia, continuity of its policies after the presidential elections and the continued presence in power of forces oriented toward consolidation of union relations with Russia. It is in Russia’s interests to back Armenia in this complicated period, promoting the smooth-going inner political processes in that country.

Moscow’s clear and unambiguous position in the eventuality of boosted attempts to shake Armenian situation during the pre-election period would by and large be decisive for ensuring stability both in that republic and in the Caucasus.

Source: http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1042

[Armenian]

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

Russia's Nuclear Declaration: A Defense, Not An Attack

"We have no plans to attack anyone, but we consider it necessary for all our partners in the world community to clearly understand ... that to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, military forces will be used, including preventively, the use of nuclear weapons." -Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky.

This announcement was largely ignored by the American media as it debated what’s more important for the next President: the shape of the candidate’s genitals or the color. In more wonkish corners, the statement drew concerns and talk of a new Cold War. And yet, Moscow is not trying to threaten the world despite the panic that the word "nuclear" usually provokes. The General's statement is also not particularly extraordinary. Russia’s new stance is not a threat to the West, much less the beginning of a new Cold War.

To understand why Vladimir Putin’s administration made the statement one needs to go back to the Balkan wars in the 1990s since the “ally” Moscow was talking about was Serbia in the anticipation of the potential unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo Albanians and recognition of the new state by the European Union and the United States.

In the early 1990s, Yugoslavia fell apart along ethnic lines. The most contentious place was Bosnia where the Muslims clashed with Christian Serbs. Both sides committed atrocities, but as has been the policy of the West since the 1930s, the US and EU sided with Muslims. While some countries, at some points (France in the 1950s, US since the 1960s), made an exception for Israel, it has been a consistent pattern of American and West European foreign policy to support Islamic nations – Afghanistan against Russia, Pakistan against India, Turkey over Greece (though the US-Greek relations weren’t hostile, Turkey was clearly the preferred friend), Somalia against Ethiopia. The United States even had an arms embargo against Israel and sided with Egypt over not only Jerusalem, but also Britain and France during the 1956 war. It was not the United States that turned away from Muslims and towards the xxxish state, but rather it was the Arabs who abandoned the alliance and sided with Moscow, leaving the U.S. with little choice but to ally itself with Israel. When Egypt decided to switch sides again, Washington promptly issued it over $2 billion in annual aid and forced Jerusalem to give up Sinai.

It was thus hardly surprising that Bill Clinton chose to help Bosnian Muslims over the Serbs. What was unusual was the vilification of the Serbs as the only side that committed atrocities. While it is true that the Serbs committed crimes, it was always doubtless that Bosnians did as well. To the Russians, the breakup of their ally Yugoslavia was an embarrassment, but given that they couldn’t even prevent the breakup of the Soviet Union, it was hardly possible for them to preserve the territorial integrity of their friends. Since the administration of General-Secretary Yuri Andropov (1982-1984), Moscow tried to warm its relations with the West, becoming almost subservient to Washington under Boris Yeltsin. It was thus hardly shocking Russia helplessly went along with the breakup of Yugoslavia.

Sensing weakness in Belgrade and Moscow, Albanians in the Serbian province of Kosovo began agitating for independence by engaging in terror and building alliances with Islamist regimes and organizations. Kosovo is believed by the Serbs to be their Jerusalem, their Mecca. A major reason why the province is now dominated by Muslim Albanians is the Serbs’ decision to side with the Allies during WWII, while both Bosnians and Kosovo Albanians established their own Nazi SS divisions. The third largest death camp during World War II was in Yugoslavia, causing the deaths and displacement of hundreds of thousands of Serbs (and others). One of the Muslim Nazis who fought in the 13th (Bosnian) SS division known as “Hanjar” was Alija Izetbegovic, who became President of Bosnia.

As Izatbegovic matured after WWII, he embraced Islamism and as early as 1970 began agitating in favor of “a struggle for creating a great Islamic federation from Morocco to Indonesia, from the tropical Africa to the Central Asia.” This goal was awfully similar to al-Qaida’s struggle (“Jihad”) for the establishment of an Islamic Caliphate from Morocco to Indonesia. And in fact, it is known that he received help from al-Qaida against the Serbs. He also received help from Tehran. Bill Clinton’s grotesque unofficial and indirect alliance with Osama bin Ladin and Iranian Ayatollahs against Orthodox Christians (Russians and Serbs) was presented as a fight for human rights. So much so that even several major left-leaning xxxish organizations chose to help the former Nazi SS volunteer who became the Bosnian President.

But Kosovo was different than Bosnia. It was not autonomous in the same way that Bosnia was. For Belgrade to lose Bosnia was an equivalent of Moscow losing Ukraine, or for Britain to lose Scotland. For Belgrade to lose Kosovo was an equivalent of Moscow losing Chechnya, or for Britain to lose Manchester. As the war in Kosovo raged, Yeltsin faced his own problems that threatened the breakup and even destruction of Russia. Chechnya achieved de facto independence after the Russian army got embarrassed by a band of amateurs. It was now possible that other minorities in Russia would follow Chechnya’s example and also demand independence.

When the Warsaw Pact lost Poland, the whole bloc was destroyed. When the USSR allowed independence for the Baltic states, the country fell apart. Allowing Chechen sovereignty seriously threatened Russia’s future as a country. Russia is the most ethnically diverse country in the world, and many minority ethnic groups live in regions where they can establish viable nation-states. If Chechnya succeeded, there was no reason to expect others not to at least try to rise up against Moscow – and the economic crash suffered by Russia in the late 1990s did not help matters.

But just as Russia could not allow Chechen independence, it could not allow Kosovo sovereignty for the same reason. Kosovo would be a precedent and an inspiration for minorities trying to break free. Strong, established states such as Britain (Northern Ireland and Scotland) and Spain (Basques and several others) can thwart such challenges. A weak Russia, with a dysfunctional military and a destroyed economy would have a much harder time at it. Additionally, many of the minority groups in Russia, including the largest one Tatars, are Muslim and it would be conceivable that Jihadists then flowing into Kosovo would move on to fight Moscow next to help their co-religionists in the Russian Federation.

In March 1999, after months of exaggeration of Serbian atrocities by the Western media (while the brutality of the terrorist Kosovo Liberation Army was ignored), Washington-led NATO began the air campaign against Serbia. Two and a half months later, many targets were destroyed, but just as in every other case in history, the Air Force alone could not defeat its enemy. There’s very little reason for the West to fight Serbia and the American people would not tolerate significant human losses for no apparent benefit. Clinton approached Yeltsin and the two Presidents worked out an agreement where along with NATO forces, the Russian troops would be stationed to protect the Serbs and to prevent Kosovo independence.

The Serbs left the province and NATO moved in. But when Russian soldiers arrived, Americans blocked them, and the media portrayed this as the new Prague Spring of 1968 (when the Soviets ruthlessly crushed the Czechoslovakian liberation movement). But this time it was not Kremlin abusing its power – it was the White House. To the Russians, it was the ultimate slap in the face. Already reeling from helplessness, Russians correctly saw this incident as an insult. It was clear that Moscow became a joke that nobody needed to take into consideration. So much so that nations now felt free to break major agreements with total disregard for how the people of the world’s largest country would react.

Clinton’s decision to slap Russia in the face and embarrass it on the world scene was the most important reason why Vladimir Putin is now in power, and why he has taken a not-always-friendly approach to dealing with the West. Last fall, I spoke with a bright, highly intelligent Russian college student who was critical of many things Putin has done. But he acknowledged Putin to be Russia’s best option. “He restored our pride. Russia was an international joke. Nobody treated us as equals before, but now we matter.”

President George W. Bush tried to repair some of the damage to the Russo-American relations done by Bill Clinton, such as the statement about looking into Putin’s soul for which he was widely ridiculed. But Bush knew that when things truly mattered, Putin helped him. After 9/11, the Russian President allowed the U.S. to establish military bases in Uzbekistan, which Moscow sees as its sphere of influence, commonly known in Russia as “the near abroad”. When Americans establish military bases, they rarely leave (Korea and Germany being two major examples), so by allowing the U.S. to move into Uzbekistan, Putin was essentially ceding territory. In Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance was Russia’s client-army that meant to serve as the buffer between the south of the former Soviet Union and the Taliban (against which the Russian intelligence repeatedly warned the aloof CIA going back to the early 1990s, even as Clinton withdrew each and every intelligence officer from Afghanistan).

When George W. Bush needed native Afghani help, Putin facilitated contacts between the Northern Alliance and American military and intelligence. Russia’s help in Afghanistan was so indispensable that without it the war would’ve been delayed until after the winter, giving Taliban several months to prepare. It is also indisputable that without the help of the Northern Alliance and Russian human intelligence (which Washington lacked completely because Clinton ended all such operations in the Taliban-led country), the Afghan War would’ve resulted in thousands and maybe even tens of thousands of additional deaths by NATO forces. Of course, Russia was concerned about Islamist radicals long before America, and benefited from the destruction of Taliban, which it could not bring about on its own without the aid of the American military might.

But Putin’s Russia also became more assertive in promoting its interests, rather than just being America’s little lap dog. First, Putin implemented fiscal reforms that improved his country’s economy, such as the flat tax of only 13% that doubled tax revenue in just three years by creating an economic boom and eliminating the incentive to cheat. [Russia’s flat tax example was later followed by much of Eastern Europe with similar success] More ominously, Putin took on the wealthy so-called “oligarchs” who controlled industries that the President felt he could use to promote Russian interests, often by bullying others, such as when he reduced energy flow to Ukraine and the EU.

Putin realized that no country will choose to ally with Russia over the United States if they have a choice. He thus made a decision to embrace the enemies of the West such as Iran, Syria and Venezuela. In the United Nations, Russia made things difficult for the United States in order to show that it is a country that must be paid attention to. At the same time, he made Kremlin a key player in the nuclear negotiations with North Korea (and tried to inject Russia into the Israel-Arab peace process). This Russian alliance with the enemies of the West is unlikely to hold for a long time, however. While some countries, such as Venezuela, are of no long-term importance to Moscow and could be either a friend or an enemy, Iran is Russia’s natural enemy.

[...]

Kremlin pretends to help Tehran inside and outside the United Nations only to play Washington for a fool. Americans are paying Russians to do exactly what they want to do anyway, while at the same time making Moscow seem like a major player on the world scene. Thus, just as in Afghanistan, in Iran too Moscow’s interests are in line those of Washington. Where Moscow’s interests diverge with Washington’s is once again in Kosovo. But this time Russia is no longer a weak state, with a dysfunctional military and a destroyed economy that face a real threat of disintegration like 10 years ago. Rather than the joke it was in the late 1990s, Putin’s Russia of 2008 is a country that matters. It matters in terms of global economy, oil and gas, United Nations, War on Terror and just about every other international issue.

[...]

Serbs are a people who are very similar to Russians (both are Orthodox Christians, both are Slavic, and their languages are similar enough to be understood). Moscow is entitled to defend it the same way Washington would defend Great Britain. In declaring itself willing to defend its allies, with nuclear weapons if needed, Moscow did not intend to tell the world that it wants a new Cold War. Russia’s defense of Serbia is no difference an American defense of its allies in Western Europe, South Korea, Taiwan, Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and many other countries. Over the decades, Washington issued similar statements in defense of all these nations.

Ten years ago, Bill Clinton unnecessarily provoked the Russian people by going back on his agreement with Moscow in order to help KLA Islamic terrorists. George W. Bush must not make the same mistake by helping Kosovo’s KLA-led government. And liberal xxxish organizations must remember that should they support KLA terrorists in Kosovo, Russia and its allies would be fully justified in aiding Hamas in Gaza as payback. Russia will defend the territorial integrity of Serbia and the West has no reason to support the KLA.

Source: http://globalpolitician.com/articles...?ID=4045&cid=4

[Armenian]

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

A fascinating look inside the dark world of Russian special forces and their decades long tradition of manipulating terrorists across the globe. While the quotes from the book in question refers to the Soviet Union, we must remember that today's security apparatus of the Russian Federation, as well as its intelligence services, are the direct successors of their Soviet counterparts. The following information about the Kremlin's dealing with terror groups will interest many readers. However, the dark nature of the intelligence services in question is not exclusive to Russia, they are fully applicable to various other major powers as well. It is a well known fact that American, European, Israeli and Pakistani intelligence services also engage in gathering, training, organizing and utilizing "terrorists" cells throughout the world toward political purposes. These types of insider information helps the reader place terror events such as the September 11, 2001 attacks, the London bombings, the Madrid bombings, the Moscow bombings and the Armenian Parliamentary assassinations of 1999 in a different light. In my opinion, there are no "terror" groups in existence today, Islamic or other, that are not funded by one major power or another. The West, as well as the Middle East, is full of disgruntled and violent potential terrorists. All it takes is a group of well funded, well trained specialists to recruit, organize, train and utilize...

Armenian

******************************************

Russia's Spetsnaz and Islamic Terrorism

There is no doubt that the Soviet Union played a tremendous role in the expansion and evolution of Islamic terrorism. Many of the people responsible for the policy of promoting fundamentalist miliancy still hold key positions in Russia. People can accept the fact that there are "anti-Bush" cliques inside the CIA and State Department, and the fact that there are "pro-Bin Laden" cliques in the Pakistani military ISI. Yet, for some strange reason, they cannot accept the fact that there are still "pro-Marxist" cliques inside Russia. I believe that the Russian Mafia operates in unison with these "rogue" elements, almost as a separate intelligence directorate.

To help our readers understand how this clique works, and what it means today, I am posting a series of important quotes from the book, "Spetsnaz" by the defector, Viktor Suvorov. I believe that readers will have a better understanding of the role Russia's Spetsnaz (elite special unit of the GRU) played in terrorism and how it continues to support terrorism by operating through the mafia or in the security services themselves.

Quotes From "Spetsnaz" by Viktor Suvorov

"…Soviet secret police, the KGB, carries out different functions (than the Spetsnaz) and has other priorities. It has its own terrorist apparatus, which includes an organization very similar to spetsnaz, known as osnaz. The KGB uses osnaz for carrying out a range of tasks not dissimilar to those performed by the GRU's spetsnaz. But the Soviet leaders consider that it is best not to have any monopolies in the field of secret warfare. Competition, they feel, gives far better results than ration."

"…Osnaz apparently came into being practically at the same time as the Communist dictatorship. In the very first moments of the existence of the Soviet regime, we find references to detachments osobogo nazhacheniya-special purpose detachments. Osnaz means military-terrorist units, which came into being as shock troops of the Communist Party whose job was to defend the party. Osnaz was later handed over to the secret police, which changed its own name from time to time as easily as a snake changes its skins: Cheka-Vcheka-OGPU-NKVD-NKGB-MGB-MVD-KGB. Once a snake, however, always a snake."

"It is the fact that Spetsnaz belongs to the army, and Osnaz to the secret police, that accounts for all the differences between them. Spetsnaz operates mainly against external enemies; Osnaz does the same but mainly in its own territory and against its own citizens. Even if both Spetsnaz and Osnaz are faced with carrying out one and the same operation, the Soviet leadership is not inclined to rely so much on co-operation between the army and the secret police as on the strong competitive instincts between them."

"…Thus if it is relatively easy to recruit a man to act as a 'sleeper', what about recruiting a foreigner to act as a real terrorist, prepared to commit murder, use explosives and fire buildings? Surely that is much more difficult? The answer is that, surprisingly, it is not."

"A Spetsnaz officer out to recruit agents for direct terrorist action has a wonderful base for his work in the West. There are a tremendous number of people who are discontented and ready to protest against absolutely anything. And while millions protest peacefully, some individuals will resort to any means to make their protest. The spetsnaz officer has only to find the malcontent who is ready to go to extremes."

"On another occasion a group of animal rights activists in the UK injected bars of chocolate with poison. If spetsnaz were able to contact that group, and there is every chance it might, it would be extremely keen (without, of course, mentioning its name) to suggest to them a number of even more effective ways of protesting. Activists, radicals, peace campaigners, green party members: as far as the leaders of the GRU are concerned, these are like ripe water-melons, green on the outside, but red on the inside-and mouth-watering. So there is a good base for recruiting."

"The spetsnaz network of agents has much in common with international terrorism, a common center, for example-yet they are different things and must not be confused. It would be foolhardy to claim that international terrorism came into being on orders from Moscow. But to claim that, without Moscow's support, international terrorism would never have assumed the scale it has would not be rash. Terrorism has been born in a variety of situations, in various circumstances and in different kinds of soil. Local nationalism has always been a potent source, and the Soviet Union supports it in any form, just as it offers concrete support to extremist groups operating within nationalist movements. Exceptions are made, of course, of the nationalist groups within the Soviet Union and the countries under its influence."

"If groups of extremists emerge in areas where there is no sure Soviet influence, you may be sure that the Soviet Union will very shortly be their best friend. In the GRU alone there are two independent and very powerful bodies dealing with questions relating to extremists and terrorists."

"…The GRU's tactics toward terrorists are simple: never give them any orders, never tell them what to do. They are destroying Western civilization: they know how to do it, the argument goes, so let them get on with it unfettered by petty supervision. Among them there are idealists ready to die for their own ideas. So let them die for them. The most important thing is to preserve their illusion that they are completely free and independent."

"Although the vast majority of spetsnaz is made up of Slavonic personnel, there are some exceptions…And spetsnaz contains Turks, Kurds, Greeks, Koreans, Mongolians, Finns and people of other nationalities."

"The Soviet Union condemns the civil war in Lebanon. But there is no need for it to condemn the war. All it has to do is hold back the next transportation of ammunition and war will cease."

"Apart from military and financial support, the Soviet Union also provides the terrorists aid in the form of training. Training centers have been set up in the Soviet Union for training terrorists from a number of different countries."

"Every terrorist is studied carefully during his training, and among them will be noted the potential leaders and the born rebels who will not submit to any authority…Of equal importance are the students' weaknesses and ambitions, and their relationships with one another. Some time, many years ahead, one of them may become an important leader, but not one approved by Moscow, so it is vital to know in advance who his likely friends and enemies will be."

"The reward for the GRU is that a terrorist doing work for spetsnaz does not, in the great majority of cases, suspect he is being used. He is utterly convinced that he is acting independently, of his own will and by his own choice. The GRU does not leave its signature or his fingerprints around."

"Even in cases where it is not a question of individual terrorists but of experienced leaders of terrorist organizations, the GRU takes extraordinary steps to ensure that not only all outsiders but even the terrorist leader himself should not realize the extent of his subordination to spetsnaz and consequently to the GRU."

"The overture is a series of large and small operations the purpose of which is, before actual military operations begin, to weaken the enemy's morale, create an atmosphere of general suspicion, fear and uncertainty, and divert the attention of the enemy's armies and police forces to a huge number of different targets, each of which may be the object of the next attack."

"The overture is carried by agents of the secret services of the Soviet satellite countries and by mercenaries recruited by intermediaries. The principal method employed at this stage is "gray terror", that is, a kind of terror which is not conducted in the name of the Soviet Union. The Soviet secret services do not at this stage leave their visiting cards, or leave other people's cards. The terror is carried out in the name of already existing extremist groups not connected in any way with the Soviet Union, or in the name of the fictitious organizations. The GRU reckons that in this period its operations should be regarded as natural disasters, actions by forces beyond human control, mistakes by people, or as terrorist acts by organizations not connected with the Soviet Union."

"The terrorist acts carried out in the course of the 'overture' require very few people, very few weapons and little equipment. In some cases all that may be needed is one man who has a weapon nothing more than a screwdriver, a box of marches or a glass ampoule. Some of the operations can have catastrophic consequences. For example, an epidemic of an infectious disease at seven of the most important naval bases in the West could have the effect of halving the combined naval might of the Soviet Union's enemies."

"There is a marked increase in the strength of the peace movement. In many countries there are continual demand to make the country neutral and not to support American foreign policy, which has been discredited. At this point the 'gray terror' gathers scope and strength and in the last days of peace reaches its peak."

Source: http://www.globalpolitician.com/arti...9&cid=4&sid=33

[Armenian]

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

Russian bombers to test-fire missiles in Bay of Biscay

Russia has sent two long-range bombers to the Bay of Biscay, off the French and Spanish Atlantic coasts, to test-fire missiles in what Moscow billed as its biggest naval exercise in the area since the Soviet era. Firing missiles off the coastline of two Nato members is the latest in a series of Kremlin moves flexing Moscow’s military muscle on the world stage. Russian bombers joined aircraft carriers, battleships and submarine hunters from the Northern and Black Sea fleets for the Atlantic exercises, which come as the country enters an election campaign to choose a successor to President Putin.

“The air force is taking a very active part in the exercises of the navy’s strike force in the Atlantic,” the Russian air force said in a statement reported by Reuters. “Today, two strategic Tu-160 bombers departed for exercises in the Bay of Biscay, which ... will carry out a number of missions and will conduct tactical missile launches."

There was no immediate comment from Nato about the exercise. Mr Putin has used military manoeuvres, including controversial North Sea overflights, to revive domestic and international respect for Russia’s armed forces which were shattered by the chaos of the 1990s. He has also boosted military spending, renewed long-range bomber missions and approved a plan to upgrade Russia’s nuclear attack forces, which he said was needed after Nato built up its forces close to Russia’s borders. But some analysts note that while the sabre-rattling is popular at home, Russian military spending in absolute terms is substantially lower than that of China, Britain or France and less than a tenth of that of the United States.

Discipline is also still a major problem for Russia’s armed forces, which rely heavily on conscripts and outdated equipment. Russia last month said it would begin major navy sorties into the Mediterranean, with 11 ships backed up by 47 aircraft, that would then travel to the Atlantic for exercises. The navy’s flagship aircraft carrier, the Soviet-made Admiral Kuznetsov, was leading the fleet in the Atlantic where Nato were trying to keep a close eye on Russian movements, Russian media reported. “This is the biggest exercise of its kind in the area since Soviet times,” a spokesman for Russia’s navy said, adding that more details would be released later. There was no further information about where in the Bay of Biscay, which lies off the west coast of France and the northern coast of Spain, the missile tests were due to take place.

Russia’s air force said turbo-prop Tupolev Tu-95 strategic bombers, codenamed “Bear” by Nato, would join ATO, would join the exercise on Wednesday “From January 23, the aviation component in the zone where the exercises are going on will be widened and the following planes will take part: Tu-160, Tu-95, Tu-22 M3, Il-78, A-50,”, the air force said.

Source: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3230615.ece

Russia to deploy second S-400 regiment near Moscow in 2008

Russia will deploy a second regiment equipped with new S-400 air defense systems at the end of 2008, a missile defense official said on Monday. The new systems will protect the air space around Moscow and industrial zones in the center of the country's European part. The S-400 Triumf (SA-21 Growler) air defense system is expected to form the new cornerstone of Russia's theater air and missile defenses up to 2020 or even 2025. "We are planning to put a second S-400 regiment on combat duty in the Moscow Region by the end of 2008," said Colonel-General Yuri Solovyov, the head of the Russian Air Force Special Command. Russia successfully conducted last year live firing tests of the S-400 air defense complex at the Kapustin Yar firing range in south Russia's Astrakhan Region, and deployed a battalion of the first missile regiment equipped with the new system to protect the airspace surrounding Moscow. The S-400 is designed to intercept and destroy airborne targets at a distance of up to 400 kilometers (250 miles), twice the range of the U.S. MIM-104 Patriot, and 2.5 times that of the S-300PMU-2. The system is also believed to have high capability to destroy stealth aircraft, cruise missiles, and ballistic missiles, with an effective range of up to 3,500 kilometers (2,200 miles) and a speed of up to 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) per second. Solovyov said that in addition to new surface-to-air missiles already in service, S-400 systems must have anti-ballistic missiles that can be used to destroy targets in near space, which would allow full use of the system's capabilities. A regular S-400 battalion comprises at least eight launchers with 32 missiles and a mobile command post, according to various sources. The new state arms procurement program until 2015 stipulates the purchase of at least 18 S-400 battalions during this period. The Russian Air Force Special Command currently provides air defense for 140 strategic sites in 13 regions of central Russia, including administrative, industrial, and transportation facilities, and nuclear power stations.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080121/97447013.html

Russian Navy uses supersonic cruise missile to hit test target

The flagship of Russia's Black Sea Fleet has effectively engaged a designated target with a supersonic cruise missile as part of a Navy exercise in the northern Atlantic, a Navy spokesman said Tuesday. The Moskva guided-missile cruiser launched the P-500 Bazalt (NATO reporting name SS-N-12 Sandbox), a liquid-propellant supersonic cruise missile, last used in 2003. The P-500 Bazalt, which entered service in 1973, has a 550 km range and a payload of 1,000 kg, enabling it to carry a 350 kT nuclear or a 950kg semi-armor-piercing high explosive warhead. A Joint Naval Task Force, comprising the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, the Udaloy-Class destroyers Admiral Levchenko and Admiral Chabanenko, as well as auxiliary vessels, is currently on a two-month tour of duty in the Mediterranean Sea and the North Atlantic. "The missile system used for launches has no match in performance terms," Capt. 1st Rank Igor Dygalo, an aide to the Navy commander, said Monday. Russian warships will also practice interoperability with naval aviation and strategic bombers for several days. The operation is the first large-scale Russian Navy exercise in the Atlantic for 15 years. All the warships and aircraft involved are carrying full combat ammunition loads, the Navy said. Vice-Admiral Nikolai Maksimov, commander of Russia's Northern Fleet who is heading the task force, earlier said that the current tour of duty to the Mediterranean, which started on December 5, was aimed at ensuring Russia's naval presence "in key operational areas of the world's oceans" and establishing conditions for secure Russian maritime navigation.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080122/97520307.html

Russian military to purchase 10-15 Mi-28N helicopters per year

Russia's Defense Ministry is planning to purchase at least 10-15 Mi-28N Night Hunter attack helicopters every year until 2015, a ministry official said on Tuesday. The Mi-28N is the latest variant of the Mi-28 attack helicopter, manufactured by the Rostvertol plant in southern Russia. It has been designed to conduct hunter-killer missions against enemy main battle tanks, helicopters, ground forces and armored equipment day or night in adverse weather conditions. "The [Mi-28N] procurement program will last until 2015. In the next few years, we are planning to purchase 10-15 helicopters per year, and later increase annual orders," said Gen. Nikolai Makarov, chief of Armament for the Russian Armed Forces. Russia's Defense Ministry is planning to purchase at least 45-50 Mi-28N Night Hunter attack helicopters until 2010, and to fully replace the Mi-24 Hind choppers in the armed forces by 2015. Rosvertol launched mass production of the Mi-28N helicopters last year. On Tuesday, the first two mass-produced Mi-28N were transferred to the Russian Air Force by the manufacturer. They will be deployed at a training center in the Tver Region (Central Russia). The Night Hunter is powered by two TV3-117VMA turbo-shaft engines developing 2,200-shp each. The armored xxxxpit protects the crew from small arms fire and absorbs the impact energy during emergency landings, ensuring outstanding survivability. Its combat range with internal fuel tanks is 450 kilometers (about 280 miles), but with external fuel tanks may be extended to 1,100 km (about 680 miles). Meanwhile, Rosvertol general director, Boris Slyusar, said his company was ready to start deliveries of Mi-28N helicopters to Venezuela as early as in the second half of 2009, if the Latin American country signs a contract with Russia. "We have an official request from Venezuela, but it is too early to talk about the number of aircraft to be delivered and the timeframe until a contract is signed," Slyusar said. "Other than that, we are ready to start deliveries in the second half of 2009." Russia may also sell the Night Hunter to China, Algeria and some other countries.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080122/97530653.html

[Armenian]

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

A Modernizing Czar

Vladimir Putin can take great satisfaction with the legacy he will leave his successor this spring. In 2007, he achieved the goal he set out for himself eight years ago in a document, "Russia at the Turn of the Millennium," just before he took the presidency from ailing Boris Yeltsin: To rebuild Russia at home so that it could regain its status as a great power abroad. Last year saw this Russia on full view, playing a more vocal, visible and at times troublesome role on issues of great importance to Europe and the United States, such as Iran, the Middle East, missile defense, and energy.

Many may find President Putin's methods unsavory and Russia's new face disturbing. But we should give him his due, for the odds against success were formidable. Consider the Russia he inherited. Under President Yeltsin, Russia suffered a socio-economic and political collapse unprecedented for a major power not defeated in a major war. Between 1990-1998, the economy plunged by 40%. The state was dysfunctional, with significant parts privatized by corrupt oligarchs and with regional barons asserting their independence. Russia was humiliated as its finances were run out of Washington by the International Monetary Fund, and outside powers shamelessly interfered in Russia's domestic affairs in support of Yeltsin. Many Russians thought their country was on the path to becoming a failed state; many Westerners were contemplating a world without Russia.

Eight years later, the difference is stark. Mr. Putin has restored Russian pride and enhanced Russia's power. The economy has not only recovered all the ground it lost in the 1990s, but has also developed a robust service sector that was practically non-existent in the Soviet period. Russia has accumulated the third largest monetary reserves in the world after China and Japan. Mr. Putin has rebuilt an authoritative state along traditional Russian lines, highly centralized and personalized, by taming the oligarchs and regional barons and undermining alternative centers of power such as the Duma and the media. Russia is stable; living standards are soaring. It is once again feared and respected abroad. No wonder Mr. Putin is wildly popular among Russians, who now look to the future with greater optimism and confidence than ever over the past two decades.

To be sure, President Putin has been lucky -- lucky that he succeeded a decrepit Yeltsin, lucky that oil prices rose sharply on his watch, lucky that political disarray in Europe and the United States made him shine all the brighter on the world stage. But other leaders have failed to capitalize on such luck. One need look no further than to Leonid Brezhnev, who squandered a similar opportunity in the 1970's and instead prepared the ground for the Soviet Union's collapse in the 1980's. And there were many opportunities for Mr. Putin to falter. Without remarkable macroeconomic discipline, for example, the flood of petrodollars into Russia could have unleashed a devastating inflationary spiral and not the solid growth we have seen.

The time of restoration has now passed, however, and 2008 brings a new, more formidable challenge -- modernization -- that will require new approaches, particularly with the West. Russia needs to make massive investments -- perhaps a trillion dollars over the next decade -- to modernize infrastructure largely inherited from the Soviet Union and starved of funds over the past 15 years. It needs to diversify its economy away from an overlarge dependence on natural resources, particularly into high-tech, if it wants to remain a major power. It needs to rebuild its public health and education systems to produce a competitive workforce. This is all the more imperative because its population will decline sharply over the next decade because of poor health conditions in the past.

Mr. Putin and his entourage have spoken openly about these challenges. The question is whether they are prepared to take the steps needed to address them effectively. Success is threatened by the traditional Russian blight of corruption. Critical to dealing with that threat is to open up the political system to encourage greater transparency and accountability by government officials. Relaxing the current supercentralization will help foster the flow of reliable information, flexibility and innovation that Russia needs to face the challenges and exploit the opportunities of the 21st century.

Success will also require Russia to repair its relations with the West -- to begin with by ratcheting down the vitriolic anti-Western rhetoric coming out of Moscow today. For Russia cannot modernize itself on its own, even if it must play the leading role. The money, know-how and technology it needs can only be found in the West. And Russia cannot guarantee its security at a time of great global upheaval without friends and allies. Only one country has the capability to work with Russia on the full range of its real security challenges, which do not lie in the West but to the South in the guise of a militant radical Islam, to the East in the guise of a rapidly changing geopolitical environment, and globally in the guise of nuclear proliferation and megaterrorism. That country is the United States.

So one big question for 2008 is whether Mr. Putin and his chosen successor, Dimitry Medvedev, can summon up the wisdom to meet the challenges of economic and political modernization and the courage and confidence to build a cooperative relationship with the West, for the sake of Russia's own future.

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

[Armenian]

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

Russia-Armenia trade up 63% in 2007

Trade between Russia and Armenia grew by an estimated 63% year-on-year in 2007, the Russian transportation minister said on Monday. Igor Levitin who co-chairs the Russian-Armenian intergovernmental commission, participated in the opening of a business forum earlier in the day in Yerevan, organized by both countries. "According to our figures, bilateral commodity trade is growing by an annual rate of more than 50%," Levitin said, adding that in 2006 the figure had risen by 70%. Levitin said Russia invested a total of $1 billion in Armenia's economy from 1991 to 2007, with most of the funds going to the banking sector, communications, information technology, transport, chemicals and mining. The minister said Russia's investment in the ex-Soviet state's economy was set to double in the next few years. Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisyan who represents Armenia on the intergovernmental commission, said Russia's investment accounted for a third of total accrued investment in the Armenian economy. However, opposition leader Artur Bagdasaryan, presenting his campaign program for the upcoming presidential election, said he saw Armenia's political future in joining the European Union. "I see Armenia's future within the EU. This means that our foreign policy should prioritize profound reforms in the country so that one day Armenia can become a full-fledged EU member," the leader of the opposition party Orinats Yerkir (Rule of Law) said.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080121/97433124.html

RUSSIAN INVESTMENTS IN ARMENIA ARE SIGNIFICANT

Today RA Prime Minister, Co-Chair of the Armenian-Russian Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation Serzh Sarkissian had a meeting with the Co-Chair of the Commission, Russian Minister of Transport Igor Levitin. During the meeting the parties discussed a broad circle of questions related to the further development of economic cooperation. At the end of the meeting Serzh Sarkissian and Igor Levitin signed a Protocol on the meeting of the Co-Chairs of the Armenian-Russian Intergovernmental Commission on Economic Cooperation. Later Serzh Sarkissian and Igor Levitin participated in the sitting of the Armenian-Russian Commission on Economic Cooperation. “In 2007 Russian investments in Armenia exceed one milliard USD. They form one third of foreign investments. There are 852 Russian enterprises in Armenia. I assure you that the figures are serious for a country like Armenia,” The Armenian Premier said.

Source: http://www.a1plus.am/en/?page=issue&iid=56526

PROPOSED TO CREAT ARMENIAN-RUSSIAN BUSINESS COUNCIL

Ara Abrahamyan, the president of Russian Armenians Union offered to create Armenian-Russian business council which members of government and businessmen could join to. The council should establish its office both in Armenia and Moscow and it should inform both sides about the investment conditions, projects and their preliminary stage too. According to Abrahamyan the council could contribute to the development of small and big business in the country and create new jobs. He also mentioned that it is important to found conditions for the capital investments in both countries. Abrahamyan said that the participation of Armenian Diaspora in the project could be of great importance. The Minister of Trade and Economic Development N. Eritsyan said that if they manage to create strengthened business communication, then Armenian economy will be penetrated by huge investment programs.

Source: http://www.panorama.am/en/economy/2008/01/21/sar/

Russian gas exports to Armenia up 20 percent

Armenia imported 2.054 billion cubic meters of natural gas in 2007, reports the news agency Regnum, up 19.7 percent over 2006. Gas company ArmRosGazprom reported that domestic consumption was up 17.9 percent to 1.9 billion cubic meters. Last year, homes fired up 532 million cubic meters of gas, nearly a third more than they did in 2006. Industry accounted for another 406 million cubic meters, a 17.5 percent increase in its use. ArmRosGazprom, which Russia’s Gazprom holds a controlling stake in, is the sole provider of natural gas for Armenia.

Source: http://www.messenger.com.ge/issues/1...econ_four.html

[HayotzAmrotz]

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

http://president.kremlin.ru/eng/

[Armenian]

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

More shock and awe from Moscow. A very significant development occurred today. According to various news reports coming out today, Russian energy giant Gazprom is said to have taken effective control over Serbia's national oil monopoly, NIS, by purchasing 51 percent of its shares. This comes only several days after the Burgas-Alexandroupolis pipeline deal was finalized between Russia and Bulgaria, and is yet another severe blow to western plans in the region. As a result, the much heralded "Nabucco" project is dying a slow and agonizing death. Undoubtedly, these developments will have a direct impact on a wide range of geopolitical issues in the Balkans, specifically issues regarding the political status of Kosovo. Nevertheless, Gazprom continues to be, without a doubt, Russia's main weapon of mass - acquisition.

Armenian

*************************************************

Russia’s Gazprom Takes Control of Serbian Oil Monopoly

Tomislav Nikolic: West should respect our will: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8eR8b...&oe=UTF-8&hl=e

Russia added Serbia’s oil monopoly to its recent string of energy acquisitions in a deal that will also allow Moscow to send more natural gas to Europe through its South Stream pipeline, it was announced Tuesday. Four days after signing a major pipeline deal with Bulgaria, the Russian state-owned energy giant Gazprom agreed to take a 51 percent stake in NIS, the Serbian state-owned oil company. The purchase was announced in a statement by the Serbian government.

The deal was yet another blow to the European Union’s ambitions to build its own 2,000-mile pipline to bring gas to Europe from Iran and Azerbaijan via Turkey, analysts said. The E.U.’s Nabucco pipeline project was conceived to allow Europe to reduce its dependence on Russia, which already supplies a quarter of the bloc’s natural gas. Nabucco has been dogged by logistical delays, lack of political will and disputes over financing, the analysts said. “As regards the deal between Russia and Serbia, we can blame the E.U. for some of this,” said Borut Grgic, an energy expert and director of the Institute for Strategic Studies in Ljubljana, Slovenia. “In all its negotiations with Serbia when dealing with the future status of Kosovo, the E.U. never brought up with Serbia the issue of energy security and how Serbia could play an important role for Europe,” he added.

Gazprom has taken advantage of the disarray inside the European Union by forging ahead with its own contracts with Italy, Bulgaria, Hungary and now Serbia, as it consolidates its presence in southeastern Europe. Under terms of the provisional agreement, approved Tuesday by Serbia’s cabinet, Gazprom has offered to pay $600 million for a 51 percent stake in NIS, with pledges to turn Serbia into a hub for Russian energy. The contract is to be signed Friday in Moscow. Gazprom will also commit investments of around $725 million toward modernizing Serbia’s energy infrastructure. In addition, a spur from the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea will be directed into Serbia, enhancing its role as a transit point for Russian gas.

The Russian deal coincides with a fiercely contested presidential election that has focused on plans by the United States and the European Union to recognize the independence of the province of Kosovo despite opposition from most Serbian political parties and Russia, Serbia’s closest ally on the issue. The ultranationalist candidate, Tomislav Nikolic, won the most votes during the first round of voting last Sunday but not enough to secure outright victory. His pro-Western challenger, Boris Tadic, also opposes Kosovo’s independence but has refused to support sanctions against countries that recognize Kosovo’s statehood. The two candidates face a run-off in two weeks. Given the political context, analysts said, there was a linkage between the energy deal and the presidential elections.

“If a pro-Western candidate were to win the election, the deal with Russia might not be signed,” said an E.U. energy expert who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue. “There was no need to rush through the NIS deal, but the cabinet did it Tuesday.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/23/wo...html?ref=world

Serbian PM praises oil and gas agreement with Gazprom

The joint construction of a stretch of a natural gas pipeline with Russia's Gazprom under the South Stream project will turn Serbia into a regional economic leader, Serbia's prime minister said on Tuesday. The Serbian government approved on Tuesday an international agreement on cooperation with Russia in the oil and gas sector, which includes the sale of a majority stake in state-owned Serbian oil monopoly Naftna Industrija Srbije (NIS) to Russia's Gazprom, the development of Serbia's natural gas transportation system under the South Stream project, and an increase in the capacity of underground gas storage in Serbia. The agreement is expected to be signed on January 25 in Moscow.

Gazprom offered $580m for NIS last month, and the European Union subsequently urged Serbia to make sure its interests were "objective." The mooted deal again raised fears in Europe over perceived growing energy dependence on Russia. Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica said that after the agreement is signed Serbia will become more stable and will "turn into an energy leader in the region." The South Stream pipeline proposed by Russia's Gazprom and Italy's Eni is a rival project to the Nabucco pipeline backed by the European Union and United States, which will pump Central Asian gas to Europe via Turkey bypassing Russia. The pipeline will run from Russia's Black Sea coast under the sea to Bulgaria, where it will branch off to different destinations in the European Union, supplying 30 billion cubic meters of gas annually.

In the fall of last year a delegation from Gazprom visited Serbia, where company's CEO Alexei Miller voiced the gas giant's intention to bid for a stake in the state-run NIS after meeting with Serbian President Boris Tadic and Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica. Serbia initially planned to sell a 25% stake in NIS for $300 million and oblige the buyer to invest another $250 million in the development of the company. The company is estimated as being worth $1.2 billion. In December 2006, Gazprom, the Serb government, and Serbia's state-run Srbijagas signed a memorandum of understanding, expressing their interest in the construction of a new natural gas pipeline through the Balkan country's territory to ensure uninterrupted gas supplies to European countries.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20080122/97551077.html

The Belgrade Battle

Russian gas will be a crucial factor in the Serbian presidential election
Serbia’s government on Tuesday gave the green light to a gas deal with Russia for Gazprom to buy Serbia’s largest oil and gas firm NIS and gain a more solid foothold in the Balkans. But the biggest deal between the two countries could be put in jeopardy if Serbian nationalist Tomislav Nikolic wins the presidential election on February 3. Kommersant sources report that Moscow is determined to try to influence the election campaign in Serbia to make sure incumbent president Boris Tadic stays in power.

Gazprom’s Balkan Campaign

The Serbian government empowered Infrastructure Minister Velimir Ilic to sign the draft gas deal. “The agreement is going to be signed in Moscow on January 25, and this is by far the best news for Serbian businessmen and our people,” Mr. Ilic said in an interview with Belgrade’s B92 radio. A Kommersant source familiar with the course of talks said that Industry and Energy Minister Viktor Khristenko would sign the deal as representative of the Russian party. The agreement will be carried out by Gazprom. Once the agreement is signed, Gazprom Neft and the Serbian government will enter talks on the terms of sale and further development of state-owned Naftna Industrija Srbije (NIS), Gazprom Export and state-owned Srbijagas on the construction of the gas pipeline and the purchase of underground gas storages in the town of Banatski Dvor, the Serbian government said in a statement. Mr. Ilic added that Tuesday’s session of the government did not discuss the money aspect of the deal but said that it would be agreed at talks of a working group of the Serbian government and Russia before the deal is signed.

Gazprom Neft would not elaborate on the terms of the deal but said that talks are still on. The company’s Vice-President Alexander Dybal told Kommersant that confidentiality is Serbia’s requirement for the deal. NIS owns oil refineries in Pancevo and Novi Sad with the total capacity of 7.3 million tons and two chains of gas stations which account for 72 percent of the country’s retail and wholesale market. The Serbian federal budget draws 20 percent of it from NIS’s taxes. NIS’s assets were estimated to be worth $1.9 billion at the end of 2007. Underground gas storage facilities in Banatski Dvor, which are situated 40 kilometers away from the Romanian border, are the only in the country and has the capacity of 800 million cu. meters. Serbia’s government is selling to Gazprom Neft a controlling stake in NIS without mapping out any conditions. In November, Gazprom offered to buy 51 percent in NIS for €400 million and giving investment obligations worth €500 million. A Kommersant source close to the talks confirmed that the deal would mentioned these figures but “Gazprom will improve the terms offering additional extras”. Another €1 billion is to be invested in the construction of the gas pipeline and underground storages, according to the source.

The fact that Serbia accepted Gazprom’s offer destroys plans to privatize NIS in a tender, which was announced two years ago. Initial terms of the tender for NIS mentioned the sale of the controlling stake to a strategic investor with a gradual increase of the share up to 49 percent as capital investments will be proceeding. The prospect of having no control in the company put off Russia’s LUKOIL and Rosneft from bidding at the tender. The sale of the company to Gazprom without the tender enraged Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kosnutica’s political opponents. Economics Minister Mladjan Dinkic said that a tender would have outbid Russia’s price for NIS five- or even eight-fold. The signing of the package of deals with Serbia means that the route of the South Stream pipeline is finally settled. Gazprom Export CEO Alexander Medvedev said in an interview with Serbian journalists last week that there are two possible routes for the pipeline. It could go from Bulgaria to Serbia, Hungary and then to Austria till the terminal of Baumgarten or from Bulgaria to Romania and Hungary.

Valery Nesterov from investment firm Troika Dialog lauded Gazprom’s deal in Serbia as energy assets in Central and Western Europe as such are hard to buy for Russian companies. “After many futile attempts of Gazprom to buy assets in Hungary and Romania this is the first big success which was achieved due to Russia’s package deal,” the analyst said. He believes that the package was less expensive for the Russian gas monopolist than $2.7 billion that Kazmunaigaz paid for 75 percent in Rompetrol. However, Mr. Nesterov would not compare the deals directly since Kazmunaigaz paid a market premium for the breakthrough to the European market and expresses interest in increasing its holding to 100 percent. Valery Nesterov believes that Gazprom Neft will stop at the controlling stake.

“Even if we forget about the price, it is a profitable purchase give a high profitability of oil refining,” said Konstantin Reznikov from Dresdner Kleinwort. He also noted that Gazprom Neft has quite enough of refining capacity. Gazprom Neft and its share in Slavneft are able to refine up to 80 percent of oil it produces. But Kommersant’s source in Gazprom said that new refineries would be very important for Gazprom Neft given the ownership of Tomskneft. Mr. Reznikov adds that like LUKOIL Gazprom Neft is going to have to face the need of modernizing the old factories in Eastern Europe, which, however, does not make the deal less lucrative. Gazprom Neft will soon audit units of NIS to estimate the amount of investments and time for the reconstruction and modernization of the plan, a source in Gazprom said.

Moscow’s Serbian Card

However, the implementation of the biggest energy deal in Russian-Serbian cooperation could be put in jeopardy due to the volatile situation in Serbia. Sunday’s presidential election did name the next Serbian leader. The leader of the Serbian Radical Party Tomislav Nikolic mustered 39 percent of the vote while EU-leaning incumbent leader Boris Tadic came in second with 35 to make up the run-off on February 3. Following the poll, the third candidate and Economics Minister Velimir Ilic lashed out at Boris Tadic saying he wished Mr. Tadic would lose in the run-off. Some analysts in Belgrade considered it as a sign that Boris Tadic would not get Prime Minister Kostunica’s support either. The 7.6 percent that Velimir Ilic got in the Sunday poll would go to Tomislav Nikolic to give him a safe win. Analysts agree that the Vojislav Kostunica’s opinion would give a crucial lead to either of the candidates in the run-off. Earlier Mr. Kostunica supported Velimir Ilic.

The result of the poll would define the country’s course after the unavoidable loss of Kosovo as its independence is now a matter of several weeks. Although both Boris Tadic and Tomislav Nikolic are strongly against Kosovo’s independence, their views differ on what Belgrade should do after Europe and the United States recognize Kosovo. Boris Tadic is not going to compromise Serbia’s European choice in any ways and is likely to refrain from harsh rhetoric and demarches while Tomislav Nikolic threatens to break relations with every country that recognizes Kosovo. It means that Tomislav Nikolic’s victory on February 3 would mean a break-up with leading Western nations and isolation for Serbia to turn it into a new Balkan rogue nation.

Source: http://www.kommersant.com/p844610/r_...a_Gazprom_NIS/

[Armenian]

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

Russia's top diplomat Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov gave an important news conference today where he addressed various geopolitical matters around the world. I have posted some additional articles about the very influential Russian Foreign Minister - who happens to be half-Armenian.

Armenian

************************************************** ********

Russia's Lavrov addresses Gaza, Kosovo, other disputes

News conference with Russia's Foreign Minister (Russia Today): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r68j8...U8/default.jpg

Reviewing Russia's 2007 foreign policy activities, the country's top diplomat mentioned on Wednesday the ongoing Gaza crisis, a deadlock in the Kosovo dispute, strains in relations with NATO and other sensitive issues. Sergei Lavrov said Moscow condemned Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip, which Tel Aviv said was aimed at stopping rocket attacks from the Palestinian enclave, while also criticizing the radical Islamic group Hamas that controls the territory. The blockade was eased slightly on Tuesday to allow some fuel and medicines through. "We condemn attempts to blockade the [Gaza] Strip, which will bring nothing but new suffering to the already impoverished residents of Gaza," Lavrov told a news conference describing daily rocket attacks on Israel as "disproportionate retaliatory measures."

He said Russia favored the "restoration of Palestinian unity," which should be recognized by the entire international community, including Israel, on the basis of agreements reached through the mediation of the Saudi king last year, and on the basis of the Arab Peace Initiative. Speaking on Kosovo, Lavrov denied that Russia would recognize breakaway regions in the ex-Soviet republic of Georgia if Serbia's Albanian dominated province was declared a sovereign state, saying that "nothing could be further from a true understanding of Russia's stance." However, Lavrov said "a precedent will be created not because we want it but because it will be objectively created ... If someone is permitted to do something, many others will expect similar treatment." Kosovo, whose desire for independence has been backed by the West, could declare sovereignty unilaterally in the near future. Moscow has said Kosovo will never be a fully legitimate state, and that it would not support an "immoral" declaration of independence by Kosovo.

Russia's NATO concerns

The minister again highlighted Russian concerns about NATO's expansion, which he said was aimed at building up the alliance's military potential around Russian borders rather than strengthening European security. "We are certain that the geographical expansion of NATO cannot be justified by security concerns," Lavrov said, adding that new members of the alliance were continuing to increase their defense budgets. Washington's plans to deploy missile defense elements in Central Europe have further unnerved Moscow. Russia's cooperation with the alliance was also overshadowed by the bloc's refusal to ratify an updated version of the Soviet-era Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, and Moscow's subsequent moratorium on the arms reductions treaty.

British Council row

Addressing the closure of the British Council's regional offices in Russia - the latest row between Moscow and London, whose relations have been strained by a host of issues linked to the murder of former Russian security agent Alexander Litvinenko in London in 2006 - Lavrov blasted European Union presidency holder Slovenia's assessment of the dispute. "We were astonished by Slovenia's statement, which is based on a simplified and distorted interpretation of the situation," he said. Russia says the offices were ordered to close because the organization is operating in Russia without proper legal status. The British government's cultural arm insists the clampdown on its activities is politically motivated. Earlier, Russia had hinted that the British Council row could be resolved should Britain resume cooperation with the FSB and work on visa simplification.

Chechnya

Asked why entry to Chechnya remained closed for foreign journalists, Lavrov said trips to the troubled North Caucasus republic were still unsafe although the situation had improved in the region. "...there remain certain [criminals]... who are attempting to turn back the pages of history. They will certainly fail, but they can cause a lot of damage," he said. Moscow has substantially scaled down its military presence in the republic since two anti-separatist campaigns in the mid-1990s and early 2000s, but sporadic attacks on pro-Kremlin authorities and police and clashes between militants and troops still occur in Chechnya and nearby republics, notably Ingushetia.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080123/97610097.html

From Russia With Love?: Foreign Minister’s visit an opportunity for assessment

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov was on an official visit to Yerevan the past two days. His first visit to Armenia fell on the historical stage when pro-Western sentiments not traditional for the overwhelming majority of Armenians are on the rise in the public and political life of the republic. The first time these sentiments made themselves felt as a special internal political factor was during the latest presidential elections in 2003. However, now there are a dozen political and public organizations in the republic demonstratively stating the need for Armenia’s new orientation towards the West and NATO. Never before have such sentiments made themselves felt so strongly in Armenia.

On the day of the Russian minister’s arrival in Yerevan, the leader of the Liberal-Progressive Party of Armenia (LPPA) Hovhannes Hovhannisyan called a press conference during which he stated: “Armenia’s security is in NATO, since Armenia’s strategic partner, Russia, proceeding from its interests, may change its position towards Yerevan at any moment. Revolutions in the post-Soviet space are unavoidable in the next year or two. There will be a revolution in Armenia too.” Representatives of other opposition parties also speak about the need to reorient Armenia’s foreign policy towards the West.

“It is remarkable that while new pro-Western political structures have already been formed in Armenia, no party openly propagandizing the Russian vector of foreign policy has appeared in the country yet,” Vardan Mkhitaryan, a historian and researcher at the Chair of the History of the Armenian People of the Yerevan State University, said in this connection. Meanwhile, the political structures traditionally inclined towards boosted Armenian-Russian relations for their part accentuate attention on the insufficient level of development of these ties. What is particularly pointed out is Russia’s neutral, at best, position on Nagorno Karabakh, which, in the opinion of Armenian parties cannot correspond to the officially declared level of strategic relationship. According to political analysts, also symptomatic is the fact that while 2005 is declared the Year of Russia in Armenia, in Russia this year is determined as the Year of Azerbaijan. This was stated in Moscow by President Vladimir Putin and President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan on the same day Lavrov arrived in Yerevan.

“What is striking in this connection is that the visits of high-ranking Russian officials to Armenia, as a rule, are chronologically replaced by equally ‘high-level’ meetings already on the plane of Russian-Azeri ties,” says Mkhitaryan. “The visit of the Russian Foreign Minister to Yerevan is not an exception: on February 16-17 Putin and Aliyev discussed the Karabakh settlement in Moscow.” The presidents of Russia and Azerbaijan met four times in 2004, while Putin and Armenian President Robert Kocharyan had two meetings. A total of 17 government delegation of the Russian Federation visited Baku during last year, and the commodity turnover between Russia and Azerbaijan increased by 60% and made $735 million. During the same period, the commodity turnover between Russia and Armenia grew by 12.9% and made $266.2 million.

But the greatest annoyance in Armenia is caused by the position repeatedly voiced by the Kremlin about Russia’s support for Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. In August of last year Lavrov himself told an AzerTaj’s correspondent: “Russia has been supporting consistently and in full measure the principle of territorial integrity. This applies to Azerbaijan as well.” Nevertheless, the recent visit of Russia’s foreign minister to Baku deserves special attention. Answering on February 2 the question of an Azeri journalist about Russia’s priorities in the principles of “territorial integrity” and “the right of nations to self-determination”, Lavrov said: “One should not set off these two principles against each other, since both of them are stated in the UN Charter and should not be applied to the detriment of each other.” Some Azeri mass media already then hurried to “interpret” such a reply of the Russian diplomat in the context of his Armenian origin, reminding that during last year’s visit of Armenia’s Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanian to Moscow,

Lavrov said: “Yes, I have Armenian blood in my veins. My father is an Armenian from Tbilisi.”

Source: http://www.armenianow.com/archive/20...o=print&id=554

Sergey Lavrov laid wreath to Genocide Memorial

Today Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov visited Tsitsernakaberd Memorial Complex, where he laid a wreath to the Memorial of Armenian Genocide victims. The head of Russian MFA also planted a memorable fir-tree in the alley near the Memorial. Armenian and Russian Ambassadors Armen Smbatyan and Nilolai Pavlov accompanied Sergey Lavrov.

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/...ate=2007-04-03

Lavrov: We Are and Have Been Allies with Armenia

Historical and spiritual closeness of the two peoples is the pledge for Armenian-Russian union, Russian FM Sergey Lavrov stated in Moscow on the Public TV Company of Armenia at a reception in honor of celebration of the 15th anniversary of Armenia’s Independence. “We are and we have been allies with Armenia. Historical and spiritual closeness of the two peoples is the pledge for Armenian-Russian union,” he said. “Many Armenians now work and live in Russia. Call the name of Armen Jigarkhanyan – there is no Russian, who does not know or love him,” the Minister remarked. “Of course we have separated as republics of the USSR, however we are overcoming that hard period,” Sergey Lavrov added, reported PanARMENIAN.Net.

Source: http://www.yerkir.am/eng/index.php?s...s_arm&id=26853

Russia Signals Opposition To Regime Change In Armenia

Russia signaled on Tuesday its opposition to regime change in Yerevan, with Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov pointedly declining to deny speculation that Moscow supports Defense Minister Serzh Sarkisian’s apparent plans to become Armenia’s next president. Lavrov, in Yerevan on a two-day official visit, stressed the need for continuity in policies pursued by the current Armenian leadership. During a joint news conference with Foreign Minister Vartan Oskanian he was asked to comment on growing assertions by Russian media and prominent analysts that the widely anticipated handover of power from President Robert Kocharian to Sarkisian suits the Kremlin. “The official position of Russia coincides with the unofficial position of Russia,” Lavrov replied. “We are sincerely interested in seeing Armenia stable and prosperous and seeing it continue to move down the path of reforms. As far as we can see, the results [of those reforms] are already felt in the socioeconomic sphere.” “So we wish Armenia success in this endeavor,” he added. “We want the next phase of the constitutional process to lead to the creation of conditions for a continued movement in that direction.” Kocharian is thought to have enjoyed Russian backing throughout his nearly decade-long presidency. Both he and Sarkisian stand for Armenia’s continued military alliance with Russia, while seeking closer security ties with the West. The Kocharian administration has also helped to significantly boosted Russia’s economic presence in the country in recent years.

One of Russia’s priorities – relations with Armenia - Lavrov

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Wednesday relations with Armenia is one of Russia’s priorities. “We believe that stability in the Caucasus depends in many respects on Armenia’s situation,” he told a meeting with students and professors of the Yerevan State University. “It is possible to ensure such stability not by means of creating a certain bloc, but by means of joint efforts,” he said. “Within the framework of the Collective Security Treaty Organization we do not try to fence off ourselves from others or work against anyone,” he said. The Collective Security Treaty Organization is “aimed at stability, counteraction to terrorism and drugs trafficking and open cooperation with the countries interested in resolving these tasks,” Lavrov said. He pointed out that Russia is interested in calm on its borders, stable development of neighbouring countries and “mutually advantageous and equal cooperation with them proceeding from the interests of our economies and our countries.”

Source: http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2....2515&PageNum=0

Sergei Lavrov: "Armenian Brandy Is Better Than French Cognac"