The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

Serbian victory for Putin and Russia Inc

Russia will reap its first big reward today for supporting Serbia in trying to stop Kosovo from declaring unilateral independence. Next week the European Union may suffer a serious reverse for doing the opposite, if Serbia elects a hardline nationalist president. The price of Kosovo's freedom is high. Gazprom, the Russian state-controlled gas monopoly, is to acquire a majority shareholding in NIS, the Serbian state oil monopoly, and in return incorporate the former Yugoslav republic into its proposed South Stream gas pipeline that will run under the Black Sea via Bulgaria to Greece and Italy.

The deal has already been approved by the Belgrade government, although the price to be paid for NIS has not been finalised. Whatever happens, Gazprom will get a bargain, as well as a customer for South Stream rather than the rival Nabucco pipeline project, intended to reduce EU dependence on Russian gas, without having to submit to any competitive bidding process. What has Russia done to deserve such favourable treatment? It has blocked a resolution in the United Nations Security Council to endorse Kosovo's independence. That will not stop the process, but it makes it much more difficult for other countries to grant the future state formal recognition. Although the US and most EU states will recognise it de facto, Kosovo will be left in a sort of legal limbo.

That suits President Vladimir Putin in three ways.

First, he is profoundly opposed to any process of national self-determination that allows a country such as Kosovo to declare independence unilaterally, rather than by agreement with the country from which it is separating. Today's Russia, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, is determined not to allow any other of its constituent parts to break away. That is why Moscow fought two bloody wars in Chechnya. Although Mr Putin hints that breakaway regions such as Abkhazia - part of Georgia, not Russia - might follow Kosovo, all the evidence suggests he wants nothing of the kind.

Second, he can exploit differences between EU members and the US. He knows that countries such as Spain, Greece and Cyprus hate the idea of self-determination, fearing it might be copied by Basque separatists or Turkish Cypriots. They are very unhappy about the precedent to be set by Kosovo. Best of all for the Kremlin, however, is the third benefit: the sweetheart deal for Gazprom. Its strongest supporter in Belgrade is Vojislav Kostunica, the prime minister, because he thinks Russia deserves a reward. Serbia also needs the gas.

Mr Kostunica got his way in cabinet this week because the pro-EU party in the government, the Democratic party of President Boris Tadic, desperately needs his backing to help Mr Tadic win the second round of the ongoing presidential election. In the first round last Sunday he trailed behind Tomislav Nikolic, nationalist leader of the anti-EU Radical party. Mr Kostunica is notorious for not showing his hand. Mr Nikolic may very well end up winning the run-off on February 3. That would be a disaster for EU relations with the most important country in the western Balkans.

Analysts in Moscow say Mr Putin might prefer Mr Tadic to win. He does not want to do business with an isolated Serbia. They dismiss suggestions that Russia's opposition to Kosovar independence reflects some sort of Orthodox Christian, Slavic solidarity with the Serbs. It is far more likely to be related to the Gazprom deal. This is classic behaviour by Russia Inc, a Russian state driven by money, not ideology.

There is also a strategic motive, although it is probably secondary. Every energy customer won by Gazprom further justifies construction of the South Stream gas pipeline rather than the alternative Nabucco pipeline to link central Asian suppliers via Turkey to Europe. Nabucco already has problems getting enough gas supplies to justify its construction. It will never get them without customers. Mr Putin must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/033ddc78-c...077b07658.html

Russia seals $2.2B Serbia gas deal

Serbia has signed a multibillion-dollar deal that would make it a key hub for Russian energy supplies and strengthen Moscow's dominance of the European energy market. The agreement includes building a branch of a prospective major natural gas pipeline and a huge gas storage facility in Serbia. A separate agreement also lays the groundwork for Russia's state gas monopoly, OAO Gazprom, to acquire a controlling stake in Serbia's state oil company NIS. "The agreements signed would make Serbia a key hub in the prospective network of Russian energy supplies to southern Europe," Russian President Vladimir Putin said after Friday's signing. "This network will be long-lasting, reliable, highly efficient and -- what is very important -- help boost energy supplies to Serbia and the entire European continent."

The agreements, which Serbian officials have estimated as worth at least $2.2 billion, would include building a branch of the prospective South Stream natural gas pipeline in Serbia. South Stream would run under the Black Sea from Russia to Bulgaria, from where it would branch off. The section through Serbia would carry at least 10 billion cubic meters a year, Gazprom CEO Alexei Miller said. The 550-mile, $15 billion project undercuts the prospective United States and EU-backed Nabucco pipeline designed to ease Europe's reliance on Russia by carrying gas from the Middle East and Caspian countries other than Russia via Turkey.

Serbia President Boris Tadic said the deal would bolster his country's standing by making it a key transit country for energy supplies to Europe. "This agreement has a huge strategic importance for Serbia," Tadic said. "It will strengthen Serbia's strategic positions in southeastern Europe, since it will serve as a transit point for gas supplies to the EU's southern flank." Belgrade has turned increasingly away from the West and toward Russia, which has supported Serbia in the debate over independence for the province of Kosovo. Tadic and Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica both thanked Moscow for its support on Kosovo at the start of the talks with Putin. "Serbia very deeply respects the position of Russia on Kosovo," Tadic said at the start Friday's talks with Putin. "We will defend our interests in Kosovo, operating on the basis of international law and we will never do otherwise."

Russia has used the rift to strengthen business and diplomatic ties to Serbia, with which Moscow has historic cultural and linguistic ties. Serbia endorsed the energy deal after Putin won Bulgaria's support last week for the South Stream project. The terms of the deal for Gazprom to acquire a 51 percent stake in Serbia's state oil company NIS were not announced. But Serbia's Energy Minister Aleksandar Popovic has confirmed reports that Russia offered $600 million -- just one-fifth of the company's estimated market value -- and an additional $730 million in modernizing the run-down company. Popovic said Tuesday that Serbia would try to better the price in further negotiations.

Source: http://edition.cnn.com/2008/BUSINESS...sia.serbia.ap/

Putin says Serbia can count on Russia

President Vladimir Putin said on Friday that Russia was categorically opposed to independence for the Serbian province of Kosovo and added that Belgrade could count on Moscow as a reliable friend and partner. Putin told reporters after meeting Serbian leaders at the Kremlin that Kosovo independence "would cause serious damage to the whole system of international law, bring negative consequences for the Balkans, for the world and for stability in other regions".

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/europ...s/idUSL2546322

[Armenian]

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

Russia's Gazprombank buys Armenia's Areximbank

Russia's Gazprombank has bought 80.09 pct of one of Armenia's largest retail banks, Areximbank, and is in negotiations with Austria's Raiffeisen International to buy the rest, Gazprombank vice-president Olga Kazanskaya said toady. Details of the deal were not disclosed. The bank will be renamed Gazprombank of Armenia by the end of the year, Kazanskaya said at a press conference. She said Gazprombank, controlled by Russian gas giant Gazprom, would be seeking to finance energy projects in Armenia with ArmRosGazprom, a joint Russian-Armenian company that controls natural gas pipelines feeding Russian gas to Armenia.

Source: http://www.forbes.com/markets/feeds/...fx4575181.html

GAZPROMBANK ACQUIRES 80 PERCENT OF SHARES OF AREXIMBANK

Gazprombank has acquired 80.09 percent of shares of the Armenian Areximbank, bank press services said. The decision to buy shares in Areximbank was conditioned by higher trade turnover between the two countries, increased investment by Russian companies into the Armenian economy and some other factors. Proceeding from the interests of the chief buyer, Gazprom, Gazprombank had expressed an intention to buy a bank in Armenia back in September. Armenian-Russian Export-Import Bank (Areximbank) was established in 1998 with the aim to support entrepreneurship between Armenia and Russia. In August, 2005 Moscow Impxbank purchased 19.91 percent of shares of Areximbank. The total capital of the bank as of September, 2007 amounts 3 404 027 thousand drams with 17 441 441 thousand drams in debits and 14 037 414 thousand drams in credits.

Source: http://www.panorama.am/en/economy/2007/12/03/banks/

[Lernakan]

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

Tehran-Yerevan-Moscow axis formation vital

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ “Formation of Ankara-Baku-Tbilisi geopolitical axis has already become obvious,” RA National Assembly Vice Speaker, presidential hopeful Vahan Hovhannisian said in an interview with Military Diplomat magazine.

“In this aspect, formation of Tehran-Yerevan-Moscow axis will be not only a counterbalance but a vital necessity for Armenia,” he said.

“Turkey, Azerbaijan and Baku are aspired for the role of regional hegemon. In absence of retaliatory measures, their activity can transform into a cynical “blocking of oxygen” against those who don’t support them. I think that frequent meetings of the Russian, Armenian and Iranian leaders will produce effect and promote implementation of joint projects,” Mr Hovhannisian said.

http://panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=24656

[Armenian]

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

RUSSIA THREATENS NUKE STRIKE

Top-ranking Russian military figure Says America had better watch out

Recent statements coming from one of Russia’s highest-ranking military commanders indicate that America and Israel plan to go ahead with war on Iran despite the release of the National Intelligence Estimate late last year. Russia’s military chief of staff General Yuri Baluyevsky threatened the use of nuclear weapons in case of a major threat. He said that, although they have no plans of attacking anyone, they nevertheless “consider it necessary for everyone around 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.” His statements (which can only have been made in concert with the overall policies established by his boss President Vladimir Putin) come a week after George Bush’s visit to the Persian Gulf, in which he attempted to rally the nations in that region around U.S. and Israeli plans of “confronting Iran’s nuclear program before it is too late.”

Baluyevsky’s statement, despite the stark and apocalyptic themes pervading it, comes as no surprise. Over the course of the past year, Russia has taken on an increasingly aggressive defensive posture with regard to the West as a result of what it sees as an overall plan of encircling her with NATO forces that threaten her existence. Russia has resumed long-range bomber patrols (halted with the fall of the Soviet Union), sometimes coming within inches of NATO airspace. She has pulled out of several treaties with the West limiting the size of Russian military forces on Europe’s eastern flank. Incensed at the U.S. plan of using new NATO member nations in Eastern Europe as a staging area for missile defense systems (said to be a necessary defense against Iran), Russia has developed and successfully test fired new missiles—both land- and sea-launched. Russia claims they are sophisticated enough to trump any U.S. missile shield.

Beginning in December (after the release of the NIE), Russia began delivering the nuclear fuel supplies promised to Iran according to their agreement. As of this moment, four shipments have been made totaling 45 tons of the estimated 80 tons necessary for the Bushehr facility to begin refinement. Israel is furious, as evidenced by Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni’s recent meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov where she called the fuel deliveries “inconceivable.” What is of particular importance in General Baluyevsky’s statement is his mention of “defending the sovereignty and territorial integrity” of, not just Russia, but her “allies” as well. Russia has not, as of this moment, signed formal mutual defense agreements with nations such as Iran and Syria.

Both are on Israel and America’s list of countries targeted for destruction. Both are important trading partners occupying Russia’s peripheries and therefore a first-line defense of Russian territory. Throughout this nightmare in the Middle East, Russia has demonstrated a sane and rational character. By contrast, Israel and the United States under the administration of George Bush, have been irrational and unpredictable. Iraq and Afghanistan are unmitigated disasters and the fact that neither the U.S. nor Israel has learned from these disasters proves they are dangerous to all nations seen as uncooperative in the drive for U.S. and Israeli world hegemony.

Indeed, Putin recently compared Bush to a “maniac running around threatening everyone with a razor.”

Source: http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm...eatens123.html

NATO must prepare for nuclear first strike, report urges

A chilling report prepared by a group of top military commanders from the US and its NATO allies declares that the alliance must be prepared to launch a preemptive nuclear first strike because of “asymmetric threats and global challenges” posed to the West. “The first use of nuclear weapons must remain in the quiver of escalation as the ultimate instrument to prevent the use of weapons of mass destruction, in order to avoid truly existential dangers,” declares the report, which is titled “Towards a Grand Strategy for an Uncertain World: Renewing Transatlantic Partnership.”

The authors of the document, which has been submitted to the Pentagon and the NATO command, include Gen. John Shalikashvili (ret.), who was chief of the joint chiefs of staff under the Clinton administration, as well as former chiefs of the armed forces in Britain, France, Germany and the Netherlands. According to a report published Tuesday in the British Guardian, “The manifesto has been written following discussions with active commanders and policymakers, many of whom are unable or unwilling to publicly air their views.” It is expected to be a key subject of discussion at a NATO summit to be held in Bucharest in April. The report presents a grim picture of the 21st century, portraying the major Western powers as under siege from real and potential enemies as well as objective changes in the global situation.

It calls attention to population growth and climate change as exacerbating world conflicts and warns that terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and the struggle for “scarce resources,” particularly oil, poses new threats. It also singles out China, Russia and Iran as actual or potential enemies. In response to these supposed threats, the report calls for the NATO alliance to adopt a strategy of “escalation dominance, the use of a full bag of both carrots and sticks—and indeed all instruments of soft and hard power, ranging from the diplomatic protest to nuclear weapons.” It warns that “traditional forms and methods of governments and international organizations,” particularly the UN, are incapable of proceeding with sufficient speed to maintain such dominance, and therefore a sweeping overhaul of NATO is required to create an adequate instrument for global intervention. In a tone that recalls nothing so much as the rantings of Dr. Strangelove, the report states, “Nuclear weapons are the ultimate instrument of an asymmetric response—and at the same time the ultimate tool of escalation.”

It continues: “Regrettably, nuclear weapons—and with them the option of first use—are indispensable, since there is simply no realistic prospect of a nuclear-free world. On the contrary, the risk of further proliferation is imminent and, with it, the danger that nuclear war fighting, albeit limited in scope, might become possible.... In sum, nuclear weapons remain indispensable, and nuclear escalation continues to remain an element of any modern strategy.” The report goes on to describe “nuclear escalation” as “the ultimate step in responding symmetrically, and at the same time the most powerful way of inducing uncertainty in an opponent’s mind.” While the passages on the prospects of a preemptive nuclear strike name no specific targets, there is little doubt that the immediate “opponent” in the mind of its authors is Iran. The document perversely portrays a nuclear first strike as an instrument for preventing nuclear weapons proliferation.

Iran is “strongly suspected of engaging in a military nuclear programme,” the report states. It continues: “The willingness of the USA and its coalition partners to rid the world of the two terrible regimes of Saddam Hussein’s Iraq and the Taliban has left a vacuum that Iran is stepping into, with the world unable to contain Iran’s growing influence in the region.” “As a nuclear power,” it continues, “Iran could become immune to international sanctions. Furthermore, it would dominate the region, which possesses the world’s largest oil and gas reserves.” This last question is clearly the principal concern among the ruling elite in both the US and Europe—that the major powers would face a direct challenge to their control over strategic energy supplies now dominated by the multinational oil companies.

[...]

Source: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/ja...nato-j24.shtml

[Armenian]

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

Russian Space Forces to launch new military satellite in 2009

Russia's Space Forces will launch a new relay satellite in 2009, the forces' commander said Friday. "Next year, we plan to orbit a new military relay satellite that will have twice as many transponders compared with available satellites. The satellite will be in service for 12 years unlike current satellites in use, which have a service life of three years but operate for five years," Colonel General Vladimir Popovkin told journalists. Popovkin said the satellite, worth about 1 billon rubles (over $40 million), will be put into geostationary orbit over Russia to relay data obtained from Russian reconnaissance satellites positioned in different orbits.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080125/97753428.html

U.S. antimissiles in Poland can become anti-satellite weapon - Russian Defense Ministry

Russia's Space Troops Commander Col. Gen. Vladimir Popovkin said that the U.S. missile shield in Europe increases the military threat. "Technical characteristics of these missiles [U.S. antimissiles] suggest that they can be used not only as an antimissile weapon but also as an anti-satellite weapon," Popovkin told journalists on Friday.

Source: http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/politics/...issue=11953044

[Armenian]

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

This is what it's all about - attempts at containing the Russian Federation, and this has been practiced by the West since the fall of the Soviet Union. Thus, we can place Russia's saber rattling as of late, as well as General Yuri Baluyevsky's comments about a nuclear defense, within this geopolitical context. Whether its anti-missile defense, NATO expansion, or support for anti-government forces in the Russian Federation, the behind the scenes attempts by the West to isolate, contain and/or undermine Russian sovereignty has been the West's worst kept and, in my opinion, its un-erasable stain. Why is this being attempted by the West? As I have stated on many other occasions, the West sees the resource rich massive nuclear power to their east as its number one competitor and main potential threat in the future, more so than China (which is more-or-less constrained by its economic dependency on the West) and more so than the Islamic threat (which in reality does not exist). However, having crushed the Chechen insurgency, having virtually monopolized the entire gas/oil distribution of the Eurasian continent, an increasingly assertive Moscow is well back into the game. Having broken the shackles of the 1990s, Russia today is aggressively reestablishing itself as a global power. Are we headed towards an eventual clash between East and West? All the indicators suggests, yes. Why should Armenians care about Russia's well being? Needless to say, the reasons are many. Besides the fact that Armenia's existence as a viable power in the Caucasus does not serve the interests of the West, it is crucially important to have a multi-polar world, a true balance of powers. Nonetheless, I also believe that without a powerful Russia in the picture, the chances of Armenian survival in the Caucasus is virtually none existent.

Armenian

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

Russia concerned over NATO military buildup around its borders

Russia is concerned over NATO's expansion, which is aimed at building up its military potential around Russian borders rather than strengthening European security, the foreign minister said on Wednesday. Russia has been unnerved by NATO's eastward expansion and recent U.S. plans to deploy missile defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic. "We are certain that the geographical expansion of NATO cannot be justified by security concerns," Sergei Lavrov told a news conference in Moscow. "But it is clear that NATO is building up its military potential around our borders and its new members continue to increase their defense budgets," he said.

Lavrov said NATO's "open-door" policy has been inherited from the Cold War and can only antagonize relations with Russia. "This policy cannot resolve any security problems," the minister said. NATO has signaled its backing for the recent bids by Russia's former Soviet allies, Georgia and Ukraine, to join the alliance, a move that has infuriated Moscow. The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that the country would have to take "appropriate measures" if Ukraine were to join NATO. An additional problem overshadowing cooperation between Russia and NATO is the bloc's refusal to ratify an updated version of the Soviet-era Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty (CFE), aimed at regulating the deployment of non-nuclear weapons on the continent. Russia imposed in December last year a unilateral moratorium on the arms reductions treaty, which the West regards as a cornerstone of Euro-Atlantic security, and said it would resume its participation in the treaty only after NATO countries ratify the document.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080123/97602111.html

Russia to respond 'appropriately' to Ukrainian NATO membership

The Russian Foreign Ministry said on Tuesday that the country would have to take "appropriate measures" if Ukraine were to join NATO. A Ukrainian government letter to the NATO chief, setting out the country's bid to join an action plan to gain membership of the Western military alliance, was published in Kiev last week. "Ukraine's possible integration into NATO will exacerbate Russian-Ukrainian relations in many areas. We will have to take appropriate measures in response," the ministry said. Ukrainian Prime Minster Yulia Tymoshenko was quoted by the government's press service as saying on Saturday that the decision on whether to join NATO would "be taken exclusively by the Ukrainian people through a nationwide referendum." The majority of Ukrainians have so far opposed the idea of joining the alliance. Meanwhile, the opposition Party of Regions pledged to continue blocking parliamentary work in protest at the government's move to seek membership of NATO. Russia has been unnerved by NATO's eastward expansion and recent U.S. plans to deploy missile defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic. In particularly strident language, although not marking a change from earlier stated policies, the Chief of the Russian General Staff, Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, told a conference at the Academy of Military Sciences in Moscow on Saturday that: "the Armed Forces will be used to protect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Russia and its allies, including preventative action, and including the use of nuclear weapons." An overwhelming 77% of residents in another former Soviet republic, Georgia, also voted in favor of joining the NATO military alliance at a referendum on January 5.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080122/97535389.html

Some 77% Georgians vote to join NATO

Some 77% of the Georgian population voted for joining NATO, the Georgian Central Elections Commission (CEC) said in its official report on Friday. Russia Army chief: Russia may use nuclear weapons if necessary. The CEC confirmed the final result of the vote counting on the referendum on Georgia’s accession to NATO, that was held on Jan. 5 in parallel to the Georgian Presidential Elections, the Interfax news agency reported. The plebiscite participants were to answer the question: “Do you support Georgian accession to NATO?” A referendum for an early parliamentary elections this spring was also held on Jan. 5. An affirmative answer was given by 79.74%.

Armed forces will be used if necessary, including preventively and with the use of nuclear weapons, for the protection of Russia and its allies, the Russian Armed Forces’ Chief of the General Staff Yuri Baluyevsky said on Saturday. “We do not intend to attack anybody. But all our partners must realize that for protection of Russia and its allies if necessary armed forces will be used, including preventively, including with the use of nuclear weapons,” Baluyevsky was quoted by the Itar-Tass news agency as saying at a scientific conference of the Academy of Military Sciences. With the emergence of new threats to security, Russia needs to update a number of provisions in the existing National Security Concept, Baluyevsky said. “As life is ever-changing, it has become necessary today to update certain provisions of the concept and, what is the most important, to turn these provisions into a working mechanism for protecting our national security,” he said.

Baluyevsky’s speech came a day after Georgia announced some 77% of the Georgian population voted for joining NATO in a recent referendum. Georgia’s possible entry into NATO will seriously change the regional geostrategic situation, Nikolai Bordyuzha, general secretary of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), said on Friday. “Georgia’s membership in NATO means that the military infrastructure of the alliance will advance closer to the CSTO borders and that there will be higher military activity directly outside the external borders of the organization’s zone of responsibility,” he said. “This will in itself inevitably provoke stronger instability and unpredictability that will jeopardize the CSTO’s zone of responsibility,” Bordyuzha said. The seven-member CSTO was renamed in October 2002 on the basis of the Collective Security Treaty (CST), which was signed in Mary 1992 within the framework of the commonwealth of Independent States. The current members of the CSTO include Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Russia and Uzbekistan.

Source: http://www.bbj.hu/main/news_35271_so...join+nato.html

[skhara]

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

I wonder if "appropriate measures" involve inciting the orthodox Ukrainian population to engage in a separatist activity.

[Armenian]

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

Without a doubt, Ukraine's Pro-Russian Orthodox population would be one of the main political tools Moscow can manipulate to keep Ukraine within its sphere of influence. As revealed by last years elections, Ukraine is in essence two nations, one Orthodox/pro-Russian and the other Catholic/pro-West. However, Ukraine is also a large nation with significant military capabilities and western financial/political support. Thus, even if Kiev is able to successfully resist pressure from Moscow, I don't think there will be a war between the two nations because the resulting mutual mess would be far too great for Moscow to tolerate. What Moscow can do is resort to using their favorite WMD - Gazprom - to basically freeze them into submission... The following article summarizes Ukraine's sociopolitical situation, its duality of identity, quite well:

Armenian

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

Ukraine divided between East and West

On line Journal, Oct 3, 2007

The apparent political stalemate in Ukraine after the September 30 elections reflects the historic divisions of this big country on the borders between Russia to the east and Europe to the west. Both the outgoing prime minister, the Russophile Viktor Yanukovich, and Western-oriented Yulia Tymoshenko claim electoral victory in a country split down the middle between its eastern and western components.

With 50 million inhabitants, Ukraine is the France of the East. Therefore, where Europe ends in the east is not just a rhetorical question: since 1991 Europe has steadily pushed its eastern borders right up to the frontiers of Russia. A weakened post-Soviet Russia was unable to stop that advance. Not only the ex-Soviet satellite countries in Eastern Europe, from Bulgaria to Poland, changed sides, but also parts of the USSR itself -- Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Belarus and Ukraine -- turned toward Western Europe.

Western emotions about the new-old country of Ukraine are no less mixed than those of the Ukrainian people themselves, forever divided between East and West. They are a big people with a natural desire to decide their own fate, a fate that has led them down disastrous paths in their long history. The major problem has been their two souls. Their Eastern soul has traditionally held them close to their big brothers, the Great Russians; their Western soul led desperate and rabid nationalists even to collaboration with Nazi Germany against Soviet Russia. Ukraine’s Western soul aspires to become part of Europe; its Eastern soul prefers a privileged relationship with Russia.

In 2004, the “Orange Revolution” swept pro-Western reformists into power in Ukraine. A year later the Kremlin’s man, Viktor Yanukovich, won out in the country’s first free parliamentary elections and became prime minister. The elections were a fatal flop for the Western-looking part of Ukraine and a confirmation of the traditional division of the country.

Lying in a strategic position at the crossroads between Europe and Russia, the Ukraine actually has three souls. Three currents have marked contemporary independent Ukraine: the linguistic, historical, pro-Russian soul; the nostalgic, big nation, central planning, pro-Soviet soul; and a vaguely democratic, free market, pro-Western soul. For many Russians and many Ukrainians, the two peoples are nearly one and Ukrainians are often referred to as “Little Russians.”

Russia was alarmed about the rapid move westwards of big and powerful Ukraine. In the 1990s, Ukraine contributed troops to peacekeeping in Kosovo in the Balkans. More recently it sent troops to Iraq. The Ukrainian government announcement in May 2002 of its intention to seek membership in United Europe, NATO and WTO was the last straw for Moscow.

Ukraine: West or East

One used to speak of geographic Europe extending to the Ural Mountains in Russia, with part of Russia in Europe and part in Asia. However the border between today’s United Europe (EU) and Russia is more a geopolitical affair, a question of power and influence.

Western Ukraine has close historical ties with Europe, particularly with Poland. Both Orthodoxy and the Uniate faith (Greek Catholic) have many followers there. Ukrainian nationalist sentiment has always been strongest in the westernmost parts of the country, which became part of Ukraine only when the Soviet Union expanded after World War II.

It is a different story in Eastern Ukraine. The Ukraine was the center of the first Slavic state, Kievan Rus, the cradle of Russia. During the 10th and 11th centuries Kievan Russia was the largest state in Europe, until it disappeared during the Mongol invasions. The cultural and religious legacy of Kievan Rus laid the foundation for Ukrainian nationalism throughout subsequent centuries. A Ukrainian state was established during the mid-17th century that, despite Muscovite pressure, remained autonomous for over 100 years. During the latter part of the 18th century, Ukrainian ethnographic territory was assimilated by the Russian Empire. Following the collapse of czarist Russia in 1917, Ukraine had a short-lived period of independence (1917-20), before it was re-conquered by Russia and absorbed into the Soviet Union, as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.

A significant minority of the population of Ukraine are Russians or use Russian as their first language. Russian influence is particularly strong in the industrialized east of the country, where the Orthodox religion is predominant, as well as in Crimea, an autonomous republic on the Black Sea, which was long part of Russia.

After Russia, the Ukrainian Republic was the most important economic component of the former Soviet Union. Today Ukraine depends on imports of natural gas from Russia for its energy requirements. After independence in December 1991, the Ukrainian government initiated privatization, but widespread resistance within the government blocked reform efforts and led to some backtracking. By 1999, industrial output fell to less than 40 percent of the 1991 level. Ukraine's dependence on Russia for energy supplies and the lack of structural reform make its economy vulnerable.

Although Ukraine became independent after the dissolution of the USSR, democracy has remained elusive. Its ancient divisions have stalled efforts at the formation of a unified nation. In the final months of 2004, the massive pro-Western “Orange Revolution" overturned a presidential election rigged by pro-Russia exponents. The peaceful revolution brought about a new internationally monitored vote that swept into power a coalition of pro-Western reformists. Yet, the run-off presidential vote of 52 percent for pro-Western Viktor Yushchenko and 44 percent for outgoing pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovich again reflected the divisions in Ukraine between East and West.

Though the post-Communist era seemed truly closed, the change was illusory. The coalition government soon collapsed over disastrous economic policies, corruption and a dramatic gas war with Russia. The coalition dissolved also because the East and South of the nation prefer Russia and Ukraine’s past. Although the amount of trade with EU countries exceeds commerce with Russia, Russia remains Ukraine’s largest trading partner. Not only is Ukraine dependent on Russia for gas, it also forms an important link on the pipeline transit route for Russian gas exports to Europe.

Russia had retreated from Western Europe for 50 years. Now with its gas as a weapon, its retreat has ended. Since much of Europe’s economic future depends on Russia’s gas, European efforts at democratizing Russia have stopped. Only friendly relations count. Europe can no longer push hard for Ukrainian democracy.

Now, whoever emerges as the electoral victor, the tide in Ukraine has again turned eastwards. The impulse toward the West of the last 15 years has stopped. President Yushchenko said in an interview a few months ago that Ukraine’s choice is not between the West and Russia: Ukraine must have good relations with both. But were Russia to raise gas prices to Ukraine or cut supplies, the scene would change. In the contest between Russia on one hand and Europe-USA on the other, Moscow in a fair battle will always win.

But most certainly also pushy, abrasive, arrogant US foreign policy is a reason, too. For Russia, a Ukraine in the camp of the USA would be like Canada suddenly taking control of New England, or Mexico taking over Texas.

In reality, the European Union desires association with Ukraine. The European Parliament supports Ukraine's full membership in the WTO. The EU Parliament calls on neighboring states to "fully respect the democratic choice of the Ukrainian people and avoid any type of economic or other pressures with the goal of changing the new political and economic status of Ukraine. The European Parliament has also called upon any future coalition government in Kiev to consolidate Ukrainian commitment towards general European values, to advance democracy, human rights, civic society and the rule of law, continuation of market reforms and overcome political divisions in Ukraine. The European Parliament hopes to have an active relationship with Ukraine’s Verkhovna Rada (Parliament) and promises aid and support to Ukraine.

This all rings friendly and cooperative to Western-oriented Ukrainians. To Russia and eastward-looking Ukrainians, it sounds threatening, with an underlying note of economic blackmail, as is the cutting of US and European support to the Palestinian government of Hamas unless it toes the line.

And Russia, in reaction, has lent full support to its candidate, Yanukovich, who hopes to head a government coalition. In case of exclusion, he threatens revolt by the eastern and southern parts of the Ukraine, while Russia can either cut off the gas supply or raise its price.

So again Ukraine, besides being divided internally between East and West, is also crushed between pressures from its eastern and western borders.

The question of where the West ends and Russia begins is not unimportant for the rest of the world. Russia is again a global actor. Alongside India and China, Russia has assumed a protagonist role. Much of the empire is gone but Russia’s aspirations remain. Today Russia is showing its muscles in a game of hazards and risks. Moscow has tried at negotiation with Iran on the nuclear issue and strengthened its ties with Tehran. It is mediating with Hamas in Palestine.

Russia itself is an issue of global importance. A weak Russia is a danger for world balance of power. A strong Russia worries Washington; less so Europe. A strong Russia to counter uncontrollable American unilateralism appeals to much of the world. For many, Cold War at low risk is better than hot war in Iraq. Or nuclear threats launched at Iran. The disappearance of the USSR paved the way for “preemptive war America,” its hands free to strike when and where it likes. America is never friendlier with Russia than when it is divided, poor, its economy in shambles, its empire dismantled. Washington cannot control China or India. Nor in the end can it contain Russia.

Source: http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publ...cle_2490.shtml

[Armenian]

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

USA or Russia: Strategic partner in Civilisation-II Religio-ethnic dimensions of national interest

By Dr Kunal Ghosh

The Anglo-American powers have always sided with Pakistan, overtly or covertly. When the terrorist insurgency started in Kashmir in the 1980s, this attitude on their part persisted for next 20 years and only now it seems to be softening. Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya are all cases in point with respect to US attitude to the Orthodox. The global arms market is so huge and involves so many players globally that it would be safe to say that the world capitalist economy would get into recession if true peace (instead of cold war of one kind or another) prevails and the armament industry of all countries is forced to close down. In the Bosnian theatre of the war it was a triangular struggle among Muslims, Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs. Again all three committed war crimes, but it was only the Serbs who were held guilty.

No matter what the western political leaders profess in public, they practice something close to what is described in Huntington’s afore-mentioned book. They perceive Muslim and orthodox countries as the ‘other’, a twin adversary. However, each adversary has to be handled differently. Also, there is large body of Muslims in today’s world who believe in Pan Islamism. To such Muslims America gives a clear signal, “If you attack my core, the retaliation would be swift and all out.” Such attacks on USA and Western Europe will be viewed as terrorism. But similar attacks on Russia, Serbia, India or Thailand would be viewed as freedom struggle. The secessionist tendency in Kashmir is almost as old as India’s Independence and India has fought a few wars with Pakistan over Kashmir. The Anglo-American powers have always sided with Pakistan, overtly or covertly. When the terrorist insurgency started in Kashmir in the 1980s, this attitude on their part persisted for next 20 years and only now it seems to be softening. Bosnia, Kosovo, Chechnya are all cases in point with respect to US attitude to the Orthodox. The Orthodox countries need not be accommodated at all, because America’s economic interest are not tied up in Orthodox countries. In fact they can be sacrificed to placate the Muslim sentiment and counter-balance the AIK factor and America has done precisely that with respect to Serbia and Russia, I will show later.

At one time America considered the Soviet Union an enemy country because it was the center of world communism. On the part of the communists the idea of exporting revolutionary ideas and overthrowing capitalism was a mission. The Cold War grew out of such circumstances. But that is a thing of the past. Soviet Union has disintegrated and the Eastern Europe has embraced capitalism and so has China in the garb of so called market-socialism. Why does America still continue with hostile posturing vis-à-vis Russia? It is because America needs an adversary for a definite reason, for the sake of maintaining an armament industry which is gargantuan in size, generates enormous employment and helps the government to spend tax money without causing inflation. The global arms market is so huge and involves so many players globally that it would be safe to say that the world capitalist economy would get into recession if true peace (instead of cold war of one kind or another) prevails and the armament industry of all countries is forced to close down. So an adversary is necessary to maintain public support and raison d’etre to keep arms manufacture and defense research going. In the 1980s President Gorbachov of erstwhile Soviet Union had offered a deal for negotiated, calibrated and gradual mutual disarmament to the United States. The offer was rejected after much pretensions and negotiations, because the leading capitalist power cannot create a serious disorder in global capitalist economy. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the new Russia again extended a hand of friendship to America, and again it was rejected. Now President Putin has reasserted Russian dominance in whatever remains of her zone of influence in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Russia has been forced to re-start the arms race.

Russia’s Chechnya

Chechnya is a republic in Caucasus Mountains in the federal structure of Russia, inhabited mostly by a Muslim population. Recently arrived Wahhabism from Saudi Arabia has managed to displace traditional Sufi Islam practiced in the region to a great extent (Khan 1999). This has bred militancy, terrorism and separatism. President Boris Yeltsin tried to come to terms with Chechen aspirations by granting them autonomy, but that spurred them on further to export Wahhabism and separatism to neighbouring Dagestan and Ingushetia by terrorist methods. Finally Russia, led by President Putin, was forced to crack down and militarily subdued Chechen guerrillas. Thereafter sporadic acts of terrorism continue. A few years ago Chechen terrorists took over a school in Beslan which finally resulted in confrontation with security forces and a blood bath leading to death of hundreds of children. The western powers led by the Anglo-Americans had been pontificating to the Russians right from the beginning of separatism that they should give independence to Chechnya; the Chechens are fighting for freedom and self-determination, etc. After the Beslan massacre President Bush of USA uttered a homily that Russia should settle politically with the Chechens and give them freedom. This invited a slap of a statement from President Putin that America should settle politically with Osama Bin Laden and give him what he wanted. It is to be noted that the Beslan incident came well after the plane-bombing of World Trade Center in New York, USA on September 11, 2001, and Osama Bin Laden was considered the top leader of Al Qaeda that perpetrated this horrific act of terrorism. This incident shows up the American double standard with respect to Islamist terrorism and how America is prepared to placate Muslim sentiment at the cost of Orthodox Russia.

Serbia’s Kosovo

Serbia, the heartland of the erstwhile Yugoslav federation, Orthodox by religion, had been traditionally held in high regard by the West. During World War II the Serbs stood up to Hitler. In contrast, a major section of the Croats, the Catholic inhabitants of Croatia, another republic of the federation, collaborated with the Nazis and massacred the Serb Orthodox minority in Croatia under the guidance of a Catholic clergy man. The Nazis took advantage of the traditional hatred between Catholics and the Orthodox in that part of the world. Later during the 1950s Yugoslavia defended by a predominantly Serbian army defied the Soviet dictator, Stalin. It continued to defy the dictates of a domineering Soviet Union till the time of Breznev. Politically Yugoslavia since World War II had been non-aligned in spite of being ruled by Communists and endeared herself to the Western powers. Led by Tito she always pursued a policy of mixed economy and not “command economy” as the rest of the Communist block. Basic freedoms such as freedom of expression and travel were respected. All in all Serbia had earned goodwill and prestige from the western nations.

In the next phase of history after the break up of Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, Serbia’s contribution to the defeat of Fascism and building of democracy was forgotten in no time at all. In the civil war that followed disintegration of Yugoslavia, the West supported Catholic Croatia along the Serbia-Croatia border. There was ethnic cleansing committed by both sides. The evidence against Croatia was suppressed by the machinations of a NATO intervention force. Vanita Singh (1992) who lived in Yugoslavia at that time has given an excellent impartial record of these events. But the worse was yet to come. In the Bosnian theater of the war it was a triangular struggle among Muslims, Catholic Croats and Orthodox Serbs. Again all three committed war crimes, but it was only the Serbs who were held guilty. Their leaders Karadzic and Milosevic were demonized by the West. Europe for the first time saw infusion of Mujahideen warriors from non-European Muslim countries fighting on the side of Bosnian Muslims led by Izetbegovic. NATO imposed a settlement on Bosnia. And then Kosovo, a southern province of Serbia went up in flames.

Kosovo has an interesting history. Slavs entered the Balkans in 6th to 7th century AD. By 1190 Kosovo had become the administrative and cultural center of the medieval Serbian state ruled by the powerful Nemanjic dynasty. This dynasty lasted 200 years and still today Kosovo is known by Serbians as “Old Serbia”. In the Middle Ages the Balkans were occupied by the Ottoman Turks and they imposed discriminatory laws against the Christian population leading to large scale conversion to Islam. Both Albania and present Kosovo had Christian and Muslim populations and there were continual strife and see-saw struggle between Christian Serbs and Muslim Albanians/Kosovars. During Nazi occupation of World War II, the Serbs resisted and the Albanian/Kosovvar Muslims collaborated; thousands of Kosovo Serbs were expelled by armed Albanian groups, notably the Vulnetari militia. It is still not known exactly how many fell victim to this, but Serbian estimates put the figures at 10,000-40,000 killed with 70,000-100,000 expelled. Kosovo was on its way to becoming an Albanian dominated province.

There is resurgence in Islamic terrorism all over the world and Bosnia and Kosovo are no exceptions. As stated before the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and America Israel Kinship (AIK) factor are primarily responsible for this. But Huntington (1996) thinks otherwise and says, ( p.116, Chapter 5: Economics, Demography and the Challenger Civilizations), “While the rise of East Asia has been fuelled by spectacular rates of economic growth, the resurgence of Islam has been fuelled by equally spectacular rates of population growth. Population expansion in Islamic countries, particularly in the Balkans, North Africa and Central Asia has been significantly greater than that in the neighbouring countries and in the world generally.” He backs up his statement with impressive and latest birth rate data. The demographic factor may have skewed the politics of both Bosnia and Kosovo to some extent. There have been consistent reports of Albanians (mostly Muslim) pouring across the mountainous border into more prosperous Yugoslavia (ie, into Kosovo) from a Stalinist Albania through out the later half of the 20th century.

The rest of the history is brief. When the Bosnian civil war came to an end, the NATO intervention there emboldened Albanians in Kosovo and they started ethnic cleansing of the minority Orthodox Serbs. President Slobodan Milosevic strengthened the presence of the Serbian army and security forces many fold to maintain law and order and protect the Serbs. This caused an exodus of Albanian Muslims. NATO bombed Serbia proper for 3 months and into the Stone Age by destroying all power houses, utility network, road bridges and important public buildings. Serbia was forced to withdraw all security forces and the bombings came to an end on June 10, 1999. The Albanians moved back, some of the resident Serbs escaped and since then Kosovo has demanded secession from Serbia. This demand is backed by NATO. Right now NATO and Russian forces are present in Kosovo to protect the remaining Serb minority who live in enclaves. When Kosovo gains independence, what would happen to them? Everyone knows that they would have to escape. To me secession of Kosovo does not seem morally justified and I perceive close parallel with India’s Kashmir, except that there never was an exodus of Muslims from Kashmir, although the Hindu exodus of 1989-90 has not been reversed so far. If Kosovo secedes with NATO assistance, would Kashmir be the next target of the western powers, led by America? The track record of America does not inspire confidence. She has to counter-balance the AIK factor continually to placate the Muslim world.

Source: http://www.organiser.org/dynamic/mod...id=222&page=27

[Armenian]

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

The following character is one of the many rats that fled Yeltsin the Drunk's sinking ship around the year 2000. In a newly published book he has written, he claims that the Russian FSB is just as active as its KGB predecessor was during the Cold War. He also claims that he wants his book to be a "wake-up call to Americans" Is Russia's secret services as active as they were during the Cold War years? I certainly hope so! I gather this rat wont be having any "sushi" with any of his expats anytime soon...

Armenian

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

Russia calls spy defector's tales "treachery"

Revelations by a former top Russian spy who defected to the United States in 2000 amount to "self-publicity based on treachery", Russia's foreign intelligence service (SVR) said on Monday. Sergei Tretyakov, 51, a deputy head of intelligence at Russia's U.N. mission for five years, defected with his wife and daughter in 2000 saying he lost faith in post-Soviet Russia. One of the most senior Russian agents to defect, he was resettled at an undisclosed location and has now published a book telling his story for the first time. "We leave on Tretyakov's conscience the so-called revelations made in the book," the SVR said in a statement.

"In any secret service of the world using treachery for self-publicity has always been considered disgusting, and treachery is viewed as a criminal act," it added. Tretyakov told Reuters last week that Russian intelligence was just as active now as in Cold War times, adding that he hoped his book would act as a "wake-up call" to Americans. He predicted that presidential elections in March would not bring any change in Russia, dismissing leading pro-Kremlin contender Dmitry Medvedev as a "puppet" and incumbent Vladimir Putin as a "KGB loser" because he served at a KGB office in St. Petersburg rather than headquarters in Moscow.

"In October 2000, Tretyakov, a Russian citizen, decided to stay in the United States after a making a written statement saying: 'My resignation will not harm the interests of the country'," the SVR statement said. The SVR, the successor to the foreign intelligence arm of the Soviet KGB, said it did not intend to comment on the topic any further. Tretyakov said in the book that his agents included a former Soviet bloc ambassador and a senior Russian official in the Iraqi oil-for-food program. The book said the official used his position to manipulate the price of Iraqi oil sold under the program, which was meant to allow the purchase of humanitarian goods at a time of international sanctions, for the benefit of Russian interests.

Source: http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldN...61159720080128