The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America's Ambitions in Eurasia

Major Geo-Strategic Error

It appears that a strategic rapprochement between Iran and America was in the works from 2001 to 2002. At the outset of the global war on terrorism, Hezbollah and Hamas, two Arab organizations supported by Iran and Syria, were kept off the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Iran and Syria were also loosely portrayed as potential partners in the “Global War on Terror.” Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iran expressed its support for the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government. During the invasion of Iraq, the American military even attacked the Iraqi-based Iranian opposition militia, the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK/MOK/MKO). Iranian jets also attacked the Iraqi bases of the MEK in approximately the same window of time. Iran, Britain, and the U.S. also worked together against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is worth mentioning that the Taliban were never allies of Iran. Up until 2000, the Taliban had been supported by the U.S. and Britain, working hand in glove with the Pakistani military and intelligence.

[...]

Starting in 2002, the Bush Jr. Administration had deviated from their original geo-strategic script. France and Germany were also excluded from sharing the spoils of war in Iraq. The intention was to act against Iran and Syria just as America and Britain had used and betrayed their Taliban allies in Afghanistan. The U.S. was also set on targeting Hezbollah and Hamas. In January of 2001, according to Daniel Sobelman, a correspondent for Haaretz, the U.S. government warned Lebanon that the U.S. would go after Hezbollah. These threats directed at Lebanon were made at the start of the presidential term of George W. Bush Jr., eight months before the events of September 11, 2001. The conflict at the United Nations Security Council between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente, supported by Russia and China, was a pictogram of this deviation.

American geo-strategists for years after the Cold War had scheduled the Franco-German entente to be partners in their plans for global primacy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski had acknowledged that the Franco-German entente would eventually have to be elevated in status and that the spoils of war would have to be divided with Washington’s European allies. By the end of 2004, the Anglo-American alliance had started to correct its posture towards France and Germany. Washington had returned to its original geo-strategic script with NATO playing an expanded role in the Eastern Mediterranean. In turn, France was granted oil concessions in Iraq.

The 2006 war plans for Lebanon and the Eastern Mediterranean also point to a major shift in direction, a partnership role for the Franco-German entente, with France and Germany playing a major military role in the region. It is worth noting that a major shift occurred in early 2007 with regard to Iran. Following U.S. setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as in Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia, and former Soviet Central Asia), the White House entered into secret negotiatiations with Iran and Syria. However, the dye has been cast and it would appear that America will be unable to break an evolving military alliance which includes Russia, Iran, and China as its nucleus.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission: Covert Anglo-American Cooperation with Iran and Syria?

“America should also strongly support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku in [the Republic of] Azerbaijan to Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean cost serve as [a] major outlet for the Caspian Sea basin energy sources. In addition, it is not in America’s interest to perpetuate American-Iranian hostility. Any eventual reconciliation should be based on the recognition of a mutual strategic interest in stabilizing what currently is a very volatile regional environment for Iran [e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan]. Admittedly, any such reconciliation must be pursued by both sides and is not a favor granted by one to the other. A strong, even religiously motivated but not fanatically anti-Western Iran is in the U.S. interest, and ultimately even the Iranian political elite may recognize that reality. In the meantime, American long-range interests in Eurasia would be better served by abandoning existing U.S. objections to closer Turkish-Iranian economic cooperation, especially in the construction of new pipelines...”

-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)

The recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission or the Iraq Study Group (ISG) are not a redirection in regards to engaging Iran, but a return to the track that the Bush Jr. Administration had deviated from as a result of the delusions of its hasty victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, the Baker-Hamilton Commission was about damage control and re-steering America to the geo-strategic path originally intended by military planners that the Bush Jr. Administration seems to have deviated from. The ISG Report also subtly indicated that adoption of so-called “free market” economic reforms be pressed on Iran (and by extension Syria) instead of regime change. The ISG also favoured the accession of both Syria and Iran to the World Trade Organization (WTO). [14] It should also be noted, in this regard, that Iran has already started a mass privatization program that involves all sectors from banking to energy and agriculture. The ISG Report also recommends an end to the Arab-Israeli Conflict and the establishment of peace between Israel and Syria.[15]

The joint interests of Iran and the U.S. were also analysed by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. The ISG recommended that the U.S. should not empower the Taliban again in Afghanistan (against Iran). [16] It should also be noted that Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the U.S., the Syrian Foreign Minister, and Javad Zarif, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, were all consulted by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. [17] The Iranian Ambassodor to the U.N., Javad Zarif, has also been a middle man between the U.S. and Iranian governments for years. It is worth mentioning that the Clinton Administration was involved in the track of rapprochement with Iran, while also attempting to keep Iran in check under the “dual-containment” policy directed against Iraq and Iran. This policy was also linked to the 1992 Draft Defence Guidance paper written by people within the Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Administrations.

It is worth noting that Zbigniew Brzezinski had stated as far back as 1979 and again in 1997 that Iran under its post-revolutionary political system could be co-opted by America. [18] Britain also ensured Syria and Iran in 2002 and 2003 that they would not be targeted and encouraged their cooperation with the White House. It should be noted that Turkey has recently signed a pipeline deal with Iran that will take gas to Western Europe. This project includes the participation of Turkmenistan. [19] It would appear that this cooperation agreement between Tehran and Ankara points to reconciliation rather than confrontation with Iran and Syria. This is in line with what Brzezinski in 1997 claimed was in America’s interest. Also, the Anglo-American sponsored Iraqi government has recently signed pipeline deals with Iran. Once again, America’s interests in this deal should be questioned, as should the high opinions being given about Iran by the puppet leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Something’s Amiss...

The media attention given in North America and Britain to the positive comments made about Tehran by Anglo-American clients in Baghdad and Kabul is sinister. Although these comments from Baghdad and Kabul about the positive role Iran plays in Iraq and Afghanistan are not new, the media attention is. President George W. Bush Jr. and the White House criticized the Iraqi Prime Minister for saying Iran plays a constructive role in Iraq in early-August of 2007. The White House and North American or British press would usually just ignore or refuse to acknowledge these comments. However, this was not the case in August, 2007.

The Afghani President, Hamid Karzai, during a joint press conference with George W. Bush Jr. stated that Iran was a positive force in his country. It is not odd to hear that Iran is a positive force inside Afghanistan because the stability of Afghanistan is in Iran’s best interests. What comes across as odd are “when” and “where” the comments were made. White House press conferences are choreographed and the place and time of the Afghani President’s comments should be questioned. It also so happens that shortly after the Afghani President’s comments, the Iranian President arrived in Kabul in an unprecedented visit that must have been approved by the White House.

Iran’s Political Leverage

In regards to Iran and the U.S., the picture is blurry and the lines between cooperation and rivalry are less clear. Reuters and the Iranian Student’s News Agency (ISNA) have both reported that the Iranian President may visit Baghdad after August 2007. These reports surfaced just before the U.S. government started threatening to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a special international terrorist organization. Without insinuating anything, it should also be noted that the Revolutionary Guard and the U.S. military have also had a low-key history of cooperation from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

The Iranian President has also invited the presidents of the other four Caspian states for a Caspian Sea summit in Tehran. [20] He invited the Turkmen president while in Turkmenistan and later the Russian and Kazakh presidents at the August of 2007 SCO summit in Kyrgyzstan. President Aliyev, the leader of the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azarbaijan) was also personally invited during a trip by the Iranian President to Baku. The anticipated Caspian Sea summit may be similar to the one in Port Turkmenbashi, Turkmenistan between the Kazakh, Russian, and Turkmen presidents where it was announced that Russia would not be cut out of the pipeline deals in Central Asia.

Iranian leverage is clearly getting stronger. Officials in Baku also stated that they will expand energy cooperation with Iran and enter the gas pipeline deal between Iran, Turkey, and Turkmenistan that will supply European markets with gas. [21] This agreement to supply Europe is similar to a Russian energy transport deal signed between Greece, Bulgaria, and the Russian Federation. [22] In the Levant, Syria is involved in energy-related negotiations with Ankara and Baku and important talks have started between American officials and both Tehran and Damascus.[23]

Iran has also been involved in diplomatic exchanges with Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Additionally, starting in August 2007, Syria has agreed to reopen Iraqi oil pipelines to the Eastern Mediterranean, through Syrian territory. [24] The recent official visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki to Syria has also been described as historical by news sources like the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Also, Syria and Iraq have agreed to build a gas pipeline from Iraq into Syria, where Iraqi gas will be treated in Syrian plants. [25] These agreements are being passed as the sources of tensions between Baghdad and the White House, but they are doubtful. [26]

Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are also planning on starting the process for creating an Iranian-GCC free trade zone in the Persian Gulf. In the bazaars of Tehran and amongst the political circle of Rafsanjani there are also discussion about the eventual creation of a single market between Iran, Tajikistan, Armenia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The American role in these processes in regards to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the GCC should be explored. Under President Nicholas Sarkozy, France has indicated that it is willing to engage the Syrians fully if they gave specific guarantees in regards to Lebanon. These guarantees are linked to French economic and geo-strategic interests.

In the same period of time as the French statements about Syria, Gordon Brown indicated that Britain was also willing to engage in diplomatic exchanges with both Syria and Iran. Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, the German Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development, has also been involved in talks with Damascus on mutual projects, economic reform and bringing Syria closer to the European Union. These talks, however tend to be camouflaged by the discussion between Syria and Germany in regard to the mass exodus of Iraqi refugees, resulting from the Anglo-American occupation of their country. The French Foreign Minister is also expected in Tehran to talk about Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. Despite the war-mongering by the U.S. and more recently by France, this has all led to speculation of a potential about-turn in regards to Iran and Syria.[27]

Then again, this is part of the two-pronged U.S. approach of preparing for the worst (war), while suing for the diplomatic capitulation of Syria and Iran as client states or partners. When large oil and weapons deals were signed between Libya and Britain, London said that Iran should follow the Libyan example, as has the Baker-Hamilton Commission.

Has the March to War been Interrupted?

Despite talks behind closed doors with Damascus and Tehran, Washington is nonetheless arming its clients in the Middle East. Israel is in an advanced state of military preparedness for a war on Syria. Unlike France and Germany, Anglo-American ambitions pertaining to Iran and Syria are not one of cooperation. The ultimate objective is political and economic subordination. Moreover, either as a friend or foe, America cannot tolerate Iran within its present borders. The balkanization of Iran, like that of Iraq and Russia, is a major long-term Anglo-American goal. What lies ahead is never known. While there is smoke in the horizon, the U.S.-NATO-Israeli military agenda will not necessarily result in the implementation of war as planned.

A “Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition” — which forms the basis of a global counter-alliance — is emerging. America and Britain rather than opting for outright war, may choose to reel in Iran and Syria through macro-economic manipulation and velvet revolutions. War directed against Iran and Syria, however, cannot be ruled out. There are real war preparations on the ground in the Middle East and Central Asia. A war against Iran and Syria would have far-reaching worldwide implications.

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=6688

[Armenian]

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

Europe and America: Sharing the Spoils of War

The “Pivotal Area” Discovered: Defining Geo-Strategic Boundaries

The “pivotal area” was used in Sir Halford J. Mackinder’s “Heartland” to describe the area of Eurasia that formed the pivotally important core of the global geo-strategic and geo-political environment. We now find that through geo-political realities and necessity the area in question must be redefined. Halford Mackinder coined the term to define an area within the Eurasian landmass, but it is apparent that the “pivotal area” in the truest sense of the word and possibly the “Heartland” itself is a much broader and diverse area that not only lies in Eurasia, but extends into Africa. The global environment is not static. It seems that this area is anchored by geographic reality, but is shifting because of socio-economic, demographic, and political factors. To define the pivotal area, we must look at the area(s) in which — in the course of the post-Cold War era — the U.S. military has been heavily involved in, from low spectrum to high spectrum warfare and operations. This also includes hostile economic actions and covert intelligence operations.

After pinpointing these areas one can set a conceptual boundary. This subject area is of vast geography, it includes the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East, and East Africa. These regions, arguably, together form the tectonic plate that holds the globe together in a geo-political sense. It is this geographic stretch that has been, and continues, to be a geo-strategic chessboard for competitions of expansion and repulsion. These areas are also some of the most important cultural bridges on the face of the earth. The cultures and knowledge of different civilizations have interacted here for thousands of years. Intense cultural diffusion has also taken place within this geographic stretch as a global cross-road.

Zbigniew Brzezinski has also stipulated that an area roughly corresponded in geographic boundaries to the area that has just been defined is pivotal to global power and Eurasian security. Henry Kissinger has also more or less made similar statements by explaining the importance of neutralizing Iraq and Afghanistan (before its pro-Soviet government was overthrown), both Soviet allies, and containing an Iran fresh with revolutionary fervor in 1979. This was according to Henry Kissinger because of the pivotal importance of the area. [2] Global security encompasses this vast and “pivotal” area as a singularity and it is the Middle East that is the focal point of this geographic stretch.

From “Pivotal Area” to “Arc of Instability”

An arc of uncertainty and instability has been generated by Britain, Israel, the U.S., and their partners, including their intelligence apparatus, from East Africa and the Balkans to the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Decades of American-led military confrontations, low-intensity warfare, sanctions, economic manipulation, and intelligence operations have undermined the nation-states of the subject area. From the remains of the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, war-torn Somalia, and Anglo-American occupied Iraq to Afghanistan, Kashmir, and the South Federal District of the Russian Federation where Chechnya is located the U.S. has fomented instability. This area roughly corresponds to what Zbigniew Brzezinski calls the “Eurasian Balkans” an area that the U.S. must seek to manipulate and ultimately control should it continue to be a superpower. [3] The pivotal area has also synthetically been manufactured into a zone of instability that can be called the “Arc of Instability.”

In 1993, Zbigniew Brzezinski stated that, “The tragedies of Lebanon of the 1980s, or of Kurdistan and the former Yugoslavia of the early 1990s are previews of things to come within the Eurasian oblong of maximum danger.” [4] What was implied by Brzezinski was balkanization ranging from sectarianism to ethnic clashes. The situation in Iraq is part of this process, as are the tensions in Lebanon, Kosovo, Turkey, and Caucasia. A classical “divide and conquer” strategy is at play. The underlying objective is to provoke ethnic clashes across the Middle East and Central Asia. This venture, which is linked to Bzezinski’s forecast, is part of an agenda which consists in literally redrawing the map of this broader region. Moreover, there have also been attempts at sparking sectarian and ethnic differences in Iran from adjoining areas in Anglo-American occupied Iraq and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan that implicate America and its allies.

CENTCOM and the Rimland: Encircling Russia, China, and Central Asia

CENTCOM more or less corresponds to what Brzezinski calls a “large geographic oblong that demarcates the central zone of global instability” which runs from the Balkans through the Middle East and Central Asia to Kashmir and East Africa. [5] This “central zone of global instability” is also linked to the central area of Nicholas Spykman’s “Rimland.” It must be noted that, during the Cold War, Nicholas Spykman was also known as a master of containment theory. The Rimland is the concept of a geographic area adjacent to the “Heartland” that is comprised of most of Europe, the Middle East, the Indian sub-continent, Southeast Asia, and the Far East. This area forms an enveloping geographic ring around Mackinder’s “Heartland.” In other words, the Rimland essentially surrounds the central, core region of Eurasia. CENTCOM lies in the axis or midpoint of Spykman’s Rimland. This area, the Rimland, was central to Cold War containment theories in regards to the Soviet Union and China, the “Red Giants.” The concept of this area was also used in geo-strategic planning in regards to Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. This is an important fact to remember, because it deeply influences American geo-strategy in regards to the Iraq-Iran War and the Soviet-Afghan War. The encirclement of the Eurasian core, which was where the Soviet Union was geographically placed, is still a U.S. objective after the end of the Cold War. Containment theory it appears may really have been more about “penetration.”

Penetration of the Eurasian core is underway. NATO is a bridgehead from Europe that is pushing towards Russia. An Asiatic sister-alliance of NATO is being forged against China. The axis of the Rimland, which includes the Middle East and Afghanistan, is being militarily infiltrated and mobilized by NATO and its allies. CENTCOM indeed is an appropriate and suitable name for this mid-area that is crucial and “central” to connecting the Asiatic and European flanks of any trans-Eurasian military network surrounding Russia and China. Furthermore, this area can also be used for creating a wedge between the European portion of Russia, which is the nerve of Russia, and China. Additionally, if one also examines the geographic position of U.S. and NATO military bases they are concentrated in the Rimland.

The Geo-Strategic Importance of the Middle East in regards to Eurasia

The Middle East, formerly called the Near East, is an abstract geographic concept that has been shifting with geo-strategic, political, and socio-economic policy. For example, there was a time when academics, map makers, and geographers considered the Balkans as a part of the region. In the mind of many the Middle East is a synonym for Arab World or for Southwest Asia, but both terms are different. The Middle East includes non-Arab countries like Iran, Turkey, and Cyprus. The term Southwest Asia also excludes Egypt, the European portion of Turkey in Thrace and even Greece, depending if you categorize it as a part of the region. The Middle East is a region that embraces three continents (two if you look at Europe and Asia as Eurasia); Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is from here that Anglo-American geo-strategists believed they could establish global hegemony by controlling Eurasia.

Three important maritime passages and five important bodies of water also are located or embrace the area around the Middle East. The important maritime passages and straits can be used to manipulate, cut, and control global navigation, international trade, maritime traffic, and energy supplies. Theses strategic maritime passages are the Suez Canal of Egypt, the Bosphorus/Bosporus of Turkey, and the Gate of Tears (Bab al-Mandeb) located between Djibouti and Yemen at the southern tip of the Red Sea. The five important bodies of water in this area are the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. Control over these maritime passages would have grave ramifications for Russia, China, Iran, and any adversaries of NATO in regards to trade, naval movements, and energy supplies.

It is safe to say the post-Cold War objective of the United States in Eurasia is penetration. The different geographic regions of Europe and Asia are important, but they are not as pivotal in geo-strategic value as the Middle East and its geographic periphery (including Central Asia), which are also important energy hubs. If one scrutinizes a map of the earth or Eurasia they will notice that Indo-China or Japan or the Korean Peninsula cannot lead to any meaningful “penetration” of Eurasia. The Russian Federation also acts as a barrier to any drive from Eastern Europe that would be meaningless unless Ukraine fell into NATO’s orbit and Russia lost its Caucasian territories. Due to political realities India, the giant of the Indian sub-continent, can only be used as a counter-weight to China or to spoil the formation of a Eurasian alliance led by Russia, China, and Iran. Whatever value these geographic areas have in regards to containment theory is lost in regards to penetration, aside from India and Ukraine under the proper circumstances. It is from the Middle East and the area that has been mandated to the U.S. military under CENTCOM that Eurasian penetration can commence. Thus, it is by way of instability and war in this region that the U.S. and NATO have a pretext and justification for their military presence. It is also this area that will be the linkage between the military flanks being created against Russia, China, and their allies on the outer edges of Eurasia.

The Outer Peripheries of the “Arc of Instability” are manned by NATO

The hub of the “Arc of Instability” is where Iraq, Iran, Eastern Syria, and portions of Anatolia are geographically situated. This area is the most dangerous and volatile section of the “Arc of Instability.” Should a crisis with Iran and Syria be lit then the whole “Arc of Instability” can be lit ablaze like a powder keg. Iraq and the Persian Gulf are currently active and tense military zones of operation. This hub within the “Arc of Instability” is distinctly Anglo-American in its characteristic. It is the Anglo-American alliance that manages and oversees this war zone. Several European countries had initially posted their troops in Anglo-American occupied Iraq, but gradually reduced and removed their military contingents. Italy and Spain were amongst these countries. The European troop movements were publicly correlated to political changes in national governments within the respective capitals of these European countries. The aim of the troop movements was to portray the departures as acts of opposition to the war in Iraq. Angry European populations were misled into believing that a shift in foreign policy was underway, but this was an act of public deception. These nations compensated the broader war effort and agenda by deploying or re-shuffling their troops to Afghanistan or to Lebanon. Their actions were almost inconsequential to the broader war effort.

NATO members, such as Germany, are also involved and present in military operations in the Horn of Africa. The military activities of NATO and its members, including their almost perfectly coinciding military operations in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and the Arabian Sea, discloses advanced insight about a larger war agenda. The whole “Arc of Instability” is manned by NATO and close NATO allies, such as Australia and Israel. NATO as a whole is involved in the war project and American, British, Polish, Danish, Czech, and Romanian troops are present in Anglo-American occupied Iraq. Moreover, NATO is also responsible for certain aspects of military training inside Iraq. Additionally, there is a Franco-German presence in the Persian Gulf and NATO also has made security arrangements in the Persian Gulf with nations such as Kuwait.

However, what gives a particular NATO characteristic to the outer peripheries (tiers) of the “Arc of Instability” (in reality the area of military operations) is that greater numbers of NATO countries are involved in the military operations in these zones. Also NATO has an official mandate in these areas and has a role in the so-called “post-conflict” phase of operations in these areas. This phase in reality is the occupational and restructuring phase of the conflicts ensuing in the “Arc of Instability.” This form of “post-conflict” participation could also be linked to the low tolerance the populations of many of these NATO states would have in regards to casualties or supporting the war effort. The bulk of NATO troops have been positioned within the eastern and western outer peripheries of the military theatre of operations. Once again, the war zones almost precisely correspond to what is defined by the U.S. military as CENTCOM. It is only the former Yugoslavia that falls outside CENTCOM’s borders. It is from the Balkans that academics get the geo-political term “balkanization,” meaning to divide. The Balkans constitutes the westernmost periphery of the “Arc of Instability.”

[...]

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=6423

[Armenian]

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

“Velvet Revolutions” Backfire in Central Asia

Central Asia was the scene of several British-sponsored and American-sponsored attempts at regime change. The latter were characterised by velvet revolutions similar to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia. These velvet revolutions financed by the U.S. failed in Central Asia, aside from Kyrgyzstan where there had been partial success with the so-called Tulip Revolution. As a result the U.S. government has suffered major geo-strategic setbacks in Central Asia. All of Central Asia’s leaders have distanced themselves from America.

Russia and Iran have also secured energy deals in the region. America’s efforts, over several decades, to exert a hegemonic role in Central Asia seem to have been reversed overnight. The U.S. sponsored velvet revolutions have backfired. Relations between Uzbekistan and the U.S. were especially hard hit. Uzbekistan is under the authoritarian rule of President Islam Karamov. Starting in the second half of the 1990s President Karamov was enticed into bringing Uzbekistan into the fold of the Anglo-American alliance and NATO. When there was an attempt on President Karamov’s life, he suspected the Kremlin because of his independent policy stance. This is what led Uzbekistan to leave CSTO. But Islam Karamov, years later, changed his mind as to who was attempting to get rid of him.

According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Uzbekistan represented a major obstacle to any renewed Russian control of Central Asia and was virtually invulnerable to Russian pressure; this is why it was important to secure Uzbekistan as an American protectorate in Central Asia. Uzbekistan also has the largest military force in Central Asia. In 1998, Uzbekistan held war games with NATO troops in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan was becoming heavily militarized in the same manner as Georgia was in the Caucasus. The U.S. gave Uzbekistan huge amounts of financial aid to challenge the Kremlin in Central Asia and also provided training to Uzbek forces. With the launching of the “Global War on Terror,” in 2001, Uzbekistan, an Anglo-American ally, immediately offered bases and military facilities to the U.S. in Karshi-Khanabad.

The leadership of Uzbekistan already knew the direction the “Global War on Terror” would take. To the irritation of the Bush Jr. Administration, the Uzbek President formulated a policy of self-reliance. The honeymoon between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance ended when Washington D.C. and London contemplated removing Islam Karamov from power. He was a little too independent for their comfort and taste. Their attempts at removing the Uzbek President failed, leading eventually to a shift in geo-political alliances.

The tragic events of Andijan on May 13, 2005 were the breaking point between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance. The people of Andijan were incited into confronting the Uzbek authorities, which resulted in a heavy security clampdown on the protesters and a loss of lives. Armed groups were reported to have been involved. In the U.S., Britain, and the E.U., the media reports focused narrowly on human rights violations without mentioning the covert role of the Anglo-American alliance. Uzbekistan held Britain and the U.S. responsible accusing them of inciting rebellion.

M. K. Bhadrakumar, the former Indian ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998), revealed that the Hezbut Tahrir (HT) was one of the parties blamed for stirring the crowd in Andijan by the Uzbek government. [9] The group was already destabilizing Uzbekistan and using violent tactics. The headquarters of this group happens to be in London and they enjoy the support of the British government. London is a hub for many similar organizations that further Anglo-American interests in various countries, including Iran and Sudan, through destabilization campaigns. Uzbekistan even started clamping down on foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) because of the tragic events of Andijan.

The Anglo-American alliance had played its cards wrong in Central Asia. Uzbekistan officially left the GUUAM Group, a NATO-U.S. sponsored anti-Russian body. GUUAM once again became the GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldava) Group on May 24, 2005. On July 29, 2005 the U.S. military was ordered to leave Uzbekistan within a six-month period.[10] Literally, the Americans were told they were no longer welcome in Uzbekistan and Central Asia. Russia, China, and the SCO added their voices to the demands. The U.S. cleared its airbase in Uzbekistan by November, 2005.

Uzbekistan rejoined the CSTO alliance on June 26, 2006 and realigned itself, once again, with Moscow. The Uzbek President also became a vocal advocate, along with Iran, for pushing the U.S. totally out of Central Asia. [11] Unlike Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan continued to allow the U.S. to use Manas Air Base, but with restrictions and in an uncertain atmosphere. The Kyrgyz government also would make it clear that no U.S. operations could target Iran from Kyrgyzstan.

Source: http://www.payvand.com/news/07/sep/1274.html

[zeytuntsi]

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

The article is a bit old, but the situation did not change much and the continuously rising inflation is not helping.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/mar2005/russ-m11.shtml

Wealth and poverty in modern Russia
By Vladimir Volkov and Julia Denenberg
11 March 2005


Since the beginning of the year, protests have been under way, primarily by pensioners, against the transformation of social benefits into substantially smaller cash payments. (See: “Russia: wave of protests against welfare cuts,” 27 January, 2005; and “Russia: Putin lays siege to social benefits,” 21 September, 2004.)

Government propaganda has sought to attribute the spread of protests to problems in the implementation of the new laws on social security benefits, while insisting the laws themselves are necessary and inevitable. However, protests by pensioners are only the tip of the iceberg. The underlying cause of growing discontent is the enormous degree of social inequality that has resulted from the introduction of capitalism in the former Soviet Union.

In his New Year speech, President Vladimir Putin maintained that the social situation of most Russians had improved over the previous year. Just a few days later, however, the outbreak of protests indicated what broad sections of the population thought about this question.

Even a cursory examination of the social situation in modern Russia reveals a deeply divided society. An array of statistics documents the reality of two different worlds that hardly come into contact with one another. One—the world of wealth and luxury—is inhabited by an insignificant minority. The other—the world of social decline and an arduous struggle for life’s necessities—is inhabited by millions upon millions.

Figures showing the distribution of wealth reveal the glaring nature of this social polarisation. According to government data, the incomes of the very richest members of Russian society are 15 times those of the poorest—one of the highest levels of social inequality to be found among the world’s leading countries. In Moscow, this difference is 53-fold.

Below the poverty line

According to figures published by the World Bank at the end of last year, 20 percent of the Russian population lives below the poverty line, which is defined as a monthly income of 1,000 roubles (less than 30 euros, or $38).

The great majority of Russian families are teetering on the edge of poverty. The World Bank has calculated that an average decrease in income of 10 percent would produce a 50 percent rise in the poverty rate. The majority of the poor in Russia are to be found among working families headed by adults with average technical professional training, and in families with children.

Most of the poor workers are employed in the public sector, including teachers, physicians and low-ranking civil servants. The occupations with the lowest incomes—including those employed in the health services, such as nurses and medics—are of great social importance. The poor living conditions of those employed in these sectors contribute to a decline in the structures upon which a functioning society is based.

The well-off receive greater privileges and benefits than the poor or the near-poor. The World Bank writes that medium-level social allowances (with the exception of those for children) paid to the relatively rich exceed those received by poorer social layers.

Russia’s National Statistics Office officially classifies a total of 31 million people (22 percent of the population) as poor. Other surveys, however, place the poverty rate at 40 percent or higher.

The All-Russian Centre for Living Standards published the following figures for the varying degrees of poverty:

At the end of 2003, average monthly income was calculated at 2,121 roubles (60 euros/$77 a month), with those who are employed receiving 2,300 roubles (65 euros/$83) and pensioners receiving 1,600 roubles (45 euros/$58). Those whose income falls below these levels are defined as poor. A second category, those who are badly off, includes families where per-capita income lies between 2,121 and 4,400 roubles (60-126 euros/$77-$161). A significant section of the population can be found in these two categories.

The Centre for Living Standards regards the “middle layers” as households with a per-capita monthly income of between 4,400 roubles and 15,000 roubles (126-430 euros/$161-$550). By Western standards, this level of income would represent poverty.

Pensioners and young people constitute the poorest sections of Russian society. The Social Opinions Fund has found that practically no young people (just 1 percent) are saving for their old age. Two thirds of young people who were asked said they could not afford to buy anything. Young people living in the countryside or in small cities are at greatest risk of being poor. In contrast to Western countries, where poverty is often concentrated in the large cities, the poor are more frequently found in Russia’s villages and towns.

Families with children are exposed to the constant danger of poverty, particularly those with two, three or more children.

Children from families with low incomes have substantially decreased chances of going on to gain an apprenticeship after graduating high school. Only 15 percent of children from poor families go to the more specialised technical colleges and universities. A low level of education is an important factor in the persistence of poverty.

The poor are more frequently ill or succumb to alcohol. The incidence of tuberculosis in Russia is 10 times higher than in Europe.

Scientists have calculated that since the beginning of the 1990s, some 8 million Russians have died prematurely. The mortality rate has risen one-and-a-half times over the same period. In 2003, it reached a high point at 16.4 deaths per 1,000 inhabitants.

The average Russian man can presently expect to live only to 58. That means married women, on average, are widowed for 15 years. This is due both to women’s greater life expectancy and to the younger age at which women marry.

Despite the adversities of everyday life in the Soviet Union, for most people the social situation was substantially better than that which exists in contemporary Russia. Today, the minimum wage covers only 27 percent of what is needed to sustain an adult of working age; the child benefit covers just 3 percent of necessary expenditure for a child; and the minimum pension covers only 46 percent of the minimum expenditure of a pensioner.

In the Soviet Union, the minimum wage amounted to one-and-a-half times the minimum required consumption. Russia’s minimum wage would have to be trebled to cover the minimum level of consumption.

A serious struggle against poverty is impossible without a real reform of the educational system and health service. Both would have to be made accessible to broad layers of the population. However, the tendency is in the opposite direction.

For increasing numbers of Russians, it is becoming clear that further capitalist “reforms” will not improve their situation.

The wealthy end of the spectrum

Then there is the other Russia. It finds its personification in figures like Roman Abramovich, governor of the remote region of Chukotka (just across the Bering Strait from Alaska) and owner of a controlling interest in the Russian oil giant Sibneft. He is considered the richest man in Britain, where he now resides. Two years ago, he acquired the English soccer club Chelsea for an astronomical sum.

Russia is ranked third in the world for the number of billionaires, and thirteenth for having the largest enterprises.

Taken as a whole, the fortunes of Russia’s billionaires amount to nearly half as much as the total value of the largest Russian enterprises. By comparison, in the US, this sum amounts to 6 percent.

The greatest part of shareholdings in the largest Russian enterprises can be found in the hands of this tiny social layer. According to the World Bank, in 2003, the 23 largest business groups account for 57 percent of all of Russia’s industrial production.

Forbes magazine has calculated that, measured against the economic output of the country ($458 billion), there are more billionaires in Russia (36) than anywhere else in the world. The total assets of these 36 richest Russians amounts to $110 billion—24 percent of the country’s economic output.

Most of the Russian billionaires and multimillionaires control raw materials and their associated industries. According to Forbes, this applies to 66 of the 100 richest Russians. The 34 others have gained their wealth from new business fields—above all, telecommunications, construction, food production and retail trade.

The incomes of the top managers are also incomparably greater than those of the ordinary citizen or pensioner. Gaseta.ru cites data showing they receive annually between $1 million and $3 million.

The president of Lukoil gets $1.5 million. If the business achieves certain goals, he enjoys a bonus of $2.2 million. The vice president gets $800,000 annually, with up to $1.1 million in bonuses. The picture was the same at Yukos, until it was liquidated by the state.

In large-scale enterprises like the United Mechanical Engineering Works and the Tyumen oil company, basic executive salaries amount to $500,000 and more. Oleg Deripaska, the boss of the Basis Element aluminium producer, paid taxes of $294 million in 2001 on his income in the Siberian Republic of Khakassia. His pay constituted 10 percent of the total income of the republic.

The “new Russians,” as they are sometimes called, often live abroad, where they can be found in the most expensive hotels, clubs and restaurants. They possess racehorses, yachts and mansions. Practically every billionaire has his own yacht and airplane. They particularly enjoy buying expensive antiques and xxxelery, as well as purchasing real estate in the most expensive areas of Europe’s capitals. A special attraction for them is London.

Russians constitute a third of all foreign investors on the London property market. Over the past 10 years, the number of British visas given to Russians has increased eightfold. Of 250,000 Russians living in London, 700 are multimillionaires.

New Year celebrations are the high point of profligate consumption for the Russian nouveaux riches. The International Herald Tribune reported recently that some 20,000 Russians “wallowed in luxury, ate, drank and went shopping” in the elite boutiques of the ski resort of Courchevel, which lies in a snow-covered corner of the French Alps. In this spa resort can be found four-star hotels like Les Grandes Alpes, where a room costs between 550 and 1,250 euros ($704 and $1,600) per night. In the hotel restaurant, one can drink wines for a mere 1,750 euros ($2,239) a bottle. A new suite opened in the hotel Byblos des Neiges recently that measures 220 square metres and costs 6,500 euros ($8,318) a night.

The International Herald Tribune writes that Russian ski teachers are being employed to cope with the wave of Russian tourists in Courchevel, where Russian advertisements can be seen everywhere. “This is wonderful business for us,” explained the owner of one local four-star hotel.

This is the reality behind the invocations of “national unity” proclaimed by the Putin government. It is no wonder that ordinary Russians increasingly demonstrate their discontent and protest against the worsening of their situation. These protests will inevitably continue and intensify under conditions in which the government lacks any solution for Russia’s mounting social problems.

[Armenian]

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

Russia's Lavrov warns against attack on Iran

Russia's foreign minister on Friday warned against the use of force on Iran, saying there is no proof it is trying to build nuclear weapons. Sergey Lavrov said Iran should be engaged in dialogue and encouraged to cooperate with the U.N. nuclear monitoring agency. Lavrov made the statement when asked to comment on an Israeli Cabinet member's statement earlier this month that Israel could attack Iran if it does not halt its nuclear program. "I hope the actual actions would be based on international law," Lavrov said. "And international law clearly protects Iran's and anyone else's territorial integrity." Israel's military refused to confirm or deny a report Friday that its warplanes staged a major rehearsal this month for a possible attack on Iran.

The New York Times report quoted U.S. officials as saying more than 100 Israeli F-16s and F-15s staged the maneuver over the eastern Mediterranean and Greece in the first week of June. It said the aircraft flew more than 900 miles (1,450 kilometers), roughly the distance from Israel to Iran's Natanz nuclear enrichment facility, and that the exercise included refueling tankers and helicopters capable of rescuing downed pilots. Lavrov said Russia had asked both the United States and Israel to provide factual information to back their claims that Iran was working to build atomic weapons. "So far we have seen none, and the same conclusion was made by the International Atomic Energy Agency," he said. "It's absolutely not right to speak matter-of-factly that Iran continues building nuclear weapons," Lavrov added. Iran insists its enrichment program is meant only to generate electricity. But because of its past clandestine activities, including some that could have applications for weapons research, the international community is concerned that Tehran wants to enrich uranium to a purity suitable for use in atomic bombs. The IAEA suggested in a report to the U.N. Security Council last month that Iran was stonewalling investigators and possibly withholding information crucial to determining whether it conducted research on nuclear weapons. Lavrov insisted that Iran must be encouraged to continue its cooperation with the U.N. monitoring agency.

"As long as the IAEA reports to us progress in its relations with Iran, as long as Iran closes the issues which were of concern to the IAEA and this process continues, we should avoid any steps which could undermine this very important process," he said, speaking in English. Russia has maintained close ties with Iran and is building its first nuclear power plant in the southern port of Bushehr, which is expected to go on line later this year. It has backed limited U.N. sanctions aimed at forcing Iran to suspend its uranium enrichment program, but has opposed the U.S. push for harsher measures. "The key to resolving the Iranian issue is involvement," Lavrov said. "We must involve Iran, engage Iran in resolving the Iranian nuclear program, ... but also engage Iran in constructive, respectful, serious dialogue on Iraq and Afghanistan, on the Middle East in general."

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5j...Ei5OgD91DQ8U80

Bush May End Term With Iran Issue Unsettled

For more than five years now, President Bush and Vice President xxxx Cheney have made clear that they did not want to leave office with Iran any closer to possessing nuclear weapons than when they took office. “The nations of the world must not permit the Iranian regime to gain nuclear weapons,” Mr. Bush said in February 2006. The United States is prepared to use its naval power “to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating this region,” Mr. Cheney said in 2007 from a Navy carrier in the Persian Gulf. But with seven months left in this administration, Iran appears ascendant, its political and economic influence growing, its historic foes in Iraq and Afghanistan weakened, and its nuclear program continuing to move forward. So the question now is: Are Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney resigned to leaving Iran more powerful than they found it when they came to office? The evidence is mixed. For all the talk to the contrary, Bush administration officials appear to have concluded that diplomatic efforts to rein in Iran’s nuclear ambitions will not yield any breakthroughs this year.

Despite a recent flurry of efforts to tighten sanctions on Iran, top officials on both sides of the Atlantic, in recent interviews, had no expectations that Iran’s rulers would make any concessions, particularly on the critical issue of suspending the enrichment of uranium, while Mr. Bush remained in office. On the military front, the picture is fuzzier. Two senior administration officials said that barring a move by Israel, which one characterized as “the wild card” on the Iranian issue, this administration would not be likely to pursue military strikes against Iranian nuclear targets. Mr. Bush himself seemed to signal as much at the start of his European tour last week in Slovenia, when he said of Iran that he expected to “leave behind a multilateral framework to work on this issue,” a statement that seemed to suggest that military action against Iran may no longer be on the table. But there remains the possibility that Israel could force the hand of the Bush administration, foreign policy analysts and diplomats said. Israel carried out a three-day military exercise this month that American intelligence officials say appeared to have been a rehearsal for a potential strike on nuclear targets in Iran.

Israeli officials have tried to put pressure in recent months on the Bush administration to consider such a strike if Iran did not abandon its nuclear program, and the exercise may have been intended as a new signal that Israel might be willing to act alone if the United States did not. “Israel prefers this threat be dealt with peacefully, by dramatically increasing sanctions and maintaining a credible resolve to keep all options on the table,” said Sallai Meridor, the Israeli ambassador to the United States. “But time is running out." Iran, he said, “should understand that under no circumstances will the world allow it to obtain a nuclear capability.” Mohamad ElBaradei, director of the International Atomic Energy Agency, told Al Arabiya television that he would quit his job in the event of a military strike on Iran. “It would turn the region into a fireball,” he said in an interview broadcast Friday, according to Reuters.

Israeli officials have expressed fear to the Bush administration that a new administration would take months, if not years, to decide on its approach to Iran. The consensus in the United States and Europe is that Iran is still at least two years away from a nuclear weapon. Israeli officials say they believe the threshold is closer to a year. An Israeli military strike on Iran would almost certainly require American help. For one thing, Pentagon officials say, it would take hundreds of sorties to take out a big swath of Iranian air defense. For another, the United States controls much of the airspace around Iran. Beyond that, Iran would hold the United States accountable for an Israeli strike, and could retaliate against American troops in Iraq. In Moscow on Friday, Foreign Minister Sergey V. Lavrov urged dialogue rather than confrontation with Iran and said that the United States and Israel had not offered any proof that Iran was pursuing a nuclear weapons program. “So far we have not seen any,” Mr. Lavrov said, according to Interfax news agency.

A trip to Tehran last weekend by European diplomats with a new package of incentives was largely for Iranian public consumption, and to appease Russia and China by appearing to be still trying to woo Iran, European and American diplomats said. But European diplomats have been loath to acknowledge publicly that diplomacy on Iran’s nuclear development is in a holding pattern for the next eight months because they fear that Iran will only use that time to make progress on its nuclear program, which Iran says is for peaceful purposes. “One should not talk about keeping the status quo because that would be dangerous,” one European diplomat said, speaking on condition of anonymity under diplomatic rules. “We can’t say the clock has stopped and we will begin work again after Jan. 1; that is not a good recipe for success.”

Administration efforts to convey a sense of urgency about stopping Iran’s nuclear program were dealt a blow late last year with the release of a National Intelligence Estimate reporting that Iran had stopped work on a nuclear weapons program in 2003. In recent months, Bush administration officials have tried to walk back from that report, repeating often that Iran’s nuclear program remains a threat. Many foreign policy experts are now looking to the next administration for a possible new approach to the standoff with Iran. “The Europeans all understand that the carrots-and-sticks approach is not working, and the entire Iran diplomatic policy has to be rethought,” said Vali R. Nasr, an Iran expert at Tufts University. Until a new administration takes over, he said, “we’re stuck in a process where the ball is kicked to the bureaucrats.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/21/wa...a66&ei=5087%0A

[Armenian]

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

So the grenade that did not explode was actually not a real thing? Amazing! The whole story sounds very fishy to me..... I think Vladimir Arutyunian was set up just like Lee Harvey Oswald in 1963. Vladimir Arutyunian just like American Oswald (who lived in the USSR) is a patsy.

Very plausible. However, what did they accomplish by planning this incident? Washington and Tbilisi tried very hard to down play it. There was very little in western news media about it. Even you did not know about it. If they, Washington and Tbilisi, had done it they would have made sure the incident got maximum coverage. So, what was their agenda? Was it an anti-Armenian agenda? If so, what steps have they taken against Armenia as a result? They were already isolating Armenia as a result of Yerevan's closeness with Moscow. They did not need any other excuses. Was it an anti-Russia agenda? I just don't see what they meant to accomplish by such an operation. Analyze the aftermath. Tbilisi even lost the head of their interior ministry troops in the shootout with Arutunian. In my opinion, there can be other explanations as well. It could be that Georgian and US officials attempted to play down the very embarrassing and potentially explosive incident by claiming that the granade in question was non-functioning and the act itself was the work of some madman. If the third party involved was revealed to be a special operations service of another nation, a major power, it would be in the strategic interests of Washington and Tbilisi to cover up the matter and not allow it transform into a serious confrontation, similar to what some speculators claim about the Kursk incident. It could be that whoever ordered the operation was trying to merely 'scare' the two presidents, a warning for them if you will. Nonetheless, Vladimir Arutunian seemed to have been a pasty either for Washington - or for Moscow. Anyway, this is one of those mysterious/weird incidents that we will not know the full details of for some time, if ever.

Bush started a war in Iraq to protect Israel, and Misha (former New York lawyer by the way) buys his spy planes from the same country:

I'm afraid it's not that simple, NP. I think it was a 'convergence' of many-many interests - Neocons/Zionists, oil lobby, defense contractors, mega corporations, US State Department and some European interests. What's more, attacking Iraq fit the grand - longterm - scheme against Russia and China as well. By controlling the Middle East, Central Asia and the Persian Gulf region they can further isolate the Russian Federation and force China's oil/gas dependency. Naturally, the destruction of Iraq also served to protect the Zionist state in the longterm. Nevertheless, it also provided oil/gas exploiters massive new opportunities in the region and Iraq will now serve as a springboard for attacking Iran. Iran is a longterm threat for Persian Gulf Sunni Arab states, certain Western interests and of course the Zionist state. Saying the Iraq war was simply about protecting Israel is a bit simplistic and overlooks the greater geopolitical agenda for the region. It's a 'convergence' of interests.

It's nothing our Air Defence cannot handle as it is one of our strongest branches in the army. You see, everytime "azerbaijan" spends money on its air force, we spend money on our air defense. Don't count on our Air Force though as it is in terrible shape. Maybe the Russian MiG-29s stationed near Gyumri might assist in shooting down these Hermes, just like it helped Abkhazia to shoot them down...

The Russian Air Force unit in Armenia is based in Erebuni, very near Zvartnots airport:

MiG-29s in Erebuni Air Base, Armenia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvOrS...eature=related

The Russian military unit by Gyumri is the 102nd Military Base where mechanized forces and anti-aircraft missiles are located:

Russian 102nd Military Base // Gyumri // Armenia: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noqMHlYYNrc

Moscow will not shoot at anything over Nagorno Karabagh. They don't have any business over the unrecognized/disputed territory. Doing such a thing would be a direct aggression by Moscow against Baku. Thus. it won't happen under normal circumstances. What's more, Russia would not directly confront Azerbaijan because Moscow has been trying very hard to win over Baku and has been succeeding as of late. Moscow is simply interested in keeping the status quo in Nagorno Karabagh.

Militarily speaking, the reconnaissance drones in question pose a negligible threat in peace times. Realize that the reason why the drones in question made a lot of news lately was because they were getting shot down, not because they were posing any serious threat to Russians in Abkhazia. These aerial systems pose a threat primarily when combat operations are occurring by proving military command-and-control real time battlefield intelligence on enemy force movements. In the absence of major armed clashes in the region, Baku does not need such intelligence. What's more, I am sure Baku already has a lot of information about Armenian military positions in Nagorno Karabagh thanks to US and Turkish military intelligence.

That would be nice but I wouldn't count on it. Because Russia would use the excuse that the azeri's sent their drone into NKR territory, not Armenia "proper" so therefore they are under no obligation, plus they have said before that an azeri attack on Artsakh will not cause the csto defense pact to go into affect.

Very true. However, Moscow has also clearly signaled on many occasions that they do not want to see the resumption of hostilities in the area. Besides which, Moscow does not need to get involved anyway because it knows very well that Armenian forces in the region are fully capable for repelling any type of Azeri aggression.

I have a question concerning sth I read the other day. How do you view Medvedev's forthcoming visit to Azerbaijan? Obviously Azeris seem to attach great importance to it: I was just wondering what could be the possible implications of this visit. And I would really like to hear your opinion on it.

I would not worry about it. It's simply a state visit to Baku, he will eventually visit Yerevan as well. Why is he going to Baku first? Because there are serious issues between Moscow and Baku that need to be resolved. There are no issues between Moscow and Yerevan that warrant immediate attention. Politically and economically, Moscow has more-or-less cornered Baku and has been as of late trying very hard to win over Baku. Is this a threat to Armenia? Not in my opinion. Realize that the only reason why Moscow can impose itself on Baku is because of the Nagorno Karabagh issue. Baku, as well as Tbilisi, are more-or-less hostages to Moscow because of Russia's close relations with Armenia. By undermining Armenia Moscow will undermine itself. This situation will remain so for the foreseeable future.

I posted some commentaries by Azeri political analysts about Russian-Azeri relations:

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showpost.php?p=195281&postcount=1763

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showpost.php?p=194598&postcount=1711

Pay close attention to their comments: All of them are more-or-less stating that Moscow will not assist Azerbaijan in resolving the Nagorno Karabagh problem in Baku's favor.

You know what, I get happier when I see the head of the armed forces of the Armenian Republic meeting with the head of the armed forces of the Russian Federation (see news report below). In my opinion, such meetings are in some ways much more significant than the meetings of presidents:

DM SEYRAN OHANYAN MET WITH CHIEF OF GENERAL STAFF OF RF ARMED FORCES

On June 18 RA Defense Minister Seyran Ohanyan met with the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Army General Nikolay Makarov. At the beginning of the meeting Nikolay Markov greeted Seyran Ohanyan and congratulated him on assuming the office of the Defense Minister. For his part, RA Defense Minister congratulated Nikolay Markov on his appointment and expressed hope that the bilateral cooperation will expand during his tenure in office. During the meeting the parties discussed issues related to the Armenian-Russian military, military-technical and military-educational cooperation, stressing the achievements in these spheres. The parties discussed questions related to the creation of a Joint Military System and its activity, as well as some organizational issues of the "Rubezh 2008" military exercises. At the end of the meeting the parties turned to the current state of military cooperation, stressing the importance of deepening it.

Source: http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg235363.html

[North Pole]

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

....

[North Pole]

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

Armenian, I know it's off topic... I am sorry...
But I just have to post this:

Russia dumped Netherlands out of Euro 2008!!!!

Netherlands 1-3 Russia






12 mins ago: Russia's Dmitri Torbinski, third form right, scores his side's second goal during the quarterfinal match between the Netherlands and Russia in Basel, Switzerland, Saturday, June 21, 2008, at the Euro 2008 European Soccer Championships in Austria and Switzerland.






10 mins ago: Russia's players celebrates the team's second goal scored by Dmitry Torbinsky during their Euro 2008 quarter-final soccer match against the Netherlands at Jakob Park stadium in Basel, June 21, 2008.


euro2008.uefa.com - Home Page

[Siamanto]

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

I think it was a 'convergence' of many-many interests - Neocons/Zionists, oil lobby, defense contractors, mega corporations, US State Department and some European interests. What's more, attacking Iraq fit the grand - longterm - scheme against Russia and China as well. By controlling the Middle East, Central Asia and the Persian Gulf region they can further isolate the Russian Federation and force China's oil/gas dependency. Naturally, the destruction of Iraq also served to protect the Zionist state in the longterm. Nevertheless, it also provided oil/gas exploiters massive new opportunities in the region and Iraq will now serve as a springboard for attacking Iran. Iran is a longterm threat for Persian Gulf Sunni Arab states, certain Western interests and of course the Zionist state. Saying the Iraq war was simply about protecting Israel is a bit simplistic and overlooks the greater geopolitical agenda for the region. It's a 'convergence' of interests.

Something is missing in this "Armenian" salad???? Is it, as TomServo suggested, salt???? LOL Maybe some French Dressing???

I would not worry about it. It's simply a state visit to Baku, he will eventually visit Yerevan as well. Why is he going to Baku first? Because there are serious issues between Moscow and Baku that need to be resolved.

If the president of a powerful country, like Russia, makes time to visit a minor country, like Azerbaijan, it, most likely, means that
1- The minor country holds control of strategic resources that the powerful country eagerly/desperately wants/needs
2- The issue(s) could not be solved by lower ranked officials - i.e. ministers or lower
3- The powerful country is eager/desperate enough to put the issue(s) on the president's agenda to travel, and be ready for some concessions/"ass kissing"

I understand that the realities may not fit your agenda of misinformation and propaganda, but, denying the facts cannot be in Armenia's interest - even if it is in "Armenian's" interest. *thanks god that amateurs like you have no role in Armenia's foreign policy*

There are no issues between Moscow and Yerevan that warrant immediate attention. Politically and economically, Moscow has more-or-less cornered Baku and has been as of late trying very hard to win over Baku. Is this a threat to Armenia? Not in my opinion.

What matters is that the situation may change in favor of the Azeris, regardless of the degree i.e. even if the balance will not tilt in favor of the Azeris; what matters is the fact that the balance of forces is being broken.
For someone who pretends understanding Geopolitics and the art of war, the above would make many wonder.

Realize that the only reason why Moscow can impose itself on Baku is because of the Nagorno Karabagh issue. Baku, as well as Tbilisi, are more-or-less hostages to Moscow because of Russia's close relations with Armenia.

"Realize" that Medvedev is taking the time to travel to Baku, "realize" that it's not a regional visit - only two countries???, "realize" that it probably means that he's ready for some concessions/"ass kissing."
If Baku was Moscow's "hostage," the former would have been asked/instructed/forced to visit Moscow.

By undermining Armenia Moscow will undermine itself.

Russia has many leverages to control Armenia, and would have no worries.

[Illuminator]

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

Armenian, I know it's off topic... I am sorry...
But I just have to post this:

Russia dumped Netherlands out of Euro 2008!!!!

Netherlands 1-3 Russia






12 mins ago: Russia's Dmitri Torbinski, third form right, scores his side's second goal during the quarterfinal match between the Netherlands and Russia in Basel, Switzerland, Saturday, June 21, 2008, at the Euro 2008 European Soccer Championships in Austria and Switzerland.






10 mins ago: Russia's players celebrates the team's second goal scored by Dmitry Torbinsky during their Euro 2008 quarter-final soccer match against the Netherlands at Jakob Park stadium in Basel, June 21, 2008.


euro2008.uefa.com - Home Page

NO it's not really off topic. Great team, great game...proves Russia is BACK in a BIG way!