The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

There were some very revealing comments made by Vladimir Putin today. I think there is allot that could be read in between the lines here. Some questions arise as well. Nonetheless, some very interesting - candid - talk coming out of Moscow lately.

Russia won’t subsidize economies of former soviet republics any more



Vladimir Putin stated Russia’s readiness for integration in the post-soviet space on equal and pragmatic basis. “No one can say that we politicize these issues. We are not going to spend huge sums to subsidize economies of other states. We are ready to develop integration but it will be on an equal basis,” the Russian President told reporters from G8 member states.

“Some think we will not defend our interests. But if we want order and international law at the international arena we should respect this law and interests of participants of the international communication,” Putin said.

“We have subsidized economies of the former soviet republics for 15 years at expense of cheap energy resources,” he said.

“So why should we do it? Where is the logic? We used to allot $3-5 billion to Ukraine annually in the course of 15 years. Who else in the world does it? At that, our moves are not politicized,” Putin said. He reminded that Russia applies unified price formation to all Transcaucasian states. “To Georgia, with which we do not enjoy good political relations; to Armenia, relations with which are excellent and which is our strategic ally,” he said.

“Yes, we have heard plenty of uncomplimentary words from our Armenian partners but we managed to come to an agreement. They cannot pay cash, but they pay off with property, with ‘live actives’.

Everything has been calculated,” Mr Putin noted. Integration in the post-soviet space is highly needed, according to him. “It’s convenient not only for the former soviet republics but also for our major partners in Europe and throughout the globe. Its expedience depends on balance and efficiency of our cooperation,” the President resumed, Interfax reports.

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/arm/?nid=22525

[Lucin]

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

Armenian, could you explain what he means by “they pay off with property and live actives”??
By taking control of the state-owned industries and companies?

[Armenian]

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

Armenian, could you explain what he means by “they pay off with property and live actives”??

Live Actives????

Նույն հարցումը ես էլ ունիմ: Հայերեն թարգմանությունը նույնիսք չհասկացա:

Նրանք չեն կարող ամբողջ գինը վճարել «կենդանի» փողով, վճարում են գույքով: «Կենդանի», իրական ակտիվներով, եւ այդ ամենը հաշվարկված է թղթի վրա»,-ամփոփել է ՌԴ նախագահը:

I can only surmise that it must have been taken literally from Russian, as a result it may have lost its effect in the translation. But it must refer to taking control of the state-owned industries and companies as you stated.

[skhara]

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

Nato condemns Putin missile vow

[skhara]

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

I can only surmise that it must have been taken literally from Russian, as a result it may have lost its effect in the translation. But it must refer to taking control of the state-owned industries and companies as you stated.

SO I just went to a russian news site to see if I can find anything on the subject. Well I didn't find anything about this, but apparently there is talk of extending Putin's term to 7 years. And there are a bunch of MPs quoted in support of that, declaring that these are "logical steps" and contribute to "national stability".

[Armenian]

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

This dude is on a role...



Putin attacks West ahead of G-8 summit

President Vladimir Putin called himself the world's only "absolute and pure democrat" in an interview published Monday, and launched scathing attacks on the U.S. and Europe ahead of this week's Group of Eight summit. At the same time, the 54-year-old Putin hinted that he may not be ready to leave the public stage after all when his second term expires next year. "I am far from pension age and it would be absurd just to sit at home doing nothing," he told a group of reporters invited to dinner over the weekend.

Despite Russia's agreement last month to tone down the rhetoric, Putin's statements exposed vast gaps between Russia and the West ahead of this week's Group of Eight summit. He called Britain's decision to demand the extradition of the man suspected of killing former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko with a radioactive poison an act of "stupidity."

The interview touched on much that the rest of the world finds disturbing about Putin's Russia: the backsliding on democracy, the increasing assertion of military power, the general perception of a leader who feels immune to international criticism. To the many Westerners who say he has rolled back Russia's democratic reforms, Putin responded with the startling assertion that he is the world's one true champion of democracy.

"I am an absolute and pure democrat," Putin said. "But you know what the misfortune is? Not even a misfortune but a real tragedy? It's that I am alone, there simply aren't others like this in the world." The transcript noted that Putin laughed when making that comment, suggesting he was joking. A few moments later he added: "After the death of Mahatma Gandhi, there's nobody to talk to."

Sandwiched between his acid criticisms and ironic assertions was a brief but brutal criticism of the West.

"We look at what has been created in North America — horror: torture, homelessness, Guantanamo, detention without courts or investigation," he said.

"You see what's going on in Europe: harsh treatment of demonstrators, the use of rubber bullets, tear gas in one capital, the killing of demonstrators in the streets in another," he added, in an apparent reference to the death of an ethnic Russian in the Estonian capital during protests over the removal of a Soviet-era war memorial.

Rather than try to soothe nerves before the G-8 summit in Germany, Putin repeated, and even amplified, recent Kremlin criticism of the United States — including his allegation in February that the United States was engaging in a "hyper-use of power," and Russian officials' denunciation of purported Western attempts to destabilize Russia by funding pro-democracy groups.

The Russian president's comments came despite last month's agreement between Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to tone down the rhetoric on both sides. Much of the toughest talk from the Kremlin has focused on U.S. plans to build a missile-defense system in Europe, which Washington insists is aimed at preventing attacks by rogue states such as Iran and North Korea rather than Russia. Putin renewed the verbal offensive in his weekend interview, in chilling comments that evoked the balance-of-terror language of the Cold War.

"We are being told the anti-missile defense system is targeted against something that does not exist. Doesn't it seem funny to you, to say the least?" a clearly irritated Putin said.

"If a part of the strategic nuclear potential of the United States appears in Europe and, in the opinion of our military specialists will threaten us, then we will have to take appropriate steps in response," Putin said. "What kind of steps? We will have to have new targets in Europe." These could be targeted with "ballistic or cruise missiles or maybe a completely new system."

National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley, asked aboard Air Force One about Putin's comments on the missile shield, said there has been "some escalation in the rhetoric."

"We think that that is not helpful. We would like to have a constructive dialogue with Russia on this issue. We have had it in the past," Hadley said.

Russia's relations with the West also are troubled by its refusal to turn over Andrei Lugovoi, the man whom Britain says it has enough evidence to charge in last year's fatal poisoning of former KGB agent Alexander Litvinenko. The case raised fears that Moscow has returned to its Soviet-era practice of killing dissidents abroad.

Russia refuses to turn over Lugovoi, saying its constitution forbids extradition of Russian citizens to face prosecution abroad. Putin called Britain's demand "stupidity." "If they didn't know (about the constitutional prohibition) it's a low level of competence and thus we have doubts about what they're doing there," Putin said. "And if they knew and did this, it's simply politics. "This is bad and that is bad — from all sides it's just stupidity," Putin said.

Putin, less than a year away from the end of his second and final four-year term in office, told reporters he believes Russian presidents should serve longer terms. But he did not say whether he believes his current term should be extended.

Over the years, he has consistently rejected suggestions that the constitution be amended to allow him to seek a third consecutive term, and during his annual address to parliament in April said it would be his last as president. But Putin's ambiguous comments seemed certain to feed speculation that he would seek to stay in power beyond the spring of 2008. At the very least, his suggestion could discourage other G-8 leaders from treating him as a lame duck.

"Four years is a fairly short time," Putin said. "It seems to me that in today's Russia five, six or seven years would be acceptable, but the number of terms still should be limited."

Russia is scheduled to hold presidential elections in March. Putin, who was re-elected in 2004 with more than 71 percent of the vote, has presided over one of the most prosperous periods in Russian history and enjoys sky-high approval ratings. Putin has not publicly said whom he would prefer to see succeed him — an endorsement that would carry immense influence, since that candidate could instantly expect the support of the Kremlin and its allies.

Some leaders in post-Soviet states have called referendums to approve extension of their terms. But these moves have been widely criticized abroad as naked power-grabs. While Putin seems increasingly to scorn his Western critics, the move would create an uproar that he might not want to face.

Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2883535.shtml

[Armenian]

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

Russia’s Geopolitical Counter-Offensive in the Former Soviet Union



In the last two to three years Russia has been on a geopolitical offensive in the countries that were formerly part of the Soviet Union. It has been gradually regaining the ground lost in the aftermath of the American invasion of Afghanistan and the Georgian, Ukrainian and Kyrgyz revolutions. Central Asia. The first major victory for Russia came in Tajikistan in 2004. The country was drifting towards the West following the ouster of the Taliban from neighboring Afghanistan. Moscow worked vigorously to bring the nation back under its sway. The Kremlin repeatedly threatened the Tajik government of Imomali Rakhmonov with the expulsion of one million Tajik workers from Russia, while offering debt relief for the return to Moscow’s orbit. In October of 2004 Russian President Putin and Tajik leader Rakhmonov signed an agreement. Russia agreed to let Tajik laborers remain in Russia and forgave the country $240 million of its $300 million debt.

[...]

The South Caucasus

Russia has been equally aggressive on its southern flank in the Caucasus. Moscow managed to further increase its already overwhelming influence in Armenia. It upgraded the Russian military base in Giumry, in the northern part of the country and successfully completed the process of acquiring Armenia’s power distribution network in September 2006. The Russian energy monopoly RAO UES already owns most of Armenian hydroelectric plants and manages the finances of the nuclear power station in Metsamor. In addition, the Kremlin controlled Gasprom is Armenia’s single gas provider. Russian gas generates 40% of Armenia’s electricity, another 40% coming from Russian controlled Metsamor. Gasprom also owns the country’s biggest thermal plant. In November 2006 the giant Russian mobile phone operator Vimpel-Communications bought 90% of the shares in Armenia’s national telecommunications company, ArmenTel, from the Greek firm OTE.

In April 2007 Moscow announced joint uranium excavation venture of Armenia’s uranium reserves, which is scheduled to begin later in this year. Yerevan also agreed to join the International Uranium Enrichment Center, located in Irkutsk region of Russia. Some Armenian experts express their deep concern over Moscow’s suffocating influence in all spheres of the country’s life. However, this doesn’t change the overall picture. The nation remains bound to Moscow to such degree that it leaves even President Putin satisfied. During one of his meetings with Armenian President Robert Kocharian (in February 2007, after the Russian takeover of the Armenian power grid) he half happily and half ironically declared that “there is no issue which can not be solved between Armenia and Russia”. The Kremlin kept Yerevan under close watch to make sure that the piping of the new Iranian-Armenian gas pipeline (that opened in March 2007, transporting gas into Armenia) was small in diameter. Thus Moscow prevented Iran and Armenia from exporting gas to other countries and avoided international competition with Russian Gasprom.

In contrast to Armenia, neighboring Azerbaijan drifted away from Russia and closer to the United States and NATO alliance. In 2006 Moscow attacked Azerbaijan, threatening to increase gas prices twofold. Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev defied the Kremlin and on his part threatened to stop the export of gas from Russia to Azerbaijan and the import of oil from Azerbaijan to Russia. In 2005 the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline became operational, transporting Azerbaijani oil via Georgia and Turkey to the West. In 2006 the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum pipeline went into operation. It significantly increased the political weight and strategic importance of Azerbaijan, brought it closer to the West and reduced Russian influence in the South Caucasus. Nevertheless, Moscow effectively kept the Karabakh conflict frozen, with a large portion of Baku’s political and diplomatic resources chained to the issue. The Kremlin also succeeded in maintaining its lease on an anti-Missile radar facility in the northern Azerbaijani city of Gabala. Realizing Azerbaijan’s huge importance as an energy rich country, with a highly geostrategic location in Caucasus and in the Caspian basin, the Kremlin doesn’t (and will not) spare its efforts to bring Baku back under Moscow’s influence. So there will be ever increasing pressure applied from Moscow towards Azerbaijan in the coming months or even years, if necessary.

Pro-Western Georgia has been the Kremlin’s main target in southern Caucasus. Russia fully realizes the huge significance of Georgia. If it regains influence over the country Moscow kills two birds with one stone: it gets direct land access to its satellite Armenia and neutralizes increasingly anti-Russian Azerbaijan, which heavily relies on Georgia to transport its abundant gas and oil resources to the West. Moscow has been doing everything it can to bend Georgia and Mikhail Saakashvili’s pro-Western government to its will. Russia heightened tensions in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and the Armenian populated Javakheti region in southern Georgia; sponsored and organized pro-Russian political groups to create social protests and undermine the government; supported anti-government armed revolt of Georgian warlord Emzar Kvitsiani in western Georgia; banned Georgian wines and mineral waters from Russian markets; raised gas price threefold; cut off all air and land connections with the country and deported hundreds of Georgian immigrants from Russia.

However, Saakashvili turned out to be a hard stone for Moscow to break. He managed to accelerate significant political, economic and military reforms in the country. He brought Georgia even closer to the West and to its goal of integration in NATO and eventually into the European Union. Saakashvili’s administration, with Western support, succeeded in starting the withdrawal of Russian military bases from Georgia. The Russian Army will leave the country entirely by the end of 2008. The opening of Baku-Batumi-Ceyhan oil pipeline (in 2005) and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzerum gas pipeline (in 2006) strengthened Georgia’s national security and regional and international position. However, besides many successes achieved in the nation-building process in the last several years, Georgia’s future is not entirely certain. Moscow doesn’t seem ready to retreat: it is lobbying hard in European capitals (using its energy clout) against NATO membership for Georgia, simultaneously subjecting the nation to almost daily, heavy political and economic blackmail.

Western Frontline

Russia has been similarly aggressive on its geopolitical frontline in post-Soviet Europe. After the humiliation of the Ukraine’s 2004 presidential elections, Moscow worked hard to contain and reverse the Orange Revolution. First, in winter of 2005 Russia heavily hit the country by doubling natural gas prices (gas raw that caused a disruption of gas supplies to Europe). Then, the well-organized and well financed Ukraine’s pro-Russian “Party of Regions” based on Russian speaking voters in the country’s east, gained a vital 33% in Ukraine’s March 2006 parliamentary elections. The formerly disgraced Victor Yanukovich (the leader of the “Party of Regions” and the loser of disputed 2004 presidential elections) was catapulted into the position of Prime-Minister. Since then, he effectively halted the country’s integration process into NATO. Profound disagreements between President Yushenko’s and his pro-Russian Prime-Minister’s policies’ resulted in the dissolution of the Ukrainian parliament in April 2007 and plunged the country into a deep political crisis, that continues to be filled with uncertainty. In addition, by issuing clear threats to the territorial integrity of the Ukraine, Russia’s Ministry of Defense succeeded in maintaining its naval military facilities on the Black Sea coast.

[...]

Conclusion

Russia lost a great deal of influence in 1990’s and then in the first years of the new millennia, following the American invasion of Afghanistan and Georgian and Ukrainian revolutions in countries of the former Soviet Union. However, Putin’s Russia never gave up its hegemonic aspirations. But Moscow also realized that economically week Russia, with a disastrous war still going in Chechnya, couldn’t afford an ambitious foreign policy. Putin’s Russia rose quietly and gradually. After the September 11 attacks, Putin agreed to let Americans establish military bases in Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan. In fact Russia could do very little to stop Washington at that time. However, in exchange Russia got a free hand in Chechnya. By 2004-2005 Moscow basically crushed the Chechen rebellion killing the main Chechen field commanders. At the same time the Kremlin consolidated Russia’s entire energy sector in the state’s hands, sending disobedient oligarchs to jails or exile. Moscow gradually acquired about 30%-40% of Europe’s energy markets and unfolded a large scale geopolitical counter-offensive in the countries of the former Soviet Union.

Russia’s tactics were basically the same against post-Soviet states: Moscow allies with semi-authoritarian, corrupt, stagnant and isolated regimes (Uzbekistan, Belarus, Tajikistan) guaranteeing their survival in exchange for their obedience to Moscow. Under the banner of keeping stability in a country and in a wider region Russia poses as a policeman, supporting regimes militarily in case of domestic turbulence. Then Russia establishes (or expands already existing) military presence in a country, tightly chaining a nation’s military complex to its own (Armenia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan). Simultaneously Russian state monopolies move in on a country, establishing their dominance on a nation’s energy resources (Turkmenistan), energy infrastructure (Armenia, Tajikistan) and their transportation routes (Kazakhstan). In the beginning, the Kremlin backed Russian companies promise many investments, not only in energy sector but also in other sectors of economy, such as telecom, tourism, transportation. However, Moscow never invests enough (or any) capital to make meaningful change. It merely chains local economies to its own, guarantees its dominance, prevents international economic competition and leaves local societies frustrated and impoverished (Kyrgyzstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Belarus, Armenia).

Against pro-Western post-Soviet countries Russia deploys various tactics: supports shady separatist regimes (against Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan); cuts off gas supplies and astronomically raises prices (Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine, Azerbaijan); applies economic sanctions (Moldova, Georgia); manipulates elections in cooperation with local corrupt and criminal elites (Ukraine); detonates local pro-Russian or Russian forces (Georgia, Ukraine, Estonia). Today Russia is not the world’s strongest country, but it definitely is the strongest power in the former Soviet Union. It had some setbacks and failures in the last few years but overall Moscow is in a much stronger position than it was 4-5 years ago. The Kremlin’s geopolitical successes were contributed to by the instability in the Middle East, high energy prices, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and not enough activity from the European Union in the nations of the former Soviet Union. Today Russia represents the single biggest threat to the national sovereignty and security of post-Soviet states. Moscow’s goal is not a mere dominance in the region. Russian strategic planners and policy makers have made it amply clear that the Kremlin wants to bring the whole former Soviet landmass under the Russian dominated “Eurasian Union”. Moscow’s new KGB run regime has political will, determination and aggressiveness to do just that. As long as America continues to be bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan and Europe shows timidity in confronting new Russian neo-imperialism, the Kremlin will find it less and less difficult to achieve its goals. Undoubtedly, there are very hard days ahead of those former Soviet countries which really care for their freedom and future.

Source: http://www.abkhazia.com/content/view/121/2/

[Armenian]

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

Bravo once again, Pat.

Who Lost Russia?


Pat Buchanan

By 1988, Ronald Reagan, who had famously branded the Soviet Union "an evil empire," was striding through Red Square arm-in-arm with Mikhail Gorbachev. Russians were pounding both men on the back. They had just signed the greatest arms reduction agreement in history — eliminating all Soviet SS-20s targeted on Europe, in return for removal of the Pershing and cruise missiles Reagan had deployed in Europe.

"Bliss was it in that dawn to be alive, But to be young was very heaven!" wrote Wordsworth about his first hearing the news of the fall of the Bastille.

Many of us felt that way then. Within three years, the Berlin Wall had come down, the puppet regimes of Eastern Europe had been swept away, Germany was reunited, the Red Army had gone home, the Soviet Empire had vanished and the Soviet Union had broken up into 15 nations. The Baltic republics were free. Ukraine was free.

Yet, on the eve of the G-8 summit, Vladimir Putin has announced that Russia would re-target missiles on NATO. We must, he said, counter Bush's decision to put anti-missile missiles in Poland and radars in the Czech Republic. Why are we doing this? The United States says the ABM system in Europe is to defend against an Iranian attack. But Tehran has no atom bomb and no ICBM.

We appear to be headed for a second Cold War — and, if we are, responsibility will not fully rest with the Kremlin. For among those who have mismanaged the relationship are presidents Clinton and Bush II, the baby boomers who appear to have kicked away the fruits of a Cold War victory won by their Greatest Generation predecessors.

How did they do it?

— When the Red Army went home from Eastern Europe, the United States, in violation of an understanding with Moscow, began to move NATO east. We have since brought into our military alliance six former members of the Warsaw Pact and three former provinces of the Soviet Union: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia.

— Anti-Russia hawks are now pushing to bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO. If they succeed, we could be dragged into future confrontations with a nuclear-armed Russia about who has sovereignty over the Crimea and whether South Ossetia should be part of Georgia.

Are these vital U.S. interests worth risking a war? Why are we moving a U.S.-led military alliance into the front yard and onto the side porch of a country with thousands of nuclear weapons? Would we accept any commensurate Chinese or Russian move in the Caribbean?

— After Moscow gave us a green light to use the former Soviet republics of Central Asia to base U.S. forces for the Afghan war, the United States has sought permanent bases there. Russia and China have now united to throw us out of their back yard.

— America colluded with Azerbaijan and Georgia to build a Baku-Tiblisi-Ceyhan pipeline to transmit Caspian Sea oil across the Caucasus to the Black Sea and Turkey, cutting Russia out of the action.

— In 1999, the United States bombed Serbia 78 days to punish her for fighting to hold her cradle province of Kosovo, which Muslim Albanians were tearing away. Orthodox Russia had long seen herself as protectress of the Balkan Slavs. That Clinton ignored Russia in launching this unprovoked war on Serbia was seen in Moscow as proof that Russian concerns had become irrelevant in Washington.

— After helping dump over the government in Belgrade, our Neocomintern — the National Endowment for Democracy, Freedom House and other fronts — interfered in Ukraine and Georgia, helping oust pro-Moscow regimes and install pro-American ones. Since then, NED has been run out of Belarus and its subsidiaries are about to get the boot from Moscow.

Can we blame the Russians for being angry? How would we react to left-wing NGOs in Washington, flush with Moscow oil money, aiding elements hostile to the Bush administration?

— The United States has been constantly hectoring Russia on backsliding from democracy. But compared to Beijing, Moscow is Montpelier, Vt. And why, if the Cold War is over, are Russia's political arrangements any of our business?

If we don't like the way Putin treats Mikhail Khorokovsky, Boris Berezovksy and the other "oligarchs" who robbed Russia blind in the 1990s, maybe Putin doesn't like how we treated Martha Stewart. Harry Truman is often blamed for having started the Cold War. He didn't. Stalin did. But Clinton, George W. and the neocons have a strong claim to having started the second. A first order of business of the next president should be to repair the damage this crowd has done — and to get out of Russia's face.

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20070605/...pbux/op_332939

[Armenian]

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

RUSSIA STILL SEES WEST AS PRIMARY ENEMY



During an extended interview with Western and Russian journalists before this week’s G-8 summit in Germany, Russian President Vladimir Putin announced that if U.S. missile defense elements are deployed in Europe, "We will be forced to take adequate steps in response." Putin elaborated: "New targets will appear in Europe. The systems that may be used to destroy these targets our military believe to be a potential threat to Russia -- by ballistic missiles cruise missiles or something else -- is a technical issue" (www.kremlin.ru, June 4).

This is the first time since the end of the Cold War that a Russian leader has openly threatened to target Europe with nukes. Previously, Putin and his predecessor Boris Yeltsin had proclaimed Russia to be an integral part of Europe. In 1994, Yeltsin and U.S. President Bill Clinton signed an agreement to de-target ballistic missiles of both countries away from each other. Later, a similar de-targeting agreement was signed with other nuclear states -- Great Britain, France, and China. These agreements still stand, and Putin may have forgotten he must first legally revoke them before targeting.

In Russia, the Western fuss about Putin's nuclear threats was received with some surprise. The chief of the Strategic Rocket Force, General Nikolai Solovtsov, told journalists, "If a decision is taken, we will be able to target U.S. missile defenses in Poland and the Czech Republic" (see EDM, February 21). Putin in fact said, "New targets will appear in Europe." This clearly implies that other targets for nuclear strikes in Europe have been instituted before.

The United States and NATO are indeed Russia’s prime enemies. The Russian military continues to prepare to fight the West and performs major military exercises simulating such encounters. In 1999, after the NATO bombardments of Yugoslavia over Kosovo, the Russian military staged “Zapad-99,” a large-scale exercise with a scenario whereby NATO imposes an air/sea blockade of the Kaliningrad enclave and then begins an offensive with bombers and cruise missiles. The Russian conventional defenses are breached and, to resolve the situation, Moscow carries out a "preventive" nuclear attack using four long-range cruse missiles launched by strategic bombers. Two nuclear warheads hit targets in Western Europe and two in the United States. The decision to use air-launched nuclear cruise missiles is preferable, because even a limited launch of intercontinental ballistic missiles could trigger an immediate launch of U.S. ICBMs.

The Zapad-99 exercise ended with Russia victorious. Baffled by the limited preventive nuclear strike and faced with the choice to either begin an all-out global nuclear war or back down, NATO stopped its attack on Kaliningrad. After Zapad-99, Moscow accepted that preventive nuclear strikes would be the best way to stop a NATO attack that Russia’s weak conventional forces cannot repulse. In May 2003 a Russian naval task force in the Indian Ocean conducted a war game that included the interception and sinking of a U.S. aircraft carrier group. Russian strategic bombers simultaneously simulated an attack with nuclear long-range cruse missiles on the U.S. base at Diego Garcia. This exercise was performed to demonstrate the capability to stop a U.S.-led attack against a Russian ally in the region.

Scenarios of a possible U.S. and NATO military invasion are not only routinely run during war games, but also constantly hotly discussed by Defense Ministry-connected think tanks and defense analysts in Moscow (Voyenno promishlenny kuriyer, April 14, 2004; Arms Control Today, April 2004). At the same time, there is a problem in finding a delivery system to use in a nuclear attack on Europe. Russian ICBMs are designated primarily to hit far-off U.S. and Chinese targets. During the Cold War intermediate ballistic missiles, like the Pioneer (SS-20), were deployed to target Europe, but the 1987 INF treaty destroyed all such weapons.

Today’s war games use long-range strategic cruise missiles as a substitute weapon to hit Europe. Putin considers the question of whether or not to use cruise missiles or something else in such attacks to be a technical, not legal, problem. In the interview Putin stated the intention to abrogate the INF treaty. This could solve the "technical problem" of how to nuke Europe. Putin added, "The INF issue is not connected directly to U.S. plans to deploy MD in Europe, but we will find responses to this threat and the other one" (www.kremlin.ru, June 4; EDM, February 21).

Putin's threats are probably aimed at Europeans -- the Poles and Czechs in particular -- to frighten them into refusing to allow Washington deploy U.S. missile defense elements. In the same interview Putin proclaimed himself to be a “friend of the U.S." Apparently, Putin believes in friendship based on threats. Inside the Russian ruling elite open threats or the actual use of limited force are the trump cards in any negotiations. But in dealings with the West, Putin's natural political tendencies constantly backfire, as do Putin's jokes. In the interview, Putin announced that after the death of Indian spiritual and political leader Mahatma Gandhi, he "does not have a person to speak with." That was evidently a joke, especially as Gandhi was killed in 1948. In the same dispatch Putin also said, "Ukraine is sliding into tyranny," while in fact Ukrainians have decided to settle their political crisis through national elections. Was this another joke? Or does Putin hate free elections that much?

Source: http://jamestown.org/edm/article.php?article_id=2372210[/img]

[Armenian]

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

One of the greatest fears within the inner circles of western policy makers during the collapse of the Soviet Union was the emergence of a new alliance spearheaded by Russia.

Western paranoia about the great potential of the Russian state continues to this day. Measures taken by certain western powers to undermine Russian influence in global politics since the collapse of the Soviet Union have backfired. Perhaps such measures have made the situation worst and quickened the inevitable. Today, Russia, along with China, is emerging as 'the' global power of the twenty-first century. Many political analysts in the west have begun to realize this ominous fact. And many politicians and special interest groups alike have begun to fear this fact.

The so-called "war on terrorism" that which is being waged within the Mideast and central Asia has more to do with a western attempt to isolate and undermine Russia and China than to do with fighting a mythical Islamic terror group called Al-Qaeda. Nevertheless, Russia is on a fast paced rise. As a result, the numbers and intensity of proxy wars fought between Russia and West will continue to rise as well.

Armenian

The Russian Bear Awakes

PARIS – As Washington and Moscow exchange increasingly angry accusations and rebukes these recent weeks, it is hard to avoid a sense of Cold War déjà vu. Last Tuesday, Russia launched with great fanfare a new RS-24 intercontinental ballistic missile that it claimed could penetrate new US anti-missile defenses. President Vladimir Putin warned the Bush Administration’s plans to deploy anti-missile radars and missiles in the Czech Republic and Poland would turn Europe into a "powder keg."

Moscow accused the Bush Administration of violating international law, following double standards, and being a major violator of human rights. After crushing the life out of Chechnya, Russia was hardly in any position to lecture the US about human rights. Washington fired back, accusing Putin of extinguishing democracy, silencing political opponents, and bullying his neighbors. The US, with 150,000 troops in Iraq, even had the nerve to accuse Russia of "meddling" in the Mideast. The American pot was calling the Russian kettle black.

Behind the barrages of invective, what’s really going on is that Russia is finally returning to being Russia, as this writer has long predicted it would. Russia the lap dog is gone. The Russian bear has awakened from a hibernation of two decades and is both hungry and ill-tempered. In the 1980’s, the reforming Mikhail Gorbachev sought to humanize and modernize the crumbling Soviet Union. Gorbachev ended his nation’s confrontation with the west and sought accommodation with Washington – far too much, claimed Russian critics. Gorbachev’s well-intentioned efforts failed. The once mighty Soviet Union collapsed, leaving bankruptcy and massive social suffering in its wake.

Boris Yeltsin, Gorbachev’s successor, allowed criminals and shady financers to plunder Russia. In a story that has yet to be fully revealed, his shaky, financially destitute government was propped up by billions in secret US payments. Washington more or less managed to buy up Russia’s government. In an outrageous, shameful act, the Yeltsin Kremlin even sold the Pentagon the crown xxxels of Russia’s military technology. Everything and almost everyone was for sale. During this period of weakness and corruption, bankrupt Russia allowed the US pretty much a free hand around the world, particularly in the Mideast. Russia’s defense spending plummeted. Washington hailed Moscow’s "cooperation."

In 1999, the KGB, renamed FSB and SVR, staged a palace coup. Former FSB director Vladimir Putin became Russia’s new leader. President Putin and his hard men set about re-nationalizing Russia’s industrial and resource assets, crushing the robber barons, and restoring Kremlin political control over the nation. Ironically, George Bush’s invasion of Iraq caused worldwide oil prices to surge, bringing Putin’s "new Russia" a huge financial windfall. Russia, which exports more oil than Saudi Arabia, is flush with cash from its current oil, gas, and mineral bonanza, which has revitalized the nation’s defense budget.

Putin long made clear his desire to rebuild the Soviet Union – minus communism – and restore his nation as a world power. This means asserting Russia’s historic interests in Eastern Europe and the Mideast, using energy exports to advance foreign policy, and increasingly standing up to the United States. There is nothing sinister about this development. The last 20 years of Russian history were an anomaly, rather like the feeble Kerensky government just prior to the 1917 revolution. Russia is off its knees and back on its feet. The days of Moscow’s unnatural accommodation with Washington are past.

The US has become too used to Moscow as a compliant vassal. Washington will now have to resume treating the Russians as a great power with legitimate international interests. The first step is reversing the Bush Administration’s contemptuous and dangerously reckless repudiation of major arms control treaties with Moscow. The White House’s provocative plan to build anti-missile systems and open military bases in Eastern Europe should be cancelled. Pushing NATO all the way east to Russia’s borders has been another dangerous provocation.

Infuriating and humiliating Moscow in order to create a preposterous, technologically iffy anti-missile defenses against missiles and warheads which Iran does not even possess is the latest folly of the Bush Administration’s ideological crusaders. The US is going to have to eventually share some of its world power with a renascent Russia and surging China. Treating both great powers with dignity and respect is a good way to start.

Source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis78.html