The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

Tbilisi admits misjudging Russia

Georgia did not believe Russia would respond to its offensive in South Ossetia and was completely unprepared for the counter-attack, the deputy defence minister has admitted. Batu Kutelia told the Financial Times that Georgia had made the decision to seize the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali despite the fact that its forces did not have enough anti-tank and air defences to protect themselves against the possibility of serious resistance. “Unfortunately, we attached a low priority to this,” he said, sitting at a desk with the flags of Georgia and Nato (to which Georgia does not belong) crossed behind him. “We did not prepare for this kind of eventuality.” The Georgian military felt there was only a low probability of a massive Russian counter-attack, despite the bloody way in which Russia destroyed Chechnya, on the other side of the Caucasus mountains, in two wars during the 1990s and the fact that separatists in South Ossetia and Abkhazia had Russian backing. Georgian forces were unprepared when the Russian counter-strike came, Mr Kutelia said. “I didn’t think it likely that a member of the UN Security Council and the OSCE would react like this,” Mr Kutelia said. His amazement that Russia would use force against a smaller neighbour was echoed by David Darchiashvili, head of the parliamentary European integration committee. “No one expected Russia would mobilise and invade,” he said. Georgia’s 20,000-man army, built up at a cost of $2bn with the help of US trainers and cast-off Warsaw Pact equipment, was organised to deal with “brushfire” wars with separatist enclaves on its borders and to contribute to missions such as Iraq as a way of shoring up Georgia’s ties with the west, not to do battle with Russia. Mr Kutelia still puts blame for the war squarely on the Russians and their South Ossetian allies, saying that in early August Ossetian fighters began to shell Georgian positions and villages.

He said Russia had begun to move heavy armour through the Roki tunnel from North Ossetia before President Mikheil Saakashvili unleashed his military against the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali on August 7, but offered no evidence to back this up. Mr Kutelia said that the Georgians moved despite not having enough anti-tank and air defences, not expecting the Russians to react with overwhelming force.“At some point there was no choice,” he said. Mr Kutelia said damage to Georgia’s military infrastructure was “significant”, and it would take an enormous amount of foreign help to rebuild Georgia’s defensive capabilities, something the Russians have promised to flatten again if they feel it poses a threat. Russian troops have entered many of Georgia’s military bases, often under the eyes of a cowed Georgian army. They have confiscated US Humvee vehicles, blown up coastguard vessels and ransacked some of Georgia’s most modern military bases, destroying radar and other air defences, as well as reportedly capturing Georgian tanks, small arms and ammunition. So far Russia has made no move to return its booty. The cost of Georgia’s lack of preparation could be seen earlier this week, when seven soldiers killed in earlier fighting were buried in a cemetery on a dusty hillside outside the capital. About 20 troops in fatigues, and one in black track pants, watched from the shade of a pine tree as a bulldozer pushed sandy soil into the long trench holding the bodies.

Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/0d8beefe-6...0779fd18c.html

Georgia facing reality of defeat

When Russian troops eventually pull out of Georgian towns such as Gori and Zugdidi, ordinary Georgians will heave a sigh of relief. But that will also be the moment that they take on board the fact that the two territories at the heart of the conflict with Moscow, South Ossetia and Abkhazia, although formally still regarded internationally as Georgian territory, are now essentially lost to them. The people who will suffer most in the long term from this conflict are more than 20,000 ethnic Georgians from a mosaic of villages in South Ossetia who have now mostly fled. Relatively few Georgians left during or after the small-scale 1990-92 conflict over South Ossetia and despite intermittent skirmishes and incidents, neighbourly contacts continued. Reporters who have passed through many of the villages in the last few days say they are now in ruins. The Russian authorities and their South Ossetian allies are now saying that they will not allow the Georgians back any time soon. A Russian foreign ministry statement on August 18 said, "It is clear that some time – and not a short period of time – must pass in order to heal the wounds and to restore confidence. Only after this, the conditions will be created for discussing practical aspects related to the problems of refugees." Hundreds of South Ossetians also lost their homes in the Georgian military assault of 7-8 August and, it appears, in the ensuing Russian counter-attack - but they have the small consolation of knowing they can start rebuilding them.

Russian leverage

The prospect is also now much bleaker for the 240,000 or so ethnic Georgians who were registered as displaced from the 1992-3 conflict in Abkhazia. Their hopes of return were predicated on a successful peace agreement which now looks more elusive than ever. Around 50,000 Georgians live in Abkhazia's southernmost Gali district under an Abkhaz administration. So far they have managed to stay in their homes, but their future is also more precarious. It is not just a matter of Georgian control. It will also be harder now to maintain an international presence in the two disputed regions. The final point in the six-point ceasefire plan reads: "Pending an international mechanism [in South Ossetia], Russian peacekeeping forces will implement additional security measures." That effectively puts an end to the former Joint Peacekeeping Forces, which had a Georgian contingent. It also gives Moscow even more leverage than before over the shape of any security arrangements for the region. Moscow is already insisting it can have the only real security presence there. "We are of course not against international peacekeepers... but the problem is that the Abkhaz and the Ossetians do not trust anyone except Russian peacekeepers," Russian president Dmitry Medvedev told German chancellor Angela Merkel.

Unattainable dream

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), the only international organization with a mandate in South Ossetia, wants to dispatch an additional 100 monitors to South Ossetia. But Russia has dragged its feet, saying it wanted to agree the terms of their deployment in more detail and the OSCE has so far agreed to send just 20 more monitors. The OSCE had just nine military monitors on the ground in South Ossetia when fighting started there on 7-8 August. The European Union, with French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner taking the lead, also says it want to provide peacekeepers, but Mr Kouchner's Swedish counterpart, Carl Bildt, admitted this might not work. "There are no signs of the Russians letting in anyone else," he said. In Abkhazia, the United Nations has a small contingent of around 130 unarmed monitors, who were bystanders in the recent crisis. When the Abkhaz, with Russian support, wanted to capture the mountainous Upper Kodori Gorge district from the Georgians, they merely gave the UN monitors there a 24-hour warning to leave. The EU has approved small aid programmes for both Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the last few years, but they have looked relatively modest when compared to the vast amount of Russian money coming into both regions. Abkhazia is bigger and more diverse than South Ossetia with a lively media and many non-governmental organizations. Many Abkhaz intellectuals dreamed of having some kind of independence free of both Georgia and Russia and with links across the Black Sea to the EU but that now looks unattainable.

'Double standards'

Internationally mediated peace talks over both disputes had stalled and there is little chance of them resuming properly any time soon. Faced with a tightening Russian grip, Western leaders can only fall back on expressing support for Georgia's right to these territories. US President George W Bush made this commitment on 16 August, saying: "Georgia's borders should command the same respect as every other nation's. There's no room for debate on this matter." This becomes a moral argument, with the Russians answering that after supporting Kosovo's unilateral secession from Serbia, the West is guilty of "double standards" in the Caucasus. Caught in the middle of these international wrangles are the current and former populations of both Abkhazia and South Ossetia – Abkhaz, Ossetians and other nationalities such as Armenians on the one hand, and the displaced Georgians on the other. They often get along fine when they have a chance to engage in low-level meetings arranged by foreign organisations or across market stalls. Now, unfortunately, they are being wrenched apart further than ever by conflict.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7571002.stm

[Armenian]

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

Russia blocks Georgia's main port city

Russian forces blocked the only land entrance to Georgia's main port city on Thursday, a day before Russia promised to complete a troop pullout from its ex-Soviet neighbor. Armored personnel carriers and troop trucks blocked the bridge to the Black Sea port city of Poti, and Russian forces excavated trenches and set up mortars facing the city. Another group of APCs and trucks were positioned in a nearby wooded area. Although Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has promised that his forces would pull back by Friday, Russian troops appear to be digging in, raising concern about whether Moscow is aiming for a lengthy occupation of its small, pro-Western neighbor.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili told The Associated Press that Russia was thinning out its presence in some occupied towns but was seizing other strategic spots. He called the Russian moves "some kind of deception game." "(The Russians) are making fun of the world," he declared. Nonetheless, a top Russian general troops were moving out in accordance with an EU-sponsored cease-fire. "The pullback of Russian forces is taking place at such a tempo that by the end of August 22 they will be in the zones of responsibility of Russian peacekeepers," Col.-Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy head of the general staff, said at a briefing. The truce says both Russian and Georgian forces must move back to positions they held before fighting broke out Aug. 7 in Georgia's separatist republic of South Ossetia, which has close ties to Russia. The agreement also says Russian forces can work in a so-called "security zone" that extends more than four miles into Georgia from South Ossetia.

Poti is at least 95 miles west of the nearest point in South Ossetia. Russian tanks, trucks and troops, meanwhile, continued to hold positions around the strategically key city of Gori and in Igoeti, about 30 miles west of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi. Several thousand people rallied Thursday in Sukhumi, the capital of Georgia's other separatist region of Abkahzia. A similar rally was expected in South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali later in the day. Russian officials, including Medvedev, have indicated Moscow will recognize the regions as independent. Nogovitsyn said Georgia has "no moral right" to return its soldiers to South Ossetia, where they had held some swaths of land as part of a peacekeeping mission.

The warfare in a nation straining to escape Moscow's influence has sent tensions between Moscow and the West to some of their highest levels since the 1991 breakup of the Soviet Union. On Wednesday, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her Polish counterpart signed a deal to build an American missile defense base in Poland. Last week, a top Russian general warned Poland was risking an attack, possibly a nuclear one, by developing the base. A spokeswoman for Norway's defense ministry said Russia had told its embassy that Moscow plans to "freeze all military cooperation" with NATO and its allies. Later, Russia's Interfax news agency cited Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko as saying Moscow was reconsidering its cooperation with the military alliance.

About 80,000 people displaced by the fighting are in more than 600 centers in and around Tbilisi. The United Nations estimates 158,000 people in all fled their homes in the last two weeks — some south to regions around Tbilisi, some north to Russia. A U.S. official in Turkey said three U.S. military vessels were heading through Turkey's Bosporus, a strait that connects the Mediterranean with the Black Sea, to deliver aid to Georgia. Two of the ships were leaving Crete on Thursday. He declined to be named because he was not authorized to give that information to media. Since Aug. 19, the United States has delivered aid to Georgia's capital, Tbilisi, on 20 flights.

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g..._6oVwD92MKNFG0

Russian Troops Dig In at Poti

POTI, Georgia -- Russian forces took up positions Thursday at the entrance to Georgia's main Black Sea port city, excavating trenches and setting up mortars facing the city despite Russia's promise to pull back troops from territory deep inside Georgia. Several armored personnel carriers and troop trucks blocked the bridge that is the only land entrance to Poti, and another group of armored personnel carriers, or APCs, and trucks were positioned in a nearby wooded area. Although Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has promised that his forces would pull back by Friday, Russian troops appeared to be settling in for a long presence. But a top Russian general said troops were moving out in accordance with the agreement. "The pullback of Russian forces is taking place at such a tempo that by the end of August 22 they will be in the zones of responsibility of Russian peacekeepers," Col.-Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy head of the general staff, said at a briefing Thursday in Moscow.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said Russia was seizing strategic spots in Georgia even as it thinned out its presence in some occupied towns. He called the Russian moves "some kind of deception game." The Russians "are making fun of the world," he declared. A European Union-sponsored cease-fire says both Russian and Georgian forces must move back to positions they held before fighting broke out Aug. 7 in Georgia's separatist republic of South Ossetia, which has close ties to Russia. The agreement also says Russian forces can work in a so-called "security zone" that extends 4.3 miles into Georgia from South Ossetia. Poti is at least 95 miles west of the nearest point in South Ossetia. Gen. Nogovitsyn said Russia will build 18 checkpoints in the security cordon around the province. Russian tanks, trucks and troops, meanwhile, continued to hold positions around the strategic city of Gori as well as in Igoeti, about 30 miles west of the Georgian capital Tbilisi.

In Gori, no Russian troops or heavy weaponry could be seen Wednesday evening. Earlier in the day, Russian troops had been strictly limiting access to Gori to residents and turning away foreign journalists. Along the main highway from Gori to Tbilisi, Russian peacekeepers stopped cars and checked documents of passengers. In Gori itself, dozens of people waited for promised food. About 80,000 people displaced by the fighting are in more than 600 centers in and around Tbilisi. The United Nations estimates 158,000 people in all fled their homes in the last two weeks -- some south to regions around Tbilisi, some north to Russia. Some of the estimated 37,000 refugees in Russia said government aid has been slow in coming. "I was hoping Russia would help me," said Frosia Besayeva, 30, as she waited with her two small children for humanitarian aid in Beslan, Russia. "But so far we haven't seen anything except for promises."

In the nearby town of Ardon, Galina Gabayeva, 36, said her family of four took in as many as 15 refugees from South Ossetia. She later had to send four of them elsewhere, because she couldn't house so many people and there was no help from the government. "We condemned ourselves to such immense suffering," Ms. Gabayeva said bitterly. "We hoped for help, but there isn't any." A U.S. official in Turkey said Thursday that three U.S. military vessels were heading through Turkey's Bosporus, a strait that connects the Mediterranean with the Black Sea, to deliver humanitarian aid to Georgia. Two of the ships were leaving Crete Thursday. The official, who declined to be named because he wasn't authorized to give that information to media, said the three ships were the command ship USS Mount Whitney, the guided missile destroyer USS McFaul and the Coast Guard cutter Dallas. Since Aug. 19, the U.S. has delivered aid to Georgia's capital, Tbilisi, on 20 flights.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1219...googlenews_wsj

[Armenian]

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

"You have Putin's war, and it seemed for a moment, you had Medvedev's peace,"

The Kremlin's version of the classic, good guy-bad guy routine.

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

West baffled by 2 heads for Russian government

WASHINGTON: When Nicolas Sarkozy, the French president, rushed to Moscow earlier this month to mediate the crisis over Georgia, he found the new Russian president, Dmitri Medvedev, to be calm, even sanguine about prospects for a solution. But the tone was wildly different when Sarkozy heard from Vladimir Putin, the president-turned-prime minister. According to a private report that Sarkozy later delivered to President George W. Bush, Putin was virulent in denouncing Georgian actions as atrocities, and he expressed such deep antipathy toward Georgian leaders that it made the war seem personal. Sarkozy's report, made in a telephone call to Bush on Aug. 13, has added to a sense of bewilderment in Washington about how to deal with what is now a two-headed government in Moscow — with Putin, still the dominant partner, occupying what is technically the subservient role.

American and European officials say there is no doubt that it is Putin who maintains the real power, making the decisions on how to prosecute and conclude the conflict. But they have felt compelled to follow diplomatic protocol that requires them to focus their negotiating efforts on Medvedev, who succeeded Putin in May to become the head of state. "This is a strange couple," a French official said of Medvedev and Putin, after insisting on anonymity because the discussion with Sarkozy was supposed to be private. American officials concede that they do not completely understand the balance of power within the Russian leadership. They tiptoe around the question of whether there really are significant policy differences between the Russian leaders, or whether the conflicting signals simply reflect the men's characters and temperaments. It is possible, they say, that the Russian leaders are very much in sync but playing a Kremlin version of "good cop-bad cop."

But while it was Medvedev who signed the cease-fire agreement that calls for Russia to withdraw its forces from Georgia, it remains far from clear whether Moscow will comply fully with that accord. On Wednesday, Russian military forces were still shoring up positions inside Georgia. Some American officials suggested that Medvedev might have been overruled by Putin, who may not share Medvedev's apparent concern about the impact of the war on Russia's finances, markets and trade relations. Of course, the conflict in Georgia is primarily rooted in borders and ethnicity, wounded Russian pride and global power politics. But the challenges of dealing with Russia's two-headed rule have certainly added an odd new element to the crisis. "You have Putin's war, and it seemed for a moment, you had Medvedev's peace," said Sarah Mendelson, a senior fellow for Russia and Eurasia at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "It's hard to say. Clearly Putin's in control." She added, "It's certainly complicating the diplomacy."

Ever since Medvedev was inaugurated May 7, after an election in which all significant opposition candidates were either kept off the ballot or limited in campaigning, the United States and other nations have deferred to him as the head of state. They did so even as it was clear that Putin would remain a significant political force — if not the de facto leader — in his role as prime minister. But the war with Georgia has made that pretense far more difficult to sustain. Even as the first Russian troops, tanks and missiles were pouring into South Ossetia and Georgia on Aug. 8, Bush twice confronted Putin in person while both were in Beijing, first at a social lunch and then at the opening ceremonies of the Olympics. He spoke with Medvedev the next day by telephone; since then the highest American contacts have been between Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, as the French president, Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany and others have taken the lead roles in mediating the conflict.

A French official who described the conversations that involved Sarkozy in Moscow said Medvedev was never apologetic over Russian actions in Georgia. But the official said Medvedev was more composed and quieter than Putin, who was bombastic and negative. Sarkozy described to Bush how Medvedev was "less emotional about everything." Putin's comments about Georgia and its American-educated president, Mikheil Saakashvili, were taken as nothing short of outright hatred. Another sign that Medvedev's authority was limited emerged even before the Georgia crisis, after the Russian president joined leaders of other Group of 8 industrialized nations in Japan to sign a statement criticizing Zimbabwe for the sham election held after weeks of violence. Within days, Russia then reversed course, using its veto at the United Nations Security Council to block actions that would have punished Zimbabwe for its stance. In highlighting differences between the Russian leaders, American and European officials may be seeking to elevate Medvedev, who had been viewed as a more conciliatory negotiating partner. And there is clearly an element of American needling. "President Medvedev at one point, just a few weeks ago, laid out a very hopeful vision for Russia's interaction with the rest of the world, one in which Russia would be respected and accepted for its commerce and its technology and its scientific prowess and its culture," Rice said told CBS News this week. "And to instead have activities that hearken back to another time, when all that the Soviet Union had was its military power, it's really a sad state of affairs for Russia."

Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was asked whether Putin, even as prime minister, was still in charge in Russia. "He clearly, as far as I'm concerned, has the upper hand right now," Gates told ABC News on Sunday. "There had been a lot of signals from Putin that he was going to allow power to stay with the president, that Medvedev would be in charge, would be the person responsible for leading Russia going forward," Gates said. "Steps he's taken in the transition from president to prime minister and in recent weeks and now certainly in Georgia, at least in my opinion, bespeak more of Putin having his hand on the steering wheel than anybody else." Even internally, the Russians have sent conflicting signals about who is in charge. State media focused on Putin in the early days of the conflict, only to later give more prominence to Medvedev, who delivered blistering remarks on Monday in Vladikavkaz, the staging city for Russian forces operating in Georgia, just as Putin had on Aug. 9.

Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/...ca/21diplo.php

[Armenian]

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

The Turkish perspective.

‘Russia’s imperial comeback not desirable for Turkey’

International relations expert Hakan Kırımlı has stated that Moscow’s behavior in the current crisis in the Caucasus shows the world that the Russian state is coming back as a significant “derzhava,” or power, and that it could have serious repercussions for Turkey and the West. “When the Russian tsarist empire was gone, there were so many people in the West naïve enough to believe that in matters of foreign expansion and imperialism the former empire was over and that the Soviet Union was an entirely new state based on different principles. Yes, the USSR is no longer there, but Russian derzhava and the imperial mentality is still there,” he said.

Why do you think Georgian leader Mikhail Saakashvili attacked South Ossetia?

Saakashvili apparently did not make a good calculation. To evaluate why he acted like this, we should look at his political record, which has been increasingly damaged in Georgia. Democracy by Western standards has never been established in Georgia. Within this framework, Saakashvili desired to take credit for his actions in South Ossetia. At the same time, Russia has never been happy with Saakashvili’s closeness to the West. And Russia again has never been happy with the push Saakashvili gave to the construction of the Baku-Ceyhan -- it was originally Baku-Ceyhan and later was changed to Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, the BTC, on Saakashvili’s insistence -- pipeline. Russia has been waiting for an appropriate moment for at least five years to punish Saakashvili.

What would you say about the desires of the people of South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Are they genuinely seeking independence?

Their desire to be independent is real and genuine, although that desire plays into the hands of Moscow together with Georgia’s insistence on not recognizing their independence -- although they have been practically independent for years. The so-called Russian “peacekeeping forces” in South Ossetia have actually been Russian occupational forces targeted against Georgians. The South Ossetian and Abkhazian peoples have not been Russian puppets, but conditions have required them to rely on Russia to connect to the rest of the world. Most of them have adopted Russian citizenship out of practical necessity.

Do you think Turkey should have seen this crisis coming and should have initiated diplomacy so as to prevent such a catastrophe?

Of course the crisis could have been seen, but it is a matter of what you can achieve even if you had seen it. The current French and Turkish initiatives are nothing more than diplomatic rhetoric. The main actor who is playing the game is Russia. We will see a number of committees established following the crisis, we will see a special United Nations representative appointed to deal with the situation and we will see endless diplomatic commissions and approaches, etc. Nevertheless, all these, in practice, will not change anything a single bit. What matters is whether Russian forces will be forced to leave the region or not. Otherwise the present picture will not change.

Is this only because of Western dependence on Russian energy resources?

The entire source of Russian power comes from its oil and gas, plus a strong army and weaponry. Putin’s Russia blatantly uses its resources as a means for political pressure in every sphere. Of course, a number of Western countries, starting with Germany, are very much under the sway of this policy. The concept of state -- derzhava -- promoted by Putin, and which has existed throughout Russian history, is a genuinely heavy-handed one with serious imperialistic overtones. In order to maintain the prestige of his regime at home, Putin absolutely needs to create the image of a Russia once again capable of bringing its foes to their knees, no matter what it may cost in humanitarian terms.

Is Russia like “Big Brother” watching every smaller country’s move?

It’s even beyond it. It’s about being omnipresent and powerful. [Former President, now Prime Minister Vladimir] Putin used this strong Russian state concept to make use of Russian gas and oil. And, contrary to Saakashvili, Putin knew that the West would not cross giant Russia over tiny Georgia. One of Moscow’s most important accomplishments here is that it was able to send a message to the former Soviet republics and even to the EU states formerly under Soviet influence that this is what will happen if they do not behave in accordance with Russian interests. It has been very ominous that Russia explained its most recent actions as ‘defending the rights of the Russians abroad,’ a pretext which is possible to be used elsewhere.

Are you referring to such countries as Ukraine and Azerbaijan, where there are ethnic Russian populations?

Of course. For example, the Crimean region of Ukraine is a hot spot. Crimea, with its special circumstances, is very much open to any provocation, and in recent years there have been many examples of such acts. On the other hand, it is absolutely absurd to buy into the idea that Russia intervened in Georgia so as to promote the right of self-determination for the two Caucasian nations, the Abkhazians and Ossetians. One has to look at Chechnya to understand to what degree Russia respects Caucasian peoples’ desire for self-determination. Russia continues its shocking human rights abuses in Chechnya, following the two disastrous Chechen wars. Just suppose what would happen if North Ossetia sought to achieve the right to self-determination from Russia. Indeed, if Georgia recognizes the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, that would be devastating for Russia.

Why?

This would be the least desirable situation for Russia because then South Ossetia and Abkhazia would no longer need Russia. A continuing crisis situation between Georgia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia is more advantageous for Russia. Currently those places are enclaves within Georgia, full of Russian troops, and both totally dependent on Russia. Under the current circumstances, it is obvious that Russian troops are there to stay with or without the will of the Abkhazians and the Ossetians. So long as these small countries are not formally independent of Georgia, the latter will -- for me, in a totally futile way -- keep dreaming of having them back, and Russia will always imply that it will be impossible unless Georgia becomes a truly docile state towards Russia. And there will certainly be some people in Georgia who are likely to believe this fairy tale. In other words, Abkhazia and South Ossetia will be a matter of permanent blackmail for Georgia.

Some EU states that were formally part of the Soviet bloc, including Poland, Ukraine and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, have expressed solidarity with Tbilisi. What do you make of this development?

They’ve expressed solidarity because these countries have perfectly understood the message Russia sent by invading Georgia; they know this language by heart! And they also are very conscious and knowledgeable about what and where their next moves should be.

Is there a possibility that Russia would take full control over Georgia?

Not today, but Russia is preparing for the possibility of a pro-Russian government in Georgia. Saakashvili will have almost zero credibility after this war. … Russia would love to see an old Soviet apparatchik in the style of [former pro-Russian President Eduard] Shevardnadze or somebody else who is prone to act as Moscow’s puppet as the head the Georgian state.

What would that mean for Turkey?

The revival of something like the old Soviet presence would be the most undesirable development for Turkey.

Why?

Both the tsarist empire and the Soviet Union presented absolutely the greatest single threats to Turkey. Today we have the BTC because the Soviet Union is no longer there. I am not saying that the USSR is immediately coming back, but as a historian, I can say that I’ve seen this picture before. When the Russian tsarist empire was gone, there were many people in the West naïve enough to believe that in matters of foreign expansion and imperialism the former empire was over and the Soviet Union was an entirely new state based on different principles. Yes, the USSR is no longer there, but Russian derzhava and the imperial mentality are still there.

What does the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline represent?

The BTC brings Azerbaijani oil from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean for Westbound shipments. It represents a critical feature: Now Azerbaijan and Georgia are connected to the world via its bypass of Russia. This pipeline was opened despite Russia. It is not so much about how much oil it carries or what it represents financially. It is about connecting to the rest of the world without being at the mercy of Russia.

[...]

Source: http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/de...150487&bolum=8

Vladimir Sokor: "Conflict resolution will never be possible, if it depends on Russia. There will only be an official or unofficial annexation of the territory to Russia"

- Separate leaders of the western countries start to toughen their criticism of Russia for the military aggression against Georgia. Can any means of pressure on Moscow be applied in this case and how can it occur?

- It is a difficult question as the West lacks economic means of pressure on Moscow. Russia has an advantage for the first time in its history. This has never occurred in the Russian history. West's economic means are now too limited. This means that resistance should be conducted on the political level. For example, the European Union should stop talks with Russia on strategic partnership and non-visa regime. Moreover, NATO members and even countries, which want to join this organization, should change their priorities and focus on the defense of the national territory against Russian aggression. The best divisions of the Georgian army, which were in Iraq and fought on the US side, did not participate in the defense of their own country. Moreover, under US recommendations, most countries created military divisions for participating in the peacekeeping activity or anti-terror operation beyond their own borders , including in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Balkans. But it turned out that the defense of one's own country should be the primary thing.

- Which conclusions should Azerbaijan draw from the events in South Ossetia?

- The first conclusion for Azerbaijan is that Washington today remains even a greater strategic partner and ally for Baku. Certainly, the United States should perceive it correctly. The United States, which reacted to the events in Georgia so late and passively, should realize that the main geopolitical game today is for the Black Sea and Caspian regions. Russia has undertaken this operation in Georgia, realizing that there is no rival to its policy in the Caucasus, as the United States is busy in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as with the Iran problem. These three conflicts weaken the United States. Washington has chosen wrong priorities. I think in fact, the leaders of all the countries, locating between the eastern borders of the European Union and NATO and the Caspian Sea, should tell the United States that the priority it has chosen are erroneous and that the destiny of the Euroatlantic community, US strategic position in the world and stability of the North Atlantic alliance depends on its policy in this area. Here the correlation of powers in the modern world will be defined. Independence and security of these countries and export of energy sources via these countries from the Caspian basin to Europe should become the main priorities of the US policy. Yet this understanding is now weak or completely absent in Washington.

- Can the Russian peacekeeping mission be spoken of following the events in Georgia, especially in the resolution of the conflicts in the South Caucasus?

- By the events in Georgia, Russia has made a sort of a revolution in the issue of peacekeeping. It showed the ability to hold military actions of any scale and in any place under pretense of peacekeeping. The peacekeeping mission of Russia has always been an absolute lie. Russia participated in the very beginning of conflicts in Georgia, Moldova and Azerbaijan as a party and held these wars. Russia and Armenia are the direct initiators and the participants of war in Karabakh. Thus, to speak of the Russian peacekeeping and Russia's role as a mediator in the conflict resolution is merely ridiculous, which is proven by the experience of the last 15 years.

- Does it mean that the conflicts, which involve Russia as a mediator, will never be settled?

- Yes, the resolution of the conflict will never be possible if it depends on Russia. There will only be an official or unofficial annexation of the territory by Russia.

- Can the South Ossetian script repeat in Nagorno Karabakh?

- The situation with the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict differs from what is now going on in Georgia for the number of aspects. Nagorno Karabakh does not border on Russia and Moscow does not raise the issue of "Russian citizens", "compatriots" and so on and the most important is that there are no Russian servicemen in Nagorno Karabakh. I would like to note that this occurred owing to the principal position of Azerbaijani diplomat Araz Azimov, who in 1994 made a categorical statement against displacement of the peacekeepers of the "third countries", in other words, Russian peacekeepers in Nagorno Karabakh.

[...]

Source: http://www.today.az/news/politics/47011.html

[Armenian]

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

A very well written geopolitical analysis regarding the confrontation between the Russian Federation and the West.

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

The Caucasus - Washington risks nuclear war by miscalculation

The dramatic military attack by the military of the Republic of Georgia on South Ossetia in the last days has brought the world one major step closer to the ultimate horror of the Cold War era - a thermonuclear war between Russia and the United States - by miscalculation. What is playing out in the Caucasus is being reported in US media in an alarmingly misleading light, making Moscow appear the lone aggressor. The question is whether George W. Bush and xxxx Cheney are encouraging the unstable Georgian President, Mikhail Saakashvili in order to force the next US President to back the NATO military agenda of the Bush Doctrine. This time Washington may have badly misjudged the possibilities, as it did in Iraq, but this time with possible nuclear consequences.

The underlying issue, as I stressed in my July 12 Global Research article entitled Georgia, Washington and Moscow: a Nuclear Geopolitical Poker Game, is the fact that since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991 one after another former member as well as former states of the USSR have been coaxed and in many cases bribed with false promises by Washington into joining the counter organization, NATO. Rather than initiate discussions after the 1991 dissolution of the Warsaw Pact about a systematic dissolution of NATO, Washington has systematically converted NATO into what can only be called the military vehicle of an American global imperial rule, linked by a network of military bases from Kosovo to Poland to Turkey to Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1999, former Warsaw Pact members Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia followed suit in March 2004. Now Washington is putting immense pressure on the EU members of NATO, especially Germany and France, that they vote in December to admit Georgia and Ukraine.

The roots of the conflict

The specific conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia and Abkhazia has its roots in the following. First, the Southern Ossetes, who until 1990 formed an autonomous region of the Georgian Soviet republic, seek to unite in one state with their co-ethnics in North Ossetia, an autonomous republic of the Russian Soviet republic and now the Russian Federation. There is an historically grounded Ossete fear of violent Georgian nationalism and the experience of Georgian hatred of ethnic minorities under then Georgian leader Zviad Gamsakhurdia, which the Ossetes see again under Georgian President, Mikhel Saakashvili. Saakashvili was brought to power with US financing and US covert regime change activities in December 2003 in what was called the Rose Revolution. Now the thorns of that rose are causing blood to spill.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia - the first a traditional Black Sea resort area, the second an impoverished, sparsely populated region that borders Russia to the north - each has its own language, culture, history. When the Soviet Union collapsed, both regions sought to separate themselves from Georgia in bloody conflicts - South Ossetia in 1990-1, Abkhazia in 1992-4.

In December 1990 Georgia under Gamsakhurdia sent troops into South Ossetia after the region declared its own sovereignty. This Georgian move was defeated by Soviet Interior Ministry troops. Then Georgia declared abolition of the South Ossete autonomous region and its incorporation into Georgia proper. Both wars ended with cease-fires that were negotiated by Russia and policed by peacekeeping forces under the aegis of the recently established Commonwealth of Independent States. The situation hardened into "frozen conflicts," like that over Cyprus. By late 2005, Georgia signed an agreement that it would not use force, and the Abkhaz would allow the gradual return of 200,000-plus ethnic Georgians who had fled the violence. But the agreement collapsed in early 2006, when Saakashvili sent troops to retake the Kodori Valley in Abkhazia. Since then Saakashvili has been escalating preparations for military action.

Critical is Russia's support for the Southern Ossetes. Russia is unwilling to see Georgia join NATO. In addition, the Ossetes are the oldest Russian allies in the Caucasus who have provided troops to the Russian army in many wars. Russia does not wish to abandon them and the Abkhaz, and fuel yet more ethnic unrest among their compatriots in the Russian North Caucasus. In a November 2006 referendum, 99 percent of South Ossetians voted for independence from Georgia, at a time when most of them had long held Russian passports. This enabled Russian President Medvedev to justify his military's counter-attack of Georgia on Friday as an effort to "protect the lives and dignity of Russian citizens, wherever they may be."

For Russia, Ossetia has been an important strategic base near the Turkish and Iranian frontiers since the days of the czars. Georgia is also an important transit country for oil being pumped from the Caspian Sea to the Turkish port of Ceyhan and a potential base for Washington efforts to encircle Tehran. As far as the Georgians are concerned, South Ossetia and Abkhazia are simply part of their national territory, to be recovered at all costs. Promises by NATO leaders to bring Georgia into the alliance, and ostentatious declarations of support from Washington, have emboldened Saakashvili to launch his military offensive against the two provinces, South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Saakashvili and likely, xxxx Cheney's office in Washington appear to have miscalculated very badly. Russia has made it clear that it has no intention of ceding its support for South Ossetia or Abkhazia.

Proxy War

In March this year as Washington went ahead to recognize the independence of Kosovo in former Yugoslavia, making Kosovo a de facto NATO-run territory against the will of the UN Security Council and especially against Russian protest, Putin responded with Russian Duma hearings on recognition of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria, a pro-Russian breakaway republic in Moldova. Moscow argued that the West's logic on Kosovo should apply as well to these ethnic communities seeking to free themselves from the control of a hostile state. In mid-April, Mr. Putin held out the possibility of recognition for the breakaway republics. It was a geopolitical chess game in the strategic Caucasus for the highest stakes - the future of Russia itself. Saakashvili called then-President Putin to demand he reverse the decision. He reminded Putin that the West had taken Georgia's side. This past April at the NATO summit in Bucharest, Romania, US President Bush proposed accepting Georgia into NATO's "Action Plan for Membership," a precursor to NATO membership. To Washington's surprise, ten NATO member states refused to support his plan, including Germany, France and Italy.

They argued that accepting the Georgians was problematic, because of the conflicts in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. They were in reality saying that they would not be willing to back Georgia as, under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, which mandates that an armed attack against any NATO member country must be considered an attack against them all and consequently requires use of collective armed force of all NATO members, it would mean that Europe could be faced with war against Russia over the tiny Caucasus Republic of Georgia, with its incalculable dictator, Saakashvili. That would mean the troubled Caucasus would be on a hair-trigger to detonate World War III. Russia threatens Georgia, but Georgia threatens Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Russia looks like a crocodile to Georgia, but Georgia looks to Russia like the cats' paw of the West. Since Saakashvili took power in late 2003 the Pentagon has been in Georgia giving military aid and training. Not only are US military personnel active in Georgia today. According to an Israeli-intelligence source, DEBKAfile, in 2007, the Georgian President Saakashvili "commissioned from private Israeli security firms several hundred military advisers, estimated at up to 1,000, to train the Georgian armed forces in commando, air, sea, armored and artillery combat tactics. They also have been giving instruction on military intelligence and security for the central regime. Tbilisi also purchased weapons, intelligence and electronic warfare systems from Israel. These advisers were undoubtedly deeply involved in the Georgian army's preparations to conquer the South Ossetian capital Friday."

Debkafile reported further, "Moscow has repeatedly demanded that Jerusalem halt its military assistance to Georgia, finally threatening a crisis in bilateral relations. Israel responded by saying that the only assistance rendered Tbilisi was ‘defensive.'" The Israeli news source added that Israel's interest in Georgia has to do as well with Caspian oil pipeline geopolitics. "Jerusalem has a strong interest in having Caspian oil and gas pipelines reach the Turkish terminal port of Ceyhan, rather than the Russian network. Intense negotiations are afoot between Israel Turkey, Georgia, Turkmenistan and Azarbaijan for pipelines to reach Turkey and thence to Israel's oil terminal at Ashkelon and on to its Red Sea port of Eilat. From there, supertankers can carry the gas and oil to the Far East through the Indian Ocean." This means that the attack on South Ossetia is the first battle in a new proxy warfare between Anglo-American-Israeli led interests and Russia. The only question is whether Washington miscalculated the swiftness and intensity of the Russian response to the Georgian attacks of 8.8.08. So far, each step in the Caucasus drama has put the conflict on a yet higher plane of danger. The next step will no longer be just about the Caucasus, or even Europe. In 1914 it was the "Guns of August" that initiated the Great War. This time the Guns of August 2008 could be the detonator of World War III and a nuclear holocaust of unspeakable horror.

Nuclear Primacy: the larger strategic danger

Most in the West are unaware how dangerous the conflict over two tiny provinces in a remote part of Eurasia has become. What is left out of most all media coverage is the strategic military security context of the Caucasus dispute. Since the end of the Cold War in the beginning of the 1990's NATO and most directly Washington have systematically pursued what military strategists call Nuclear Primacy. Put simply, if one of two opposing nuclear powers is able to first develop an operational anti-missile defense, even primitive, that can dramatically weaken a potential counter-strike by the opposing side's nuclear arsenal, the side with missile defense has "won" the nuclear war. As mad as this sounds, it has been explicit Pentagon policy through the last three Presidents from father Bush in 1990, to Clinton and most aggressively, George W. Bush. This is the issue where Russia has drawn a deep line in the sand, understandably so. The forceful US effort to push Georgia as well as Ukraine into NATO would present Russia with the spectre of NATO literally coming to its doorstep, a military threat that is aggressive in the extreme, and untenable for Russian national security. This is what gives the seemingly obscure fight over two provinces the size of Luxemburg the potential to become the 1914 Sarajevo trigger to a new nuclear war by miscalculation. The trigger for such a war is not Georgia's right to annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Rather, it is US insistence on pushing NATO and its missile defense right up to Russia's door.

Source: http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=96042

Another analysis dated July 12, 2008 by the same author:

Georgia, Washington and Moscow: a Nuclear Geopolitical Poker Game

The Caucasus Republic of Georgia as nations go does not appear to be a major global player. Yet Washington has invested huge sums and organized to put its own despot, Mikhail Saakashvili, in the Presidency in order to close a nuclear NATO iron ring around Russia. Now US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice is in Tbilisi making sharp statements against Moscow for supporting the independent neighbor states of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, in essence blaming Moscow for an imminent war Washington has incited in order to bring Georgia into NATO by the December NATO Summit. The Western media has either ignored the growing tensions in the strategic Caucasus region or has intimated, as suggested by Condoleeza Rice, that the entire conflict is being caused by Moscow’s silly support of "breakaway" republics Abkhazia and South Ossetia. In reality, a quite different chess game is being played in the region, one which has the potential to detonate a major escalation of tensions between Moscow and NATO.

Since the dissolution of the Warsaw Pact in 1991, one after another, former members as well as former states of the USSR have been coaxed and in many cases bribed with false promises by Washington into joining the counter organization, NATO. Rather than initiate discussions after the 1991 dissolution of the Warsaw Pact about a systematic dissolution of NATO, Washington has systematically converted NATO into what can only be called the military vehicle of an American global imperial rule, linked by a network of military bases from Kosovo to Poland to Turkey to Iraq and Afghanistan. In 1999, former Warsaw Pact members Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic joined NATO. Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, and Slovakia followed suit in March 2004. Now Washington is putting immense pressure on the EU members of NATO, especially Germany and France, that they vote in December to admit Georgia and Ukraine.

[...]

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=9564

[Armenian]

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

U.S. Sees Much to Fear in a Hostile Russia

The president of Syria spent two days this week in Russia with a shopping list of sophisticated weapons he wanted to buy. The visit may prove a worrisome preview of things to come. If Russia’s invasion of Georgia ushers in a sustained period of renewed animosity with the West, Washington fears that a newly emboldened but estranged Moscow could use its influence, money, energy resources, United Nations Security Council veto and, yes, its arms industry to undermine American interests around the world. Although Russia has long supplied arms to Syria, it has held back until now on providing the next generation of surface-to-surface missiles. But the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad, made clear that he was hoping to capitalize on rising tensions between Moscow and the West when he rushed to the resort city of Sochi to meet with his Russian counterpart, Dmitri A. Medvedev.

The list of ways a more hostile Russia could cause problems for the United States extends far beyond Syria and the mountains of Georgia. In addition to escalated arms sales to other anti-American states like Iran and Venezuela, policy makers and specialists in Washington envision a freeze on counterterrorism and nuclear nonproliferation cooperation, manipulation of oil and natural gas supplies, pressure against United States military bases in Central Asia and the collapse of efforts to extend cold war-era arms control treaties. “It’s Iran, it’s the U.N., it’s all the counterterrorism and counternarcotics programs, Syria, Venezuela, Hamas — there are any number of issues over which they can be less cooperative than they’ve been,” said Angela E. Stent, who served as the top Russia officer at the United States government’s National Intelligence Council until 2006 and now directs Russian studies at Georgetown University. “And of course, energy.”

Michael McFaul, a Stanford University professor and the chief Russia adviser for Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, said Russia appeared intent on trying to “disrupt the international order” and had the capacity to succeed. “The potential is big because at the end of the day, they are the hegemon in that region and we are not and that’s a fact,” Professor McFaul said. Russia may yet hold back from some of the more disruptive options depending on how both sides play these next few weeks and months. Many in Washington hope Russia will restrain itself out of its own self-interest; Moscow, for instance, does not want Iran to have nuclear weapons, nor does it want the Taliban to regain power in Afghanistan. Dmitri Rogozin, a hard-liner who serves as Russia’s ambassador to NATO, told the newspaper Izvestia this week that Moscow still wanted to support the alliance in Afghanistan. “NATO’s defeat in Afghanistan would not be good for us,” he said.

Moscow may also be checked by the desire of its economic elite to remain on the path to integration with the rest of the world. The main Russian stock index fell sharply in recent days, costing investors $10 billion — many with close ties to the circle of Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin. Still, although the confrontation over Georgia had been building for years, the outbreak of violence demonstrated just how abruptly the international scene can change. Now Russia is the top focus in Washington and some veteran diplomats fret about the situation spiraling out of control. “Outrage is not a policy,” said Strobe Talbott, who was deputy secretary of state under President Clinton and is now the president of the Brookings Institution. “Worry is not a policy. Indignation is not a policy. Even though outrage, worry and indignation are all appropriate in this situation, they shouldn’t be mistaken for policy and they shouldn’t be mistaken for strategy.”

For Washington, there are limited options for applying pressure. Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, wants to throw Russia out of the Group of 8 major powers. Such a move would effectively admit the failure of 17 years of bipartisan policy aimed at incorporating Russia into the international order. Yet Washington’s menu of options pales by comparison to Moscow’s. Masha Lipman, an analyst at the Carnegie Moscow Center, said “there’s a lot more” that the United States needed from Russia than the other way around, citing efforts to secure old Soviet nuclear arms, support the war effort in Afghanistan and force Iran and North Korea to give up nuclear programs. “Hence Russia has all the leverage,” she said. In forecasting Russia’s potential for causing headaches, most specialists look first to Ukraine, which wants to join NATO. The nightmare scenario circulating in recent days is an attempt by Moscow to claim the strategic Crimean peninsula to secure access to the Black Sea. Ukrainian lawmakers are investigating reports that Russia has been granting passports en masse to ethnic Russians living in Crimea, a tactic Moscow used in the Georgian breakaway republics of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to justify intervention to protect its citizens.

Arms sales, as Mr. Assad’s visit underscored, represent another way Russia could create problems. Israeli and Western governments have already been alarmed about reports that the first elements of the Russian-built S-300 antiaircraft missile system are now being delivered to Iran, which could use them to shoot down any American or Israeli planes that seek to bomb nuclear facilities should that ever be attempted. While Mr. Rogozin expressed support for assisting NATO in the war in Afghanistan, other officials have warned darkly about cutting off ties with NATO. The two sides have already effectively suspended any military cooperation programs. But Russia could also revoke its decision in April to allow NATO to send nonlethal supplies overland through its territory en route to Afghanistan. Russia could also turn up pressure on Kyrgyzstan to evict American forces that support operations in Afghanistan and could block any large-scale return to Uzbekistan, which expelled the Americans in 2005. “The argument would be, ‘Why help NATO?’ ” said Celeste A. Wallander, a Russia scholar at Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service.

Even beyond the dispute over Iran, Russia could obstruct the United States at the United Nations Security Council on a variety of other issues. Just last month, Russia vetoed sanctions against Zimbabwe’s government, a move seen as a slap at Washington. “If Russia’s feeling churlish, they can pretty much bring to a grinding halt any kind of coercive actions, like economic sanctions or anything else,” said Peter D. Feaver, a former strategic adviser at the National Security Council. Russia could also accelerate its withdrawal from arms control structures. It already has suspended the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty to protest American missile defense plans and threatened to pull out of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty. Renewed tension could fray a recently signed civilian nuclear cooperation agreement and doom negotiations to extend soon-to-expire strategic arms control verification programs. “Ironically, since the collapse of the Soviet Union, there’s always been the concern about Russia becoming a spoiler,” said Ms. Stent, of Georgetown, “and now we could see the realization of that.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/22/wo.../22policy.html

[North Pole]

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

U.S. Sees Much to Fear in a Hostile Russia

Really? But I thought America "has the best army in the world" (according to Bush).

[Kanki]

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

Really? But I thought America "has the best army in the world" (according to Bush).

It is controversial

[Armenian]

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

President Serzh Sargsyan’s Interview to Austrian “DER STANDARD” Newspaper

President of Republic of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan discusses current problems of South Caucasus and particularly Russian role in the region in his August 22 interview to Austrian newspaper “Der Standard”.

“Standard”: “Be friendly to Russia and don’t go too far with the West,” under this slogan was conducted Russian invasion to Georgia. What is your opinion about this?

Sargsyan: Have a look at Armenian history, and it will be clear for you, that Russia has alwas been our friend and partner. The partnership cannot be obligatory. I don’t want to speak in the name of other countries, but at least Armenia has always been frank in relations with Russia. Moreover, our military cooperation with Russia has never hampered Armenia’s dynamic collaboration with NATO, EU or the US and Iran.

“Standard”: It’s not the first time Armenia suffers in the result of Georgia-Russia disputes. What is the advice to your Georgian counterpart?

Sargsyan: I’m not the one to give advice. But I must say that in our small region which is too sensitive to world leaders’ interests, it is better to maintain effective collaboration in general profits sphere, then to raise tensions between them. This is certainly harmful for South Caucasus first. Therefore, it’s no use making new artificial ideological parties thus creating new obstacles in our way to stable regional environment.

“Standard”: As known, an important Russian military-base is situated in Armenia. Is the military presence and leadership of Russia in South Caucasus preferable for Armenia?

Sargsyan: Armenia is in favor of effective military cooperation for sake of security in the whole region. That is why Armenia is the member Collective Security Treaty Organization. So, I think that military-bases are more symbolizing effective collaboration and not particular country’s leadership.

“Standard”: Are there any certain consequences for another “freezed conflict” of Nagorno Karabakh after South Ossetia dispute?

Sargsyan: The South Ossetia conflict has proved that any kind of military interference to the right of nations to self-determination brings about very serious geopolitical developments. Moreover, it is clear now that South Caucasus has become a place of arms race, and insensible extension of military budget. Every country should respect all nations’ right to self-determination, otherwise military interference will grow into ethnic cleansings and violation of international humanitarian law.

“Standard”: Turkey has never responded to the proposal of “start of diplomatic relations with Armenia without any preconditions.” However, you even invited Turkish president Abdulla Gul to be present the coming Armenia-Turkey football match.

Sargsyan: I can confirm that Armenia was always in favor of establishment of diplomatic ties with Turkey. It’s useless arguing and being eternal foes. If we start relations, it will be profitable for both of us. Moreover, my Turkish counterpart has said recently that Turkey has no enemies in this region, and Erdoghan even said that Turkey’s readying to talks with Armenia. So, in my opinion, president Gul’s visit to our country will make real grounds for our future negotiations. We can have hundreds of problems, but we can never solve them unless we start talks as normal civilized countries do.

Source: http://www.panorama.am/en/politics/2.../23/interview/

[Armenian]

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

Russia's strategic objectives within Georgia are becoming clearer: set up militarized buffer zones around Abkhazia and Ossetia in preparation for their upcoming independence or annexation into the Russian Federation, control the strategic harbor of Poti, and monitor Georgia's vital east-west highway. It now seems as if Russia will be staying in Georgia proper to enforce peace and stability within the Caucasus for the foreseeable future, or until Saakashvili's incompetent and hostile government is replaced by one that is more suitable for the region.

Armenian

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

Russia Plans to Keep Grip on Poti, Senaki

(Russian soldiers guard their new military position, at the entrance of the Black Sea port city of Poti, western Georgia, Saturday, Aug. 23, 2008. Russia started to withdraw its forces from Georgia on Friday, but some units started to dig new positions around Poti, which is 32 km (20 miles) south of Abkhazia and lies well outside the security zone, where Russian peacekeeping forces are allowed to stay on Georgian soil)

According to Civil Georgia, a Russian army map outlining the Russian troops’ planned deployment in Georgia shows they have no intention to give up control over Senaki and the port town of Poti. In MOSCOW , the deputy chief of general staff of the Russian armed forces, Anatoly Nogovitsin, showed a map detailing what he said would be “zone of responsibility” of the Russian “peacekeepers.” This includes checkpoints at Nabada, just outside Poti, and in Senaki, a town less than 40 kilometers away from Poti. Georgia’s key military base and strategic airfield are located in Senaki. “Airfield in Senaki is also part of the zone of responsibility of the Russian peacekeepers,” Nogovitsin said. On the eastern front, in the South Ossetian conflict zone the Russian troops’ “zone of responsibility” includes southern areas from the South Ossetian administrative border. The zone even includes some portions of the Georgia’s major east-west highway – in particular at the village of Shavshvebi and Agara. The town of Gori itself is not part of the zone. “Our forces will be pulled back to these zones of responsibility today,” Nogovitsin said. The Russian forces started removing their checkpoints and roadblocks from some of the locations deep inside the Georgian territories, including from Gori and Igoeti. But there was no sign of the Russian troops’ withdrawal from the entrance of Poti. “We will not and the world will not let the Russian forces to increase their zone activity deep inside the Georgian territory,” Davit Kezerashvili, the Georgian defense minister, said on August 22. It also emerged on August 22, that Russia plans to keep 2,142 soldiers in Abkhazia as part of its peacekeeping forces. Nogovitsin said that 109 armored personnel carriers (APC) – BTR-80s and BTR-70s; fourteen APCs of BTR-R145 type and four armored patrol vehicles – BRDM, as well as 34 mortar launchers will also remain in Abkhazia. The military unit in Abkhazia, he said, would also be supported by two Mi-24 combat helicopters and two Mi-8 helicopters.

Source: http://www.finchannel.com/index.php?...=18493&Itemid=

Russia to keep control of key Georgian highway: General

Russia will retain control over a key highway linking the Georgian capital to the sea even after completing a troop pullout, maps shown to journalists by a top general indicated on Friday. The maps, displayed at a press conference by deputy chief of general staff Anatoly Nogovitsyn, clearly showed Russia's self-proclaimed "zone of responsibility" to include long stretches of Georgia's main east-west road. These included most of the route from Georgia's main commercial port of Poti to the town of Senaki, where Nogovitsyn said troops would occupy the military aerodrome. Nogovitsyn said the zones were permitted under previous agreements that let Russian peacekeepers patrol parts of Georgia after the separatist wars of the early 1990s, when Abkhazia and South Ossetia broke free of Tbilisi's control. "All these zones are legitimate and arise from the framework of the existing agreements. This is our principal position," the general said. It was unclear whether Russian forces would block the east-west road, cutting off a major transport corridor for the Caucasus country. When asked if Russian forces would check cars along the road, the general said: "Why should they bother with such details?"

According to the maps, one "zone of responsibility" was situated near the rebel region of Abkhazia in the west of Georgia, while the other zone was located near South Ossetia, another rebel region. The zone around South Ossetia enclosed stretches of Georgia's main east-west road but did not include the central Georgian city of Gori. It extended past the administrative borders of South Ossetia, reaching in various places from six to 18 kilometres (from four to 11 miles) into Georgia proper. Russia planned to leave eight posts manned by 272 servicemen along the outer line of the South Ossetia zone, and 10 posts manned by 180 servicemen along the inner line, which corresponds to South Ossetia's border, Nogovitsyn said. Russian officials have earlier suggested that more troops could stay within South Ossetia, behind the buffer zone, without giving an exact number.

A second buffer zone extended around Abkhazia, fully enclosing the Georgian town of Zugdidi, reaching to Senaki and stopping just north of Poti, whose port has attracted major foreign investment in recent years. The map marked two Russian posts just north of Poti. It also showed that the limits of the Abkhazia buffer zone enclosed most of the road connecting Poti and Senaki. Nogovitsyn dismissed complaints from Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili that the presence of Russian forces amounted to occupation of Georgia. "We will not ask Mr Saakashvili about the buffer zones" as he has "neither the legal nor the moral right" to ask for changes, Nogovitsyn said. Russia poured troops and armour into Georgia earlier this month to repel a Georgian attack on South Ossetia, whose separatist administration, like that of Abkhazia, is backed by Moscow.

Source: http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryP...nt=strParentID

In a related development:

Nagorno Karabakh can be recognized by Armenia simultaneously with Russia recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia

According to a REGNUM European diplomatic information source, the official Yerevan may recognize the independence of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic on August 25. “There is apprehension that Yerevan may recognize Nagorno Karabakh independence simultaneously with Russia recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia,” the source said. As it already was reported, the same day Russia might recognize the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. It will be recalled that people of Abkhazia on August 21 appealed to the president of Russia, the Federal Assembly and the State Duma to recognize the independence of their country. An address on it by the Abkhazian president was supported by the Abkhazian parliament earlier. On August 20, North Ossetian MPs promulgated another appeal to Russian federal authorities with a request for South Ossetia independence recognition. President of Russia Dmitry Medvedev said before that Russia would support any solution of the Abkhazian and South Ossetian conflicts regulation if it was supported by nations of the unrecognized republics.

Source: http://www.regnum.ru/english/1045152.html

Official: Russia-led defense bloc to hold regular drills

The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) is to hold large-scale military exercises every two years, including those in the hot spot region of Caucasus, a senior official said on Saturday. "The participants of a meeting of the CSTO defense ministers decided to hold large-scale exercises every two years. Thus, the next exercises will take place in 2010," Interfax news agency quoted CSTO Deputy Secretary General Valery Semerikov as saying. Those war games will be held with the situation in the region to be taken into consideration, including the Caucasus, he said. The CSTO defense ministers met on Thursday in the Armenian capital of Yerevan to discuss the military and political situation in the region, the military cooperation of the member states, as well as their foreign and defense policies. The Russia-led bloc has held four-stage military exercises in Russia and the Caucasus state of Armenia in July and August, involving about 4,000 troops from Armenia, Russia and Tajikistan. Military staff from the other CSTO member states also joined the exercises. The seven-member organization was renamed in October 2002 on the basis of the Collective Security Treaty, which was signed in Mary 1992 within the framework of the Commonwealth of Independent States. The current members of the CSTO include Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Russia and Uzbekistan.

Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_9656714.htm