The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

US chicken industry awaiting details of Russia ban

Russia has not contacted the U.S. chicken industry or the U.S. government regarding its apparent plans to ban imports from 19 U.S. chicken plants, industry sources said on Thursday. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told CNN on Thursday that Russia would ban chicken from 19 U.S. chicken plants -- which were not named -- because they failed health and safety tests, and that 29 other U.S. plants had been warned. "As far as we know, Russia has taken no official action to either reduce imports of U.S. products or restrict imports from specific U.S. poultry plants. We have been in touch with our government today, and we have been told that Russia has initiated no contact on any of these issues," Toby Moore, spokesman for USA Poultry and Egg Export Council, said in an email. Russia is the largest importer of U.S. chicken, taking nearly 30 percent of those exports, but lately it has said it wants to reduce imports of both chicken and pork. The U.S. chicken industry exports about 18 percent of its production, and this year strong exports have helped offset weak domestic sales. U.S. industry sources believe Putin's statements, plus recent comments from other officials there that Russia will reduce imports of pork and chicken, may be in reaction to the West's reaction to the conflict in Georgia. In the CNN interview, Putin denied the bans were politically motivated. "This is entirely political and not based on health standards," Rich Nelson, analyst at Allendale Inc, said of Putin's statements regarding the poultry ban. "There is very long history of Russia using health standards at plants to curb imports." "Late last year the Russians delisted about 30 plants for various reasons," said Richard Lobb, spokesman for the National Chicken Council, an industry trade group. Russia's agriculture minister this week was reported as saying that the country would slash imports of pork and poultry dramatically. U.S. officials have said doing so would hurt Russia's chances of entering the World Trade Organization. Shares of leading U.S. chicken companies were mixed on Thursday, with Pilgrim's Pride Corp. (PPC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) shares up 26 cents, or 2 percent, at $13.32, Tyson Foods Inc (TSN.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) down 36 cents, or 2.35 percent, at $14.99, and Sanderson Farms Inc (SAFM.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) down 88 cents, or 2.5 percent, at $34.36.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/rbssC...33488820080828

[Merv]

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

Armenian: I read about the SCO stance and BBC (BBS?) made it sound like the other countries rejected the Russian position. Is this just propaganda? Are the Chinese just being cautious, as usual?

Also, you mentioned the Kosovo issue, which is at the heart of this. Back in February, I speculated that Russia may secretly desire Kosovo's "independence," if only because it would theoretically drive Serbia back into Russia's orbit (although the quislings in Belgrade are determined to eat whatever sh!t the EU dishes out), enable Russia to have her way with Georgia and Ukraine, and establish a precendent that would prove most advantageous to Russian interests. The precendent is such that it allows Russia to engage in actions that are in her own interests (on humanitarian/security pretexts, of course), and of course there are many such plausible interventions, from Eastern Europe and Central Asia to the Balkans and the Middle East, perhaps.

In other words, I believe Kosovo and Iraq have been a sort of boon for both Russia and China - despite their many objections/"objections." It represents a carte blanche for these states to reorganize their near and far abroads to suit their interests, with national sovereignty having been completely dissolved. We are back to the age of empires (indeed, was there ever a time that we were not?), where might makes right. In other words, Xinjiang and Chechnya are not independent because the armies of China/Russia will stop them from being independent - not because of a pile of documents of "international law" drafted in Geneva, Brussels, New York, or somewhere else. International law is a joke - a weapon with which the great powers may persecuted and browbeat weaker countries.

[Kanki]

Russian warning on Nato warships

Published Date: 29 August 2008
By Gerri Peev

RUSSIA has issued a stark warning over what it says is a build-up of Nato ships in the Black Sea, as tensions rise to their highest level since the outbreak of hostilities in Georgia.

The missile destroyer USS McFaul is already off the coast, with the US Coastguard ship Dallas docked in Georgia's port of Batumi, both to show support for the Caucasus nation. Washington has now ordered the flagship of its 6th Fleet, the sophisticated command ship Mount Whitney, into the area, saying it will deliver humanitarian supplies. But the flotilla has angered the Kremlin.

Dmitry Rogozin, the Russian ambassador to Nato, warned against western interference in Georgia's two breakaway regions, saying: "If Nato takes military actions against Abkhazia and South Ossetia, acting solely in support of Tbilisi, this will mean a declaration of war on Russia."

Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister, dragged the United States presidential candidates into the row. He suggested Georgia might have been pushed by someone in the US into using force to protect the two separatist states, saying the anti-Moscow rhetoric would help give a competitive advantage to one of the candidates.

Colonel-General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, Russia's deputy chief of the general staff, claimed up to 18 Nato vessels were in, or expected to be in, the Black Sea, and he attacked the use of warships to deliver aid to Georgia as "devilish".

Three frigates – from Spain, Germany and Poland – sailed into the Black Sea eight days ago. They were joined later by a US frigate, the Taylor, for port visits and exercises off the coasts of Romania and Bulgaria. Four warships of Nato member Turkey are also in the Black Sea.

Mr Putin's spokesman said: "The appearance of Nato battleships here in the Black Sea basin … and the decision to deliver humanitarian aid (to Georgia] using Nato battleships is something that can hardly be explained.

"Let us hope that we do not see any direct confrontation."

Russia claims the build-up is contrary to the 1936 Montreux Convention, which regulates the passage of warships there. But that charge has been denied by Carmen Romero, a Nato spokeswoman, who said the alliance had applied for transit into the Black Sea in June and stressed that the vessels would stay less than 21 days, as required by the convention.

READ MORE -- http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/...ato.4439182.jp

"NATO dismissed Russian suggestions it was reinforcing its presence in the Black Sea on Thursday, insisting that a group of warships was there on a long-planned routine exercise."




NATO announced last week that a group of one Spanish, one German and one Polish ship had entered the Black Sea and were subsequently joined by a U.S. frigate for a three-week schedule of port visits and exercises.

Amid mounting tensions between Russia and the West over Moscow's intervention in the South Ossetia region, the deputy chief of the Russia's General Staff said on Wednesday its navy was monitoring what he called a NATO "build-up".

"There is certainly no NATO build-up in the Black Sea," Commander Kevan McHale at NATO's Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) said.

SHAPE said last week the warship deployment had been planned over a year ago and would conduct port visits in Romania and Bulgaria and carry out exercises with their navies.

McHale said the only other allied presence which NATO authorities knew about were two U.S. ships involved in aid shipments to Georgia and ships belonging to the three NATO nations bordering the sea -- Romania, Bulgaria, Turkey.

[skhara]

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

Armenian: I read about the SCO stance and BBC (BBS?) made it sound like the other countries rejected the Russian position. Is this just propaganda? Are the Chinese just being cautious, as usual?

Also, you mentioned the Kosovo issue, which is at the heart of this. Back in February, I speculated that Russia may secretly desire Kosovo's "independence," if only because it would theoretically drive Serbia back into Russia's orbit (although the quislings in Belgrade are determined to eat whatever sh!t the EU dishes out), enable Russia to have her way with Georgia and Ukraine, and establish a precendent that would prove most advantageous to Russian interests. The precendent is such that it allows Russia to engage in actions that are in her own interests (on humanitarian/security pretexts, of course), and of course there are many such plausible interventions, from Eastern Europe and Central Asia to the Balkans and the Middle East, perhaps.

In other words, I believe Kosovo and Iraq have been a sort of boon for both Russia and China - despite their many objections/"objections." It represents a carte blanche for these states to reorganize their near and far abroads to suit their interests, with national sovereignty having been completely dissolved. We are back to the age of empires (indeed, was there ever a time that we were not?), where might makes right. In other words, Xinjiang and Chechnya are not independent because the armies of China/Russia will stop them from being independent - not because of a pile of documents of "international law" drafted in Geneva, Brussels, New York, or somewhere else. International law is a joke - a weapon with which the great powers may persecuted and browbeat weaker countries.

Hey dude,

Well said.

[Armenian]

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

Armenian: I read about the SCO stance and BBC (BBS?) made it sound like the other countries rejected the Russian position. Is this just propaganda? Are the Chinese just being cautious, as usual?

China has supported Russia's actions in the Caucasus, albeit indirectly. Silence means support, in this case. There aren't many nations on earth today that are willing to openly go against the western world's global system. All roads in the modern world - economic, security, political, social - lead to the western world, specifically to the United States. Nations are forced to enter this global system to prosper or to simply survive. We keep forgetting that the only reason why China exists, as a economic superpower, is because of its very close ties with the West's global economic system. China is deperately dependent on its lucrative trade with the western world to survive and it also has to import virtually all of its vast energy needs.

On the other hand, the Russian Federation is perhaps the only political entity on earth today that is truly independent, not totally, but to a great extent. Russia's great natural wealth and military power coupled with its political independence is what is making the political/financial elite in the West looking for ways to destroy it. The Russian Federation has great potential and powerbrokers in the West do not want to be second (or third) to anyone. This is where the real danger to gobal security lies, they will do anything to maintain their global primacy.

Also, you mentioned the Kosovo issue, which is at the heart of this. Back in February, I speculated that Russia may secretly desire Kosovo's "independence," if only because it would theoretically drive Serbia back into Russia's orbit (although the quislings in Belgrade are determined to eat whatever sh!t the EU dishes out), enable Russia to have her way with Georgia and Ukraine, and establish a precendent that would prove most advantageous to Russian interests. The precendent is such that it allows Russia to engage in actions that are in her own interests (on humanitarian/security pretexts, of course), and of course there are many such plausible interventions, from Eastern Europe and Central Asia to the Balkans and the Middle East, perhaps.

I stated back then that the situation in Kosovo, regardless of its outcome, was a win-win opportunity for Moscow. Had the West backed-off from its agenda in Kosovo, Moscow would have come out of the situation as a hero and NATO/EU would have suffered a major regional setback. Had the West pushed its agenda in Kosovo despite Russian objections (as it did), Moscow would use the situation to its benefit elsehwere (like in the Caucasus).

In other words, I believe Kosovo and Iraq have been a sort of boon for both Russia and China - despite their many objections/"objections." It represents a carte blanche for these states to reorganize their near and far abroads to suit their interests, with national sovereignty having been completely dissolved. We are back to the age of empires (indeed, was there ever a time that we were not?), where might makes right. In other words, Xinjiang and Chechnya are not independent because the armies of China/Russia will stop them from being independent - not because of a pile of documents of "international law" drafted in Geneva, Brussels, New York, or somewhere else. International law is a joke - a weapon with which the great powers may persecuted and browbeat weaker countries.

We had never left the age of empires, what makes you think we had? As a matter of fact, the USA is the greatest (and most dangerous) empire the world has yet experienced. The world is not run by democracy, it's not run by freedom, it's not run by devine rule; realpolitik (might makes right) runs the world. It's a shame that a vast majority of the world's population (especially in the West) is totally oblivious to this reality.

[Illuminator]

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

Armenian,

Don't you think that Armenia is making a major mistake to remain neutral? It's more or less pandering to the losers: Georgia and the US and Armenia shouldn't be pandering to losers.

I think Artsakh recognition would come quicker had Armenia taken a stand.

[Armanen]

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

I think Artsakh recognition would come quicker had Armenia taken a stand.

Recognition by whom? I don't think any of the Minsk Group co-chairs would recognize it, including Russia. And unlike Russia, sanctions against Armenia would not only hurt, but be a deathblow. On top of that, georgian-Armenian relations would be seriously strained, assuming we recognized SO and Abkhazia too, but even if we didn't, georgia would be fully on the side of azerbaijan.

I really don't think Armenia has many options, other then just playing each side to the best of its ability.

[Armanen]

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

Russia remains a Black Sea power


By M K Bhadrakumar

Global Research, August 29, 2008
Asian Times


If the struggle in the Caucasus was ever over oil and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization's (NATO's) agenda towards Central Asia, the United States suffered a colossal setback this week. Kazakhstan, the Caspian energy powerhouse and a key Central Asian player, has decided to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with Russia over the conflict with Georgia, and Russia's de facto control over two major Black Sea ports has been consolidated.

At a meeting in the Tajik capital Dushanbe on Thursday on the sidelines of the summit meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), Kazakh President Nurusultan Nazarbayev told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev that Moscow could count on Astana's support in the present crisis.

In his press conference in Dushanbe, Medvedev underlined that his SCO counterparts, including China, showed understanding of the Russian position. Moscow appears satisfied that the SCO summit also issued a statement on the Caucasus developments, which, inter alia, said, "The leaders of the SCO member states welcome the signing in Moscow of the six principles for regulating the South Ossetia conflict, and support Russia's active role in assisting peace and cooperation in the region." The SCO comprises China, Russia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

There were tell-tale signs that something was afoot when the Kazakh Foreign Ministry issued a statement on August 19 hinting at broad understanding for the Russian position. The statement called for an "unbiased and balanced assessment" of events and pointed out that an "attempt [was made] to resolve a complicated ethno-territorial issue by the use of force", which led to "grave consequences". The statement said Astana supported the "way the Russian leadership proposed to resolve the issue" within the framework of the United Nations charter, the Helsinki Final Act of 1975 and international law.

The lengthy statement leaned toward the Russian position but offered a labored explanation for doing so.

Kazakhstan has since stepped out into the thick of the diplomatic sweepstakes and whole-heartedly endorsed the Russian position. This has become a turning point for Russian diplomacy in the post-Soviet space. Nazarbayev said: I am amazed that the West simply ignored the fact that Georgian armed forces attacked the peaceful city of Tskhinvali [in South Ossetia]. Therefore, my assessment is as follows: I think that it originally started with this. And Russia's response could either have been to keep silent or to protect their people and so on. I believe that all subsequent steps taken by Russia have been designed to stop bloodshed of ordinary residents of this long-suffering city. Of course, there are many refugees, many homeless.

Guided by out bilateral agreement on friendship and cooperation between Kazakhstan and Russia, we have provided humanitarian aid: 100 tons have already been sent. We will continue to provide assistance together with you.

Of course, there was loss of life on the Georgian side - war is war. The resolution of the conflict with Georgia has now been shifted to some indeterminate time in the future. We have always had good relations with Georgia. Kazakhstan's companies have made substantial investments there. Of course, those that have done this want stability there. The conditions of the plan that you and [President of France Nicolas] Sarkozy drew up must be implemented, but some have begun to disavow certain points in the plan.

However, I think that negotiations will continue and that there will be peace - there is no other alternative. Therefore, Kazakhstan understands all the measures that have been taken, and Kazakhstan supports them. For our part, we will be ready to do everything to ensure that everyone returns to the negotiating table. From Moscow's point of view, Nazarbayev's words are worth their weight in gold. Kazakhstan is the richest energy producer in Central Asia and is a regional heavyweight. It borders China. The entire US regional strategy in Central Asia ultimately aims at replacing Russia and China as Kazakhstan's number one partner. American oil majors began making a beeline to Kazakhstan immediately after the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 - including Chevron, with which US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was associated.

Unsurprisingly, Kazakhstan figured as a favorite destination for US Vice President xxxx Cheney and President George W Bush has lavishly hosted Nazarbayev in the White House.

The US had gone the extra league in cultivating Nazarbayev, with the fervent hope that somehow Kazakhstan could be persuaded to commit its oil to the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline, whose viability is otherwise in doubt. The pipeline is a crucial component of the US's Caspian great game.

The US had gone to great lengths to realize the pipeline project against seemingly hopeless odds. In fact, Washington stage-managed the "color" revolution in Georgia in November 2003 (which catapulted Mikheil Saakashvili to power in Tbilisi) on the eve of the commissioning of the pipeline. The general idea behind the commotion in the South Caucasus was that the US should take control of Georgia through which the pipeline passes.

Besides, Kazakhstan shares a 7,500 kilometer border with Russia, which is the longest land border between any two countries in the world. It would be a nightmare for Russian security if NATO were to gain a foothold in Kazakhstan. Again, the US strategy had targeted Kazakhstan as the prize catch for NATO in Central Asia. The US aimed to make a pitch for Kazakhstan after getting Georgia inducted into NATO.

These American dreams have suffered a setback with the Kazakh leadership now closing ranks with Moscow. It seems Moscow outwitted Washington.

Belarus voices support The other neighboring country sharing a common border with Russia, Belarus, has also expressed support for Moscow. Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko visited Medvedev in Sochi on August 19 to express his solidarity.

"Russia acted calmly, wisely and beautifully. This was a calm response. Peace has been established in the region - and it will last," he commented.

What is even more potent is that Russia and Belarus have decided to sign an agreement this autumn on creating a unified air defense system. This is hugely advantageous for Russia in the context of the recent US attempts to deploy missile defense elements in Poland and the Czech Republic.

According to Russian media reports, Belarus has several S-300 air defense batteries - Russia's advanced system - on combat duty and is currently negotiating the latest S-400 systems from Russia, which will be made available by 2010.

Attention now shifts to the meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which is scheduled to take place in Moscow on September 5. The CSTO's stance on the crisis in the Caucasus will be closely watched.

It appears that Moscow and Kazakhstan are closely cooperating in setting the agenda of CSTO, whose members are Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. The big question is how the CSTO gears up to meet NATO's expansion plans. The emergent geopolitical reality is that with Russia's recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, Moscow has virtually checkmated the US strategy in the Black Sea region, defeating its plan to make the Black Sea an exclusive "NATO lake". In turn, NATO's expansion plans in the Caucasus have suffered a setback.

Not many analysts have understood the full military import of the Russian moves in recognizing the breakaway Georgian republics.

Russia has now gained de facto control over two major Black Sea ports - Sukhumi and Poti. Even if the US-supported regime of Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine creates obstacles for the Russian fleet based in the Crimean port of Sevastopol - in all probability, Moscow will shrug off any Ukrainian pressure tactic - the fleet now has access to alternative ports on the Black Sea. Poti, in particular, has excellent facilities dating to the Soviet era.

The swiftness with which Russia took control of Poti must have made the US livid with anger. Washington's fury stems from the realization that its game plan to eventually eliminate Russia's historical role as a "Black Sea power" has been rendered a pipe dream. Of course, without a Black Sea fleet, Russia would have ceased to be a naval power in the Mediterranean. In turn, Russia's profile in the Middle East would have suffered. The Americans indeed had an ambitious game plan towards Russia.

There is every indication that Moscow intends to assert the strategic presence of its Black Sea Fleet. Talks have begun with Syria for the expansion of a Russian naval maintenance base at the Syrian port of Tartus. The Middle East media recently suggested in the context of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to Moscow that Russia might contemplate shifting its Black Sea Fleet from Sevastopol to Syria. But this is an incorrect reading insofar as all that Russia needs is a supply and maintenance center for its warships, which operate missions in the Mediterranean. In fact, the Soviet navy's 5th Mediterranean Squadron had made use of Tartus port for such purpose.

China shows understanding Moscow will approach the CSTO summit pleased with the SCO's backing, even it it was not without reservations. Medvedev said of the SCO meeting, Of course, I had to tell our partners what had actually happened, since the picture painted by some of the Western media unfortunately differed from real facts as to who was the aggressor, who started all this, and who should bear the political, moral and ultimately the legal responsibility for what happened ...

Our colleagues gratefully received this information and during a series of conversations we concluded that such events certainly do not strengthen the world order, and that the party that unleashed the aggression should be responsible for its consequences ... I am very pleased to have been able to discuss this with our colleagues and to have received from them this kind of support for our efforts. We are confident that the position of the SCO member states will produce an appropriate resonance through the international security, and I hope this will give a serious signal to those who are trying to justify the aggression that was committed. It must have come as a relief to Moscow that China agreed to line up behind such a positive formulation. On Thursday, the Russian Foreign Ministry in Moscow also seems to have had its first contact with the Chinese Embassy regarding the issue. Significantly, the Foreign Ministry statement said the meeting between Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexei Borodavkin and Chinese ambassador Liu Guchang took place at the Chinese initiative.

The statement claimed, "The Chinese side was informed of the political and legal motives behind Russia's decision and expressed an understanding of them." (Emphasis added.) It is highly unlikely that on such a sensitive issue, Moscow would have unilaterally staked a tall claim without some degree of prior tacit consent from the Chinese side, which is a usual diplomatic practice.

The official Russian news agency report went a step further and highlighted that "China had expressed its understanding of Russia's decision to recognize Georgia's breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia".

The favorable stance by Belarus, Kazakhstan and China significantly boosts Moscow's position. In real terms, the assurance that the three big countries that surround Russia will remain on friendly terms no matter the West's threat to unleash a new cold war, makes a huge difference to Moscow's capacity to maneuver. Any time now - possibly this weekend - we may expect Belarus to announce its recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Clearly, Moscow is disinterested to mount any diplomatic campaign to rally support from the world community for the sovereignty and independence of the two breakaway provinces. As a Moscow commentator put it, "Unlike in comrade Leonid Brezhnev's time, Moscow is not trying to press any countries into supporting it on this issue. If it did, it could find quite a few sympathizers, but who cares?"

It serves Moscow's purpose as long as the world community draws an analogy between Kosovo and the two breakaway provinces. In any case, the two provinces have been totally dependent on Russia for economic sustenance.

With the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, what matters critically for Moscow is that if the West now intends to erect any new Berlin Wall, such a wall will have to run zig-zag along the western coast of the Black Sea, while the Russian naval fleet will always stay put on the east coast and forever sail in and out of the Black Sea.

The Montreal Convention assures the free passage of Russian warships through the Straits of Bosphorous. Under the circumstances, NATO's grandiose schemes to occupy the Black Sea as its private lake seem outlandish now. There must be a lot of egg on the faces of the NATO brains in Brussels and their patrons in Washington and London.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait and Turkey.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9986

[Armanen]

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

Punishing Russia could prove costly


By Mikhail Molchanov

Global Research, August 28, 2008
Asian Times


On the eve of his visit to Ukraine, David Miliband, Britain's foreign secretary, said he wanted to forge "the widest possible coalition against Russian aggression in Georgia". The next day, he warned that Russia must not start a new cold war.

Russians reacted defensively, saying a cold war is not what they want, yet arguing it is better to lose so-called friends in the West than lose national dignity.

The row that has started over Russia's using force to rebuff a Georgian military attack on a separatist minority is now continuing over Moscow's decision to recognize the de-facto independence of the two pariah statelets that have been effectively self-governed for the last 16 years.

Russia's decision to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia should come at no surprise to those who know the region. South Ossetia had never been a part of Georgia until Joseph Stalin separated the Ossetian homeland into two parts and attached the northern part to Russia, while giving the South to Stalin's native Georgia.

Stalin's plan included a measure of autonomy for Abkhazia and the two Ossetias. However, yet another Georgian dictator, Zviad Gamsakhurdia (1939 - 1993), abolished South Ossetian autonomy and liquidated the autonomous status of the Abkhazian Republic even before the Soviet Union formally ceased to exist in 1991. At about the same time, when Georgians proclaimed their independence from Moscow, the parliamentary assembly of the Republic of Abkhazia reasserted its sovereignty and announced separation from Georgia. Tbilisi responded by sending bands of looters to both breakaway regions.

Gamsakhurdia's officially chauvinist policy of "Georgia for the Georgians" encouraged the ethnic cleansing that followed. When South Ossetians and Abkhazians tried to throw the rascals out with the help of popular militias specifically assembled for that purpose, Georgia sent in police forces and regular troops. This started an armed conflict which lasted until a 1992 ceasefire agreement brokered by the Russians. All sides agreed to accept Russian troops as peacekeepers.

For the last 16 years, Moscow had staunchly refused to heed numerous requests of the separatist leaders to acknowledge their de-facto independence from Georgia. Even so, the one and only channel of material aid reaching breakaway enclaves was coming from Russia. Tbilisi has not contributed a penny to help restore cities and villages ravaged by the Georgian fire. As time went by, more and more Georgians left for Georgia proper. Abkhazian and South Ossetian economies lost all connections to Georgia and became fully oriented toward Russia.

Georgia's claims of sovereignty over the separatist republics are based on the Soviet precedent and the Western desire to "discipline" Russia, while rewarding the US-propped regime of Mikheil Saakashvili. The idea of North Ossetia and South Ossetia reuniting as a new republic of the Russian Federation is simply unpalatable to the West, no matter how many referendums would prove the people's will and how genuinely democratic those referendums would be. After all, as former US national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski argued, Russia was too big even in its curtailed post-Soviet form; would it not be great to tear apart Siberia and the Far East?

Interestingly, some people among the Russian so-called "liberal" elite met the idea with sympathetic understanding. Indeed, if your personal fortune is based on an indiscriminate sell-off of the country's natural riches, central oversight is not the first thing on your mind.

During the whole Boris Yeltsin decade, Russia's foreign policy did not significantly deviate from the master plan devised in Washington. The country was ruled by the oligarchs, not by the elected government. The West has called this "democracy". While the two small Caucasian nations were clamoring for protection, Moscow's hands were tied by the fear of Western disapproval.

The slightest sign of independent orientation in foreign policy was cited as a proof of Russian "imperialism". Never mind that thousands in both unacknowledged republics were carrying Russian passports. Russia was forced to turn a blind eye to the continuing misery of the people that could not live as a part of Georgia - and were not allowed to exist independently.

In the meantime, humanitarian reasons worked well for East Timorese, Kosovars, and factually independent Kurds in Iraq. Not so for Abkhazians and South Ossetians. On August 8, the Georgian army was given a command to "retake" South Ossetia, and launched a barrage of GRAD rockets against the civilian population of Tskhinvali. Close to 2,000 Ossetians were soon dead, and 30, 000, or one quarter of the total population, fled their destroyed homes, many ending up on the Russian side of the border. A dozen Russian peacekeepers were killed in the attack. The UN was "concerned", yet nobody among the Western leaders indicated even a slightest displeasure.

However, the displeasure became pronounced when Russian troops moved in to protect the threatened minority and stop the conflict. The Russian offensive accomplished these tasks in five days and with minimal bloodshed.

Western displeasure grew into a universal chorus of condemnation when President Dmitry Medvedev, acting on a direct and unanimous mandate of both chambers of the Federal Assembly, decided to extend Russia's recognition of independence to the two nations that have been factually independent since 1992, and paid in blood for that privilege.

Rather than seeing Russia's actions as dictated by considerations of humanity, or, at the very minimum, sheer political realism (can anyone in their right mind believe that fiercely proud North Caucasian nations would voluntarily accept the rule by those who deny their very right of existence as separate ethnicities?), the Western press is chanting cold war.

Moscow's position is, if friendship with the West can only be bought by standing idly by and ignoring desperate pleas for help from a kindred, ethically affiliated nation, Russia cannot afford such a friendship. Cold war or not, the time of a politically correct, US-style Russia is now over.

Instead, it is the time of a Russia that has restored the dignity of its elected government offices; a Russia that owes nothing to the world financial institutions, and itself holds near US$100 billion in US agencies' debt; and a Russia that supplies one-third of Europe's total gas. This is a country whose army is, once again, capable of procuring world-class armaments and training soldiers in their proper use.

This Russia is prepared to beef up its military collaboration with China, ensuring comprehensive modernization of the Asian giant's forces. This new Russia has re-established its diplomatic and economic presence world-wide, has friends and partners in both hemispheres, and is capable of influencing geopolitical situations in the areas much further distanced than the neighboring Caucasus.

Attempting to punish this new Russia, one way or another, may be a rather costly adventure. Is the West prepared to bear those costs - just to show Russia "who is the boss here", while denying two smaller nations that very same right of self-determination that Georgians now enjoy?

Mikhail A Molchanov is a professor of political science at St Thomas University, Canada. He has published several books and articles on Russia's post-communist transition and foreign policy, Russian-Ukrainian relations and international problems of Eurasia.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9971

[Armenian]

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

Armenian, Don't you think that Armenia is making a major mistake to remain neutral? It's more or less pandering to the losers: Georgia and the US and Armenia shouldn't be pandering to losers. I think Artsakh recognition would come quicker had Armenia taken a stand.

Armenia does not have a choice, it must remain silent. Moscow never intended to annex or destroy Georgia. Thus, Georgia still remains the country through which over 90% of Armenia's goods and energy supplies come through. If Tbilisi decided to seal its border with Armenia, Armenia's already fragile economy would collapse overnight. What's more, Armenia simply can't afford to ruin its cordial relations with the western world. We can't be emotional or sentimental about geopolitics. What has been happening recently in the region is not a street fight, its not a family dispute, nor is it a child's play. This is serious global geopolitics at play. As shortsighted officials in Tbilisi showed recently, a single wrong move by the authorities in any of the regional countries can prove catastrophic. Armenia today is not a major power. As a matter of fact, politically and economically, Armenia is very vulnerable and is at the mercy of foreign powers. I rather have official Yerevan remain overtly neutral and covertly pro-Russian through all this. And that seems to be what Yerevan is doing at this point.

Regarding Nagorno Karabagh: What recognition do you want? By whom? Nagorno Karabagh is free and independent and it has been free and independent for over fifteen years. What is international recognition going to get us? Besides feel good rhetoric, nothing. The fact remains: Official recognition of Nagorno Karabagh's independence is 'not' in the interests of the major powers, and that includes Russia, China and Iran, not to mention the West. For nations like Russia and Iran, it makes more strategic sense to have the issue over Nagorno Karabagh unresolved as leverage over Azerbaijan.