The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

Turkey, Iran: Ankara's Priorities Shift

Summary

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s two-day trip to Ankara ended Aug. 15. While the Iranian government and state media have touted his trip as proof that Iran and Turkey are close allies, the Turkish government is far more concerned with containing the current situation in the Caucasus, which could have major implications for Turkey’s ally Azerbaijan.

Analysis

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad wrapped up a two-day trip to Ankara on Aug. 15. The Iranian government and state media have been hyping Ahmadinejad’s visit to Turkey for days in an attempt to showcase to the world the Iranian belief that Iran and Turkey, as the two principle non-Arab regional powerhouses, are close and natural allies. But while Iran is eager to forge closer ties with Turkey, the Turks do not have much time for Ahmadinejad right now. Ankara has bigger things on its mind, namely the Russians. Turkey is heir to the Ottoman Empire, which once extended deep into the southern Caucasus region where Russia just wrapped up an aggressive military campaign against Georgia. Turkey’s geopolitical interests in the Caucasus have primarily been defensive in nature, focused on keeping the Russians and Persians at bay. Now that Russia is resurging in the Caucasus, the Turks have no choice but to get involved. The Turks primarily rely on their deep ethnic, historical and linguistic ties to Azerbaijan to extend their influence into the Caucasus. Azerbaijan was alarmed, to say the least, when it saw Russian tanks crossing into Georgia. As far as Azerbaijan was concerned, Baku could have been the next target in Russia’s military campaign.

However, Armenia — Azerbaijan’s primary rival — remembers well the 1915 Armenian genocide by the Turks, and looks to Iran and especially Orthodox Christian Russia for its protection. Now that Russia has shown it is willing to act on behalf of allies like South Ossetia and Abkhazia in the Caucasus, the Armenians, while militarily outmatched by the Azerbaijanis, are now feeling bolder and could see this as their chance to preempt Azerbaijan in yet another battle for the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region— especially if it thinks it can look to Russia to militarily intervene on its behalf. The Turks and their ethnic kin in Azerbaijan are extremely wary of Russia’s intentions for the southern Caucasus beyond Georgia. Sources told Stratfor that Azerbaijan has learned that the Russian military jets that bombed Gori and Poti were based out of Armenia. This development not only signaled a significant expansion of Russia’s military presence in the southern Caucasus, but it also implied that Armenia had actually signed off on the Russian foray into Georgia, knowing that Russian dominance over Georgia would guarantee Armenian security and impose a geographic split between Turkey and Azerbaijan. If the Armenians became overly confident and made a move against Azerbaijan for Nagorno-Karabakh, expecting Russian support, the resulting war would have a high potential of drawing the Turks into a confrontation with the Russians — something that both NATO member Turkey and Russia have every interest in avoiding.

The Turks also have a precarious economic relationship with Russia. The two countries have expanded their trade with each other significantly in recent years. In the first half of 2008, trade between Russia and Turkey amounted to $19.9 billion, making Russia Turkey’s biggest trading partner. Much of this trade is concentrated in the energy sphere. The Turks currently import approximately 64 percent of the natural gas they consume from the Russians. Though Turkey’s geographic position enables it to pursue energy links in the Middle East and the Caucasus that can bypass Russian territory, the Russians have made it abundantly clear over the past few days that the region’s energy security will still depend on Moscow’s good graces. Turkey’s economic standing also largely depends on its ability to act as a major energy transit hub for the West through pipelines such as the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, which was recently forced offline due to a purported Kurdish militant attack and the war in Georgia. Turkey simply cannot afford to see the Russians continue their surge into the Caucasus and threaten its energy supply.

For these reasons, Turkey is on a mission to keep this tinderbox in the Caucasus contained. Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan spent the last couple of days meeting with top Russian leaders in Moscow and then with the Georgian president in Tbilisi. During his meetings with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin, President Dmitri Medvedev and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, Erdogan pushed the idea of creating a Caucasus union that would include both Russia and Georgia. Though this organization would likely be little more than a talk shop, it is a sign of Turkey’s interest in reaching a mutual understanding with Russia that would allow both sides to maintain a comfortable level of influence in the region without coming to blows. The Iranians, meanwhile, are sitting in the backseat. Though Iran has a foothold in the Caucasus through its support for Armenia, the Iranians lack the level of political, military and economic gravitas that Turkey and Russia currently hold in this region. Indeed, Erdogan did not even include Iran in his list of proposed members for the Caucasus union, even though Iran is one of the three major powers bordering the region. The Turks also struck a blow to Iran by holding back from giving Ahmadinejad the satisfaction of sealing a key energy agreement for Iran to provide Turkey with natural gas, preferring instead to preserve its close relationship with the United States and Israel. Turkey simply is not compelled to give Iran the attention that it is seeking at the moment.

The one thing that Turkey can look to Iran for, however, is keeping the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict under control. Iran’s support for Armenia has naturally put Tehran on a collision course with Ankara when dealing with the Caucasus in the past. But when faced with a common threat of a resurgent Russia, both Turkey and Iran can agree to disagree on their conflicting interests in this region and use their leverage to keep Armenia or Azerbaijan from firing off a shot and pulling the surrounding powers into a broader conflict. In light of the recent BTC explosion claimed by the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), Turkey can also look to Iran to play its part in cracking down on PKK rebels in the region, many of whom have spent the past year fleeing a Turkish crackdown in northern Iraq by traversing through Iran to reach the southern Caucasus. While Iran and Turkey can cooperate in fending off the Russians, it will primarily be up to Turkey to fight the battle in the Caucasus. Russia has thus far responded positively to Turkey’s diplomatic engagements, but in a region with so many conflicting interests, the situation could change in a heartbeat.

Source: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/tur...iorities_shift

[Armenian]

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

More evidence that Ankara's proposal for a Caucasus Pact was done without Washington's knowledge or approval. The proposal in question may have actually been a Russian initiative. Therefore, I think we can expect Washington to begin bringing up the Armenian Genocide to derail the proposal.

Armenian

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

Russia supports Turkey’s Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Pact

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov yesterday accused NATO countries of arming Georgia, while at the same time praising the stance of Turkey - itself a member of the alliance, the Turkish Daily News reports. Although Lavrov admitted that Turkey and Russia have different approaches with regards to Georgia’s territorial integrity, he nevertheless voiced support for the Turkish proposal for a regional cooperation mechanism. On a one day visit to Istanbul, Lavrov offered concrete proposals to solve the problems facing Turkish exporters by Russian customs. In a joint news conference with his Turkish counterpart Ali Babacan, Lavrov denied that stricter Russian controls on Turkish imports are politically motivated. The checks resulted in hundreds of Turkish trucks being stranded at Russian border posts over the past few weeks. They raised questions about whether Russia was punishing NATO member Turkey for allowing U.S. warships carrying aid to Georgia to pass through the Bosporus. Lavrov said some countries had breached customs regulations, prompting Russian authorities to take more stringent measures. “We are not discriminating against Turkey,” assured Lavrov. “We offered a more simplified method for Turkish goods,” he said, adding that the custom authorities will meet soon to discuss the issue. Despite his criticism of NATO countries arming Georgia, Lavrov said Turkey’s alliance commitments were not an obstacle for Turkish-Russian relations. “Turkey never used its NATO membership at the expense of violating international principles. While being loyal to its NATO commitments it does not forget its commitments to the UN or OSCE,” said Lavrov, also expressing satisfaction with Turkey’s position on the maritime regime in the Bosporus and the Black Sea. While Babacan emphasized the importance of Georgia’s territorial integrity, his Russian counterpart said the recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia is the only way to secure the existence of the people in these two regions. “We need to respect our differences,” said Lavrov when asked about the divergence of view between Russia and Turkey. “The difference of view between Russia and Turkey is that, this does not create hysteria. This does not pose a threat to our relations. We take it as a matter of fact,” he said recalling how Turkey recognized the independence of Kosovo. “Russia is loyal to the principle of territorial integrity. But there are commitments to the security of the people too,” he said. Voicing support for the Turkish proposal for a Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Pact, Lavrov said Russia appreciates Turkey’s efforts to defuse the tension. Lavrov added that the two countries officials will cooperate to set the framework of the new mechanism. “This initiative is based on common sense,” he said, adding that countries of the region should deal with their problems rather than wait for others to impose their own solutions.

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=26899

U.S. cold to Ankara's Caucasus Stability and Cooperation Platform

The United States is cold to the idea, saying it had not been informed in advance and that the approach does not include a major Western component, the Turkish Daily News reports. "I was surprised by this announcement of a Caucasus stability pact by the Turkish government," said Matt Bryza, deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs. "I hadn’t been briefed that that was going to happen. We have a partnership with Turkey on the Caucasus, and I presume that we’ll be able to work together very closely now with our allies in Turkey since we do have clearly shared interests, not to mention values, throughout the Caucasus with our Turkish ally." Another U.S. diplomat said later, "We don’t think that the effort is realistic, plus our strategic partnership [with Turkey] should normally require closer consultations with us." Following the hostilities in South Ossetia, Ankara offered a Caucasus stability pact that could unite Armenia, Azerbaijan, Russia, Turkey and Georgia.

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=26901

In related news:

Kremlin: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev met with President of Armenia Serzh Sargsyan

They discussed issues of bilateral cooperation and the situation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They paid particular attention to establishing new transport routes between the two countries, given that a significant portion of trade and transit between Russia and Armenia involves crossing Georgian territory. They discussed extensively ways of intensifying cooperation between Russia and Armenia in the field of energy, gas exports and infrastructure development in Armenia. The talks concluded with a number of instructions to ministries and departments in both countries. In light of the forthcoming presidency of Armenia of the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organisation), the two Presidents discussed preparations for the forthcoming meeting of the Collective Security Council of the Collective Security Treaty Organisation. The meeting touched on the problem of the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. The President of Russia said that he favours the continuation of direct dialogue between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Source: http://www.isria.info/RESTRICTED/D/2...mber2008_3.htm

[Lucin]

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

What can Moscow do? They totally control our gas/oil imports. They control our nuclear reactor to a great extent. They control our economy to a great extent. They control our military to a great extent. They control our politicians to a great extent. So, use you imagination...

I did have in mind that Russia controls our strategic assets but just can't imagine Moscow to go to such lengths to cut the gas or the suppliment for the nuclear reactor...

[Armenian]

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

I did have in mind that Russia controls our strategic assets but just can't imagine Moscow to go to such lengths to cut the gas or the suppliment for the nuclear reactor...

I know they wouldn't, Armenia's is their only regional ally. But if for some reason they decided to do so, who or what is to stop them? The point is, the Caucasus is Russia's domain, Armenia is in no position to dictate or demand anything from Russia. It's not like we have other options either. For better or for worst, Armenia's future belongs with Russia. Anyone telling you otherwise is either an ignorant westerner, delusional nationalist, or simply one that does not comprehend even the basic tenets of geopolitics. Seeing the volition and unforgiving region Armenia is located in, Armenia's only realistic and prudent choice is to become an unconditional/intimate partner for the Russian Federation. Russian officials also need to appreciate Armenia for the crucial role Yerevan plays for Moscow's regional interests. So, in a certain sense, it is somewhat up to us (our actions in the region, our political activism in Russia) to help them see this. However, there will be no equal footing here, just like all men are 'not' created equal. Armenia will have to play the subservient role. With such a situation, we may not always be happy with political outcomes. I think this kind political reality is something we really need to get used to.

[Armenian]

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

Russia's natural gas keeps Europe in its thrall

The European Union, in its wisdom, has chosen to do nothing but shake a finger at Russia over the war in Georgia. Russia responded by patting Europe on the head. This is not a good omen. EU leaders, meeting in an "emergency session" in Brussels on Monday, had trouble finding an emergency they needed to worry about. True, Russia has rewritten a bit of the map by force, first "liberating" and then recognizing two tinpot republics that had been parts of Georgia, at least in theory. True, many other European states, including some EU members, could be next in line for Russian revanchism and pseudo-irridentism. But, the Europeans calculated in their supple fashion, Russia has quite a lot of natural gas, essential to keep Germany's industry running. And companies in France, Germany, and Italy have fat contracts with Gazprom, the Russian energy firm. What the heck, most people aren't even sure where Georgia is. Why invoke sanctions and upset the Russians over such a little place?

Naturally Russia reacted with pleasure, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin praising the EU's "common sense." Just yesterday we argued in this space that Russia could not keep invading its neighbours with impunity. That analysis presumed a stern Western response, among other things. But now the EU has chosen to be stern in words only. The EU is divided. Eastern European members, who know the Russians best, wanted real sanctions, as did Britain. And the International Monetary Fund is reported preparing a $750-million line of credit for Georgia's government. And U.S. Vice-President xxxx Cheney, visiting Georgia this week, will likely announce new U.S. aid.

But some European states are paralyzed by their need for Russian natural gas. In theory pipelines through Georgia can get Caspian Sea gas and oil to Europe, but Russia demonstrated last month that it could gobble down Georgia, pipelines and all, in one bite whenever it chooses to do so. What the Europeans should be doing, in the face of this political, military and economic menace, is seeking more secure natural-gas supplies. As the Economist magazine noted this week, one useful measure would be better inter-connections among European gas systems, so that supplies could be shared in a crisis. Equally, infrastructure for liquefied natural gas would reduce dependency on Russia. For now, however, European policy consists of hoping this problem will go away.

Source: http://www.canada.com/montrealgazett...8-113685dfe9fd

Older articles:

A bear at the throat

The European Union is belatedly grasping the riskiness of its dependence on Russian gas, but it is disunited and short of ideas for how to reduce it

RUSSIA'S president, Vladimir Putin, must be feeling smug. His strategy of using the country's vast natural resources to restore the greatness lost after the break-up of the Soviet Union seems to be paying off. If power is measured by the fear instilled in others—as many Russians believe—he is certainly winning. The Soviet Union relied on its military machine for geopolitical power: its oil and gas were just a way to pay for it. In today's Russia, energy is itself the tool of influence. To use it the Kremlin needs three things: control over Russian energy reserves and production, control over the pipelines snaking across its territory and that of its neighbours, and long-term contracts with European customers that are hard to break. All three are in place. For all the talk of a common strategy towards Russia, the EU is divided and stuck for an answer.

Gazprom, Russia's energy giant, cherished by Mr Putin as a “powerful lever of economic and political influence in the world”, has long-term supply contracts with most European countries, including France, Germany, Italy and Austria. It also has direct access to these countries' domestic markets. The EU reckons that half its gas imports now come from Russia. Newer EU members, such as Hungary and the Czech Republic, are almost entirely dependent on Russian gas. Moreover, a pipeline network that it inherited from the Soviet Union gives Russia control over gas imported from Central Asia. The EU has few ideas for how to deal with its chief energy supplier. “We know we should do something about Russia, but we don't know what,” one Brussels official says. “In the EU we negotiate on the rules, whereas Russia wants to do deals.” The deals are coming thick and fast. Last month, Russia secured one to build an oil pipeline from Bulgaria to Greece that will bypass the Bosporus. Symbolically, it will be the first Russian-controlled pipeline on EU territory. The pipeline will carry Russian and Central Asian oil straight to the EU, avoiding Turkey.

Oil can at least be bought from elsewhere. The bigger worry is about the EU's dependence on Russian gas. The flow of natural gas depends on the routes and control of pipelines, as European consumers were reminded when Russia switched off the gas supply to Ukraine just over a year ago and Ukraine started to steal Russian gas that was destined for the EU. Russia's pipeline routes encircle the EU from the north and south. Russia and Germany have teamed up to build a gas pipeline under the Baltic Sea, bypassing Ukraine and Poland (see map). Gerhard Schröder, a former German chancellor signed up by Mr Putin to preside over this Nord Stream pipeline, claims that it will make Europe safer. But a study by Sweden's Defence Research Agency concludes that it will divide the EU and increase dependence on Russia. It will let the Kremlin turn off gas supplies to Ukraine, Poland and Belarus without affecting “more important” customers. Understandably, Poland is anxious. The pipeline will increase the flow of gas to Germany and hook in countries that do not yet consume much Russian gas, including the Netherlands and Britain.

In the south, Russia has a pipeline across the Black Sea which supplies gas to Turkey. Now Russia wants to extend this Blue Stream pipeline to Hungary. That would compete directly with Europe's own plan to build a pipeline called Nabucco from Turkey to Austria. Nabucco has been one of the EU's few concerted responses to Russian domination of its gas supplies: it would be filled up with gas from Central Asia and thus bypass Russia altogether. But it is now creating more friction than unity.

Hungarian rhapsody

Last month Hungary's prime minister, Ferenc Gyurcsany, called Nabucco a “long dream”. Instead, he suggested that Hungary would support the extension of Blue Stream. Gazprom already supplies 80% of Hungary's gas and has promised to build a large gas-storage facility that could be a hub for central Europe. “Blue Stream”, enthused Mr Gyurcsany, “is backed by a very strong will and a very strong organisational power.” (When Hungary was accused of undermining the EU's common energy policy, the tart response was that it was impossible to undermine something that did not exist.) As well as controlling pipelines, Gazprom has also been busy buying up pieces of Europe's gas infrastructure. It owns 35% of Wingas, a German distribution company, and also has stakes in the Baltic countries' distributors. It has 10% of the interconnector pipeline between Belgium and Britain and wants a similar share of a British-Dutch link. It is also muscling its way into electricity, oil and liquefied natural gas (LNG) projects. “It is not enough for us to meet 25% of global gas consumption. We want to be the biggest energy company in the world,” Alexander Medvedev, Gazprom's deputy head, has said of his company's modest ambition.

Most European governments have been careful not to alienate Russia. As long as Gazprom plays by the rules, they say, it should be allowed to invest in their markets. Belgium recently said it had no problems with Gazprom owning parts of its infrastructure. Russia, in contrast, has a big problem with foreign companies owning, let alone controlling, any of its natural resources. It has bullied Royal Dutch Shell into ceding control of the Sakhalin-2 project in the far east of the country; it has blocked BP's plan to develop a gas field in eastern Siberia; and it has kept foreign companies out of the development of the giant Shtokman field in the Barents Sea, saying that it will go it alone. In the same spirit, the Kremlin has flatly ruled out ratifying the EU's energy-charter treaty, which would require it to open up its gas pipelines to other countries and other suppliers. The Russians have made a mockery of a joint declaration on energy issued at the G8 summit they chaired in St Petersburg last July. The declaration called for more honesty, competition and transparency. Yet just two days later, Mr Putin enshrined into law Gazprom's monopoly position as the sole exporter of gas.

Then there is the talk of creating a gas equivalent to the OPEC oil-exporters' cartel. On April 9th Russia joined other gas producers in Qatar to discuss the possibility, and offered to lead a study into gas pricing. The next meeting of the group will be in Moscow. With almost 60% of the world's gas concentrated in just three countries —Russia, Iran and Qatar—the notion of a cartel sounds appealing. But fixing prices for a commodity that is not traded on world markets will prove much harder than it has been for oil. Even so, as Mr Putin said earlier this year, “it would be a good idea to co-ordinate our activities.” Gazprom has already signed a memorandum of understanding with Algeria's Sonatrach to co-operate in gas production. This has unnerved European consumers, as Algeria is their third-largest supplier of gas, after Russia and Norway. America, too, is nervous. “Russia's commercial and political shadow over the governments in central Europe makes it harder for us to deal with our allies,” says a senior State Department official.

The EU's dependence on Russian energy is hardly new. Nor is tension between Russia and America. “The Americans were constantly telling us we were too dependent on Russian gas in the 1970s and 1980s,” says Sir Rodric Braithwaite, a former British ambassador to Moscow. Yet, throughout the cold war, Russia remained a reliable gas supplier. Why should things be different now? First, says, Cliff Kupchan, director of the Russian programme at Eurasia Group, a consultancy in Washington, DC, the Soviet Union was politically more predictable than its successor. “It was run by geriatrics, but we knew that one geriatric would succeed another.” Russia's political stability is ephemeral. It relies on Mr Putin's will, not on an institutional transfer of power. With nationalism on the rise, it is anybody's guess who will be in charge of Russia in ten years' time.

[..]

Source: http://www.economist.com/displayStor...ory_id=9009041

Q&A: Why Europe needs Russian gas



The threat from Russian state monopoly Gazprom to cut off the gas flow to one of its neighbours, Ukraine, has again raised questions about the security of Europe's energy supply.

Why is this a worry for European countries?

Gazprom controls about a third of the world's gas reserves and it is responsible for a quarter of Europe's supplies. Most of Europe's gas is piped via Ukraine, and when Gazprom shut down the pipeline in 2006, the flow to the rest of Europe fell, in some areas, by 40%.

Is the latest deal between the two presidents the end of the matter?

For the moment, yes. President Putin has said that Gazprom is satisfied with Kiev's commitment to begin paying its bills. Gazprom says Ukraine amassed debts of $1.5bn since November 2007, while Kiev argues the figure is closer to $1bn. But it is the way payments are made that is at the heart of the dispute and that may not have been resolved. The debt is owed not to Gazprom but a subsidiary RosUkrEnergo, part-owned by two Ukrainian businessmen. Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko wants an end to the system that allows RosUkrEnergo to import the gas and another intermediary, UkrGasEnergo, to sell it. Gazprom says it is prepared to negotiate once the bills are paid.

Is this politics or economics?

Analysts in Moscow say it is all about cash, and Western Europe has dramatised it as a political dispute. But Europeans are edgy. It seemed odd that the threatened cut-off coincided with a rare visit to Moscow by Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko. Ukraine's ambition to join Nato was as high on the agenda as the Gazprom crisis.

Is Moscow doing anything to secure Europe's supply?

Gazprom has embarked on plans for pipelines that bypass Ukraine and Belarus, former Soviet states which are currently essential for transit. Gazprom has two major projects, Nord Stream and South Stream. Nord Stream will run for 1200km along the bed of the Baltic Sea, and South Stream under the Black Sea. Gazprom has signed up big European partners: Italy's ENI for South Stream, and German companies E.ON Ruhrgas and Wintershall - along with Dutch provider Gasunie - for Nord Stream.

Is the EU happy about relying on Russian gas?

The EU has major concerns about security of supply and is moving ahead with a pipeline plan of its own. Nabucco will bring gas from Central Asia and the Caspian across Turkey into the European Union. But it will have only enough capacity to provide a small proportion, perhaps 5%, of Europe's needs.cSo Europe needs Gazprom, and that is why European companies and their governments have actively embraced the two projects. Austria is likely to serve as a hub for both. EU officials say that even during the Cold War the Russian gas supply was stable, so it is better to rely on Gazprom than potentially unstable sources such as Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7240462.stm

[North Pole]

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

Air Force to participate in large-scale exercises in central Russia

03/ 09/ 2008

MOSCOW, September 3 (RIA Novosti) - Over 60 combat aircraft will participate on September 8-13 in exercises that are part of theater-level military maneuvers in central Russia, an Air Force spokesman said on Wednesday.

Russia is currently holding large-scale Ground Forces' exercises, dubbed Center-2008, involving 12,000 troops, over 1,000 armored vehicles, large numbers of other military vehicles and units of the 5th Air and Air Defense Army on the territory of the Volga-Urals military district. The exercises started on September 1 and will run through September 27.

"The air component of the exercise will involve over 60 aircraft, including Il-76MD Candid-B transport planes, Su-24 Fencer attack aircraft, Su-27 Flanker fighters, MiG-31 Foxhound interceptors, Mi-24 Hind attack helicopters, Mi-8 Hip multi-role helicopters and special-purpose aircraft," Lt. Col. Vladimir Brik said.

Various air defense and electronic warfare units will also take part in the exercise, whose main purpose is to practice the interoperability of the Air Force and the Ground Forces in local conflicts and anti-terrorism operations.

http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080903/116521344.html

[Federate]

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

Russia Seeks Armenian Recognition Of Georgian Regions

By Hovannes Shoghikian

Russia is confident that its closest allies, including Armenia, will eventually join it in recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, a senior Russian official indicated on Wednesday.

The Kremlin is expected to push for such a recognition during Friday’s meeting in Moscow of the presidents of six former Soviet republics making up the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Preparations for the summit were discussed in Yerevan by top security officials from the CSTO member states.

“Every state should itself decide whether or not to recognize these states,” Nikolay Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s Security Council said after the meeting. “Russia will not be exerting pressure on anyone to recognize them.”

“But we are interested in seeing at first some states -- and we are convinced that that will happen -- and, later on, a considerable number of other states recognize both South Ossetia and Abkhazia once they have an objective picture of those events,” Patrushev told reporters.

Patrushev’s Armenian opposite number, Artur Baghdasarian, did not comment on the issue during their joint news conference. Baghdasarian, Patrushev and other participants of the meeting representing Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were received by President Serzh Sarkisian later on Wednesday.

Sarkisian used the occastion to reiterate his disapproval of Georgia’s failed attempt to restore its control over South Ossetia by force. “Attempts to impose solutions running counter to the will of nations in the South Caucasus are fraught with serious military and geopolitical consequences,” he was quoted by his press service as telling the CSTO officials.

Russia’s decision to recognize Abkhazia’s and South Ossetia’s de facto independence from Georgia, strongly condemned by the West, put Armenia in a delicate position. Official Yerevan is anxious not to upset both Russia, Armenia’s closest military, and Georgia, its main transport conduit to the outside world.

The issue was high on the agenda of Tuesday’s talks in the Russian city of Sochi between Presidents Serzh Sarkisian of Armenia and Dmitry Medvedev of Russia. Medvedev said the CSTO leaders should formulate a common stance on the Georgia-related developments at the Moscow summit.

Armenia will assume the CSTO’s rotating presidency during the gathering. According to Sarkisian, it will seek to “boost the effectiveness” of the alliance.

From http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeni...56B6124D20.ASP

[North Pole]

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

Germany: Europe has to side with Russia and break away from the USA!

Autor: Uwe Paschen • 1. September 2008

Georgia’s recent Military intervention in South Ossetia with US intelligence and Support has forced Russia to act! Unfortunately, today’s US Government around the World is still practising the old Cold War tactics of deceit and Propaganda.

The US are playing a dangerous and hypocritical game in Georgia as well as in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, Iraq and China, not to mention Europe as well!

It is vital today to dismantle NATO and form a new alliance in the spirit of De Gaulle and Brandt. Europe has to leave NATO and form an alliance with Russia, The Middle Easter Countries and North Africa as well as India, China and Japan.
Leaving the US out, at least for now, until they learned and understood that the World has changed and that they have to co-operate rather then play deceiving Imperialistic Games.

Putin him self understood that and so did former Chancellor Schroeder as well as former President Chirac. Merkel and Braun are not up to the task, they are lacking long-term vision and Peace as the main goal as well as economic justice for all Nations!

Sarkozi does for his part understand the importance of integrating North Africa into the EU, as well as to integrate China, India, Korea, Brazil and South Africa into the G8, making it the G12 and eventually the G20. A vital move, for peace and Justice.

We also need to reform the UNO that is constantly being undermined by the 5 Veto Powers of wish the US are doing most of the Vetoing and breaking international rules and agreements! The Veto rights have to be removed and the UNO needs a permanent and independent Military force that would be the only one allowed to intervene in International conflicts! All Armies have to be restricted to self defence only and dismantling their ABC arsenal. This to apply to all even the US and Russia, as well as China, India, Pakistan, Israel and Europe!

We will not have peace or Justice as long as we allow countries such as the US to play bully around the Globe. If America wants peace and Security as well as economic stability for it self, it wound be possible as long as the US do not reform them self-first!

Iran is just as sovereign a country as any other and needs to be doubt with in the same manner as the US deal with Israel or Great Briton, it is the only way for peace and Justice!

Double standards have never worked to well at any time or anywhere in human history!

We are one World and one Humanity, that can no longer afford Imperialistic ambition, deceitful politics nor can we afford self centre economic thinking any longer. May those be American, European, Russian, Chinese or other, this as to change.

If the American people fail to reform their government and Constitution as well as rid them self of a near monarchistic Presidential system on their own, then the World will have to Isolate the US for the sake of Peace and economical Justice around the World.

Why is it vital, for one, without peace we cannot redirect all our resources to tackle Pollution and economic injustice around the Globe, those should be our primary goals

We cannot afford to waste time with political intrigues and Cold War like games.

We need to change, the change needs to be now, and hopefully a peaceful transition lead by reason rather then fear and violence!

http://www.radio-utopie.de/2008/09/01/europe-has-to-side-with-russia-and-break-away-from-the-usa

[Armenian]

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

This is very good news. Moscow should be more forceful with Yerevan. I think Yerevan is taking way too long to make a decision.

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

Russia Seeks Armenian Recognition Of Georgian Regions

By Hovannes Shoghikian

Russia is confident that its closest allies, including Armenia, will eventually join it in recognizing South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states, a senior Russian official indicated on Wednesday.

The Kremlin is expected to push for such a recognition during Friday’s meeting in Moscow of the presidents of six former Soviet republics making up the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO). Preparations for the summit were discussed in Yerevan by top security officials from the CSTO member states.

“Every state should itself decide whether or not to recognize these states,” Nikolay Patrushev, secretary of Russia’s Security Council said after the meeting. “Russia will not be exerting pressure on anyone to recognize them.”

“But we are interested in seeing at first some states -- and we are convinced that that will happen -- and, later on, a considerable number of other states recognize both South Ossetia and Abkhazia once they have an objective picture of those events,” Patrushev told reporters.

Patrushev’s Armenian opposite number, Artur Baghdasarian, did not comment on the issue during their joint news conference. Baghdasarian, Patrushev and other participants of the meeting representing Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan were received by President Serzh Sarkisian later on Wednesday.

Sarkisian used the occastion to reiterate his disapproval of Georgia’s failed attempt to restore its control over South Ossetia by force. “Attempts to impose solutions running counter to the will of nations in the South Caucasus are fraught with serious military and geopolitical consequences,” he was quoted by his press service as telling the CSTO officials.

Russia’s decision to recognize Abkhazia’s and South Ossetia’s de facto independence from Georgia, strongly condemned by the West, put Armenia in a delicate position. Official Yerevan is anxious not to upset both Russia, Armenia’s closest military, and Georgia, its main transport conduit to the outside world.

The issue was high on the agenda of Tuesday’s talks in the Russian city of Sochi between Presidents Serzh Sarkisian of Armenia and Dmitry Medvedev of Russia. Medvedev said the CSTO leaders should formulate a common stance on the Georgia-related developments at the Moscow summit.

Armenia will assume the CSTO’s rotating presidency during the gathering. According to Sarkisian, it will seek to “boost the effectiveness” of the alliance.

From http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeni...56B6124D20.ASP

[Armenian]

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

Who knew?

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

Russia Is One of 10 Biggest Creditors of the U.S.

Russia ranks the eighth in the list of the U.S. creditors, according to Finance magazine. The RF share in the U.S. state debt was 2.5 percent ($65.3 billion) as of June 30, 2008. Japan ($583 billion) and China ($503 billion, less the debt to Hong Kong and Macao) are the key creditors for the United States, accounting for over 40 percent of the state debt on aggregate. What’s more, the debt to China goes up by 25 percent a year. Other major creditors of the United States are Britain, Luxembourg, Hong Kong, Switzerland, states of Caribbean offshore zone and the oil-exporting states, including Venezuela, the United Arab Emirates, Ecuador, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman and others. With the private sector taken into account, the U.S. foreign debt totaled $13.77 trillion as of early April, while the country’s GDP is projected to equal $14.4 trillion this year. The U.S. foreign debt didn’t exceed $6.95 trillion in 2003. The share of foreign governments in the U.S. state debt widened from 52.6 percent in 2003 to 73.9 percent in 2007.

Source: http://www.kommersant.com/p-13150/foreign_debt/

Yeah.... It doesn't look good for America.

Job losses mount as US economy heads into virtual freefall

Job losses in the US are mounting as inflation, the credit crunch, plunging home values and tighter family budgets are combining to produce a perfect storm of economic malaise, which is threatening the livelihoods of tens of millions of working people.

The private sector eliminated 79,000 jobs from May to June, according to a survey of nearly 400,000 US businesses released Wednesday by Automatic Data Processing, Inc. The ADP National Employment Report said the decline was “broad based across industrial sectors and suggests continued weakness in employment.”

The goods-producing sector slashed 76,000 jobs last month, ADP reported, with manufacturing employment falling by 44,000, marking their nineteenth and twenty-second consecutive monthly declines, respectively. Service jobs also declined by 3,000, the first fall-off since November 2002.

Construction and financial services related to home sales and lending are the two sectors of the economy hardest hit by the housing and mortgage crises. In June, ADP reported, construction employment dropped by an additional 34,000 jobs, marking the nineteenth straight monthly decline. A staggering 349,000 construction jobs have been lost since the peak of August 2006. Three thousand jobs in financial services were also lost in June.

“It’s clear that the housing downturn and credit crunch are still very much under way,” Andrew Tilton, an economist with Goldman Sachs told the New York Times. Clearly, there are more jobs to be lost in housing, finance and construction—hundreds of thousands of more jobs to be lost collectively.”

The US Bureau of Labor Statistics will release its monthly jobs report on Thursday, with economists predicting a loss of as many as 60,000 jobs in June. This would be the sixth consecutive month of employment declines.

“Downsizing in the financial sector has remained heavy, but now we’re seeing increased job cuts in other non-housing-related industries, mostly due to the added burden of skyrocketing oil prices,” chief executive officer John A. Challenger said in a statement released Wednesday. “The overall economy could continue to experience net losses for several months to come.’ ’

So far this year, Challenger said, companies have announced 475,948 cuts, up 21 percent from the first six months of 2007.

The financial sector led in announced reductions, with 19,227 job cuts. Last week, Bank of America, the second biggest US bank, announced plans to cut 7,500 jobs after its purchase of home lender Countrywide Financial. Year-to-date, Challenger reported, the financial industry has announced 85,258 positions will be eliminated.

The second highest sector was federal, state and local governments, which are being pressed by falling property values and tax revenues. Government entities have announced 10,797 job cuts, Challenger reported. This was followed by telecommunications, which announced 10,342 cuts.

Meltdown of the US auto industry

Job cuts, higher prices and crushing levels of debt all threaten to slow US consumer spending, which accounts for 70 percent of the country’s economic activity. In a sign of the impact this is having on retailers, Starbucks, the world’s largest coffee chain, said Tuesday it would close 600 stores in the US —in addition to 100 already announced—laying off more than 12,000 employees.

American Airlines—which, like several other carriers, has cut back routes in the face of the high cost of fuel and fewer air travelers— announced Wednesday it would furlough 900 flight attendants.

UnitedHealth, the largest US health insurer, also announced it would lay off 4,000 workers, due to falling profits and rising health care costs.

The auto industry has been particularly devastated, with vehicle sales hitting a 10-year low, down 18 percent in June. Detroit automakers continued to see sharply declining sales, with Chrysler’s June sales down 36 percent compared to a year ago, Ford down 28 percent and General Motors falling 18 percent. Japanese automaker Toyota was also hit hard, with US sales down 21 percent.

GM, which is reportedly burning up $1 billion in cash reserves each month, could face bankruptcy, according to Merrill Lynch analyst John Murphy, who lowered his outlook for GM stock to $7 a share in a note to investors Wednesday. “The key change in our outlook is a much lower forecast for US auto sales that is driving higher cash burn necessitating a much larger raise than the market is currently anticipating,” Murphy wrote in reference to GM’s need to quickly borrow money.

Other analysts say GM must raise as much as a $10 billion as early as this quarter to keep operating. The company says it has liquidity and flexibility to meet its financial requirements. However, it could find raising additional cash difficult, if not impossible, because of the unfavorable rates in the tight credit market.

The threatened collapse of the once mighty icon of US industrial supremacy underscores the historic decline in the world position of American capitalism and the virtual takeover of the US economy by various forms of financial parasitism. Wall Street has carried out a deliberate policy of deindustrialization, in order to free up capital from unprofitable industries and invest it in more lucrative and speculative ventures, including the dot-com boom, the housing bubble and the new frenzy in oil, corn and other commodity future markets.

GM stock has fallen to a 50-year low, plummeting from $43 last November to close at $9.98 Wednesday. The total value of GM stock is the least of all companies traded on the Dow Jones Industrial Average. By contrast, the Internet company Google is selling at $527 per share and has a market capitalization 28 times the size of GM.

“What’s GM worth now—$7 billion?”, Bruce Birger, managing director of Birger Capital Management asked the Detroit News. “People can write checks for that amount.”

Ford, which has borrowed heavily against its assets, is not much better off, with shares of its stock selling at $4.36, roughly equivalent, the newspaper noted, to the price of gas in some major American cities.

Both companies are reportedly scrambling to sell off assets or use overseas divisions as collateral for new loans, which could mean selling them off to raise cash.

Another candidate for bankruptcy is privately-held Chrysler, which was bought by the private equity firm Cerberus. “They’re a limited liability company—when they run out of money, they’ve run out of money,” Steven Davidoff, a law professor at Wayne State University told the Detroit News. “Cerberus may push for the nuclear option and go into bankruptcy to restructure the organization,” he added, suggesting that the company could follow the lead of auto parts maker Delphi, which used the bankruptcy court to tear up its labor agreements and impose 50 percent wage cuts on its workers.

READ MORE -- http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/ju...econ-j03.shtml