The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armanen]

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

The Georgian military had and continues to have very high moral. A willingness to fight, as a matter of fact, was one of Georgian army's biggest assets. Generally speaking, ethnic Georgians are very nationalistic and they look down on Russians and Armenians. Georgia was itching for a fight. However, having high moral, wanting to fight, or being an ultra-nationalist in peacetime is one thing, during war it's another. Once bullets start to fly and bombs being to explode, it's a whole different world. In other words, it's easy being enthusiastic about fighting when there is no fighting. That is, in essence, a typical characteristic of Georgians.

Indeed. And with that being said, how would you compare the georgian military with Armenia's? I still believe our armed forces are the best in the Trans-Caucasus (and that's with having a lower military budget than azerbaijan and georgia), would you agree with this?

[Armenian]

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

Indeed. And with that being said, how would you compare the georgian military with Armenia's? I still believe our armed forces are the best in the Trans-Caucasus (and that's with having a lower military budget than azerbaijan and georgia), would you agree with this?

You may be surprised to hear me say this, but that is a tough question to answer. According to various independent sources yes the Armenian military is the finest in the region. But looking at our Georgian and Azeri neighbors that is not saying much. We Armenians do have a 'core' that is extremely hard and warlike. However, in general, we Armenians perform well on the battlefield only as a last resort, when our very survival is at stake. Generally speaking, Armenians are not a rough and warlike people, although we do have a warrior tradition in places like Zangezur and Artskah. Nevertheless, go to any Armenian gathering outside of certain regions of Armenia and you will see just how weak and compliant (almost pathetic) we are as a people. What we as a nation have in abundance is raw talent and intellect, not brawn.

[Armanen]

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

You may be surprised to hear me say this, but that is a tough question to answer. According to various independent sources yes the Armenian military is the finest in the region. But looking at our Georgian and Azeri neighbors that is not saying much. We Armenians do have a 'core' that is extremely hard and warlike. However, in general, we Armenians perform well on the battlefield only as a last resort, when our very survival is at stake. Generally speaking, Armenians are not a rough and warlike people, although we do have a warrior tradition in places like Zangezur and Artskah.

Well for centuries the Armenian heavy cavalry (Ayrudzi) was known all over and much feared and respected, and in recent times Armenians showed their worth for both the soviet union and nazi germany. Plus, in general Armenians are good at combat sports, look at the number of Armenians we have in mixed martial arts, boxing, muay thai/kickboxing, relative to our population it is higher than many other nations. I agree though, Armenians are not warlike people, only as a last resort and when that occurs, well let's just say the other side better watch out

Nevertheless, go to any Armenian gathering outside of certain regions of Armenia and you will see just how weak and compliant (almost pathetic) we are as a people.

Could you perhaps provide an example of what you mean by this comment?

[Federate]

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

Sergei Lavrov: "There are no parallels between the situation around South Ossetia, Abkhazia and Nagorno Karabakh conflict"
04 September 2008 [16:14] - Today.Az

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov considers that there is nothing in common between the situations in Abkhazia and South Ossetia and Nagorno Karabakh conflict.

"There are no parallels between the situation around South Ossetia, Abkhazia, on the one hand, and Nagorno Karabakh conflict on the other hand", said Lavrov at a press conference by results of a meeting of Foreign Ministers of CSTO, according to RIA Novosti.

The Russian Minister said that in case with Abkhazia and South Ossetia "Saakashvili's regime has been consistently working to undermine all the negotiation formats, all mechanisms of regulation, which had previously been coordinated between all the parties".

Lavrov noted that Georgian side constantly committed diversions against civilians and peacekeeping forces and nothing of the kind occurs in case of Nagorno Kaabakh.

Lavrov explained that none of the parties of the conflict reject the work its resolution. "This process is going on", noted the Russian Foreign Minister.

According to him, a "serious massive" of the parts of this conflict has been settled. "The remaining problems are still in process of settlement", said he.

Lavrov reminded that the Presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia support a regular dialogue on the said topic and their latest contact took place in Saint-Petersburg in summer.

"The agreement on continuation of work at all levels exists. Russia will actively support the development of resolution in line with principles, approved in the framework of OSCE and CSTO", announced Lavrov.

/Novosti-Armenia/

Baboon source: http://www.today.az/news/politics/47400.html

[Armenian]

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

Well for centuries the Armenian heavy cavalry (Ayrudzi) was known all over and much feared and respected, and in recent times Armenians showed their worth for both the soviet union and nazi germany.

Without a doubt, historically, we Armenians have been very unique in that we have been a warlike people as well as a people with great intellect and talent. During classical and early medieval times Armenian warriors and intellectuals were highly valued by many of the contemporary empires including Byzantium and Persia. However, eight centuries of Turkish and Iranian rule have made us soft and pathetic, cosmopolitan, so to speak. While our warrior traditions were preserved in the remote mountain reaches of Anatolia and the Caucasus the majority of Armenians lived in Ottoman and Persian cities as tradesmen and merchants. Tradesmen and merchants living in Ottoman and Persian cities do not make for good warriors, on the contrary, they make very good slaves, pathetic slaves. Case in point, look at the character of Armenians living in Istanbul today. Also, the vast majority of Russia's/Soviet Union's many capable Armenian generals were from Artsakh. This is not by chance, Artsakh has been one of the few places in the Armenian world that has preserved its warrior tradition. Azeris found this out the hard way.

Plus, in general Armenians are good at combat sports, look at the number of Armenians we have in mixed martial arts, boxing, muay thai/kickboxing, relative to our population it is higher than many other nations.

This has to do with our natural strenght. Genetically, we are for the most part an Alpine people, we have good muscle tone and good bone structure. And Armenians tend to be very energetic. Again, however, strenght does not matter in war. A warrior tradition, coupled with strenght, courage, discipline, dedication and intellect matters in war. What's more, we Armenians, in general, have a lack of discipline and a lack of pan-national nationalism. Armenians like to do things their own way, we are not good followers. Many Armenians are proud Armenians, proud Beirutahay, proud Yerevantsi, proud Amerikahai, etc., but only a very few of us are true pan-national nationalists.

Could you perhaps provide an example of what you mean by this comment?

It's simple. Go to any large Armenian gathering anywhere in the diaspora, or even in Yerevan, and observe the men. You tell me what you see for the most part.

[Armenian]

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

The threat of "sanctions" by the West against the Russian Federation is silly, to say the least. While the US is drowning in a national debt worth ten 'trillion' dollars (and fast rising due to the bloody quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan), the Russian Federation (which is virtually debt free) is awash in money. While the western world is in an economic decline, the Russian Federation controls 1/3 of Europe's oil needs and approximately 1/2 of its gas needs. And if that was not enough, a quote from the New York Times article below: “Russia is very often perceived throughout the world as a major military power,” he told a food summit in Rome early in his tenure. “At the same time, and perhaps above and beyond anything else, Russia is a major agrarian power.” Yes, not only an energy producing superpower, not only a nuclear superpower, now Russia is potentially an agrarian - food producing - superpower. It's easy to see why the western world has feared Russia's great potential and it is easy to see why the western world tried so hard to contain and undermine the Russian Federation. Make no mistake about it, barring unforeseen calamities, the 21st century will belong to the Russian Federation.

Armenian

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

Russia’s Collective Farms: Hot Capitalist Property

The fields around this little farming enclave are among the most fertile on earth. But like tens of million of acres of land in this country, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, they literally went to seed. Now that may be changing. A decade after capitalism transformed Russian industry, an agricultural revolution is stirring the countryside, shaking up village life and sweeping aside the collective farms that resisted earlier reform efforts and remain the dominant form of agriculture. The change is being driven by soaring global food prices (the price of wheat alone rose 77 percent last year) and a new reform allowing foreigners to own agricultural land. Together, they have created a land rush in rural Russia.

“Where else do you have such an abundance of land?” Samir Suleymanov, the World Bank’s director for Russia, asked in an interview. As a result, the business of buying and reforming collective farms is suddenly and improbably very profitable, attracting hedge fund managers, Russian oligarchs, Swedish portfolio investors and even a descendant of White Russian émigré nobility. Earlier reformers envisioned the collective farms eventually breaking up into family farms. But the new business model rests on a belief that Russia’s long, painful history of collectivization is destined to end in large corporate factory farms. These investments are also a gamble in a country accustomed to government control of business. Some officials have hinted at the prospect of a government takeover of the farming industry reminiscent of the Soviet era. And Russia’s minister of agriculture, Aleksey Gordeyev, speaks often of food in terms of national security. “Russia is very often perceived throughout the world as a major military power,” he told a food summit in Rome early in his tenure. “At the same time, and perhaps above and beyond anything else, Russia is a major agrarian power.”

Russia occupies an unusual niche in the global food chain. Before the Russian Revolution and the subsequent forced collectivization of farming under Stalin, it was the largest grain exporting nation in the world. Today, roughly 7 percent of the planet’s arable land is either owned by the Russian state or by collective farms, but about a sixth of all that agricultural land — some 35 million hectares — lies fallow. By comparison, all of Britain has 6 million hectares of cultivatable land. Even excluding the slivers of land contaminated by the Chernobyl disaster or by industrial pollution, Russia also has millions of acres of untouched, pristine land that could be used for agriculture. Yields in Russia, however, are tiny. The average Russian grain yield is 1.85 tons a hectare — compared with 6.36 tons a hectare in the United States and 3.04 in Canada. (A hectare is about two and a half acres.)

If Russia could regain its old title of leading grain exporter, it would significantly relieve strained world markets and reduce prices, Mr. Suleymanov said. It could also reduce malnutrition and starvation. What is more, a significant expansion of farming capacity could add to Russia’s heft as a world power, much as its prowess in oil and natural gas aided its resurgence in recent years. “The great story of this land is how big it is,” said Kingsmill Bond, chief analyst at the Troika Dialog brokerage in Moscow. Troika is closely watching the transformation of the Russian countryside into an investment opportunity. “You can’t buy anything like it anywhere else in the world,” he said. Analysts say the new companies dedicated to breaking up and reforming collective farms hope to bring huge tracts of land into production — tracts that can take advantage of economies of scale.

Financiers See Potential

The last attempt at decollectivization, under the government of President Boris Yeltsin, failed in part because collective farms devolved into small holdings. Those who made the leap to become private farmers failed. The rest remained in the collective farms. Some trade and agriculture experts say there is still a danger that a country like today’s Russia, which jealously guards its natural resources, could one day renationalize farms or form a cartel that dictates to landowners. Clearly, that fear is not foremost in investors’ minds. Land prices have roughly doubled in the last two years, according to Troika. The average price a hectare was $570 in 2006 and is now $1,000, Mr. Bond said. One of the first investors to see value in the Russian countryside was Michel Orloff, a former director of the Carlyle Group’s Moscow office and the scion of a White Russian noble family. He said a visit to Argentina in 2004 inspired him. He saw large landowners making profits without government subsidies, and envisioned a similar model for Russia that would hark back to the noble estates of his family history, only lubricated by modern finance. “In Moscow, they said I was crazy for going into agriculture,” Mr. Orloff recalled on a visit to one of his factory farms outside Podlesny — formerly the Sunrise of Communism collective farm. “Now, they all envy us.” His model rested on the idea that the collective farms should not be broken up into smaller plots but consolidated into larger factory farms, able to achieve economies of scale. (He calls the new corporate farms “clusters.”) Using John Deere tractors and Western-trained agronomists, he has nearly doubled yields. Last year, Black Earth Farming fields yielded 3.3 tons of wheat a hectare, and the company says it is on track this year to reap 4.4 tons a hectare. To be sure, this is Russia. Though many investors are piling in, their investments remain small relative to the size of the huge agricultural sector. Black Earth, Razgulai and Cherkizovo are large public companies involved in buying and reforming collective farms. (Many Russian oligarchs and regional elites have bought land, too, but their holdings are not generally public.) While Westerners have invested in the companies, the businesses are all local, requiring a Russian connection, as most Russian commodity investment does. That requirement, as well as the possibility that Russia could become a bigger supplier of food, gives pause to some Europeans. They are concerned about Russia’s new assertiveness diplomatically and militarily.

Provincial Attitudes

Even before the recent discord between Russia and the West, the obstacles to tapping Russia’s vast farmland were substantial. The rural population has declined precipitously as young people fled to the cities. The title to land, after the failed decollectivization of the Yeltsin era, is often unclear. Rural Russians’ work ethic has been shaped by decades on collectivized farms that offered little reward for individual effort. “We see an increasing number of entrepreneurs coming to us with business plans trying to convert this land,” Mr. Bond said. “Some will be successful, but most will not be able to do it.” Some investors have resorted to hiring psychologists to untangle the village culture and determine how best to instill a work ethic. The best way to motivate the Russian farmer, according to one investor, is not higher salaries for individuals, which tend to create resentment, but rewards emphasizing the team nature of the work, like group bonuses. Outside this village of log homes with decorative wooden trim, with piles of birch firewood in the yard, and where investors have bought several surrounding collective farms, a drunken man slept on a pile of sawdust one recent afternoon. A cow meandered nearby munching grass.

Specter of State Control

This latest headlong wave of privatization has gone too far and too fast for some in government here. Officials, as is often the case these days, have floated the idea of forming a state monopoly. They would create a Soviet-style grain trading company out of an existing regulatory agency, a notion that has alarmed agricultural experts, though the seriousness of the idea is unclear. Such a monopoly could control domestic grain prices by limiting exports, benefiting low-income consumers but discouraging investment in agriculture. That is not stopping entrepreneurs — yet. Mr. Orloff’s model is spreading quickly. By this year, about 14 percent of Russia’s agricultural land had undergone this process of greater consolidation, according to an analysis by Vedemosti, the business newspaper. “In 10 or 15 years, Russia will be the leading force in world agriculture, just because of its mass,” Mr. Orloff said. That is if the land rush does not bring muscular government intervention from Moscow or set off rural resentments here. For instance, each member of the Sunrise of Communism collective farm was offered about $100 a hectare. Three years later, the land is worth about $1,100 a hectare, based on Black Earth Farming’s stock market value. Mr. Orloff said the collective farmers did not own title to the land, and that the value of management expertise and capital outlays were included in the valuation of his company. Still, Vasili I. Kapechnikov, who sold his shares to Mr. Orloff, considers himself to have been on the losing side of the transaction. Interviewed outside the village store, he explained what he did with the money he received for his land: “I bought a new pair of pants.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/31/bu...l?ref=business

[Armenian]

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

Tajikistan: Reconsidering Russia

Summary

Russia and Tajikistan agreed Aug. 29 to expand Russia’s military presence at Tajikistan’s Gissar airport. Though it appeared that Tajikistan was moving toward the United States after the fall of the Soviet Union, Tajikistan now appears to be reconsidering.

Analysis

Following talks between Russian President Dmitri Medvedev and Tajik President Emomali Rakhmon on Aug. 29, the two countries have agreed to expand Russia’s military presence at Tajikistan’s Gissar airport. Both countries already use this location, though Russia has nominal forces there. Since the fall of the Soviet Union, Tajikistan had been steadily moving toward opening relations with the United States and capping Russia’s influence in the country. Now that Russia has proven that it is ready to fight for control over its former states, however, Tajikistan is reconsidering who it needs to be looking toward for security. Tajikistan lost the lottery geographically. This was partially because of former Soviet leader Josef Stalin, who intentionally sabotaged the futures of the Central Asian states by redrawing the maps so the region’s densest population centers — which lie in an area called the Fergana Valley — would be split among three states: Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Though Tajikistan controls the access to the valley, it is separated from the rest of Tajikistan by two mountain ranges. This has left the country fractured and weak internally.

Adding to the internal fractures, Tajikistan is surrounded by other impoverished and highly unstable states. Tajikistan also has a perennial territorial dispute with Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan, and shares an 800-mile border with Afghanistan. Tajikistan does share a border with the political and economic powerhouse China, though their shared border is the region where Beijing is concerned and reacting to militancy flowing from Central Asia to China. For its part, Iran has kept a close relationship with the ethnically Persian Tajik, injecting a certain amount of religiosity not normally seen in Central Asia. Rakhmon has ruled Tajikistan with an iron fist since the fall of the Soviet Union. He uses all the techniques and skills the world would expect from a post-Soviet apparatchik, though he does this to balance the warlords who run most of the country. Legally, the desperately poor country survives on its aluminum (which Russia controls) and cotton exports (which are in decline). The main wealth of the country is from drug smuggling, however, both grown domestically and imported from Afghanistan. Afghan drug lords regularly cross the borders, though Russian forces are supposedly stationed there to prevent such activity.

It is precisely Tajikistan’s geographic position and fragility that has Moscow and Washington playing tug-of-war for control of the Central Asian state. The United States has two motives for pushing into Tajikistan. It is a good base for the Americans to get into Afghanistan, especially since Uzbekistan kicked the United States out of the Karshi-Khanabad base in 2005. Tajikistan also stands in the way of Russian influence rolling south or Chinese influence rolling west through Central Asia. Moscow’s plans are very similar to Washington’s, in that Russia wants to ensure that it has control over its southern flank of former Soviet states. Also, Tajikistan is a good base should Russia choose to ever meddle in Afghanistan again, something that terrifies the United States. Unsurprisingly, it is more difficult for Russia to exert influence in the Central Asian states that it does not border. At present, Russia has an air base in Nurek and controls parts of the Dushanbe airport. Russia also has thousands of border patrolmen in the country.

Despite all this, Tajikistan seemed to be leaning more toward the United States starting in 2005, when Uzbekistan evicted the U.S. military. Dushanbe had held intensive discussions with Washington about allowing the United States to use either Tajikistan’s airport in the capital or the bases in Kurgan-Tyube or Kulyab. Soon afterward, Tajikistan raised the rent on the Russian bases as well, against Moscow’s wishes. A tipping point in U.S. relations for Tajikistan appeared to be approaching. Tajikistan was looking for a new security guarantor mainly because Moscow had started to become increasingly meddlesome in the country’s drug trade. Washington had shown little interest in controlling or stopping the Tajik drug trade, while stemming the flow of drugs from Afghanistan to Tajikistan before they reach Russia is a national security matter for Moscow. This is largely because the volume of drugs moving through Russia not only is creating a pool of addicts now estimated to exceed 6 million — something the government is highly concerned about given Russia’s demographic issues. Russian organized crime has also pushed for more control over the drug trade inside Tajikistan instead of just controlling the trade once it reaches Russia or Europe.

The Tajik government became increasingly split over fears that choosing Washington could lead to a security and political crisis. The United States had shown little interest in the domestic security of Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan when unrest broke out in those countries despite U.S. bases in both, so many in Tajikistan feared the U.S. push for regime change in the region could target Rakhmon and his allies. It was this split that has delayed the United States from taking the Tajik proposal. Now the tide has turned between Russia and the United States after the Russian military action in Georgia. And Moscow and all the former Soviet states that had been flirting with Washington are rethinking their position. Dushanbe knows that Russia holds most of the cards in the region compared to the United States. Russia already has a military presence in Tajikistan, and controls much of its security, especially on its borders. Russia could cut or severely hamper the drug trade through Tajikistan. Russia has been one of the only countries heavily investing in aluminum, one of Tajikistan’s only other resources. Russia has been investing in the country’s energy infrastructure. And Russia holds the strings to half of the government. It would therefore be fairly easy for Russia to destabilize Tajikistan via economic, political or security levers. And this is something Dushanbe seems to recognize, prompting Tajikistan to allow its former master once again to call the shots.

Source: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/taj...idering_russia

[Armenian]

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

Major Neo-Con Role in Russo-Georgian War

Caspian Sea oil pipeline, sovereignty at heart of Russia’s blowup with U.S. ally

George W. Bush and his neo-con cohorts are behind the Russo-Georgia war, inside sources on the ground in South Ossetia and in Washington have revealed. Israel is also involved on behalf of Georgia because of oil. The sources remain anonymous. Russia’s attack was in response to U.S. plans to install missile sites near its borders and to bring Georgia into NATO. Prime Minister Vladimir Putin called for Russia to regain its influential position in former Cold War ally Cuba, giving his country a military presence reminiscent of the 1963 Cuban missile crisis, which brought the world to the brink of nuclear war. This threat emerged earlier (AFP, Aug. 4, 2008) but was blacked out by the mainstream media.

“We should restore our position in Cuba and other countries,” Putin said, while hearing a report on a recent Russian delegation’s trip to Cuba. “It is not a secret that the West is creating a ‘buffer zone’ around Russia, involving countries in Central Europe, the Caucasus, the Baltic states and Ukraine,” said Leonid Ivashov, head of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems. “In response, we may have to expand our military presence abroad, including Cuba.” Earlier, Russia threatened a “military technical” response to U.S. plans to put missiles in Eastern Europe near its borders. Russia strongly opposes plans of Western oil companies, including Israeli firms, to route oil and gas that transit Georgia through Turkey instead of linking them to Russian pipelines. Tel Aviv owns a heavy interest in Caspian oil and gas pipelines.

The Swiss-based Israeli investigative journalist and author Shraga Elam reports that Israel, with U.S. connivance, was behind the attack against South Ossetia by the tiny former Soviet state of Georgia. “There is an obvious Israeli involvement in the present conflict between Georgia and Russia,” he says. “There are hundreds of Israeli military advisers in Georgia. . . .” He quotes sources like military expert Yossi Melman in the Israeli daily Ha’aretz: “Melman wrote that Georgia became a real El Dorado for Israeli arms dealers and numerous representatives of the army and intelligence services. Some former generals like Israel Ziv and Gal Hersh (with his company Defensive Shield) are very active there. “Hersh and Ziv are mainly training and consulting Georgian army units. They are using the ‘chain’ method common among Israeli arms dealers: a main contractor wins a tender and employs sub-contractors—in this case Israeli officers and former Shin Bet employees,” wrote Melman.

According to him there was a project to sell Merkava tanks to Georgia, The Ma’ariv newspaper points out that the Georgian defense minister, David Kezerashvili, lived for a while in Israel and speaks Hebrew. In a lengthy article the military exports to Georgia are described. Ma’ariv estimates them to be of a value of at least $300 million. An Israeli marketing expert told Ma’ariv: “To every Israeli agent representing an Israeli defense company is attached a cousin of the defense minister, who opens the doors for him.” Also, Israeli news web site (News First Class) confirms the massive presence of Israeli advisers in Georgia and writes: “The Israeli military industries upgraded the Georgian air force, sold unmanned aerial vehicles, advanced artillery systems and trained infantry units.” U.S. “consultants” are helping the Georgian army. According to Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman, there are 127 U.S. military trainers there, of whom about 35 are civilian contractors.

In addition to the trainers, 1,000 soldiers from the Vicenza, Italy-based Southern European Task Force (Airborne) and the Kaiserslautern-based 21st Theater Sustainment Command, along with Marine reservists with the 3rd Battalion, 25th Marines out of Ohio, and the U.S. state of Georgia’s Army National Guard’s 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry participated in “Immediate Response 2008.” Operation Immediate Response 2008 was held from July 15-July 30, with U.S. personnel training about 600 troops at a former Soviet base near Tbilisi, the largest city and capital of Georgia. The goal of this operation was allegedly teaching combat skills for missions in Iraq. The Marines left, but not the airmen. Georgia had sent 2,000 soldiers to Iraq, who were recalled to face the Russian invasion. Washington has provided Georgia with materiel and advisers, and so did Israel—at least until Russia pressed it to stop, reportedly in return for promises to withhold advanced weapons from Syria.

The South Ossetia separatists claim U.S. intervention, saying there are black people among the Georgian casualties. But even if some American personnel went discreetly into action, that would not suffice to deter Russia from bringing Georgia to heel, if not physically occupying the country. And then the Western loss will not be limited to the independence of a small, remote, struggling democracy. Among items Israel has been selling to Tbilisi are pilotless drone aircraft. Russian fighters shot one down in May, according to UN observers. Russia sent Israel a letter of protest after the shooting incident asking it to stop supplying military hardware to Georgia “as Russia from time to time complies with Israel’s requests not to supply weapons systems” to states seen as threatening Israel, according to the Israeli daily Ma’ariv. Israel is one of the world’s leading arms exporters but does not detail the contents or value of its trade with individual countries.

In addition to the spy drones, Israel has also been supplying Georgia with infantry weapons and electronics for artillery systems, and has helped upgrade Soviet-designed Su-25 ground attack jets assembled in Georgia, according to Koba Liklikadze, an independent military expert based in Tbilisi. Former Israeli generals also serve as advisers to the Georgian military.

Source: http://www.americanfreepress.net/htm..._role_146.html

In related news:

Russian units raid Georgian airfields for use in Israeli strike against Iran – report

The raids were disclosed by UPI chief editor Arnaud de Borchgrave, who is also on the Washington Times staff, and picked up by the Iranian Fars news agency. The Russian raids of two Georgian airfields, which Tbilisi had allowed Israel to use for a potential strike against Iran’s nuclear facilities, followed the Georgian offensive against South Ossetia on Aug. 7. Under the secret agreement with Georgia, the airfields had been earmarked for use by Israeli fighter-bombers taking off to strike Iran in return for training and arms supplies. DEBKAfile’s intelligence sources report that flying from S. Georgia over the Caspian Sea to Iran would sharply trim the distance to be spanned by Israeli fighter-bombers, reducing flying time to 3.5 hours. Northern Iran and the Tehran region, where most of the nuclear facilities are concentrated, would be within range, with no need to request US permission to pass through Iraq air space. Russian Special Forces also raided other Israeli facilities in southern Georgia and captured Israeli spy drones, says the report. Israel was said to have used the two airfields to “conduct recon flights over southern Russia as well as into nearby Iran.” The US intelligence sources quoted by UPI reported that the Russian force also carried home other Israeli military equipment captured at the air bases. Our sources say that if the Russians got hold of an Israeli unmanned aerial vehicle complete with sophisticated electronic reconnaissance equipment, they will have secured some of the IDF’s most secret devices for spying on Iran and Syria. When this happened before, Russian military engineers quickly dismantled the equipment, studied it and passed the technology on to Tehran and Damascus.

Source: http://www.debka.com/index1.php

[RSNATION]

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

Without a doubt, historically, we Armenians have been very unique in that we have been a warlike people as well as a people with great intellect and talent. During classical and early medieval times Armenian warriors and intellectuals were highly valued by many of the contemporary empires including Byzantium and Persia. However, eight centuries of Turkish and Iranian rule have made us soft and pathetic, cosmopolitan, so to speak. While our warrior traditions were preserved in the remote mountain reaches of Anatolia and the Caucasus the majority of Armenians lived in Ottoman and Persian cities as tradesmen and merchants. Tradesmen and merchants living in Ottoman and Persian cities do not make for good warriors, on the contrary, they make very good slaves, pathetic slaves. Case in point, look at the character of Armenians living in Istanbul today. Also, the vast majority of Russia's/Soviet Union's many capable Armenian generals were from Artsakh. This is not by chance, Artsakh has been one of the few places in the Armenian world that has preserved its warrior tradition. Azeris found this out the hard way.



This has to do with our natural strenght. Genetically, we are for the most part an Alpine people, we have good muscle tone and good bone structure. And Armenians tend to be very energetic. Again, however, strenght does not matter in war. A warrior tradition, coupled with strenght, courage, discipline, dedication and intellect matters in war. What's more, we Armenians, in general, have a lack of discipline and a lack of pan-national nationalism. Armenians like to do things their own way, we are not good followers. Many Armenians are proud Armenians, proud Beirutahay, proud Yerevantsi, proud Amerikahai, etc., but only a very few of us are true pan-national nationalists.



It's simple. Go to any large Armenian gathering anywhere in the diaspora, or even in Yerevan, and observe the men. You tell me what you see for the most part.

Armenian is correct. And I can expand upon what he has said.
I'm also an avid reader of Armenian history like many of you. The following are my random opinions:

Armenians have had many kingdoms with various degrees of success. The fact that these Armenian principalities were very rarely unified hindered Armenians mustering and fighting ability, coupled with the fact that in many eras, Armenians often fought alongside the enemies of other Armenians {ex; Byzantines versus Armenians, Persia versus Armenians and so forth}. Armenians rarely seemed to assist one another and our princes spent more time on intrigue than unification. Much of this has to do with the fact that at various times, they sought their support from outsiders in order to survive.

With the location of the Armenians heartland as a transit point between Europe and Asia and thus at the fault-line of many powerful empires, Armenia was often a battleground and effected our people in two ways- often as victims and proxies of the great empires but at the same time exposing Armenians to other races and cultures which helped steer Armenians towards mercantile pursuits.

With the exception of a brief period under Tigran, Armenians were not expansionist. They focused mostly on order and construction.

Christianity brought about both a positives and negatives for Armenians; the positive was that it kept Armenians as a distinct people during difficult times and the negative was coined well by the writer Abovian; Armenians built splendid churches when they should have continued building fortresses.

Armenians have through the ages been fine warriors and we have always had a warrior class, but often times this warrior class was based on regionalism{ Armenians from Artsakh, Vaspurakan, Sasoon, etc fought like lions} while Armenians from other areas Djulfa, Tiflis, etc were strictly merchants and not very martial an some were unfortunately cowardly in some cases.

Armenians in general are fiercely independent. This can be explained by our intellectualism and interest in business, arts, education. This individualism has also crippled our fighting ability. Armenians often do not like to work together and take orders. In fact, this is one of the main cultural characteristics that makes us differ from Turks. Turks willingly take orders and will die in battle while Armenians will always question authority. Sometimes not being a sheep has insured that our people have died like sheep. Sad but true.

I hope we can talk more about the Artsakh war. I'd like to see what you guys have to say.

[Armenian]

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

Ukraine Government Near Collapse

The Western-leaning governing coalition in Ukraine, which took power during the Orange Revolution in 2004 but has endured repeated tumult ever since, appeared once again near collapse on Wednesday. The president of Ukraine, Viktor A. Yushchenko, asserted that he was the victim of a “political and constitutional coup” carried out by his ally, Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko, and threatened to call for early parliamentary elections. She blamed him, saying he was seeking ways to rebuild his flagging popular support.

The instability erupted on the eve of a visit to Ukraine by Vice President xxxx Cheney, who arrived in the region to show his support for American allies in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Georgia last month. Mr. Yushchenko criticized Ms. Tymoshenko after her party joined forces with the leading opposition bloc, the Party of Regions, in Parliament to approve legislation that would curtail the president’s powers. The Party of Regions, led by a former prime minister, Viktor F. Yanukovich, has warm relations with Russia. Mr. Yushchenko does not, and under his leadership Ukraine condemned the Kremlin over the fighting in Georgia. Mr. Cheney is to arrive in Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, on Thursday, before heading to Ukraine to meet with Mr. Yushchenko. Both countries have drawn the ire of Russia, their neighbor, because of their close ties to the West and desire to join NATO.

While relations with Russia and the West were in the background, much of the wrangling in Kiev, the Ukrainian capital, on Wednesday stemmed from efforts by the three major political leaders to position themselves for presidential elections in January 2010. Mr. Yushchenko, whose party had been allied with Ms. Tymoshenko’s in Parliament, said his party would withdraw from the governing coalition, adding that a new one had to be formed. He seemed to be daring Ms. Tymoshenko to formally join with the pro-Moscow Party of Regions, a move that might upset her supporters. In a televised statement, Mr. Yushchenko denounced Ms. Tymoshenko’s decision to have her party vote with the Party of Regions on the measure curbing presidential powers. “There is only one reason for this, in my opinion: the fight for power,” he said. “Deaf to your problems and needs. A cynical and cruel fight for power.”

Ms. Tymoshenko said that she had no intention of breaking the governing coalition and that she would resist new elections. “We believe that it is simply hysterics and irresponsible steps, that the democratic coalition must live and work,” she said. “And I think that everyone who wants to serve Ukraine understands this.” Ms. Tymoshenko became prime minister after the Orange Revolution, which was touched off after Mr. Yushchenko lost a presidential election that was deemed to have been stolen by supporters of his opponent, Mr. Yanukovich, who was backed by the Kremlin. Ms. Tymoshenko became a symbol of the Orange Revolution and one of the best-known politicians in Eastern Europe. But after she feuded with Mr. Yushchenko, he dismissed her. Mr. Yanukovich later became prime minister, and then Ms. Tymoshenko made a comeback after performing well in new parliamentary elections.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/04/wo...kraine.html?hp