The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

I agree with everything you said but this. I understand what you are trying to reference in it but I still disagree. Russia will never be west. Russia is own culture and civilization and I pray with all my heart it never becomes western.

Angessa, it all depends on what you mean by the term West or Western. The term in question actually has two meanings. One is the classical/traditional culture of Western Europe, the very culture all of Russia's Tsar's aspired to be a part of and the culture that gave us the renaissance and modernity. Try to imagine the world without the fruits of Western culture... On the other hand, we have the modern 'sociopolitical' term known as the "West" or the "western world. This term represents the Globalist/Neo-Bolshevik agenda of a handful of individuals/organizations in the West that have in essence hijacked Western culture and are using it to spread their self-serving agendas. I am fairly confident that Tavarish Skhara meant Russia was a part of the former meaning of the term West and not the latter. The biggest problem in the West is the financial/political elite that run Washington, London and Tel Aviv. So, your problem, our problem, the world's problem, is not with the West per se, it's with the elite that run it currently.

[skhara]

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

Russia will never be west. Russia is own culture and civilization and I pray with all my heart it never becomes western.

Angessa, Armenian is correct in what I meant. Everyone has their own unique culture and civilization. Russia was most heavily influenced by Byzantium -- her Cyrillic script, Christian Orthodox religion, and architecture (although has eastern aspects) say that Russia is a part of the greater western civilization. I consider Armenia (and Georgia too) part of this civilization as well -- she perhaps has more eastern influences.

[Armenian]

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

Russia may use 'overkill' missiles to counter U.S. shield

In addition to deploying tactical missiles near the Polish border, Russia could use precision-guided air-based weapons to counter U.S. missile defense plans, a Russian military expert said on Monday. "Iskander [missile system] is not the most effective combat asset to be used against the ground targets that are now being deployed in some European states. We also have the Air Force, which has precision-guided weapons," said Gen. Pyotr Deinekin, former Air Force commander. He said strategic aviation had, in particular, Kh-55 (AS-15 Kent) long-range cruise missiles capable of delivering a nuclear warhead, with an effective range of 4,500 kilometers. He did not explain why such "overkill" missiles would be needed to engage targets in Central Europe. U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates dismissed on Thursday Russia's proposal that the two countries abandon their plans to deploy missiles in Central Europe. Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said in an interview with French daily Le Figaro published on Thursday that Russia would be willing to abandon its plans to deploy short-range missiles near Poland if the U.S. agrees not to set up a missile shield in Central Europe. Gates said Medvedev's recent threat to deploy Iskander missiles in the Baltic exclave of Kaliningrad was "hardly the welcome a new American administration deserves," and that "such provocative remarks are unnecessary and misguided." Washington earlier said it had provided new proposals to ease Russia's concerns over the planned deployment of 10 U.S. interceptor missiles in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic, which the Bush administration has said are needed to counter possible attacks from Iran's long-range missiles. Russia views the missile defense system as a threat to its national security, and has said that a security agreement based on respect for common interests would remove the need for a missile shield.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081117/118359856.html

[Armanen]

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

From the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean. Militarization of Strategic Energy Corridor
Well-oiled friendship or political pipe dream?


By Ruben Zarbabyan

Global Research, November 16, 2008
Russia Today - 2008-11-14


A meeting to discuss the diversification of Europe’s energy supply in under way in Baku, the capital of Azerbaijan. Members of the GUAM Organisation for Democracy and Economic Development are in talks with several Baltic and Black sea countries as well as with global energy players. RT looks at the summit’s visitors and its agenda.

With Turkey, Poland, Ukraine, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Romania, Bulgaria, the U.S., Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Georgia, and the EU being represented in Baku, it is easier to point out those who won’t be at the Baku Energy Security Summit: Russia.

This hardly comes as a surprise, as all the issues on the agenda are more or less related to reducing the reliance on Russia as an energy supplier, whose role is being reduced every year, according to experts.

Combating the reliance on Russia since 1918

Russia’s monopoly on energy supplies to Europe has long been a concern for the latter, and seeking to diversify its sources of hydrocarbons, Europeans have set their sights on the Caspian countries.

It is known that the late British Empire made a desperate attempt to gain control over the region by invading Baku during the Civil War in the Soviet Union as early as 1918, and since then Caspian oil hasn’t become less popular.

With proven oil reserves in the Caspian Basin (belonging to Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan, and Turkmenistan) comparable in size to the North Sea’s, it is the sole source of oil available in the region apart from Russia.

The biggest obstacle preventing the delivery of Caspian oil to European consumers is transportation. Since the 1960s Russia has had major pipelines connecting it with Europe through Ukraine, while the first non-Russian pipeline transferring oil from the Caspian Basin – the 1,768-kilometre-long Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan – started operating in May 2005.



Of course passing through countries with many frozen conflicts, it’s hardly the most reliable route in the world. A major blast in Turkey’s Erzincan Province, attributed to the Kurdistan Workers Party, disrupted it for 19 days in August 2008.

And even while intact, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan supplies only 1 per cent of global demand, so the energy supply to Europe still remains a major work area for some former Soviet countries.

Eleven-year-old organisation becomes useful at last

Energy issues gave purpose to the GUAM Organization for Democracy and Economic Development, an organization formed in 1997 by four former Soviet republics – Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldova.

It was created with a broad list of functions to combat Russian influence in the region, but remained largely unused, before the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and Mikhail Saakshvili’s coming to power in Georgia.

After that GUAM intensified its cooperation within eight working groups: power engineering, transport, trade and economics, information and telecommunications, culture, science and education, tourism, fighting terrorism, organized crime and dissemination of drugs.

However, energy has been, is and will remain the main area of cooperation and the driving force of the organisation. GUAM members became the key participants of the pro-Western energy summits held in Krakow in May 2007, in Vilnius in October 2007 and in Kiev in May 2008.

Two-day Baku Energy Summit is the fourth.

Key transportation corridor to be discussed

The main agenda of the summit includes:

- re-exportation of Turkmen and Kazakh oil and gas resources to Europe, bypassing Russia through Azerbaijan;
- sustainability of energy sources and routes;
- safety and protection of hydrocarbon pipelines;
- acceleration of energy projects.

A big topic at the summit will be the Euro-Asian Oil Transportation Corridor, which is basically an enlarged version of the project to extend the Odessa-Brody oil pipeline from Ukraine to Poland.

Completed in 2001 up to Brody near the Polish border, that pipeline remained empty for three years as Russia chose to sell its own oil, instead of transferring Kazakh oil to Odessa. In 2004, Russian oil companies began to transfer oil from Brody to Odessa.



However, Ukraine still looks to extend this pipeline so that it can carry Azerbaijani oil arriving from the Georgian port of Supsa to Odessa and then take it to the Polish refinery at Plock and potentially to the port of Gdansk.

Some 500 kilometres of pipeline have to be built for that to happen.

The Nabucco pipeline will be discussed as well.



Members come, members go

Of course geopolitical issues are never far away from energy.

Internal problems that exist in each of the GUAM countries remain obstacles to an efficient integration process.

Ukraine's Crimea has a Russian population of 70 per cent, and faces additional problems with Crimean Tatars who seek the establishment of a national autonomy.

Azerbaijan is still short of solutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh issue, and doesn’t have control over several areas near it.

In Moldova, the situation of the breakaway Transdniester region remains unresolved - 16 years after it started. Russian peacekeeping forces have been stationed there.

Any shift in the world’s geopolitical balance (like the recognition of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia) is destined to have a big impact on GUAM. Its failure to accomplish anything significant has already lost it some members. But it continues to gain new ones.

In 1999, the organisation was renamed GUUAM due to the membership of Uzbekistan, who signed its charter in 2001 only to withdraw in 2005, after the country’s President, Islam Karimov, failed to attend the summit in Chisinau, Moldova.

A similar situation is now on the cards with Moldova’s president, Vladimir Voronin, who failed to show up at GUAM summits for two years in a row and is absent at Baku too.

Meanwhile, GUAM also looks for new members, after giving Turkey and Latvia a permanent observer status in 2005. After Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan reacted on the idea of joining GUAM without enthusiasm, the organisation turned their sight on countries in Eastern Europe.

That’s why Bulgaria’s President, Angel Marin, Lithuania’s Valdas Adamkus, Poland’s Lech Kaczynski, Romania’s Traian Basescu, Latvia’s Valdis Zatlers, Turkey’s Abdullah Gul, as well as Estonia’s Prime-Minister, Andrus Ansip, Hungaria’s Ferenc Gyurcsany, Greece Development Minister, Christos Folias and top energy officials from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan are all at the energy summit discussing their roles in the development of alternative energy routes.

U.S. Energy Minister Samuel Bodman is there too to encourage them, while his EU counterpartj, Andris Piebalgs, who left Baku just days ago, is back again to stress the importance of the Nabucco pipeline project.

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10994

[Armenian]

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

I shot down McCain

A retired Red Army Lieutenant who fought in Vietnam has confessed to shooting down the plane of defeated presidential candidate, John McCain. Colonel Yuriy Trushechkin told Russia’s Moskovsky Komsomolets he had no regrets about downing the future Senator’s aircraft back in 1967. Journalists from Russia’s most popular tabloid paper found the veteran in a St Petersburg hospital. Trushechkin said he still hated John McCain and wasn’t at all sorry for what he had done all those years ago. He added he was very happy that McCain didn’t make to the White House. ”He always hated the Russians. He knew that it was our rocket that downed his plane,” Trushechkin said. The veteran makes no secret of Soviet involvement in the Vietnam War. He was 28 years old when he came to the Asian country to fight against the U.S. together with local soldiers. He served as an officer in missile guidance for the communist North Vietnamese. Trushechkin remembers the day he shot down McCain. The air alarm sounded, he said, and everybody saw two Phantom F-4 planes approaching. “One of the aircraft was trying to skirt the nearby hills, while the other went straight through the bridge. We fired at the second one," Trushechkin said. Two rockets were fired. The first exploded in the jungle but the second hit the target. The American pilot catapulted and was later captured by the North Vietnamese troops. The documents said it was John McCain. Yuriy Trushechkin said that McCain got lucky because ejected U.S. pilots were usually beaten to death with pickaxes. But McCain avoided execution and was sent to a prison, known as the Hanoi Hilton. The most valuable trophies were the pilots helmet and the so-called “almsman’s flag” – a harsh mark which said that the U.S. citizen was in trouble and needed help in five languages. Trushechkin took McCain’s documents with him and some photos made after he was captured. But the documents were later lost. Yuriy Trushechkin said he recognised McCain when he was watching a programme about the U.S. elections, which showed the pictures of a young Mccain in military uniform. McCain spent 1,967 days (five and a half years) in Vietnamese prisons before being released on March 15, 1973 - just after the signing of the Paris Peace treaty between the U.S. and Vietnam.

Source: http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/33395

[Armenian]

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

The international summit held in Washington DC over the weekend was perhaps the year's biggest news development, yet it received very little coverage by the main-stream news media in the US. The representatives of the world's twenty largest economies converged onto Washington DC to discuss the serious financial crisis plaguing the world; Russian president addressed the Council on Foreign Relations... Yet there has been scant news coverage of this important event. I wonder why...

Armenian

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

World leaders pledge action to reform financial system

G20 agree action plan to revive global economy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rj4XSa_tvV8

Expectations low for G20 summit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txGPLxR9ACA

What can we expect from G20 summit?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPE_PDG3wl4

World leaders pledged at a summit in Washington to restore global economic growth and start work on reforming financial regulation. Leaders of the G20 nations, which account for 90% of the world's economy, agreed at Saturday's summit to reform the World Bank and International Monetary Fund to improve their effectiveness in helping emerging economies through the credit crunch. Although leaders hailed progress at the talks, concrete agreements will have to wait until a follow-up summit, scheduled for April 2009, likely to be held in London. A joint summit communique said: "We are determined to enhance our cooperation and work together to restore global growth and achieve needed reforms in the world's financial systems." "We must lay the foundation for reform to help to ensure that a global crisis, such as this one, does not happen again. After the talks, World Bank President Robert Zoellick said: "What matters now are the follow-up actions." French President Nicolas Sarkozy stressed that the vast and complex issues discussed at the summit "cannot be resolved in three weeks," but welcomed the U.S. approach to the crisis, saying: "The U.S. administration has accepted to move on subjects where historically all U.S. administrations refused to move." "Never before have Anglo-Saxons agreed to subject rating agencies to oversight and regulation," he said. Acknowledging failings in global financial regulation, the G20 statement said: "Policy-makers, regulators and supervisors, in some advanced countries, did not adequately appreciate and address the risks building up in financial markets, keep pace with financial innovation, or take into account the systemic ramifications of domestic regulatory actions." President George W. Bush, who leaves office in January, said the participants had agreed to modernize financial regulation, making markets more "transparent and accountable." The outgoing leader hailed the summit as "very successful." President-elect Barack Obama's transition team released a statement saying the future leader was ready to work with other G20 countries to tackle the credit crisis when he takes office. He called the summit "an important opportunity to seek a coordinated response to the global financial crisis."

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20081116/118338623.html

Medvedev proposes reform of global finance system

Medvedev goes to Washington: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewm-MsLmB84

Medvedev warns against unilateralism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltGC_YbK8ek

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev called on Saturday for the reorganization of the global financial system, including the establishment of an international regulatory commission, a presidential aide said. "To make the process of reform as effective as possible, the president suggested the creation of an international commission of independent, influential experts - financial gurus," Arkady Dvorkovich told journalists at the G20 summit in Washington. He said the first part of the summit had been completed, with 14 people, including Medvedev, having had their say. "The key aspects he [Medvedev] drew attention to were that as regards the reasons for the financial crisis, no analogies with the past would work. This is not the Great Depression ... it's a global crisis of the 21st century," Dvorkovich said. The presidential aide said Medvedev emphasized that the present structure of the global financial security is inadequate, and that new financial institutions are needed to meet present demands. "The system of the international financial architecture will have to be rebuilt to make it open, fair, efficient and legitimate," Dvorkovich said. Medvedev also told the meeting that Russia supported the declaration due to be adopted at the end of the summit. "We back the declaration - it shows most of the problems. It takes into account all that worries us now," Medvedev told G20 leaders. Dvorkovich also told journalists that the leaders had not reached an agreement on transforming the G20 into a wider forum. "There are as yet no plans to transform the forum of finance ministers and central bank heads into a regular forum of leaders of the G20 countries," he said. The aide said this meant that the G20 should be where questions of reforming the global financial structures are decided, while the Group of Eight leading industrial countries should remain the forum for issues of world security. Dvorkovich also said the Russian president had called on G20 summit participants to help the world's poorest countries overcome the financial crisis. "It is important to work together to provide all the countries most affected by the crisis, the poorest countries, with resources through the IMF and other international and regional organizations," the aide said, adding that all the summit participants were united on the issue. Dvorkovich said the next G20 summit would be held not later than April 30, 2009. "After the first half of the summit, there is consent that global problems demand global solutions. The participants expressed the readiness to hold the next summit not later than April 30 next year," he said. The G20 comprises 19 of the world's largest economies plus the European Union.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081115/118335777.html

Russia's Medvedev speaks on foreign policy in Washington

Medvedev's speech at US Council on Foreign Relations: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ss_LzlxjUA

Russia will respond to the U.S. missile defense plans for Europe if the U.S. steps are unacceptable for Moscow, President Dmitry Medvedev said Sunday. "We would act only in response and only if the [U.S. missile defense] program continues in a variant unacceptable for us," Medvedev said after the G20 economic summit, while speaking to the Council on Foreign Relations in Washington. Washington recently said it had provided new proposals to ease Russia's concerns over the planned deployment of 10 U.S. interceptor missiles in Poland and a tracking radar in the Czech Republic, which the George Bush administration has said are needed to counter possible attacks from "rogue" states such as Iran. Russia, which says the missile defense system is a threat to its national security, has indicated it will not address the U.S. proposals until after president-elect Barack Obama is inaugurated as U.S. president in January. Medvedev announced last week the possible deployment of Iskander-M short-range missile systems in the country's Kaliningrad exclave, sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania on the Baltic Sea. However, the Russian leader said in an interview with France's Figaro newspaper published on Thursday that, "We could reconsider this response if the new U.S. administration is ready to once again review and analyze all the consequences of its decisions to deploy the missiles and radar facilities." Medvedev also told the council that Russia hopes relations with the U.S. will improve under Obama. Medvedev proposed on Sunday creating a forum uniting European countries, international organizations and NATO to discuss possible threats to security. Speaking about Russia's tense relations with Georgia, Medvedev told the council that his country is ready to deal with Georgia but not with the Mikheil Saakashvili regime. "We are ready to build relations with Georgia but not with the current regime," the Russian leader said. In early August, Russia fought a brief war with Georgia over South Ossetia after Georgian forces attacked the republic in an attempt to bring it back under central control. On August 26, Russia recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the other Georgian breakaway republic, as independent states. Abkhazia and South Ossetia broke away from Georgia following the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s amid armed conflicts that claimed thousands of lives.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20081116/118337082.html

Russian national debt lowest of all G20 countries

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev can look around the summit table on Saturday knowing his government has less debt than any other G20 country, according to the Guardian newspaper. The British paper put Russia's debt at $76 billion - less than 1% of the United States' $8.4 trillion. As a percentage of gross domestic product, Moscow's situation is not quite as rosy, but President George Bush would probably take a national debt running at 6% rather than 60% of GDP. But by that measure, Japan may be in even worse shape - its $7.45 trillion public debt is more than 1 1/2 times the country's GDP. But Japan has spent so much of the last decade or so in economic difficulties that maybe the country has grown used to it. Things could hardly be more different in Britain, where a decade of almost uninterrupted growth has come to a grinding halt. But the $1.2 trillion debt is still less than half of GDP. The other three European members of the G8 are in even worse shape. They all owe more than half their GDP. Italy, with the lowest GDP of the three, has the highest debt according to the Guardian, at $2.19 trillion. Next is Germany with $2.07 trillion, followed by France at $1.63 trillion. Of the so-called BRIC countries, China's $580 billion debt is hardly daunting at less than a fifth of GDP, while Brazil's $590 billion is still less than half its GDP. India, on the other hand, is up there with the United States with a public debt of $637 billion totaling more than 60% of its 2007 GDP. Down the bottom of the Guardian chart with Russia are Saudi Arabia, owing $91 billion, and South Africa, with a debt of $88 billion.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/business/20081115/118335408.html

[Armenian]

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

Russia: Pushing the Ruble

Summary

Russia and its former Soviet neighbors are meeting to discuss a proposal to carry out energy transactions in rubles instead of U.S. dollars. The plan theoretically offers an economic benefit to importer states, but they might not go for it given the political strings attached.

Analysis

National bank chiefs and finance ministers from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) — which includes Russia, Belarus, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan — are meeting Nov. 17 to discuss the possibility of using the Russian ruble for payment of energy deliveries from Russia. This initiative has been on the table for some time, but now Moscow is pushing the plan in order to prop up its own currency and solidify its control over other CIS countries. Currently, Russia accepts energy payments in U.S. dollars from its export customers and then converts the money to rubles. However, Russia tacks on a hefty fee for the currency conversion, making energy imports from Russia just that much more expensive. The offer on the table is to allow importers of Russian energy (at least within the CIS) to pay in rubles, which Moscow says will help eliminate that costly conversion fee for those states.

Russia is interested in pushing the plan for two reasons. First, it would give a real boost to the struggling ruble. Having CIS countries pay in rubles would artificially increase demand for the currency, thus buoying its value. The Russian ruble has been declining steadily, falling 19 percent between July and November. Meanwhile, there have been growing signs that Russians themselves are less confident in the currency, making bank runs in fear of a devaluation and increasingly using foreign currency. The Kremlin has been looking for a way to increase the use of the ruble and is now pushing CIS countries to do so. The second reason for the proposal is to move toward making the ruble the regional currency — thus increasing Russia’s influence over the CIS states. Russia is in the process of consolidating control over its former Soviet sphere, and creating a currency dependency and connection would help strengthen its hold over the region.

The rubles-for-energy scheme is being presented to the CIS members as an option — for the moment. Potential cost savings aside, however, the CIS states understand the political subtext; they also understand that options presented by Moscow have a way of turning into ultimatums when they are in Russia’s strategic interest. But such an ultimatum can only work if the country paying has no other option than to buy Russian energy — which is not the case for most of the CIS. Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Azerbaijan are now energy exporters themselves; Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan receive most of their energy supplies from other Central Asian suppliers; Armenia receives shipments from Iran; and Moldova is hooked into Europe’s energy infrastructure through Romania and Ukraine.

The only CIS country that is wholly dependent on Russian energy is Belarus — which, while it could theoretically take shipments of some fuels from other sources, pays far below market prices for Russian energy and would take a severe economic hit if it shunned Moscow as a supplier. Belarus has little choice but to adhere to the terms set up by the Kremlin — which would explain why Minsk has already agreed to pay for the oil and natural gas it receives from Russia in rubles. Russia also awarded Belarus a credit of 50 billion rubles (US$2 billion) credit for its energy supplies to sweeten the deal. All the other CIS countries have options, and therefore cannot be forced to accept the rubles-for-energy scheme. Russia could strengthen its argument for switching to the ruble by making it a requirement for all trade, not just energy; but even then, the CIS states would have other options.

Source: http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/200..._pushing_ruble

[Armenian]

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

Interview to the French Newspaper Le Figaro

Medvedev's interview to Le Figaro (full version): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NneenMWS9mM

E. MOUGOTTE: Mr President, I would like to thank you sincerely for giving your first interview to the foreign press since the election of President Obama to Figaro Newspaper. Many observers were very surprised by your initial reaction. You threatened to deploy missiles in Kaliningrad. Isn’t there the risk that this could introduce conflict to your relations with the new American President?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: You know, I would not like to make a connection between my speech on November 5 and any political events other than my Address to the Federal Assembly itself. In other words, there is no connection to the elections in the United States or to any other political events abroad. This was a domestic address. Of course, given that the President addresses the Federal Assembly only once a year, I could not but react to a number of important international events and to the threats that our country faces. One of these is the current U.S. Administration’s decision to deploy a missile defence system in Europe, and this without consolidated agreement from the European countries and without even preliminary agreement from NATO, but on the basis of bilateral agreements with a number of countries. We always asked our American partners one and the same question: why do you need this system, how effective will it be, and who is it directed against? But we have not received a clear answer to any of these questions. Moreover, we proposed a different step: setting up a global defence system using our radar facilities and the radar facilities of our closest partners such as Azerbaijan. But no progress has been made on any of these initiatives. We therefore had to take measures in response sooner or later. My predecessor said this, and I said the same a while ago. We have no choice but to react to what are essentially unilateral decisions that our American colleagues have taken. And I set out our response in my Address to the Federal Assembly. I think that this is a completely appropriate response. It is not we who began all of this. We are simply responding to the unilateral decisions on deploying missiles and a radar facility. But we could reconsider this response if the new U.S. Administration is ready to once again review and analyse all the consequences of its decisions to deploy the missiles and radar facilities, analyse their effectiveness and a number of other factors, including how appropriate these means are as a response to the threat from the so-called rogue states. The first reaction we have seen from the new U.S. Administration gives us grounds for hope. In any event, our future partners are reflecting on how useful and effective this system could be, and so it seems that we do have something to discuss. We are ready for talks, and at the same time we are also ready for the ‘zero option’. This would be a completely normal way out of this situation. Moreover, we are ready to continue work on the idea of a global defence system in which the United States, the European Union countries and the Russian Federation would all take part. As for my relations with Barack Obama, the President-Elect, I had a very good conversation with him. I hope that we will succeed in building a full and normal partnership with the new administration and find solutions to some of the complex issues that we and our colleagues in the current administration have not managed to resolve. The new President of the United States has a large margin of public confidence. He has been elected at a very difficult time and I wish him success in the work he is about to undertake.

E. MOUGOTTE: Will you have the opportunity to meet with Obama during the G-20 summit in Washington?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: This is really a domestic matter, and as far as I know they are in the process of deciding whether it is appropriate for the President-Elect to be present at this kind of event, given that there is still an incumbent President in office. In any case, the President-Elect and I agreed that we will meet without delay and obstruction. This meeting is important for the United States and for the Russian Federation.

E. MOUGOTTE: You are about to set off for Nice to take part in the Russia-EU summit. We know that a number of EU members have expressed concern over Russia maintaining military contingents in South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Moreover, the contingent is bigger in number than was the contingent in place there before August 7. Do you plan to reduce the size of the Russian contingent in South Ossetia and Abkhazia? Second, is your decision to recognise the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia a final decision?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I will start by answering the second question: our decision is final and irreversible. These are not joking matters. We have recognised these two new subjects of international law. From the point of view of international law, these two subjects now exist. As for our military contingent, I draw your attention to the fact that not a single document, including my joint plan with President Nicholas Sarkozy, stipulates any rules for this contingent. What we agreed on was clearing the way to settling the conflict and the withdrawal of peacekeepers and the reinforced contingent at the time when military units were in place there. As for the current situation, it is regulated by bilateral agreements with these two new subjects of international law. The size of the contingent is determined by Russia’s agreements with South Ossetia and Abkhazia respectively, and we will decide ourselves what size contingent is needed, where it will be stationed, and what military bases will be present there. These steps are all being taken in the interest of defending these two new subjects of international law, protecting the people who live there, and making sure another humanitarian disaster does not take place. The size of this contingent has to be sufficient for fulfilling these missions.

E. MOUGOTTE: President Nicholas Sarkozy has reached an agreement with the other leaders of the EU member countries to renew talks with Russia on concluding a new strategic partnership agreement. What does Russia hope to see from this strategic partnership with the EU?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: First of all, I want to say that I give due recognition to the efforts the President of France has made and is making now to smooth the way towards a full, productive, long-term and mutually advantageous dialogue between Russia and the European Union. He has really done very well indeed in this work. We do indeed seek these kinds of relations with the European Union and we think that this is vital for Europe and for Russia because we share the same continent, have open economies, and are all interested in reciprocal investment. Europe receives energy supplies from Russia, and we purchase a number of important goods in Europe. Our bilateral trade with France alone comes to more than $16 billion a year and is growing, and we have investment that comes to billions of dollars every year. These are serious figures, and this is just with one of the EU member countries. We therefore need a serious and full-fledged foundation for our relations and it is the agreement that will give us this foundation. We therefore welcome the decision to resume talks and soon, in Nice, I will discuss this with France, the country currently holding the EU presidency, with my colleague Nicholas Sarkozy and my other colleagues. Russia is an integral part of Europe. It always has been and always will be. We have an interest in as close a partnership with the EU as possible.

E. MOUGOTTE: Can you name some specific areas where cooperation between France and Russia could develop most intensively?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, of course. Why not? We have several big projects on which we are working together well. I will start with the energy sector. We have big projects with the French companies that traditionally buy oil and gas from Russia, companies like Total, for example. These are multi-billion-dollar investment projects for the future. We are working together not just in the energy sector. We also have a number of projects in high technology, in the aviation industry, for example, and in the field of developing various modern materials. This gives an idea of the wide range of fields in which we work together. I note too that we are interested in attracting French investment in the Russian economy and we hope that the French economy will in its turn welcome Russian investment. This is the most important area that ties us together. Now we need to find answers to the difficult challenges the financial crisis has put before us, and this is something we need to do together.

E. MOUGOTTE: This is precisely the subject of my next question. This week, you will take part in the G-20 summit in Washington, which will examine ways to overcome the financial and economic crisis. Will you be taking specific proposals for reforming the financial system with you to Washington?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: I will not be simply taking proposals but have already sent them. I have spoken with Nicholas Sarkozy and with other colleagues, Federal Chancellor [of Germany] Angela Merkel, for example, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and British Prime Minister Gordon Brown about the situation in the world economy and the crisis that has hit the global financial system. We have already sent our proposals. I do not think I will be letting out any secret in saying that we share the same views on many issues: on the nature and origin of this crisis, and on the responses we should take. I think that what we need to discuss is a whole complex of solutions that concern ensuring long-term financial stability in general and reforming the financial system as it exists now. In other words, we need to answer two big questions: how to respond to the current crisis and minimise its consequences, and how to prevent new crises. Regarding the future of the financial system, it needs to be made a lot more transparent, predictable and manageable. It needs to be based upon a solid foundation of international agreements, and we need to establish a new or partially reformed system of international institutions, including the upper echelon credit institutions. We need to establish a new system for corporate reporting, and for risk insurance, and we need a clearer and more transparent system of accounting and financial reporting. These are all things we need to discuss right now, and this is why we have proposed examining in addition what we have called ‘the idea of early warning of emerging crises’. This is a system that should be accepted in all countries and that should work in the interests of all and not in the interests of just one country, even if it is the biggest and strongest. Overall, what we need to do is lay the foundations for a new Bretton Woods package, for a new system of Bretton Woods agreements.

E. MOUGOTTE: Russia will probably also feel the effects of the economic crisis and the economic downturn that it brings with it. Is Russia ready to carry out far-reaching plans to reinvigorate its economy and prevent a recession? Perhaps it could consider a plan similar to the one China has just announced?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, of course, this is the biggest challenge at the moment. Our entire government is working on minimising the consequences of the financial crisis right now. We have taken a number of urgent measures to improve the liquidity situation in the banking sector and in the real sector of the economy. But this does not mean that this is all we can do. We will keep close watch on the situation and will try to take the most appropriate action. We are making use of our partners’ experience too. We are following the decisions the European Union is taking and to a great extent we are working synchronously in some areas and in similar directions in others. We are also following the decisions our Chinese friends have taken. But we need to take into account the size and nature of each country’s economy of course. There is not a standard recipe, even though this crisis is having an effect on practically all countries.

E. MOUGOTTE: Is the issue of nationalising banks on the agenda? This could make it possible to make better use of existing credit resources, given that we have seen an outflow of capital abroad of late.

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Yes, the outflow of capital has been quite sizeable, but this is not a reason to nationalise banks. This is not the issue. We need to maintain the big banks, the banks most important in ensuring the circulation of money resources throughout our country. That is the first point. Second, and just as important, we need to protect people’s deposits. Practically all deposits in Russia are guaranteed by the state. We also need to monitor the situation closely, of course. If need be, we will take recovery measures right up to transferring a block of shares to state ownership, for example, as has been done with good results in the United States, Britain and some other countries. But even if there does end up being a partial transfer of ownership to the state, I think that this would be nevertheless just a temporary measure and these shares would later be sold. I said in my Address that we do not need a state-owned economy. What we need is an effective market economy based on private ownership.

E. MOUGOTTE: The drop in oil prices has had a serious impact on the Russian Federation’s budget. Do you think that oil prices will start rising again?

DMITRY MEDVEDEV: Any radical drop or any sudden speculative rise in energy prices always creates instability. Of course it does not make us happy to see oil prices drop below the reasonable limits that all of the oil exporting countries see today as being within roughly the same price range. But our economy and our budget overall are quite well insulated against this kind of sudden drop in oil prices. We have the Reserve Fund, which was previously known as the stabilisation fund, and it allows us to soften the impact of these problems and not have to reduce budget allocations for social development and for economic development in general.

[...]

Source: http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2008-208-7.cfm

[Federate]

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

KONSTANTIN ZATULIN: NAGORNO-KARABAKH TO BE RECOGNIZED SOONER OR LATER

YEREVAN, 18.11.08. DE FACTO. ‘’Nagorno-Karabakh will come to recognition sooner or later. Karabakh will not return within Azerbaijan’’, Konstantin Zatulin, the deputy Chairman of Russia’s State Duma Committee on CIS Affairs, Director of the Institute of CIS Studies, stated in the course of a news conference held at the Novosti Press Center today.
According to Zatulin, Azerbaijanis are also aware of the fact. However, in his words, the Azerbaijani politicians cannot exceed the established limits.
Nevertheless, presenting, in his words, Russia’s official stand, Zatulin noted that Russia was not ready to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence, especially taking into consideration that Armenia had not done it yet. ‘’However, my own stand is as follows: it is possible not to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh de jure as much as one likes, however, it de facto exists’’, Konstantin Zatulin noted. At that, in Konstantin Zatulin’s words, no one can prove that nations’ right to self-determination yields priority to territorial integrity’s principle. Zatulin is sure that the final word rests with people, if they consistently display their will.

From http://www.defacto.am/index.php?OP=71340649

[Armenian]

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

Zatulin has made similar comments in the past, so have many other Russian politicians and experts as a matter of fact... Zatulin's expressed sentiments, surprisingly candid as they are, reflect what I and many others like me have been saying for many years now; namely that it is in Russia's national interest to maintain a strong Armenia/Artsakh as a buffer state against Turkish, Western and Iranian encroachment into the Caucasus. In my opinion, his sentiments are exactly what Russian officials (the patriotic/nationalist one's, at the very least) are thinking in the Kremlin today, despite diplomatic talk that may sometimes suggest otherwise. His sentiments regarding Armenia also accurately reflect what is happening on the ground today. What's more, saying what he said, if he did say it, required a lot of courage (and political calculation) on his part because such talk dangerously deviates from sound diplomatic discourse. Nonetheless, in the world's current and foreseeable geopolitical climate Yerevan has no other option but to fully and unconditionally serve Moscow. As painful as this realization may be for some, it's that simple. To put this all in better perspective, compare what Zatulin (a very high ranking Russian official in Moscow) has supposedly said to what American/European officials have been saying regarding Armenia/Artsakh for years. Compare the political, economic, technical and military assistance Armenia gets from Russia to the pocket change that is thrown at Armenia by the West. Let's not fool ourselves here, the bottom line is Armenia/Artsakh exists today as a nation state due to Armenia's close relationship with the Russian Federation. Without a strong Russian representation in the Caucasus there simply can't be an Armenia...

KONSTANTIN ZATULIN: NAGORNO-KARABAKH TO BE RECOGNIZED SOONER OR LATER


YEREVAN, 18.11.08. DE FACTO. ‘’Nagorno-Karabakh will come to recognition sooner or later. Karabakh will not return within Azerbaijan’’, Konstantin Zatulin, the deputy Chairman of Russia’s State Duma Committee on CIS Affairs, Director of the Institute of CIS Studies, stated in the course of a news conference held at the Novosti Press Center today. According to Zatulin, Azerbaijanis are also aware of the fact. However, in his words, the Azerbaijani politicians cannot exceed the established limits. Nevertheless, presenting, in his words, Russia’s official stand, Zatulin noted that Russia was not ready to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence, especially taking into consideration that Armenia had not done it yet. ‘’However, my own stand is as follows: it is possible not to recognize Nagorno-Karabakh de jure as much as one likes, however, it de facto exists’’, Konstantin Zatulin noted. At that, in Konstantin Zatulin’s words, no one can prove that nations’ right to self-determination yields priority to territorial integrity’s principle. Zatulin is sure that the final word rests with people, if they consistently display their will.

From http://www.defacto.am/index.php?OP=71340649