The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

Russia's Yury Dolgoruky submarine to start sea trials by year end

Russia's first Borey-class strategic nuclear submarine will start sea trials by the end of 2008, a defense industry source said on Thursday. The fourth-generation Yury Dolgoruky was built at the Sevmash plant in northern Russia and was taken out of dry dock in April 2007. It will be equipped with Bulava ballistic missiles upgraded from Topol-M (SS-27) missiles. "The successful testing of the submarine's nuclear reactor, conducted on December 16 by Sevmash and Northern Fleet specialists, enable us to say confidently that Yury Dolgoruky will start sea trials by yearend," the source said. The submarine is 170 meters (580 feet) long, has a hull diameter of 13 meters (42 feet), a crew of 107, including 55 officers, a maximum depth of 450 meters (about 1,500 feet) and a submerged speed of about 29 knots. It can carry up to 16 ballistic missiles. Two other Borey-class nuclear submarines, the Alexander Nevsky and the Vladimir Monomakh, are currently under construction at the Sevmash shipyard and are expected to be completed in 2009 and 2011. Russia's Navy commander, Adm. Vladimir Vysotsky, said in July that the construction of new-generation nuclear-powered ballistic missile and attack submarines is a top priority for the Russian Navy's development. Under the Russian State Armaments Program for 2007-2015, the Navy will receive several dozen surface ships and submarines, including five Project 955 Borey-class submarines, two Project 885 Yasen nuclear-powered attack submarines, and six Project 677 Lada diesel-electric submarines.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081218/118935708.html

[Federate]

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

Հոս ալ պիտի խարնեն կամաց կամաց։
-------------------------------------------
Gazprom threatens new Ukraine gas cut



Russian energy giant, Gazprom, says it will stop gas supplies to Ukraine starting January 1, until the country pays off its $2 Billion gas debt for supplies in November and December, and a new contract is concluded.

On Thursday Gazprom spokesman Sergey Kupriyanov said the talks are in a deadlock.

He said Ukraine has transferred $800 million for repayment of gas supplies in autumn, but also informed Gazprom that no more money would be transferred until the new year starts.

“Thus we would have no legal grounds to supply gas starting January 1 and we won’t be able to turn to direct contracts with Ukraine until the debt is paid off,” Kupriyanov said.

The two sides have been negotiating for the past two months over a settlement of the gas debt but with no result.

Also, Gazprom Deputy CEO Aleksandr Medvedev said the company has offered Ukraine several options to settle the issue, taking into consideration the complicated economic situation in the country, before adding “Unfortunately, none of the offered schemes were accepted to further settle the issue.”

This comes after the signing of a memorandum, on gas cooperation, on October 2 between the Prime Ministers of Russia and Ukraine, Vladimir Putin and Yulia Timoshenko.

One of the key points of the document is the possibility of direct long-term cooperation between Gazprom and Ukraine’s Naftogas starting from January 1, 2009. It also facilitates Gazprom directly selling up to 7.5 billion cubic metres of gas per year, to Ukrainian consumers.

The document also confirms the intention to move step-by-step to mutually agreed market gas prices for Ukraine, and specifies prices for gas transit through Ukraine’s territory. The necessary condition, specified in the memorandum, is paying off the gas debt in full by Ukraine’s Naftogas company.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/34941

[Armenian]

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

Foreign spies seek Russia's military, nuclear secrets - FSB

Foreign intelligence services continue to try to obtain classified information on the Sevmash shipyard in Russia's northern Arkhangelsk Region, a senior FSB official said on Thursday. Sergei Stepura, head of the Federal Security Service (FSB) Directorate for the Arkhangelsk Region, said the countries involved included the United States, some of its NATO allies, and specific Asia-Pacific states. Located in Severodvinsk on the White Sea, Sevmash is Russia's largest shipyard and builds nuclear-powered submarines, oil and gas platforms and tankers. Stepura told a news conference at RIA Novosti that several foreign intelligence agents, as well as persons suspected of working on behalf of foreign intelligence agencies, had been "spotted around sensitive areas." He said a criminal case had been opened against a regional law enforcement officer under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act. Stepura also said there was still the danger of terrorist attacks on nuclear and other hazardous facilities in the region. He said two explosive devices, 16 firearms and 138 rounds of ammunition, as well as more than 6 kilograms of mercury, had been seized in the region this year.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081218/118932445.html

[Federate]

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

Դանիել Օրթեկան ցոյց տուաւ աշխարհին որ վախ պէտք չէ ունենայ ոեւէ երկիր Ամերիկայի կայսրութեան դէմ ելլելու։ Այս մարդը 30 տարիէ կը պայքարի Ամերիկայի դէմ եւ իր աղքատ երկիրը աշխարհը ցնցեց երբ ճանչցաւ Հ. Օսիան եւ Աբխազիան։ Բայց զարմանալի է որ միւս Հարաւային Ամերիկայի յեղափոխականները դեր չի հետեւեցան իր քայլերուն եւ չեն ճանչցած Հարավային Օսիայի եւ Աբխազիայի անկախութիւնը։ Բայց յոյսով եմ որ ի վերջոյ պիտի հետեւին։
-------------------------------------------------
Nicaraguan President committed to visiting South Ossetia & Abkhazia


Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega has expressed a wish to visit South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Nicaragua was the second state, after Russia, to recognise the independence of the two republics.

"I am sure that we will visit the two fraternal countries in the near future," he told a news conference, following negotiations with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Thursday.

"We fully support Russia's stance on South Ossetia and Abkhazia," Ortega also said before adding: "We have solidarity with those peoples."

“I would like to thank our Nicaraguan partners for their position, for recognising the legal standing of South Ossetia and Abkhazia,” Medvedev responded. “Without a doubt, this decision will help strengthen international law across the whole world.”

Nicaraguan President has also stressed he supports the stance that a unipolar world is coming to an end.

“We can’t say for sure that unipolarity does not exist any more, but every day the world is becoming more and more multipolar. Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to Latin America and the meetings he held there are the best proof that we are living in a new era of Russia-Latin America relations,” Ortega said.

Mutual trade, energy, space and agriculture have been on the agenda for the talks, and a package of memorandums on cooperation has been signed by the two sides.

A hydropower plant, an airport and a canal to link the two oceans are just some of the projects that have been on the table.

Also, Russia and Nicaragua are drafting an agreement on visa-free travel, according to President Dmitry Medvedev. "The agreements will be ready soon," he stressed, referring to a visa-free travel accord.

Some experts suggest that the political value of the new alliance so far outstrips its economic benefits.

“For Russia cooperation with Latin America is one of the priorities in foreign policy. Russia strives to establish partnership ties with all Latin American countries, and it is not our aim to push the U.S. out. If other countries would like to join our cooperation, we would work on them. It is by no means our intention to squeeze other partners out,” said Maria Kusakina, an expert on Latin America from Moscow State University.

The Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega Saavedra is in Moscow after a 20-year hiatus in a bid to revive old ties between the two countries. Russian - Nicaraguan diplomatic relationships started more than 60 years ago and developed actively after the revolutionary Sandinista government came to power in Nicaragua in 1979.

Since then, until the turbulent 1990s, Nicaragua was the second most important strategic partner of the Soviet Union in Latin America after Cuba.

However, in the nineties, when the political and economical landscapes of both countries started to change, contacts between the sides declined dramatically.

Trade turnover shrank from $US 230 million to $US 6.8 million last year. In the first nine months of this year, it constituted only $US 5.6 million.

It was only in 2007, when Ortega became president again, that relations began to revive.

Being among the leaders of a Sandinista rebellion to overthrow Nicaragua’s dictator Anastasio Somoza, Ortega won the presidential elections in 1985 and was in power until 1990 when he was defeated by Violeta Barrios de Chamorro.

An ardent leftist and atheist in the past, Daniel Ortega is now a devoted catholic and can even be called a moderate politician.

Vladimir Travkin from the Latin America Magazine met Daniel Ortega several times and calls him “a man of compromise”. He says that’s what helped Ortega return to office in 2007.


"He created a coalition. First he reconciled with the Catholic Church. Nicaragua is extremely religious," he said. "Then his candidate for vice president was the leader of Contras, the U.S. backed guerillas who fought against Ortega and his counterparts. And he softened his anti-American rhetoric."

Ortega returned to Russian political headlines in September, following the conflict in the Caucasus. Nicaragua was the only country besides Russia that recognised South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent states.

Just last week Russian warships docked at Nicaragua’s port. Even though this stopover caused heated debates among the country’s lawmakers, Ortega permitted the vessels to enter.

A high-ranking Kremlin source was quoted by Itar-Tass news agency as saying that the two heads of state will discuss cooperation in the spheres of energy, space exploration and agriculture. A package of documents on the cooperation of development has been prepared for signing.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/34909

[Armenian]

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

Հոս ալ պիտի խարնեն կամաց կամաց։

Եթե չվճարեն, եթե չենթարկվեն, իհարկէ կամաց կասմաց պիտի խարնեն...

Դանիել Օրթեկան ցոյց տուաւ աշխարհին որ վախ պէտք չէ ունենայ ոեւէ երկիր Ամերիկայի կայսրութեան դէմ ելլելու։ Այս մարդը 30 տարիէ կը պայքարի Ամերիկայի դէմ եւ իր աղքատ երկիրը աշխարհը ցնցեց երբ ճանչցաւ Հ. Օսիան եւ Աբխազիան։ Բայց զարմանալի է որ միւս Հարաւային Ամերիկայի յեղափոխականները դեր չի հետեւեցան իր քայլերուն եւ չեն ճանչցած Հարավային Օսիայի եւ Աբխազիայի անկախութիւնը։ Բայց յոյսով եմ որ ի վերջոյ պիտի հետեւին։

Համաձայն եմ երիտասարդ ընկեր. Օրթեգա-ն, Քասթրո-ի և Շավեզ-ի նման, Հարավային Ամերիկայի ազնվականներից և իսկական հեղափոխականներից է: Բայց նկատի առնենք այստեղ որ մյուս պետությունները, նայև Վենեզուելա-ն, դեր Ամերիկայի տնտեսության հետ լուրջ կապեր ունեն. Եւ Քուբա-ն դեր հույսով է որ նրաց խեղճ կղզու քառասուն տարվա բռնագրավումը գարող է մի օր վերանա... Այսպես ասաց հյուսիսային և հարավային Ամերիկյան աշխարի տերն ու տիրականը դեր Միացյալ Նահանգներն է: Եւ ինչպես որ արդեն կիտես, վերջին հաշվով, քաղաքականության մեջ գտնվող ամենա կարեվոր գործոնը կամ ազդակը «դրամական» շահն է: Հետեվյալ թափանցիկ հոդվածը այս նյութին կվերաբերվի: Այնուամենայնիվ, տես որքան է արդեն փոխվել երկրագունդի քաղաքականության բնույթը:

At Meeting in Brazil, Washington Is Scorned

Latin American leaders took another step away from the decades-old orbit of the United States at a meeting here that brought together nearly all of Latin America and the Caribbean, but excluded the United States and Europe. And in the process of convening the leaders of 31 countries, Brazil once again flashed its credentials as the undisputed leader of Latin America. But the host country’s highly popular president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, an ally of the United States, did not prevent the leaders from celebrating the inclusion of Raúl Castro, Cuba’s president, and from using the occasion to attack the United States and Europe for their roles in causing the global economic crisis that is roiling this region as well. “Cuba is returning to where it always should have been,” Hugo Chávez, Venezuela’s president, told reporters. “We are complete.”

The United States became a punching bag at the three-day conference, which ends Wednesday, in this tourist haven in Brazil’s Bahia State. Mr. Castro was hardly alone in assailing the United States and what he called its “neo-liberalist” model for the credit crisis, which is affecting many other economies. “In the middle of an unprecedented global crisis, our countries are discovering that they aren’t part of the problem,” Mr. da Silva said. “They can and should be fundamental players in the solution.” The timing of the meeting, just four months before the next Summit of the Americas in Trinidad and Tobago, was significant, analysts said. That meeting, first convened in Miami in 1994 at the urging of President Clinton, will include the United States and Canada but will exclude Cuba. Mr. da Silva did his part to upstage the Summit of the Americas, even sending planes from Brazil’s air force to ensure the presence here of presidents from poorer countries in Central America and the Caribbean. President Alan García of Peru and President Álvaro Uribe of Colombia were the only heads of state who did not attend. Vice President Francisco Santos of Colombia said that Mr. Uribe, a staunch American ally, stayed home to cope with the aftermath of deadly floods.

The meeting drew together diverse coalitions of the region’s countries, including the recently formed Union of South American Nations, or Unasur, a grouping that has held meetings in recent months that also excluded the United States. “There is no question that this is about exclusion, about excluding the United States,” said Peter Hakim, president of the Inter-American Dialogue, a policy research group in Washington. “Brazil is demonstrating its enormous convening power.” With the rise of China as a principal export destination and the visit last month by President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia to court Latin American leaders, there are more frequent reminders that the United States is becoming an ever more distant player in the affairs of the region, said Riordan Roett, the director of the Latin American Studies program at Johns Hopkins University. “The United States is no longer, and will not be ever again, the major interlocutor for the countries in the region,” he said. One by one, the presidents saluted the inclusion of Cuba in the meeting, an expression that indicated a frustration with the efforts by the United States to exclude Cuba from similar hemispheric deliberations, said Michael Shifter, the vice president of the Inter-American Dialogue.

Many of the leaders, including Mr. da Silva, called for lifting the United States embargo of Cuba. “This is a further step in the process of ensuring that Cuba occupies its rightful place of dignity in the region and throughout the world,” said Bruce Golding, the prime minister of Jamaica. But even as the Latin American leaders spoke of their collective power and growing unity, regional strains have been evident. In Bolivia, Oscar Ortíz, the president of the Senate and a prominent critic of President Evo Morales, called on Unasur, the new regional body, to investigate further recent killings in northern Bolivia, which a Unasur commission described unequivocally as a massacre. The region’s leaders continue to struggle to pick a leader for Unasur. Tabaré Vásquez, Uruguay’s president, said in October that he would oppose the nomination of former President Néstor Kirchner of Argentina, a stance that reflects the tense relations between the countries in the past year.

Tension has also been increasing between Ecuador and Brazil, with President Rafael Correa of Ecuador expelling executives from Odebrecht, a major Brazilian construction company, and disputing a loan by Brazil’s powerful national development bank, which finances public works projects throughout Latin America. But these disputes may have more to do with Brazil’s rising regional profile as its multinational corporations compete more aggressively for business beyond Brazil’s borders. In Mr. da Silva, Brazil has a leader who has been adept at relieving tension through diplomacy, even as Washington’s diplomacy has become largely inoperative in much of the region. “Lula is a leader who practices the politics of the bear hug, by thinking all problems can be solved by a warm embrace,” said Larry Birns, director of the Council of Hemispheric Affairs, a research group based in Washington.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/wo...l?ref=americas

[Armenian]

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

The geopolitical dimensions of the current economic crisis being experienced here in the United States cannot be ignored. The article below is a very significant and powerful analysis pertaining to last summer's Russian-Georgian war and its impact on the global stature of the United States. Nevertheless, this is a beautifully written piece. A must read. Due to its length I only posted fragments of the article. Please read it in its entirety in the provided link.

Armenian

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

That Was No Small War in Georgia — It Was the Beginning of the End of the American Empire

On the sunny afternoon of August 14, a Russian army colonel named Igor Konashenko is standing triumphantly at a street corner at the northern edge of Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, his forearm bandaged from a minor battle injury. The spot marks the furthest point of the Georgian army’s advance before it was summarily crushed by the Russians a few days earlier. “Twelve Georgian battalions invaded Tskhinvali, backed by columns of tanks, armored personal carriers, jets, and helicopters,” he says, happily waving at the wreckage, craters, and bombed-out buildings around us. “You see how well they fought, with all their great American training — they abandoned their tanks in the heat of the battle and fled.” Konashenko pulls a green compass out of his shirt pocket and opens it. It’s a U.S. military model. “This is a little trophy — a gift from one of my soldiers,” he says. “Everything that the Georgians left behind, I mean everything, was American. All the guns, grenades, uniforms, boots, food rations — they just left it all. Our boys stuffed themselves on the food,” he adds slyly. “It was tasty.” The booty, according to Konashenko, also included 65 intact tanks outfitted with the latest NATO and American (as well as Israeli) technology.

Technically, we are standing within the borders of Georgia, which over the last five years has gone from being an ally to the United States to a neocon proxy regime. But there are no Georgians to be seen in this breakaway region — not unless you count the bloated corpses still lying in the dirt roads. Most of the 70,000 or so people who live in South Ossetia never liked the idea of being part of Georgia. During the violent land scramble that occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union, the South Ossetians found themselves cut off from their ethnic kin in North Ossetia, which remained part of Russia. The Russians, who’ve had a small peacekeeping force here since 1992, managed to keep the brewing conflicts on ice for the last 15 years. But in the meantime, the positions of everyone involved hardened. The Georgians weren’t happy about the idea of losing a big chunk of territory. The Ossetians, an ethnic Persian tribe, were more adamant than ever about joining Russia, their traditional ally and protector.

The tense but relatively stable situation blew up late in the evening of August 7, when on the order of president Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s army swept into South Ossetia, leveling much of Tskhinvali and surrounding villages and sending some 30,000 refugees fleeing north into Russia. Within hours, Russia’s de facto czar Vladimir Putin counterattacked — some say he’d set a trap — and by the end of that long weekend the Georgians were in panicked retreat. The Russian army then pushed straight through South Ossetia and deep into Georgia proper, halting less than an hour’s drive from Saakashvili’s luxurious palace. All around me is evidence of a rout.

[...]

But listening to Colonel Konashenko, it becomes clear to me that I’m looking at more than just the smoldering remains of battle in an obscure regional war: This spot is ground zero for an epic historical shift. The dead tanks are American-upgraded, as are the spent 40mm grenade shells that one spetznaz soldier shows me. The bloated bodies on the ground are American-trained Georgian soldiers who have been stripped of their American-issue uniforms. And yet, there is no American cavalry on the way.

For years now, everyone from Pat Buchanan to hybrid-powered hippies have been warning that America would suddenly find itself on a historical downslope from having been too reckless, too profligate, and too arrogant as an unopposed superpower. Even decent patriotic folk were starting to worry that America was suffering from a classic case of Celebrity Personality Disorder, becoming a nation of Tom Cruise party-dicks dancing in our socks over every corner and every culture in the world, lip-synching about freedom as we plunged headfirst into as much risky business as we could mismanage.

And now, bleeding money from endless wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, we’re a sick giant hooked on ever-pricier doses of oil paid for with a currency few people want anymore. In the history books of the future, I would wager that this very spot in Tskhinvali will be remembered as both the geographic highwater mark of the American empire, and the place where it all started to fall apart.

I first visited Georgia in 2002 to cover the arrival of American military advisers. At the time, the American empire was riding high. A decade after the Soviet Union’s collapse, Russia seemed to be devolving into an anarchic and corrupt failed state, while the U.S. just kept getting stronger. Within months of President George W. Bush’s swearing-in, Time ran a column boasting that America didn’t need to accommodate Russia anymore because it had become “the dominant power in the world, more dominant than any since Rome.” That same year we invaded Afghanistan without breaking a sweat.

The New York Times magazine proclaimed: “The American Empire: Get Used to It.” A new word, hyperpower, was being used to describe our history-warping supremacy. The military advisers were dispatched to Georgia ostensibly to train that country’s forces to fight local Al Qaeda cells, which everyone knew didn’t exist. In reality, we were training them for key imperial outsourcing duties. Georgia would do for the American Empire what Mumbai call centers did for Delta Airlines: deliver greater returns at a fraction of the cost.

They became a flagship franchise of America Inc. It made sense for the Georgians, too: Their erratic and occasionally violent neighbor Russia wouldn’t fuck with them, because fucking with them would be fucking with us — and nobody would dare to do that. The imperial masterminds who fixated on Georgia as an outsourcing project must have figured we’d score a two-fer by simultaneously winning strategic control of the untapped oil in the region and also managing to stick a giant bug up the raw southern rim of our decrepit old rival Russia.

[...]

During my visit to Georgia in 2003, if someone had told me that in five years American military advisers would be hightailing it from their main base in Vasiani to avoid getting slaughtered by advancing Russian forces, I would have slapped him with a rubber chicken for insulting my intelligence. Yet there they were: gasping for air in the lobby of the Tblisi Sheraton, insisting off the record that the conflict was all the Georgians’ fault, not theirs.

[...]

Indeed, Arkady Ostrovsky of the Economist, a British reporter who has long been close to Saakashvili, told me that on the day of the cease-fire, the Georgian leader spoke of shooting himself, and was only dissuaded when word came of a supportive statement by Condi Rice. “It was sad to watch,” Ostrovsky told me. “I should have been more critical of Saakashvili back when it might have counted. A lot of us should have.” That’s exactly the kind of full-spectrum smackdown the Russians were aiming for. And Konashenko wants us all to see it, so he offers to take me and some other reporters to the city of Gori in occupied Georgia. Russia seized control of the city at the end of hostilities, essentially cutting its foe in two and leaving it exposed to Vladimir Putin’s whims. “We’ll show you Gori — the city is spotless,” Konashenko says cheerfully. “We could have destroyed it, but we didn’t. Of course, there’s a little bit of damage here and there”

[...]

As we hop out of the army trucks, one of the Russian commanders points to a limp banner flying at half-mast over the polished-granite administration building on the far side of the square, “You see?” he says. “The Georgian flag is still flying. This is Georgian territory — we’re not annexing it like the media says.” This kind of boast, conquering a country and then making a big noble show of respecting its sovereignty, was something that had once been reserved for America’s forces. How quickly history has turned here. The other Western journalists fan out for some atrocity hunting, digging for signs that the Russians might have dropped a cluster bomb or massacred civilians. The foreign-desk editors back home have been demanding proof of Russian evil, after largely ignoring Georgia’s war crimes in South Ossetia. It’s a sordid business, but the reporters are just following orders.

After an hour in the 90-degree heat, I head over to the city’s central square, where I stumble across a stunning spectacle: dozens of Russian soldiers doing a funky-chicken victory dance in the Georgian end zone. They’re clowning around euphorically, shooting souvenir photos of each other in front of the administration building and the statue of Stalin (Gori’s most famous native son) while their commanders lean back and laugh. I approach Lieutenant Colonel Andrei Bobrun, assistant commander of the Russian land forces’ North Caucasus Military District — the roughest neighborhood in Western Eurasia — and ask him how he feels now, as a victorious military leader in a proxy war with America.

“I have never been so proud of Russia — magnificent Russia!” Bobrun crows, an AK strapped over his shoulder. “For twenty years we just talked and talked, blabbed and blabbed, complained and complained. But we did nothing, while America ran wild and took everything it could. Twenty years of empty talk. Now Russia is back. And you see how great Russia is. Look around you — we’re not trying to annex this land. What the fuck do I need Georgia for? Russia could keep this, but what for? Hell, we could conquer the whole world if we wanted to. That’s a fact. It was Russia that saved Europe from Genghis Khan. Russia could have taken India and the Middle East. We could take anything — we took Alaska, we took California. There is nothing that Russia could not take, and now the world is being reminded again.” “Why did you give California back?” I asked. It has always baffled me why a country would abandon prime coastal real estate for the frozen swamps of Siberia — I always assumed it was because the Russians were ashamed when they found themselves holding onto a chunk of this planet as perfect as California: like B-list nerds who successfully crash a Vanity Fair Oscar party, but within minutes of their little triumph, skulk out of the tent out of sheer embarrassment, knowing they never belonged there in the first place. “We gave it all back because we don’t need it,” Borisov boasted, puffing out his chest. “Russia has enough land, what the hell do we need more for. But if others want to start something, this is what will happen. Russia is back, and I am so proud.”

As the day wore on, the Kremlin press pool organizers finally rounded us up, and we headed back again along the same victory trail. It was on this second visit to ruins of Tskhinvali, as dusk approached and the violence seemed to already acquire a kind of abstract tone, that I started to realize that I was looking at something much bigger than the current debate about Russian aggression or who was more guilty of what — pulling the camera much farther back on this scene, I understood that I was looking at the first ruins of America’s imperial decline. It’s not an easy thing to spot. It took years after the real collapse for Russians to finally accept that awful reality, and to adjust accordingly, first by retrenching, not overplaying an empty hand, slowly building up without making any loud noises while America ran wild around the world bankrupting itself and bleeding dry. And now it’s over for us. That’s clear on the ground. But it will be years before America’s political elite even begins to grasp this fact. In the meantime, Russia is drunk on its victory and the possibilities that it might imply, sending its recently-independent neighbors into a kind of frenzied animal panic. Experience has taught them that it’s moments like these when Russia’s near abroad becomes, once again, a blood-soaked doormat in the violent epochal shifts — history never stopped here, it just froze up for a decade or so. And now it’s thawing, bringing with it the familiar stench of bloated bodies, burned rubble, and the sour sweat of Russian infantry.

We have entered a dangerous moment in history — America in decline is reacting hysterically, woofing and screeching and throwing a tantrum, desperate to prove that it still has teeth. Which it does — but not in the old dominant way that America wants or believes itself to be. History shows that it’s at this moment, tipping into decline and humiliation, when the worst decisions are made, so idiotically destructive that they’ll make the Iraq campaign look like a mere training exercise fender-bender by comparison. Russia, meanwhile, is as high as a Hollywood speedballer from its victory. Putting the two together in the same room — speedballing Russia and violently bad-tripping America — is a recipe for serious disaster.

If we’re lucky, we’ll survive the humiliating decline and settle into the new reality without causing too much damage to ourselves or the rest of the world. But when that awful moment arrives where the cognitive dissonance snaps hard, it will be an epic struggle to come to our senses in time to prevent the William Kristols, Max Boots and Robert Kagans from leading us into a nuclear holocaust which, they will assure us, we can win against Russia, thanks to our technological superiority. If only we have the will, they’ll tell us, we can win once and for all.

Source: http://donvandergriff.wordpress.com/...erican-empire/

[Armenian]

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

Georgia Lags in Its Bid to Fix Army

The Georgian military, which was routed in August during a brief war with Russia, suffers from widespread mismanagement and unqualified leadership, and is in need of extensive reforms to become a modern fighting force, according to a classified Pentagon assessment conducted this fall. The assessment, by a team of American military officers that worked quietly in Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital, in October and November, offers a clinical view of a politicized military culture and substandard practices in a country lobbying to join NATO while embroiled in two bloody territorial disputes with Russia. The assessment underscores the difficult choices to be faced by President-elect Barack Obama, whose foreign policy team will be balancing decisions on how to engage Georgia against concerns that commitments to assist its military will further inflame Russia. The report, portions of which were shown to The New York Times by a person concerned about the poor readiness of Georgia’s military, made implicitly clear that after more than a decade of American training and nearly five years of heavy investment by President Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia’s military remains immature and ill prepared. Georgia’s armed forces, the report said, are highly centralized, prone to impulsive rather than deliberative decision making, undermined by unclear lines of command and led by senior officials who were selected for personal relationships rather than professional qualifications.

Moreover, according to the report, Georgia’s military lacks basic elements of a modern military bureaucracy, ranging from a sound national security doctrine to clear policies for handling classified material to a personnel-management system to guide soldiers through their careers. In recent years, Georgia has presented itself as an eager if lightly qualified partner in NATO and American-led military missions abroad. Its soldiers have participated in deployments to Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq, where its troop contingent became the third largest national contribution. This month in Brussels, the 26 member nations of NATO reaffirmed their intention of eventually allowing Georgia and its armed forces of about 30,000 troops to join. But they did not offer a detailed set of programs, known as a Membership Action Plan, for Georgia’s accession — a sign regarded as a setback for swift membership. The decision to decelerate Georgia’s NATO ambitions was largely political. Several countries expressed worries that backing Georgia would harm relations with Russia, which has cast Mr. Saakashvili’s government as erratic and has objected to further NATO expansion in the former Soviet sphere. Many Western diplomats and military officers have also voiced misgivings about the behavior and judgment of the Georgian government. After years of provocations by Georgia and Russia alike, Georgia launched an attack in August against the separatist enclave of South Ossetia. The attack was stymied by a large-scale Russian invasion and the defeat of the Georgian Army on its home soil.

American and Georgian officials have said the postwar military assessment, which was conducted by the United States European Command, was not a factor in the NATO decision. “We did not do our assessment with the guidance to determine if Georgia is ready for NATO membership,” Gen. John Craddock, the American officer who leads the European Command, said in an interview. “Our assessment was: As a result of the August conflict, give me the state of the Georgian armed forces.” The assessment showed, however, the degree to which Georgia’s military would have to improve, in practical terms, to be ready for NATO membership should political objections recede. It also served as a stark message that the readiness of Georgia’s military was not as Georgia had portrayed it. Georgia has framed its military revival since Mr. Saakashvili came to power in early 2004 as a grand achievement and an indicator of the country’s progress. The military Mr. Saakashvili inherited was a Red Army orphan: small, decrepit, badly trained and poorly equipped. In the early 1990s the Georgian Army lost two wars against Russian-backed separatists in Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Some of its troops were accused of committing war crimes. (Abkhaz and Ossetian forces have also been accused of ugly battlefield excesses.)

Mr. Saakashvili purchased new arms and vehicles, raised salaries, built new bases, increased the country’s collaboration with the Pentagon and urged the armed forces to emulate Western practices, in part by encouraging volunteer soldiers. The Georgian military appeared to be transforming. American officers praised a few of their Georgian counterparts in Iraq. And Eduard Kokoity, the president of South Ossetia, said the Georgian military was much more prepared and capable in its initial attack in August than it had been in the past. But as the war drew into a second day and Russian forces flowed into South Ossetia, the Georgian military quickly broke down. Many commanders were reduced to communicating by cellphone. The army fired cluster munitions on its own villages. Many units fled, abandoning equipment, ammunition and their own dead. According to the assessment’s report, some of the problems should have been unsurprising. Georgia’s armed forces, the assessment found, lack “the doctrine, institutional training and the experience needed to effectively command and control organizations throughout the chain of command.” In another section, the report added: “Collaborative planning and sharing of information does not take place due to culture and organizational stove-pipes. As a result, coordinated efforts are essentially nonexistent.”

An American officer who has worked alongside the Georgian military and was familiar with the assessment said that the American team also found that Georgia had a poor grasp of military intelligence, and did not collect or share its intelligence in an organized fashion. This, in the officer’s view, contributed to failures in August. “One of the reasons they got into the war is that their command and control is a mess,” the officer said. “They have no ability to process and analyze strategic information and provide it to decision makers in a systematic way.” The officer spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to speak publicly about the assessment. The report also took a dim view of Georgia’s senior military leaders, noting that the process for choosing defense officials “is based on personal relationships and not tied to education, training or any system of performance evaluation.” Since the report was shared with Georgia, Mr. Saakashvili has shuffled the Defense Ministry’s leadership, although it is not clear that military experience has been given primacy in the choices. Early this month he dismissed an ally, Davit Kezerashvili, the 30-year-old defense minister who held the post during the war, and replaced him with Vasil Sikharulidze. The new minister is a trained psychiatrist and another Saakashvili ally who had served as the ambassador to the United States. Both American and Georgian officials said the assessment was not complete. The United States military, along with NATO officials, plans to provide recommendations to the Defense Ministry intended to improve Georgia’s readiness. It was not immediately clear when the recommendations might be provided. Georgia has been reluctant to discuss the assessment or its findings.

In October, Batu Kutelia, Georgia’s first deputy minister of defense, declined to comment on the assessment. This month, after The New York Times had read portions of the assessment, he spoke about it without addressing its main findings, saying they were classified. Mr. Kutelia insisted, however, that NATO’s assessment of Georgia’s military for the past two or three years, including an assessment this fall, was “very positive and underlined significant achievement.” The claim could not be confirmed because NATO’s assessments have not been made public. In an e-mail message Mr. Kutelia said that the Pentagon assessment had been performed at Georgia’s request as part of a “very responsible” postwar review. “We have asked our strategic partners, as it is usually the case after every war, to help us in identifying the shortfalls in our defense system and for that purpose to conduct the comprehensive diagnostics,” he wrote. A senior official in Washington said that the assessment had found significant shortcomings, and that Georgia and its Western supporters would have to decide how to proceed. “We did an honest job,” the officials said. “And we said to them, ‘You should know you need to make some changes if you want to have a professional military force.’ ”

[...]

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/wo...tml?ref=europe

[jgk3]

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

Nice articles. I remember a few years back regarding American involvement in the Caucasus as a trying to establish a hub for imperial influence in a 2 pronged sense (towards Russia and Iran). It was the exact feeling I got out the articles on US military infrastructure in that region. It is true, now that you bring it up, that this defeat in Georgia, was tremendous symbolic and real significance. Since August I thought of the effect it had towards checking a resurgent Russian influence and to provide cover for projects like Nabucco, just that article you posted really made it click. I think it was the context it put the technological booty that Russians got from their victory, a true mark of the lost American ambitions in the region.

[ZORAVAR]

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

Nice articles about the Ossetian conflict. Thanks for posting.

Slowly slowly, video clips shot by Russian soldiers (using their personal video cameras and cell phones) are emerging. Here are a couple of nice ones:

A battery of BM-21 GRAD artillery rockets firing salvos on Georgian army positions: http://mreporter.ru/ReporterMessages...reportid=16539

A battery of TOCHKA-U missiles firing on key Georgian positions. Includes a beautifull simultaneous launch of two missiles. The song in that clip is from an Ossetian (in Russian language), the title is "Tskhinval is our land": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioj_l0uvqps

[jgk3]

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

holy smokes... nice footage zoravar.