The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

Germany and Russia benefit while EU loses in East-West gas war

Nord Stream will bypasses the Ukraine and divides Europe

The East-West energy crisis has benefited a German-Russian scheme to cut out Eastern Europe to secure gas supplies. The European Union will be all the weaker. Both Moscow and Berlin are using the Urkraine dispute to promote Nord Stream, a controversial gas pipeline that could weaken already shaky European unity on energy. How well can Europe stand up to Russia using energy resources to pressure and bully European Union members states, particularly its former Eastern satellites, if Germany has cut a cosy side deal? Nord Stream will funnel gas directly from Russia to Germany bypassing Poland and the Baltic states and German Europe Minister Guenter Gloser has been singing the project's praises. "There must continue to be energy supplies from Russia but that on the other hand, other regions are needed to ensure security of energy supplies," he said. "The Nord Stream project must be an important part of that diversification of energy sources." As the heating went off or rationing came in for Eastern and Central Europeans, the familiar face of Gerhard Schroeder, the former German Chancellor, popped up in Moscow.

Herr Schroeder was in Moscow on Wednesday, the same day Gazprom cut off the Ukraine, oozing oily cynicism and snuggling up to Vladimir Putin, Russia's leader whatever the job title of the day. "Nord Stream is an extremely important project to strengthen the energy security not only of Germany but of all of Europe," he said. Mr Putin, direct as ever, is quite open that one of Russia's strategic interests in stoking the energy crisis is to discredit the Ukraine and to promote Nord Stream. "The current situation only makes even more relevant our main task, our plans for the construction of a gas pipeline system along the bottom of the Baltic Sea." "I think that our European partners have now finally realised that this project is necessary and has to be carried out promptly,"," he said as the Gazprom gas taps were switched off.

The 750-mile pipeline would entirely avoid transit through Ukraine and the latest convenient energy crisis comes as key a Nord Stream deadline approaches. Baltic states, some of which fear the pipeline will make their big Western German neighbour too cosy with their big Eastern Russian neighbour, will in the coming weeks decide on environmental permits Nord Stream needs to lay pipe on the Baltic Sea bed. The energy crisis applies some considerable moral pressure. Mr Putin, again, made the agenda clear: "If we had already built this pipeline, if no-one had hampered us, it would already be operating through the Baltic Sea." Poland and other East European countries fear that with Nord Stream bypassing their territories to benefit Germany it will become much more difficult to rally the EU to stand up to Russia using energy as a political weapon. It may well be that, whatever the deal on the latest Ukraine crisis, Russia has won by dividing Europe to rule via Germany and Nord Stream.

Source: http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/bruno_w...stwest_gas_war

[Armenian]

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

A Crossroad for Russia and America

In August of last year, a new Russia presented itself to the world. From the battlefield of Georgia, the message said: We are no longer seeking the good opinion of the West. The new taste for confrontation was seen by many as a byproduct of oil and gas wealth, which had given Russia’s leaders the confidence to risk international isolation. In the title of a book he published in April, the scholar Marshall Goldman offered a one-word explanation: “Petrostate.” That thesis may have a short shelf life. Russian leaders, no longer hoping to make the ruble an international reserve currency, now face a confluence of disasters: The price of a barrel of oil has slid below $40, shares of Gazprom fell 76 percent in a year and more than a quarter of Russia’s cash reserves have been spent shoring up the ruble. But does that mean we can expect a thaw between Russia and America? The question arises at a moment of high tension. The deadlock between Russia and Ukraine on gas prices has drawn in all of Europe; violence in Georgia could flare up again. Barack Obama’s Russia policymakers are taking office under the pressure of unfolding events. Henry Kissinger, who was in Moscow last month, is offering the hopeful view that the global financial crash could lead to “an age of compatible interests.” But others see the crisis pushing Russia in the opposite direction. So there are two paths:

SCENARIO 1: COOPERATION In the global financial collapse, as Alexander Rahr of Germany’s Council on Foreign Relations put it: “We have all become weaker. We have all become poorer.” So, pressed by domestic concerns, both sides pare back their foreign ambitions. Washington slows its timetable on NATO expansion and missile defense; Russia defers the dream of recapturing the Soviet “privileged sphere of influence.” Leaders in Moscow present this to the public as a victory.

The logic here is straightforward: A cash-strapped Russia would need Western money and technology to develop its energy fields. State monopolies would seek foreign partners, and bare-knuckled power grabs like Russia’s past moves against BP and Shell Oil would look counterproductive. The “battle of ideas” within the Kremlin, as Igor Y. Yurgens, an adviser to President Dmitri A. Medvedev, describes it, would turn away from “isolation, seclusion, imperial instincts” and toward long-term partnership with the West. “If we take care of the crisis by isolating ourselves, if we don’t learn the lessons from what is already being done, then the fate of Russia can be the repetition of the fate of the U.S.S.R.,” Mr. Yurgens said. “I don’t think we are stupid enough.”

SCENARIO 2: RETRENCHMENT AND NATIONALISM “Less resources means more selfish behavior,” as Sergei A. Markov, director of the Institute of Political Studies in Moscow, has said. In this case, Russia finds itself facing internal dissent and the threat of regional separatism, and lacking large piles of oil money to disburse in hopes of keeping control. Forced to fight for their own survival, political leaders tailor their policies to domestic public opinion. They focus on an external enemy — the United States, which leaders have already blamed for Russia’s financial crisis, and with whom Russia is already deeply irritated over the prospect of American military influence reaching Ukraine.

By this logic, it would be absurd to cede ground to the West now, after the long-awaited taste of satisfaction that Russians got in Georgia. Many Russians see the August war as a restoration of Russia’s rightful place in world events — a product not of oil wealth, but of the Russian society’s recovery from the Soviet collapse. “Russia has returned, period,” said Vyacheslav A. Nikonov, president of the Kremlin-aligned Polity Foundation. “That will not change. It will not get back under the table.” WHICH scenario is more likely? To begin, it is clear that Russian authorities are preparing to defend their political power. After presenting himself to the world as a liberal modernizer, President Medvedev has prioritized one major reform — lengthening the presidential term to six years. Last week, he signed a law eliminating jury trials for “crimes against the state,” and pending legislation would expand the definition of treason.

The authorities are nervous, it seems. Mr. Medvedev, in his State of the Nation speech, sent a barbed warning to “those who seek to provoke tension in the political situation.” And last month, riot police were sent 6,000 miles from Moscow to Vladivostok, where hundreds of people were protesting automobile tariffs, The Associated Press reported. “I just think they don’t trust what they can’t control,” said Clifford Kupchan of the Eurasia Group, a global risk-consulting firm based in New York. “Their instinctive reflex is to clamp when faced with uncertainty.” The first scenario, in which economic considerations dictate a more subdued foreign policy, requires conditions that may not exist. In the government, economic liberals might challenge hardliners. The constituencies who might back them up are ones that fell silent during the boom. “People in epaulets who feel they are middle class, people in bureaucracy who feel they are middle class, they could be part of this coalition,” Mr. Yurgens said. “Whether this coalition will be strong enough, I have no way of knowing.”

These days, Stephen Sestanovich, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, sees signs of “policy confusion” as Moscow’s leaders adjust to Russia’s sudden economic slide. Moscow has allowed the Georgia crisis to subside, but has escalated tensions over gas with Ukraine. The choice the elites face, Mr. Sestanovich said, is whether to keep talking in ways that make them look like “angry risk-takers and disturbers.” “Is that still their real view of themselves, and of the appropriate policy in a time of crisis?” he said. “It may be. But I’m not sure, and I don’t think they are.” The United States has real interests in a cooperative Russia; it wants help in curbing Iran’s nuclear ambitions, and NATO needs more supply routes into Afghanistan. And with Mr. Obama’s arrival in the White House, there seems room for compromise on two big Russian concerns: possible NATO expansion to Ukraine and Georgia, and the plan to station missile-defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic.

But in the deep freeze of a Moscow January, the gains of August are still thrilling. When Mr. Putin went on television last week to cut gas shipments to Ukraine — retaliation, he said, for thefts from Russia’s pipeline — who could miss the glint of satisfaction at another tough-guy stance? Foreign policy emits an energy that goes far beyond mere economics, and the new year will call for all the resources Moscow can muster. To a Russia intent on reclaiming great-power status, there may be something elemental about resisting America. “It’s just the way things are,” said Mr. Nikonov, whose grandfather, Vyacheslav Molotov, was Stalin’s foreign minister. Searching his memory for periods of warmth between the two countries, Mr. Nikonov came up with two: March and April of 1917, and August through December of 1991.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/11/we...w/11barry.html

[ZORAVAR]

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

Germany and Russia benefit while EU loses in East-West gas war

........

Armenian,

What path do you foresee for West Europe in the coming years?

Will they always follow US foreign policy as they have been doing lately? or will some country (like Germany or France) be able to stand up and choose an alternative political path? Leaders like Shroeder and Berlesconi seemed close enough to Putin and Russia, while figures like Merkel and Sarkozy seem to lean more towards Washington.

I would love to see your perspective on this matter.

Thanks in advance.

[Armenian]

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

In late 2008 Russia delivered to Armenia arms in the amount of $800 mln.

Day.Az has asked some questions on this topic among some deputies of Milli Medjlis of Azerbaijan:

Deputy chairman of the parliamentary commission on issues of defense and security Aydin Mirzazade:

"It can be featured only as international scandal. One of the conflict parties is supplied with different weapons in the amount of about $800,000,000. Considering the fact that currently the annual military budget of Armenia makes $400,000,000 is turning into a large military storehouse. At the same time considering the fact that Russia is one of the co-chairs of the OSCR Minsk Group, which is bound to mediate in the peaceful resolution of the Karabakh conflict, the position of our northern neighbor is surprising. It is unclear to the Azerbaijani community, why it is done so and what international law is takaen as a basis. Russia must mediate and adhere to a just position, which implies the return of 20% of Armenian occupied lands to Azerbaijan. Russia must be interested in the demilitarization of this region. But instead of it we see that our strategic ally supplies the occupant with weapons in the large amount. The aim of this armament is clear - it is Azerbaijan, occupation of new lands, destabilization of the situation in the region. We would like to get a clear response from Russia. It is clear that Armenia purchases weapons from Russia. But its supply with such a great volume of arms can affect the situation in the region. We demand the return of these arms and Armenia's demilitarization. This contradicts to the Moscow declaration, undersigned by the President of Russia. What is that? The protest against the Moscow declaration by some circles of Russia or provocation against the Russian President? Anyway, those responsible for these provocation must be found, their names made public and they must be punished".

Deputy Zahid Oruc:

"I think Russia's actions contradict to international documents it joins it. Though they try to explain their actions as being legal in the framework of the CSTO with Armenia, anyway, this is a violation of international norms. Russia's policy on Armenia's militarization can be qualified the lack of Russia's interest in the peaceful resolution of the conflicts in the South Caucasus. This allows other geopolitical plays to undertake adequate steps. Russia's such actions make possible the access of military circles from other countries to our region, as any country will try to restore the violated military balance by other alternative ways. Therefore, Azerbaijan and Georgia can search other variants of their security and try to distance from Georgia. This is not the first time when Georgia supplies Armenia with arms in a significant amount free of charge. In the 1990s late general Lev Rokhlin revealed the free supply of arms in the amount of $ 1 bln to Armenia. I think Ryussia must respond about its actions as they damage their mediation activity on the peaceful resolution of the Karabakh conflict".

Deputy Asim Mollazade:

"It should be reminded that the issue of supply of arms in a greater amount of money from Russia to Armenia was discussed in the 1990s. Now they have transferred arms in the amount of $800,000,000, which proves that the aggressor is armed and therefore, less arms is supplied. I think that Azerbaijan must draw attention of the world community and international organizations so that to make it clear who is an aggressor and who is behind it all".

Deputy Jamil Hasanly:

"This fact can not be a surprize for us. I think that the country, which supplies Armenia with arms in the amount of $800 mln to Armenia, has no moral right to be one of the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group".

Deputy Gudrat Hasaquliyev:

"This fact proves once again that Russia continue to supply arms to the CIS state, which has been occupying a part of another CID country. This is another fact proving that earlier Russia acted the same way. This proves that Russia does not support friendly relations with Azerbaijan, as it says, unilaterally supports Armenia and is not interested in the fair resolution of the Karabakh conflict. I think the Azerbaijani government must raise this issue in UN, OSCE, in particular in the OSCE Minsk Group". It should be noted that due to the New Year vacations in the Russian embassy to Azerbaijan, Day.Az did not manage to learn comments of the Russian side about this issue.

Source: http://www.today.az/news/politics/50028.html

In related news:

Armenia denies receiving $800 mln worth of Russian arms

Armenia's Defense Ministry on Monday denied a report from Baku alleging that Russian arms had been handed over to Yerevan. Azerbaijani media previously reported that arms worth a total of $800 million had been transferred to Armenia from a Russian military base in the country. "That is yet another piece of disinformation by Azerbaijani propaganda. I don't think there is a need to comment on it," said the Armenian defense minister's press secretary, Col. Seiran Shakhsuvaryan. Azerbaijan's Foreign Ministry said earlier on Monday that it was studying the report. "As soon as the necessary information is obtained, the Foreign Ministry will formulate its position," said Elkhan Polukhov, first secretary of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry. Relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia became strained when Nagorny Karabakh, a region in Azerbaijan with a largely Armenian population, declared its independence from Azerbaijan to join Armenia in 1988. The enclave has been a source of conflict ever since.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20090112/119438311.html

[UrMistake]

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

Did u know Armenian that USA funds Egypt with 1.3 bill$ in military department in same time they expenditures is 2,5 bill$ making the country 2 power in midle east next to Israel.

[Armenian]

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

Armenian, What path do you foresee for West Europe in the coming years? Will they always follow US foreign policy as they have been doing lately? or will some country (like Germany or France) be able to stand up and choose an alternative political path? Leaders like Shroeder and Berlesconi seemed close enough to Putin and Russia, while figures like Merkel and Sarkozy seem to lean more towards Washington...

You are asking a difficult question, comrade. There are many complex social, political and economic factors at play here, so my opinion may not mean much. Having said that, in a certain 'fundamental' sense, this question may be answered by doing a simple calculation. Western Europe and eastern Asia, two of the three centers of global economy, are virtually devoid of natural resources. Energy resources found within the American hemisphere will be enough to meet regional demand, with limited surplus for export. Oil fields of Gulf States and the North Atlantic which provide western Europe with energy are nearing their production limits. For the foreseeable future, perhaps for the next several generations, Europe's social infrastructure and industry will continue to be heavily dependent upon fossil fuels. The same applies for Asia's, specifically China's, gargantuan economy. At a time when the demand for energy is rapidly increasing and as traditional producers of energy are fast approaching the limits of their reserves, the nation that holds the most reserves in oil and natural gas, as well as precious metals I should add, will be a nation strategically placed to domineer Europe's economy, and by extension its politics. That's what I meant by saying the question you posed could be answered by a simple calculation.

Needless to say, Russia today is the largest producer of natural gas and the second largest producer of oil. If they play their political cards correctly and exploit their vast wilderness efficiently Russia will become by-far 'the' largest producer of energy in the world within a generation or two, far surpassing oil producing Persian Gulf states. Moreover, Moscow cannot lose control over distribution routes of the Caspian Sea region and Central Asian energy, which also contain large amounts energy reserves. Therefore, Moscow has to be able to efficiently extract, process and distribute its energy reserves as well as manage the energy distribution of certain others. Needless to say, being able to provide the European continent (and Asia) with readily available energy will place Moscow in the political/economic driver's seat. As a result of this dependence on Russian energy, regardless of how they view Russia, certain Eurasian powers like Germany, France and China as well as a major NATO member like Turkey will have to more-or-less go along with Moscow's wishes - while other more enterprising regional interests, major political entities like Britain, Israel, US and the Ukraine, will continue to actively seek the undermining of the Russian Federation instead. In some respects, we are clearly seeing this occurring today. Merkel is a fine diplomat, but she is stuck in the middle of two major opposing forces. Her nation is closely linked to its longtime protectorate, the US, as well as the Russian Federation. In final analysis, she will go with whatever program that is in the best interests of her great nation. I don't want to talk about a low-class clown like Sarkozy, the political establishment in France as well as Germany, the two core nations that represent European culture, politics and economy, will have to establish good relations with their virtual neighbor, Moscow; not doing so would be very risky for the longterm health of their nations.

However, the key to all this for Moscow is how it manages its God given assets and how it thwarts off major antagonists. Russia's natural wealth has been its blessing as well as its curse. Due to its natural wealth Russia has managed to create a vast empire; also due to this wealth other empires have set their envious eyes on Russia for centuries. The same situation applies today and it's very safe to assume that it will continue to be so in the future. Russians, however, are notorious for being inefficient, disorganized and careless. Look at how the Czars ruled, look at how Bolsheviks rose to power, look at how their political system finally fell apart in 1991, look at the Yeltsin years... In final analysis, God has given them the wealth, it now depends on them to utilize it effectively. If they play their cards correctly, if they play their cards efficiently, they can be in the very enviable position to rule over all aspects of Eurasian politics and economy.

And speaking of better utilization of Russia's vast natural wealth, as well as its national claims on the energy rich Arctic region, here is a very interesting Russia Today interview with world famous Russian-Armenian explorer/politician Artur Chilingarov:

Exploring the ocean bottom: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LhEJsCSAn4

[Armenian]

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

Also related to this discussion is the Nabucco pipeline project. A western project that was meant to exploit Central Asian and Caspian Sea region energy by circumventing Russia. Turkey played a crucial role in Nabucco. However, the Nabucco project was initially dealt a blow last year when Moscow managed to strike longterm deals with Central Asian energy producers and announced the building of a new South Stream pipeline that will bring Russian gas/oil directly to the southeastern European market by-passing Turkey. The final dealt blow to the Nabucco project came when Russia reasserted itself into the Caucasus by repulsing the western funded Georgian invasion of South Ossetia last August. Here is recent RIA Novosti article about Nabucco.

Armenian

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

Nabucodonosor and Europe's gasification

Mr. Reinhard Mitschek, managing director of the Nabucco Gas Pipeline International GmbH, must be Giuseppe Verdi's most ardent admirer in today's cold Europe. The name of his company comes from Nabucodonosor, or Nabucco for short, a Verdi opera of an Italian libretto based on the biblical story. It follows the plight of the xxxs as they are released from Babylonian captivity and portrays Nabucodonosor's temporary insight into the gist of the events. This could be taken as a clue hinting at Europe's desire to rid itself of Russia's gas captivity. From the 21st floor of a skyscraper near the Danube River in Vienna, Mr. Mitschek can already see Europe's bright gas future, free of Russian gas dependence and Russian-Ukrainian gas squabbles. He is convinced that now everyone in Europe is aware of the urgent need to build the Nabucco gas pipeline, which is supposed to bring Caspian gas right to the heart of Central Europe.

Most European politicians are optimistic about the Nabucco pipeline, but gas experts do not share this attitude. They believe the Nabucco project exemplifies politicization of the gas market rather than a realistic analysis of its potentialities. Nabucco seems to exist only in political minds. Its construction was supposed to be launched last year, then this year, and now in 2010. In recent estimates, its construction costs have reached eight billion Euros. The main problem is that few believe it will pay for itself. The Nabucco pipeline has to transport no less than 30 billion cubic meters of gas per year to find a profit. But there simply may not be such volumes of available gas in the near future. Azerbaijan intends to launch the extraction of its Shakh Deniz-2 gas deposit only in 2013, estimated to produce a mere eight billion cubic meters of gas annually. Experts are warning that Russia is already fighting for these cubic meters, and it is still unclear to whom Azerbaijan will sell its gas. Nabucco's main transit country, Turkey, insists on getting 15% of its gas at a discount. Ankara is very unhappy about Brussels' refusal to admit it to the European Union (EU), and is not likely to make any concessions. This Turkish demand makes Nabucco unprofitable before it has even been launched.

Few European experts have been too excited over the recent reports by the respectable British energy company, Gaffney, Cline & Associates (GCA), which reaffirmed that gas reserves in Turkmenistan are many times bigger than was previously believed: from the low estimate (proven deposits) of four trillion cubic meters to the high estimate (potential reserves) of 14 trillion tons. However, Turkmenistan does not have the potential to quickly enhance its gas production. It is barely coping with its gas commitments to Russia and other countries. Today, it is producing about 80 billion cubic meters of gas per year, and will have to double the production to at least 150 billion-155 billion cubic meters to fulfill its contractual commitments. European experts believe that Turkmenistan will not be able to increase its gas production to meet European needs for at least another 20 years. The same is true of Iraq and Iran. In the near future, there will be no alternative to Russia as a gas supplier.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20090111/119428414.html

[ZORAVAR]

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

Thank you for your insight.

BTW, I agree with with your description of the current French President.

[ZORAVAR]

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

Russian Navy Visits Tartus (Syria)...

A fleet of Russian navy vessels including the aircraft carrier ADMIRAL KUZNETSOV and destroyer ADMIRAL LEVSHENKO are currently visiting the port of Tartus in Syria.

Video: http://www.zvezdanews.ru/video/day_events/army/0025360/

...and South Africa

THe nuclear powered cruiser PYOTR VELIKY (Peter The Great) is the first Russian warship who calls at a port in that country.

Video: http://www.zvezdanews.ru/video/day_events/army/0025320/

[Armanen]

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

http://www.asbarez.com/index.html?showarticle=38557_1/13/2009_1

So what do you all make of the azeri allegations that Russia has supplied Armenia with over $800 million worth of armaments? Zoravar do you have any more info on this? I really hope it's true, whether they admit it or not.