The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

Russian Navy Visits Tartus (Syria)...

Last year Angessa (sweetangessa) informed us that her husband was serving with the Russian military unit based in Syria. I don't know his current status. Perhaps she can provide us with some information. Here is how RIA Novosti reported on the visit:

Russian warships to visit Syrian port

A naval task force from Russia's Northern Fleet will visit on Monday the Syrian port of Tartus, where the Russian Navy keeps a maintenance and resupply site, a Navy spokesman said. The task force, which includes the Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier, the Admiral Levchenko destroyer and the Nikolay Chiker salvage tug, is currently on a tour of duty in the Mediterranean. Capt. 1st Rank Igor Dygalo said the carrier group had carried out joint exercises with the Turkish Navy last week and would return to its duties in the Mediterranean Sea after visiting Tartus. The Soviet-era Navy maintenance site near Tartus is the only Russian foothold in the Mediterranean. Russian media reports have suggested the facility could be turned into a base for the country's Black Sea Fleet, which could lose its current main base in Sevastopol on the Crimean Peninsula in 2017. About 50 naval personnel and three floating piers are reportedly deployed at the Tartus site, which can accommodate up to a dozen warships, and Russia is expanding the port and building a pier in nearby El-Latakia. No official confirmation of the reports has been made.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20090112/119434778.html

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.

Needless to say, Armenia is Russia's only secure foothold in the Caucasus; I'm even proud to say its military outpost. Regardless of what officials and diplomats say, the news is most probably true. Several weeks ago Moscow announced that it's moving additional troops and military hardware to Armenia, perhaps even a new base. This may be a direct result of a recent report that suggested Armenia's military will be suffering from personnel shortages for the next several years. So, there is an urgency. I believe that Moscow may be attempting to enhance Armenia's military deterrence as a result. Moreover, needless to say, Russia will seek to further consolidate its presence in the Caucasus politically, economically and militarily now that the US, as well as NATO, has been effectively expelled from the region as a result of Georgia's defeat last August. There may even be some plans for the near future.

[ZORAVAR]

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

http://www.asbarez.com/index.html?sh...57_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.

All I can say is that when the Russians closed down their 2 bases in Georgia (Akhalkalaki and Batumi), most of the equipment was brought to their base in Gyumri. After that......

[Federate]

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

Here's what we allegedly got:

According to mass media reports, Russia sold the following ammo to Armenia: 21 units of T-22 tanks; 27 units of BMP-2; 12 units of APC 70/80; 5 BREM-2 war vehicles produced on basis of 5 BMP-1; four units of ZSU- 23-4 Shilka rockets; various Strela rockets; 875 boxes of F-1 and RQD grenades; 1,050 boxes of RKQ-3/3 EM grenades; 7,897 various packages of ammo (122 millimeters RS; 152 millimeters 2s3; 122 millimeters D-30); 120 units of QP-25 grenade launchers; 2, 846 units of 5.45-millimeter AK-74 and AKS-74 guns; 1,472 units of 7.62-millimeter AKM and AKMS guns; 103 units of NB-8 night vision equipment; various mines (TM 62 M/P; OZM-72; PMN); 14 units of BM-37 mine launchers; 9 Grads (RSZO 9K51 BM-21); 10 units of Akasia howitzers produced on the basis of the T-55 (SAU 152-millimeter 1S); 14 units of Gvozdika howitzers produced on the basis of the MT-LBU (SAU 122-millimeter 2 S1); 5 units of 100-millimeter Rapira cannons (MT-12r); and 210 units of 3 M9M3 Kub rockets.

Another thing, notice it also says "sold". Either they are claiming we have the potential to spend 800 million on arms or it's saying we got them for a cheap price.

[Armenian]

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

U.S. military denies plans to set up bases in Kazakhstan

The United States has no plans to deploy military bases in the former Soviet republic of Kazakhstan in Central Asia, a senior U.S. military official said on Wednesday. Gen. Nikolai Makarov, chief of the General Staff of Russia's Armed Forces expressed concern in December last year over what he said were U.S. plans to set up military bases in Kazakhstan or Uzbekistan. Commander of the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), Gen. David Petraeus, who met on Wednesday with Kazakh President Nursultan Nazarbayev in Astana, denied any knowledge of these plans, but said the Pentagon is holding talks with Kazakhstan on transits of military goods through the country to Afghanistan. Units from CENTCOM are deployed primarily in Iraq and Afghanistan in combat roles and have bases in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Pakistan, and Central Asia in support roles. Despite its close military ties with Russia, Kazakhstan is striving to become the first country in Central Asia to achieve NATO-interoperability. The ex-Soviet republic joined NATO's Partnership for Peace program in 1994 and agreed to the NATO's Individual Partnership Action Plan in January 2006.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20090114/119491977.html

[SweetAngessa]

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

Last year Angessa (sweetangessa) informed us that her husband was serving with the Russian military unit based in Syria. I don't know his current status. Perhaps she can provide us with some information. Here is how RIA Novosti reported on the visit:

He is not in the navy but airborne. They mostly deal with joint operations and training with Syrians. Also with deployment/security of Iskander systems in Syria. They also recently aided in humanitian and Russian citizens/Csto members from the war zone. But They are setting up a navy base and Iskander in response to U.S missiles defenses.

[Armenian]

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

Thank you for your insight...

And here is his insight.

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

The future of Europe and Russia are linked together - Putin

German ARD TV interviewing PM Putin: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qVW4eTo6pK8

There are some that do not want to see Russia and Europe working together and have tried to bring up past phobias, says Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin who spoke with the German ARD channel and also discussed Ukraine's role in the current gas crisis.

Interviewer - Hubert Seipel, ARD political analyst

Q: Those who have energy, have the power. Russia has a lot of energy, how much power does it have?

A: Power belongs to those who have brains, first and foremost. You can have whatever, but not have the means to manage it. But you are right, in today's world energy means a lot. And it is in our interest to see Russian energy as an integral part of world energy, so that it would abide by common rules, receive appropriate income, make profit and make sure its partners' interests are observed.

Q: It turned out that you and Russia got hit heavily because of the decision to turn off the Ukrainian gas tap.

A: I want to state right away - we are not interested in stopping deliveries to our consumers. Just think about it - why would we do it? We have long-term contracts with our European consumers. These European consumers make timely payments. Why do we commit suicide and stop the deliveries from getting there? Ukraine basically staged a gas blockade for Europe. Why? In order to get lower than market prices on our gas. After the fall of the Soviet Union, new transit countries were formed. They try to use their transitory monopoly to get preferences, to get low gas prices, first of all. Lower than the market prices. As for Gazprom, it only acquires losses from the cut in deliveries to its partners. During the days when Gazprom stopped deliveries through Ukraine, it lost about 800 million dollars. Gazprom had to stop the operation of over 100 wells while avoiding the danger of negative technological effects. The company's image has been damaged also, as you have rightly noticed. But we are doing all this not just for the benefit of the Russian side, but mostly in the interests of European consumers. I want the European consumers, the citizens of the European Union, to be aware of this and to understand it well, because the European consumers are first and foremost interested in the reliability of the supplier. And reliability can only be ensured if all the participants in this process - gas producers, transit countries, and consumers - act within the framework of civilised market policies, rules and mechanisms. Besides, gas is one of the key foundation tools for forming prices on other products on the European and world markets. And if a western neighbor, Ukrainian partners, for example, get gas at lower prices, whereas EU countries pay high prices, then their products on world markets - chemical, metallurgical and some other products – become unmarketable. And Ukrainian partners in this case get a huge advantage of a non-market nature.

Q: But the Ukrainian economy will not change in the visible future. So when is gas going to flow to Germany?

A: First of all, gas is flowing to Germany. There is more than one channel delivering gas to Germany, thank goodness. Secondly, there are gas storage facilities in Europe, including Germany, where Gazprom's gas is being kept. And this is not just about the Ukrainian economy - we are also talking about Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and all others. If there are no clear market signals for prices on primary energy sources, then these economies will never strive for energy saving. And it will be impossible to encourage saving using just administrative measures. As for Ukraine, unfortunately today's situation has not only collided with the desire to benefit from their transit status, but also with the internal political crisis. Many people, during the so-called Orange Revolution, thought they were going to have better lives. They were hoping to fight corruption, to switch to clear market relations, strengthen democracy. Many are disappointed today. Former leaders of the Orange Revolution did not fulfill their hopes, and abused their trust. And political competition has now turned into fights between clans. The goals of these clans is not strengthening democracy or building the market, but perusing personal ambitions, struggling to get access to financial flows, one of them being the trading of Russian gas inside Ukraine as well as on the European market. In order to move away from this, regardless of what happens inside Ukraine, we need to diversify the flows, transporting gas from the producer to the supplier in Europe. These transit counties should have no illusions, the girls should have no illusions - the groom has other choices, they have to understand it.

Q: But unfortunately, this doesn't change the fact that so far gas has to flow through Ukraine in order to get to Ukraine. So what's the solution?

A: There is a solution. Ukraine signed the energy charter. It wants to look like a civilized European state. So it should not close its transit to European countries, regardless of its burning desire to get gas at lower prices. Europe needs to give a clear signal, not to Russia - saying that we should give our gas for almost nothing, but to Ukraine, saying that it has to act in a civilized way. There is also another option. For example, what we do with Belarus. In order to stabilize everything, we need to switch to market relations, market prices and market transit. If there are not enough resources for today, for example, the economy is not ready, the economy is very energy-consuming, or other systems are not ready, give them credit. So we gave credit to Belarus - $US 2 billion. And we wrote in the contract with Belarus that we will switch to a European price formation in three years. And we raise the price each year, even though our Belarusian partners are not happy about it. Here we also have many arguments, but Belarus still pays. There is also a third choice - we offered this several years ago. Actually, Russia and Germany proposed it. And at that time it was practically accepted by the Ukrainian leadership. Ukraine, Russia and Germany signed a memorandum. The memorandum stated that we were organizing an international syndicate, involving other European partners - Italy, France, maybe other European countries. And this syndicate was to rent the gas transportation system of Ukraine. We can also participate in privatization, if Ukraine wants it. But they tend to make a fetish out of this gas transportation system, consider it some sort of national heritage of an almost heavenly origin. And it is not up for privatization. But if Ukraine finally decides to do it, we can participate in the privatization. But we suggested a long-term lease with Ukraine, still being the system owner. I think everyone would benefit from that. But we could privatize too, why not? Russia has been rebuked many times, and in some sense those were correct rebukes, it has been suggested that we should keep striving for liberalization of our energy market. But we can say the same about our Ukrainian friends

Q: Of course, when we talk about Russian gas, we have to mention Gazprom. Gazprom is a state industry, and in essence, Gazprom is a success story. In the 1990s, it was a very turbulent time in Russia, when many appropriated state property. But Gazprom remained state property. Can we say that you learned the lessons of the 90s, realizing that it is not bad when the state has its own resources?

A: The information you have is not quite correct. Gazprom is not a state industry. It is a joint stock company. And until recently the state only had 38% of Gazprom's shares. Now, using only market methods, we have increased the state's share to a little bit over 50%. But Gazprom functions as a joint stock company within the framework of a market economy and following all the market rules. And more than 49% belongs to private owners, many of whom are foreigners. But of course in such an important area as energy, the state's influence is very significant in the Russian economy. And there are several reasons for that. First of all, the one that I mentioned speaking about the Ukrainian, Belarusian, Kazakh or Russian economy. We are talking about the type of economy that is really energy consuming, inherited from the Soviet times, the time of managed economy. But it does not mean we are going to leave things the way they are now. Even inside Russia we are going to switch our consumers to the European gas price formation. And this of course is not some sort of economic masochism. We are doing this on purpose, understanding that only by using market methods can we encourage the economy to switch to new technologies, including energy saving. Only this way can we make it marketable. But that is not all either. Even though this process takes time and we are supposed to reach European prices by 2011, we already have as one of our objectives giving access to Gazprom's pipelines to our so-called independent gas producers.

Q: Since we've started to talk about infrastructure projects, we should mention such an important project as Nord Stream. The cost of the project is over $US seven billion. It will bring gas from Russia to Germany. So let me ask you this question: what are the reasons for favouring Germany in particular?

A: It is not about love, it is about mutual interests. A European gas system was first established between Russia and Germany, as there were plans to provide Soviet gas for the German economy. So from the very beginning Russia and Germany have been the "founding fathers" of this system. And now it is clear to both European consumers and us that when transit countries emerged, we began to experience additional threats. And the current crisis confirms this. And note this: today Germany helps some countries whose conditions are extremely critical in this crisis. Today the situation is different. Germany is one of the EU leaders. And the potential that Nord Stream brings strengthens Germany's leading role in the European Union. The Nord Stream project is not bi-lateral any more. It involves Russian, German and also Dutch companies. It's two German companies, one Russian and one Dutch company. The idea is that in the future gas from the Shtokman field will flow into this system as well. And we have Gazprom, French Total and Norwegian Statoil working at the Shtokman field. And not just Germany, but many other European countries will get the gas. So we have a full right to say that this is project is not between just two sides, but several European partners. But again it was started by Russia and Germany for obvious reasons. Germany is our major consumer. And the same reason for Germany. We sell about 149 billion cubic meters of gas to Europe annually, and over 40 billion goes to Germany.

Q: Is the reason why you invited two German representatives, Mr. Schroeder and Mr. Varnik, to be part of the executive team for this project?

A: No, not for this reason. They were invited to be part of this project not because of their German origin, but because of their personal qualities and experience in business. More than anyone else, they understand the importance of this project for Europe, for Germany, for Russia. They have all the professional experience to do the job that has been entrusted to them.

Q: Now, of course, the project is being developed, pipes are being made for it. 70% of the pipes are produced in Germany, 25% in Russia, but the project is not quite approved. Many European countries are against it. Some demand more gas deliveries, others apparently still have a bone to pick with the Soviet Union. What will happen if this project is not realized?

A: I think all the talk about past problems, about cut deliveries are meaningless. First of all, our partners pursue their pragmatic interests. Look at what transitory countries do if they realize they have the monopoly on transit. They demand their price be lower than the market price for the gas that they get from us. For some European countries additional transit opportunities may mean strengthening their status in the European Union. But I would like to emphasize again – we don't hurt anyone by this project, we don't take anything away from anyone. There are routes already set on the territories of transitory countries. We are not closing them. More than that, all the countries that sign long-term contracts with us on a market basis, receive gas in full volume. No refusals on the part of Russia. None - I want to stress that. We will work with the countries that have not given their permission yet. I hope that those European countries that are potential consumers of our gas in the future will also put their effort into it. Now, to answer your question what will happen if the project is not realized. Of course, there will be gas in Europe, there will be less of it, and it will be more expensive. Why? Because the same transitory countries will create problems by raising transit prices, trying to get cheaper gas for themselves, so it will be more expensive for the other consumers. And also we will have to transport our resources to markets in other regions of the world - the United States, the East. It means that we will focus more on other delivery methods - such as liquefied gas - and that is a very expensive process. First we need to build mooring facilities, build liquefying plants, then build a special oil-carrier fleet, then build mooring facilities in receiving countries. Then we need to build plants that will de-liquefy this liquid, turn it into gas again. All this will be included in the final product price, and hit the wallets of the rank-and-file consumers.

[...]

Source: http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/35922

[Armenian]

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

Gas Dispute Runs Deeper Than Pipes, Experts Say

Ukraine on the brink of bankruptcy?: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGzNSRs2BqE

Ukraine refuses to transport Russian gas to EU: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5ec96K9Jxk

Taking sides with pipelines: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nTOpHqqA_S8

The feud between Russia and Ukraine over natural gas prices and transit fees has left large swaths of Europe without heat. Yet, what is baffling is that the dispute has always seemed overly technical and easily resolved, if there was the slightest desire on either side. After all, both countries stand to profit from selling fuel to Europe. The latest agreement collapsed Tuesday, in a familiar cacophony of complaints and countercomplaints, and again over a seemingly trivial issue. With European Union monitors along the pipeline to make sure that Ukraine did not divert any gas for its own use, Russia agreed to resume shipments to Europe.

But rather than repressuring the Ukrainian pipeline system for exports, Russia’s gas monopoly, Gazprom, ordered a single test shipment to see if it would pass through Ukraine to Europe, through a pipeline that was being used to supply the Ukrainian city of Odessa. Ukrainian authorities refused, saying they did not want to cut supplies to their own people, and Russia again halted shipments — not, some experts believed, reluctantly. Political experts say that neither side is motivated to settle the dispute, because it has never been about the stated issues. Instead, it has been a proxy for far more fundamental and insoluble matters, particularly Ukraine’s 2004 turn to the West in the “Orange Revolution,” which deeply shook Russia’s nationalists.

“The Russian side is appealing to a lot of technical details to explain why it still wants the conflict to go on,” Vladimir S. Milov, president of the Institute of Energy Policy in Moscow and a former deputy energy minister of Russia, said in a telephone interview. “It’s very clear to see the desire to pressure the Ukrainian politicians, and pressure them that if they continue to pursue a pro-Western course and not adhere to the rules imposed by Moscow on the post-Soviet space, they will face difficulties,” he said. Nationalists in Moscow could swallow the loss of the Baltic states and Russia’s former colonies in Central Asia, but they will never accept the notion of Ukrainians, nearly half of whom are ethnic Russians, as members of an independent, Western-oriented state, and potentially in NATO, no less.

Some other analysts point to the aftermath of last summer’s Georgian conflict as another sticking point, noting that after the war Russia’s president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, had claimed a “privileged sphere of influence” over former Soviet states. “This is a continuation of the Russian-Georgian war, only by other means,” Grigory N. Perepelitsa, director of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, an arm of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, said in a telephone interview. “There it was tanks, here it is gas.” This time, though, Europe is suffering as well, with hundreds of thousands of people in southeastern Europe living without heat for six days and factories shutting down in several countries.

Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen, a spokeswoman for the European Commission, said: “Little or no gas is currently flowing. We are not at this stage jumping to conclusions. But this situation is obviously very serious and needs to improve rapidly. We do need to get to the bottom of this.” But getting to the bottom of Russia’s goals, said Mr. Perepelitsa of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry, goes well beyond the industrial details of gas transit. Authorities in Moscow are seeking to discredit the Ukrainian leadership and portray Ukraine as a failed state, he said, while demonstrating to Central European nations that have supported Ukraine’s membership in NATO that they can freeze if they continue to do so. Also in play is a deep personal animosity between Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir V. Putin, and Ukraine’s president, Viktor A. Yushchenko.

Mr. Yushchenko’s face was disfigured in a 2004 poisoning that has never been solved, but for which many in Ukraine reflexively blame Russia. As it did in the disputed enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia before the Georgian war, Moscow has striven to divide Ukraine politically, broadcasting Russian-language television into the country, handing out citizenship to ethnic Russians in Crimea and, critics say, backing pro-Russian figures in Ukraine’s political establishment. Russian officials, meanwhile, say Mr. Yushchenko has stirred up conflict with Russia to detract attention from his dismal performance on the economy during the financial crisis. On Tuesday, Aleksandr I. Medvedev, Gazprom’s deputy chief executive, raised a new allegation, saying that Ukraine had been taking orders from Washington after the United States and Ukraine signed a partnership agreement in December that included a clause on energy cooperation.

Mr. Medvedev did not explain why the United States would seek to disrupt relations, not to speak of the gas supply. In a statement, the United States Embassy in Moscow said that the allegation was “baseless.” But the ties between Russia and Ukraine, the two most populous successor states of the Soviet Union, are a tangle of alliances and vendettas, mercurial and often inscrutable. Mr. Putin, for example, openly backed Viktor F. Yanukovich, whom Mr. Yushchenko defeated in the 2004 elections after the Orange Revolution protests. Yet, one of the leaders of those protests, Yulia V. Tymoshenko, has recently seemed to be leaning toward Moscow, refraining for a time from criticizing Russia’s war in Georgia.

Indeed, so frustrated were some European Union officials by the latest bad turn in the gas dispute, some began to speculate privately that the two nations might be colluding to seed chaos on energy markets and drive up the price of the fuel that is their mutual business venture. Bloomberg News reported Tuesday that the cutoff had caused spot prices in Europe to rise to a three-year high of $8.60 per million B.T.U.’s, compared with $5.52 in the United States. With prices expected to fall steeply this year, that could produce at least some welcome pocket change for Gazprom.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/wo...azprom.html?hp

Gas Crisis in Europe Continues

The natural gas crisis in Europe continued Wednesday as the standoff between Russia and Ukraine left millions of homes without heating fuel for another day. The Russian gas monopoly Gazprom said in a news release that Naftogaz, its Ukrainian counterpart, had refused Wednesday for a second day to accept natural gas from Russia for transit to Europe, despite the presence of European monitors whose work was meant to have ensured exports were flowing. “The systematic lame excuses of Naftogaz Ukrainy confirm that Ukraine is incapable of compensating for the Russian gas it unlawfully siphoned off and to resume the transit,” the Gazprom statement said. “On the Russian side, taps have been opened at GIS Sudzha towards Ukrainian gas transportation system, the pressure is operational and Gazprom is ready to supply gas to European consumers any minute.”

As was the case Tuesday, Gazprom was apparently providing gas through only the Sudzha station, supplying a pipeline that the Ukrainians are using to serve their Black Sea city of Odessa. In Brussels, Pia Ahrenkilde Hansen, a spokeswoman for the European Commission, the executive arm of the European Union, confirmed that no gas was flowing through the pipelines to Europe and said the European Union had once again demanded the full restoration of service. In Kiev, the Ukrainian prime minister, Yulia V. Tymoshenko, was quoted by the Ukrainian national news agency as saying Russian gas to Europe had not been restored because of Russian actions. “Ukraine has already informed Eurogas and other institutions of the European Union that actions taken by Russia prevent gas deliveries,” the report said.

The collapse Tuesday of a monitoring agreement between the European Union, Ukraine and Russia dashed hopes that supplies via the Ukraine transit network could be restored without a resolution of the pricing dispute that lies behind the mess. The monitoring agreement, which put inspectors on site at key points along the Russian export network, fell apart when Russia delivered a small fraction of the expected supply, and both Russian and Ukrainian officials claimed the other side had shown bad faith.

In Strasbourg, France, José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission, told members of the European Parliament on Wednesday that officials were considering legal action against the Russian and Ukrainian companies involved in the cutoff. “If the agreement sponsored by the E.U. is not honored, the commission will advise E.U. companies to take this matter to the courts,” Mr. Barroso told the Parliament. On Wednesday, Gazprom’s deputy chief executive, Aleksandr I. Medvedev, said the company had informed European customers that it had declared force majeure on its European gas exports through Ukraine. Force majeure is a contractual clause covering extraordinary circumstances under which a company seeks to avoid penalty for failing to meet its obligations. The Ukrainian energy company Naftogaz could not immediately be reached for comment.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/15/wo...=worldbusiness

[Armenian]

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

He is not in the navy but airborne. They mostly deal with joint operations and training with Syrians. Also with deployment/security of Iskander systems in Syria. They also recently aided in humanitian and Russian citizens/Csto members from the war zone. But They are setting up a navy base and Iskander in response to U.S missiles defenses.

Thank you for the reply, Angessa. There is very little news regarding the deployment of Russian military units and Iskander missiles in Syria. Will the Iskander missile units there be under Russian or Syrian command? Please be careful with your answer, this thread gets hundreds of viewers every day. Do not give us any information that may be militarily sensitive or classified. I wish your husband well.

[Federate]

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

Hahaha! Go Azerbaboons go, slam Russia all you want and make her angry. This works more and more to our benefit.
----------------------------------------------------------
Azerbaijan Slams Russia Over ‘Armenia Arms Supplies’

AFP

Azerbaijan on Thursday made a "strong protest" to Russia over weapons transfers it said Moscow had made to Armenia in violation of United Nations resolutions.

"The Azerbaijani foreign ministry voices strong protest in connection with the transfer of arms to Armenia and calls on Russia to take all necessary steps to avert the consequences," the ministry said in a statement.

On Wednesday Russia's defense ministry denied Azerbaijani media reports that Moscow had supplied Yerevan with $800 million worth of tanks, armored personnel carriers, rockets, grenade launchers and ammunition via a Russian army base in Armenia, Interfax news agency reported.

"There have been no supplies of Russian weapons to Armenia. The reports alleging this are untrue," Russian defense ministry spokesman Alexander Drobyshevsky said.

Azerbaijan said the alleged weapons transfers violated UN resolutions aimed at preventing a renewal of the conflict over Nagorny Karabakh, where Armenia-backed separatists wrested control from Azerbaijan's authorities in a war after the 1991 Soviet collapse.

"The transfer of weapons serves to strengthen the military potential of Armenia, which has occupied a part of Azerbaijani territory," the Azerbaijani ministry said.

http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeniareport/report/en/2009/01/22FAAA39-95BA-4165-B0FB-28F16C606C3B.ASP

[Azad]

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

Please be careful with your answer, this thread gets hundreds of viewers every day. Do not give us any information that may be militarily sensitive or classified. I wish your husband well.

I second that. Please be careful.