Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations
MOSCOW — Russia should stop seeing the West as a threat, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Thursday, as he called for a new partnership between Moscow and the transatlantic alliance.
Relations between Russia and NATO plunged to a post-Cold War low after Russia's August 2008 war with Georgia, but Rasmussen has made improving ties a priority since coming to office in August.
"Let me make a very clear statement as secretary general of NATO. NATO will never attack Russia. Never," Rasmussen said in a speech to students at the country's top diplomatic university.
"And we don't think Russia will attack us either. We have stopped worrying about this and Russia should stop worrying about this as well," he told the students.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created at the start of the Cold War under the principle of collective defence, whereby members would jointly respond to any attack by an aggressor, at that time feared to be the Soviet Union.
If trust can be built between Moscow and NATO "then Russia can stop worrying about a menace from the West that simply doesn't exist," Rasmussen added.
"She can put her resources into defending against the real threats this country faces -- like terrorism, extremism, proliferation of missiles and weapons of mass destruction or drug trafficking."
His comments won warm applause from the audience. Nikita Mulkovsky, 17, a diplomacy student, told AFP: "I don't believe NATO is a threat to Russia. I think we need to work together."
Rasmussen, who met President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Wednesday, said that "the blueprints are already in place for a true security partnership between NATO and Russia."
He said a trusting relationship between Russia and the transatlantic alliance "has enormous potential to make Russia safer, to make the NATO allies safer and to make a real contribution to global security as well."
Rasmussen said that by 2020 Russia and NATO would be able to link their missile systems to create a "genuine missile shield in the Euro-Atlantic area".
He strongly defended the eastward expansion of NATO which he acknowledged was "clearly something which many in Russia see as a deliberate strategy to encircle this country."
Russia has bristled at the moves by ex-Soviet states like Georgia and Ukraine to join NATO and was also deeply uncomfortable with the now-shelved US plan to place missile defence facilities in Central Europe.
The day earlier, Rasmussen had asked Russia to step up its cooperation on Afghanistan, requesting Moscow to send more helicopters for the Afghan government.
"I believe that Afghanistan must be a centrepiece of our partnership in 2010," he said in the speech.
"Could Russia take a leadership role when it comes to helicopters for the Afghan forces, from providing the helicopters themselves, to training the pilots, to supplying spare parts, to providing fuel?
"That is a package of support that would give the Afghans a concrete capability they need."
Rasmussen said Wednesday he had presented the Russian leaders with a list of "concrete proposals" on helping NATO as it ramps up efforts to put down the Taliban insurgency.
-
Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations
Eastern Europe's Third Wheel
NATO and Russia are getting closer -- and leaving Ukraine out.
BY SIMON SHUSTER | DECEMBER 14, 2009
Ukraine has sought membership in North Atlantic Treaty Organization for more than a decade, turning its back on Moscow to seek closer security ties with the West. But after years of being rebuffed, Ukraine now looks like the unwanted third wheel in the Moscow-NATO relationship. Two weeks ago, NATO told Ukraine that its difficult road to membership was going to get even tougher next year. A day later, at a summit in Brussels, Russia agreed to do more for NATO in Afghanistan.
Left out in the cold, Ukraine might have to turn to Moscow rather than Brussels for military protection, becoming part of the Russia-dominated Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) rather than NATO. Indeed, Ukraine's presidential elections next month might well put a decisive end to the country's NATO hopes if a more Russian-oriented leader wins, as now seems likely. It is an amazing shift. Less than two years ago, Russia was threatening to point missiles at Ukraine if it went ahead with NATO membership. But now, the U.S.-led alliance has prioritized ties with the Kremlin, while stringing Ukraine along with promises it might never fulfill. The ultimate result might be an increasingly Russia-dominated Eastern Europe, with the CSTO resembling a modern version of the Soviet-era Warsaw Pact.
"In 1996, when we agreed to give up all our nukes, [NATO] agreed to guarantee our security. But they haven't done that," explains retired Major Gen. Vadim Grechaninov, president of the Atlantic Council of Ukraine, which advises the government on NATO relations. (Before it disarmed, Ukraine had the world's third-largest nuclear arsenal behind Russia and the United States.) "The demands are increasing, but membership isn't getting any closer."
Staying neutral and detached is not really an option for Ukraine. Aside from the permanent defense dilemma of being stuck between two superpowers, Ukraine's economy is in shambles and its military is desperately poor. "Our servicemen now can't actually serve," says Grechaninov, who has been a leading voice in support of NATO membership since the 1990s. "They do a year on guard duty somewhere and then get discharged, because the government has no money to train them for anything else."
Hopes of being taken under NATO's wing have fallen flat, he says, and the meeting in Brussels gave no signs of encouragement. According to a draft of the document discussed at the meeting, NATO will ask Ukraine to carry out ever-tougher reforms in 2010 on the way to membership, even though in 2009, Ukraine was unable to meet some of the most basic targets. "Most high-cost combat training has been canceled or rescheduled for next year," says the document, obtained last month by Foreign Policy. This includes essential military exercises, such as practice jumps for paratroopers.
"We just don't have the internal resources to carry out the reforms [for joining NATO]," says Grigory Perepelitsa, the head of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry's Institute of Foreign Policy. "Instead we are getting stuck in what was called the Warsaw Pact before, and has now just changed its name to the Tashkent pact," he said, using the unofficial name for the CSTO.
Founded in 2002 in the Uzbek capital, Tashkent, the CSTO is Russia's attempt to guard military influence in the former Soviet space, which it still sees as its geopolitical birthright. So far the CSTO includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan -- a motley crew, and not much of a threat to NATO's 28 members, including most of the major military powers in the world. But that hasn't stopped the CSTO from barking, even if it can't yet bite. At its annual summit in Moscow last year, it said it would not stand for NATO's eastward expansion -- a clear reference to Ukraine. "Serious conflict potential is developing close to the CSTO's zone of responsibility," it said in a formal declaration. "The members of the CSTO call on NATO countries to weigh all possible consequences of the alliance's expansion to the east."
Now, the CSTO's expansion to the west seems far more likely, and at the same time, Russia's relations with NATO are flourishing. Coincidence? Probably not. At NATO's Bucharest summit in April of last year, Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to let NATO ship supplies to troops in Afghanistan across Russian territory. It was a pathway the United States desperately needed, as the southern supply corridor through Pakistan was coming under heavy attack. It was also widely seen as a thank-you gift. The day before, NATO had refused to put Ukraine and Georgia on the accelerated Membership Action Plan (MAP), which would have greatly eased their accessions. This allowed Russia to breathe easy about the alliance's eastward growth.
"At the Bucharest summit, even if Ukraine had had Britain's democracy, Germany's economy, and America's army, they would still not let us in, because for [Russia] it was too early," says Anatoliy Grytsenko, head of the Ukrainian parliament's defense committee and a former defense minister. "Russia's voice today is not exactly a veto on NATO decisions, but it is a deciding factor for some of the key members of the alliance."
Officially, of course, Ukraine is still on the path to membership, as NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen pointed out on Friday when he opened the NATO-Ukraine meeting in Brussels. But what he chose to emphasize was the difficulty of the road ahead. "Much work is needed of course for Ukraine to reach the ambitious goals it strives to attain. Allies do expect very high standards from Ukraine in all domains of public life," Rasmussen said. He has consistently declined to comment when asked for any deadline on Ukrainian accession.
Robert Pszczel, a NATO spokesman in Brussels, insists Russia cannot stand in the way of Ukraine's NATO ambitions. "We have a NATO-Russia Council and we have a NATO-Ukraine commission. One thing certainly does not impede the other," Pszczel says. But, he adds: "There is a huge amount of homework that still needs to be done primarily by Ukraine."
The standards to the east are not nearly so high; in fact, if Ukraine decided it wanted to join the CSTO tomorrow, the deal might be done within a month. Vitaly Strugovets, chief spokesman for the CSTO at its Moscow headquarters, says rather than making demands, his organization would help pay for Ukraine to develop its cash-strapped military, all while building on the Soviet hardware it already shares with Russia. "With us, Ukraine would not have to carry out the kind of overhaul of its entire defense and security system that NATO demands," he says, noting that NATO wants Ukraine to uproot the Soviet groundwork of its military, from Kalashnikovs on up, and replace it with a Western model. "If you look at it from an overall security standpoint, Ukraine is fundamentally a lot closer to the CSTO's way of doing things. I'm talking about everything from military hardware to the basic mentality of the officer corps."
Ukrainian voters going into the presidential elections next month seem to agree. A survey released on Nov. 26 by polling firm Ukrainian Project Systems showed that only 12 percent of Ukrainians support NATO accession, 36 percent support staying out of military alliances altogether, while the largest proportion -- 40 percent -- said they support joining the CSTO.
In June, the Ukrainian parliament created a committee to look into cooperation with the Russian-led bloc. The committee paid a visit to Moscow in September to meet with the head of the alliance, Nikolai Bordyuzha, who showcased the free military training and cheap weapons Ukraine could get as a CSTO member. Ukraine's starved security forces are in urgent need of both.
And next month, Ukraine's presidential elections are set to push NATO entry off the government's agenda, possibly for good. The most powerful force for joining the alliance has so far been Ukraine's president, Viktor Yushchenko. But he will need a political miracle to be re-elected. His approval ratings are in the single digits, and neither of the frontrunners in the presidential race are fans of NATO membership.
Yulia Tymoshenko, the current prime minister, supported joining the EU and NATO during the U.S.-backed Orange Revolution, which swept her and Yushchenko to power on the back of huge street protests in 2004. But the two have since become enemies, and Tymoshenko's presidential campaign has turned its focus toward fixing ties with Russia. To this end, she has built up a strong rapport with Putin in the past year, especially thanks to the natural gas crises that have afflicted their relations and cut off gas supplies to Europe in January. The two prime ministers always seem to resolve or forestall these gas disputes after Tymoshenko comes to meet Putin in Russia, most recently in Yalta on Nov. 19.
Ironically, the frontrunner in the race is the same politician whom Putin openly supported during the rigged election of 2004, Viktor Yanukovich, the man who was shouted down by Yushchenko and Tymoshenko's Orange Revolution. Now he has a firm lead in the polls, and although he has not come out in favor of CSTO membership, he gave a strong hint of his preference in televised comments last month. "We are surrounded by strong governments," he said. "Naturally, this means above all Russia, as well as other Eurasian countries, for whom Ukraine is desirable as a stable country, a reliable link in a system of collective security."
Leave a comment:
-
Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations
Great to see Armenians words back on this forum. And I've got to say I agree with him.
and want to add that the 'games' being played in the Caucasus are going like we want them to go. Let's wait and see what changes will come.Leave a comment:
-
Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations
The one thing that can be said of one Russia's most controversial and very eccentric politician, Vladimir Zhirinovsky, is that his unabashedly pro-Armenian stance has been consistent throughout the years. The Vice Chairman of the Russian State Duma has again called for the official recognition of Nagorno Karabagh. Just imagine the - orgasmic euphoria - diasporan Armenians would have experienced had a high ranking official in Washington made such a comment about Artsakh... Since this pro-Armenian rhetoric is coming out of Moscow, it will go almost unnoticed. The second article below is essentially a Western propaganda piece, but interesting nonetheless. This article is also more-or-less an admission that the West, as well as Turkey, has lost its influence in the Caucasus, as Moscow's influence continues to increase. Although a bit late, I'm glad that the global community is now beginning to realize that Moscow, to the detriment of Brussels, Washington and Ankara, is definitely calling the shots in the Caucasus.
Armenian
Russia Must Recognize Karabakh’s Independence, Says Russian Duma Leader- Vladimir Zhirinovsky
If Nagorno-Karabakh declares independence, then Russia must recognize that,” a leading member of the Russian Parliament said on Friday, speaking at the European and Asian Media Forum in Moscow. Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the Vice-Chair of the State Duma and Leader of Liberal Democratic Party of Russia Vladimir Zhirinovsky, said he saw Russia’s recognition of Karabakh as the only way out of the current quagmire in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. “Otherwise, Azerbaijan and Armenia will never agree on whom Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to. I have neither an Armenian- nor an Azerbaijani-leaning position,” said the Russian politician. According to Zhirinovsky, Russia needs peace and stability in the South Caucasus. “If that is secured, then let Armenia make ties with whoever it so chooses, whether that be Turkey, Iran, Georgia, or Azerbaijan,” he said. “But if there’s aggression, then we will stand by the victim countries and completely wipe out the aggressor.” Asked by a journalist what is Russia’s role in Armenia’s rapprochement with Turkey, Zhirinovsky said: “We wouldn’t want Turkey, in that rapprochement, to make use of the entire South Caucasus in order to increase its influence."
Source: http://www.asbarez.com/2009/12/11/ru...n-duma-leader/
Russia and US "big winners" in Turkey-Armenia patch-up
The EU will "only reinforce Russian leverage over Europe" if it supports the renewed diplomatic efforts between Turkey and Armenia, say rights organisations. "Many people in Armenia are very, very sceptical about this", says Laurent Leylekian of the European Armenia Federation, of the recent moves which will see turkey and Armenia restart diplomatic relations on October 10. However, fears are that both countries will be forced to accept the current border, which is the old Soviet frontier and "no way" the border recognised by international treaties. "Because of Russian pressure, Erdogan (Turkish PM) is being forced to accept this", says Leylekian. This, in turn, will force Armenia to "accept the Turkish policy of genocide" that has been the source of long-standing bitterness between the two states.
Armenia claims 1.5 million of its people were killed by Turkish forces in 1915, a claim denied by Turkey. According to an EU resolution concluded last year, genocide denial is illegal under law; a fact that makes the EU's current handling of Turkey difficult to swallow for many Armenians. As for the present situation, the EU should "not welcome Turkish games" in the region. "Russia is already a big stakeholder in Armenia, and Armenia has up to now has had to endure economic and political pressure from Russian power. So has Georgia and Azerbaijan. These small countries remain independent in the region, but the Question is for how long". "If Armenia falls under Russian and Turkish pressure, then Georgia will be downgraded, and even more isolated".
Turkey still has to rely on about 60% of its energy imports from Russia, which is the root of the problem says Leylekian. "This whole situation questions the energy independence of Europe. "The EU now has to endure the control of pipelines to outside forces. If the EU supports [Turkey opening diplomatic relations with Armenia] Turkey will be allowed by Russia to play games in the region, and the EU will only reinforce Russian leverage over Europe". The US also has a strategic eye on the region maintains Leylekian, with active efforts to portray the area "the only stable region" in that part of the world, following the wars in Iraq and the current tensions with Iran. "The big winners in all this are the US, Russia and, to some extent, Turkey. Small countries used to have a choice of influences between Turkey and Russia. Now the choice will be between Russia and Russia".
Source: http://www.eureporter.co.uk/story/ru...rs%E2%80%9D-tuLeave a comment:
-
Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations
Dashnak Leader Blasts Russia
A leader of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) accused Russia on Tuesday of acting against the national interests of Armenia, Moscow’s closest regional ally, in its growing dealings with Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Vahan Hovannisian, a key member of nationalist opposition party’s ruling Bureau, also chided former President Robert Kocharian, a longtime Dashnaktsutyun ally, for his scornful reaction to the latest verbal attacks from opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosian.
“I consider Russia’s current role in both Armenian-Turkish and Armenian-Azerbaijani relations to be very dangerous for Armenia,” Hovannisian declared at a news conference.
The remark was extraordinary given Dashnaktsutyun’s long-standing support for Armenia’s close political, security and economic ties with Russia as the main instrument of countering Turkish influence in the region. The influential party adopted what many regard as a pro-Russian foreign policy orientation years before the Soviet collapse, when it was still banned in Armenia and had branches only its worldwide Diaspora.
Hovannisian, who also leads Dashnaktsutyun’s faction in the Armenian parliament, did not elaborate on his highly negative assessment of Moscow’s current policies on the region. But he did attack the foreign powers, among them Russia, trying to broker a solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh. He said they are seeking to clinch additional concessions from Armenia in an effort to facilitate the ratification by the Turkish parliament of the recently signed Turkish-Armenian agreements.
Dashnaktsutyun has condemned the agreements envisaging the normalization of relations between the two historical foes as a sellout. Russia and the West, by contrast, have welcomed them as a ground-breaking development. The Russian support came against the background of Moscow’s deepening cooperation with Ankara focusing on energy.
Hovannisian’s comments coincided with talks held by Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev with his visiting Azerbaijani counterpart, Ilham Aliyev, in the Russian city of Ulyanovsk. The two leaders also inaugurated a statue of Aliyev’s late father and predecessor Heydar there.
According to the RIA-Novosti news agency, Medvedev touted that as an example of “how to build relations in the post-Soviet space.” “We can calmly and fruitfully discuss political, economic and regional problems,” he said, opening the talks.
“If everyone in the world had relations like Azerbaijan and Russia have, there would be no problems in the world,” Aliyev said for his part. He described those relations as “strategic partnership.”
Neither president made any public statements after the meeting held just two days after Aliyev and Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian held face-to-face talks on Karabakh in Munich. The talks were overshadowed by Aliyev’s fresh threats to place Karabakh back under Azerbaijani rule “by military means.” Yerevan responded to that by threatening to formally recognize Karabakh as an independent state.
Hovannisian said Sarkisian should have gone farther. “The only right step would have been not going to Munich at all because negotiating under the pressure of a ultimatum is not the right thing,” he said. “If Azerbaijan attacks Artsakh, then I think the top objective must be not [Karabakh’s] recognition but a complete destruction of the Azerbaijani aggressor on the battlefield,” he added.
Turning to domestic politics, Hovannisian agreed with other Dashnaktsutyun leaders’ belief that Ter-Petrosian offered to cut a deal with Sarkisian in his last speech delivered before senior members of his Armenian National Congress (HAK) alliance.
In that speech, Ter-Petrosian gave a mostly positive assessment of the Turkish-Armenian agreements and defended the president against harsh criticism from Dashnaktsutyun and other “extreme nationalists.” The HAK leader also denounced Kocharian’s policies on Turkey and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict that were strongly backed by Dashnaktsutyun throughout his decade-long presidency.
“The accusations addressed to me are so absurd that there is no point in dwelling on their content because of the complete absence thereof,” Kocharian shot back in a rare statement issued last week. He compared Ter-Petrosian to a scared man whom he said he met during a recent, hitherto unpublicized, safari to Africa. Kocharian said the “European” hunter had been “quite smashed” by a bear several years ago and now flinches at every mention of the animal.
Hovannisian found Kocharian’s riposte “inadequate.” “We expected a more serious political response,” said the Dashnaktsutyun leader. “Mr. Kocharian probably wanted to stress his detachment from politics. But when you don’t deal with politics, it comes and deals with you.”
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Dashnaks Explain Criticism Of Russia
A senior lawmaker affiliated with the Armenian Revolutionary Federation (Dashnaktsutyun) on Wednesday elaborated on his party’s unexpectedly strong criticism of Russia’s growing ties with Azerbaijan and Turkey.
Vahan Hovannisian, a leader of the traditionally pro-Russian party, said on Wednesday that Moscow’s policies related to the South Caucasus are becoming “very dangerous” for Armenia, its main regional ally. He did not go into details.
Hrayr Karapetian, another Dashnaktsutyun leader who heads the Armenian parliament’s committee on defense and security, spoke with alarm about Russia’s deepening military cooperation with Armenia’s two main foes which he said runs counter to a military alliance binding the two nations.
“We also have problems with Russia and other allies. Everything is not going smoothly there. There are facts showing that military cooperation between Russia and Azerbaijan which the spirit and letter Collective Security Treaty,” Karapetian told a news conference, referring to a Russian-led defense pact of six former Soviet republics, including Armenia.
Karapetian was particularly worried about a plan of joint military activities for next year that was recently signed by the defense ministers of Azerbaijan and Russia. He said, “This makes us wonder, ‘What is the difference between us and Azerbaijan?’ We are a member of the Collective Security Treaty Organization, Azerbaijan is not. Is it worth deepening military cooperation with a country whose representatives periodically make bellicose statements?”
“That [Russian policy] is at least strange and unacceptable to us,” he said. “It contributes to the development of an even more dangerous situation [in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.]”
Karapetian went on to deplore Russian-Turkish military cooperation. Moscow is seeking to forge closer defense links with “a country that still threatens Armenia’s security,” he said.
Official Yerevan has not publicly echoed the concerns voiced by Dashnaktsutyun, which was a junior partner in Armenia’s governing coalition until April. President Serzh Sarkisian and other Armenian leader regularly praise the current state of the Russian-Armenian relationship.
Leave a comment:
-
Leave a comment:
-
Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations
Moscow's decisive military victory over Tbilisi in the summer of 2008 now seems to have been only a prelude. The military victory over Georgian, Turkish and Western interests in the Caucasus prepared the field for a diplomatic coup de grace. With one brilliant move Moscow has now finally brought down the house. Twenty years of close cooperation between Europe, America, Israel, Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan in the Caucasus has begun to crumble as a result of the Moscow sponsored protocol signing that took place between Armenia and Turkey two weeks ago in Switzerland. Ankara is now finding itself at odds with Baku. NATO is realizing that it may be gradually losing Turkey. Turkey is realizing that it is dependent on Russia. Baku is feeling forced to move closer to Moscow. Georgia is now effectively isolated and abandoned. Our Armenia, until recently bypassed and isolated, has suddenly become one of the most pivotal nations in the region and a strategic platform from which Moscow is projecting its power - military, economic and political - south into Turkey and beyond. If there still are Armenians today that can't see a historic opportunity for our fledgling republic in the Caucasus - they must be either deaf, dumb or blind...
Armenian
Turkish-Azerbaijani “Cold War:” Moscow Benefits from Washington’s Indecisiveness
Recent weeks have seen unprecedented and potentially far reaching damage to the Turkish-Azerbaijani strategic partnership. Ever since Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) announced its intension to normalize relations with Azerbaijan’s arch-rival Armenia, the relationship between Ankara and Baku has cooled. The Azerbaijani leadership sent a strong message to Ankara in April, when President Ilham Aliyev refused to accept Turkish President Abdulah Gul’s invitation to attend the U.N. conference “Alliance of civilizations,” held in Istanbul.
Yet, it was after the signing of the protocols on the establishment of diplomatic relations between Turkey and Armenia that Baku’s outrage spiraled. Both the Azerbaijani public and its political leadership openly condemned this one-sided Turkish policy. Indeed, the Azeri foreign ministry immediately issued a press release in which it said that the signing of the protocols “directly contradicts the national interests of Azerbaijan and overshadows the spirit of brotherly relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey built on deep historical roots” (www.mfa.gov.az, October 12).
That apparent cooling of the bilateral relationship, moved toward a cold war when Azerbaijani flags were banned during the Turkish-Armenian soccer match in Bursa on October 14 and Azerbaijani media outlets broadcast images of the Azerbaijani flag being torn apart and thrown into trash bins by Turkish police officers. In addition, the Azeri public was outraged by reports that the Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan, whom Azerbaijanis view as one of the main organizers of the Khojali massacre in 1992, was warmly embraced by President Gul and his wife during the soccer match. Gul’s wife, reportedly, even cooked for Sargsyan and Gul offered his bedroom to his Armenian counterpart.
Such news has caused deep anti-Turkish sentiments to flourish in Baku. Traditionally an ally, brother and last resort of hope, Turkey is no longer trusted in the Azerbaijani capital. In an effort to gain an additional friendly neighbor, Ankara seems to have overstretched and nearly ruined its strategic relations with Azerbaijan.
The reaction in Baku was swift. Turkish flags, hanging in the memorial for martyred Turkish soldiers, were lowered. Youth groups and opposition parties lashed out at the Turkish leadership for the humiliation and disrespect shown to the Azerbaijani flag in Bursa. And parliament held heated debates about the “flag incident,” during which Vice-Speaker Ziyafat Asgarov said, “I take the disrespect shown against the Azerbaijani flag as a personal insult” (AZTV, October 16).
Moreover, on October 16 Aliyev announced during his cabinet meeting that Azerbaijan would consider alternative options to export its gas, since Turkish-Azerbaijani talks on gas transit have not produced concrete results (www.day.az, October 16). He accused Turkey of stalling these negotiations by offering unacceptably low prices for Azerbaijani gas and did not hesitate to mention that until now, Azerbaijan has been selling natural gas to Turkey at 30 percent of its value on international markets. Aliyev also mentioned Russia, Iran and the Black sea as alternatives routes for Azeri gas and coincidently, in the same week, Gazprom and Azerbaijan’s State Oil Company SOCAR signed an agreement in Baku for the export of 500 million cubic meters of Azeri gas to Russia at the price Aliyev described as “mutually beneficial” (Trend News Agency, October 16).
It is clear that the recent developments in the South Caucasus and the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement have seriously damaged the Turkish-Azerbaijani strategic partnership. This partnership has been the backbone of East-West energy and its future transportation corridors, security, political and geostrategic balance in the region as well as the overall Turkish (or Western) entrance into the Caspian region. Without this strategic partnership, the Turkish, E.U. and U.S. axis of influence in the South Caucasus and further into the Central Asian region is at risk. This geopolitical miscalculation on the part of Turkish, E.U. and U.S. officials, all of whom have actively pushed for a one-sided normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations without the consideration of Azerbaijan’s interests and the resolution of the Karabakh conflict will see a boomerang effect.
Russia may utilize this excellent opportunity to further advance its political agenda in the region: the isolation of Georgia by cutting it off from new transit routes; shelving the E.U. and U.S.-backed Nabucco gas pipeline project by destroying the Azerbaijani-Turkish strategic partnership and thus forcing Azerbaijan to sell its gas to Russia; drawing Turkey into its own orbit of influence undermining the E.U.-U.S.-Turkey axis of influence in the region. Before Washington realizes, it will be too late to protect the South Caucasus as a sovereign and independent region. For the first time since the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. appears to underestimate what is unfolding in the region. A lack of clear vision on the part of the U.S. administration clearly plays into Russian hands. It is perhaps no coincidence that the Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov so actively pushed his Armenian counterpart to sign the protocol with Turkey.
Source: http://www.jamestown.org/single/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=35684&tx_ttnews[backPid]=7&cHash=4e50e9633aLeave a comment:
-
Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations
[...]
The project of the refinery building became one of the most discussed issues in political and political scientific circles both in Armenia and in Iran. But at the 10th session of Russian-Armenian intergovernmental commission on economic cooperation, which took place in September 2008, the Russian co-chairman of the commission, the minister of transport of the RF Igor Levitin stated officially about the unprofitability of the oil refinery. He mentioned that this project was not profitable, because, firstly, the issue of the outlet was not solved and, respectively, the issues of the raw material supply either [7]. Hereon, the project was laid up. But today the Armenian authorities are searching for the possible ways of bringing it into life. Thus, in March 2009, after the official visit of the president of the RA Serj Sargsyan to Tehran the minister of energy and natural resources of the RA A. Movsisyan made a statement, according to which the project of the realization of building of the oil refinery in Armenia, which cost will be $250-280 million, was accepted. “Oil refinery will be joint Armenian-Iranian enterprise. The realization of the first complex of the works, i.e. the building of the terminal for the oil products in Eraskh and the pipeline for the getting the ready oil products from Tabriz, will be started this year”, - stated the minister [8].
In connection with the statement of the Russian party concerning the unprofitability of the oil refinery building in Armenia, one can suppose that Armenia, which would have oil refinery on its territory, would have assumed new economic and political significance in the region, which, to a large extent, do not correspond to the geopolitical interests of a number of states.
It is necessary to touch upon the other no less important sphere, which can illustrate the geopolitical context of the energy partnership in the region. In Armenia, as it has already been mentioned, there are no natural resources and the only sources of the electric power are, besides non-traditional sources, hydro energy resources. Potential hydro-energy resources of Armenia are estimated at 21.8 billion kWh [9]. Today, a part of hydro-energy sector of the republic is concentrated in hands of Russian “Inter RAOUES” company3. Despite the obvious monopoly of the Russian business on Armenian energy market, the Armenian authorities still try to diversify its energy system through attraction of the foreign companies to the domestic market. Those companies are mainly Iranian companies which have been involved in the cooperation with Armenia for many times. On October 4, 2007 the Parliament of the RA ratified Armenian-Iranian intergovernmental agreement about the cooperation in building and running of hydroelectric power plant on the Araks River. The agreement was signed on March 19, 2007 in Meghri during the meeting of the presidents Robert Kocharyan and Mahmud Ahmadinejad. According to the agreement the building of two hydroelectric power plants on the border Araks River during six years was planned: one on the territory of Armenia and the other on the territory of Iran.
Today feasibility study of the project is over. The installed capacity of each of the plants will be 130-140 megawatt, and the annual production of the electric power will be 840 million kWh. The feasibility study was prepared by the Iranian company “Mehabots” and the subcontractor in the face of “Armhydroproject” institute. The project is assessed in $250 million. It can be assumed that the energy giant “Inter RAUES”, being one of the key actors on the Armenian energy market, will want to participate in the implementation of the project one way or another. But will it be implemented out of the political context, will the geopolitical interests of the great powers eliminated as far as possible during the construction of the hydroelectric power plant? The later developments will show that. Already today one may speak about the interest of a number of Western companies in hydroelectric power sector of Armenia. Thus, today the US, as well as a number of German, Norwegian, Dutch, British, Ukraine and other companies takes an interest both in hydro- and renewable energy sources of Armenia.
Thus, the competition within the scope of Russian-American-Iranian geopolitical triangle directly influences the formation of the energy security of Armenia adding to this process either positive or negative shades. Of course, any competition is the evidence of healthy market relations. Today one may definitely say that the activity of the Russian companies on the Armenian energy market promotes strengthening energy efficiency of the republic. But should we focus our attention only on economic efficiency and forget about energy and state security? We think that this issue should underlie the solution of a number of foreign and domestic political decisions taken today by the authorities of the Republic of Armenia. Every investment activity is directed to the effectiveness increase of this or that sphere. As for such an important category as security (energy, military, scientific and technical, information, cultural and etc) it should proceed from the interests of the state. Only under the tandem of security and efficiency we can speak about the possible way of development of the particular sphere. Thereat, the security should be taken as a basis on which the efficiency system should be built.
Today the Republic of Armenia is seeking for the ways to carry out it energy potential, which is possible only under the active cooperation with foreign state and private companies. It supposes the exchange of the experience, implementation of innovative technologies, and conduct of the business on mutually favourable terms. This, in its turn, will bring to the transformation of the aforementioned geopolitical triangle into the geopolitical square with the full-fledged participation of Armenia. One can state that the construction of Iran-Armenia gas pipeline, the building of hydroelectric power plant on the Araks River, the building of the oil refinery and other mutual projects in case of their competent economic and political realization will determine, to a large, the further development of the Armenian energy sphere as well as its integration into regional and international energy markets.
Leave a comment:
-
Re: The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations
RUSSIA-USA-IRAN AND ENERGY SECURITY OF ARMENIA
By Vahe Davtyan, Noravank Foundation, 26 October 2009
The intersection of the geopolitical interests of great powers in South Caucasus region is one of the main factors influencing the formation and provision of the energy security of Armenia. Since the collapse of the USSR and till our days the constant competition of such states as Russia, the US, Iran and etc, directed to the strengthening of the political and economic positions in the region, anyhow, had influenced and continue to influence the formation of the stable energy system in the Republic of Armenia.
The questions and problems which appeared as a result of the aforementioned competition need detailed scrutiny.
Today Russia, the US and Iran should be considered as different angles of a peculiar geopolitical triangle which sides pursue the same goal: direct influence on the formation of the geopolitical architecture of South Caucasus. And Iran is the main, upper angle of that triangle because through this state both Russia and the US aspire to implement their geopolitical strategy in the region. As for the position of Iran itself, the latter, undoubtedly, pursuing its own interests (we will speak about them below), is a kind of ground for the controversy between two super powers or, to be more exact, it plays the role of a kind of an apple of discord between them. But more or less detailed analysis of the existing situation shows that Iran is a state, which lay a claim to the role of the regional super power and which pursues rather ambitious goals. This is mostly favoured by the vast hydro-carbon resources in Iran. As it is known this country takes the second place in the world by the natural gas reserves which are estimated in 21 trillion m3, i.e. more than 14% of the world reserves.
Turning, particularly, to the intersection of the interests of Russia and Iran in South Caucasus, it is necessary to mention that the rivalry between those two states has deep historic roots. In the 18-19th centuries the relations between two biggest at that time Caspian powers, Russia and Persia, were regulate by bilateral interstate treaties which were adjusted depending on international events. But generally they promoted to the protection of the Russian interests. In 1813 the Gulistan treaty was concluded and according to that treaty Persia confirmed its refusal from the power in Eastern Georgia, Dagestan, some Eastern Armenian territories, including Karabakh, and in 1828 the Turkmenchay treaty was signed. The latter summed up Russian-Persian war of 1826-1828 which ended in victory of Russia and transfer of Eastern Armenia to Russia.
The diplomacy carried out by today’s Iran in regard to the countries of South Caucasus and Russia has its own peculiarities which add up to the partnership in military, energy, transport and other spheres. Today, Russia and Iran actively discuss the prospects of collaboration and carry out mega-projects which are important for both parties. But can we say that the projects realized by Russia and Iran are the manifestation of full-fledged and open partnership? Is there any element of competitiveness which sometimes acquires rather tough character? What part does the American factor play in all that? And, at last, what does Armenia get from that partnership?
In order to reveal all the aforementioned questions, let us stop on some of the most significant Armenian-Iranian-Russian projects.
In 1995 Iran and state concern “Armrusgasprom” concluded a treaty according to which the annual 1 billion cubic meters of gas was planned to be supplied to Armenia in the following 15 years. But due to the absence of appropriate financial and other resources the project had remained on paper for a long time. Only in 2005 the Republic of Armenia and the Iranian “SANIR” gas company signed a contract on the construction of 42 kilometers long Meghri-Kajaran gas pipeline. For the implementation of the initial stage of the project Iran’s Export Development Bank granted necessary credits. The opening of the first section took place in March 2007. But the construction of the 42km long gas pipeline was not enough to provide the supply of the necessary amount of gas to the thermal power plants of the country. Hence, it became necessary to build a new section of the pipeline which length would be 1974km, and for its realization “Armrusgasprom” CJSC1 carried out necessary research, project and building works. At current moment the second section of the pipeline has already been built and put into operation.
Since the beginning of the construction of the first section of the pipeline the leading Armenian experts and politicians have started to talk about the transition of the Iranian gas to the third countries through the territory of Armenia. The following transit rout was supposed to be carried out: Iranian gas, which was transported through the territory of Armenia, should go to Georgia and later on the ground of the Black Sea to Ukraine and a number of European countries.
But the scenario of the Iranian gas transportation to the third countries through the territory of Armenia shook after the visit of the president of “Gasprom” OJSC A. Miller to Armenia. The latter stated about the possibility of participation of Russian gas giant in the implementation of Iran-Armenia gas pipeline project [1].
In February 2005 during the panel session of the Federation Council the vice-president of “Gasprom” OJSC Alexander Ryazanov stated that Iran-Armenia pipeline might compete with “Blue Stream” Russian-Turkish gas project. “If “Gasprom” does not participate in the construction of Iran-Armenia gas pipeline, then it is not known where that gas will go”. – said A. Ryazanov [2]. Let us remind you that “Blue Stream” belongs to «Blue Stream Pipeline BV» in the face of “Gasprom” and Italian ENI. The European Nabucco project, which is planned as a gas pipeline going round Russia and directed to the reduction of the dependence of the EU countries on the Russian resources, is regarded as the main competitor of “Blue Stream”. By preliminary estimate the gas pipeline is planned to be brought into operation by 2014. It is obvious that “Gasprom” OJSC, being a state corporation, would not like to allow such a development of the scenario. Let us remind you that the American party is the main initiator of the Nabucco project which once more comes to prove that there is a complicated and multi-vector geopolitics. Initially, it was supposed that the pipeline should export gas from Azerbaijan, Central Asia, Egypt and Iraq. In 2005 Iraq fell out of the project as an instability zone. As for Azerbaijan and Central Asia, due to the active foreign policy of Russia, they cannot decide yet on the participation in the project. It becomes clear that the participation of Iran in the project may give more or less real outlines to the project. The idea of Iran’s participation in the project was also actively promoted by Turkey. At the beginning of 2009 Turkish prime-minister R. Erdogan made a statement in Brussels, saying that Nabucco makes no sense without the participation of the Iranian party. It can be supposed that this very approach to the solution of problem for the West compelled B. Obama to offer the establishment of the partnership relations with Iran right after being elected as a president of the United States. But the official negotiations on the participation of Tehran in the project have not been started yet. The latter, in our opinion, is connected with the issue of regulation of the Russian-American relations. Watching the activation of the partnership in energy, military and other spheres between Russia and Iran and being aware of the loss of the pro-American candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi on the presidential elections in June 2009, the US were compelled to offer Russia the scenario of the “reset” of the relations2. This was particularly expressed during the official visit of the president Obama to Moscow in June 2009.
In the opinion of the authors of the “Geopolitics of the Caspian region” study, “the interest of many counties in the usage of the territory of Iran for the pipelines building is restrained by the USA which believe, not without reason, that vast inventory of hydro-carbons in the South of the country and its profitable geographic position will cause the abrupt growth of Tehran’s authority in the Caspian region and, respectively, the serious geopolitical changes”. “Hence, - the authors continue, - the long-term interest of Russia consists in making Iran one of its allies in the region” [3]. So the significance of the Iranian factor in the settlement of very complicated geopolitical combinations between Russia and the US is obvious, Iran, in its turn, also realizes its significance in this complicated geopolitical game and takes advantage of that successfully.
There is an opinion in the Armenian political thinking according to which Armenia has definite chances to become a part of the Nabucco project. “Amid the normalization of the Armenian-Turkish dialogue and activation of the negotiations on Nagorno-Karabakh, an impression may be created that, perhaps, Nabucco pipeline will go through the territory of Armenia” [4], - writes the Armenian political scientist S. Sarukhanyan. The author thinks that at the current stage we can speak about the joining of Armenia to Nabucco. Though he makes a reservation saying that even in case of fiasco, the activation of the political dialogue in that direction may pay Armenia some dividends.
It seems that the discussions on possible joining of the Armenian party to the Nabucco today have no strong reasons. Armenia is a strategic partner of Russia, and they are connected with strong political and economic ties. The manifestation of the slightest interest by Armenia to Nabucco is fraught with serious risks.
Reverting to Iran-Armenia pipeline, let us mention that its impropriety for the transition is mainly conditioned by aforementioned circumstances which emerged round “Iran-Armenia – Blue Stream – Nabucco” scheme. Even more, Iran-Armenia gas pipeline is regarded as a competitor of the so-called northern gas pipeline, which supplies Russian gas to Armenia through the territory of Georgia. Let us also remind about such a no less important circumstance as the restriction of the gas pipeline from 1.4 to 79sm.
The gas pipeline functions on the so-called barter basis, i.e. the natural gas supplied from Iran is converted to the electric power on Hrazdan and Yerevan thermal power plants, which, in its turn is exported to Iran. Thus, for 1 m3 of Iranian gas Armenia pays 3 kWh electric power. Let us mention that even at the Soviet period Armenian electric power system was planned as producing redundant power while neighbouring countries (Turkey, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, and Iraq) has been incurring heavy deficit in electric power.
So, Iran tries to use its energy potential according to his lights in purely political aims. “Tehran, round which the American surrounding ring (Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan and in perspective may be Azerbaijan) is tightened, tends not to allow turning of South Caucasus into the sphere of influence of the American and NATO interests… In this context energy diplomacy is regarded by Tehran as an important tool for the implementation of the general strategic line” [5], - writes A. Vartanyan in his article “Energy Diplomacy of Iran in Transcaucasia”. It may be added that Iran-Armenia gas pipeline has been regarded by Iran as an essential element of the implementation of the mentioned strategic line. But the later developments showed that the gas pipeline lost the geopolitical and geostrategic meaning it had initially .
Despite the Iran-Armenia gas pipeline has not become a transit pipeline it is necessary to appraise its role in setting of the energy security of Armenia. It allowed diversifying the energy system of the republic, which was in a kind of energy dependence on neighbouring Georgia through the territory of which the only corridor for the gas transportation, which supplied Armenia with natural gas, came.
Iran-Armenia gas pipeline is not the only project carried out by the Iranian, Armenian and Russian parties. It is necessary to pay attention to such important projects for Armenia as the building of the oil refinery on the Armenian-Iranian border as well as building of the hydro electric power plant at the border river Araks and the project of the construction of Tabriz-Meghri oil pipeline, which is still at the stage of negotiations. The active approximation of the parties on other energy directions also takes place.
On September 15-20, 2007 in Meghri the Armenian-Iranian-Russian meeting of the experts on the building of the oil refinery was arranged. The meeting took place with the participation of the representatives of the Ministry of Oil and Gas of Iran, Ministry of Economy of the RF and “ArmRusGasprom” CJSC. The decision of the presidents of Armenia and Iran served a basis for the implementation of the project. By estimate of the experts, the building of the refinery with capacity of 7 tonnes in Armenia would cost approximately $600-700 million [6].
After taking the decision about the building of the refinery, a number of political scientists and journalists, analyzing the situation in the region, started to talk about such a motivation of Iran as the preparation of its energy system to operating under the US expansion. Such an approach is, undoubtedly, conditioned by the realities, which exist today in the geopolitics of the region.
[...]Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: