The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[ZORAVAR]

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

Five Russian lawmakers declared personae non gratae for observing Karabakh polls

The Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry has declared five members of Russia's lower house personae non gratae for observing parliamentary elections in the disputed area of Nagorny Karabakh, a spokesman for the ministry said on Wednesday.

"The decision is final. This list may be extended," Elkhan Pulukhov said.

However, he conceded, the measure might be reviewed if the five lawmakers admit that their involvement in monitoring the elections was "deliberate malice."

The predominantly ethnic Armenian region, at the center of a dispute between the former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Armenia since the late 1980s, elected its 33-seat parliament on May 23 with a voter turnout of almost 68%.

Konstantin Zatulin, one of those declared persona non grata, said the decision was a "demonstrative measure."

"I was an observer during presidential and parliamentary elections in Nagorny Karabakh more than once," the lawmaker said, adding it was "surprising" that his decision to take part in monitoring the polls sparked such a reaction "for the first time."

The other members from the State Duma considered persona non grata in Azerbaijan are Igor Chernyshenko, Kirill Cherkasov, Tatyana Volozhinskaya, and Maxim Mishchenko.

Azerbaijani officials have called the elections in Nagorny Karabakh "illegal," saying they could seriously harm Armenian-Azerbaijani peace efforts.

The conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorny Karabakh first erupted in 1988, when the region claimed independence from Azerbaijan to join Armenia.

Over 30,000 people are estimated to have died on both sides between 1988 and 1994, when a ceasefire was agreed. Nagorny Karabakh has remained in Armenian control and tensions between Azerbaijan and Armenia have persisted.

The conflict has been mediated by the OSCE Minsk Group that comprises the United States, Russia and France.

BAKU, May 26 (RIA Novosti)

http://en.rian.ru/exsoviet/20100526/159169547.html

[Lernakan]

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

Konstantin Zatulin: I’m not going to ask Azerbaijan whether I can travel to Armenia and NKR or not

PanARMENIAN.Net - Member of the Russian State Duma Konstantin Zatulin described Azerbaijan’s decision to ban the entry to the country for a number of Russian politicians as absurd.

“I am among the ‘blacklisted’ people but I should say that I never longed to visit Azerbaijan. I was there once, for a meeting of international council of Russian compatriots. I respect this country but I will not ask it whether I can travel to Armenia and NKR or not,” he said.

The politician explained Baku’s reaction as the consequence of the Armenian-Turkish dialogue.

“I do not believe that Nagorno Karabakh will ever be under Azerbaijan’s jurisdiction again,” Zatulin said. “I always visited NK when I was invited to observe elections. Today, I wonder whether citizens of other countries were banned to enter Azerbaijan, because there were foreign officials observing the May 23 election as well.”

“Nagorno Karabakh has been holding elections for 16 years already and the point is that Baku has no possibility to accuse this republic of any human rights violations. Moreover, I want to mention that the power is not inherited in Karabakh, unlike Azerbaijan. So, no ban will make me change my position on the issue,” he concluded.

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/world/news/49247/Konstantin_Zatulin_Im_not_going_to_ask_Azerbaijan_whether_I_can_travel_to_Armenia_and_NKR_or_not

[Haykakan]

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

Konstantin Zatulin: I’m not going to ask Azerbaijan whether I can travel to Armenia and NKR or not

PanARMENIAN.Net - Member of the Russian State Duma Konstantin Zatulin described Azerbaijan’s decision to ban the entry to the country for a number of Russian politicians as absurd.

“I am among the ‘blacklisted’ people but I should say that I never longed to visit Azerbaijan. I was there once, for a meeting of international council of Russian compatriots. I respect this country but I will not ask it whether I can travel to Armenia and NKR or not,” he said.

The politician explained Baku’s reaction as the consequence of the Armenian-Turkish dialogue.

“I do not believe that Nagorno Karabakh will ever be under Azerbaijan’s jurisdiction again,” Zatulin said. “I always visited NK when I was invited to observe elections. Today, I wonder whether citizens of other countries were banned to enter Azerbaijan, because there were foreign officials observing the May 23 election as well.”

“Nagorno Karabakh has been holding elections for 16 years already and the point is that Baku has no possibility to accuse this republic of any human rights violations. Moreover, I want to mention that the power is not inherited in Karabakh, unlike Azerbaijan. So, no ban will make me change my position on the issue,” he concluded.

http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/world...and_NKR_or_not

What a great responce. This guy laid it down the way it is and when you do that the turcks and azeris always look bad since they are confronted with the truth. The more stupid things mr alieve does like this the better for us.

[Muhaha]

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

Medvedev: World powers in agreement on Iran sanctions

(CNN) -- Calling Iran's nuclear stance "irresponsible, Russia's president said Iran's leadership needs to heed an international community now in agreement on sanctions against that country, a Russian state news agency reported.

"Nobody wants sanctions," Russian President Dmitry Medvedev told reporters on Saturday during a visit to Germany, where he met with Chancellor Angela Merkel. "But in some cases, it is necessary to agree on them."

"The situation is such that in practical terms, agreements on these sanctions exist," he said.

Medvedev, whose country in the past has balked at tough measures against Iran, said Moscow's position on the Iran nuclear issue had moved closer to that of its Western partners, Ria Novosti reported.

"I think that this is very important for the future of the international community and... for the future of our relations with European and other countries -- with the United States and China," he said.

"We hope that Iran's leadership will listen to the voice of the international community," he said. "It is necessary to talk with partners within the international community, and that is the only way to solve the most difficult issues."

The five members of the U.N. Security Council -- the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China -- and Germany have been mulling over a tougher set of sanctions against Iran.

These nations say Iran has been pursuing nuclear weapons development, but Iran says it is only interested in nuclear power for peaceful purposes.

"It is necessary to talk with partners within the international community, and that is the only way to solve the most difficult issues," Medvedev said, stressing that decisions like sanctions should be made through international consensus and not "personal ambitions."

In another matter, Medvedev said he hoping for a dialogue on the elimination of visas between his country and the European Union, a move that would free up travel in Europe.

Medvedev has said Russia was prepared to get rid of visa requirements for residents of EU states "tomorrow," if the EU did the same for Russians.

"If we do so, that will qualitatively change our lives, make us real, true strategic partners," he said.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/06/05/russia.germany.visit/

[Haykakan]

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

http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe...germany.visit/

Sounds like a tit for tat deal has been arranged. Bribery is a pretty effective tool.

[Haykakan]

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

Here is a interesting take on whats happening.

Russia-US-Iran: Nuclear juggling
By Eric Walberg
Online Journal Contributing Writer


Jun 4, 2010, 00:18

Brazil accused the US of double standards, and Turkey insisted
Thursday that rejecting the deal with Iran, which calls for Tehran to
ship around half its stock of low-enriched uranium to Turkey in
exchange for enriched uranium suitable for research and medical use,
would be `unreasonable' and said that a US push for fresh sanctions on
Tehran was creating an `absurd situation.'

`Those who speak to this issue should eliminate nuclear weapons from
their own country and they should bear the good news to all mankind by
doing that,' Turkish Prime Minister Recep Erdogan said, while
attending a UN conference in Rio de Janeiro.

Now it's Iran's turn to accuse Russia, ever so politely, of double
standards. Iranian Parliamentary Speaker Ali Larijani said on
Saturday, `Russia has always tried to ensure that events particularly
nuclear issues will be fashioned based on its own interests.' He
added, `Regarding Russia, we should take into account two issues that
first it is our neighbour and second, definitely it shares some
interests with Iran.'

The Iranian government is `surprised' Russia signed on to a US
proposal for a tighter embargo to punish the Islamic republic for its
nuclear programme, Special Ambassador Mahmoud Reza Sajjadi told
reporters in Moscow last week. Indeed, Iran's sensational last minute
agreement to a proposal by Turkey and Brazil -- virtually identical to
one proposed seven months ago by the US and International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) -- was intended to forestall just such an
eventuality.

And yet at the same time Obama's senior director for Russian affairs,
Michael McFaul, smugly told reporters in Moscow on May 28 that
Moscow's support for Iran sanctions was still on track. `We believe
that's a concrete achievement of resetting relations with Russia ,'
attributing the `success' to Obama's move to start afresh with Russia
after rocky relations during the Bush presidency.

Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki phoned his Russian
counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, who told him Russia was always ready to
`advance Iran's nuclear talks and help resolve the standoff with the
West' in search of a `viable diplomatic and political solution' and
assured him that `Russia will actively support the scheme proposed by
Brazil and Turkey.'

So who are we to believe? Is it a `da' or a `nyet'? It's far more
complicated than that. Both sides have their gripes. The Russians
wonder why Iran didn't agree to the IAEA proposal last year, avoiding
all the subsequent brinkmanship.

As for Iran, it is angry over the delay in commissioning Iran's
nuclear power stations and fulfilling its contract on the S-300
anti-aircraft system, essential to Iran's defence against an
Israeli-US attack.

The reason for this is clear: very strong US pressure on Russia. But
lo and behold, once Russia agreed to the new sanctions last week, the
US said they would not forbid the sale of the S-300. The other carrot
for Russia is the State Department's announcement, in conjunction with
McFaul's visit to Moscow, that it has lifted sanctions against
Russia's state arms trader and three other Russian companies it had
accused of helping Iran try to develop nuclear weapons.

This is the meaning of Larijani's crack about self-interest on
Russia's part. But the fact remains that Russian companies were being
penalised for providing nuclear technology precisely to Iran and for
contemplating providing Iran with a high tech anti-aircraft defence
system. Surely these are very much Iran's interest as well.

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad was clearly fed up when he
warned Moscow to refrain from `creating a situation that could make
the Iranian people place Russia within the ranks of their historic
enemies.' However, before he burns any bridges, he should consider
that, even if the sanctions go into effect, Washington's nod-and-wink
for Russia's S-300 sale and the lifting of sanctions against Russian
companies working with Iran is actually a bit of good news, as it
indicates that Washington is not really interested in bombing Iran
after all.

`It's irrational for Russia not to fulfill its obligations,' Sajjadi
said impatiently in Moscow. Russia is losing `economic and political
dividends' as well as the trust of other arms clients. Russian Energy
Minister Sergei Shmatko assured him that the Bushehr nuclear plant
will start up this summer. Nuclear cooperation with Russia has a
`bright future' and Russian companies will have priority if more
reactors are contracted at Bushehr, Sajjadi promised. `I don't have
this kind of optimism concerning military cooperation,' he said
tersely, as the issue of the delayed S-300 systems `negatively
affected' Iranian public opinion. Iran will be `more cautious' when
making arms deals with Russia, according to the ambassador.

But if the Brazil-Turkey-Iran deal is legit, Russia will back it and
proceed with the S-300 sale, even if the sanctions go ahead. That is
Russia's carrot to Iran, as delivered by Lavrov. Yes, Russia is trying
to best serve its own interests in all this, but the bottom line with
regards to Iran is that a US-Israeli attack will not be accepted by
Moscow. And -- thanks to Russia? -- is no longer in the cards for
Washington. In any case, the sanctions -- which are dismissed by
former secretary of state Colin Powell as useless in any case -- will
fall apart if the B-T-I plan is implemented.

This is no doubt what Lavrov told Mottaki, who on Monday was even able
to poke fun at the US: `We have to allow them some time to recover
from the initial shock,' and expressed hope that the Vienna Group --
US, France, Russia and the IAEA -- would come to a `rational' decision
on Iran's civilian nuclear programme.

Richard Falk argues that the purpose of `this attempt to supersede and
nullify the Iran deal is banishing the Brazilian and Turkish intruders
from the geopolitical playing field.' He is pointing the finger
primarily at the US but the prevarication by Russia makes it looks
like it too is protecting its role as one of the big guns. The true
test of its intentions will be if it can balance its desire to placate
Washington without jeopardising the B-T-I breakthrough, which Falk
calls `a new geopolitical landscape in which the countries of the
global South are now beginning to act as subjects, and no longer
content to be mere objects in scenarios devised in the North.'

The US-Iranian standoff is indeed evidence of real conflict -- between
empire and national sovereignty. So is the US-Russia standoff over
NATO expansion and bases on its borders. But the fight against
Washington's `new world order' is still a MAD dance of death, in the
first place, between the US and Russia, full of pratfalls, and keeps
us on the edge of our seats.

What is important is to bring the gruesome dance to a peaceful end and
move on to what Falk heralds as `a real new world order'

Eric Walberg writes for Al-Ahram Weekly. You can reach him at ericwalberg.com.

[Haykakan]

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

RUSSIAN, FRENCH FMS DISCUSS IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAMME, NAGORNO-KARABAKH

ITAR-TASS
June 7 2010
Russia

MOSCOW, June 7 (Itar-Tass) -- Russian Foreign Minister Sergei
Lavrov and his French counterpart Bernard Kouchner had a telephone
conversation on Monday to discuss the Iranian nuclear programme and
the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement.

Lavrov and Kouchner "exchange views on the situation surrounding
the Iranian nuclear problem, including in the context of work on the
draft relevant resolution in the U.N. Security Council, as well as
the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement," the Foreign Ministry said.

On Sunday, Kouchner said the issue of new sanctions against Iran would
be most probably considered after June 14, following an official
reply to the joint suggestion of Iran, Brazil and Turkey regarding
Iranian nuclear programme.

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev welcomed the agreement on uranium
signed by Iran, Turkey and Brazil, but said he was not sure that it
would resolve all questions about Tehran's nuclear programme.

Commenting on the agreement on the exchange of low-enriched uranium
signed by Iran, Turkey and Brazil, Medvedev called it "interesting
information".

"The work that was done by Brazil and Turkey led to the signing of the
relevant declaration. We are studying this declaration most thoroughly
now. I hope to talk with my colleague and friend Luiz Inacio Lula da
Silva, the president of Brazil, tonight. I hope to receive first-hand
information," Medvedev said.

"At any rate, we welcome this agreement. This is a political and
diplomatic method of solving the Iranian problem," Medvedev said.

"First of all, it is good that we have some result. The most complex
problem related to the Iranian nuclear programme has been discussed,"
the Russian president said.

"Second, there is the wish to exchange low-enriched uranium for
highly-enriched uranium in the proportions set forth in the agreement,"
he said.

At the same time, Medvedev noted, "The question is whether this
is a sufficient level of exchange and whether all members of the
international community will be satisfied... I don't know. Apparently
more consultations will be needed with those who are involved in
this process."

"A separate question that arises is whether Iran will enrich uranium
itself or not. As far as I understand, judging from the statements
made by Iranian officials, such work will continue in Iran. In this
case, the international community's doubts main remain."

He suggested "calling urgent consultations with all interested
parties, including Iran" in order to decide what should be done next
and whether "the proposed decisions would be enough or something new
should be taken".

"This is why I think that a short pause will not harm. I am confident
that we will soon continue consultations with our partners Brazil
and Turkey and other colleagues that deal with the Iranian nuclear
programme," Medvedev said.

Iran's nuclear programme has been a major irritant in global affairs
lately and spurred heated debates in the international community and
the United Nations, forcing Western countries to raise the issue of
sanctions against Tehran.

Western countries insist that Iran develops its nuclear programme
for military purposes, while Tehran claims it pursues purely civilian
purposes.

Medvedev made it clear earlier that if the Iranian issue could not
be resolved, Russia would be prepared to consider sanctions.

But sanctions against Iran should be "well considered and
intelligent", he said. "Sanctions should not be aimed against the
civilian population and they should be the extreme form, beyond which
dialogue is impossible. This is why the relevant initiatives are being
discussed now. We are ready to continue discussing this issue with our
partners even though it would be desirable to avoid these sanctions,"
Medvedev said.

"Iran is a difficult issue. Practically all of my negotiations with
European colleagues and American colleagues touch on Iran one way
or another. Unfortunately, we have not made progress lately. On the
contrary, the situation is degrading," he said.

"Unfortunately, the admonitions we have offered to the Iranian
leadership, our calls for working on a peaceful nuclear programme
under international control have so far not produced ay result,"
the president said. "But we are optimists and we still think that we
can succeed," he added.

"Nevertheless, if we don't, and I have spoken of that many times,
Russia is ready to consider sanctions together with our partners,"
the president said.

But sanctions against Iran have become more relevant following Tehran's
decision to enrich uranium, but they won' t solve the problem, Deputy
Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said earlier.

Moscow believes that "sanctions, if and when the U.N. Security
Council adopts the relevant decision, should aim to strengthen the
non-proliferation regime", he said.

"Any other attempts to push a possible future resolution towards
provisions that will take it beyond the strengthening of the
non-proliferation regime would naturally be inappropriate to us,"
the diplomat said.

The Russian approach is that "sanctions do not solve the problem",
he added.

[Armanen]

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

Moscow currently satisfies about 1/3 of Europe's oil needs and approximately 1/2 of its natural gas needs. The figures for certain NATO members are much higher. For instance, Russia today is poised to provide 70% of Turkey's energy needs.This already bad situation is gradually getting worst for Washington, NATO and the EU because of recent political developments in Europe, Central Asia and the Caucasus. During the pivotal years following Vladimir Putin's ascension to power in the Kremlin, Moscow managed to monopolize Eurasia's energy production and distribution networks. Moscow has also begun energy exploration in the vast energy rich Arctic region and it has regained its political leverage over key Central Asian states and the south Caucasus. Moreover, Moscow has also managed to strike long-term energy deals with NATO members Italy, Greece, Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Germany and Norway, as well as Austria and the Ukraine.


Needless to say, Western political observers are in a panic mode today, but the economic crisis the West is wrestling with as well as their serious entanglements in several military commitments in the Middle East and Central Asia are tempering their response. Nevertheless, by controlling Europe's energy imports, Moscow can theoretically be in an enviable position to indirectly control the Western world's politics. By controlling Central Asian energy production and distribution, Moscow can also maintain China's long-term dependence. This situation was foreseen by Western political analysts some years ago, and this is one of the fundamental reasons why Washington, London and Brussels have been desperately trying to gain a foothold in the energy rich regions of Central Asia and the Middle East. Despite their best efforts, however, Moscow has been able to check them in various fronts. As a result, Vladimir Putin today is the reigning king of Eurasia, long considered to be the world's most coveted geopolitical prize. The following news articles from various sources highlights the Russia's unstoppable energy onslaught.


As I like to say - they loved Gorbachev because he allowed them to kill the Bear, they adored Yeltsin because he allowed them to feed off the decaying carcass of the Bear, now they fear and hate Putin because he resurrected the Bear...



Arevagal

Putin's Fight For Control of Russia's Oil

Russia to create Arctic armed forces: http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaTo.../0/rXrG5vNrvGM



Russia, Turkey bridge pipeline in gas issue: http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaTo.../0/9qtETgzjdxw



Nabucco pipeline forgotten: http://www.youtube.com/user/RussiaTo...13/7LT3RVD5pVA




In October 2003, troops carrying machine guns boarded Russian oligarch Mikhael Khodorkovsky's plane on the runway of a Siberian airfield.




Kordokovsky, the richest man in Russia, was the owner of Yukos, at the time the country's biggest oil firm. Within hours he was hauled back to Moscow wearing handcuffs and a black canvas hood over his head. Vladimir Putin had flexed his political might and changed the political course of Russia. BBC journalist and Russia expert Martin Sixsmith's book, Putin's Oil, is a vivid account of what led to Khodorkovsky's arrest, its dramatic aftermath and far-reaching consequences.




ePolitix.com: I was expecting your book to be somewhat dry and academic – in fact it reminded me of a Tom Clancy novel.




Martin Sixsmith: I was interested in the human clash between these two men, Putin and Khordokovsky, rather than the nitty-gritty of the financial background. It is also a clash between two ways of seeing Russia and its future. From 1990 they had ten years of trying to be like us – it didn't work. That is when the oligarchs got very rich. In 2000 the country was nearly bankrupt and there was ethnic violence and disorder on the streets and a few people getting very rich. In 2000 they changed their minds and have gone in the opposite direction, which is a centrally-governed state with a very strict, harsh authority in Moscow.




In 1991 when Communism ended you were in Russia as a reporter. Were people hopeful they could change Russia and was their lack of experience of capitalism the reason they ended up in such dire straits?




The brief answer is yes and yes. After 74 years of Communism people were fed up with it. It was an awful place. The guys who were in charge were pretty young, Western-leaning, liberal and spoke English with American accents. They said they could make things better and the people went along with it, they did not really know what capitalism was, but it was different. McDonalds had opened in Moscow, they liked it, they liked the hamburgers but could not afford them. Yeltsin and his guys, who I knew and kind of liked, they were very well-intentioned. The West has a lot to answer for because we sent over these hard-nosed economists, who said to Yeltsin, 'you have a very small window and if you do not change to capitalism overnight the Communists are going to come back and you will be strung up'.

Yeltsin was not a man for the detail so he thought 'OK'. They introduced this barmy system where they liberalised prices, which then shot up. Everybody got made redundant, massive factories were closed down and the whole thing just imploded. The West pushed them down this road and then did not give them the help to get out of it. By 1996 Yeltsin has to go to the oligarchs and ask them to bail him out, otherwise he said he would lose the election and the Communists would be back. The oligarchs gave him the money but with conditions attached.




Where do people like Khordokovsky and the other oligarchs come from in a Communist system?




These are extremely bright guys, seven or eight guys who at one point claimed they owned one quarter of Russia's economy, and they did. Most of them were wheeler-dealers, slightly on the edge of the legitimate economy under Communism. Most of them xxxish, actually. Khordokovsky was atypical because he was a young Communist. He later claimed he joined on purpose because he would need the contacts to make a big success of himself. So by 1996 they owned all the newspapers and TV stations, so when Yeltsin was in trouble they asked for access to the crown xxxels of the economy – the energy sector, the metals sector, distribution, transport. Up until then the Communists had blocked all that. Yeltsin was in such a pickle in 1996 he just signed on the dotted line and he was incredibly re-elected. It was not a rigged election but it was amazing how he turned it round. He had the press and lots of money, of course.




Later, when Putin comes in, he puts pressure on the oligarchs. What did he want, was he just an old-style Communist wanting to renationalise everything?




No, he was not, but he recognised the country was falling apart and something had to be done pretty quickly. He had learned the lesson of history – for the last thousand years Russia has been an autocracy based in Moscow. They have had brief experiments with reform and they have all gone wrong. It was always a terrible disaster when they tried to become like us. Putin sought to restore order to the economy and turn it around, and part of that was to try and look at the deals done by Yeltsin with these very powerful oligarchs. He sat down with them and said 'you and I know this was a bit dodgy, but I do not want to tear it all apart, my aim is to improve the well-being of the country'. Putin attempted a deal where they would keep out of politics, and they had been very influential over Yeltsin and expected to do the same with Putin, which did not happen. Most said OK. Berezovsky was furious, he thought of Putin as his creation, so he got out. Berezovsky continued to finance political parties. There was a moment on national TV where he waved his finger at Putin, which is just not done in Russia.




Of course after lots of clashes with Putin, Berezovsky ended up fleeing to London, claiming political asylum here in 2001. Why do these Russian billionaires come to London?




It is interesting because after the Russian Revolution everyone fled to Paris. Now it is London - it is partly because the British government has a fairly relaxed asylum policy, and they feel safe here. They feel that the education system is good and London is accessible to get back to Russia. But a lot of them have gone to the US or Israel.




There is a brilliant moment in the book where you describe the arrest of Khordokovsky at an airport.




Well that was a very Russian thing for Putin to do, not only arrest him but show we are arresting him, show who is the boss, we are the state.




Will he ever be released from prison?




The received opinion is that he is going to go down for another 20 years, I think there is a possibility he could be released, because Medvedev (the current President of Russia), who is a lawyer himself, keeps saying we need a legal system that can be respected. But it would be a political decision as well. It is not absolutely clear he is innocent! It is not a terrible thing he might go to jail. Of course he was selected for this treatment and others were not, so it is selective justice.




Putin puts forward an image of the semi-naked strongman, not something our politicians would do. Does that appeal to the Russian mind set?




Russian history will judge him extremely well, in contrast with Yeltsin and Gorbachev, who are hated. Putin is popular because if your country is falling apart, there is nothing to eat, the lights go out at 10pm, you are not going to be happy about it. He has restored order and he is a strong man, the image of him on horseback is right. He has got the economy back on its feet, you do not get shot in the street like you did under Yeltsin. His opponents may see his actions as those of a tyrant, but the Russians think he did the right thing. Russia now has its oil and gas resources back under its control. That has allowed Putin the political clout he needed on the international stage and he has restored order. Russians like Putin because he is strong, he is not drunk every night like his predecessor, and I saw Yeltsin, he was like that, he stank of vodka. They want someone who does not drink, is physically strong.




Do the Russians have an inferiority complex and think we do not respect them enough?




I would say it is more a fear of vulnerability, if you look at the last thousand years they have been invaded from every side you can imagine. In the 13th century they were invaded by the Mongols who stayed around for 250 years and set back their development for a quarter of a millennium. That deep-seated fear of foreigners is still there. The funny thing about Russia is we think of them as tough guys, strutting on the international stage, with menacing rockets. They do not see it like that, they see it as having to remain vigilant.




Putin's Oil, The Yukos Affair and the Struggle for Russia by Martin Sixsmith is available from bookshops or can be bought online here.




Source:http://www.epolitix.com/latestnews/a...of-russias-oil

[Armanen]

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

Putin Calls for Merger With Ukraine on Energy

Go with the Flow: Gas giants merger to warm up Russia-Ukraine ties? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z37Pz...layer_embedded



Prime Minister Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Friday suggested merging Ukraine’s national energy company with the Russian gas giant Gazprom, a move that, if approved in Kiev, would put Ukraine’s strategic network of gas pipelines under Moscow’s control. Mr. Putin shocked many — including, apparently, his Ukrainian counterpart — by announcing the proposal at a news conference after talks in the Russian resort city of Sochi. The Ukrainian prime minister, Mykola Azarov, said through a spokesman that the idea of a merger had not come up in their meetings, and that Mr. Putin had “expressed it in an impromptu way.”
Mr. Putin’s idea is an audacious one politically, coming just two months after Ukraine elected a new president, Viktor F. Yanukovich, who vowed to increase cooperation with Russia. Emotions are still raw in Ukraine over a deal Mr. Yanukovich negotiated with Moscow to extend the lease on a Russian naval base on the Crimean Peninsula for 25 years, and a Tuesday vote on the issue in Parliament deteriorated into a melee.




Russia is heavily dependent on Ukrainian pipelines, which carry about 80 percent of its natural gas exports to Europe, and it has long coveted a greater degree of control over them. If the deal were to go through, Gazprom would effectively swallow the Ukrainian company, Naftogaz, said Chris Weafer, chief strategist at UralSib Capital, an investment bank. “In any merger, Gazprom would dominate — it would be seen as a complete Russian takeover over of the Ukrainian gas system,” Mr. Weafer said. If it came up for legislative approval, he added, what happened during the vote on the naval base “would look like a kindergarten party by comparison.” Mr. Weafer called Mr. Putin’s suggestion a “nonstarter,” but he said Mr. Putin could be laying the groundwork for the more politically viable approach of forming a joint venture that would control the Ukrainian pipeline system. “He’s probably trying out the extreme, knowing full well it would provoke a strong reaction inside Ukraine,” he said.




And that it did, in a country still split between its Europe-leaning west and Russia-leaning east. Yulia V. Tymoshenko, who lost to Mr. Yanukovich in a bitterly fought presidential race, said the merger proposal “could be seen as a joke” but warned of “a large-scale plan to liquidate independent Ukraine.” She predicted the “full absorption of Ukraine by Russia,” and blamed Mr. Yanukovich for ceding too easily to Russia’s will. “You can sculpt whatever you want out of plasticine Yanukovich,” she said, according to a statement posted on her party’s Web site. Mr. Yanukovich, a former Communist apparatchik who ran on a platform of closer ties to Moscow, has closed a series of agreements with the Kremlin since taking office, culminating Tuesday in the vote allowing Russia to extend its lease on the naval base. Russia, in return, agreed to cut the price of its natural gas by 30 percent — at a cost to Russia of at least $30 billion, Mr. Weafer said — and went on to waive a $2 billion fine it could have levied on Ukraine for purchasing less gas than was included in a contract signed in January.




The deals come at a critical time for Ukraine, whose economy has contracted precipitously in the downturn, with demand from industrial customers down by 50 percent during the first three months of the year compared with 2009. Dmitri S. Peskov, Mr. Putin’s spokesman, dismissed the notion that Gazprom would take over the smaller company, saying the proposal would create a new legal entity. He said that Ukraine was interested in finding a co-owner for Naftogaz, and that Russia sought to “receive a guaranteed route for the fulfillment of its obligations to customers in Western Europe.” He also said, in comments carried by RIA Novosti, that it was too early to speculate on a possible asset swap. The two countries’ energy ministers will meet with the companies’ top officials to discuss the proposal in mid-May. If the merger idea goes forward, it would reflect a regional trend that has emerged during the financial crisis, as Western banks pulled out of the region and former Soviet states turned to Moscow for capital and business ties.




During his comments in Sochi, Mr. Putin underlined the material support Russia has given Ukraine’s economy. “Thanks to the gas discount — I said this at the meeting with my colleagues — our neighbors will be able to invest more than $40 billion in their national economy over the next 10 years,” he said, in remarks carried on Russian television. The Russian proposal would also have implications for Europe, which has been paralyzed by winter stoppages in natural gas deliveries as Ukraine and Russia clashed over payments. The European Commission is likely to take a dim view of a merger because it would hamper efforts to draw Ukraine into its sphere of influence and away from Russia’s orbit.




Europe has heaped much of the blame for gas stoppages on Gazprom and the Kremlin. But it was unclear on Friday whether the commission had the means to intervene, or stymie, the Russian proposal. Part of the deal mooted by Mr. Putin involved lending Ukraine $500 million — a fact European Union officials are most likely to find galling, since they helped secure loans for Ukraine last year so it could pay its gas bills to Russia. Mr. Weafer said, though, that Europe might sign onto a joint venture plan, which would give Russia some equity in the pipeline system. Russia could then help modernize Ukraine’s pipeline system and use it to carry Central Asian gas into Europe. That arrangement, he added, could deal a death blow to Nabucco, a proposed pipeline that would transport Central Asian gas through Turkey into Austria, allowing Europe to reduce its dependence on Russian gas. As Ukraine considers Russia’s proposals, he noted, Moscow is pledging substantial sums. “They are getting what they want,” he said. “But they are paying for it.”


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/01/wo...gazprom&st=cse

Russia and Norway Reach Accord on Barents Sea

The leaders of Russia and Norway on Tuesday resolved a 40-year-old dispute over dividing the Barents Sea and part of the Arctic Ocean into clear economic zones extending to the edge of Europe’s northern continental shelf. The agreement could herald oil and natural gas exploration in a huge and potentially lucrative region. “I believe this will open the way for many joint projects, especially in the area of energy,” President Dmitri A. Medvedev of Russia said at a news conference. The agreement is subject to ratification by by the legislature of each country. The Norwegian prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg, said it showed good will in the face of rising international anxiety over who controls the Arctic seabed, which by some estimates contains a quarter of the world’s undiscovered fossil fuels. “This is a confirmation that Norway and Russia, two large polar nations, do not have a policy about racing, but a policy about cooperation,” he said. When Russian scientists planted a flag on the seabed at the North Pole in 2007, it seemed that a “race to the Arctic” was on, with northern nations aggressively jostling for the right to exploit resources that were previously out of reach.



The chairman of Norway’s Ocean Futures research institute, Willy Ostreng, said the agreement’s foundation in international law and bilateral negotiation bodes well for resolving future conflicts between other countries in the far north, where interest in shipping and offshore petroleum production may intensify if the polar ice cap continues to recede in response to warming temperatures. “It’s a model case for what may happen in the future in the Arctic,” Mr. Ostreng said. The Norwegian and Russian frontiers cap Europe’s northernmost bulge. The new delimitation extends the two countries’ 122-mile land border northward beyond all the islands of the Barents Sea and into the Arctic Ocean, although the two leaders did not provide an exact northward distance. Conventional practice elsewhere in the world has been to position maritime boundaries at the midpoint between opposing land masses, and for 40 years that has been Norway’s goal with respect to its Svalbard archipelago to the west and the Russian island groups of Novaya Zemlya and Franz Josef Land to the east.




Russia argued instead for a “meridian line” boundary running more or less straight north from the mainland, which would have provided it with an additional 67,000 square miles of economic territory — about equal to the entire Norwegian sector of the North Sea, whose oil resources have made Norway a rich country. Mr. Stoltenberg said the line approved on Tuesday splits that disputed area nearly in half, which means the line will still run considerably closer to the Norwegian islands than the Russian ones. A number of oil or gas fields identified by Russian seismic surveys in the 1980s are thought to straddle the line. “Both parties believe the disputed area contains rich deposits of mineral resources, in particular oil and gas,” said Mr. Ostreng. “But they don’t know for sure. And when you don’t know for sure, you act as if the area is extremely rich. It is not easy to give up strategic resources.”





A spokesman for Greenpeace, the international environmental organization, said he was startled by how the two leaders talked about oil and gas exploration immediately after announcing the new boundary. “It just shows the greediness of Russia and Norway that the first thing they talked about is not global warming, which is what’s making this area suddenly accessible, but resource extraction,” said Truls Gulowsen, head of the group’s Norway branch. “This part of the planet is extremely sensitive. It is often covered with ice and there is no technology to clean spilled oil and chemicals out of ice.” Geologists say the eastern Barents, under Russian economic stewardship, probably contains far more oil and gas than the Norwegian sector, though the Norwegians have beaten their neighbors to the punch by starting production in a western Barents field called Snow White. Based on expertise gained there, a Norwegian company, Statoil, has signed up to help Russia’s state gas giant, Gazprom, develop a large offshore field called Shtokman far out at sea on the Russian side of the Barents. That technologically demanding project has been delayed, however, by low gas prices.




At a meeting in Canada of the Arctic nations last month, Foreign Minister Jonas Gahr Store of Norway seemed to express frustration over Russia’s longstanding opposition to placing the maritime boundary at an equal distance between islands of the two nations. He was widely quoted as saying Russia was “not yet a stable, predictable state.” The two states have clashed in the past over fishing rights and practices in the Barents Sea, which contains vast stocks of cod. But in recent years Russia and Norway have worked closely on a shared fisheries management system. So while the new dividing line will add clarity it will not alter fishing practices on a large scale, Mr. Ostreng said. The area in question qualifies as the high seas, he said, so no matter where the line was drawn it would not affect passage by naval vessels or commercial ships.


Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/wo.../28norway.html

[Armanen]

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

Nord Stream Takes Shape: A Big Victory For Russia

Gimme Fuel: $11 billion pipeline launched, EU to get gas directly via Nord Stream: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kT0Xd...layer_embedded


Russian President Medvedev inaugurated the construction of the controversial undersea natural gas pipeline system Nord Stream on 9 April 2010. The geo-political importance of Nord Stream cannot be overestimated. With the construction of the pipeline, Europe and Russia will be tied to each other even more closely. Russia will get a direct link with Western Europe without transit through Eastern Europe. Russia already meets a quarter of Europe’s energy needs. Nord Stream will increase European dependence on Russian natural gas further. Russia presently supplies about 140 billion cubic metre (bcm) of gas every year to Europe. Nord Stream will add up to 55 bcm per year to this capacity.

The gas will be supplied via two parallel steel pipelines of 27.5 bcm/year capacity each. The length of this under sea pipeline is 1220 km. It will begin at Vyborg in Russia near St. Petersburg, cut across the Baltic Sea (maximum depth 210 metres) and reach Greifswald in Germany. It will cost about US $12 billion to build and will be ready to deliver gas by 2012. It will be the largest underwater gas pipeline system when built. The pipeline will pass through the territorial waters and/or economic zones of Russia, Finland, Sweden, Denmark and Germany. Several side pipelines will be built in different countries to connect with the main pipeline.

The pipeline, discussions about which began in 1997, is an outcome of the strong commitment from former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder and Vladmir Putin, the former President and current Prime Minister of Russia. Schroeder is presently the chairperson of the Shareholders’ Committee. The strongest objection for the pipeline has come from Poland. In 2006, the Polish defence minister compared the agreement between Russia and Germany with the 1939 Nazi-Soviet Pact. There have also been apprehensions that the pipeline may be misused by Russia for spying purposes. Russia has dismissed these allegations as unfounded. Countries like Ukraine, Poland and Belarus stand to lose US $1 billion per year in transit fees when the pipeline is constructed.

Thirty per cent of the funding for the project will be provided from the equity holdings while the rest will be raised by various banks. Several European banks have joined the project to raise funds. Nord Stream is a truly pan-European project in which a large number of companies are joining hands. Russia’s Gazprom holds 51 per cent of shares in Nord Stream AG, Germany’s Wintershall and E.ON Ruhrgas hold 20 per cent each, and the Netherlands’ Gasunie holds 9 per cent. These companies have wide experience in building and operating natural gas pipeline projects around the world. Some other companies are expected to join the project. The equity holding pattern will change in future as more companies join the project. Already funding to the tune of US $4 billion has been raised from 22 banks.

The project will supply Russian gas to Germany, France, Denmank, Belgium and the Netherlands. Eventually a pipeline may be built to connect the United Kingdom also. The pipeline will help Russia diversify its routes and Russia’s dependence upon Ukraine for supply of gas to Europe will reduce. The recipient countries will be freed from supply disruptions caused by Russian-Ukrainian spats in the last few years. This factor alone has compelled Germany to back the pipeline project. Nord Stream will get its gas supples from Yuzhno-Russkoye gas field which has an proven gas reserves of 700 bcm and estimated reserves of one trillion bcm. The fields in the Yamal peninsula, Ob-Taz bay and Shtokman gas fields will also be added. These are some of Russia’s largest gas fields.

The project will change the nature of Russian-European relations. It is hoped that energy interdependence will forge better ties between the EU and Russia. Nord Stream is crucial for Europe’s energy security. Europe currently needs about 543 bcm of gas annually. This will go up to 629 bcm by 2025. Eighty one percent of this will have to be imported. Nord Stream will meet about 25 per cent of the projected growth in Europe’s gas imports. No wonder the project is listed as a priority project in EU’s Trans-Europe Energy Network (TEN - E).

Despite the beginning of the construction of the pipeline environmental concerns remain. The Baltic Sea is considered to be one of the most polluted seas in the world. Chemical and conventional munitions were dumped into the Baltic Sea after the two world wars. Several surveys have been carried out in the past to map the sites where such munitions may be lying. The pipeline route seeks to avoid sensitive sites. The concern is that construction activities in the sea may stir up the toxic waste in the Baltic Sea. Russia has said that the environmental impact studies done for the Nord Stream show that the pipeline is safe. Finland would not allow any construction ships to anchor in its economic zone. The pipeline project has obtained safety and environmental clearances from the concerned countries and agencies but environmental NGOs like WWF have criticised the environmental impact clearances obtained as inadequate.

Doubts have also been expressed about the economic viability of the project. Will it deliver Russian gas to European customers at an affordable price? Despite these apprehensions, Nord Stream should come as a great relief to energy starved Europe. Europe is looking for alternative non-Russian sources of energy supply as well. The Nabucco project is one such project aimed at delivering gas from Central Asia to Europe. Russia’s counter to Nabucco project is the South Stream project through the Black Sea into Southern Europe. It may be noted that together Nord Stream and South Stream gas pipelines will equal the gas pipeline capacity of the Russia-Ukraine-Europe system.

Russia is no doubt an energy super power. The dependence of individual European countries on Russian gas varies from 21 per cent in the case of France and 43 per cent for Germany to 74 per cent for Austria, 79 per cent for Poland and 100 per cent in the case of Finland. This dependence is likely to continue in the foreseeable future. The Nord Stream Project will further strengthen Prime Minister Putin’s vision of positioning Russia as a major power in the world.

Source: http://www.eurasiareview.com/2010/04...ctory-for.html