The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

A relatively old article from 2004 pertaining to aerial warfare. The article is about the performance of US Air Force pilots flying late model F-15s against pilots of the Indian Air Force flying an assortment of Russian build combat aircrafts. This article is very pertinent to today's assessment of the military capabilities of eastern block nations versus those of the western world. A similar article was posted within this thread some time ago. However, I wanted to take another look at this issue because there is a prevailing perception today in certain parts of the world, a false perception nevertheless, that western weaponry and military personnel are somehow superior to that of the Russian Federation.

Armenian

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

Convincing Taxpayers Nice and Easy


Indian Air Force SU-30 landing

By Viktor Litovkin

Moscow did not expecct anything like this from the US media. USA Today published an interview with General Hal Hornburg, who noted that India’s Su-30MKI multi-role fighters had completely defeated F-15C/D Eagle aircraft in 90% of mock dogfights. Gen. Hornburg, who heads the US Air Force’s Air Combat Command, said that US might not be as far ahead of the rest of the world as was originally thought. As the F-15 is the country’s main air-superiority fighter, the astonishing Indian victories may serve as a wake-up call for a number of senior figures in the Air Force, Gen. Hornburg added. This was only the first amazing revelation. The Inside Air Force official bulletin also discussed this “Russian victory”, mentioning even more shocking details. It turns out that F-15C/D Eagle fighters were pitted against Su-30MKI Flanker, as well as Mikoyan-Gurevich Mi-27 Flogger, MiG-29 Fulcrum and even ancient MiG-21 Bison warplanes. All of them were up to the mark, trouncing Eagles and French Mirage-2000 fighters, too. This came as a complete surprise for US pilots, the Washington ProFile web site says.



Russian military experts and aircraft designers did not show any signs of surprise after these victories. Sukhoi general designer Mikhail Simonov has repeatedly told the Russian Military Bulletin and other media bodies that the Su-27 Flanker and the Su-30MKI, modified version and now in service with the Indian air force, had been developed in the 1980s to deal with the F-15 Eagle. Moreover, Soviet designers stipulated far superior specifications well in advance. Consequently, experts are not particularly surprised that the performance of these fighters matches their specifications. On the other hand, Russian experts are surprised that the US top brass officially admitted this fact four months later. India’s Su-30MKI fighters and F-15C/D Eagles engaged each other in the skies over Elmendorf AFB, Alaska in February 2004, winning three out of four “dogfights”. However, no one mentioned their victory or many other similar facts back then. Russian fighters first triumphed over their US rivals in the skies over Korea and Vietnam. Apart from this, our warplanes won their first dogfights in the early 1990s, that is, when Sukhoi and MiG warplanes had just started taking part in international aerospace shows. At that time, several world-famous Su-27 fighters flew to Canada under the command of Maj.-Gen. Alexander Kharchevsky, who heads the Lipetsk center for retraining Russian air-force pilots, showing off their impressive potential there. (A Su-27 two-seater air-force trainer under the command of Kharchevsky carried President Vladimir Putin of the Russian Federation to Chechnya.)



Instead of missiles and artillery shells, Russian and US fighters used aerial gun cameras for recording their mock dogfights. US fighters were disappointed to learn about the results of these dogfights because their cameras did not show any Su-27s whatsoever. The Russians, though, had filmed their rivals from just about every angle, showing all vulnerable aircraft components.
Sukhoi Fighters Can Only Be Outnumbered Russian pilots owed their impressive success to the Su-27’s spectacular performance and its substantial thrust-to-weight ratio, rather than better aerial gun cameras. Their unsurpassed performance has already become a byword all over the world because no other warplane (except MiG fighters) can execute such mind-boggling stunts as Pugachev’s Cobra and some others.



The F-15, as well as the F-16 and the F-18, have a wide turning radius; Russian fighters, which can turn on the dime, merely switch on their after-burners, buzzing any other aircraft and dealing the coup de grace time and again. Apart from Canada, MiG-29 air-superiority fighters vied with their South Africa’s Mirage-2000 planes in the mid-1990s, defeating them all the same. Chief designer Arkady Slobodskoi, who supervises the MiG-29 program, claims that any MiG-29 will score a 100% kill, once its pilot has the enemy in his sights; it takes just five to six machine-gun bursts to down an enemy aircraft in such conditions, Slobodskoi added. The United States, which knows all about the dazzling combat potential of Russian fighters, even purchased a MiG-29K squadron from Moldova after the Soviet Union’s disintegration. (That squadron was deployed at an airfield near Chisinau.) Germany, which had obtained quite a few MiG-29s after reunification, helped repair these Moldovan fighters. Both Germany and the United States are now using these aircraft to train their pilots, so that they could cope with those 7,000 “Russian fighters” the world over.


Indian Air Force Tanker IL-78MK With Two SU-30MKIs

Great Britain’s Military Balance magazine estimates that India alone has more than 500 Russian-made fighters. It is hardly surprising that Indian pilots can defeat their US rivals in no time at all because unique aircraft and skilled pilots are a key to success, despite the US Air Force’s intensive combat training programs. On the other hand, US pilots have not confronted any strong adversaries for quite a while now, experts say. The US Air Force ruled the skies over Yugoslavia in 1999, disregarding professionalism back then. The same can be said about the 1991 and 2003 Iraqi campaigns because the Iraqi air force was grounded in both of them. Accordingly, mock dogfights are the only way to amass experience.

Where Are The Russians Heading?

The old-time Air Force mentality prevents its pilots from “confronting” their Russian counterparts because any possible setbacks would be detrimental to their morale; any USAF pilot must be convinced that he can and must defeat the former “theoretical enemy”. At the same time, no such problem exists during mock dogfights involving Indian pilots because one can explain their victories by inadequate training. We will get even with them next time, US pilots say.

But why does the United States inform the whole wide world about its setbacks? Neither Russian, nor US generals like to do this. The explanation lies on the surface: Congress discusses defense budget appropriations for the next fiscal year every June, which is why the US top brass has now started talking about February 2004 events. The projected US defense budget totals a fantastic $450 billion, exceeding Russian defense appropriations ten-fold. However, the Pentagon thinks this sum total is not enough and would like to get a bigger slice of the pie. Consequently, the US Defense Department is doing its best to enlist the support of ordinary taxpayers, so that the Congress will set aside additional monies. With this in mind, the Pentagon is telling the entire world about the dazzling success of Russian fighters and the defeat of its own warplanes. Such behavior is not reprehensible; on the contrary, it is quite useful. The Pentagon knows only too well that the US political establishment has always reacted painfully to the call “The Russians Are Coming”.

This is a good PR lesson, which we should learn, as well. Those who advocate an all-out rearmament program for Russia’s Armed Forces must learn this lesson, in the first place. Right now, they do not like to admit that Russian combat hardware and weapons are slightly inferior to their foreign equivalents. They are not confused by elementary logic, which implies that a lack of problems does not necessitate the modernization of weapons; nor does such logic call for developing and procuring new expensive weapons systems. Unlike their US counterparts, such people manage to obtain additional monies from Parliament and the Government behind the scenes, without relying on the public at large and ordinary Russians, whose monies are being channelled into the defense budget. We will be able to appreciate the results of this work soon enough, that is, after the 2005 defense budget is endorsed. Quite possibly, these results will be seen in Chechnya or Ingushetia.

Source: http://www.voltairenet.org/article136421.html

[Armenian]

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

The CIS and Baltic press on Russia

24/08/2007

ESTONIA

Analysts have lashed out at Russia for discrediting Estonia in a large-scale propaganda campaign. Policymakers are urging the formation of a government-run propaganda agency for stronger resistance to Moscow's ideological offensive. "Why tolerate this all-round foolish criticism of Estonia? Several months ago we believed that there was no point in objecting to the Russian stupidities and that our diplomats would paint the true picture about Estonia and its people behind the scenes of world politics. But now we can now longer hope it will work. Our leaders should deal with this.... The Russians are humiliating us and lying in cold blood, and we have to counter their propaganda." (SL Ohtuleht, August 16). The press describes the Russian media coverage of a two-day fishing trip by Vladimir Putin and Prince Albert II of Monaco as the "best PR action of all times." During fishing in the Yenisei River, photographers took pictures of Putin stripped to the waist. "During his last year in office, Putin has been surrounded by the halo of God Almighty.... Prince Albert of Monaco did not catch much, while Putin again pulled out a few salmon. Jubilant, he decided to please the photographers by taking off his shirt. Compared to the frequently drunk and ailing Boris Yeltsin, Putin looked excellent. The president is in good shape and looks as a man with a grip of steel, who can fight against everything, including Western influence." (Postimees, August 18).

LATVIA

The press believes that the Sino-attended war games on Russian territory confirm Western fears about Moscow's intentions to transform the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) from an economic alliance into a military-political bloc. "The SCO-West geopolitical confrontation is a fact. It has not yet acquired military-political dimensions; but if America tries to boost by force its influence in the SCO geopolitical space, the alliance is bound to turn into a military-political bloc. The military exercises launched near Chelyabinsk in parallel with the summit are a clear signal to the West." (Biznes & Baltiya, August 21). Commentators are particularly concerned over the Kremlin's plans to use the SCO potential for reinforcing Russia's positions on the energy market. "The SCO aims at creating an Asian OPEC.... The West is worried about many aspects of its activities, but mostly about its bid to control energy resources. Effective military maneuvers are simply sidetracking the public's attention from more important issues." (Chas, August 20).

LITHUANIA

The press is surprised at Putin's calm reaction to the explosion, which derailed the Nevsky Express train (Moscow-St. Petersburg). "For some reason, Russian President Vladimir Putin was not disturbed by this act of terror. Usually Putin is posing as a tough fighter against terrorism, but this time he seemed to be deliberately frivolous. Not only he did not stop his fun trip with Prince Albert II of Monaco in Siberia, he was also posing half-naked to the photographers and TV cameramen as a man on vacation." (Lietuvos rytas, August 16). The press is criticizing Gazprom and its mediators for exerting growing influence on decision-making by the Lithuanian authorities. Journalists are linking the vague prospects of the Ignalina nuclear power plant with Gazprom's pressure on the republic's government. "The Russian Gazprom is the least of all interested in a new nuclear power plant because once the old bloc [of the nuclear power plant] is closed, Lithuania will have to buy more gas from it, and in this way the gas monopoly will double its sales.... Isn't this foreign economic organization exerting influence on the Lithuanian government?" (Respublika, August 17).

BELARUS

Political scientists are accusing the Russian and Belarusian authorities of fanning-up anti-American attitudes in their countries. "In Russia, dislike of America is the most popular subject. Many Russian political parties have adopted anti-Americanism as a certain [ideological] problem.... In this respect, official Belarus is not lagging behind Russia one bit - it is ready to go with anyone and anywhere on the anti-American road.... In recent times, both Russia and Belarus have been hugely irritated by the U.S. support for some pro-Western Ukrainian and Georgian forces. Both Moscow and Minsk see this as a direct threat to their regimes, because such support may be extended to adjacent territories. As a result, anti-Americanism has become all but official state ideology in our countries." (Telegraf, August 17).

UKRAINE

Some publications are linking the detonation on the Moscow-St. Petersburg railroad with the preparations for the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. They say that the militants have become more active because of the U.S. negative approach to holding the Olympic Games in China and Russia. "We suppose the Americans and their allies will not boycott the Olympics.... But this is a clear signal to Beijing and to the even less friendly Moscow. They are being offered to be good guys in the pre-Olympic years - no international ventures, bloody special operations and crude onslaught against dissidents. The militants from the North Caucasus, these irreconcilable foes of the Putin regime, have taken nice of Washington's mood.... However, one gets the impression that the militants are deliberately missing the targets and, luckily, the human losses from their acts are relatively small." (Glavred, August 16).

MOLDOVA

Opposition parties are emphatically negative about the Russian-media quoted statement by political scientist Sergei Karaganov to the effect that the Russian military bases will remain in Transdnestr under the Moscow-Chisinau agreement. "Karaganov is a mouthpiece for the Putin-led Kremlin administration. Karaganov has made public what Moscow and Chisinau were trying to conceal, notably that the so-called Transdnestr agreement provides for state federalization, preservation of the military arsenal and Russian occupational troops, and Moldova's return to the Russian orbit." (Flux, August 15).

ARMENIA

Journalists are convinced that it is not possible to establish partnership with Russia. Moscow will continue doing all it can to keep the republic isolated. "Armenia's growing dependence on Moscow will increasingly weaken the Western attempts to neutralize Russian influence, not to mention stage a 'color revolution.' Russia stands to gain very much from Armenia's isolation and unilateral dependence on Moscow.... The Russian Federation does not have long-term integration programs for Armenia. The Kremlin is satisfied with the status-quo. If its ally tries to follow a different road, Moscow may create a conflict situation. In Armenia's case, this is obviously the outstanding issue of Nagorny Karabakh." (Iravunq, August 15).

GEORGIA

The media are emotionally reacting to the news that the Russian president awarded 12 citizens of South Ossetia with orders and medals for "contribution to the cultural and educational exchanges between nations." They are describing this move as yet another provocation against Georgia. "Isn't Putin trying to achieve the recognition of the 'republic of South Ossetia' by a round-about way?" (Sakartvelos respublica, August 17). "Putin himself is now orchestrating the escalation of tensions - before Russian generals or medium-rank politicians were doing the instigator job. Now that the whole world is watching Georgian-Russian confrontation, such actions are rather indicative and demand special attention. It appears that the situation has become so tense, that the Kremlin does not stop at anything." (Kviris Palitra, August 20).

AZERBAIJAN

The opposition press is openly blaming the Kremlin for support for nationalist groups. "Fighting terrorists in the Caucasus, the Russian government fails to see them in the country's capital. According to this year's official statistics, 40 migrants have been killed in Russia by nationalist groups. The real figure is many times higher. But for some reason, the Russian national socialist party, which has become the Russian al-Qaeda, is not qualified as a terrorist group and its members are not arrested. To the contrary, the nationalists are enjoying the Russian government's patronage. There are grounds to consider the movement against illegal immigration a Kremlin-backed legal terrorist group." (Yeni Musavat, August 17).

KAZAKHSTAN

Analysts believe that the Afghan situation opens the SCO doors to Turkmenistan, which is an essential link in the Afghan security belt. At the same time, experts do not support the admission of other states into the SCO. "The current SCO members do not want new problems in their space. Take for instance the potential membership of Pakistan and India. They have complicated relations, and the entry of one will automatically lead to the admission of the other in order to avoid regional imbalance. As a result, the SCO will receive the Kashmir problems and the South Asian knot. The same is true of Iran. Today, the SCO cannot afford to have its platform eroded, and for this reason it can accept Pakistan, Iran and India as observers in mid-term perspective." (Liter.kz, August 17).

TURKMENISTAN

Commentators are writing about the dominance of Russian investors at the Turkmen energy market and the weak American positions in the region. "Moscow does not have the habit of mixing its proposals on energy cooperation to Ashgabat with complaints about the status of democracy and human rights in Turkmenistan.... Moscow is always willing to show due respect for Ashgabat. This helps it to be the first in reaching energy agreements with the Turkmen leadership." (Dogry Yol, August 17).

TAJIKISTAN

Journalists think that Uzbekistan's decision to rejoin the Collective Security Treaty Organization could dramatically change the geopolitical situation not only in Central Asia, but also in the whole post-Soviet space. "The majority of experts and analysts hold this opinion. Tashkent is expected to take its place in the most powerful political and military organization in the CIS. With this move, Moscow will not only gain a new economic partner. Russia is also interested in Tashkent from a military and strategic point of view. Thus, Uzbekistan's presence in the organization guarantees that Russia will regain its military and political influence in Central Asia: four of five states in the region will be in the organization's sphere of influence. This will help Russia to play a more significant role in Central Asia than it has in recent years." (Millat, August 16).

Source: http://en.rian.ru/analysis/20070824/74139125.html

[Armenian]

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

Presidents hail Russia-Armenia trade and economic ties.



Itar-Tass, August 23

The presidents of Russia and Armenia, Vladimir Putin and Robert Kocharyan, hailed on Thursday progress in the development of trade and economic relations and, in particular, investment cooperation between the two countries, Putin’s aide Sergei Prikhodko told Tass. “The meeting assessed high amounts of trade and economic cooperation between Russia and Armenia,” he noted. “In the first six months of this year trade between the two countries grew 70 percent,” Prikhodko stressed. “President Kocharyan highly appreciated a growing interest of the Russian business in investing in his country,” the Kremlin aide said. “A high growth pace of the Russian economy and the economy of Armenia make investment projects more attractive,” he stressed. “The energy sector and the development of the transport network are also actively discussed,” Prikhodko added.

Source: http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2....2357&PageNum=0

Russia to invest over half billion dollars to Armenian economy

APA, 23 Aug 2007

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Armenian President Robert Kocharyan today had meeting, APA reports quoting RIA Novosti agency.
The sides discussed huge projects to be implemented with the participation of Russia in Armenia. Kremlin source stated that bilateral cooperation in energy with the participation of Gasprom occupies special place among these projects. Over $500 million will be invested in Armenian economy in the framework of this project. Involvement of Russian capital into the development of Razdan Thermal Power Station, construction of refinery near Mehri city, modernization of Armenia’s railways and other transport infrastructures, atomic energy, gold production and other fields are on focus. Putin and Kocharyan also touched on several international problems and the situation in the Caucasus

Source: http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=33372

[Armenian]

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

Georgia Says It Fired on a Military Craft Violating Airspace



New York Times, August 25, 2007

Georgian police forces fired machine guns at an unidentified military aircraft that violated a remote area of Georgian airspace on Wednesday, a senior Georgian official said early on Saturday. Shortly after the shooting, residents of an isolated mountain village reported hearing an explosion and seeing forest fires raging, the official said. The official, Shota Utiashvili, head of the analysis department for Georgia’s Interior Ministry, said that the nationality and type of plane were unclear, but that he presumed that it was either Russian or piloted by the region’s Russian-backed separatists. “In theory, it could be either Russian or the Abkhaz,” he said by telephone.

Mr. Utiashvili’s comments, which followed a diplomatic dispute over a previous Georgian accusation that a Russian military plane had dropped a missile near another Georgian village, drew sharp and swift criticism from Moscow. Aleksandr Drobyshevsky, a Russian Air Force spokesman, labeled the accusation “one more provocative piece of information directed against us,” according to the Interfax news agency, and insisted that no Russian aircraft had been in Georgian airspace or were missing. “All force aircraft are currently on airfields, and the pilots are having a rest,” he said.

Mr. Utiashvili said an unidentified military jet was flying from south to north through the Kodori Gorge. It had crossed into Georgia from Abkhazia, a territory controlled by separatists, and was heading to the Russian border at the Caucasus ridge when a police unit fired on it, he said. He emphasized that it was not clear that the police had shot a plane down. He said that perhaps the plane had fired ordnance that started the fires, which he said were reported by residents of the mountain village of Omarishara.

Abkhazia also denied having a plane in Georgian airspace, and said it had fired at a Georgian plane that had intruded on its forces’ military exercises. Relations between Georgia and Russia have soured since late 2003, when a bloodless revolution in Georgia toppled a corrupt, post-Soviet government. In the years since, a pro-Western president and Parliament have sought access to NATO and the European Union. Georgia has accused Russia of providing military support to separatists in two Georgian regions, and has said Russia has violated its airspace with military helicopters and jets. The claims have intensified this year, and Georgia has accused Russia of conducting two separate missile attacks with aircraft.

Moscow has denied any role. Mr. Utiashvili said that a fire was still burning in the area where the explosion was heard, and that Georgian forces hoped to visit the charred area on Saturday to search for signs of aviation ordnance or a downed plane.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/25/wo...tml?ref=europe

[Armenian]

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

Russia Profile Weekly Experts Panel: Putin’s Legacy



Contributors: Stephen Blank, Ethan S. Burger, Vlad Ivanenko, Andrei Lebedev, Edward Lozansky, Anthony T. Salvia, Andrei Seregin, Andrei Zagorski

I know that it might seem a little too early to talk about President Vladimir Putin’s legacy. After all the man still has about nine months to go in his Kremlin office, and there is still a small chance he might change his mind about retiring after his second term expires. However Putin’s reign began not on the day he was elected president of Russia in March 2000, but about seven months earlier, in August 1999, when ailing President Boris Yeltsin fired yet another prime minister and appointed in his place an obscure former FSB chief. Last week marked the eighth full year that Vladimir Putin has spent at the pinnacle of Russian state power, so it seems fitting to launch this discussion on what his rule meant for the country.

At the time Putin came to power eight years ago, Russia was teetering on the brink of chaos. A week before Putin’s appointment, a gang of Chechen terrorists led by Shamil Basayev launched a bloody raid into neighboring Dagestan seeking to establish a terrorist caliphate from the Caspian to the Black Sea. A few weeks later, two apartment buildings were blown up in Moscow with massive civilian casualties. A year after the financial meltdown of 1998, the Russian economy was reeling under high inflation, heavy international debt and a dysfunctional tax system. Russian regions were fiefdoms ruled by corrupt regional elites seeking greater autonomy from Moscow.

Eight years later, Russia has the ninth largest economy in the world, it has paid off its entire sovereign debt, and is sitting on $420 billion in hard currency reserves; its economy is growing at 7 percent a year and the Russian stock market has gained about a trillion dollars in value since Putin became prime minister. In foreign and security policy, Russia’s transformation under Putin has been no less spectacular. After years of humiliation and disrespect Russia, has regained what Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov calls “freedom of speech and freedom of action in international affairs.” Some Russian pundits have even compared Putin to Franklin D. Roosevelt, who similarly restored the belief of the American nation in its future.

Putin’s critics claim that he has restored autocracy after a brief democratic spring under Yeltsin, that he has destroyed freedom of speech and brought Russian media under state control. The critics fail, however, to explain Putin’s staggering popularity among the Russian people. His approval ratings rarely dip below 70 percent, and were he to seek a third term, like Roosevelt in 1940, he would be similarly reelected in a landslide. So what is the real legacy of Vladimir Putin’s eight years in power? Has he provided the answer to the question that plagued him in the first years of his presidency – Who is Mr. Putin? What has been his impact on Russia’s relations with the outside world? What kind of country is Putin leaving his successor? Is Russian democracy better off than it was eight years ago? Does Putin need to stay in power or return in a few years to continue the course he has charted for Russia?

Andrei Lebedev, Senior Associate, the State Club Foundation, Moscow

Those who qualify Putin’s legacy as unconditional success are contradicted by those who point out that an exceptional situation helped secure excellent results. “Look,” critics say, “the starting point was amazingly low in all respects – socially, politically, and economically. It would have been difficult to fare worse, and most leaders would have fared better – as Mr. Putin himself would – had he taken more liberal course”. There is no sense arguing with hypothetical assumptions. There is no use trying to prove there was no way other than through strengthening the power vertical to prevent Russia from disintegrating under the weight of disparate oligarchs’ interests, the threat of prevailing criminality, the centrifugal forces of regional separatism (not only that of Chechnya) and external political pressure. One has to judge by results. Whatever Putin’s critics and supporters say, these results are not equivocal.

Putin’s great achievements are indisputable. Economic growth penetrated even the farthest regions of the country, giving hope – if not immediate well being – to millions of Russians. Political threats have been reduced, diminished or altogether prevented. Other threats, however, still linger. Corruption is one of the most dangerous. Though no country can boast defeating corruption altogether and the Russian government has taken some steps in the struggle against it, there is no hope of victory until the highest circles of the elite are affected. Economic growth depends largely on oil and gas exports revenues. There is a slim chance that “innovative technologies” will succeed in taking off as a significant economic driver, but the time for that is running out. Judging by the clumsy approach to developing nanotechnologies, the struggle of innovations against bureaucracy might be doomed. The political scene is overregulated. Soviet-style techniques of dealing with the opposition eradicate competition and are counterproductive. It repulses the most creative and fruitful people from joining politics where they could serve society and the state well.

The realm of Foreign affairs represents, paradoxically, the area where results have probably been strongest. Russia’s international standing is probably higher than during the best of Soviet times. However, Russia still has to realize its strategic interests and to transform its temporary alliances into more or less permanent bonds and establish strategic partnership with suitable states that go further than intergovernmental declarations. To sum it up, today Russia is at a crossroads. A lot has been done to save the country and Putin gets full credit for that. But a lot remains to be done in the uphill battle to prevent Russia from degrading. This is the work for the next Russian president.

Andrei Zagorski, Professor, MGIMO-University, Moscow

The balance sheet of Putin’s presidency is incomplete if the list of his political and economic success is not complemented by deficits. Putin has disappointed initial expectations triggered by his comprehensive reform agenda of 2000. The announced reforms have come to a complete standstill during his second term, and he failed to deliver on the promise of leveling the field. The core problems of guaranteeing property rights and ensuring fair competition in both politics and economics remain unresolved.

Under Putin, a bureaucratic and unprecedentedly corrupt state capitalism has been erected that benefits a narrow Kremlin nomenclatura as well as those operators who demonstrate loyalty to the regime. Instead of growing by private initiatives spreading wealth, the Russian economy is increasingly administered through budgetary expenditures producing an illusion of economic growth in sectors other than energy. Lacking real structural reforms, the Russian economy loses out in competition with manufacturers from China, South Korea, India and the old industrial nations of Europe and North America. The gap between rich and poor, between the booming and depressed regions in Russia is growing instead of narrowing. It did not take Putin much effort to kick off the economic growth that began even before his appointment as prime minister in 1999. It was a result of the depreciation of the ruble following the 1998 default as well as the availability of industrial production space and skilled personnel. This growth was supported by reforms launched at the beginning of Putin’s first term. And the country was easier to govern in conditions where the price of oil was $70 per barrel, compared with $14 per barrel or less, as was the case in the second half of the 1990s.

The economic growth enabled Putin to ban political competition and to consolidate the reign of the new nomenklatura free of checks and balances from a representative parliament, independent judiciary, emancipated regional leaders, the business community, a free media or a viable civil society. As those institutions have no longer much to say in Putin’s Russia, they are legitimately considered unimportant by the people. It should come as no surprise that the popularity of the president is not contested. Putin’s successors can take neither of those benefits for granted and will have to pursue a completely different agenda. Being confronted with new challenges, many Russians will soon dream of returning to the good old Putin years, just as now some dream of returning to the good old Brezhnev years of the 1970s. However, in the new environment, a hypothetical return of Putin to power would not help conquer the problems facing us any more than the return of Brezhnev would.

Vlad Ivanenko, Ph.D., Statistics Canada, Ottawa

I believe that history will confirm the view that Putin is the best leader Russia has had in the last 100 years and, moreover, his record of achievements may not be surpassed for some time to come. The last consideration suggests that it is too early to evaluate Putin’s legacy because he is capable of achieving even more. To assess what he can do in retirement, we should concentrate not on what Putin has tried to do, but on what he has failed to accomplish during his presidency. The main problem that Russia faces today is its inability to find a decent place in the global economy. Despite the impressive progress over the last nine years, the world still recognizes the country mostly as a supplier of raw materials. If Russia is unable to attain global competitiveness in sectors other than extraction, it will gradually be caught in the orbit of a stronger center of gravity, be it the EU or China. In this case, it will lose the ability to set national policies independently, which is the least desirable result for the Kremlin.

Thanks to favorable terms of trade, Russia has been able to accumulate significant financial resources, making ambitious development plans possible. Yet, the level of potential funding far exceeds the quality of unveiled national strategies and the observed administrative capability of Russian public servants. Thus, to succeed, the country needs to put forward leaders who dare to dream and a mechanism to improve the accountability of its bureaucratic apparatus. It may sound paradoxical, but a retired Putin is in a better position to succeed on both fronts. First, he will be free from informal, but nevertheless binding, obligations associated with running an office. Knowing Russian problems intimately, he can experiment searching for the best development strategies. Second, the powers-to-be will be obliged to react to his advice, as Putin is likely to retain a popularity that far exceeds that of his replacement in the foreseeable future. Thus, he can challenge unopposed the autocratic system that he helped build in the last decade, but which has become a constraint that limits Russian economic progress.

At any rate, it is too early to claim that Putin has fulfilled his mission and is ready to retire. He is an ambitious man who hates leaving behind unfinished projects. Administrative reform was his biggest failure. Putin knows that and he is not going to give up easily.

continued:

[Armenian]

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

Ethan S. Burger, Scholar-in-Residence, School of International Service, American University, and Adjunct Professor, Georgetown University Law Center, Washington, D.C.

Both professional and amateur historians are still debating Napoleon's legacy, and most of the relevant documents of the period that have survived are accessible. There is still much to learn about decision-making in contemporary Russia. Vladimir Putin has said that he will not be leaving the Russian political scene in 2008. What does this mean? It suggests that making an assessment of legacy is both premature and more a reflection of observers' values than objective factors. There is no doubt that the Russian people claim to have a sense of greater stability in their lives now than before Putin came to power, but how deeply have they been probed for their views? The Russian national economy is indeed stronger due to high prices for raw materials, especially energy, but what is the condition of the Russian economy outside the sector of natural resource production? It is troubling that features of Soviet rule are evident in many aspects of contemporary Russian society: For example, the state or its "favorites" have taken control of the country's vast natural reserves – who has profited?

The state runs the country's biggest television stations, so why does its leadership feel threatened by a diversity of opinion. Indeed it is troubling that the BBC's Russian service was taken off the air on Friday by its last FM distribution partner in Russia, the local radio station Bolshoye Radio. How does this relate to the death of Alexander Litvinenko? Many polls of the Russian population reflect that the Russian people have grown more nationalistic, more cynical and richer during the post-Yeltsin years, but at the same time, they sense that the level of corruption in the country has increased. The situation in Chechnya may have produced a temporary lull in violence, but with the ability of terrorists to wreak havoc, what are the future implications for Russia? What is the truth about the bombing of the recent bombing of a train between Moscow and St. Petersburg? Most international organizations and NGOs have taken off their gloves in describing the human rights and rule of law situation in Russia. Putin is promising to deploy new strategic weapons against the United States and modernize its bomber fleet to be prepared to attack the United States, if necessary. Putin has undone the concept of Russia being a federation and has re-centralized the country. Whether this will continue indefinitely is uncertain. It also is unclear whether he will attempt to maintain power directly or indirectly. Russia again is a government of men and not law. Bringing the Olympics to Sochi is not much of an offsetting factor.

Andrei N. Seregin, Head of Research, Imageland Public Relations Agency, Moscow, Russia

The problem with answering the notorious “Who is Mr. Putin?” question for most of the observers in the West seems quite simple. With only half a year remaining until Putin leaves office, Russians themselves won’t find an easy answer. Putin is a highly contradictory political figure – his huge political successes must be balanced against the potential for serious future problems as a result of his policies. He has effectively reinstated Russia’s prominence in the world and developed new reasons for national pride. Still, the economy’s dependence on natural resources is growing; the state, while taking more control over the industry and market has yet to be proven effective; and social inequalities and ethnic conflicts are increasing. Today, Putin resembles Nikita Khrushchev, who could boast of huge success, but was also responsible for serious failures.

The greater problem, though, is not to define precisely who Putin is, but whether he has ensured his successor will have enough control over Russian political elites. Putin managed to overcome almost all of the Yeltsin era troubles – all but one. The stability of the Russian political system and balance of power among the elites still depends heavily on the president, who is the only legitimate guarantee of maintaining the status-quo among political and business tycoons through numerous mutual personal obligations. The moment Putin leaves office, his balancing influence will mostly disperse. Some would argue that Putin himself started from scratch in the late 1990s and gained prominence and influence through a rather short, focused and effective PR campaign. But the economic and social conditions of Russia then were quite different from what they are now. This is why, despite far more active campaigning on the part of all of Putin’s potential successors, none of them can hope to have the incumbent’s popularity.

However, Putin’s popularity with Russians now seems to be a kind of political liability rather than a political asset. Though it still may be effectively used in the campaigning by Russian political parties in December and Putin’s political heirs, Putin’s influence can’t be fully transferred to any of projected successors once he leaves office in March. The start of Russia’s 2007-2008 campaign season has already been marked by huge government interventions into many sectors of the economy, including automobile manufactures, helicopters, aviation engines, pharmaceuticals. In many cases, this intervention has involved the state taking whole segments of an industry under its direct control through creating state-controlled mega-corporations. Some experts see this process as a pretext to another wave of redistributing wealth and influence among Russia ruling classes, which makes it hard not to believe that after Putin leaves the redistribution of property will be radical enough to ignite another round of elite conflict, undermining the political and economic stability that is still seen by most Russians as the main success of Putin’s tenure. Taking this prospect into account, it seems certain that Putin will retain some amount of influence even after he leaves the Kremlin, and perhaps Putin will capitalize on his popularity while out of power to make an ancient-Rome-style triumphant comeback after his successor fails.

Anthony T. Salvia, Special Advisor to the Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, Reagan Administration, Washington DC.

Vladimir Putin's historical role has been to fashion a new Russia out of the rubble of the Soviet system and whatever remnants of pre-Soviet Russia that survived. It has been an astonishingly deft performance conducted in the face of a jihadist war on Russia soil (now won) and ongoing Western efforts to encircle the country (on going). He gets no credit in the West, which crudely and disingenuously portrays him as a latter-day Stalin. The Western aid money and NGO invasion of the Yeltsin years may not have been entirely ill-intentioned, but they were designed to turn Russia into a satellite that would rubber stamp a U.S.-led reshaping of the international order even if this contradicted Russia's national interest. Yeltsin played along; Putin refused. His rejection of Western patronage paved the way for the nation's current revival. Under Putin, Russia – like the United States under my old boss Ronald Reagan – is back.

For all of Putin’s achievements, a great deal remains to be done. Among the areas of most urgent concern are Russia's collapsing demographics, the troubling, over controlled state of the nation's internal political order, diversifying the national economy away from raw materials and tackling widespread poverty. Another is the matter of Russia's overarching mission in the world (or lack thereof), which some commentators confuse with a governing ideology. Russia needs no such ideology, but rather a set of moral objectives to guide the formulation of foreign and domestic policies capable of inspiring people at home and abroad. Russia may be back, but it needs a mission.

What could such a mission consist of? President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov have given tantalizing hints, but have yet to spell it out. Speaking at an EU summit in Finland last October, Putin, according to the Financial Times, urged the assembled heads of government to "safeguard Christianity in Europe." It is well known that Pope Benedict XVI and Russian Orthodox Patriarch Alexy II are interested in the Roman Catholic and Russian Orthodox Churches working together in meeting the challenges posed by secular materialism, radical Islam and a rising China. It would not be a bad thing if Putin was thinking of a Northern Hemispheric alliance to preserve the broadly defined values of European civilization.

In a recent, much-publicized article on Russian foreign policy, Sergei Lavrov evoked Dostoevsky in decrying the "anything is allowed" approach to the conduct of foreign policy, in which traditional, ethics-based moral criteria of right and wrong are brushed aside in favor of standing "above the moral law, beyond good and evil." Here Lavrov rejects the Leninist notion that the moral value of an action is determined not by objective criteria of good and evil derived from the Judeo-Christian tradition, but by whether or not it advances the interests of progressive humanity – as Lavrov implies globalists believe.) He equates globalism with a decline in moral standards and calls for "humility" in the conduct of foreign policy and the universal application of international law, suspended by the Western powers in their drive to detach Kosovo from Serbia, to mention one example. He hints that globalism has roots in Bolshevism and Trotskyism (he's on to something there) and calls for an international system in which nations practice the golden rule.

This is rich material that cries out for development as a mission for Russia internally and abroad. If Russian leaders were to be guided by the classical virtues – prudence, courage, humility, sobriety and justice – in their development of foreign and domestic policies, Russia would be striking a blow for a much better world. If, in his remaining time in office, Putin were to forge such a mission for Russia and truly realize it, he would be rendering his people and the world a service. Above all, such high-minded principles should inform Russia's internal governance and much else will follow. As the great imperial Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin once observed, when a nation maintains a decent internal order, foreign policy takes care of itself.

Stephen Blank, The US Army War College, Carlyle Barracks, PA

(Dr. Blank’s views as contributed to Russia Profile do not represent the position of the U.S. Army, Defense Department or the U.S. Government)

There is no secret to Putin's popularity. Economic success, a president who is youthful, sober, tough in rhetoric, supported by economic progress and prosperity – itself largely due to the reforms of 2000-02 and energy – and backed by an increasingly cowed, repressed, and intimidated media easily explain it. Were a truly open political competition to take place, it is likely that Putin might win, but not by such huge margins. Second, his legacy will be one of economic progress based on the aforementioned factors. But the fact is he has left a trap for his successor. Reforms needed to continue the impetus of 2000-02 have ceased and are not in sight. If anything, we are now seeing a regression to increasing state control of key economic sectors. The demographic problem has not been solved and attention to it has only been fitful. Worse, Russia cannot produce enough energy using its resources to satisfy all of its customers and in Asia, for example, projects that are crucial to the economic and foreign policy interests of the state are behind schedule and way over cost.

These shortcomings are due to state policy more than to any other factor and are direct outcomes of the move by the Siloviki and state leaders to appropriate the economy for themselves, a trend that Putin has encouraged. In the realm of democracy, we have seen a steady rise not just of a closed economy, but also of a closed political system that is more prone to use violence against its challengers than has been the case since 1985. The rise of political murders, even outside of Russia, along with the creation of neo-Soviet policies like state media monopolies, increased censorship, police penetration of the society and organized, politicized youth groups who engage in violence, all speak to a regime that for all its bravado is deeply aware of its fundamental illegitimacy and fears open political competition. The resort to ersatz ideologies like sovereign democracy must be viewed in this context.

Edward Lozansky, President, American University in Moscow

In addition to the list of Putin’s impressive economic, security and foreign policy achievements, I would also note his skillful division, weakening, and marginalization of Russia’s extremist movements, or the red-brown coalition, as they are sometimes called. This coalition, if united, could gain momentum and pitch the country into a horrible, nightmarish and bloody chaos similar to that unleashed by the 1917 Bolshevik coup. Of course, the setting up of and financial support for new parties feeding out of the Kremlin’s hands is a far cry from Western democratic processes. However, if this obviously undemocratic behavior helps to split the fascists and other lunatics, I am all for it. Whatever you might say of the flamboyant and controversial politician Vladimir Zhirinovsky, he serves the useful purpose of attracting millions of voters who would otherwise vote for communists or nationalists. Another new left-of-center party, Just Russia, was definitely created to further split the communist electorate. If some of these artificial parties veer off the course set by the people up top, the oxygen flow to them is quickly cut off, as in the case of Dmitry Rogozin’s Rodina.

[...]

Source: http://www.russiaprofile.org/page.php?pageid=Experts'+Panel&articleid=a11879599 79&print=yes

[Yedtarts]

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

PUTIN PROMISES $1,5 BILLION INVESTMENTS

http://www.azgdaily.com/?lang=EN&num=2007082501

On August 23, Russian and Armenian presidents Vladimir Putin and Robert Kocharian met in Sochi (Russia). Vladimir Putin expressed his content with development of Armenian-Russian bilateral relations: increase in commodity turnover and allied cooperation in political sphere, "Novosti Armenia" agency informed.

Russian President V. Putin assured of $1,5 billion Russian investments in the Armenian economy in 2007.

In his turn, Robert Kocharian mentioned that Armenian-Russian relations develop in all directions: there is evident increase in investments, commodity turnover, military-technical and political cooperation.

There is an evident development process of mutual relations, according to the Armenian president, and the Armenian side expresses its perfect willingness to contribute to that process.

It’s worth to mention that this kind of meetings between the Russian and Armenian presidents at the Russian president’s residence "Bocharov Ruchey" in Sochi have become a tradition for the two presidents. As many politicians mention, those meetings aim to regulate bilateral relations of the two states: to give a new impetus and quality to them.

It’s the forth meeting of the presidents Putin and Kocharian this year; the second in Sochi.

It’s worth to mention, that if before we could say that the political issues were preliminary in the Armenian-Russian relations, today the situation has changed. The economic factor is a dominant issue in Armenia-Russia bilateral relations: over the first six months of 2007 the trade turnover between the two countries increased by 70% and at the end of the year it will probably exceed $500 mln.

Russia has become the Number One country with its investments in the Armenian economy ("Gasprom", "Vimpelcom", "Rusal" and other giant organizations).

On the other hand, there are serious problems in political relations of these two states: the mass media of the two countries write about it from time to time.

If the Russian politicians and experts do not hide their dissatisfaction at the Armenia-NATO developing relations, then we are not satisfied with the military relations of our military ally with Azerbaijan and Turkey.

Anyway, according to the Russian media one of the main issues of the Kocharian-Putin meeting is the military-political relations between the two states. According to the analysts, being a member of Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Armenia wants to deepen the mutual military relations with Russia. It means that these meeting will take place with the motto "Deepening of bilateral military relations".

In the background of the new developments in the region, the Armenian-Russian bilateral military relations have gained a new meaning and come from the interests of our country’s national security.

In this context, we can perceive the logic of the Armenia-NATO deepening relations.

The meeting of the two presidents has also a symbolic meaning, as it takes place close to the date of the 10th anniversary of the Armenian-Russian friendship and cooperation strategic agreement (on August 29, 1997). This agreement became the basis of the Armenian-Russian wide-ranging military cooperation.

By Armen Manvelian

[Armenian]

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

Azg is an excellent news source, I really enjoy their political analysis. And this article was very well written, very to the point. I had not heard about the 1.5 billion USD investment in the Russia Press, I wonder how accurate it is.

Nevertheless, it has been very obvious for many years that the Russian Federation has had serious plans for the Caucasus region. Naturally, that plan is not meant to turn Russia into a benevolent entity in the region, the plan is meant to serve Russia's national interests. Fortunately, within the geostrategic formulations of policy makers in Moscow, the existence of the Armenian Republic against the spread of Turkish/NATO influence in the region fit well into their plan. As long as there remains a western threat, as long as there remains a Turkish presence in the region, Armenia will continue to be an important player for Moscow. As I have stated in the past, Russia's southern borders essentially begin in the south Caucasus and Armenia is the only nation in the region today that fully serves Russian's geostrategic interests.

Thus, keeping Armenian within the Russian orbit is fundamental to Moscow's geostrategic formulations. In my opinion, keeping the Armenian Republic within Russia's orbit is so crucial for Moscow that it will do everything in its power, including armed intervention, to secure Armenian dependence upon the Russian Federation. At the same time, however, it is well known that the Russian Federation engages in a very lucrative economic trade with Turkey and Azerbaijan. Moreover, Turkic presence in the Russian Federation - demographically, officially and economically - far outweighs that of Armenia's. As a result, there is an inherent longterm danger in totally relying upon a crucial ally that has very lucrative relations with your enemies. What's more, every time Armenia has flirted with the idea of doing anything that did not involve Russia, Moscow has reacted harshly and has attempted to sabotage it. This harsh and unjust treatment, although understandable from a geopolitical perspective, has truly hurt the forward momentum of the Armenian Republic. Russia essentially treated Armenia like a controlling husband, a husband who nonetheless was not a good provider.

For many years Russia kept Armenia like a tyrannical husband keeps a wife - hungry, isolated, barefoot and afraid to look at another man. However, as most jealous husbands do, the wife was well protected from outside intrusion. This protection, however, did not help Armenia's domestic wellbeing.

After the departure of Boris Yeltsin from the political scene in Russia and the subsequent commencement of the house cleaning there, that which continues to this day, the overall geopolitical and socioeconomic situations of both nations, especially Russia, began to improve greatly. As the national economy of the Russian Federation grew enormously, today raking ninth globally, its trickle down effect, as expected, had a positive impacted upon Armenia's economy as well. Today Armenian-Russian economic trade is said to be well above five hundred million USD annually, making the Russian Federation Armenia's number one trading partner. This figure, already a substantial amount for a small landlocked fledgling nation like Armenia, will most probably continue to grow as Russia's economy grows.

I would like to add that the relationship between Russia and Armenia was given an additional boost after the events of September 11, 2001 when special interest groups in the US began implementing their longterm geostrategic designs within various sensitive regions across Eurasia, thereby placing certain major western nations on a collision course with the Russian Federation. As a result of the global chaos we have been observing for the past several years, the Russian Federation and the Armenian Republic have moved closer geopolitically.

Armenian

PUTIN PROMISES $1,5 BILLION INVESTMENTS

http://www.azgdaily.com/?lang=EN&num=2007082501

On August 23, Russian and Armenian presidents Vladimir Putin and Robert Kocharian met in Sochi (Russia). Vladimir Putin expressed his content with development of Armenian-Russian bilateral relations: increase in commodity turnover and allied cooperation in political sphere, "Novosti Armenia" agency informed.

Russian President V. Putin assured of $1,5 billion Russian investments in the Armenian economy in 2007.

In his turn, Robert Kocharian mentioned that Armenian-Russian relations develop in all directions: there is evident increase in investments, commodity turnover, military-technical and political cooperation.

There is an evident development process of mutual relations, according to the Armenian president, and the Armenian side expresses its perfect willingness to contribute to that process.

It’s worth to mention that this kind of meetings between the Russian and Armenian presidents at the Russian president’s residence "Bocharov Ruchey" in Sochi have become a tradition for the two presidents. As many politicians mention, those meetings aim to regulate bilateral relations of the two states: to give a new impetus and quality to them.

It’s the forth meeting of the presidents Putin and Kocharian this year; the second in Sochi.

It’s worth to mention, that if before we could say that the political issues were preliminary in the Armenian-Russian relations, today the situation has changed. The economic factor is a dominant issue in Armenia-Russia bilateral relations: over the first six months of 2007 the trade turnover between the two countries increased by 70% and at the end of the year it will probably exceed $500 mln.

Russia has become the Number One country with its investments in the Armenian economy ("Gasprom", "Vimpelcom", "Rusal" and other giant organizations).

On the other hand, there are serious problems in political relations of these two states: the mass media of the two countries write about it from time to time.

If the Russian politicians and experts do not hide their dissatisfaction at the Armenia-NATO developing relations, then we are not satisfied with the military relations of our military ally with Azerbaijan and Turkey.

Anyway, according to the Russian media one of the main issues of the Kocharian-Putin meeting is the military-political relations between the two states. According to the analysts, being a member of Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Armenia wants to deepen the mutual military relations with Russia. It means that these meeting will take place with the motto "Deepening of bilateral military relations".

In the background of the new developments in the region, the Armenian-Russian bilateral military relations have gained a new meaning and come from the interests of our country’s national security.

In this context, we can perceive the logic of the Armenia-NATO deepening relations.

The meeting of the two presidents has also a symbolic meaning, as it takes place close to the date of the 10th anniversary of the Armenian-Russian friendship and cooperation strategic agreement (on August 29, 1997). This agreement became the basis of the Armenian-Russian wide-ranging military cooperation.

By Armen Manvelian

[Armenian]

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

Iran-Russia trade hits $2.2b


Russian president Putin showing his Iranian counterpart the way

Value of Iran's export to Russia was $237 million in 2006. Iran's trade with Russia reached $2.2 billion in 2006, marking an increase of 6.2% from the previous year, Iran's envoy to Russia says. Speaking on the sidelines of a visit by Iran's ambassadors abroad to a Mashhad Exhibition, Gholamreza Ansari noted that out of the total volume of exchanges between the two countries, Iran's share amounted to $237 million, showing a growth of 6.2 percent over its previous year, Mehr News Agency reported. "The Russians are satisfied with the quality of Iranian products, which means further qualitative improvement is sure to take the volume of Iran's exports to higher levels," the official added. He pointed to domestic and international exhibitions as very effective means for boosting the country's foreign trade.

Source: http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=20311

[Armenian]

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

Contracts signed at MAKS-2007 air show outside Moscow top $3 bln



August 26 (RIA Novosti)

The value of contracts signed at the MAKS-2007 air show outside Moscow has exceeded $3 billion, the organizers said Sunday, citing preliminary results. MAKS-2007 is an aviation exhibition held every two years in the town of Zhukovsky, which hosts a military airbase. The air show, which opened August 21 and is coming to a close August 26, has gathered over 540 Russian companies and 247 foreign firms from 39 countries this year, the organizers said. The MAKS-2007 air show has attracted more than 600,000 visitors who have been able to see over 260 aircraft, most of them made domestically, and watch 35 types of planes to perform about 200 demonstration flights, the organizers said.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20070826/74739638.html