The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

Serbia warns EU as Russia aims at U.S. over Kosovo

BRUSSELS/BELGRADE (Reuters) - Serbia warned the EU on Wednesday it would not accept any decision on Kosovo taken outside the United Nations, and its ally Russia told the United States to stop backing Kosovo independence while talks continue. Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko, Russia's envoy in a troika with the European Union and the United States supervising Serb-Kosovo Albanian talks, accused Washington of bad faith for declaring support for Kosovo independence to occur later this year.

"I absolutely do not support that kind of attitude and those messages from the United States. I didn't expect that from the United States at the very moment negotiations began," he was quoted as saying by Serbia's daily Vecernje Novosti. Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica also called on the West not to encourage the breakaway province to declare independence and said Belgrade was being constructive in negotiations to resolve Kosovo's future by December 10. He gave no hint of any progress in the talks. "We do think that the United Nations and the Security Council are the sole institutions in which the problem of the future status of Kosovo should be dealt with," he said after talks in Brussels with EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana. "Everything else is a sort of violation of international law."

Efforts to win a Security Council resolution rubber-stamping a U.N. plan to put Kosovo on the road to independence broke down this year after Russia threatened to veto any such resolution. Moscow insists any pact on the province, administered by the United Nations since a 1999 NATO bombing campaign to drive out Serb forces, must not be imposed on Belgrade. Leaders of Kosovo's majority ethnic Albanians say they will declare independence unilaterally if internationally mediated talks which began in Vienna last month do not yield anything and have called on the United States and EU to back them. "I expected that America would support the negotiations and the search for a compromise solution," Russia's envoy said. "The U.S. comment that they will support an independent Kosovo is certainly not a message of support."

HOPES LOW

Hopes of progress have been low due to the huge gap between independence demands and Serbia's total rejection of those. Kostunica warned at a later news conference with top European Commission officials that declaring independence would "seriously endanger stability and peace, not only in Western Balkans but elsewhere," and call into question U.N. authority. He urged the Western states not to encourage that route. "In that case the damage would not be only to Serbia, the damage would be much broader," he said. "It would not be only damage for the countries that eventually recognize eventually independent Kosovo, but many other countries, many other regions...One cannot violate the U.N. charter in one case and not violate it in some others."

The troika is due to submit a report to the United Nations Secretary General on December 10, a date Washington regards as a deadline after which a prompt decision must be made. "This is only a deadline for the troika, but not for the negotiations," Botsan-Kharchenko said. "Russia is against any kind of deadline. Negotiations are necessary until a compromise solution is reached. Russia will not give up the position that the last decision on Kosovo has to be made in the Security Council. "Everything but that would be a breach of the international law. And Russia will not accept that."

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...091200566.html

[Armenian]

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

Russia to boost Ground Forces air defense - commander



MOSCOW, September 21 (RIA Novosti) - The Russian army will adopt a modernized version of the Tor-M air defense system in 2008, the Ground Forces press service said Friday. The Tor-M (NATO reporting name SA-15 Gauntlet) is a low to medium-altitude, short-range surface-to-air missile system designed for intercepting aircraft, cruise missiles, precision guided munitions, unmanned aerial vehicles and ballistic targets.

"More than 50% of air defense systems in service with the Ground Forces are outdated," the press service quoted Colonel General Nikolai Frolov, commander of the Ground Forces' air defense, as saying. "In order to improve the situation, we have decided to modernize the existing systems," the general said at a command-post exercise at the Kapustin Yar testing ground in southern Russia. He said the improved Tor-M2 version features significantly enhanced target acquisition capabilities and shorter minimum range - 1 kilometer (0.6 miles) - compared to its predecessor.

Frolov also announced plans to upgrade the Osa (NATO reporting name SA-8 Gecko), the most popular air defense system of the Ground Forces (about 400 units are in service), as well as the Tunguska missile-gun system, the Buk-M1 and the Strela-10 air defense missile systems. He said the Buk-M3, a modernized version of the Buk-M1 system (NATO reporting name SA-11 Gadfly), will be deployed in 2009. It will feature advanced electronic components and could be regarded as a completely new system. The Strela-10 air defense missile system (NATO reporting name SA-13 Gopher) will also be replaced in 2009 by an advanced version capable of operating in all weather conditions and at any time of day, the general said.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20060823/53030820.html

[Armenian]

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

The Sino-Russian Alliance: Challenging America's Ambitions in Eurasia



Global Research, September 23, 2007

“But if the middle space [Russia and the former Soviet Union] rebuffs the West [the European Union and America], becomes an assertive single entity, and either gains control over the South [Middle East] or forms an alliance with the major Eastern actor [China], then America’s primacy in Eurasia shrinks dramatically. The same would be the case if the two major Eastern players were somehow to unite. Finally, any ejection of America by its Western partners [the Franco-German entente] from its perch on the western periphery [Europe] would automatically spell the end of America’s participation in the game on the Eurasian chessboard, even though that would probably also mean the eventual subordination of the western extremity to a revived player occupying the middle space [e.g. Russia].”

-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)

Sir Isaac Newton’s Third Law of Motion states that “for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.” These precepts of physics can also be used in the social sciences, specifically with reference to social relations and geo-politics. America and Britain, the Anglo-American alliance, have engaged in an ambitious project to control global energy resources. Their actions have resulted in a series of complicated reactions, which have established a Eurasian-based coalition which is preparing to challenge the Anglo-American axis.

Encircling Russia and China: Anglo-American Global Ambitions Backfire

“Today we are witnessing an almost uncontained hyper use of force – military force – in international relations, force that is plunging the world into an abyss of permanent conflicts. As a result we do not have sufficient strength to find a comprehensive solution to any one of these conflicts. Finding a political settlement also becomes impossible. We are seeing a greater and greater disdain for the basic principles of international law. And independent legal norms are, as a matter of fact, coming increasingly closer to one state’s legal system. One state and, of course, first and foremost the United States, has overstepped its national borders in every way.”

-Vladimir Putin at the Munich Conference on Security Policy in Germany (February 11, 2007)

What American leaders and officials called the “New World Order” is what the Chinese and Russians consider a “Unipolar World.” This is the vision or hallucination, depending on perspective, that has bridged the Sino-Russian divide between Beijing and Moscow. China and Russia are well aware of the fact that they are targets of the Anglo-American alliance. Their mutual fears of encirclement have brought them together. It is no accident that in the same year that NATO bombarded Yugoslavia, President Jiang Zemin of China and President Boris Yeltsin of Russia made an anticipated joint declaration at a historic summit in December of 1999 that revealed that China and the Russian Federation would join hands to resist the “New World Order.” The seeds for this Sino-Russian declaration were in fact laid in 1996 when both sides declared that they opposed the global imposition of single-state hegemony.

Both Jiang Zemin and Boris Yeltsin stated that all nation-states should be treated equally, enjoy security, respect each other’s sovereignty, and most importantly not interfere in the internal affairs of other nation-states. These statements were directed at the U.S. government and its partners. The Chinese and Russians also called for the establishment of a more equitable economic and political global order. Both nations also indicated that America was behind separatist movements in their respective countries. They also underscored American-led amibitions to balkanize and finlandize the nation-states of Eurasia. Influential Americans such as Zbigniew Brzezinski had already advocated for de-centralizing and eventually dividing up the Russian Federation.

Both the Chinese and Russians issued a statement warning that the creation of an international missile shield and the contravention of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM Treaty) would destabilize the international environment and polarize the globe. In 1999, the Chinese and Russians were aware of what was to come and the direction that America was headed towards. In June 2002, less than a year before the onslaught of the “Global War on Terror,” George W. Bush Jr. announced that the U.S. was withdrawing from the ABM Treaty. On July 24, 2001, less than two months before September 11, 2001, China and Russia signed the Treaty of Good-Neighbourliness and Friendly Cooperation. The latter is a softly worded mutual defence pact against the U.S., NATO, and the U.S. sponsored Asian military network which was surrounding China. [1]

The military pact of the Shanghai Treaty Organization (SCO) also follows the same softly worded format. It is also worth noting that Article 12 of the 2001 Sino-Russian bilateral treaty stipulates that China and Russia will work together to maintain the global strategic balance, “observation of the basic agreements relevant to the safeguard and maintenance of strategic stability,” and “promote the process of nuclear disarmament.” [2] This seems to be an insinuation about a nuclear threat posed from the United States. Standing in the Way of America and Britain: A “Chinese-Russian-Iranian Coalition” As a result of the Anglo-American drive to encircle and ultimately dismantle China and Russia, Moscow and Beijing have joined ranks and the SCO has slowly evolved and emerged in the heart of Eurasia as a powerful international body.

The main objectives of the SCO are defensive in nature. The economic objectives of the SCO are to integrate and unite Eurasian economies against the economic and financial onslaught and manipulation from the “Trilateral” of North America, Western Europe, and Japan, which controls significant portions of the global economy. The SCO charter was also created, using Western national security jargon, to combat “terrorism, separatism, and extremism.” Terrorist activities, separatist movements, and extremist movements in Russia, China, and Central Asia are all forces traditionally nurtured, funded, armed, and covertly supported by the British and the U.S. governments. Several separatist and extremist groups that have destabilized SCO members even have offices in London.

Iran, India, Pakistan, and Mongolia are all SCO observer members. The observer status of Iran in the SCO is misleading. Iran is a de facto member. The observer status is intended to hide the nature of trilateral cooperation between Iran, Russia, and China so that the SCO cannot be labeled and demonized as an anti-American or anti-Western military grouping. The stated interests of China and Russia are to ensure the continuity of a “Multi-Polar World.” Zbigniew Brzezinski prefigured in his 1997 book The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and the Geostrategic Imperatives and warned against the creation or “emergence of a hostile [Eurasian-based] coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America’s primacy.” [3] He also called this potential Eurasian coalition an “‘antihegemonic’ alliance” that would be formed from a “Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition” with China as its linchpin. [4] This is the SCO and several Eurasian groups that are connected to the SCO.

In 1993, Brzezinski wrote “In assessing China’s future options, one has to consider also the possibility that an economically successful and politically self-confident China — but one which feels excluded from the global system and which decides to become both the advocate and the leader of the deprived states of the world — may decide to pose not only an articulate doctrinal but also a powerful geopolitical challenge to the dominant trilateral world [a reference to the economic front formed by North America, Western Europe, and Japan].” [5]

Brzezinski warns that Beijing’s answer to challenging the global status quo would be the creation of a Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition: “For Chinese strategists, confronting the trilateral coalition of America and Europe and Japan, the most effective geopolitical counter might well be to try and fashion a triple alliance of its own, linking China with Iran in the Persian Gulf/Middle East region and with Russia in the area of the former Soviet Union [and Eastern Europe].” [6] Brzezinski goes on to say that the Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition, which he moreover calls an “antiestablishmentarian [anti-establishmentarian] coalition,” could be a potent magnet for other states [e.g., Venezuela] dissatisfied with the [global] status quo.” [7] Furthermore, Brzezinski warned in 1997 that “The most immediate task [for the U.S.] is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role.” [8] It may be that his warnings were forgotten, because the U.S. has been repealed from Central Asia and U.S. forces have been evicted from Uzbekistan and Tajikistan.

“Velvet Revolutions” Backfire in Central Asia

Central Asia was the scene of several British-sponsored and American-sponsored attempts at regime change. The latter were characterised by velvet revolutions similar to the Orange Revolution in Ukraine and the Rose Revolution in Georgia. These velvet revolutions financed by the U.S. failed in Central Asia, aside from Kyrgyzstan where there had been partial success with the so-called Tulip Revolution. As a result the U.S. government has suffered major geo-strategic setbacks in Central Asia. All of Central Asia’s leaders have distanced themselves from America. Russia and Iran have also secured energy deals in the region. America’s efforts, over several decades, to exert a hegemonic role in Central Asia seem to have been reversed overnight. The U.S. sponsored velvet revolutions have backfired. Relations between Uzbekistan and the U.S. were especially hard hit.

Uzbekistan is under the authoritarian rule of President Islam Karamov. Starting in the second half of the 1990s President Karamov was enticed into bringing Uzbekistan into the fold of the Anglo-American alliance and NATO. When there was an attempt on President Karamov’s life, he suspected the Kremlin because of his independent policy stance. This is what led Uzbekistan to leave CSTO. But Islam Karamov, years later, changed his mind as to who was attempting to get rid of him. According to Zbigniew Brzezinski, Uzbekistan represented a major obstacle to any renewed Russian control of Central Asia and was virtually invulnerable to Russian pressure; this is why it was important to secure Uzbekistan as an American protectorate in Central Asia. Uzbekistan also has the largest military force in Central Asia. In 1998, Uzbekistan held war games with NATO troops in Uzbekistan. Uzbekistan was becoming heavily militarized in the same manner as Georgia was in the Caucasus. The U.S. gave Uzbekistan huge amounts of financial aid to challenge the Kremlin in Central Asia and also provided training to Uzbek forces.

With the launching of the “Global War on Terror,” in 2001, Uzbekistan, an Anglo-American ally, immediately offered bases and military facilities to the U.S. in Karshi-Khanabad. The leadership of Uzbekistan already knew the direction the “Global War on Terror” would take. To the irritation of the Bush Jr. Administration, the Uzbek President formulated a policy of self-reliance. The honeymoon between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance ended when Washington D.C. and London contemplated removing Islam Karamov from power. He was a little too independent for their comfort and taste. Their attempts at removing the Uzbek President failed, leading eventually to a shift in geo-political alliances.

The tragic events of Andijan on May 13, 2005 were the breaking point between Uzbekistan and the Anglo-American alliance. The people of Andijan were incited into confronting the Uzbek authorities, which resulted in a heavy security clampdown on the protesters and a loss of lives. Armed groups were reported to have been involved. In the U.S., Britain, and the E.U., the media reports focused narrowly on human rights violations without mentioning the covert role of the Anglo-American alliance. Uzbekistan held Britain and the U.S. responsible accusing them of inciting rebellion.

M. K. Bhadrakumar, the former Indian ambassador to Uzbekistan (1995-1998), revealed that the Hezbut Tahrir (HT) was one of the parties blamed for stirring the crowd in Andijan by the Uzbek government. [9] The group was already destabilizing Uzbekistan and using violent tactics. The headquarters of this group happens to be in London and they enjoy the support of the British government. London is a hub for many similar organizations that further Anglo-American interests in various countries, including Iran and Sudan, through destabilization campaigns. Uzbekistan even started clamping down on foreign non-governmental organizations (NGOs) because of the tragic events of Andijan. The Anglo-American alliance had played its cards wrong in Central Asia. Uzbekistan officially left the GUUAM Group, a NATO-U.S. sponsored anti-Russian body. GUUAM once again became the GUAM (Georgia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Moldava) Group on May 24, 2005.

On July 29, 2005 the U.S. military was ordered to leave Uzbekistan within a six-month period. [10] Literally, the Americans were told they were no longer welcome in Uzbekistan and Central Asia. Russia, China, and the SCO added their voices to the demands. The U.S. cleared its airbase in Uzbekistan by November, 2005. Uzbekistan rejoined the CSTO alliance on June 26, 2006 and realigned itself, once again, with Moscow. The Uzbek President also became a vocal advocate, along with Iran, for pushing the U.S. totally out of Central Asia. [11] Unlike Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan continued to allow the U.S. to use Manas Air Base, but with restrictions and in an uncertain atmosphere. The Kyrgyz government also would make it clear that no U.S. operations could target Iran from Kyrgyzstan.

Cont.

[Armenian]

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

Major Geo-Strategic Error

It appears that a strategic rapprochement between Iran and America was in the works from 2001 to 2002. At the outset of the global war on terrorism, Hezbollah and Hamas, two Arab organizations supported by Iran and Syria, were kept off the U.S. State Department’s list of terrorist organizations. Iran and Syria were also loosely portrayed as potential partners in the “Global War on Terror.” Following the 2003 invasion of Iraq, Iran expressed its support for the post-Saddam Hussein Iraqi government. During the invasion of Iraq, the American military even attacked the Iraqi-based Iranian opposition militia, the Mujahedin-e Khalq Organization (MEK/MOK/MKO). Iranian jets also attacked the Iraqi bases of the MEK in approximately the same window of time. Iran, Britain, and the U.S. also worked together against the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is worth mentioning that the Taliban were never allies of Iran. Up until 2000, the Taliban had been supported by the U.S. and Britain, working hand in glove with the Pakistani military and intelligence.

[...]

Starting in 2002, the Bush Jr. Administration had deviated from their original geo-strategic script. France and Germany were also excluded from sharing the spoils of war in Iraq. The intention was to act against Iran and Syria just as America and Britain had used and betrayed their Taliban allies in Afghanistan. The U.S. was also set on targeting Hezbollah and Hamas. In January of 2001, according to Daniel Sobelman, a correspondent for Haaretz, the U.S. government warned Lebanon that the U.S. would go after Hezbollah. These threats directed at Lebanon were made at the start of the presidential term of George W. Bush Jr., eight months before the events of September 11, 2001. The conflict at the United Nations Security Council between the Anglo-American alliance and the Franco-German entente, supported by Russia and China, was a pictogram of this deviation.

American geo-strategists for years after the Cold War had scheduled the Franco-German entente to be partners in their plans for global primacy. In this regard, Zbigniew Brzezinski had acknowledged that the Franco-German entente would eventually have to be elevated in status and that the spoils of war would have to be divided with Washington’s European allies. By the end of 2004, the Anglo-American alliance had started to correct its posture towards France and Germany. Washington had returned to its original geo-strategic script with NATO playing an expanded role in the Eastern Mediterranean. In turn, France was granted oil concessions in Iraq.

The 2006 war plans for Lebanon and the Eastern Mediterranean also point to a major shift in direction, a partnership role for the Franco-German entente, with France and Germany playing a major military role in the region. It is worth noting that a major shift occurred in early 2007 with regard to Iran. Following U.S. setbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan (as well as in Lebanon, Palestine, Somalia, and former Soviet Central Asia), the White House entered into secret negotiatiations with Iran and Syria. However, the dye has been cast and it would appear that America will be unable to break an evolving military alliance which includes Russia, Iran, and China as its nucleus.

The Baker-Hamilton Commission: Covert Anglo-American Cooperation with Iran and Syria?

“America should also strongly support Turkish aspirations to have a pipeline from Baku in [the Republic of] Azerbaijan to Ceyhan on the Turkish Mediterranean cost serve as [a] major outlet for the Caspian Sea basin energy sources. In addition, it is not in America’s interest to perpetuate American-Iranian hostility. Any eventual reconciliation should be based on the recognition of a mutual strategic interest in stabilizing what currently is a very volatile regional environment for Iran [e.g., Iraq and Afghanistan]. Admittedly, any such reconciliation must be pursued by both sides and is not a favor granted by one to the other. A strong, even religiously motivated but not fanatically anti-Western Iran is in the U.S. interest, and ultimately even the Iranian political elite may recognize that reality. In the meantime, American long-range interests in Eurasia would be better served by abandoning existing U.S. objections to closer Turkish-Iranian economic cooperation, especially in the construction of new pipelines...”

-Zbigniew Brzezinski (The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geostrategic Imperatives, 1997)

The recommendations of the Baker-Hamilton Commission or the Iraq Study Group (ISG) are not a redirection in regards to engaging Iran, but a return to the track that the Bush Jr. Administration had deviated from as a result of the delusions of its hasty victories in Afghanistan and Iraq. In other words, the Baker-Hamilton Commission was about damage control and re-steering America to the geo-strategic path originally intended by military planners that the Bush Jr. Administration seems to have deviated from. The ISG Report also subtly indicated that adoption of so-called “free market” economic reforms be pressed on Iran (and by extension Syria) instead of regime change. The ISG also favoured the accession of both Syria and Iran to the World Trade Organization (WTO). [14] It should also be noted, in this regard, that Iran has already started a mass privatization program that involves all sectors from banking to energy and agriculture. The ISG Report also recommends an end to the Arab-Israeli Conflict and the establishment of peace between Israel and Syria. [15]

The joint interests of Iran and the U.S. were also analysed by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. The ISG recommended that the U.S. should not empower the Taliban again in Afghanistan (against Iran). [16] It should also be noted that Imad Moustapha, the Syrian ambassador to the U.S., the Syrian Foreign Minister, and Javad Zarif, the Iranian representative to the United Nations, were all consulted by the Baker-Hamilton Commission. [17] The Iranian Ambassodor to the U.N., Javad Zarif, has also been a middle man between the U.S. and Iranian governments for years. It is worth mentioning that the Clinton Administration was involved in the track of rapprochement with Iran, while also attempting to keep Iran in check under the “dual-containment” policy directed against Iraq and Iran. This policy was also linked to the 1992 Draft Defence Guidance paper written by people within the Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. Administrations.

It is worth noting that Zbigniew Brzezinski had stated as far back as 1979 and again in 1997 that Iran under its post-revolutionary political system could be co-opted by America. [18] Britain also ensured Syria and Iran in 2002 and 2003 that they would not be targeted and encouraged their cooperation with the White House. It should be noted that Turkey has recently signed a pipeline deal with Iran that will take gas to Western Europe. This project includes the participation of Turkmenistan. [19] It would appear that this cooperation agreement between Tehran and Ankara points to reconciliation rather than confrontation with Iran and Syria. This is in line with what Brzezinski in 1997 claimed was in America’s interest. Also, the Anglo-American sponsored Iraqi government has recently signed pipeline deals with Iran. Once again, America’s interests in this deal should be questioned, as should the high opinions being given about Iran by the puppet leaders of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Something’s Amiss...

The media attention given in North America and Britain to the positive comments made about Tehran by Anglo-American clients in Baghdad and Kabul is sinister. Although these comments from Baghdad and Kabul about the positive role Iran plays in Iraq and Afghanistan are not new, the media attention is. President George W. Bush Jr. and the White House criticized the Iraqi Prime Minister for saying Iran plays a constructive role in Iraq in early-August of 2007. The White House and North American or British press would usually just ignore or refuse to acknowledge these comments. However, this was not the case in August, 2007.

The Afghani President, Hamid Karzai, during a joint press conference with George W. Bush Jr. stated that Iran was a positive force in his country. It is not odd to hear that Iran is a positive force inside Afghanistan because the stability of Afghanistan is in Iran’s best interests. What comes across as odd are “when” and “where” the comments were made. White House press conferences are choreographed and the place and time of the Afghani President’s comments should be questioned. It also so happens that shortly after the Afghani President’s comments, the Iranian President arrived in Kabul in an unprecedented visit that must have been approved by the White House.

Iran’s Political Leverage

In regards to Iran and the U.S., the picture is blurry and the lines between cooperation and rivalry are less clear. Reuters and the Iranian Student’s News Agency (ISNA) have both reported that the Iranian President may visit Baghdad after August 2007. These reports surfaced just before the U.S. government started threatening to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps as a special international terrorist organization. Without insinuating anything, it should also be noted that the Revolutionary Guard and the U.S. military have also had a low-key history of cooperation from Bosnia-Herzegovina to Taliban-controlled Afghanistan.

The Iranian President has also invited the presidents of the other four Caspian states for a Caspian Sea summit in Tehran. [20] He invited the Turkmen president while in Turkmenistan and later the Russian and Kazakh presidents at the August of 2007 SCO summit in Kyrgyzstan. President Aliyev, the leader of the Republic of Azerbaijan (Azarbaijan) was also personally invited during a trip by the Iranian President to Baku. The anticipated Caspian Sea summit may be similar to the one in Port Turkmenbashi, Turkmenistan between the Kazakh, Russian, and Turkmen presidents where it was announced that Russia would not be cut out of the pipeline deals in Central Asia.

Iranian leverage is clearly getting stronger. Officials in Baku also stated that they will expand energy cooperation with Iran and enter the gas pipeline deal between Iran, Turkey, and Turkmenistan that will supply European markets with gas. [21] This agreement to supply Europe is similar to a Russian energy transport deal signed between Greece, Bulgaria, and the Russian Federation. [22] In the Levant, Syria is involved in energy-related negotiations with Ankara and Baku and important talks have started between American officials and both Tehran and Damascus.[23]

Iran has also been involved in diplomatic exchanges with Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, and the Republic of Azerbaijan. Additionally, starting in August 2007, Syria has agreed to reopen Iraqi oil pipelines to the Eastern Mediterranean, through Syrian territory. [24] The recent official visit of Iraqi Prime Minister Al-Maliki to Syria has also been described as historical by news sources like the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC). Also, Syria and Iraq have agreed to build a gas pipeline from Iraq into Syria, where Iraqi gas will be treated in Syrian plants. [25] These agreements are being passed as the sources of tensions between Baghdad and the White House, but they are doubtful. [26]

Iran and the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) are also planning on starting the process for creating an Iranian-GCC free trade zone in the Persian Gulf. In the bazaars of Tehran and amongst the political circle of Rafsanjani there are also discussion about the eventual creation of a single market between Iran, Tajikistan, Armenia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. The American role in these processes in regards to Afghanistan, Iraq, and the GCC should be explored. Under President Nicholas Sarkozy, France has indicated that it is willing to engage the Syrians fully if they gave specific guarantees in regards to Lebanon. These guarantees are linked to French economic and geo-strategic interests.

In the same period of time as the French statements about Syria, Gordon Brown indicated that Britain was also willing to engage in diplomatic exchanges with both Syria and Iran. Heidemarie Wieczorek-Zeul, the German Minister of Economic Cooperation and Development, has also been involved in talks with Damascus on mutual projects, economic reform and bringing Syria closer to the European Union. These talks, however tend to be camouflaged by the discussion between Syria and Germany in regard to the mass exodus of Iraqi refugees, resulting from the Anglo-American occupation of their country. The French Foreign Minister is also expected in Tehran to talk about Lebanon, Palestine, and Iraq. Despite the war-mongering by the U.S. and more recently by France, this has all led to speculation of a potential about-turn in regards to Iran and Syria.[27]

Then again, this is part of the two-pronged U.S. approach of preparing for the worst (war), while suing for the diplomatic capitulation of Syria and Iran as client states or partners. When large oil and weapons deals were signed between Libya and Britain, London said that Iran should follow the Libyan example, as has the Baker-Hamilton Commission.

Has the March to War been Interrupted?

Despite talks behind closed doors with Damascus and Tehran, Washington is nonetheless arming its clients in the Middle East. Israel is in an advanced state of military preparedness for a war on Syria. Unlike France and Germany, Anglo-American ambitions pertaining to Iran and Syria are not one of cooperation. The ultimate objective is political and economic subordination. Moreover, either as a friend or foe, America cannot tolerate Iran within its present borders. The balkanization of Iran, like that of Iraq and Russia, is a major long-term Anglo-American goal. What lies ahead is never known. While there is smoke in the horizon, the U.S.-NATO-Israeli military agenda will not necessarily result in the implementation of war as planned.

A “Chinese-Russian-Iranian coalition” — which forms the basis of a global counter-alliance — is emerging. America and Britain rather than opting for outright war, may choose to reel in Iran and Syria through macro-economic manipulation and velvet revolutions. War directed against Iran and Syria, however, cannot be ruled out. There are real war preparations on the ground in the Middle East and Central Asia. A war against Iran and Syria would have far-reaching worldwide implications.

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=6688

[Siamanto]

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

How can we possibly talk about human dignity without spiritual freedom? And where is spiritual freedom to be found if not in Christ, the Christ of orthodox christianity?

Did you have in mind "human dignity" and "spiritual freedom" as suggested in the following?

ArmeniaNow.com, Armenia

Essay: Late night lessons in fear
By Opinion by Vahan Ishkhanyan
Four interrogate one. This is not a Customs service, where a suspicious passenger is asked questions; neither is it a police department. This the “Late in the Night” program at Armenia TV that would more fit to be called “Late Inquisition”.

Two journalists, a clergyman and the fourth a nationalist I don’t know, interrogate a Buddhist. A discussion in its form, the program holds no discussion, but questioning and charges. Gagik and Nelli are journalists, but there appear no intentions to investigate or inform – only to accuse and intimidate.

The nationalist says: “Any sect is an enemy to our state and people.” Asked if the program’s guest is “his enemy”, the nationalist answers “Of course.”

The guest, Artashes Gazaryan, is a Buddhist, one of only about four or five in Armenia. He has created a website (www.buddhism.am) to inform others of his religion. Among other information, the site contains information about the possibility of inviting a Buddhist teacher to lecture.

The KGB, through the face of Armenia TV, discovered the website and tricked Gazaryan to appear. Rather than a discussion of Buddhist belief, Gazaryan was asked: “Are you baptized?”, “How were you married if you are not a Christian?” “What means did you use to get to Thailand?” and string of other questions apparently aimed at collecting information for building a case against him that would inflame other nationalists.

His inquisitors implied that Gazaryan’s parents had failed in their religious duty, by raising a son to become something other than Armenian Apostolic Christian.

I watch and am reminded that the KGB used to interrogate dissidents about how they got “anti-Soviet” literature, whom they gave the books to read, why they read “different” books or held “different” beliefs.

Fearful of the KGB, people were even afraid of thinking in Stalin times, but at least the Soviet state provided its suspects a formal defense attorney. The TV version National Security Service puppets of “Late in the Night” attacked un-resisted.

The interrogation ends up with accusatory conclusions in which on nationalist lectures that “plurality of beliefs leads to the deterioration of the state and is called high treason”.

Gazaryan humbly answers all the questions telling that he has used his own means to get to Thailand, trying to turn the questioning into a discussion, to do what he was invited for: “Let’s view it from another point: what defines one’s belief and why does a person find a different religion or other postulates?”

Gagik has none of it, and suggests that religious cults in Armenia buy belief with promises of rice and butter.

The hosts grill the Buddhist about how he could afford to travel to Thailand and I watch thinking that those interested in other people’s income would ask the same questions posed by the network to state officials who wear $5,000 suits, travel to Monte Carlo casinos and are then appear before these same journalists in flattering interviews with soft and irrelevant questions.

May be the Buddhist is a good occasion to appear as a tough journalist and to compensate for the flattery he manifests to the officials like the man who revenges for outside humiliation by beating his defenseless wife at home.

Gazaryan tries to squeeze in a point about free speech. “A man meets another man. They talk in the kitchen. That frequently happens. How will you be regulating the conversation, what the people think and how come they think in different ways?”

Nelli responds with disparage: “That’s called European values, globalization” – suggesting apparently that globalization and European values are the same thing and, as it seems, are at odds with being Armenian. One can conclude from her definition that thinking means not being Armenian. And if she succeeds in her efforts to keep Armenian identity by that means then people willing to think will stop being Armenian. And I believe there will be lots of such people.

Nelli begins defining a criminal punishment for those who think: “How are going to announce the lectures [of the invited teacher]? You are not a registered organization, are you? If you agitate for it, spread information about the lecture then that will be interpreted as an act prosecuted by the criminal law.”

If I didn’t see Nelli, I would think she is a woman at least beyond 60, who has been closed up in a basement for the last 20 years of her life unaware of the Soviet Union’s demise. Her understanding of what is criminally prosecuted comes from the Soviet times, when anti-Soviet agitation and propaganda were criminally prosecuted and even tougher when an unregistered organization was created for that purposes.

Meanwhile Father Ghevond confuses everything – ascribing Bhagavad-Gita and the institute of gurus to Buddhism. Artashes asks not to confuse religions and explains that Buddhism is not a sect, but one of the three major religions of the world. But Father Ghevond is not interested in the difference of religions, just the number of his congregation and says everybody, including Jehovah’s Witnesses and Artashes, are his lost sheep. (The “sheep”, one might argue, are the source of income for the Father; he sanctifies homes, baptizes, provides burial services, sacrifices, that are all sources of income and when “sheep” are lost, incomes drop . . .)

Artashes calls for religious tolerance.

But with tolerance plurality flourishes and competition of beliefs. And believers who distinguish Bhagavad-Gita from Buddhism will have the opportunity to freely demonstrate. As long as there is a single control, the priest, the journalists and the nationalist remain united. And safe. Sound familiar?

The nationalist criticizes the authorities of the Apostolic Church for not fighting properly against sects and refers to the former Catholicos: “I don’t think any sectarian would organize any activity like that in Vazgen’s times [Catholicos of All Armenians Vazgen I in 1955-1994].” Father Ghevond replies: “They did – under the supervision of the KGB.” So, it appears that the supervision of the KGB is lacking. Armenia TV fills the gap setting supervision under the name of the program.

And Armenia TV is not the only one in setting KGB-style supervision. I recently heard the former minister of culture Hakob Movses stating on Shoghakat TV: “Sects are traitors of the nation. They are considered traitors also in Germany as well.” He is confident – no German will hear him and respond saying ‘Don’t lie and don’t try to get fascism back we have got rid of at the cost of significant deprivations and shame.’ While Armenians do not reply and let the lessons of fascism the Germans and Europe have passed be repeated here [in Armenia]. And so, frequently lies and slander against religious organizations are spread on air. And violence never comes late.

Shoghakat TV belongs to the Apostolic Church and its attempts to create monopoly in the religious field by defaming competing organizations are understandable. Less clear, though, is why Armenia TV, whose shareholders include American Armenian Gerard Cafesjian, whose money was earned in a free country, allows itself to be used against freedom in Armenia.

I visited the www.buddhism.am website today. There was a new text added there on a red background – the symbol of fear: “The authors of this site do not intend to convince people in their truthfulness, the more so to create a religious organization”, and so on. In a word, a feeling of threat, fear. Nelli in her basement, the priest protected by the state, and the nationalist and his faulty allegiance have reached their aim. And more importantly, the aim of those who put questions in their mouths.

http://www.armenianow.com/?action=viewArticle&AID=2497&CID=2481&IID=&lng=eng

[Armenian]

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

An Indian officer's geopolitical assessment regarding Russia's resurgence.

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


The resurgence of Russia



The collapse of the erstwhile Soviet Union also heralded the degradation of this nation’s status as a major power monger in what was called the Cold War era of yore. The Western bloc, spearheaded by the United States of America, continued without any competition thereafter and has generally secured for itself the title of the world’s sole super power in current international relations. The USA has gerrymandered in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the Asia Pacific region with impunity and is presently busy trying to browbeat Iran. All this has been possible because there is nobody to present an effective opposing front to America’s dominance of most global sensitive spots. Russia’s problems were further exacerbated through two successive ineffectual Presidents. First was Mikhail Gorbachov whose glasnost and perestroika made hardly any difference either to his country’s standing or to the Western bloc’s attitude towards it. Next came Boris Yeltsin who took refuge in vodka whenever he found things were getting too complicated for him to handle. His performance during the Balkan crisis was deplorable. Consequently, Russia became somewhat of a loose ball without any direction and remained so till Vladimir Putin took over the presidency.

A dynamic person, Putin has firmly set his sights on two aspects of Russia’s resurgence ~ first of all, to positively address its faltering economy and second, to regain its place as an appreciable power centre. He appears to be on the right course for both his objectives. While the economy is taking its own path to betterment, President Putin is now trying to uplift Russia in global politics with the intention of relocating itself in a position from where Moscow can dictate terms in international relations again. His initial pronouncement in this context was strongly objecting to NATO’s expansion eastwards to within reach of Russia’s European border. However, the Western bloc with the European Union playing a leading part, paid little heed to his objections and is at present locked in a fresh controversy over a missile defence system that this bloc wants to set up in eastern Europe. Although the bloc’s leader to wit, Washington furnishes vague replies when queried by Moscow as to against which “enemy” is this shield being established, it is apparent that the bloc is pursuing a policy of sanitising its territorial entity from any visualised Russian threat be it real or notional.

Another factor that bothers Russia is the increasing membership of the European Union wherein former Russian states are being wooed to join. Hungary, Poland and the Czech Republic set the stage for this entry and these states are now xxxxing a snook at their previous master! Russia today has virtually no influence in West Asia as all the Arab nations directly or indirectly enjoy a good equation with the USA. Making matters worse are periodic reports that Russia’s insurgency problem with the Chechen rebels is being fuelled by Wahabi ideology from some West Asian parties, egged on by the USA. The question now is, what steps should President Putin take in order to take his country to a position where the international community realises that Russia is becoming a political force to reckon with? The first practical move in this regard was Russia’s recent foray into the Arctic Circle and declaring this area to be under Russian control. A special metallic Russian flag has been driven into the Harris Ridge, a prominent sunken feature in the Arctic Circle, to prove the point. Expectantly, there were immediate responses from Denmark and Canada with both countries sending their respective cartographic teams to this area in order to assert their ownership of this extremely important geo-strategic cum geo-economic stretch of territory. However, it is doubtful whether either of these two countries would be in a position to physically challenge Russia’s claim. The Arctic Circle that covers a huge area has two principal assets: it holds a great deal of ocean wealth that would be a boon for any nation’s economic development and it provides a convenient politico-military pivot, especially for seafaring states. Russian main interest in the latter category would certainly be a capability to maximise on what is commonly called the North West Passage for moving from the Atlantic Ocean to the Pacific and vice versa. In fact Canada already fosters some unhappiness on this subject with the USA since American warships have been known to “trespass” through this pathway at will even as Canada asserts that the strategic shipping passage is its own.

Russia needs to establish a strong naval base as well as an air force station in the Arctic Circle without any delay. While Greenland that belongs to Denmark is not really of immediate concern, Russia has to exercise its muscle over the Queen Elisabeth Islands complex that lies north of Canada and quickly create an operational zone for its military in this complex. Russia must pre-empt the USA from bullying Canada to have its way, now that the Harris Ridge incident has occurred. A full-fledged Russian military base in the Mediterranean Sea, including units from all the three services, is another compulsive necessity for Moscow. There is no gainsaying the strategic value of this waterway and with a none-too-friendly Europe trying to reach out towards Russian mainland, Moscow can balance the odds by projecting a quid pro quo stance from the seaward side. Russia should get as close to Iran as possible. Teheran enjoys a high status in the Organisation of Islamic Conference and it would definitely be to Moscow’s advantage to build an effective friendly relationship with this major Islamic nation. Ideally, Russia should take the initiative to recreate the earlier Warsaw Pact group, this time with Eurasian states. As a leading member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, Moscow could even toy with the idea of forming a multinational military force with members of the SCO, including India and Iran by upgrading the latter two to full membership from their current observer nation post. An appreciable military force thus formed would set the Western bloc thinking about further expansionism ideas.

Another suggestion would be to befriend Turkey. Ankara has been facing negative vibes from Brussels in its attempts to join the European Union, hence inviting it to join the SCO might be an acceptable option for Turkey. Lastly, Russia has to increasingly ensure that its presence is adequately felt in the Asia Pacific region. Moscow should counter the American influence in this region, an influence that encompasses pro-Washington nations like Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and going south, Australia and New Zealand. A maritime component from the modified SCO should meet the requirement. Efforts are also needed to encourage the Asian littorals to look at the SCO as a “friend in need” and not as a suspect.

(The author is a retired Lt-Col of the Indian Army)

Source: http://www.thestatesman.net/page.new...ss=1&id=171156

[Lernakan]

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

Succession in development of Russian-Armenian relations will be maintained after 2008 elections



25.09.2007 14:14 GMT+04:00
/PanARMENIAN.Net/ Succession in development of the Russian-Armenian relations will be maintained after 2008 presidential elections in both states, Russian Prime Minister Victor Zubkov said when opening talks with his Armenian counterpart Serge Sargsyan.

“I see our common task in development of allied ties, first of all in economic and humanitarian fields,” PM Zubkov said.

Today’s negotiations will result in signature of some agreements, according to him.

For his part, the Armenian Prime Minister said, “Bilateral relations between our states are developing dynamically. For the initial six months of 2007 the commodity turnover has exceeded 70%. It’s a good index,” ITAR-TASS reports.

http://panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=23464

[Armenian]

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

Georgia, Russia Clash at UN



Georgian officials refused to meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov at the United Nations Tuesday over a deadly and disputed Sept. 20 clash between Georgian security forces and Russian troops in Georgia's breakaway region of Abkhazia. Two Russian officers were killed. On Wednesday Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili accused the Russian side of hosting a "law enforcement operation" on Georgian territory. Although Abkhazia is unrecognized, it has often sought Russian backing in trying to gain independence from the former Soviet republic. "One has to wonder - what was a vice-colonel of the Russian military doing in the Georgian forests, organizing and leading a group of armed insurgents on a mission of terror?" Reuters quoted Saakashvili as saying at a Wednesday session of the UN General Assembly. Earlier the Georgian delegation had refused to hold a bilateral meeting with the Russian side, after Lavrov made demands that Georgia release two Russian peacekeepers apprehended late last month.

"Three hours before the meeting with the Georgian foreign minister we were told that the negotiations had been cancelled," the Itar-Tass news agency quoted Lavrov as saying Tuesday. "Georgia did not offer us an alternative." "That was a brutal killing of people who laid down arms by demand of a Georgian special task unit but were executed," Lavrov said. "We hope that the UN observation mission in Georgia, which has several times visited the place of the killing and the captivity of another several servicemen of the anti-terrorist center, will draw objective conclusions and report to the UN headquarters." Lavrov called the Sept. 20 clash a provocation.

The Russian side had said that Russian officers were conducting "anti-terrorist training" in a camp in the Kodori gorge when they were suddenly ambushed by Georgian troops, who allegedly killed two Russian instructors. This latest escalation in tensions between Russia and Georgia came amid home-based accusations against Saakashvili of plotting an assassination of a Georgian businessman with stakes in Russia. Former Defense Minister Irakli Orkuashvili said Wednesday that Saakashvili had presented him with a "detailed plan for Badri Patarkatsishvili's liquidation," Associated Press quoted him as saying on Georgian television. Patarkasti-shvili is the current owner of Russia's leading business daily, Kommersant.

Source: http://mnweekly.ru/politics/20070927/55279040.html

[Armenian]

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

Russia strikes back!



Tension between Washington and Moscow has been growing. The United States has accused Russia of backing away from “democratic” reforms, and the Kremlin slams the US foreign policy and vehemently objects to, among other things, US plans to deploy a missile-defense system in former Soviet Bloc countries. Putin wished the US celebrating its Independence Day on 4th July, but did not hesitate to restate the Kremlin's rhetoric of assertiveness and aggressiveness. Putin might have played with a family dog of US President Bush when he visited him in the USA, but when it comes to business he sticks to his position very firmly.

Initially in 2000, US president was happy with the new Russian president Vladimir Putin and called him an "honest person and a good friend", although USA still considered him a "riddle" wrapped in an enigma. A very serious clash has surfaced in the relationship between Russia and USA over the latter's decision, after Sept 11, to walk out of the ABM treaty signed by them in 1972 and has gradually snowballed in to the return to the old style "Cold war" between them now, following the NATO decision to deploy anti-missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic in Eastern Europe. Earlier this year, Putin said Russian missiles could once again be aimed at targets in Europe if the US builds a missile shield on the continent, and last month Moscow suspended its compliance with the conventional arms forces in Europe treaty. The Russian leader made it clear the resumption of long-range bomber missions was in response to threats posed by the United States and NATO.

It may be recalled that former Soviet President M. Gorbachev and US President R. Reagan had declared the so-called “cold war” closed and the world free and safe. But fact remains that Cold war has been on intermittently and protected in a frozen form. Former Russian President Boris Yeltsin, after a brief friendship with the USA and Europe, got disillusioned with them and described the US-Russian equation as "hot peace". The declaration by Russia to pursue the NATO fighter planes by its own fighters is a clear indication of a continuing Cold war.

New Russia has thus put the US-led West on notice about Kremlin's global importance. Putin told reporters that Russia is resuming strategic long-range flights because other countries have not stopped these kinds of flights, creating what he called security problems for Russia. Last week, a Russian military plane flew near the US military base on the Pacific island of Guam, but the US military said it did not get close enough to be intercepted. Russia conducts global patrols by its long-range bombers to deal with threats to its national security.

President Putin announced that 14 bombers and six supporting airplanes took off at midnight on 24 August for 20-hour missions across the world. “We have decided to restart flights by Russian strategic aviation on a permanent basis,” Putin told reporters after watching the largest yet military exercises with China and four central Asian states in Russia's Ural Mountains. Putin said last week that he ordered patrols of long-range aircraft to begin immediately and said they will be permanent. The long-range bombers are continuously flying missions over the Atlantic, Pacific, and Arctic Oceans. The Russian military and media report that NATO planes are escorting some of the bombers, but NATO will not confirm that. Russia still insists that NATO, the old Cold war baggage, be dismantled if the relations between USA and Russia is to improve. Moscow said negotiations on the deployment of missile defense elements in Europe are becoming problematic, adding that the West doubts the need for such discussions. "We are being told that there is no need to conduct consultations now that the decision to deploy a missile defense system has been made, and that Russia is only interfering in the dialogue between the US and Poland and the US and the Czech Republic.

Not only Russia considers Eastern Europe as its “legitimate backyard” and out-ring security zone, but Russia seriously views the missile shield as a threat to its security as it would be placed at the very border of Russia. Kremlin hinted on July 04 that it would station missiles in its most westerly region bordering EU members Poland and Lithuania, if the United States does not retrace its steps to cooperate over plans for a European missile shield. In early August 2007 Russia withdrew from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces treaty (INF). The INF treaty was signed in December 1987 by US President Ronald Reagan and his Soviet counterpart, Mikhail Gorbachev. It entered into force in June 1988. On 17 August Russian President Putin retaliated against the US proposed missile shield in Eastern Europe on behalf of the NATO which it heads, with a counter-threat of resumption of global reconnaissance by strategic bombers over Atlantic and Pacific oceans that could pierce through the European countries. Putin himself viewed the patrolling of the bombers. Russia and China have had a joint strategic military exercise in Russia.

At the recent SCO summit at Bishkek, Putin again slammed USA for its threat to Russian security and integrity with its shield in its neighboring countries. (The SCO, a regional group largely seen as a counterweight to US influence in Asia, comprises Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and has Iran, India, Pakistan and Mongolia as observers). Russia sees no threat emanating from Iran, the "rogue state" the United States is building its missile shield in Europe against, the Russian foreign minister said. The US announced in January plans to place a radar and a host of interceptor missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic to fend off what Washington sees as a growing missile threat from "rogue states," including Iran.

The US has said it wants to place radar and a host of interceptor missiles in Poland and the Czech Republic to fend off what Washington sees as an impending missile threat from Iran and North Korea. But Russia regards the plan as a threat to its national security and says Iran does not pose any threat to US security. Moscow has warned Poland and Czech against letting their countries being used by USA against Russia. The Soviet Union used to conduct long-range bomber flight with planes carrying nuclear missiles. The practice ended when the Soviet Union collapsed. “In 1992, the Russian Federation unilaterally stopped strategic aviation patrols in faraway areas,” Russian President Putin said. “Regretfully, not everyone followed our example, and strategic aviation flights by other states have continued. This has created security problems for Russia.” Putin said the bombers would fly primarily “in the regions of our busy sea routes and economic zones.” Russia has since August 2007 resumed long-range bomber flights after a 15-year suspension. Fourteen long-range bombers took off from seven airfields across Russia.

[...]

Russia would take all steps to ensure its security if Washington rebuffs its offer of cooperation on missile defense. Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov handling Defense portfolio and a leading contender to become the country's next president in 2008 suggested that if the United States accepted the Putin plan then Russia would not place missiles in its most westerly province of Kaliningrad and the need will disappear for Russia to deploy new missile weapons in the European part of the country, including in Kaliningrad Region. Kaliningrad lies on the Baltic Sea coast and is surrounded by Lithuania and Poland. It is not connected by land to the rest of Russia and the city of Kaliningrad is far closer to Warsaw than to Moscow. Ivanov warned that Russia would base new missiles in western Russia if Washington continued with its plans to set up a missile defense system with components in the Czech Republic and Poland. “If any one had concluded that the old "Cold War" has ended, should devise their position accordingly. Call it a New Cold War or Cold War II. If the proposal is accepted, then Russia will not have need to base new rocket forces in the European part of Russia, in Kaliningrad, in order to parry the threats that will arise from the missile defense system," said Ivanov. "If our proposal is not accepted, we will take adequate measures." Ivanov also asserted that Russia's proposal would also protect a greater number of European countries than the United States' proposal.

The US, trying to underplay the episode, reacted with thinly veiled irritation. “If Russia feels as though they want to take some of these old aircraft out of mothballs and get them flying again, that's their decision,” said Sean McCormack, a spokesman for the US State Department. Washington says the shield is needed for protection from possible missile attacks from states such as North Korea and Iran. Bush said he would study the Russian proposals, calling them "very innovative." But he insisted the anti-missile system must still be based in Eastern Europe. The US military will move its secure command center from deep inside Cheyenne Mountain even as Russia revives military maneuvers that led America to burrow under the rock almost 50 years ago. Many arguments are put forward for more than a year against the backdrop of tension between Washington and Moscow and Russia's decision to resume long-range bomber missions common during the Cold War.

Recently, Austrian Defense Minister Norbert Darabos has called US plans for a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe a "provocation" reviving Cold War debates. "The US has chosen the wrong path in my opinion. There is no point in building up a missile defense shield in Europe. That only unnecessarily rekindles old Cold War debates." The United States plans to deploy elements of its shield -- designed to intercept and destroy missiles from "rogue states" like Iran and North Korea -- in Poland and the Czech Republic. On Tuesday Russia's military chief told the Czech Republic that hosting the shield would be a "big mistake”. Darabos said he saw no danger from Iranian long-range missiles and the US should try for a different solution.

The restart of global patrolling by Russian long-range bombers marks a major shift in Russia's strategic posturing. Their nuclear-capable cruise missiles will be able to strike targets deep inside the US at a moment's notice. The Russian move is a part of Moscow's response to the relocation of NATO forces closer to Russia's borders against INF regulations by US plans to deploy anti-ballistic missile defenses in Eastern Europe. China's increasing military capabilities and concerns about the intentions of North Korea and Iran, have led some officials at Cheyenne to oppose the move out of the mountain. They say the new command center at Peterson cannot be protected from nuclear, chemical or biological attack and its systems will not be sufficiently hardened against an electromagnetic pulse from a nuclear blast overhead. A former senior defense official who led Pentagon efforts to close unneeded military bases said Cheyenne is one of just three facilities the United States should never close.

USA supported Russian position on Chechnya following the Sept 11 but that event has faded away and Russia does not like if USA again, in line with its Kosovo plan, would support Chechnya's independence from Russia as well. Obviously Moscow would like the USA to revive the ABM treaty, get Russia a membership in WTO, dismantle NATO and strive collectively for universal disarmament including nuclear weapons. Besides, US should consider the legitimate interests of Russia as a veto wielding UNSC member and a former super power that had sway over most of the countries in the world. More importantly, Russia should not be taken for granted and considered as a weak nation because it is smaller by territory now. The Kremlin's drive to reacquire global leadership with less input should be understood by the USA in its proper prospective. Issues like Kosovo should be resolved as Russia expects. However, going by what the US does under conditions of pressure from “non-friendly” countries, Washington would not reconcile to Russian demands and alter any of its own positions, come what may. White House cannot quite appreciate the SCO build-up against US interests.

The Russians have very useful, capable, powerful armed forces and they would be unwise not to use them in whatever ways in their best national interests. Some US strategists characterize both Russia and China as “partners” and Iran and North Korea were not yet capable of a precise strike in the middle of North America; they believe that Russia may not intend to harm the United States but certainly has the capability. Threat is capability and intent and Russia is no threat to USA.

However, it is note-worthy that President Putin is upbeat on US-Russia relations. Putin, in a statement marking US Independence Day, said he was certain that relations between Russia and the United States would progress despite disagreements. "We look with certainty to the future of mutually satisfactory working together. I am sure that, despite known disagreements, which are unavoidable in an open and honest dialogue, the policy of comprehensive development of bilateral ties in all areas will continue," Putin said. During a summit in the US state of Maine, Putin and US President George W. Bush met in an effort to halt the deterioration in US-Russian relations at a critical time. In a sign of some progress on that front, the two countries pledged to reduce their stockpiles of long-range nuclear weapons "to the lowest possible" level.

Russia is terribly upset over US decisions of the recent past. A threatened Kremlin could be deadly even for the USA. The earlier reasons put forward by the US strategists for Moscow's opposition to US unilateral moves as being a strategy for acquiring advanced technology from USA and Germany or a membership of WTO don't look tenable now. One factor seems to be very emphatically stressed through these clashes between the virtual super powers: Putin's ratings have been on an upswing and his chances of continuing as Russian President beyond 2008 are even greater now. But whether one calls it 'Cold War” or “Hot Peace” to describe the US-Russian relations, world is going to see at least bitter rhetorical wars that could be dangerous for the humanity in the future. One can't exactly predict the outcome of such a scenario if the clash continues endlessly.

Source: http://www.thedailystar.net/story.php?nid=5793

[Armenian]

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

Russia Said To Boost Transport Links With Armenia



Russia has promised to reopen soon its main border crossing with Georgia and upgrade a new Black Sea ferry link in order to enable a further major increase in its trade with Armenian, a senior Armenian diplomat said late Thursday. “They are promising to reopen the Upper Lars crossing in 2008,” said Armen Smbatian, the Armenian ambassador to Russia. He said Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian received such assurances from his newly appointed Russian counterpart, Viktor Zubkov, during a visit to Moscow earlier this week.

The Russian government shut down the Upper Lars crossing, which serves as Armenia’s sole overland conduit to the former Soviet Union and Europe, in June 2006, citing the need to conduct repairs on its border guard and customs facilities there. The move coincided with an upsurge in Russian-Georgian relations that led Moscow to impose a transport blockade on Georgia. Armenian government officials and lawmakers have unsuccessfully lobbied their Russian counterparts to reopen the border crossing located on the Caucasus mountain range. They have argued that it is Armenian export-oriented companies have been hit hardest by its closure.

Nonetheless, those companies seem to have quickly adapted to the Russian blockade of Armenia’s western neighbor, with Armenian exports to Russia more than doubling in the first five months of this year. Official statistics show Russian-Armenian trade surging by 64 percent year on year to $225 million in January-May 2007. Armenian officials say its full-year volume is on course to reach $700 million this year. Sarkisian and Zubkov said after their talks on Tuesday that the two governments agreed to help ensure that Russian-Armenian trade passes the $1 billion mark next year. Sarkisian instructed his ministers on Thursday to closely work with their Russian counterparts in trying to meet this target.

Much of the bilateral commercial exchange has until now been carried out through a rail-ferry link between the Georgian Black Sea port of Poti and Ukraine’s Ilyichevsk. A similar ferry service, designed to primarily cater for Armenia, was launched last April between Poti and the Russian port of Port-Kavkaz. It is still not functioning regularly, though. While in Moscow, Sarkisian discussed with Zubkov and other Russian officials ways of boosting cargo turnover through the Poti-Port-Kavkaz link.

“The most important thing for us is the rail-ferry service,” Smbatian told reporters in Yerevan. “There is only one [ferry boat] operating it right now. We must make sure that there is a second one. They are promising that a second one will be operational starting from 2008.”

Source: http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeni...E4911C271B.ASP