The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

Russia diplomat warns of threat from Pakistan chaos

A senior Russian diplomat warned the United States on Thursday that the threat from Pakistan if extremists came to power in Islamabad would be far greater than the potential danger from Iran. Russia says there is no evidence that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons but says Pakistan, a U.S. ally with nuclear arms, is a more likely threat.

"If extremists were to come to power there, than there would be a real threat," said the diplomat, who spoke on condition of anonymity at a briefing on U.S.-Russian relations. He said there had been no direct discussions between Washington and Moscow about the current crisis in Pakistan, which President George W. Bush's administration sees as a key ally in the battle against al Qaeda and the Taliban. Security has deteriorated in Pakistan since July, when commandos stormed Islamabad's Red Mosque to crush an armed Islamist movement. Since then nearly 800 people have been killed in militant-linked violence, half of them by suicide attacks.

Russia's stormy ties with the United States dipped further this week when Russia's parliament voted to suspend a key arms treaty between the Cold War foes, after rows over Washington's missile defence plans. The diplomat said Moscow talks last month with U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Defense Secretary Robert Gates on the missile shield were productive. "The American ministers expressed a number of innovative and bold ideas," he said. "We hope the forthcoming meeting in Washington will give us their suggestions," said the diplomat, adding that Moscow expects it will receive the proposals in a formalised document.

Emphasising the strong economic links with the United States, he said trade between the two countries had doubled to $25 billion and bilateral negotiations on Russia's World Trade Organisation membership were completed. "Our goal is to conclude multilateral negotiations on the WTO before the end of the year," he said. U.S. concerns with human rights were often selective, he said, especially in former Soviet republics. "They often apply a variety of standards to different states, based on their interests, especially in the post-Soviet space," said the diplomat.

Source: http://in.reuters.com/article/southA...30405320071108

[Armenian]

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

Russian ambassador worried by growing anti-Russian sentiments in georgian politics

Russian Ambassador to Georgia Vyacheslav Kovalenko has expressed concerns over what he described as growing anti-Russian sentiments in the Georgian political environment. "I am really alarmed by the fact that the anti-Russian theme is becoming predominant in Georgia's foreign policy," Kovalenko said in an interview with Interfax on Thursday. "This will do nothing good," he said.

"Groundless accusations and statements by a number of Georgian politicians are having a negative effect not only on bilateral Russian-Georgian relations but also on the problem of the settlement of regional conflicts," Kovalenko said. Speaking about Georgia's decision to expel three Russian diplomats, Kovalenko described it as unprecedented. "This is an unprecedented provocation, when three of our diplomats are expelled from Georgia," Kovalenko said in a telephone interview with Interfax on Thursday.

"Allegations that Russian diplomats were involved in the opposition protest action could have been born only from an unsound mind," Kovalenko said. "There is no evidence" to accuse Russian diplomats, he said. Kovalenko says he has no doubt Russia will "take adequate measures" in reaction to the expulsion of its diplomats from Georgia. "It is not today or yesterday that the anti-Russian campaign has been unleashed in Georgia. The Georgian side had no grounds for this," the diplomat said. "It is well-known that the opposition that organizes mass protest actions spent the previous day and night in Washington in consultations on a large number of issues. And it is simply ridiculous to speak today about 'Moscow's arm' in the organization of anti-government actions, and about Russia's leading role in opposition protests, whose actions are simply laden with anti-Russian rhetoric," the ambassador said.

"The image that Russia is an enemy" is being created in Georgia, he said. "Now many Georgian politicians try to blame Russia for the domestic problems. This is not the best way to revitalize Russian-Georgian bilateral relations," Kovalenko said. "The situation that is taking shape now does not help create a favorable climate for a constructive dialogue on settling regional conflicts," he said. To arrange successful dialogue, "it is necessary to start with resolving problems on which agreement could be achieved relatively easily," Kovalenko said. He described as "a good sign" a recent meeting in Tbilisi of the Joint Control Commission for the settlement of the Georgian-South Ossetian conflict. "It is necessary to move further toward resolving more complicated issues. This is the only right way. As for attempts to set up some parallel bodies or entertain ideas to resolve the problem through the use of force, this is a way to deadlock," he said.

As for possible attempts to resolve the South Ossetia and Abkhazia problems with force against the background of the destabilization of the sociopolitical situation in the country, Kovalenko said that this theory is being discussed in Georgian political circles. "There is a lot of talk on this issue," he said. Kovalenko described such a scenario as "extremely undesirable." "Everything possible should be done to avoid bloodshed, and in case of a military operation, there is going to be a lot of bloodshed," he said. Military operations in Abkhazia and South Ossetia "will create a new heap of problems," he said.

Source: http://www.interfax.ru/e/B/exclusive...issue=11903203

And this from the granddaddy of Neocons, and an ardent Zionist J-ew, who is also calling for the bombing of Iran:

US expert: USA must help out Saakashvili

“It is a complete buffoonery taking place in Georgia now,” said American political analyst, expert in the Russian-US relations Richard Pipes commenting on the recent events in Tbilisi to a REGNUM correspondent. “I am an honorary citizen of Georgia and an honorary consular of the country. I dislike what is going on there. It is a complete buffoonery taking place there, and I think the Russians are having their hands in it. I think the USA must help out Mikhail Saakashvili, because he is the president elected by the nation. Anyway, Moscow has a greater interest in Georgia than the United States does,” the expert believes. As REGNUM reported earlier, US officials announced that solution of the situation is Georgia’s own business. “If there are political differences within the political system in Georgia, they can — they should be worked out within the confines of that political system and also, they should be worked out in a peaceful manner,” US State Department Spokesman Sean McCormack said yesterday.

Source: http://www.regnum.ru/english/911876.html

[Armenian]

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

Anyway, Moscow has a greater interest in Georgia than the United States does,” the expert believes.

Could this comment by Pipes, who is obviously very sympathetic towards Georgia, mean that the US has abandoned Tbilisi to its fate? My instincts still tell me that Moscow has made a deal with Washington DC regarding Saakashvili. The suggestion that Washington DC is trying to place a more 'anti-Russian' politician on the throne in Tbilisi seems to be a bit far-fetched at this time. Note: Ever since Moscow more-or-less monopolized the distribution of the Central Asian/Caspian Sea oil and gas reserves, the geopolitical value of Georgia as a oil/gas transit route for the West has been quite diminished - so has Saakashvili's usefulness.

[crusader1492]

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

Note: Ever since Moscow more-or-less monopolized the distribution of the Central Asian/Caspian Sea oil and gas reserves, the geopolitical value of Georgia as a oil/gas transit route for the West has been quite diminished - so has Saakashvili's usefulness.

I hope, by extention, the above also applies to Azerbaijan (and Turkey for that matter).

[skhara]

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

Ever since Moscow more-or-less monopolized the distribution of the Central Asian/Caspian Sea oil and gas reserves, the geopolitical value of Georgia as a oil/gas transit route for the West has been quite diminished - so has Saakashvili's usefulness.

What about the Baku-Tbillisi-Ceyhan pipeline?

[Armenian]

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

What about the Baku-Tbillisi-Ceyhan pipeline?

Currently, the pipeline in question is working on low capacity, it is almost a symbolic or experimental venture western special interests have embarked on in the region. They are currently envisioning that the pipeline will work at full capacity in 2009. Nevertheless, even if it was to work at 'full' capacity it is only able to deliver 1% of the West's oil needs - according to those who designed it. And its obvious that the pipeline is very vulnerable to sabotage. As a result, I really don't see how Washington DC would place much economic hope in the the project - especially now with a resurgent Russia asserting itself in the region. You must remember that most of the agendas/plans for the region were written or devised during the 90s - when Russia was on its knees. I don't think anyone in the West foresaw the rapid reemergence of Russia. So, it's a different game now and perhaps, just perhaps, Saakashvili's time has started to run out. In short, compared to the region's vast oil/gas distribution network that is more-or-less under Moscow's control (which is said to control a large percentage of the West's energy needs) the Baku-Tbillisi-Ceyhan pipeline is not something the West is willing to go to war over.

Just recently they were planing on building another pipeline in the region. Take a look at this article:

Analysis: A pipeline against Russia?

Five Eastern European states have agreed to build a new oil pipeline, in a move they say increases their energy security by reducing dependency on Russia. Azerbaijan, Poland, Lithuania, Georgia and Ukraine on Oct. 10 signed a deal that could provide Eastern (and ultimately Western) Europe with an alternative to Russian oil imports.

The treaty, signed by the five countries’ presidents in the course of the energy summit in Vilnius, Lithuania, forms a consortium to build a $700 million pipeline to pump Azerbaijani oil to Poland and the Baltic Sea. The new pipeline, to be completed in 2011, is a 310-mile extension to an existing one in western Ukraine. It bypasses Russian territory northwestward and links the existing pipeline to the Polish Baltic Sea port of Gdansk. The presidents of the five countries involved praised the deal, arguing it would improve energy security and help diversify Eastern Europe’s oil imports.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili said the deal sprung from the "most successful summit" in which he has "ever participated." "This deal will have great impact not only for signatory countries, but for all of Europe," Polish President Lech Kaczynski said in Vilnius. Kaczynski, known for his critical position toward Russia, said the deal was not aimed against another country (an apparent reference to Moscow), a statement few can believe.

"It's a symbolic move by these countries to show to Russia that it is to be isolated," Alexander Rahr, Russia expert at the German Council on Foreign Relations, a Berlin-based think tank, told United Press International Friday in a telephone interview. Europe gets nearly a third of its gas and a third of its oil from Russia, a country that has become an energy superpower, and also acted accordingly. Russia in the past two years repeatedly flexed its energy muscles in several oil and gas price rows. Russia has stopped delivering crude to Lithuania and Latvia, and temporarily cut off gas supplies to Ukraine and Belarus.

Critics accuse Moscow of using its energy assets as a foreign-policy weapon against former Soviet republics that turn toward the West. Russia, however, contends that it is merely asking these states to forgo preferential rates on energy and pay what the rest of Europe does. As some countries in Eastern Europe, namely the Baltics, are virtually completely dependent on Russian energy imports, they are scrambling for possibilities to diversify. Lithuania is in an especially troubled position given that Russia in July 2006 stopped delivering crude to Mazeikiu Nafta, the only refinery in the Baltics, because of alleged necessary pipeline repairs.

But whether the new pipeline extension would be a viable alternative remains unclear: A key country to get on board would be Kazakhstan, the largest oil producer in the region, but while it was present in Vilnius, it so far has resisted joining the project. The only country that could fill the pipeline with crude is Azerbaijan, but experts doubt that it will use up all its production capacity (which will reach some 55 million tons a year) for the new project, especially given other commitments.

"This project doesn’t make sense given the existence of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan," Rahr said. The BTC pipeline links the Azerbaijani capital of Baku with Tbilisi, the capital of Georgia; and Ceyhan, a port on the southeastern Mediterranean coast of Turkey. It is not only a new oil pipeline (in use since May 2005), but also the second longest in the world, and one that is supplied with nearly all of Azerbaijan’s oil. "This new pipeline will end like all the others before: It won’t be built," Rahr said.

Source: http://www.upi.com/International_Sec...t_russia/2339/

I hope, by extention, the above also applies to Azerbaijan (and Turkey for that matter).

Of course it does with Baku. Last few years Azerbaijan has essentially become a political hostage to Moscow. Some may claim the same for Armenia, but the major difference here is that official Yerevan 'willingly' and enthusiastically has gone along with Moscow's regional plans - whereas Baku has been literally forced to. The fact that Russia is serious about telling Azerbaijan not starting a war to regain Artsakh is yet another indicator that when it comes to major geopolitical matters Azerbaijan has to play with the rules set by Moscow. Have you noticed how dejected Aliyev looks every time there is some sort of a regional Russian sponsored conference that he 'has' to attend? Turkey here is another story, however. They are still politically independent and powerful because Ankara controls several major geostrategic factors in the region.

[Azad]

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

My instincts still tell me that Moscow has made a deal with Washington DC regarding Saakashvili.

Agree. I wouldn't limit it to "Saakashvili".
I believe Washington exchanged Georgia for something ???? Can't be Iran ... I am thinking azerbaijan military bases.

[Armenian]

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

TRACING THE ORIGINS OF THE GREAT CASPIAN BASIN ENERGY GAME

The Oil and the Glory: The Pursuit of Empire and Fortune on the Caspian Sea

When the Cold War drew to a close in the early 1990s, most people who followed the geopolitical zigs and zags for a living figured the date to remember would be August 19, 1991, the start of the failed coup against Mikhail Gorbachev, and the beginning of the end for the Soviet Union. It turns out, however, that the most memorable date of the turbulent 1990s may prove to be September 20, 1994, the day the so-called “contract of the century” was signed, and the day the Great Game over Caspian Basin energy reserves began in earnest.

The Cold War, it seems, didn’t truly end; it merely morphed into the new Great Game. The United States and Russia may no longer be enemies per se, but it is indisputable they remain fierce competitors. Energy issues have replaced ideology as the main factor driving their competition, with pipelines supplanting missiles as the weapons of choice. The main arena of competition has also shifted from Germany’s Fulda Gap to the Caspian Basin.

The close of the Cold War, of course, has been well chronicled. The same could not be said for the new phase of geopolitical competition – until now. Steve LeVine’s new book, The Oil and the Glory: The Pursuit of Empire and Fortune on the Caspian Sea, constitutes a compelling and authoritative account of the origins of the Great Game in the Caspian Basin. It is a must-read for anyone interested in foreign affairs, given Washington’s current energy-centric approach to statecraft.

There is perhaps no individual more qualified than LeVine, who served as a foreign correspondent in Central Asia and the Caucasus throughout the 1990s, to chronicle the power-plays, bluffs, chicanery and skullduggery associated with the development and export of Caspian Basin energy resources. The book is well organized, helping readers to keep names and events straight. Each chapter focuses on a specific deal or personality, rather than trying to keep multiple threads going concurrently in the name of adhering to chronological order.

LeVine succeeds in making what is, at its core, a book about deal-making read in spots like a spy thriller. The narrative is helped by the fact that many of the dealmakers themselves adopted cloak-and-dagger personas. One early energy adviser to Kazakhstan’s government, a Dutch middleman named Johannes (John) Deuss, does nothing to discourage rumors that he is being pursued by a “hit squad.” Another dealmaker, James Giffen, is now basing his defense in a criminal case involving bribery on a claim that he was providing information to the CIA. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive]. Also making an appearance Marat Manafov, a pistol-packing Azerbaijani entrepreneur, who, when negotiating with various Western oilmen, was fond of pulling his piece from his shoulder holster and pointing it at his interlocutor’s head. Meanwhile, Harry Cook, a geologist with the US Geological Survey, is dubbed the “Indiana Jones” of rocks.

The book contains revealing tidbits about regional political leaders’ past and present. One learns, for example, that former Azerbaijani leader Heidar Aliyev, as a high school and university student, enjoyed acting, and even appeared as Hamlet in one production. This helps explain how Aliyev performed so well on the political stage, and how he was so adept at conducting negotiations.

LeVine paints Kazakhstan’s leader Nursultan Nazarbayev as a paragon of practicality. That practicality, he writes, was “born of a childhood raising sheep in the mountains, and riding a donkey to buy bread in the nearest town. Among his earliest memories was family talk of the fateful year of 1929, when the Soviets forcibly settled Kazakh nomads, and, as he observed, ‘the animals died without feed and care in the collective farms, and the people died of hunger.’” During the early 1990s, Nazarbayev also exhibited a curious streak. Late at night during a visit to San Francisco, Nazarbayev “delighted in wandering about on his own,” LeVine writes.

The book is at his best when explaining the development of the Caspian Basin’s oil fields, and the construction of the pipelines to transport the natural resources to Western markets. The chapter on the development of the Kashagan oil field makes for especially fascinating reading, given the particular challenges relating to geography, ecology and climate.

“Drilling conditions in the North Caspian Sea were unusual. Unlike the moderately deep waters off Baku [the Azerbaijani capital], the North Caspian was extremely shallow – about ten feet deep in spots above Kashagan. Highly mobile ice formations were a threat during winter months,” LeVine writes.

“For oil rigs, ice was among the most lethal of natural phenomena,” LeVine continues. “It moved like an organism and, since it was solid, could take an offshore platform with it; indeed, moving ice has been known to bring down lighthouses in its path.”

If the book has a fault, it’s that the Russian side of the story gets shortchanged. There is little on the machinations of Russian companies, and Moscow’s oilmen – such as Vagit Alekperov, LukOil’s boss and reputedly one of the world’s 20 richest men – are rendered as one-dimensional figures, whereas their Western counterparts get full 3-D treatment. Of course, there are tangible reasons for this, mainly connected to access, or the lack thereof. Given the Kremlin’s control over Russian energy policy, any detail concerning Russian oilmen seems to be considered a state secret by those making the decisions inside the Ring Road. Also, it was only in recent years that Russia became a major player in the Caspian Energy game. For much of the 1990s, when the Caspian Basin’s biggest deals were going down, Russia was struggling to regain its footing following the shock delivered by the Soviet Union’s implosion.

With the benefit of an epilogue, LeVine manages to take the Caspian Great Game right up to the first half of 2007. Even so, many chapters in this energy-development saga remain to be written. In just the past couple of months, for instance, political changes in Turkmenistan have helped revive interest in the United States and elsewhere in the construction of a trans-Caspian natural gas pipeline. In addition, the Kashagan oil field has been in the news, with the Kazakhstani government feuding with the energy consortium led by the Italian conglomerate Eni SpA over production delays. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

There is also the unresolved fate of James Giffen, the merchant banker accused of funneling millions in bribes to top Kazakhstani leaders. Giffen’s trial date in a federal court in New York City has been repeatedly pushed back, and some observers now believe the case may never proceed to opening arguments. [For background see the Eurasia Insight archive].

In the broader scheme of things, it also remains to be seen whether the United States or Russia -- or even a third entrant in the competition, China – will come out on top in the Caspian Basin. Russia currently seems well positioned to dominate, but as events in recent years have shown, geopolitical fortunes are prone to sudden shifts.

At a November of 1999 signing ceremony in Turkey, marking an agreement on the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, US President Bill Clinton noted the historic importance of the moment. “I’ll bet if you polled the citizens of the United Stares and Turkey, over 90 percent of them would never have heard of the Baku-Ceyhan pipeline or the trans-Caspian gas pipeline,” Clinton is quoted as saying in the book. “But if we do this right, twenty years from now, 90 percent of them will look back and say, ‘Thank you for making a good decision at a critical time.’”

We are now almost half way through Clinton’s 20-year time frame, and it’s too early to label the former president’s statement as visionary or misguided. It’s quite possible that people will end up cursing the initiators of the Caspian Basin Great Game, rather than expressing gratitude for their foresight. Whatever the outcome, it’s virtually a sure thing that events in the Caspian region will have a profound impact on global developments over the next decade.

Source: http://www.eurasianet.org/department...v110507b.shtml

[Armenian]

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

Agree. I wouldn't limit it to "Saakashvili".
I believe Washington exchanged Georgia for something ???? Can't be Iran ... I am thinking azerbaijan military bases.

I highly doubt it. Moscow has made itself clear on the matter, the Caspian Sea region is off-limits to any kind of Western effort against Iran. Russia is against any kind of an American/NATO presence in Azerbaijan. Although several years ago Baku would periodically talk about such a prospect, I have not heard anything from Baku regarding this matter for along time. I think those good times for America/NATO are long gone. Just because it seems like Saakashvili's time is running out it does not mean that Moscow 'must' have made a deal with the West. Maybe it did, maybe it didn't, time will tell. It could simply mean that the West was simply muscled out of the region during a time when the West could not afford another crisis front. Washington DC has its plate full in Iraq, Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Pakistan, North Korea, etc... So, if Moscow told Washington DC to get out of Tbilisi or risk some sort of a nasty reprisal... Guess what? Saakashvili's ass is toast.

[Azad]

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

The reality is that NATO and its "institutions" are playing indirectly a positive equation in regards Armenia by keeping our "enemies" on the other side of an imaginary fence. I do not want to lose our monopoly in the North/South axis with Russia and Iran. I do not like the turkic rapprochement to our axis.