The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[skhara]

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

I firmly believe that Putin will someday be ranked amongst the world's finest rulers.

Time will tell, but in Russian history -- maybe he'll join the ranks of Ivan Grozny, Peter I, Catherine II, and Joseph Stalin. He isn't there yet.

[Armenian]

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

Azeri analyst: Strategic balance is changing in South Caucasus not to Russia’s benefit

The fact that Russia is going to fulfill its obligations ahead of time and withdraw its troops from Georgia by the end of 2007 can be only welcomed, well-known Azerbaijani political analyst Rasim Musabekov told a REGNUM correspondent commenting on the ahead-of-schedule withdrawal of Russian equipment and troops from the military base in Batumi and moving it to Gyumri (Armenia), according to a statement by Chief Commander of the Russian Land Forces, General Alexei Maslov, in order to “bring up to strength the 102nd Russian military base there.”

According to Musabekov, the Russian leadership comprehended that they have to withdraw the troops from Georgia anyway and there is no sense in delaying the process. “But the fact that most equipment and personnel are moved from Batumi to Armenia makes me sorry and even concerned,” he said reminding that apart from that Russia suspended the CFE Treaty in its territory. “I think that suspension of the CFE Treaty in its territory will cause questions and steps towards NATO,” the analyst believes. In this connection, Rasim Musabekov says that Russia in no way can be interested in the arms race, which became possible now in neighboring countries. He reminds that before Russia dropped out from the CFE Treaty, the United States cut short almost three times its presence in Germany and Germany itself reduced its Armed Forces almost twice. He added that recent Russia’s steps cannot but cause adequate response throughout Europe.

Going back to the subject of increasing strength of the 102nd military base in Gyumri and change of the military situation for Azerbaijan in this connection, the political analyst noted that no matter how actively Russia strengthens its base, it will not give any advantage in South Caucasus to it, even if one considers the Russian and Armenian forces together. “Two Russian divisions deployed in Batumi and Akhalkalaki were a kind of fulfilling the role of support for the Armenian army and now they won’t. So, anyway, the strategic balance will change not to Armenia and patronizing it Russia’s benefit, despite the evident increase of the 102nd Russian military base in Gyumri,” the analyst believes. According to him, Azerbaijan, in its turn, has an opportunity to increase its military potential and at least make them equal to the general military potential of Armenia.

Source: http://www.regnum.ru/english/914395.html

Russian 102nd Military Base // Gyumri // Armenia (video presentation): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noqMH...elated&search=

MiG-29s in Erebuni Air Base, Armenia (video presentation): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvOrSCRYlsQ

[Armenian]

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

Russian Defence Chief takes aim at U.S.

Video Presentation: http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/16871/video

The United States will definitely aim its planned anti-missile shield at Russia eventually, according to Russia’s highest military official, Yury Baluevsky. It comes ahead of a key meeting between NATO and Russia. Baluevsky, as Chief of the Russian Armed Forces General Staff, will head to Brussels on Tuesday to take part in the NATO meeting. Before leaving, Baluevsky gave an interview to Russia Today in which he discussed the U.S. plans for an anti-missile shield in eastern Europe. “As I suppose, someone in the United States still has a desire, mildly speaking, to solve the current problems using the existing U.S. weapons. But to solve these problems in such a way, one needs to get full information that the use of these weapons won’t cause a counterstrike,” he said. “And once deployed in Europe, it [anti-missile shield] won’t be aimed at Iran. Because why deploy a system against some alleged Iranian system that doesn’t exist? But there’s a system in Russia. And in case by 2011, and by 2011 the Americans are planning to deploy the radar and by 2012, 2013 - the antimissiles - those antimissiles and that radar will be definitely aimed at Russia”.

Source: http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/16871

Military chief says Russia not obliged to protect world from U.S.

Yury Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia's general staff, said in an interview with the Russia Today TV channel on Tuesday that the Russian Armed Forces were under no obligation to protect the world from the U.S. Answering a question as to whether or not the world could count on Russia to defend it from "insidious American plans," Baluyevsky replied, "Today, there is no need to be afraid of the Russian Armed Forces. However, I do not believe that the Russian military is obliged to defend the world from the evil Americans". Gen. Yury Baluyevsky is flying to Brussels later today to discuss with NATO chiefs of staff, among other things, Russia's suspension of its Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty obligations. Baluyevsky said last Thursday that Russia would no longer be bound by current weapons and equipment limitations after its moratorium on the CFE Treaty comes into force. The State Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament, voted on November 7 in favor of President Putin's bill to impose a moratorium on the CFE Treaty. The moratorium is set to come into effect on December 12, after final approval by the upper house of parliament, expected to vote on the issue on November 16, and President Vladimir Putin. The chief of Russia's military general staff also told the Russia Today TV channel that the CFE Treaty put Russia at a disadvantage. "It was an onerous treaty for Russia. It was a treaty that Russia alone honored," he said. Asked why Russia had signed the document in the first place, Baluyevsky said that at the time, in 1990, the goal was to avert a war, and the treaty effectively served its purpose. He also said Russia's Armed Forces, like all militaries in the world, would be putting an emphasis on quality, not quantity. "It will be a leaner but meaner, well trained and equipped, and professional force," the general said.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071113/87814389.html

[Armenian]

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

Europe and America: Sharing the Spoils of War

The “Pivotal Area” Discovered: Defining Geo-Strategic Boundaries

The “pivotal area” was used in Sir Halford J. Mackinder’s “Heartland” to describe the area of Eurasia that formed the pivotally important core of the global geo-strategic and geo-political environment. We now find that through geo-political realities and necessity the area in question must be redefined. Halford Mackinder coined the term to define an area within the Eurasian landmass, but it is apparent that the “pivotal area” in the truest sense of the word and possibly the “Heartland” itself is a much broader and diverse area that not only lies in Eurasia, but extends into Africa. The global environment is not static. It seems that this area is anchored by geographic reality, but is shifting because of socio-economic, demographic, and political factors. To define the pivotal area, we must look at the area(s) in which — in the course of the post-Cold War era — the U.S. military has been heavily involved in, from low spectrum to high spectrum warfare and operations. This also includes hostile economic actions and covert intelligence operations.

After pinpointing these areas one can set a conceptual boundary. This subject area is of vast geography, it includes the Balkans, the Caucasus, Central Asia, the Middle East, and East Africa. These regions, arguably, together form the tectonic plate that holds the globe together in a geo-political sense. It is this geographic stretch that has been, and continues, to be a geo-strategic chessboard for competitions of expansion and repulsion. These areas are also some of the most important cultural bridges on the face of the earth. The cultures and knowledge of different civilizations have interacted here for thousands of years. Intense cultural diffusion has also taken place within this geographic stretch as a global cross-road.

Zbigniew Brzezinski has also stipulated that an area roughly corresponded in geographic boundaries to the area that has just been defined is pivotal to global power and Eurasian security. Henry Kissinger has also more or less made similar statements by explaining the importance of neutralizing Iraq and Afghanistan (before its pro-Soviet government was overthrown), both Soviet allies, and containing an Iran fresh with revolutionary fervor in 1979. This was according to Henry Kissinger because of the pivotal importance of the area. [2] Global security encompasses this vast and “pivotal” area as a singularity and it is the Middle East that is the focal point of this geographic stretch.

From “Pivotal Area” to “Arc of Instability”

An arc of uncertainty and instability has been generated by Britain, Israel, the U.S., and their partners, including their intelligence apparatus, from East Africa and the Balkans to the Middle East, the Caucasus, and Central Asia. Decades of American-led military confrontations, low-intensity warfare, sanctions, economic manipulation, and intelligence operations have undermined the nation-states of the subject area. From the remains of the former Yugoslavia, Sudan, war-torn Somalia, and Anglo-American occupied Iraq to Afghanistan, Kashmir, and the South Federal District of the Russian Federation where Chechnya is located the U.S. has fomented instability. This area roughly corresponds to what Zbigniew Brzezinski calls the “Eurasian Balkans” an area that the U.S. must seek to manipulate and ultimately control should it continue to be a superpower. [3] The pivotal area has also synthetically been manufactured into a zone of instability that can be called the “Arc of Instability.”

In 1993, Zbigniew Brzezinski stated that, “The tragedies of Lebanon of the 1980s, or of Kurdistan and the former Yugoslavia of the early 1990s are previews of things to come within the Eurasian oblong of maximum danger.” [4] What was implied by Brzezinski was balkanization ranging from sectarianism to ethnic clashes. The situation in Iraq is part of this process, as are the tensions in Lebanon, Kosovo, Turkey, and Caucasia. A classical “divide and conquer” strategy is at play. The underlying objective is to provoke ethnic clashes across the Middle East and Central Asia. This venture, which is linked to Bzezinski’s forecast, is part of an agenda which consists in literally redrawing the map of this broader region. Moreover, there have also been attempts at sparking sectarian and ethnic differences in Iran from adjoining areas in Anglo-American occupied Iraq and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan that implicate America and its allies.

CENTCOM and the Rimland: Encircling Russia, China, and Central Asia

CENTCOM more or less corresponds to what Brzezinski calls a “large geographic oblong that demarcates the central zone of global instability” which runs from the Balkans through the Middle East and Central Asia to Kashmir and East Africa. [5] This “central zone of global instability” is also linked to the central area of Nicholas Spykman’s “Rimland.” It must be noted that, during the Cold War, Nicholas Spykman was also known as a master of containment theory. The Rimland is the concept of a geographic area adjacent to the “Heartland” that is comprised of most of Europe, the Middle East, the Indian sub-continent, Southeast Asia, and the Far East. This area forms an enveloping geographic ring around Mackinder’s “Heartland.” In other words, the Rimland essentially surrounds the central, core region of Eurasia. CENTCOM lies in the axis or midpoint of Spykman’s Rimland. This area, the Rimland, was central to Cold War containment theories in regards to the Soviet Union and China, the “Red Giants.” The concept of this area was also used in geo-strategic planning in regards to Iraq, Iran, and Afghanistan. This is an important fact to remember, because it deeply influences American geo-strategy in regards to the Iraq-Iran War and the Soviet-Afghan War. The encirclement of the Eurasian core, which was where the Soviet Union was geographically placed, is still a U.S. objective after the end of the Cold War. Containment theory it appears may really have been more about “penetration.”

Penetration of the Eurasian core is underway. NATO is a bridgehead from Europe that is pushing towards Russia. An Asiatic sister-alliance of NATO is being forged against China. The axis of the Rimland, which includes the Middle East and Afghanistan, is being militarily infiltrated and mobilized by NATO and its allies. CENTCOM indeed is an appropriate and suitable name for this mid-area that is crucial and “central” to connecting the Asiatic and European flanks of any trans-Eurasian military network surrounding Russia and China. Furthermore, this area can also be used for creating a wedge between the European portion of Russia, which is the nerve of Russia, and China. Additionally, if one also examines the geographic position of U.S. and NATO military bases they are concentrated in the Rimland.

The Geo-Strategic Importance of the Middle East in regards to Eurasia

The Middle East, formerly called the Near East, is an abstract geographic concept that has been shifting with geo-strategic, political, and socio-economic policy. For example, there was a time when academics, map makers, and geographers considered the Balkans as a part of the region. In the mind of many the Middle East is a synonym for Arab World or for Southwest Asia, but both terms are different. The Middle East includes non-Arab countries like Iran, Turkey, and Cyprus. The term Southwest Asia also excludes Egypt, the European portion of Turkey in Thrace and even Greece, depending if you categorize it as a part of the region. The Middle East is a region that embraces three continents (two if you look at Europe and Asia as Eurasia); Europe, Asia, and Africa. It is from here that Anglo-American geo-strategists believed they could establish global hegemony by controlling Eurasia.

Three important maritime passages and five important bodies of water also are located or embrace the area around the Middle East. The important maritime passages and straits can be used to manipulate, cut, and control global navigation, international trade, maritime traffic, and energy supplies. Theses strategic maritime passages are the Suez Canal of Egypt, the Bosphorus/Bosporus of Turkey, and the Gate of Tears (Bab al-Mandeb) located between Djibouti and Yemen at the southern tip of the Red Sea. The five important bodies of water in this area are the Black Sea, the Caspian Sea, the Persian Gulf, the Red Sea, and the eastern end of the Mediterranean Sea. Control over these maritime passages would have grave ramifications for Russia, China, Iran, and any adversaries of NATO in regards to trade, naval movements, and energy supplies.

It is safe to say the post-Cold War objective of the United States in Eurasia is penetration. The different geographic regions of Europe and Asia are important, but they are not as pivotal in geo-strategic value as the Middle East and its geographic periphery (including Central Asia), which are also important energy hubs. If one scrutinizes a map of the earth or Eurasia they will notice that Indo-China or Japan or the Korean Peninsula cannot lead to any meaningful “penetration” of Eurasia. The Russian Federation also acts as a barrier to any drive from Eastern Europe that would be meaningless unless Ukraine fell into NATO’s orbit and Russia lost its Caucasian territories. Due to political realities India, the giant of the Indian sub-continent, can only be used as a counter-weight to China or to spoil the formation of a Eurasian alliance led by Russia, China, and Iran. Whatever value these geographic areas have in regards to containment theory is lost in regards to penetration, aside from India and Ukraine under the proper circumstances. It is from the Middle East and the area that has been mandated to the U.S. military under CENTCOM that Eurasian penetration can commence. Thus, it is by way of instability and war in this region that the U.S. and NATO have a pretext and justification for their military presence. It is also this area that will be the linkage between the military flanks being created against Russia, China, and their allies on the outer edges of Eurasia.

The Outer Peripheries of the “Arc of Instability” are manned by NATO

The hub of the “Arc of Instability” is where Iraq, Iran, Eastern Syria, and portions of Anatolia are geographically situated. This area is the most dangerous and volatile section of the “Arc of Instability.” Should a crisis with Iran and Syria be lit then the whole “Arc of Instability” can be lit ablaze like a powder keg. Iraq and the Persian Gulf are currently active and tense military zones of operation. This hub within the “Arc of Instability” is distinctly Anglo-American in its characteristic. It is the Anglo-American alliance that manages and oversees this war zone. Several European countries had initially posted their troops in Anglo-American occupied Iraq, but gradually reduced and removed their military contingents. Italy and Spain were amongst these countries. The European troop movements were publicly correlated to political changes in national governments within the respective capitals of these European countries. The aim of the troop movements was to portray the departures as acts of opposition to the war in Iraq. Angry European populations were misled into believing that a shift in foreign policy was underway, but this was an act of public deception. These nations compensated the broader war effort and agenda by deploying or re-shuffling their troops to Afghanistan or to Lebanon. Their actions were almost inconsequential to the broader war effort.

NATO members, such as Germany, are also involved and present in military operations in the Horn of Africa. The military activities of NATO and its members, including their almost perfectly coinciding military operations in the Eastern Mediterranean, the Red Sea, and the Arabian Sea, discloses advanced insight about a larger war agenda. The whole “Arc of Instability” is manned by NATO and close NATO allies, such as Australia and Israel. NATO as a whole is involved in the war project and American, British, Polish, Danish, Czech, and Romanian troops are present in Anglo-American occupied Iraq. Moreover, NATO is also responsible for certain aspects of military training inside Iraq. Additionally, there is a Franco-German presence in the Persian Gulf and NATO also has made security arrangements in the Persian Gulf with nations such as Kuwait.

However, what gives a particular NATO characteristic to the outer peripheries (tiers) of the “Arc of Instability” (in reality the area of military operations) is that greater numbers of NATO countries are involved in the military operations in these zones. Also NATO has an official mandate in these areas and has a role in the so-called “post-conflict” phase of operations in these areas. This phase in reality is the occupational and restructuring phase of the conflicts ensuing in the “Arc of Instability.” This form of “post-conflict” participation could also be linked to the low tolerance the populations of many of these NATO states would have in regards to casualties or supporting the war effort. The bulk of NATO troops have been positioned within the eastern and western outer peripheries of the military theatre of operations. Once again, the war zones almost precisely correspond to what is defined by the U.S. military as CENTCOM. It is only the former Yugoslavia that falls outside CENTCOM’s borders. It is from the Balkans that academics get the geo-political term “balkanization,” meaning to divide. The Balkans constitutes the westernmost periphery of the “Arc of Instability.”

[...]

Source: http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...xt=va&aid=6423

[Armenian]

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

India-China-Russia in new strategic agreement

Li Zhaoxing (left), Pranab Mukherjee (center), and Sergei Lavrov in New Delhi

India and Russia have jointly pledged to take forward an India-Russia-China agreement. At the end of deliberations in Moscow, between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, the two leaders spoke about their bilateral relations, and said they were excited by plans for expansion of the troika. President Putin spoke about the need for the leaders of the three countries to meet more regularly, and Prime Minister Singh said, "We attach great importance to India-Russia-China cooperation." He said the three countries have "civilizational links, and there was need for new complements to this relationship." "We have an obligation to work on areas of convergence," he added. India, Russia and China account for 40 per cent of the world's population, a fifth of the global economy. At the meeting, the Indian and Russian leaders signed agreements, and agreed to redouble their efforts to achieve a bilateral trade target of 10 billion dollars by 2010. Meanwhile, the U.S has recently become concerned the area containing India-Russia-China also contains more than half of the world's nuclear arsenal. In consolidating a relationship with India and China, the U.S believes Putin is seeking to neutralise American dominance in the Asia-Pacific region. Alarmists in the U.S see a dangerous trend that could unbalance the current strategic situation. They believe it could even lead to the formation of bloc that has echoes of the Cold War era.

Source: http://story.malaysiasun.com/index.p...d/299336/cs/1/

India, China, Russia jointly oppose sanctions on Myanmar

India on Wednesday opposed imposing sanctions on Myanmar and called for encouraging all stakeholders to advance political reforms and national reconciliation, a move jointly supported by China and Russia. “We believe that the initiative taken by the U.N. Secretary-General [Ban-Ki Moon] to open dialogue amongst the various stakeholders in Myanmar should be encouraged,” External Affairs Minister Pranab Mukherjee said at a joint press conference after the end of the third standalone meeting of Foreign Ministers of India, China and Russia here. Mr. Mukherjee said India had also suggested that the process of political reform and national reconciliation should be expedited on a broad base and equally among all stakeholders. “We believe that Myanmar authorities should be encouraged to engage in the process of dialogue with the Special Envoy of the U.N. Secretary-General [Ibrahim Gambari], the initiative which he has taken should be encouraged to take it to the logical conclusion and there should not be any sanctions at this stage,” the minister emphasised.Mr. Mukherjee acknowledged that the Myanmar issue had figured prominently during the trilateral meeting and they exchanged views on it. Ultimately, the issue of Myanmar should be resolved by the Myanmarese government and the country’s people, Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi said. He said China believed that the parties concerned would conduct dialogue to help Myanmar restore stability and improve the life of the people and promote democracy and development in Myanmar.“We support the efforts of the U.N. Secretary-General and his Special Envoy as well as the constructive role of Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries in this regard,” Yang said.

‘Not to be part of U.S. defence arrangement’

Mr. Mukherjee ruled out being part of the controversial U.S.-led missile defence system. “India does not take part in such military arrangement. Therefore the question of our participation does not arise,” He also noted that the issue of missile defence did not come up for discussions at the trilateral meeting he had with his Chinese and Russian counterparts, Yang Jiechi and Sergei Lavrov. “It was not discussed in our trilateral forum. It was not our agenda and we did not consider it necessary to discuss it,” he said. Mr. Lavrov, commenting on the issue, said there was a lot of talk about various possible modalities and proposals. “I want to tell you that during the recent visit to Moscow by the U.S. Secretary of States [Condoleezza Rice] and U.S. Defence Secretary [Robert Gates], the issue of missile defence system was discussed at length and in great detail,” he said. “Our colleagues from the U.S. have promised to transmit their proposals to us on paper and we are waiting for those proposals to arrive,” the Russian Foreign Minister said. At the same time, Mr. Yang noted that the U.S. push for missile defence system had attracted wide attention of the international community. “Our stance on the issue of missile defence system is consistent and clear,” he said.

Source: http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/t...10/25/&prd=th&

The US and the Far East

The US won its cold war against the ex-Soviet Union through strategies and policies. First, it dragged the communist empire into a military adventure in Afghanistan. Then it put more pressure on the defeated Soviet Union’s economy by what was then called space war. In the nineteenth century, the Americans fought in the Far to force both Japan and China to open their markets for American trade. Now the US faces challenges from the Chinese giant and these challenges threatens the US and Western leadership of the world. The difference between the ex-Soviet Union and China is that China achieved 11% growth, has a sophisticated military technology, one sixth of world’s population and positive trade balance with most countries of the world.

There are weak points in the Chinese regime. The weakest is its lack of enough energy to continue the unprecedented growth rate. From here comes the US to press on China. One should take the hikes in oil prices that did not affect the US much because of its reserve lightly. The high oil price makes surplus for both the exporting countries and oil companies due to their shares. The majority of these companies are Western. China invested in African oil fields and it invests in Iran petrochemical industry. The US created a special leadership for Africa where there are many hot spots preventing developing of the oil industry. Darfur is rich in oil, but it is far away from being settled. South Sudan is still in trouble. The African horn is boiling. Even in Nigeria the big African country, many oil workers are kidnapped. One should bind between Gates the US Defence Ministry to China and the Chinese call for Iran to revise it stand in its nuclear file.

The Iranian nuclear file was one of the subjects that were discussed between Gates and his Chinese counterpart. Still the Americans need an answer for the Chinese experiment of destroying an old satellite by a guided missile. Is it a new Chinese tactic to destroy satellites, so China might do that against military satellites during wartime? The Chinese military technology witnessed much advancement due to both strong powerful research base and the Israeli-Chinese cooperation to develop warplanes. Both China and Israel spied on the US military industry and Israel signed a military cooperation protocol. Due to the double standard policies adopted by the neo-cons, such subjects do not go to the media. Recently, an American judge issued a decree that might lead to calling of Mrs. Rice to the court as a witness in an Israeli spying case.

Gates left China for Japan where he encouraged Japan to resume its military duties in the Far East. In fact, to confront China, the US should closely cooperate with India, Japan and many other countries. India is the only country that has a big population and can build a big army to confront China. When China test-fired its first nuclear bomb the US encouraged India to build a nuclear device t counterbalance the Chinese one in Asia. China responded by helping Pakistan to build its bomb. The irony was that Pakistan was a member in the Western alliance and India had good relations with Eastern block but the Soviet Union did not help India. The US boycotted Pakistan when it test-fired its bomb. This shows that the political scene does not always reflect strategies of big forces.

Another alarming factor for the US policy makers is the Russian-Chinese axis that was formed by the Shanghai group that has political, economic and military dimensions. While the US can press on China by the energy, the situation is not the same in the Russian case. Russia is now an oil and gas exporter. Russia has the technology to build petrochemical industry, it has the military, and security means to safeguard pipes from Central Asia to China. That is why Russia is the most important country for the US to confront China. Despite the row over the missile shield in Europe and other signs of friction between the US and Russia, Bush tried to calm down Russia by declaring that Russia poses no military threat to the US. Russia tries to build its Central Asia and South Asia alliance. Its military aid reached as far as Indonesia with arms sale worth one billion. Putin declared that he would not allow others to deprive Russia from its arms sale share worldwide.

The US needs also stable Middle East to confront China and to control oil efficiently. Economists predict that between 2012 and 2020 China will be the first power ending Pax-Americana. Before 2012, the US should find a permanent solution for the Palestinian-Israeli problem, the Iranian nuclear file and other problems in the region. The US’ neo-cons failed to impose their policies through creating a period of anarchy that would be followed by creation of new states. It is predicted that the new administration whether republican or democratic will return to Clinton’s theory of containing the region.

Regardless of what will happen in Annapolis, the Arabs should know that the US needs them more than Israel and the creation of more need should be their key policy with the US. They should not give concessions in Annapolis. They have to play an active role to end the Iranian nuclear crisis peacefully. They have to keep balanced relation with international powers. They should have a strategic dialogue with the US to put the bases for a new cooperation and alliance era. Then they may talk about Palestine. It is better for them now to postpone or ignore Annapolis because their Israeli partner is not serious because of its weak non-decisive administration. The Arabs are better to solve their regional problems through a global perspective.

Source: http://www.americanchronicle.com/art...rticleID=42562

[Armenian]

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

Here is another pathetic attempt to twist and spin what seems to be a very painful reality for these mental dwarfs...

Armenian

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

Experts see decline in Russia's military

President Vladimir Putin's government has failed to reverse a steady post-Soviet decline of the armed forces despite repeated pledges to strengthen military might, a group of independent experts said in a report released Tuesday. The military continues to suffer from rampant corruption, inefficiency and poor morale, the report said. The Kremlin has also failed to deliver on its promises to modernize arsenals, it said. Putin owes his broad popularity to an oil-fueled economic boom that has helped increase wages and pensions, as well as efforts to revive Russia's clout. But critics say that the Russian military is only a shadow of the Soviet Army and that bellicose statements from the Kremlin mask a steady decline of its potential.

"The revival of Russia's military might under Putin is merely a myth," Stanislav Belkovsky, who head the Institute for National Strategy, said at a presentation of the report. "The Russian armed forces have degraded completely under Putin." If the current trends continue, the report warns, Russia's nuclear arsenals would shrink from about 680 intercontinental ballistic missiles now to between 100 and 200 missiles over the next 10 years. "It's impossible to reverse these trends under the current policy," it added, pointing at a steady decline of the Russian military-industrial complex that would make it impossible to increase weapons production without huge investments. Alexander Khramchikhin, an expert with the Institute for Military and Political Analysis, said the continuing decline of nuclear forces meant that they would shrink to a level far below that of the United States and would be comparable to China's.

"Russia's strategic nuclear forces have seen sharp cuts under Putin," Khramchikhin said.

He added that the sea-based component of Russia's nuclear forces had undergone particularly drastic reductions. Blaming corruption as the root of the problem, Khramchikhin and others said increasing military budgets under Putin actually bought fewer weapons than in the era of President Boris Yeltsin. "Because of corruption, the military gets a lesser number of weapons at a higher cost," Khramchikhin said. Amid the increasing cold spell in relations with the West, officials cast the United States and NATO as the main potential enemy, neglecting a rising threat from China, experts said.

Moscow and Beijing have developed increasingly close ties since the Soviet Union collapsed in late 1991, building what they described a "strategic partnership" based on their shared opposition to perceived U.S. global domination. China has also become the top customer for Russia's military-industrial complex, buying billions of dollars' worth of jets, submarines and destroyers. "Thanks to Russia, China has practically overcome the lag in military technologies which was pretty big in the late 1980s," Khramchikhin said. A growing population and limited resources in China, he added, will make it a potentially difficult neighbor in the future. Some people in Russia have voiced similar fears, pointing at increasing numbers of Chinese migrants in scarcely populated Russia's Far East and Siberia. Officials have dismissed such concerns.

Putin talks of 'moral right'

Putin said Tuesday that a convincing victory for the party he is leading in next month's parliamentary elections would give him the "moral right" to maintain strong influence in Russia after he steps down next year, The Associated Press reported from Krasnoyarsk, Russia. Putin's remarks, made in Siberia, were the clearest affirmation yet that he planned to keep a powerful hold on Russia's reins, but he stopped short of saying whether he would seek a formal role. Putin said last month that he would lead the party's ticket in the Dec. 2 elections to the State Duma, the lower house of Parliament. The decision appeared aimed at increases the chances of the party, United Russia, and ensuring himself a power base when term limits force him from office next year.

"If the people vote for United Russia, it means that a clear majority of the people put their trust in me, and in turn that means I will have the moral right to hold those in the Duma and the cabinet responsible for the implementation of the tasks that have been set as of today," Putin told workers at a road construction site in Krasnoyarsk, a Siberian region that reaches beyond the Arctic Circle. A construction worker asked what Putin would do after he left office in May and why he had decided to lead the United Russia ticket. The president responded: "In what form I will do this, I cannot yet give a direct answer. But various possibilities exist. If the result is the one I am counting on, I will have this opportunity."

In the parliamentary elections, voters will choose only among parties, not individuals. Seats will be allocated proportionally to those parties that receive at least 7 percent of the vote. The people who lead party tickets do not always take seats in Parliament, and the Kremlin has said Putin has no intention of doing so. Since Putin agreed to head the United Russia ticket, the party has cast the election as a referendum on the president and the course he has set for the country.

Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/11/13/asia/russia.php

Russia will soon cease to be a world power

Flush with oil wealth and facing elections in the new year, Russia under President Vladimir Putin grows more assertive and belligerent by the day. Whether probing the RAF's air defences or running spying rings on British soil, the message is unmistakable – Russia is back as a major player on the world stage and it views Britain as a vital adversary. Why is this happening and should we be worried? Russia's economy is overwhelmingly dependent on oil and natural gas and the country's prosperity depends on international commodity prices. At present, global oil prices are pushing upwards towards $100 a barrel and Russia's national coffers are overflowing.

Hence Mr Putin has the resources to rebuild his threadbare armed forces. Less than 10 years ago, Russian finances were so parlous that the Kremlin was forced to default on its debts in 1998. Today, Mr Putin has amassed some of the biggest foreign exchange reserves in the world. Moreover, Mr Putin knows that a dose of assertive nationalism goes down well with the electorate - and presidential and parliamentary polls are due in March next year. Under the constitution, Mr Putin cannot serve a third term as president. He will get around this obstacle by becoming prime minister instead, while manoeuvring a loyal ally into the presidency. The centre of power in the Kremlin will shift from president to premier. The success of this plan hinges on Mr Putin retaining his standing among ordinary Russians. His popularity is the trump card. The more he can claim to have rebuilt Russia's national power, the better his chances of political survival.

Yet there is a deeper reason for Russia's noisy resurgence. Over the past two decades, the country has suffered humiliation after humiliation. The collapse of the Berlin Wall and of the Soviet Union itself brought about the end of Russia as a global superpower. Political chaos and economic collapse under President Boris Yeltsin's erratic rule in the 1990s left the Kremlin dependent on Western aid, particularly from the old enemy, America. Above all, Mr Putin wants to send an emphatic message that this disastrous era of national decline is over. He may well be wrong and this is why the West need not be unduly worried. Oil prices are liable to fall as well as rise. When they do take a tumble, Russia's economy will plunge with them.

Genuinely successful nations have innovative scientists, world-class universities and major companies turning out popular products. Russia has none of these assets. Instead, it has vast natural resources, and nothing else. World markets completely beyond Mr Putin's control decide the value of these commodities. Far from being a rising power able to decide its own destiny, the harsh truth is that Russia under Mr Putin depends on the whims of foreign oil traders. Bad times will almost certainly follow the present years of plenty. Russia's future looks disastrous. Emigration, alcohol abuse and the fact that its women have more abortions than live births brings down the national population each year. By 2050, there will be fewer than 100 million Russians, compared with 142 million today. Within decades, Russia will probably cease to carry any weight on the world stage.

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...11/nspy311.xml

[skhara]

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

Who are these experts I'm curious?

[Armenian]

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

Russia's Putin Says December Election Could Give Him 'Moral' Mandate

Russian President Vladimir Putin says a victory for his United Russia party in December parliamentary elections would give him a "moral" right to retain influence after he steps down from his Kremlin post next year. Mr. Putin made the comment during a visit to the Siberian city of Krasnoyarsk Tuesday. He said if people vote for the United Russia party it will mean they trust him. Mr. Putin said a victory would also mean he has the right to hold those in government responsible for implementing decisions. But he declined to specify his future role in Russian politics, saying various possibilities exist. The president announced in October that he would head the United Russia party list in the December elections. He also said suggestions he could become Russia's future prime minister were "realistic." Mr. Putin told a party congress in Moscow last month that the pro-Kremlin party first must win the parliamentary election, and a decent, modern person must be chosen president in next year's vote. The statements were considered a strong indication of Mr. Putin's plans after he concludes his second term as president next year. Russia's constitution bars him from seeking a third consecutive term.

Source: http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-11-13-voa16.cfm

[Armenian]

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

Interview with Prof. Safrastyan: "Armenia Must Get Rid Of Its Complex As Russia's Younger Brother"

Global Politician Interviews - 6/17/2005

Prof. Ruben Safrastyan, Ph.D. is a Professor of International Relations at Acharyan University in Yerevan, Armenia. He's also the Director of the Department of Turkish Studies at Institute of Oriental Studies, Armenian National Academy of Sciences. In the past, he served as a Counselor of the Armenian Embassy in Germany and was the Deputy Director of the Department of Political Analysis for the Office of the President of Armenia.

Q: How do you assess the changes that have taken place in Russian-Turkish relations lately?

A: Answering this question, I would like to draw your attention to the geopolitical approaches of Russia. I must say that a number of major documents presenting the country's geopolitical approaches were drafted in Russia during the last years. It should be mentioned that the documents were drafted under the immediate leadership of Vladimir Putin. I mean foreign policy, national security and military concepts. These documents present a number of major approaches of which I would single out the multipolar world outlook. The second major approach is that Russia is regarded as the largest Eurasian state, which will be surrounded by a zone of friendly states. The third major conceptual approach is that Russia is ready to apply nuclear weapon first if its national interests are endangered. If we regard the mentioned conceptual approaches in the context of our region, we'll see that we are in the epicenter of the realization of these approaches. In particular, if we consider the changes and new phenomena that have been observed in Russian-Turkish relations lately, we'll see that here we can speak about Russia's new geopolitical tendencies, in particular, aimed at creating a zone of friendly or at least not hostile states around it. Russia's policies towards Turkey, in my opinion, pursue this very goal, of course not to turn Turkey into a friendly state of Russia, but to weaken US influence and Turkish links with the West as far as possible and, if possible, to connect Turkey with Russia.

Q: What measures are being taken by Russia to strengthen its geopolitical influence in the region and specifically in the sphere of Russian-Turkish relations?

A: At the current stage Russia, of course, cannot take large-scale measures to strengthen its geopolitical influence, however, Russia is using the vast reserves of natural wealth it possesses to implement its policies, particularly for geopolitical purposes. If we consider Russian-Turkish relations in the context of the "Blue Stream" project, the following will become clear: in fact, besides financial benefits for Russia, it also implies Turkey's closer connection with Russia. So, when the realization of this scheme is completed, Turkey will receive 80% of gas from Russia. At present, about 60-65% of gas entering Turkey is received from Russia. Interestingly, Turkey, in its turn, has a wish to play a leading role in Russian policies in this sphere. So, it's natural that this prospect should meet quite a stiff opposition of the USA.

Q: What are the other areas where closer Russian-Turkish relations are possible?

A: It is issues connected with arms delivery. Turkey has declared that it is to implement a program of armaments modernization worth over $100 billion within the next few years. Russian diplomacy is making quite serious efforts to ensure Turkey gets part of these arms from Russia. Representatives of relevant circles of Russia and Turkey conducted quite intensive negotiations over this issue recently. No final decisions have been made yet, but there are signs that Russia will manage to convince Turkey to get at least some of the new arms from Russia. There are even talks that Russian arms are to be manufactured in Turkey and supplied to other countries.

Q: How can the new quality of these relations impact Armenia?

A: The right understanding of Russia's policy is very important for us. It is not an anti-Armenian policy - Russia has repeatedly declared at the highest levels that Armenia and Russia are strategic allies, which is a very important circumstance. I think that our country's political forces should not speculate on these new phenomena in the Russian-Turkish relationship and jump to conclusions about the anti-Armenian orientation of Russian policies. Russia is a big state and has geopolitical and geo-economic interests of its own. In this sense I attach importance to everyday contacts of Armenian and Russian representatives at all levels and in all spheres. Besides, it is necessary that the position of Russia's elite, their ideology should be studied thoroughly and new approaches be elaborated accordingly.The world is changing, and so are the region and Russia, but we still consider ourselves to be a younger brother. In my opinion, Armenia must get rid of its "younger brother" complex that it developed in relation to Russia.

Source: http://www.globalpolitician.com/arti...3&cid=4&sid=35

Russia and Turkey in South Caucasus: A Geostrategic Armistice

Prof. Ruben Safrastyan, Ph.D. - 6/26/2005

Two meetings of the Russian president V. Putin and Turkish Prime Minister R.T. Erdogan, held in the end of the last year and in the beginning of this year, as well as the wide spectrum of problems discussed and contents of the signed documents, marked the start of the a new phase in the Russian-Turkish relations. Experts spoke about that start in several recent years, and this phase can be characterized as the starting period of the real strategic process.

Answers to the questions about the depth of that process, its direction and how it will affect the situation in the region, are of vital importance for Armenia. In our memory the remembrance about how in 1920 the Kemalist Turkey and Bolshevik Russia, uniting their efforts against the common enemy – the Entente, came to a secret agreement and at the expense of Armenia put an end to the century-old confrontation, in particular, in the Caucasus. As a result, the “Sovietized ” Armenia had to sign the Kars treaty of 1921, which defined the distorted borders of the present Republic of Armenia. The anxiety, expressed by some representatives of the Armenian political elite, that some rapprochement between Turkey and Russia, may have its negative impact on Armenia at present as well, and in particular, weakening its positions in the settlement process of the Karabakh conflict, are well-grounded just by the reason, that the historical precedent had already happened. These fears may be proved or denied only as a result of an impartial and comprehensive analysis.

The period of instability and confrontation

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia and Turkey found themselves in absolutely new geopolitical conditions, while:

-for the first time in several centuries (with the exception of 1918-1920) they have no land frontier, and the South Caucasus is nothing but a buffer zone;
-for the first time in several decades they do not belong to two opposing military and political blocs;
- Russia, rapidly losing its military and economic potential, the ideological axis and political willpower, is unable to keep the regions, belonging to former USSR, including the South Caucasus and Central Asia, in the sphere of its geopolitical influence any longer.

The present situation produced some vacuum in the mentioned regions, which was use by Turkey. First relying on the ideological and political grounds of Pan-Turkism, Turkey started to rapidly spread its influence in the South Caucasus and Central Asia. Its actually pan-Turkist goals were presented by Turkey as a need for spreading the “Turkish model” of development in the Muslim republics of the former Soviet Union. Such policy was supported by the West, mainly by the USA, because it dad fears that those newly independent states may be influenced by the politicized radical Islam. In addition, the approaches, typical to the period of the Cold War, were still strong in the USA, we, welcoming Turkey’s diverse engagement the processes on the territory of the former USSR, counterbalancing the Russian influence.

In the first of half of 1990s, the Russian-Turkish relations were quite unstable and tense from time to time, explained by their strong geostrategic confrontation. Turkey used all possibilities, except military, for spreading its influence not only in the South Caucasus and Central Asia, but also in the North Caucasus and the regions of Russia, populated predominantly by the Turkic-speaking peoples. Russia was trying to concentrate its efforts and stop the increasing Turkish influence. Being unable to resist as required at that time, Russia focused its attention to the conflicts, broken out in the South Caucasus, using them as an instrument for preserving its influence in that region.

From this point of view, the Karabakh conflict is remarkable, being a culmination of the Russian-Turkish confrontation in the South Caucasus. Turkey helped the Azerbaijani side, and Russia – to the Armenian one. No surprise, that the conflict between the two countries in that case was the most aggravated in the last decades of the Russian-Turkish relations. In 1992-1993, Turkey threatened to use force against Armenia, which followed by a swift and hard counteraction by Russia, which openly declared its readiness to use nuclear weapon against Turkey. Both states in that period not only were strategic opponents, but also took the counter-partner as a bearer of the military threat. In this sense, it is worth mentioning the statement by the Chief of the Headquarters of the Turkish troops, made in 1994, that Russia is the only state, posing a military threat to Turkey. The victory of Armenians in the military phase of the Karabakh, and the firmness of Russia were the main factors to prevent increasing positions of Turkey in the South Caucasus. Although Turkey established itself in the geopolitical region and became an important factor there, Russia, in spite of serious losses, Russia has managed to partially preserve its influence in the region and not so big military bases. The last circumstance, apart military, had a geopolitical importance, which allowed to establish some balance of powers between Russia and Turkey in the South Caucasus.

Stabilization

In the second half of the 1990s, the geopolitical situation in the zone of the South Caucasus, was mostly characterized by the problems, related to the Caspian energy resources. The level of the US involvement in the region had been increasing, and Turkey in the new conditions tried to get maximum, cooperating with the United States, which was also interested in decreasing Russian influence in the region. Such approach was materialized in the idea by President Suleyman Demirel to create the “Stability pact of the South Caucasus,” in which the US was supposed to have the role of the most important regional factor. In the Russian-Turkish relations of that period, direction to their stabilization was dominant. Rapid development of the trade and industrial relations, which had been also visible in previous years, started to turn into a geostrategic factor and play a stabilizing role to some extent, which was also by such phenomena as billions in the “shuttle trade,” significant Turkish investments in Russia, in particular, in the construction and public catering An unprecedented growth took place in such a “traditional” sphere of trade relations between the two states as the Russian gas supply to Turkey thanks to the multi-million “The Blue Stream” deal, envisaging direct gas supply to Turkey. So its dependence on the Russian gas had been increasing.

The strategy of the Turkish regional policy, preserving its anti-Russian direction, however, lost its aggressiveness of previous years. For the political elite of the country, the lacking efficiency of the political line, based on the pan-Turkist ideas, became obvious. Not having necessary economic potential and being unable to compete with the other external forces, Turkey had to give up its pretentious plans in the Central Asia, which alleviated its competition with Russia in that region. In the South Caucasus, the Russian-Turkish confrontation developed in the context of the ways of transportation of the Caspian oil. At the same time Turkey tried to counterbalance the Russian military presence in Armenia by developing the military cooperation with Georgia. As for Russia, trying to counterbalance Turkey’s involvement in the Chechen conflict, it started to ue the Kurdish factor to exert pressure on Turkey. However, all these processes did not have any substantial impact on the balance of powers, which had been established in the second half of 1990s in the Russian-Turkish relations, and in the South Caucasus, as a whole.

[,,,]

Source: http://www.globalpolitician.com/arti...5&cid=4&sid=35

[Armenian]

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

Russia warns of Belarus missiles

Russia could place missiles in neighbouring Belarus to counter a planned US missile defence system, a senior Russian general has said. Col-Gen Vladimir Zaritsky spoke after Belarus, a close ally of Russia, said it would re-equip its forces with new Russian Iskander short-range missiles. Russia says the US plan to site parts of a missile defence system in Poland and the Czech Republic is a threat. The US says it is needed to counter missiles fired by states such as Iran. "Any action must have a counter-action, including with the US anti-missile elements in the Czech Republic and Poland," Gen Zaritsky was quoted as saying by Russia's Itar-Tass news agency. Gen Zaritsky is the commander of Russia's artillery and rocket forces.

'Battle of words'

The US missile shield system would see a radar site set up in the Czech Republic and a base in Poland for 10 missile interceptors. The chief of staff of Russia's armed forces, Gen Yury Baluyevsky, said on Tuesday that Iran posed no missile threat to Europe or the US and that the missile defence plan would be aimed at Russia. The US has said that the limited system it proposes could not threaten Russia's own missile arsenal. Belarus says it will buy Russia's Iskander-E conventional missile system by 2020. Gen Zaritsky's comments are a new stratagem in bitter battle of words between the US and Russia, says the BBC's James Rodgers in Moscow. In October, US President George W Bush said: "The need for missile defence in Europe is real and I believe it's urgent." He warned that Iran could have a ballistic missile capable of reaching Europe or the US by 2015. A few days later, Russian President Vladimir Putin compared the US plans to the missile crisis of 1962, which saw the US and the Soviet Union go to the brink of nuclear war over Russian missiles in Cuba.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7094347.stm

Russia to compensate for INF losses with Iskander missile system

The deployment of the new Iskander tactical missile systems will close the missile coverage gap caused by Russia's participation in the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, a senior commander said. Russia's short-range Oka tactical missile system was scrapped under the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces (INF) Treaty. "We used to have the Oka, which has been scrapped, and for a long time we had a gap in missile coverage in the range of 300-500 kilometers [190-310 miles]," Colonel General Vladimir Zaritsky, commander of the Russian Missile and Artillery Troops, said on Wednesday. The Iskander-M (NATO reporting name SS-26 Stone) missile system, largely considered a successor to the Oka, has a range of 400 km (250 miles) and can reportedly carry conventional and nuclear warheads. Russia is planning to equip at least five missile brigades with Iskander-M complexes by 2016. So far, a missile battalion on combat duty in the North Caucasus military district has been fully equipped with Iskander-M, and another battalion will receive the system in 2008.

INF LEGACY

The former Soviet Union and the U.S. signed the INF Treaty on December 8, 1987. The agreement came into force in June 1988 and does not have a specific duration. The pact banned nuclear and conventional ground-launched ballistic and cruise missiles with ranges of 500 to 5,500 kilometers (300 to 3,400 miles). By the treaty's deadline of June 1, 1991, a total of 2,692 weapons had been destroyed, 846 by the U.S. and 1,846 by the Soviet Union.

The document strongly favored the U.S., as many treaty provisions, such as considering Soviet RSD-10 Pioneer (NATO reporting name SS-23 Spider) multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) missiles to be equivalent to single-warhead Pershing II systems, allowed NATO to regain strategic nuclear superiority over Russia in Europe. The Oka short-range tactical missile system (NATO reporting SS-23 Spider), which was also destroyed under the INF treaty, technically did not fall into the category of missile systems slated for scrapping, since the maximum range of its missile did not exceed 450 km (280 miles).

Nonetheless, the Americans insisted that the Oka be included on the list of systems subject to elimination. On February 10, 2007, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared that the INF Treaty no longer served Russia's interests. On February 14, Gen. Yury Baluyevsky, the chief of the Russian General Staff, said Russia could pull out of the INF unilaterally, sounding a strong warning to the U.S. regarding its plans to deploy elements of its anti-missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. Putin expanded on his arguments favoring Russia's potential withdrawal from the INF treaty in October by saying Russia could pull out of the U.S.-Russian arms reductions agreement, unless it was extended to impose restrictions on other countries as well.

INF TREATY AND MODERNIZATION OF ISKANDER

Zaritsky also said on Wednesday that the Iskander missile system could be modernized and its range extended, if Russia finally withdrew from the INF treaty. "The current version of Iskander is in full compliance with the INF treaty, but should the Russian leadership decide to pull out of the agreement, we will immediately enhance the capabilities of the system, including its range," the general said. The flight range of a new cruise missile adapted for Iskander and successfully tested in May 2007 could exceed 500 km (310 miles). "The tests will continue until 2009," the official said. "So far they have been very successful."

POSSIBLE BELARUS DEAL

Zaritsky said Russia may also deliver an export version of the Iskander system (Iskander-E) to Belarus as a response to U.S. missile shield plans in Central Europe. "Any action triggers a counteraction, the same is true for the deployment of the U.S. missile defense system in the Czech Republic and Poland," the general said. Washington wants to place a radar in the Czech Republic and 10 missile interceptors in Poland, purportedly to counter a missile threat from Iran and other "rogue" states. Moscow has responded angrily to the plans, saying the European shield would destroy the strategic balance of forces and threaten Russia's national interests.

Russia and Belarus, which maintained close political and economic ties since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the 1991, have been in talks for several years on the delivery of Iskander-E complexes to equip at least one Belarus missile brigade by 2015. With its maximum range of 280 km (about 180 miles), Iskander-E's range is likely to cover U.S. missile defense facilities in Poland, which borders on Belarus. Zaritsky reiterated that the Iskander deal could be possible under certain conditions and with the corresponding agreement of Belarus.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071114/88066432.html

Russia CFE moratorium to kick in on Dec. 12 - military chief

A moratorium on Russia's Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty obligations will take effect on December 12, the chief of the Armed Forces General Staff said on Wednesday. "There will be no changes to Russia's position: The law will come into force as it should, on December 12," Gen. Yury Baluyevsky said. Russia has repeatedly urged its NATO colleagues to ratify the CFE Treaty and then amend it to eliminate flank limitations, he said. Baluyevsky said last Thursday that Russia would no longer be bound by current weapons and equipment limitations after its moratorium on the CFE Treaty comes into force. The State Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament, voted on November 7 in favor of President Putin's bill to impose a moratorium on the CFE Treaty. The moratorium is set to come into effect after final approval by the upper house of parliament, expected to vote on the issue on November 16, and President Vladimir Putin. The chief of the General Staff also said previously the CFE Treaty put Russia at a disadvantage. "It was an onerous treaty for Russia. It was a treaty that Russia alone honored," he said. Asked why Russia had signed the document in the first place, Baluyevsky said that at the time, in 1990, the goal was to avert a war, and the treaty effectively served its purpose. He also said Russia's Armed Forces, like all militaries in the world, would be putting an emphasis on quality, not quantity.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071114/88118482.html