Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!


2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


- PLEASE READ -

Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.


8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

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

    Make or break time for Georgia Russian troop withdrawals and their effect



    The presence of military bases from another country in your own is always controversial. In the United Kingdom the USA has a military facility at Men with Hill in Yorkshire. No one knows exactly what they do there as it is intelligence-related. A local campaign group has scoured the telephone directories to produce what they think is a list of phone numbers of people who work at the base. People are encouraged to ring up the servicemen and ask them about the ethics of spying on allied countries, among other things. The Russian military presence in Georgia, often described as a 'peacekeeping mission', has caused considerable comment, not least due to Russian support for the breakaway governments which have seized control of parts of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. A new report by DR. Korneli Kakachia entitled "End of Russian Military bases in Georgia: Social, Political and Security implications of withdrawal" analyses this issue in detail. Kakachia is the Dean of School of Politics and International Relations, University of Georgia.

    This article suggests a summary of the salient points of this report. A fundamental transformation of the world political situation is taking place as a result of the break-up of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. South Caucasus countries, including Georgia, can now play a role as independent forces between Russia in the north and Turkey and Iran in the south. Russia and the West however are competing to mediate in the various conflicts still going on in the Caucasus, thus creating an obstacle to long-term stability and development. Russian military, political and economic presence in Georgia continues to exert influence on Georgia's internal development.

    While the concentration of Russian forces has been cut down, Russia is still the only foreign power able through its presence to shape what happens in the Caucasus, and continues to influence the course of conflicts, ceasefires and negotiations. Russia agreed to pull out of its military bases in Georgia under the terms of the1999 OSCE Istanbul Summit Treaty, but many soldiers and much hardware still remain from Soviet times. Other countries have not challenged Russia's position in the area as there are limits to how far they can project their own power. Georgia remains important for Russia for three reasons:

    1) it borders the unstable North Caucasus region of Russia, (including Chechnya) which generates grave internal threats to Russia’s security,

    2) it plays an important role in the development of the mineral resources of the Caspian Basin, with its vital Black Sea ports and location on pipeline routes,

    3) communications and pipelines linking Russia and pro-Russian Armenia run exclusively through Georgia. In Soviet times the South Caucasus was fully integrated into the USSR security system. Georgia always possessed several Soviet military bases due to its strategically important location and an estimated 15,000 Russian troops were still in Georgia in mid-1993.


    Indeed Georgia was slow to insist on the removal of Russian troops as it did not have enough border forces of its own. But the defeat of Georgian forces by Abkhaz separatists, widely seen as being supported by Russia, made Russia appear an aggressive state in the eyes of Georgians, and this perception remains. Over the past five years, relations between Georgia and Russia have been tense, with threats, recriminations and mutual suspicion abounding. Moscow is outraged by the Pro-Western orientation of President Saakashvili, his desire to join NATO and to reintegrate Abkhazia and South Ossetia with the rest of Georgia. Russia deliberately drags out negotiations with Georgia and adopts other provacative tactics such as cutting off gas supplies in winter to repair the pipeline, imposing the embargo on wine and other agricultural products and suspending transport and postal links, and deporting hundreds of Georgians, after Russians were arrested in Georgia on espionage charges.

    Russia continues to back the separatist regions and limit the actions of OSCE and UN monitors on their borders. Georgia accuses Russia of being behind a guided missile attack on Georgian territory on August 6, as do separate groups of technical experts from Western countries. Though Russia denies involvement Georgians regard it as a sequel to a missile strike on the Upper Kodori Gorge in March against the pro-Georgian Abkhaz Government-in-Exile.

    Russia wants Georgia to be neutral, but Georgia will not compromise on its ambition to join the Western powers in NATO. What has been agreed Since the 1999 summit the Georgian and Russian governments have been negotiating the withdrawal of Russian military bases from Georgia. Russia agreed to liquidate the Vaziani and Gudauta bases under the1999 agreement. Not until October 6 2006 however did the Russian parliament ratify the order to this effect, signed by both governments the previous March in Sochi. According to this order Russia had to vacate the Akhalkalaki base in southern Georgia by October 1 of this year, or December 31 at the latest if there are any complications, and Batumi in 2008. Both bases were to remain operation, however, whilst the troops and hardware are being withdrawn, though no new troops or ammunition would be deployed there.

    The people and equipment can be removed by rail, air or road, but no nuclear, chemical or biological weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction or components of them, can be transported through Georgia or its airspace. Agreement has also been reached on the transport of troops and hardware from the 102nd Russian military base in Gyumri, Armenia, through Georgia. This base is part of the CIS air defence network and houses fighter planes and a personnel of 15,000. Georgia claims that Russia has only partially fulfilled the terms of the1999 treaty, as although Vaziani has gone it says only some of the equipment has been removed from Gudauta. A framework for the inspection of this base by OSCE and Germany has now been put into motion.

    Akhalkalaki withdrawal TheAkhalkalaki base has always been important due to its position on the Turkish border (Turkey being a NATO member) and on an obvious route into the Caucasus. Russian presence there began in 1828 when it conquered the surrounding region, the Russian/Soviet army and special forces having been concentrated here in significant numbers ever since. Most of the local population were connected to the base in one way or another, and the locality became a militarized zone with entry only allowed via a special pass. This isolated the population from the rest of Georgia. The continued presence of the base has been seen as both a remnant of Soviet domination, and a sign of Russia's supposed contemporary ambitions in the area. Russia has however withdrawn all its troops ahead of schedule. The last left on the eve of the base being handed over to Georgia on June 27 2007. The base includes 196 buildings and a combat training range, all now under the authority of the Georgian government.

    The withdrawal has been met with sorrow by the local (mostly Armenian) population, who found much employment there and saw much local economic activity from the Russian soldiers. The stronger ruble was the local currency and the base could arrange the transit of unregistered goods. Furthermore Armenians remember Turkish massacres of their people in the early 20th Century and saw Russia as a protector against possible further aggression. The possible arrival of NATO troops or Georgian forces is viewed with suspicion and it is believed that border security sharply declined when the Russians left. The Georgian government is seeking to integrate the locals with the rest of Georgia and sees Russian withdrawal as a strengthening of Georgian sovereignty. There are also plans to establish food production centres to replace the former jobs at the base, leading to the population's economic integration. Nevertheless the population remains sceptical, andmanaging the effects of the withdrawal will not be easy.

    Batumi withdrawal Russia stalled the troop withdrawal negotiations for a long time, at one point demanding largesumns in compensation for giving up its bases. Whilst Ajara remained effectively independent this process continued. In 2003 however, with Georgian sovereignty re-established in the region, Russia began to believe its Batumi base could be blockaded, and agreed to honor its obligation to withdraw. An attempt was made to possibly keep the base open as an 'anti-terrorist centre.' This was originally a Georgian idea, proposed to give Russia a diplomatic way of withdrawing its troops. This joint Georgian-Russian centre, under Georgian sovereignty, would include Russian officers, with no troops or armaments. The Georgian public saw this as a means of continuing the Russian military presence in Georgia by the back door. Russia has subsequently complained that Georgia was refusing to progress negotiations for establishing this centre. It is unlikely that it was ever seriously considered as an option by either side and the withdrawal is expected to take place.

    The Georgian government banned military exercises by Russian troops, but several did take place around the Batumi base. Some were conducted around Gonio, damaging the ecosystem and tourist economy. Nevertheless this base has also now been evacuated. It was handed over on November 13, once again well ahead of schedule. Now only those troops in the conflict zones in Abkhazia and South Ossetia remain. To offset the economic impact of the withdrawal the Georgian government has promised new roads, social programmes and military food contracts, and to transfer Georgian personnel to the Georgian army. However, the locals are again skeptical that these measures, and growth of tourism in Ajara, will enable them to make up for lost military revenue.

    Gudauta withdrawal Georgia and many Western observers claim that the Gudauta base was a significant source of military support to Abkhaz rebels in the 1992-93 war. Russia agreed to shut the base down in 1999 and claims to have removed all troops and military equipment, leaving only peacekeepers under the command of the CIS. Georgia does not agree this is so, and the commander of the Russian peacekeeping forces himself says that 4 helicopters and 130 Russian servicemen are still there. Georgia wants inspection, as required by the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, but cannot guarantee the security of the inspectors as the area is not under its control. As Russia insists on this condition being met before it will allow the mandatory inspection, it has not taken place. Georgia is seeking to remove the Russian peacekeepers by withdrawing their mandate.

    This follows incidents earlier this year when Georgian police officers were allegedly seized and beaten by peacekeepers, and a youth camp in Ganmukhuri was allegedly besieged by peacekeepers with armored vehicles. Russia maintains that as the powers of the peacekeepers and their commander were established by the CIS, it is the CIS councils of defense and foreign ministers who should decide on these matters. Georgia is also alleging a Russian military build-up in the conflict zone, and has warned Russia against recognizing Abkhazia as a separate state, claiming this would be a declaration of war against Georgia, which will be met. America has raised the reports of military build-up with the Russian authorities, pointing out that they conflict with Russia's role as a facilitator in the conflict. In response, Russia has claimed that Russian peacekeepers' presence is “a major obstacle for those, who, under cover of peaceful rhetoric, continue preparing for military adventure in Abkhazia and South Ossetia.”

    Georgia is criticized for making "spurious complaints against Russia" to cover up its unconstructive attitude in Russo-Georgian negotiations. Future Prospects Georgia has acknowledged that ensuring Russian troop withdrawal is difficult, although it seeks to resolve the serious challenge of the Abkhazian and South Ossetia conflicts peacefully, consulting with locals under the mediation of the international community, whilst retaining its territorial integrity. Withdrawal of all Russian troops remains a Georgian goal as Georgia may not be able to join NATO unless Russia withdraws all its troops from the country. Georgia seeks to establish very good relations with Russia, but some elements in Russia see Georgian state-building as a threat to Russian national interest.

    Russia seeks to retain influence, which it feels is undermined by attempts by states on its southern border to ally themselves with NATO, as other neighbors of Russia have done. Its activities have been unhelpful, including derailing conflict resolution processes, illegally issuing passports in Abkhazia and sending its officials to serve in the separatist government. Although it has now fulfilled most of its 1999 withdrawal commitments, Russia has now withdrawn from a major treaty limiting the deployment of forces in Europe, and says it will decide for itself how many forces to deploy. This may mean abandoning its1999 commitments. Russia itself is unclear how it wishes to operate in the post-Soviet realm, creating problems for Georgia, which has to anticipate possible Russian positions. It has been stated that Russia will undoubtedly attempt to escalate the conflict in the breakaway regions. Political consolidation in Georgia is necessary to combat this, along with non-violent, diplomatic ways of resolving these conflicts. The following steps need to be taken:

    1) Russia needs to recognize that a Georgia in NATO poses no threat, but guarantees regional security;

    2) Russia needs to recognize that Georgia is irreversibly oriented towards the West, but this can stabilise the relationship between the two countries, as it did between Russia and the Baltic States;

    3) the peacekeeping process needs to be broadened, as lasting peace cannot be brought about by the current arrangements;

    4) there needs to be permanent transparency regarding use of the Gudauti base;

    5) Russia should be more constructive in relations with Georgia, ending the economic embargo and actively seeking conflict resolution;

    6) Georgia must ensure NATO supports its application for membership. Georgia will soon unilaterally evict the Russian peacekeepers from the conflict zones. This was agreed by parliament before but vetoed by President Shevardnadze. Now a date will shortly be announced for this to be effected.


    Source: http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=8125
    Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

    Նժդեհ


    Please visit me at my Heralding the Rise of Russia blog: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/

    Comment


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

      An Eastern Mediterranean Oil War?



      Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's overnight visit to Turkey has focused attention to the strategic dialogue between the two democratic nations in the Eastern Mediterranean. Turkey is a powerful, pro-Western, not Arab but definitely Muslim country and Israelis had hoped for years that its expanding relations would break the impression that the Muslim world opposed the xxxish state. The Turks were initially cautious, but came round about a decade ago when they reassessed their policies. They felt that dangerous neighbors and hotspots of instability were across their borders, and believed that Israel's influence in the United States could help especially in countering Greek and Armenian lobbies in Washington. The Turkish army's Deputy Chief of Staff Gen. Ergin Saygun was in Israel late last year discussing plans and more such visits are expected following Olmert's visit. But there seems to be much more at stake than mere diplomatic photo opportunity exchanges between Turkey and Israel.

      Virtually unnoticed, the inauguration of the Ceyhan-Tiblisi-Baku (BTC) oil pipeline, which links the Caspian Sea to the Eastern Mediterranean took place on the 13th July 2006, at the very outset of the Second Lebanon War. The official reception took place in Istanbul, hosted by Turkey’s President Ahmet Necdet Sezer in the Çýrađan Palace. Many dignitaries among them, British Petroleum’s CEO Lord Brown and BP leading the BTC pipeline consortium of western oil companies and senior government officials, top oil ministers and leaders of western oil companies, from Britain, the US, Israel and Turkey were all present at the ceremony. The 1,770 km Baku Tbilisi Ceyhan pipeline, simply known by the acronym BTC, is one of the world’s longest and cost US$4 billion to build. It snakes its way from the Sangachal oil and gas terminal south of the Azeri capital of Baku on the Caspian Sea through neighboring Georgia and some of the most mountainous regions of the Caucasus to finally reach the Turkish port of Ceyhan on the Mediterranean.

      The BTC pipeline totally bypasses the territory of the Russian Federation. as it transits through the former Soviet republics of Azerbaijan and Georgia, both of which have become US ‘protectorates’, firmly integrated into a military alliance with the US and NATO. Moreover, both Azerbaijan and Georgia have longstanding military cooperation with Israel. Israel has a stake in the Azeri oil fields, from which it imports some 20% of its oil. The BTC pipeline dominated by British Petroleum and American interest, has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean, which is now linked , through an energy corridor, to the strategic Caspian sea basin. In April 2006, Israel and Turkey announced plans for four underwater pipelines, transporting water, electricity, natural gas and oil to Israel, by-passing Syrian and Lebanese territory. The pipeline is aimed bringing water to Israel, by pumping water from upstream resources of the Tigris and Euphrates river system in Anatoli has been a long-run strategic objective of Israel to the detriment of Syria and Iraq.

      In its context, the BTC pipeline dominated by British Petroleum and American interest, has dramatically changed the geopolitics of the Eastern Mediterranean, which is now linked , through an energy corridor, to the strategic Caspian sea basin. But there is more at stage here. The geographical fact is that Ceyhan and the Mediterranean port of Ashkelon are situated only 400 km apart. Oil can be transported to that port in tankers or through a specially constructed under-water pipeline. From Ashkelon the oil can be pumped through already existing pipeline to the port of Eilat at the Red Sea, which had been very active during betters days between the Shah's Iran and Israel during the Sixties. From Eilat oil it can be transported to India and Far Eastern countries in tankers, thus outflanking the vulnerable Hurmoz straits.

      Last May, the Jerusalem Post published an article that Turkey and Israel are negotiating the construction of a multi-million-dollar energy and water project that will transport water, electricity, natural gas and oil by pipelines to Israel, with the oil to be sent onward from Israel to the Far East. Antalya Mayor Menderes Turel mentioned this in a press conference. The project, which would likely receive foreign economic backing, is currently undergoing a feasibility study sponsored by the Luxembourg-based European Investment Bank. The United States' ultimate strategic design is intended primarily to weaken Russia’s role in Central Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean, while isolating Iran from this important energy source.

      Iran being not only a major oil producing country is also a direct stepping stone between the Caspian region and the Persian Gulf. As such, it would certainly like to see Caspian oil flowing through its territory rather than through Turkey. Moreover, having full control over the Persian Gulf shipping lanes, through its military control on the strategic Hormuz strait, Iran could virtually strangle, at will, all international oil supplies, if political pressure on its nuclear program intensifies. Iran's claim to Caspian oil dates back to the last century when the Russian Empire and Persia, later Iran signed agreements in 1921 and 1940 recognizing the Caspian Sea as a lake belonging to and divided between them. Following the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Iran wanted this agreement to continue despite assertions of independence by the breakaway states of Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan.

      Five years ago, the official Iranian news agency IRNA quoted a statement of the Iranian Oil Ministry as saying that it protests prospecting by foreign companies in Iran's claimed 20 percent sector of the Caspian Sea. The warning came a day after Iran summoned Azerbaijan's charge d'affaires in Tehran to protest plans by the state-run oil company of Azerbaijan, Socar, to carry out oil exploration studies with foreign companies at the Alborz oil field "in Iran's sector of the Caspian Sea." Iran even threatened with military action if its warnings would remain unheeded and indeed, on July 23, 2001 in blatant violation of international law, an Iranian warship and two fighter jets forced a research vessel working on behalf of British Petroleum (BP)-Amoco in the Araz-Alov-Sharg field out of that sector.

      In fact, the BTC pipeline is far from secure by itself. Western intelligence reports indicate that Iran republican guards (IRGC) are carefully expanding support for subversive elements in Armenia, a country which is still technically at war with Azerbaijan. It is well known, that in the Armenian enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh the conflict between Armenian and Azeris is still going on. Armenian nationalists might decide to attack the BTC in order to hurt Azerbaijan, which derives most of its income from oil sales. The pipeline route passes through or near seven different war-zones. Its route passes just 10 miles from Nagorno-Karabakh, the area of Azerbaijan occupied by Armenia, where a bloody conflict killed at least 25,000 people It passes through Georgia, which remains unstable, with separatist movements in Abkhazia and South Ossetia – movements which the Georgian government tried to violently suppress during the 1990s. Just across the border into Russia, and still only 70 miles from the BTC pipeline route, the horrific conflict in Chechnya continues. The region also saw related conflict in neighboring Dagestan in 1999, and fighting between the Russian republics of North Ossetia and Ingushetia in 1992. In Turkey, the BTC route passes through the edge of the area of the conflict between the Turkish state and the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), now known as Kongra-Gel. And Russia, by all means, is unlikely to view this new American strategic move without adequate response.

      Moscow defense ministry sources pointed out recently, that the planned Russian naval base in Tartus will enable Russia to solidify its positions in the Middle East under the pretext to ensure security of Syria. Moscow intends to deploy an air defense system around the base - to provide air cover for the base itself and a substantial part of Syrian territory. It could also conduct underwater activities to sabotage submerged pipelines, or at least threaten to do so, if its demand will not be adhered to. A dangerous situation could emerge, if Israeli and Russian activities in the Eastern mediterranean could clash with each other on matters of highly strategic interests.

      Source: http://www.defense-update.com/newsca...sis-160207.htm
      Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

      Նժդեհ


      Please visit me at my Heralding the Rise of Russia blog: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/

      Comment


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

        Assad's Ticket to Putins Mid East Comeback



        A Google-Earth view of of the Syrian Naval Base at Tartus showing landing crafts and fast missile boats.

        December 23, 2006: Last November Iran has invited the Iraqi and Syrian presidents to Tehran. The Iranian move was a clear display of president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's increasingly muscular role in the Middle East, where it already has established deep influence over Syria and Lebanon. Surprisingly however, Bashar Assad preferred not to accept the invitation and look for more lucrative solutions in breaking Syria's, US sponsored isolation- a meeting with Vladimir Putin instead. The signal was: "all bets are open" and Ahmadinejad's dictate is not Assad's only option. Bashar Asasd's unexpected move coincided perfectly, with an effort to boost Moscow's clout in the Middle East, when Russian President Vladimir Putin held talks, last Tuesday, December 12, with his visiting Syrian counterpart, Bashar al-Assad, aimed at strengthening bilateral relations. Amid the ongoing debate, Russia continues to develop political and economic ties with both countries. Putin wishes to stamp Russian authority onto the international stage, especially the volatile Middle East, in which Bush's bungling strategy and Israel's poor showing in the Hezbollah war last summer, has already weakened US 'Pax Americana' vision substantially.


        Russian Moskva Class Cruiser - Syria's president Bashar Assad may yet present Vladimir Putin with a return ticket for Russia's longed strategic ambitions in the Middle East.

        In fact, as had been revealed recently, Russia, Iran and Syria have already entered a defence pact aiming at Moscow's ambitions to the process of altering the balance of power in the entire Middle East. Russia’s own part in this pact has been kept relatively secret for a long time. Syria has clinched a deal with Moscow early last year, in which Russia agreed to write off more than 70 percent of a multi-billion dollar debt owed from the Cold War era, when Damascus was a stounch ally and arms customer of the Soviet Union. Bi-lateral relations between Moscow and Damascus have considerably warmed since early 2006. A Russian military delegation has been touring military bases and headquarters in Syria as part of an effort to increase cooperation with the regime of President Bashar Assad. The delegation, led by Chief of Staff Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, has met his counterpart, Gen. Ali Habib, as well as senior Syrian commanders and defence officials. Western intelligence experts estimate that up to 2,000 Russian military advisors, under the command of Lieutenant General Vassily Jakushev, 60, the former commander-in-chief of the country's Far East military district, are currently serving in the Syrian military. Russian officers hold teaching positions at Syria's military officer training academy.

        Currently , Damascus' new shopping list for weapons backed by half a billion dollars put up by Iran - in cash if needed - has been granted by President Ahmadinejad to purchase modern Russian arms. Among this, intelligence sources claim, Damascus was advised in advance that certain surface systems on request, which were formerly rejected, would now also become available. However, while the transaction could include sophisticated Tor-M1 systems, supplies of which began reaching Iran last month, Syria's request will remain on hold until these were completed. Together with thousands of AT-14 anti-tank and SA 5 Gammon anti-air missiles, Damascus also wants to commission Russian military industry to upgrade all 4,500 of its outdated Soviet-era T-62, T-72 and T-80 tanks. Israel’s head of research in military intelligence, Brig-Gen Yossi Baidetz was referring to this huge Russian-Syrian arms deal bankrolled by Iran, in his presentation to the Knesset committee last week, which made headlines next day in the media.

        A highly interesting development was revealed a few months ago, when sources related to Israeli intelligence revealed, probably through satellite reconnaissance, having for some time observed the Russians dredging the port of TARTUS in northern Syria. Last June, the Russian newspaper Kommersant surprisingly unveiled Russian secret plans to upgrade the servicing station it has maintained since Soviet times at the Syrian port of Tartus. According to the paper, the short-term goal is to enable Russian warships to dock at Tartus, with a view to its future transformation into a fully-fledged Russian Mediterranean Fleet naval base. Kommersant’s unidentified source in the General Staff said the Navy plans eventually to relocate the bulk of the Black Sea Fleet, currently still stationed in Sevastopol, to Syria.

        Not surprisingly, Russian officials quickly denied these reports, but insistent facts nevertheless remain. According to these reports, at the Tartus naval base, covering an area of almost a hundred acres, about 300 men already serve under the command of sea captain Vladimir Gudkov, a former officer in Russia's North Sea fleet. Satellite photos reveal that Russia has already undertaken to deepen the port to permit the docking of its largest fighting ships, and even build a stationary mooring place. Moscow has also begun work on a new mooring at the Syrian port of Latakia, which could also be used in the future to base fighting ships. In this respect it is worth noting that the Black Sea Fleet Project 1164 Moskva guide missile cruiser called on Latakia in February 2006. In fact, Kommersant got its information about the work at Tartus from no less an authority than Vladimir Zimin, the Russian Embassy’s senior counselor for economic issues in Syria. Tartus port is being prepared as the base for a fully fledged Russian naval squadron. Anti-air defence for these forces will be upgraded to the new S-300PMU2 Favorit (SA-20) SAM systems and no doubt, the Thor M-1 deal will become part of this endeavour.

        It is worth recalling that permanent access to the Mediterranean has been the dream of Russia’s rulers for several centuries. Already in the second half of the 18th century for operations against Turkey, squadrons of the Baltic Fleet were sent to the Mediterranean. The rebirth of Russia’s naval presence in the Mediterranean began in the 1950s with the aim of countering NATO forces and to support Moscow’s interests in the Middle East. In 1958, a permanent base for Soviet submarines was established at Vlyora in Albania, but in spite of the establishment of close relations with a range of middle eastern Arabic states, the Soviet Union never acquired a permanent naval base in this region, and the powerful Soviet naval forces in the Mediterranean (Fifth Operational Squadron) had to anchor at small plots in the neutral waters off the coast of Tunisia and Libya. Only in 1984 were servicing stations at Tartus and Latakia, established for occasional servicing calls by Soviet warships.

        But the recent constant presence of major Russian fleet units in the Mediterranean is nothing new. On 9 February, this year, the Russian Black Sea Fleet Project 1164 Moskva guide missile cruiser RFS Moskva, under command of Admiral Vladimir Vasilyevich Masorin, Commander in Chief Russian Naval Forces, docked alongside NATO vessels in Messina, Sicily as part of a bi-lateral visit with Italian authorities. Two weeks later, the Moskva and the Naval Commando carrier Azov docked shortly at Latakiye port in northern Syria, the first official visit of Russian warships to Syria in 10 years. The appearance of Russian ships in Tartus for any period of time would represent a dramatic reinforcement of Russia’s naval potential in the Mediterranean Sea, even when compared to the cold war period. Syria's president Bashar Assad may yet present Vladimir Putin with a return ticket for Russia's longed strategic ambitions in the Middle East.

        Source: http://www.defense-update.com/newsca...sis-231206.htm
        Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

        Նժդեհ


        Please visit me at my Heralding the Rise of Russia blog: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/

        Comment


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

          Russia Plans to Deploy Six Carrier Battlegroups By 2025




          Admiral Kuznetsov aircraft carrier video: http://www.aviapedia.com/videos/carr...ov_carrier.avi

          By the year 2025 Russia plans to increase its ocean going fleet size to a total of 300 battleships, exceeding the level it maintained during the 'cold war'. The Russian Navy plans to maintain six battlegroups, each consisting of an aircraft carrier and various combat support and auxiliary ships. Three attack groups are to be based in the Northern Fleet with three others in the Pacific Fleet. This expansion will address Russia's strategic aspirations especially its territorial demands in the melting arctic zone. According to the Russian Fleet’s Commander-in-Chief, Admiral Vladimir Masorin, three attack groups will be based in the Northern Fleet with three others in the Pacific Fleet. At all times, two carriers will be on alert while two the other two are undergoing repair and modernization. The new vessels will include four heavy carriers: the Kiev, Minsk, Novorossiysk and Baku. The construction of the first carrier will begin in the next decade. Meanwhile, the Russians are planning to construct a new series of surface battleships that will support and protect the carriers. Russia also plans to modernize its Naval Aviation, fielding new MiG-29K instead of some of its 1980's vintage Su-33. An expansion of Russia's submarine fleet is also underway. Three new submarines are currently under construction and sea trials. The Russian Navy is building a new submarine base in the Kamchatka Peninsula, at the town of Vilyuchinsk, to host the Russian Navy's Pacific Fleet submarine force. The base will be designed to support the new Borei strategic missile carrying submarines. The first Submarine, Yuri Dolgoruky, was launched in April 07, series. Its sister ships, Alexander Nevsky and Vladimir Monomakh are expected to be completed by the year 2010. The Russian Navy currently operates 19 submarines, based in several locations in Severomorsk in the Kola Peninsula. The new base will offer centralized support for the submarine fleet.

          Source: http://www.defense-update.com/newsca...ssian_Navy.htm
          Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

          Նժդեհ


          Please visit me at my Heralding the Rise of Russia blog: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/

          Comment


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

            Medvedev...what will it mean for Armenia?

            In his remarks, Mr. Mevedev emphasized the high level of the celebrations of the Year of Armenia in the Russian Federation. He said, in particular: "I want to note the highly professional and exceptional artistic taste with which the program of the Year of Armenia in Russia was designed. We realized once again how much the people of Armenia is gifted, what a delicate sense of arts do they have, how do they to the cultural values and achievements, sciences and education. I would like to stress that just on this fertile niche our humanitarian cooperation has been developing so far and I am sure that there will be a broad field for joint work. Here are the development national languages and student exchanges, as well as simply usual and normal dialogue between people. The peoples of Armenia and Russia over many centuries have safeguarded the experience of tolerant relations between different nationalities, and today in the interaction of our peoples there cannot be a place for the displays of xenofoby. During the last years unfortunately we have been witnessing such disgusting phenomena, but I am convinced that similar ideas will not find support In Russia, where 160 different nationalities live. Our people is well aware that what remarkable qualities the Armenian people has. We know their diligence and goodwill, especially their constant readiness to cooperation. I think that just this human the factor is important in the bilateral relations and determines the course of political, economic and social interaction. Except for that our countries have been and remain as the most active and responsible members of the CIS, other organized associations and systems of collective security. Dear friends, today's closing ceremony for the Year of Armenia in Russia is quite conventional for the friendship between peoples knows no time frames It is already tested by time and our common task is to develop and strengthen this friendship. We have turned over another page of our centuries-old friendship, there are still a lot of events ahead of us, still we have much to do and to strive to and the successes available today are a strong basis on which our strategic cooperation has to be built on."- Dimitry Medvedev said.

            Comment


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

              EU-US showdown with Russia over Kosovo



              Kosovo-Albanian youths attend a rally to call for immediate independence for the Balkan enclave

              A Cold War-style stand-off over the future of Kosovo loomed last night as the European Union looked ready to join the United States in defying Russia and Serbia over independence for the breakaway Balkan province. As EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels headed for "unity" in backing Kosovo's independence, Russia gave warning that such a move would spark "a chain reaction" of instability across the Balkans and beyond. "Those making such plans must think very carefully about the consequences," said Sergei Lavrov, the Russian foreign minister. David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, said that the diplomatic war of words could eventually lead to real fighting. Asked if Nato's 16,000 troops in Kosovo would need reinforcements if the situation deteriorated, he replied: "The short answer is yes."

              Until the meeting yesterday a group of five EU countries had shared Russian reservations about backing independence in Kosovo, fearing that it might foster breakaway hopes among their own minority communities. But Cyprus, Greece, Romania, Slovakia and Spain have come under intense pressure to drop their objections in favour of a common EU position over Kosovo. "We will move to unity today," said Luis Amado, the Portuguese foreign minister, whose country holds the rotating EU presidency. In fact Cyprus, a divided island in search of its own diplomatic settlement for more than 30 years, remains opposed to independence for Kosovo. Erato Kozakou Markoullis, the Cypriot foreign minister, warned against the EU "breaking international law".

              Nonetheless, Kosovar Albanian leaders in Pristina, the province's capital, are sure to interpret the Brussels meeting as a signal of strong EU backing. They have promised to co-ordinate any declaration of independence with the EU and America. "From today, Kosovo is starting intense consultations with its international partners with the aim of co-ordinating steps for declaring independence," Skender Hyseni of the Kosovo Albanian negotiating team, said. Wolfgang Ischinger, Germany's ambassador to London who has been at the heart of negotiations between Serbia and the Kosovar Albanians, was due last night to present a report to the United Nations on progress - or the lack of it - in talks between the sides. In Pristina a crowd of about 2,000 ethnic Albanians gathered to encourage their leaders to declare independence "immediately".

              Agim Ceku, Kosovo's outgoing prime minister, has called for independence to be declared before the end of the year. But a breakaway move next year now looks much more likely. The US is likely to insist that the independence move is made after Jan 20,x to help moderates in the Serbian presidential elections.

              Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wkosovo111.xml

              Kosovo: What could happen?


              WAR

              Unilateral independence declared this year sees many of the remaining 100,000 Serbs in Kosovo flee. In Serbia, losing Kosovo helps a hardliner to oust President Boris Tadic, a moderate, in New Year elections. He demands at least a partition of Kosovo. Guerrilla groups, both Serb and Albanian, re-emerge, fighting starts. Likelihood: LOW - with 16,000 Nato troops in Kosovo, major fighting seems unlikely. Sporadic incidents cannot be ruled out.

              STALEMATE

              Both Russia and Serbia demand yet more talks to try to find an amicable solution for Kosovo. Faced with an increasingly fraught situation on the ground, US and EU diplomats decide to delay settling Kosovo's status.
              Likelihood: VERY LOW - the EU and US appear determined to resolve the issue.

              PEACE

              Kosovo Albanians leaders wait until after Mr Tadic is re-elected in Belgrade to declare independence. Nato forces ensure Serbs in Kosovo are safe, as the world's major powers bar Russia recognise the new state. Meanwhile the EU accelerates "sweetener" accession plans for Serbia. Likelihood: MOST LIKELY - while there may be sporadic trouble, most Serbs and Kosovo Albanians wish to put the issue behind them.

              Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...wkosovo211.xml

              Originally posted by Armenian View Post
              Russia says Kosovo could trigger "chain reaction"



              Russia warned the West on Monday that recognizing a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) by Kosovo could set off a "chain reaction" of problems in the Balkans and beyond. Russia, which has backed its ally Serbia over the status of the breakaway Serbian province, would also demand that any unilateral declaration be rescinded. "I want to stress that UDI of Kosovo and recognition of such independence will not remain without consequences," Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said during a visit to Nicosia. "It will create a chain reaction throughout the Balkans and other areas of the world," he said, speaking through an interpreter after talks with Cypriot President Tassos Papadopoulos.

              Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed Kosovo with German Chancellor Angela Merkel by phone on Monday, Russian news agencies reported, quoting the Kremlin press service. The talks came on the day mediation efforts between Serbia and Kosovo Albanian leaders officially expired and after Kosovo Albanians said they would start immediate talks with Western backers about an independence declaration. Russian mediator Alexander Botsan-Kharchenko spelt out the tougher diplomatic line from Moscow.

              "Unilateral declaration of independence would constitute a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1244. In this case Russia will demand that such a decision be cancelled, be annulled," the envoy said of the existing U.N. resolution governing international action in Kosovo. Russia, which holds a veto in the U.N. Security Council, has already blocked one Western-backed independence plan. Washington and almost all EU member states support Kosovo's independence from Serbia as the best option for stability in the Balkans and leaders of Kosovo's 90-percent Albanian majority say they will declare it within months. Without approval from the UN, any decision would not be legitimate, Botsan-Kharchenko said. "There are no other legal grounds. Any interpretations of Resolution 1244 on Kosovo are preposterous."

              Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/world...60361520071210
              Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

              Նժդեհ


              Please visit me at my Heralding the Rise of Russia blog: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/

              Comment


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

                Originally posted by Virgil
                Notice the one sided attack on Putin, if you were to go ask the majority of Russians how they feel about Putin they will all support him because he is a "strong Russian leader", but again the media tries to skew his image, next thing you know we are going to invade Russian for "to spread democracy". It is all a act to push forward "United Russia", pro-western coalition.
                Just to clarify and address a mistake, in my haste I typed "United Russian", it should have been "Other Russia" (The group lead by Garry).

                Comment


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

                  'Early independence' for Kosovo


                  Kosovo will declare independence from Serbia "much earlier" than next May, the Kosovo Albanian government says.

                  The statement came as a UN deadline for agreement on the future of the province expired. Months of talks had failed to break the deadlock.

                  EU nations failed to adopt a joint stance on whether to recognise independence at talks on Monday.

                  Serbia's president says he wants an international court to decide if the move to independence would be legal.

                  Boris Tadic said he wanted the UN Security Council to ask the International Court of Justice to examine the case.

                  Serbia has previously pledged to use all peaceful means to prevent Kosovo declaring independence - and it now seems the legal side of that campaign has begun, says the BBC's Nick Hawton in Belgrade.


                  Kosovo is still a province of Serbia but ethnic Albanian leaders there threatened to declare independence.

                  Declaration looms

                  Kosovo government spokesman Skender Hyseni said a declaration of independence was not a matter of "if, but when".

                  "Kosovo will look at its own agenda, but it will certainly be much earlier than May," he said.

                  EU foreign ministers meeting in Brussels said they had come close to a common position, with the UK, Germany, France and Italy all indicating they would support a declaration of independence.

                  Only Cyprus still wants a UN Security Council resolution before accepting a declaration of independence.

                  There will be an EU summit at the end of the week at which leaders will be under pressure to issue a statement in favour of independence, our correspondent says.

                  On Monday, thousands of ethnic Albanian students marched from Pristina University to Kosovo's parliament demanding an immediate declaration of independence.

                  The marchers carried US and Albanian flags, as well as posters bearing slogans such as "Independence is the only option" and "Europe, show some unity."

                  Russian opposition

                  Russia, a strong backer of Serbia, warned against a unilateral declaration of independence, saying it would "create a chain reaction throughout the Balkans and other areas of the world".

                  UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon had set a deadline of 10 December for mediators from the "troika" of the EU, US and Russia to broker a deal between Kosovo and Serbia, but the talks failed.

                  UN special envoy Martti Ahtisaari had put forward a plan offering Kosovo "supervised independence".

                  The plan - accepted by the ethnic Albanians - would have meant international agencies gradually steering Kosovo's institutions towards independence, while safeguarding the rights and property of the Serbian minority.

                  But Serbia rejected it, insisting that Kosovo must remain an integral part of Serbia.

                  Belgrade also fears discrimination against ethnic Serbs would go unpunished in an independent Kosovo.

                  Nato was criticised after it failed to prevent riots by ethnic Albanians in 2004 in which Serbs were attacked. Nineteen people died in the violence.

                  Nato - fearing a violent Serbian reaction - has said it will keep 16,000 troops in Kosovo to deter any clashes.

                  Though technically part of Serbia, Kosovo has been administered by the UN for the last eight years.

                  Belgrade's security forces were driven out of Kosovo by a Nato bombing campaign in 1999, launched to stop a violent Serbian crackdown on ethnic Albanians.

                  Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7136233.stm

                  Comment


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

                    Originally posted by Armenian
                    I see how an independent Kosovo and a weak Serbia (and of course a weak Russia) will in the longterm serve western interests. However at what expense is the West willing to attempt this? I can't figure out the real reasons behind why the West is strongly pushing this volatile issue at such a volatile time. Are they seeking armed conflict in Europe again? Are they attempting to force Russia to annex Abkhazia and South Ossetia? Are they attempting to make Moscow more hard-line in its dealings with the West? Why not just leave Kosovo's status as is? I just can't figure out their end game. Why are they doing this and why now?
                    Armenian, it boils to transit corridors for oil, this new "great game" of the 21st century revovles around who can monopolize the oil pumping out of the Caspian. We are not talking about the rights of just "controling the oil", on the mass scale absolute control of resources will determine which economies will maintain a steady growth. Any state that defects to the west is code for "further isolation of Russia".

                    This translate so perfectly when you consider Artsahk, why is it that their struggle for indepedence is not "justified" when the region is 100% Armenian versus Kosovo where Serbs still reside in? The answer is that Armenia has decided to avoid the jump on the "isolate Russia" bandwagan. In the long run this means that the west will never consider Armenia a solid ally over Georgia and Azerbaijan, however, this also means that in the long run the security and stability of Armenia is positively correlated to the security and stability of both Russia and Iran. Armenian interest coincide with Russian interests of making sure the Caspian oil pipelines from Iran and Central Asia flow through Moscow and states aligned with Moscow, thus, making sure both China and Europe are always dependent on Russia as energy corridor. Armenia blocks Turkish and western ambitions of controling the corridors absolutly.

                    The decision on where to build these pipelines in the Middle-East and Asia will determine who controls the world in the next century. Consider the energy needs of China and Asia, the energy needs of Europe, mankind's inability to diviate from petrol energy sources in time, and our own dependence on oil, all means that in the long run, whoever absolutly controls the oil, controls the world.
                    Last edited by Virgil; 12-11-2007, 03:30 AM.

                    Comment


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

                      Putin will be my Prime Minister: Medvedev



                      Dmitry Medvedev, the favourite to become Russia's next President, has announced that if he's elected next March, Vladimir Putin will be the country's Prime Minister. Medvedev says it will ensure the continuation of successful policies, which helped overcome economical and social problems.

                      Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Bwfw...&oe=UTF-8&hl=e

                      Medvedev to hand baton back to Putin


                      Dmitry Medvedev, named by Vladimir Putin as his preferred successor as president, said on Tuesday he would appoint Mr Putin as his prime minister should he be elected in next March’s poll. Analysts said the announcement was another sign Mr Putin could remain the power behind the scenes at least for an initial transition period, while the younger, more inexperienced Mr Medvedev took over the presidency. Mr Medvedev said that he would ask Mr Putin to take the post of prime minister as a way of ensuring continuity in the country’s economic and political course. “I consider it principally important for our country to keep in the most important position in executive power – in the post of chairman of the Russian government – Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin,” Mr Medvedev said in brief televised remarks on Tuesday. The announcement came just one day after Mr Putin endorsed Mr Medvedev, a soft-spoken ally from St Petersburg, as his preferred successor as president, in a move hailed by investors as signaling a continuation of Mr Putin’s policies by a figure seen as less hawkish than his potential rivals for the post.

                      The wheels for Russia’s tricky transfer of power were set in motion just one week after Mr Putin’s United Russia party won a landslide majority in parliamentary elections. Mr Putin said before the elections that victory for United Russia would give him the “moral right” to retain influence in the country, while United Russia’s leader Boris Gryzlov said on the night of the elections that the vote count granted Mr Putin the right to remain as “national leader.” Sergei Markov said the tandem of Mr Medvedev as president and Mr Putin as prime minister would leave Mr Putin with more leverage, at least for an initial period, because Mr Medvedev had no experience of dealing with the crucial “power ministries” – the Interior and Defence Ministries, the secret services and the prosecutor general’s office. “This means the team will remain,” he said. Putin will retain leverage he will also have the parliamentary majorty behind him. Medvedev will be the head of executive power. But he will not have experience with the siloviki. They will continue to see Putin as their de facto leader. "Putin will remain the real leader,” he said.

                      In his first comments since being forwarded for the presidency, Mr Medvedev said one of his first priorities as president would be to raise living standards. “We need to sharply lower poverty, create a contemporary health and education system and decide the most complicated problems of accommodation, and achieve a new quality of life in the villages,” he said in a televised address on Tuesday. But in a nod to the more hawkish, confrontational wing of the Kremlin, he underlined Russia’s increasingly assertive role in the world. “Russia has become different – stronger and better-off. We are respected and our opinion is reckoned with,” he said. “We are not educated as if we were school children.” Sergei Ivanov, the first deputy prime minister seen as one of his main rivals as Mr Putin’s preferred successor threw his backing behind Mr Medvedev. “”I want to say that I knew of this decision beforehand.. and I supported and support this decision now,” he told journalists on Tuesday.

                      Source: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/d46c0c3e-a...0779fd2ac.html
                      Մեր ժողովուրդն արանց հայրենասիրութեան այն է, ինչ որ մի մարմին' առանց հոգու:

                      Նժդեհ


                      Please visit me at my Heralding the Rise of Russia blog: http://theriseofrussia.blogspot.com/

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X