The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

Let's place Vladimir Putin in a proper 'historic' perspective by comparing him to his predecessors:

The West loved Gorbachev because he killed the Russian Bear.

The West loved Yeltsin even more because he allowed scavengers to devour what had remained of the Russian Bear.

The West now hates Putin because he has resurrected the Russian Bear.

The following is what the West misses so much. They had it so good in the 90s...

Armenian

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

The Legacy of Boris Yeltsin - Corruption, crony capitalism, and Russia's near-demise

Communism wounded Russia, grievously, almost irreparably – and Yeltsinism delivered the death blow. The legacy of Boris Yeltsin, who presided over what Paul Klebnikov described as "one of the most corrupt regimes in history," is, quite literally, the death agony of the Russian nation. As David Satter pointed out in the Wall Street Journal: "Between 1992 and 1994, the rise in the death rate in Russia was so dramatic that Western demographers did not believe the figures. The toll from murder, suicide, heart attacks and accidents gave Russia the death rate of a country at war; Western and Russian demographers now agree that between 1992 and 2000, the number of "surplus deaths" in Russia–deaths that cannot be explained on the basis of previous trends–was between five and six million persons."

The Yeltsin era was marked by a precipitous fall in living standards, but some prospered. Given privileged access to "privatized" state property, the clique around Yeltsin amassed fantastic wealth. The one who perhaps profited the most was Boris Berezovsky, whose methods were described by Klebnikov: "Using his access to the highest officials of the Russian government and his reputation as a close friend of the Yeltsin family, Berezovsky hammered away at the privatization projects that would put key state industries in his grasp."

Yeltsin's clique, which included his daughter, was known as "the Family" – not as in "family values," or the Partridge Family, but as in the Russian equivalent of The Sopranos. The rule of the commissars had been succeeded by the reign of the gangsters, criminal elements who seized control of the national economy and engineered a complete takeover of the state apparatus, not for any ideological motive or ostensibly "patriotic" purpose, but simply to enrich themselves. Their strategy made use of the "shock therapy" approach to privatizing the economy as advocated by Harvard professor Jeffrey Sachs. The process was set up to favor Yeltsin's courtiers, who paid rock-bottom prices in a rigged auction. The industrial base of the Russian economy was sold off for a song: the whole process amounted to a spree of looting such as hadn't been seen since the sack of Rome.

Yeltsin didn't seem to notice, which is hardly surprising, since he was drunk for most of his tenure in office. And in Yeltsin's Russia, vodka was the only commodity that was cheap and plentiful. If this was an effort to calm the roiling currents of post-Soviet politics and anesthetize the populace while the oligarchs made off with the nation's assets, it didn't entirely accomplish that goal. There was an anti-Yeltsin upsurge in 1993, and the Duma threatened to impeach the Russian president: in response, Yeltsin declared the parliament dissolved and sent in his tanks to take the building, which was ringed by tens of thousands of anti-Yeltsin demonstrators.

This is the guy who is now being hailed as a great democrat and admirable leader by the Clintons, two of the old crook's biggest enablers. Bill Clinton and his cronies funneled billions in American "aid" to Yeltsin 's kleptocracy, most of which disappeared down a rabbit hole and eventually wound up in the oligarchs' foreign bank accounts. Putin is routinely blamed for the Chechen war, yet this too is part of the Yeltsin legacy. It was Yeltsin who started that war, invading Chechnya in 1994 to protect the interests of certain criminal gangs in Moscow and other major Russian cities, who had a falling out with their Chechen brethren in the homeland. Describing the group around Yeltsin who pushed for war, Gen. Aleksandr Lebed bitterly declared: "This is not the party of war. This is the party of business."

Having consolidated its hold on power, the Yeltsin clique, with Berezovsky's funding and support, proceeded to divvy up the spoils, including cementing their domination of the "private" media. Organized crime networks replaced the state security services as centers of power, with Berezovsky and his fellow oligarchs at the apex of it all. Using strong-arm tactics and engaging in not a few assassinations, the oligarchs – Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Vladimir Gusinsky, and Leonid Nevzlin, among others – drove rival gangs out of business and established their economic and political supremacy. The oligarchy decimated the economy, demoralized the Russian people, and dissolved the rule of law in the acid of corruption and criminality. Is it any wonder that Yeltsin's death is hardly being mourned in Russia? I would venture a guess that more than a few cups are being raised to his demise.

Understanding the Yeltsin legacy and its catastrophic effect on Russia is key to grasping the Putin phenomenon. Although the former KGB officer who rose from obscurity to become the most formidable Russian leader since Peter the Great owes his present job to Yeltsin, the Yeltsin clique didn't fare so well at the hands of their fallen leaders' designated successor. Putin turned against "the Family" and drove most of the oligarchs out of power and into exile, where they are even now scheming to make a comeback. The ersatz "privatizations" arranged under the previous regime were overturned, to a large extent, and the "entrepreneurs" of the Russian Mafia were reined in, if not eliminated entirely, to the point where they no longer threatened the state's monopoly on coercion. The reintegration of formerly state-controlled assets into the "private-public" arrangements mapped out by the Putin administration is widely seen in the West as evidence that Russia is "backsliding." Similarly, the takeover of major mass-media outlets by pro-Putin businessmen is cited as proof that Putin represents a new "authoritarianism." Yet all that has happened is the passing of power from the oligarchs to the latter-day czarists of Putin's United Russia party.

Gregory Yavlinsky, the liberal parliamentary leader, had this to say about Yeltsin's regime: "The government that was formed was without any clear ideology. It was neither red, nor white, nor green. It was based solely on personal greed. You got a system that was corporatist, oligarchic, and based on monopolized property rights and semi-criminal relationships."

With the oligarchic and semi-criminal elements purged by Putin, what remains is the corporatist structure, which is now in different hands. Railing at the Russian president from their posh places of exile in Londongrad, Switzerland, and the French Riviera, the oligarchs' indictment of Putin boils down to one principal complaint: they are no longer in power. Flush with cash, and intent on revenge, exiled oligarchs such as Berezovsky pour their money into phony "human rights" front groups that regularly denounce Russia's "reversion" to authoritarianism. Some, like Andrew Illarionov of the Cato Institute, go so far as to accuse Russia of launching a military bid to regain its lost empire and advise the West to "consider itself in a new Cold War-like era."

The goal of this rather motley crew is to restore Yeltsinism without Yeltsin, but the oligarchs and assorted "dissenters" – ranging from Eduard Limonov and his National Bolsheviks to Illarionov and chess-champion-turned-politician Gary Kasparov – have little support outside the editorial offices of Western newspapers and U.S. government agencies engaged in "democracy promotion." The "color revolutions" that occurred in former Soviet satellites such as Ukraine and Kyrgyzstan have faded to black, and Putin's popularity in Russia has so far foiled the oligarchs' attempts to subvert the country from within. Berezovsky has to content himself with calling for the violent overthrow of the Russian government from his palatial London headquarters, hoping that the professional regime-changers in Washington and London will lend a sympathetic ear and, perhaps, some material support.

In the meantime, however, with the ill-gotten gains of several oligarchs stashed in Swiss bank accounts and sloshing around Londongrad and Washington, there are plenty of think-tank presidents who wouldn't mind getting a cut of that particular action. Expect the propaganda assault on Putin's Russia to get more vociferous and the drumbeat to "do something" about the rising "threat" of Russia to get louder and more serious. Yeltsin's legacy to Russia – poverty, privation, and a renewed adversarial stance by the West – is the "gift" that just keeps on giving.

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=10867

Godfather of the Kremlin:
The Decline of Russia in the Age of Gangster Capitalism

Mr. Paul Klebnikov makes a rather unusual declaration at the beginning of his book by stating that what is about to be read may be difficult to believe. As this work is non-fiction the comment would seem misplaced. However once the reading has begun it not only proves to have been appropriate, but is a fact you will keep reminding yourself of. The Author relates what is arguably the greatest theft in History, and if he had decided to change some detail, he could have had an outstanding novel. That the events he relates actually took place makes for a reading experience no novel can compete with. I have been following Mr. Klebnikov's stories in Forbes, since December of 1996 when he introduced Mr. Boris Berezovsky as Russia's Godfather. That first article in Forbes brought the wrath of Mr. Berezovsky to bear on Forbes and the Author, but he continued with his research and lived to write this book. Whatever his personal motivation was, and continues to be, is remarkable. This man worked for years on the home field of a variety of people who were capable of removing him from the living, with a glance, and without any fear of consequence to themselves.

The dysfunctional, amoral, nothing is out of bounds world, that was Boris Yeltsin's Russia, truly is difficult to get your mind around. Some minor details that will prepare you for the real story; when Gorbachev was still in power the government budget received 25% of its revenues from where, from the Government monopoly on Vodka! The ruble of Gorbachev was worth approximately one U.S. dollar. At the close of 1992 one dollar would cost 415 rubles, and when Yeltsin finally left office in an alcoholic haze, if you wanted a dollar you needed 28,000 rubles! The "Voucher Auctions" that took place in 1993 and 1994 would not have been condoned much less implemented by a student with a semester or two of Economic study. Gazprom, which owns one third of the planet's Natural Gas, was "auctioned" for $250 million dollars, the truer value, if valued as a Western Company, would have had its gas reserves alone valued at between $300 and $700 BILLION. These numbers do not take into account that the company was basically a monopoly supplier to the entire former Soviet Union, and much of Western Europe as well.

To put a more familiar face on these numbers, at the very lowest estimate, you could have bought Exxon and had $12 billion left over, at the high end you could have bought General Electric, the most valuable company as I write, and since you might be thirsty after the effort, you could pick up Coca Cola with the change left from the GE purchase. You will learn how Mr. Berezovsky privatized the cash flows of companies like Aeroflot, companies he did not own, and by using little money, if any at all, and if he needed any the seller, The Government would supply it. He was not the only man to take advantage of Yeltsin and his hand picked group of incompetents but he surely was the master at the game.

This book will leave you stunned. How much to buy the election for Yeltsin, read the book, how often Yeltsin was sober, the facts will alarm you, how Tanya his beloved daughter who knew nothing that qualified her for Government, became the power behind her Father, often doing the bidding of Mr. Berezovsky, who are you ready for this, was appointed to the Government by good old Yeltsin himself. The wholesale rape of Russia's assets is worse than any damage that Russia has ever been through. Those who dared to challenge the system of "Kleptocracy" were easy to identify, they were either already buried, were bleeding, or about to be assassinated. You played by the rules of thieves or you were removed, it was that simple.

I have read many metaphors in other places that compare the Mafiyas' in Russia today to the Robber Barons of this Country of a century or more ago. Anyone who puts forth this argument is painfully ignorant of History. It is true that the men who carried the sobriquet Robber Baron were not individuals whose paths you would have wished to cross, for as businessmen they were ruthless. That is where the comparison ends, for the bottom line is that they built this country, and while there were times violence took place it is only the inept that would compare it to the thousands murdered, and the millions who died as the result of Russia being taken apart and given away. Russia was eviscerated with the Government's consent and its participation, and the consequences to the citizenry at large had not been as premeditative in their design or as destructive since Stalin. I liked this quote from a top Russian Official, "it is very difficult to determine whether it's incompetence or embezzlement".

Source: http://ftrreading.blogspot.com/2006/...f-kremlin.html

[Armenian]

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

Russia, Iran tighten the energy noose

Foreign ministers are busy people - especially energetic, creative diplomats like Russia's Sergei Lavrov and Iran's Manouchehr Mottaki, representing capitals that by tradition place great store on international diplomacy. Therefore, the very fact that Lavrov and Mottaki have met no less than four times in as many months suggests a great deal about the high importance attached by the two capitals to their mutual understanding at the bilateral and regional level. Moscow and Tehran have worked hard in recent months to successfully put behind them their squabble over the construction schedule of the Bushehr nuclear power plant in Iran. The first consignment of nuclear fuel for Bushehr from Russia under the International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards finally arrived in Tehran on Monday. "We have agreed with our Iranian colleagues a timeframe for completing the plant and we will make an announcement at the end of December," said Sergei Shmatko, president of Atomstroiexport, which is building Bushehr. At a minimum, the gateway opens for Russia's deeper involvement in Iran's ambitious program for civil nuclear energy. But nuclear energy is not the be-all and end-all of Russo-Iranian cooperation. Iran is a crucially important interlocutor for Russia in the field of energy. The Bushehr settlement is a necessary prerequisite if the trust and mutual confidence essential for fuller Russo-Iranian cooperation is to become reality. Evidently, Moscow is hastily positioning itself for the big event on the energy scene in 2008 - Iran's entry as a gas-exporting country.

Russia consolidates in 2007

In fact, how Moscow proceeds with the reconfiguration of Russo-Iranian relations could well form the centerpiece of the geopolitics of energy security in Eurasia during 2008. The dynamics on this front will doubtless play out on a vast theater stretching well beyond the Eurasian space, all the way to China and Japan in the east and to the very heart of Europe in the west where the Rhine River flows. What places Russia in an early lead in the upcoming scramble is its fantastic win in the Eurasian energy sweepstakes in 2007. But 2007 as such began on an acrimonious note for Moscow when two minutes before the clock struck midnight on December 31, Russia signed a gas deal with Belarus whereby the latter would have to pay for Russian gas supplies at full market prices on a graduated scale stretched over the next five-year period. President Vladimir Putin's critics seized the moment with alacrity to portray him as a whimsical megalomaniac.

Moscow-based critic Pavel Felgenhauer rushed to condemn Putin's "highly aggressive, unscrupulous and revengeful" mindset as a dictator, and prophesied that the "pressure on Belarus will most likely misfire ... This may undermine the Kremlin's authority ... and provoke internal high-level acrimony [within the Kremlin]". Other Western critics warned European countries not to count on Russia's dependability as an energy supplier. Much of the vicious criticism might seem in retrospect to be either prejudiced and self-interested, or downright laughable, but that didn't prevent the acrimony from setting the tone for the geopolitics of energy during 2007. Prima facie, Russia was making a transition to market prices for its energy exports, which was quite the proper thing to do if it were to integrate with the world economy in a manner consistent with the broad orientations of its liberal economic policies.

Indeed, the Kremlin had no reason to continue with the Soviet-era subsidies to former Soviet republics like the Ukraine or Belarus. Efficiency demanded that Russia allowed market forces to prevail. Actually, that was also the capitalist world's advice to the Kremlin. What incensed Western critics was that combined with the state control of oil and gas (and indeed the pipelines), the Kremlin was also maneuvering its way to a commanding position on the energy map of Europe. From its own viewpoint, Russia could claim it was merely pursuing a coordinated strategy aimed at integrating itself with European economies. But the United States viewed the implications of the Russian strategy to be very severe for trans-Atlantic relations on the whole, as it cast a shadow on the entire range of goals, strategic objectives and security policies that Washington has been pushing within the framework of the Euro-Atlantic alliance in the post-Cold War years. Plainly put, Washington fears that Europe's strategic drift may become a reality unless Russia is stopped in its tracks.

Europe's dependence on Russian energy

After much US prodding for a coordinated European energy security policy, European Union (EU) members adopted at their spring summit in Brussels an action plan for energy security for 2007-2009, which emphasized the need to diversify Europe's energy sources and transport routes. But the ground reality continues to be that Europe's dependence on Russian energy supplies is growing. In 2006, Europe imported from Russia 290.8 million tonnes of oil and 130 billion cubic meters of gas. With Europe's energy consumption rapidly rising, its import dependency on Russia is also set to increase. Europe, which imported around 330 billion cubic meters of gas in 2005, will require an additional 200 billion cubic meters per year by 2015. And Russia has the world's largest natural gas reserves, estimated to be 1,688 trillion cubic feet, apart from the seventh largest proven oil reserves, exceeding 70 billion barrels (while vast regions of eastern Siberia and the Arctic remain unexplored).

On the other hand, Europe's self-sufficiency in energy is sharply declining. By 2030, the production of oil and gas is expected to decline by 73% and 59% respectively. The result is that by 2030, two-thirds of Europe's energy requirements will have to be met through imports. In Europe's energy mix, the dependence on oil imports by 2030 will be as high as 94% of its needs, and on natural gas as high as 84%. As supply becomes concentrated in Russian hands, the Kremlin will find itself in a position to dictate oil and gas prices. There is also the possibility that the supply and demand situation itself might become less elastic - Russia's own demand for gas, for instance, is growing by over 2% annually.

Clearly, the economics of energy supply to Europe are getting highly politicized. Ariel Cohen, a prominent Russia specialist at the US think-tank, Heritage Foundation, who is closely connected with the George W Bush administration, wrote recently, "It is in the US's strategic interests to mitigate Europe's dependence on Russian energy. The Kremlin will likely use Europe's dependence to promote its largely anti-American foreign policy agenda. This would significantly limit the maneuvering space available to America's European allies, forcing them to choose between an affordable and stable energy supply and siding with the US on some key issues." Cohen warned, "If current trends prevail, the Kremlin could translate its energy monopoly into untenable foreign and security policy influence in Europe to the detriment of European-American relations. In particular, Russia is seeking recognition of its predominant role in the post-Soviet space and Eastern Europe ... This will affect the geopolitical issues important to the US, such as NATO [North Atlantic Treaty Organization] expansion to Ukraine and Georgia, ballistic missile defense, Kosovo, and US and European influence in the post-Soviet space."

US-Russia rivalries escalate

Thus, through the past 12-month period, the Bush administration has been pressing for the development of new energy transit lines from the Caspian and Central Asia that bypass Russia. Washington has robustly worked for advancing its proposals for the construction of oil and gas pipelines linking Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to Europe across the Caspian Sea; new pipelines that would connect the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline with the Baku-Erzurum gas pipeline (making Turkey an energy hub for Europe); and the so-called Nabucco pipeline that proposes to link Azerbaijan and Central Asian countries with southern European markets. However, as the year draws to a close, it becomes clear that the Kremlin has either nipped in the bud or frustrated one way or another the various US attempts to bypass Russia's role as the key energy supplier for Europe. Indeed, Moscow's counter-strategy aims at augmenting even further Russia's profile and capacity to be Europe's dependable energy supplier and thereby forcing the European consumer countries to negotiate with Russia as a partner with shared or equal interests.

The month of May stood out as the watershed when the geopolitics of energy in Eurasia decisively turned in Russia's favor. At a tripartite summit meeting in the city of Turkemenbashi (Turkmenistan) on May 12, Putin and his Kazakh and Turkmen counterparts signed a declaration of intent for upgrading and expanding gas pipelines from Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan along the Caspian Sea coast directly to Russia. The president of Uzbekistan, Islam Karimov, also signed up separately on May 9 for a modernization of the Turkmenistan-Uzbekistan-Kazakhstan-Russia pipeline. Both pipelines are components of the Soviet-era Central Asia-Center pipeline system bound for Russia. The quadripartite project essentially aims at the transportation of Turkmenistan's gas output, which almost in its entirety would be bought up by Russia for a 25-year period.

[...]

Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/IL22Ag01.html

Iran-Russia trade surged 100 percent: Mottaki

Iran and Russia have surged mutual trade volume more than 100 percent over the current year said the foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki in a meeting with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov. Mottaki who was in Moscow to hold the 7th joint economy commission of Iran and Russia said there are many fields prepared for expanding cooperation and the two sides have inked long-term cooperation agreement. Referring to the four visits of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Vladimir Putin during the last two years he called the visits decisive in opening new chapter of relations. "We believe the two countries' negotiations on regional and international issues in different levels can help resolving problems." Mottaki also emphasized that Moscow's supporting legal rights of NPT members for utilizing peaceful nuclear energy was of great importance. Meanwhile Sergei Lavrov in this meeting stressed that Iran's nuclear dossier must be solved under the NPT and the IAEA regulations and that Iran's right for employing peaceful nuclear technology must be preserved. "Russia favors Iran and the IAEA cooperation and this is what can result in solving all issues regarding this dossier," he added. Also regarding the two presidents' agreements made in Tehran he stated "the deals must be put into practice and that we must have close cooperation in this regard."

Source: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/IL22Ag01.html

Russia has no intention of quitting Iran’s arms market

Russia has no intention of quitting the Iranian market of arms, the Chief Of the Federal Service for Military-Technological Cooperation, Mikhail Dmitriyev, told Itar-Tass in an interview after the 4th session of the Russian-Iranian inter-governmental commission. “We are interested in exporting military hardware to foreign clients, including Iran, just as any other arms manufacturing country,” Dmitriyev said. “We wish to access world markets and to build up our own potential.” “Iran is an integral part of the vast market of armaments, very crucial for Russia, and not only Russia. A struggle for Iran, both covert and overt, is underway, and we experience great competition. This is a very lucrative market and all countries are aware of that. We are in no mood quitting it, because getting back would be far harder.”

Source: http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=159673

[Armenian]

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

Venezuela to Buy Russian-Made Planes

Venezuela plans on buying 12 Russian-built military planes, including Ilyushin-76 transport planes and Ilyushin-78 refueling aircraft, an air force official said Wednesday. Under President Hugo Chavez, Venezuela has already purchased some $3 billion worth of arms from Russia, including 53 military helicopters, 100,000 Kalashnikov assault rifles and 24 SU-30 Sukhoi fighter jets. Air Force Col. Oswaldo Hernandez Sanchez did not provide any details regarding the planes to be purchased from Russia, saying only that he expected them to arrive in Venezuela late next year. Chavez — a former army lieutenant colonel — says Venezuela needs new transport planes to replace Hercules C-130 planes because of maintenance problems caused a U.S. ban on arms sales to the South American country. The U.S. State Department imposed the ban, which affects the sale by other countries of any military hardware containing U.S. technology, citing a lack of support by Chavez's government for counterterrorism efforts and its increasingly close relations with Iran and communist-led Cuba.

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g...Xo9LQD8TBLN680

[Armenian]

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

Diamonds, one of Russia's many other natural resources. The state-controlled ALROSA company accounts for approximately 20% of the world's diamond supply and virtually all of Russia's diamond production. One of the centers of their diamond processing is the Armenian Republic.

Armenian

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

Russian Giant ‘Implementing’ Diamond Deal With Armenia

Russia’s state-owned diamond monopoly said on Friday that it has started implementing a recent agreement with the Armenian agreement which should shore up Armenia’s declining diamond-processing industry. Under the agreement signed in Yerevan in August, the ALROSA giant undertook to resume supplies of Russian rough diamonds to Armenian companies. Those supplies fell sharply in 2004 and ceased altogether in 2006, contributing to an ongoing downturn in a sector that was once a key driving force of Armenia’s economic growth. The ALROSA chairman, Sergey Vybornov, said 22 Armenian diamond-cutting firms applied to his company following the August deal but only four of them were chosen to receive Russian precious stones. They have already been supplied with $1 million worth of uncut diamonds, he told reporters in Yerevan.

According to Vybornov’s deputy, Sergey Ulin, ALROSA, which mines diamonds in eastern Siberia, plans to carry out at least $28 million worth of such deliveries in the course of next year and could raise their volume in 2009. He said the Russian giant, which accounts for one fifth of global rough diamond sales, sees “optimistic grounds for developing cooperation” with Armenia. Underscoring the importance of that cooperation, both President Robert Kocharian and Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian received the visiting ALROSA executives on Friday. Minister for Trade and Economic Development Nerses Yeritsian said after the talks the Armenian government will do its best to facilitate ALROSA operations in the country. Yeritsian said the government is also holding “active discussions” with the Russian company on the possibility of expanding their presence into other sectors of the Armenian economy. He gave no details.

Vybornov said in that ALROSA is negotiating with the authorities in Yerevan over the possible of an unnamed Armenian mining enterprise. It was not clear if he referred to the Indian-owned Ararat Gold Recovery Company, which develops the bulk of the country’s gold reserves. According to government statistics, Armenian plants manufactured 25 billion drams ($82 million) worth of gem diamonds in the first half of this year, down by 48 percent from the same period last year. Armenia’s total diamond output dropped by over 17 percent to 93 billion drams in 2006, continuing the production slump that began in 2004. Refined diamonds have since ceased to be the country’s single largest export and now account for just 1 percent of its gross industrial production. Government officials and analysts blame the sector’s decline on a combination of internal and external factors, including falling global demand for precious stones and the dramatic appreciation of the Armenian dram.

Source: http://www.armenialiberty.org/armeni...68812C6063.ASP

GASIFICATION IN RUSSIA AND ARMENIA

During a discussion at the "Gazprom" head office, First Vice-President of the Russian Federation Dmitry Medvediev demanded the administration to stop charging the population with fees for gasification. He stressed that the gasification of the regions of Russia is a program of federal social importance and it is the Government, not the citizens to take care of it. In Armenia, according to ArmRosGazprom’s 2003-2007 gasification plan, the exploitation of 12148 kilometer-long gas-distribution network has been started this year. In 2002 the gas distribution network had the length of only 9168 kilometers. As of December 1, 2007 the number of the gas network subscribers reached 505 thousand citizens, which is 5% more than in the Soviet era. Due to high rates of gasification in Armenia, 250-300 million dollars are yearly saved due to reduction of electricity usage and 180-200 million dollars are saved in transportation sphere.

Source: http://www.azg.am/?lang=EN&num=2007122105

[Illuminator]

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

It also seems as if being able to get beaten to a bloody mess and then smile for the cameraman is a prerequisite for entry into the service

But seriously, this almost barbaric nature of Russians - coupled with their legendary stubbornness, military ingenuity, ability to survive under severe conditions and most importantly being in control over a vast landmass with vast amounts of natural resources is what makes them poised to become a global power with no rival. And to tell you the truth, I fully understand where the fear towards Russians in the minds of western policy makes comes from. For the longterm security of the western establishment/elite Russia 'had' to be under control. They lost that chance, however, when Putin took over control of the government. I am just glad that our existence as a nation in the Caucasus is in their national interests. Without a powerful Russia domineering in the region, the very existence of the Armenian Republic would be seriously threatened. What's more, they are poised to become the most powerful nation, economically and militarily, within the 21st century - that is if they don't ruin it for themselves again. So, in my opinion, it would be a good idea for our officials to continue looking northward for their alliances. There are many benefits in maintaining close/warm relations with our powerful, if barbaric at times, neighbor to the north. They do have some serious weaknesses. Their drawbacks are their lack of civility, bad public relations, administrative inefficiency and a tendency to alcoholism in their men and promiscuity in their women. I would really like to see Russians rediscovering their Orthodoxy.

Here is another good documentary in Russian about the Spetsnaz:

Specnaz

Part-1: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

Part-2: http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

The problems with alcoholism were directly related to the crisis situation in the country.

One weak point, I agree, has been in the PR department, but that is coming to an end.

I would disagree about the civility, however. I find an exceeding amount of civility and decency there, in fact too much which is why they ended up like they did trusting those bastards in Washington.

Naturally, I am in 100% agreement about the alliances. Russia will not forget Armenian loyalty.

They will also not forget those that caused them harm or gloated over their misfortunes.

[Armenian]

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

The problems with alcoholism were directly related to the crisis situation in the country.

Their severe problem with alcoholism has been around as long as they have been around. It was a problem in the Czarist era, it was a problem in the Communist era... And trust me, their women are also a problem. Due to their very relaxed attitudes about sexual relationships, STDs have rapidly increasing in former Soviet states. As a matter of fact, STDs are a serious problem in those regions today. And let's not forget that the sex-trade in the Middle East and the West is almost exclusively made up of eastern European women. And you can't blame the very promiscuous nature of Russians on the post-Soviet economic situation either because they were just as bad during the communist years. So, when you have such levels of promiscuity and alcoholism in a nation stability and progress wanes. This also destroys the fundamental core of any given nation, the family structure. This also negatively effects their economic production and efficiency. And you can put the aforementioned into better perspective by realizing that Russians today are one of the least religious peoples on earth. This is why I keep saying they need to rediscover their Orthodoxy. Religion, especially Christian Orthodoxy, can be a cure for many of the societal aliments.

It's quite obvious to all that I like and respect Russians. However, I think we Armenians need to put them in a proper perspective. I say: Know your enemy, but know your 'friends' better.

One weak point, I agree, has been in the PR department, but that is coming to an end.

I am not to sure about that. Although I fully support them, their aggressive behavior and harsh rhetoric, cutting off gas supplies to make a point, as well as 'appointing' the next president, often times scare people, especially some of their neighbors. I agree it's good PR domestically, but I am talking about international PR. But again, I support their actions. They are doing these things to send clear signals to their antagonists. It just does not make for good PR.

I would disagree about the civility, however. I find an exceeding amount of civility and decency there, in fact too much which is why they ended up like they did trusting those bastards in Washington.

I have also met very decent, highly educated and thoroughly cultured Russians of Slavic backgrounds. However, the average Russian, especially those living away from the major cosmopolitan centers of Russia are quite primitive in behavior. This is no secret. The average Russian today is not as refined - or tamed - as the average westerner. And I am not saying this as an insult to Russians. I rather have their aggressive/crude behavior instead of the tamed/defanged nature of the modern westerner.

Naturally, I am in 100% agreement about the alliances. Russia will not forget Armenian loyalty. They will also not forget those that caused them harm or gloated over their misfortunes.

Perhaps. But in politics national interests of a nation - national security, profit and power - are what matters in the long run. Had Turks and Azeris not been a threat to them they would have abandoned Armenia a long time ago. So, what is crucial here is not how "loyal" Armenians have been to Russia, rather how much Russians need us Armenians in protecting their interests in the Caucasus. Therefore, as long as there are Russian nationalists in power in Moscow Armenia will have an important role to play in the Caucasus. However, knowing how unstable Russian politics have been throughout history, there will always be major risks for us. Let's face it, Armenia is located in the worst neighborhood in the world.

[Armenian]

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

Iran and Russia meet to discuss defense cooperation

Iran and Russia discussed defense cooperation, the official IRNA reported Monday, as ties between the two countries have been increasingly flourishing. Little detail was provided about the meeting. Mohammad Ali Hosseini, the spokesman for Iran's Foreign Ministry, said a joint defense committee met and both sides reviewed continued cooperation. He did not elaborate. Last week, Iranian state media said Mikhail Dmitriyev, head of the Russian Federal Service for Military and Technical Cooperation, arrived in Tehran to discuss defense cooperation with Iranian Brigadier General Ahmad Vahidi, regarded as father of country's missile program. In November, Iran did not deny reports that it aimed to order Russian Sukhoi Su-30 aircraft to bolster its air defenses. In early 2007, Iran received advanced Russian air defense missile system under a US$700 million contract signed in 2005. Russia has provided Iran with military products such Kilo-Class submarines, MIG and Sukhoi military planes and bombers in the past decades. Relations between Iran and Russia have been growing closer in recent months, climaxed by a historical visit by Russian President Vladimir Putin to Tehran in October. Russia is also putting the finishing touches on a 1,000-megawatt nuclear power plant in Bushehr, located in southern Iran. Iran received the first shipment of nuclear fuel from Russia last week, paving the way for the startup of its reactor in 2008. The United States last year called for a halt to international arms exports to Iran and for an end to nuclear cooperation with Iran to pressure it to stop uranium enrichment. Iran has refused to halt its enrichment program despite receiving two sets of U.N. Security Council sanctions.

Source: http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2007/...n-Military.php

Iran plans to buy Russian copters, fighter engines

Moscow and Tehran are in negotiations for the sale of fighter jet engines and helicopters to Iran, the Kommersant daily reported on Monday, citing Russian arms industry officials. Iran wants to buy RD-33 engines for a fleet of new Iranian fighter jets, as well as an upgraded version of the Ka-32 helicopter that Tehran wants to be assembled in Iran, Kommersant said. After a meeting between Russian and Iranian officials in Tehran last week, the head of Russia's agency for military cooperation said any arms sold to Iran would be only for "defensive" purposes, Kommersant reported. The military cooperation chief, Mikhail Dmitriev, said that defence ties between the two countries "reinforces stability in the region." Last year, Russia finished supplying Iran with 29 Tor-M1 air defence systems under a USD 700-million agreement.

Source: http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...ow/2648939.cms

Russia could build more NPPs in Iran - Iranian lawmaker

Russia will have a good chance of participation in the construction of new nuclear power plants in Iran if it completes the Bushehr nuclear power plant on time, a top Iranian official said on Monday. Tehran is expected to announce soon a tender for the construction of 19 new 1,000-mWt nuclear power plants in the Islamic Republic. "Russia may have a better chance of participation in the construction of new nuclear power plants in Iran if it fulfills its obligations on time," said Alaeddin Boroujerdi, chairman of Iran's parliamentary committee on national security and foreign policy. The completion of the Bushehr plant, currently being built by Russia's Atomstroyexport under a 1995 contract, came under threat in February 2007 when Russia complained of payment delays. Iran denied any funding problems and accused Russia of deliberately stalling the project in response to pressure from Western powers. Russia and Iran subsequently held several rounds of negotiations to settle disagreements relating to the Bushehr nuclear power plant and recently announced that the plant could be commissioned by March 2009. The $1 billion project has also been at the center of an international dispute, with Western countries who suspect Iran of developing nuclear weapons protesting against Russia's nuclear cooperation with the Islamic Republic. The project has been implemented under the supervision of the United Nations nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency. On December 16, Russia announced the start of nuclear fuel deliveries to Bushehr. Deliveries are set to continue into February 2008. Meanwhile, Alaeddin Boroujerdi said Iran had no intentions of abandoning its own uranium enrichment program and planned to build its first nuclear power plant without foreign participation by March 2017. The project stipulates the construction of a 360-mWt plant in southwestern Iran. "The [first domestic] nuclear power plant will certainly be built in Iran," the lawmaker said, adding that a nuclear fuel reprocessing facility in Isfahan and a nuclear enrichment center in Natanz could provide enough fuel for any future nuclear power plants.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/world/20071224/93958087.html

[Armenian]

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

As I have said on many occasions, the global crisis we are witnessing today (sometimes called the prelude to World War III) is more-or-less a direct result of the fight over the control of Central Asian energy resources and energy distribution routes. What the article naturally fails to address, however, is that the crime committed on September 11, 2001 was in effect meant to draw the West, spearheaded by the United States, into Central Asia and the Persian Gulf with the hopes of gaining control over the region's strategic energy reserves. In short: Those who control the region's vast energy reserves controls the global economy. And another thing that the article fails to mention is the fact that Moscow has in fact already managed to bring under its control a large extent of the region's energy distribution networks. Pivotal nations in this global struggle are Afghanistan/Pakistan and Iran, both strategically vital land routes for routing Caspian Sea region and Central Asian oil and gas reserves away from the Russian Federation and to a lesser extent, Iran.

Armenian

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

Experts Warn Russia Seeks Influence Over Vast Caspian Oil Reserves

Voice of America, 24 December 2007

Rising oil prices, a resurgent Russia and continued turbulence in the Middle East have intensified competition for control of the vast oil and gas reserves in the Caspian Sea. The competition, involving big business and power politics, pits Russia against the West. At stake, some experts say, is world domination of the energy market. VOA's Brian Padden recently traveled to Azerbaijan and Germany, and has prepared a series of reports on the politics of oil. This story looks at transnational pipelines, and how they have become battlegrounds for influence and power.

From an off-shore platform in the Caspian Sea, British Petroleum extracts oil from a reserve estimated to contain 5.4 billion barrels of oil. From there, it is piped directly to the Sangachal terminal, located just outside of Baku, the capital of the Central Asian country of Azerbaijan. From there, it takes a circuitous route, avoiding Russia, to reach energy hungry countries in Europe and Asia. A pipeline, with a capacity of one million barrels a day, transports the oil north to Tbilisi, Georgia, and then southwest to the Mediterranean port city of Ceyhan, Turkey. From there, tankers carry the oil around the world. The Caspian region now supplies only a portion of the oil the world consumes, but its vast untapped reserves are believed to rival those of Russia and Saudi Arabia. Alex Alexiev, an analyst with the Center for Security Policy in Washington, says the future development of this energy-rich region could change the balance of power in the world. "Whoever controls the tap of gas and oil really has tremendous economic power, and that does change the equation," said Alexiev.

The West considered development of the Baku/Tbilisi/Ceyhan pipeline a victory. But, most of the Caspian region's oil and gas still travels through Russian pipelines, built before the collapse of the Soviet Union, when the oil rich countries of central Asia were still ruled from Moscow. Turkmenistan recently signed an agreement to build a new pipeline to send its gas to Russia. Alexiev warns that an autocratic Russia, if it ever gained a monopoly on the region's energy supplies, would be able to impose its political will upon the world. "Russia does not want to operate on purely capitalistic principles, where commodities are sold, etceteras, strictly on the basis of profit. They want to use hydrocarbon resources for political purposes," he added. Construction of a planned Central Asia Oil Pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan, designed to bypass Russia, has been stalled because of continuing instability in the region.

In 2006, Russia's government-run gas monopoly temporarily cut its gas flow to Ukraine and Belarus in a dispute over a sharp price increase, a move that was seen by many as politically motivated. That also sharply reduced deliveries to Europe, unnerving European leaders. For supporters of the Baku/Tbilisi/Ceyhan pipeline, these moves reinforced their views that a pipeline bypassing Russia was necessary. The Caspian region's oil reserves are key, as Russia and the West vie for influence in the region. Vugar Bayramov with the Center for Economic and Social Development in Baku, says Azerbaijan, which has vast oil reserves, has aligned itself firmly with the West, and supports the building of a second pipeline, called Nabucco. "West has real traditions, which I mean, big tradition, experience to make richer, to give more benefit, to neighbor or friend countries, but Russia doesn't have such experience," said Bayramov. A consortium of Western oil companies built the Baku/Tbilisi/Ceyhan pipeline at a time when Russia was economically weak.

Alexander Rahr with the German Council on Foreign Relations in Berlin, says high energy prices have made Russia richer and stronger, and anxious to re-establish its political standing in the world. "Russia is trying to become an energy superpower again," said Rahr. Rahr says Russia wants to monopolize the transport of oil and gas to Asian and European markets, in order to bolster its global ambitions. But, he says, the marketplace is too diverse to be controlled. "Russia exactly needs the Western markets to sell its oil and gas. And, it knows that, if it tries to threaten the markets, if it tries to weaken the West by using energy and gas as a weapon to push others into a kind of corner, it will lose this market and the benefits," he added. Rahr says developing direct European access to the Caspian Region oil and gas will help keep Russia's political ambitions in check.

Source: http://www.voanews.com/english/2007-12-24-voa38.cfm

[Armenian]

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

I just found this blog and I thought it would interest some of you. I don't know if the information found here is verifiable but it is very interesting nonetheless. If accurate, this situation is related to what happened with the Taliban in Afghanistan. During the 1990s it was reported that the Taliban, in tandem with Pakistan, were working on a strategic pipeline deal with the United States. The planed pipeline envisioned the routing of Central Asian oil/gas south through Afghanistan, through Pakistan and finally to the India Ocean for distribution worldwide. Some months prior to the September 11 attacks Taliban representatives were in Washington DC for high level meetings with the Bush administration regarding this pipeline deal. It was reported soon thereafter that the Taliban has fully rejected the US offer and that the pipeline deal had fallen through.

Armenian

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

MILOSEVIC'S PIPELINE PLANS PREVENTED

Caspian export routes, existing and proposed. General contours of Russian-Iranian-Chinese-dominated systems vs. the American-led model.

One window of opportunity for Caspian Sea oil and gas export was due west across the Caucasus states of Azerbaijan and Georgia, the rocky alley between Russian and Iranian turf. These Caucasian pipelines could then connect via Turkey to the Mediterranean, to pipelines - running north through the Balkans - into Europe and its vast energy markets. Other planned lines could snake beneath the Black Sea to enter Europe at Bulgaria, and flow west through Macedonia (split from Yugoslavia in 1991) and end on the Albanian coast. Before he was driven from power, Slobodan Milosevic had seen these same pipeline dreams and hoped to squeeze Yugoslavia’s way into the Caspian oil rush. He looked to a north-running route with Caspian oil piped from Greece (after being shipped from Ceyhan) and into Europe proper. In 1997 talks began on the Yugoslav portion, a pipeline running north from Macedonia to Belgrade, pumping 200,000 barrels a day to the refinery at Pancevo. It would pass through Kosovo, and would enable Yugoslavia to become a net exporter, shipping oil and petrochemical derivatives along the Rhein-Main-Danube highway to Europe’s markets. Yeltsin’s Russia was reportedly interested in aiding Milosevic, allowing him to tap into a major Russian pipeline to further boost his export potential. But then those pesky rebels started rocking the boat in Kosovo, and when the war finally came, among the targets NATO chose for the fiercest bombardment were Serbia’s oil refineries, oil storage sites, petrochemical plants, and the infrastructure of ports and bridges along the Danube River. It was made clear that so long as Milosevic remained in power, such ambitions would remain out of reach. So the noble work of Otpor to bring freedom and decency to Yugoslavia also – as an unintended side effect of course – closed the way to Russian-sponsored pipelines tied in with Milosevic’s closed economy. Any such northbound pipeline that may be built will now have a name like Exxon, BP, or Shell attached.

Source: http://guerillas-without-guns.blogsp...prevented.html

[Armenian]

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

Two very interesting and quite candid commentaries regarding the Caucasus and Armenian-Russian relations right from the pre-September 11, 2001 world. I had printed these articles and they were sitting in my desk draw for seven-eight years now. Now is a good time to give them some exposure again. In my opinion, reading these older news reports and political commentaries are essential in helping the interested reader visualize and better comprehend the very evolution of current global affairs and Armenian-Russian relations.

Armenian

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

USA trying to break up Armenian-Russian military relations, general says

General Leonid Ivashov (left) with journalist Christopher Bollyn from American Free Press

Note: General Leonid Ivashov was the Chief of Staff of the Russian armed forces when the September 11, 2001, attacks took place. This military man, who lived the events from the inside, offers an analysis which is very different to that of his American colleagues. As he did during the Axis for Peace 2005 conference, he now explains that international terrorism does not exist and that the September 11 attacks were the result of a set-up. What we are seeing is a manipulation by the big powers; this terrorism would not exist without them. He affirms that, instead of faking a “world war on terror”, the best way to reduce that kind of attacks is through respect for international law and peaceful cooperation among countries and their citizens.
Source: http://www.voltairenet.org/article133909.html

EURASIANET.org May 22, 2000

Russia has to ensure that Armenia has the means to defend itself from threats in the Transcaucasus region, Russian Col-Gen Leonid Ivashov said in an interview published in the Armenian newspaper 'Ayots Ashkar' on 16th May. The USA and NATO countries want to prevent the military cooperation between Armenia and Russia, and "if we are weak it will be easy to rule us", the general said. The two countries have to forge still closer military relations, remembering the fact that many Russian and Armenian officers served together. Ivashov also said that Russia will keep its military bases in Georgia for the time being, until an agreement can be made on their withdrawal which would not entail something like "a retreat". The following is the text of the interview from `Ayots Ashkar' by Vahan Vardanyan entitled "Russian-Armenian strategic cooperation is a fact"

[Q] General, how can you evaluate the present stage of Armenian-Russian cooperation in the context of Russia's new military doctrine? In this case what is the role of the Russian military base located in Armenia?

[A] Today is the eighth anniversary of the signing of the CIS collective security pact. Armenia is one of the active country members of that pact and conducts the kind of policy that will ensure that the collective security pact is an effective mechanism for averting any aggression towards country members. Armenia also actively participates in the creation of an air defence system. Russian-Armenian bilateral relations in the military sphere are successfully developing. We don't make a secret of the fact that we are interested in the guaranteeing of Armenia's security. I can say that within the framework of bilateral relations meetings between Russian and Armenian military servicemen often take place. They meet every month on a high level and have the aim of finding new prospects for cooperation and improving our countries' defence. I would like to emphasize that it is not directed against any other country, everything is done within the framework of international obligations.

[Q] Can Armenian-Russian military cooperation be considered an existing fact or is a further deepening of relations possible?

[A] Yes, it may be established that Russian-Armenian strategic cooperation is an existing fact. But there is still an inner force for improvement. Armenian military staff are being trained in Russia, we are strengthening the military base located in Armenia by modernizing the military equipment. Whenever we have the chance we also support the Armenian armed forces. We have only the task of maintaining the necessary level of defence. Unfortunately, the situation in the Caucasus is not stable on the whole, and the armed forces and the balance of military potential are also a guarantee for averting conflicts.

[Q] It is often written in the military press that Armenian-Russian relations are dependent on individuals. In your opinion is it really so?

[A] The agreement on friendship, cooperation and mutual support is of course the strategic line of our two countries. Of course, it will be fulfilled more effectively if more than simply institutional relations are created in different structures. Many Russian and Armenian officers served together. How can that military brotherhood be broken? Do you suppose that we don't notice how often the US military servicemen try to put a wedge into our relations? NATO's military servicemen organize seminars where they speak only about Russian-Armenian military cooperation. It is not profitable for them. I can say that the USA and NATO countries actively work with the goal of preventing our consolidation. If we are weak it will be easy to rule us. Wherever real integration is observed, our transatlantic guests immediately intervene.

[Q] But sometimes we have the impression that because of a change of this or that official the relations between the countries also change. Is it really so? And what can you say about speculation that Russian generals are involved in the recent processes in Armenia and have their own interests?

[A] Undoubtedly the policy is being implemented by specific individuals. If those persons serve the strategic line of Armenian-Russian relations, in that case our military and political and allied relations will go on. A change in the state's political line may become a reason for our anxiety. As for the Armenian military servicemen, they are devoted to Armenian-Russian military cooperation. But it is not true that we military servicemen intrude in political processes. Yes, Russia has direct interests in Armenia. The essence of them is to maintain our strategic relations, so that Armenia is stable and strong from the strategic as well as the economic point of view, so that it is a friend and colleague for Russia. These are our interests. The speculation means that somebody does not like the fact that Russia assists Armenia. The US embassy is more active than we are. But that activity is directed towards breaking up our relations. The USA has managed to achieve quite serious success in relations with the other countries of the Transcaucasus, including in the military sphere.

[Q] What is the destiny of the Russian military bases located in the Transcaucasus?

[A] As for the withdrawal of Russian military bases from Georgia, we have finished only the first stage of negotiations and have presented our
approaches. But when we were informed about the terms of all the bases being withdrawn, and they were brief, we drew Georgia's attention to the [OSCE] Istanbul summit. And there was no discussion of a withdrawal of military bases there. Yes, it is necessary to make an arrangement about the direct terms, but it must not be like a retreat. And it must not be a situation where immediately after the end of negotiations we start the withdrawal. So the question is about the maintenance of Russian military bases and facilities in Georgia and we shall continue this policy. As for Gyumri military base, that, according to our common opinion, is a factor of stability in the region, a factor averting aggressive actions towards Armenia.

[Q] Today the necessity of forming a Caucasus-wide security system is much spoken about. What is the position of Russian military servicemen with regard to this matter?

[A] If the question is about regional security, in that case it is necessary to talk about the whole region, and here there are the interests of
Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia and Russia as well as Turkey. There are fewer US interests. And where there are US troops it will not make the region more stable. We are ready to participate in a discussion concerning the problems of regional security, but only taking into account the interests of all the countries. But the presence of NATO on the territory of the former Soviet republics is not acceptable for Russia.

[Q] Recently Armenian Foreign Minister Vardan Oskanyan stated that the Russian military base located in Armenia is there to prevent danger from a third side and to guarantee stability. Do you agree with this?

[A] Yes, I do. That is really so. It is very important for us so that Armenia is stable. The domestic instability of any country can be exploited by a third force. That is why we have to observe so that the Armenian armed forces are capable of functioning. We must also watch so that the Russian military base corresponds to the level of those dangers which are present in the Transcaucasus today. The sum of the potential of the Russian military base and of our military and political and military and technical cooperation, as well as the stable development of Armenia, will give us an opportunity to maintain peace and stability on Armenian territory.

Source: http://www.eurasianet.org/resource/a...0005/0040.html

East meets West in the Caucasus

BBC News, July 22, 2001

The Caucasus is a region rich in tradition. The faithful offering morning prayers in Yerevan, capital of Armenia, are celebrating 1700 years of Orthodox Christianity this summer. History in the Caucasus is about confrontation too. Armenia is a small Christian nation squeezed for centuries by Muslims in Turkey to the West and Central Asia to the East. Independent Armenia needs Russia. Vartan Oskanyan, Armenia's foreign minister, talks of historically good relations with Russia. "Russia's military presence on Armenian soil is important for our security. Anti-Soviet sentiment did not mean anti-Russian in Armenia's case. There was a confluence of interest in our region," he says.

That common interest is confronting Turkey, NATO's front line, and Armenia's old enemy. For the last ten years, Armenian rebels have been fighting Turkey's ally Azerbaijan for control of Nagorno Kharabakh - just one of several smouldering wars where East is fighting West by proxy in the Caucasus. "Security is a number one priority for Armenia. Kharabakh is a security issue; it's not only self-determination, the right of Kharabakh to existence," says Oskanyan. "Having major power as a neighbour which blockades Armenia, which refuses to normalise ties, which at the height of the Kharabakh conflict threatened Armenia with military intervention; having that relationship with your Western neighbour upsets the balance and makes us pretty nervous. "Turkey's position has complicated the overall balance."

Joint exercise

The Caucasus balance is getting more complicated. A few days ago Turkish troops joined others from NATO for a joint exercise across the Black Sea in Georgia. The amphibious and airborne landing, Operation Co-operative Partner, was described as humanitarian emergency planning. Russia called it a provocation and put its troops on alert. Russian soldiers can be seen on parade at the Gudauta military base further along Georgia's Black Sea coast from where NATO practised its landings. But the Russians should have left the base on July 1st following an international agreement signed two years ago. Whether because of the NATO exercise or not, now they have refused to pull out.

Kaha Siharulidze, from the Georgian foreign ministry, says there is one big difference between 1999, when the pullout deal was agreed by Boris Yeltsin, and now: "Of course the difference is Vladimir Putin. He is stronger, he is a new president. A new attitude to international affairs." Unlike Armenia, neighbouring Georgia has always resented Russian control over the Caucasus. Now they want the Russians out for good. "The agreement given to the Georgian side and to the international community two years ago at the Istanbul summit of the OSCE has been violated by the Russian side," says Siharulidze. "Naturally the big neighbour has its interests in the region. But every country in the world has the right to be independent; to be treated in a civilised way." It's not hard to see why Russia doesn't want to leave. NATO member Turkey's defence minister was in Georgia this month promising to help equip the base when the Russians are gone. Why? Because the West wants to lay profitable oil pipelines through Georgia and Turkey from Central Asia and the Middle East. Energy is Russia's biggest earner; it doesn't welcome competition.

The Great Game

All this bears the hallmark of history - the old Great Game. In the 19th century, that meant commanding the road to colonial possessions. In the 21st century, oil and gas are the reasons for East and West to push for power in the Caucasus. History doesn't repeat itself exactly. But there are empires competing to protect themselves in this region. A new Great Game - and perhaps a new Cold War. A gigantic statue of Stalin still stands in Gori, his birthplace in Georgia. This one was never knocked down, but elsewhere in the former Soviet Union, there are putting them up again. At the Stalin Museum in Gori, Olga, a tour guide, remembers the old days with growing fondness. "There were many positives in Stalin's time. He made lives better for the people. We are proud of him," she explains. For Olga and many others, freedom has meant only the few getting rich. The rest, have got nowhere. This sentiment is echoed by a sunflower-seed seller at the railway station under a big new freshly-painted portrait of Stalin: "He was strong, and our lives were much better. Look at what's happened to us now, it's all chaos. Those were good times, now we can't eat," he says.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/bh/1451057.stm