The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

Cooperation with Russia and Iran Neutralizes Military Threat from Turkey

(Regnum/PanArmenian.net)--Armenia's relations with both Russia and Iran help to neutralize threats to Armenia and preserve military and political balance in the region stated Armenian National Security Secretary and Defense Minister Serge Sarkisian in a report titled "Directions of National Security Strategy of Armenian Republic."

"Armenian-Russian military cooperation, especially the presence of the Russian military in Armenia, neutralizes the military threat coming from Turkey," says the report.

The document notes that the Armenian-Russian strategic partnership is developing in three important directions, these being the formation of coalition groups, anti-aircraft defense, and cooperation within the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO).

The report also highlights Armenian and Russian cooperation in the multilateral sphere. "For example, the unified anti-aircraft defense system along with the joint Armenian-Russian patrol solves one of the most important problems of the national security, while the Armenian-Russian military bloc within the CSTO maintains the military-political balance in the South Caucasus region," the report says.

At the same time the report says Armenian-Russian relations never posed obstacles for the development of Armenia's foreign policy in other directions, such as European integration. "Russia has also adopted the European way of development and the increasing cooperation between Russia and the European Union creates a favorable environment for the harmonization of Armenia's two priority directions for the development of state and national security," the document says.

The document also describes the importance of Armenian-Iranian relations in preserving military and political balance in the region.

The document states, that Iran, along with Turkey, is a crucial country for regional military and political balance in the region. And since Turkey is a member of NATO and allied with the US and Israel, it is regarded by Iran as a possible enemy. Their rivalry provides Armenia with the ability to neutralize the Azerbaijan-Turkey coalition against Armenia.

The report also mentions cooperation with Iran in the energy sector, which is aimed at finding alternative energy sources for Armenia.

According to the report, Iran is very important to Armenia for transportation and because of the economic blockade of Armenia. Iran is a strategic route to Asia and the Middle East, and also an alternate route to Russia. Iran is also geographically close to Karabagh, and maintains a balanced position regarding the conflict.

The report pays special attention to the pressure that Azerbaijan puts on Iran, as an Islamic country. Azerbaijan frames the Karabagh conflict as a religious conflict and speculates that there are over "one million Muslim refugees."

It also points out that Azerbaijan is threatening to expand cooperation with the US that rivals Iran. Armenia, on the other hand, maintains balanced relations so cooperation between the US and Armenia does not go against Iranian interests.

Asbarez March 6, 2006

[TomServo]

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

Russians are funny.

[Armenian]

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

RECKLESS RUSSIAN ROCKET EXPORTS

Introduction

Whatever one might say about the vitality of U.S.-Russian security cooperation, Russian missile proliferation is still an embarrassment. In fact, not more than a week after the White House announced its agreement with President Yelstin over what kinds of theater missile defenses the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty of 1972 allows, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu protested Russia's transfer of the means to make a 1,250 mile-range Russian-designed rocket to Iran.\1\ These missile exports, along with others to Armenia, Iraq, Syria, China, India, and Brazil, all fly in the face of Moscow's repeated pledges to the U.S. and others to adhere to the Missile Technology Control Regime. More important, they track the Administration's repeated failure to employ U.S. nonproliferation sanctions laws to deter such behavior or to suspend U.S. government-sanctioned space cooperation and satellite transfers to Moscow. If Congress takes its laws and Russian missile proliferation seriously, it should act both to eliminate existing loopholes that encourage Executive inaction and to condition future U.S.-Russian space commerce on Russia living up to its nonproliferation obligations.

Russia's Missile Nonproliferation Promises

Communist Russia first publicly pledged to uphold the objectives of the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) in June of 1990. Five months later, however, it was caught violating this pledge in sharing missile production technology for development of an entire upper rocket stage with India. This promoted imposition of U.S. missile proliferation sanctions in May of 1992.\2\ Two years later, after securing Moscow's pledge to stop lending India missile production assistance, the Clinton Administration made the Russian Republic an adherent to the MTCR late for purposes of U.S. law. In exchange for nearly $1 billion in U.S. commercial and government-to-government space cooperation through the year 2000, Russia claimed it had renegotiated its space cooperation with India to exclude transfers that would violate the MTCR. Finally, satisfied that Moscow had created an effective legal system of export controls, the White House sponsored Moscow's formal entry into the MTCR in 1995.

It's Proliferating Performance

Clearly, the White House has tried to give Moscow every positive incentive not to help other nations acquire missiles. Yet, throughout President Clinton's tenure, Russia has been caught exporting extremely sensitive missile technology and hardware. Thus, just one month after U.S. officials got Russia to agree to stop lending India missile production assistance, Moscow was caught air-shipping North Korean SCUD missile launchers and other components to Syria.\3\ This, in turn, was followed a month later with Russia's transfer of its most advanced missile technology to China. Under a 5-year defense cooperation agreement with China, Russia sent solid rocket fuel technology, mobile missile know-how, large liquid rocket engines, missile guidance and multiple warhead hardware and technology and hundreds of Russian missile experts to help the PRC develop its own version of Russia's highly accurate, intercontinental SS-25 missile.\4\

Nor did Russia end its missile assistance to India. Having agreed in July of 1993 to stop helping India build cryogenic rockets, Moscow insisted that it needed until November of 1993 to renegotiate its Indian contracts. Russia did this but, in addition, it sent New Delhi blueprints (something MTCR clearly prohibits) along with at least four- fifths of the related production technology to build the engines. Then, six months after Russia's self-imposed November deadline, U.S. contractors negotiating space launches with Salyut/Krunichev in Moscow found the Russians working with six-foot high, high-fidelity mockup of the Indian rocket that Russia was supposed to have cut off missile production assistance to. According to the Russians, this detailed model was being used to teach Indian scientists precisely how to launch their rockets.\5\

Unfortunately, Russia's transfers of missile technology did not end here. A year later, in late May of 1995, the White House waived missile proliferation sanctions against Russia for helping Brazil with the casings on a large rocket known as the VLS project. Administration officials explained this missile misdeed away claiming that the Russians agreed to this sale before it promised the United States not to conduct such trade. After talking with the Brazilians, though, U.S. officials learned that Russia had helped Brazil on many more components than the rocket casings and that the cooperation had been going on for some time.\6\

The next Russian missile misdeed to hit the press was its attempted missile guidance shipments to Iraq, which Jordanian authorities interdicted in November of 1995. Since Desert Storm, the U.N. resolutions have prohibited all military trade with Iraq. Yet, on 10 November, 30 crates containing 115 Russian-made gyroscopes from dismantled intercontinental-range missiles were air shipped from Russia aboard an Royal Jordanian aircraft to Amman. These components were destined for Karama, Iraq's missile development center. At first, the Russians denied any involvement. Then, U.S. State Department officials admitted that the Russians did ship the gyroscopes but claimed that the shipment was ``aberrational,'' that, again, Russian authorities ``tried'' but could not find the Russian perpetrator of the sale.\7\

Iran and Armenia: Moscow's Latest Missile Customers

Perhaps the most frightening act of Russian rocket recklessness was first reported in early February: It was caught selling Iran the means to produce a SS-4, a 1,250 mile-range missile that could reach all of Saudi Arabia and Israel.\8\ This missile can carry a 4,400 pound warhead but is so inaccurate, it is only useful for delivering nuclear or biological warheads.

U.S. officials learned of this deal only when General Amos Gilad, director of research for Israeli military intelligence visited Washington just days before Russian Prime Minister Vicktor Chernomyrdin was to meet with Vice Present Gore February 6. The timing was hardly accidental. The Israelis could have briefed their U.S. counterparts privately at any time. Instead, they chose to wait until just before the Gore-Chernomyrdin meeting in a fashion that the Administration could not ignore. First, the Israeli delegation briefed the area desks at State and Defense; then, the delegation briefed the various U.S. intelligence agencies; and then the House and Senate intelligence committee staffs. Finally, as news of their briefings leaked to the press, the Vice President demanded a briefing.

Vice President Gore did, in fact, bring the SS-4 deal to Prime Minister Chernomyrdin's attention. The Prime Minister, though, denied that his government authorized the sale. He did admit that this deal would violate Boris Yeltsin's 1994 pledge not to engage in further arms sales to Iran. More important, the transfer presents a serious security threat to the entire Middle East and is a clear violation of the MTCR.

Finally, there's Russia's recent sale of missiles to Armenia. In this case, Russia sold eight Scud-B launchers with enough missiles--24 to 32--to ``complete demolish,'' (in the words of the Chairman of Russia's Duma Defense Committee), Armenia's Azerbaijani foes in Baku.\9\ Although these transfers continued as late as last year, Russian officials claim that they were only able to confirm them early this winter. Washington officials, meanwhile, privately are raising doubts that any ``transfer'' technically took place. The Scud missile systems, they note, after all, were on Armenian soil under Soviet control prior to their actual sale.

What's to Be Done?

Under U.S. law, adherents and formal members of the MTCR cannot be sanctioned for missile exports unless they allow the MTCR guidelines to be violated and fail to make an earnest effort to prosecute the perpetrators. The law also requires sanctions only when a proliferator has acted ``knowingly.'' These provisions, in effect, have been used by the Executive to serve as a blanket exemption for Russia from sanctions.\10\ Thus, repeatedly, Administration officials have argued that Russia did not authorize or ``know'' of the missile misdeeds identified or that they have been unable to identify the perpetrators or are in the mist of disciplining some lower-level official. This has prompted justified calls for tightening up existing nonproliferation sanctions laws.\11\ The Administration, instead, has focused on diplomacy. Last fall, U.S. officials shared a detailed list of current troublesome Russian missile transactions with Moscow officials in hopes that they would stop these deals. So far, the Russians have admitted nothing and it's unclear if they have stopped any of these deals.

Clearly, if we are serious about our security, we need to do better. It's too late for the Executive to undo the harm Russian missile proliferation has already done. But Congress can make sure Russia has an interest in stopping future proliferation. In fact, the U.S. has considerable leverage if it chooses to use it: Most of Russia's cash-earning space launches are of U.S.-made satellites that require U.S. export licenses. In addition, the U.S. continues to fund much of Russia's participation in NASA projects. Together, these activities are worth hundreds of millions of dollars annually in hard currency to Russia's space industry. These space firms are the ones whose technology is being sold and who are closest to those doing the proliferating.

The pros and cons of tying future approval of U.S. export licenses and funding of Russian participation to the absences of more missile misdeeds are likely to be taken up in planned hearings of the Senate Governmental Affairs Subcommittee on International Security, Proliferation and Federal Services. Such oversight comes none too soon. The U.S. backed Russia's membership into the MTCR and offered it space cooperation.because the White House claimed Moscow had finally established a sound system missile technology export controls. If there is no such system, we need to know. Certainly, the last thing we would want is for U.S. space commerce and cooperation to subsidize more missile proliferation.

Link: http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/li...s970605rrr.htm

[Armenian]

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

U.S. warships ply waters, China on horizon

By Eric Talmadge ABOARD THE USS GARY, AP

Taiwan remains the key concern.

Beijing has acquired Russian Sukhoi fighters to control the Taiwan Strait and has deployed 650-730 mobile short-range ballistic missiles on its side of the coastline. Last summer, China conducted a large-scale joint exercise with Russia that focused on a sea blockade and landing operations that were widely regarded as a test-run for military action against the island.

The National People's Congress increased pressure on Taipei in March last year by passing the anti-secessionist law, which states Beijing will allow "no interference by outside forces" and shall never let Taiwan secede "under any name or by any means."

China's military growth suggests it is looking beyond Taiwan, however. Last June, China test-fired a Ju Lang 2 submarine-launched ballistic missile. An improved version of the Dong Feng 31, China's ICBM, the Ju Lang 2 has an estimated range of about 4,800 miles (8,000 kilometers), putting the continental U.S. within striking distance.

China has no aircraft carriers, but submarines are seen as a good indicator of Beijing's desire to project force beyond its shores. Western military analysts believe the Chinese are significantly improving their submarine fleet through domestic production and procurement from Russia. In a report to Congress in March, Adm. William Fallon, commander of the U.S. Pacific Command, said the Navy has renewed its focus on anti-submarine warfare "in view of the proliferation and increased capability of submarines in Asia and the Pacific."

"While nowhere near U.S. capabilities, the PLA is enhancing a diverse and robust array of military hardware," he said, adding that the United States is strongly encouraging Chinese military leaders to "substantively engage us in a more transparent manner." The Pentagon is putting a larger proportion of its submarine fleet in the Pacific, adding another aircraft carrier battle group and bolstering and reshaping its forces on the tiny island of Guam, a U.S. territory about halfway between Hawaii and Tokyo.

It is also carrying out a sweeping realignment of its troops in Japan. Tokyo and Washington have agreed to improve information-sharing, cooperate on ballistic missile defense and bolster joint contingency planning. The Army, meanwhile, may move the headquarters of I Corps, which focuses on potential conflicts in the Pacific, from Fort Lewis, Wash., to Japan.

Japan, which sits like a fence off the shores of China, has been conditioned since Hiroshima to stay out of conflicts, and pacifism is written into its constitution. But its leadership is becoming increasingly aggressive about putting its military to use. Japan already ranks fourth or fifth in military spending behind the United States, Russia, China and possibly Britain. Its air force and navy are among the most powerful in Asia. It has ground troops in Iraq on a non-combat mission and its vessels help refuel coalition warships in the Indian Ocean.

It is alarmed by the perceived threat posed by China and by neighboring North Korea, which shot a ballistic missile over Japan's main island in 1998. Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi supports revising the constitution to "normalize" Japan's Self-Defense Forces -- meaning give it the status and powers of any other army -- and has initiated a program that put Japan's first spy satellites in orbit two years ago.

"In a highly globalized world, an SDF specializing only in the defense of the homeland can hardly defend Japan's overall security," the National Institute for Defense Studies, the research and policy arm of Japan's Defense Agency, said its 2006 strategic review. "The SDF must expand and deepen international cooperation and deal with regional and global security problems."

After several months of repairs, Kitty Hawk commander Capt. Ed McNamee is eager to take the aircraft carrier back out to sea. Forty-five years in service, it's the oldest active-duty warship in the Navy, and is to be replaced by the nuclear-powered USS George Washington in 2008. "The Navy is committed to keeping it in combat shape until it is time to go home," McNamee said. "But it takes a little more every year to keep her going."

Nevertheless, when McNamee leaves port he commands a powerful weapon -- a crew of roughly 5,000, with 75-plus aircraft, including everything from F/A-18 Super Hornet fighters to torpedo-bearing Seahawk helicopters. As an example of how versatile his ship is, he said that in 2001, helicopters launched off Kitty Hawk flew Marine special operations units to landlocked Afghanistan.

"We are a very potent force," he said.

And, by design, a very visible one. For about six months of the year, the Kitty Hawk is at sea in the Pacific. Much of that time it is participating in exercises with regional allies. "The nations of Asia make up 50 percent of the world's population, 80 percent of which lives within 500 miles (800 kilometers) of the coast. It is a maritime region," McNamee said. McNamee stressed that U.S. Navy ships played a significant role in assisting victims of the tsunami that deluged south Asia in 2004, and said that role will likely expand in future.

He is also keenly aware that his ship -- an aircraft carrier ready to "reach out" and touch countries virtually anywhere -- is a symbol of exactly what China does not yet have. Asked if he considers China a threat, he turns diplomatic, recalling the days, even as the Cold War was being waged, when Soviet naval officers would come aboard U.S. ships to visit. "I look forward to the same kind of opportunity with the Chinese," he said.

[Armenian]

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

Russia, China conduct multiple military exchanges: Russian DM

BEIJING, April 26 (Xinhua) -- Military exchanges have been multiple between Russia and China and will involve more activities during the Year of Russia in China and the Year of China in Russia, said Russian Minister of Defense Sergei Ivanov here Wednesday.

Russian Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov gestures during a press conference in Beijing, capital of China, April 26, 2006. Exchanges and visits between the Russian and Chinese militaries have been soaring in recent years. Russia takes China as a prior partner in the military field, said Ivanov at a press conference.

The joint military drill held in China last year gave a good chance for Russian soldiers and officers to conduct exchanges with their Chinese counterparts, he said.
This year, "Russian Knights" has held a three-day aerobatic show in China as the prelude of the Year of Russia in China. Sports, singing and dancing programs have also been held by the military departments of the two countries, he added.

The Year of Russia is being held in China and the Year of China is scheduled to be held in 2007 in Russia. A large range of activities are arranged to mark the national years, which involve national exhibition, business summits, cultural weeks and so on.

Ivanov is here attending a meeting of defense ministers of the members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which was held Wednesday. The defense ministers of China, Russia, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan gathered in Beijing to discuss regional security issues.

During the meeting Wednesday morning, they reached consensus on further strengthening defense cooperation and agreed to stage a joint anti-terror military exercise in Russia in 2007. A joint communique was issued at the end of the meeting.

Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...nt_4479218.htm

[Armenian]

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

Russia's mischief incites trouble

Its deal with Iran could set whole of Middle East on fire and lead to war by September

Let me tell you about the next war. It will start sooner than you think -- sometime between now and September. And it will be precipitated by the $700-million US Russian deal the other day to sell Tor air defence missile systems to Iran.

When the war begins, it will be between Iran and Israel. Before it ends, though, it may set the whole of the Middle East on fire, pulling in the United States, leaving a legacy of instability that will last for generations and permanently ending a century of American supremacy.

Despite the high stakes, the George W. Bush administration seems barely to have noticed the danger posed by the Russian missile sale. But the signs are there, for those inclined to read them.

As international pressure over their nuclear program mounts, the Iranians have become increasingly bellicose toward the U.S. and Israel. On April 24, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said Israel was a "fake regime'' that "cannot logically continue to live.'' On April 26, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran's supreme leader, warned that "if the U.S. ventured into any aggression on Iran, Iran will retaliate by damaging the U.S. interests worldwide.''

Israel has upped the rhetorical heat as well. On April 25, Prime Minister Ehud Olmert reiterated Israel's determination to "make sure no one has the capability or the power to commit destruction against us.''

This alone should make any observer jittery. In June 1981, Israel unilaterally launched an airstrike against a nuclear reactor near Baghdad. Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed and well-concealed, making a pre-emptive Israeli strike far more difficult this time around. But there's no reason to doubt Israel's willingness to try.

Of course, there's no firm evidence that Iran has offensive nuclear capabilities. And even a successful military strike against Iran would be a risky move for Israel, potentially igniting regionwide instability. Absent external meddling, Israel has a substantial incentive to wait to see if a diplomatic solution can be found.

But Russian brinksmanship is about to remove Israel's incentive to pursue a peaceful diplomatic path.

Russian leaders continue to mouth the usual diplomatic platitudes about democracy and global co-operation, but Russia is playing a complex double game. A few weeks ago, Russia launched a spy satellite for Israel, which the Israelis can use to monitor Iran's nuclear facilities. On the same day, Russian leaders confirmed their opposition to any United Nations Security Council effort to impose sanctions against Iran, and their intention to go through with the lucrative sale of 29 Tor M1 air defence missile systems to Iran.

"There are no circumstances which would get in the way of us carrying out our commitments in the field of military co-operation with Iran,'' declared Nikolai Spassky, deputy head of Russia's National Security Council.

The upcoming deployment of Tor missiles around Iranian nuclear sites dramatically changes the calculus in the Middle East, and it significantly increases the risk of a regional war. Once the missile systems are deployed, Iran's air defences will become far more sophisticated, and Israel will likely lose whatever ability it now has to unilaterally destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

The clock is ticking for Israel. To have a hope of succeeding, any unilateral Israeli strike against Iran must take place before September, when the Tor missile deployment is set to be completed.

At best, a conflict between Israel and Iran (with resulting civilian casualties) would further inflame anti-Israel sentiment in the Islamic world, with a consequent increase in terrorism, both against Israel and against the U.S., Israel's main foreign backer. At worst -- if the U.S. gets drawn into the conflict directly -- the entire Middle East could implode, terrorist attacks worldwide would increase, the already overstretched U.S. military would be badly damaged and U.S. global influence would wane, perhaps forever.

So what is Russia up to? Andrei Piontkovsky, a Russian political analyst, suggests that Russia's oil and gas oligarchs wouldn't shed any tears over a war in the Middle East, especially if it's a war that ensnares the U.S. and keeps oil prices high.

Even so, it may not be too late to avert a new war in the Middle East. A quiet but firm U.S. threat to boycott the G8 summit in July in St. Petersburg might inspire Russian President Vladimir Putin to freeze the missile transfer. And a promise to facilitate Russian entry into the World Trade Organization might even get Russia's oil and gas oligarchs on board. Freezing the missile sale would buy crucial time to find a diplomatic solution to the stalemate over Iran's nuclear program.

Unfortunately, the Bush administration appears to be asleep at the wheel, too distracted by Iraq, skyrocketing gas prices and plummeting approval ratings to devote any attention to Russia's potentially catastrophic mischief.

Meanwhile, the clock is ticking.

Rosa Brooks is an associate professor at the University of Virginia School of Law.

Link: http://www.therecord.com/NASApp/cs/C...=1024322596091

[Armenian]

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

Who Lost Russia?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

"Magnanimity in politics is not seldom the truest wisdom; and a great empire and little minds go ill together," Edmund Burke admonished the haughty rulers of the British Empire of his time.

Our American empire is suffering from a similar want of wisdom and plenitude of the hubris that cost George III his 13 colonies.

Consider how this generation of politicians is undoing the great work of Ronald Reagan. When Reagan took office in 1981, the Soviet Union of the aging autocrat Leonid Brezhnev was an "evil empire" that stretched from the Elbe to the Bering Sea with thousands of nuclear warheads targeted on the United States. The Red Army had recently occupied Afghanistan, and Moscow had established imperial outposts in the Middle East, Africa, the Caribbean, and Central America.

Yet the year Reagan departed, 1989, the Soviet empire threw open its prison gates, released the captive nations of Eastern Europe, then peacefully dissolved itself and let 14 republics, many of which the czars had ruled for centuries, become free and independent states.

Gorbachev, Yeltsin, and Putin became strategic partners of American presidents. For once Communism had been exorcised from Russia, there was no ideological, ethnic, or territorial conflict between us. For we live on different continents in hemispheres separated by the world's largest oceans. Moreover, Russia belongs with the West. As Solzhenitzyn wrote, Mother Russia was "the first captive nation."

Both of us also have a vital interest in balancing off a rising and possibly revanchist China and resisting an Islamic fundamentalism that seeks to drive Russia out of the Caucasus and America out of the Middle East.

Thus, as there is no relationship more critical to the security of the West than that between Washington and Moscow, it is with near-despair that one reads the front-page story in the Washington Times: "Senators Seek to Sanction Russia: Say Putin Acts Autocratically."

Who are the senators? They are those twin protectors and proctors of global democracy, Joe Lieberman and John McCain, and they want Putin sanctioned by having the world's industrial democracies, the G-8, suspend Russia's membership, which would be an insult and humiliation.

Putin's crimes? Says McCain: "Mr. Putin has moved to eliminate the popular election of 89 of Russia's regional governors, has cracked down on independent media, continued his repression of business executives who oppose his government, and is reasserting the Kremlin's old-style central control." Says McCain, "The coup is no longer creeping – it is galloping."

But a question arises: Why are these internal matters of the Russian republic any business of John McCain's? Putin is the elected president of Russia. Who elected McCain to anything outside of Arizona?

During our Civil War, Lincoln blockaded Southern ports without the approval of Congress, suspended habeas corpus, sent troops to prevent a free election in Maryland, sought to arrest Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, shut down newspapers, shot down rioters on the streets of New York, and made himself dictator of the Union. Was that any business of the members of Britain's House of Lords? Just who do we Americans think we are?

Whether Russia's governors are elected or appointed is none of our business. As for the jailing of oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky, or any of the others in that den of thieves, that is no more our concern than TR's smashing of the trusts or Truman's seizure of the coal mines or Bush's incarceration of Martha Stewart was or is any of Russia's business. As for President Putin acting "autocratically," can Sen. McCain recall when Russian rulers have acted any other way?

Why are McCain and Lieberman bullyragging Russia but not China? After all, Putin was elected, but Hu Jintao was not. Russia has an elected legislature with opposition parties. China has never held a free election. The Russian people have freedom of religion. China persecutes Christians. Russia threatens no U.S. ally. China threatens Taiwan. In a recent issue of Parade, a list was drawn up of the world's 10 worst dictators based on their human rights violations. Hu Jintao was fourth from the top. Putin was not even mentioned.

Since Reagan achieved the rapprochement with Russia, the United States has pushed NATO up to her borders; bombed her ally Serbia for 78 days; interfered in elections in Georgia, Ukraine, and Belarus; and begun a pipeline to cut Moscow out of the Caspian oil trade.

Now, Russia is going her own way: selling SAMs to Syria, AK-47s to Venezuela, missiles and fighter aircraft to China, and aiding Iran in completing its first nuclear power plant.

Of this generation of leaders, it may be said in epitaph: They were too small to see the larger world. They frittered away in a decade what others had won in a half-century of perseverance in the Cold War.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Link: http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=4919

Why Are We Baiting Putin?

by Patrick J. Buchanan

"[N]o legitimate interest is served when oil and gas become tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply management or attempt to monopolize transportation," thundered Vice President Cheney to the international pro-democracy conference in Vilnius, Lithuania.

"[N]o one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor, or interfere with democratic movements."

Cheney's remarks were directed straight at the Kremlin and President Vladimir Putin, who is to host the G-8 Conference in July.

Cheering Cheney on is John McCain, front-runner for the GOP nomination, who has urged President Bush to snub Putin by boycotting the G-8 summit. What the GOP is thus offering the nation right now is seven more years of in-your-face bellicosity in foreign policy.

What does McCain think we would accomplish – other than a new parading of our moral superiority – by so public an insult to Putin and Russia as a Bush boycott of the St. Petersburg summit? Do we not have enough trouble in this world, do we not have enough people hating us and Bush that we have to get into Putin's face and antagonize the largest nation on earth and a co-equal nuclear power? What is the purpose of this confrontation diplomacy? What does it accomplish?

Eisenhower and Nixon did not behave like this. Nor did Ford or Bush's father. Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" once. But the Soviet Union we confronted in those years was hostile. Until lately, today's Russia was not. Yet the Bush boys are in their pulpits, admonishing the world's sinners every day.

What is their beef with Putin's policy?

In January, Putin decided to stop piping subsidized gas to Kiev and start charging the market price. Reason: Ukraine's president, elected with the assistance of U.S. foundations and quasi-government agencies, said he was reorienting Kiev's foreign policy away from Russia and toward NATO and the United States.

If you are headed for NATO, Putin was saying to President Viktor Yushchenko, you can forget the subsidized gas.

Now this is political hardball, but it is a game with which America is not altogether unfamiliar. When Castro reoriented his policy toward Moscow, Cuba's sugar allotment was terminated. U.S. diplomats went all over the world persuading nations not to buy from or sell to Cuba. Economic sanctions on Havana endure to today. We supported, over Reagan's veto, sanctions on South Africa. We have used sanctions as a stick and access to the U.S. market as a carrot since we became a nation. What, after all, was "Dollar Diplomacy" all about?

Cheney accuses Moscow of employing pipeline diplomacy – i.e., using its oil and gas pipelines to benefit some nations and cut out others. But the United States does the same thing, as it seeks to have the oil and gas of Central Asia transmitted to the West in pipelines that do not transit Iran or Russia.

"[N]o one can justify actions that undermine the territorial integrity of a neighbor," declared Cheney in Vilnius. How the vice president could deliver that line with a straight face escapes me.

Does Cheney not recall our "Captive Nations Resolutions," calling for the liberation of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, which, though free between the two world wars, had long belonged to the Russian empire? Does he not recall conservative support for the breakup of the Soviet Union? Does he not recall conservative support for the secession of Slovenia, Croatia, and Bosnia, and more recently Kosovo, from a Serb-dominated Yugoslavia?

What concerns Cheney is Moscow's support for the secession of Abkhazia and South Ossetia from Georgia. Georgia's president was also elected with the aid of pro-democracy NGOs, mostly funded by Uncle Sam. All these color-coded revolutions in East Europe and Central Asia bear the label, Made in the U.S.A.

When Cheney says, "No one can justify actions that … interfere with democratic movements," he is hauling water for Freedom House, headed by ex-CIA Director James Woolsey, and similar agencies, which Putin wants shut down or kicked out of Russia for interfering in her internal affairs.

We Americans consider the Monroe Doctrine – no foreign power is to come into our hemisphere – to be holy writ. Why, then, can we not understand why Russia might react angrily to our interference in her politics or the politics of former Russian republics?

The effect of U.S. expansion of NATO deep into Eastern Europe, U.S. interference in the politics of the former Soviet republics, and U.S. siting of military bases in the Balkans, Eastern Europe, and Central Asia has been to unite Russia and China, and undo the diplomacy of several successive U.S. presidents.

How has this made us more secure?

If we don't want these people in our backyard, what are we doing in theirs? If we don't stop behaving like the British Empire, we will end up like the British Empire.

COPYRIGHT CREATORS SYNDICATE, INC.

Link: http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?articleid=8964

[Armenian]

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

Russia’s Putin Avoids Scraps With U.S. But Warns Washington Over Iran

President Vladimir Putin chose to ignore recent stinging criticism from Washington in his keynote speech, delivered Wednesday, focusing instead on domestic problems. The media had expected Putin to focus on foreign policy in his hour-long Kremlin speech to the people that followed sharp criticism from the White House over his record on democracy, the Reuters news agency reported.

In the end he took only a mild swipe at Washington, obliquely accusing it of hanging on to outdated prejudices. “Not everyone in the world has been able to move on from the stereotypes of bloc thinking and prejudices which are a carry-over from the epoch of global confrontation, though there have been fundamental changes in the world,” he said.

U.S.-Russian relations hit their coldest moment last week when U.S. Vice President xxxx Cheney, speaking in Vilnius, Lithuania, accused Moscow of backsliding on democracy and using its vast energy resources as a tool of “intimidation and blackmail” against its neighbors. President George W. Bush, who will next meet Putin in St Petersburg in July at a G8 summit of the leaders of the industrialized world, has now also stepped in, saying in a German newspaper that Russia is giving out “mixed signals” on democracy.

On Iran, Putin also sidestepped open criticism, making only a veiled warning to Washington not to take military action against Iran over its nuclear ambitions.

Putin said Russia stood “unambiguously” for preventing the spread of nuclear weapons in the world. But, in an apparent reference to mounting tension between the United States and Iran, though without mentioning either by name, he said: “Methods of force rarely give the desired result and often their consequences are even more terrible than the original threat.”

Moscow finds itself at odds with the West in the U.N. Security Council over how to respond to Tehran’s refusal to end uranium enrichment.

Putin, unchallenged at home and due to step down in 2008 after two terms in office, zeroed in instead on Russia’s catastrophic demographic situation, saying the population of the country was falling by 700,000 every year. To wild applause from officials, he said a special program would be set up in the 2007 state budget that would make 1,500 rouble ($55.39) monthly payouts to families for their first baby and double that sum for a second child. “The problem of low birth rates cannot be resolved without a change in the attitude of our society toward the issue of family and family values,” he said.

Deferring to another powerful pillar of the Russian establishment, just one day after the 61st anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany by Soviet forces, Putin said Russia needed armed forces that were capable of responding to modern threats. “We must not repeat the mistakes of the Soviet Union, and of the Cold War. We must not sacrifice the interests of socio-economic development to develop our military complex. That is a dead end.

”Our military and foreign policy doctrines should answer the most topical question: How can we fight not just against terror, but against nuclear, biological and chemical weapons of mass destruction?“

Link: http://www.mosnews.com/news/2006/05/10/PutinMore.shtml

[Armenian]

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

Russian Secret Services Prepare for Global Conflict

Pavel Simonov, AIA Russian section

Today Vladimir Putin has delivered his annual message to the country’s Federal Assembly. From the moment of Putin's inauguration as the President of the Russian Federation in 2000, similar event is held every year. Priorities of home and foreign policy of Russia are defined in these “addresses”, and the primary goals of the state apparatus in the field of economy and national security are designated here, too. The theses stated during these appearances, are layed down in the basis of the current work of the governmental bodies, on the basis of these theses the new laws are passed. Annually the Control department of the Presidential administration an account on the "implementation of the main provisions of the address". Although the secret services were almost not mentioned at all in the today's address, a lot of its key theses could be realized only with an active participation of the Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) and the Main Intelligence Service (GRU) of the Ministry of Defence.

So, the performance of a part of the tasks put before the state machinery by the Russian President, is in the competence of the foreign intelligence authority. In particular it concerns the tasks of achievement by Russia of the “scientific and technological superiority" in the sphere of economy "in the conditions of a severe international competition". In this connection, Putin has especially emphasized that "the state should provide its assistance in the purchase of modern technologies abroad".

Against this background, one should expect the further activization of the Russian secret services in the developed western countries in the field of industrial espionage. And, according to the European and American sources, for the last time the given direction has became one of the priorities in the activities of the Russian secret services, first of all the foreign intelligence. The search of "convincing response to the national security threats” does also belong to its direct competence. Among those threats Putin has allocated the "threat of terrorism", in particular, within the frames of local conflicts on the ethnic and religious basis, and also "the dangers connected with the proliferation of the weapons of mass destruction".

The Russian President has unequivocally declared that the terrorist organizations do aspire to purchase such kinds of weapons. In a context of the today's appearance and the view of teh remaining tension in the North Caucasus, the continuation of the activity of the Russian secret services against the radical Islamic organizations is to be expected. It is related to the operation of the Federal Security Service (FSB) in the North Caucasus and the CIS countries, in particular, in the Central Asia, and to the operations of the SVR in the regions of the Middle East, South Asia and Western Europe. A significant part of the Putin’s address has been devoted to the issues of modernization of the Russian army with an aim to achieve "an ability to simultaneously combat in a global, a regional, and if it is required – also in several local conflicts". Hereto the implementation of the challenge has been considered by Putin in a direct correlation with the military potential of the western states, first of all the USA.

It is absolutely clear, that the readiness of the Russian army to participate in global and regional conflicts in many respects depends on operative potentialities ot the military intelligence (GRU). During the first years of Putin’s rule its main problems were reduced to the gathering of intelligence data and carrying out of special operations within the frame of the local conflict in the North Caucasus. In addition, the Russian power structures appeared to be unable to destroy the opponents of the federal authority in the region. Against this background, the ability of the Russian army to conduct military actions outside its own state, had been reviewed rather skeptically.
However, between 2002-2005 the President himself as well as the Defence Minister, the Chief of the General Staff and the Commander of the Air Forces have repeatedly spoken out on the conduct of large-scale operations abroad, under a pretext of the struggle against terrorism.

Such opportunity seem the most probable between autumn 2002 and summer 2003. Then the representatives of Moscow openly declared their readiness of carrying out a military operation in the territory of Georgia if the authorities of this country do not cut off activity of the Chechen separatists in its territory. Now Putin has unequivocally set the Russian army a task to come to the scretch in global and regional conflicts. By the way, it follows from his performance that "the basic requirement" to the armed forces consists of "an essential increase of being equiped of the strategic nuclear forces, with modern planes for the long-range aviation, submarines and launchers for the strategic missile forces".

It is absolutely clear, that the given task is put not at all with a view to the further conducting of the counterterrorist operations in North Caucasus, and even not in the near abroad, for instance, in Central Asia. It is a question of preparation for participation in the world-scale conflicts. Then the main task of the GRU has been considered first of all from the point of view of special operations in territory of the Western Europe, within the frames of a global conflict with the NATO countries. The fact that the new concept of the Russian President will naturally be reflected in the military intelligence, is confirmed by his today's words about the planned "substantial growth" of the divisions of "radio-electronic intelligence and electronic combat".

Besides Putin has declared a necessity to achieve "the intellectual superiority" in the military area. And this in many respects depends on the ability "to reckon with the plans and directions of development of the armed forces of other countries". The Russian President has emphasized in this connection that "we should know about the perspective elaboration” of other countries in the military sphere. It is excessive to once more explain that gathering of information on the "plans" and "elaboration" of such a kind belongs exclusively to the competence of the GRU.

Putin's appearance as a whole was impregnated with an idea of the global rivalry with the West in the fields of economy, military sphere and foreign policy. In this way the Russian President has clearly pointed at those who exactly is the main oponent of the Russian secret services and has accordingly designated the priority direction of their operation.

Source: http://www.axisglobe.com/article.asp?article=846

[Armenian]

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

Putin lashes out at 'wolf-like' America

· Response to Cheney attack feeds war of words
· US 'eats and listens to no one', warns president

Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow and Ewen MacAskill in Washington
Thursday May 11, 2006
The Guardian

Relations between the US and Russia sank to the lowest point in a decade yesterday when Vladimir Putin harshly rebuked Washington for its criticism last week and compared the US to a hungry wolf that "eats and listens to no one". Mr Putin, stung by an attack from xxxx Cheney, the US vice-president, used his annual state of the nation address to denounce US expansionism and military spending. He also questioned Washington's record on democratic rights. Although he refrained from mentioning the US by name, it was clear that the "wolf" in question referred to Washington.


The deterioration in relations is risky for the US at a time when it is trying to persuade Russia to support a United Nations resolution against Iran over Tehran's nuclear programme. The acrimony will also encourage senior US Republicans such as John McCain to renew calls for Mr Bush to boycott this year's meeting of the Group of Eight, the world's wealthiest countries, which is scheduled to be held in Russia for the first time.

The war of words is a long way from the optimism with which George Bush said, after his first face-to-face meeting with Mr Putin in 2001, that he had looked into the Russian president's soul and liked what he saw. Mr Cheney, reflecting Washington's growing disenchantment, told a conference in Vilnius, Lithuania, last week that Russia was sending "mixed signals" over democracy, as well as using its energy resources to "intimidate and blackmail" neighbours.

Mr Putin, in his speech, noted that the American military budget was 25 times the size of Russia's and said the US had turned its home into a castle. "Good for them," the Russian president said, looking up from his notes, directly at his audience, "but this means we must make our own home strong and reliable. Because we see what is happening in the world. We see it."

He added, in what appeared to be a reference to the US-led invasion of Iraq and its approach to Iran: "As they say, 'comrade wolf knows whom to eat. He eats without listening and he is clearly not going to listen to anyone'." He accused the US of hypocrisy over its criticism of Russia's patchy human rights record. "Where is all this pathos about protecting human rights and democracy when it comes to the need to pursue their own interests?"

In another veiled reference to Washington's approach to Iraq and Iran, he said: "Methods of force rarely give the desired result and often their consequences are even more terrible than the original threat." He added that Russia was "unambiguously" against the spread of nuclear weapons. In another apparent jibe aimed at the US, he said countries should not use Russia's negotiations over membership of the World Trade Organisation to make unrelated demands.

"The negotiations for letting Russia into the WTO should not become a bargaining chip for questions that have nothing in common with the activities of this organisation," Mr Putin said. US senators visiting Moscow last month said Congress would consider its application in the light of Russia's behaviour on human rights and Iran.

Mr Putin said Russia had to resist foreign pressure by bolstering its army, which is currently a ragtag group of a million conscripts galvanised by special forces and nuclear weapons. "We must always be ready to counter any attempts to pressure Russia in order to strengthen positions at our expense," he said. "The stronger our military is, the less temptation there will be to exert such pressure on us."

Much of his hour-long address was dedicated to Russia's demographic plight, which some forecasts have suggested could see the population fall from 142 million to 100 million by 2050. "The number of our citizens shrinks by an average of 700,000 people a year," he said, promising to double state payouts for a first child to £30 a month, with £60 for a second one. He said a healthy population, free from the vices of smoking and drinking, was vital for a healthy army to protect the state.

Boris Makarenko, deputy head of the Centre for Political Technologies, said the speech marked the beginning of a new approach in which Russia, bolstered by high oil and gas prices, had stopped discussing democracy and other issues with the west and had said instead: "We are strong, we have wealth and we'll use it in a way we consider necessary."

Mr Makarenko said the bitter exchange between Washington and Moscow during the past week was designed to get their mutual criticisms out of the way prior to Russia chairing the G8 summit in St Petersburg in July.

Link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/...772258,00.html