The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

Russia's Army to Be "Leaner but Meaner" - Chief of Staff

Yuri Baluyevsky, the chief of Russia's general staff said a moratorium on Russia's Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty obligations will take effect on December 12. "There will be no changes to Russia's position: The law will come into force as it should, on December 12," Baluyevsky said Wednesday in Brussels, following a meeting with NATO chiefs of staff. Baluyevsky said last Thursday that Russia would no longer be bound by current weapons and equipment limitations after its moratorium on the CFE Treaty comes into force. The State Duma, Russia's lower house of parliament, voted on November 7 in favor of President Putin's bill to impose a moratorium on the CFE Treaty. The moratorium is set to come into effect on December 12, after final approval by the upper house of parliament, expected to vote on the issue on November 16, and President Vladimir Putin.

In an interview with the Russia Today TV channel on Tuesday the chief of general staff said that the CFE Treaty put Russia at a disadvantage. "It was an onerous treaty for Russia. It was a treaty that Russia alone honored," he said. Asked why Russia had signed the document in the first place, Baluyevsky said that at the time, in 1990, the goal was to avert a war, and the treaty effectively served its purpose. He also said Russia's Armed Forces, like all militaries in the world, would be putting an emphasis on quality, not quantity. "It will be a leaner but meaner, well trained and equipped, and professional force," the general said. Earlier in the interview he said that the Russian Armed Forces were under no obligation to protect the world from the United States.

Answering a question as to whether or not the world could count on Russia to defend it from "insidious American plans," Baluyevsky replied, "Today, there is no need to be afraid of the Russian Armed Forces. However, I do not believe that the Russian military is obliged to defend the world from the evil Americans". "We need to pool our efforts together with our American counterparts to fight existing common threats. I'd say that we are doing a pretty good job here. "As for the modern Russian Army, it is not the Army that we have inherited from the collapsed Soviet Union in the early 90's," Baluyevsky added. "Today it's a totally new Army. As for the number of men, in the Soviet times the Army had more than 4 million servicemen and now it is a bit over 1 million. As you may notice, it has shrunk by 3 million."

Source: http://mnweekly.ru/national/20071115/55289883.html

[Armenian]

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

I really like the "Orthodox" trend in Russia. The rediscovery of the ethical and cultural values of Christian Orthodoxy in Russia can potentially be a cure for some of their societal ailments. And as I have already expressed previously, the reemergence of Christian Orthodoxy within the Russian Federation can also potentially have important geopolitical implications.

Armenian

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

Putin calls on Orthodox believers to vote at parliamentary polls

Russia's president called on Orthodox Christians to play an active part in the December 2 elections to the lower house of parliament, the State Duma. "I am convinced that Orthodox Christians, like other citizens, will again take an active civic position," Vladimir Putin said at a meeting with Russian Orthodox Church leaders in the Kremlin. The president, who is nearing the end of his second term, said national stability and a continuation of ongoing changes in the country would depend directly on the results of the Duma elections.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071119/88727679.html

Putin promises support to Russian Orthodox Church

President Vladimir Putin promised on Monday further strong state support for the dominant Russian Orthodox Church, urging believers to be active in crucial elections in December and March. Putin, an ex-KGB spy who now portrays himself as a devout Christian, met top Orthodox clergy in the gilded St Alexander Hall of the Grand Kremlin Palace to mark 90 years since the post of Patriarch was revived in the year of the revolution.

"Orthodoxy has always had a special role in shaping our statehood, our culture, our morals," Putin told dozens of high-ranking black-robed priests led by Patriarch Alexiy II. The church, closely integrated with the state since the 10th century, won back its autonomy from royal control under the Communists, but suffered intense persecution. The fall of Communism in 1991 led to a strong revival, aided by state support, the return of property and considerable tax benefits. Parliamentary elections on December 2 are broadly seen as a dress rehearsal of March 2 presidential polls in which Putin's successor will be elected.

The main pro-Kremlin party United Russia is expected to score an overwhelming victory in December to give Putin a stronger hand to maintain political influence after his departure. But analysts and pollsters warn that the highly predictable outcome could discourage many people from going to polls. Putin, who needs an impressive victory for the party, uses every opportunity to rally any support which could raise turnout. "We are nearing parliamentary elections which will have a big impact on stability and on chances to continue positive changes," said Putin, who has presided over eight years of strong economic growth.

"I am sure the Orthodox Christians like other citizens will show strong activity."

State support for the church has grown even stronger under Putin as Russia has turned away from Western-style liberalism of the first post-Soviet decade to traditional values. "We highly appreciate the church's striving to revive in Russian society ideals and values which have for ages served us as moral guidelines," Putin told the priests. The church says 80 percent of Russians are its members. The post of Patriarch, revived by the Communists, had been abolished in 1700 by emperor Peter the Great, who reserved the leadership of the church for tsars for more than 200 years.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/world...96077120071119

Russia's Orthodox church regains lost ground

As its influence grows, the church seeks to retake Bolshevik-seized property. More than 6,000 sites have been returned, but hundreds more are in dispute.

Ryazan, Russia

Ryazan's dazzling kremlin, the ancient town fortress considered a gem of Russian architecture, seems like an unlikely venue for a bitter social conflict. But for the past three years a subterranean battle has raged here over the 26-hectare complex seized by the Bolsheviks last century. The increasingly powerful Russian Orthodox Church is pressuring political leaders in Moscow to return the property to church stewardship, and public passions are running high. "Society is split over this issue," says Sergei Isakov, a deputy of the regional legislature. "We need more time to listen to the people about this." It's a struggle taking place across Russia. Since the Soviet Union collapsed, about 6,000 sites nationalized by the communists have been returned to the church, but hundreds more remain under dispute. Critics say the church's appetite exceeds its ability to restore old buildings, or fill them with worshipers, and its aims are increasingly politicized. "Lately the church's ambitions have grown, and clericalism is creeping into state institutions and public organizations," says Anatoly Pchelintsev, editor of Religion and Law, a journal published by the independent Slavic Center for Law and Justice in Moscow. "We have elections coming, and the state finds it convenient to actively court the Church's embrace and seek its support."

Church's campaign for influence

The Orthodox Church has been – and remains – closely linked to the Russian state. Even before the Bolsheviks nationalized all its property and took full control over the priesthood, the church acted as the main ideological support for Russian czars. And since the fall of communism, Russian leaders have sometimes turned to the church, which has baptized some 60 percent of Russians, to boost their legitimacy. "The Russian state is undergoing a crisis of values," says Alexander Dugin, who heads the International Eurasian Movement, a nationalist group that favours stronger church influence. "Soviet ideas have been destroyed, while the democratic values of the West have been completely discredited in post-Soviet Russia. The only real source of [spiritual] support for the new Russian state is the Orthodox Church." In addition to seeking the return of its property and assets, the church has mounted an active campaign to raise its profile, lobbying for – among other things – mandatory "Orthodox culture" classes in schools. In addition, a newly formed wing of the pro-Kremlin youth movement Nashi has held several rallies recently to "propagate religious values" among young people. "The greatest achievements of Russian history were made in the name of Orthodoxy," says Boris Yakimenko, head of Nashi's Orthodox section. "Society needs a clear spiritual orientation, and this is our calling." Though President Vladimir Putin has frequently stressed that Russia remains a secular state, he and other state leaders prominently take part in Orthodox festivals and he is often seen in company with the patriarch, the head of the Orthodox Church. In a press conference on the reunification earlier this year of the US-based Russian Orthodox Church Abroad with the mother church in Moscow, Putin equated Russia's "traditional faiths" with its nuclear missile shield as "components that strengthen Russian statehood and create necessary preconditions for internal and external security of the country."

Roots of the battle

Ryazan's hilltop kremlin, a favorite local spot for promenades and picnics, has been a national park for decades. The workers at its five museums, backed by a community group that's gathered 26,000 signatures opposing the church's takeover bid, say the struggle is not just over who gets the real estate. The church already has use of two cathedrals, but few worshipers come, they say. They argue that the real goal is to evict the museums and turn the palace into a residence for its regional head, Archbishop Pavel. "The kremlin is the heart of Ryazan, the place our city sprang from, and it has great historical meaning for all citizens," says Alexander Nikitin, spokesperson for the Public Committee in Defense of Ryazan Kremlin, which lobbies against the transfer. "If you hand it to the church, the character of the place will change from a historical monument that belongs to everyone into a functioning center for a particular religion." In a telephone interview, Archbishop Pavel didn't deny that the palace is earmarked for his residence, but said the public would be welcome to continue visiting the kremlin. "We are going to open it and restore the cathedrals," he said. "People are the foundation of our Church, so regardless of nationality or religious persuasion, people may all come." Vladimir Vigilansky, head of the press service of the Church's headquarters in Moscow, says that returning property to the church will address a "moral dimension" as well. "Over the years many things were stolen or confiscated from the Church, so many museums are really just storage places for stolen items."

A struggle for Russia's soul?

The museum workers insist they are willing to cooperate with the church, whose records indicate about 60 percent of Russians are Orthodox, but oppose granting it full ownership. Some say they see themselves on the firing line in a wider struggle for Russia's post-Soviet soul. "We definitely perceive a threat to the secular state, to civil society and democracy," says Vladimir Sokolovsky, deputy director of the museum. "The church wants these buildings because it seeks a return to its traditional place as the upholder of the state, with a monopoly on the meaning of patriotism and spirituality." Giving the Church a bigger ideological role may not be a bad thing, say others. "The church can bring positive influences," says Nikolai Bulicher, a deputy of Ryazan's city council. "Our country wasn't ready for the democracy we were dreaming about. Instead we got crime, corruption, and drug abuse. Only the revival of our spiritual traditions can reverse that, and this means we must put the church back at the heart of our lives."

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/1114/p06s02-woeu.html

Tycoons to help repossess Russian church buildings in Jerusalem

Russian Compound in Jerusalem

The head of Russia's Audit Chamber said on Monday that two billionaires had agreed to help repossess Orthodox church buildings in Jerusalem that Israel bought from Soviet authorities 40 years ago. The two buildings - St. Sergius' church and the Ecclesiastical Mission - are part of Jerusalem's so-called Russian Compound. The churches were built in the final decades of Tsarist rule and partially sold to Israel by the Nikita Khrushchev's government in 1964. Israel paid for the assets with a shipment of citrus fruit in what went down in history as the "orange deal". Chief Auditor Sergei Stepashin, who is also head of the Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society, said businessman Roman Abramovich, governor of the Chukotka Region and owner of London's Chelsea FC, and Russian-born billionaire Arkady Gaidamak who lives in Israel, had accepted the Russian government's request that they cover expenses for moving institutions currently accommodated in the buildings to other premises. St. Sergius' church is currently occupied by Israel's Ministry of Agriculture and government agencies for environmental protection, while the Ecclesiastical Mission houses the Jerusalem Magistrate's Court. Stepashin said the handover of the property was likely to be legally fixed next year. He said his hopes were based on "agreements reached with the Israeli side on the highest political level" and Russia's guarantees. "There are people who are ready to help those occupying the buildings leave them," Stepashin told a Russian diaspora meeting in Israel. The Imperial Orthodox Palestine Society was established by Emperor Alexander III in 1882 to facilitate Orthodox Christian pilgrimages to the Holy Land and to promote Palestinian studies and humanitarian cooperation with the peoples of the biblical region. In the Soviet era, the society was restructured as part of the National Academy of Sciences. With religious activity in the country largely suppressed during those years, it could no longer arrange pilgrimages to the Holy Land, and focused entirely on Palestine-related research, holding regular symposiums and publishing an almanac.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071119/88721737.html

Putin hands over Christian relic to Russian Orthodox Church

President Vladimir Putin handed over a piece of Christ’s raiment to the Russian Orthodox Church on Monday. The piece, kept at the Moscow Kremlin museums, was handed over to Patriarch Alexy II of Moscow and All Russia at a meeting with Russian Orthodox Church hierarchs on the occasion of the 90th anniversary of the restoration of patriarchy. Alexy II thanked Putin and said the holy relic would be kept at the Christ the Saviour Cathedral. “This is a big spiritual gift and one of the most important Christian relics,” he said. Putin said he had ordered the relevant authorities to consider the possibility of handing over the most revered Christian relics from the Moscow Kremlin museums to the church. Christ’s raiment was seized by Iranian Shah Abbas I in Georgia. In 1624 he offered it to Russian Tsar Mikhail Romanov. After its authenticity had been verified in 1625, a reliquary with Christ’s raiment was brought to Moscow and placed at the Dormition Cathedral. In the 17th century, the raiment was divided into several parts that were kept in Yaroslavl, Kostromf, the Cathedral of St. Sophia in Kiev, and St. Petersburg’s Peter and Paul Cathedral.

Source: http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2....7080&PageNum=0

[Armenian]

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

Union of Orthodox Nations

As the Soviet Union was collapsing approximately two decades ago, there were concerns amongst foreign policy makers in the US that a new alliance of 'Byzantine' (Orthodox) nations could emerge from the ashes of Communism. I was privy to such rhetoric at the time. Consequently, when inevitable wars began to brake out during the early nineteen nineties in the aftermath of the Soviet collapse it was quite obvious where the geopolitical lines were to be drawn. The 'encirclement' of the Russian Federation by NATO and other means has been a fundamental part of the western world's political agenda since the fall of the Soviet Union. The political establishment in the West fears the potential of Russia more than it fears any other geopolitical entity on earth, including China and the so-called Islamic threat.

Stretching from ocean to ocean the Russian Federation controls massive amounts of oil, natural gas, minerals and precious metals. Russia today is said to supply approximately 25% of the energy needs of western Europe, and other Eurasian regions are more-or-less solely dependent on Russian energy distribution for survival. What's more, Moscow seems to have embarked upon a strategic agenda of investing large sums in purchasing major corporations and industrial facilities across the globe. Moscow has also given the nation's defense industry a significant financial boost and is currently in the process of modernizing of its armed forces. In addition, as we have seen recently, the Russian Federation is ideally located to directly impact various political theaters such as Europe, Middle East and Asia. Concurrently, the western world's heavy dependence on foreign energy and the United State's destructive and costly military escapades around the world can potentially trigger their decline - politically, militarily and economically.

As a result of the aforementioned factors, the Russian Federation today has become a self-reliant superpower to a great degree, and in my opinion much more so than its Soviet predecessor.

The realization of just how much the political establishment in the western world fears the potential power of the Russian nation serves to shed light on the dynamics of the on-going conflicts in the Balkans, Caucasia and Central Asia. The Russian Federation is the only serious longterm geopolitical threat that power brokers face within the western world. For the longterm survival of the political/financial elite in the West the Russia needed to be subdued. However, they first needed to break away (or break up) pro-Russian satellite nations in the region before they could begin directly working against it. And they also took the opportunity to help separatists in Russia start their bloody insurgency. The long bloody conflict that played out in and around Chechnya was fundamentally a power struggle by western interests to wrestle Russia's strategic underbelly away from Moscow's control. Moscow has finally managed to pacify the Chechens. Nevertheless, the effort by the West has since shifted to Georgia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan - albeit unsuccessfully. Western interests also tried to undermine the Armenian rebellion in Nagorno Karabakh and they have ever since been trying to detach Yerevan from Moscow. These efforts failed as Armenians with direct Russian support defeated the Azeris. And today the Armenian Republic is considered to be amongst Russia's closest regional allies.

Sadly, however, western ambitions succeeded within the Balkans. With the Russian Federation unable to intervene at the time, Washington DC was able to spearhead a massive NATO bombing campaign against Serbia. As NATO was assisting the “Al-Qaeda" supported Muslims within Bosnia and Kosovo by killing “Orthodox Christians” they were conveniently eliminating Serbia as the last pro-Russian bastion in Central Europe and opening the gates for NATO expansion.

Nevertheless, I am very satisfied with the fact that Christian Orthodoxy is making a gradual comeback within the Russian Federation today. This is good timing. Their ailing society and their weakened national identity desperately needs it, as do many others in the region including us Armenians. History has proven that healthy and stable nations need to maintain strong code of ethics and expressions of national culture. Throughout history Christian Orthodoxy has always proven to be an effective catalyst for the aforementioned. It is common knowledge that religion is also a societal bind, bringing together the population under one spiritual and cultural banner. Religion conditions and guides society. Religion can also create cultural bonds and international political alliances in certain regions - as it creates needed barriers in others.

During Soviet times an ideology, a particular belief system, cemented "brotherly" ties between various communist peoples. In post Soviet times this ideological connection was lost as various formerly communist peoples discovered nationalism and materialism. And this came at a time when western concepts such as democracy and capitalism (represented by its military wing NATO and its financial wing the IMF/WTO) were gaining in power and popularity. Due to these and other sociopolitical factors former Soviet nations fell into disarray. Recently, however, 'fear' of the United States and the West has played a galvanizing role by bringing together some regional nations. I would personally like to see these newly formed loose alliances go past their 'reactionary' nature and begin formulating a new ideological/political movement - a movement whose ethical/cultural values are firmly embeded in Christian Orthodoxy. I think such a new movement would play a fundamental role in creating international ties and new regional brotherhood that can go past the political and economic considerations that currently exists.

Armenian

[Armenian]

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

Russia's Putin slams NATO "muscle-flexing"

President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday warned that Moscow would not remain indifferent to NATO's "muscle-flexing" and said Russia's nuclear forces would be ready for an adequate response to any aggressor. Putin, speaking to top generals less than two weeks before December 2 parliamentary elections, said the NATO military alliance had built up its forces close to Russia's borders.

"We see that military resources of certain states and members of the NATO alliance are being built up right by our borders and in contravention of previously reached agreements," Putin said in remarks shown on state television.

"We cannot allow ourselves to remain indifferent to the obvious 'muscle-flexing'," Putin said. He said strategic nuclear forces -- which control Russia's long-range nuclear missiles -- should be ready "to deliver a swift and adequate response to any aggressor."

Putin, who has hiked military spending substantially over the past eight years, has sought to boost Russia's international clout after the chaos following the fall of the Soviet Union. Talking tough about Russia's military is immensely popular locally. Polls show it strikes a chord with millions of Russians who crave for the Soviet Union's once mighty military and superpower status. NATO is viewed with great suspicion in Russia, where Kremlin officials say expansion eastwards into the Baltic states and Central Europe shows the alliance is being used by the United States to threaten Russian interests.

KREMLIN TALKING TOUGH

Putin, who served as a KGB lieutenant-colonel in the Cold War, says he is friends with U.S. President George W. Bush. But he has berated the United States for seeking to impose its will on the world and sowing havoc with unilateralist policies, such as the war in Iraq. Moscow and Washington have clashed over U.S. plans for a missile defense shield in Europe, differing views of Russian democracy, the future of the Serb province of Kosovo and the war in Iraq, though on Iran there has been some cooperation. Putin said Russia's suspension of the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty, a key arms treaty limiting forces in Europe, was one way to counter NATO's "muscle-flexing."

"We are not going to fulfill anything unilaterally -- our partners did not ratify the treaty and some did not even sign it," Putin said, adding sarcastically: "It was a nice affair."

Russian generals say the issue of flank limits, which restrict Moscow's ability to deploy heavy armor on parts of its own territory, must be solved if Russia is to return to the treaty. Russian proposals to set up a single missile defense system under joint control have not had an answer from the West, Putin said. He praised the military potential of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), a regional grouping of Russia, China and four Central Asian states which held joint military exercises in August in Chebarkul in the Urals.

"The growing defense potential of the SCO was shown in practice at the Chebarkul range," Putin said. At the August exercises, Putin said security threats had forced Russia to resume regular airborne bomber patrols across the world, bringing back memories of the Cold War. Putin has been keen to show off his close ties with the military, visiting a nuclear submarine, flying a bomber and calling for better wages for soldiers.

Source: http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/new...archived=False

[Armenian]

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

Russia to conduct strategic military exercises in 2008

Russian Topol-M ICBM Launch

Russia's Armed Forces will hold a series of command-and-post exercises under a common strategic concept in 2008, the defense minister said Tuesday. The Stability-2008 exercises will be held for two months in various regions of Russia with the goal of practicing strategic deployment of the Armed Forces, including the nuclear "triad," to counter potential threats near the Russian borders. "The maneuvers will include a number of theater-level, tactical and command-and-post exercises, under a common strategic concept," Anatoly Serdyukov said at a Defense Ministry meeting, attended by President Vladimir Putin. Addressing senior military staff at the meeting, Putin reiterated the need to continue the development of Russia's Strategic Nuclear Forces and said they should be able to respond promptly and effectively to any aggression. "One of the most important tasks today is to enhance the combat readiness of the Strategic Nuclear Forces. They should be in a position to deliver a prompt and effective strike against any aggressor," Putin said. Russia has recently resumed patrol flights of strategic bombers and continues building advanced nuclear submarines. It has also successfully tested a number of new and existing ballistic missiles. In 2007, Russia conducted 28 division-level and 255 regiment-level tactical exercises.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071120/88834914.html

In related news:

Ballistic Missile Submarines: The Only Way to Go

Summary

Russia and China are both in the process of fielding a new class of ballistic missile submarines. These submarines, longtime prudent investments for states with nuclear weapons, are becoming an essential -- and ultimately, the only -- option for a survivable nuclear deterrent.

Analysis

For the better part of a decade, four nations have maintained a regularly patrolling strategic deterrent at sea: the United States, France, the United Kingdom and Israel (whose use of nuclear warheads mounted on cruise missiles aboard its three Dolphin-class submarines is an open secret). However, that decade also has seen China and Russia complete nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine (SSBN) programs. This is particularly important because diving beneath the ocean's surface is quickly becoming the only way to hide.

Russia

At its peak, the Soviet navy operated more than 60 SSBNs. The fleet is now one-quarter that size, and most of the boats are in poor condition. In 2002, the Russian navy did not conduct a single strategic deterrence patrol. The current fleet of aging SSBNs can barely hold the line. Not only is Russia investing in the future of its SSBN program, but it also is essentially starting from scratch. The Yuri Dolgoruky, the lead boat of Russia's newest Borei-class SSBN, has a troubled past. Laid down in 1996, the Yuri Dolgoruky was neglected and construction was held up because of economic troubles after the collapse of the Soviet Union. The parallel development of the SS-NX-28 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) failed, and the design had to be adjusted during construction to accommodate a different missile, the SS-NX-30 Bulava. Although the Bulava has had several successful launches, three failures in the fourth quarter of 2006 demonstrated the missile was far from ready. Nevertheless, the Yuri Dolgoruky was launched April 15. (It will spend at least a year being fitted out.) Deputy Defense Minister Gen. Alexei Moskovsky has promised seven more by 2017. Of course, Moskovsky's statements are nothing if not ambitious. A series of successful Bulava tests will be necessary. But the ultimate success of the Borei class is essential for Russia's ability to maintain its nuclear deterrent. It is perhaps the top defense priority, along with the continued fielding of the land-based Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). And it is something Russia can afford. In recent years, Russia has politically and economically consolidated and has been fiscally conservative enough to keep a balanced budget. Russian President Vladimir Putin's policies, and a hefty windfall from high energy prices, have turned Russia's $160 billion debt in 2000 into $400 billion in currency reserves and surplus funds. In March, the Kremlin shed its fiscal conservatism with a new budget for 2007-2010 that dramatically increases spending in many sectors, including defense. The budget and economic conditions are reminiscent of the Soviet budgets of the 1970s, during which Moscow launched its last dramatic increase in defense spending.

China

Chinese Jin-Class SSBN

For the Chinese People's Liberation Army-Navy (PLAN), nuclear-powered submarines have been a challenge. At times, the PLAN was an understudy of a less-than-perfect master: the Russian navy. Though the PLAN has made incremental improvements, its nuclear submarines reportedly have yet to attain modern standards of performance. The PLAN's older Xia-class SSBN, though able to launch missiles, never made an official deterrence patrol. However, the new Jin-class SSBN (Type 094) reportedly is undergoing sea trials. It spent some five years under construction and sources indicate it was launched in mid-2004. It reportedly is not up to modern SSBN standards, and there are rumors of nuclear propulsion problems. However, the shift to sea trials suggests it will ultimately deploy. The JL-2 SLBM with which it is to be fitted appears to have had several successful trial launches. If the Jin class is deployable, the bulk of the continental United States -- now only vulnerable to a small arsenal of China's longest-range land-based missiles -- would be within reach of the JL-2 SLBM. Though dozens of funding priorities compete for the money, China's military spending has continued to rise. China has a small nuclear deterrent, so it must ensure that the deterrent it has is mobile and survivable; thus, while Beijing's pocketbook is not bottomless, the SSBN program should continue receiving the funding it needs.

Implications

Russian Borey-class Nuclear Submarine

Both the Russian Borei and the Chinese Jin are still at least a year from operational capability, and their sister boats -- still under construction -- will need to be completed in the next few years in order to build to a constantly patrolling rotation. But in five to 10 years, Russia and China both intend to have such a rotation in place. While the significance of a new SSBN is greater for China, which has yet to field a functioning sea-based deterrent, the decay of Russia's SSBN fleet is such that the Borei marks a new beginning there. India could be working toward a missile submarine as well, but that development is 10-20 years away. Countries like Pakistan could one day follow the Israeli example -- diesel submarines armed with cruise missiles. Diesel boats lack the endurance of their nuclear-powered brethren, but can run even quieter for short periods. The cruise missiles have a shorter range than SLBMs, but are technically easier to launch and require no major modifications to a standard hull, since they can be launched horizontally like torpedoes. While none of these developments fundamentally alters the strategic balance of a unipolar world, advances in Russia and China's SSBN programs mark the first time in a decade that nations other than traditional U.S. allies are building sea-based deterrents.

The Increasing Importance of the Sea-based Deterrent

Early in the Cold War, ICBMs were almost prohibitively large and expensive. The submarine was a way to move shorter-range missiles closer to one's adversary. But as missile accuracy improved (the dramatically increasing potential yield of strategic warheads did not hurt, either), the prospect of a successful "first strike" began to alter the role of the SSBN. It became a valuable "first strike" platform because it could move close to an adversary's coast, giving the enemy less time to react to a missile launch. But its greatest value as the most survivable leg of a nuclear triad is its capacity for a "second," or retaliatory, strike. Much harder to keep track of than platforms in fixed positions, an SSBN lurking at sea is the ultimate wild card. Land-mobile missile systems (as opposed to fixed, silo-based missiles) are another way of accomplishing this, but technological advances will make them increasingly vulnerable. A joint U.S. program between the defense and intelligence communities is working to test space-based radar. Destined to succeed in one form or another, space-based radar will one day be able to track objects across the face of the Earth -- objects such as land-mobile launch vehicles -- and keep close enough tabs on them that their locations can be effectively targeted by strategic warheads.

In a unipolar world -- in which the United States will have the best intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance capabilities and weapons of increasing speed and accuracy -- the nuclear weapon is the only true guarantor of national independence. Even a minimal deterrent allows nations to focus on and confront regional disputes, as well as protect their interests abroad. An SSBN fleet is, of course, not absolutely necessary -- whether mounted on a land-based missile or a submarine, a nuclear weapon is a substantial bargaining chip -- but it is becoming increasingly difficult to hide anything from the United States. The U.S. military has a technological edge beneath the waves as well, but even a modestly well-built submarine traveling below 5 knots is hard to track, and it certainly has a better chance than a fixed concrete silo. Consequently, the sea-based leg of a nation's nuclear triad is evolving from a prudent choice for survivability to the most essential element of a meaningful nuclear deterrent.

Source: http://www.stratfor.com/products/pre....php?id=287691

[Armenian]

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

Russian Arms Found in Karabakh

Azerbaijan accuses Russia of supporting insurgents

Azerbaijan has joined Georgia in accusations against Russia for supplying arms to breakaway republics. Baku says that part of Russia’s military property which was transported from Georgia to Armenia ended up in Nagorno Karabakh. Moscow shrugged off the allegations on Tuesday. Azerbaijan’s first deputy prime minister, meanwhile, announced plans to enter the NATO.
Another anti-Russian front has opened in the South Caucasus. Traditionally hostile Georgia was joined by Azerbaijani authorities who launched an attack on Russia. The country’s defense ministry accused Moscow on Monday of militarizing the restive region of Nagorno Karabakh. The Azeri military said that withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia to Armenia creates tensions in the region and added that they have information that some of the military property was taken to Nagorno Karabakh. “A large part of Russian military hardware was taken from Batumi to Russia, while a considerable part was sent to the 102nd military base in Gyumri,” Azeri defense ministry press officer Eldar Sabiroglu told Kommersant. “Another portion of the hardware was sent to Armenia’s armed forces which quickly used it to bolster troops in Nagorno Karabakh.

Mr. Sabiroglu said that Russia’s actions push the situation where Azerbaijan and Armenia are virtually at war close to hostilities and hampers the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh issue. “Azerbaijan prefers a peaceful solution, but this can’t last forever,” he said. “If Russia does not stop its double standards policy and takes no effort to solve the problem under international legal norms, the settlement will drag on. If this continues, Azerbaijan will find other ways to free the occupied land.” The hawkish statements of the Azeri military caused uproar in Yerevan and Moscow alike. Armenian Foreign Ministry spokesman Vladimir Karapetyan called the allegations “an intentional lie”. “There never was any transfer of armaments, which our defense ministry also confirms,” Mr. Karapetyan told Kommersant. “I would not like to specify where Russian armaments are because this is Moscow’s business, but I rule out that they might be in Karabakh.”

Russia’s Defense Ministry issued a similar denial. “Such unfounded assertions are not based on any facts,” Defense Ministry presser Col. Vyacheslav Sedov said. “I regret that the Azeri military spread these conjectures. All military hardware and armaments which were transported from Georgia to Armenia are placed at the 102nd Russian military base in Gyumri. There can be no talk about deploying these armaments in other regions including those bordering on Karabakh.” The Russian Foreign Ministry was surprised by Baku’s violent attack. “I can assure that everything we transport to Gyumri is taken here under control of the military. It’s better to look closer into the matter before giving a detailed answer on it. I can’t understand what grounds Azerbaijan has to give such statements,” said Russian Foreign Ministry press officer Andrey Krivtsov. While Moscow was reeling from the blow Azerbaijan continued the offensive. The country’s First Deputy Prime Minister Yagub Eyubov made clear to local reporters on Tuesday who Baku views as a priority foreign policy partner. He said Azerbaijan “has been successful integrating into North Atlantic structures and strives to become NATO member.” “We intend to enter the alliance, and we’ve got a program for that – a plan for individual partnership,” Mr. Eyubov explained.

The Russian Foreign Ministry preferred not to comment the announcement although it had always been happy to comment similar statements by Georgia. But Moscow has no tools to influence Baku like it has in the conflict with Tbilisi. Oil- and gas-rich Azerbaijan does not depend on Russian fuel and sells its own natural resources to the West. Azeri oil was sent to Europe in 2006 through the new Baku-Tbilisi-Ceycan pipeline. Last week, Azeri President Ilkham Aliyev, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayip Erdogan and Greek Prime Minister Costas Caramantis opened the Turkey-Greece pipeline in a ceremony also attended by U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman. The pipe is planned to be stretched to Italy. Mr. Aliyev has assured that the pipeline will be “guarantor of peace and stability in the region.” The only thing that threatens the stability is the pending Karabakh issue fostered by Moscow, as Baku believes.

Source: http://www.kommersant.com/p827774/r_...abakh_Georgia/

Russia Sends Part of Military Equipment to Nagorno-Karabakh – Azerbaijani Defense Ministry

Azerbaijan, Baku / Trend corr. E.Huseynli / The Azerbaijani Defense Ministry stated the distribution of military techniques by Russia to Armenia, withdrawn from Georgia, causes a danger to the region. “Part of the military equipment withdrawn from Georgia, Russia sent to the Azerbaijani occupied territory of Nagorno Karabakh, Eldar Sabiroglu, head of the press-service of the Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan, said. Russia sent 70% of military equipment withdrawn from Georgia to the Armenian military base 102 in the region of Gumru. Taking into consideration the military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, allocation of Russian military equipment in Armenia increases the risk of war. Sabiroglu said that the position of Russia hinders the peaceful regulation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. According to Sabiroglu, Russia began founding its military base in the Armenian 102 base. The settlement of the conflict will continue until Russia holds double policy on the issue. “ Azerbaijan prefers peaceful regulation of the conflict but Azerbaijan’s attempts for this purpose cannot continue forever. Azerbaijan can liberate its occupied territories by other ways, Sabiroglu noted. The conflict between the two countries of the South Caucasus began in 1988 due to Armenian territorial claims against Azerbaijan. Since 1992, Armenian Armed Forces have occupied 20% of Azerbaijan including the Nagorno-Karabakh region and its seven surrounding districts. In 1994, Azerbaijan and Armenia signed a ceasefire agreement at which time active hostilities ended. The Co-Chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group ( Russia, France, and the US) are currently holding peaceful negotiations.

Source: http://news.trendaz.com/index.shtml?...078534&lang=EN

[Armenian]

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

Understanding the significance of the Topol M missile

Introduction

The Topol M is the latest version of the Topol missile that carries the NATO designation of SS-25. A road mobile version of this missile is referred to as Topol M1. The naval version of the Topol M is called the Bulava. A Topo M1 was successfully tested on November 1, 2005. The missile was launched from the Kapustin Yar test range in Astrakhan region and targeted at the 10th test range at Lake Balkhash (a.k.a. Priozersk) in Kazakhstan. A successful test of the Bulava was conducted on September 27.The missile was launched from the Dmitry Donskoy, a Typhoon class ballistic missile submarine towards a designated 'target' at the Kura test site on the Kamchatka Peninsula. An Interfax report datelined Oct 25, 2005 quoted Strategic Missile Troops Commander Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov as stating that Russian Strategic Missile Troops' will switchover to Topol-M land-based mobile missile starting early in 2006.

A Paradigm Shift

Russian officials, including President Putin, have repeatedly alluded to Topol M in the past few years as a weapon system that will correct the strategic imbalance that has inexorably crept in as Russia has struggled with its economic and political restructuring and the US has vigorously pursued Ballistic Missile Defense systems. For example, in an AFP story datelined Nov 17, 2004 President Putin reportedly told an annual meeting of high-level Russian military officers: "We have not only conducted tests of the latest nuclear rocket systems, I am sure that in the coming years we will acquire them." "Moreover, these will be things which do not exist and are unlikely to exist in other nuclear powers," Putin added.

From the tenor of the remarks made at the highest level it is evident that the Russians regard the Topol M / Bulava missiles as special. As more facts have emerged on these weapon systems it is becoming increasingly evident that the Russian confidence in these weapon system is not misplaced. More significant than the capabilities of the missile, which as we will see are formidable, is the shift in paradigm from quantity to quality in Russian weapon systems. Under this paradigm shift even as the number of Russian nuclear warheads drops their quality increases. Even as Russia does away with a large number of its rail mobile ICBMs it replaces them with a smaller number of harder to detect road mobile ICBMs. The Topol M missile weighs 47.2 tons and carries a warhead of 1,200 kilograms. Its range exceeds 10,000 kilometers. It is capable of carrying 10 MIRV warheads.

Tens years back, when Boost phase and Midcourse Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) systems were unheard of, the information above is all you would have cared to know. However, the above facts give you very little idea about the true strength of the Topol M - The fact that it is capable of evading all BMD systems - Boost Phase, Midcourse as well as Terminal. Boost Phase missile defense systems rely on detecting and targeting a ballistic missile within seconds of its launch. During this phase the missile presents a large slow target that can easily be detected using space based infrared systems because of its hot exhaust plume and then attacked using an Airborne Laser System. The US Air Force Space-Based Infrared System-High (SBIRS-High) system is expected to be in place by 2007. The system will consist of four primary satellites in Geosynchronous Earth Orbit (GEO), two spacecraft carrying infrared sensors in Highly Elliptical Orbit (HEO), and a Mission Control Station (MCS) located on the ground.

SBIRS-High can provide targeting information on an ICBM to an Airborne Laser System within 10-20 seconds of its launch giving Airborne Laser System enough time to incinerate the missile electronics. Infrared sensors in SBIRS-High use scanning and staring elements. In a typical combat scenario, the "scanning" sensors will detect a missile launch, and the "staring" sensors will lock on to the missile itself and transmit detailed data to the Mission Control Station. A silo based missile can be stared at before launch since its location is known. Hence targeting information on the missile is available almost immediately. A road mobile missile like the Topol M can delay detection because it cannot be 'stared' at. Additionally, the Topol M missile uses three engines during boost phase to allow it to accelerate much faster than conventional ICBMs. The missile is also reported to be hardened to withstand sustained illumination by the laser fielded on the Airborne Laser System.

Mid Course Capability

A ballistic missile is most vulnerable to anti missile defenses during its mid course phase when it is follows a predictable ballistic trajectory. This also happens to be the longest phase of its flight to target. The Topol M and Bulava missiles employ a maneuvering warhead called the Igla. This warhead was first tested in February 2004 with an older version of Topol. The trajectory of Igla is not just difficult but, in fact, impossible to predict because the warhead has auxiliary engines that switch on and off randomly. The targeting system of the warhead keeps track of changes in the trajectory on account of these random engine firings and eventually guides the warhead toward its target. The Igla will reportedly also use IR counter measures and decoys to confuse any Exoatmospheric Kill Vehicles (Interceptors) that may target it during that phase. It may be noted that the interceptors planned to be deployed as part of the US GMD (Ground Based Midcourse Defense) are equipped with on-board discrimination to identify the true warhead from among decoys and associated objects.

Terminal Phase Capability

During its terminal phase the Igla warhead travels at hypersonic speeds (Mach 6) and employs electromagnetic shielding. The combination of stealth and maneuvering make it difficult for the either the IR sensors on an interceptor missiles or their ground based guidance radar of the interceptor missiles to track the Igla. Even if they do sporadically track the Igla the latter's Mach 6 speeds make an interception near impossible.

Conclusion

Clearly, the Topol M and Bulava missile systems represent a significant milestone in strategic weapon systems. They are currently not deployed in numbers large enough to threaten the US, and probably never will be. These systems signal an attempt by Russia to flex its technological muscles - not to threaten the US but alert it to power and excellence elsewhere. One thing the Igla warhead does not signal is the irrelevance of BMD. It is not technology that countries like North Korea and Iran can acquire for decades to come. If anything the Igla reiterates what the US has always claimed - Its BMD is not designed to upset its strategic balance with Russia but to reduce the threat from rouge nations.

Source: http://kuku.sawf.org/Articles/3840.aspx

Rude awakening to missile-defense dream

By Scott Ritter

On Christmas Eve 2004, the Russian Strategic Missile Force test fired an advanced SS-27 Topol-M road-mobile intercontinental ballistic Missile (ICBM). This test probably invalidated the entire premise and technology used in the National Missile Defense (NMD) system currently being developed and deployed by the Bush administration, and at the same time called into question the validity of the administration's entire approach to arms control and disarmament. From 1988 to 1990, I served as one of the American weapons inspectors at the Votkinsk Machine Building Plant in Russia, where the SS-27 and its predecessor, the SS-25, were assembled. When I started my work in Votkinsk, the SS-25 missile was viewed by many in the US intelligence community as the primary ICBM threat facing the United States. A great deal of effort was placed on learning as much as possible about this missile and its capabilities.

Through the work of the inspectors at Votkinsk, as well as several related inspections where US experts were able to view the SS-25 missile system in its operating bases in Siberia, a great deal of data was collected that assisted the US intelligence community in refining its understanding of how the SS-25 operated. This understanding was translated into several countermissile strategies, including aerial interdiction operations and missile-defense concepts. The abysmal performance of American counter-SCUD operations during the Gulf War in 1991 highlighted the deficiencies of the US military regarding the aerial interdiction of road-mobile missiles. Iraqi Al-Hussein mobile missiles were virtually impossible to detect and interdict, even with total American air supremacy. Despite all the effort put into counter-SCUD operations during that war, not a single Iraqi mobile missile launcher was destroyed by hostile fire, a fact I can certify not only as a participant in the counter-SCUD effort, but also as a chief inspector in Iraq, where I led the United Nations investigations into the Iraqi missile program.

The rapid collapse of the Soviet Union did not leave much time for reflection on the American counter-mobile missile launcher deficiencies. In mid-1993, the Department of Defense conducted a comprehensive review to select the strategy and force structure for the post-cold war era. With the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the threat to the US from a deliberate or accidental ballistic missile attack by former Soviet states or by China was judged highly unlikely. In Votkinsk, US inspectors observed a Soviet-era defense industry in decline. SS-25 missiles were produced at a greatly reduced rate, and the next generation missile, a joint Russian-Ukrainian design, was scrapped after a few prototypes were produced, but never launched. After the resounding Republican victory in the midterm 1994 congressional elections, a new program for missile defense was proposed covering three distinct "threat" capabilities ranging from "unsophisticated threats" (an attack of five single-warhead missiles with simple decoys), to highly sophisticated threats (an attack of 20 single-warhead SS-25 type missiles, each with decoys or other defensive countermeasures). Funding for this program ran to some $10.8 billion from 1993 to 2000.

When President Bush came to power in 2001, there was a dramatic change in posture regarding ballistic missile defense. The administration announced it was withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, clearing away development and operational constraints. At the same time, the administration laid out a comprehensive plan that envisioned a layered missile-defense system. After studying the SS-25 missile for years, the US military believed it finally had a solution in the form of a multitiered antiballistic missile system that focused on boost-phase intercept (firing antimissile missiles that would home in on an ICBM shortly after launch), space-based laser systems designed to knock out a missile in flight, and terminal missile intercept systems, which would destroy a missile as it reentered the earth's atmosphere. The NMD system being fielded to counter the SS-25, and any similar or less sophisticated threats that may emerge from China, Iran, North Korea, and elsewhere, will probably have cumulative costs between $800 billion and $1.2 trillion by the time it reaches completion in 2015.

However, the Bush administration's dream of a viable NMD has been rendered fantasy by the Russian test of the SS-27 Topol-M. According to the Russians, the Topol-M has high-speed solid-fuel boosters that rapidly lift the missile into the atmosphere, making boost-phase interception impossible unless one is located practically next door to the launcher. The SS-27 has been hardened against laser weapons and has a highly maneuverable post-boost vehicle that can defeat any intercept capability as it dispenses up to three warheads and four sophisticated decoys. To counter the SS-27 threat, the US will need to start from scratch. And even if a viable defense could be mustered, by that time the Russians may have fielded an even more sophisticated missile, remaining one step ahead of any US countermeasures. The US cannot afford to spend billions of dollars on a missile-defense system that will never achieve the level of defense envisioned. The Bush administration's embrace of technology, and rejection of diplomacy, when it comes to arms control has failed.

If America continues down the current path of trying to field a viable missile-defense system, significant cuts will need to be made in other areas of the defense budget, or funds reallocated from other nonmilitary spending programs. With America already engaged in a costly war in Iraq, and with the possibility of additional conflict with Iran, Syria, or North Korea looming on the horizon, funding a missile-defense system that not only does not work as designed, but even if it did, would not be capable of defending America from threats such as the Topol-M missile, makes no sense. The Bush administration would do well to reconsider its commitment to a national missile-defense system, and instead reengage in the kind of treaty-based diplomacy that in the past produced arms control results that were both real and lasting. This would not only save billions, it would make America, and the world, a safer place.

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0104/p09s02-coop.htm

Video Presentation: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hesaGoYfyV8

[skhara]

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

Putin takes centre stage

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7106497.stm

Vladimir Putin
President Putin is a major political asset for United Russia's campaign
When President Putin leapt up onto the stage at the rally in his honour in Moscow on Wednesday, he set an important precedent.

Never before has a serving Russian president openly campaigned on behalf of a political party in parliamentary elections for which he himself has been nominated as a candidate.

It is a bizarre situation. He is not a member of United Russia and he may not even take up a seat in parliament because he is not due to step down as president until next spring.

The style of the rally was also unprecedented. The slick, bubble-gum choreography was taken directly from the American school of electioneering.

So why the need to put on such a glitzy show with the top man as star performer in between performances by boy-bands and girl-groups?

"Putin is annoyed by the fact that [the strategy] hasn't worked out as he'd been promised," says political analyst Stanislav Belkovsky.

"His decision to head the United Russia list [of parliamentary candidates] did not have the immediate effect of boosting United Russia's support to 70% as they had wanted."

Referendum on Putin

So getting President Putin up on stage in front of a crowd of 5,000 loyal supporters and more importantly in front of the cameras of state-run TV channels was an attempt to boost United Russia's popularity to the point where almost all opposition is eliminated.

United Russia rally
Mr Putin wants to boost United Russia support to 70%

And that is crucial for President Putin himself.

Because as the United Russia party itself keeps saying, the parliamentary election on 2 December is primarily a referendum on Mr Putin and his policies after his eight years in power.

An overwhelming majority for United Russia along with a high voter turnout would, the argument goes, help the president remain in power after his second term in office comes to an end early next year.

Under the current constitution he cannot stand for a third term.

So a new leadership concept is now being put forward by his supporters.

"We want the continuation of the same foreign and domestic policies, we want him to stay in politics, we want him as our national leader," said Olga, a member of United Russia, as she sat surrounded by flags at Wednesday's rally.

Role unclear

It was a cry much repeated during the rally by the long list of celebrity speakers which included actors, journalists and even a fighter-pilot.

Youngsters at the United Russia rally
Many of President Putin's supporters at the rally were young

But while the concept is being trumpeted, the detail certainly is not.

Ask people to define what exactly they mean by "national leader" and the list of possible answers is endless, ranging from speaker of parliament to the head of one the giant state-run corporations or to simply being the power behind the throne without holding any official position.

Some analysts here believe even Mr Putin has not yet made up his mind up.

Likewise the power elites which lie behind him. It is a dilemma.

The only way he and his inner circle can be certain of retaining power is through a third presidential term.

But that would only be possible by changing the constitution and the word is that Mr Putin does not want to do that even though he is a genuinely popular leader.

According to analysts, the uncertainty is breeding nervousness among the political elite who fear the transfer of power, when it comes, may leave them out in the cold.

[Armenian]

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

Hunting the Russian Bear - Why they're after Putin

At times it seems as though we've gone back in a time machine to the darkest, sub-zero days of the Cold War era, when Americans were frantically digging bomb shelters in their back yards, Godless Communism was on the march, and the jackboots of the KGB were just inches away from our waiting necks. Tony Blair, lecturing the Russian leader at the G-8 meeting, opined that the Western world, on behalf of which he presumed to speak, is "becoming worried, fearful about what was happening in Russia today, the external policy." These remarks echoed xxxx Cheney's sally last year against Russia's alleged attempt to use oil and gas as "tools of intimidation or blackmail, either by supply manipulation or attempts to monopolize transportation." That was said in response to Russia's threat to raise the price of energy previously sold at subsidized Soviet-era rates to Ukraine – a capitalistic act that was a bit too radical for the supposedly pro-free-market Cheney.

The Brits' beef with Putin also has to do with oil and gas. The Russian seizure of British oil assets in Siberia is being cited by free-market types as evidence that Putin is moving toward "corporatism," but is this any more "corporatist" than legislation currently on the books in the U.S. that forbids foreign ownership of key industries such as airlines and telecommunications? The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

Who can forget the Dubai port-management brouhaha, when Democratic and Republican lawmakers alike demagogued the issue to score political points by conjuring the alleged threat posed by a Middle Eastern-based company having anything to do with maintaining our – rapidly decaying – "vital" infrastructure? The Dubai episode inaugurated a crackdown by U.S. regulators and inspired a host of economically disastrous yet politically popular measures in Congress that confirm "corporatism" is on the march in Washington at least as much as it is in Moscow. Remember when Chinese investors sought to buy out the oil company Unocal? The uproar was deafening, and the deal was scotched. So it turns out that British Petroleum is no more badly treated in Russia than Chinese-owned CNOOC Ltd. is in the U.S. – which, come to think of it, is perhaps why the Brits are so irked.

According to the mainstream news media's pampered pet pundits, Russian President Vladimir Putin is the reincarnation of Josef Stalin, and Russia under his rule is rapidly "backsliding" into "authoritarianism." According to Andrei Illarionov, a former economic adviser to Putin and now a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, the resurgent Russian military is about to take out its neighbors and seal a reestablished Warsaw Pact in the blood of Georgian, Ukrainian, and possibly even Polish innocents. The British, in particular, have been hyping this "new Cold War" narrative for all it's worth – which, when it comes right down to it, isn't very much.

Is Russia embarked on a return to authoritarianism? The answer has to be an unequivocal no. After all, Putin has not closed down a single Russian "dissident" media outlet – instead, like their counterparts in the U.S., Russian media barons, at the head of vast corporate conglomerates, have bought up the major television networks and newspapers and imposed a Fox News-like unanimity on correspondents and pundits alike. While this may make for boring television and patently predictable punditry, it doesn't make Russia a fascist state, as all too many people who ought to know better are trying to imply.

I had to laugh when I heard the thrilling news that "hundreds of people" marched through the streets of St. Petersburg recently to protest Putin's supposedly repressive regime. This was one of a series of "dissidents' marches" being held by the "opposition" – a seriocomic coalition of chess champion Gary Kasparov and neo-fascist crackpot Eduard Limonov. Hundreds, eh? Hundreds of thousands of antiwar marchers over the years protesting America's policy in Iraq have failed to garner as much publicity as this little band did in record time – now isn't that odd?

Odder still is the nature of the "opposition" itself: Limonov is a punk-rock skinhead "idol" and sometime novelist whose crazed views are best summed up by his National Bolshevik Party's graphic incorporation of Soviet and Nazi symbols to create the single most repulsive party emblem in all of recorded history. Kasparov, aside from his well-known exploits in the game of chess, is a pawn of American neoconservatives: his real constituency isn't in Russia, where he remains an obscure political figure, but in Washington, D.C., where he stands amid such neocon luminaries as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and James Woolsey as a member of the Center for Security Policy. The Center is a major neocon propaganda outfit headed by longtime neocon activist Frank Gaffney, whose name is virtually synonymous with the military-industrial complex. Kasparov served on the Center's National Security Advisory Council along with Woolsey.

The neocons, by the way, are deeply committed to the Chechen cause and have been in the vanguard of the movement to demonize Putin as a latter-day Stalin: the list of endorsers of the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya replicates the seating arrangements at the front table at an American Enterprise Institute awards dinner. It was Richard Perle, you'll recall, who averred that Russia ought to be expelled from the G-8 on account of Mikhail Khodorkovsky's arrest for crimes ranging from embezzlement to conspiracy to commit murder.

The neocons have allied themselves with the Russian oligarchs, who amassed fantastic wealth in post-communist Russia by means that might meet the approval of Tony Soprano, not the Better Business Bureau. These oligarchs seethe at their expulsion as they plot from abroad to return the country to their clutches. For years now, an unsavory popular front of Chechen terrorists, neoconservative hawks, and shady Russian oligarchs wearing Moss Lipow dark sunglasses and gobs of gold chains has massed at the gates of Moscow, demanding the ouster of the czar – and the clamor has now been taken up by Western governments. "It would be funny if it wasn't so sad" was Putin's response to the U.S. insistence that Poland and Czechoslovakia put anti-missile technology in place in order to guard against the supposed "threat" from an attack… launched by Iran. The joke is that the Iranians don't have missiles that can reach either Warsaw or Prague. To pretend that these anti-missile systems are aimed at an "enemy" other than Russia is the measure of the West's disdain for Putin: like a schoolyard bully who "accidentally" shoves his victims on the playground, they don't even bother to convincingly conceal their belligerence.

Putin's counterproposal to help set up a missile-interception system in the former Soviet republic of Azerbaijan is a deft deflection of Western claims that Putin poses a renewed Russian threat to the security of Europe. If the U.S. and Britain are genuinely concerned about a possible Iranian strike at the former Eastern bloc, then they'll sign on to Putin's generous offer. Their hesitation, one has to conclude, speaks volumes about their real motives for putting up the missile shield in the first place. Just as the demonstrators in the streets of Russian cities are seemingly intent on provoking the Russian police into a violent response, so the Western powers – alarmed at the rise of Putin on the world stage as the Americans' chief antagonist and most eloquent critic – are engaged in a series of large-scale provocations, including but not limited to the Eastern European missile shield.

Another irritant to Russia's increasingly fractious relations with the West is the issue of Kosovo's independence. Again, the Western love of double standards comes into play here, with Kosovo's alleged "right" to nationhood being upheld by an American president while the corresponding "right" of Russian-speaking (or pro-Russian) areas of the former Soviet Union, such as Abkhazia and the Transdniester Republic, to independence goes unrecognized by the West.

The real evidence, however, of just how badly relations between Russia and the West have deteriorated is the strange case of Alexander Litvinenko and the mystery surrounding his death. Having covered this subject at length in previous columns, I won't elaborate on the arcane technical and other details of this downright weird episode, which seems like a story straight out of a Hollywood thriller, except to say that the "official" version of how Litvinenko came to be poisoned by a rare radioactive substance, polonium-210, stinks to high heaven.

This narrative, which holds that Litvinenko was targeted by the KGB because of his alleged status as a Russian "dissident" living in exile in London, doesn't hold up under even the most forgiving scrutiny. After all, why kill him with a rare and easily traced substance – and with such an overdose that the cost alone would seem to rule out this method – when a simple shot in the back of the head would suffice? The sheer amount of disinformation and propagandistic nonsense dished out by the British tabloids alone on the subject probably consumed enough paper to deforest half of South America. Nor is the British indictment of Andrei Lugovoi enough to paper over the huge holes in the "official" story. Lugovoi, at any rate, is fighting back, with revelations that the Brits and Russian oligarch Boris Berezovsky tried to recruit him to root out the dirt on Putin. In any case, the Litvinenko affair emanates the aura of a gigantic, somewhat sinister scam, perhaps involving the smuggling of polonium and the involvement of Islamic terrorist cells associated with the Chechens. What ought to worry us is that someone was possibly trying to assemble a "dirty bomb" of the type Jose Padilla was accused of masterminding – in the heart of London.

There seems little doubt the color-coded "revolutions," with Western material and moral support, targeted the former Soviet "near abroad" and aimed at reducing Russian influence and putting Putin on the defensive. The construction of a missile-defense system in Eastern Europe was the last straw. What had been primarily a propaganda campaign aimed at the Kremlin has now taken a decidedly military turn, one that bodes ill for the future and the cause of peace. There are those who never reconciled themselves to the end of the Cold War – that crucible in which the pestilential sect known as the neoconservatives was born and raised – and it seems a supreme effort is being made to revive it.

Today we hear endless stories about how the Russian leader and his country pose a threat to Western interests: Russia is "authoritarian," newly aggressive, "anti-Semitic," and, yes, even "homophobic." As the memory of 9/11 fades and the meaning of that historic disaster is increasingly disputed, the War Party needs fresh enemies whose alleged evil will thrill the popular imagination and satiate their hunger for villainy. Putin, flush with oil money and eager to regain Russia's place in the sun, fits the bill nicely. The truth is more prosaic. Putin is no dictator, and Russia, far from backsliding into neo-communism, is in a better position than ever to create a middle-class-based liberal democracy with the rule of law roughly comparable to the system that prevails in the West. The general rise in the Russian standard of living, after a catastrophic post-communist decline, puts a brake on any backward-looking authoritarian movement (neo-communist or otherwise) making appreciable progress.

That this occurred under Putin is the reason for the Russian president's enormous popularity and accounts for the marginalization of his opponents. As much as Western liberals and neocons loathe Putin and the prospect of a resurgent Russia, it doesn't look like regime change is on the agenda in the former Soviet Union, in spite of millions being poured into the region by Western governments to aid the opposition. The endless provocations aimed at the Kremlin will only have the effect of irritating the Russian bear – and creating yet more anti-American and anti-Western sentiment. As if we don't have enough of that already…

Russia has come a long way from being the land of the gulags, and it is never going to go back to that – not unless the West succeeds in looting that country, once again, and creating a Russian version of the Weimar Republic. This is precisely why lunatics of Eduard Limonov's ilk have joined the opposition as its noisiest and most visible wing – because the rise of Putin, who created order out of mafia-inspired chaos, short-circuited the Weimar Russia scenario and diverted the Russians down a different path.

Source: http://www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=11115

[Armenian]

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

Russia to Build Space Complex Near Chinese Border, Ivanov Says

Russia will build a space complex near the border with China capable of launching military and civilian rockets, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said, as the country moves to revive its Soviet-era space program. The new site in the Far East region of Amur will conduct a manned flight by 2018, Ivanov said yesterday, according to the official Rossiyskaya Gazeta newspaper. President Vladimir Putin signed the decree to create the center, he said.

"It will be called Vostochny,'' meaning eastern, Ivanov said at a rocket research and production center in the southern city of Samara. The first unmanned launches will start in 2015. Russia currently launches manned flights, many carrying U.S. and other international crews, from the Soviet-era Baikonur space center in neighboring Kazakhstan, a former Soviet republic. Russian government officials have said rockets, particularly those for the military, should be launched from Russian territory for security reasons.

Kazakhstan has complained in the past about environmental damage from failed Russian rockets. The world's first artificial satellite, Sputnik 1, was launched from Baikonur in 1957, and the first man in space, Yuri Gagarin, began his mission from the center in 1961. Russia shouldn't turn into a launch service for the International Space Station, Ivanov said yesterday at a meeting of the country's military and industrial commission, the state newspaper reported. The new base should act as a spur to revive the Russian space industry, Ivanov said. The country has "exhausted its scientific reserves created in the 1980s,'' Ivanov said. "Domestic industry has practically lost its capability to develop and produce'' components for spacecraft and now "purchase the needed equipment abroad.''

Lunar Laboratory

Russia and India agreed earlier this month to send an unmanned mission to the moon and build a laboratory on the lunar surface. "Delivery to the moon of a complete research laboratory is planned,'' Anatoly Perminov, head of Russian space agency Roskosmos, said in a statement on its Web site at the time. ``Russia and India will create a joint space vehicle,'' he added. The U.S. landed a man on the moon in 1969, the only country to do so. Ivanov said Baikonur will remain the main launch site for the International Space Station and other joint space programs.

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...tPs&refer=home

Russia, China plan new pipeline

PetroChina is planning a third east-west pipeline to bring gas from Russia. The oil company's plans would bring Russian and domestic natural gas to the Beijing region. Plans are in a preliminary stage. There have been no on-site studies, but a likely route will be from the Altai area to the Bohai Bay. PetroChina already operates the first west-east pipeline to the Shanghai area where demand has outstripped supply and work is expected to begin soon on a second pipeline. "The third line will likely be formally proposed soon after the full start of the construction of the second line early next year," said a PetroChina spokesperson. The trunk line is expected be about 3,728 miles with branch lines bringing the total length to nearly 5,000 miles. China is the world's second-largest energy consumer and is pushing more use of natural gas instead of coal.

Source: http://www.upi.com/International_Sec...pipeline/2843/