The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

Russia grants Belarus $1.5 billion stabilization loan

Russia and Belarus signed an agreement on Friday granting Belarus a $1.5 billion stabilization loan for 15 years at an interest rate of libor +0.75% and with a grace period of five years. Finance Ministers Alexei Kudrin of Russia and Nikolai Korbut of Belarus signed the agreement after talks between the two countries' leaders. Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Belarusian counterpart Alexander Lukashenko also attended a meeting of the Supreme Council of the Russia-Belarus Union State earlier in the day. "With a view to ensuring a smooth transition of bilateral energy cooperation to universal market principles and taking into account earlier agreements and contracts, Russia has decided to grant [Belarus] a state loan worth $1.5 billion," Putin said.

Belarus requested Russia to issue a $1.5 billion loan in February. In late November Kudrin said that the Russian government could grant it to the ex-Soviet republic before the end of the year. Addressing a news conference after the Union State session, Putin said that the price of Russian natural gas for Belarus would remain unchanged in 2008. The Russian leader added that Russian natural gas monopoly Gazprom would honor all commitments under contracts signed last year. "Gas prices for Belarus will certainly be raised, but within the levels fixed in last year's agreement. We will stick to previous contracts, despite the fact that Russia will buy gas at a higher price than we will sell to Belarus," said Putin. Turkmenistan earlier raised the price for its natural gas, which has been instrumental in gas contracts. The Russian leader also pledged support to Minsk in minimizing the consequences of price hikes.

"We will try to do everything to eliminate the consequences of gas price hikes for the Belarusian economy," Putin said. The two leaders reiterated that their countries would honor all commitments on Russian natural gas transits to Europe. "Supplies of natural gas and oil hugely contribute to strengthening stability across the whole of Europe," Lukashenko said. "We are making this contribution to stability and expect appropriate action on security provisions for our countries from Europe." On January 1, Russia raised the price of its gas supplies to Belarus to $100 per 1,000 cubic meters from $46.7 in 2006, which sparked an energy dispute between the two countries and triggered more accusations in Europe that Russia is using oil and gas as a political weapon.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20071214/92557535.html

[Armenian]

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

Russia: Sustaining the Strategic Deterrent

Stratfor, December 11, 2007

Summary

Russia insists that it is content with the current pace of the construction of new strategic missiles. But the lack of acceleration in the production rate of the Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile has serious implications.

Analysis

Russia will continue the pace of production of the Topol-M intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) at six to seven units per year, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov announced Dec. 7. This announcement is noteworthy not only for the chronically slow output (Topol-M production was once envisioned as exceeding the current rate many times over) but also because Ivanov announced his comfort with the numbers.

Politics

Ivanov's statement could foreshadow a new defense doctrine expected in the wake of the March 2008 presidential race. By many accounts, the new doctrine is expected to herald a renewed offensive against the old guard and stubborn holdouts from the Soviet era. Ivanov stated very clearly that "we do not need to produce 30 Topol-Ms annually. Not everything is measured by numbers." This is a stunning statement from a Russian; the Soviet military was absolutely obsessed with numerical parity (along with other, more complex calculations rooted in the concept of parity).

This mindset is well-ingrained in the way many Russians see defense issues. Thus, if Russia cannot ramp up production, Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ivanov must show their compatriots that they are adequately defending the motherland. They can do this by -- in a very Soviet way -- changing their definition of reality. If maintaining a semblance (and it is already only a semblance) of parity with the United States is no longer an option, then the Kremlin does not see the need to attempt to maintain that semblance of parity. If Russia could produce more Topol-Ms, it very likely would. This indicates that the ultimate implication of Ivanov's statement is that Russia cannot expand Topol-M production for at least several years. A secondary consideration is the avoidance of an arms race with the United States. Though the Kremlin has spare cash lying around, it does not translate neatly into production capacity -- and in a modern-day arms race Moscow would suffer far worse, far faster than it did against Ronald Reagan's Washington. Nevertheless, Washington is only beginning even to look in Russia's general direction again, and Moscow has some room to move before crossing the line where it would need to worry about provoking an arms race.

Production

The Topol-M is built in a Cold War facility that has seen much higher output. Indeed, the Topol-M (SS-27) is a modification of the Topol missile (SS-25), which was largely produced outside of Russia proper in other corners of the Soviet Union. The principal difference between the Topol and the Topol-M is a series of production-minded alterations made after the collapse of the Soviet Union that tailored the Topol-M to Russia's new geography. It is noteworthy that at a time when money is not a problem for Moscow, a modified version of the Topol -- of which 250 units ultimately were produced -- cannot be produced any faster.

The Soviet strategic nuclear forces were a principal beneficiary of the privileged position the military enjoyed in the Soviet economy. When that military-industrial relationship evaporated with the Soviet Union, defense-related production suffered severely. It could be that six or seven Topol-Ms per year is the highest output the Kremlin thinks can be achieved with guaranteed quality and adequate management of other factors like corruption and inefficiencies. Russia could also be biding its time to field a more heavily modified Topol-M, perhaps with a new maneuverable re-entry vehicle capable of evading an advanced U.S. missile defense, or fitted with multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicles (MIRVs). A modified Topol-M variant, the RS-24 (its Russian designation) was tested May 29 with MIRVs. Without requiring any alteration to the production rate of the missiles themselves, this shift could triple or even quadruple the number of deliverable warheads fielded on new launchers.

Implications

Whatever the technical reasons behind it, the production rate Ivanov announced has several significant implications.

While Russia is becoming more assertive, its land-based ICBM force is aging rapidly. The vast majority of Russia's land-based deliverable warheads are carried on older SS-18 "Satan" and SS-19 "Stiletto" missiles -- all of which (save a reserve force of about 30 SS-19s) have already undergone sustainment programs to extend their already-surpassed intended service lives. The intended service lives of these legacy land-based missiles will continue to be extended -- likely to an imprudent degree. But ultimately, these ICBMs will continue to be decommissioned faster than they are being replaced. And no matter the precise timetable for their decommissioning, an almost inexorable downward trajectory is beginning to appear. Meanwhile, the center of gravity of Russia's deterrent is moving -- whether by default or by purpose of design -- ever so slowly seaward. (In comparison, the United States has relied more heavily on its submarines as a full-fledged leg of the nuclear triad since the 1960s. They now carry the bulk of deliverable U.S. nuclear warheads.)

It will become even more important for the seriously troubled Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile to succeed (which puts pressure on program managers to speed up a development process that some speculate is suffering already from too much artificial acceleration). The fate of this increasingly important missile thus remains uncertain. It will be another five years before trends -- specifically the pace of decommissioning legacy missiles, the fielding of the MIRVed Topol-M and the fate of the Bulava -- really solidify. But recent developments with the Bulava, combined with Ivanov's announcement about the Topol-M, suggest a vast and inexorable shrinking of the Kremlin's nuclear arsenal that goes beyond the significant post-Cold War decline.

Source: http://www.stratfor.com/products/pre....php?id=299830

[Armenian]

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

Russia: Maintaining a Unique Military Position

TU-160 Blackjack Launching Cruise Missile

Stratfor, January 09, 2007

Summary

In 2006, Russian strategic aviation conducted more than 100 training sorties over the old Cold War battleground of the Northern Atlantic, Northern Pacific and Arctic oceans, Russian air force Commander-in-Chief Gen. Vladimir Mikhailov announced. While the sorties are neither especially impressive nor particularly concerning to Washington, they are a reminder of Russia's unique military position, especially vis-a-vis the United States.

Analysis

Russian air force Commander-in-Chief Gen. Vladimir Mikhailov said Jan. 4 that Russian planes flew more than 100 strategic bomber patrols over Russia's eastern, western and northern periphery in 2006. Mikhailov said the sorties indicate a new level of combat readiness for Russia's long-range strategic air force.

The aviation exercises are in line with a general Russian military resurgence that has been under way for some time. Building a new Russian military from the shambles of the Red Army is a massive and daunting task. But key forces -- strategic nuclear forces, aviation and elite ground units -- are being reconstituted. The current pace is admittedly slow, but it is steady. The selective rehabilitation of Russia's military capabilities is coupled with the Kremlin's increasing control over the strategic energy and mining sectors and the political landscape. With major elections coming in December 2007 and March 2008, the Kremlin wishes to consolidate as much power as possible to ensure the perpetuation of its current policies. Thus, Russian military rhetoric has become more for domestic consumption, intended to show the Russian people what Moscow has done to rebuild its strategic position in the world.

However, the strategic aviation patrols in the old Cold War style are also a reminder that Russia holds a unique position of military power vis-a-vis the United States. Though the Soviet Union is no more, its achievements in military technology -- especially those just coming online when the Berlin Wall came down -- remain in the hands of the Russian armed forces today. There is no clearer example of this than the Tupolev Tu-160 bomber (designated "Blackjack" by NATO).

Besides the United States and Russia, no other nation possesses such a strategic strike platform -- and none appears likely to have one in the near future. Similar in appearance to the U.S. B-1B, the Tu-160 is some 30 feet longer and has a maximum wingspan more than 40 feet greater. It is some 125,000 pounds heavier than the B-1B, and each engine kicks in 55,000 pounds of thrust in afterburner -- 25,000 pounds more than the B-1B. Capable of traveling at Mach 2.05, the Blackjack is nearly twice as fast as the B-1B. This is not to say that the Tu-160 is a superior plane in all respects; its cruise speed is slower, its ordnance load about 10,000 pounds less and its avionics and navigation capabilities are not as evolved, but these are minor distinctions in the context of the world's air forces.

The Tu-160 can, without refueling, deliver ordnance halfway around the world from Russian territory. Moreover, it can launch a dozen Kh-55 cruise missiles (designated AS-15 by NATO) with an additional range of roughly 1,800 miles and a circular error probable (a measure of accuracy) of about 80 feet. Tu-160 airframes have been slowly receiving upgraded systems and the capability to carry additional types of ordnance since the summer of 2006.
While Russian pilots still do not receive stellar amounts of flying time -- and flying time is an important measure of an air force's true skill level -- select squadrons like the Tu-160s of the 121st Heavy Bomber Aviation Regiment stationed at Engels Air Force Base near Saratov are now getting a disproportionate increase in training in order to correct this deficiency.

As Russia rebuilds its military, it is taking advantage of the significant stepping stone of legacy Soviet platforms like the Tu-160. While this by no means translates into a Russian ability to penetrate U.S. airspace and hit strategic targets, Moscow and Washington alone can quickly strike at targets around the world on short notice. Moscow still officially considers the United States and NATO its top defense priority. Though nuclear strategists keep a close eye on Russia, the United States and NATO do not see Moscow as a top threat. The withdrawal of U.S. P-3 Orions from Iceland is only a small indication of this. Though the West has not forgotten Russia's military -- especially its strategic nuclear forces -- the time could come when an unexpected Tu-160 strike in defense of Russian interests in some remote locale reminds the world that, while down, the Russian war machine is definitely not out.

Source: http://www.stratfor.com/products/pre....php?id=282723

[Armenian]

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

Russia: Future Naval Prospects

Stratfor, December 07, 2007

Summary

Russia has commissioned its first surface warship designed from the ground up since the fall of the Soviet Union. It will not be the last.

Analysis

The Russian navy in November commissioned the first surface warship designed from the ground up since the fall of the Soviet Union. Despite the announcement of the prospective deployment of a battle group to the Mediterranean and talk of building the world's second-largest fleet of aircraft carriers, Russian maritime development has a long way to go. The navy has suffered and struggled even more than the country's other military services since 1991 -- and suffered the tragic loss in 2000 of the Kursk SSGN, the pride of Russia's Northern Fleet.

The future of the Russian fleet is unclear, though more changes are in store after President Vladimir Putin consolidates power in March 2008. A new military doctrine is expected, and the decision to delay its release until after the election -- when his rock-solid footing is even more consolidated -- suggests that Putin is aiming for some serious reforms, despite the objections of the old guard. Aside from the plethora of larger defense issues, the Russian navy always has been a lower priority for the Kremlin. Part of this is the result of Russia's geopolitical nature; it has the longest land borders in the world and has always required a large conscripted army to even attempt to defend them -- making the country a land power. The navy, therefore, always has played a secondary role. Even when Russia was able to devote significant resources to its navy, as in Soviet times, each fleet was geographically isolated from the next (i.e., the Northern Fleet in the Barents Sea, the Baltic Fleet, the Black Sea Fleet, the Caspian Sea Flotilla and the Pacific Fleet).

Project 20380 Class Stereguschyy

The Nov. 14 commissioning of the Steregushchiy -- the lead ship of the Project 20380 class -- raises some interesting prospects for the future development of the Russian fleet. Though occasionally touted as incorporating stealth or low-observability features, the design is fairly conventional (including its SS-N-25 anti-ship missiles, which so closely resemble the design of the U.S. Harpoon that they are known as "harpoonskis"). In other words, the Steregushchiy, whose price has more than doubled since its conception, probably is more contemporary to the last generation of small surface warships than to the next. However, there is a more impressive aspect of the Project 20380 and the other major warship projects under way: their small scale. Variously dubbed a corvette and a frigate (in some ways riding the fence in terms of dimensions and displacement), the Steregushchiy is only one of four frigate- and corvette-class designs currently under construction -- the largest of which is expected to displace only about 4,500 tons.

This represents a significant departure from Soviet naval architecture. The embodiment of that legacy is the 24,000-ton battle cruiser Pyotr Velikiy (Peter the Great) and the equally enormous Typhoon ballistic missile submarine. These are massive, ambitious and expensive platforms. The current portfolio of surface combatant construction, however, is far more conservative, both in design and scale. Russia's military industrial complex was once the primary beneficiary of the Soviet economy. With that structure gone, the country has not quite figured out how to adapt its defense industry to capitalist (or, perhaps in this case, faux-capitalist) constraints and standards. Today, in addition to the cost overruns more developed Western countries suffer in their own naval construction, Moscow also is plagued by corruption, incompetence and shoddy workmanship. It recently was revealed that work on the Admiral Gorshkov, which the Russians have been refitting and modernizing for the Indian navy for years -- a project that is significantly over budget and behind schedule -- has been hampered by a lack of blueprints and technical drawings.

The Kremlin has begun to fire people for such incompetence and corruption. It also has begun reorganizing entire sectors of the defense industry under unified aegises, such as the United Aircraft Building Corp. and the United Shipbuilding Corp. To what extent these efforts will succeed remains to be seen. (Even on the most optimistic trajectory, they have only just begun.) After what promises to be another round of defense reforms after March 2008, it still will be another three or four years before any reforms are truly felt. Meanwhile, the commissioning of follow-on ships and submarines of new classes (of which the lead ships and boats now are being launched) is scheduled to begin at about the same time the prospective reforms kick in -- around 2011. Whether these schedules can be kept -- indeed, whether oil prices can sustain them -- and the effectiveness of these reforms is still unclear.

Meanwhile, the quality of these ships is another open question. Russia's shipyards were not just quiet for a decade -- they spiraled into decay. Though some major surface combatants have been refitted and returned to the sea, this is an interim measure. Russia needs to build a new fleet and has begun to do so in a way that outwardly appears consistent with the thinking of many second-tier Western navies -- by building cost-efficient, flexible frigates and corvettes. And cranking out new ships (of modest, but passable quality) is almost certainly of far more significance for the Kremlin right now than making more advanced ships of impeccable workmanship (which has never been Russia's forte). Russia will never dominate the world's oceans with such designs. In fact, attempting to do so -- by backing up such claims as "building the world's second-largest carrier fleet" with fiscal investments -- would not be a particularly fruitful pursuit for Moscow. However, the trajectory of Russia's potential naval rebirth suggests that Moscow has begun to understand both its limitations and its need for naval power.

Source: https://www.stratfor.com/products/pr....php?id=299601

[Armenian]

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

Russia Says U.S. Missiles in Poland May Spark Attack

Russian Chief of Staff Yuri Baluyevsky sitting in consultation with president Vladimir Putin

U.S. interceptor missiles planned for deployment in Poland could trigger a retaliatory strike from Russia if they are ever used, Army Chief of Staff Yuri Baluevsky said following "disappointing'' talks with the Americans. Russia will consider measures "to protect security,'' while it continues a dialogue with the U.S. following "disappointing'' Dec. 13 talks in Budapest, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Kislyak said at a press conference broadcast on state-run television station Vesti-24.

The U.S. plans to station the 10 interceptors in Poland and a radar base in the Czech Republic as part of a missile defense program. Russia offered the use of a Soviet-era radar base in Azerbaijan and a new facility in southern Russia as a compromise. Russia has expressed concern that the Czech base would allow the U.S. to spy on most of the country. Any new security measures will be "adequate and asymmetric,'' Baluevsky said without elaborating. The U.S. is still seeking ``direct confrontation with Russia,'' he said. Russia described the U.S. plan as a threat to its security and dismissed arguments that the missile shield is needed to counter the threat of an airborne attack from so-called rogue states such as Iran and North Korea. If used, the missiles in Poland could be mistaken for a ballistic missile aimed at Russia, which would then trigger a retaliatory strike from Russia's automated system, he said.

Cold-War Treaty

Russia suspended its participation in a Cold War-era treaty that controls levels of conventional arms in Europe on Dec. 12, prompting a rebuke from Western security organizations. Following the suspension, Russia won't provide information on conventional weapons to NATO or allow inspections of its military facilities. "There won't be any massive arms build-up,'' Baluevsky said. "But at least I now have the freedom to move troops within Russia, which I didn't have before Dec.12.'' The Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, signed in 1990, sets limits on tanks and artillery and requires NATO and Russia to notify each other of plans to move forces and equipment. The treaty in its present form allows the North Atlantic Treaty Organization expansion "without any limitations.'' It has created a "grey zone,'' allowing the U.S. and NATO to accumulate arms in the Baltic states, Baluevsky said. "I don't want Russia to roll back to the Cold-War era,'' Baluevsky said. "We'll do everything to prevent it.''

Source: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...4&refer=europe

Pentagon decides to keep military presence in Europe because of Russia’s power

The USA decided not to cut its military presence in Europe, Austria’s Die Presse wrote yesterday. U.S. troops were heavily deployed in the Old World during the opposition between the United States and the Soviet Union. When the Cold War ended, the Pentagon started to evacuate the troops from Europe. The U.S. administration planned to keep the deployment of only 24,000 servicemen by the end of 2008 as opposed to 43,000 military men currently serving in Europe. However, Washington apparently changed its mind against the background of Russia’s rising powers. General David McKiernan said that the U.S. troops would stay on their European bases, because the Russian power started rising, the Austrian newspaper wrote.

“If this is a reaction to Russia’s decision to suspend its participation in the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty then it is a weak and a nonsensical statement to make. It reminds a person in a state of hysterics, not knowing what to say and how to react to something. The U.S. administration basically ignored our suggestions regarding the missile defense system. Now they start to rattle their weapons near our borders again. What’s next – another Cold War? This is a matter of the past, and no one wants to go back there again,” the Vice President of Russia’s Military Expert Board said in an interview with the Komsomolskaya Pravda newspaper. The USA has about 730 military installations all over the world outside its territory controlled by the Pentagon. The US has nearly 1.4 million active personnel, and over 369,000 of those are deployed outside the United States and its territories. In the meantime, The Party of European Left (EL) opposed the extension of the missile defense and U.S. military bases in Europe, EL's newly elected chairman Lothar Bisky said at the close of the EL three-day congress in Prague on Saturday.

"Europe needs neither an anti-missile shield nor an armament agency. This would only provoke further armament. Europe needs culture of peace," said Bisky, viewed as a politician who unified two left-wing parties in Germany, with voter preferences of up to 30 percent in some of the East German regions. His speech came as an reaction to Prague and Warsaw's ongoing negotiations with Washington about the possible building of a U.S. radar installation and a base with interceptor missiles on Czech and Polish soil, respectively, Xinhua.net reports. The EL was established in Rome in 2004. It associated 29 European left-wing and communist parties from Austria, Belgium, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Greece, Hungary, Luxembourg, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Switzerland and other countries, most of which stand to the left of social democrats on the political scene.

Source: http://newsfromrussia.com/world/euro...ary_presence-0

Pro-Kremlin youth movement accuses USA of inciting coup in Russia

A pro-Kremlin youth movement said it will distribute fliers accusing the United States of planning to incite "thieves and traitors" to rebel across Russia - a move that reflects an increasing strain in Moscow's relations with Washington. Organizers for the group, called Nashi, said Sunday it is mobilizing against an alleged threat of a Western-inspired revolt following Sunday's parliamentary victory by President Vladimir Putin's party. United Russia won a solid victory in the election, cast as a referendum on whether Putin should remain Russia's de facto leader after he leaves the presidency in May.

The leaflets, copies of which appeared on several Web sites before the vote, seem aimed at rallying Nashi activists in case anti-government protests break out in the wake of the elections, which opposition leaders charge were marked by state-sponsored coercion and intimidation on behalf of United Russia. Kristina Potupchik, a spokeswoman for Nashi, which means "Ours," said the group will start distributing the leaflets Monday. One side of the leaflet praises Putin's victory in the election, while the other accuses the U.S. of enlisting critics of Putin to try to overturn the results of the vote. A cartoon depicts Uncle Sam sitting on sacks of money with names of Russian opposition leaders written on them.

"They wanted traitors and thieves to win," the text says. "Between Dec. 3 and 6, before the official announcement of the election's result, (the traitors) will try to seize squares and buildings, provoke disorder, take our victory from us." A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman called the claim "ridiculous." The Nashi move follows Putin's allegations that Washington sought to discredit the vote by pushing the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe not to send observers to monitor the election - the claim denied by both Washington and the OSCE. Putin also denounced Russia's liberal opposition as "foreign-fed jackals." Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the U.S. National Security Council, on Sunday criticized the election, saying it was marked by state interference on behalf of United Russia and intimidation of the opposition.

A half-dozen pro-Putin youth groups have sprung up in recent years, drawing thousands of members. Many have been organized and funded by the Kremlin and its business allies, concerned about the role that youth groups played in mass demonstrations in Ukraine and Georgia that helped bring pro-Western governments to power. Many pro-Kremlin youth groups claim to oppose political extremism, but some of them preach nationalist, anti-democratic and xenophobic sentiments. Opposition leaders, including former world chess champion Garry Kasparov, have repeatedly been harassed by pro-Kremlin youth in the run-up to Sunday's vote, with activists stalking leaders, disrupting press conferences and playing recordings of loud, maniacal laughter at protests. Kasparov said one pro-Kremlin youth handcuffed himself to Kasparov's car three times.

Boris Nemtsov, a leader of the liberal Union of Right Forces party, said recently that a 19-year-old Nashi activist tried to put a butterfly net with a sign saying "political insect" on his head, while others have pelted him with condoms. Nemtsov told The Associated Press that he punched the 19-year-old with the net. In the run-up to Sunday's election, Nashi created its own network of election monitors, Nashi Vybory. Pyotr Korolev, deputy head of the group, said it dispatched 20,000 activists to conduct exit polls throughout the country. This effort, he said, helped draw attention to the election and increase turnout. "But we do it by conducting an unbiased sociological survey," Korolev said.

Source: http://english.pravda.ru/news/russia...02113-russia-0

[Armenian]

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

Russia’s Knockoff Democracy

THE Russian people, Dostoyevsky once said, believe so fervently in an all-powerful czar that this ideal “is bound to influence the whole future course of our history.” And so it was that the heir to this tradition, President Vladimir V. Putin, went before the cameras last week to show that he had in fact broken with the old ways and was as progressive as any leader in the West. The scene, though, left a different impression. Heads of four political parties (supposedly independent, but all creatures of the Kremlin) sat before Mr. Putin and revealed to him their choice for president. Mr. Putin accepted the decision (though he himself had clearly made it). He praised the candidate (his longtime lieutenant) and suggested that the nomination reflected the views of a broad variety of Russians (none of whom had been given any say in the process).

Artifice plays a role in politics everywhere, yet Russia seems to have adopted a kind of imitation of democracy. It is as if a veneer of legitimacy has been put on a variation of the strongman rule present here for centuries — whether under Peter the Great, Lenin or Mr. Putin himself. A parliamentary election was held this month in which many parties took part, but only Mr. Putin’s, United Russia, received glowing television news coverage and other government favors; it won in a landslide. Over in the executive branch, the Kremlin on Monday orchestrated the nomination for president of Mr. Putin’s aide, Dmitri A. Medvedev, who is all but assured of winning the March election. The endorsement lets Mr. Putin say that he is abiding by term limits, just like an American president. Yet a day later, Mr. Medvedev announced that he wanted Mr. Putin to be his prime minister. While the rules are being followed, Mr. Putin seems, at least for now, to be retaining control.

Hovering over all these events is the question of why Mr. Putin and others in the Kremlin even bother with the democratic trappings. Given that Mr. Putin is highly popular, that the Russian public has long clung to a potent chieftain, why not just pack the Parliament, amend the Constitution and stay another term? Mr. Putin appears in part motivated by a need to be seen on the world stage as a lawfully elected leader as genuine as his partners in the Group of Eight. There is an element of Russian pride in this sentiment. Having purportedly embraced democracy, the Kremlin cannot tolerate being told it does elections any less properly than the West. Nor does Mr. Putin care to be lumped with the presidents-for-life reigning in some other former Soviet republics. “He still has this desire to look like a civilized Russian modernizer,” said Lilia Shevtsova, an analyst at the Moscow office of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. “The Russian political elite, including Mr. Putin, would like to be personally integrated into the Western structure, the Western community.”

(This impulse, by the way, is not new. Dostoyevsky, who praised the Russian people’s love for their czar, also bemoaned what he said was the Russian elite’s longing to be in the West’s good graces.)

Mr. Putin may also have concluded that he can spurn the spirit of the law only so much before governance turns into a free-for-all that might put him more at the whims of the Kremlin’s competing clans. Some analysts speculate that Mr. Putin and his associates fear making overtly autocratic moves, lest the West retaliate in ways that could hurt Russia’s economic revival. This view is not entirely satisfying; American and European companies do plenty of business with Saudi Arabia, China and other authoritarian countries. But there could be a more personal wrinkle: senior Kremlin officials may worry that they would be personally banned from traveling to the West and that their personal finances might be imperiled. For their part, the Russian people have shown no great hunger for Western-style democracy. Polls indicate that if Mr. Putin stayed on for another term, he would be greeted with little dissent and something akin to relief or applause.

Still, it would be a mistake to say that Russians yearn for authoritarianism, or that the country is generally reverting to Soviet-style repression. While the Kremlin dominates television and has cracked down on the opposition, a diversity of voices flourishes in newspapers, where criticism of Mr. Putin is not uncommon, not to mention on the Internet. It could be argued that Mr. Putin, in declining to become a full-blown, constitution-shredding autocrat, is demonstrating that he is more democratically oriented than most Russians. This contrast was noted even by one archfoe, Mikhail B. Khodorkovsky, the billionaire who was arrested after publicly challenging the Kremlin. In a 2004 letter from prison, where he is still being held, Mr. Khodorkovsky lamented: “Putin certainly is no liberal and no democrat, but nonetheless, he is more liberal and democratic than 70 percent of the population of our country.”

The turmoil after the fall of Communism seems to have deepened Russia’s tendency to be drawn to a strong leader, leaving it with a kind of post-traumatic stress disorder. Russians these days crave stability, consumer goods and travel — the things they were denied before. Vyacheslav A. Nikonov, president of the Politika Foundation, a Moscow research institute, said political structures are still developing, the rule of law is shaky and people in power do not have accountability. As a result, the government’s shape and character are molded, to a large extent, by the leaders’ instincts about what the people expect and will bear. “Every country has a genetic code,” Mr. Nikonov said. “In many societies, the patterns of government last for centuries, or last for a millennium, and I think that Russia is the same. There is quite a strong tradition of undivided government. There is only one thing that Russians do not like in their leaders. That is weakness.”

“The institutions are still not here, they are immature,” Mr. Nikonov said. “Still, for a 15-year-old democracy, Russia is doing well. In Germany, they elected Hitler exactly on the 15th year of democracy.” Mr. Putin himself, while regularly praising what he says are the strides Russia has made in recent years, occasionally seems to be pleading for patience, as if he were acknowledging that the democracy Russia has put in place is not the real thing. “This road is not simple,” he said in September. “It takes time and the right groundwork and conditions. We need to ensure that our economic transformations bring about the growth of the middle class, which is to a large extent the standard bearer of this ideology. This is something that takes time and cannot be achieved overnight.”

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/16/we...html?ref=world

[Armenian]

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

Before Hitler's invasion of Russia, before Napoleon's invasion of Russia, there was the Vatican lead Polish/Lithuanian (the then West's) invasion of Russia. An invasion that lead to the epic war of 1612. Here is the newly released film dedicated to this now legendary war of liberation. The geopolitical message of this film, its play on Russian nationalism and its promotion of distrust towards the West is unmistakable in this day.

Armenian

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



1612, Film Trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1VKkc1CVSAc

[KarotheGreat]

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

This invasion is it the teutonic crusade or is it an other invasion after the Teutonic Crusade. And I hope I can find the film in the russian store down town. It looks really awsome movie to see

[Armenian]

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

How Russia has stymied a free Kosovo:
Moscow's support for Serbia blocked independence

Stand on the blue neon bridge over the Ibar River here and straddle the frontline of today's Cold War. To the south is Kosovo, an ethnic Albanian province propped up and championed by the United States. To the north is Serbia, a state that looks solidly to Russia for support and protection. Kosovo's quest for independence from Serbia is one of several issues (Iran is another) that have brought the United States and Russia into confrontation in ways not seen for many years. And so far, Moscow has managed to seize the initiative here and thwart Washington's plans. Nine months ago, Kosovo's independence seemed inevitable and imminent. Instead, talks dragged on and the breakaway republic's status remains unsettled, its resolution delayed at least until next year. The deadlock threatens regional stability, many officials warn.

That Russia has been able to undermine U.S. intentions owes to the rising influence of President Vladimir Putin and the reluctance of numerous European governments, dependent on Russian oil and gas, to challenge Moscow, analysts say. Russian support has emboldened the Serbian government in a manner that could hinder democratic reforms. Russia and Serbia have been allies for generations, thanks in part to their common history, Slavic language and Orthodox Christian faith. But that alliance, in the Serbian government's view, often was more lip-service than real support. Russia, for example, did not block United Nations sanctions imposed in 1992 on what was then Yugoslavia as it tried to suppress rebellions in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Croatia.

Kosovo, with its ethnic Albanian majority, has proved a different cause, however. "Today, when Serbia is at a certain crossroads, she certainly counts on Russia understanding her position," Serbian President Boris Tadic said as his nation began lobbying for Moscow's support on Kosovo several months ago. "Russia is one of the pillars of our foreign policy." In 1999, to a weakened Russia's chagrin, U.S.-led forces of NATO bombed Serbian troops out of Kosovo. The province has been governed by the United Nations since, with the West supporting its bid for statehood.

Moscow says it is especially concerned about Kosovo because of the precedent it says independence would set for separatist movements closer to home, such as in the Russian republic of Chechnya. Maintaining territorial integrity, along with strengthening the state, have been cornerstones of the Putin administration. The fervor of Russia's support surprised even some Serbian officials and has pushed the government in Belgrade to harden its positions, making compromise virtually impossible. Last week, for the first time a member of Serbian Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica's inner circle, Aleksandar Simic, raised the prospect of warfare as a legitimate option to be considered by the government.

With U.S. encouragement, the Kosovo Albanians long ago hardened their bottom line. But they were willing to accept a U.N. plan of supervised independence. Belgrade rejected the proposal, saying independence was like pregnancy: either you are or you're not. So instead of agreement, it now seems probable that the Kosovo Albanian government will at some point in the next few months declare independence unilaterally, having been assured that key states, starting with the United States, will quickly recognize its new status. If that happened, Belgrade probably would argue that such independence is illegal and not permanent, since it does not bear the imprimatur of the U.N. Security Council. And Putin's intervention has seen to it that the matter will not go before the council, where Russia holds veto power.

Backing Belgrade and undercutting the West has allowed Moscow to reassert its regional authority and regain much of the influence it lost with the humiliating NATO intervention in Kosovo, especially in Europe, analysts say. Weakening transatlantic solidarity was a time-honored Cold War-era strategy. For Serbia's leaders, Russian support is good for domestic consumption, especially before the presidential election to be held in the first part of next year. And among Kosovo's Albanians, there is a sense that they should have moved to independence a year or two ago, before Putin had a chance to seize the issue. "Maybe our mistake was not settling this earlier," said Shpend Ahmeti of the Institute for Advanced Studies in Pristina, the Albanian-controlled capital of Kosovo. This Russian-American Cold War-redux is etched on the ground here.

On one side, few places on Earth are more pro-United States than Kosovo. A boulevard in Pristina is named after Bill Clinton, a larger-than-life poster of him waving to passers-by. Pictures of President Bush graced campaign promos in this month's provincial election. U.S. flags flutter everywhere. Stepping right over the border, however, it all changes. And here in Kosovska Mitrovica, the dividing line is several miles inside Kosovo because the northern half of the city is still controlled by Serbs, which will further complicate any separation. An enormous monument at the Ibar River bridge, staring from the Serb-controlled side to the Albanian-controlled part of the province, pays tribute to the Serbs killed by NATO bombings and the Albanian "terrorists and criminals" of Kosovo.

Source: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl.../MND2TRI4J.DTL

[Armenian]

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

Russia orders ballistic missiles

Russia's military has commissioned another batch of new intercontinental ballistic missiles - nuclear weapons that officials boast can penetrate any prospective missile shield, reports said. The announcement comes amid tensions between Moscow and Washington over US plans for missile defence sites in Poland and the Czech Republic. The three new Topol-M missiles are capable of hitting targets more than 6,000 miles away and, mounted on a heavy off-road vehicle, are harder for an enemy to track it down, officials said. The Topol-M missiles, which had been deployed only in silos before December last year, are stationed near the town of Teikovo, Russia's Strategic Missile Forces said in a statement carried by the ITAR-Tass and RIA Novosti news agencies. The same unit commissioned the first batch of such truck-mounted missiles a year ago. The Topol-M's chief designer, Yuri Solomonov, has said the missile drops its engines at a significantly lower altitude than earlier designs, making it hard for an enemy's early warning system to detect the launch. He said the missiles' warhead and decoys closely resembled one another in flight, making it extremely difficult for a foe to select the real target from a multitude of false ones. Windfall oil revenues in recent years have allowed the Kremlin to buy weapons and fund the development of new missiles. The deployment of Topol-Ms, however, has proceeded slowly and Soviet-built ballistic missiles have remained the backbone of the nation's nuclear forces. Teikovo, a small town in the Ivanovo region, is located about 150 miles northeast of Moscow.

Source: http://ukpress.google.com/article/AL...uHnmcz_-OBriyA

Russia: The Strategic Missile Upgrade Challenge

Summary

Russia's Strategic Rocket Forces could field a new intercontinental ballistic missile in the next five to 10 years, military officials said Dec. 14.

Analysis

This would be a significant development given the downward trajectory of Russia's strategic deterrent -- especially if Russia moves to build a new heavy intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Given the chronically slow pace of fielding the Topol-M missiles and the deeply troubled Bulava submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM), there is little reason yet to expect significant progress in the near term, however. Moscow faces a number of problems, including:

* A declining deterrent in both qualitative and quantitative terms

* A doomed treaty structure that has thus far sustained the bilateral nuclear dynamic of the Cold War with Washington, if only on paper

* Continued domestic troubles with design and production

* A resurgence of ballistic missile defense technology

With the Topol-M and the Bulava, Russia has attempted to trim and modernize its aging nuclear arsenal. But a major issue underlies these four problems: the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II (START II). START II never went into effect, but its language set Russia on a course to shift much of its deterrent to the sea. START II mandated that land-based ICBMs would carry only a single warhead. The Topol-M (which relies heavily on the original Topol design) was the right ICBM for the START II regime. Even after its demise, the Topol-M was the missile Russia was essentially stuck with. But with the development of the Bulava in serious question (Russia has always struggled more with SLBMs than the United States), Russia might have decided to rethink how it addresses its future needs.

The old, liquid fueled SS-18 "Satan" and SS-19 "Stiletto" ICBMs carry 10 and six warheads apiece (respectively) -- more than 80 percent of Russia's land-based deliverable warheads. Recent tests of the RS-24 have raised the possibility of multiple warheads (known as multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle, or MIRVs) for the Topol-M design. But the Topol-M is fundamentally limited by its original design parameters for a single warhead. A fundamentally new ICBM design probably would be closer to the SS-18 and SS-19 in MIRV capacity, though will almost certainly use solid fuel. If such a missile can be designed, tested and produced in meaningful numbers, it could represent a way for Moscow to meaningfully alter the downward trajectory of its strategic deterrent. Unfortunately for the Kremlin, its track record does not make for promising prospects in this regard.

Source: http://www.stratfor.com/products/pre....php?id=300052