The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

Although one would never notice by watching the controlled news media here in the West, "Cold War II" has heated up significantly as of late. Putting aside the serious crisis in the Caucasus, below is a sampling of various other activities registered with the Russian Federation just during the past couple of days.

Armenian

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

Nine ICBMs to Be Launched over Half-Year

Nine test launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles will be made in time of summer training that begins June 1 and ends November 30, Strategic Rocket Forces Commander Colonel-General Nikolay Solovtsov told Interfax. In 2008, they will proceed with rearming Strategic Rocket Forces with Topol-M missile complex, Solovtsov said. The first mobile missile complex, RS-12M2 Topol-M has been on combat duty since 2006, and the plans are to equip the second regiment of Strategic Rocket Forces with these missiles this year. The tests of intercontinental RS-24 began past year. This missile will be the foundation of Russia’s Strategic Rocket Forces. It has six multiple warheads and was created by using technology developed in time of Topol-M and Bulava design.

Source: http://www.kommersant.com/p-12463/IBM_launch/

Russia to adjust military plans to secure interests in Arctic - DM

Russia’s military leadership will react to the US large-scale exercise in the northern latitudes by the adjustment of the plans of combat training of its army for the reliable protection of the country’s national interests in the Arctic, head of the main combat training and service department of Russian troops, Lieutenant-General Vladimir Shamanov told Itar-Tass on Monday. “As for our reaction to the Northern Edge 2008 (NE08) American troops’ exercise in Alaska, it first of all will includes a detailed analysis, studying these manoeuvres and unquestionably making proposals for the adjustment of combat training of forces and units of the Northern, Pacific Fleets, the Siberian and Far Eastern military districts so that they be prepared to reliably defend the country’s national interests in the Arctic region from any encroachments,” Shamanov specified.

Source: http://www.itar-tass.com/eng/level2....8569&PageNum=0

Russian law to limit investment

Russia will start restricting foreign investment in key sectors of the economy such as energy and aviation. Russian President Vladimir Putin signed the law just days before his successor, President-elect Dmitry Medvedev, is set to be sworn in. Investors have complained that the law limits access to more than half of Russia's economy. However analysts have said the law should make the situation clearer for companies wanting to invest in Russia. State-run firms, such as energy firm Gazprom, have at times taken control of assets at the expense of foreign investors. The law lists 42 sectors where foreign investment will be limited including nuclear energy, natural monopolies, exploration of strategic mineral deposits, aviation, space and other sensitive industries. Any private-sector foreign company wanting to buy more than 50% of a firm in a sector deemed strategic will need authorisation from a commission made up of economic and security officials. Companies controlled by foreign governments will have to go through the same procedure if they plan to acquire more than 25% of a Russian company on the list.

Source: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7384358.stm

Russia to Flex Its Muscle
Amid Liberal Hopes

Military to Return To Red Square In Ritual Parade

Russia on Friday will stage its first full-scale military parade on Red Square since the Soviet era in a display of its growing international confidence and influence. Departing President Vladimir Putin said Monday that the parade isn't irresponsible saber-rattling but proof of the country's military resurgence. "We are not threatening anyone and don't plan to," he told a farewell cabinet meeting. "This is a demonstration of our growing defense capability." The parade will be the first time the successor to the Red Army has showed off its armor and missiles on the storied square since 1990, when the faltering Soviet Communist party celebrated the Russian revolution for the last time. Friday's parade will mark the anniversary of the allied defeat of Nazi Germany. The display will be watched by Russia's new president, Dmitry Medvedev, who is expected to speak at the event, which takes place two days after his inauguration. City officials said aircraft would seed the clouds to ensure clear skies as more than 110 tanks, missiles and artillery pieces trundle across Red Square, many for the first time. Analysts say the event fits in with Kremlin propaganda that portrays Russia as a country on the rise, having rediscovered national pride and unity after the chaotic 1990s. "It's political and psychological," said Ivan Safranchuk, an analyst at the Moscow-based Center for Defense Information. "It's a demonstration of the general good mood." Mr. Putin has accused the West of stoking an arms race and has used oil revenue to intensify defense spending. The Defense Ministry said earlier this year it planned to spend about one trillion rubles, or about $42 billion this year, compared with $5 billion in 2002. Russia still spends far less on weapons than the U.S. The biggest orders for some of the latest Russian-made weapons come from overseas clients, not the Russian military, analysts said. Russian state television said the parade would interest foreign intelligence agencies in the same way Soviet displays did in the Cold War when Western experts strained to identify new hardware. Organizers say more than 30 strategic bombers and fighters will screech overhead as 6,000 troops in new uniforms conceived by a top Russian designer march past.

Source: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1210...googlenews_wsj

Belarusian KGB Details American Spying

The Belarusian state television station Channel One ran more programming on Sunday about the activities of the network of American spies uncovered in March by the Belarusian KGB. The head of that agency's Center for Public Relations and Information Valery Nadtochaev told viewers of the program Panorama that Belarusian citizens working for the U.S. embassy security service in an “observation and detection group” were managed by the embassy security attachй Curt Finley. Finley, Nadtochaev told Belarusian viewers in a scandalized tone, was an FBI agent. He did not mention that all security attaches at all U.S. embassies are openly affiliated with the FBI. According to Nadtochaev, the members of the observation and detection group took 5000 illegal photographs of other Belarusian citizens. The photographs were taken in the center of Minsk, at the Minsk airport and in towns near Minsk, even photographing police at opposition meetings. Nadtochaev said that the members of the group could have been charged under article 365 of the Criminal Code of Belarus (Treason), but instead “the KGB restricted itself to measures of a warning character and has warned all citizens of Belarus who belonged to the group of the impermissibility of carrying out illegal activities.” Nadtochaev said that the Belarusian group members have all resigned from their employment at the U.S. embassy and Finley left Belarus at the end of March. On May 3, Belarusian authorities demanded that 11 more U.S. embassy employees leave the country. There are now four employees left at the embassy, including Temporary Charge d'Affaires Jonathan Moore.

Source: http://www.kommersant.com/p889259/r_...ian_relations/

[Armenian]

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

The European Union and Russia - Divide, rule or waffle

The European Union cannot agree over how to deal with Russia. That suits the Kremlin just fine

The Economist

SEEN from outside, one might imagine that the European Union (population 495m, GDP of $16.8 trillion) was a rather intimidating neighbour for Russia (population 142m, GDP of $1.3 trillion). Yet the reality is the other way round. In recent years Russia has played a canny game of divide and rule against the EU, building cosy bilateral relations with Germany and Italy especially, but also with Austria, Bulgaria, the Netherlands and Greece. That makes other countries, and many Eurocrats, uneasy. They would like the EU to bargain more effectively with Russia, particularly over energy. But how? For now, the relationship is based on an outdated partnership and co-operation agreement (PCA), signed in 1997. Talks on renewing it are long overdue. But they show no sign of starting. Last year the obstacle was a Polish veto, prompted by a Russian embargo on Polish meat exports. But that was resolved after a charm offensive by Radek Sikorski, the Polish foreign minister, who was once a notable hawk on Russia.

Now talks on a new PCA are stymied again, this time because of a veto by Lithuania. The Lithuanians argue that the previously agreed negotiating position is too soft and too limited, given what they see as Russia's slide towards autocracy at home and aggression abroad. An EU foreign ministers' meeting in Luxembourg on April 29th ended in deadlock (though it did sign a deal that may clear the way for Serbia, a country wobbling into Russia's orbit, to become a candidate for membership). Other EU countries are cross with the Lithuanians, accusing them of belated and clumsy diplomacy, and of posturing with an eye to a general election this autumn, in which the ruling coalition is lagging behind pro-Russian parties. The Poles, who agreed to drop their veto of a new PCA in return for a lifting of the meat ban, say they must honour their side of the deal they struck with Russia. Many west European countries also hope that the arrival of Dmitry Medvedev as Russian president could be a chance to put their relationship on a friendlier footing. In any case, the previous negotiating mandate has already been adapted to reflect, at least partly, Lithuania's desire for stronger language on energy (Russia has blocked an oil pipeline to Lithuania's refinery since 1996, claiming that it needs “repairs”).

Yet the Lithuanians want more. They demand explicit mention of Russia's relations with such neighbours as Georgia, citing the Kremlin's increasingly strong support for the breakaway enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. This week the Russians claimed Georgia was planning to invade Abkhazia and said they would boost their peacekeeping forces, promising to respond forcefully to any Georgian attack. The Georgians have retaliated by threatening to block Russia's application to join the World Trade Organisation. The Lithuanians see all this as an ominous threat to their own security. “We are in the front line. If Georgia goes, we are next,” argues a Lithuanian official. The Lithuanians also want the EU to be tougher over justice. In particular, they complain that the Kremlin is not helping track down those responsible for a Soviet-backed attempted putsch in Lithuania in early 1991 that killed 14 people and for the execution of eight border guards shortly afterwards. “We have had 22 Litvinenkos and no co-operation from Russia,” says the official. His irritation may be understandable (Britain is also furious with the Kremlin for refusing to co-operate over the murder of a Russian exile with British citizenship, Alexander Litvinenko, in London in 2006). But an unwillingness from Russia to investigate such crimes is nothing new, and is therefore harder to portray as a sinister new twist.

Diplomats still hope to launch negotiations on a new PCA before the next EU-Russia summit in Siberia in June. Reopening discussion on the negotiating mandate may not help Lithuania: some countries want it to be softer, not tougher, says one foreign minister. And none of this seems to bother the Russians much. Their ambassador in Brussels, Vladimir Chizov, says his country would be delighted to deal with the EU if only it would decide what it actually wants. The impasse also makes it easier for national governments to justify doing bilateral deals with Russia. Italy made a barely veiled threat along these lines this week. Greece chose the same day formally to sign up to South Stream, a Kremlin-backed Black Sea pipeline that many see as a direct rival to the EU's own plans in the region. The outgoing Italian prime minister and former European Commission president, Romano Prodi, also said he had turned down (for now, at least) a Russian offer to head the South Stream consortium.

In practice a new PCA is unlikely to make much difference. Despite the obsolescence of the old one, trade between Russia and the EU has more than tripled since 2000. In negotiating a new one, Russia would, on past form, use its bilateral ties with big countries to get its way in what ought to be multilateral negotiations. And it is not clear that any new agreement will stick. Russia has explicitly said that it will not ratify the energy charter it signed in 1994, which would have required it to give third parties access to its gas pipelines. As Katinka Barysch, of the London-based Centre for European Reform, notes drily, “the Russians have a somewhat different approach to law, so whether you can aim to solve all problems with a legal document is open to doubt.”

Source: http://www.economist.com/world/europ...ry_id=11293629

[Armenian]

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

An interesting analysis that can help one place current geopolitical situations around the world in a better perspective.

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

The Rise of the Rest



It's true China is booming, Russia is growing more assertive, terrorism is a threat. But if America is losing the ability to dictate to this new world, it has not lost the ability to lead.

Fareed Zakaria NEWSWEEK


Americans are glum at the moment. No, I mean really glum. In April, a new poll revealed that 81 percent of the American people believe that the country is on the "wrong track." In the 25 years that pollsters have asked this question, last month's response was by far the most negative. Other polls, asking similar questions, found levels of gloom that were even more alarming, often at 30- and 40-year highs. There are reasons to be pessimistic—a financial panic and looming recession, a seemingly endless war in Iraq, and the ongoing threat of terrorism. But the facts on the ground—unemployment numbers, foreclosure rates, deaths from terror attacks—are simply not dire enough to explain the present atmosphere of malaise.

American anxiety springs from something much deeper, a sense that large and disruptive forces are coursing through the world. In almost every industry, in every aspect of life, it feels like the patterns of the past are being scrambled. "Whirl is king, having driven out Zeus," wrote Aristophanes 2,400 years ago. And—for the first time in living memory—the United States does not seem to be leading the charge. Americans see that a new world is coming into being, but fear it is one being shaped in distant lands and by foreign people.

Look around. The world's tallest building is in Taipei, and will soon be in Dubai. Its largest publicly traded company is in Beijing. Its biggest refinery is being constructed in India. Its largest passenger airplane is built in Europe. The largest investment fund on the planet is in Abu Dhabi; the biggest movie industry is Bollywood, not Hollywood. Once quintessentially American icons have been usurped by the natives. The largest Ferris wheel is in Singapore. The largest casino is in Macao, which overtook Las Vegas in gambling revenues last year. America no longer dominates even its favorite sport, shopping. The Mall of America in Minnesota once boasted that it was the largest shopping mall in the world. Today it wouldn't make the top ten. In the most recent rankings, only two of the world's ten richest people are American. These lists are arbitrary and a bit silly, but consider that only ten years ago, the United States would have serenely topped almost every one of these categories.

These factoids reflect a seismic shift in power and attitudes. It is one that I sense when I travel around the world. In America, we are still debating the nature and extent of anti-Americanism. One side says that the problem is real and worrying and that we must woo the world back. The other says this is the inevitable price of power and that many of these countries are envious—and vaguely French—so we can safely ignore their griping. But while we argue over why they hate us, "they" have moved on, and are now far more interested in other, more dynamic parts of the globe. The world has shifted from anti-Americanism to post-Americanism.

I. The End of Pax Americana

During the 1980s, when I would visit India—where I grew up—most Indians were fascinated by the United States. Their interest, I have to confess, was not in the important power players in Washington or the great intellectuals in Cambridge. People would often ask me about … Donald Trump. He was the very symbol of the United States—brassy, rich, and modern. He symbolized the feeling that if you wanted to find the biggest and largest anything, you had to look to America. Today, outside of entertainment figures, there is no comparable interest in American personalities. If you wonder why, read India's newspapers or watch its television. There are dozens of Indian businessmen who are now wealthier than the Donald. Indians are obsessed by their own vulgar real estate billionaires. And that newfound interest in their own story is being replicated across much of the world.

How much? Well, consider this fact. In 2006 and 2007, 124 countries grew their economies at over 4 percent a year. That includes more than 30 countries in Africa. Over the last two decades, lands outside the industrialized West have been growing at rates that were once unthinkable. While there have been booms and busts, the overall trend has been unambiguously upward. Antoine van Agtmael, the fund manager who coined the term "emerging markets," has identified the 25 companies most likely to be the world's next great multinationals. His list includes four companies each from Brazil, Mexico, South Korea, and Taiwan; three from India, two from China, and one each from Argentina, Chile, Malaysia, and South Africa. This is something much broader than the much-ballyhooed rise of China or even Asia. It is the rise of the rest—the rest of the world.

We are living through the third great power shift in modern history. The first was the rise of the Western world, around the 15th century. It produced the world as we know it now—science and technology, commerce and capitalism, the industrial and agricultural revolutions. It also led to the prolonged political dominance of the nations of the Western world. The second shift, which took place in the closing years of the 19th century, was the rise of the United States. Once it industrialized, it soon became the most powerful nation in the world, stronger than any likely combination of other nations. For the last 20 years, America's superpower status in every realm has been largely unchallenged—something that's never happened before in history, at least since the Roman Empire dominated the known world 2,000 years ago. During this Pax Americana, the global economy has accelerated dramatically. And that expansion is the driver behind the third great power shift of the modern age—the rise of the rest.

At the military and political level, we still live in a unipolar world. But along every other dimension—industrial, financial, social, cultural—the distribution of power is shifting, moving away from American dominance. In terms of war and peace, economics and business, ideas and art, this will produce a landscape that is quite different from the one we have lived in until now—one defined and directed from many places and by many peoples. The post-American world is naturally an unsettling prospect for Americans, but it should not be. This will not be a world defined by the decline of America but rather the rise of everyone else. It is the result of a series of positive trends that have been progressing over the last 20 years, trends that have created an international climate of unprecedented peace and prosperity.

I know. That's not the world that people perceive. We are told that we live in dark, dangerous times. Terrorism, rogue states, nuclear proliferation, financial panics, recession, outsourcing, and illegal immigrants all loom large in the national discourse. Al Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, China, Russia are all threats in some way or another. But just how violent is today's world, really? A team of scholars at the University of Maryland has been tracking deaths caused by organized violence. Their data show that wars of all kinds have been declining since the mid-1980s and that we are now at the lowest levels of global violence since the 1950s. Deaths from terrorism are reported to have risen in recent years. But on closer examination, 80 percent of those casualties come from Afghanistan and Iraq, which are really war zones with ongoing insurgencies—and the overall numbers remain small. Looking at the evidence, Harvard's polymath professor Steven Pinker has ventured to speculate that we are probably living "in the most peaceful time of our species' existence."

Why does it not feel that way? Why do we think we live in scary times? Part of the problem is that as violence has been ebbing, information has been exploding. The last 20 years have produced an information revolution that brings us news and, most crucially, images from around the world all the time. The immediacy of the images and the intensity of the 24-hour news cycle combine to produce constant hype. Every weather disturbance is the "storm of the decade." Every bomb that explodes is BREAKING NEWS. Because the information revolution is so new, we—reporters, writers, readers, viewers—are all just now figuring out how to put everything in context.

We didn't watch daily footage of the two million people who died in Indochina in the 1970s, or the million who perished in the sands of the Iran-Iraq war ten years later. We saw little of the civil war in the Congo in the 1990s, where millions died. But today any bomb that goes off, any rocket that is fired, any death that results, is documented by someone, somewhere and ricochets instantly across the world. Add to this terrorist attacks, which are random and brutal. "That could have been me," you think. Actually, your chances of being killed in a terrorist attack are tiny—for an American, smaller than drowning in your bathtub. But it doesn't feel like that.

The threats we face are real. Islamic jihadists are a nasty bunch—they do want to attack civilians everywhere. But it is increasingly clear that militants and suicide bombers make up a tiny portion of the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. They can do real damage, especially if they get their hands on nuclear weapons. But the combined efforts of the world's governments have effectively put them on the run and continue to track them and their money. Jihad persists, but the jihadists have had to scatter, work in small local cells, and use simple and undetectable weapons. They have not been able to hit big, symbolic targets, especially ones involving Americans. So they blow up bombs in cafés, marketplaces, and subway stations. The problem is that in doing so, they kill locals and alienate ordinary Muslims. Look at the polls. Support for violence of any kind has dropped dramatically over the last five years in all Muslim countries.

Militant groups have reconstituted in certain areas where they exploit a particular local issue or have support from a local ethnic group or sect, most worryingly in Pakistan and Afghanistan where Islamic radicalism has become associated with Pashtun identity politics. But as a result, these groups are becoming more local and less global. Al Qaeda in Iraq, for example, has turned into a group that is more anti-Shiite than anti-American. The bottom line is this: since 9/11, Al Qaeda Central, the gang run by Osama bin Laden, has not been able to launch a single major terror attack in the West or any Arab country—its original targets. They used to do terrorism, now they make videotapes. Of course one day they will get lucky again, but that they have been stymied for almost seven years points out that in this battle between governments and terror groups, the former need not despair.

Some point to the dangers posed by countries like Iran. These rogue states present real problems, but look at them in context. The American economy is 68 times the size of Iran's. Its military budget is 110 times that of the mullahs. Were Iran to attain a nuclear capacity, it would complicate the geopolitics of the Middle East. But none of the problems we face compare with the dangers posed by a rising Germany in the first half of the 20th century or an expansionist Soviet Union in the second half. Those were great global powers bent on world domination. If this is 1938, as some neoconservatives tell us, then Iran is Romania, not Germany.

Others paint a dark picture of a world in which dictators are on the march. China and Russia and assorted other oil potentates are surging. We must draw the battle lines now, they warn, and engage in a great Manichean struggle that will define the next century. Some of John McCain's rhetoric has suggested that he adheres to this dire, dyspeptic view. But before we all sign on for a new Cold War, let's take a deep breath and gain some perspective. Today's rising great powers are relatively benign by historical measure. In the past, when countries grew rich they've wanted to become great military powers, overturn the existing order, and create their own empires or spheres of influence. But since the rise of Japan and Germany in the 1960s and 1970s, none have done this, choosing instead to get rich within the existing international order. China and India are clearly moving in this direction. Even Russia, the most aggressive and revanchist great power today, has done little that compares with past aggressors. The fact that for the first time in history, the United States can contest Russian influence in Ukraine—a country 4,800 miles away from Washington that Russia has dominated or ruled for 350 years—tells us something about the balance of power between the West and Russia.

Compare Russia and China with where they were 35 years ago. At the time both (particularly Russia) were great power threats, actively conspiring against the United States, arming guerrilla movement across the globe, funding insurgencies and civil wars, blocking every American plan in the United Nations. Now they are more integrated into the global economy and society than at any point in at least 100 years. They occupy an uncomfortable gray zone, neither friends nor foes, cooperating with the United States and the West on some issues, obstructing others. But how large is their potential for trouble? Russia's military spending is $35 billion, or 1/20th of the Pentagon's. China has about 20 nuclear missiles that can reach the United States. We have 830 missiles, most with multiple warheads, that can reach China. Who should be worried about whom? Other rising autocracies like Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are close U.S. allies that shelter under America's military protection, buy its weapons, invest in its companies, and follow many of its diktats. With Iran's ambitions growing in the region, these countries are likely to become even closer allies, unless America gratuitously alienates them.

[...]

Source: http://www.newsweek.com/id/135380/output/print

[Armenian]

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

SA-11 'Gadfly' Used to Down Georgian Drones - Abkhaz FM

Sergey Shamba, the foreign minister of breakaway Abkhazia, said on May 6 a "Buk" (Nato specification SA-11 'Gadfly' for the original or SA-17 'Grizzly' for an upgraded version) ground-to-air air defense system was used to down four Georgian drones. The Abkhaz side claimed earlier that one of its missile-equipped aircraft, an L-39, had downed a Georgian unmanned reconnaissance drone, a Hermes 450, on April 20. The statement by Shamba is the first official acknowledgement by Abkhazia that it possesses such an advanced anti-aircraft system. The Georgian authorities claimed earlier that the "Buk" systems were transferred from Russia to Abkhazia last year, as part of measures to boost the unrecognized state's military capabilities. Shamba said, as quoted by the Abkhaz news agency Apsnipress, that the system was a leftover from "the times of the [1992-93] war [with Georgia]". Although several Georgian aircraft were downed during the conflict, most kills were thought to have been due to hand-held anti-aircraft devices. The combat use of the "Buk" system was never reported. Russia’s 643rd anti-aircraft regiment, which was stationed in the Abkhaz town of Gudauta during the 1992-93 conflict, reportedly possessed three "Buk" systems. Russia claimed the weapons were withdrawn and its military base closed in Gudauta in 2001, but international monitoring, something Georgia has requested, has never been allowed. Georgian military obsevers have suggested that one of the key tasks of the Georgian drones in Abkhazia is to confirm the deployment of "Buk" systems. According to some sources, the "Buk", which is designed to fight attack aircraft and cruise missiles, is ill-fitted for use against small targets, such as unmanned aerial vehicles. Although Georgia has denied that its two drones were downed on May 4, officials in Tbilisi have underlined the Abkhaz admission that they possess anti-aircraft defense systems. They said possession of such weaponary in the conflict zone was a violation of previous agreements. In a statement issued on May 5 the Georgian Foreign Ministry called on the UN Observer Mission in Georgia “to urgently launch a probe into the presence of anti-aircraft defense systems and their use in Abkhazia and to immediately acquaint the international community with the results of this probe”.

Source: http://www.geotimes.ge/index.php?m=home&newsid=10615

[Armenian]

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

TV REPORTS ON AIR DEFENCE EXERCISE AT RUSSIAN AIR BASE IN ARMENIA

MiG-29 "Fulcrum" Erebuni AFB: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WjdlRvYWpHI

Zvezda TV, Russia, Ministry of Defense May 4 2008

[Presenter] The country's southern shield is being tested for
robustness: alert signals were sounded again at the Russian air base
in Armenia. Fighter aircraft are scrambled into the air. A few minutes
into the flight it becomes clear that it was a practice alert.

The air defence forces on the ground also tested their readiness to
repel attacks. Our special correspondent Andrey Kovtunenko followed
the military exercise in Armenia's peaceful skies.

[Correspondent] [Passage omitted] It is battle quarters at the Russian
air base of Erebuni. [Passage omitted] While the pilot is getting
ready for the flight, the technicians, having run 100 metres [to the
aircraft], are removing covers from a MiG-29. A few minutes later,
the pilot jumps into the xxxxpit and is ready to take off. [Passage
omitted]

The border with Turkey is only 14 km away - for a MiG, it is just
a couple of minutes. Therefore, depending on the combat mission,
[the pilot] has to turn one way or the other and fly back.

In 1998, the air group revamped its fleet: MiG-29s went on combat
training duty at the CIS combined air defence system. It is now 10
years since the MiG-29 started protecting the skies over Armenia. The
aircraft has acquitted itself well in hot conditions and in the
mountains. Experienced pilots treat this aircraft with respect:
it is easy to run and reliable in combat.

One can only speak to the pilot after he has accomplished his combat
mission: traditionally, they do not give interviews before the flight.

[Yevgeniy Yakimov, captioned as an aviation regiment commander; in the
xxxxpit after landing] We perform air defence tasks in the CIS combined
air defence system. We are performing our tasks successfully. On 22
[presumably April] there was a major large-scale exercise at the CIS
combined air defence system. We achieved our objective in full.

[Correspondent] Only a few years ago, Turkish pilots often staged
aerial tests for ours. Nowadays, this is a rare occurrence.

[Pavel Maratkanov, captioned as deputy commander of the air base for
educational work] It is not often that we are scrambled into action
but it happens. Sometimes they make sorties to test us - but not
often. The most recent incident was last year.

[Correspondent] While pilots polish their aerial skills, the missile
defence system is on permanent combat duty. Russian and Armenian
officers track all aerial targets together.

At the air defence base near Gyumri [also in Armenia], meanwhile,
the S-300 and Kub-3M missile defence systems are on alert. Servicemen
from this regiment recently took part in an exercise in Ashuluk
[in southern Russia]. Their performance was marked as excellent.

[Aleksandr Surinkin, captioned as anti-aircraft regiment commander]
At the 2008 tactical exercise with live firing, the regiment fired
on evading low-flying aerial target. The target was destroyed at the
maximum range. The mark was excellent.

[Correspondent] It is no secret to anyone here that Armenia regards the
102nd Russian military base deployed in the republic as an element of
it national security. In this country, they value friendly relations.

Source: http://groong.usc.edu/news/msg230966.html

[skhara]

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

[Armenian]

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

Tbilisi asking the West to avert war

Moscow and Tbilisi do not rule out the possibility of war

Yesterday Russia made a clear allusion that it would not hesitate to use military force against Georgia. Russia’s Defense Ministry warned that it would not allow Georgian aircraft to fly over Abkhazia, and the Russian Airborne Troops Staff informed that the Russian paratroopers, who beefed up the peace-keeping contingent in the unrecognized republic, had the mission to “respond rigorously to aggression of Georgian security forces.” The Georgian government also brought up the issue of the increased possibility of war. Yesterday, on his visit to Brussels, Georgian State Minister of Reintegration Timur Yakobashvili claimed for the first time that his country was “close to war” with Russia and called on the European Union to help prevent it. Yesterday officials in Moscow and Tbilisi made statements virtually meaning that the Russia-Georgia political dispute over Abkhazia might develop into a military conflict. In the Russian camp, it was high-ranking military officers, rather than diplomats or politicians, that were the main newsmakers.

They had preferred not to comment on the situation regarding the unrecognized republic, but yesterday Senior Defense Ministry official Lieutenant General Vladimir Shamanov struck the keynote. Giving his commentary on the recent incident concerning the shooting down of two Georgian unmanned spy jets over Abkhazia, he stated that Russian military would not allow Georgian military aircraft to fly over the Georgia-Abkhazia conflict zone. “The Georgian party would assert that they had nothing to do with those unmanned planes, whereas now they fuel tensions claiming that Georgian aircraft will keep on flying over the conflict zone,” the general said indignantly. “Such steps are a blatant violation of the Moscow Agreement on Ceasefire and Separation of Forces, and we won’t turn a blind eye to it.“ Mr Shamanov added that the Defence Ministry kept abreast of the developments in the conflict zone, and “all necessary measures have been taken.”

One could learn what measures were implied when reading a statement of the Russian Airborne Troops Staff issued yesterday. The Staff informed that the Russian peace-keeping contingent in the Georgia-Abkhazia conflict zone was reinforced with another 400 Russian commandos deployed in Abkhazia. They are equipped with some 30 BMD-2 airborne infantry fighting vehicles, artillery, and anti-aircraft defense systems, including ZSU-23-2 self-propelled anti-aircraft weapons. ITAR-TASS reports that according to an anonymous military official with the Russian Airborne Troops Staff, the Russian commandos have a concrete mission. “Our soldiers were deployed there not to sunbathe or swim in the sea. They have a concrete mission: instantly react to any acts of aggression of Georgian security forces, give an appropriate and rigorous response to any attempts to use force against Russian peace-keepers and Russian citizens on the territory of Abkhazia.”

Stating this, Russia’s military officials made a clear allusion that henceforth Abkhazia would be Russia’s military protectorate. More to the point, if needed, the Russian Defense Ministry, along with the CIS peace-keepers, will protect Sukhumi. Curiously, the militaristic statements of the security officials were made after Russia’s Foreign Ministry refused to accept the offer of the Abkhazian government asking Moscow to take military control over the unrecognized republic in exchange for security guarantees. “We received no offers of that kind. I don’t think it’s the case,” replied Russian Foreign Office Chief Sergey Lavrov to the initiative of his Abkhazian opposite number Sergey Shamba. At that, Russian troops actually defend Abkhazia now. Officials with the Foreign Ministry said that the unrecognized republic would be under the supervision of Russia’s military till May 21 at least – the day when the Parliament election campaign finishes in Georgia. “We expect the disturbing period to last up to the middle of May. That is why the peace-keeping contingent has been reinforced to 2500 men. If necessary, their number will be increased to 3000. We must avert Georgia’s possible assault on Abkhazia,” the official with Russia’s Foreign Ministry told Kommersant.

At the same time Tbilisi also negatively estimates the current state of affairs over Abkhazia. Yesterday the Georgian government acknowledged officially for the first time that Russia and Georgia were on the brink of war. “Of course, we’re trying to avoid war. But we are very close to it. We know Russians very well, we can distinguish the messages they send. We see that Russian troops are invading territories basing on false data, which worries us very much,” stated Georgian State Minister of Reintegration Timur Yakobashvili during his yesterday’s visit to Brussels. He also urged the European Union to come to the defense of Tbilisi in order to avert war.

Mr Yakobashvili is not the only Georgian official to win over as many allies as possible. These days the Speaker of the Georgian Parliament Nino Burjanadze is on her visit to the USA. She makes no secret of the fact that she came there to seek support. “This is a matter of political support, not military aid. We are not going to wage war in Abkhazia, but we need solid support of the USA and the EU in our bid to realize the peace roadmap offered to the people of Abkhazia and South Ossetia,” Ms Burjanadze said. The U.S. Deputy State Secretary Daniel Fried has already met with the Georgian Speaker. According to officials with the Georgian delegation, he promised to back Georgia in its desire to secure territorial integrity. One of the manifestations of such care will be Washington’s second attempt to convince its NATO allies of the necessity to give Georgia the Membership action plan during the summit of NATO Foreign Office Chiefs, December.

Tbilisi frankly claims that it reckons with the help of the West in the current confrontation. “We do not want to wage war, and we won’t do it. We want to settle it all diplomatically. And Russia has given us a perfect chance to show the real face of its peace-keepers. Moscow assures us that the extra troops have been deployed there for security reasons, but in reality it has been done to avoid a direct military operation, providing military aid to Abkhazia at the same time. It resembles the Soviet troops’ invasion of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan. We can see the same philosophy now,” Konstantin Gabashvili, Head of the Georgian Parliament’s Committee for Foreign Affairs, told Kommersant.

Source: http://www.kommersant.com/p889685/r_..._close_to_war/

[crusader1492]

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

AMBASSADOR OF GEORGIA: “IF ARMENIA VOTES AGAINST IN UN…”
Tomorrow Georgia presents to the UN Chief Assembly discussion an article about the status of the refugees and violently displaced people living in Georgia. In this regard, today the Ambassador of Georgia in Armenia Georgi Saganelidze had a meeting with the journalists and called on the Armenian authorities to vote for the article. According to him the demand to adopt such article has been created after getting concerned by the aggressive activities of Russia. Russian side should be conscious of the fact that it does not have any partners in its aggressive policy making activities. Georgian side carries out active foreign political activities in order colleague countries vote for the article, notified Saganelidze. He said that according to their sources Russia is going to take initiatives against the adoption of the article. We heard that Armenian authorities are going to vote against it also. And we are concerned with that. In this regard we held discussions with Armenian authorities but we have not got any clarified response yet, he said. If finally Armenia votes against the document, then, I guess, it will decrease the level of reliability among our nations. I ask Armenian authorities and call on them to be wise and not to harm itself and its colleagues, he said.

If I was the Armenian FM, I think I would tell Georgia that until they stop hurting Armenia by cooperating with Turkey and Azerbaijan to circumvent Armenia in regional projects and until they stop the discriminating of Armenians within their political borders (especially in Javakh), then Armenian will always vote with Russia.

In short, FU Georgia! Your blackmail is going to backfire.

Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that just a month ago, georgia voted Against Armenia in the bogus UN resolution affirming Azerbaijan's "territorial integrity"...the gall!

[Armenian]

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

Russia-Georgia 'close to war', Tbilisi to blame - Russian NATO envoy

Video: http://en.rian.ru/video/20080506/106730216.html

Georgia is close to an outbreak of hostilities with Russia, but Tbilisi has only itself to blame for the current state of affairs, the Russian envoy to NATO said on Tuesday. Dmitry Rogozin was commenting on a statement made at the European Parliament in Brussels earlier on Tuesday by Georgian Reintegration Minister Timur Yakobashvili that Georgia was "very close" to a war with Russia. Rogozin said: "Georgia is really extremely close to a war, but Georgia is itself to blame for this." He also added that Tbilisi was implementing a plan approved by foreign "sponsors" designed at pinning the blame for the current tensions in Georgia's breakaway republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia on Russia. He went on to say that he believed that Georgia was planning to seize Abkhazia with special forces trained by NATO instructors, adding that this could result in "serious bloodshed." Russia was trying to prevent this 'bloodshed,' he said. Abkhazia, along with South Ossetia, broke away from Georgia in the early 1990s following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Between 10,000 and 30,000 people were killed in the Georgian-Abkhazian conflict and some 3,000 in Georgian-South Ossetian hostilities. Georgia is looking to regain control over the two de facto independent republics. On April 16, Russia's outgoing President Vladimir Putin ordered the government to draw up measures to support both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The move infuriated Georgia, which accused Russia of trying to annex the breakaway regions. Later, Tbilisi accused Russia of downing a reconnaissance drone - a claim Russia has flatly denied. Russia, which has administered a peacekeeping contingent in Abkhazia and South Ossetia since the 1990s, dispatched additional troops to Abkhazia recently to deter what it calls a planned Georgian military offensive. Tbilisi accuses Russian troops of siding with separatists.

Source: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20080506/106737918.html

In related news:

War games in Chechnya

War games in Chechnya: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of1GqbfX_dU

The largest and only Russian army unit to be permanently located in the Chechen Republic has held large-scale training involving heavy artillery. Situated in the city of Khankala, 10 km from the capital Grozny, the 42nd division is made up of more than 15,000 professional servicemen. Those already drafted can sign a contract for at least three years to stay in the army. But it needs to become their profession if they are to operate in such a dangerous area. Regiments are located in areas where there is still the threat of possible attack, such as Bashen-Kale near the Russian-Georgian border. During the wars of the 1990s clashes were common there, but over the last five years things have changed dramatically. The city of Khankala was among the places which saw the worst fighting in the 1990s. Some five years ago there was debris all around in Khankala, the city was severely damaged. Today there's a division which looks more like a small city where thousands of professional soldiers do their jobs. Some even bring their families with them. There is infrastructure available for them, including a kindergarten, schools and a hospital, which people say is the best in the area. The division even has its own bread-baking plant which provides soldiers and their relatives with fresh buns and rolls. Just a few days ago Tomas Hammarberg, the European commissioner for human rights, visited Chechnya. He said the republic is far from being a top holiday destination and living here could still be dangerous but it's improving.

Source: http://www.russiatoday.ru/features/news/24043

[skhara]

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

If I was the Armenian FM, I think I would tell Georgia that until they stop hurting Armenia by cooperating with Turkey and Azerbaijan to circumvent Armenia in regional projects and until they stop the discriminating of Armenians within their political borders (especially in Javakh), then Armenian will always vote with Russia.

If I was the Armenian FM, I would tell Georgia to eat shxt.
But I guess that's why I'll never be .