The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Angessa]

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

On a side note, what do you think of a possible union between Russia and Belarus? Are you in favor of it Angessa?

I would be in favor of it, if they voted and wanted the union. Belarus is in very tight corner now and worst place than Armenian is( with all those nato leaning nations bordering it). I do believe the American ebanasy is still close there and theres in U.S. Kazakhstan,Moldova,Serbia,Kyrgyzstan, also want to join that union.How would you feel about a Armenian in the Union also? There has been talk lately that something big is going change regarding this and Vladimir Putin may be chairmen of the union.

On a side note also does anyone else's find this website funny http://www.kavkazcenter.com. There is different stories in each language and they post videos of terroist bombings and tips. They also sell BOOK OF A MUJAHIDDEEN by Shamil Basaev. awhile the website is based is now suppose to be based in united states and canada.

[Armanen]

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

I would be in favor of it, if they voted and wanted the union. Belarus is in very tight corner now and worst place than Armenian is( with all those nato leaning nations bordering it). I do believe the American ebanasy is still close there and theres in U.S. Kazakhstan,Moldova,Serbia,Kyrgyzstan, also want to join that union.How would you feel about a Armenian in the Union also? There has been talk lately that something big is going change regarding this and Vladimir Putin may be chairmen of the union.

On a side note also does anyone else's find this website funny http://www.kavkazcenter.com. There is different stories in each language and they post videos of terroist bombings and tips. They also sell BOOK OF A MUJAHIDDEEN by Shamil Basaev. awhile the website is based is now suppose to be based in united states and canada.

I also think it would good for there to be a union between Russia and Belarus, I mean the people are almost the same i.e. ethnic Russian and Belarussian, also like you said Belarus is being pushed on by all sides, and their economy is already dependent on Russia. I have not heard about those other nations wanting to join the union, Serbia would be nice, maybe those two central asian nations, but not sure if it would be a good idea for moldova to join as they are more "western" leaning in their foreign policy. As for Armenia joining the union, I would be in support of it if it meant Armenia was still an independent country, at this point I wouldn't favor a soviet sytle system with Armenia being a "republic" but in reality it, along with all the other republics (except Russia) were autonomous regions. I guess what I'm trying to say is that a confederation would be better than a federation.

As for the website, its just another example of militants trying to carry out the fight through whatever means they can. For example the pkk has a radio station based in denmark.

[Armenian]

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

I just purchased the following book by the Israeli-American author Yossef Bodansky. Note that the author of the book is a very well known political scientist/researcher in Washington DC. I have been paging through the book, it looks very interesting. I was immediately impressed by the abundance of detailed information and the style of writing. There seems to be a lot of information in the book about the various military operations in the region including quite a bit of information about Chechen and Afghan Mujahadeen fighters recruited by Azerbaijan to fight Armenians in Nagono Karabagh. There is also a lot of information about the Russian FSB and the GRU and how they were instrumental in infiltrating the Jihadist movement in the Caucasus and gradually breaking it apart. The book also contains quite a bit about regional geopolitics, including political turmoil in Russia, references about Armenia and Nagorno Karabagh, oil pipelines, western interests in the region, and the ever present hand of the Pakistani ISI and the Al Qaeda. One thing that seems to standout in Bodansky's book, however, is his dead silence about one major factor in Chechnya - the involvement of the US intelligence services in the region. While Bodansky paints a very dark picture regarding the Al Qaeda/Pakistan led Jihad movement in the Caucasus he, nevertheless, seems to totally ignore western involvement with the movement in question. Instead, Bodansky primarily seems to be trying to warn the western world of the bloody consequences of ignoring militant Islam. Nevertheless, if we accept Bodansky's very plausible theory that the bloody Jihadist movement in the Caucasus (primarily the Chechen insurgency) was orchestrated by Al Qaeda/Pakistan, and then tie US/western intelligence services to the Chechen insurgency and the Pakistani ISI (as many analysts have already done) we can then safely conclude that certain elements within the US government have a clear hand (at some operational level) in the "global Jihad" supposedly being waged against western interests. All in all, this book seems very interesting. How it fits the big geopolitical picture, where it falls politically, what is its intended purpose, to be determined at a later date.

Armenian

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

Chechen Jihad

In this authoritative look at the roots of modern terrorism, Yossef Bodansky, one of the most respected—and best-informed—experts on radical Islamism in the world today, pinpoints the troubled region of Chechnya as a dangerous and little-understood crucible of terror in the struggle between East and West. In his number one New York Times bestseller, Bin Laden: The Man Who Declared War on America, published before 9/11, Bodansky was among the first to introduce American readers to Osama bin Laden. Now in Chechen Jihad he returns to alert American readers to the lessons to be drawn from the terror campaign in Chechnya—and its ramifications for the global war on terrorism. The final years of U.S.-Soviet relations left Chechnya a fertile breeding ground for Islamic terrorism, and in the past decade an uneasy alliance of native Chechen separatists and militant jihadists have joined forces to help al Qaeda and the greater Islamist movement pursue its war against the West. As Bodansky points out, "the Chechens are professional fighters—disciplined and responsible, with a combination of skills, expertise, and character that has made them the most sought-after 'force multipliers' in the jihadist movement." Bodansky traces the secret history of the two Chechen wars, illuminating how the process of "Chechenization" transformed the fight from a secular nationalist struggle into a jihadist holy war against Russia and the secular West. And, in the most instructive message for Western audiences, he reveals how the Chechen rebellion was eventually crippled by a schism between the jihadists and the Chechen people whose nationalist rebellion they had co-opted—an object lesson in the potential vulnerability of Islamist campaigns around the world. Drawing on mountains of previously unseen intelligence from Islamist movements and other military and intelligence sources from throughout the Middle East and Central Asia, as well as senior officials in many of the affected nations, Chechen Jihad offers an intimate and startling portrait of the jihadist movement that is astonishing in its detail and chilling in its implications—but one that points to a new way forward in the struggle to answer the challenges of international Islamist terrorism.

Source: http://www.harpercollins.com/books/9...had/index.aspx

[skhara]

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

There is also a lot of information about the Russian FSB and the GRU and how they were instrumental in infiltrating the Jihadist movement in the Caucasus and gradually breaking it apart.

I watched a documentary on google video about the Chechen war (anti-Russian, pro-Chechen spin). Anyway, one Chechen field commander found asylum in France and gave an interview. He claimed the FSB infiltrated the Jihadist movements by the following means:

When the Wahabis showed up in Chechnya they would recruit Chechens and send them to a "certain Arab country" (I assume its Saudi Arabia) where they receive training, financial support, and indoctrination. Typically, these people came about and were able to wield a lot of influence in Chechnya and almost automatically become field commanders, seconds in command etc....

The Russians, he claims took advantage of this and basically were getting their agents recruited and sent to get "indoctrinated". Then they come back and you have Russian agents as leaders of jihad. Anyway, they certainly have plenty of North Caucasians to draw upon to execute this plan.

It makes a lot of sense. I mean at first the war just dragged and dragged. And all those infamous field commanders were making daily headlines. But then, the Russians start to just eliminate them one by one in a short time span. Mahshadov = dead, Gelayev = dead, Khatab = dead, Basayev = dead. A bunch of lesser known commanders = dead. The rest on the run in France and Britain.

[Armenian]

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

‘Talks’ before Talks: Russia buoys up Armenia stand ahead of first Sargsyan-Aliyev meeting

Russia reaffirmed late last week that it wants to see a resumed Karabakh peace process based on direct negotiations between the parties and proceeding within a Minsk Group-supported format. “There is no military solution to the Karabakh problem,” Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said following a meeting with his Armenian counterpart Eduard Nalbandyan in Moscow late last week. “It is possible to reach agreement only in direct negotiations between the parties with the support of the OSCE Minsk Group cochairmen.” “It is important to make the region stable and secure,” Nalbandyan said for his part. “Armenia is ready to continue negotiations with Azerbaijan on the basis of proposals of the Minsk Group cochairmen.” Another meeting of the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan is expected to be held on the sidelines of an international economic forum in Saint-Petersburg, Russia, at the end of this week.

While the presidents of the two states have met more than 20 times since 1998, the upcoming meeting tentatively scheduled for June 6 will be the first one between Serzh Sargsyan, who was sworn in as Armenia’s new president less than two months ago, and his Azerbaijani counterpart Ilham Aliyev. “We wait for Azerbaijani proposals, which may help resolve the Karabakh conflict,” Nalbandyan reportedly said, voicing optimism ahead of the planned meeting of the two countries’ leaders. “Proposals of Russia, the United States and France [the countries co-chairing the Minsk Group] must not be ignored.” Few analysts, however, expect the meeting to produce any fundamentally new results. In particular, Nagorno-Karabakh President Bako Sahakyan recently said in Yerevan that he did not consider the upcoming meeting to be “a great achievement”.

And Baku’s fundamental position of seeking “to restore control over the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh” was recently reaffirmed by Azerbaijan’s deputy Foreign Minister Araz Azimov. He said that Azerbaijan’s compromise might be “providing the communities that will live in Nagorno-Karabakh with a self-governing status.” Meanwhile, representatives of third countries and structures have shown far greater activity on the threshold of the Sargsyan-Aliyev meeting. Thus, Council of Europe Secretary-General Terry Davis reiterated that when acceding to the Council of Europe both Armenia and Azerbaijan pledged to resolve the conflict peacefully. “I feel very alarmed when I hear that peaceful means of settlement have been exhausted,” Davis said, adding that the obligations to the CE will be broken if hostilities resume.

Source: http://www.armenianow.com/?action=vi...g=eng&IID=1189

Russian-Armenian strategic partnership will develop

Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian met with his Russian counterpart Sergei Lavrov in Moscow to discuss the Armenian-Russian cooperation, joint activities within the CIS and CSTO and coordination of positions in international organizations, the RA MFA press office reported. Expressing satisfaction with the level of bilateral relations between Armenia and Russia, the Ministers pointed out to successful political, economic and cultural cooperation. “Strategic partnership between our states will develop,” Minister Nalbandian said. The officials also referred to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement and security issues in South Caucasus.

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=26199

[North Pole]

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

This thread is about the Russo-Armenian relations and the rise of Russia. I think religious aspect is a part of it.

America To Return Russian Church Bells After Almost 80 Years VIDEO

June 2, 2008, 9:55

Russian church bells that have been ringing out at Harvard University for almost 80 years will soon return to their home at the Danilov monastery in Moscow. Harvard is hosting a bell festival to mark the return and have invited guests from Russia to take part.
The bells were taken from Russia in the 1930s by the wealthy U.S. philanthropist Charles Crane, who bought them in the Soviet Union in the time of the religious purges.

On Thursday, the historic bells will ring in the U.S. for the last time at a graduation ceremony.
Later this summer they will be replaced by a new set made by a Russian foundry under an agreement between Harvard and the Russian Orthodox Church.

The first of 18 bells was replaced last year.

VIDEO - http://russiatoday.ru/news/news/25583/video

Project manager Peter Riley (right) watches as a new Russian-cast bronze bell is hoisted skyward. The new bell replaces the old, at right, which since 1930 has hung in the gold-domed cupola of Baker Library.
Staff photo Rose Lincoln/Harvard News Office

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/.../99-bells.html


Old and New: Side by Side
Photo: Neal Hamberg

http://www.hbs.edu/news/releases/081307_bell.html

Lowell Bells May Return to Motherland
http://www.thecrimson.com/article.aspx?ref=514166

After 78 years at Harvard, Danilov Bells will return to Russia

By Steve Bradt
FAS Communications

After 78 years of refuge at Harvard University, iconic Russian bells saved from Stalinist efforts to eradicate religious artifacts will return permanently this summer to their one-time home, the Danilov Monastery in Moscow.
The Danilov Bells — known on the Harvard campus as the Lowell House Bells, after the residential building in whose tower they have hung since 1930 — will be replaced by a set of 17 new bells cast by a Russian foundry under terms agreed to by Harvard and the Russian Orthodox Church.
Removal of the Danilov Bells from Lowell House will start in late June, and installation of replacement bells will begin in mid-July.
“Over the years, students developed many styles of ringing the bells, and the ears of generations of Harvard students have become accustomed to their distinctive sound,” says Diana L. Eck, master of Lowell House and professor of comparative religion and Indian studies at Harvard. “Indeed, no great Harvard ceremony is complete without them.”
In addition to ringing at joyous occasions like Harvard’s annual commencement exercises, the bells have tolled over the years to mark somber events such as the 1968 assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. and the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

http://www.news.harvard.edu/gazette/2008/05.29/01-lowellbells.html

The Danilov Monastery purports to be the oldest in Moscow and was founded in 1282 by Prince Daniil Moskovsky, the youngest Son of Alexander Nevsky. Daniil was the first Grand Prince of the new Muscovite Rus and was buried here in the monastery in 1303 and later canonized. Like the city's other monasteries (Novodevichy, Donskoy, Simonov, Novospassky and Andronikov), which were all built between the 13th and 16th centuries, Danilov was not merely a center of religious and spiritual life and a seat of scholarly learning, but a powerful defensive fortress whose walls defended Moscow from attacks by enemy Tartars, Lithuanians and Poles.

Moscow's six major monasteries were all protected by thick, high walls and towers that together formed a defensive half-ring around the city. In 1591 Danilov Monastery played a crucial part in defending the capital of Rus from raids by the Crimean Tartars led by Khan Kazy Girei. In December 1606, the monastery was again the site of a major battle, when the Russian peasant army led by Ivan Bolotnikov fought valiantly but unvictoriously against the troops of Tsar Vasily Shuisky.

The monastery was home not only to monks, but the refuge of many laymen, including the writer Gogol, the musician Rubinshtein and the philosophers Samarin and Khomyakov, founders of the 19th century Slavophile movement, all of whom were buried in the monastery's cemetery.
After 1917 the monastery was one of the last to be closed down and became the refuge of many priests who had been evicted by the Bolsheviks from their own churches and who disagreed with the ethics of the new regime. They became known as "Danilovtsy". In 1930 the monastery was closed and many of its oldest relics and icons disappeared and have never been recovered. In 1931 a statue of Lenin was erected in the central courtyard of the monastery and the buildings were converted into a juvenile reform center. In May of that year the remains of Gogol, Rubinshtein, the Khomyakovs and the poet Nikolai Yazykov, were exhumed from their graves and reburied in Novodevichy Cemetery, and the churchyard destroyed to make room for the construction of new buildings to house the inmates of the reformatory. Most of the inmates of the institution were children whose parents had been arrested or shot during Stalin's purges of the 1930s.

It was only in 1983, over fifty years after its closure, that Daniilov Monastery was returned to the Church and became the official residence of the Moscow Patriarch and the seat of the Holy Synod, which had previously been housed at the Trinity Monastery of St. Sergei, just outside Moscow. In exchange for the return of the monastery, the Church was pressured into financing the establishment of another juvenile reform center elsewhere in the city.
Today many of the monastery's original structures are still standing and have been renovated and augmented with new buildings to house the modern residence of the Patriarch and the administration buildings of the Synod. The monastery's impressive surviving brick walls and towers were added to the monastery complex in the 17th century. Visitors enter the monastery ramparts through the Gate-Church of St. Simeon the Stylite, which was built in 1732 but reconstructed after being torn down in the 1920s by Soviet authorities and its bells sold to Harvard University. The gateway is painted a soft pink, guarded by stout columns and an elaborate cornice and topped by a triple-tiered bell tower decorated with pictures of the Saints. Inside the compound stands the austere Trinity Cathedral, built in 1833 by the architect Osip Bove and featuring plain yellow portico-ed walls topped by a single green cupola. Visitors will also notice the gold-domed Millennium Chapel, adorned with a quadruple arch and built on the site of the earlier statue of Lenin to mark the millennial anniversary of the establishment of Christianity in Russian in 1988. It was impossible to restore the graves destroyed when the cemetery was obliterated by the Bolsheviks, but the newly erected chapel stands as a memorial headstone for all those buried in the monastery grounds.

http://www.moscow-taxi.com/churches/danilov-monastery.html

[North Pole]

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

Thank you for the video link North Pole. Do you have any more information regarding the Turkish involvement in the Chechen war? Is Turkey's involvement well known amongst average Russians today?

Yes. Turkey's involvement well known in Russia. During the 2002 Nord-Ost siege, media reported that the Chechens have made phone calls from the theater to Turkey.

From New York Times:

Russian officials have said the Chechens who stormed the theater -- camouflaged and heavily armed men and women -- could have succeeded only with the financial and logistical support of Islamic extremist groups abroad.

A senior aide of Mr. Putin, Abdul-Khakim Sultygov, said Chechen militants received financing from groups based in Turkey. Other officials said they intercepted telephone calls from the captors to still-unidentified embassies in Moscow, as well as to Turkey and unidentified Arab nations.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9D02E0DC153FF93AA15753C1A9649C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Has the documentary called "Plan Kavkaz" (see video link below) gotten widespread attention in the Russian Federation?

I cannot answer this quesion, Armenian. I don't live in Russia today.
By the way, I just checked that The Saudi/CiA/Mi6 funded Chechen War video, and discovered this - This video has been removed due to terms of use violation.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mwqYTTpQLRE

[Azad]

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

What Putin said to Le Monde - in full

http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/25525

[Armenian]

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

Putin Maintains Presidential Air in Paris Trip

'Putin's presidency were great years' - Chirac: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gJwSZuypND0

It is Vladimir V. Putin’s first trip abroad as Russia’s prime minister, but he might as well still be its president. To be sure, Mr. Putin met here with his official counterpart, the French prime minister, François Fillon. But he dined on Thursday with the head of state, President Nicolas Sarkozy, and on Friday he met former President Jacques Chirac, who praised him profusely. In general Mr. Putin spoke for Russia as if he still ran it, which most analysts say they believe he still does. With Mr. Sarkozy, Mr. Putin discussed “a wide range of bilateral issues,” according to Mr. Putin’s press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, especially in the light of “France’s forthcoming presidency of the European Union,” beginning July 1. In addition, Mr. Peskov said, the two discussed “possible military cooperation” and “exchanged their views on relations between Russia and the European Union in general.” Mr. Sarkozy’s office said that the two men had a working dinner, and that Mr. Sarkozy telephoned Mr. Putin’s handpicked successor as president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, and that he looked forward to meeting Mr. Medvedev in July at the Group of 8 summit in Japan. Mr. Medvedev recently made his first trip abroad as president to China. On Friday, Mr. Putin smiled benignly as Mr. Chirac expressed his “very deep friendship” for him and said, “My esteem comes from the remarkable manner in which you governed Russia.” He grouped the time Mr. Putin was prime minister under Boris Yeltsin with his two presidential terms, saying, “These 10 years have been, unquestionably, great years for Russia.” Mr. Putin, prime minister again, certainly did not disagree.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/31/wo...html?ref=world

What Putin said to Le Monde

What Putin said to Le Monde - in full: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g7EhpjXUw1E

On Russia’s energy sector

In most oil-producing countries, oil-extracting companies are state-owned. In Russia, private companies account for a larger part of the oil and gas sector. All the world’s oil giants are represented in the Russian oil sector, including those from Europe, including those from France: Gaz de France, Total… And those companies develop our major fields. Granted, we did take some steps to support those companies where the state has a share, or a controlling stake - say, Gazprom, or Rosneft. But all the other companies - and we have perhaps a dozen major companies - are in private hands, and some of them are owned by foreigners. British, American, Indian, Chinese, French, German companies… The Russian energy sector is much more liberal than those of many other countries, even European ones. For example, we are about to complete a massive reform of the electric energy sector. From July 1st, our largest electrical company, UES, will cease to exist. Instead, we’ll have several major companies that were parts of this one big company. Generating facilities - both individual power plants and groups of plants - will now be sold to private owners. Major players from Europe will be part of this: ENI from Italy, some German companies… They will invest 6, 8, 10, or 12 billion dollars or euros. Please note that few European countries are so liberal. Nobody allows Russian investors to buy into similar projects abroad. But we are giving other countries such an opportunity. We have offered certain benefits to newly-developed fields, including those in the northern sea shelf and in Eastern Siberia, where there is no infrastructure. I have no doubt whatsoever that this sector of the Russian economy will develop dynamically in the near future.

On TNK-BP

TNK-BP hasn’t had any trouble so far. They do have some problems with their Russian partners. Several years ago, I warned them that they had it coming. It’s not because it’s TNK-BP. It’s because several years ago, they set up a joint venture with a 50-50 ownership. When they did it - and I was present when they signed the papers - told them, “You shouldn’t do it. You should decide between the two of you who will have a controlling stake. And we don’t mind if you want BP to have it. We would, of course, like to see the Russian side, TNK, as the main shareholder. But somebody has to be in charge. When you don’t have a clearly defined authority in such a business, it is very likely you’ll run into problems.” They told me, “No, we will always be able to work out an agreement.” I told them, “Fine, go ahead if you want.” Now they have problems. They constantly have frictions regarding this matter, which one of the two companies is in charge. That’s the main problem. These are commercial disputes within the company.

On Mikhail Khodorkovsky

Khodorkovsky broke the law. More than once and grossly. What’s more, a part of his group is guilty, proven in a court, of personal crimes, not only economic. They committed murders, more than one person. This kind of “competition” is not admissible. And we’ll do our best to stop it. Just as I was when I was president, Dmitry Medvedev should be guided by Russian legislation. Mr Medvedev, like myself, graduated from the Law Faculty of St. Petersburg University. We had good teachers who taught us to respect the law. And I’ve known Mr. Medvedev for many years. He will respect the law and, incidentally, he has said this in public several times.

On Chechnya and the Caucasus

The situation in the Chechen Republic has improved, and it improved because of several circumstances, the main one being the fact that the Chechen people have made a certain choice for themselves towards the development of their republic within the Russian Federation. We saw the reaction of the Chechen people to attempts to implant untraditional forms of Islam into the minds of the local population. This is what it all started with - resisting Wahhabism. In fact it is a normal branch of Islam, and there is nothing terrible in it, but it is those extremist trends within it, that were trying to be implanted into the consciousness of the Chechen people. And the people realized that someone from outside was fighting not for their interests, but trying to use people as a tool to loosen the Russian Federation as a major and significant player on the international arena and that would bring only suffering to the people. The awareness of this factor was the main thing, in terms of stabilisation. This was what it started with. And it became a fact, when we understood that the population’s mood has changed, we passed on the main part of the responsibility, both in law-enforcement sector and economy. It seemed impossible that a defence minister in the government led by [Aslan] Maskhadov could become a member of today’s Chechen parliament. Now it’s a fact. And it created the necessary political conditions for the reconstruction of Grozny and for immediate steps in the economy. I can tell you that courts and the prosecutor’s office is actively working in the Chechen Republic, and investigations are carried out. Suspects are made accountable for any crimes committed, disregarding their motives or previous posts or jobs. Even concerning former rebels and Russian servicemen. Criminal prosecution is possible not only in future but now. We have trials completed against a number of people who are convicted while serving as Russian officers, they are now in prison. I should say it was a hard decision for our courts, because despite their apparent crimes, a court jury justified them on more than one occasion. It shows trends in Russian society. Especially after the atrocities done to our citizens by terrorists. I’m personally certain that if we want to bring the order and peace, we mustn’t let anyone contravene the law. As far as Dagestan and Ingushetia are concerned, we see and are well aware of what is going on there - there are indeed disputes and conflicts of interest, but it is not about political interests, but first and foremost, economic, as well as some political conflicts, but not related to any separatist movements - it is about an internal political struggle within the republics themselves. What is the priority for the Caucasus as a whole and the republics? First for all, it’s the restoration of the social and economic sectors. Many people live below the poverty line there, most suffering from unemployment, which is particularly bad among young people. So we have adopted a Programme of Development for Southern Russia, which concerns the North Caucasus republics, first of all. This programme envisages huge investments into the economy and the social sector as a priority. I count on it to be fulfilled successfully.

On NATO

We are generally against NATO extension. Let’s remember how NATO was created - in 1949, the 5th paragraph of the Washington treaty. It was done as a defensive measure during a face-off with the Soviet Union. To defend against a possible threat. The Soviet Union used to say that it wouldn’t attack anybody, western countries said the opposite, but nevertheless officially it was done to defend against the Soviet Union. There’s no Soviet Union anymore. There’s no threat. But the organisation remains. The question is: “Against whom are you allied? What is it all for? ” Ok, some say NATO should fight modern threats. But what are these threats? The spread of nuclear weapons, terrorism, epidemics, international crime, drugs. Is it possible to tackle these threats as a closed military alliance? No. These problems can be solved only on the basis of wide cooperation. Not on the basis of a military block, but on the basis of global cooperation. On the basis of an honest, open and joint struggle against these problems. And expanding the bloc is only creating new borders in Europe. New Berlin walls. This time invisible, but no less dangerous. It limits the power of joint efforts against common threats, because it leads to distrust. It’s obstructive. We all know how decisions are made in NATO. Military-political blocs limit the sovereignty of any member country. Inside barrack-like discipline appears. And the decisions are at first made (we all know where) in one of the leading countries of the bloc, and then legitimized and dispersed. For example the decision on AMD. At first the decision was made and THEN it was discussed in Brussels, only after we criticized it. And we are afraid that if these countries get into NATO today - tomorrow there might appear some offensive rocket systems which will pose a threat to us. Nobody will ask them - the rockets will appear whatever. And what are we going to do then? We always talk about limiting arms in Europe. But while Western countries have been talking about it, we have done it in our country. And in return two military bases appeared near our borders… Soon we might get two new positions in Poland and the Czech Republic. And we can see that military infrastructure is heading towards our borders. What for? No one is posing threat. How can you be a good willing democrat inside the country, and a scary monster outside? What’s democracy? - it is power of the people. In Ukraine polls show more than 80 per cent of the population does not want the country to join NATO. And our partners say that Ukraine WILL be in NATO. So they have decided everything for Ukraine? The opinion of the Ukrainian people doesn’t mean anything? And you are saying this is democracy?

On double standards and the West

We always hear things like “we are civilised countries in the West, choosing partners we should follow common values.” Remembering the hard events in the Caucasus several years ago - thank god it’s over now – during an apparent civil war we suspended the death penalty in our country. It was a hard, but responsible decision. Isn’t it a case of “common values”? In some G8 countries, NATO members, the death penalty persists. Death penalties still carried out. Are they “common values”? It doesn’t stop them from being in NATO and G8. Why is it so selective concerning Russia? What’s permitted to Caesar is not permitted to anyone else? Such dialogue cannot be productive. We should show our hands, treat each other honestly, respect each other - and then a lot more can be done. Let’s take Deripaska for example. I asked my US partners: “Why don’t you grant him a visa? Can you explain? If you have reasons for not giving him a visa, if you have evidence of his illegal activity, please give them to us, and we’ll use them in our country. They would give us nothing and explain nothing. However, he was not granted entry. He is not a friend or relative of mine, just a representative of big business in Russia. He has multi-billion dollar commercial interests in many countries of the world. Why is he restricted? What did he do? If there is something, show it to us. If there is nothing to show, then remove the restrictions.

On Iran’s nuclear programme

I don’t think the Iranians are looking to make a nuclear bomb. We have no reason to believe this. The Iranian people are very proud and independent. They are trying to implement their legal right to develop peaceful nuclear technologies. I should say that formally Iran hasn’t violated any rules. It even has the right to carry out enrichment. It only takes a quick glance at the relevant documents to confirm this. There were some claims that Iran hadn’t revealed all its programmes to the IAEA. This is what we need to clear up. But to a large extent Iran has revealed its nuclear programmes. I repeat there is no official basis for legal claims against Iran. But I have always openly told our Iranian colleagues that we take into account that Iran is not isolated in a vacuum, but in a very dangerous and volatile region. They should keep this in mind and avoid aggravating their neighbours and the international community, and should take steps to convince the international community that they have no secret plans.

[...]

Source: http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/25525

[Armenian]

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

Kosovo phantom hovering over Caucasus

The South Caucasus states have always been in focus of Russian politicians. However, position of official Moscow on the unsettled conflicts in Nagorno Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia sometimes arouses astonishment, specifically in Armenia. The “outpost” stereotype yields to pragmatism. Head of the interethnic relations department at the institute of political and military analysis Sergei Markedonov comments to PanARMENIAN.Net on regional developments.

What’s Russia’s real stand on the Nagorno Karabakh conflict?

Russia’s role is weakening. Unlike the United States, Moscow doesn’t render financial assistance to NKR. Satisfied with contacts with Armenia, Russia doesn’t demonstrate any intention to engage Nagorno Karabakh as a full-fledged participant in the talks. After proclamation of Kosovo’s independence and its recognition by a number of states, Russia outlined its stand on Abkhazia and Ossetia but prefers to avoid Nagorno Karabakh. Meanwhile, strategy should never be restricted to recognition or silence. There are lots of approaches. I should also mention that the position of official Yerevan and unrecognized Stepanakert do not always coincide. Undoubtedly, Russia needs sustainable relations with Azerbaijan. But recognition of NKR as a party in talks is recognition of political reality but not recognition of de facto state.

Despite international community’s statements on inadmissibility of Karabakh conflict resolution by use of force, Baku doesn’t give up its warlike rhetoric and anti-Armenian hysteria…

Official Baku’s conduct should be viewed from various angles. First, it’s the forthcoming presidential election. Second, Azerbaijan is trying to insinuate itself into the international community not only as an energy supplier but also as a dynamically developing state. Be attentive to notice that oil is not mentioned in ads about Azerbaijan. As to bellicose statements, they won’t stop. The Kosovo phantom is hovering over Caucasus. Recognition of the breakaway province’s independence was a part of realpolitik and there is no guarantee that Karabakh will not have the same fate. So, Azerbaijan’s concerns are grounded.

There is an impression that Russia doesn’t have any exact program in Caucasus. Is it really so?

Russia has failed to develop a common and distinct policy in Caucasus so far. It’s always late to react to processes in the South and North Caucasus. Relations with Georgia can serve as a vivid example. Russia is interested in ‘frozen conflicts’. However, conflicts are not frozen but lingering. These two notions are different. Russia supports territorial integrity but it stands against the methods this principle is being pushed forth. As for relations with Armenia and Azerbaijan, I can say that Armenia is Russia’s strategic ally while Azerbaijan is a strategic partner. With its military and economic parameters, Russia is closer to Armenia but in case of resumption of military operations our country will face a hard choice. Unfortunately, the Kosovo precedent can provoke hostilities in Karabakh.

How can you comment on Azerbaijan-Iran relations?

There is some progress, what was almost impossible under Heydar Aliyev’s rule. Iran has recently changed its position on Karabakh in Baku’s favor and relations between the countries grew warmer. They have a number of common problems: the Caspian Sea, Southern Azerbaijan. Although, politicians know that unification of Southern and Northern Azerbaijan is unreal.

The Armenian-Turkish relations leave much to be desired. Do you think normalization of relations is possible?

In early 1990-ies Armenia was ready to normalize relations. However, the process was uncoordinated. When the Karabakh war broke out Turkey closed the border with Armenia, thus nullifying all possibilities of reconciliation. Fearing that Armenian forces can enter Nakhijevan, Ankara has taken up the policy of late President Turgut Ozal, who said that Turkey is responsible for the Ottoman heritage. True, there are politicians in Turkey who wish to normalize relations with Armenia but the strong Azeri lobby hampers the process. I should also mention that the key problem is Nagorno Karabakh but not recognition of the Armenian Genocide.

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/interviews/eng/?nid=106