The Rise of the Russian Empire: Russo-Armenian Relations

[Armenian]

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

The South Ossetian Crisis and Turkey

(Part I)

Turkey’s reaction towards the Georgian aggression against South Ossetia came as a surprise to many European politicians. It was not only the timing of the visit to Moscow of Turkish president Abdulla Gyul and premier Recep Tayyip Erdogan that took place immediately after the beginning of hostilities in South Ossetia, but also because the visit looked like Ankara’s show of support of Russia as an ally.

A number of experts presume that:

a) as the war in South Ossetia grew out of the US attempts to draw Russia into this local conflict, growing into a regional one and

b) a certain chill began to be felt in the relations between Ankara and Washington following that; thus signs of outlines of a potential “condominium” of Russia and Turkey over the Greater Black Sea region taking shape, and given their intention to build up a system of regional security from the Balkans to Caspian Sea on their own, without assistance from non-resident countries in this region, is not out of the question.

Many in the West grew indignant over these developments as they had long been accustomed to regard Turkey as a satellite of the leading nations of the North Atlantic alliance. However, times are changing, and many in the present-day Turkey stopped viewing the West as their friend. The reasons are many… They include US policies in Iraq, especially with reference to the Kurdish problem; and the situation of Turkmen, Turkish kith and kin, the area of whose residence is almost identical with the territory of the so-called “Free Kurdistan” (a quasi-state of Kurds created “under the US security umbrella”), but with Turkmen living suffering from a genocide on the hands of military Kurdish formations, and Washington trying to close its eyes on this. To add up to this is the US intention to implement its project of “Greater Middle East” with plans to have – among other things – bringing together the Iraqi, Turkish, Syrian and Iranian Kurds with the corresponding re-mapping of national borders in the Middle East. (It must be noted that despite the evident threat to Turkey’s sovereignty, these plans were supported by “Party of Justice and Development”, the ruling party led by R.T.Erdogan). Ankara cannot be unconcerned over issues like the absence of a solution of key issues relating to the Kurds issue, willing to ensure its energy security, its EU entry, the refusal of the rest of the world to recognise the Turkish Republic of North Cyprus and the actual failure to create a Turk-Islamic union, and other issues,

The political crisis in Turkey caused by the standoff of the ruling Islamic party and nationalist forces represented by the People’s Republican Party (Deniz Baikal) that is supported by the pro-US Turkish top military leaders along with US attempts to weaken Ankara’s positions in the Black Sea (frontier) states, in the South Caucasus as well as the Northern Iraq make Turkey face a serious geopolitical choice. The option will determine both the implementation of Turkish ruling elites desire to make their country a leading nation in the Near East and the Greater Black Sea region, as well as the future of Turkey’s statehood. What has made the Turkish political leadership respond to the developments in South Ossetia in a specific way that at first puzzled the West so? Washington and Brussels have come to realize that to expect Turkey act in the Greater Black Sea region as “their own”, a 100% (“North Atlantic”) state is now highly unlikely. The US attempts to secure a foothold in the Trans-Caucasus by way of drawing Georgia into the NATO orbit at any cost cannot leave Ankara unconcerned given its claims to create a “strategic corridor” in-between Black and Caspian seas. For that matter, in turn, the United States keeps a close watch of the movements of Azerbaijan, Turkey’s principal strategic partner in the Caucasus.

Matthew Braiza’s recent statements shed enough light on the US stance on the issue. Stressing that until recently “Georgia acted as a regional hub setting the political rhythm and dictating political fashion to other countries”, Braiza underlined that as “the Georgian knot has been severed, the dialogue between Turkey and Russia over Armenia has become inevitable.” Given that Georgia’s former status of a safe transit state ensuring transport of oil from Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, has been dramatically shaken Turkey and Azerbaijan will need to mend their relations with Armenia, which they now regard as an “extra route for the transport of Caspian hydrocarbons, which can play this role only in the conditions of warming of interstate relations in the “Ankara-Yerevan-Baku” triangle. This can account for both the Turkish activities regarding Armenia in August and September that came as a surprise to many, and Turkish intention to broker the settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. Given certain frictions with Washington, the latter is the factor coercing the Turkish leaders to begin dialogue with Moscow. It can be recollected that in the early 1990s when preferential routes of the Baku-Tbilisi-Jeihan oil pipeline were discussed, the Turkish side proposed the so-called “two-pronged formula” of a territorial exchange for Azerbaijan and Armenia (this “smart” scheme was suggested to Turks by US intelligence agent Paul Gobble). In line with the formula, Azerbaijan was to depart from the mountainous parts of Nagorno Karabakh with its predominantly Armenian population, which was to become a part of Armenia. In exchange Yerevan was to give away to Baku the strategically important Zangezur corridor.

As for Moscow, it appears it is interested in bringing its view of the situation in Nagorno Karabakh closer to that of Ankara – at least with an eye to prevent further growth of violence in this sub-region. The chances are that Moscow would soon boost activities in consolidating its relations along the axis “Yerevan - Ankara.” Russia is capable of achieving this, given its own and Armenia’s membership in the OTCS and the pending Armenian presidency in this organisation in 2009 as well as taking into account the roles played in Armenian economy by Russian companies Gazprom, Rosatom and Inter RAO UPS, the ongoing restoration by the Russia’s “Rossiyskiye Zhelezniye Dorogi.” of the Armenia-Turkey railroad, and the Russian military base in Gyumri. The current developments have become one of the factors that motivated Ankara to propose dialogue with Moscow on the initiative named “The Platform of Stability in the Caucasus”, which many in Ankara view as a new “venue” for discussion of problems of regional security. The initiative was discussed during the blitz visit to Moscow of R.T.Erdogan and Abdulla Gyul. The discussion continued during Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov’s visit to Istanbul September 2, 2008.

Source: http://en.fondsk.ru/article.php?id=1684

[Lucin]

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

Lucin jan, my question was rhetorical. I understand the nature of politics. When Khatami visited the Armenian Genocide memorial, the political cards at the time must have been right for him to do so. Even so, it was still a great and pleasant surprise for us Armenians. When Ahmadinejad some-or-less 'fled' Armenia just before his scheduled visit, something serious must have occurred behind the scenes. We might never know what happened. It is interesting that visit to the memorial was on the Iranian delegation's official schedule. Thus, Ahmadinejad must have known about it beforehand. But in the last minute he basically ran away... It was very strange, it was very embarrassing. Something big must have happened. However, what all this does is to illustrates just how weak/vulnerable Iran is politically in the world today. On the other hand look at how Moscow handles the situation. Russia needs Turkish support/cooperation in regional politics and they also need their very lucrative trade with Turkey. Yet, Moscow uses every opportunity to safeguard the Armenian state against Turkish aggression and since their recognition of the Armenian Genocide in 1995 Moscow has been consistent in its rhetoric regarding the issue. Incidentally, it's not just Medvedev, Putin has also visited the memorial, so has Lavrov and Ivanov. Why isn't Iran able to do the same? The difference here is, unlike Iran, Russia is dealing with Turkey from a position of strenght. Didn't we see how unusually soft and approachable Turkey got in the aftermath of the Russian-Georgian war? This was another clear indicator of how dependent Turkey is on Russia and how Moscow controls the politics of the region. Nevertheless, by safeguarding a pro-Russian Armenia in the Caucasus Moscow is in essence safeguarding its national interests. Armenia is Russia's foothold in the strategic Caucasus and an obstacle against Turkish and Western expansion in the region. This is why Russia feels it's necessary to keep the Armenian Genocide issue alive. This is where our tiny landlocked and impoverished Armenia can feel secure in a very hostile environment. However, this is also where Armenia might be forced by Moscow into concessions...

I more or less agree with you. But personally, I think at this moment the Artsakh issue, and especially the recent forceful rhetoric of the Russian officials (such as Lavrov's on an immediate peace resolution) is more significant and vital for Armenia than just a symbolic visit of Medvedev to the Armenian Genocide memorial. I'm not trying to downplay the latter's importance but Russia's stance on Artsakh issue is of greater importance and more concerning.

[Armenian]

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

I more or less agree with you. But personally, I think at this moment the Artsakh issue, and especially the recent forceful rhetoric of the Russian officials (such as Lavrov's on an immediate peace resolution) is more significant and vital for Armenia than just a symbolic visit of Medvedev to the Armenian Genocide memorial. I'm not trying to downplay the latter's importance but Russia's stance on Artsakh issue is of greater importance and more concerning.

I agree. I also fear Russia's actions in the region. However, what is 'your' solution to our problem? What can we do? What options do we have? Play though with Moscow? Move closer to NATO/US? Move closer to Iran? Please tell me in your own words, what are some of the things Armenia can do to safeguard the territories in question under the current geopolitical circumstances. Besides, again we are making the mistake of obsessing over words that diplomats/politicians use. What is said and done are two different things. We simply don't know what is going on behind the scenes. Look at what is happening on the ground instead. What's more, Lavrov has merely repeated what Armenian politicians have been saying since the early 1990s - Armenia is ready for compromise in exchange for peace. None of this, however, implies that Armenia or Artsakh proper is in danger. I admire your nationalism, Lucin.

[Lucin]

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

I agree. I also fear Russia's actions in the region. However, what is 'your' solution to our problem? What can we do? What options do we have? Play though with Moscow? Move closer to NATO/US? Move closer to Iran?

Yes!

[Armenian]

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

Yes!

Are you serious Move away from Russia to get closer to Iran? If you are serious, do you think that's sound policy for Armenia to pursue? Also, I hope you realize that the Russian factor is one of the major reasons keeping Israeli and US missiles out of your homeland.

[Armenian]

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

Top Military Officers Talk in U.S.-Russia Conference

The United States and Russia sent their top military officers to this neutral capital, with its resonant legacy of cold-war-era talks, for a secretly arranged meeting on Tuesday to try to push their strained relations back on track, American officials said. It was the first time that Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had met his counterpart, Gen. Nikolai Makarov, since the Russian was appointed chief of the General Staff this summer. However, the two had spoken by telephone multiple times during the brief August war between Russia and the former Soviet republic of Georgia. The conflict — in which much of the West sided with Georgia and its claims to two breakaway enclaves — worsened relations between Moscow and Washington, particularly after the enclaves declared their independence with Russia’s backing. “I think it’s important that we talk when there isn’t a crisis,” Admiral Mullen said after the meeting.

American military officers said that the session, held at the Königstedt Manor along the Vantaa River, just outside Helsinki, was organized at the request of the Russians. The admiral said he and General Makarov had discussed American disquiet over the war in Georgia — Russia’s first post-Soviet offensive outside its soil — as well as Russian unhappiness with the arrival of American warships in the Black Sea with humanitarian aid for Georgia. Other topics included NATO’s relations with Russia and how to improve cooperation on countering terrorism, halting the proliferation of unconventional weapons and stemming narcotics trafficking. Admiral Mullen offered no details of those discussions but said that he and his counterpart had pledged to continue talking. “Clearly the relationship has changed because of what happened in Georgia,” Admiral Mullen said. “But by no means should it end. I don’t think it can resume exactly where it was before Georgia, but we also covered areas of mutual concern.” He said that “even in our darkest days of the cold war we were talking to each other — and I think we need to continue.” “I’ll go home encouraged by the opportunities that I had to discuss the issues in a very direct way, face to face, and the commitment that in the future we will stay engaged,” he said.

Relations were strained before the Russia-Georgia war. Russia has used its oil and natural gas to fill its coffers and rebuild its military since the disarray of the 1990s, and it has resumed flexing its might with flights by long-range bombers and surveillance planes to test American and NATO airspace. At the same time, Washington’s recent agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic to host American missile-defense sites brought outrage and even threats of military action from the Kremlin. American officials have emphasized that the system — radar equipment and 10 interceptors — is intended to counter a potential Iranian missile attack and poses no threat to the Russian nuclear arsenal. After returning to Moscow, General Makarov told reporters that Russia would “need to take measures in connection with the deployment of missile defense systems in the Czech Republic and Poland.” As tensions have escalated, Admiral Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates have spoken in calm, calibrated terms of the Kremlin’s military decision-making and foreign policy. They have challenged the Kremlin to behave better in global affairs but have noted that Russia’s armed forces do not pose a global risk.

General Makarov was elevated to chief of the Russian General Staff this summer after a long career in the ground forces, although his most recent post was as chief of armaments and deputy defense minister for industrial procurement, according to his official biography. Pentagon officials said his appointment appeared to be part of a Kremlin push to modernize Russia’s military and clamp down on corruption and waste in procurement and payrolls. After the Russia-Georgia conflict, some newer NATO members expressed concerns about their own territorial integrity. Among the most concerned were the Baltic states — Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia — as well as Poland and the Czech Republic. Admiral Mullen said it was vitally important for all of NATO to reassure members that the alliance’s mutual-security guarantees remained an imperative, and he pointedly visited Riga, the Latvian capital, after the Helsinki meeting.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/22/wo...=1&oref=slogin

In related news:

Russia Test-Fires Soviet-era Missile

Russia has test-fired an old Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile as part of efforts to check on the weapon's reliability and extend its service. A spokesman for Russia's strategic missile forces, Colonel Alexander Vovk, said the military launched the RS-18 missile Wednesday from the Baikonur space center in Kazakhstan. He said the launch confirmed its reliability. He said the results of the test supported the decision to extend use of the missile until at least 2031. Moscow started using the RS-18 missile, which NATO calls the SS-19 Stiletto, in the 1970s. Russia's strategic forces have conducted regular test launches of missiles to check their performance. The military has repeatedly extended the lifetime of Soviet-built weapons as the government lacks the funds to replace them quickly with new weapons. Earlier this month, Russia fired two missiles from submarines in the Pacific Ocean and the Barents Sea, and one from the Plesetsk space center in northern Russia. President Dmitri Medvedev said Russia will continue to develop new types of weapons. But he praised the existing system's effectiveness, calling Russia's missile shield "fine."

Source: http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-10-22-voa32.cfm

Russia modernizes missiles in response to US plans

Russia's efforts to upgrade its missile arsenals will help counter the planned U.S. missile defense sites in Europe, a top general said Wednesday. Russia's Strategic Missile Force chief, Col.-Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov, said the military will commission a new type of intercontinental ballistic missile and modify the existing missiles. Solovtsov said that the new RS-24 missile equipped with multiple nuclear warheads will enter service next year. "Its deployment will increase the Strategic Missile Forces' capability to penetrate missile defense systems, thus strengthening the nuclear deterrent potential of Russian strategic forces," he said in a statement carried by Russian news agencies.

Solovtsov said the military conducted two test launches of the RS-24 last year and will make another one before the year's end. Russian officials have said it would gradually replace Soviet-built ballistic missiles. Solovtsov added that the military will also upgrade the existing types of missiles to fit them with decoys intended to counter the prospective U.S. missile shield. Russia has denounced a U.S. plan to deploy a battery of 10 missile interceptors in Poland and a related missile defense radar in the Czech Republic, saying it threatened Russian security. It has dismissed the U.S. claim that the sites were intended to counter a prospective missile threat from Iran and was not aimed against Russia. Russian officials have threatened to point nuclear missiles at the countries that will allow U.S. missile defense sites on their territory. "We are fully confident that the Strategic Missile Forces will be capable of providing a guaranteed nuclear deterrent in the long time to come," Solovtsov said.

He said the military will maintain the Soviet-built missiles, including those that were manufactured in Ukraine. "We have agreements with Ukraine that would allow us to maintain their capability," Solovtsov said. Russia's Strategic Missile Forces said it successfully test-fired an intercontinental ballistic missile Wednesday as part of regular efforts to check the readiness of Soviet-built missiles. Russia's Strategic Missile Forces spokesman Alexander Vovk said the RS-18 missile was launched from the Baikonur cosmodrome in Kazakhstan. He said in a statement that the launch was intended to confirm the missile's reliability as part of efforts to extend the lifetime of this type of missile. Russia's strategic forces have conducted regular test launches of Soviet-built ballistic missiles to check their performance. The military has repeatedly extended the lifetime of Soviet-built weapons as the government lacks the funds to replace them quickly with new weapons.

Source: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i...WpQ8QD93VKASG0

Russia lines up new anti-missile system to counter U.S. missile shield plans

Russia's Strategic Missile Forces are being equipped with new anti-ballistic missile systems in response to U.S. plans to deploy a missile shield in Europe, Interfax reported Wednesday. "Considering the changing military and political situation in the world, and U.S. plans to deploy missile shield, as well as the need to adequately respond to these plans, a set of measures are being taken to develop the Strategic Missile Forces," Commander Col. Gen. Nikolai Solovtsov told Interfax news agency. New types of silo-based and mobile missile systems capable of countering the prospective U.S. missile defense system will be created, he said, adding that a fifth-generation RS-24 multiple-warhead missile system will enter service with the forces in 2009. The new system will strengthen Russia's nuclear deterrence, including its capability to penetrate missile defense shields, he said. RS-24 missiles and RS-12M2 missiles of the Topol-M system, which has already been handed over to the army, will become the fundamental elements of the troops' main attack force, he noted. Repeatedly ignoring Russia's fierce opposition, the United States is determined to set up a missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic to counter the so-called threats from Iran. Moscow warned that the missile shield will definitely pose a threat to its national security and make the two European countries its target of strike once the situation worsens.

Source: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/20...t_10235817.htm

[Armenian]

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

Russian Economy in Difficulty, Not Crisis

The Russian economy is in difficulty, not crisis, stated Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin today in a conversation at a public reception in Novosibirsk sponsored by the United Russia Party, of which Putin is head. “There are difficulties in world finances,” Putin said, “and there really is a crisis there. Here, thank God, there is difficulty, not crisis.” He expressed hope that a crisis did not develop and emphasized that the Russian government was taking definite measures to counteract its negative effects on the economy. Much is succeeding but much remains to be done, Putin said. Putin also commented on government support for small business at that meeting. He promised that the Russian government would dramatically increase that support, mentioning that 3.4 billion rubles was spent for that purpose from the 2008 federal budget. Funds would be distributed through Sberbank, he said, adding that the issue is being actively discussed in the government. Putin was also asked about the transition to the insurance fee system for small and medium-size business. “In this connection, we will stipulate measures that should, as a whole, balance the tax burden on the economy and most of all on small and medium-size business,” the prime minister replied. He emphasized that those measures would affect enterprises working in the sphere of innovative and high technology. “They will take advantage of those benefits, just as agriculture will,” Putin said. When asked if increased taxes will lead to increased tax evasion, Putin replied, “We assume not.”

Source: http://www.kommersant.com/p-13431/financial_crisis/

Central Bank Spends Reserves on Ruble

The Central Bank of Russia continues to prop up the national currency, selling dollars from its international reserves to prevent the ruble from falling sharply. It sold $2 billion yesterday as authorities continue pouring billions of rubles into the banking system to keep it liquid. The fluctuations in the exchange rate of the ruble to the currency basket moved into its second day yesterday. It dropped from 30.35 at Monday’s closing to 30.36 yesterday morning, then rose to 30.27 and dropped to 30.40 – the level it was at at the beginning of the month. That was when the Central Bank started selling its dollars. About $540 billion remain in the reserves. The ruble lost 30 kopecks against the dollar yesterday, reaching 26.59 rubles to the dollar. The euro lost 12.4 kopecks against the ruble, for 35.10 rubles to the euro. On Monday, the euro had gained 22 kopecks. Part of the reason for the dollar’s gain was that banks spent part of the money they received from the Finance Ministry at deposit auctions to buy dollars. The public was also buying dollars because of lingering rumors of the ruble’s devaluation, and the high demand drove the American currency up to between 26.90 and 27.50 rubles at money changers. Interest on interbank crediting also spent its second day in turmoil. It was 15-17 percent in the morning, 7-8 percent later and finally 3-5 percent. Dealers say top rung banks had been paying 8-9 percent, and yesterday’s low represents pre-crisis rates. The Central Bank finally found it necessary to issue a statement denying there were plans for the devaluation of the ruble. “Currency speculators will be very disappointed,” Finance Minister Alexey Kudrin warned.

Source: http://www.kommersant.com/p1045370/c...xchange_rates/

Russian Public Unalarmed by Crisis

The majority of the public in Russia considers the financial crisis in the country a result of the world crisis and a “temporary phenomenon,” and so is not frightened by it, Levada Center pollsters have found. Fourteen percent of the population does not even know anything about the crisis. Another 14 percent has heard of it, but is unable to say anything specific about it. Forty-two percent felt little concern over the crisis and do not think that it will “reach the bases of our economy” and “the situation in the country will soon stabilize.” Nonetheless, a significant part of the public is concerned. Thirty-one percent are worried that “serious financial disturbances await the country’s economy.” The 40-55 age group was the most pessimistic (35%) and 18-25 was the least pessimistic (26%). The younger group also had a high percentage of those who “haven’t heard anything about the crisis” (20%). Village dwellers’ indicators were similar to the youths. Only 23 percent of respondent in villages expected financial disturbances, and 23 percent had not heard of the crisis. Residents of cities with populations over 500,000 were the best informed and most perturbed. Among them, 37 percent expected financial shakeup and only 40 percent thought it was a passing phenomenon. Moscow is an exception, however. There 57 percent think the crisis will be fleeting, and 28 percent are concerned about financial disturbance. The pollsters note that Moscow has always been more stable and prosperous than the rest of the country. Fifty-four percent of all respondents consider the crisis in Russia a consequence of the world financial crisis (72% in Moscow). Eleven percent consider it completely a result of “the economic policy of the Russian leadership in recent years” (5% in Moscow). Twenty-three percent consider it the fault of the Russian leadership “to a significant degree” (19% in Moscow) and 19 percent of the country does not consider Russian economic policy the cause of the crisis at all (31% in Moscow).

Source: http://www.kommersant.com/p1045311/p...ancial_crisis/

[Armenian]

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

Some interesting rhetoric has been coming out of Yerevan and Moscow regarding Nagorno Karabakh. Accordingly, Artsakh is expected to gain recognition and Yerevan is expected to return the "seven regions" taken outside of Artsakh proper to Azerbaijan. My biggest concern here is the fate of the territories West of Nagorno Karabakh, the strategic areas between Karvajar (Kelbajar) and Berdzor (Lachin). Moreover, I was speaking to a well-informed friend in Yerevan about the military operation last August in northeastern Artsakh that succeeded in liberating large areas of land in the Martakert district. Basing his opinion on the relative easy with which the operation was carried out, the low numbers of casualties on both sides, and the silence in which it was performed, he suspects that the operation in question may have been coordinated with Baku and Moscow. The three nations in question are most probably negotiating the distribution of the land in question. It's now becoming increasingly obvious that high level negotiation have been taking place. And it seems that there will be an exchange of territories between Armenia and Azerbaijan. The populations in both nations have will have to be first prepared for this finale.

Armenian

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

Zatulin: Karabakh resolution package envisaging NKR recognition and return

The situation in the Caucasus has considerably changed. Russia has broken relations with Georgia, one of the five states of the region, Konstantin Zatulin, Russian Duma member and director of Institute of CIS Studies said during Yerevan-Moscow TV space bridge. "We understand that with the hope to resolve the Karabakh problem in favor of Yerevan, the Armenian authorities used to strain Karabakh's aspiration to develop relations with Abkhazia and South Ossetia," he said, adding that Russia wants to see both Armenia and Azerbaijan mitigate positions on the issue in order to avoid the Georgian scenario," he said. "The situation at the contact line between the Karabakh and Azeri armed forces tensed during the war in South Ossetia," he said. "At that I should mention that a resolution package envisaging NKR recognition and return of 7 regions was developed long ago. The most important thing to do now is to prevent any kind of violence in the region and interference of third states, which want to re-open the wounds," the Russian politician said.

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=27446

Armen Ashotyan: Armenia has a joker - recognition of Karabakh

Armenian parliament member Armen Ashotyan doesn't share the optimism about soonest resolution of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict. However, Armenia would be glad if Russia recognized NKR, according to him. "Russia has lingered with recognition of South Ossetia and Abkhazia for a long time. But after the recognition, its officials said it was a forced measure meant to guarantee security of the breakaway republics. I think Armenia has a joker, that is de jure recognition of Nagorno Karabakh in case of necessity," he said, adding that NKR's statehood development is not inferior to that of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. "Armenia wishes the interests of the Nagorno Karabakh Republic were taken into consideration in the settlement process," Ashotyan said.

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=27444

Russia decided to increase its influence on Armenia and Azerbaijan via active mediation in Karabakh process

The nature of the Armenian-Russian relations and the latest developments in the South Caucasus added savor to Dmitry Medvedev’s visit to Armenia, an Armenian MP said. “Speaking about the Armenian-Russian relations, we proceed from two basic points. First, it’s the centuries-old friendship, which underlies bilateral relations. Second, it’s the policy, which is materialized due to global developments. The recent events in Georgia highlighted this approach in the Armenian-Russian relations,” Armen Ashotyan, chairman of the RA NA standing committee of science, education, culture, youth and sports, said during Yerevan-Moscow TV space bridge today. Russia is not just a strategic partner for Armenia. Yerevan is interested in Russia’s assistance in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict settlement process, according to him. At the same time Ashotyan remarked that “Armenia and Russia do not satisfy each other’s geopolitical needs in the region.” “From this standpoint, the Armenian-European-American and Russian-Turkish-Azeri flirts should be taken easy, since they complement national interests Armenia and Russia can’t offer each other,” he said, adding that Russia decided to increase its influence on Armenia and Azerbaijan via active mediation in the Karabakh process.

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=27443

Alexander Iskandaryan: old South Caucasus vanished after five-day war

Russian President Dmitry Medvedev's visit to Armenia was unusual, because it was a visit to a new South Caucasus, an Armenian political scientist said. "The old South Caucasus vanished after five-day war. Presently, Russia and other states should interact with the region which entered a new stage of development. Medvedev's visit was an attempt to sound the situation. I think that the Armenian-Russian relations should be further built in the context of recent Georgian events," director of Caucasus Institute, political scientist Alexander Iskandaryan said, adding that Armenia values relations with Russia, U.S. and Georgia. Touching on the regional conflicts, he noted that the tendency of "non-resolution of conflicts" prevailed in the region during the past 17 years. "I do not have optimistic expectations, despite officials' statements," he said. "The Moscow-Washington rivalry has become more vivid. Armenia has to take it for granted," Iskandaryan resumed.

Source: http://www.panarmenian.net/news/eng/?nid=27445

In related news:

AZERBAIJAN: POTENTIAL PIPELINE DEAL COULD HELP SETTLE NAGORNO-KARABAKH ISSUE

Economics may hold the key to breaking the stalemate in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process. Turkish and Azerbaijani officials reportedly are seriously mulling the possibility of Armenian participation in the long-planned Nabucco pipeline project as part of a comprehensive Karabakh peace pact. Turkey is leading efforts to energize the Karabakh peace process. Turkish, Armenian and Azerbaijani officials met in New York on September 26 to discuss the Karabakh issue and other security matters. That meeting kindled hopes that a settlement could be achieved by the end of 2008. Although details of the recent discussions have been scarce, some experts believe that the three sides have probed a possible bargain under which Armenia would become part of the Nabucco pipeline plans, in return for a greater degree of flexibility concerning Yerevan’s position on Karabakh. Yerevan’s willingness to modify its long-standing demand for Karabakh independence would appear to be the key as to whether this latest push for Karabakh peace can be successful. Azerbaijani officials seem willing to work with Armenia on the Nabucco project, if Yerevan shows sufficient flexibility on Karabakh. "Of course, Azerbaijan has set political conditionality related to the Karabakh conflict on this [Nabucco] issue," Elhan Shahinoglu, the director of the Baku-based Atlas center for political research, told EurasiaNet. Turkish analyst Sinan Ogan, the chair of the Ankara-based TURKSAM think tank, said that the topic of Armenia’s participation in the Nabucco project came up during US Vice President xxxx Cheney’s recent, controversial visit to Baku. "There are serious plans to involve Armenia in this project. Turkey and Azerbaijan were against this idea at first, but now Armenia’s participation seems realistic," Ogan said in comments broadcast September 19 on Voice of America radio. Initial indicators are that the three sides did not make significant headway on the Karabakh issue during the September 26 meeting in New York. On September 28, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan flatly admitted that ’there are no concrete results yet," according to a report distributed by the RIA-Novosti news agency. Turkish President Abdullah Gul also revealed that there has not yet been any movement on the matter of Turkey ending its economic embargo against Armenia. The AzerTaj news agency reported Gul as telling a Turkish diaspora group on September 28 that "no talks over the border [re-]opening with Armenia are possible before Armenia’s liberation of Azerbaijani occupied territories." While the notion of linking a potential Armenian role in Nabucco to the Karabakh peace process has not been raised publicly, Gul came close to making a public admission on September 10 during a diplomatic trip to Baku. "No doubt that the fast liberation of the occupied [Azerbaijani] territories would be an important step and it would encourage very efficient economic cooperation in the region. Pipelines and transport communications would cover the entire Caucasus region," Gul said in Baku. Shahinoglu, the Baku political analyst, believes the peace process is now at a delicate stage. Any potential breakthrough will likely require the United States and Russia - two of the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group - to set aside their present differences and engage in diplomatic cooperation, Shahinoglu suggested. "Obviously, there is a completely new dynamic surrounding the evolution of talks on the Karabakh conflict, creating unique opportunities for a breakthrough," Shahinoglu said. "However, this dynamic could [possibly] result in resumption of the war, if the great powers - first and foremost Russia and United States - continue to differ fundamentally on their approach to the future of South Caucasus region." Shahinoglu added that the Kremlin was not especially interested in seeing the Turkish initiative concerning Karabakh succeed. He reasoned that the normalization of Armenian-Turkish relations and the settlement of the Karabakh question, as well as Yerevan’s potential involvement in Nabucco, would all do considerable harm to Russia’s geopolitical interests in the Caucasus.

Source: http://www.eurasianet.org/department...v093008a.shtml

[Armenian]

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

A Northern Neighbor Growls, and Azerbaijan Reassesses Its Options

This country has always had tricky geography. To its north is Russia. To its south is Iran. And ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union it has looked west, inviting American companies to develop its oil reserves and embracing NATO. But since Russia and Georgia fought a short war this summer, its path has narrowed. Azerbaijan, a small, oil-rich country on the Caspian Sea, has balanced the interests of Russia and the United States since it won its independence from the Soviet Union. It accepts NATO training but does not openly state an intention to join. American planes can refuel on its territory, but American soldiers cannot be based here. “Azerbaijan is doing a dance between the West and Russia,” said Isa Gambar, an Azeri opposition figure. “Until now, there was an unspoken consensus. Georgia was with the West, Armenia was an outpost of Russia, and Azerbaijan was in the middle.” But with the war in Georgia, Russia burst back into the region, humiliating Tbilisi and its sponsor, the United States, which issued angry statements but was powerless to stop Russia’s advance. It was a sobering sight for former Soviet states, and one that is likely to cause countries like Azerbaijan to recalibrate their policies. “The chess board has been tilted, and the pieces are shifting into different places,” said Paul Goble, an American expert on the region, who teaches at the Azerbaijan Diplomatic Academy in Baku, the capital. “What looked balanced before does not look balanced now.” A Western official said, referring to Azerbaijan: “Georgia was very much a wake-up call. This is what the Russians can do and are prepared to do. Georgia events underscored their vulnerability.”

Azerbaijan will be under more pressure from Russia when undertaking energy contracts and pipeline routes that Russia opposes, said one Azeri official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the matter. Officials from Russia’s gas monopoly, Gazprom, on a trip here this spring, offered to buy Azerbaijan gas at European prices, rather than at the former reduced rate. That offer, if the Azeris chose to accept it, could sabotage a Western-backed gas pipeline project called Nabucco. Rasim Musabayov, a political commentator in Baku, said that under the new conditions, many Azeris think that selling gas to Russia is not such a bad idea. New projects carry political risks, he said, and if Russia “will pay us a price we agree on for our gas, why build something new?” “You can’t have a foreign policy that goes against your geography,” he added. “We have to get along with the Russians and the Iranians.” After the fall of the Soviet Union, Russia was weak, with a collapsed economy and a scattered, inconsistent foreign policy. Azerbaijan used that to its advantage. Now Russia is stronger and speaks in one voice, and Azerbaijan has to be more careful in its relations with its big neighbor. Georgia is now so hostile to Russia that working with it as a partner in the region is increasingly difficult, said Borut Grgic, chairman of the Institute for Strategic Studies in Ljubljana, Slovenia, an expert on Caspian energy infrastructure. “Azerbaijan will never seek E.U.-NATO integration at the expense of functional and working relations with Russia,” he said. The Georgian president, Mikheil Saakashvili, he said, “is making this balance difficult to sustain.”

At no point in the crisis did Azerbaijan take a position that would have made Moscow bristle. When the fighting began, Azerbaijan appealed to Russia, asking it to preserve its infrastructure in Georgia — a port, an oil terminal and a pipeline. Moscow agreed, according to Azerbaijan’s foreign minister, Elmar Mammadyarov. Azerbaijan helped European diplomats enter Georgia while it was under attack, but when the leaders of Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland traveled to Tbilisi to express solidarity with the Georgians, the Azeri president, Ilham Aliyev, did not make the trip. And after Vice President xxxx Cheney visited Baku in September, Mr. Aliyev flew immediately to Moscow for talks with the Russians. But the issue closest to this country’s heart is that of Nagorno-Karabakh, an area in its southwest where Armenian separatists formed an independent enclave in the 1990s. For years, Azerbaijan has tried, through international mediation, to reclaim the territory and allow Azeri refugees who fled to return. Since the war this summer, the Russians seem to have grabbed the initiative. President Dmitri A. Medvedev, on a trip to Yerevan, Armenia, this week, said Russia was pushing for a meeting between the Azeri and Armenian presidents. “I hope such a meeting will take place in Russia,” he said, Reuters reported. Russia has traditionally backed the Armenians, but times are changing. “One of the positive effects of the Georgian crisis is that the Kremlin will try to show that they are not crazy guys,” an Azeri official said. “That they can be good neighbors, too.” The Russian attitude toward Azerbaijan, one Azeri official said, was that “the U.S. has come to your country and is plundering your natural resources, but not giving you any support. Why not go with us instead?” Mr. Cheney, on his visit to Baku, also pledged to redouble efforts, causing some Azeris to remark ruefully that it took him eight years to make the trip. Ali Hasanov, an official in Azerbaijan’s presidential administration, said concrete progress would win many points in Baku. “If a big country takes a position, stands on the side of unbroken territory, we will follow its interests,” he said.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/23/wo...3azeri.html?em

[Lucin]

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

Are you serious Move away from Russia to get closer to Iran?

Nah, I was not. How can I suggest Armenia move away from Russia, especially at this point? What's more, Armenia is already close to Iran. But does moving closer to Iran equal to moving away from Russia?

Also, I hope you realize that the Russian factor is one of the major reasons keeping Israeli and US missiles out of your homeland.

Yes, I realise that. How can I thank them? I have already expressed numerous times my appreciation, love and respect for Putin. But I also know that the Russians benefit from the overall situation (western hostility towards Iran) too…