Russia

[Ashot]

Report: Russia tests 'dad of all bombs'

 

 

MOSCOW — The Russian military has successfully tested what it described as the world's most powerful non-nuclear air-delivered bomb, Russia's state television reported Tuesday, the latest show of the nation's military muscle amid chilly relations with the United States.

It was the latest show of Russia's military muscle amid chilly relations with the United States.

 

Channel One television said the new weapon, nicknamed the "dad of all bombs" is four times more powerful than the U.S. "mother of all bombs."

 

"The tests have shown that the new air-delivered ordnance is comparable to a nuclear weapon in its efficiency and capability," said Col.-Gen. Alexander Rukshin, a deputy chief of the Russian military's General Staff, said in televised remarks.

 

Unlike a nuclear weapon, the bomb doesn't hurt the environment, he added.

 

The statement reflected the Kremlin's efforts to restore Russia's global clout and rebuild the nation's military might while the ties with Washington have been strained over U.S. criticism of Russia's backsliding on democracy, Moscow's vociferous protests of U.S. missile defense plans, and rifts over global crises.

 

The U.S. Massive Ordnance Air Blast, nicknamed the Mother Of All Bombs, is a large-yield satellite-guided, air-delivered bomb described as the most powerful non-nuclear weapon in history.

 

Channel One said that while the Russian bomb contains 7.8 tons of high explosives compared to more than 8 tons of explosives in the U.S. bomb, it's four times more powerful because it uses a new, highly efficient type of explosives that the report didn't identify.

 

While the U.S. bomb is equivalent to 11 tons of TNT, the Russian one is equivalent to 44 tons of regular explosives. The Russian weapon's blast radius is 990 feet, twice as big as that of the U.S. design, the report said.

 

Like its U.S. predecessor, first tested in 2003, the Russian bomb is a "thermobaric" weapon that explodes in an intense fireball combined with a devastating blast. It explodes in a terrifying nuclear bomb-like mushroom cloud and wreaks destruction through a massive shock wave created by the air burst and high temperature.

 

Thermobaric weapons work on the same principle that causes blasts in grain elevators and other dusty places — clouds of fine particles are highly explosive. Such explosions produce shock waves that can be directed and amplified in enclosed spaces such as buildings, caves or tunnels.

 

Channel One said that the temperature in the epicenter of the Russian bomb's explosion is twice as high as that of the U.S. bomb.

 

The report showed the bomb dropped by parachute from a Tu-160 strategic bomber and exploding in a massive fireball. It featured the debris of apartment buildings and armored vehicles at a test range, as well as the scorched ground from a massive blast.

 

It didn't give the bomb's military name or say when it was tested.

 

Rukshin said the new bomb would allow the military to "protect the nation's security and confront international terrorism in any situation and any region."

 

"We have got a relatively cheap ordnance with a high strike power," Yuri Balyko, head of the Defense Ministry's institute in charge of weapons design, told Channel One.

 

Booming oil prices have allowed Russia to steadily increase military spending in recent years, and the Kremlin has taken a more assertive posture in global affairs.

 

Last month, President Vladimir Putin said he ordered the resumption of regular patrols of strategic bombers, which were suspended after the 1991 Soviet breakup.

 

 

 

[Ashot]

Arthur Chilingarov awarded the title of the Hero of Russia

 

 

According to RA President Vladimir Putin’s decree, the Vice-Speaker of the Russian State Duma, renowned polar explorer Arthur Chilingarov was awarded the title of the Hero of the Russian Federation for participation in the underwater expedition at the Northern pole

 

Hero’s titles were awarded to participants of the same expedition Anatoly Sagalevich and Evgeny Chernyayev.

 

In August 2007 the participants of the expedition reached the bottom of the ocean in the Northern pole and carried out a great scientific research.

 

Arthur Chilingaryan was born in 1939 in Leningrad (Saint Petersburg). He is a corresponding member of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences and a Hero of the Soviet Union.

[Ashot]

ARMENIAN PM CONGRATULATES RUSSIAN ARMENIAN SCIENTIST

 

YEREVAN, JANUARY 14, ARMENPRESS: Prime Minister Serzh Sarkisian sent a congratulatory message to Arthur Chilingarov on his having been conferred upon the title of Hero of Russia, which reads as follows, in particular:

"Dear Arthur Nikolayevich, Please accept my heartfelt congratulations on your conferment upon the high title of Hero of Russia, which in fact symbolizes the appreciation of your significant contribution to the exploration and mastering of the Arctic.

Having been granted the title of Hero for the second time at an interval of twenty years, you keep on acting not only as a polar explorer, but also as a statesman and a public figure. Your determination and heroism set a good example to the rising generation.

Our pleasure is a twofold one for the activities and the bravery of our compatriot were assessed at their true value, and we are sincerely proud of your achievements.

I wish you, Dear Arthur Nikolayevich, robust health and further success in your multifaceted activity."

Arthur Chilingarov was among three other Russian scientists whom Russian president Vladimir Putin granted "hero" awards for backing Russia's claim to a mountain range under the Arctic Ocean that is believed to contain huge oil and gas reserves.

The scientists planted a Russian flag under the North Pole ice in August as part of an Arctic expedition that heated up the controversy over an area that a U.S. study suggests may contain as much as 25 percent of the world's undiscovered oil and gas.

Russia is one of several countries that have laid claims to the area.

Chilingarov, a renowned polar scientist, was named a Hero of the Soviet Union in the 1980s after leading an expedition aboard a research vessel that was trapped for a time in Antarctic sea ice.

Edited January 16, 2008 by Ashot

[elle]

Russian Warships to Dock in Syria

Russian military build-up in Mediterranean starts; linked to Iran?

 

by Margot Dudkevitch

 

 

In an effort to expand its military presence in the international arena and reestablish a naval presence in the Middle East, Russia has dispatched a naval fleet to the region, including a guided missile cruiser, two anti-submarine ships and 47 fighter planes. The fleet will dock at the Syrian port of Tartus where Russia maintains a technical base. At the same port, Iranian ships are also docked.

 

Russian Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov told reporters that the expedition "is aimed at ensuring a naval presence and establishing conditions to secure Russian navigations." Serdyukov added that the fleet will conduct tactical exercises with real and simulated launches of sea and air based missiles and intends to call at a number of different ports in the region.

 

In the past, Russian President Vladimir Putin stressed that Russia would respond in the event Iran was attacked by a foreign power. Boosting Russia's naval presence in the area could well be an attempt to signal to Israel and possibly America that if Iran is attacked, Russia will strike back.

 

The Russian President has stressed on numerous occasions that he strives to become more involved in the Middle East, including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

 

Whether such a large Russian presence docked at the Syrian port, will hamper Israeli navy operations or intelligence gathering missions remains to be seen.

 

 

[Ashot]

Here we go Russia will not tolerate anything - now let others worry!!! every nation who took America's ass has to reconsider it - Russia is there right next to the waiting to spank any nation that does not cooperate, America is too far to do anything!!! GO RUSSIA - I am all for the Russian side no matter what - I strongly believe that the US has nothing that can scare Russia!!! And Armenia being the first and the best ally to Russia is actually becoming more and more frightening to the surrounding Nations!!!

[elle]

Eurasian Customs Union to be formed

 

Global Research, October 14, 2007

Itar-Tass - 2007-10-06

 

Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan have agreed on formation of a legal basis for their Customs Union.

 

The functions of its supreme body are transferred to the EurAsEC Inter-State Council. The decision was unanimously taken at the EurAsEC summit.

 

EurAsEC Secretary-General Grigory Rapota noted that the work to form a legal basis for the Customs Union was done in accordance with the instructions given by the heads of the three states in August 2006. The basis is formed, he said. Vice-Premier Sergei Naryshkin, a member of the Russian delegation, said after the meeting that the functions of the supreme body of the Customs Union were transferred to the EurAsEC Inter-State Council.

 

The presidents of the EurAsEC counties signed the documents prepared by the working group, Naryshkin said.

 

The protocol signed by six states makes changes to the base agreement on the EurAsEC formation, thus, transferring the functions to the council, he explained.

 

Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan also decided to form a commission of the Customs Union, agreed on common customs territory formation and adopted the protocol for the agreements forming the legal basis to come into force.

 

The plan of action for three years to form the Customs Union is also approved, but with a recommendation to accelerate the process.

 

The work to form a legal basis for the common economic space will continue, and the results will be reported to the next meeting of the EurAsEC Inter-State Council on the head of state level. It will take place in Moscow in 2008.

 

Before the signing of the documents at the summit, Rapota noted that the Russian, Kazakh and Belarussian governments at the next meeting of the council on the head of government level would sign documents aimed at forming the legal basis for the Customs Union to ensure the implementation of the plan of action.

 

 

I wonder why Armenia isn't on the list?

Edited February 7, 2008 by elle

[elle]

The OSCE Minsk Group as a Tool to Promote U.S. Interests in the Caucasus

by Andrei Areshev

 

Global Research, July 29, 2007

Strategic Culture Foundation - 2007-04-11

 

The OSCE Minsk Group as a Tool to Promote U.S. Interests in the Caucasus

The refusal by U.S. State Department to issue an entry visa to Abkahzia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Shamba caused severe criticism of its American colleagues from the Russian Foreign Ministry. The comment of the Ministry’s Information and Press Department had it that by acting this way “U.S. State Department has actually blocked the holding of an unofficial meeting between the Abkhazian representative and members of the U.N. Security Council on the eve of negotiations aimed at getting an agreement on the text of a new resolution relating to the settlement of the Georgia-Abkhazia conflict.”

 

Other excerpts of the text of the official statement of the RF Foreign Ministry are no less noteworthy:”This stance of the American diplomacy causes misunderstanding, raising serious question here in Moscow… The Abkhazian side as one of the officially acknowledged parties to the conflict has every right, along with Georgia, to get its message across to the international participants of the settlement process to express its views of the essence of the provisions of the resolution that have to do with it.” (emphasised by me, A.A.)

 

The controversy between Russia and the United States over the entire complex of issues related to the unsettled conflicts is snowballing. A recent session of the UN Security Council was devoted to “the Ahtisaari Plan”, according to which the region is to be granted actual independence. A clear threat of a Russian veto made the West accelerate the re-grouping of its diplomatic combat units concerning the Kosovo issue. Former U.S. UN representative Richard Halbrook, one of the top figures behind the bloodshed in the Balkans and the follow-up Bosnian “peace-making”, has warned that “a delay and emasculation of the plan, or a veto on granting independence to Kosovo under the guidance of an EU mission would result in a bloodshed, for which Russia would be held responsible. Moscow’s response to this blackmail complete with its threat of unleashing a new battle in the Balkans was extremely negative, while the scandal around the aborted visit to New York of the Abkhazian delegation only increased mutual distrust and suspicions.

 

From time to time one can hear that there still is one conflict, approaching which Russia, the United States and Europe identify with one another as in no other case. What is meant is the Karabakh conflict where different brokers are going out of their ways to observe politesse and to demonstrate their unity of approach. Another proof of this stance comes from Yerevan, where Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov paid a visit several days ago. According to him, the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, to a greater degree than any other conflict, has to be given the status of a unique case, and not because principles other than those of the international law are applicable to it. The case rather is that “from the practical point of view this must probably be the only conflict where the interests of Russia, the United States and the EU are never contradictory at the same time not contradicting the interests of the conflicting sides.”

Such a statement can really bewilder. From what Sergei Lavrov said it is not quite clear why Karabakh was destined to be “so lucky”. It makes one think that the Russian minister was assigned to demonstrate at least one example of Moscow’s successful interaction with Washington in an attempt to settle at least one “frozen” conflict. But it did not work out that way!

Regardless of the fact that both Moscow and Washington never stop declaring that there is no alternative to the OSCE Minsk Group, its intermediary’s activities of many years have been stalled. It would be hard to expect something different, given that right from the start the Minsk Group was a product of a political consensus of the world’s leading players (the U.S., Russia and the EU) without a clearly formulated mandate, and consequently, without clear-cut authority.

 

Over the period starting from the conclusion in 1994 – thanks to Russia’s efforts -of a truce in Karabakh, the United States have been taking most drastic measures aimed to ensure its forced military and political and economic penetration into the Transcaucasus.

The role to be played by the Minsk Group has been transformed accordingly. It has now virtually become a tool of realisation of U.S. interests in this region. Matthew Braiza, the group’s U.S. co-chair, has for a long time promoted U.S. energy projects on the post-Soviet space, and he is still at it. Neither is he indifferent to the “Iranian problem”. Speaking at a press conference in Tbilisi on March 30th, Braiza said: “under urgent conditions the United States would count on using an Azeri aerodrome for military purposes.” Many commentators viewed that as another proof of Washington’s intention to solve “the Iranian problem” by force. And in such an eventuality the consequences can be most unfavourable to Armenia, the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan. Russian co-chairman of the Minsk Group Y. Merzliakov is of the opinion that the intensification of tension around Iran would put off the solution of the Karabakh problem thus possibly leading to its new “freezing.” However, Merzliakov’s U.S. colleague thinks that the peaceful solution of the Karabakh issue based on a compromise is not an end in itself, as it is absolutely secondary to the solution of more important “global” issues that are in no small degree connected with the complete ousting of Russia from Transcaucasia.

To speak of any coincidence of Russia’s and the U.S. interests in the solution of the Karabakh problem – as well as the problems of Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia - is out of the question. Try as they might, diplomats would fail to reassure the world public that the situation is reverse. Their assurances look as some sort of self-mesmerising, dangerous in its distortion of reality.

 

To those unwilling to go on milling over the settlement of the Karabakh problem, the only constructive way is to consider the issue of whether Russia should continue its membership in the OSCE Minsk Group as well as that of a return to the negotiations format worked out by the 1994 OSCE Budapest summit and the follow-up resolutions. As is prescribed by that format there are three parties at the Karabakh negotiations, Azerbaijan, Armenia and the Republic of Nagorno Karabakh (NKR), whose status as an internationally acknowledged party to the conflict is identical to that of Abkhazia or South Ossetia.

The NKR, as well as other de-facto post-Soviet states, is entitled to have “the complete right to bring across to the international parties to the process of settlement its views”, demanding that its right be respected. It expects this right to be acknowledged.

Edited February 7, 2008 by elle

[Ashot]

Because Armenia has it signed few years ago?

[elle]

Meaning?

They're just forming it though?

[elle]

NATO Build-Up On Russia's Borders

Worst Treachery Since Munich 1938

 

by Valentin Zorin

 

Allow me to start off with a personal recollection. I accompanied Mikhail Gorbachev on his visit to the United States of America almost seventeen years ago, and attended, as another adviser, Gorbachev’s meetings with George Bush Sr., and that gave me a rare chance to watch what historians of the future will surely be inclined to describe as the biggest breach of confidence and compare to the notoriously known Munich agreement between France and Britain, on the one hand, and Nazi Germany, on the other.

 

Mikhail Gorbachev and George Bush Sr. focused on the reunification of divided Germany. President Bush saw the reunification of Germany as a fundamental factor of continental stability and global detente.

 

He repeatedly assured Soviet leader Gorbachev that the reunification of Germany would never take the North Atlantic Alliance closer to the Soviet border. I can still open my old notebook or play back an old tape to recall what he said: “The allied forces will not be inching closer to your border.”

 

I’m sure that repeatedly reiterated pledge can still be found in President Bush’s archives, and in the old files of the U.S Department of State because the then Secretary of State, James Baker, also attended that meeting – and is still with us, which makes the verification of what I say very easy.

 

The same kind of pledge was made by German Chancellor Helmut Kohl and British Prime Minister John Major. But those political leaders prefer to keep mum now that the pledge they made on behalf of their Cabinets and countries is brazenly reduced to ashes.

 

The deployment of NATO forces in the immediate vicinity of Russia and the Pentagon’s decision to station troops in Poland and the Czech Republic leave those highly respected gentlemen unperturbed in the happy oblivion of one not unimportant principle of international law – continuity of international commitments.

 

The arrival of NATO forces at the border of Russia translates into more than a threat to the Russian Federation. Russia will find a way to meet this threat. The American super-hawks had better remember that Russia remains a powerful country with impressive stocks of nuclear missiles.

 

If the perfidious disregard of that old pledge deals a blow to anything, it deals it to trust in relations between different members of the international community, trust which rests on respect of international commitments and all ground-laying norms of international law. An old Roman dictum has reigned for more than two thousand years in the field of international relations – “pacta servanda sunt.”

 

Disregard of this principle, uncivilized and irresponsible attempts to ignore it may reduce international relations to uncontrollable chaos, which is unacceptable by definition and absolutely unacceptable in this age of nuclear weapons.

 

According to an old saying, a liar is not believed even when he happens to speak the truth. What kind of relations is Moscow supposed to maintain with Washington if it cannot rely on the word of an American President? If an American President felt free to go back on his word?

 

The world faces a number of complicated and thorny problems. International terrorism, environmental pollution, which puts a question mark over the human civilization, energy security and, last but not least, the hitherto unknown diseases which may hit the human race worse than the awful scourges of the past – plague and cholera – did centuries ago. No country, not even the cocksure United States of America, is capable of settling these problems by single-handed effort.

 

Close, enduring and, by all means, honest cooperation between the United States and Russia is a necessary condition for the settlement of the existing problems. But trust is a necessary condition for this kind of cooperation. The American disregard of important earlier-signed agreements will surely undermine trust in today’s and future relations.

 

The Bush dynasty will sooner or later go off the political stage, but policy-makers to come will surely face the same kind of problems. Isn’t it time for them to stop thinking in terms of their political affiliations and give, instead, serious thought to this consideration?

 

 

 

[Ashot]

"Where is Russia heading?"

 

Russia's First Deputy Prime Minister, Sergey Ivanov, has addressed delegates at the world's annual security conference in Germany. The speech entitled ‘Where is Russia Heading?’ outlined Russia's future role in global security. Ivanov also spoke on the country's economic development, as well as its relations with the U.S.

“The process of Russia’s revival objectively combines our ambition to occupy an appropriate place in international politics and our commitment to maintain our national interests,” said Ivanov.

 

He went on to say, “Russia doesn’t aim to buy the world with its petrodollars. But while welcoming foreign investment in Russia’s economy, we expect it to be two-way traffic. Yet for the moment the ratio accumulated in mutual investment is one to ten in favour of the European Union.”

 

“By 2020 Russia should be among the world’s five biggest economies with GDP per capita of over $US 30,000,” he predicted.

 

“It would really become possible to shift the control of nuclear weapons and the process of their gradual reduction to a multilateral basis. This is precisely an area of international relations where Russia and the U.S. are obliged to show their leadership. None of us has any doubts about the importance of multilateral barriers to WMD proliferation,” Ivanov added.

 

To watch the full version of Ivanov’s address, please follow the link

 

Meanwhile, the Secretary-General of the EU Council, Javier Solana, says Russia is becoming a key security partner for Europe. He also praised Russia's efforts in solving Iran's nuclear issue.

 

Solana suggested that the next round of international talks on Iran's programme should be held in the Russian capital.

 

Solana stated there are misunderstandings in Moscow's relations with its western partners, but he's optimistic that both sides will overcome their differences.

 

Known as the ‘Davos’ of security forums, the annual Munich conference brings together the cream of the world’s political crop. It’s an informal meeting where defence experts and politicians often make frank exchanges.

 

Russia Today

[elle]

Inch lav kliner che vor Russastani mijotsov atomain bomb gtseink (baits arants mez viravorelu iharke) Turkeri u Azerneri vra, u mer sax problemner@ lutsats kliner. Ahavora vor endmisht mer koxknen linelu ev endmisht hayer@ u hay ergir@ piti nexvats lini erku koxmits. Edited February 11, 2008 by elle

[AVO]

Da knshanaki menq mer hogh@ rmbakotsetsinq, yev ayn kdarna anpitani. bayts lav mitqa Rubon vor Valodiin karana hamozi lav klini.

[garmag]

Inch lav kliner che vor Russastani mijotsov atomain bomb gtseink (baits arants mez viravorelu iharke) Turkeri u Azerneri vra, u mer sax problemner@ lutsats kliner. Ahavora vor endmisht mer koxknen linelu ev endmisht hayer@ u hay ergir@ piti nexvats lini erku koxmits.

 

 

Yete verevi midk banin Humorum trvatz liner lav gue dzidzagheink.....

Apsos.

[elle]

Da knshanaki menq mer hogh@ rmbakotsetsinq, yev ayn kdarna anpitani. bayts lav mitqa Rubon vor Valodiin karana hamozi lav klini.

 

 

HA HA

Wishful thinking I guess, but I didn't think about that part!

Edited February 11, 2008 by elle

[elle]

In Response to NATO Threat: Russian Armed Forces prepare for Nuclear Onslaught

 

Barely a month into the new year, the military have already attracted a lot of attention. Following a mild verbal skirmish over ABM components after the holidays, Russian and foreign generals have decided to talk in the open.

 

In a move that mirrors recent discussion amongst Russia's own top brass, NATO's April summit in Bucharest is widely expected to discuss a report on a potential pre-emptive nuclear strike.

 

According to The Daily Telegraph, the authors of the report are convinced there is a real risk that terrorists could lay their hands on weapons of mass destruction in the near or immediate future. To counter this, the alliance may consider suppressing the enemy with nuclear weapons.

 

Though the report is likely to cause controversy in NATO countries, the authors appear to be merely echoing an idea originally broached by Russian Chief of General Staff Yury Baluyevsky. Speaking at a meeting of the Academy of Military Sciences on January 19, Gen. Baluyevsky declared that force should be used not only in the course of hostilities, but also to demonstrate the readiness of leaders to uphold their national interests. "We are not going to attack anyone," he reassured his audience, "but we want all our partners to realize that Russia will use armed force to defend its own and its allies' sovereignty and territorial integrity. It may resort to a pre-emptive nuclear strike in cases specified by its doctrine."

 

It is strange that many esteemed domestic military experts consider this statement simply a repetition of Russia's old military doctrine, which allowed it to use nuclear weapons first. Under the 2000 doctrine, Russia is ready to use nuclear weapons not only in retaliation against a nuclear attack, as was previously the case, but in response to "a large-scale conventional aggression in a situation critical for the national security of the Russian Federation and its allies." This certainly broadens the rules of engagement, but still does not envisage a pre-emptive nuclear strike without hostilities.

 

Gen. Balulevsky's announcement appears to change this, in which case Russia will need a new military doctrine. This is not a new task. In early March last year, the Security Council press service released a statement saying that the Security Council would revise the 2000 military doctrine to account for new realities. The statement added that the new doctrine would be drafted by the Security Council in conjunction with interested government bodies and a number of scientific institutions.

 

Baluyevsky thus made his recent statement at an organization which is quite suitable for the drafting of the new doctrine.

 

If the new doctrine endorses the General Staff's nuclear ideas, we will have new armed forces, with all the ensuing consequences.

 

First, these forces will become strictly offensive because of the very nature of a pre-emptive strike. This will require totally different mobilization plans and a new approach to recruiting for the Army and Navy. Considering the number and geography of military-political conflicts in which Russia is in some way involved, this will require the deployment of mobilized troops on a territory stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Pacific.

 

It is not difficult to predict the economic consequences Russia would face in this case. But let's come back to the Armed Forces. Permanent readiness to resolve tasks militarily - by offensive operations in an indefinitely vast number of directions - implies the permanent enhanced combat readiness of all units, without exception. Otherwise the very idea of a pre-emptive strike will not work. For such a policy to be effective, Russia should be ready to deal this strike from a broad diversity of geographical locations on its own territory, neutral air space, and the world's oceans.

 

If Baluyevsky's words are heeded, Russia will have to equip all services of the Armed Forces with permanently combat-ready nuclear weapons. Nobody can guess who will use them first.

 

This only concerns tactical, rather than strategic, nuclear weapons. It is clearly impossible to counter terrorist threats in the South-East direction, or neutralize U.S. ABM deployment in Europe with intercontinental ballistic missiles or their submarine counterparts.

 

In other words, Russia will need a very broad range of non-strategic nuclear weapons. Such weapons are designed to destroy battlefield-targets, rather than entire cities, and could take the form of medium and shorter-range missiles launched from air, land or sea, as well as artillery ammunition and nuclear demolition charges.

 

Considering that Russia has a huge advantage over the United States in tactical warheads, bilateral relations could become quite complicated if we start deploying our weapons on the ground, in the air and at sea.

 

It would be natural to ask why Russia is choosing the offensive option, and whether there are alternatives to it. But that is a subject for another discussion.

 

 

[AVO]

heh Elle jan weren't you wishing for this couple of days ago?

 

And can you please include the link whenever you copy paste news and etc.

[Ashot]

February 14, 2008, 17:25

I trust Medvedev: Putin

Vladimir Putin has sought to ease concern about a possible power-sharing row if he becomes Prime Minister after March’s presidential election. He’s told his last annual news conference that if favourite Dmitry Medvedev wins the election, the pair will work in a ‘practical relationship’.

 

Medvedev has already announced that Putin will be prime minister if he becomes president.

 

"The Head of Government has enough powers. There will be no problems with allocating them, I assure you. We together with Dmitry Anatolyevich (Medvedev) shall allocate them if the electorate permits that," Putin told the news conference.

 

"If I see that I can implement in that job the goals I myself set, I will work [as premier] as long as the opportunity is in place," Putin said.

 

More than 1,000 journalists gathered in the Kremlin for the news conference, which has set a record lasting about four and a half hours.

 

Putin says he never considered running for a third term. Nor was he tempted to change the Russian constitution, which forbids him from doing so.

 

Foreign Policy

 

The Russian President told the journalists that regardless of recent disagreements, America remains Russia’s most important trading partner.

 

"Whatever they say during the election campaigns, the fundamental interests of Russia and the U.S. will inevitably push the leadership of both countries towards developing a positive and, at least, partnership dialogue," the Russian president noted.

 

However he said that NATO is discussing energy security in a way that is ‘clearly unfriendly to Russia. We can see it’.

 

America's insistence on a weapons shield has forced Russia to consider aiming missiles at Eastern Europe, according to Vladimir Putin.

 

"If it comes into life, we are likely to aim some part of our missile system at these sites," the Russian leader stressed.

 

The President repeated Russia’s stance on Kosovo’s future, saying support for its independence was ‘immoral’.

 

“Europe has double standards on territorial issues. Unified principles should be applied. International law doesn’t guard the interest of small countries”.

 

He also explained why Russia had suspended its role in the Conventional Forces in Europe Treaty.

 

““We signed a treaty on the nation and control of weapons in Europe, the CFE treaty. We have ratified it and shrunk our contingents in Europe. We don't have any single military unit in Europe. We have taken upon ourselves colonial restrictions that limit movement of our own troops on our own territory,” said Putin.

 

Putin dismissed concerns about Russia wanting to dominate the Arctic.

 

The Russian flag is just a symbol, not a territorial claim, just like the American flag on the Moon, he said.

 

“Our research is aimed at proving that Russian Federation has the right on part of this shelf, but we are doing it in the existing international law framework, in the framework of the UN,” Putin said.

 

Domestic Policy

 

The President said while more work is needed, he is satisfied with Russia’s progress.

 

"We have restored the foundations of the Russian economy on an absolutely new market basis and we are confidently becoming an economic leader," Putin told a press conference on Thursday.

 

"Over the past twenty years, very few countries have managed to achieve such results in the growth of their stock markets and assets as Russia has. These countries are primarily Asian countries. That is our biggest achievement," said Putin.

 

In the future, Putin said the economy must diversify and become innovative. If it doesn’t evolve and become more efficient in terms of management and structure, it will come to a dead end, he believes.

 

He also said while state corporations are needed to finance major projects, eventually competitive bodies will be sold to private investors.

 

“This is our final goal - we are absolutely not going to turn to state capitalism,” Putin said.

 

Lighter moments

 

It was not all straight faces during the three hour question and answer session. Several questions raised a smile and humour from Putin.

 

The President called himself the richest person in the world, not through misleading reports about his wealth, but because of the strength he derives from twice being elected to rule his country.

 

Thursday is Valentine’s day and a journalist asked if anybody gave him a Valentine. “No,” said President. “But my wife has already congratulated me”.

 

Then the journalist came up to Putin and handed him a Valentine.

 

And in another instance Putin was asked whether Russia plans denominate the rouble – that is ‘drop off’ some digits. Putin labeled the rumour absurd several times, before exclaiming: “What else to you want me to do? Eat soil from a flowerpot or take a blood oath?”

 

Russia Today

[elle]

I saw part of his speech earlier and I must say that he really knows how to talk! He made sense in everything he said. No wonder the West is bashing Putin, calling him a dictator, a 'threat" to the West and other BS in order to undermind him. They feel threatened by his persona because he's a very charmismatic man in every way.

[elle]

An interesting article. It's also interesting to see how things have changed since the 9/11 hoax. I'm speaking strictly about the geopolitical changes in the Caucasus, Eastern European, Middle East, and Central Asian regions.

 

США бросают новый вызов России

Вашингтон назначает специального посла по вопросам энергетики

 

США разворачивают новое наступление на дипломатическом фронте с целью ограничить влияние России в азиатских государствах СНГ. С этой целью администрация президента Джорджа Буша создаст новую должность специального посла по энергетическим вопросам. Его главная задача – противодействовать контролю России над поставками нефти и газа из Центральной Азии. Кроме того, будущий посол будет продвигать интересы американских энергетических корпораций в Латинской Америке и на других континентах.

 

C обоснованием необходимости иметь специального координатора по энергетике выступила государственный секретарь США Кондолиза Райс. Она участвовала в заседании комитета Сената по иностранным делам, где обсуждалась проблема энергетической безопасности Америки. Райс выразила недовольство энергетической политикой «в некоторых частях света». Подразумевался прежде всего регион Центральной Азии и Россия, где и должен будет сосредоточить усилия будущий посол.

 

Глава американского внешнеполитического ведомства, правда, не выдвинула прямых обвинений в адрес России. За нее это сделал влиятельный сенатор-республиканец Ричард Лугар. По его словам, внешняя политика России сейчас «в основном направлена на то, чтобы увеличить политическое влияние и доходы от поставок энергии, а также установить господство в сфере транспортировки энергии... Москва продолжает обирать своих соседей».

 

Какие последствия может иметь активизация американской дипломатии в Центральной Азии? И как на нее будут реагировать партнеры России в регионе? С этими вопросами мы обратились к двум экспертам – старшему аналитику по России и Европе корпорации Global Insight в Лондоне Наталье Лещенко и заведующему отделом Средней Азии и Казахстана Института стран СНГ Андрею Грозину.

 

«Центральная Азия является предметом геополитической борьбы великих держав на протяжении как минимум двух веков. И нет ничего удивительного в том, что США и Россия стремятся упрочить свое влияние в регионе.

 

Огромные запасы газа и цветных металлов – это серьезный потенциал для инвесторов. Причем цели у обеих сторон в этой борьбе ясны – упрочить контроль над маршрутами поставок энергии в Большой Азии, укрепить безопасность, воспрепятствовав торговле оружием, наркотиками и т.д.», – отметила Лещенко.

 

Что касается реакции бывших советских республик на инициативу Вашингтона, то лондонский аналитик указала, что они «наконец отошли от видения своих стран как сателлитов России и осознали свою самостоятельную роль. Они проводят многовекторную политику, пытаясь получить выгоду от сотрудничества с Россией, Китаем, США, Европой и, где возможно, манипулировать их интересами. Кроме того, президент Казахстана Нурсултан Назарбаев стремится сделать Казахстан и Центральную Азию самостоятельным политическим центром, а не односторонним союзником какого-либо государства. Поэтому посол США будет восприниматься благосклонно, но никоим образом не станет их ключевым советником или «серым кардиналом».

 

Со своей стороны Андрей Грозин охарактеризовал американо-российское соперничество в Центральной Азии как «нескончаемую геополитическую игру». После провозглашения независимости молодыми государствами поначалу в этой игре успеха добивались США. Неслучайно большая часть иностранных инвестиций в ТЭК региона имеет американское происхождение. Вашингтон пытался выстроить с этими государствами такую модель взаимоотношений, которая через инвестиции обеспечила бы ему и политическое доминирование. А Россия слабо пользовалась своими естественными геополитическими и историческими преференциями. Но последние три-четыре года Россия стала действовать активней, по существу, прибегая к тем же приемам, что и США.

 

По мнению эксперта, маятник сейчас качнулся в сторону России. Дело в том, что Казахстан и Узбекистан находятся накануне трансформации высшей власти. Правящие элиты в обеих странах не хотят никаких потрясений, они желают сохранения режимов, существовавших со времени обретения независимости. И тут у России явное преимущество. Она официально заявляла, что работает с партией власти, а не с оппозиционными силами. Американскую же политику центральноазиатские руководители считают опасной. Она может привести если не к оранжевой революции, то к дестабилизации.

 

Касаясь конкретных проектов, вокруг которых развертывается соперничество, Грозин назвал успехом России достигнутую в декабре 2007 года договоренность с Казахстаном и Туркменистаном о строительстве прикаспийского газопровода и модернизации советской системы транспортировки газа из Центральной Азии через Россию. В модернизации будет участвовать и Узбекистан. Если договоренности будут реализованы, то лет через пять пропускная способность этих трубопроводов увеличится на треть.

 

США же лоббируют прокладку транскаспийского газопровода из Туркмении в Азербайджан. Это основной конкурент всех российских инициатив. Но на данный момент выполнение российских проектов выглядит более реальным, полагает эксперт.

 

[garmag]

An interesting article. It's also interesting to see how things have changed since the 9/11 hoax. I'm speaking strictly about the geopolitical changes in the Caucasus, Eastern European, Middle East, and Central Asian regions.

 

Sorry, can't read russian.

[Ashot]

It's ok Garmag jan, basically it's almost the same thing as I posted in english!!!

[garmag]

It's ok Garmag jan, basically it's almost the same thing as I posted in english!!!

 

Thanks Ashot

[elle]

Gorbachev Worries About Missile Plan

 

http://mnweekly.rian.ru/world/20071129/55293408.html

29/11/2007

BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) - Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev said Wednesday that he viewed a U.S. plan to deploy a missile defense shield in Central Europe as targeting Russia, not Iran.

 

"(On Tuesday) Milos Zeman, the former Czech prime minister, said, ‘What kind of Iran threat do you see? This is a system that is being created against Russia,'" Gorbachev said. "I don't think Zeman is alone in seeing this. We see this as well as he sees it."

 

The United States wants to place a radar station in the Czech Republic and intercepter missiles in Poland, saying the components would defend European allies against a possible Iranian strike.

 

Gorbachev, 76, whose policies of glasnost and perestroika - openness and restructuring - helped end communism in the Soviet Union and its satellites, criticized the high level of military spending by the United States.

 

"Does America intend to fight the rest of the world, does America need to build a new empire? They will not succeed," Gorbachev said at the close of a meeting of the World Political Forum, a group he founded in 2003 that includes many former high-ranking politicians.

 

Gorbachev, who won the 1990 Nobel Peace Prize, said negotiations with Iran needed to continue with the involvement of the International Atomic Energy Agency, the U.N. nuclear watchdog agency, to ensure Iran did not produce nuclear weapons.

 

Gorbachev said he hoped the United States would not attack Iran during the remainder of the term of U.S. President George W. Bush.

 

"There still one year that President Bush has on his hands. Let's hope that he will not take the risk... of military action against Iran," Gorbachev said, adding that such an attack "at the very least" could provoke increased terrorist attacks, an energy crisis and "even result in a big war."

 

Asked about Russian President Vladimir Putin, Gorbachev said that, while he initially had doubts about Putin being able to lead Russia, he now supported him.

 

"Putin is a very capable person, a wise person, a man of strong character, of few words but with good management skills," Gorbachev said. "Now he is more than just a manager, he has become a credible political leader."

 

Gorbachev added that he supported the Russian president because Putin's policies were consistent with his own social-democratic positions,

 

"Putin is pursuing policies that benefit the majority of the Russian people," Gorbachev said.

Edited February 23, 2008 by elle

[AVO]

Gorbachev worries about the Missile plan, but he didn't care about Armenians being murdered on the streets of Sumgait, Baku, Gandzak, Shahumyan etc... Couple of years ago he was being interviewed and an Armenain called in and asked about why he didn't help the Armenians. His answer was that his father was very good friends with Azeris and that he had much respect for them.