Category: Azerbaijan

  • THE MILITARY BALANCE IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH

    THE MILITARY BALANCE IN NAGORNO-KARABAKH

    Caucasus Update No. 18, Jan. 19, 2009, published by Caucasian Review of International Affairs (www.cria-online.org)


    In early January, a number of Azerbaijani news outlets reported that Russia had, throughout 2008, transferred an estimated $800 million worth of military hardware to Azerbaijan’s rival Armenia. The story is murky, but an Azeri media organisation received a list of equipment allegedly supplied, including tanks and armoured personnel carriers, grenade launchers, ammunition, and rockets. At the time of writing, the Russian response had been mixed: some carefully worded denials from the Foreign Ministry, promises of clarification from the Russian embassy in Baku, and stonewalling from the Defence Ministry. Russia’s overall approach has been moving towards denial, but the lack of an outright, immediate statement has inevitably fanned the flames of rumour. The Azerbaijani armed forces allegedly put their forces on high alert in response.

    If the story is true, the implications could be significant. The peace process over Nagorno-Karabakh is in an extremely delicate phase, and Russia has recently gone to great lengths to depict itself as an impartial mediator. Any truth in the arms transfer rumours would destroy Moscow’s reputation as an honest broker and undo much of the tentative progress that has been recently achieved.

    The military implications are also significant, since the size of the transfer would go some way towards redressing the huge growth in Azerbaijan’s armed forces in recent years. Precise, up-to-date figures are very difficult to come by, given the opaque nature of both countries’ defence sectors, the difficulties of gathering information on Armenian forces in Karabakh, and the rapid expansion of armed forces. But most independent estimates give Azerbaijan the quantitative edge over Armenia, particularly in terms of heavy equipment.

    A far more significant factor, and arguably a key reason for the lack of major combat since 1994, is the topography of the Karabakh region. The ceasefire line currently runs through rugged, mountainous terrain topped with multiple defensive lines which would favour the Armenian side in any war launched by Baku. Azerbaijan’s purchase of 25 Su-25 ground attack aircraft from Georgia and unmanned aerial vehicles from Israel should be seen in this context: as an attempt to maintain air superiority and therefore compensate for the difficulties of ground artillery in such terrain. Turkey has also offered to upgrade the Azerbaijani air force, alongside its other assistance in the fields of education and technical support.

    The Russian 102nd Army base in Armenia has played a huge role in assisting and upgrading Armenia’s military so far. The base’s inventory of hardware was boosted in 2005 when Russia closed its bases in Georgia and transferred 370 pieces of equipment to the 102nd base. The forces at the base are militarily very significant: 74 tanks, 224 armoured combat vehicles, 60 towed artillery systems, 14 aircraft and the advanced S-300 missile system. Although the limited number of Russian personnel there would prohibit a large-scale deployment of this equipment, it is possible that the 102nd would, in the event of war, ‘lend’ the equipment to Armenia’s armed forces under the terms of the Russo-Armenian military alliance. There are also estimated to be huge – relative to the territory’s size – number of tanks and other pieces of hardware within Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding regions. This allows Armenia to circumvent its restrictions on such equipment under the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe, although it has accused Azerbaijan of doing the same.

    Georgia has a critical and often under-realised role in any potential conflict for a number of reasons. Firstly, in the aftermath of the August war it suspended most Russian flights over Georgian territory to the 102nd base, preventing the base from receiving critical military supplies: therefore the figures given for the Russian base should be taken with a pinch of salt. More broadly, as military analyst Roger McDermott notes, the transfer of any equipment from northern states such as Ukraine to Armenia could be blocked by Georgia, since they would have to be shipped through Georgian territory from a Black Sea port, although such a deal was confirmed in November.

    Secondly, and related to this, Tbilisi will have to make a clear and difficult choice in any renewed war between Baku and Yerevan. Georgia has no interest in spoiling its ties with Yerevan, and has expressed interest in defence co-operation (for instance, on upgrading Armenian tanks in a Georgian plant). But these links cause friction with Azerbaijan, with whom Georgia has a close economic and political relationship. Georgia relies on Azerbaijan for its own gas supplies and for the transit of Azeri gas and oil through the BTC and BTE pipelines, which bring in vital transit fees for Georgia’s struggling economy. Supporting Armenia could lead Baku (in the name of ‘energy security’) to re-route its gas and oil flows through Russia. It therefore seems likely that Georgia would support Azerbaijan, perhaps closing its border with Armenia and leaving the country almost entirely isolated from the outside world.

    Even if the rumours of the $800 million arms transfers are false, the Karabakh conflict is incredibly volatile. The military balance between the two sides remains difficult to assess, but its uncertain nature, along with the peace process, has managed to prevent either side from reigniting a major conflict. If Russia really has shipped such a quantity of equipment to Armenia, the prospects for peace are grim. This would raise tensions on the ground and give further weight to hawks in the Azeri defence forces who argue that Azerbaijan’s military is sufficient, and that Baku should strike now to liberate the occupied territories before Armenia can reinforce itself any further. Perhaps even more disastrously, the transfer would fatally damage Moscow’s reputation as an honest broker and would remove the constraining brake of the peace process from a highly dangerous arms race. Nobody – Azerbaijan, Russia, or Armenia – would benefit.

  • Russia Again Denies Arms Supplies To Armenia

    Russia Again Denies Arms Supplies To Armenia

     

     

     

     

     

     

    By Emil Danielyan

    Faced with continuing protests from Azerbaijan, Russia on Friday again denied Azerbaijani media claims that it supplied large quantities of military hardware and other weapons to Armenia last year.

    An Azerbaijani news website published late last week a scanned copy of what it called a document certifying the transfer of the weapons that belonged to Russian troops stationed in Armenia.

    The document, purportedly signed by a deputy commander of Russia’s North Caucasus Military District, contained a long list of armaments allegedly handed over to the Armenian military free of charge. Those included 21 battle tanks, 50 armored vehicles, as well as more than 40 artillery systems and 4,000 automatic rifles along with ammunition for them.

    The Russian Defense Ministry denied the report on Wednesday after Baku demanded an explanation from Russia’s ambassador to Azerbaijan. But that did not stop the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry from expressing “strong protest in connection with the transfer of arms to Armenia” the next day.

    “The person whose name was mentioned by mass media did not sign any documents, and no deliveries were carried out,” Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov insisted at a news conference on Friday. Russian news agencies quoted him as saying that he will reiterate these assurances during his upcoming visit to Baku.

    Lavrov noted at the same time that as a member of the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), Armenia is entitled to receiving Russian weapons at cut-down prices. “Armenia is a member of the CSTO and enjoys more privileged terms,” he said. “Our Azerbaijani colleagues are aware of that and have no questions.”

    https://www.azatutyun.am/a/1599318.html

  • Turkey Is Optimistic About Nabucco as Budapest Summit Approaches

    Turkey Is Optimistic About Nabucco as Budapest Summit Approaches

    Turkey Is Optimistic About Nabucco as Budapest Summit Approaches

    Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 10
    January 16, 2009
    By: Saban Kardas

    In the midst of the gas transit row between Russia and Ukraine and discussions on diversifying the continent’s energy supplies, Turkey is pleased to see an opportunity for itself.

    Turkey is seeking a mediating role in the diplomatic standoff between Russia and Ukraine. Following his visit to Moscow, Turkish Energy Minister Hilmi Guler told reporters that Turkey’s talks with the two parties were continuing and it was ready to mediate, if necessary by hosting a meeting in Turkey. Noting that some Balkan countries that were hit by the crisis, such as Bulgaria, were demanding gas from Turkey, he announced that Ankara was holding talks for building alternative supply routes to them. It will be similar to Turkey’s exports to Greece and might help these countries weather future energy interruptions. Guler also was content that the importance of the Nabucco project for diversifying Europe’s energy supplies was appreciated. He told reporters that Turkey was determined to realize this project, and concrete steps to make it operational would be taken soon (Anadolu Ajansi, January 15).

    Ahead of the Nabucco summit to be hosted by Hungary this month, it appears that Turkey’s hand has been strengthened. Despite calls for prioritizing energy security following a similar crisis in 2006, the EU has failed to reduce energy dependence, which has raised questions about the effectiveness of the EU’s energy policy (Hurriyet, January 15). The latest Russian-Ukrainian crisis prompted a debate on diversifying both sources and gas transportation routes through alternative pipelines. The EU and Russia now have incentives to support projects that bypass Ukraine. Gazprom’s Nord Stream and South Stream projects, under the Baltic Sea and the Black Sea, respectively, are in progress. Since South Stream is a rival to the Nabucco project and European countries have differing preferences, it will be interesting to observe how pipeline politics develop.

    The Nabucco project, originally projected to open in 2013, will carry gas from the Caspian basin, the Middle East, and Egypt to Europe by routes stretching through Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, and Hungary and terminating at the Baumgarten hub in Austria. The 3,300-km (1,980-mile) project is expected to cost approximately €7.9 billion ($10.5 billion) (www.nabucco-pipeline.com).

    Nabucco has gained increasing favor because of efforts to open European access to the resources of the Caspian (EDM, January 6). The Czech Republic, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency, is intent on speeding up the preparations for Nabucco. Czech Prime Minister Mirek Topolanek proposed that the EU make the realization of the project a top priority (www.trt.net.tr, January 14). Nonetheless, other EU members such as Italy back South Stream (EDM, June 25, 2007).

    One major obstacle to the project has been whether the consortium can secure enough gas to make the project feasible. Turkey, hoping to project itself as a major player in gas markets through Nabucco, has worked hard to find sufficient gas resources. Its efforts to bring Turkmenistan on board did not produce any results in mid-2008 (www.asam.org.tr, May 2, 2008), because of Turkmenistan’s contracts with Russia, and concerns about transporting the gas across the Caspian Sea. A trilateral summit between the presidents of Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkey in late November 2008, however, was interpreted as “quiet support” for the Nabucco project (EDM, December 1). Since then, European leaders have also been encouraging Turkmenistan to join the project. Recently it was suggested that the prospects for realizing the Trans-Caspian Gas Pipeline (TCGP) had increased, particularly following the Russian-Ukrainian dispute. Although “the route and means for Turkmenistan’s gas to cross the Caspian Sea has not yet been decided,” it is claimed that the TCGP could be integrated into Nabucco (www.isn.ethz.ch, January 15). Nonetheless, Turkmenistan has yet to commit gas exports to Europe through Nabucco.

    Currently, the only supplier that is committed to Nabucco is Azerbaijan. Turkey has been pushing for including Iranian gas in the project, but the diplomatic standoff between Iran and the West over the Iranian nuclear issue raises questions about the likelihood of connecting Iranian Tabriz-Erzurum gas pipeline to Nabucco. Moreover, the reliability of Iran is also unclear, given the problems Turkey has encountered in its imports from Iran in the past. Turkey also hopes to connect gas from Iraq and Egypt to the Nabucco line.

    Turkey had even raised the possibility of Russia joining the Nabucco project. During his visit to Moscow in February 2008, Foreign Minister Ali Babacan invited his Russian counterpart to join the project (Turkish Daily News, February 21, 2008; EDM, February 28, 2008). Later, Guler argued that the South Stream and Nabucco projects could be combined (Today’s Zaman, March 21, 2008). Nonetheless, Russian officials continued to scorn Nabucco for being infeasible.

    Another concern is whether this ambitious project could be completed, given the global economic crisis. Reinhard Mitschek, Managing Director of Nabucco Gas Pipeline International GmbH, maintained that “the actual situation of the markets is more or less a benefit for projects like Nabucco.” As positive developments, he referred to falling steel prices and the willingness of banks to support long-term infrastructure projects in times of crisis (www.nabucco-pipeline.com, January 9).

    Turkey’s demands from other shareholders (Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Germany, and Austria), particularly those relating to the pricing mechanism, have been considered another obstacle by experts (EDM, December 12). Speaking after a working meeting in Istanbul on January 13, Mitschek maintained that the parties were close to signing the intergovernmental agreement, emphasizing consensus among countries involved in the construction project about how to “share the benefits and risks of the project equally, each owning a 16.6 percent stake in the project.” Mitschek argued that its flexibility in receiving gas from many sources and being open to different partners and commercial models was what gave Nabucco a competitive advantage over its rivals. He also counted the many benefits of the project to Turkey but said that “we should not mix the two issues. Our consortium is about the transmission of the gas, not about the trading of gas” (Today’s Zaman, Hurriyet Daily News, Milliyet, January 14).

    Guler told reporters that Turkey had submitted its own draft of the intergovernmental agreement to its partners and was awaiting their response (Cihan Haber Ajansi, January 15). Nonetheless, Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has not confirmed that he will take part in the Budapest summit. Disagreements over Turkey’s demands, as well intra-EU bargaining, are likely to continue until the leaders meet on January 27.

    https://jamestown.org/program/turkey-is-optimistic-about-nabucco-as-budapest-summit-approaches/

  • Azerbaijan Slams Russia Over ‘Armenia Arms Supplies’

    Azerbaijan Slams Russia Over ‘Armenia Arms Supplies’

     

     

     

     

     

    AFP

    Azerbaijan on Thursday made a “strong protest” to Russia over weapons transfers it said Moscow had made to Armenia in violation of United Nations resolutions.

    “The Azerbaijani foreign ministry voices strong protest in connection with the transfer of arms to Armenia and calls on Russia to take all necessary steps to avert the consequences,” the ministry said in a statement.

    On Wednesday Russia’s defense ministry denied Azerbaijani media reports that Moscow had supplied Yerevan with $800 million worth of tanks, armored personnel carriers, rockets, grenade launchers and ammunition via a Russian army base in Armenia, Interfax news agency reported.

    “There have been no supplies of Russian weapons to Armenia. The reports alleging this are untrue,” Russian defense ministry spokesman Alexander Drobyshevsky said.

    Azerbaijan said the alleged weapons transfers violated UN resolutions aimed at preventing a renewal of the conflict over Nagorny Karabakh, where Armenia-backed separatists wrested control from Azerbaijan’s authorities in a war after the 1991 Soviet collapse.

    “The transfer of weapons serves to strengthen the military potential of Armenia, which has occupied a part of Azerbaijani territory,” the Azerbaijani ministry said.

  • “Azerbaijanis, residing in Georgia, remain second-grade people in the eyes of official Tbilisi”

    “Azerbaijanis, residing in Georgia, remain second-grade people in the eyes of official Tbilisi”

    2008 has become a difficult year for the entire Georgia, including, Azerbaijanis, residing there. The thing is that the internal political crisis, which began in Georgia in 2007, was not settled though led to the conduction of urgent presidential and parliamentary elections in 2007, while the external political crisis in the relations with Russia led to the August war in South Ossetia, ending in a heavy defeat of Georgia and loss of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, said chairman of the Georgian Azerbaijanis Congress Ali Babayev, according to Novosti-Azerbaijan.

    (more…)

  • Armenia denies receiving $800 mln worth of Russian arms

    Armenia denies receiving $800 mln worth of Russian arms

     

       

     

     
     

    YEREVAN, January 12 (RIA Novosti) – Armenia’s Defense Ministry on Monday denied a report from Baku alleging that Russian arms had been handed over to Yerevan.

    Azerbaijani media previously reported that arms worth a total of $800 million had been transferred to Armenia from a Russian military base in the country.

    “That is yet another piece of disinformation by Azerbaijani propaganda. I don’t think there is a need to comment on it,” said the Armenian defense minister’s press secretary, Col. Seiran Shakhsuvaryan.

    Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry said earlier on Monday that it was studying the report.

    “As soon as the necessary information is obtained, the Foreign Ministry will formulate its position,” said Elkhan Polukhov, first secretary of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry.

    Relations between Azerbaijan and Armenia became strained when Nagorny Karabakh, a region in Azerbaijan with a largely Armenian population, declared its independence from Azerbaijan to join Armenia in 1988. The enclave has been a source of conflict ever since.