Category: Russian Federation

  • Cautious expectations for relationship between Russia and the US

    Cautious expectations for relationship between Russia and the US

    This online supplement is produced and published by Rossiyskaya Gazeta (Russia), which takes sole responsibility for the contents

    The estrangement between Moscow and Washington has lately given way – with the election of Barack Obama – to a cautious sense of expectation. The apprehension is palpable in both Russia and the US. Given how much effort both countries have put into improving relations over the last 20 years, it would be a pity to lose the fruits of this difficult rapprochement.

    Having said that, one cannot deal with a partner who does not value the partnership and who ignores your interests. No matter how important America is, friendship or enmity with her is not paramount in the life of the Russian people.

    A new feature of American politics is the recent spate of moderately concerned pronouncements about Russia. Also the changes in personnel. Russia experts have been appointed to the National Security Council, to the State Department and to intelligence. Former ambassadors to Moscow were behind a recent report published by the Bipartisan Commission on US Policy Toward Russia.

    in any case, for the first time in 20 years the American public has been told in no uncertain terms that US interests and those of Russian-border states are not one and the same thing. The commission’s report says that there is no reason to fear Russian investments outside the energy-sector in the US and the EU.

    The report recommends extending the Start 1 treaty, suspending the Jackson-Vanick amendment, and making Russia a member of the World Trade Organisation. It also urges new negotiations on Russia’s participation in the planned American ABM systems in Poland and the Czech Republic.

    Most revolutionary of all is the report’s idea that America should not try to build spheres of influence along Russia’s borders while counting on a “constructive response” from Moscow.

    The report’s key theme is that the US administration must stop ignoring Russia’s interests since co-operation with Russia will be important in achieving American goals such as the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons and solving the “Iran problem”.

    Right after the report was made public Moscow was visited by Henry Kissinger. Dr Kissinger was accompanied by a group of Russia experts, including the authors of the report. Now that they have gone, everyone is waiting anxiously for the results…

    Though some of the recommendations made informally by the Americans are encouraging, their formal proposals leave much to be desired. The Americans are trying to sell as a constructive idea a plan that would enhance their superiority of forces while forfeiting the last remnants of our former strategic parity – Russia’s only guarantee, in essence, of military-strategic security.

    The American proposal does not stipulate a parallel reduction of tactical weapons of mass destruction, conventional forces and so-called geographical offensive weapons, meaning America’s new Nato bases near and around Russia.

    The leitmotif of these expert recommendations is that America stop ignoring Russia’s interests. Yet US actions suggest a determination to restore America’s total strategic invulnerability. What does that have to do with Russian interests? Where is the opportunity to consider and defend them? The iron fist in the velvet glove…

    I do not think that Russian diplomacy can easily return to the romantic atmosphere of Soviet-American relations under Gorbachev. “Perestroika diplomacy” was never poisoned by the bitterness of deception. It remained the diplomacy of negotiated breakthroughs.

    But post-Soviet diplomacy is another matter entirely. It has been saturated with the spirit of the disappointments of the 1990s: the Nato-isation of Eastern Europe, Kosovo, poi-soned relations with Ukraine and – worst of all – the military destabilisation of Russia’s borders in the Caucasus.

    To restore honest and respectful relations with the US is one thing; to accept American proposals that do not benefit Russia in order to do so is quite another. If the US is as intent on improving relations with Russia as Russia is on improving relations with the US, it must be prepared for some very tough negotiations – tougher than any since the 1980s – on a broad range of issues, including regional security.

    The US is primarily interested in co-operation with Moscow over non-prolif-eration and Iran. Moscow, by contrast, is more interested in reforming the security system in Europe. We need to learn again how to link such things. The first meeting between presidents Medvedev and Obama seemed to have a generally stimulating effect on diplomats and politicians in both countries.

    At the same time one must be clear: while Russia wants stable and friendly relations with America, for Russian foreign policy this is not an end itself. Rather it is an important tool for building a safer and more prosperous world. Russia will advance along this path in any case – preferably with the US, but if necessary without.

    • Professor Anatoly V Torkunov, a former Washington diplomat, is rector of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations

    Source: www.telegraph.co.uk, 27 Apr 2009

  • Turkey hopes to buy S-400 air defense systems from Russia

    Turkey hopes to buy S-400 air defense systems from Russia

    ISTANBUL, April 27 (RIA Novosti) – Turkey, a NATO member, has expressed interest in buying S-400 Triumf air defense systems from Russia, a Russian defense industry official said on Monday.

    “Turkey has expressed a strong interest in buying S-400 air defense systems from Russia,” said Anatoly Aksenov, a senior adviser to the general director of Russian arms export monopoly Rosoboronexport.

    Russia is exhibiting over 120 types of weaponry at the IDEF 2009 arms show in Istanbul on April 27-30. The biennial exhibition has been organized by the Turkish defense industry since 1993.

    Aksenov, who leads the Russian delegation at the IDEF 2009 exhibition, said the possible deliveries of the S-400 to Turkey were discussed during talks with Turkey’s undersecretary for defense industries, Murad Bayar.

    A source in the Russian delegation later told RIA Novosti that the issue had a political aspect and strongly depended on the outcome of the ongoing dispute between Russia and NATO on the deployment of a U.S. missile shield in central Europe.

    “We have explained to Turkish officials that S-400 is not just a simple air defense system but an element of strategic missile defenses, which can be placed in one country but protect the airspace over a number of neighboring countries,” the source said.

    The S-400 Triumf (SA-21 Growler) is designed to intercept and destroy airborne targets at a distance of up to 400 kilometers (250 miles), twice the range of the U.S. MIM-104 Patriot, and 2 1/2 times that of Russia’s S-300PMU-2.

    The system is also believed to be able to destroy stealth aircraft, cruise missiles and ballistic missiles, and is effective at ranges up to 3,500 kilometers (2,200 miles) and speeds up to 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) per second.

  • Barack Obama Is No Jimmy Carter. He’s Richard Nixon.

    Barack Obama Is No Jimmy Carter. He’s Richard Nixon.

    THE NEW REALISM

    By Michael Freedman | NEWSWEEK

    Published Apr 25, 2009
    From the magazine issue dated May 4, 2009

    Republicans have been trying to link Barack Obama to Jimmy Carter ever since he started his presidential campaign, and they’re still at it. After Obama recently shook hands with Venezuelan strongman Hugo Chávez, GOP ideologue Newt Gingrich said the president looked just like Carter—showing the kind of “weakness” that keeps the “aggressors, the anti-Americans, the dictators” licking their chops.

    But Obama is no Carter. Carter made human rights the cornerstone of his foreign policy, while the Obama team has put that issue on the back burner. In fact, Obama sounds more like another 1970s president: Richard Nixon. Both men inherited the White House from swaggering Texans, whose overriding sense of mission fueled disastrous wars that tarnished America’s image. Obama is a staunch realist, like Nixon, eschewing fuzzy democracy-building and focusing on advancing national interests. “Obama is cutting back on the idea that we’re going to have Jeffersonian democracy in Pakistan or anywhere else,” says Robert Dallek, author of the 2007 book, “Nixon and Kissinger: Partners in Power.”

    Nixon met the enemy (Mao) to advance U.S. interests, and now Obama is reaching out to rivals like Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for the same reason. “The willingness to engage in dialogue with Iran is very compatible with the approach Nixon would have conducted,” says Henry Kissinger, the architect of Nixon’s foreign policy. “But we’ll have to see how it plays out.” Hillary Clinton has assured Beijing that human rights won’t derail talks on pressing issues like the economic crisis, another sign of Nixonian hard-headedness. And echoing Nixon’s pursuit of détente, Obama has engaged Russia, using a mutual interest in containing nuclear proliferation as a stepping stone to discuss other matters, rather than pressing Moscow on democracy at home, or needlessly provoking it on issues like missile defense and NATO expansion, which have little near-term chance of coming to fruition and do little to promote U.S. security. Thomas Graham, a Kissinger associate who oversaw Russia policy at the National Security Council during much of the younger Bush’s second term, says this approach by Obama, a Democrat, resembles a Republican foreign-policy tradition that dates back to the elder George Bush and Brent Scowcroft, and then even further to Nixon and Kissinger.

    It’s hard to know if such tactics will work, of course. But Obama has made clear he understands America’s limitations and its strengths, revealing a penchant for Nixonian pragmatism—not Carter-inspired weakness.

    © 2009

    Source: Newsweek, Apr 25, 2009

  • Armenia Talks Strain Turkey’s Ties With Azerbaijan

    Armenia Talks Strain Turkey’s Ties With Azerbaijan

    Perceived cooling in relationship between Ankara and Baku may have ramifications for the latter’s energy strategy.

    By Seymur Kazimov in Baku (CRS No. 490, 24-Apr-09)

    The refusal of Azerbaijan’s president to attend an international conference in Istanbul earlier this month has sparked speculation that Baku may be using its energy resources to exert pressure on its old Turkish ally.

    Ilham Aliev reportedly declined to attend the meeting of the Alliance of Civilisations initiative on April 6-7, aimed at fostering dialogue between the West and Muslim countries, in protest against Turkey’s perceived new policy on Armenia

    While not going to Istanbul, Aliev accepted his Russian counterpart Dmitry Medvedev’s invitation to visit Moscow on April 16 to talk about closer cooperation in the gas field.

    That day, the Turkish foreign minister, Ali Babajan, took part in a meeting of the Black Sea Economic Cooperation organisation, BSEC, in Yerevan, Armenia.

    Until now, Azerbaijan has been selling gas to its ally Turkey at half the market price of 380-430 US dollars per thousand cubic metres.

    This favourable price is now expected to go up, especially as Russia has said it is willing to buy Azeri gas for what it costs in the world market.

    Russia and Azerbaijan have been sounding each other out over closer energy ties for some months now.

    The chairman of Gazprom, Aleksei Miller, visited Azerbaijan to formalise Russia’s interest in buying natural gas from Azerbaijan last June.

    On March 27, the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan, SOCAR, and the Russian energy giant signed a memorandum, pursuant to which Azerbaijan is to start supplying gas to Russia from January 2010.

    Opinions vary on what has prompted Azerbaijan to seek closer cooperation with Russia in the energy field.

    Some experts suggest Aliev is revising his options with Turkey, in response to the prospect of the latter reopening its border with Armenia.

    Turkey closed the border with Armenia in 1993 in sympathy with Azerbaijan over the dispute over Nagorny-Karabakh.

    Russia has hitherto been seen as an ally of Armenia rather than Azerbaijan in the region.

    However, Baku political analyst Ilgar Mamedov downplays talk that Azerbaijan is using its gas wealth to take a form of diplomatic revenge on Turkey.

    He believes Aliev is more concerned about Turkey’s stance on selling transited gas than on the possible unsealing of the Turkish-Armenian border, or the Karabakh issue.

    “Azerbaijan wants its gas from the Shah-Deniz gas field to reach Europe via Turkey but Turkey wants to [remain able to] buy this gas for 150 dollars and then sell it on to Europe for 400,” he explained.

    “That scheme does not sit well with Aliev… That’s where the cause of the tension lies.”

    Mamedov said Turkey’s position on reselling the gas was justifiable, however, because it had closed its borders with Armenia for 16 years now, damaging ties with European countries and the US as a result.

    “It would be wrong to fault Turkey’s position on the gas issue,” he said. “Aliev has allowed himself to be guided by commercial interests alone and has launched a campaign against Turkey that is absolutely unacceptable.”

    The same expert said Aliev might have calculated that by selling gas to Russia he would secure Moscow’s sympathy over the dispute with Armenia, while Turkey would continue to support Azerbaijan over Nagorny Karabakh in any case.

    But the expert warned that if Azerbaijan now increased the price of gas for Turkey, the latter might rethink its entire stance on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

    The Turkish newspaper Hurriyet was the first to suggest that Azerbaijan had declared a “gas war” against Turkey, and that Ankara was reviewing its relationship with Baku in consequence.

    Sources in Azerbaijan’s industry and energy ministry quickly denied the Turkish media reports, saying the Azeri authorities would have already come up with a response “if the information had been true”.

    But another Turkish newspaper, Yenicag, has carried similar information. It also suggested that Turkey’s ruling Justice and Development Party, the AKP, was now also questioning Turkey’s role in the planned Nabucco gas pipeline.

    This is intended to pump gas from Azerbaijan and other states in Central Asia to Europe via Georgia and Turkey, circumventing Armenia.

    The pipeline has been touted as a much-needed alternative route for natural gas to reach Europe, now increasingly worried about its heavy dependence on Russia for gas.

    While freeing Europe from energy dependence on Russia, the pipeline is also seen as a key strategic and economic weapon for Azerbaijan, strengthening its hand against landlocked, energy-poor Armenia.

    Azerbaijan’s discovered natural gas reserves are estimated at around 1.5 trillion cubic metres.

    Companies participating in the 12.4 billion US dollars’ worth Nabucco project are OMV of Austria, MOL of Hungary, Bulgargaz of Bulgaria, Transgaz of Romania, BOTAS of Turkey and RWE of Germany.

    Construction was initially supposed to start in 2009 and be completed by 2013, though the world economic crisis has put a dampener on those plans.

    Ilham Shaban, head of the Oil Research Centre in Azerbaijan,
    dismisses criticism in the Turkish and western press of Azerbaijan’s energy policies as ungrounded.

    He also denies that growing energy ties between Azerbaijan and Russia will come at the expense of Baku’s old ties to Turkey.

    The two countries, Shaban says, had long been supplying each other with electricity. “Negotiations are underway between Azerbaijan, Russia and Turkey regarding the gas issue,” he continued.

    “I assess the agreement between Azerbaijan and Russia as highly important, because ethnic Azerbaijanis make up 11 per cent of Russia’s population.”

    Political analyst Haleddin Ibragimli said he doubted deeper energy ties with Russia would much affect the drive to settle the Karabakh conflict.

    Azeri officials, meanwhile, reiterate that Azerbaijan is a sovereign state that pursues an independent policy and needs no advice on what countries it should cooperate with in the field of energy.

    In Moscow, Aliev said Azerbaijan and Russia would be protecting their energy security and their interests as producers and exporters of energy.

    Answering a question from the Interfax new agency about new agreements on transit and cooperation in the gas field, Aliev cautioned that the whole issue still remained under discussion.

    “Gazprom and the State Oil Company of Azerbaijan are busy discussing an agreement,” he said.

    “As is known, a memorandum has already been signed that corroborates the existence of mutual interests. For our part, there will be no restrictions to cooperation in the gas field.”

    Later, the president said the two countries also planned to work more closely together over oil, increasing the volume being pumped into the pipeline that runs from Baku to Novorossiysk in Russia.

    Another potential agreement concerns upgrading the gas pipeline from Baku to Novo-Filya in the near future. This 200 km-long pipeline runs via the capital of Azerbaijan along the Caspian Sea coast to the border with Russia.

    Fariz Huseinov of Memphis University says Turkey stands to lose out more than Azerbaijan, if Ankara alienates Baku over Armenia. This is because Turkey’s role as a transit country for Azerbaijan’s gas is negotiable.

    According to Huseinov, Azerbaijan had already signed an energy agreement with Ukraine that potentially relieved Azerbaijan from any dependence on Turkey as a transit country.

    Huseinov was referring to the one-on-one meeting between Aliev and his Ukraine counterpart Viktor Yushchenko in Baku earlier this month, where a number of protocols were signed for closer cooperation in 2009-10.

    “That would mean we could reach Europe otherwise than via Turkey,” he said. “We might use a route linking Georgia the Black Sea and Ukraine, detouring both Russia and Turkey.”

    Seymur Kazimov is an IWPR contributor.

  • Opening of Armenia-Turkish border weakening Russian influence

    Opening of Armenia-Turkish border weakening Russian influence

    By Messenger Staff

    Thursday, April 23

    Alexander Skakov from the Russian Institute of Strategic Research thinks that opening the Turkish and Armenian border will hamper Russian attempts to bring Armenia under its influence.

    Today Armenia is under the Russian sphere of influence because it is confronting Azerbaijan and Turkey. Its connection to the rest of the world through Georgia is partly blocked and therefore the basis of its communications is Iran.

    The Americans think they can offer Armenia better options and thus attract it into the US sphere of interest. Skakov says that if Armenia receives direct access to the Turkish coast, Black Sea and Mediterranean it will engage in more direct trade with the West, bypassing Russia. The West will also guarantee Armenia’s sovereignty. Skakov thinks that after opening the border with Turkey Armenia will become less dependent on Russia and more on NATO and the EU.

    Source:  www.messenger.com.ge, 23 April 2009

  • Russia confirms April 23 for Armenian president’s visit

    Russia confirms April 23 for Armenian president’s visit

    MOSCOW, April 18 (RIA Novosti) – Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan will visit Russia next Thursday, the Kremlin press service announced on Saturday.

    Kremlin aide Sergei Prikhodko said on Friday that Sargsyan would come for a working visit next week, but could only say it was “tentatively” scheduled for April 23.

    The visit is at the invitation of President Dmitry Medvedev, who on Friday met with Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev.

    After the talks, Aliyev thanked Russia for its efforts to forge a common position on a settlement to the Nagorny Karabakh problem.

    Nagorny Karabakh, a region in Azerbaijan with a largely Armenian population, declared its independence from Azerbaijan in 1983. The ensuing Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict claimed some 35,000 lives. A ceasefire was signed in 1994. The area technically remains part of Azerbaijan, but has its own government and is de facto independent.

    Medvedev brought the Azerbaijani and Armenian presidents together in Moscow in November 2008 in an attempt to jump-start stalled negotiations on the region. Aliyev and Sargsyan followed up that meeting with hour-long one-on-one talks in Switzerland in late January.