Category: Russian Federation

  • 10 Russian warships deployed in Syria

    10 Russian warships deployed in Syria

    Ten Russian warships have been deployed at the Syrian port of Tartus based on an accord reached by the two sides after the August south Caucases conflict.

    Rear Admiral Andrei Baranov, head of the Russian Black Sea Fleet’s operations directorate, said Friday the Russian engineering crew was at Tartus to expand the capacity of the harbor to host additional fleet vessels.

    The teams will also be working on expanding Latakia, another Syrian port, possibly for aircraft carriers or guided missile cruisers, said Baranov.

    On Sept. 12, nearly one month after the south Caucases conflict broke out, Russia and Syria reached an agreement that would provide Moscow with a long-term base rights at Syrian ports.

    Military sources reported that Israeli military leaders were stunned at the news of the Russian fleet being deployed near Israeli shores.

    Source: www.daily.pk, 20 September 2008

  • Russians moving into Syria

    Russians moving into Syria

    Strategic alliance include fleet, missiles

    Editor’s Note: The following report is excerpted from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin, the premium online newsletter published by the founder of WND.

    The coast of Syria, where Tartus is located

    Just as Russia has reasserted its power in the Black Sea, it now plans to make waves in the Mediterranean Sea by establishing a major base in Syria, according to a report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

    This decision not only will allow a permanent presence of Russia’s nuclear-armed Black Sea fleet in the Mediterranean, but it also offers the potential for future confrontations between Russia and Israel, as well as with the United States.

    The Russian navy has begun to upgrade facilities in Tartus, Syria, and already has backed this up by moving to Syria a flotilla of its powerful warships led by the aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov. The flotilla includes the Russian navy’s biggest missile cruiser Moskva and some four nuclear missile submarines.

    From 1971 to 1992, the former Soviet Union operated a naval maintenance facility at Tartus. It then fell into disrepair. Only one of its three floating piers remained operational.

    But the facilities now are being restored.

    “It is much more advantageous to have such a facility than to return ships that patrol the Mediterranean to their home bases,” said former Black Sea Fleet commander Admiral Eduard Baltin.

    The establishment of the permanent base also is viewed as Moscow’s response to the upcoming installation of U.S. missile interceptors along Poland’s Baltic coast at Redzikowo. Such an agreement was signed last month between the U.S. and Poland.

    Syria, meantime, also is considering a request from Moscow to base missiles in the country due to tensions between Russia and the West over its invasion of Georgia in the Caucasus.

    Russia would send in the surface-to-surface Iskander missile which Moscow says is capable of penetrating any missile defense system.

    With a NATO code name of the SS-26 Stone, the Iskander is a road-mobile system. It has a range of 300 kilometers, or 186 miles, giving Damascus the capability of striking Tel Aviv in Israel.

    Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin is the premium, online intelligence news source edited and published by the founder of WND.

    Source: www.worldnetdaily.com, September 19, 2008

  • Whither Turkish-Armenian relations?

    Whither Turkish-Armenian relations?

    By Nicholas Birch in Istanbul

    As symbolic gestures go, Turkish President Abdullah Gul’s attendance at an Armenia-Turkey football match in Yerevan on September 6 could not have been bettered.

    The first visit by a senior Turkish politician since Armenia became independent 17 years ago, it has sparked an upsurge of fraternal feeling on both sides of a border closed since 1993. And the signs are that there is more to come. If Armenia agrees to renounce territorial claims on eastern Turkey implicit in its founding charter, one senior Turkish diplomat says: “We could see diplomatic relations begun and rail links restarted within six months.”

    “The two sides are in agreement over a surprising number of issues,” agrees Richard Giragosian, a Yerevan-based analyst, describing Armenia’s invitation of Gul as “a vital foreign policy victory” for the Caucasian state’s embattled government. Armenia stands to benefit enormously from the rapprochement. With its Azeri and Turkish borders closed, Georgia has been its only window on the West. When Russia wrecked Georgian infrastructure in August, it was Armenians, not Georgians, who suffered from food shortages.

    It is no coincidence either that the two Turkish provinces bordering Armenia are the country’s poorest. For years, politicians in Kars and Igdir have been calling for the border to be opened. Trade between the two countries “would slow rapid population movement away from eastern Turkey,” says former Turkish ambassador to Russia, Volkan Vural. “It would provide Central Asia-bound exporters with a good new route. Plus energy security would be improved if Armenia joins current energy projects.”

    Though Turkey has increasingly used its key position on the “East-West” corridor connecting Europe to the Caspian as a card in its stumbling EU negotiations, such optimism seems premature, for three reasons.

    Reasons not to be cheerful

    First, it ignores the fact that Armenia’s border with Azerbaijan has been closed since the 1988-1994 armed conflict that took place in the small ethnic enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in southwestern Azerbaijan, between the predominantly ethnic Armenians and Azeri forces. Azerbaijan showed considerable statesmanship in backing the Turkish-Armenian rapprochement. But there is no sign of progress on Nagorno-Karabakh. Instead, enriched with oil and gas money, Baku now spends $1bn annually on military rearmament. Belligerent rhetoric about re-taking lost territories is, if anything, on the up.

    Second, and much more importantly, Turkey’s talk of a new Caucasian pact appears to ignore the key lesson of August’s conflict in South Ossetia; in today’s Caucasus, Russia is boss. The August bust-up “was clearly not about Ossetia, only a little about Georgia, only a little about Nato, and a huge amount about geopolitics,” says David Smith, director of the Georgian Security Analysis Center in Tbilisi. “It was a shot fired at the East-West corridor, a warning to BP, ExxonMobil, anybody hoping to loosen Gazprom’s hold on Central Asia.”

    With Russian bombs falling within 200 metres of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline, Georgia’s neighbours seem to have got the message. Azerbaijan recently upped oil exports via Russian pipelines when BTC flow was interrupted by a Turkish Kurdish separatist sabotage attack on the pipeline on August 6. And when US Vice-President Dick Cheney visited Baku on September 3 to drum up local support for a trans-Caspian gas line, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev turned him down.

    With the future of Nabucco, a hugely expensive EU-backed gas pipeline due to bring Caspian gas direct to Europe by 2013, looking increasingly doubtful, some analysts hint at the possibility of rerouting the East-West corridor through Armenia. But this talk of Armenia offering new energy security possibilities misses another point: Georgia earned its position on the East-West corridor thanks to its staunch pro-American stance; Armenia, meanwhile, to cite Richard Giragosian, is little better than “a Russian garrison state.”

    Visitors to Yerevan have their passports stamped by Russian border guards. Armenia’s energy and telecommunication sectors have been in Russian hands since 2005 and 2006 respectively. Russian Railways bought Armenian railways this January. In that context, Giragosian argues, opening the Turkish-Armenian border risks abetting Russian efforts to sideline Georgia. “The key question Turkey needs to ask itself over Armenia,” he says, “is do we have a partner on the other side.”

  • EU: Georgia crisis fortifies importance of Turkey

    EU: Georgia crisis fortifies importance of Turkey

    HELSINKI, Finland: The Georgian crisis has strengthened the strategic importance of Turkey both in the Caucasus and for the European Union, the bloc’s enlargement chief said Friday.

    EU Enlargement Commissioner Olli Rehn said Turkey was “engaged in very active and evidently successful diplomacy” in its neighboring regions.

    Turkey has met separately with Georgian and Russian officials in an effort to promote peace between the two countries since their war in August.

    It is also helping to normalize ties between Syria and the EU and is mediating talks between Israel and the Palestinians in Istanbul.

    “Turkey remains a very important bridge between Europe and the Islamic world,” Rehn told reporters during a visit to Helsinki. “In other words, everything that has happened in recent weeks has only strengthened Turkey’s strategic importance from the EU’s point of view.”

    EU: Georgia crisis fortifies importance of Turkey – International Herald Tribune.

  • Turkey’s Near Abroad, and Russia

    Turkey’s Near Abroad, and Russia

    ISTANBUL — In the waning days of the conflict between Russia and Georgia last month, politicians in Turkey focused elsewhere — on Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan, Central Asian players in regional energy markets. Turkey’s energy minister visited the two former Soviet states to discuss longterm energy strategies (Today’sZaman), just three weeks after a tentative ceasefire was inked between Moscow and Tbilisi. The meeting, which came on the heels of a costly trade dispute (Today’sZaman) with Russia over Ankara’s decision to authorize U.S. naval access to the Black Sea during the Georgia fighting, has been widely interpreted as a warning shot to Russia that Turkey “is not about to be pushed around” (Stratfor).

    Looking east in troubled times comes naturally to Turkey, which was among the first countries to recognize the independence of Central Asian states (TurkishWeekly) when they split away from the disintegrating Soviet Union in the 1990s. Under former President Turgut Ozal (1989-1993), political and economic ties between Turkey and these Turkic-brethren states took off. Since 2002, when the Justice and Development Party (AKP) took office, a renewed focus on Central Asia has led to rising foreign investment and international trade with Turkey’s eastern neighbors.

    Turkey’s Near Abroad, and Russia – washingtonpost.com.

  • Georgia on Our Mind

    Georgia on Our Mind

    by Morton Abramowitz

    09.16.2008

    Whether provoked or entrapped, President Saakashvili’s folly cost the United States $1 billion and counting. But that is only money. He has changed the world in ways neither he nor the West ever dreamed. If any compensation is found to tame Putin’s Russia, it will not likely be by the actions of Western governments, but by capital fleeing from Russia and the price of energy continuing its precipitous decline. The Bush administration is a spent force with little credibility. Only a new administration might pursue a policy that has coherence, purpose, and international support. A number of issues emanating from the Georgian conflict will face the next president, including energy policy in Central Asia and power politics in NATO.

    Following the conflict in the Caucuses, the energy equation of the region has radically changed. In Georgia, even if Saakashvili survives—that appears to be in doubt and will require huge Western help—he will face unremitting enmity from Moscow. Moscow was previously too weak to prevent the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline—the East-West energy corridor—to be built. But the notion that investors will put billions of dollars into a new pipeline for gas from Central Asia through the Caucasus before Georgia’s relations with Russia are restored defies the imagination.

    In any event, gas from Turkmenistan and other Central Asian countries is unlikely to be transmitted through Georgia on its way west. Georgia may be too bitter a lesson for these states. Pressure from Moscow makes it more likely that gas will continue to go through Russia onto the West or to Turkey.

    In addition to this shifting energy landscape, NATO has suffered a serious setback: Expansion of the alliance has reached a dangerous fork. Giving membership prospects to Georgia and Ukraine later this year is more likely to endanger, not strengthen them. The two countries would be under constant pressure from Russia, damaging or destroying Ukraine’s unity and Georgia’s stability. Besides, it is unlikely that consensus could be achieved on the membership issue. Turkey, for example, has few illusions about Putin’s Russia. But the Georgian war has cast doubt on Turkey’s full cooperation with the United States on Russian issues and NATO expansion. Turkey does not like Russia’s egregious intervention in the Caucasus, but is not particularly sympathetic to Shaakashvili’s Georgia either. Increasingly, the Turks are skeptical of American foreign policy management, and are not interested in getting into a hassle with Russia. Russia is Turkey’s leading trade partner and the supplier of the vast bulk of its imported energy (some $50 billion this year). The United States has expressed displeasure with Turkey’s choice of energy suppliers—Iran and Russia—but has yet to tell Ankara how they realistically propose to make up for them. Turkey can make money whether energy comes through Georgia or Russia. The Turks remain committed to NATO, but the Russian relationship is a matter of realism for Ankara—not an alliance matter—unless the Russians were to attack a NATO member. Most likely, Turkey, along with several others, will seek to postpone any potential membership offer to Georgia and Ukraine.

    Another international institution, the European Union, has also been impacted by the Georgian conflict. Although the EU is under attack in many quarters in the United States and Europe for its pusillanimous reaction to Russia’s brazen behavior in Georgia, it has the real ability to do something important for Ukraine and Georgia—namely beginning a serious process to admit these countries to the EU. One must be skeptical that the EU is actually prepared to do that. The EU also has the practical ability to do something about Russian behavior. Whether they will seriously try to or not remains to be seen. The Russians have skillfully created tensions between the “old” Europe and the “new” one.

    As for America, the Bush administration will continue to pay for Saakashvili’s battle with the Russians and give Georgia strong moral support. But with a financial system in disaster, the administration’s writ on controversial matters during their last months in office does not extend far.

    Although the next president will have many foreign-policy challenges, cleaning up after the Georgian war needs early attention. Most importantly, the United States and its allies must create an effective Russian policy. They have to sort out their relations with an angry and internationally disruptive Russia, while ensuring Russian cooperation on pressing issues, such as stopping Iran’s nuclear weapons program and energy security. Slogans and fulminations won’t do the trick.

     

    Morton Abramowitz is a former president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace and senior fellow at The Century Foundation.