INTL 4/26 EU/NATO/CIS/CSTO|Natural Gas Summit/U.S., Russia:START 1 Replacement/et al

4/19 EU/NATO/CIS/CSTO|The Incredible Shrinking Russia/France/Moldova/Georgia
Housecarl
___________________

Posted for fair use....
http://www.emportal.rs/en/news/region/86421.html

Gas Summit-second day

26. April 2009. | 16:47

Source: Focus News Agency

President Georgi Parvanov closed the Summit on Natural Gas for Europe: Security and Partnership. Common declaration between attendants in the forum was passed at the end of the summit. Parvanov pointed results from the event at special press conference.

President Georgi Parvanov closed the Summit on Natural Gas for Europe: Security and Partnership. Common declaration between attendants in the forum was passed at the end of the summit. Parvanov pointed results from the event at special press conference.

Sofia Summit fulfilled its key purpose - to be a center of dialogue and understanding, of searching cross points of common energy issues in regional and trans-regional plan, to provide a platform for new, promising ideas for strengthening the European energy security, President Georgi Parvanov said at the closing of the Summit on Natural Gas for Europe: Security and Partnership.

"Merits of Sofia energy summit is that it exposed not only defining characteristics of the gas sector, but it done so in a very responsible, highly professional and balanced way”, Parvanov said. The solid part, rich of strongly protected positions, ideas and suggestions was rich high-leveled dialogue on strategic issues in the gas sector in these two days.

The president expressed gratitude for the dedicated work of the experts during the Summit.

In his words purposes of integrated EU policy on climate and energy, reducing its own production of gas make the scale of long-term international cooperation. There are many ideas that enrich work in the energy sector.

Both Russia and US, highly assess results from energy summit in Sofia, that these results have impulse for Russian- American dialogue.

European position on these issues was defended in this summit.

It was defended not only by EC President Barroso but also by the rest of attendants at the meeting.

South Stream and Nabucco

South Stream and Nabucco projects are not alternatives. We can say they are rivalry. Bulgaria can win from both of them, Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov said at press conference after the energy forum in Sofia. The best thing for Bulgaria will be two big pipelines like South Stream and Nabucco to pass through Bulgaria. We estimated both projects are effective and worth for Bulgaria, he pointed.

In his words there are issues on overcoming differences, financing. The mater in point is about projects, which have to been mobilized at this stage.
There is place for White Stream, Parvanov said. He said Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev’s visit to Moscow is in reference to economic program.

“Prime Minister will have to have talks on gas and energy issues as I had to do at the opening of Bulgaria’s year in Russia,” Georgi Parvanov said.

Parvanov proposed no great expectations to be anticipated from this visit. It will not be fatal if contracts are not signed now. Of course we should not wait for agreements on South Stream until May because then there will be election campaign in Bulgaria and shadow of election campaign will fall over these agreements.

Contract with Gazprom

We stick up reconsideration of the contract with Gazprom, Bulgaria President Georgi Parvanov said at a press conference after the energy forum in Sofia.
I don’t want power engineers to dictate the political agenda, the president said. He said that has put the matter on the movement of energy package agreements in Moscow.

"We work on the new agreement about South Stream in order to speed up its construction. Regarding signing of South Stream project I want quickly but not rashly progress, Parvanov added. According to him, progress of this project could be done during the visit of Prime Minister Stanishev in Moscow and also at the meeting, which Russian Energy Minister Shmatko offered to participating states in South Stream project. This meeting will be held in mid-May, the president predicted.

Gazprom not to determine who Bulgaria will interact with, I beg our sovereignty to be respected, Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov said at a press conference after the Summit on Natural gas for Europe: Security and Partnership in response to a question.

I comment and interact with the state leadership of the Russian Federation, if they have claims we will discuss them, but I will not comment on the claims of one or the other company, Purvanov stated.

From the outset we defend our national and European interest, keep these principles agreed just over a year to be met, nothing more, he said.

South Stream project must take its due place in the agenda of the EU. We can not ignore the fact that users of this gas will be citizens of Europe. Any scholasticism, ideology of the problem is broken, no matter where they come from - from the East or West, the president said.

Parvanov said that he expected new rules to work in the declaration. I don’t assume that someone may agree to sign something and then not use it in its practice. Declaration was on dispute to the last minutes, but it was adopted by consensus, there is no reason to expect that there will be going back.

Parvanov said that each participant will put its accent, however its signing is an achievement.

Kozloduy Nuclear Power Plant

Bulgaria’s demands on compensations for decommissioning of unit 3 and 4 of Kozlouy Nuclear Power Plant are justified. I support these demands, Bulgarian President Georgi Parvanov said at press conference after the energy forum in Sofia President commented.

Bulgaria’s demands on natural gas deliveries from Egypt and Turkmenistan, from where accoding to him we got positive answer.

Parvanov said further he hopes there gas deliveries to become real before Nabucco pipeline starts working.

There will be natural gas deficit in Bulgaria in next year, he said.

In his words realization of these agreements depends on countries through where these deliveries will get as well as from “big international factors” good will and non-resistance.

I hope there will be no resistance against these ambitions, Parvanov said. He pointed he expects Bulgaria to get first amounts of covenantal gas in 2010, when international system between Bulgaria and Greece will be established.

Belene Nuclear Power Plant

Problems with financing of Belene NPP must be handled by the government. Certainly resources must ne found - how and under what conditions you have to seek the Prime Minister for response. Certainly in terms of the financial crisis things are not good, President Georgi Parvanov said to journalists after a meeting with Serbian President Boris Tadic.

After the meeting Serbian President Tadic said that bilateral relations between Bulgaria and Serbia are at a high level, but the indelible position on the proclamation of Kosovo’s independence still remains. Serbia expects the decision of the International Court of Justice that the declaration of independence is not legitimate.

Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev

Prime Minister /PM/ Sergey Stanishev expressed his satisfaction from the declaration, voted by attendants at energy summit in Sofia. It was signed at informal lunch after the International Energy Business Forum of the Summit on Natural Gas for Europe: Security and Partnership in Sofia, government press office informs.

In a common declaration, leaders from 28 European, Caspian and Central Asian countries called for the "rapid development of international gas infrastructure, pipelines, liquefied natural gas terminals and strategic storages to guarantee diversification of gas supplies to Europe in a sustainable and viable way."

To achieve this, "a working and lasting bond of co-operation between producer, transit and consumer countries" had to be developed, they added.
PM Stanishev expressed hope Sofia’s declaration will be of great importance for future partnership on gas deliveries to Europe and will be guide for companies, which attended energy business forum after the summit.

I believe success of energy summit will contribute to this to become tradition and to rapprochement of positions in energy security fields, he added.

PM said Energy Summit in Sofia is success for Bulgaria.

Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko

I can say with satisfaction that most participants in the energy forum expressed support for South Stream project. Our traditional partners such as Italy, Austria, Serbia and many others, talked about an extremely important role of Russia on energy supplies to Europe and the inability to develop this dialogue without the participation of Russia, Russian Energy Minister Sergei Shmatko said.

In his words the energy forum in Sofia passed smoothly without undue politicization. According to him, Europe is ready to consider any alternative options for supply of gas. "We believe that as traditional partners in Europe, we can take place," he said.

According to the Russian Energy Minister the meeting in Sofia gave opportunity to search and find alternative ways of dialogue for the supply of gas, including the South Stream.

Shmatko reiterated again that Nabucco project can not be competition in South Stream project.

There are speculations Bulgaria and Russia talk at cross-purposes on South Stream. We have political decisions, signed by heads of two countries. This is what Russian Minister of Energy Sergei Shmatko said at press conference.

In his words positions of Bulgarian and Russian energy companies got closer in the last days. He expressed his expectations contract between Gazprom and Bulgarian Energy Holding to be signed soon. He did no say whether contract will be signed in the frames of Bulgarian Prime Minister Sergey Stanishev’s visit in Russia.

Gazprom can deliver big amount of gas and to decrease its price, Shmatko added.

In reference to Bulgaria’s demands for compensations due to stopped gas deliveries at the beginning of January Russian energy minister said that events then have not turned out mechanisms of energy charter to be used by used by any country so to put its demands before Ukraine. We are interested in adequate legal mechanism, which will solve crisis situations. WE keen on than, he said.

In reference to the project on building Belene Nuclear Power Plant minister Shatko said work on this project continues and they will search for mechanism on its realization. He said this project is unique compared to such projects in Europe.

Richard Morningstar, US special envoy on energy issues:
Nabucco as well as any other pipeline in not panacea. It is important but in the context of all other projects. This is what US special envoy on energy issues in Eurasia Richard Morningstar said at press conference.

According to Morningstar US can play its role in the realization of this project as mediator in finding subsidies of international financing and to finances
“Most of Eurpean countries believe in Nabucco and that it must be build. Nabucco is important but it is not the only solution for European energy security. This is problem of countries attendants in the project. We will help for realization of the project as much as we can,” he said further.

In reference to US position on South Stream he said the country is neither “against” nor “for” the project.

“We have doubts in reference to this project. We believe project will be very expensive,” he added.

In his words there are “many interrogatives on financing structure of this project.

ETA: A point made in the article is that "the global balance is in flux". The emergence of the PRC and India as bigger players, and the stresses being created with "rogue states" who are also partners of the PRC and Russia and the pressures those are creating is in my mind would normally stretch out any such negotiations. However, the possible need/desire for the Obama Administration to get a foreign policy success as early as possible may well trump that....Housecarl
_________________
Posted for fair use....
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090424_u_s_russia_crafting_replacement_start_i

U.S., Russia: Crafting a Replacement for START I
April 24, 2009 | 1956 GMT

DMITRY KOROTAYEV/Epsilon/Getty Images
A Russian Topol-M ICBM in Alabino on April 24
Summary

U.S. and Russian representatives met in Rome April 24 to begin the long process of negotiating a replacement for the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, which will expire in December. Both parties are invested in a new nuclear arms reduction treaty, although each side wants a slightly different document. In any case, their negotiations will ultimately shape the strategic nuclear environment for the foreseeable future.
Analysis

On April 24, U.S. and Russian representatives began negotiations in Rome to craft a replacement for the first Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START I). The treaty set targets for nuclear arms reduction and established baseline rules for monitoring the arms-reduction process. The treaty will expire in December, and both the United States and Russia have their own reasons to see a replacement.

START I was signed in 1991 by U.S. President George H. W. Bush and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. The treaty mandated that both parties deploy no more than 6,000 nuclear warheads and 1,600 strategic delivery vehicles (a goal that was reached in 2001). More important, it provided a rigorous declaration, inspection and verification regime that has been a cornerstone of the bilateral nuclear balance for nearly two decades.

A second treaty, the Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) — which is set to take effect and expire on a single day at the end of 2012 — was signed in 2002 by U.S. President George W. Bush and Russian President Vladimir Putin. SORT mandated that the two countries reduce their respective arsenals to 1,700 to 2,200 “operationally deployed” warheads (essentially warheads in an active alert status) by the end of 2012. But SORT was a very simple document (literally one page long) and it relies upon the enforcement and oversight mechanisms established in START I.

The two treaties track nuclear arsenals in very different ways. For instance, while the United States currently maintains 5,200 START-accountable nuclear warheads, according to U.S. data released in January 2009, the United States has already met the stipulations of SORT. In essence, START I required much more rigorous and permanent reductions, counting not only weapons deployed operationally but also those in storage that have not been dismantled and destroyed. SORT imposed looser rules and regulated only operationally deployed strategic warheads.

The United States is for a START I replacement treaty that falls somewhere in the middle between the verifiability of START I and the permissiveness of SORT. Russia is far more interested in a nuclear reduction regime that more closely mirrors the specificity of START I.

For Russia, the treaty not only offers a chance to get the United States to the table as a geopolitical equal but it also allows Russia to tie the United States to a semblance of nuclear parity as well (if only on paper). With the balance of world power tilting toward the United States with the fall of the Soviet Union, the game for Russia now is to bind the United States as closely to itself as possible as it seeks necessary and inevitable reductions in its nuclear arsenal. With parity assured through a strict treaty, Russia can attempt to maintain its unique standing in the world alongside the United States as a strategic nuclear power.

For both sides, nuclear arsenals — especially at the current scale — are incredibly expensive and both military establishments are facing immense budgetary challenges.

The United States is equally invested in a mutually binding treaty with Russia, albeit for slightly different reasons. There are aspects of START I that the United States will certainly seek to retain — particularly the enforced transparency — and the reduction of the its nuclear arsenal would increase the flexibility of the U.S. military by freeing up personnel and money. But the two sides are attempting to find a level of strategic equilibrium at a time when the global balance is in flux. The United States is evaluating ways to resolve two major counterinsurgencies, and the need to re-forge a strategic relationship with Russia is strong. And for Russia, the chance to get the United States to the negotiating table while pushing its influence further into its periphery offers a chance to achieve some of its own strategic goals.

These issues set a complex backdrop for what will already be extremely intricate and drawn-out negotiations. The technical challenges of negotiating a new treaty should not be underestimated. As the difference between the SORT and START I treaties exemplify, the way the new treaty defines nuclear arsenals, mandates reductions and describes its scope of applicability will shape the strategic nuclear environment for the foreseeable future.

Posted for fair use....
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=34900&tx_ttnews[backPid]=27&cHash=dcc3aa1859

Molodova's Political Crisis Deepens
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 79
April 24, 2009 02:36 PM Age: 2 days
Category: Vlad’s Corner, Eurasia Daily Monitor, Home Page, Domestic/Social, Moldova
By: Vladimir Socor

The security situation in Chisinau has stabilized in the wake of the April 7-8 violent riots, devastation of the parliament and presidency buildings, and post-factum police crackdown. While order has been restored, the political crisis is deepening as the opposition rejects the outcome of the April 5 parliamentary elections, despite the overall positive assessment of the electoral process by European observers. If the newly elected parliament is prevented from convening, or fails to muster the quorum for electing a new head of state (to replace the outgoing President Vladimir Voronin), Moldova will be plunged into a constitutional crisis amid its ongoing recession.

If the newly-elected parliament does convene and get down to work, it will be acutely polarized between the pro-government party and the tripartite opposition on a 60 to 41 ratio, and in constant agitation, but still capable of functioning. The opposition parties' tactics, however, seem designed to block the parliament's opening and to force new elections. Using incendiary rhetoric, opposition leaders accuse the authorities of having falsified the election results and having themselves arranged the assault on the parliament and presidential buildings.

The recount of ballots, however, has fully confirmed the results of the first count (EDM, April 7, 10). The recount data, released on April 21, show the nominally Communist Party with 49.5 percent of the votes cast; two nominally Liberal parties, with 13.1 percent and 12.4 percent, respectively; and the party Our Moldova with 9.8 of the votes cast, in a voter turnout of 57.5 percent countrywide (minus Transnistria, where the Moscow-installed authorities do not allow residents to vote in Moldova's elections). Under the proportional system, the Communists have obtained 60 parliamentary seats; the Liberals and the Liberal-Democrats, 15 seats each; and Our Moldova 11 seats, in the 101-seat parliament. The other parties fell below the 6 percent threshold, with their votes accruing to the four parties that passed it (Moldpres, April 21).

The Communist Party had requested the recount after those three parties had cried fraud on the original vote-count. The electoral commissions performed the recount from April 15 through April 21, but the three parties boycotted the recount. They had participated in the electoral commissions' original count and knew that it must have been correct. After boycotting the recount, the opposition parties are nevertlehess contesting its results. Under Moldova's electoral legislation, the results of the vote-count -or those of the recount, if one is performed- are to be referred to the Constitutional Court for final validation of the election's outcome and certification of the parliamentary deputies' mandates. Opposition leaders, however, are warning that they might not accept the verdict of the Constitutional Court if it validates the election's outcome (Moldpres, April 22).

Meanwhile the opposition parties have switched their main challenge to the voter registration lists, claiming that state authorities had padded the lists with fictitious or deceased voters. The three parties developed this thesis only after the elections, and not before. Under Moldova's electoral legislation, voter registration lists are compiled by the local electoral commissions, which then put the lists on public display at commission offices, polling stations, and on the internet, twenty days ahead of the election day. Opposition parties are represented on all electoral commissions; and the twenty-day period allows ample opportunities for list-checking by voters and parties in advance of the elections. The three parties, however, decided only after the elections to challenge the voter registration lists, apparently as a fall-back option if the vote-count was to prove correct. Claiming that the state department for informatics (which stores the population's registration data) had tampered with the voter lists in ways that altered the elections' outcome, the three opposition parties have since April 10 been conducting their own re-checking of the lists and demanding more time for this exercise.

In private conversations with selected foreign visitors ahead of the elections, opposition leaders were hinting that they were prepared to force the holding of new elections soon after the regular April 5 elections. They had not taken such decision before these elections and have, in all likelihood, not actually taken such a decision since April 5; but they are, again privately, considering and debating such a course of action.

Two options are under consideration in this regard. One is to reject the outcome of the just-held elections and to force the holding of repeat elections. This tactic is discernible in the all-out effort to de-legitimize the authorities through accusations that they falsified the election results and then destroyed the parliament and presidency in a "Reichstag fire." Why the authorities would need to plot that destruction after winning the elections (even if they had won fraudulently) does not seem to be part of this logic.

The opposition's other option under consideration is to allow (albeit amid continuing, vociferous protests) the parliament to open but then prevent the election of a new head of state. Under Moldova's constitution, the head of state is elected with the votes of at least 61 deputies in the 101-seat parliament. If that number falls short after several rounds of balloting, the parliament is automatically dissolved and new elections (as distinct from repeat elections) must be held with new electoral slates, participation of all political parties, and an entirely new pre-election campaign. This process would take until August or September to complete, with the presidency vacant and the state coffers empty.

Posted for fair use....
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/edm/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=34901&tx_ttnews[backPid]=27&cHash=5259a737f5

IMF to Resume Assisting Ukraine
Publication: Eurasia Daily Monitor Volume: 6 Issue: 79
April 24, 2009 02:43 PM Age: 2 days
Category: Eurasia Daily Monitor, Home Page, Economics, Ukraine
By: Pavel Korduban

Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko

The IMF's mission visited Ukraine April 8-17 and was satisfied with the results of its talks with the government. It will recommend that the IMF board resumes financial assistance to Ukraine in May. This means that Ukraine must avoid a critical depletion of its foreign exchange reserves (forex) and consequently a sovereign default -which has been feared by many observers. In order to qualify for IMF financing, Ukraine agreed to implement several unpopular economic measures. Also, seven banks will now be bailed out by the government.

Ukraine was one of the first countries to apply for IMF assistance when the global financial crisis erupted last fall. The IMF approved a $16.4 billion stand-by arrangement for Ukraine in November, and its first $4.5 billion tranche came the same month. The second tranche was expected on February 15, but it did not arrive since the IMF and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko failed to agree on the ways to finance the budget deficit and support banks.

Ukraine could not afford a long dispute with the IMF. The National Bank of Ukraine's (NBU) forex reserve shrank from $31.5 billion in January to $25 billion in March as it sold dollars in order to support the national currency, which had lost almost 40 percent of its value since last August. In order for the IMF mission to return, Tymoshenko agreed to give more independence to the NBU and to finance the 3 percent budget deficit by non-inflationary means such as loans. Also, ahead of the IMF's mission returning to Kyiv, parliament agreed to increase the excise tax on alcohol and tobacco (Ukrainska Pravda, March 31).

The IMF mission focused its concern on three areas: the cash-strapped Naftohaz Ukrainy national oil and gas company, the unreformed pension system, and financial sector restructuring aimed at restoring public trust in the banking system. Tymoshenko suffered a major setback early on April 14, when parliament refused to include on its agenda the crucial bills on Naftogaz and pension reform, which prompted Yushchenko and Tymoshenko to accuse each other of torpedoing the talks with the IMF for political reasons. In reality, this showed the political weakness of both, with Tymoshenko unable to muster a majority in parliament and Yushchenko having no effective control even of his small caucus (Channel 5, April 14).

Tymoshenko finally decided to circumvent parliament, on the same day adopting the measures required by the IMF to cover the state budget deficit at an emergency meeting of her government. Although there were doubts about the legality of the move, it was supported by Yushchenko. The measures included allowing private individuals to buy government bonds, increasing the price of gas by 2 percent for selected industries and by 5 to10 percent for high-income households (also increasing their electricity tariffs), partially waiving Naftohaz's tax debt, allowing government bodies to sell additional services and increasing the pension tax for small businesses (ProUA, April 14).

On April 15, the government and the NBU announced that seven banks would be bailed out in line with agreements reached with the IMF. It was decided that the state would take 75 percent, plus one share stakes in these banks in exchange for saving them; receiving an equivalent of $2.6 billion out of the $5.7 billion earmarked for the recapitalization of banks in the state budget. This means that more banks might be bailed out at a later date. Out of more than 180 banks in Ukraine, 26 larger ones fit the government's criteria for the bailout, but the owners of only seven of them accepted the government conditions, said Tymoshenko. After the recapitalization, due to start within the next three to four weeks, the banks will be sold at auctions, she added (Interfax-Ukraine, April 17).

The banks to be bailed out are: Nadra, Finansy i Kredit, Ukrgazbank, Rodovid, Ukrprombank, Kyiv and Imexbank. Only one of them, Nadra, is among the country's top ten financial institutions. Finansy i Kredit risks being dropped from the group as its owner, metals tycoon and Tymoshenko's political ally Kostyantyn Zhevaho, is reluctant to lose control over it (Zerkalo Nedeli, April 21).

The IMF mission said it was satisfied with the measures taken by the Ukrainian government. It observed stabilization within Ukraine's economy and believes it avoided more significant damage caused by the financial crisis. The IMF mission said its board might increase the second tranche of the stand-by loan to $2.8 billion from $1.84 billion -due to arrive by mid-May. The mission completed its work, but it will soon assess the possibility of disbursing the third tranche, expected to equal $2.8 billion (www.imf.org, April 17).

Ukraine previously expected to receive a $3.75 billion third tranche in May. Tymoshenko asked the IMF to disburse the second and third tranches at once (Interfax-Ukraine, April 9). It now appears that they will arrive simultaneously, owing to the delay in the second tranche. Despite that delay, a 30 percent year-on-year industrial output decrease in the first quarter, and the incessant political squabbles, Ukraine's economy has proven to be more robust than many expected. Yushchenko and Tymoshenko saw signs of an approaching recovery in the March statistics (UNIAN, April 15; Interfax-Ukraine, April 16). The IMF apparently shares their cautious optimism.

Posted for fair use....
http://www.isria.info/en/24_April_2009_47.htm

Russia: First Meeting in Framework of Mechanisms for Preventing and Responding to Incidents in Zone Adjacent to South Ossetia

On April 23, the first meeting in the framework of the joint mechanisms for preventing and responding to incidents in the zone adjacent to South Ossetia took place in the village of Ergneti, with representatives from the South Ossetian and Georgian authorities, the Russian Defense Ministry, and OSCE and European Union officials in attendance.

Agreement on launching the mechanisms had been reached during a regular round of Geneva discussions on stability and security in Transcaucasia on February 18-19. The aim of their work must be to help reduce tension and restore trust between South Ossetia and Georgia.

The participants of the mechanisms are tasked with ensuring a timely and adequate response to the security situation, including incidents, and their investigation, with responding to criminal activities, with ensuring the delivery of humanitarian aid and dealing with other matters that could affect stability and security, with emphasis on preventing and responding to incidents.

The meeting discussed organizational questions of the operation of the mechanisms. From now on, such meetings will be held regularly. It was agreed to establish a 24-hour hot line. The next meeting is planned to be held in early May.
____________________
ETA...
Posted for fair use....
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/04/24/Russia-Georgia-S-Ossetia-meet/UPI-95631240547570/


Russia, Georgia, S. Ossetia meet
Published: April 24, 2009 at 12:32 AM

ERGNETI, Georgia, April 24 (UPI) -- Russia, Georgia and the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia agreed Thursday to set up a hotline to deal with emergencies.

Representatives of the three met for the first time since the Russian incursion into Georgia last summer, Itar-Tass reported. The meeting was held in the Georgian village of Ergneti near the South Ossetian border.

Lt. Gen. Sergei Antonov, the first deputy chief of the Russian general staff, said the delegates agreed to hold meetings as needed. The next scheduled meeting is set for early December, also in Ergneti.

"We seek to adequately react on the situation in the field of security, including joint briefings on a regular basis, ensure security of important facilities, counteract crimes, provide humanitarian aid and solve other problems that could strengthen stability and security, prevent incidents and react on them," Antonov said.

Russia intervened when the Georgian government tried to bring South Ossetia back under its control. Russia later recognized South Ossetia and Abkhazia as independent countries, although no other government has done so.

© 2009 United Press International, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Posted for fair use....
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=20799

Saakashvili Arrives Back in Tbilisi
Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 26 Apr.'09 / 20:49


President Saakashvili arrived back to Tbilisi and visited on Sunday evening a site of collapsed TV studio in which two employees of Rustavi 2 television station died.

The vide footage of Saakashvili at the site was aired by the Georgian public broadcaster.

Turkish media sources reported on April 25 that President Saakashvili arrived on Saturday in the Turkish seaside resort of Bodrum to spend a holiday there. After the news broke in Georgia, some opposition leaders, including Nino Burjanadze, a former parliamentary speaker, accused Saakashvili of acting “inadequately, going for a rest abroad, while people are protesting in the country.”

Earlier on April 26, officials have denied the Turkish media reports and said the President was in Sofia and would return back to Georgia on Sunday.
___________________

Posted for fair use....
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=20797


Church Leader Calls on Politicians for Repentance Prayer
Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 26 Apr.'09 / 19:49


Ilia II, the Patriarch of the Georgian Orthodox Church, called for a day of nationwide prayer for repentance on April 28 and called on the politicians to pray together on that day.

“I want to address the authorities and the opposition to come to church on that very important day and to repent sins together,” Ilia II said.

“The one which is more spiritual should concede to another,” he added.

__________________

Posted for fair use....
http://www.civil.ge/eng/article.php?id=20795

Police Says Two Beaten Up by Pro-Opposition Activists
Civil Georgia, Tbilisi / 26 Apr.'09 / 16:58


The Interior Ministry said it has launched investigation into the case involving attack on two citizens by pro-opposition activists last night.

The Interior Ministry posted on its website a video footage showing a verbal quarrel, which then grows into a brawl that took place after midnight close to the building, which is housing the office of the Interior Ministry’s general inspection, an internal investigations unit. Opposition activists are blocking the street there with mocked-up prison cells as part of the ongoing protests.

The video shows a man, Bidzina Gegidze, a close associate of Levan Gachechiladze, an opposition politician, hitting his fist into the face of a man after the latter swears at him. The Interior Ministry said that the man and his companion, who were beaten up, were residents of that neighborhood. The two men were also accompanied by a woman.

The vide footage also shows a man, Gia Korkotashvili, searching a wallet belonging to one of the citizens who was beaten up. Then he takes something from the wallet and puts it into his pocket.

Both Korkotashvili and Gegidze are co-founders of a recently set up organization – Together – which, according to its founders aimed at patrolling and monitoring of the protest venues to prevent attacks on opposition activists and supporters.

“As a result of the attack two citizens have received severe bodily injuries. Attackers have seized the citizens’ wallets, stole cash and identification documents,” the Interior Ministry said in a statement. It added: “The investigation was initiated in accordance with articles 118, 117 and 239 envisaged by the Criminal Code of Georgia,” involving inflicting bodily injuries; robbery and hooliganism, respectively.

The video footage was not recorded by the police CCTV camera. The Interior Ministry said that an employee of the Interior Ministry was shooting the video from the building housing the general inspection’s office.

Gia Korkotashvili, a co-founder of the organization, Together, who is also a radio and TV host, said on April 26 that the incident was “a provocation” with two persons approaching the protest venue and starting quarrelling. He has strongly denied taking money from the wallet and has claimed that he only took identification cards with a purpose “to find out with which special services he was cooperating.” He also said that he was ready to cooperate with the investigation.

Meanwhile, the Georgian public broadcaster, where Korkotashvili hosts an entertaining show, said it was suspending Korkotashvili from the program pending the results of the investigation.

The video footage also shows Giga Bukia of the opposition Conservative Party on the scene.

Posted for fair use....
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090424_u_s_turkey_washingtons_growing_confidence_ankara

U.S., Turkey: Washington's Growing Confidence in Ankara
April 24, 2009 | 2153 GMT

Mass Communications Specialist 2nd Class Jason R. Zalasky/U.S. Navy via Getty Images
U.S. Navy, Visit, board, search and seizure team members from the guided-missile cruiser USS Vella Gulf (CG 72)
Summary

The U.S. Fifth Fleet announced April 24 that it will transfer command of U.S.-dominated counter-piracy operation Combined Task Force 151 to the Turkish navy on May 3. The United States’ vote of confidence in Turkey on the piracy issue is emblematic of a growing strategic bond between Washington and Ankara that is already making Turkey’s neighbors nervous. The move also was likely meant to calm Turkey’s reaction to U.S. President Barack Obama’s comments on the killings of Armenians in 1915.

Analysis
Related Special Topic Page

* Turkey’s Re-Emergence

The Bahrain-based U.S. Fifth Fleet announced April 24 that the U.S. Navy will transfer command of U.S.-dominated counter-piracy operation known as Combined Task Force (CTF) 151 to the Turkish navy in a ceremony attended by U.S. Rear Adm. Michelle Howard and Turkish Rear Adm. Caner Bener at Naval Support Activity Bahrain on May 3.

Launched Jan. 8, CTF 151 is a U.S.-initiated anti-piracy mission made up of ships from the U.S., Turkish, Singaporean, Danish and British navies. The task force’s mission is to deter piracy off of the Somali coast, though the frequency of pirate attacks in recent months has revealed the limitations of its success. Members of the task force have deterred individual attacks (including a joint Turkish-Danish intervention that prevented a pirate attack on a Vietnamese-flagged commercial vessel March 15), but successful pirate attacks have risen drastically recently due to changing tactics and operating patterns on the part of the pirates.

U.S. ships will still be commanded by their crews and governed by U.S. standard operating procedures. But Turkey will coordinate their deployment along with the other dozen or so ships in the task force. CTF 151 operates in a defensive posture, meaning it maintains a strong naval presence in order to deter pirates from attempting attacks in the first place. In addition, the task force will coordinate to ensure a rapid response to attacks that do occur. The task force was not designed to aggressively pursue pirates in an offensive nature — especially ashore in the lawless Puntland region of Somalia. This defensive operational posture is not expected to shift once Turkey takes over.

The Turks are already a militarily competent member of NATO, and are experienced with international operations under that aegis, but taking command of CTF 151 will also serve as a valuable operational experience for Turkey in terms of command and control and coordinating an international maritime operation. That said, the United States will still play a large role in commanding this task force. The single Turkish ship that has been deployed is the TGC Giresun (F-491), an old Oliver Hazard Perry class frigate, is unlikely to have the capacity for command and control of an international squadron of this size, meaning that the United States will be in a position to support and advise the Turkish commander and perhaps even provide the facilities for the coordination.

At the same time, the United States is showcasing Turkey’s navy at a critical geopolitical juncture. Washington already sees that Turkey is a resurgent regional power whose influence spans the Middle East, the south Caucasus, the Balkans and Central Asia. With the United States trying to wrap up a war in Iraq, contain the Iranians, fight a war in Afghanistan and block a Russian resurgence throughout Eurasia, it could find a lot of use for a strategic ally like Turkey. So, U.S. President Barack Obama traveled to Turkey in early April to make clear that Washington will be the primary supporter of Turkey’s rise.

The U.S. transfer of command of the CTF 151 to the Turkish navy thus carries a great deal of symbolic weight. This is about the United States sharing responsibility with a strategic ally and putting that cooperation on display for U.S. allies and adversaries to ponder. Adversaries like Iran, for example, are already expressing their concern over this shift. Iranian Foreign Minister Manouchehr Mottaki on April 23 warned against meddling in Somalia and called for a more inclusive dialogue to stabilize the region. On a tactical level, Iran could be concerned that an increased foreign naval presence (regardless of its mission) in the Gulf of Aden could endanger one of its arms supply routes to Hamas in Gaza. Such routes allegedly run from Iran by sea around the Gulf of Aden, hit land in Yemen, Somalia and occasionally Eritrea, run into Sudan and then cross into the Egyptian Sinai peninsula to reach Gaza. On a strategic level, Iran is concerned that the Turks will block its intention to fill a vacuum in Iraq as the United States withdraws from the region.

On a bilateral level, the shift in naval command will also be critical in U.S. attempts to rebuild trust with the Turkish General Staff. The Turkish military considers itself to be the secular guard of the Ataturk-founded Turkish state and feels that its prowess has been circumscribed in recent years by the ruling Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party (AKP). Moreover, the Turkish General Staff holds Washington partly responsible for facilitating the AKP’s rise. The United States needs the support of the Turkish General Staff in dealing with its array of foreign policy issues; by handing over responsibility of the piracy issue to the Turkish navy, Washington likely hopes to mend some of these fissures.

It is also unlikely a coincidence that this statement came out the same day that Obama delivered a much-anticipated statement on the anniversary of the 1915 killings of Armenians during the Ottoman Empire, which Armenia claims as genocide but Turkey vehemently denies. Obama avoided the word “genocide,” as STRATFOR expected, but he still referred to the events as “one of the great atrocities of the 20th century.” This language is not as tame as Turkey likely would have wished, but this announcement on transferring naval command of the CTF 151 to Turkey was likely intended to ease any tensions that may result.

Posted for fair use....
http://www.voanews.com/english/2009-04-24-voa33.cfm

Medvedev Dismisses Military Intelligence Chief
By VOA News
24 April 2009


Gen. Valentin Korabelnikov (L), (file photo)
Russian President Dmitri Medvedev has dismissed the long-time head of the country's military intelligence service following disagreements over planned military reforms.

The Kremlin press service said the Russian leader signed a decree Friday relieving General Valentin Korabelnikov of his post as head of the Main Intelligence Directorate (the GRU) and announcing his retirement. Korabelnikov's first deputy, General Alexander Shlyakhturov, becomes the new chief of the country's largest intelligence agency.

Later in the day, officials said Korabelnikov was named an adviser to the Russian Armed Forces General Staff. Korabelnikov, who is 63, had headed the GRU since 1997. News reports from Moscow said he repeatedly had presented his resignation in protest against proposals to disband some military-intelligence units and place others under a different command.

The reform plan would place some GRU units under the general military command and end the service's status as an independent federal agency.


Some information for this report was provided by AP.
___________________

Posted for fair use.....
http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20090424_russia_reforming_gru

Russia: Reforming the GRU
April 24, 2009 | 1709 GMT

SAUL LOEB/AFP/Getty Images
The logo of the Foreign Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU)

Summary

With Russia’s Chechen operations officially wrapped up, the Kremlin has now signaled that it intends to reform the shadowy intelligence agency responsible for success in Chechnya, called the Foreign Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU). Reforming such a powerful and secretive institution is a bold step, and reveals the Kremlin’s confidence in its ability to reshape the country amid its international resurgence.

Analysis
Related Special Topic Pages

* Putin’s Consolidation of Power
* The Russian Resurgence

Russian President Dmitri Medvedev removed Gen. Valentin Korabelnikov from his post as chief of Russia’s Foreign Military Intelligence Directorate (GRU) on April 24 and appointed Alexander Shlyakhturov as Korabelnikov’s replacement. The Kremlin offered no explanation for the personnel shuffle, but STRATFOR sources indicate that it resulted because Korabelnikov stood in the way of the deep reforms the Kremlin is making in the GRU after the formal conclusion of conflict in Chechnya.

Despite being Russia’s largest intelligence service, the GRU has never received as much attention from Western Kremlin-watchers as other agencies have. During the Cold War, the KGB was the group to watch, while post-Cold War era all eyes have followed the FSB and the SVR, the KGB’s successors. Yet the GRU is at least as powerful as the FSB, if not stronger. Not only is it many times bigger than the FSB, with agents pervading every level of Russian military, business and government institutions, it also has a much more extensive reach abroad. While the FSB likes to flaunt its exploits, the GRU prefers to remain in the shadows, with its personnel, training, tactics and intelligence-gathering techniques kept a mystery.

Korabelnikov has headed the agency since 1997, having spent most of his career rising through the agency’s ranks. During his tenure as head of the GRU, Korabelnikov led the intelligence effort responsible for turning the tide in the Russian military’s operations in Chechnya, the restive Muslim territory in the Caucasus that attempted to break from Russia after the collapse of the Soviet Union. Korabelnikov pursued a strategy of dividing and conquering. Using special operation forces and intelligence operatives, the GRU managed to instigate rivalries between the more secular-minded nationalist Chechens and their jihadist-oriented religious fundamentalist brethren. Thus, a Russian-Chechen conflict became a Chechen-Chechen conflict, freeing the Russians to pick the nationalist side and eventually create a rough balance of power under Chechen President Ramzan Kadyrov, who is now consolidating his power over the region. Korabelnikov was a driving force behind the Russian military’s winning strategy in Chechnya, key to reining in the critical breakaway region — and therefore freeing Russia up to look after its interests elsewhere.

So far, the Kremlin has hesitated to initiate reform within the GRU because the organization was crucial to the high-stakes struggle in Chechnya: It would not have been prudent for the Kremlin to attempt structural changes in an agency so essential to the war effort. Russian military and intelligence reforms in other areas (such as in the FSB) have been under way for several years as the Kremlin tries to improve the efficiency of organizations that became bloated during the Soviet Union’s final years, and then fell into chaos after the Soviet collapse. These institutional adjustments have coincided with the consolidation of Russian industry and political power. All of these moves are part and parcel of the Kremlin’s master plan of getting Russia’s house in order so it can better project power beyond its borders, reclaiming the old Soviet sphere of influence and driving out potentially threatening Western influences.

Now, however, Moscow has formally declared victory in operations in Chechnya. This makes reforming the GRU both possible and necessary. STRATFOR sources indicate that when the Kremlin began reorganizing the special units that the GRU had built up in Chechnya during the conflict, Korabelnikov resisted, prompting his dismissal. These special operations forces will not be eliminated, but they will be downsized as Moscow shifts its focus.

The focus on reforming the GRU also says something about the Kremlin itself. To attempt full scale reforms of an institution as well-established, as powerful, and as clandestine as the GRU is a mark that the inner circle of Moscow’s power centers are supremely confident of their authority. This confidence is critical especially since the GRU and FSB are bitter rivals whose leaders run the two Kremlin clans underneath Putin. Such decisions are not taken lightly, and the ramifications will be felt far and wide in the Russian military and political establishment. Big changes are coming to the GRU, and they reflect the ones that already have taken place in Russia’s leadership as it revives its international prowess.

Posted for fair use....
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/afp/20090426/twl-iceland-vote-4bdc673.html

Leftists seal resounding victory in Iceland vote
AFP - Monday, April 27



AFP - Monday, April 27

A graphic detailing elements of Iceland's economic and financial crisis. Iceland's left-wing government won a snap general election on Sunday as voters punished the conservatives they blame for the country's economic meltdown seven months ago, final results showed.

REYKJAVIK (AFP) - - Iceland's left-wing government won a snap general election as voters punished the conservatives they blame for the country's economic meltdown seven months ago, final results showed Sunday.

The conservative Independence Party, in power for 18 years until it resigned in January amid massive protests over the financial crisis that brought Iceland to the brink of bankruptcy, posted its worst-ever election score.

"We lost this time but we will win again later," party leader Bjarni Benediktsson said, conceding defeat having garnered just 23.7 percent of votes and 16 seats in the 63-seat parliament, or Althingi, a worst showing that its previous low of 27 percent in 1987.

Prime Minister Johanna Sigurdardottir of the pro-EU Social Democratic Party campaigned heavily on leading Iceland into the European Union and will now have to try to reach an agreement with her eurosceptic coalition partner, the Left Green Movement.

The Social Democrats won 20 seats with 29.8 percent of the vote, while the Left Greens claimed 14 seats with 21.7 percent, giving the coalition an absolute majority of 34 seats, a first for a left-wing government.

"Our time has come," Sigurdardottir, a 66-year-old openly gay feminist, told cheering supporters.

The Independence Party was in power in the early 1990s when the financial markets were deregulated, and has been held accountable for the current crisis which has seen thousands of people lose their jobs and their savings.

Iceland's was the first government to fall as a result of the global financial crisis, sending protesters into the streets banging pots and pans for months in what was dubbed the Kitchen Revolution.

Benediktsson said he got the voters' message.

"It has been clear that we have lost trust and we are just beginning to gain that back," he said.

The North Atlantic island nation was one of the most prosperous countries in the world until the global financial crisis struck late last year, bringing down its oversized financial sector as devastation ensued.

The state had to take control of the country's three major banks in October, as the local currency, the Icelandic krona, lost 44 percent of its value.

Unemployment, which was virtually non-existent before the crisis, is expected to hit 10 percent by the end of this year as the economy shrinks by 10 percent, and inflation is currently hovering around 15 percent.

The country received a 2.1-billion-dollar (1.58-billion-euro) bailout from the International Monetary Fund in November, and some early signs of a recovery have been observed.

Sigurdardottir is a fierce advocate of joining the European Union quickly and adopting the euro, arguing that doing so would shelter the country of 320,000 people from global turbulence.

"If we apply immediately for EU membership we will be able to adopt the euro within four years," she said, adding that Iceland "already meets 70 to 75 percent of EU criteria."

She said the election results were "a clear message that people want us to start thinking about the EU."

Yet her coalition partners, the Left Greens, are opposed to joining the bloc.

They have nonetheless insisted on the need for a debate on the issue which deeply divides Iceland amid fears that Brussels would interfere with its large fishing industry.

The fishing sector -- accounting for 36.6 percent of exports in 2008, second only to the aluminium industry -- is seen as crucial to Iceland's economic recovery.

Despite their opposing EU views, the Social Democrats and Left Greens have vowed to continue their coalition, though they have yet to explain how they plan to overcome their differences.

"There are good chances that we can agree on a process which is acceptable to a divided nation on this big issue," Left Green leader Steingrimur Sigfusson said on the eve of the vote.

Meanwhile, a party formed at the height of the economic collapse and which has pushed for democratic reforms, the Civil Movement, made its way into parliament, garnering 7.2 percent of votes.

Voter participation was said to be high, with the daily Morgunbladid reporting turnout of 85.1 percent, compared to 83.6 percent in 2007.

Well here's something to consider for comparison/contrast with the building political mess between the Obama Admin/DNC Congress and the former Bush Admin/DoD/CIA...
_______________________

Posted for fair use....
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6168959.ece

From The Sunday Times
April 26, 2009
Russian death squads ‘pulverise’ Chechens
Elite commandos have broken their silence to reveal how they torture, execute and then blow captives to atoms to obliterate the grisly evidence


Thousands of Chechens disappeared after being taken away by Russian troops. One death squad targeted 'black widow' bombers such as those who seized a Moscow theatre in 2002
Mark Franchetti in Moscow

THE hunt for a nest of female suicide bombers in Chechnya led an elite group of Russian special forces commandos to a small village deep in the countryside. There they surrounded a modest house just before dawn to be sure of catching their quarry unawares.

When the order came to storm the single-storey property, dozens of heavily armed men in masks and camouflage uniforms - unmarked to conceal their identity - had no difficulty in overwhelming the three women inside. Their captives were driven to a military base.

The soldiers were responding to a tip-off that the eldest of the three, who was in her forties, had been indoctrinating women to sacrifice themselves in Chechnya’s ferocious war between Islamic militants and the Russians. The others captured with her were her latest recruits. One was barely 15.

“At first the older one denied everything,” said a senior special forces officer last week. “Then we roughed her up and gave her electric shocks. She provided us with good information. Once we were done with her we shot her in the head.

Related Links

* Russia ends Chechnya war - but killings continue

* Death squad stalks exiled Chechens

“We disposed of her body in a field. We placed an artillery shell between her legs and one over her chest, added several 200-gram TNT blocks and blew her to smithereens. The trick is to make sure absolutely nothing is left. No body, no proof, no problem.” The technique was known as pulverisation.

The young recruits were taken away by another unit for further interrogation before they, too, were executed.

The account is one of a series given to The Sunday Times by two special forces officers who fought the militants in Chechnya over a period of 10 years. Their testimony, the first of its kind to a foreign journalist, provides startling insights into the operation of secret Russian death squads during one of the most brutal conflicts since the second world war.

The men, decorated veterans of more than 40 tours of duty in Chechnya, said not only suspected rebels but also people close to them were systematically tracked, abducted, tortured and killed. Intelligence was often extracted by breaking their limbs with a hammer, administering electric shocks and forcing men to perform sexual acts on each other. The bodies were either buried in unmarked pits or pulverised.

Far from being the work of a few ruthless mavericks, such methods were widely used among special forces, the men said. They were backed by their superiors on the understanding that operations were to be carried out covertly and that any officers who were caught risked prosecution: the Russian government publicly condemns torture and extrajudicial killings and denies that its army committed war crimes in Chechnya.

In practice, said Andrei and Vladimir, the second officer, the Kremlin turned a blind eye. “Anyone in power who took the slightest interest in the war knows this was going on,” Andrei said. “Our only aim was to wipe out the terrorists.”

The two officers expressed pride in their contribution to the special forces’ “success” in containing the terrorist threat. But they spoke on condition they would not be named.

Andrei, who was badly wounded in the war, said he took part in the killing of at least 10 alleged female suicide bombers. In a separate incident he had a wounded female sniper tied up and ordered a tank to drive over her.

He also participated in one of the most brutal revenge sprees by Russian forces. Following the 2002 killings of two agents from the FSB security service and two soldiers from Russia’s equivalent of the SAS, the troops hunted down 200 Chechens said to be linked to the attacks.

In another operation, Andrei’s unit stumbled across dozens of wounded fighters in a cellar being used as a field hospital. Some were being tended by female relatives. “The fighters who were well enough to be interrogated were taken away. We executed the others, together with some of the women,” he recalled. “That’s the only way to deal with terrorists.”

Following an inconclusive war in Chechnya from 1994-6, Vladimir Putin, the Russian leader, launched a second war in 1999 and set the tone by vowing “to wipe out militants wherever they are, even in the outhouse”. More than 100,000 Chechens are thought to have died by the time the Kremlin declared earlier this month that it was over. Grozny, the capital, was all but flattened. Putin’s toughness earned him great popularity at home.

Acts of blood-curdling brutality were committed by both sides as the rebels tried to turn Chechnya into an Islamic state, often decapitating Russian prisoners. One Russian victim was filmed being mutilated with a chainsaw.

As the war raged, Chechen terrorists launched suicide attacks against civilians in the Moscow metro and at a rock festival. In 2002 a gang including 18 female suicide bombers seized more than 800 hostages in a Moscow theatre, 129 of whom died when the Russians pumped poisonous gas into the building on day three of the siege.

In their most savage act, the rebels took hundreds of school-children and their relatives hostage in Beslan. The three-day siege in 2004 ended with the deaths of 334 hostages, more than half of them children.

It was in this highly charged climate that the death squads were operating. Andrei recalled that his men had detained a suspect who had several videos of militants torturing Russian hostages. One showed him laughing as his comrades raped a 12-year-old girl and then shot off three of her fingers.

“We all went berserk after watching this,” said Andrei, who had begun to beat the suspect. “He fell to the ground. I ordered him to get up but he couldn’t because of his handcuffs. I ordered the cuffs off but something was wrong with the lock. I became angrier and ordered one of my sergeants to get them off no matter what.

“So he took an axe and chopped his arms off. The prisoner screamed in agony. Clearly it would have been impossible to interrogate him further so I shot him in the head.”

Andrei said he thought of his opponents not as human beings but as cockroaches to be squashed. He was unapologetic about acts of cruelty but said he did not condone excessive boasting among his men.

“I had a problem with one of my guys, who liked to collect ears which had been chopped off prisoners. He’d made a necklace and was very serious about taking this home. I did not like that kind of behaviour.”

The brutality continued after Moscow began to cede more control to Chechen special forces made up of former rebels who switched sides. Militias commanded by Ramzan Kadyrov, Chechnya’s pro-Kremlin president, are also accused of abducting, torturing and executing suspects.

Vladimir said he had established a death squad that hunted down, tortured and executed more than 16 alleged militants in 2005. The squad’s commander would log a bogus mission in a faraway location in his unit’s official register to provide an alibi. “We’d break in, take the suspect and vanish. We’d duct-tape and handcuff them. If there was resistance we’d gun down the suspect. If, in the firefight, someone else got killed then we’d plant a gun on the dead person.”

Vladimir and his men referred to their prey as “zaichik” - a term of endearment used by lovers that means “little hare”.

“Only a very small circle of my men took part in this work. Some of those we abducted were tougher than others but eventually everyone talks when you give them the right treatment.

“We used several methods. We’d beat them to a pulp with our bare hands and with sticks. One very effective method is ‘the grand piano’ - when one by one we’d smash the captive’s fingers with a hammer. It’s dirty and difficult work. You would not be human if you enjoyed it but it was the only way to get this filth to talk.”

A hammer would also be used to smash a captive’s kneecaps and militants would be forced to perform sexual acts. The scenes would occasionally be filmed and circulated among enemy combatants in psychological warfare.

“You have to be a certain kind of person to do this job - very strong,” Vladimir said. “Those who carried it out always volunteered. It would not be right to order one of your men to torture someone. It can be morally and psychologically very tough.”

Andrei added: “What mattered most was to carry out this work professionally, not to leave evidence which could be traced back to us. Our bosses knew about such methods but there was a clear understanding that we should cover our tracks. We knew we'd be hung out to dry if we got caught.

“We are not murderers. We are officers engaged in a war against brutal terrorists who will stop at nothing, not even at killing children. They are animals and the only way to deal with them is to destroy them. There is no room for legal niceties in a war like this. Only those who were there can truly understand. I have no regrets. My conscience is clear.”

Clashes of a brutal war

December 1994
Russian troops enter Chechnya to quash independence movement

November 1996
Ceasefire, Russian troops withdraw

September 1999
About 300 die in apartment bombings in Russia, blamed on rebels. Putin sends troops back into Chechnya

February 2000
Russians capture Grozny

October 2002
Moscow theatre siege. At least 33 terrorists and 129 hostages die

May 2004
Pro-Moscow President Akhmad Kadyrov killed by bomb

September 2004
Beslan school siege. Nearly 400 killed

July 2006
Shamil Basayev, rebel leader, killed by Russians

April 2009
Kremlin declares war to be over

Posted for fair use....
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/world/europe/27iceland.html?ref=global-home

April 27, 2009
Premier Wants Iceland to Join European Union
By JOHN F. BURNS

REYKJAVIK, Iceland — Buoyed by an election victory that gave a strong popular mandate to her three-month-old caretaker government, Iceland’s prime minister, Johanna Sigurdardottir, told cheering supporters early Sunday that she would move to protect the country’s battered economy by applying soon for membership in the European Union.

Final results of the election on Saturday gave the two leftist parties in the caretaker government — ushered into power by street protests in January — 34 seats in the 63-seat Parliament. The conservatives of the Independence Party, the country’s traditional governing group, were punished for their role in the economic collapse by being reduced to 16 seats, the party’s worst performance since it was founded 80 years ago. As is usual here, turnout for the vote was high, at more than 85 percent.

Though the results gave Ms. Sigurdardottir’s Social Democrats and her coalition partner, the socialist Left-Green party, only a narrow parliamentary margin, the outcome was decisive in confirming the primacy of Ms. Sigurdardottir, the country’s first female prime minister and, Icelanders say with pride, the first openly gay politician to head any government in the modern world.

Her party’s dominant position in the coalition, with 20 seats to the Left-Green’s 14, appeared to give her a strong hand in resolving the parties’ differences over joining the European Union. Ms. Sigurdardottir, 66, argues that membership, together with abandoning Iceland’s currency, the krona, for the euro, would provide a shield for Iceland as it seeks to work its way out of the financial crisis.

With opinion polls showing views on European Union membership about equally divided among the 320,000 people in this remote land on the edge of the Arctic Circle, Ms. Sigurdardottir has linked her political future to gaining entry to the 27-nation union. She said Saturday at a news conference that applying for entry was an overriding priority for the Social Democrats, and that she hoped that terms for Iceland’s membership could be agreed to within 12 to 18 months.

“We want Iceland as soon as possible to join the European Union and adopt the euro,” she said. She added brusquely, “I should emphasize that this is a priority issue for the Social Democrats.”

That appeared to be a challenge to the Left-Greens and their leader, Steingrimur J. Sigfusson, a former truck driver and geologist with hard-left views who has served as finance minister since the caretaker coalition took office in January.

The Left-Greens’ reluctance to join the union is based on fears, widely shared in Iceland, that the country would lose control of its exclusive fishing waters off its coasts and of its other natural resources. It is an issue that has deep resonance in a country that has fashioned its national consciousness around a tradition of gritty independence and an ability to survive in one of the world’s toughest natural environments.

The party’s resistance to European Union membership has translated into an insistence on a drawn-out procedure that would have Icelanders approve any entry application in a referendum first, and then have a second referendum on entry terms agreed on with Brussels. The Social Democrats have insisted on a simpler and potentially much faster route, with an application for entry within weeks, and a single referendum on whatever terms are negotiated.

Mr. Sigfusson, the Left-Greens’ leader, has hinted that his party may compromise on the referendum issue to keep the coalition together, while retaining the option of campaigning against European Union entry when the issue comes to a vote.

As early election returns became known Saturday night, Ms. Sigurdardottir appeared to tighten the screws on Mr. Sigfusson by noting, in an interview on the state television network, that there would be “a parliamentary majority” in favor of European Union entry — a pointed reminder that the Social Democrats could turn to other pro-European Union parties for approval of the single-referendum formula if the Left-Greens tried to block it.

At the Saturday news conference, Ms. Sigurdardottir said her aim would be to seek to replace the battered krona with the euro within four years, the duration of the parliamentary term she secured in the election, assuming there was no new political crisis. The krona is currently trading at 40 percent and more below its value before the economic collapse, just one measure of a crisis that has seen Iceland plunge since last fall from giddying prosperity to widespread unemployment. Inflation is running above 15 percent, and mounting state debt in the wake of October’s banking collapse has left the government with foreign debts approaching $10 billion.

Ms. Sigurdardottir said that with European Union membership, Iceland, “the first country to have an economic crisis on this scale,” would also be the first to emerge. But she also said how “difficult” it would be to meet the demand from the International Monetary Fund for a one-third cut in the government’s annual budget within three years — one of the terms of a $2.1 billion emergency loan that helped keep Iceland afloat, together with $3.1 billion in loans from other Nordic countries, after the country’s three biggest banks collapsed and were nationalized last fall.

A cut of that severity in the government’s expenses, the prime minister said, would be hard to make while protecting the unemployed, pensioners and other underprivileged groups — precisely the constituency Ms. Sigurdardottir, the daughter of a prominent labor leader, made her own during her years as the country’s minister of social affairs. She hinted that the I.M.F. terms might be eased or offset by European Union assistance once Iceland was able to show it was committed to stabilizing its economy and paying its debts.

In the meantime, she said, the act of applying for European Union membership would create new confidence in Iceland abroad, helping to speed economic recovery.

Commentators in Iceland have given high ratings to Ms. Sigurdardottir’s performance in her 80 days in office, and in the election campaign, saying she has steadied the country’s faltering self-confidence in the wake of the banking collapse and turbulent January street protests, the first political violence in Iceland since protests over the country’s decision to join NATO in 1949.

Posted for fair use....
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Central_Asia/KD25Ag02.html

Apr 25, 2009
West traps Russia in its own backyard
By M K Bhadrakumar

In the normal case, pushing the reset button should not be a difficult thing to do. Yet, it is almost two months since United States Vice President Joseph Biden offered to do just that.

When he addressed the Munich security conference in February, Biden offered to reset the button in US-Russia relations. However, despite many positive signals and an overall lowering of rhetoric, the moves so far have been by and large symbolic. Across Eurasia, the signs are to the contrary. The Great Game is picking up momentum. The sharp fall in oil prices has complicated Russia's economic recovery, which in turn would disrupt the dynamics of the integration processes under Moscow's
leadership - political, military and economic - in the post-Soviet space.

US diplomats are scouring the region for chance to drive wedges in the ties between Moscow and the regional capitals. Tajikistan, one of Russia's staunchest allies, has distinctly warmed up to the US. Uzbekistan is once again ducking, which suggests it is open to the highest bidder. But Turkmenistan could be the jewel in the crown of the US's regional diplomacy.

A concerted US effort has begun to somehow detach Ashgabat from the Russian sphere of influence and thereby kill the prospects of Russia's plans for laying new gas pipelines for the European market. Alongside, there is also a determined bid to develop a northern supply route to Afghanistan via the Caucasus and the Caspian that would bypass Russia. While Russian cooperation is welcome, the US will not want its vulnerability in Afghanistan to be exploited for a reciprocal accommodation of Russian interests in Europe.

As of now, Moscow is keeping cool. Any excitement would only play into the hands of the hardliners in Washington. It reacted calmly in early April in the face of the attempt to stage a "color revolution" in Moldova to replace the democratically elected government friendly toward Moscow. Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov cautioned that the US and Russia should not "force" former Soviet republics to choose between an alliance with Washington or Moscow, nor should there be any "hidden agendas" in US-Russia relations. "It is inadmissible to try to place a false choice before them [former Soviet republics], either you are with us or against us. Otherwise, this will lead to a whole struggle for spheres of influence," Lavrov pointed out.

Attention at the moment is on the so-called Cooperative Longbow 09/Cooperative Lancer military exercise that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) proposes to hold from May 6 through June 1 in Georgia. The drill aims to improve "interoperability" between NATO and its partner countries. But, clearly, the US choreographed the initiative as a reiteration of the West's security commitments to the Georgian regime. In the event, the US had a hard time persuading its NATO partners to participate. Germany and France, which are opposed to NATO needlessly provoking Russia, declined.

A NATO military exercise in the highly combustible security environment in the Caucasus is indeed controversial. Russia sees it as a "back-door" attempt by Washington to involve NATO with Georgia's security and as a creeping expansion by the alliance into the Caucasus. Indeed, the geopolitical consequences of the conflict last August are yet to be assimilated.

Moscow reacted by calling off a meeting of Russian and NATO chiefs of the general staff, scheduled for May 7. The mild reaction disappointed hardliners in the US. Russian analysts have underscored that the military exercise constitutes a deliberate attempt to vitiate the atmosphere ahead of the expected visit by US President Barack Obama to Moscow in June.

President Dmitry Medvedev gave a measured reaction. He said, "This is a mistaken and dangerous decision ... [which] creates the danger of all sorts of complications arising ... because these sorts of actions are clearly about muscle-flexing and military build-up, and with the situation in the Caucasus tense as it is, this decision looks short-sighted ... We will follow developments closely and make decisions if necessary."

Moscow's preference, therefore, will be to keep the matter strictly at the level of Russia-NATO ties. Whether Lavrov will choose to discus the subject with his US counterpart Hillary Clinton when they meet on May 7 to prepare the agenda of Obama's visit to Moscow is an open question.

Meanwhile, Russia's ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, has gone on record that Moscow's response will not affect the transit of supplies to NATO troops in Afghanistan via Russian territory. "I do not believe it will be among any possible retaliatory measures. We have never questioned the importance of [NATO cargo] transits, even during the war [in the Caucasus last August]. It is an issue of strategic interests in which we share a common enemy," Rogozin said.

Moscow's stance takes care that Washington has no excuse to complain about Russian cooperation over Afghanistan. This comes at a time when the US is making a determined bid to firm up a transit route to Afghanistan from the Black Sea via Georgia and Azerbaijan to Turkmenistan, which bypasses Russia. Cargo arriving in Turkmenistan can be sent across the border to western Afghanistan or can be trans-shipped to Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, which also enjoy a border with Afghanistan. Thus, US diplomacy has been focusing on the three Central Asian countries - Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan - which can be accessed from the Black Sea, bypassing Russia altogether.

The US signed a transit agreement with Tajikistan this week. A similar agreement was signed with Uzbekistan last month while consultations are going on with Turkmenistan. US Assistant Secretary of State Richard Boucher discussed the possibility of overland cargo transit and overflights at a meeting with Turkmen President Gurbanguli Berdymukhamedov in Ashgabat on April 15.
These developments are unfolding against the backdrop of an overall weakening of the Russian position lately in Central Asia. The fall in oil prices and the overall economic crisis in Russia arguably hamper Moscow's capacity to assert its leadership role in the region.

US diplomacy has succeeded to some extent in loosening Russia's ties with Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Uzbekistan did not participate in two important regional meetings which were important events for Russia's integration processes: last week's foreign ministers meeting of the Collective Security Treaty Organization in Yerevan and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization conference on Afghanistan last month in Moscow.

Indeed, if Tashkent "defects", that will be a prize catch for Washington and it will resurrect the "Great Central Asia" strategy that aims at whittling down Russian (and Chinese) influence in the region.

At the moment, however, US diplomacy is pinning great hopes on Turkmenistan. Washington sees a window of opportunity insofar as Russian-Turkmen energy cooperation, which forms the backbone of the relationship between the two countries, has run into difficulties. Essentially, the US hopes to break Russia's control over Turkmen gas exports and to somehow scuttle Russian plans to feed its planned South Stream pipeline to southern Europe with Turkmen gas supplies. The US seeks to cajole Ashgabat to come on board the rival the Nabucco gas pipeline project that bypasses Russia and will help diversify Europe's energy supplies.

Whether the Turkmen leadership will heed the US's entreaties is another matter. Turkmen people have sharp bazaar instincts and they must be relishing the accelerating US-Russia rivalry, which they will unfailingly exploit to extract the most favorable terms from Russia (and China). All the same, the relentless US hammering is eroding Russia's position.

Only a year ago, Russia offered to pay European prices for Central Asia's gas-producing countries. These purchase contracts are hardly affordable for Gazprom today, given a combination of factors, such as the decline in European energy demand due to the economic recession and the drop in energy prices.

Gazprom is caught in a bind. With demand dropping in Europe, import of Turkmen gas begins not to make sense. But Russia cannot halt Turkmen supplies either. When demand picks up eventually - as it will - Russia will badly need Turkmen gas all over again. Kommersant newspaper commented, "In a mid-term perspective, Ashgabat has no alternate buyer or transiter to Gazprom ... Obviously, some kind of compromise will be reached to find a way out. But whatever the outcome, Moscow-Ashgabat relations will never be the same again."

United States diplomats are doing all they can to portray that it is unwise for Central Asian energy producers to place faith in Russia and that gaining direct access to the international market without the Russian middle man would be the right thing to do. The argument seems to increasingly carry weight in Ashgabat. The signing of a memorandum of understanding on April 16 between Turkmenistan and Germany's Rheinisch-Westfaelische Elektrizitaetswerk (RWE) energy holding on the transportation of Turkmen gas to Europe and the development of the Caspian shelf shows a new vector in Turkmen thinking.

RWE is Germany's largest energy producer and supplier and the second-largest gas supplier. It is a partner in the international consortium hoping to build the Nabucco pipeline, which will bypass Russia by transporting gas from Azerbaijan via Turkey to Europe. The agreement with RWE is Turkmenistan's first ever with a major Western energy company. Under the agreement, RWE will be a consultant for identifying the options for export of Turkmen gas to Germany and Europe. Besides, RWE will also explore and develop gas resources on Turkmenistan's continental shelf in the Caspian Sea.

From the Western perspective, the timing of the RWE-Turkmen agreement couldn't have come at a better time. The Turkmen decision doubtless enhances the prospects for Nabucco, which Russia has been rubbishing as a mere pipedream. The European Union summit meeting in Prague on May 7 is expected to take a conclusive view on the implementation of the Nabucco project. With the emerging possibility of Turkmen gas supplies for Nabucco, if the EU summit formalizes the project, Europe will have taken a big step towards diversifying its energy sources and reducing its energy dependence on Russia. Therefore, Nabucco holds far-reaching significance for Russia's relations with the West.

The May 7 EU meeting is expected to transform the geopolitics of Eurasia in certain other directions as well. The summit will launch the EU's new "Eastern partnership" policy involving six former Soviet republics - Ukraine, Belarus, Moldova, Georgia, Azerbaijan and Armenia - with the barely disguised intention to increase Brussels' influence in these countries at the expense of Moscow. The EU has no plans to offer the former Soviet republics membership, but at the same time would like to take them under its wings politically.

The "Eastern partnership" policy is crafted most ingeniously in such a way that through trade, travel and aid, the EU will work for greater integration of the former Soviet republics without having to actually accept them as full-fledged members.

The EU remains confident that the former Soviet republics will find Brussels' overtures decisively more attractive than the integration processes conceived in Moscow. In strategic terms, the raison d'etre of the EU's "Eastern partnership" policy is to counter Russia's influence in its "near abroad" and, therefore, it effectively works in tandem with NATO's eastward expansion.

Ambassador M K Bhadrakumar was a career diplomat in the Indian Foreign Service. His assignments included the Soviet Union, South Korea, Sri Lanka, Germany, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Uzbekistan, Kuwait
and Turkey.

Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved.

Article in Post No. 10 said:

Andrei, who was badly wounded in the war, said he took part in the killing of at least 10 alleged female suicide bombers. In a separate incident he had a wounded female sniper tied up and ordered a tank to drive over her...

“We all went berserk after watching this,” said Andrei, who had begun to beat the suspect. “He fell to the ground. I ordered him to get up but he couldn’t because of his handcuffs. I ordered the cuffs off but something was wrong with the lock. I became angrier and ordered one of my sergeants to get them off no matter what.

“So he took an axe and chopped his arms off. The prisoner screamed in agony. Clearly it would have been impossible to interrogate him further so I shot him in the head...”

“We used several methods. We’d beat them to a pulp with our bare hands and with sticks. One very effective method is ‘the grand piano’ - when one by one we’d smash the captive’s fingers with a hammer. It’s dirty and difficult work. You would not be human if you enjoyed it but it was the only way to get this filth to talk.”

A hammer would also be used to smash a captive’s kneecaps and militants would be forced to perform sexual acts. The scenes would occasionally be filmed and circulated among enemy combatants in psychological warfare...

Click to expand...

Now, I could be wrong, but the bolded portions sound a lot like torture to me. I wonder where Buraq Hussein Mohammed Obama and Hitlery Clinton, who have told the Russians they want to push the "Reset" button on international relations, stand on these depraved acts committed by their little pals.

In fact, I can't remember the last time I heard either of them address any of these atrocities committed by the Russians. Moreover, our resident Obama apologists are conspicuous by their complete silence in this matter.

Something just doesn't add up here.

Posted for fair use....
http://www.realclearworld.com/articles/2009/04/nato_an_alliance_of_equals.html

April 26, 2009
NATO: An Alliance of Equals
By Michel Rocard

PARIS - During NATO's recent 60th anniversary ceremony in Strasbourg, the alliance welcomed two new members, Albania and Croatia, bringing its total membership to 28. This expansion is a good thing, for history has tormented these two countries.

Being welcomed within the great international family of the West will reassure them, stabilize them and contribute to their political, cultural, and economic development.

But the good news was limited because NATO addressed only a routine agenda. No core problem was really tackled.

The controversy that arose in France over the country's return to NATO's unified military command makes this abundantly clear. Was France losing its autonomy, perhaps even its sovereignty? Was it capitulating to American hegemony? These are real questions, yet at the NATO summit people spoke of them more in terms of symbols than as realities.

But what is the reality here? NATO is a military alliance composed of 28 countries. One of them, the United States, has a military budget that is more than three times that of all the other members combined. Hence, the US runs most NATO civilian and military commands with the consent of the others. Of course, there is a collective consultation and deliberative process that enables any member to be heard. But in reality a member's actual power is what affects common decisions.

This structure harks back to the conditions of NATO's birth, when it was forged to thwart the Soviet threat to Western civilization. At the time, no one ever doubted that American power -- already endowed with nuclear weapons - was the only counterpart. For this reason, the US came to preside over the alliance.

During the 41 years of the Cold War, 14 of NATO's 16 members strictly obeyed and complied with American decisions and policies. French President Charles de Gaulle was the only one to question whether an American president would actually ever be ready to launch a nuclear attack on the USSR in order to protect one or several alliance members if vital US interests were not directly at stake.

Based on that doubt, France -- a nuclear power since 1960 -- withdrew in 1966 from the alliance's permanent centralized military command in order to assert its own deterrent capability. This decision was mainly grounded on the American doctrine, adopted in 1962, of "flexible response," which said to the Soviets "As long as you do not use nuclear weapons, we will not use them, either." This very doctrine left Europe exposed.

Indeed, while it is a much disputed question, de Gaulle was probably right about America's lack of commitment to the nuclear defense of Europe. Both Henry Kissinger and Robert McNamara left office admitting that de Gaulle had been correct. Nevertheless, de Gaulle's insights left a legacy that still causes some mistrust and dissent within NATO. France was right on this key strategic point, but it was never able to explain its position to its allies.

This inability to discuss, clearly and forthrightly, this strategic doctrine continues to hamper the alliance. At the Strasbourg summit, confidence in the future could have been strengthened if a couple of troubling issues had been discussed. Instead, once again, there was an extended focus on the past.

The key questions are whether NATO's doctrine of common defense is currently directed at one country in particular, and whether nuclear force remains the alliance's major defensive tool.

In the current global situation, no predictable conflict will require the use of a nuclear weapon. At the moment, there is no global threat, and the alliance only intervenes in regional conflicts, so why not have NATO admit this?

But the most important matter that went unmentioned in Strasbourg is the relationship with Russia. NATO was founded to confront the threat that the USSR represented 60 years ago. But the Warsaw Pact, the Soviet Union's "anti-NATO" alliance of socialist countries, was dissolved in 1991; communism imploded the same year, with Russia caught ever since in a struggle to build a market economy and define a new global position for itself.

At a time when Russia was taking a more pacific course, NATO -- unlike the Warsaw Pact -- was not dismantled. On the contrary, the Allies chose to maintain the pact and to extend it to numerous Russian neighbors. NATO's members essentially said: "We Western nations do not trust you. Even if you become a democracy, we will always be suspicious."

George Kennan, one of the greatest American diplomats of the post-war years, once wrote that the Western world was committing its biggest mistake in 50 years time by expanding NATO after Soviet communism collapsed. The resulting humiliation and blatant mistrust that Russia's elite has felt ever since has led them to their current policy of rearmament. The only way to resolve this problem is for NATO to assert its pacific intentions before the world.

The most convincing way to do that is to moderate America's excessive taste for power, which it demonstrated in Iraq. NATO needs to shift its focus from organizing and administering a unified military command to building real confidence that every member's voice will be heard. To that end, all members must stand on an equal footing. France's decision to return to full and equal alliance membership was a good one, and France must now work from within to advance the principles in which it believes.

Michel Rocard, former prime minister of France and leader of the Socialist Party, is a member of the European Parliament.
© Project Syndicate, 2009

Posted for fair use....
http://www.realclearworld.com/blog/2009/04/russian_news_georgias_potato_p.html

April 26, 2009
Russia: Georgia and Its 'Potato President'

Russian media is continuing to actively cover anti-government protests taking place in neighboring Georgia. The opposition is currently picketing all across Tbilisi, the country's capital, with many people camping out on the streets in spite of government pleas. Moreover, many opposition groups have erected make-shift "jail cells", with people staying "behind bars" as a protest against government policies that they see as repressive.

On Thursday, several women from pro-Saaksashvili's "National Movement" party forced their way onto the opposition and cut the plastic covering such makeshift "jail cells" with large kitchen knives. According to the daily "Izvestia", the opposition did not resist such action from the "attackers"- who included Georgian refugees from Abkhazia in their ranks. The newspaper reported of the possibility of a real and serious clash between pro- and anti-government forces - "on the streets surrounding the central square, there stood a groups of intimidating looking men. Pro-Saakashvili's knife-wielding women - who receive unrecorded salaries for their work - were more than defiant. One of them even sought to clear the central Rustaveli Avenue of this "rural population, these cells and debris." Others called for new opposition arrivals from the provinces to return home, telling them not to pollute Tbilisi but to plow and sow in their villages. As always, the police did not intervene in the proceedings. Pro-Saaksahvili's people left as soon as the opposition leaders appeared on the square."

This stand-off shows no signs of abating. "Ivestia" further reports that "People no longer have fear in them - they do not pay attention to any restrictions, nor to the the machinations of the Tbilisi City Hall. And the City hall is trying to complicate the picketer's life to the maximum - there is no garbage collection, and there are no biotoilets available. However, opposition returns the favor - on Thursday, they cleaned "their part" of Rustaveli Avenue, Liberty Square, the Presidential Residence and the government areas, and brought all refuse and garbage to the main entrance of City Hall."

Meanwhile, President Mikhail Saakashvili is trying to show that there is nothing happening in the country. He recently held a meeting of government to discuss potato harvest, thus earning yet another nickname form the opposition - "Potato President." His "right hand", the Speaker of Parliament David Bakradze, stated that the issue of early presidential and parliamentary elections was not even considered.

The situation in Georgia is getting worse, though the government is seeking to maintain some form of dialogue with the opposition. Deputy Prime Minister Giorgi Baramidze confirmed that the President of Georgia is not going to resign: "This is wrong and unrealistic." Baramidze further stated that since the war with Russia is still in progress, it is inadequate and unduly under such conditions to demand the resignation of the president. Moreover, according to the Deputy Prime Minister, "if the country's internal political situation will worsen, Russia will send its troops to protect the population."

According to the local Georgian media, Saakashvili himself, in anticipation of Russian tanks, planes and soldiers, is still preparing to leave the country. Local correspondent of the newspaper "Alia" witnessed the setting out to sea two ships from the port of Batumi, with locals saying that Georgian President's personal belongings are loaded on these ships, along with the property of his family.

Russian military, meanwhile, is still reviewing its action against Georgia in August 2008, seeking to draw lessons for future applications. According to Valdimir Babak - Chief Designer of the "Sukhoi Aircraft Design Bureau", the maker of Russia's mainstay Sukhoi line of fighter-bombers- one of the main successes was the action by Su-25SM fighter-bomber against Georgain targets. The aircraft itself was developed during the Soviet war in Afghanistan, in order to target hard-to-reach and easy-to-hide mountain targets. Babak clarifies: "Russian Air Force had to counter a very serious, well prepared, organized and skilled opponent. Georgia has established a very modern and updated air defense system, incorporating almost the entire range of available Soviet systems of the late 1980s, with high-tech "brains" from the United States, Israel and Ukraine. As a result, our aircraft opposed powerful land-based groups that operated well, smoothly and skillfully. Our action in Georgia was baptism by fire for the Su-25 SM attack plane. It had a better sight-navigation system, and in carrying out battlefield sorties, these machines led other, non-modernized Su-25 planes into battle, accomplishing all the tasks in their air assault against the opponent." Babak's general conclusion was that for future action against targets in the mountaneous areas, no aircraft system can perform better than Su-25 variant. In an ironic twist of fate, in Soviet times, many Su-25 fighter-bombers were produced in Georgia. After the break-up of the USSR, Georgia tried to compete with Russia in aircraft export by offering its version of the same Su-25 aircraft, fitted with Israeli avionics, calling it "Scorpion." There is some evidence that these "twin" Russian and Georgian aircraft battled against each other last August, but Georgia chose not to field large numbers of their planes against Russian opponents.

Meanwhile, Russians are convinced that most people around the world consider their country a "force of good." International polling company GlobeScan shows that in the opinion of 82% of all Russians, Moscow has a positive impact on the world. Russian people therefore are convinced that their country's image around the world was unaffected by its gas conflict with Ukraine, the threat of deployment of missile systems in Kaliningrad, and even the invasion of Russian troops on Georgian territory and the war in South Ossetia. Only 28% of Russians believe that Russia's image was hurt by the war with Georgia, and only 24% thought that their country's image was influenced by a conflict with Ukraine. Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov chose to comment on these results: "The fact that two-thirds of Russians appreciated the role of our country in the international arena shows that the foreign policy of Russia has broad consensus in society, and confirms the correctness of the chosen independent foreign policy by the government."

However, another poll by GlobeScan shows how mistaken Russians can be about their country - 42% of residents of 20 countries felt that Russia has negative impact internationally, with only 30% of respondents having the opposite opinion. According to this poll, US, UK, Canada, France, Japan, Brazil, India, South Africa and China all have a better global image than Russia.

Posted by Yevgeny Bendersky at 2:00 AM

Posted for fair use....
http://www.todayszaman.com/tz-web/detaylar.do?load=detay&link=173578&bolum=109

‘Meds Yeghern’
by SUAT KINIKLIOĞLU

US President Barack Obama did the anticipated and avoided using the term "genocide" when referring to the events of 1915 in the midst of World War I in eastern Anatolia. Yet, no one is happy about it.

Neither the Armenians nor the Turks thought the statement appropriately reflected how to describe the complicated events of 1915. However, the statement actually attempts to find a middle path between Obama's election promises and the realities on the ground. What is troubling from the Turkish perspective is the persistence in interpreting the events of 1915 solely from one perspective, namely the Armenian one. There is an abundance of evidence about the hundreds of thousands of Muslim losses during the time span in question. However, this is not what this piece intends to accentuate. Instead, I want to look into the possibility of whether the term "Meds Yeghern" could offer a new opening for a common narrative between Turks and Armenians.

Obama's statement is interesting from a variety of perspectives, and I believe it is worth examining whether the term "Meds Yeghern" has the potential to become a mutually acceptable term for both sides to commemorate the events in question. As is now commonly known, "Meds Yeghern" denotes "Great Calamity/Great Disaster" in the Armenian language. Although I am not in a position to fully comprehend the context in which this term is being used in Armenian, I am willing to venture into the following.

I believe the events of World War I constituted a Great Calamity for Turks, Kurds, Armenians, Anatolian Greeks and probably other peoples of the Ottoman Empire. Indeed, it was a great trauma for the Turks, who saw their great empire collapse in front of their own eyes and who saw a multitude of peoples rebel against the state and side with the invading enemies of the time. It was a Great Calamity to the Armenians who had to be relocated during harsh war conditions and subsequently suffered immensely. It was a disaster for them as they left behind their homes and memories, similar to the millions of Turks who were chased out of the Balkans, the Caucasus and the Middle East. It was a Great Calamity for the Turks and the Kurds fighting on the eastern front against the invading Russian armies, who were intent on grabbing the eastern part of the remaining territories of the Ottoman realm. It was a true disaster for all involved as the war time conditions of eastern Anatolia were brutal and certainly far from being hospitable to any of the struggling sides. Famine, disease and misery were the order of the day.

Yet, as President Abdullah Gül said in response to Obama's statement, we need to look forward and see whether the Turks and the Armenians will be able to normalize relations in the coming months and years. Therefore, the term "Meds Yeghern" should not be chided right away because it is an Armenian term. I think it harbors the potential to bring all of the aggrieved parties together. "Meds Yeghern" could become the cornerstone of a positive language about the events of 1915, one which signifies the calamity that the competition over the Ottoman realms between the imperial powers brought about, which ultimately led to the dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire and the loss of the Armenian population. It also resulted in the loss of the empire's Greek subjects. We Turks built a new nation-state from the ashes of the empire, but one consequence of these historic events was the loss of the richness and diversity of the Ottoman days and the change in the social fabric of these lands. Could it be possible to utilize this term as a base around which all of us could mourn the losses we all incurred during the fateful days of World War I?

All interested in the normalization of Turkish-Armenian relations should look into the potential of whether the term "Meds Yeghern" could be applied to the wider pain and disaster that occurred in eastern Anatolia during World War I and thus could pave the way for a common language on this painful chapter of history.

27 April 2009, Monday