Keuroghelian Spoils The Election For Nahabedian; Unwittingly Sets Th

KEUROGHELIAN SPOILS THE ELECTION FOR NAHABEDIAN; UNWITTINGLY SETS THE STAGE FOR A REPUBLICAN VICTORY; OR FOR A THREE-WAY RACE
Appo Jabarian

Executive Publisher / Managing Editor
USA Armenian Life Magazine
April 18, 2010

On April 13, a special primary election for the California Assembly
43rd Assembly District was held pitting four candidates against
each other – the lone Republican candidate Sunder Ramani, and three
Democrats Mike Gatto, Nayiri Nahabedian, and Chahe Keuroghelian.

Gatto received 10,584 votes or 32.34%; Ramani received 10,403 votes
or 31.79%; Nahabedian received 7,298 votes or 22.30% and Keuroghelian
barely received over 13.58% or 4,444 votes.

As one can see, Keuroghelian’s 4,444 votes were the difference between
a Nahabedian victory and defeat. Had Mr. Keuroghelian stepped aside
the 4,444 votes could have well-placed Nahabedian ahead of Gatto with
a total 11,742 votes.

In 2006 Quintero’s supporters played the ethnic hatred card against
then lone Armenian American candidate Paul Krekorian slandered him and
a very popular Armenian-American community-based organization (ANC)
as "terrorists." The underhanded tactic backfired and Quintero lost
to Krekorian because of the fact that many of Quintero’s supporters
switched sides and voted in favor of his opponent.

In 2010 Gatto became the beneficiary of Keuroghelian’s back-stabbing
of his own community.

Thanks to Keuroghelian’s serving as a spoiler, Gatto defeated Nayiri
Nahabedian by little over 3,000 votes. Keuroghelian forced Nahabedian
to lead multi-frontal battle which caused her to waste her time,
energy and money resources.

While "Trojan Horse" Keuroghelian may bask under the sun of a Gatto
victory, his fellow Armenian Americans were left bleeding with an
unjust defeat.

Several days before the election, I had written an article in USA
Armenian Life and on several websites, titled "Perennial Candidate
Chahe Keuroghelian Clamors To Spoil The Election For Viable Candidate
Nayiri Nahabedian."

I had disclosed certain details about Mr. Keuroghelian’s record
that has been tarnished by two major factors adversely affecting his
rating as a viable candidate: 1) His treacherous silence on Quintero’s
supporters’ anti-Armenian hate mail; and 2) Keuroghelian’s criminal
record in a 2001 domestic violence case.

Like many well-informed individuals in the community, I had pointed
out that Keuroghelian’s obstinate candidacy may serve to pull defeat
from victory’s jaws for his fellow Armenian American candidate.

Armenian Americans now should look carefully at the candidacy of Mr.

Ramani and compare his platform to Mr. Gatto’s. Based on 1) the merit
of the candidates; 2) on their own disappointment with the local
Democratic party machine’s conniving tactic to "divide and conquer"
against their community; 3) on their deep disappointment and even
anger at the Obama administration for reneging on Pres. Obama’s and
his Secretary of State "Oil Lady" Hilary Clinton’s campaign promises
to properly recognize the Armenian Genocide, should consider casting
their votes in favor of the republican Ramani.

The numbers clearly show that Nahabedian’s support base holds the
political wild card and can be used to either:

1) Punish Gatto’s self-serving Democratic allies’ dirty politics,
by swinging their vote in favor of the Republican candidate Ramani;
and by continuing the same practice in every local and regional
election until these dark forces give up on their heinous acts of
dividing others in order to conquer them; or to

2) Lieberman-ize the 43rd District by re-introducing Nahabedian or
by introducing another well-known leader as an independent viable
candidate, therefore making the run-off election a three-way race. (In
2006, after losing Connecticut Democratic primary to challenger Ned
Lamont, Senator Joseph Lieberman ran as an independent, making the
Connecticut election for U.S. Senate a three-way race, and won!)

Let the local and state Democratic leaders wake up and reconsider
their antagonistic policy against their fellow Democrats of Armenian
American ancestry.

Let those who adopt the "divide and conquer" policy against others,
have a taste of their own "medicine." Never again, should the Armenian
community be fooled into wasting its precious votes to unwittingly
further the evil agenda of others.

As for the state of the community, serious and honest efforts must be
made to rebuild unity and establish common goals. The representatives
of various groups and community-based organizations should get together
and reconcile. They should find ways to co-operate for the common
interest rather than creating a wedge jeopardizing many anticipated
victories in the coming elections.

It is with a spirit of co-operation that we should set our sight on
the upcoming elections, namely the November ’10 mid-term elections;
next year’s Glendale city elections in April 2011, and every two years
thereafter; along with many other local, state, and federal elections.

Le Collectif Memoire et Avenir au Parlement europeen a Bruxelles

Le Collectif Mémoire et Avenir au Parlement européen à Bruxelles
débat sur l’Arménie, le Haut Karabagh, la Turquie et le génocide arménien

COMMUNAUTE-VALENCE

news.com/article.php3?id_article=60266
dimanche18 avril 2010, par Krikor Amirzayan/armenews

Une forte délégation de plus d’une vingtaine de membres du Collectif
Mémoire et Avenir s’est rendue mercredi 14 avril au Parlement européen
de Bruxelles, à l’invitation de la députée européenne Michèle Rivasi
(Europe Ecologie). Parmi la délégation valentinoise, outre Krikor
Amirzayan le coordinateur du Collectif, on notait la présence de
Georges Eretzian, Vartkés Simonian et Edouard Tchokaklian (également
membres d’« Arménia ») mais aussi le sculpteur Toros, Alexandre
Siranossian (ex-directeur du Conservatoire de musique de Romans et
spécialiste de la musique arménienne), Jean Patoulliard, Odile Blanc,
Annie Roche (tous trois élus de Valence et Bourg-Lès-Valence), Gérard
Jassoud, Maryse Hilaire, Hovhannes Kasbarian, Chrystèle Lusci. Le
groupe a pris connaissance des diverses commissions de l’institution
européenne et s’est rendu quelques instants en pleine séance de
l’hémicycle au moment même où le Parlement européen respectait une
minute de silence à la mémoire des dirigeants polonais disparus dans
le crash aérien la semaine dernière.

Le Collectif Mémoire et Avenir rencontra quelques députés européens et
s’est rendu à une conférence-débat sur le thème spécialement préparé
pour le groupe drômois, « Relations entre l’Union européenne et
l’Arménie : quelles perspectives ? ». Michèle Rivasi ouvrait la séance
en insistant sur l’importance de faire connaître l’Arménie et le sort
du Haut Karabagh à Bruxelles, tout en insistant sur l’importance d’une
loi de pénalisation du négationnisme du génocide arménien. Le premier
intervenant, Nicolas Tavitian représentant de la Fédération
Euro-Arménienne au Parlement européen de Bruxelles a présenté « la
politique européenne vis-à-vis du Haut Karabagh, la question de la
démocratisation et des réformes en Arménie ». Il a en outre noté
l’importance des représentations arméniennes à Bruxelles. « Nous
comptons sur vous, car vous êtes à Valence ou dans d’autres villes, de
véritables relais pour avancer ensemble dans ces dossier » affirma N.
Tavitian. Anouch Nararian, représentante de l’« Armenian General
Benevolent Union » (Ugab) a brièvement rappelé le rôle de coordination
des aides européennes avec l’Arménie où nombre de programmes européens
sont en place.

Varténie Echo, de la « Fédération euro-arménienne pour la Justice et
la Démocratie » a réalisé l’historique des textes européens quant à la
reconnaissance du génocide arménien, de la position de l’Europe face à
l’entrée de la Turquie et l’environnement politique et géostratégique
de l’Arménie. Elle insista sur l’importance des missions arméniennes
qui sont actives et s’organisent depuis quelques années à Bruxelles.

Michael Kambeck, secrétaire général de l’European Friends of Armenia
(EuFoA) et Lidia Gromadzka ont présenté l’activité de leur
organisation qui vise à créer un lobbying autour de l’Arménie. «
L’Arménie occupe une place très importante auprès de l’Union
européenne » dit M. Kameck et d’ajouter « notre organisation crée des
liens entre l’Arménie et les décideurs politiques européens dans les
domaines de la politique, de l’économie et de la culture ». L.
Gromadzka détailla quelques actions de l’EuFoA et ses nombreux
adhérents « Amis européens de l’Arménie ».

Deux représentants officiels de l’Arménie à Bruxelles assistaient
également à la réunion avec le Collectif Mémoire et Avenir. Arman
Khatchatryan, représentant de la Mission permanente de l’Arménie
auprès de l’Union européenne remercia les organisateurs de cette
conférence-débat qui permet « de rencontrer des membres de la
communauté arménienne de France et des amis, qui portent ainsi un
intérêt à l’Arménie et ses relations avec l’Europe ». Lors de son
intervention, A. Khatchatryan a évoqué les nouvelles perspectives de
l’Arménie avec l’Union euopéenne.

Enfin lors du débat, de très nombreuses questions furent évoquées.
Parmi elles, la position de l’Union européenne face à l’Arménie, au
génocide arménien, au Haut Karabagh, au blocus imposé à l’Arménie par
la Turquie et l’Azerbaïdjan, ainsi que la question de l’intégration de
la Turquie. Au terme d’une journée très riche, la délégation revenait
de Bruxelles, visiblement satisfaite des rencontres. « nous tenions à
remercier Michèle Rivasi qui nous a permis ainsi d’être présents au
Parlement européen. Nous remercions également la responsable de son
bureau et collaboratrice Hélène Legardeur ainsi que son attaché
parlementaire David Rui pour leur très grande implication dans cette
réalisation. Notre mission a atteint ses objectifs. Nous avons pris
connaissance de l’organisation européenne mais nous avons surtout
participé à des échanges très forts avec les délégations. La
conférence-débat tint toute sa promesse et tous les participants
marquèrent leur satisfaction ». ont affirmé les membres de la
délégation. Le Collectif Mémoire et avenir n’a qu’un mot d’ordre «
continuer le combat contre le négationnisme, lutter pour la
reconnaissance et la condamnation des génocides afin de contribuer à
prévenir d’autres crimes contre l’humanité ».

Texte et reportage-photos au Parlement européenn à Bruxelles Krikor Amirzayan

Le Dauohiné Libéré (édition de Valence)

Le Parlement européen à Bruxelles

Le Parlement européen à Bruxelles

Drapeaux des pays membres de la Communauté européenne

La délégation du Collectif reçue par Michèle Rivasi la députée européenne

Séance du Parlement

Exposition a la mémoire des dirigeants polonais disparus dans le crash aérien

Michèle Rivasi et le sculpteur Toros

Les représentants permanents de l’Arménie au Parlement européen

Michèle Rivasi ouvre la conférence-débat

Les intervenants et le public à l’écoute

Une conférence-débat passionnante

Varténie Echo, de la « Fédération euro-arménienne pour la Justice et
la Démocratie »

Le public attentif

Nicolas Tavitian représentant de la Fédération Euro-Arménienne et
Anouch Nazarian

Michael Kambeck, secrétaire général de l’European Friends of Armenia
(EuFoA) et Lidia Gromadzka

Lidia Gromadzka et Michael Kambeck, secrétaire général de l’European
Friends of Armenia (EuFoA)

Arman Khatchatryan, représentant de la Mission permanente de l’Arménie
auprès de l’Union européenne

Arman Khatchatryan, représentant de la Mission permanente de l’Arménie
auprès de l’Union européenne

Michèle Rivasi face aux invités

Michèle Rivasi exprime son soutien

Le Collectif Mémoire et Avenir devant le Parlement européen

Le Dauphiné Libéré du 18 avril 2010 (édition de Valence et région)

http://www.arme

Rebel Land, By Christopher de Bellaigue

Rebel Land, By Christopher de Bellaigue
(Rated 4/ 5 )
Reviewed by Anita Sethi

Sunday, 18 April 2010

Independent/UK

Rebel Land opens with the perplexed author staring at himself in the
mirror in eastern Turkey: not only has he aged since his days as a
foreign correspondent, but his self-conception is at odds with his
actual reflection. It is the disjuncture between his personal view of
Turkey and the one which was held up to him in protestation after he
wrote an article about the country’s history, that is the genesis of
this book: after his article was published, Christopher de Bellaigue
was reprimanded as an apologist for the Turks, and thereafter set out
to investigate the truth by hearing first-hand the stories of the
"forgotten peoples" of the land. (Kurdish troubles in the east linger,
while Armenians still talk of a genocide in the region, in 1915-17.)

The book exposes the complexities and compromises of narrative: De
Bellaigue holds up many mirrors to many people, each reflecting
different versions of the truth. He also ponders his own subjectivity
as a one-time public schoolboy for whom "bucolic authoritarianism was
cool".

What would compel someone to leave behind their home country at all,
in order to live among strangers? Insights into the author’s own
wanderlust create the engaging emotional landscape, tracing its roots
in childhood and on into adulthood, when a romance with a Turkish lady
first led him to the area. (Although that ended, his love affair with
the country continued.)

For one who, like myself, has travelled through eastern Turkey, whose
wild, beautiful landscape lingers in the mind, this book is packed
with fascinating factual nuggets. For those who have not ventured
there, the author conjures vivid scenes. This book is far from
perfect; an uneven cacophony. But it is precisely through honest
consideration of the imperfection in life and in literature that the
author finds his forte, shining valuable light on little-known
terrains.

Baku: Azeri President Slams International Efforts To Normalise Turki

AZERI PRESIDENT SLAMS INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO NORMALISE TURKISH-ARMENIAN TIES

AzTV
April 14 2010
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has criticized international
efforts to normalise Turkish-Armenian ties.

On 14 April Azerbaijani state TV showed Ilham Aliyev speaking at a
cabinet meeting dedicated to the social-economic development in the
first quarter of 2010.

"If our interests our being ignored and if the occupation of our
territories are being neglected and if thousands of efforts are being
made to rescue the agressor state from difficult situation, then how
Azerbaijani public can accept this? Why pressures are not exerted on
the agressor state? Azerbaijan is demonstrating constructive position
in the negotiations while Armenia is ruining the negotiations then
why do we see efforts to rescue Armenia from such difficult situation
that Turkish-Armenian borders be opened so that Armenia could breathe.

Opening of Turkish-Armenian borders is the business of Turkey and
Armenia," the president said

Azerbaijan Little By Little Becomes "A Problematic Country"

AZERBAIJAN LITTLE BY LITTLE BECOMES "A PROBLEMATIC COUNTRY"

Aysor
April 16 2010
Armenia

"Lately the problem of the war has become a bit more urgent, may be
it is because of the warlike statements of the Azerbaijani leaders.

However, the possibility of the war is very small, and the guarantee
of this is our Armed Forces. We still have problems connected with
widening the zones of our security and the war can serve a good
occasion for it, however the possibility of war is very small,"
Gagik Harutyunyan the director of "Noravanq" fund mentioned on the
meeting with the journalists.

He mentioned that there also exists the unequivocal decision of
the international community concerning the war issue. According to
Harutyunyan we should notice that the interests of Great Britain and
Russia in Azerbaijan are connected with the energetic sphere. So any
military activity will disturb this system.

"They will try to do everything not to cause a war. However if there
is only an agreement concerning the ceasefire there can be different
versions and reactions," Harutyunyan said.

Gagik Harutyunyan also said that Armenia has become more adequate
while Azerbaijan "turns into a problematic country, and makes warlike
statements all the time."

"Azerbaijan complains to the U.S. about Armenia, while those
who complain are not loved. Now Azerbaijan is a bit confused, it
contradicts itself, in that regard we are in a better position,"
Harutyunyan added.

BAKU: Azerbaijani Official: We Seek Alternative Ways To Nagorno-Kara

AZERBAIJANI OFFICIAL: WE SEEK ALTERNATIVE WAYS TO NAGORNO-KARABAKH CONFLICT RESOLUTION

Today
April 16 2010
Azerbaijan

Azerbaijan seeks alternative ways to solve the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict, Azerbaijani Presidential Administration Socio-Political
Department head Ali Hasanov said.

"Azerbaijan takes adequate steps in search for effective solution of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Currently, anti-American propaganda
primarily directed against the Congress and the U.S. authorities
supporting Armenian’s aggressive policy," Hasanov said.

Hasanov said Azerbaijan has supported the U.S. in its peacekeeping
mission. The country was almost spoiled the relations with Muslim
countries and took the U.S. interests in energy issues into the
account.

"We have repeatedly told the U.S. that they are one of the three
countries addressing the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. We called on Armenia to be attentive to the issue
on overcoming the hard situation it is in. In recent times, the
Azerbaijani public, media and parliamentarians have just frustration
in this sense," Hasanov said.

Armenia Must State Its Position, Azeri Leader Says

ARMENIA MUST STATE ITS POSITION, AZERI LEADER SAYS

news.am
April 15 2010
Armenia

The sides have entered a crucial stage of the Nagorno-Karabakh peace
process, Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev stated at a cabinet
meeting on the socio-economic development in the 1st quarter of 2010.

"The conflict can only be settled within international law. The
four resolutions of the U.S. Security Council must be honored, the
occupation forces must be withdrawn from the occupied territories,
Azerbaijani citizens must return to all the territories, including
Nagorno-Karabakh, whereafter Nagorno-Karabakh’s status must be
determined. This status is possible only within Azerbaijan’s
territorial integrity. Azerbaijan will never agree to any other
status. No state will recognize Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence
without our consent," Aliyev said.

According to him, Azerbaijan’s position has from the outset been that
the highest autonomy status can be granted to Nagorno-Karabakh. The
Azeri leader clamed that Azerbaijan has never implemented an ethnic
cleansing policy nor does it plan to.

"If the Armenian side accepts the proposals reflecting the norms
of international law, the Azerbaijani community must live with the
Armenian community in Nagorno-Karabakh. Azerbaijanis there will,
on the one hand, ensure historical justice and, on the other hand,
meets international law," Aliyev said.

According to him, Armenia has to state its position. "We are at the
stage when we have to respond to the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs’
proposal," the Azeri leader said.

He reminded the attendees that Azerbaijan officially accepted the
proposal based on the revised Madrid Principles. "Very few points
arouse our concern in this proposal. The proposal should, with a few
exceptions, be taken as a basis for a peaceful agreement," the Azeri
leader said.

If Armenia rejects the proposals, negotiations will be senseless. "If
we see there is no hope, the negotiations must be suspended, and the
process will enter a new stage. It is yet too early to say what kind
of stage it is, but, in any case, we are ready for any scenario,"
Aliyev said. He expressed hope that Armenia will accept the proposal,
"in which case we will conduct more active peace talks, and they may
enter a new, positive stage."

As regard the Armenian-Turkish process, the Azeri leader stated
it is the two nations’ business and "no state should interfere –
neither our state nor others."

"Let the two states settle their relations. Of course, in settling
their relations they will consider the ongoing regional processes,
history and historical relations," Aliyev said.

Visit of NA speaker Hovik Abrahamian to Lebanon comes to end

VISIT OF NA SPEAKER HOVIK ABRAHAMIAN TO LEBANON COMES TO END

NOYAN TAPAN
APRIL 15, 2010
BEIRUT

BEIRUT, APRIL 15, NOYAN TAPAN. During his official visit to Labanon,
Speaker of the RA National Assembly Hovik Abrahamian on April 13
met with heads of political parties and community structures at the
Armenian embassy. The meeting was attended by representatives of the
Lebanese Armenian community, as well as Lebanese MPs and government
members of Armenian descent.

H. Abrahamian spoke about his meetings in Lebanon, noting that
the country’s president, prime minister, and parliamentary speaker
gave him a warm welcome. H. Abrahamian underlined the role of the
local Armenian community in this respect: the well-organized and law
abiding Lebanese Armenians are held in high esteem in Lebanon. It is
important that they are accepted and valued not only as Armenians,
but also as worthy and creative citizens of Lebanon, especially as
some of them are members of the parliament and government.

H. Abrahamian presented the Armenian leadership’s opinions about the
Armenian-Turkish relations and the Karabakh conflict.

At the reception held in the Armenian embassy and attended by foreign
diplomats accredited to Lebanon, H. Abrahamian stated in his speech
that Armenia wants to deepen its relations with Lebanon. He expressed
confidence that these links will strengthen, while pointing out the
necessity to develop economic relations and raise them to the level
of political ties which are close and warm.

The press service of the RA National Assembly reports that an action
entitled "Dialog of Cultures" took place in the yard of the Armenian
embassy: on the Lebanese soil, the Armenian artists Teni Vardanian,
Marina Dilanian and Armen Gevorgian completed a single work consisting
of 12 paintings dedicated to Armenian-Lebanese cultural ties. They
had started that work in Armenia. Hovik Abrahamian presented it to
Lebanon’s parliament and government – in token of the Armenian-Lebanese
friendship.

Kyrgyzstan And Russian Resurgence

KYRGYZSTAN AND RUSSIAN RESURGENCE
Lauren Goodrich

php?nav_id=66452
13 April 2010

This past week saw another key success in Russia’s resurgence in former
Soviet territory when pro-Russian forces took control of Kyrgyzstan.

The Kyrgyz revolution was quick and intense. Within 24 hours, protests
that had been simmering for months spun into countrywide riots as
the president fled and a replacement government took control.

The manner in which every piece necessary to exchange one government
for another fell into place in such a short period discredits arguments
that this was a spontaneous uprising of the people in response to
unsatisfactory economic conditions. Instead, this revolution appears
prearranged.

A prearranged revolution

Opposition forces in Kyrgyzstan have long held protests, especially
since the Tulip Revolution in 2005 that brought recently ousted
President Kurmanbek Bakiyev to power. But various opposition groupings
never were capable of pulling off such a full revolution – until
Russia became involved.

In the weeks before the revolution, select Kyrgyz opposition members
visited Moscow to meet with Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.

STRATFOR sources in Kyrgyzstan reported the pervasive, noticeable
presence of Russia’s Federal Security Service on the ground during
the crisis, and Moscow readied 150 elite Russian paratroopers the day
after the revolution to fly into Russian bases in Kyrgyzstan. As the
dust began to settle, Russia endorsed the still-coalescing government.

There are quite a few reasons why Russia would target a country nearly
600 miles from its borders (and nearly 1,900 miles from capital
to capital), though Kyrgyzstan itself is not much of a prize. The
country has no economy or strategic resources to speak of and is
highly dependent on all its neighbors for foodstuffs and energy. But
it does have a valuable geographic location.

Central Asia largely comprises a massive steppe of more than a
million square miles, making the region easy to invade. The one major
geographic feature other than the steppe are the Tien Shan mountains,
a range that divides Central Asia from South Asia and China. Nestled
within these mountains is the Fergana Valley, home to most of Central
Asia’s population due to its arable land and the protection afforded
by the mountains. The Fergana Valley is the core of Central Asia.

To prevent this core from consolidating into the power center of
the region, the Soviets sliced up the Fergana Valley between three
countries. Uzbekistan holds the valley floor, Tajikistan the entrance
to the valley and Kyrgyzstan the highlands surrounding the valley.

Kyrgyzstan lacks the economically valuable parts of the valley,
but it does benefit from encircling it. Control of Kyrgyzstan equals
control of the valley, and hence of Central Asia’s core.

Moreover, the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek is only 120 miles from
Kazakhstan’s largest city (and historic and economic capital), Almaty.

The Kyrgyz location in the Tien Shan also gives Kyrgyzstan the
ability to monitor Chinese moves in the region. And its highlands
also overlook China’s Tarim Basin, part of the contentious Xinjiang
Uighur Autonomous Region.

Given its strategic location, control of Kyrgyzstan offers the ability
to pressure Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and China. Kyrgyzstan
is thus a critical piece in Russia’s overall plan to resurge into
its former Soviet sphere.

The Russian resurgence

Russia’s resurgence is a function of its extreme geographic
vulnerability. Russia lacks definable geographic barriers between it
and other regional powers. The Russian core is the swath of land from
Moscow down into the breadbasket of the Volga region. In medieval
days, this area was known as Muscovy. It has no rivers, oceans or
mountains demarcating its borders. Its only real domestic defenses
are its inhospitable weather and dense forests. This led to a history
of endless invasions, including depredations by everyone from Mongol
hordes to Teutonic knights to the Nazis.

To counter this inherent indefensibility, Russia historically has
adopted the principle of expansion. Russia thus has continually sought
to expand far enough to anchor its power in a definable geographic
barrier – like a mountain chain – or to expand far enough to create
a buffer between itself and other regional powers. This objective
of expansion has been the key to Russia’s national security and its
ability to survive. Each Russian leader has understood this. Ivan the
Terrible expanded southwest into the Ukrainian marshlands, Catherine
the Great into the Central Asian steppe and the Tien Shan and the
Soviet Union into much of Eastern and Central Europe.

Russia’s expansion has been in four strategic directions. The first is
to the north and northeast to hold the protection offered by the Ural
Mountains. This strategy is more of a "just-in-case" expansion. Thus,
in the event Moscow should ever fall, Russia can take refuge in the
Urals and prepare for a future resurgence. Stalin used this strategy
in World War II when he relocated many of Russia’s industrial towns
to Ural territory to protect them from the Nazi invasion.

The second is to the west toward the Carpathians and across the North
European Plain. Holding the land up to the Carpathians – traditionally
including Ukraine, Moldova and parts of Romania – creates an anchor
in Europe with which to protect Russia from the southwest. Meanwhile,
the North European Plain is the one of the most indefensible routes
into Russia, offering Russia no buffer. Russia’s objective has been
to penetrate as deep into the plain as possible, making the sheer
distance needed to travel across it toward Russia a challenge for
potential invaders.

The third direction is south to the Caucasus. This involves holding
both the Greater and Lesser Caucasus mountain ranges, creating a tough
geographic barrier between Russia and regional powers Turkey and Iran.

It also means controlling Russia’s Muslim regions (like Chechnya,
Ingushetia and Dagestan), as well as Georgia, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

The fourth is to the east and southeast into Siberia and Central Asia.

The Tien Shan mountains are the only geographic barrier between
the Russian core and Asia; the Central Asian steppe is, as its name
implies, flat until it hits Kyrgyzstan’s mountains.

With the exception of the North European Plain, Russia’s expansion
strategy focuses on the importance of mountains – the Carpathians,
the Caucasus and Tien Shan – as geographic barriers. Holding the land
up to these definable barriers is part of Russia’s greater strategy,
without which Russia is vulnerable and weak.

The Russia of the Soviet era attained these goals. It held the lands
up to these mountain barriers and controlled the North European
Plain all the way to the West German border. But its hold on these
anchors faltered with the fall of the Soviet Union. This collapse
began when Moscow lost control over the fourteen other states of the
Soviet Union. The Soviet disintegration did not guarantee, of course,
that Russia would not re-emerge in another form. The West – and the
United States in particular – thus saw the end of the Cold War as an
opportunity to ensure that Russia would never re-emerge as the great
Eurasian hegemon.

To do this, the United States began poaching among the states between
Russia and its geographic barriers, taking them out of the Russian
sphere in a process that ultimately would see Russian influence
contained inside the borders of Russia proper. To this end, Washington
sought to expand its influence in the countries surrounding Russia.

This began with the expansion of the U.S. military club, NATO, into
the Baltic states in 2004. This literally put the West on Russia’s
doorstep (at their nearest point, the Baltics are less than 100 miles
from St. Petersburg) on one of Russia’s weakest points on the North
European Plain.

Washington next encouraged pro-American and pro-Western democratic
movements in the former Soviet republics. These were the so-called
"color revolutions," which began in Georgia in 2003 and moved on to
Ukraine in 2004 and Kyrgyzstan in 2005. This amputated Russia’s three
mountain anchors.

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine proved a breaking point in
U.S.-Russian relations, however. At that point, Moscow recognized that
the United States was seeking to cripple Russia permanently. After
Ukraine turned orange, Russia began to organize a response.

The window of opportunity

Russia received a golden opportunity to push back on U.S. influence in
the former Soviet republics and redefine the region thanks to the U.S.

wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and the crisis with Iran. Its focus
on the Islamic world has left Washington with a limited ability to
continue picking away at the former Soviet space or to counter any
Russian responses to Western influence. Moscow knows Washington won’t
stay fixated on the Islamic world for much longer, which is why Russia
has accelerated its efforts to reverse Western influence in the former
Soviet sphere and guarantee Russian national security.

In the past few years, Russia has worked to roll back Western influence
in the former Soviet sphere country by country. Moscow has scored
a number of major successes in 2010. In January, Moscow signed a
customs union agreement to economically reintegrate Russia with
Kazakhstan and Belarus. Also in January, a pro-Russian government
was elected in Ukraine. And now, a pro-Russian government has taken
power in Kyrgyzstan.

The last of these countries is an important milestone for Moscow,
given that Russia does not even border Kyrgyzstan. This indicates
Moscow must be secure in its control of territory from the Russian
core across the Central Asian Steppe.

As it seeks to roll back Western influence, Russia has tested a handful
of tools in each of the former Soviet republics. These have included
political pressure, social instability, economic weight, energy
connections, security services and direct military intervention. Thus
far, the pressure brought on by its energy connections – as seen in
Ukraine and Lithuania – has proved most useful. Russia has used the
cutoffs of supplies to hurt the countries and garner a reaction from
Europe against these states. The use of direct military intervention
– as seen in Georgia – also has proved successful, with Russia now
holding a third of that country’s land.

Political pressure in Belarus and Kazakhstan has pushed the countries
into signing the aforementioned customs union. And now with Kyrgyzstan,
Russia has proved willing to take a page from the U.S.

playbook and spark a revolution along the lines of the pro-Western
color revolutions. Russian strategy has been tailor-made for each
country, taking into account their differences to put them into
Moscow’s pocket – or at least make them more pragmatic toward Russia.

Thus far, Russia has nearly returned to its mountain anchors on each
side, though it has yet to sew up the North European Plain. And this
leaves a much stronger Russia for the United States to contend with
when Washington does return its gaze to Eurasia.

http://www.b92.net/eng/insight/opinions.

Karabakh Sport-Winners At The Competitions In France

KARABAKH SPORT-WINNERS AT THE COMPETITIONS IN FRANCE

NOYAN TAPAN-ARMENIANS TODAY
APRIL 13, 2010
MEDON

MEDON, APRIL 13, NOYAN TAPAN-ARMENIANS TODAY. Representatives of the
Nagorno Karabakh Republic participated in the April 11 international
race competitions in the French city of Medon.

According to the information of the NKR Permanent Mission to
France, the Artsakh athlete, Arthur Petrosian, who was among the 700
participants, won the 10-kilometer race competition. Another athlete
from the NKR, Ashot Hayrapetian, won the 5-kilometer race competition.