Author: nina hovnanian

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT MEETS THE LEADER OF THE AUSTRIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH

18:43 12.06.2014

On an official visit to Austria, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan
had a meeting with the Archbishop of Vienna, leader of the Catholic
Church of Austria, Cardinal Christoph Schoenborn.

The interlocutors hailed the relations between the Armenian Apostolic
and the Catholic Churches, which have always been on a high level.

Serzh Sargsyan underlined that Armenia is interested in the development
of comprehensive relations with Austria and attached importance to the
cooperation between the Armenian Apostolic and the Catholic Churches
for the reinforcement of friendship between the two peoples.

Serzh Sargsyan noted that as the President of the first nation to adopt
Christianity as state religion, he tries to use the opportunities to
meet with religious leaders during his foreign visits.

According to the President, the impressions from Pope John Paul II’s
visit to Armenia are still bright in the memory of Armenians. The
Pope visited Armenia as we were celebrating the 1700th anniversary
of adoption of Christianity.

The President noted that it’s important for Armenia that the late
Pope John Paul II officially recognized and condemned the Armenian
Genocide (in joint statements with the Catholicos of All Armenians,
His Holiness Karekin II at the Vatican in 2000 and at the Mother See
of Holy Etchmiadzin in 2001).

The interlocutors attached importance to the opening of the Armenian
Embassy at the Holy See for the development of relations between the
Armenian Apostolic and the Catholic Churches.

At the end of the meeting President Sargsyan thanked the Archbishop of
Vienna and the Austrian Government for the warm attitude and support
to the Armenian community.

In Vienna President Serzh Sargsyan paid tribute to the memory of the
Austrian writer and humanist Franz Werfel

RUSSIAN EXPERTS ON RUSSIAN SUPPLIES OF ARMS TO AZERBAIJAN

Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments – Thursday, 12 June 2014, 16:45

We initiated an interview on Russian arms supplies to Azerbaijan
with Moscow’s leading experts with which we have been acquainted
for a long time and often communicate on political issues. Usually
about 40-45 political scientists, analysts and researchers dealing
with Euro-Atlantic structures, American, European and Middle Eastern
affairs, the problems of Turkey and Iran, as well as China recently
are involved in this communication.

Usually 22 people from leading research institutes in Moscow are
involved in our interviews on the Black Sea-Caucasus region. I must
say that rarely is anyone reluctant to participate in an interview.

But this subject proved sensitive and difficult for many. This can
be understood, and we provide below only the answers of those experts
who either answered the questions, or explained more or less in detail
why they did not want to be interviewed.

The same questions were asked to all the experts. May I ask you to
answer the following questions which do interest people in Armenia?

As is known, Russia continues to supply modern weapons to Azerbaijan,
which does affect the balance of forces in the latter’s favor. If
earlier the representatives of Russia stated that these supplies
are part of a plan to keep the balance of forces, now the Russian
Ambassador to Armenia Ivan Volinkin says that it is only about
commercial interests. How would you assess Russia’s policy? Is it in
line with its commitments to Armenia under the partnership agreement,
will it lead to the outbreak of a full-scale war, what could be the
results of the position of Russia in the South Caucasus; does Armenia
have the right to object to and condemn the policy of Russia; can
Russia, participating in an arms race in the South Caucasus, be seen
as the guarantor of security in the region (if we bear in mind that
Western society does not deliver weapons to Armenia and Azerbaijan)?

You will do us a great favor by sharing your opinions on these or
some of these questions.

Igor Muradian (Analytical website )

Yazkova Alla Alekseyevna, Doctor of History, Director of the Black
Sea-Mediterranean program, Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy
of Sciences

Dear Igor Maratovich,

Have not heard of you for ages. Your questions addressed to us (me and
Prof. Gromyko) in your letters and your interest in the problems of
extremely topical regional relations in the South Caucasus are quite
clear. As an academic institution, the Institute of Europe and the
division headed by me certainly examines the status and changes in
the balance of forces in the South Caucasus region, and we publish the
results of our research in scientific journals and in the press. I do
not know if you are familiar with my article about the South Caucasus
in one of the last issues of the Modern Europe. But we don’t think we
have the right to go public on Russia’s position, especially Armenia.

Unfortunately, that our and your financial difficulties do not allow
us to meet more often and exchange views and positions.

Alla Alekseyevna

Alikber Alikberov, director of the Center for Central Asia, the
Caucasus and the Volga-Ural Institute of Oriental Studies

Dear Mr. Muradian,

At the moment I am in Crimea where I am doing research with colleagues
for a large program, so I am not up to date on the range of problems
that you mentioned.

Besides, I do not consider myself an expert on these issues, I’m in
this topic only to the extent that my colleagues from the Center are
dealing with them.

Nevertheless, I fully share your concerns.

Please accept assurances of my highest consideration.

Best regards

AA

Dmitri Trenin, Doctor of History, director of the Carnegie Moscow
Center

Dear Mr. Mouradian!

Thank you for your interest.

Your questions could be answered as follows.

1. In the arms trade the commercial interest is closely interwoven
with the geopolitical one. Russia is not an exception. Of course,
Moscow is making money by supplying military equipment to Baku
which otherwise could get it from other sources. At the same time,
the Russian Fefderation is also seeking to retain some influence on
Azerbaijan. This is not about maintaining the balance of forces between
Armenia and Azerbaijan for the sake of balance but the possibility
to influence the situation.

2. In my opinion, allied commitments of Russia to Armenia are firm.

Russia guarantees the borders of Armenia and has stationed its military
base in the Armenian territory. In addition, it equips Armenia at a
discounted (allied) price. Of course, any alliance is based on mutual
commitments. This should be considered in the new situation that has
arisen after the beginning of Ukrainian crisis.

3. According to my forecast, a full-scale war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan is now unlikely. Importantly, such a war is not wanted by
foreign actors – Russia, Turkey, Iran and the United States.

4. In Armenia, of course, you are free to criticize the Russian
policy, any prohibition is meaningless. You can criticize Russia for
its behavior. A serious approach, however, should take into account
two factors. First, Russia and the U.S./West have just entered
into a new period of relations of acute rivalry with elements of
confrontation which had not been the case since the “Cold War” 25
years ago. Secondly, Russia objectively remains the only strategic
ally of Armenia. If someone in Armenia wants to change their ally,
they should carefully weigh it. Is the proposed replacement reliable?

What are the advantages and disadvantages of such a loss? What are
the consequences of Armenia’s movement from among Russian allies into
the list of countries associated with its rivals? I will stress once
again that alliance is something mutual, as Americans keep repeating
to Europeans.

All the best,

DT

Fyodor Lukyanov, Editor-in- Chief of the Russia In A Globalized
World Magazine

According to its commitments to Armenia under the alliance, Russia
must defend Armenia in case of external aggression. And there is no
reason to think that Russia is not ready to carry out its commitments,
no matter where threats come. This does not mean that Russia has no
other interests in the region except for those relating to Yerevan.

Azerbaijan – is too important a country in many aspecys for Russia
is to wave a hand on it and make no efforts to build relations with it.

Supply of arms always has a commercial component, there no country
produces arms which would not want to earn some money. Russia proceeds
from the fact that stability of the Armenian-Azerbaijani segment of the
South Caucasus is based on the balance of forces, it ensures mutual
deterrence. The factor of containment on the side of Armenia is the
very existence of the Russian base and Russia’s commitments under
bilateral agreements and CSTO. For its part, supply of arms to both
sides of the conflict in the absence of war are key to non-change of
the status quo. These supplies do not increase the risk of war until
parity of opportunities is maintained for the sides.

Yuri Beteev, South Ossetia

Hello, Igor!

I think Russia will not do so that would be bad for Armenia. Supply of
arms – is a kind of pressure on Armenia to join the Eurasian Economic
Union and so on. Under Putin the Russian Federation will never give
up on Armenia and, at the same time, wants to maintain relations
with Azerbaijan.

Sincerely,

Beteev Yuri

Owner of the website Osinform

Fedor Voitolovsky, Candidate of Sciences, Institute of International
Relations and World Economy, Russian Academy of Sciences.

Dear Professor Mouradian!

I am absolutely incompetent in this field. Never dealt with the
region. Honestly, as an amateur, I could say this policy of Russian
defense export is short-sighted, taking into account the continuing
tension in the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations and the situation in
Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as the dynamics of the Azerbaijani military
spending. Armenia is a a reliable friend and ally to Russia, and
Azerbaijan is a partner in economic cooperation. This is definitely
a different status. And I think that we should be attentive to such
sensitive issues of concern to our friends and allies. I’ll try to
comment on it in some publications and talk to my colleagues Mukhanov
and Volkhonsky of the Center for Caucasian Studies at Moscow State
University of International Relations.

I do not know how useful my my answer has been to you. Always happy
to get your messages.

Sincerely,

Fedor

Alexander Skakov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Institute of Oriental
Studies

Igor, good afternoon!

As far as I understand, currently deals on supply of arms made 3-5
years ago are being implemented. Under President Medvedev, as you know,
there was a sort of bias of the Kremlin towards Baku.

Termination of the deal requires very serious reasons and heavy
penalty. An example is the long negotiations with Iran following breach
of the Moscow deal. Now, as far as I know, there are no new contracts,
there is a talk on their possibility. For example, on coast guard
systems. It is unlikely that such systems may threaten the security
of Armenia. As to the mediators, in the arms race in the Caucasus
involving all mediators (the West through mediaors, as far as I know,
plus the provision of technology, and do you believe that Israel is
not the Western community?), even potential ones. It would be better,
of course, to refrain from this and impose a moratorium on supply of
arms to the region. But since all minds are captured by the idea of
the zero-sum game, such a scenario is, unfortunately, unrealistic.

Here you are, if briefly.

Regards,

Alexander

Alexei Arbatov, Director of the Security Program of Institute of
World Economics and International Relations of the Russian Academy
of Sciences

Dear Mr. Muradian

You asked too many questions. I will answer all in short. I believe
that the Russian military hardware supplies to Azerbaijan should be
strictly limited in scope and nomenclature. Armenia is our faithful
ally in CSTO and other organizations, and we have to have its security
as a cornerstone of our policy on the South Caucasus.

A.Arbatov

Azhdar Kurtov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Russian Institute for
Strategic Studies

Dear colleague!

First, I would like to apologize for late reply. The point is that your
message was sent to the mailbox of the Secretary of the journal, and
she was out of office for some time. Unfortunately, I can not do your
request. No offense but you are asking me (rightly) very “sensitive”
questions. I do not like the Russian policy in this respect but I
would not like to to comment on it publicly and criticize it all the
more so, for reasons that are known to you. Once again I am sorry.

Sincerely,

Azhdar Kurtov

Alexander Hramchihin, Institute of Military Studies

Hello, dear Mr. Mouradian!

Frankly speaking, I have not heard statements about maintaining
the balance of forces in such a context from Russian officials. As
to commercial interest, I believe it really is the main motivation
reinforced by another motivation: “If we do not sell, others will do.”

This thesis itself is questionable from every point of view but is
very popular. Of course, such supplies have very little to do with
the alliance with Armenia. It is more than obvious that these supplies
significantly boost the risk of war in the Caucasus.

What is a “security guarantee”, I do not really understand this,
especially given the variety of conflicts in the Caucasus. How
can Russia guarantee security to all the parties of the conflict,
especially that it is involved in some of them?

Of course, Armenia has the right to express dissatisfaction with the
policy of Russia. However, I very much hope that Armenia can still be
guided by facts, not ideological cliches and chimeras. I think that
the examples of Georgia and Ukraine are enough to understand that NATO
will not provide any assistance to countries that did not belong to
the alliance under any circumstances. Moreover, there is no confidence
that it will help even its member states. Also, I hope it is clear to
what extent NATO has degraded in purely military terms. The alliance
will not wage any war in which it may incur significant losses in any
way. Accordingly, facing NATO is possible only in case of complete and
absolute loss of the sense of reality (not to say completely mad). It
is impossible not to see that Russia always supports its allies,
including direct military assistance (South Ossetia and Abkhazia,
Syria, Crimea). I write this not because I am a citizen of Russia
but because it is a fact. Accordingly, Armenia has every right to be
offended by Russia for arms supplies to Azerbaijan but if Armenians
have the basic survival instinct, they have to hold on to an alliance
with Russia and forget about the NATO bubble.

Here you are! I am seriously ready to help Armenia because I think
it is a very important ally of Russia’s. And I really want Armenians,
as well as Russians to see the facts, not propaganda cliches.

Irina Pashkovskaya, Doctor of Sciences, Moscow State University of
International Relations

Dear Mr. Mouradian!

Unfortunately, I cannot really answer your question because I am not
specializing on the issues that interest you.

Usually goods are sold to the person who can buy it.

Today one cannot envy Armenia’s financial situation. A pensioner who
has worked all his like gets a pension less than one hundred dollars.

Armenia does not have mineral resources which would bring welfare. The
only way is intellectual activities, the creation of new technologies
and techniques that will be in demand worldwide.

The song goes “the impossible is possible.”

Sincerely,

Irina Pashkovskaya

Sergei Samuilov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Institute of USA and
Canada, Russian Academy of Sciences

Dear Mr. I. Muradian, I will try to answer some of your questions
briefly.

I think supply of modern Russian arms (the S-300, T-90 tanks, etc.) to
Baku even at international prices is a bad foreign political mistake
of the Russian authorities. Unfortunately, Russia today lacks a
national political elite, it has inherited from the Soviet Union
an internationalist and bolshevist (first of all, in ethnic terms)
political leadership that does not identify itself with the Russian
people, nor with the Orthodox world (otherwise, the Russian troops
would have already been deployed in Lugansk and Donetsk regions to
suppress the genocide of Russians from Kiev). Putin is a Russified
German (hence millers and grefs in his entourage) and has recently
admitted publicly that there are Jews and Ukrainians in his entourage
against whom the Americans have imposed sanctions.

Hence, a more or less equal treatment of Armenia and Azerbaijan in the
settlement of the conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh. A nation-centered
Russian leadership of Russia would, of course, prefer in this case
Orthodox Armenia. Especially that all the former soviet Caucasian
republics only Armenia remained faithful to Russia in difficult times
when the Soviet Union collapsed, according to a known Russian proverb
“a friend is known in trouble.”

Today the Russian Federation is slowly but steadily dragged into an
armed confrontation with Kiev, I do not believe that Poroshenko will
agree to end the civil war. Kiev will go for it only if human losses go
beyond acceptable. In this situation, a new war between Azerbaijan and
Armenia in the Caucasus would be too much for Russia. And Russian arms
supply to Baku increased the temptation to solve the Karabakh conflict
by force. Armenia has the right to express its dissatisfaction with
regard to these supplies. But it should act carefully. For example,
first it should carry out an information campaign in the Armenian
media on this matter, and the Russian embassy will certainly inform
Moscow, then plug in the powerful Armenian lobby in Moscow, and as a
last thing, involve politicians and act through official channels. I
hope it will not get worse.

Sergei Mikhailovich Samuylov

Yana Amelina, Candidate of Sciences, Russian Institute for Strategic
Studies

Dear Igor!

Any country, and Russia is no exception, is guided by a lot of things
in its foreign policy (and domestic too). Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia,
the U.S. and the Moon have the right to discuss, welcome, support,
condemn, hate it. Our world is moving to its end, and I think we should
think for our souls, not short-term tactical matters of importance and
so transient, only for this life. We pay much, even too much attention
to trifles, this is the task of the enemy to destroy the human race
or rather destroy us. Do not need to give in to his tricks! I think so.

All the best, Ian

I’m in a good mood.

But honestly, I’m not interested in discussing the same thing for the
twentieth time (this is really my opinion, I am not kidding. Politics
is nonsense. If we had come to the Last Judgment with it, we’d
look pale).

Sincerely, Yana

V.I. Batiuk, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Institute of USA and Canada

Dear Mr. Muradian,

I have to say at once that I am not an expert on military and political
problems of the South Caucasus, and so I can hardly give a full and
comprehensive answer to your question. Nevertheless, I will try to
the best of my ability and knowledge to answer them in order.

1. Allied relations do not mean the Allies give up their independence
in foreign policy. Neither the Russian-Armenian Treaty of Friendship,
Cooperation and Mutual Assistance of 29 August 1997, nor other
bilateral agreements and arrangements provide for prohibition of
Yerevan and Moscow to have foreign economic relations with anyone else,
including in defense technology. At the same time, the Armenian side
has the right to express their opinions, including negative about
these actions by the Russian side.

2. Of course, sale of Russian arms to Azerbaijan will not “unleash a
full-scale war”. According to authoritative foreign military experts,
Armenia and Azerbaijan simply are not ready for such a war (see The
Military Balance. London: International Institute of Strategic Studies,
2014, pages 169-173).

3. From Moscow’s point of view, having contacts and relations with
the South Caucasus, including in defense technology will contribute
to strengthening Russian positions in the region.

4. Though sales of air defense equipment of NATO member states to
Armenia and Azerbaijan are not much, nevertheless the U.S. and NATO
support intensive military relations with these countries of the South
Caucasus in the framework of their individual partnership plans with
the North Atlantic Alliance. Military cooperation between Washington,
Brussels and Baku takes place within different programs, including
the Caspian Guard. On the other hand, Brussels commends cooperation
between Armenia and NATO in military education and development of
professional NCOs.

Sincerely,

VI Batiuk,

Doctor of Historical Sciences, Institute of USA and Canada

Would it be correct to comment on expert opinions? Correctness in this
case may mean that only a third of the experts whom we had approached
participated in the interviews. But this fact is also remarkable,
as the same experts agreed to express their opinion on other issues
much more willingly.

Received assessment, in general, reveal that Moscow experts cannot
offer unambiguous assessments but they understand that arms supplies
to Azerbaijan is not in line with the interests of Russia and will
cause problems in the nearest future. Of course, some cynicism is
found in their responses but the experts are well aware that betrayal
of a partner will lead to unpleasant consequences anyway.

– See more at:

ARMENIAN OPPOSITIONIST CALLS FOR DECLARING TOP PRO-KREMLIN MEDIA CHIEF ‘PERSONA NON GRATA’

NEWS | 12.06.14 | 13:40

Dmitry Kiselyov, head of the Russian state news agency, Rossiya
Segodnya, during a Wednesday meeting with Armenian lawmakers

E-mail to friend | (0) Comments | Print | Opposition lawmaker Nikol
Pashinyan has urged the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to declare a
leading pro-Russian television host a persona non grata over his
controversial statements regarding the status of the Russian language
in Armenia.

During a meeting with a group of Armenian parliamentarians on
Wednesday, Dmitry Kiselyov, who hosts a prime-time weekly news show on
Russian state TV and is known to be one of the Kremlin mouthpieces,
deplored the declining use of the Russian language and called for
its official status in Armenia.

Kiselyov, who is blacklisted by the European Union for his aggressively
anti-Western stance, in particular in presenting in his Sunday news
show the current events in Ukraine, stressed that it was in Armenia’s
interests to reinstate the use of Russian, as Moscow, he emphasized,
is the guarantor of Armenia’s security.

The remarks particularly angered local opposition groups and civil
activists concerned over the increasing use of foreign languages
in Armenia.

In his statement in the National Assembly on Thursday Pashinyan also
condemned the Armenian lawmakers who were present at the meeting with
Kiselyov but did not duly confront him on the matter.

“I think that Armenia must send a clear message that all foreigners
who show such behavior will see a clear counteraction,” Pashinyan
concluded.

The Armenian Foreign Ministry has not yet reacted to the statements.

ATHENS ARMENIANS RALLY AGAINST AZERI DESTRUCTION OF OLD JUGHA CEMETERY

June 11, 2014 – 19:29 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – Athens Armenian youth staged a protest action against
the Azeri destruction of Armenian cemetery in Old Jugha (Nakhijevan).

On June 6, the young people distributed awareness leaflets ahead
of a classical music concert to be attended by Greek diplomats,
entrepreneurs and public figures.

The action was organized by the youth wing of ARF Dashnaktsutyun,
with over 1000 leaflets distributed. Concert organizers called police,
and though the young people explained the action to be a peaceful one,
several were detained.

According to ARFD representatives, the action served its purpose
in showing the true face of Azerbaijan, with Baku trying to present
itself as a cultural country while destructing historical monuments.

NAKHCHIVAN VILLAGERS: “INFORMATION REGARDING ATTACK ON AND EVACUATION OF VILLAGE IS GROUNDLESS”

APA, Azerbaijan
June 11 2014

PHOTOSESSION

[ 11 Juny 2014 17:35 ]

Baku – APA. Today a number of websites have released information that
the Leketagh village of Nakhchivan’s Julfa region has been attacked
by the Armenians and evacuated.

Nakhchivan’s “Sherg Gapisi” (The Eastern Door) newspaper has sent its
corresopndent Elnur Kalbizadeh to that village. From the village of
Leketagh, Elnur Kalbizadeh told APA that he is in the village now:
“The reports that the village has been attacked and evacuated is
grondless. Four hours have passed since I came to this village.The
village, villagers, our posts are in their place. I did not witness
any shootout here. Villagers also say they have not been attacked
and no warnings have been issued”.

Our counterpart has presented to APA the photographs that he took in
the village. You will soon be able to have a detailed reportage to
be made by Elnur Kalbizadeh about the village.

PEACE AND THE TURKS

Cihan News Agency, Turkey
June 11 2014

ISTANBUL – 11.06.2014 10:28:08

Some wonder if there will ever be peace in the Middle East, or for
that matter, in Turkey.

In this piece I aim to help the average Westerner understand a little
bit about who the modern Turks are and the present situation.

Not all parts of Turkish society are supportive of the rule of the
Justice and Development Party (AKP). Prime Minister Recep Tayyip
Erdogan is accused by his opponents of being dictatorial, which led to
major protests across Turkey in early summer of last year. The country
is now polarized between secularists Turks who support Ataturk’s
social revolution and those Turks who can be characterized as having
more conservative Islamic values.

Some are concerned about the Constitutional Committee, which has been
set up with the aim of rewriting the Constitution, the current one
dating from the era just after the last military coup. The eyes of
both government supporters and protesters are on this project.

Often I am asked about the Kurds in Turkey. The AKP has been
responsible for a major effort to bring the decades-long conflict in
the Kurdish-dominated Southeast to an end. Talks have been going on
with the terrorist Kurdish separatist Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK)
organization, and many have begun to lay down their arms. The chance
for peace has seemed better than it has been for many years. But more
recently there seems to be setbacks.

Turkey, owing to a high birthrate and traditionally poor government
healthcare, is a very young nation by Western standards. You will see
young people everywhere, and this gives the country great dynamism
and an enterprising spirit. It is astonishing to realize that only
7.5 percent of the Turkish population are over 65!

Eighty percent of the population are ethnic Turks; 18 percent are
Kurds; other ethnic groups include the Laz people in the Black
Sea region, Christian minorities (Armenians, Greeks, Assyrians,
Suryani) and Jews. Ever since the founding of the republic, the
Turkish government has downplayed ethnic, linguistic and religious
distinctions, fearful that a divided country could become the scene
of ethnic violence and civil war. Thus the 1965 census was the last
one to list linguistic minorities.

The Kurds, the country’s largest minority, have posed the most
serious and persistent challenge to national unity. Kurdish people
traditionally have lived in an area encompassing southeastern Turkey
and northern Iraq. The Turkish state has always sought to minimize the
differences between Turks and Kurds, often describing the latter as
“mountain Turks,” and its policies have received both the approval
(for citizenship, education for all, etc.) and disapproval (for
limitations on the use of the Kurdish language, etc.) of the West.

The greatest fear of the Turks is that Kurdish nationalism will result
in secession, similar to that seen in the former Yugoslavia in the
late 20th century, and the breakup of their state. Many Kurdish people
have assimilated into Turkish society and are successful businessmen,
and in recent years there have even been prominent politicians of
Kurdish origin. However, radical Kurdish groups have taken up arms
in the Southeast and perpetrated violent acts in Turkey’s major cities.

The most well-known Kurdish terror group is the PKK. Since a cease-fire
in the late 1990s and the capture and conviction of the PKK leader,
there has been relative peace in the region. As part of the process
of adapting to the requirements of the European Union, greater rights
have been granted to minorities, such as broadcasts in the Kurdish
language, but change is gradual. Many Turks still fear that foreign
powers wish to encourage Kurdish nationalism and keep a wary eye on
the development of Kurdish autonomy in neighboring Iraq.

A foreign visitor in Turkey would be well advised not to take sides in
the debate on nationalism, or to voice opinions about certain events
in Turkey’s past, such as the sensitive issue of whether or not there
was an Armenian massacre. All Turkish schoolchildren are taught about
the Treaty of Sèvres and the attempted partition of Turkey by the
victorious Allies, and about the encouragement given to seditious
and often violent minority groups at that time. Turks are sensitive,
almost to the point of paranoia, to the possibility that foreign powers
might still wish to destabilize the country through the promotion of
nationalism among ethnic minorities. One right-wing political party
regularly uses the slogan “our land is an indivisible whole.” Beware
of political debate: It will lose you friends and could result in a
run-in with the authorities.

Turkey has much potential and could benefit greatly from a united
and peaceful environment.

CHARLOTTE MCPHERSON (Cihan/Today’s Zaman)

EURASIAN UNION WILL BE MORE SUCCESSFUL THAN AMERICAN MODEL OF NEW WORLD – ROSSIYA SEGODNYA HEAD

The Voice of Russia
June 11 2014

Eurasian Union will be more successful than the American model
of the new world, stated the general director of the International
Information Agency Rossiya Segodnya Dmitry Kiselyov, while speaking on
Wednesday at the fifth session of the Russian-Armenian Parliamentary
Club in Yerevan.

“Eurasian model is a model of multipolar world in which Armenia stays
Armenian, China – Chinese, in which no one imposes any social model,
as Americans impose their own patterns,” said Kiselyov as a way of
expressing satisfaction of Armenia choosing the path of Eurasian
integration.

According to him, the US is fulfilling the model of aggressive
domineering.

“From the beginning of the 21 century, Americans began to build
their own model. They used 9/11 to build the model of aggressive
domineering. In Russian, we call it “world domineering”. We hear this
in every speech Obama makes, we heard it both in West Point and in
Normandy,” Kiselyov stated.

“The US is trying to create new model of the world. Eurasian union
was created to oppose it and it will become more successful,” added
the general director of the International Information Agency Rossiya
Segodnya.

At the same time, he urged to draw attention to the foreign NGOs that
are active in the country. “NGOs become an important element of the
West against this or that country,” Kiselyov added.

East, West trade places in approach to journalist freedom – Russian
journalist Kiselyov

East and West have traded places in their approach to journalist
freedom, with Russia granting its media a full right to speak and
Europe suppressing it with sanctions and false idea of political
correctness, Russia’s journalist and the Director General of Rossiya
Segodnya International News Agency Dmitry Kiselyov said in an article
published Thursday on the Guardian website.

Read also: Voice of America ‘mere spam on our frequencies’ – Kiselyov

“East and west appear to be trading places. In Russia we now take
full advantage of freedom of speech, whereas in the west political
correctness, or political expediency in the name of security, have
become arguments against freedom of speech,” Kiselyov wrote.

He stressed the reason for it was that Russians were able to accept
a full range of opinions due to the historic duplicity of their
nature, described by the great Russian writer Dostoyevsky as “capable
of combining the most incongruous contradictions.” Journalists in
Russia are free to tackle issues of any gravity without fear of being
punished, he stressed. This is also true of those he described as
“ultra-liberal” radio hosts and media workers employed by foreign
companies who are entitled to their own opinion, however different
it may be from patriotic sentiment of the general public in Russia.

“There have been no calls for reprisals against them; their names
have not been added to sanction lists,” the journalist said, adding
that instead sanctions had come from the west.

“How are these sanctions compatible with freedom of speech? Is freedom
of speech no longer a core value in Europe?” Kiselyov asked. Kiselyov
warned the western world could be witnessing a revolution and “betrayal
of what were until recently western values.” He said Russia would
never think of banning western journalists.

Dmitry Kiselyov has been blacklisted by Brussels, which banned
him from entering the European Union and ordered to freeze the
journalist’s assets in EU banks, if any. Kiselyov is known for his
fierce criticism of the West and pro-Russian stance. He is now the
only journalist in the world to be targeted by political sanctions,
which were strongly condemned by the World Press Freedom Committee,
one of the leading organizations on the rights of journalists.

DETAILS OF RUSSIAN ARMS SALES TO BAKU EMERGE

Wednesday, June 11th, 2014

Russian-made tanks, artillery systems and attack helicopters on
display at a military base in Nakhichevan

MOSCOW (RFE/RL)–Russia has officially admitted supplying more tanks
and other heavy weapons to Azerbaijan than Armenia in the past several
years, in annual reports submitted to the United Nations.

Citing Russian government data, the UN Register of Conventional Arms
revealed this week that Azerbaijan received 72 tanks, 34 armored
vehicles, 456 artillery systems, 37 attack helicopters and 1,200
rockets and missile systems from Russia in 2007-2013.

By comparison, Moscow reported the delivery to Armenia of 35 tanks,
200 rockets or missiles and 50 launchers used for them. The Armenian
military also received 110 Russian armored vehicles in the same
period. Most of those deliveries took place last year, according to
the UN registry.

Some observers believe that the real amount of Russian arms supplies to
Yerevan, mainly carried out at knockdown prices or free of charge, is
larger than is shown by the official data. They say that a considerable
part of Russia’s military assistance to its main regional ally is
not officially declared.

Still, Russian-Azerbaijani military cooperation is causing growing
concern in Yerevan even if Armenian officials avoid publicly
criticizing it. Representatives of the ruling Republican Party of
Armenia (HHK) on Wednesday declined to comment on the latest revelation
about the scale of that cooperation.

Opposition politicians did not shy away from denouncing Moscow’s arms
deals with Baku. Naira Zohrabian of the Prosperous Armenia Party (BHK),
the second largest parliamentary force, called them “troubling.” “We
have to do something serious about that,” she said.

“We must not be satisfied by Russian officials’ explanations that
it’s a merely commercial affair.”

Former Foreign Minister Alexander Arzumanian, a pro-Western opposition
figure, said that Russia is acting against the spirit of its military
alliance with Armenia and that the latter must stop regarding it as a
reliable partner. “Russia’s sole leverage in the South Caucasus is the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict,” Arzumanian told RFE/RL’s Armenian service
(Azatutyun.am). “From their perspective, it is in Russia’s interests
to keep tension high and act like the main arbiter in case of a renewed
[Armenian-Azerbaijan] war.”

Russia’s arms sales to Armenia’s arch-foe are continuing despite the
Armenian concerns. In particular, the Azerbaijani army has yet to
take delivery of most of about 100 T-90 tanks purchased from Moscow
in 2012. Russian and Azerbaijani officials have estimated the total
volume of bilateral defense contracts signed since 2010 at nearly $4
billion. The Moscow daily “Kommersant” reported last month that the
figure could rise to $5 billion by the end of this year.

LAWMAKER DEMANDS THOROUGH EXAMINATION OF POWER FACILITIES’ OPERATION

YEREVAN, June 11. / ARKA /. Mikael Melkonyan, an MP from the Prosperous
Armenia Party, has called on the government today to carefully examine
the performance of energy generating and distributing facilities of
the country.

Speaking at parliament he recalled last year’s surge in electricity
price by 27 percent saying another 10 percent rise sought by the
power generating and distributing companies, which is very likely to
be approved by the regulator, would result in a 40% rise in one year.

The price of electricity surged by almost 27 percent in 2013 July
following a rise in the cost of Russian natural gas supplied to
Armenia, which is used also for generating around one-third of the
country’s electricity. Gazprom Armenia said earlier it was not going
to raise the price of gas for Armenia over the next few years.

Melkonyan said last year the Armenian nuclear power plant was halted
for a regular repair which took more time than usual. Also due to
low precipitation production of electricity by hydropower plants
decreased by 500 million kWh. Annually Armenia produces about 7
billion kWh of electricity.

According to Melkonyan, the government is to start repayment of a
Japanese loan this year it had attracted for the modernization of the
Yerevan thermal power plant and besides the government is seeking
a $300 million loan form Russia to extend the service life of the
nuclear power plant.

“It appears that large energy companies operate with zero profit,
which is practically impossible, and this is why the government must
conduct a thorough examination of their activities and find out the
reasons,” he said.

He also said it was strange that the Electrical Networks of Armenia,
which is a monopolist in the market, has appeared on the verge of
bankruptcy.

The electricity price is currently 38 drams (9 U.S. cents) per
kilowatt/hour. The Public Services Regulatory Commission (PSRC)
wants to raise it to 42 drams. -0-

– See more at:

KARABAKH SOLDIER FATALLY WOUNDED IN MILITARY POSITION

19:04 11/06/2014 >> LAW

On June 11, soldier Derenik Manukyan, 20, in still unclear
circumstances, received a fatal gunshot wound in a frontline position
of a military unit in the northern direction of the Line of Contact
of Nagorno-Karabakh’s and Azerbaijan’s troops, the press service of
the NKR Defense Ministry reported.

An investigation has been launched into the incident.

The NKR Defense Ministry shares the grief of the loss and extends
sympathy to Derenik Manukyan’s family, relatives and fellow servicemen.