DEMOCRACY AND DEVELOPMENT – A GEOPOLITICAL INSTRUMENT IN POST-SOVIET SPACE
Todor Kondakov, Ph.D.
Global Politician, NY
Aug. 24, 2006
The development of Russian-American relations has always been in the
center of analysts’ attention. In this connection, the statements
on certain tensions between Washington and Moscow as well as on a
potential change in the Russian geopolitical vector from West-bound
to East-bound direction cannot but raise significant interest.
It goes without saying that mutual understanding with Russia is of
extreme importance for the United States. Washington, though, intends
to achieve this understanding chiefly by taking into consideration
US strategic interests. As in the last couple of years Moscow has
demonstrated a much more hard-line attitudes in the diplomatic sphere,
the US became very active in trying to find the adequate instruments
for exercising political influence over the Kremlin.
Naturally, the Americans have sensibly avoided any rough pressure
but still they have not missed a single opportunity for highlighting
their capacity to control the situation in Central Eurasia even
over Russia’s head. This is done in a number of ways, depending on
the particular situation or the political culture of the particular
high-ranking official from the White House. The approach of the US
Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice is a more polite one, while the
Vice-President Richard Cheney, opts for the rougher attitude.
Such circumstances additionally facilitate President Bush,
who can select between the two lines of conduct depending on the
particular situation. Recently, more and more political experts and
geopoliticians have been using the term “limitrophic states” (from
the Latin adjective: limitrophus – border) to denote the states, which
were established at the periphery of the Russian empire and the Soviet
Union in consequence of the revolution from 1917 and the collapse of
the USSR in 1991. In the last fifteen years, these “limitrophic states”
never managed to become a significant factor in global geopolicy but
still they claim to play such a role in Russia – US relations.
To a certain extent, the foreign policy of the newly-emerged states,
which came in the place of former Soviet republics, has remained as
a whole a derived function of the existence of the Russian Federation.
Most of the post-Soviet states from Eastern Europe seem to follow not
the standard scheme of global political coordinates but rather the
axis Russia – the West, feeding themselves on it in ideologically,
politically, economically and financially. Alexei Bogaturov, Deputy
Director of the International Security Institute within the Russian
Academy of Science, stated that while these states pour various
accusations against Moscow incessantly, they still count on Russia for
continuing to play the role of a significant geopolitical factor as
they are aware of the fact that if Russia ceases to play this role
then the Western interest in themselves will immediately cease as
well. Let alone the fact that a potential serious economic crisis
in their Eastern neighbor would bring catastrophic consequences for
limitrophic states by depriving them of their revenue from transit
of Russian energy raw materials and of the opportunity to search for
Western support against “Russian menace”.
Obviously, when monitoring closely the relations between Russia
and its immediate neighbors from the post-Soviet space, the US and
the EU are guided only by their own geopolitical interests. Thus,
in the situation of an upcoming (though, still not definitive)
Russian economic boom, many observers see the signs of a reviving,
independent foreign policy of Russia and of its intention to act
much more resolutely in the energy sphere. This is the last thing
that the West would desire. It is true that Western states aim at
maintaining stable relations with Russia but they consider that such
a stability should be guaranteed not by the readiness of the parties
for symmetrical concessions but by a decline on the part of Moscow to
conduct its own global energy geopolicy, based on long-term interests
of its overall national development.
Thus, tensions, which arose in connection with the deliveries of
natural gas to the Ukraine, were regarded by many in the West as a
confirmation for their worst misgivings, although everybody were pretty
aware of the fact that the parasitizing of “transit limitrophic states”
upon Russian economy should have been limited a long time ago. Anyway,
the scandal between Russia and the Ukraine in January proved to be
quite welcome for certain Western circles (particularly in the US),
which were only waiting for an occasion to exercise pressure upon
Moscow against any “unexpected actions”, which would pose a threat
to the established global mechanism for energy supplies.
>From this point on, the situation was more than clear. The openly
anti-Russian speech of US Vice-President Cheney, delivered at the
beginning of May in Vilnius during the summit of the so called
Community of Democratic Choice, aimed at suggesting two things.
Firstly, the Americans warned Moscow that at the G-8 summit in St.
Petersburg in July Moscow would not only be deprived of the
position to define the agenda but would be probably compelled to
justify itself. Secondly, the statement defined the final range
of countries, which will help the US administration find occasions
for criticizing Russian foreign policy. This undoubtedly made the
leaders of “limitrophic states” happy as the USA openly declared
their “usefulness” for American geopolitical strategy. This in itself
inspired their further steps in this direction.
It is a well-known fact that at their summit, held at end-May in
Kiev, the Heads of GUAM member states (this is an organization,
established in 1997, which includes Georgia, the Ukraine, Azerbaijan
and Moldova) renamed the organization into Organization for Democracy
and Development (ODD – GUAM). A number of Ukrainian analysts consider
that the said organization becomes more and more “a key element of
the Baltic – Black sea geopolitical arc” and a branch of the famous
pro-American “Community of Democratic Choice” (see, Geopolitika,
issue 6/05). Hitherto, it has become clear that apart from the
purely mechanical renaming of GUAM into Organization for Democracy
and Development – GUAM, the headquarters of which will be in Kiev,
its members agree only upon the fact that the transformation will
help them resolve their own ethnic problems. It is not just by chance
that Moldovan President, Vladimir Voronin, immediately appealed
to his counterparts to assist in the quick solving of Transdniestr
region issues. Most probably, his Georgian colleague, Saakashvili,
has similar plans.
The establishment of the ODD, though, is related to something of much
higher importance. Let me recall that immediately before the summit
in Kiev, the Ukraine and Georgia almost simultaneously declared their
intentions to become NATO members. Let me underline again – NATO, not
EU members. We should not forget the fact that recently Brussels has
been sending constant negative impulses to these countries – thus,
Gunther Verheugen stated that the EU does not have any intentions
whatsoever to enlarge after the accession of Bulgaria and Romania,
while high-ranking officials from the European commission directly
explained that the European integration of the Ukraine can be
considered only after 20 years (in the best possible scenario). By
the way, during the Kiev summit even the Moldovan communist leader
(and President of the country), Vladimir Voronin, declared himself
in favor of joining the NATO. In this respect, the only exception was
the President of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliev, who understands that if he
supports unconditionally the Atlantic orientation of his colleagues
from the ODD would risk stirring up a negative reaction not only on
the part of Russia but also from Iran, thus putting himself literally
between the hammer and the anvil.
Meanwhile, immediately after the Kiev summit and the establishment of
the ODD, President Yushchenko signed a decree for the establishment of
an inter-ministerial commission on the issues of Ukrainian preparation
for NATO membership. Later, the Chief of the General Staff of the
Ukraine, Sergei Kirchenko, made a surprising visit in the Armenian
capital Yerevan and according to a number of local analysts his visit
aimed at checking the probability of Armenia joining the Organization
for democracy and development.
Most probably, when acting in this way the “limitrophic states”
consider that they are doing exactly what the West and the US in
particular expects them to. But is this really so? As James Mann,
author in residence at John Hopkins University, recently noted,
the US administration in the last few months has irrevocably given
up the realistic approach to foreign policy, which dominated in the
Republican Party at the time of Richard Nixon, Henry Kissinger and
Brent Scowcroft. A proof to this was the statement, made by the US
State Secretary, Condoleezza Rice, during her visit to Great Britain
at the beginning of 2006, in which she pointed out that America has
abandoned the 60-year-old attempts at “buying stability at the expense
of democracy” in the Near East. A much more important sign, though, was
the change in the US vision on the world, presented in the new Strategy
for national security of the USA, officially published in March.
It is a well-known fact that as regards foreign policy the US
Republicans have been divided into two main groups for dozens
of years. The first group, members of which are the so called
“realists”, i.e. people like Nixon, Kissinger and Scowcroft, who
stressed upon national interests, not concepts, and underlined the
need for maintaining stability and balance of power. In their turn,
their opponents – the present neoconservatives (i.e. that wing in
the Republican Party, which was lead by the late Ronald Reagan)
persistently declare that the US must devote themselves to “a battle
against tyranny worldwide”.
The previous Strategy for national security of the USA, elaborated
in mid-2002 under the guidance of Condoleezza Rice, Counselor for
national security at the time, and her deputy, Stephen Hadley (today
he is Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs),
the White House policy was summed up in the following key phrase:
the USA will aim at “a balance of power, favoring the observance of
human rights”. This was the classic compromise between the two wings
in the Republican Party – the “balance of power” satisfied “realists”,
and the concern for human rights – the neoconservatives.
The Strategy from 2002 included a number of concepts with far-reaching
consequences for the war with terrorism – including the appeal for
forestalling military attacks. Apart from the Near East, the US
policy seemed to be based upon the Kissinger-elaborated strategy,
embracing terms such as stability, national interests and balance
of power. The US strategy at that time identified China, Russia and
India as the three global centers of power.
The current US Strategy for national security, though, is drastically
different. It contains some general considerations on freedom and
the spread of democracy, but no realistic concept on balance of power.
China, Russia and India are no longer regarded as great states but
only as three out of many. In other words, for the first time in their
history the USA openly declare that their power is so enormous that
any considerations for balance of power or stability are obsolete.
What did actually happen in the last four years to cause such
a radical change in the vision of US administration? Among the
factors here undoubtedly are the consequences from the war in Iraq,
where the USA could not find any weapons for mass destruction and
embraced the concept for power imposition of democracy as a principal
justification for the war. Ever since, this concept has become the
main logical line of reasoning in US foreign policy. This means
that in Bush’s current team for foreign policy there is a particular
difference between articulated rhetoric and actual staff. As regards
staff, the second cabinet of Bush obviously numbers much less
neoconservatives. Undertaking the functions of Secretary of State,
Condoleezza Rice surrounded herself with cautious pragmatists such as
the Under Secretary R. Nicholas Burns and the Deputy State Secretary
Robert Zoellick, who are administrative officials, approved by the
realists and distrusted by the neoconservatives.
At the same time, “hawks” like Paul Wolfovits and Douglas Feith left
the Pentagon, which was additionally weakened in organizational
aspects from growing disagreements on war in Iraq between the
Secretary of Defense, Ronald Rumsfeld, and the high military
officials of the reserve. All of this is true only for the staff
of US administration. As regards the fundamental principles of US
foreign policy, there neoconservatives dominate while the influence
of realists continuously diminishes. Of course, Rice, Hadley and many
other Government officials are trying desperately to work in closer
contact with Europe, avoiding the staunch and limited approach of the
first administration of Bush. The truth, though, is that today they
support those concepts, which were launched by neoconservatives at
the time. Even more important is the fact that the US administration
today does not wish to follow the notions for the balance of power
and global stability as it did in 2002. As James Mann points out,
this is a conceptual change of enormous significance.
According to a number of eminent Western analysts, a direct consequence
of this approach is the transformation of the “guaranteed and
unlimited access” to the deposits of energy raw materials worldwide
(including those in Russia) into a major geopolitical objective of
Washington. Today Iran stands in the way of the accomplishment of
this objective and under certain circumstances Iran could become a
strategic ally to Russia and China against any further imposition of
expansionist policy of the USA.
According to neoconservative strategy, by gaining command over Iranian
energy resources, the US will acquire direct access to the Caspian
sea. To this end, they are ready to undertake extreme measures,
including forceful actions with the participation of US allies from
the NATO. In such a situation they will mainly rely upon the so called
“new Europeans”, with whom Washington maintains relations of particular
trust. The latter will play (no matter whether willingly or not) both
the role of a US military instrument and the role of a political cover
for the execution of the action itself. The negative consequences
for Europe – political, economic and humanitarian – are more than
obvious. The Ukraine becomes more and more another key factor for the
implementation of US geopolitical strategy in Eurasia. Washington seems
to rely upon the enforced accession of the country in NATO before the
end of the Presidential mandate of Bush. Among US objectives in the
case are the acquisition of a strategic maneuvering ground against
Russia. The neoconservative strategists are not much concerned about
the future of the Ukraine – they do not exclude the possibility for
a situation in which its “enforced integration” can result in a deep
national disunity and even to the collapse of the state, provoked
by this disunity. The most important thing in this case, however, is
to include Kiev in the US orbit and ensure control over the Crimea,
thus ensuring control over the aquatory of the Black sea.
Washington seems to have no particular concerns about the fact that a
possible collapse of the Ukraine and a subsequent deep crisis could
lead to an open confrontation with Moscow. Control over the Black
sea (in the ideal scenario this would include only the disposition
of US military ships) would help overcome the resistance of Turkey,
which is concerned about losing its control over the Bosphorus and
the Dardaneles, as in the name of their strategic objectives the
Americans would hardly hesitate to breach the Montreux convention.
Such a conflict between two key allies from NATO would raise the
shadow of doubt over the unity (and the future) of the alliance. It
is a well-known fact that Ankara protects its interests with
much determination, proof of which was its refusal to allow the
utilization of Turkish territory during the intervention against
Iraq. Nevertheless, neoconservatives consider that control over the
Crimea will allow them to break Turkey’s resistance, which is trying
to balance between the USA, Russia and the Muslim world.
The above shows that in the context of the current US geostrategy the
problem with the so called “joint military objects” on the territory
of Bulgaria and Romania acquires new dimensions. It may well be that
the battle between Brussels and Washington for spheres of influence
and access to energy resources would continue to become more and more
fierce in the course of the EU enlargement to the East. Furthermore,
Russia has demonstrated a definite economic, political and military
growth lately, while China is heading impetuously towards becoming
and independent pole of power. In this context, the current US
difficulties can result in a final dominance of neoconservatives
in Washington which would provoke a series of crisis situations in
various points on the globe.
Most experts consider that it is impossible to predict who would be
the final winner in such a geopolitical clash. As regards Bulgaria, it
can turn out to be only a pawn in an extremely dangerous geopolitical
game. It is clear that not all US politicians follow the reasoning of
“the early Reagan”, although many find it beneficial to imitate the
behavior of hard-line conservatives from the end of 80s.
The most important question here is whether Washington would decide
that the current moment is sufficiently suitable for replaying
the scenarios from the past, or the vast positive potential in the
relations with Moscow, accumulated in the last years, would lead
to less trivial developments. In other words, will the current US
President decide to act in full synchrony with his deputy Cheney or
would he decide to manifest a little bit more geopolitical fantasy
this time?
Todor Kondakov, Ph.D. is secretary of the Bulgarian Geopolitical
Society and editor-in-chief of the Bulgarian magazine “GEOPOLITICS”.

GOOD PROSPECTS FOR TOURISM IN GEORGIA
By M. Alkhazashvili
The Messenger, Georgia
Aug. 24, 2006
The Saakashvili administration has declared tourism to be a priority
sector for economic development. To entice in more Western tourists,
the government has shelled out some money to promote beautiful
Georgia with TV ads on CNN and EuroNews. Officials are optimistic
that visitors will come in near-droves-during the Soviet era, Georgia
(including Sokhumi) was a major domestic tourism draw. Georgia’s got
the right stuff, the tourism department believes; they just need to
get the word out there.
Current tourism figures are already encouraging. In 2005, more than
USD 250 million was spent in the country by foreign tourists-about
USD 500 from each visitor. This year, Georgia is expecting 200 000
tourists more than last year, which should bring in around USD 350
million in 2006.
The rumbling beginnings of a tourist boom are easy to see. Most
investment into the country is being poured into tourist sites.
Kazakhstani investors, for instance, recently purchased 22 hotels in
Adjara province, as well as in Gudauri and Likani (Borjomi). Turkish
investors are getting in on the action, too, mostly buying up plots
of land to construct small hotels.
The Black Sea coast has been brimming with Armenians and Azerbaijanis
this summer, having experienced its largest number of seaside
holidaymakers in years. According to the tourism department, during
the first seven months of this year tourist numbers are up 38% over
the same period in 2005.
The state has taken some productive steps to support the developing
tourist industry. Tour agencies bringing in foreign visitors are
exempt from VAT, and entry visas have been simplified to nothing
more than a costless stamp at the airport or border for visitors
from most countries. This has decreased the average cost of a visit
to Georgia by an estimated 15-18 percent, and the country is already
reaping benefits.
Most tourists to Georgia come from neighboring Armenia, where the
landlocked denizens are keen on playing in the pebbles of the Adjaran
coastline. Last year, Batumi and Kobuleti (the premier destinations
in Adjara) received 21 000 Armenian tourists. Georgia’s ambassador
to Armenia, HE Revaz Gachechiladze, suggested that the number could
triple this year.
Georgia is regaining its reputation as a tourist destination.
However, more can be done to lure away free-spending Westerns from
nearby Turkey, which tends to attract tourists with a larger budget.
Georgia has the benefit of a diverse and alluring landscape, from
beaches to ski slopes. European tourists are drawn to northern
Georgia’s untamed mountainous regions, although visits are hampered
by a lack of infrastructure. Still, with well-considered policies and
careful development, Georgia could well be playing host to travelers
all through the year.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

RUSSIA OPENS CLOSED BORDER FOR TEN DAYS
The Messenger, Georgia
Aug. 24, 2006
Almost two months have passed, according to Akhali Taoba, since
Russia closed a Georgian-Russian border crossing at Larsi Checkpoint,
allegedly due to repair work there. Russia made the decision a long
time ago but informed Georgia only two hours before the closure. The
Georgian side has negotiated with the Russian side several times, but
the Russians said they need more time to carry out necessary repairs.
The paper reports this will last for a long time, as Tbilisi doubts
that Russia will open the border in the near future. As a result the
Roki tunnel is expected to stay busy as it remains as the only route
to Russia. Russia’s decision has damaged Georgians as well as Russians
themselves, but most of all Armenians, who received big profits from
the now-closed Larsi route.
Now, to reach Russia, Armenian citizens have to pass through Georgian
territory and have their documents scrutinized at the Georgian
checkpoint.
In order to facilitate the procedure the Russian side decided to
open the Larsi checkpoint for a week to let Armenian citizens pass,
and then close it again. The suggested they would keep reopening
the border for some time to let Armenian citizens in and out. They
suggested that during this period Georgians will also have opportunity
to move through the checkpoint.
When Georgians learnt the reason for Russia’s proposal to reopen
the border and the timeframe, they turned it down and said that they
would rather Russia finish repair works and then permanently reopen
the border.
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress

CE SECRETARY GENERAL’S SPECIAL ENVOY CONSIDERS INTERNATIONAL MONITORING OF FIRES NECESSARY
Author: À.Ismayilova
TREND, Azerbaijan
Aug. 24, 2006
Dennis Bribosia, CE Secretary General’s Special Envoy, considers the
monitoring of fires along Azeri-Armenian frontline very important,
Trend reports quoting Mr Bribosia himself.
“I am really disappointed and shocked by this news about fires”,
said Mr Bribosia, underlining the necessity in participation
of international organizations and the council of Europe in the
monitoring.
He said this problem would be solved positively to satisfaction of
all the parties.
–Boundary_(ID_rf1LMa4LP6q9gtAizLKPVQ)–

SILVA KAPUTIKYAN PASSED AWAY
Lragir.am
25 Aug 06
On August 25, around 6 o’clock in the morning the poetess Silva
Kaputikyan passed away. Silva Kaputikyan had health problems for
a long time. Besides her own works, Silva Kaputikyan was known for
her critical attitude to this government and its representatives,
and refused the award of the president of Armenia.

WHAT HAPPENED TO THE OLIGARCH
James Hakobyan
Lragir.am
25 Aug 06
On hearing the word “oligarch” the majority of the society thinks
that they are going to hear about Gagik Tsarukyan. Currently, this
reaction is quite normal considering that Tsarukyan has appeared in
the middle of home political developments, grabbing the attention of
the society. However, it seems unfair that the other oligarchs do
not receive due attention from the society. In the meantime, some
happenings in their life are similarly important for the situation
in Armenia. These happenings take place in their professional life
and are related to their private life as much as professional life
could affect the private life.
Mikhail Baghdasarov, one of the big businessmen of Armenia, told
one of the newspapers several days ago that he is likely to sell 30
percent of his shares of Armenian Savings Bank, the last 30 percent
because several years ago he sold 70 percent of shares to the Russian
Vneshtorgbank. The same Russian bank is likely to buy the other 30
percent but Baghdasarov told that he is likely to sell his shares to
a third party, whose bid is under consideration. In fact, the life
of a big businessman, even his professional life, including that
of Baghdasarov, is not important enough for the society, especially
that the society is facing much more important problems. But there
is an important circumstance, and considering this circumstance it
would be useful to follow the situation Baghdasarov has appeared in,
namely his close relations with the defense minister Serge Sargsyan.
Baghdasarov has accompanied him for a number of times during his
foreign visits. In this sense, it is interesting that the oligarch
who is close with the defense minisrer, is selling his property.
Getting rid of property is not only normal in the modern world but
also popular and commendable. Experts say in a period of development
of technologies and intellectual transformation of property material
property becomes vulnerable and it is desirable to get rid of it. But
this is in the world. The modern world of developed technologies is
one thing and Armenia with its superhistorical mentality is another
thing. Here there is no tendency of getting rid of property, moreover,
this is considered a sign of fear, trouble, weakness.
Consequently, either Mikhail Baghdasarov has one of these signs,
or he has started thinking the way the world thinks. But in this
case either he has to leave Armenia for the success of this way of
thinking or he has to stay in Armenia without any property.
In both cases something seems to be wrong about Baghdasarov. And
it seems at least strange, considering the protection of the
“superminister” Baghdasarov enjoys, or maybe enjoyed. It should
be noted, however, that somethng has been wrong about Baghdasarov
over the past month, more exactly after the crash of the plane of
Armavia Airlines. It happened so that the crash of the plane gave
rise to a number of official and unofficial suggestions. The arrows
of responsibility in all the possible suggestions were directed
against Armavia. Eventually, the Interstate Aviation Committee’s
official statement concerned the fault of the pilots, which in fact
again hits to Armavia, hinting that the piltos of the company are not
qualified. The owner of Armavia, in fact, faces all these problems
alone. Only Armavia protested against the conclusion of the IAC,
but the Russians soon made it silent, reminding that Armavia did
not pay the dept of air navigation. And the Armenian high-ranking
government officials who appeared to public with great ardor though
with a mourning appearance, raised money and arranged funerals, have
now lost the former enthusiasm and have not responded officially to
the conclusion of the Interstate Aviation Committee.
The Department of Civil Aviation gave a news conference but it is
true that the ministers attended to these questions.
Along with these developments the problem of fuel of Zvartnots Airport
occurred, the main supplier of which is again Baghdasarov.
The problem occurred when rumors resumed that the plane had run out
of fuel. In this situation, it is natural that he does not “fancy”
doing banking, for he has difficulty fighting “in the air, in water
and on the land” alone. However, the question occurs why Baghdasarov
remained alone, i.e. without the “super” protection. It is difficult,
in fact, to answer this question. Maybe this is a time when “sacrifice”
is needed like “air and water”, when the “old friends” do not betray
but foresee, like in the famour move “Garage”.
And since there are no facts that a black cat passed between “the
two friends”, it would be correct to discuss another version of how
everything happened. Mikhail Baghdasarov will participate in the
parliamentary election directly or indirectly, supporting some force.
He announced this during his April 1, 2006 news conference. Serge
Sargsyan will also run in the parliamentary election. And if
we consider the case when they remain close, it is natural that
Baghdasarov will either support his close partner or the someone
whom his partner will point to. And the support of a businessman is
first of all his money. Therefore, the government in Armenia supports
businessmen or therefore the big businessmen pay the government in
Armenia. Considering the material, financial and moral losses of
Mikhail Baghdasarov after the plane crash, the question of election
money becomes rather complicated. Let alone the bank, since for this 30
percent better “the whole and at once than interests and part by part”.
However, it is only the first impression that Mikhail Baghdasarov
had problems after the plane crash. Long before the crash when the
National Unity Party, which also had “super” possibilities, suddenly
remembered a six-year-old deal, the deal of bankruptcy of the Armenian
Airlines, alleging that Baghdasarov got several millions of profit
then, inflicting as much damage on the state. The answer of the
businessman did not wait long. He announced that he would sue the
National Unity if they went on with such allegations. They went on
to announce that they confirm their words and wait until Baghdasarov
goes to court. Baghdasarov has not gone to court and it is not clear
whether he will ever go or not. Or maybe he went but not to the court
but someone more influential, knowing well the famous Russian proverb,
“hit your fellows for others to fear”, and maybe also knowing that this
proverb is well-known among the government where they have to contact
Russians very often, as well as realizing that the knowledge acquired
during these contacts is very often practised by the government. And
since the businessman is knows Russian proverbs, he must also know
that “It’s better to have 100 friends than 100 rubles”. Do not have
30 percent if your friend is going to need this 30 percent more on
a May morning in 2007.

RUSSIAN EMBASSY GRATEFUL TO ARMENIANS FOR THE CONDOLENCE OF ARMENIANS OVER TU-154 CRASH
ArmRadio.am
25.08.2006 11:17
Russian Embassy in Armenia has expressed gratitude to RA authorities,
organizations, political parties, diplomatic missions in Yerevan
and all Armenian citizens who conveyed condolence on the occasion
of the crash of the Pulkovo Tu-154 plane, the statement of the RF
Embassy states.

ARMENIAN WRESTLERS TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WORLD YOUTH CHAMPIONSHIP
ArmRadio.am
25.08.2006 13:08
Eight Armenian wrestlers will participate in the World Youth
Greek-Roman and Free-Style Wrestling Championships to be held August
29 – September 5 in Guatemala.
RA youth team of Grrek-Roman style wrestlers comprises Khosrov
Melikyan, Hrachya Hovhannisyan, Arsen Julfalakyan and Arthur
Shahinyan. The chief trainer of the team is Armen Babalaryan, the
trainer is Sokrat Petrosyan.
The team of free-style wrestlers includes Suren Adyan, Khachik
Amroyan, Edgar Yenokyan and Arthur Arakelyan. The chief trainer is
Araik Baghdasaryan.

FAMOUS POETESS SILVA KAPUTIKYAN PASSED AWAY
ArmRadio.am
25.08.2006 13:30
Around 6 o’clock in the morning, August 25, poetess, prose writer and
publisher Silva Kaputikyan passed away at the age of 87. She was an
Academician of RA National Academy of Science and member of the Union
of Writers of Armenia.
RA Prime Minister Andranik Margaryan sent a telegram of condolence,
in which he expressed compassion to her family and friends on behalf
of RA Government and himself.

NKR SERVICEMAN WOUNDED IN THE RESULT OF TRUCE BREAK
ArmRadio.am
25.08.2006 13:37
Serviceman of the NKR Armed Forces was wounded in the result of the
violation of the cease-fire regime at the contact line between the
Armed Forces of Nagorno Karabakh and Azerbaijan.
Well-informed sources told ArmInfo that the soldier was wounded in
the arm.
The cease-fire was broken in the direction of Martakert.