US delivers aid to Georgian port
A US Navy warship carrying humanitarian aid has arrived in the Georgian port of Poti, where Russian troops are still deployed.
The USS Mount Whitney is the third US ship to deliver aid to Georgia since its conflict with Russia last month, but the first to dock at Poti.
Poti was bombed by Russian forces when they entered Georgia, and several ships in the port were sunk.
Russian said such a large warship was not suited delivering aid.
The USS Mount Whitney, flagship of the US Sixth Fleet, is the latest of three vessels sent by the US to deliver blankets, hygiene kits, baby food and other supplies to Georgia after its brief war with Russia.
"I can confirm it has arrived in Poti. Anchoring procedures are still ongoing but it has arrived," said a US naval official quoted by the AFP news agency.
Russian checkpoints
Following the conflict, Moscow withdrew most of its forces, but thousands of Russian troops remain on Georgian soil in what Moscow says is a peacekeeping role.
Russian forces are still deployed at checkpoints around the port of Poti.
Two previous deliveries of US aid to Georgia were taken to the Georgian port of Batumi, south of Russian-patrolled areas.
Russia on Friday questioned the sending of such a sophisticated US warship to Georgia.
Moscow said it might contravene international conventions and was hardly suited to delivering humanitarian aid.
In the past, Moscow has warned that humanitarian aid shipments could be used to camouflage Western naval build-up in the Black Sea.
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/7599919.stm
Published: 2008/09/05 10:36:33 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Russia. Show all posts
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Cheney's VIsit to Georgia: an Articel in the Wall Street Journal
Cheney's Trip to Caucasus Could Presage a Tougher Russia Policy
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
September 2, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney will travel to Georgia and Ukraine this week in a trip that could help lay the groundwork for stiffer Western responses to last month's Russian incursion of Georgia.
[Dick Cheney]
The trip also illustrates important foreign-policy differences between Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, amid growing tensions between Washington and Moscow.
But whether Mr. Cheney will succeed in rallying the world to Georgia's cause -- or rallying U.S. voters to Sen. McCain's hawkish views on Russia -- remains uncertain.
Many U.S. allies in Western Europe remain wary of escalating tensions with a resurgent Russia, and thus could be reluctant to grant Georgia and Ukraine membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or kick Russia out of the Group of Eight leading nations, as Sen. McCain advocates. As a result, some friendly countries in the region are questioning the West's ability to protect Georgia and its neighbors.
And even though Sen. McCain appeared to get a bump in polls in the wake of the Russian-Georgian clashes, many U.S. voters already are weary of prolonged conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The public could conclude that more defense commitments aren't worth the potential price and side with Sen. Obama, whose responses to the Georgian crisis have emphasized diplomacy and consensus-building.
Mr. Cheney -- who was scheduled to depart Tuesday on a tour that also includes stops in Azerbaijan and Italy -- is expected to stress the depth of U.S. interests in Georgia and its neighbors, both for his overseas audience and his domestic one.
The Bush administration views the countries as bellwethers for the democracies growing up in Russia's shadow, and also as an indispensable corridor for shipping oil and gas from the Caspian basin -- a key to loosening Russia's grip on the region's energy supplies.
"I think the overriding priority...in Baku, Tbilisi and Kiev will be the same: a clear and simple message that the U.S. has a deep and abiding interest in the well-being and security of this part of the world," John Hannah, Mr. Cheney's national-security adviser, said at a briefing last week.
As part of that effort, the vice president could have a highly visible public meeting with U.S. military personnel who have been distributing humanitarian supplies in Georgia.
In private meetings, the vice president also will be sounding out Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and other officials about how the U.S. and its allies could help strengthen economic and military capabilities. (See related articles on page A20).
In the past, the U.S. has been careful not to go too far in military assistance in the region. For example, the U.S. avoided training and equipping Georgian armored units, even as about 100 U.S. military personnel in Tbilisi prepared Georgian troops for service in Iraq. "It was part of a policy aimed at not being too provocative" with the Russians, says a U.S. military official with knowledge of the region. "We intentionally never touched their tanks or artillery or attacked aviation."
Now that policy might be ripe for reconsideration, many experts say. An initial step could be to increase the number of U.S. military trainers in Georgia, some say.
More broadly, Mr. Cheney also appears to be exploring possibilities for security arrangements for the region in light of Russia's new assertiveness.
"Russia's actions in recent weeks have clearly cast grave doubts on its intentions, its purposes, and its reliability as an international partner," a senior administration official said. "They merit and demand a unified response from the free world -- one that...provides a long-term strategic framework going forward that will responsibly protect and advance our interests and values in the months and years ahead."
Still, some experts say the apparent reluctance of European NATO powers such as Germany to get more deeply involved in protecting Eastern Europe could lead to the establishment of a new security framework with many former Soviet satellite countries such as Poland and the Baltic states, as well as with the U.S. In addition to helping protect new democracies, beefed-up security understandings could help convince investors that the Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey energy corridor will remain viable for shipping oil and gas.
Part of Russia's intent in its incursion, some experts say, was to send a message to the energy-rich countries of the Caspian region that it can shut off the Georgia shipping route any time it likes.
But Bush administration officials say Russia's disproportionate response in Georgia shows that it would be willing to abuse its power as an energy supplier to Western Europe too. That makes the Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey corridor even more important.
"This is a major factor for why we should be concerned about Georgian independence," over and above concerns about the Russian incursion, said John Bolton, Mr. Bush's former United Nations ambassador. "The fact that [Mr. Cheney] is going to both Azerbaijan and Georgia tells you that's very much on his mind. If you can't start [energy shipment] in Azerbaijan and put it through Georgia, there aren't many places you can send it to" other than Russia or Iran.
Write to John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com
By JOHN D. MCKINNON
September 2, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Vice President Dick Cheney will travel to Georgia and Ukraine this week in a trip that could help lay the groundwork for stiffer Western responses to last month's Russian incursion of Georgia.
[Dick Cheney]
The trip also illustrates important foreign-policy differences between Republican presidential candidate John McCain and his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, amid growing tensions between Washington and Moscow.
But whether Mr. Cheney will succeed in rallying the world to Georgia's cause -- or rallying U.S. voters to Sen. McCain's hawkish views on Russia -- remains uncertain.
Many U.S. allies in Western Europe remain wary of escalating tensions with a resurgent Russia, and thus could be reluctant to grant Georgia and Ukraine membership in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or kick Russia out of the Group of Eight leading nations, as Sen. McCain advocates. As a result, some friendly countries in the region are questioning the West's ability to protect Georgia and its neighbors.
And even though Sen. McCain appeared to get a bump in polls in the wake of the Russian-Georgian clashes, many U.S. voters already are weary of prolonged conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. The public could conclude that more defense commitments aren't worth the potential price and side with Sen. Obama, whose responses to the Georgian crisis have emphasized diplomacy and consensus-building.
Mr. Cheney -- who was scheduled to depart Tuesday on a tour that also includes stops in Azerbaijan and Italy -- is expected to stress the depth of U.S. interests in Georgia and its neighbors, both for his overseas audience and his domestic one.
The Bush administration views the countries as bellwethers for the democracies growing up in Russia's shadow, and also as an indispensable corridor for shipping oil and gas from the Caspian basin -- a key to loosening Russia's grip on the region's energy supplies.
"I think the overriding priority...in Baku, Tbilisi and Kiev will be the same: a clear and simple message that the U.S. has a deep and abiding interest in the well-being and security of this part of the world," John Hannah, Mr. Cheney's national-security adviser, said at a briefing last week.
As part of that effort, the vice president could have a highly visible public meeting with U.S. military personnel who have been distributing humanitarian supplies in Georgia.
In private meetings, the vice president also will be sounding out Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and other officials about how the U.S. and its allies could help strengthen economic and military capabilities. (See related articles on page A20).
In the past, the U.S. has been careful not to go too far in military assistance in the region. For example, the U.S. avoided training and equipping Georgian armored units, even as about 100 U.S. military personnel in Tbilisi prepared Georgian troops for service in Iraq. "It was part of a policy aimed at not being too provocative" with the Russians, says a U.S. military official with knowledge of the region. "We intentionally never touched their tanks or artillery or attacked aviation."
Now that policy might be ripe for reconsideration, many experts say. An initial step could be to increase the number of U.S. military trainers in Georgia, some say.
More broadly, Mr. Cheney also appears to be exploring possibilities for security arrangements for the region in light of Russia's new assertiveness.
"Russia's actions in recent weeks have clearly cast grave doubts on its intentions, its purposes, and its reliability as an international partner," a senior administration official said. "They merit and demand a unified response from the free world -- one that...provides a long-term strategic framework going forward that will responsibly protect and advance our interests and values in the months and years ahead."
Still, some experts say the apparent reluctance of European NATO powers such as Germany to get more deeply involved in protecting Eastern Europe could lead to the establishment of a new security framework with many former Soviet satellite countries such as Poland and the Baltic states, as well as with the U.S. In addition to helping protect new democracies, beefed-up security understandings could help convince investors that the Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey energy corridor will remain viable for shipping oil and gas.
Part of Russia's intent in its incursion, some experts say, was to send a message to the energy-rich countries of the Caspian region that it can shut off the Georgia shipping route any time it likes.
But Bush administration officials say Russia's disproportionate response in Georgia shows that it would be willing to abuse its power as an energy supplier to Western Europe too. That makes the Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey corridor even more important.
"This is a major factor for why we should be concerned about Georgian independence," over and above concerns about the Russian incursion, said John Bolton, Mr. Bush's former United Nations ambassador. "The fact that [Mr. Cheney] is going to both Azerbaijan and Georgia tells you that's very much on his mind. If you can't start [energy shipment] in Azerbaijan and put it through Georgia, there aren't many places you can send it to" other than Russia or Iran.
Write to John D. McKinnon at john.mckinnon@wsj.com
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Georgia-Russia Conflict Changes The Energy Equation
Georgia-Russia Conflict Changes The Energy Equation
Bruce Pannier
Georgia's gas pipelines survived the conflict unscathed, but not all energy exports did.
Officials at the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline announced last week that the pipeline is fully functional and work has started to refill it. But in the weeks since the pipeline stopped working due to a fire along the Turkish section, much has changed along the pipeline's route due to the Georgian-Russian conflict.
There are fears that the conflict between Russia and Georgia may threaten existing and planned Caucasus energy routes seen by the West as vital supply corridors that avoid Russian territory.
Russia's military campaign this month in Georgia was a reminder that there is always a risk in running energy supply routes through this volatile part of the world -- a fact that is hitting home with potential investors in planned Caucasus natural-gas or oil pipelines.
When the conflict started on August 8, concerns immediately were raised about the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, which pumps nearly 1 million barrels of oil per day from Azerbaijan to Turkey's Mediterranean coast, where most of the supply is then shipped to Europe. Georgian officials reported several times during the conflict that Russian warplanes had tried but failed to bomb the pipeline.
However, Russian forces did destroy one key bridge on a Georgian railway line, disrupting oil exports to Georgia's Black Sea ports.
Pierre Noel, an energy expert at the European Council, points out the strategic difference for Russia between the two export routes. The Russians, Noel says, "always want people to believe they have a limited agenda, so they bombed the railway that brings Azeri oil to Georgia, and BP has been forced to stop its shipments of Azeri oil to Georgia by rail because the bridge has been bombed. But they wouldn't bomb a pipeline which is not directly linked to supplying Georgia." That, Noel says, would give the West justification to accuse Russia of aggression against the West or the region beyond Georgia itself.
"I think they wanted to create the strong perception that they were dealing with a limited set of problems, which are...Georgia-centered. Bombing BTC would have been too open an aggression, an act unrelated to the issue at hand," Noel says.
Jennifer DeLay of the "FSU Oil and Gas Monitor," a publication of the Edinburgh-based Newsbase Group, says Russia didn't need to damage the pipeline to show who's in charge in the Caucasus. "The pipeline itself was not bombed, of course, but the bombing did come awfully close," DeLay says. "My personal belief is that the Russians have put themselves into the position to be able to have some measure of control over the pipeline even if they have not hit it directly."
For now, the BTC pipeline looks secure for exports to Europe, albeit under the increased watch of Russia, as is the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline that runs along nearly the same route as the BTC. But the big question now concerns plans for future pipelines.
The United States and European Union have been supporting construction of the Nabucco gas pipeline to bring Azerbaijani and, more importantly, Turkmen and Kazakh natural gas to Europe -- eventually more than 30 billion cubic meters of gas annually. Nabucco is scheduled for completion in 2013, but no work has been done so far in laying the pipeline.
Nabucco also faces competition from the Russian-backed South Stream gas pipeline project that runs nearly the same route as Nabucco and targets essentially the same consumer market. Given the outcome of the Georgian-Russian conflict, potential investors will have to consider which of the two pipelines is more likely to be built first.
The answer at the moment seems to be South Stream. Since hostilities eased in the Caucasus, Russia's Gazprom has managed to conclude a deal with key Caspian gas supplier Turkmenistan. The details of that deal are unclear, but it appears Ashgabat has agreed to sell even more gas to Gazprom. But in the end, just having those supplies may not be enough. Noel says that Russia's image in Europe has suffered from the military action in the Caucasus -- and that could spur a change in European energy policies.
"You can make the point that Russia has always met its contractual commitments, that it's been an extremely reliable supplier at least to Western Europe over the past four decades, which is true," Noel says. "But at the same time the political perception is something else and now the political perception is that Russia is not a reliable supplier, [or] at least it's a politically problematic supplier.... This will again increase the legitimacy of energy policies aimed at substituting away from gas, not necessarily only from Russian gas but from gas itself."
Still, it may not come to that. DeLay of the "FSU Oil and Gas Monitor" says Europe and Gazprom simply need each other too much. "Gazprom needs Europe as much as Europe needs Gazprom -- more, in fact. I believe that European gas sales account currently for about 60 percent of Gazprom's total revenues. Losing that would hurt the company very much," DeLay says.
So Russia may have won a Pyrrhic victory in Georgia. Its dominance in the Caucasus is almost beyond question now, but its image is badly tattered.
As a concession to customers in Europe, the Kremlin may have to allow alternative pipelines to be built to avoid losing revenue from sales in the West. After all, Europe may now see diversifying away from natural gas as preferable to a future as a captive customer of Russian gas supplies. /// RFE/RL, 2 Sep
Bruce Pannier
Georgia's gas pipelines survived the conflict unscathed, but not all energy exports did.
Officials at the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline announced last week that the pipeline is fully functional and work has started to refill it. But in the weeks since the pipeline stopped working due to a fire along the Turkish section, much has changed along the pipeline's route due to the Georgian-Russian conflict.
There are fears that the conflict between Russia and Georgia may threaten existing and planned Caucasus energy routes seen by the West as vital supply corridors that avoid Russian territory.
Russia's military campaign this month in Georgia was a reminder that there is always a risk in running energy supply routes through this volatile part of the world -- a fact that is hitting home with potential investors in planned Caucasus natural-gas or oil pipelines.
When the conflict started on August 8, concerns immediately were raised about the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, which pumps nearly 1 million barrels of oil per day from Azerbaijan to Turkey's Mediterranean coast, where most of the supply is then shipped to Europe. Georgian officials reported several times during the conflict that Russian warplanes had tried but failed to bomb the pipeline.
However, Russian forces did destroy one key bridge on a Georgian railway line, disrupting oil exports to Georgia's Black Sea ports.
Pierre Noel, an energy expert at the European Council, points out the strategic difference for Russia between the two export routes. The Russians, Noel says, "always want people to believe they have a limited agenda, so they bombed the railway that brings Azeri oil to Georgia, and BP has been forced to stop its shipments of Azeri oil to Georgia by rail because the bridge has been bombed. But they wouldn't bomb a pipeline which is not directly linked to supplying Georgia." That, Noel says, would give the West justification to accuse Russia of aggression against the West or the region beyond Georgia itself.
"I think they wanted to create the strong perception that they were dealing with a limited set of problems, which are...Georgia-centered. Bombing BTC would have been too open an aggression, an act unrelated to the issue at hand," Noel says.
Jennifer DeLay of the "FSU Oil and Gas Monitor," a publication of the Edinburgh-based Newsbase Group, says Russia didn't need to damage the pipeline to show who's in charge in the Caucasus. "The pipeline itself was not bombed, of course, but the bombing did come awfully close," DeLay says. "My personal belief is that the Russians have put themselves into the position to be able to have some measure of control over the pipeline even if they have not hit it directly."
For now, the BTC pipeline looks secure for exports to Europe, albeit under the increased watch of Russia, as is the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline that runs along nearly the same route as the BTC. But the big question now concerns plans for future pipelines.
The United States and European Union have been supporting construction of the Nabucco gas pipeline to bring Azerbaijani and, more importantly, Turkmen and Kazakh natural gas to Europe -- eventually more than 30 billion cubic meters of gas annually. Nabucco is scheduled for completion in 2013, but no work has been done so far in laying the pipeline.
Nabucco also faces competition from the Russian-backed South Stream gas pipeline project that runs nearly the same route as Nabucco and targets essentially the same consumer market. Given the outcome of the Georgian-Russian conflict, potential investors will have to consider which of the two pipelines is more likely to be built first.
The answer at the moment seems to be South Stream. Since hostilities eased in the Caucasus, Russia's Gazprom has managed to conclude a deal with key Caspian gas supplier Turkmenistan. The details of that deal are unclear, but it appears Ashgabat has agreed to sell even more gas to Gazprom. But in the end, just having those supplies may not be enough. Noel says that Russia's image in Europe has suffered from the military action in the Caucasus -- and that could spur a change in European energy policies.
"You can make the point that Russia has always met its contractual commitments, that it's been an extremely reliable supplier at least to Western Europe over the past four decades, which is true," Noel says. "But at the same time the political perception is something else and now the political perception is that Russia is not a reliable supplier, [or] at least it's a politically problematic supplier.... This will again increase the legitimacy of energy policies aimed at substituting away from gas, not necessarily only from Russian gas but from gas itself."
Still, it may not come to that. DeLay of the "FSU Oil and Gas Monitor" says Europe and Gazprom simply need each other too much. "Gazprom needs Europe as much as Europe needs Gazprom -- more, in fact. I believe that European gas sales account currently for about 60 percent of Gazprom's total revenues. Losing that would hurt the company very much," DeLay says.
So Russia may have won a Pyrrhic victory in Georgia. Its dominance in the Caucasus is almost beyond question now, but its image is badly tattered.
As a concession to customers in Europe, the Kremlin may have to allow alternative pipelines to be built to avoid losing revenue from sales in the West. After all, Europe may now see diversifying away from natural gas as preferable to a future as a captive customer of Russian gas supplies. /// RFE/RL, 2 Sep
Tuesday, September 2, 2008
New Perception of Georgian Government in Russia
The news on political arena are developing very rapidly. As Dick Cheney is planning a visit to Georgia, the President of Russia has commented on this as a possible attempt of US in suppporting Georgia in military terms. There were already indications in the press about possible rebuilding of war power in Georgia.
The President of Russia has mentioned in his remarks that the US relations with Georgia should be reconsidered "because it has put Georgia in a very difficult position, caused serious destablisation and launched an aggression that ended in many deaths."
EU leaders decided at the European Council meeting in Brussels on Monday to freeze talks on a new strategic EU-Russia accord. Putin, the Prime-Minister of Russia has already commented on this decision, saying "Thank God, common sense prevailed. We saw no extreme conclusions and proposals, and this is very good".
Saakashvili, meanwhile, pointed to the moratorium on EU-Russia partnership talks as proof of Western solidarity behind Georgia. "Russia failed to break the unity at the heart of Europe," he told France 24 television.
The Russian foreign ministry said that "the intention to freeze talks about a new partnership agreement is a cause for regret." Medvedev had earlier criticised what he called the EU's failure to understand Russian motives for going to war in Georgia.
And he made the following remark during an interview which was broadcasted on Russian TV:"For us, the present Georgian regime has collapsed. President Saakashvili no longer exists in our eyes. He is a political corpse". Medvedev said in the interview broadcast on Russian television.
Medvedev sa d Moscow was ready to hold talks with the international community "on all sorts of questions, including post-conflict resolution in the region" of the Caucasus.
"But we would like the international community to remember who began the aggression and who is responsible for people's deaths," he said.
The President of Russia has mentioned in his remarks that the US relations with Georgia should be reconsidered "because it has put Georgia in a very difficult position, caused serious destablisation and launched an aggression that ended in many deaths."
EU leaders decided at the European Council meeting in Brussels on Monday to freeze talks on a new strategic EU-Russia accord. Putin, the Prime-Minister of Russia has already commented on this decision, saying "Thank God, common sense prevailed. We saw no extreme conclusions and proposals, and this is very good".
Saakashvili, meanwhile, pointed to the moratorium on EU-Russia partnership talks as proof of Western solidarity behind Georgia. "Russia failed to break the unity at the heart of Europe," he told France 24 television.
The Russian foreign ministry said that "the intention to freeze talks about a new partnership agreement is a cause for regret." Medvedev had earlier criticised what he called the EU's failure to understand Russian motives for going to war in Georgia.
And he made the following remark during an interview which was broadcasted on Russian TV:"For us, the present Georgian regime has collapsed. President Saakashvili no longer exists in our eyes. He is a political corpse". Medvedev said in the interview broadcast on Russian television.
Medvedev sa d Moscow was ready to hold talks with the international community "on all sorts of questions, including post-conflict resolution in the region" of the Caucasus.
"But we would like the international community to remember who began the aggression and who is responsible for people's deaths," he said.
EU does not impose sanctions, but suspends agreement on Strategic Pact
As was expected, the meeting of European leaders was a mix of calls for severe sanction against Russia, and calls for more moderate actions in view of the fact that Europe is really dependent on oil and gas supplies from this country.
As a result, no sanctions are envisaged, but EU has decided to condemn Russia for recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In addition, any discussions on the Strategic Pact between EU and Russia are postponed until full withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia. You may find the text of the conclusions of the European Council Meeting here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/01_09_08_eurussia_statement.pdf
As a result, no sanctions are envisaged, but EU has decided to condemn Russia for recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. In addition, any discussions on the Strategic Pact between EU and Russia are postponed until full withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia. You may find the text of the conclusions of the European Council Meeting here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/01_09_08_eurussia_statement.pdf
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Is Re-thinking Needed? Is Re-calculating worth it?
While US and almost all leading European governments are calling for harsh criticism and sanctions against Russia, Germany is the first to call for considerate approach, re-calculating possible economic implications of breaking normal trade and economic relations with Russia. Wise and objective, or tactful? You decide...and we all feel later...
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Future of Georgian-Abkhaz-Ossetian relations
The history of relations between ethnic groups in Georgia is very complicated and is overwhelmed by conflicts, lack of security and continous threats of conflicts. The latest war has ended this month. What the future will bring to the people in this very insecure part of the world? Any ideas?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
