India And Russia - I

01-23-2007, 05:18 PM

01-23-2007, 05:20 PM

On Ivanov's agenda, how to outdo Washington's hardsell of weapons

QUOTEOn his seventh trip to New Delhi in as many years, Russian defence minister Sergei Ivanov's agenda this time round couldn't be more crucial, both commercially and strategically, to Moscow.

With its monopoly of the Indian weapons market steeply threatened, and New Delhi on the threshold of purchasing billions of dollars worth of new generation weapons, it's a do-or-die state for the post-Cold War Russian military complex.

01-24-2007, 07:54 AM

The two-headed eagle lands

01-24-2007, 07:57 AM

Indo-Russian N-deal on the cards 

QUOTEMOSCOW â¢ Russian president Vladimir Putin has declared that the objective of his upcoming visit to New Delhi this week is to strengthen âstrategic relationshipâ, as the two countries enter into a whole new stage of cooperation in the civil nuclear area including in the construction of new reactors, supply of fuel and transfer of reprocessing technology.

âWe intend to help India directly in construction of atomic energy facilities for peaceful use. Some of our companies are very much interested in acquiring large contracts for the construction of new facilities. On various occasions, we have provided India with nuclear fuel and we will help in settling her problems in international affairs with the provision that Russia will abide by international obligations,â Putin, who will be the chief guest at the Republic Day celebrations on Friday, said in an interview.

01-24-2007, 08:00 AM

Putinâs visit to redefine Indo-Russian trade ties

dhu · (This post was last modified: 05-23-2008, 01:23 PM by dhu.)

Cult of the Last Czar Takes Root in Russia
By BILL KELLER

06-18-2008, 06:36 PM

Link

QUOTERussia to drive hard bargain for aircraft carrier 
Tue, Jun 17 08:18 PM

New Delhi, June 17 (IANS) Russia will drive a hard bargain in renegotiating the price of an aircraft carrier the Indian Navy has purchased and for which Moscow is seeking $1.2 billion over and above the $1.5 billion that had been agreed on, the country's envoy here says.

And, in a clear indication that the defence ties between the two countries were not what they were, Ambassador Vyacheslav I. Trubnikov hedged his bets on transferring technology for the T-90 main battle tank and for the cryogenic engine of the BrahMos cruise missile that India and Russia have jointly developed.

Trubnikov was addressing a press conference after inaugurating a swanky Russian Information Centre here Tuesday.

'It's a complicated issue. There are objective and subjective factors,' the ambassador said while referring to the negotiations underway on the Russian demand for more money for the aircraft carrier Admiral Gorshkov that has been renamed INS Vikramaditya.

'Our economy was in a very different condition (when negotiations for the ship had begun). Our shipyards were out of work. We agreed to the hard deal struck by the Indians,' the ambassador maintained.

'The reality is very different today. When we look at the figures, they are unrealistic as the scope of the work (involved in refurbishing the ship) was grossly underestimated,' Trubnikov added.

Under the original deal, India was to buy the carrier for $1.5 billion. Of this, $970 million was meant for the refurbishment of the vessel that has been mothballed since a devastating fire in the mid-1990s. The remaining $530 million was meant for the MiG-29K fighter jets, Kamov surveillance and anti-submarine warfare helicopters that will be deployed on the vessel.

The increased cost, the Russians now say, has been necessitated by the new engines and boilers the ship requires, 'hundreds of miles' of cabling, the strengthening of the flight deck, refurbishing the arrester wires and other safety equipment, as also the extensive sea trials the ship will have to undergo after the refit.

Indian officials admit they would have to fork out more for the vessel but are not too sure of the figure.

'The figure of $970 million is perhaps not seriously doable,' Defence Secretary Vijay Singh had said in February on his return here from Moscow after discussions with the Russian authorities.

Independent analysts here point out that even if India were to meet the entire demand for the additional $1.2 billion, at $2.7 billion the ship would come at a bargain as the cost of building a new aircraft carrier is in the region of $4 billion.

Even as the price renegotiations are to conclude, work on refurbishing the ship is on in full swing at the Sevmash shipyard, one of Russia's oldest and where most of its nuclear submarines have been built. The yard has 28,000 workers, of whom 1,200 have been deployed on the Vikramaditya.

The vessel's 18-month sea trials are to begin in 2010, with delivery scheduled for 2012.

On the question of technology transfer, the ambassador chose his words with care.

'This is a technical issue that has to be addressed by the experts,' Trubnikov said.

India had purchased 310 T-90 tanks in 2001 and was to produce another 1,000 under licence. However, delays in the technology transfer prompted India to sign a contract with Russia in 2006 for 347 tanks to ensure adequate force levels.

In the case of the BrahMos missile, India's defence scientists have repeatedly complained that Russia is not living up to its promise to transfer technology for its cryogenic engine.

'We have not got full technology transfer of the (missile's) engines,' C.G. Krishnadas Nair, a former chairman of state-owned Hindustan Aeronautics Limited (HAL), had said at a seminar here that Defence Minister A.K. Antony inaugurated.

'We must have access to total technology. This denial is a serious matter,' Nair said, adding: 'No one should hold the other to ransom.'

06-18-2008, 06:44 PM

2008 - a landmark year in Russia-India relations

QUOTEJune, 7 2008
Dmitry Ermolayev, Rossiyskiye Vesti, Moscow

In 2008 India is playing host to the Year of Russia. Vyacheslav Trubnikov, Russiaâs Ambassador to India, speaks about former Prime Minister Viktor Zubkovâs recent visit to open the celebrations, events planned for the year, Indian foreign policy, and bilateral relations

2008 - a landmark year in Russia-India relations

â Your Excellency, Russian former Prime Minister Victor Zubkov recently paid an official visit to New Delhi and inaugurated the Year of Russia in India. How would you assess the results of his visit?

â I would like to note that the visit of the Russian Prime Minister was relatively short but extremely eventful. Certainly the main event was the inauguration of the Year of Russia in India. Along with that Victor Zubkov addressed the opening ceremony of the second Forum on Trade and Investment of the Russian and Indian business communities. More than two hundred businessmen came to New Delhi for that meeting. The first such Forum had taken place in February 2007 with our delegation led by Minister of Economic Development and Trade German Gref who also participated in the Second meeting as Head of âSberbankâ.

It is but natural that the inauguration of the Year of Russia in India was marked with a magnificent cultural programme. The open-air gala-concert was held in New Delhi on a cool evening of February 12 at the picturesque ruins of the Purana Qila against the backdrop of astonishing laser effects, digital images of Russian and Indian places of interest and numerous spotlights.

It is sure to remain in the memory of Indians, members of the diplomatic corps and all those who witnessed that absolutely amazing concert. The Indian public could get acquainted with the rich variety of contemporary Russian art ranging from Pyatnitsky Chorus to Dima Bilan.

The Russian Prime Minister had official discussions with the President and the Vice-President of India. There was a meeting and delegation-level talks with Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh. Victor Zubkov also received Minister of External Affairs Pranab Mukherjee, Leader of the Opposition L.K.Advani, Finance Minister P.Chidambaram and took part in the opening of the Delhi representation of our largest financial corporation âSistemaâ.

The launch of the Regional Information Centre in New Delhi set up by âRIA-Novostiâ news agency was another highlight of the Prime Ministerâs visit. This Centre is designed to cover the events of this festive year and the forthcoming Year of India in Russia as well as to bring our media presence in India in general to a new level.

It is worth mentioning that member of the Russian delegation Deputy Prime Minister Alexander Zhukov inaugurated an important institution the India-Russia Chamber of Commerce which would help Indian businessmen intensify contacts with Russian partners.

Various events in the framework of the visit of Victor Zubkov and inauguration of the Year of Russia in India have undoubtedly given a strong boost to our relations in the spheres of trade, investment and utilization of the Indian Rupee debt through mutually beneficial investments. In other words this one-day visit has become an important milestone in the current development of Russian-Indian ties.

â Victor Zubkov noted in his statement that in the last year alone Russian-Indian trade turnover increased from 4 to 5 billion USD. He confirmed the goal to raise it to 10 billion USD by 2010. First of all, do you think it is possible and, secondly, which goods and services could contribute to reaching this goal?

Recently we have been indeed witnessing a certain increase in trade between Russia and India. You can just compare the present trade turnover with 1,7 billion USD at the end of 2004. Given the trend towards progressive expansion of trade in the last two years, maintaining the same growth rate it will be possible to achieve by 2010 the goal of 10 bn USD mentioned by Victor Zubkov.

At the same time I must note that we often get obsessed with the figures of trade without analyzing its quality. I can give a straight answer to your question concerning the spheres which can help increase the turnover to 10 billion USD. It is possible only if our commercial exchanges include capital-intensive and science-intensive products. Along with that mutual investments must become the main factor contributing to the revival of trade.

It is necessary to considerably step up our contacts and cooperation in high-tech and telecommunications. By the way, âSistemaâ is a pioneer in this field in India. Facing tough competition, this company, first of all, established a strong foothold in the Indian market and recently managed to obtain a license, which allows âSistemaâ to carry out pan-Indian telecom operations.

It is worth mentioning that just a day before the visit of Victor Zubkov to India an agreement on expanding our peaceful nuclear cooperation with India was initialed. Both countries are keen to increase the potential of âKudankulamâ nuclear power plant up to 6000 megawatt, and in the long run Ð to build nuclear power plants in other regions of India as well.

Undoubtedly, the Indian Side continues to consider Russia as a supplier of energy resources. The Indian partners seek to purchase stakes in the Russian oil and natural gas companies in order to jointly exploit new deposits. This will also contribute to larger trade turnover, stronger economic ties and greater energy security of our strategic partner Ð India.

It would be wrong to say that we have completely forgotten about traditional goods. Personally, I am glad that recently Russian companies have started expressing interest in cooperation with Indian textile industry. This is something India was famous for in the past - Russians and many other nations of the former USSR remember very well knitwear and wool products imported from Ludhiana in the Indian state of Punjab. To my mind, given the current development of the Indian textile industry, we will surely be able to get high-quality and relatively cheap goods from here.

It is natural that the Indian Side is still interested in exporting such goods as tea, coffee, leather. Here quality is the main issue. The higher is the quality of goods offered by India, the greater are the chances that Russian customers would be interested to buy them. Thus, it can also help to achieve the trade turnover of 10 bn USD.

But, in my opinion, we should not make a fetish of this figure, because bilateral trade growth rates of India with other countries are substantially higher. And by the same year 2010, India and China are going to reach the trade turnover of 40 bn USD. I think we should not content ourselves with the figure of 10 bn USD. We should address larger-scale tasks, longer-term goals and, of course, improve the quality of trade.

â Recently Russian company âGidroOGKâ and the Indian SUN Group agreed to establish a joint venture to take part in hydropower plants construction in India and other countries. Could you, please, tell about this project?

â At present it is still a project. The Indian Government faces acute problem of augmenting its energy resources, and every step aimed at building new energy generation capacities, especially on the Indian territory, is considered noble and positive. Small and medium size hydropower plants in India, particularly in its mountain states, provide huge opportunities for quickly generating cheap electricity, coming from permanently renewable sources. The SUN Groupâs turn towards construction of such power plants is quite well-timed and far-sighted.

â Along with the visit of Victor Zubkov this February Mr Robert Gates, Defence Secretary of the United States, also visited India. According to The Hindu newspaper (March 10 issue), during his visit in February the Defence Secretary discussed with the Indian leaders possibilities of cooperation between Washington and New Delhi in creation of missile defence system. Could you, please, comment on this assertion and the current trend towards closer relations between India and the US? Could this rapprochement affect the positions of Russia in India and in the region in general? 

â As far as the US Defence Secretaryâs visit to India is concerned, I would not say that it resulted in a breakthrough or produced a distinctive shift in military-technical cooperation between the two countries, or their cooperation in some other areas. In my opinion, the situation, which is described as ârapprochementâ between India and the US, is merely a consequence of a new American assessment of the role and influence of India in the international arena. I am firmly convinced that this process has been initiated by the American side. Taking into account the role to be played by new India in Asia and the Asia-Pacific region in the near future, the US Administration can not ignore the âlargest democracyâ in the world, as India is often called, in its geopolitical âstrategiesâ.

Presently I do no see any serious basis for articles on discussions between the two countries with regard to their interaction in Missile Defence. For this a solid background of technical and R&D cooperation in the defence sphere is required, as well as of active military exchanges and, most importantly, mutual political interest of both partners in such a system. I havenât seen so far any signs whatsoever of Indiaâs intention to seek anyoneâs assistance to create Missile Defence. Naturally, Missile Defence would be useful for a large developing country with high political ambitions, strong economy and infrastructure, which require adequate security. However, India has not indicated any intentions regarding Missile Defence.

As for the general expansion of India-US ties in the sphere of defence, particularly military-technical cooperation, it is a reality nowadays. I must admit that competition in the Indian defence market is on the rise and such new phenomenon as the US entry into this market is one of the reasons for that. India purchased six military transport aircraft C-130J at the total cost of approximately 1 bn USD. It signifies a marked step towards serious development of India-US military-technical ties.

Nevertheless, to my mind the basis of Russian-Indian interaction in this sphere remains solid. With mutual goodwill on both sides we can overcome all the difficulties which may occasionally appear. There is no doubt that such goodwill does exist. It is confirmed by regular high-level meetings, including discussions at the level of Defence Ministers and in the framework of the Commission on military-technical cooperation. Therefore there is no reason for us to be afraid of expanding contacts between India and the USA given, of course, the fact that competition is devoid of any backstreet intrigues and dirty tricks. The key to retaining our strong footing in India, particularly in defence sphere, is constant improvement of the quality of weaponry we can offer to India, first of all, those, which we are going to produce jointly. Here they are: fifth generation fighter, transport aircraft and many more.

â It is no secret that American companies would like to boost their positions in the Indian civil nuclear market. How do you see the prospects of India-US cooperation in this sphere?

â The future of such cooperation depends primarily on several issues that are yet to be settled. Even though the draft of the so called 123 Agreement is ready, which could allow India to resume civil nuclear cooperation with all countries, not only the USA, it is also necessary that NSG lifts the sanctions and restrictions imposed on India after the nuclear tests of 1998. India is also supposed to sign a safeguards protocol with IAEA. If it all happens the outlook for Indiaâs interaction with the rest of the world in civil nuclear sphere will improve substantially. It will also open up new possibilities for Russian-Indian joint work.

Only time will tell how good are the prospects of India-US nuclear relationship. I would like to mention that the USA has not built NPPs on its territory for more than 25 years. Therefore its practical experience in construction is not so considerable. It is also important that financially such cooperation with the USA will be more expensive than with Russia. So I think we are unlikely to see an explosive start of India-US arrangement in this field. Nevertheless, India for sure will make use of the US experience as well as the experience of Russia, France, Canada. To my mind India will interact actively with all the countries who are able to make good proposals to facilitate its civil nuclear programme.

â Coming back to the triangle India-Russia-USA. We can see a very interesting situation in the region when the attitude of world powers to Indiaâs neighbour Pakistan is gradually changing. It is no secret that relations between Pakistan and the USA are deteriorating; certain tensions are seen between Washington and President Musharraf and there are signs that Islamabad might be rethinking its close ally relations with the USA. Can you comment on this? How do you see the future of Pakistan? Will Pakistan be able to maintain its territorial integrity when there is a geopolitical game in Afghanistan and high tension in the tribal zone in Belujistan?

â The task you mentioned at the end of your question is a major priority for any government of Pakistan. Nowadays the domestic situation in Pakistan is extremely volatile, complicated and fraught with unexpected twists and turns. Any separatist and extremist actions inside the country inevitably cause the weakening of its exterior positions. Questions are raised more and more often whether Pakistan would be able to keep its nuclear arsenal under control when stability in the country is so vulnerable.

In my view India is now doing its utmost to sustain the peaceful dialogue with Pakistan which is developing despite occasional setbacks. This dialogue is aimed at comprehensive improvement of the ties between the two countries, greater security and transparency in their defence and military objectives.

Certainly, Musharraf as leader of the state faces a rather complicated scenario. The goal of maintaining unity is achievable and should be addressed in the long-term context. The Pakistani society will have to take a tough decision on whether to cope with this task through democratic or dictatorial means.

Anyway, there are so many diverse negative factors in Pakistan now that the international community should think in terms of averting the developments which could redraw the geographical map of the region and affect the situation in the whole world. It is crucial to prevent radical and extremist elements in Pakistan as well as other countries from taking advantage of the existing difficulties in the country.

â Disintegration of Pakistan does not meet interests of both Russia and China. Arenât you afraid that the developments in Pakistan could lead to increasing disagreement between India and China?

â It is a fact that neither Russia nor China is interested in disintegration of Pakistan. But neither is India, because disintegration of its neighbour could in the long run cause considerable instability along the whole Indian-Pakistani border. It could also trigger a surge of radicalism and terrorism in Jammu and Kashmir, where they already exist creating a big headache for the Indian Government. India would hardly want to have a chain of such âKashmirsâ along its border with Pakistan. I would like to stress once again that the international community as well as neighbours of Pakistan should take every effort to ensure that such negative scenario is averted in that country.

â Does it mean that the global geopolitical stability in the region is more important than the possible quick benefits and advantages?

â For India, as well as for any other major power, geopolitical stability is the core factor of foreign policy. It would hardly benefit even the short-term interests of India if Pakistan ceases to exist breaking up into a bunch of poorly managed or even uncontrolled regimes, which the Indian Government will have to deal with. Moreover, such regimes are unlikely to be democratic.

So, if we look at the situation in Indiaâs neighborhood, we will see a conspicuous âcircleâ of tension and instability. Whatever country we look at, there is evident explosive potential. Domestic stabilization in Nepal is still fragile, there are huge difficulties in the political development of Bangladesh, civil war is continuing in Sri Lanka, political instability in Pakistan, military action is underway in Afghanistan, and the situation in Burma is also complicated. Naturally, all this diverts the Indian leadershipâs attention from the vital tasks of the countryâs political and economic development and constantly brings into focus the necessity of maintaining adequate defence potential.

â How does the continuing instability in Afghanistan influence the situation in the region in general and in India in particular?

â Instability in Afghanistan and further strengthening of its role as the main supplier of drugs in the international market are the factors which exacerbate situation in the region and carry global implications. As far as the region is concerned, developments in Afghanistan first of all influence Pakistan. Uncontrolled Taliban groups from Afghanistan are acting on the Pakistani territory and the international coalition forces, fighting against Al-Qaeda, often have to take military action in Pakistan Ð these are all signs of continuing instability plaguing Afghanistan for many years. Certainly, India, which has been historically maintaining close and friendly relations with that country, is keen to see peace coming to the soil of Afghanistan as soon as possible. It would allow Indians to bring relationship with the neighboring state to the level it used to enjoy, when Afghanistan was a powerful and important commercial and economic partner for India, as well as was close to New Delhi on foreign policy issues.

â What is the position of India regarding unilateral declaration of independence of Kosovo?

The official position of India regarding independence declared by Kosovo was cautious. India expressed doubts regarding international legitimacy of that act. I believe that New Delhi will most probably give a more detailed account of its position in the near future taking into consideration the approach of other nations and its close partners as well as the destructive potential of such decision, which is undermining the basic principles of international law. Dangers and far-reaching consequences of the unilateral declaration of Kosovo independence are quite obvious to India. I think that India, keeping in mind the history of the fight against separatism on its own territory as well as the existing problem of Kashmir, can hardly welcome such developments in international affairs. The latest Indian position on the Kosovo problem, as it is reflected in a joint CommuniquÐ by âTroikaâ (Russia-India-China) in Yekaterinburg, is a clear indication of this.

â And the final question. When todayâs Russia and todayâs India will be able to reach the same level of intensity and diversity in theirs relations, which existed in the era of the Soviet Union?

â In my opinion, it largely depends on how quickly Russia appraises the potential of India in the world arena, its role in the process of globalization of international relations and our joint steps on strengthening international security. Probably, our efforts could go along separate tracks in some spheres and be united in those areas where neither Russia nor India is able to cope single-handedly with large-scale tasks of economic and social development of our countries as well as raising the quality of life of our citizens.

Bodhi · 08-14-2008, 01:41 PM

Russia shows who's the boss

Lynn Berry on why Moscow has sent its troops into Georgia

Russia has made clear it calls the shots in this part of the world, a message other former Soviet Bloc countries cannot ignore. Georgia's President Mikhail Saakashvili has been a loyal US ally and has portrayed his nation as a beacon of democracy. But when he tried to stand up to his country's former masters in Moscow, he faced the full wrath of the Russian Army.

Washington could do little but spout angry words as Russian tanks rolled across Georgia's borders last week and its aircraft began dropping bombs on villages and towns. Russia was punishing Georgia for moving into the separatist region of South Ossetia to claim back territory that has been effectively under Russian control since 1992 - but also for turning its back on Moscow and throwing in with the West, seeking to join NATO and cozying up to Washington.

Russian leaders had seethed as Georgia brought in Americans to arm and train its troops. One of the first spots hit by Russian aircraft was a military base outside the capital where more than 1,000 US Marines and soldiers led exercises last month. In ordering a halt to military action on Tuesday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev said Georgia had been punished enough. "The aggressor has been punished and suffered very significant losses. Its military has been disorganised," Mr Medvedev said.

The overwhelming use of force caused alarm in other eastern European countries that aspire to NATO membership, like Ukraine, or have recently joined the alliance. Russia has threatened to target ballistic missiles at them if they allow the US to base a missile defence system on their territory. After the attack on Georgia, the threat is likely to be taken more seriously.

The leaders of Ukraine, Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia rushed to Mr Saakashvili's defence on Tuesday, travelling to Georgia and appearing together at a mass pep rally in the center of Tbilisi, the capital. "We came to fight since our old neighbour (Russia) thinks that it can fight us," Polish President Lech Kaczynski said. "This country thinks that old times will come back, but that time is over. Everyone knows that the next one could be Ukraine, then Poland."

But Georgia's experience shows the US can do little in Russia's neighbourhood when Russia feels its interests are threatened. A US State Department envoy who was in Tbilisi, has all but acknowledged as much.

**Hauma Hamiddha** · 08-14-2008, 08:49 PM

QUOTE(Bodhi @ Aug 14 2008, 03:11 AM)Russia shows who's the boss

The neo-cold war is on. It has long been part of the neo-con agenda whose roots themselves go back to the Trotskyites, who were routed after the soviet take over by Stalin. Dick Cheney is the big man of the neo-cons in DC - follow his statements. The neo-cold war definitely has implications for bhArata. From Georgia we should learn that leaning on the US could make one take a fall. Pakistan is not in the greatest shape either for its long standing interlock with the US. We need to steer clear of being roaded along an anti-Russia path due to our new found links with the US.

08-14-2008, 11:18 PM

Putin is playing nice chess game. Now we are seeing second phase of resource war. Having pupet in Georgia and weak Ukraine will make Russia very strong. Oil itself is making Russia very strong.
Neo-con are happy, new life line to them.

Indian foreign policy is now based on higgest bidder. It means there is no policy. Now India had accepeted Ramu job for US and Russia had already shown them middlefinger despite based on previously reported that Russia main guy lives in Janapth.

India will remain as punch bag for everyone on street.

Change in Government in India will make difference. It will be interesting to see how Mayawati as PM will change whole equation, I think she will be more interested in domestic issue and renaiming Nehru-Gandhi to something else. Change is always good. It will give sometimes for Indians to change trend and rearrange policy.

**acharya** · 08-15-2008, 12:34 AM

Pentagon puts hold on USAF cyber effort
By PAMELA HESS, Associated Press Writer Wed Aug 13, 11:11 PM ET

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon this week delayed and may kill the Air Force's nascent Cyberspace Command, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press. This comes as Russia used a major computer network attack to begin its assault on Georgia.

The service's Cyberspace Command is meant to coordinate computer network defense and, more controversially, offensive attacks on enemy networks. The goal, according to senior officials, is to be able to take control of adversary computer networks to thwart attacks or otherwise influence their behavior_ either with or without that adversary realizing it.

The Russian computer takedown served the same purpose as a traditional air attack on enemy radars and communications antennae, said Michael Wynne, the former U.S. Air Force Secretary who made cyberwar a central mission of the Air Force.

"The Russians just shot down the government command nets so they could cover their incursion," said Wynne. "This was really one of the first aspects of a coordinated military action that had cyber as a lead force, instead of sending in air planes. We need to figure out a way not only see the attack coming but to block it, and in blocking it chase it home."

"I think this is a very poor time to send a signal that the United States is not interested in focusing on warfighting in the cyber domain," Wynne added.

Wynne was fired by Defense Secretary Robert Gates earlier this year after the Air Force's mishandling of nuclear weapons. Wynne, however, told reporters he was fired over differences with Gates on the need for additional F-22 fighter jets, among other matters.

In a memo distributed throughout the Air Force this week, service officials announced that manning and budget transfers for Air Force Cyberspace Command have been suspended, delaying the command's official Oct. 1 start. The Pentagon and the Air Force are expected to make a decision as to the command's fate later this month. The command is temporarily based at Barksdale Air Force Base, La, and will eventually have a headquarters staff of about 500 people, and 8,000 personnel total.

The Air Force considers cyberspace a "domain" for which the service should train and equip forces to defend, as it does airspace. There are about 3 million attempted penetrations of Defense Department networks every day, according to the Air Force.

A senior military commander told the AP, however, that the mission to defend U.S. military networks is better vested in U.S. Strategic Command, which has the military responsibility for cyberspace across all services and commands.

Russia's use of computer tools to blind Georgia may not be the first time it has flexed its cyber powers for geopolitical purposes. In the spring of 2007, Estonian government, financial and media Web sites were incapacitated by a massive denial of service attack for which many in that country blamed Russia. The attack, involving a million computers in 75 countries, coincided with controversy over Estonia's plans to relocate a Soviet-era war memorial.

According to an August "for official use only" intelligence report by the Homeland Security Department, obtained by The Associated Press, there are no effective means to prevent a similar attack on U.S. Web sites connected to the Internet.

**acharya** · 08-16-2008, 12:48 AM

Gorbachev: US 'Blundered' in Caucasus

WASHINGTON, Aug 14--Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has accused the United States of a "serious blunder" in pursuing its interest in the Caucasus region.

He also said the US charge that Russia was committing aggression in Georgia was "not just hypocritical but shows a lack of humanity".

"By declaring the Caucasus, a region that is thousands of miles from the American continent, a sphere of its 'national interest,' the US made a serious blunder," Gorbachev said in an opinion piece for the Washington Post.

He said Russia was not seeking territorial expansion but had "legitimate interests".

Gorbachev said "it was still possible to find a political solution. Hostilities must cease as soon as possible, and urgent steps must be taken to help the victims . . . and to rebuild the devastated towns and villages".

Meanwhile, Russia's foreign minister criticized on Wednesday comments made by the US president on fighting in Georgia's breakaway South Ossetia as being based on unverified reports.

Sergei Lavrov also said Washington has to choose between cooperation with Russia and Georgian leaders who he described as a "virtual project" for the United States.

US President George W. Bush said on Wednesday Russia must observe a ceasefire in the separatist province and said he would send military aircraft and naval vessels with humanitarian aid to Georgia.

Bush also said he was alarmed by reports that Russia had blocked Georgia's Black Sea port of Poti.

"I listened to George Bush's statement ... and was surprised ... the facts he cited are untrue," Lavrov said, echoing earlier denials by Russian officials that Russian troops were not advancing on Georgia's capital Tbilisi.

"We understand that the US is concerned about the fate of this project, but the United States will have to choose between defending its prestige over a virtual project or real partnership which requires joint action," the minister said

But what Bush failed to mention, Lavrov said, was the arming of Georgia in recent years, including by the US, which also trained Georgian troops.

He said Moscow had warned Washington that it was "a dangerous game."

**acharya** · 08-16-2008, 12:49 AM

Russia teaches US a lesson

In this war, Russia won, Georgia lost, and US was resoundingly defeated
Orly Azoulay
Published: 08.13.08, 23:29 / Israel Opinion
Moscow's decision to flex its muscle vis-Ã -vis Georgia was meant to signal to the West, and particularly to Washington, not to meddle in Russia's backyard. Even before Georgia's invasion into South Ossetia, President Saakashvili was in Russia's sights. He was too American for its taste.

Saakashvili was certain he has a trusted friend in the White House; one who would come to his aid and offer significant help during times of crisis. This is what Washington made him understand. He played his role in the alliance fully when he sent his troops to take part in the Iraq War, while maintaining and securing the oil pipeline passing through his country.

War Zone
Bush: Russia's actions raise serious questions / Yizhak Benhorin
US president delivers special statement, says he is bothered by reports that Russia has been violating ceasefire agreement; Bush says US 'insists' that Georgia's sovereignty and territorial integrity be respected Yet when the moment of truth arrived, once Saakashvili needed Washington's help, he mostly got nice words.

President Bush and his Administration were helpless in the face of the Russia's signal that it won't allow anyone to gain a foothold in territories under its influence - just like President Kennedy did not allow the Soviet Union to keep its missiles in Cuba.

Bush has a secretary of state who is an expert on the former Soviet Union, yet she was apparently preoccupied with the problems in Iraq and with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and failed to explain to the president that the Cold War is over; Bush, who does not have a deep grasp of foreign policy, failed to internalize the fact that a new world order has emerged.

Bush's unloaded gun
Russia waited for Bush around the corner: Moscow is the big winner in the war with Georgia, if only because it taught Bush and his Administration a lesson on ties between states. Had Bush realized there's a new deal in the world, he would not have insisted on deploying his missiles in the Czech Republic and in Poland. He would have also realized that he should step back on the Kosovo issue if he wants the Russians to cooperate with him on Iran.

Bush's threats that the Washington-Moscow relationship was at risk were received amusingly in Russia. The Russians knew well that he was threatening them with an unloaded gun. Washington needs Russia more than ever if it wishes to impose severe sanctions on Iran.

Russia will likely soon boost its pressure on former Soviet states and may even be able to topple Georgia's president and replace him with a puppet regime backed by the Kremlin. One needs to be an eternal optimist in order to think that now, with the US weakness exposed, Poland and the Czech Republic would agree to deploy American missiles on their soil.

In this war, Russia won, Georgia lost, and the United States was resoundingly defeated. From now on, all former Soviet states would know that at best they can expect pretty words from Washington. Officials in Iraq and Afghanistan may also start thinking that they cannot rely on the US. Perhaps officials in Israel will start thinking twice as well.

ramana · 08-16-2008, 02:24 AM

Need to see if Georgia was used as a gambit by US. In chess one sacrifices a pawn to achieve greater success. Was the greater objective to make Europe realize Russia was still aorund as a bogeyman? Was it to make the former Warsaw pact members rush into US arms? We dont know yet.

In addition to Texmati, Darawaza is also a Soviet expert. And they all didnt see the Russian reaction?

08-16-2008, 02:36 AM

QUOTENeed to see if Georgia was used as a gambit by US. In chess one sacrifices a pawn to achieve greater success.
Yes, Today Poland and US signed anti-missile battery in Poland, which initially Poland was resisting it.
Today Deputy Army Chief said, Poland is now nuclear attack target.

Europe was slow or against or induction of Ukraine in Nato, now I think US can push them to do so.
US is trying to twist European Elitist and telling them that Russian tiger is alive.
US need to sell defense contract and make economy grow.

**acharya** · 08-16-2008, 02:41 AM

QUOTEEuropean joke is "Heaven is a place where the police are English; the chefs are Italian; the car mechanics are German; the lovers are French and it's all organized by the Swiss. Hell is a place where the police are German; the chefs are English; the car mechanics are French; the lovers are Swiss and it's all organized by the Italians."

An oft-quoted refrain has that Americans think that 100 years ago is ancient history, while Europeans think 100 kilometers is another country.

08-16-2008, 02:43 AM

Russia: Poland risks attack because of US missiles QUOTEPoland and the United States on Thursday signed a deal for Poland to accept a missile interceptor base as part of a system the United States says is aimed at blocking attacks by rogue nations. Moscow, however, feels it is aimed at Russia's missile force.

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike â 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.

He added, in clear reference to the agreement, that Russia's military doctrine sanctions the use of nuclear weapons "against the allies of countries having nuclear weapons if they in some way help them." Nogovitsyn that would include elements of strategic deterrence systems, he said, according to Interfax.

08-16-2008, 02:48 AM

QUOTEIn addition to Texmati, Darawaza is also a Soviet expert. And they all didnt see the Russian reaction? 
Yes, special forces was inside Georgia.
For last two days I am listening Rush and Hannity, lot of callers gave real good insight. Lot of assest is inside Georgia.

08-16-2008, 02:54 AM

Couple of things I learnt, what is going on, in place of my commentary I will post some link, start joining dots.

Green Berets now in Georgia: U.S. Special Forces are training Georgian soldiers to fight radical Muslims. The mission could benefit other U.S. interests as well

US military advisers arrive in Georgia

Russia Begins Troop Deployment in Georgian Border RegionQUOTEBy VOA News
01 May 2008
Russia says it has begun deploying new military units in the Georgian breakaway region of Abkhazia, despite strong Georgian objections and NATO concerns


Georgia resumes shelling the South Ossetian capitalQUOTEThe fighting in South Osstian capital, Tskhinvali, is continuing with Georgian troops once again entering the city. There are reports that Georgian Special Forces have been throwing grenades into basements where women and children are sheltering.

Russia orders halt to war, U.S. cancels exercise QUOTEThe conflict over the separatist province of South Ossetia, which seeks independence and threw off Georgian rule in the 1990s, has spooked markets and rattled the West.

Login




Remember me Lost Password?