Energy Matters: Fate of Armenian power grid on agenda of Yerevan-Moscow relations

July 1, 2015 By administrator

By Naira Hayrumyan
ArmeniaNow correspondent

Amid continuing street protests against rising electricity tariffs in Yerevan, the fate of the Armenian power grid remains a key issue both in the sphere of Armenia’s internal political developments as well as on the agenda of Armenian-Russian relations. The Electric Networks of Armenia, the current operator of the grid, is owned by the Russian company, Inter RAO, but periodically information appears in the press to suggest that there are intentions to sell it.

The Russian newspaper Kommersant writes that among the likely buyers are two Russian businessmen of Armenian origin, including Samvel Karapetyan, the owner of Tashir Group. However, analysts in media do not rule out the possibility that the power grid will be bought by American or European companies.

Government officials in Yerevan do not comment on such a possibility. Minister-chief of government staff David Harutyunyan says one should wait for the results of the audit, but he does not rule out the probability of the company’s sale either.

It is clear, however, that the further vector of Armenia’s development may hinge on the fate of the energy system. Officially, without abandoning friendship with Russia, Armenia may set up partnership relations with Western companies in the energy sphere that will help “diversify” the South Caucasus nation’s foreign policy. At present, this course is clearly pro-Russian and, as some critics claim, it is leading to the loss of sovereignty.

Armenian Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamyan says a concept of energy security till 2036 is being developed at present. He speaks about large projects in this sphere, but does not disclose details.

Visiting Armenia these days is Masood Ahmed, the Director of the Middle East and Central Asia Department at the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Media inquired from Ahmed on Tuesday whether the IMF was familiar with the projects mentioned by the Armenian prime minister. He said that Abrahamyan had told him about those projects, too, but added, “It would be better if we got acquainted with them and analyzed them.”

The IMF official said that in the next three or four years a worsening situation is expected in the region, and, in particular, in Russia. And in order to ensure high indices it is necessary to attract large investments and remove barriers for investors.

He advised that the government in Yerevan pay attention to the opportunities that are being offered to the Armenian side. The lifting of Western sanctions against Iran, according to Ahmed, can attract also the Iranian capital to Armenia.

Head of the IMF mission to Armenia Mark Horton noted that the Electric Networks of Armenia had been sold to Russia under the Equities for Debt deal. If they had been sold through a tender, he said, the management would be more effective.

Horton noted that the energy system of Armenia needs large investments, because the system is getting worn out, with the main task being to build a new nuclear power plant. “In eight years, it will have to be replaced, and it will cost about $5 billion. It will be difficult to find that money. Therefore, strong partnership will need to be formed or Armenia will need to look for other options,” he said.

Horton did not elaborate as to what he implied by strong partnership. But it is clear that Armenia has been unsuccessful in forming “strong partnership” with the Russian companies that own Armenia’s energy system today. With the highest tariffs in post-Soviet space set in Armenia, Russian companies have been reluctant to invest in the development of the Armenian system, carrying out inefficient management.

Whether strong partnership with Western or even Iranian companies is possible remains to be seen, but it is clear that without “foreign-policy diversification” the Armenian energy system may find itself in a deep crisis that is only emerging today.

Voice of America: Serious rift is developing between Russia and Turkey

May 9, 2015 By administrator

Article by Dorian Jones, published on the website of Voice of America:

A few months ago, bilateral relations between Turkey and Russia were on the upswing, buoyed by a close bond between their two presidents. Now, there is speculation that a serious rift is developing between the two countries, although powerful economic ties remain a unifying force. Fueling the speculation was President Vladimir Putin’s backing of Armenia’s genocide claims against Turkey, along with Ankara’s refusal to attend Moscow’s World War II commemorations and intensifying rhetoric by both sides.

Semih Idiz, diplomatic columnist for Turkey’s Taraf newspaper and the Al Monitor website, said there has been a remarkable reversal in bilateral relations.
“Until quite recently they were shown as exemplary relations,” he said. “But they seemed to have hit rock bottom at the moment. And the best indication of that is Mr. Erdogan refusing to go to the May victory celebrations in Moscow. This whole impression that somehow Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Putin are bosom buddies — I think that has been shattered at the moment.”

In December, Ankara gave Putin a full state welcome, during which the Russian president described Turkey as a strategic partner. During that visit, Putin canceled a natural gas pipeline running through Bulgaria to Europe and announced plans to build a new pipeline through Turkey called “Turkish Stream.”

Volkan Ozdemir, an analyst for the Ankara-based Institute for Energy Markets and Policies, said such projects, along with wider trade, will be safe from the rising bilateral tensions. “I don’t see any relation between these political tensions and natural gas pipeline projects or deals including Turkish Stream,” he said. “A Turkish and Russian bilateral relation is based on mutual economy interests, not strategic alliance. Russia is the first partner of Turkish imports and on the other hand, Russia serves as a big market for Turkish goods.”

Soli Ozel, an International relations expert at Istanbul’s Kadir Has University, said Ankara’s latest spat with Moscow has exposed the unbalanced nature of the relationship. “The Russians have not been at all forthcoming in terms of respecting where Turkey has interests,” said Ozel. “So I don’t see the Russians being particularly careful about not upsetting, offending or whatever the Turks, whereas the Turks have been usually pretty careful. This is, in my judgment, a relation of unequals.”

US urges Greece to reject Turkish Stream, focus on Western-backed project

May 9, 2015 By administrator

Washington is pushing Athens not to abandon a Western-backed Trans-Adriatic Pipeline (TAP) project in favor of the Russia-proposed Turkish Stream, a pipeline that would bring Russian gas to Europe via Greece.

Greece should consider joining the TAP, which will link Europe to natural gas supplies from Azerbaijan via Turkey, Greece, Albania and the Adriatic Sea, top US energy diplomat Amos Hochstein said after talks with Greek officials, Reuters reported on Friday.

“Turkish Stream doesn’t exist. There is no consortium to build it, there is no agreement to build it. So let’s put that to the side, and wait until there’s some movement on that and see if that’s relevant or not relevant and in the meantime focus on what’s important – the pipeline we already agreed to, that Greece already agreed to”, Hochstein claimed. He didn’t give any details on the meeting with Greek officials, saying that they “more agreed than disagreed.”

Greek Energy Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis, however, responded that the country would continue supporting the Russian gas pipeline.

“We are backing this project because we think it will be useful for our country,” the minister said in a statement after the talks.

The US envoy said that the US position was the best way for Europe to secure its energy supply is by diversifying its sources and ensuring competition. He also added that having other gas sources would “help with price, reliability of supply, and that will help take the political element out of the supply system.”

Meanwhile, on Thursday Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly told Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras during a phone conversation that Russia was ready to consider providing financial support for Greek companies that join the Russian pipeline project. Tsipras confirmed his country’s readiness to participate in the Turkish Stream project.

Earlier in April during the Greek PM’s official visit to Moscow, Putin and Tsipras agreed to collaborate in the construction of a new pipeline (http://rt.com/business/247973-turkish-stream-greece-hub/ ), to be part of the Turkish Stream project, which would deliver Russian gas to Europe via Greece. The Russian president said at that time that by joining the project Greece could become one of the main power distribution centers in Europe, and earn hundreds of millions of euros annually from gas transit fees. The Greek PM voiced interest in the proposal, claiming that the project could be a way to boost jobs and investment in the Greek economy. Cash-stripped Greece can also use revenues from potential joint projects with Russia to pay off debt to international creditors.

In December, Gazprom’s CEO Aleksey Miller announced a plan to construct the Turkish Stream pipeline, replacing the South Stream project. Russia was forced to withdraw from South Stream due to EU objections over its construction. South Stream was supposed to connect pipelines running under the Black Sea to a network in Eastern Europe, with Bulgaria as the entry point.

The Turkish Stream pipeline will have an annual capacity of 63 billion cubic meters. Around 14 billion cubic meters of gas are to be supplied to Turkey, with the rest being pumped to a hub on the Turkish-Greek border for customers in Europe.

Why Armenia turned to Russia instead of the West

May 8, 2015 By administrator

By Fred Hiatt

Armenia’s President Serzh Sargsyan speaks during a news conference in Yerevan, April 22, 2015. (REUTERS/David Mdzinarishvili)

Not long before Ukraine signed the agreement with the European Union that precipitated a crisis with Russia that continues to unfold, Armenia, Ukraine’s small neighbor to the south, made a different decision.

Following a discussion with Russian leader Vladimir Putin, Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan announced that his country would affiliate for trade purposes with the Eurasian Economic Union — Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan — rather than the European Union.

Sargsyan, who is in Washington this week for events commemorating the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide, offered a practical explanation when I asked him about the alignment during his visit to The Post on Thursday.

“Armenian cognac can’t really be sold in Paris,” Sargsyan, speaking through a translator, said. “But it does well in the Russian Federation.”

In other words, he said, he took a “pragmatic decision.” One-third of Armenia’s exports go to Russia and its partners, including agricultural products on which thousands of jobs depend. In addition, Russia sells natural gas to landlocked, energy-poor Armenia “at quite a good price.”

The president stressed that Armenia still pursues good relations with the European Union. But a free-trade agreement with Europe would not have delivered much, he said, especially as long as Armenia’s border with Turkey remains blocked. Armenia’s economy would have to evolve over ten to fifteen years to take advantage of a free-trade regime with Europe. “But in the meantime there is a need to survive,” he said, “and people are not ready to suffer during this long term.”

Armenians are suffering now from the rift between Russia and the West, he said, in three ways: Armenian exports to Russia, Russian investment in Armenia and remittances from Armenians working in Russia — which account for one-fifth of Armenia’s GDP — all are down. This hurts in a country of 3 million people that in 2013 ranked 152nd in the world in income per person.

But, he added, “had we not acceded to the Eurasian Union, we would have faced more painful problems.”

Sargsyan said he will not be seeing President Obama on this trip, but he was diplomatic on the president’s refusal once again, in deference to Turkish objections, to use the word “genocide” to describe the crimes against Armenians in the Ottoman Empire 100 years ago.

“I think had he said it, it could have been useful,” Sargsyan said. “The United States should have put values over interests.”

Fred Hiatt is the editorial page editor of The Post. He writes editorials for the newspaper and a biweekly column that appears on Mondays. He also contributes to the PostPartisan blog.

Armenia must be concerned over its ally’s Russia closer military cooperation with potential enemies – experts

May 6, 2015 By administrator

The press service of Rosoboronexport, Russia’s largest arms supplier, has announced Russia’s intention to increase supplies of arms and military equipment to Turkey.

In an interview with Tert.am, Karen Vrtanesyan, coordinator of the razm.info website, said that Russian arms producers are seeking markets and agree to cooperate with any of them because of cutthroat competition.

“Russia is cooperating with Turkey in many areas. As to the reasons why our strategic ally is cooperating with our enemies – this is our problem. We have to show our strategic ally threats of – and our discontent with – its cooperation with our potential enemies. I can also say that Turkey often announces its military cooperation with certain states, but cooperation is not actually established,” Mr Vrtanesyan said.

For example, Turkey announced its cooperation with China, but NATO’s sharp reaction has so far prevented such cooperation despite the issue being often discussed.

“The China case may have made western suppliers make better offers to Turkey. The same may happen in Russia’s case,” he said.

M Vrtanesyan is sure that Russian-Turkey military cooperation is of purely economic nature as offers and demand are not everyday phenomena on the military market.

As to what attitude the Armenian side should show, Mr Vrtanesyan said:

“It should be negative in any case. Turkey purchasing sophisticated arms is not in Armenia’s interests at all.”

Political scientist Manvel Sargsyan notes that Armenia cannot remain unconcerned about Russia’s closer cooperation with Turkey or Azerbaijan in any areas as history has proved it has always been done at Armenia’s expense.

Mr Sargsyan is sure, however, that it is a political issue rather than an economic one.

“This is a purely political matter, while economy is merely a mechanism arousing interest, and the sides are seeking to employ it. On the other hand, nothing more appears to remain for the states to offer, and they are offering arms to one another. Offering and purchasing arms has become a means for states to settle relations and impose their own will on others.”

Museum Exhibits Armenian Artifacts a Century after Rescue by Russians

May 6, 2015 By administrator

BY HARUT SASSOUNIAN

HARUT SASSOUNIAN

On my way back from the Centennial events in Yerevan last week, I stopped in Saint Petersburg, Russia, to attend the inauguration of an unprecedented exhibit of Armenian artifacts rescued by Russian ethnographers from Western Armenia during the Genocide.

Here is the incredible background story of that unique exhibit. In 1916, during the Russian military campaign which temporarily liberated Western Armenia from Ottoman Turkey, Saint Petersburg’s Russian Museum of Ethnography sought Czar Nicholas II’s permission to dispatch a scholarly expedition to the Van area to collect Armenian artifacts from imminent loss. The Czar gave immediate consent in his handwriting: “Approve. Need to hurry.”

A small team of ethnographers led by Alexander Miller arrived in Van on June 10, 1916, after a lengthy and perilous journey. During their two-week stay, they managed to purchase from local inhabitants a total of 513 objects: 396 Armenian, 110 Assyrian, 5 Kurdish, and 2 Turkish. The artifacts included traditional Armenian costumes, jewelry, and carpets from the City of Van, the towns of Alur, Bitlis, Moks, Mush, Shatakh, and neighboring villages. During their visit, the scholars took 60 photographs of natural landscapes, historical monuments, buildings, and some residents. All of these materials were hauled back to Saint Petersburg under the protection of the Russian military.

Surprisingly, these painstakingly-collected cultural objects remained in the Russian museum’s basement for 100 years and were never displayed! No one seemed to remember their existence, until two years ago, when Armenia’s Consul General Vardan Hakopyan in Saint Petersburg learned about these artifacts and informed the authorities in Armenia, local community leaders, and the Armenian Jewelry Association.

After extensive joint efforts between the Armenian Jewelers Foundation and the Russian Museum of Ethnography, the items that were kept in storage for a century were finally put on display in Saint Petersburg last week. The Jewelers Foundation and the Russian Museum published an impressive catalog titled, “Treasures of Western Armenia,” which showcased the artifacts collected from the region of Van in 1916, before its recapture and genocidal destruction by Ottoman Turkish forces.

The exhibit was officially opened on April 27, 2015, at the Russian Museum of Ethnography. It was attended by Vigen Sargsyan, the Armenian President’s Chief of Staff, Olga Kazanskaya, Vice Governor of Saint Petersburg, Vladimir Grusman, Director of Russian Museum of Ethnography, Pierre Akkelian, Chairman of Armenian Jewelers Foundation, Gagik Gevorkyan, President of Armenian Jewelry Association, and Karen Mkrtchyan, the Armenian community leader of Saint Petersburg.

Not surprisingly, after it became known that the Museum of Ethnography had in its possession valuable artifacts from the Van region, the Consulate of Turkey in Saint Petersburg contacted the Museum claiming that these items are the property of the Turkish Republic and sought their return. The Museum’s leadership rejected the Turkish request as the objects were purchased from their owners in 1916.

It is ironic that Turkish diplomats had the audacity to request these Armenian artifacts, after having killed their owners, burned their homes, and stolen their possessions! One would hope that the Turkish government would be foolish enough to go ahead and file a lawsuit against the Russian Museum, trying to claim these items. Such a lawsuit would further publicize Turkish responsibility for the Armenian Genocide, the looting of Armenian cultural objects, and occupation of their ancestral homeland!

One hundred years later, another expedition should be dispatched to Turkish museums and libraries to locate and recover all Armenian artifacts, manuscripts and other valuable items plundered during the Genocide. Lawsuits should be filed against all Turkish institutions holding such Armenian materials. If local Turkish courts reject the demand, Armenians should then appeal to the European Court of Human Rights in order to recover these long lost and precious fragments of Armenian cultural heritage. Such a legal effort would be yet another means of seeking restitution for the massive Genocide-era losses suffered by Armenians a century ago!

The Russian Museum’s remarkable exhibit should go on tour to Armenian communities around the world: Athens, Beirut, Berlin, Boston, Buenos Aires, London, Los Angeles, Montreal, Moscow, New York, Paris, Tehran, Toronto, San Francisco, San Paulo, Sydney, Yerevan and many other cities. Let the world see a small sampling of the vast quantities of valuable cultural artifacts that the Armenian nation lost during the Genocide in addition to the 1.5 million human souls.

Turkey not a state for Russia, United States to establish friendship with – Ara Papyan

April 28, 2015 By administrator

In an interview with Tert.am Head of the Modus Vivendi center Ara Papyan commented on the fact that Turkish President Recep Erdogan reminded his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin of the Crimea.

He noted that Turkey does not forgive when someone treads on its foot, whereas “but for Russian Bolsheviks, Turkey would certainly not have its present-day borders.”

As regards recognition of the Armenian Genocide, Mr Papyan said that Turkey is more afraid of its own society. Report tert.am

“If they do, with half of Turkey’s population not considering themselves Turks, the other half will develop a complex, and Turkey may prove unable to stand the blow,” he said.

The Turkish president stated that, before speaking of the Armenian Genocide, Russia should recall its actions in the Crimea and Ukraine.

“In Turkey’s policy we see attempts to draw parallels and comparisons. Their being right or wrong does not make Turkey’s guilt less serious. The issue of the Crimea is entirely different than the Armenian Genocide. Erdogan and Turkey have given different hints about other acts of genocide, telling Americans that they had exterminated Indians. This is evidence of Turkey’s policy being not serious. And both Russia and the United States should draw conclusions, namely, Turkey is not a state they can establish friendship with. Turkey is not a reliable partner. Let us compare what Russia did to us and to them – both good and bad. The reason for the loss of Armenian statehood and territory in 1920-1922 was Russians supplies of weapons and gold to Kemalists. And but for Russian Bolsheviks, Turkey would certainly not have its present-day borders, whereas Armenia’s territory would be much larger. However, since we have common strategic interests, we forgive many things. But we can see Turkey’s reaction. The only thing Putin did is that he arrived in Armenia and did not even use the word ‘genocide’ in his official speech.”

Armenian FM Edward Nalbandian stated that Turkey’s accusations against Russia, Germany, France and the Vatican do not at all prove that all of them are “bad.” Turkey must be well aware of the situation it is in now.

“I think that statements by President Erdogan and others are intended for the domestic audience… Admitting the Armenian Genocide is much more dangerous in terms of shaking Turkey inside. If they do, with half of Turkey’s population not considering themselves Turks, the other half will develop a complex, and Turkey may prove unable to stand the blow.”

RUSSIA Release of white balloons symbolizing the souls of the innocent victims of the genocide of the Armenian people in the center of Moscow

April 21, 2015 By administrator

The members of the Armenian diaspora living in Moscow throwing white balloons symbolizing the souls of the innocent victims of the genocide of the Armenian people in the center of Moscow, Russia, April 19, 2015.

Greek PM to visit Russia for talks with Putin in April

March 17, 2015 By administrator

Greek Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras will visit Moscow on April 8 after being invited to talks by Russian President Vladimir Putin, a Greek government official said on Tuesday, March 17, according to Reuters.

Greece’s government has previously said Putin had invited Tsipras to visit Moscow on May 9 and it was not immediately clear if that trip had been changed. It would be Tsipras’s first official visit to Moscow since being elected in January.

Tsipras’s left-wing government ruffled feathers among European partners in its initial days in power with comments suggesting Greece might not support EU policy on Russia. That prompted speculation that Greece might look to Moscow for financial aid to stave off bankruptcy, though Athens rejects the idea.

The World on the brink of WWIII

March 14, 2015 By administrator

By Edward Lozansky, Sputnik

As Washington continues to sound its war drums despite the second Minsk ceasefire, it’s worth asking why NATO continued to remain such a bellicose organization after the end of the Cold War, and what its objectives are if peace isn’t enough.

It so happens that the fate of the world is now being decided in Ukraine, not so much by the Ukrainians themselves as by the US, EU and Russia, whose geopolitical interests have clashed in this region. The talk about WWIII figures increasingly often in the media and conversations among the scholars and general public. Politicians try to allay their compatriots’ fears, but their vociferous statements merely boost this scenario.

The Minsk 2 Agreement offers at least a slim chance of moving away from a military confrontation that would destroy a good deal of the northern hemisphere, if not indeed the entire world. Yet those who view this agreement as Putin’s triumph are not at all willing to pressure Kiev into abiding by it.

There is no mystery here. The bloody chaos in Ukraine was devised not to help its people, but to weaken Russia geopolitically and topple the current leadership while mouthing noble slogans of promoting freedom, democracy and other fine Western values. So in view of those who started this mess as long as these goals are not achieved the war in Ukraine must go on even if it may escalate into an open conflict between Russia and the West. The hawks, or the War Party, do not realize that their policies contravene America’s long-term strategic interests, and are turning an important potential ally into a dangerous foe.

It did not have to be that way. After the collapse of communism and the Soviet Union’s disintegration, the Russian elite and a vast majority of the public were only too eager to join the Western world. In 1990 President George Herbert Walker Bush spoke of “a Europe whole and free” and of “the new security arch from Vancouver to Vladivostok”.

According to many political observers the roots of the current crisis lie in the NATO expansion which took place after collapse of USSR. It is true that there is no signed document to confirm Bush’s promise to Gorbachev that NATO would not expand eastward. However, there are lots of reliable and trustworthy witnesses who offer convincing evidence to the effect that Washington broke at least its oral pledge to Moscow.

According to then-US Ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock, who took part in both the Bush-Gorbachev early-December 1989 summit in Malta and the Shevardnadze-Baker discussions in early February 1990: “The language used was absolute, and the entire negotiation was in the framework of a general agreement that there would be no use of force by the Soviets and no ‘taking advantage’ by the US … I don’t see how anybody could view the subsequent expansion of NATO as anything but ‘taking advantage,’ particularly since, by then, Russia was hardly a credible threat.”

There are other reliable witnesses of those historic events, for example, James Baker, Secretary of State in that period, whose records on this matter have recently been declassified in the Berlin Archives.

In any case there is little doubt that it was Bill Clinton and his administration that moved sharply away from a rapprochement with Russia toward a deep divide and dangerous confrontation.

George Kennan, one of the most distinguished of American diplomats, later told the New York Times that he believed the expansion of NATO was “the beginning of a new cold war…I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the Founding Fathers of this country turn over in their graves.”

All together 19 US Senators, including John Ashcroft (R-MO), Tom Harkin (D-IA), Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Patrick Leahy (D-VT), Daniel Patrick Moynihan (D-NY), Harry Reid (D-NV), Arlen Specter (R-PA) and John Warner (R-VA) voted against the bill permitting the expansion of NATO. Some of them said the expansion would “dilute NATO’s self-defense mission, antagonize Russia, jeopardize several Russian-American arms-control negotiations and draw a new dividing line — a new Iron Curtain — across Europe.” Republican Senator Jon Kyl was the only one absent during the vote.

“We’ll be back on a hair-trigger,” said Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, a New York Democrat, warning that enlargement would threaten much worse than a new cold war. “We’re talking about nuclear war.”

Nevertheless NATO expansion proceeded apace, even though Russia was devastated by the 1990s economic crisis. Its unexpected recovery in the 2000s caught its opponents unawares, and George W. Bush continued carrying on with NATO enlargement and staging “color revolutions” in former Soviet republics.

Barack Obama started his term with some hopeful “reset” initiatives but the positive trend did not last too long.

The current, most sweeping global crisis erupted because the European Union with US blessing chose to rupture centuries-old historical, economic and family ties between Russia and Ukraine, using the same old slogans of promoting Western values.

Today it is abundantly clear that the Ukrainian people have not benefited from this policy which the February 2014 violent coup in Kiev. At the same time majority of the people in South-East Ukraine had different ideas about their future. When Maidan activists used violence to declare their desire to join Europe, whatever that means, people in Donetsk and Lugansk, given their history, demography, family ties and geographical location wanted to use something similar to Canadian and Austrian experience while maintaining close relations with Russia. They did not use specific slogans to that effect but it was pretty obvious due to the federative system and the two official languages in Canada as well as Austria’s nonaligned status.

For that they were shelled with heavy artillery, bombed from airplanes with tens of thousands of killed and wounded.

The infrastructure of this area is destroyed; there are hundreds of thousands of refugees and on top of that the world now indeed is teetering on the brink of a new disaster, possibly even nuclear. Not a single word of condemnation of Kiev by Washington or Brussels for doing that, so much for Western values.

It may be worth recalling that in the most dangerous periods of the Cold War the risks of military confrontation were defused by the Administrations of Eisenhower, Kennedy and Reagan. Yet there is no sign of this kind of awareness and responsibility among the Democrats or Republicans who are all trying to outdo one another as the biggest saber-rattlers against Russia.

There are the voices of Party of Peace among Americans and Europeans but so far they are obviously overwhelmed by the Party of War. Does it mean that the Russia – West military conflict is inevitable?