Kyiv, Tbilisi to intensify cooperation in trade and economic sector

Ukraine and Georgia have agreed to intensify cooperation in trade and economic relations by establishing the systematic work of an intergovernmental commission on economic cooperation, which is to meet this autumn, the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry's information policy department has reported.

Agreement on this was reached at talks between Ukrainian and Georgian Foreign Ministers Kostiantyn Hryschenko and Grigol Vashadze in Tbilisi on Friday.

"There is currently a need to make our bilateral relations more pragmatic and reinforce the political dialog with long-term economic projects. Therefore, we discussed the issue of holding a meeting of the joint intergovernmental commission on economic cooperation this autumn. We discussed issues in transport, energy, and the implementation of specific projects," Hryschenko said.

The sides also exchanged views on cooperation between the two states and the European Union, including the need to make the EU's Eastern Partnership initiative pragmatic.

In the context of deepening cooperation within international organizations, Hryschenko and Vashadze agreed to strengthen cooperation within the UN, the OSCE and the Council of Europe.

The head of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers, Hryschenko, also noted the successful development of Georgia's cooperation with this organization and confirmed his readiness to fully support the efforts of the Council of Europe to provide assistance to Georgia in the reform process.

After the negotiations, the sides signed a plan of consultations between the foreign ministries of Ukraine and Georgia for 2011-2012.

Saakashvili calls Georgia to war against Russia

President Mikheil Saakashvili has called on Georgia to prepare for “total defence” against Russia. “The goal of the enemy is to gain control over Georgia,” he said at the Georgian Ministry of Defence on Thursday, and exhorted his countrymen, “to burn every square metre under their feet.”

Before the war in 2008 the Gerogian army’s first duty was peacekeeping, the president said. But now the most important task before them was to halt the advance into Georgia, followed by the liberation of territories including Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Speaking live on national television he told Georgians on Wednesday that the leaders of his armed forces should prepare not only total defence but also a sustainable defence. This should include long-term courses at military school and continued military reforms, he said. He added that Afghanistan was a good training ground for Georgian forces and that he wants to send more soldiers there.

“The goal of our enemy is to gain control over Georgia and he is working intensively on this task,”georgia reported. “Our final goal is the complete de-occupation of Georgian territory.”

“He wants to send messages to the world that Russia is the aggressor,” Masha Lipman of the Carnegie Centre said. “That Russia is ready to attack Georgia at any point…He is alarmed and he wants everybody else to be alarmed.”

She added that Russia did not attack Georgia the first time and that it would not do so this time, “I can make no sense of it whatsoever.”

Georgia thanks Ukraine for statements in support of its territorial integrity

Georgia has expressed gratitude to Ukraine's leadership for their statements concerning Georgian territorial integrity.

"I would like to thank Ukrainian President [Viktor Yanukovych] and Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kostiantyn Hryschenko for the statements they recently made with regard to Georgia's territorial integrity," Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze said at a briefing after talks held with Ukraine's foreign minister in Kyiv on Thursday.

He noted that this step by Ukraine once again confirmed its stabilizing role in the region and the fact "that the country stands watch over international law."

Georgian FM To Pay First Visit To Yanukovych-Led Ukraine

TBILISI, Georgia -- Georgian Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze will meet with his Ukrainian counterpart Kostyantyn Hryshchenko and other top officials during a visit to Ukraine on June 10-11, a spokesman for the Georgian Foreign Ministry has said.
This will be the first visit by the Georgian minister to Kiev since Viktor Yanukovych became Ukrainian president in February.

The two former Soviet republics have developed close relations under former Ukrainian president Viktor Yushchenko. Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili has supported Yushchenko during the pro-Western 2004 Orange Revolution, which brought the former president to power.

Ukraine has refused to follow Russia's suit and recognize the independence of former Georgian republics of Abkhazia and South Ossetia following the Russian-Georgian war over the latter in August 2008. The war began when Georgia attacked South Ossetia in an attempt to bring it back under central control.

After Yanukovych won presidential elections in February, Tbilisi said it would maintain friendly relations with Kiev regardless who would rule the country.

Both Georgia and Yushchenko-led Ukraine have sought NATO membership. However, Ukraine has recently dropped its bid to join the alliance. Last week, the Ukrainian parliament passed in the first reading a bill that stipulates Ukraine's status of non-alignment with international blocs.

Did Georgian Leadership Try To Influence Ukraine Presidential Election?

PRAGUE, Czech Republic -- Several prominent Georgian oppositionists have expressed concern at the political implications of two telephone conversations, posted first on Ukrainian then on Georgian websites, which could be construed as evidence that the Georgian leadership sought to influence the January 17 Ukrainian presidential election to secure a victory for Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.
Relations between Tymoshenko and Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili have been haunted by rumors of a torrid love affair between them. Saakashvili denied those rumors as early as 2005, but that did not prevent the production of a movie chronicling the alleged romance.The first conversation posted online was apparently between Saakashvili and Tymoshenko, who thanks him for sending a team of election observers. Saakashvili's administration responded on January 15 to that recording by denying that Georgia supports any of the presidential candidates.The second conversation purportedly took place on January 14 between all-powerful Georgian Interior Minister Vano Merabishvili and Givi Targamadze, chairman of the Georgian Committee on Defense and Security, who at the time of the conversation was in Donetsk. Merabishvili tells Targamadze that Akhalaya (Georgia's defense minister) has promised to provide personnel; Targamadze replies that they have already arrived in Donetsk. Merabishvili then orders Targamadze to impress upon his Ukrainian contacts the need to provide air transport for additional Georgian observers prior to the second round of voting.The Georgian authorities have not formally denied the authenticity of either conversation. Targamadze was quoted on January 20 as saying "I think Ukraine now needs to be focused on a more important issue [meaning the second round] rather than wasting time listening to my mobile phone conversations."The Ukrainian Central Election Commission (CEC) refused on January 11 to register 2,011 would-be election observers from Georgia, having already registered a total of 3,149 from other countries. Targamadze was quoted as saying that CEC members from presidential candidate Viktor Yanukovych's Party of Regions were behind that refusal, and that the 300-plus Georgian election observers already in Donetsk were being hindered in their activities.The Yulia Tymoshenko bloc (BYuT) appealed the CEC decision to the Kyiv Appellate Court on January 13 and demanded that the Georgian contingent be accredited. The BYuT subsequently alleged that members of Yanukovych's campaign staff beat up two Georgian journalists in Donetsk on January 16.Saakashvili told journalists on January 18, the day after the election, that the dispatch of 2,000 Georgian election observers was agreed in advance "with all Ukrainian political parties" and that the objective was "to express solidarity and provide assistance to Ukraine," not to "interfere in politics."But prominent Georgian opposition politicians have argued that whatever Saakashvili's intent, his apparent meddling in the Ukrainian presidential ballot could negatively affect relations between the two countries. Eka Beselia of the Movement for a United Georgia argued that in any other country, an interior minister or prominent parliamentarian would have resigned if such damaging allegations came to light.Former Foreign Minister Salome Zourabichvili argued that "it is not the business of an interior minister to deal with the sending of election observers -- assuming that the persons in question were bona fide observers" and not, as some have alleged, Georgian Interior Ministry personnel.Former Georgian Prime Minister Zurab Noghaideli, for his part, was quoted by Caucasus Press as telling journalists on January 21 that a formal investigation should be launched and that Merabishvili and Targamadze should be held criminally responsible if that probe yields evidence that they violated the law.

Tymoshenko supports Georgia's territorial integrity

Candidate for the Ukrainian presidency and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko has said that her political bloc's attitude to the Georgia-South Ossetia conflict remains unchanged, and that she supports Georgia's territorial integrity. "You know that our political force clearly adopted its position during the conflict, and we clearly expressed our position on Georgia's territorial integrity and on the non-recognition of [breakaway regions] that declared their independence, separation and alleged sovereignty. That's why, we're not just friends, we're partners," she said at a press conference in Kyiv on Jan. 14.Tymoshenko expressed hope that Ukraine and Georgia would continue to develop their good relations.

Black Sea Wars

WASHINGTON, DC -- In August, the Georgian navy seized a Turkish tanker carrying fuel to Abkhazia, Georgia’s former province whose declaration of independence a year ago is recognized by Russia but not the West.
The Turkish captain was sentenced to 24 years. When Ankara protested, he was released. Abkhazia has now threatened to sink any Georgian ship interfering in its “territorial waters,” but it has no navy.Russia, however, has a Black Sea Fleet and a treaty of friendship with Abkhazia, and has notified Tbilisi that the Russian coast guard will assure, peacefully, the sea commerce of Abkhazia.Not backing down, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili – who launched and lost a war for South Ossetia in 48 hours in August 2008 – has declared the blockade of Abkhazia, which he claims as Georgian national territory, will remain in force. And he has just appointed as defense minister a 29-year-old ex-penitentiary boss with a questionable record on human rights who wants to tighten ties to NATO.We have here the makings of a naval clash that Georgia, given Russian air, naval, and land forces in the eastern Black Sea, will lose.What is Saakashvili up to? He seems intent on provoking a new crisis to force NATO to stand with him and bring the United States in on his side – against Russia. Ultimate goal: Return the issue of his lost provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia back onto the world’s front burner.While such a crisis may be in the interests of Saakashvili and his Russophobic U.S neoconservative retainers, it is the furthest thing from U.S. national interests. President Obama should have Joe Biden, Saakashvili’s pal, phone him up and instruct him thus: “Mikheil, if you interfere with the sea commerce of Abkhazia, and provoke Russia into a Black Sea war, you fight it yourself. The Sixth Fleet is not going to steam into the Black Sea and pull your chestnuts out of the fire, old buddy. It will be your war, not ours.”Nor is the Abkhazian crisis the only one brewing in the Black Sea.Last month, Russian naval troops blocked Ukrainian bailiffs from seizing navigational equipment from a lighthouse outside Sevastopol, the Crimean base of Russia’s Black Sea Fleet for two centuries.The Sevastopol lease, however, runs out in 2017. And Kiev has informed Moscow there will be no renewal. Russia’s fleet will have to vacate Sevastopol and the Crimea, which belonged to Russia before Nikita Khrushchev ceded the entire peninsula to Ukraine in 1954 in a “brotherly gesture” while Ukraine was still part of the Soviet Union.Russia also bears a deep animus toward Ukrainian President Victor Yushchenko, for trying to bring his country into NATO. Yushchenko, whose approval rating is in single digits, has been seen, ever since the U.S.-backed Orange Revolution of 2004 that brought him to power, as America’s man in Kiev.Moreover, as religious, cultural, ethnic, and historic ties between Kiev and Moscow go back centuries, Russians remain unreconciled to the loss of what they regard as the cradle of their country.What is America’s vital interest in all these quarrels? Zero.The idea, mentioned in hawkish quarters, of having the Sixth Fleet take over the vacated naval base at Sevastopol would be as rash and provocative an act as having Chinese warships move into Guantanamo, were Havana to expel the United States.But that is unlikely to happen. For Obama appears to be rolling back the George W. Bush policy of expanding NATO into former republics of the Soviet Union.Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia are already members, and Bush and John McCain were anxious to bring in Ukraine and Georgia. But, as Bush’s inaction during the Russia-Georgia war revealed, America is not going to fight Russia over who controls Abkhazia, North or South Ossetia, Dagestan, Ingushetia, Chechnya, or Georgia. All are beyond any vital interest or legitimate sphere of influence of the United States.With his cancellation of the U.S. missile shield in Poland and the Czech Republic – a shield designed to defend against a nonexistent Iranian ICBM – Obama sent two messages to Moscow.First, Obama believes entente with Russia is a surer guarantee of the peace and security of Eastern Europe than any U.S. weapons system. Second, Obama puts Washington-Moscow ties before any U.S. military ties to NATO allies in Eastern Europe.Which means NATO is approaching an existential crisis.Almost all NATO troops, except U.S., are gone from Iraq, and the alliance’s minimal commitment to Afghanistan is ending with no victory in sight. NATO’s expansion eastward has come to a halt. Ukraine and Georgia are not coming in. And the United States is not going to place troops, warships, or missiles any closer than they are now to Russia’s frontiers.“NATO must go out of area, or go out of business,” said Sen. Richard Lugar at the Cold War’s end. NATO went out of area, and is coming back with its tail between its legs. The alternative arises.

The fear factor

As Russia is commemorating the first anniversary of its short-lived war with Georgia, the press, expert community and politicians are asking the same questions: what were the war's real casualties? Was the war unavoidable? Could Russia, Georgia and the international community have behaved differently and thus avoided the tragedy? Can the war repeat itself?
Polls from Russia's leading opinion research centres reveal that the public's general appraisal of Russia's participation in the war as a painful but unavoidable step remains almost unchanged since last year. However, moral justification of the war does not translate into the general feeling of security. Until recently, most of those polled still considered the situation around the separatist enclaves of Abkhazia and South Ossetia "tense" and "insecure" and did not exclude the possibility of another armed conflict in the area.
Polls by the All-Russian Centre for Public Opinion Research (VTsIOM) conducted over the last five years show several main patterns among attitudes to events in Georgia. The first was one of relatively pacifistic and passive attitudes before Mikheil Saakashvili's coming to power in the year 2003. This attitude was gradually replaced by one of concern and sympathy for Ossetians as armed skirmishes on the border became widespread in 2004. The public even slipped into a jingoistic mood at the moment of the initial attack against South Ossetia's capital Tskhinval in August 2008, and the armed intervention of Russian troops was greeted with more or less general approval.
After the shock of the war was offset by the economic crisis in 2008-2009, the public remained convinced of the need to support South Ossetia, but enthusiasm for economic aid lessened somewhat. The options of political, diplomatic and military support became more popular than direct cash transfers and state-financed construction projects.
According to a poll conducted by VTsIOM among 1600 respondents at 140 locations, 60 per cent of the respondents say Russia "did the right thing" when it got involved in the fighting and only 6 per cent hold that Russia was "wrong". The most widespread justification for the war was humanitarian: people most often cited the opinion that without Russian intervention, "South Ossetians would have been slaughtered".
According to a poll conducted by another respected Russian agency, the Levada Centre, 47 per cent of Russians now consider the situation in South Ossetia and Abkhazia "tense", a drop of 7 per cent from last year. In the Levada poll, 54 percent of Russians think that Russian troops ought to stay in South Ossetia. Only 24 per cent think that troops should be withdrawn, with 22 per cent undecided.
The war made many Russians reconsider their attitudes toward the conflicting principles of state sovereignty and the right of nations to self-determination. The share of people supporting the right of national self-determination grew from 19 per cent in 2004 to 35 percent now, obviously reflecting popular feeling of compassion for South Ossetians. Another 34 percent think that the right of nations to self-determination should be respected "in certain circumstances" and that cases like this should be reviewed "on individual basis".
Yet people are not always sure what Russia and South Ossetia should do with their newly formed alliance and South Ossetia's de facto independence from Georgia. One thing is certain: Russians do not want to see South Ossetia a part of Georgia again, as only 3 percent of respondents supported this solution.
Reactions of politicians to the events of last summer reflect a certain vagueness of public perceptions. "I have no doubt that Russia had to get involved in the conflict," said Sergei Mitrokhin, the leader of the liberal Yabloko party. "I don't think it was right to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent countries [but] I have no doubt, and international experts confirm, that it was Saakashvili who organised the provocation."
As usual in Russian history, the question, "Who is to blame?" is answered much more eagerly than the question, "What is to be done?"

Russia Military Force Changes To Add Border Strength, U.S. Says

WASHINGTON, DC -- Russia is reshaping its ground forces into a structure that would enable it to “militarily dominate” most of its neighbors, the head of U.S. intelligence said.

The changes would allow a rapid deployment of forces along Russia’s borders and ensure superior military strength except against China, Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair said in unclassified written answers given to the Senate Intelligence Committee on April 24. Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan are among the countries bordering Russia.The repositioning of Russian forces may pose a dilemma for the Obama administration as it talks of abandoning what officials describe as outmoded Cold War thinking in favor of improved relations with Russia.While Russia’s military is a “shadow of its Soviet predecessor,” the country draws strength along its periphery from its air defenses, space warfare capability, nuclear weapons and geographic advantages, Blair said.Blair didn’t speculate on Russia’s intentions in the responses to the panel, which were obtained July 30 by the Washington-based Federation of American Scientists under the Freedom of Information Act.Still, the buildup in part is a response to “restoring some of the military capabilities it lost” after the Soviet Union’s collapse, Blair wrote.Blair pointed to “considerable readiness improvements” in the past decade that gave Russian forces an edge in both the second Chechnya conflict and in Georgia.Georgia Conflict Relations sank to a post-Cold War low last August when Russia routed neighboring Georgia’s U.S.-trained army in a five- day war over the separatist region of South Ossetia.Officials in Moscow have since granted recognition to South Ossetia and another breakaway Georgian region, Abkhazia, as sovereign states, and deployed more than 2,200 soldiers in the two areas. Russia expelled international monitors in June.In recent days, Russia has raised the readiness of its troops in response to what it called Georgian “provocations,” which officials in Georgia denied.Anatoly Nogovitsyn, deputy chief of Russia’s General Staff, told reporters in Moscow yesterday that his military has no plans for a massive troop increase in the two Georgian regions.Russia has the ability to “rapidly deploy several heavy brigades and several hundred combat aircraft and helicopters to Eastern Europe, the Caucasus, Central Asia or its Far East in a matter of several days,” Blair said in his responses to the intelligence committee.‘Formidable’ Foe The benefits “make the Russian military a still formidable hypothetical opponent in scenarios where U.S. or other NATO forces would challenge Moscow militarily near its territory or against Russia proper,” Blair wrote.The North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s reluctance to move faster on admitting Georgia and another former Soviet republic, Ukraine, last year raised concerns from central and eastern European members that the alliance wasn’t as committed as it should be to defending all members from a Russian attack.Russia doesn’t pose a significant threat to central and western Europe, Blair said, without defining the geographic boundaries he referred to.U.S. Defense Department spokesman Geoff Morrell yesterday reiterated President Barack Obama’s stated intention to drop Cold War assumptions in relations with Russia.Responding to questions about a report in the New York Times that two Russian submarines were patrolling off the U.S. East Coast in recent days, Morrell said the vessels were “several hundred miles” offshore.No Concern “While it is interesting and noteworthy that they are in this part of the world, it doesn’t pose any threat and it doesn’t cause any concern,” Morrell told reporters at the Pentagon. “We don’t look at this action and automatically see threatening motives.”Blair wrote that Russia’s high-profile naval deployments to the North Atlantic, Indian and Pacific oceans are “traditional ‘show the flag’ operations intended to support Russian foreign policy and probably do not reflect wartime operational planning.”Blair also assessed the effect of the global economic slide on Russia’s finances.Russia can continue to rely on its reserves to fund its budget deficits this year, he said. The country’s longer-term viability depends on the global economic recovery and an increase in oil prices to the range of $70 a barrel, Blair said. Crude oil has traded higher than $70 a barrel this week.That level would let Russia balance its budget without making “deep cuts” in social programs and military spending, Blair wrote.Russia’s economy is projected to contract 6.5 percent this year and grow 1.5 percent in 2010, according to an International Monetary Fund forecast issued last month.

US Disappointment For The Rose And Orange Revolutionaries In Georgia And Ukraine

MOSCOW, Russia -- Georgia and Ukraine were eagerly awaiting the arrival of US vice-president Joe Biden, hoping he would use his visit to signal support for their post-coloured revolution yet troubled governments. And, even more importantly, that he would give a clear message about America's intolerance of Russia’s influence over their affairs.
But despite the high hopes of these two former-Soviet countries, Biden’s words broke through their rose- and orange-tinted hopes to draw attention to their own internal setbacks. [Georgia’s “Rose” revolution was in November, 2003; Ukraine’s “Orange” revolution lasted from November, 2004, until January, 2005.]Biden’s speeches in both former-Soviet countries were lacking the anti-Russian rhetoric typical of his predecessor, Dick Cheney. The United States seems to have a different policy toward Russia, as was made clear by President Barack Obama when he visited Moscow. During his stay, Obama mostly looked to future cooperation with the former Cold War enemy, and tried to avoid rocking the boat by not mentioning the less pleasant internal problems of the country.Does this mean that Georgia and Ukraine are now included in Russia’s domestic problems, as far as the United States is concerned? Not quite. Biden stressed during his trip that America will stand by their independence. But his careful rhetoric with regard to Russia has intensified the former-Soviet countries’ worries about the consequences that closer US-Russian relations could have for eastern Europe.Biden expressed his support for Ukraine, but warned that the country’s future would depend on its own efficiency. “Ukraine, in my humble opinion, must heed the lesson of history. Effective, accountable government is the only way to provide a stable, predictable and transparent environment that attracts investments… the economic engine of development,” he said in a speech to Ukraine leaders.The vice-president also emphasised the breakdown of communications within the Ukrainian government that has destabilised the country in the last several years. This willingness to mix words of support with criticism, the now famous “reset”, demonstrates the current administration’s departure from the George Bush administration’s foreign policy regarding Russia and former Soviet states.In Georgia, Biden claimed that the improving of US-Russian relations should not be done at the expense of Georgia. Addressing the Georgian government, the vice-president condemned Russia’s actions toward its southern neighbour.“We call upon Russia to honour its international commitment, clearly specified in the April 12 ceasefire agreement, including withdrawal of all forces to their pre-conflict positions and ultimately out of your territorial area,” said Biden.Indeed, the time of friendly relations with ex-Soviet countries at the expense of the relationship with Russia is now over for the United States, believes Masha Lipman of the Carnegie Centre. America wants to be able to get on with both. But Biden’s cooler approach toward Ukraine and Georgia also has a lot to do with the internal problems in the two countries.In Ukraine this has to do with a lack of an economic infrastructure and a heavy reliance on Russia both politically and economically. But it also has to do with the internal split in the country’s government, between President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.“The politicians themselves are destabilising the country,” said Lipman, “especially in the very difficult economic crisis that Ukraine faces. This provides more foundation for the more removed approach of the United States.”Georgia also has difficulties, as this year’s protests calling for the resignations of President Mikheil Saakashvili have shown. The country was strongly supported by the United States under Bush, but this intensified Russian mistrust of both, leading to accusations that America backed Georgia in last year’s August war.The concerns that Ukraine and Georgia share, of Russian aggression, are shared by other nations. Last week, 22 former east European leaders signed an open letter to Washington, in which they stated that the threat from Russia was still very real for them.Lipman believes that these fears have substantial foundations.“I think that this letter has been dictated by the war with Georgia and the change of the US administration,” she said, “which no longer has the policy of supporting countries of the former Soviet Union if that jeopardises its relationship with Russia.”“This is clearly a concern for countries who believed that their main ally and protector was the United States.”The letter voices a serious concern for the future of US plans to place elements of a missile defence shield and radar in the Czech Republic and Poland. Obama has so far been much more sceptical than his predecessor about the plans for the construction of the missile system. The talks between Russia and the United States in the last couple of months have shown that both countries are willing to put off the project. But the east European countries – or at least their former leaders – warned that they should have more say in the process.“Abandoning the programme entirely or involving Russia too deeply in it without consulting Poland or the Czech Republic can undermine the credibility of the United States across the whole region,” read the former leaders’ letter, which was republished on the Open Democracy human rights website.The letter is, however, somewhat of an anomaly, as its interpretation of the reasons for the missile defence system is at odds with the official position in Washington. It implies that the system is needed to protect Europe from Russia, an idea Washington denies, claiming instead that it is needed as protection against Iran.But security against Russia is of paramount importance to Georgia after August’s confrontation. Georgia, like Ukraine, wants to be part of NATO, but Biden’s words on the subject were noncommittal. Although this may ease US-Russian tensions, perhaps a bigger reason for America’s reluctance to have these countries in NATO is simply that they are not yet ready.“This is not a matter of America’s preferences, but of the desire of these countries and their lack of compliance to NATO standards,”.

No Respect For Russia In Its Own Backyard

MOSCOW, Russia -- President Dmitry Medvedev headed to Central Asia last week amid ominous signs for Russia in its own backyard that are testing his leadership, a year after he sent troops to roll back Georgia’s invasion into South Ossetia.
U.S. Vice President Joe Biden traveled to Ukraine and Georgia last month to reiterate U.S. support for the countries’ plans to join NATO. To rub the point in, Ukraine and Georgia used the occasion of Biden’s visit to order the expulsion of Russian diplomats.Days earlier, Turkmen President Gurbanguly Berdymukhammedov promised U.S. Undersecretary of State William Burns that his country would supply gas to Nabucco, a threat to Gazprom’s South Stream.Medvedev was humiliated by the failure of four CIS presidents to show up for a horse race summit in Moscow in July, where a breakthrough in peace talks on Nagorno-Kharabakh between the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan did not materialize.The sharpest slap in the face came from Belarussian President Alexander Lukashenko, who instructed his top diplomats to develop closer ties with the West and called the Russia-Belarus union “a failed project.” Lukashenko’s Foreign Ministry issued a bold statement that reaffirmed Belarus’ recognition of Georgia’s sovereignty over Abkhazia and South Ossetia, despite Moscow’s persistent prodding that Minsk recognize them as independent states.Lukashenko continued to stall Medvedev at last week’s Collective Security Treaty Organization summit on agreement to form a rapid-response force, while the presidents of Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan resisted the opening of a Russian military base near the Fergana Valley.To add insult to injury, Tajikistan announced it would ban the use of Russian by state agencies and in official documents, while asking Russia to pay commercial rates for its military base there.These multiplying rebuffs by Russia’s closest neighbors are putting pressure on Medvedev to respond toughly to reassure the Russian people that their country is not being treated like a doormat. Putin never allowed such indignities to go unanswered. The leaders of Moldova, Ukraine and Georgia learned that lesson the hard way.Medvedev needs to walk a fine line between appearing tough domestically and pragmatic globally, but he cannot afford to be perceived as weak as the slights to Russia increase. Neither can he afford to have Putin settle the scores for him.

Moscow Warns on Arming Georgia

Vice President Joe Biden walking with President Mikheil Saakashvili in Tbilisi Presidential

Palace Thursday.

A senior Russian diplomat warned foreign countries on Thursday against supplying Russian- or Soviet-made arms to Georgia at the risk of endangering military trade with Moscow.
The warning shot was fired as U.S. Vice President Joe Biden held closed-doors talks with Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili that were expected to include a Georgian request for assistance with military hardware.
“We are deeply concerned by the activity of the Georgian leadership to remilitarize the country, which some states are responding to in a surprisingly calm and even positive way,” Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin said, Itar-Tass reported.
Karasin said Moscow would consider limiting or severing military technical cooperation with any third country that delivered Russian- or Soviet-made arms and other defense equipment to Georgia.
Military technical cooperation is a bureaucratic euphemism for the export of arms, defense equipment and spare parts and for providing maintenance and repairs for previously supplied arms.
Countries that have supplied such arms to Georgia include the Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria, Uzbekistan and Ukraine, which Biden visited before arriving in Georgia as part of a weeklong tour aimed at assuring both countries that they had nothing to fear from Washington’s efforts to improve ties with Moscow.
Karasin on Thursday mentioned a January decree signed by President Dmitry Medvedev that bans the delivery of arms and military equipment to Georgia until the end of 2011. The decree, however, applies only to Russian companies and individuals.
Karasin also accused certain countries, which he would not name, of disguising the arming of Georgia as humanitarian aid — in an apparent rebuke to the United States, which has provided $1 billion in aid to Georgia after Russia crushed the Georgian military in a five-day war last August.

Karasin added that Russia expected Georgian provocations to commemorate the anniversary of the conflict, after which Moscow recognized the independence of the separatist Georgian provinces of Abkhazia and South Ossetia and posted thousands of troops on their territories. Karasin said, however, that Moscow did not expect military provocations but political ones.
As a possible example of a political provocation, Georgian media on Wednesday reported a months-old mutual expulsion of diplomats that both countries had agreed to keep secret. The Foreign Ministry has accused Tbilisi of leaking the incident in an attempt to impress Biden.
Biden said Thursday that the reset of U.S.-Russia relations would not come at the expense of Georgia and that the United States would never recognize the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
The Russian threat of cutting military technical cooperation is of no concern to the United States, which does not provide Russian-made arms to Georgia or help maintain the country’s existing equipment, said Dmitry Vasiliyev, a researcher who tracks arms sales with the Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies.
Georgia received tens of thousands of Kalashnikov rifles, thousands of Soviet-designed missile systems and dozens of battle tanks from Ukraine in 2006 and 2007 alone, according to a special United Nations registry. Smaller deliveries of Soviet-made arms or dual-use equipment have come from the Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria and Uzbekistan. “Russia cannot punish these four countries by cutting military trade with them because there is no meaningful trade,” Vasiliyev said of the Czech Republic, Poland, Bulgaria and Uzbekistan.
As for Ukraine, sanctions would harm Russia’s own interests because Ukraine provides about half of all engines for helicopters that are among Russia’s most sought-after arms exports, he said.
Other countries that have supplied military equipment to Georgia are the United States, Israel, Turkey, Greece and Bosnia Herzegovina, according to a United Nations’ registry.
There have been no official disclosures about Georgia’s arms imports and no media reports about foreign countries delivering arms to Georgia following the war with Russia.
Saakashvili expressed an interest in U.S. arms ahead of his talks with Biden. The Georgian Defense Ministry said it was seeking defensive weapons but would not say how much military aid was being sought, citing secrecy, The Associated Press reported.
But a U.S. official said after the talks that Saakashvili had not asked for advanced U.S. weaponry, AP reported.
Saakashvili told reporters that his discussions with Biden, to whom he referred as “Joe,” had been “very productive.” Biden responded by calling Saakashvili, a U.S.-educated lawyer, “Mr. President.”
Biden also met with Georgian opposition leaders and refugees from South Ossetia and Abkhazia and addressed the Georgian parliament Thursday.

Delivering Tough Love To Ukraine, Georgia

WASHINGTON, DC -- Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine and expert on former Soviet republics, says Vice President Joseph Biden's recent trip to Ukraine and Georgia was meant to balance President Barack Obama's Moscow summit earlier in the month.
But in both countries, Pifer says, Biden had to convey tough messages. In Ukraine, his message to Ukraine's feuding leadership was to repair relations and resolve their energy crisis, caused in large part by heavily subsidized domestic prices. In Georgia, Biden wanted to press Georgia's leaders on domestic political reforms, but he also made it clear that there was no way for Georgia to use military force to regain South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two provinces that have now been recognized by Russia as independent.Vice President Joseph Biden has just completed a trip to Ukraine and Georgia to reassure both of those former Soviet republics that the American desire to "reset" relations--Biden's words in Munich last February--with Russia were not meant at their expense. But he also had what one Biden aide called "tough love" for both of them. Could you elaborate on this trip?That was the first point of the trip: to reassure Kiev and Tbilisi that the United States remains interested in robust relations with Ukraine and Georgia, and that we will work to keep open their pathways to Europe and the North Atlantic community. When I was in Ukraine about five or six weeks ago, what I heard from the Ukrainians was a concern--and I suspect there is a parallel concern in Georgia--that the effort to reset relations with Russia would somehow come at Ukraine's expense.So part of the trip by the vice president was to assure both Ukraine and Georgia that the United States is not going to undercut relations with those two countries as it tries to develop relations with Russia. You've seen points made by this administration, indeed going back to the Munich speech itself, saying the reset of relations would not mean recognition of a Russian "sphere of influence" over the former Soviet states, and then repeated assurances that the United States supports the rights of countries such as Ukraine and Georgia as sovereign states to choose their own foreign policy course.What was also interesting to me was that in his speech in Ukraine, Biden was virtually demanding that the Ukrainian leadership get their act together. In Georgia, I don't think he was publicly as tough. Can you elaborate on the "tough love" part of the visits?Let me start with Ukraine. Certainly the primary goal of the visit was to reassure Ukraine, but there was also a tough message there. In Ukraine, it's not only due to the presidential election, but you've had a situation in the past year and a half where the government really hasn't functioned because of infighting between President Viktor Yushchenko and Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.It's meant that Ukraine has passed up opportunities to accomplish some important things. A big part of the vice president's message in Kiev was to say, "You need to put aside political differences, come together as mature political leaders, find compromises, and get things done."He also singled out the importance of Ukraine getting serious about reforming its energy sector. This is a huge national security vulnerability for Ukraine because they have a distorted price structure where people buy natural gas at prices that don't begin to cover the cost of the gas that Ukraine buys from Russia. As a result, Naftogaz, the national gas company, is perpetually in debt to Russia and on the verge of bankruptcy. That creates vulnerabilities for Ukraine.Part of the vice president's message was, "You need to get serious about this." Part of the problem in Ukraine is if you are a household, you are probably paying a price that amounts to less than 30 percent of the actual cost of the gas bought from Russia. It's no wonder why Naftogaz is always in financial straits. But it's not just an economic problem because of the way it factors into the Ukraine-Russia relationship. It creates a national security issue for Ukraine. So there are two aspects to the tough message: One, the need for political leaders to get together, compromise, and produce good policy; and second, the special importance of tackling this energy security issue.At the time of the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine, Yushchenko and Tymoshenko were united. What's caused this major rift?This has been one of the surprises and one of the disappointments since the Orange Revolution. Yushchenko and Tymoshenko were allies during the revolution. Tymoshenko was prime minister for eight months in 2005. She's been prime minister again since December 2007, but the relationship between the president and the cabinet just has not worked. There's been continual infighting where the president blocks cabinet actions and vice versa.Over the last fifteen or sixteen months, it's been hard to get the $16 billion loan from the IMF [International Monetary Fund]. And it's hard to find too much else that the government has been able to accomplish, in large part because the president, the presidential secretariat, the cabinet, and the prime minister seem to be undercutting each other so badly.Is it a personal thing?I suspect part of it is personal. If you go back to December 2007, the initial shots seemed to have been fired by the chief of staff to the president, Viktor Baloga, who has since left that position. In that fight, it seemed to reflect a concern on the part of the presidential administration that in the presidential election, which will be held in January 2010, Tymoshenko would be a strong rival to the president. There seems to have been an effort to undercut her.Unfortunately, this means the government has not performed as expected. Interestingly in politics what we've seen is that President Yushchenko's rating has fallen to the low single digits. Tymoshenko's rating remains at about 15 percent, falling second in most polls for the president.It's interesting how the leader of the Orange Revolution has fallen so low in the polls. There's a similar situation in Georgia with President Mikheil Saakashvili, right?There's a different situation in Georgia. There are two factors motivating opposition to Saakashvili. One is a concern that goes back to the fall of 2007, when Saakashvili was walking back on some of the democratic achievements that Georgia had obtained since the Rose Revolution. And significant opposition has been generated to Saakashvili in the aftermath of the conflict between Russia and Georgia last August.There's a feeling held by many in the opposition that while the Russians may have provoked the conflict, Saakashvili made a huge mistake. He took the bait and sent the army into South Ossetia, bringing about a strong Russian response that crushed the Georgian military in a matter of days.Biden met with the opposition both in Ukraine and in Georgia on this rather brief trip, which I guess presidents and vice presidents usually do.In the case of Ukraine, in addition to meeting with President Yushchenko and Prime Minister Tymoshenko, he also had meetings with Regions Party head Yanukovych, the former parliamentary speaker Yatsenyuk, and the current parliamentary speaker Volodymyr Lytvyn. That's natural. That's appropriate in a country that's five months out from a presidential election.No matter who wins the election in January, the vice president has met with that person on this trip. That's the appropriate way to show that the United States doesn't have a favorite in that election, and as the vice president made clear, the important thing is that Ukraine continue to demonstrate that it knows how to do free and fair elections, and that it is a leader in the region in terms of democratic progress.In the case of Georgia, there was an effort to meet with the opposition to show some balance. This may reflect some quiet concern on the part of this administration that the Bush administration's policy toward Georgia may have become too personalized with Saakashvili. There's an effort to say the United States wants a strong, robust relationship with Georgia, but perhaps without the personal attachment to Saakashvili.Certainly there are figures in the opposition--the former head of the Georgian parliament, Nino Burjanadze, and the former Georgian ambassador to the United Nations, Irakli Alasania--who are in favor in Washington. So the approach to Georgia will be more balanced and not so personalized as what we saw in the Bush administration. There's a fine line to walk here, and the vice president is doing it fairly well, where you don't want to signal to the Russians that we're chopping off Saakashvili completely.Russian President Dmitry Medvedev showed up in South Ossetia just a week before Biden arrived in Georgia, to demonstrate Russia's presence inside what used to be Georgia. There was also a strong message from Moscow during Biden's trip warning against any military aid to Georgia. Are the Russians really worried that the United States may do something that might provoke them?The Russians, since last August, had a very sharp rhetorical stance against Georgia and against Saakashvili in particular. But it seems to me that if they look at how the United States has engaged with Georgia since the conflict, there was passage of a major assistance program, but that assistance has been primarily on economic recovery and such.Certainly I suspect that the administration is going to have a military-to-military relationship with Georgia, but I don't think providing weapons to Georgia is high on anybody's priority list in the United States. And the simple fact is that there's no conceivable defense assistance program the United States could do with Georgia that would give the Georgians the ability to defend themselves against Russia, to say nothing of trying to take back South Ossetia or Abkhazia.In fact, in his speech to the Georgian parliament , Biden said specifically: "It is a sad certainty, but it is true there is no military option to reintegration, only peaceful and prosperous Georgia--a peaceful and prosperous Georgia that has the prospect of restoring your territorial integrity by showing those in Abkhazia and South Ossetia a Georgia where they can be free and their communities can flourish."You did a report for the Council on Foreign Relations, Averting Crisis in Ukraine, in which you pointed out some of the danger possibilities. What is the situation now?My read now is that the one crisis possibility out there that is real is another gas conflict. It's a possibility because, due to the weakness in the energy sector in Ukraine, the country is perpetually in danger of missing payments. In fact, Ukraine is technically in default on the gas contract it signed in January because it hasn't bought the minimum amount of natural gas that it contracted to buy.Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has said they won't push that point, but the Russians haven't amended the contract. So Ukraine is still in technical default. And there are suspicions that the Russians may look for an opportunity in the fall or early winter to again apply some pressure on the gas side with a view of having an impact on Ukraine's internal politics. So there's that concern.The other concern that I wrote about in January between Ukraine and Russia is that somehow they might get into a conflict over Crimea. My sense is that the probablility of that is declining now.

Biden, Georgia, Ukraine And War

KIEV, Ukraine -- Officially, U.S. Vice President Joe Biden is visiting Ukraine and Georgia this week to balance President Barack Obama’s warming relations with Russia and reassure Kiev and Tbilisi that Washington still supports their aspirations to join NATO (but in slow motion, please). Unofficially, his mission is to try to prevent another war in an unstable region that Russia regards as its backyard.
If that sounds over-dramatic, it’s not because hostilities look imminent in either country. Georgia is licking its wounds from last year’s August war over South Ossetia. Ukraine is mired in domestic power struggles ahead of a presidential election next January.And Moscow, while determined to reassert its influence in the former Soviet republics, has enough on its hands with the severe economic fallout from the financial crisis. A major Russian military exercise in the region was well flagged in advance and passed off without leaving raised troop levels or unusual military activity.The European Union monitoring mission deployed in Georgia after the conflict to build confidence reports that the situation on the boundaries of the Russian-backed breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia is broadly calm, with regular talks and a hotline between the Russian command and the EU team used to defuse occasional incidents.The Georgian government has agreed with the EU to limit the activities of its army and police force in the area, while the Russians have replaced troops in South Ossetia with professional border guards. That reduces the risk of an incident over smuggling or stray cattle escalating into armed conflict. Georgia wants to involve the United States in the monitoring mission.The EU has also diplomatically delayed the publication of a report it is compiling on the origins of the war until after next month’s first anniversary.However, both Moscow and Tbilisi consider there is unfinished business. Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin does not hide his desire to get rid of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili and reverse the “Rose Revolution” in Georgia and the “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine that overthrew post-Soviet rulers more pliant towards the Kremlin.Saakashvili is not resigned to the loss of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, nor to an indefinite wait for NATO membership. In Ukraine, there is the slow-burning fuse of a 2017 deadline for the closure of Russia’s main Black Sea naval base in the Crimea, and the status of the Russian-speaking majority in that region, some of whom have been given Russian passports. And there are frequent disputes over Russian gas supplies.Biden, a forthright but seasoned foreign policy specialist, has a delicate task to calibrate his public and private messages in Kiev and Tbilisi. The Obama administration has put the explosive issue of Ukrainian and Georgian NATO membership on the back-burner, recognising that it is a red rag to Russia and deeply divisive in the alliance (as well as in Ukraine). Washington neo-conservatives view this as appeasement, but it is common sense.Biden needs to reaffirm the West’s commitment to the territorial integrity and political support for democracy in both countries, while privately urging Saakashvili to focus on democratic governance reforms at home (which the president anticipated in a broadcast on Monday) and avoid provocations with the Russians.The Vice President needs to privately tell Ukraine’s divided leaders that their feuding and failure to tackle corruption are doing more to destroy their country’s prospects than any Kremlin-backed destabilisation.That leaves some hard strategic questions unanswered. What would Washington do if an incident in Abkhazia or South Ossetia rekindled armed conflict between Russia and Georgia? How would the United States and the EU respond if unrest erupted in another potential flashpoint, such as Moldova, after a fiercely contested parliament election on July 29? What could the West do if Russia stepped up issuing passports to Russian-speakers in Crimea?The Obama administration may have chosen to emphasise common ground and mutual interests such as nuclear arms control in improving relations with Russia, but the contest over what Moscow calls its “near abroad” is far from over.

US Vice President Biden Heads To Ukraine, Georgia

WASHINGTON, DC -- US Vice President Joe Biden will travel to Georgia and Ukraine next month for talks on boosting the former Soviet republics' economies and supporting democratic reforms, his office said Monday. Both trips involve political sensitivities with Russia, and the visit would come shortly after US President Barack Obama travels to Moscow.
Biden's office says the trip will come during the week of July 20-24. More details will be released later.Biden would be the highest-ranking US official to travel to Georgia since its war with Russia last year, while Ukraine has been embroiled in a natural gas dispute with Russia that threatens the European Union's supplies. Biden will head to the region from July 20-24 and plans to meet with political leaders and opposition figures in both countries. In a statement, the vice president's office said that Biden would "demonstrate US support for continued democratic and economic reforms and discuss issues of mutual interest in both countries."In May, Biden visited Europe's Balkan region, meeting with political leaders in Bosnia, Serbia and Kosovo.

The Bloom Is Off Europe's Rose And Orange Revolutions

TBILISI, Georgia -- Some four years ago, as he stood before a cheering crowd of tens of thousands, former President George W. Bush declared that Georgia's pro-western government was "inspiring democratic reformers . . . across the world."
Georgia's ouster of its Russian-linked leadership in the 2003 Rose Revolution and the following year's U.S.-backed Orange Revolution in Ukraine had sent a message that "freedom will be the future of every nation," Bush said.Today, though, the governments of Georgia and Ukraine are unraveling — symbols not of freedom but, to a large extent, of U.S. foreign policy errors, tarnished American allies and an emboldened Russia that's capitalized on its rivals' weaknesses.The diplomatic complications for President Barack Obama over Russia and its neighbors go beyond these two countries in Moscow's backyard. Earlier this month, Russia flexed its muscle in another "rainbow revolution" country, Kyrgyzstan, where democratic reform had never fully taken root.Russia offered the central Asian country more than $2 billion in loans and aid. Almost immediately, the Kyrgyz president announced, in Moscow, that he plans to close a major U.S. air base in his country that's critical to the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.Ukraine and Georgia have significant differences — for starters, Ukraine has a population of about 46 million, and Georgia only about a tenth of that — but like Kyrgyzstan, they've been part of the Kremlin's campaign to reduce U.S. influence in what Russian officials call their "near abroad."Many officials and analysts in the two countries say the Bush administration made the crucial mistake of continuing to fully, and very publicly, back their presidents — Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia and Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine — long after it was apparent that they'd lost their way.By not establishing stronger relationships with rival politicians in Kiev and Tbilisi, those observers said, Bush committed the U.S. to the two men, and their shortcomings, rather than to broad-based democratic reform.In Georgia, a growing front of opposition officials, which includes former leaders of Saakashvili's government, say that misstep empowered an increasingly authoritarian regime and in the end helped Russia."We tried to explain to our American and Western partners that what Saakashvili is doing here, ruling with autocratic tools, it will soon cause mass protests," Kakha Kukava, an opposition leader in Tbilisi, said in a recent interview. No one in the Bush White House, he said, was interested.In Ukraine, some opposition and former officials say the Bush administration's support for the country's application to join NATO, a key Yushchenko initiative that, like Bush, was widely unpopular in the south and east, only further unraveled the government."In Ukraine it backfired," said Oleg Rybachuk, a former chief of staff to Yushchenko. "All critics of Bush, they positioned Yushchenko as a clear puppet of Bush — (as having an) aggressive, pro-NATO policy."Kukava and Rybachuk emphasized that, like many critics of their presidents, they want democracy and agree on the importance of checking Russian power.Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has made it clear that he dislikes Saakashvili and Yushchenko and considers them U.S.-backed interlopers in Russia's "privileged" sphere of influence.Putin didn't deny reports that he threatened to string Saakashvili up by the testicles. Asked on national TV recently if he said he wanted to hang the Georgian president by a certain part, Putin replied, "Why by one?"Under Putin's leadership, the Kremlin has taken advantage of Saakashvili's and Yushchenko's mistakes at every turn.Once in office, Saakashvili made progress fighting corruption and jump-starting the nation's economy, but he also cracked down on civil liberties and began consolidating power. During November 2007, Saakashvili declared a state of emergency after sending Georgian troops to violently disburse protests in Tbilisi, which government officials say were sparked by Russia.After Saakashvili launched an offensive last August against the breakaway Georgian republic of South Ossetia, lured in part by Russian provocations, Russia invaded Georgia and established de facto control of both South Ossetia and another rebel province. Amid the upheaval, Saakashvili's government recently nominated its fifth prime minister in five years.In a report last month, Freedom House, an independent U.S. organization that promotes democracy, said it had removed Georgia from its list of electoral democracies. The country that once "represented one of the few bright spots in the former Soviet Union" has taken an "erratic course," that "ranks among the more disturbing developments of the past two years," the report said.The news also is bad from Ukraine. President Yushchenko's approval rating is in the single digits, and he lost almost all voter support during a series of feuds with his prime minister and one-time ally, Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko.Before a crippling economic crisis hit, the government was headed for its third parliamentary election in as many years in late 2008.Soon after, Russia shut off gas supplies to Ukraine in January. The contract later signed requires Ukraine to pay market prices after decades of subsidies — a move almost certain to weaken the economy further.Last week, Tymoshenko said that her country was shopping for loans to shore up its budget. Russian and Ukrainian media reported that Moscow has offered some $5 billion, with conditions not yet made public. One Russian state TV station headlined the story: "Ukraine gets out the begging bowl."Yushchenko's political ineptness has paved the way for Russia's candidate in 2004, Viktor Yanukovich, to be a leading contender for the presidency again. Still, many Ukrainians don't blame Russia and its propaganda campaign against Yushchenko for his undoing."Of course, the Russians were doing their best to discredit the president as the personification of the Orange Revolution, as the personification of democratic values," said Boris Tarasiuk, a senior member of Yushchenko's coalition and former foreign minister.Having said so, Tarasiuk conceded that most of Yushchenko's problems emanate from his confrontations with the prime minister. "He happened to be the victim of his own mistakes," Tarasiuk said.Added one Western diplomat in Kiev: The Kremlin "probably enjoyed watching."

U.S. denies its citizens fought in Georgia war

MOSCOW (RIA Novosti) - The press office at the U.S. embassy in Russia dismissed Russian claims on Wednesday that American mercenaries fought alongside Georgian troops in August during the military conflict in South Ossetia.
On Tuesday, the head of Russia's special investigative committee, Alexander Bastrykin, said Ukrainian, U.S., Turkish and Czech mercenaries, had been involved in fighting in Georgia's breakaway republic of South Ossetia in early August.
On Wednesday, however, the U.S. embassy in Moscow issued a statement that U.S. nationals had not participated or been in the conflict zone at the time that Georgia launched an attack on the South Ossetian capital, Tskhin­vali, to try and regain control of the rebel region.
Bastrykin said that the investigative committee had gathered evidence on the involvement of foreign mercenaries in the war, citing that they had found personal photographs, military uniforms and notebooks in the conflict zone, as well as eyewitness statements.

Russia Raps NATO Over Georgia, Ukraine

MOSCOW, Russia -- Russia's ties with NATO will remain strained as long as Ukrainian and Georgian membership of the alliance remain on the agenda, its defence minister said in an interview published on Friday.The Kremlin accuses Washington of using NATO expansion -- in particular long-term plans to bring in ex-Soviet vassals Ukraine and Georgia -- to encircle Russia with hostile armies and draw new dividing lines in Europe."We stand for a serious, constructive dialogue with the alliance," Defence Minister Anatoly Serdyukov told Finland's National Defence Journal."But if someone hopes we will compliantly watch a military armada being built at our borders, with our national security interests being ignored, then we will have to upset someone".Serdyukov said Moscow was worried by "the stubborn persistence of some alliance members, in particular the United States, to drag Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, no matter what"."We would like to know, for instance, whether you would feel worried if there was a person armed to the teeth standing at the door of your house, who would not say why he came or what he would do next, and only brandished a knife in front of your face," he added.At a meeting of NATO foreign ministers earlier this month, Germany led resistance to U.S. plans to give Ukraine and Georgia a timetable for NATO membership. Washington, however, has urged NATO to encourage the two states to join the alliance one day."As we know, there is no consensus in the bloc's ranks on this issue (of Ukraine's and Georgia's membership)," Serdyukov said. "Nonetheless, it remains on the agenda."NATO-Russia forumThe work of a NATO-Russia forum was suspended after Russia's five-day war with Georgia in August following Tbilisi's attempt to retake the rebel region of South Ossetia by force."As for Georgia ... one can hardly imagine a role for this country in ensuring collective Euro-Atlantic security, especially now, after its barbaric punitive operation in South Ossetia," Serdyukov said."Of course, such a state of things does not help building constructive foreign policy relations between Russia and NATO."In a move welcomed in Europe, U.S. State Secretary Condoleezza Rice has said she does not oppose "in principle" reviving contacts with Russia via the NATO-Russia Council set up to oversee the relationship.But Serdyukov said that unless NATO was prepared to address Russia's concerns about expansion, Moscow had "something that can turn such hopes into illusions".The minister said he was referring to President Dmitry Medvedev's order not to disband by 2010 three regiments of a nuclear missile division in central Russia.Serdyukov reiterated that Russia could deploy Iskander tactical missiles in the Kaliningrad region bordering European Union territory, if Washington pushed ahead with deploying elements of an anti-missile system in Poland and the Czech Republic."You must understand that all these measures are forced upon us," he added.

Georgia, Ukraine Set For Disappointment At NATO Meeting

BRUSSELS, Belgium -- Despite intense lobbying, Georgia and Ukraine look certain not to be offered a fast track towards NATO membership at a meeting of alliance foreign ministers in Brussels on Tuesday, diplomats said.The highly contentious issue of NATO expansion was taken off the table ahead of the meeting in light of the lack of unanimity among alliance members over the issue."A great many countries think that Georgia and Ukraine have not made enough progress to even be considered for the Membership Action Plan (MAP)," a trial period prior to being allowed into the western alliance, said Thomas Steg, deputy spokesman for the German government.US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said she felt the time had not yet come to offer the two former Soviet republics a MAP."Georgia and Ukraine are not ready for membership. That is very clear," Rice said.Bucharest pledgeIn April, at a summit in Bucharest, alliance leaders agreed that Georgia and Ukraine would join NATO at an unspecified future date, but failed to find the consensus needed to offer them a MAP.The summit called for progress on reforms that would bring the two states closer to membership, and tasked NATO foreign ministers with giving an initial assessment of that process in December.'No reason' for immediate expansionSince then, the Georgian and Ukrainian governments have lobbied intensively for a MAP, with the US their most vocal supporter.But given the summer's war in Georgia and the collapse of the Ukrainian government, the member states which most opposed giving the two countries a MAP in April -- Germany, France and Italy -- have argued that now would be the wrong time to make a membership offer.There is "no reason" for the alliance to go further than the April agreement at this stage, German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier told the German parliament Wednesday, Nov. 26.Since it would take a unanimous decision by NATO members to offer either country a MAP, diplomats say it was highly improbable that either would receive the coveted plan Tuesday.Commissions to weigh up expansionMinisters now look set to use Tuesday's meeting to focus on the question of how much power NATO should give to the cooperation commissions it has set up with each country to judge their readiness for membership."We believe that the NATO-Georgia Commission and the NATO-Ukraine Commission can be the bodies with which we intensify our dialogue and our activities with Georgia and (Ukraine)," Rice said.However, that question also looks set to be divisive, with the skeptics of Georgian and Ukrainian NATO membership fearing that the US and Britain were attempting to bring the duo closer to membership without following the formal MAP procedure.Russian relationsMinisters are also set to discuss relations with Russia, after they agreed to suspend all high-level meetings with the Moscow following the Georgia war.The Russian government is currently lobbying for the creation of a new "security architecture" in Europe which would sideline NATO, a force Moscow sees as an outmoded "product of the Cold War."But any such security facelift would require NATO's unanimous approval, something member states seem unlikely to give at present.The ministers are also expected to discuss operations in Afghanistan and against pirates in Somalia, after the alliance's top commander called Monday for a 40-percent boost in troop numbers in the fight against the Taliban.

Claims Of Secret Arms Sales Rattle Ukraine’s Leaders

KIEV, Ukraine -- With the Ukrainian government reeling from a financial crisis and internal power struggles, the country’s pro-Russian opposition has been leveling potentially damaging accusations of improper arms sales to Georgia during that country’s brief war with Russia.And Russia’s leaders, furious with Ukraine’s president over his pro-Western leanings and vocal support of Georgia, have personally weighed in, making accusations of their own.It may not matter that the opposition has provided no conclusive evidence of the claims, despite weeks of pronouncements that the evidence — once released — will be explosive. The claims alone, which have made headlines, have nonetheless helped to further undermine the government’s authority at a time of heightened political instability, while also roiling Ukraine’s already tense relationship with neighboring Russia.At issue are accusations that the government of President Viktor A. Yushchenko, who supported Georgia during the crisis, covertly supplied it with weapons before and soon after the fighting broke out in August, and sold tanks and an antiaircraft system to the Georgians at reduced prices.A parliamentary commission set up by Ukraine’s opposition parties has been investigating the claims, which also include allegations that the president decommissioned equipment sorely needed by Ukraine’s military and gave it to Georgia.President Yushchenko has flatly denied any wrongdoing, describing the investigation as nothing more than a political show. He has indicated that Ukraine has every right to sell weapons to any country, including Georgia, that is not under international sanctions.The opposition lawmakers say the point is not whether Ukraine had a right to sell weapons to Georgia. They say the government secretly sent the arms, bypassing disclosure rules in order to avoid antagonizing Russia. They also say that some of the proceeds of the sales have gone not to the Treasury, but to people in Mr. Yushchenko’s circle, even as Ukraine’s military is in dire need of funding.“We are on the verge of a huge political scandal that could have immense political repercussions,” said Vitaly I. Konovalyuk, a member of Parliament who leads the commission. Mr. Konovalyuk is from the leading opposition party, the Party of Regions, which seeks warmer ties with the Kremlin.The charges come at a time of a deep economic downturn and political discord in Ukraine, with a seemingly intractable power struggle between President Yushchenko and his main pro-Western rival, Prime Minister Yulia V. Tymoshenko. The Parliament has often been stalemated, and President Yushchenko’s popularity has plunged.Russia’s senior officials have been fueling the dispute. Russia’s prime minister, Vladimir V. Putin, called the alleged weapons sales a “crime against the Russian and Ukrainian people” in a meeting with Ms. Tymoshenko in October.The Kremlin has long opposed Mr. Yushchenko because of his pro-Western bent and was infuriated by his vocal backing of Georgia during the crisis. The leadership of both Ukraine and Georgia took power in the so-called color revolutions and both want to join NATO. Russia has vociferously opposed such a step.Russia’s president, Dmitri A. Medvedev, last month accused countries that supplied Georgia with weapons of helping to provoke the August conflict. “Unfortunately, several countries close to us participated in this,” he said. “We will never forget this, and, for sure, we will consider this when formulating policy.”Last week, Gazprom, the state-owned natural gas monopoly once headed by Mr. Medvedev, announced that it might double the price of gas for Ukraine if it failed to pay off $2.4 billion in debt by Jan. 1. Two years ago, in a similar dispute, Gazprom turned off the gas to Ukraine. (Gazprom has said it will try to refrain from doing so again this time.)Ukraine was left with huge stockpiles of weapons and military equipment after the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, and has relied on arms exports as a major source of income.In 2007, Ukraine sold Georgia 74 T-72 tanks, some armored combat vehicles, a BUK M1 surface-to-air missile system, two 2S7 self-propelled artillery guns, among other weapons, according to the United Nations Register of Conventional Arms.Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council said in a statement that the country’s last shipment of military hardware arrived at the Georgian Black Sea port in Poti on Aug. 8, the day the war started, but that the cargo “did not include weaponry.” Rather, the statement said, “pyrotechnical equipment” for aircraft emergency and fire prevention systems were delivered.Though Ukraine’s weapons export system has been criticized for lack of oversight, most analysts say controls over weapons sales have improved since the 1990s, when the country was a main source of weapons sent to conflict zones around the world.President Yushchenko has said that Ukraine’s arms shipments did not violate any laws and has indicated that Ukraine will continue to sell weapons to Georgia. Ukraine also sells military hardware to Russia. “Ukraine conducts military-technical cooperation with countries that are not under international restrictions,” the president said this month. “We will trade with those whose relations with us correspond to our national interests.”Though its inquiry began two months ago, the opposition’s parliamentary committee has not yet released a full report on its findings, despite regular statements in the Ukrainian news media from Mr. Konovalyuk about the explosiveness of the information.Ms. Tymoshenko, who rarely hesitates to snipe at Mr. Yushchenko, has remained largely silent, and no representatives from her faction sit on Mr. Konovalyuk’s commission.