For-Profit Diplomacy

On July 18 the White House announced that a 57-year-old American politician, diplomat, and businessman, Jon Meade Huntsman, Jr. was to be the new Ambassador of the U.S. to Russia. J. Huntsman is the U.S. political «heavyweight», and his being nominated for the new diplomatic position in the U.S. Senate will not create any problems, except perhaps with the messages from senators with anti-Russian sentiment, who make up the majority, to take a tough and a more aggressive stand in the relations with Moscow. The White House nomination lists all major accomplishments and achievements of Huntsman, who currently serves as Chairman of both the Atlantic Council, a premier foreign policy think tank, and the Huntsman Cancer Foundation. It is noted that «his robust record of public service includes service as U.S. Ambassador to China and to Singapore, Deputy United States Trade Representative, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Development. He was also twice elected Governor of Utah. In the private sector he is a director of numerous corporate boards including Hilton, Chevron, Ford Motor Company, and Caterpillar. He and his wife Mary Kaye are the parents of seven children».

Compromise Impossible: What the Sanctions Bill against Russia Means?

Nevertheless, it seems that one key point is missing in this list, namely Huntsman's private income worth about USD 1 billion. This is the reason why billionaire Huntsman along with multi-billionaire R. Tillerson was considered by D. Trump as a possible U.S. Secretary of State at the end of 2016. In this respect, J. Huntsman has not so much relevance to the U.S. diplomatic service as to the shadow Cabinet of D. Trump administration office, a pool of 15 most successful (and hence, most wealthy) American businessmen and financiers, created by D. Trump in the form of President’s Strategic and Policy Forum [1].

Interesting Historical ParallelsAmong the seven American Ambassadors accredited in Moscow since early 1990’s, from T. Pickering to J. Tefft, Huntsman is most likely to occupy a special place. All of them, except Prof. M. McFaul, who held the post from 2012 to 2014, were professional diplomats, representing traditional models of diplomatic relations. Huntsman in absolutely all his traits and significance reminds of A. Harriman, the trusted envoy of T. Roosevelt, who served as Ambassador of the U.S. to Moscow in the critical historical period of 1943–1946. Millionaire Harriman also had three hypostases, being a businessman, a diplomat, and a politician. He was Chairman and a Board member of many American companies mainly in railroad business, a Chairman of Business Advisory Council in 1937–1939 at the Ministry of U.S. Trade, which in fact means he was close to President T. Roosevelt’s administration office. In 1954–1958 — Governor, State of

New York, he also participated in presidential race as a Democratic nomination for U.S. President twice in 1952 and in 1956 without success. In the post WWII period he held different diplomatic positions, including the U.S. Under Secretary of State in 1961–1965.

Loosening U.S. sanctions against Russia might be a «carrot» that the U.S. is going to propose to Russia in order to compensate for decreasing trade and economic relations with China.

Given that the current hysteria in the U.S. is centered on D.Trump and his family members’ connections with Russia and Russian representatives, one can assume, that Huntsman, being a member of ruling political elite in the U.S., will become D. Trump’s trusted envoy with direct access to the President of the USA. This could have been the defining point in D.Trump’s decision to nominate Huntsman for the position of the U.S. Ambassador to Moscow.

Moreover, the Ambassador is a figure directly or indirectly indicating the importance of the country of his/her post in the U.S. foreign policy priorities. It is evident that Huntsman’s appointment signifies Russia and Russian policies being placed at the forefront in the system of U.S. foreign policy decision-making. D. Trump’s administration office has to admit «by default» that the administration must acknowledge that a rise in multipolarity will in turn allow Russia to advance its interests as a key player. The implications of this order cannot be ignored by the United States.

What Does the Future Hold? Reflections Regarding the Hamburg Meeting

Still there are more parallels to A. Harriman and the period of mid 1940’s. USSR—U.S. relations in that period were built on a trilateral basis — within the Moscow —Washington — London triangle. In 1943 it became clear that WWII was coming to an end and post-war order issue is becoming crucially important. The appointment of Huntsman, who used to be Ambassador of the U.S. to Singapore in 1992–1993 and to China in 2009-2011, might be interpreted as follows: on Huntsman’s arrival to the Russian capital Russia-the U.S. relations will be built within Moscow—Washington—Beijing triangle.

The key strategic position of Washington — to prevent Russia-China strategic partnership formation — directly depends on the way the unprecedented pressure of Washington and its allies towards Moscow might influence Russia-China rapprochement. With growing anxiety American experts note that «the economic downturn and concomitant structural shift in China’s economy has already begun affecting its foreign policy. Security, not economics, is becoming one of and China’s top strategic priorities».

At the same time the Atlantic Council experts underscore that both Russia and China are searching for and manage to find more points of contact and common interests in the national security sphere. M. Gebhardt, Atlantic Council expert, directly points out the idea that «SCO is primarily a security-focused organization in which Russia and China have ostensibly equal standing. China and Russia both see the presence of American military forces in Central Asia as a security challenge» [2].

Under these circumstances loosening U.S. sanctions against Russia might be a «carrot» that the U.S. is going to propose to Russia in order to compensate for decreasing trade and economic relations with China. In any case, it is of great significance that Atlantic Council experts have reached consensus to reconsider the format of sanctions against Russia to avoid a number of potential unintended consequences for American companies and for the U.S. foreign policy.

A Pragmatic Politician

Hall Gardner: Breaking the U.S.-Russia Impasse: Keeping the Door Open to Dialogue

Huntsman’s numerous talents and experience inevitably lead experts to wonder how he will distinguish himself in this post as the U.S. Ambassador to Moscow. His political biography shows that he belongs to a number of pragmatic politicians, who change their political views and positions depending on the ongoing political situation. Some time ago American political analysts characterized him as a «conservative technocrat-optimist who was willing to work substantively with President Barack Obama». The opportunism of the positions taken by Huntsman could be observed in the course of the presidential campaign in 2016. In spring 2016 he supported D.Trump, a Republican nomination for U.S. President, while in autumn, after another scandal over D.Trump’s offensive comments towards women, he withdrew his «blessings».

Such political variability of Huntsman applies even to his religious beliefs. In May 2011 he gave the following explanation on his Mormon Church membership: «Today, there are 13 million Mormons. It's a very diverse and heterogeneous cross-section of people. And you're going to find a lot of different attitudes and a lot of different opinions in that 13 million. I was raised by a Mormon, my wife is a member of Episcopal Church, and our children are Catholics».

Therefore, there is every reason to believe that Huntsman will consistently follow the foreign policy line towards Russia shaped in the doctrinal foreign policy documents of the White House, the National Security Council, and the U.S. Department of State.

Compromise Impossible: What the Sanctions Bill against Russia Means?

The toughening of the American position after Hamburg puts Russia at a disadvantage. It will either have to punch fist on the table, or, in the worst kind, pretend that nothing terrible happened and continue to search for compromises and solutions, not paying attention to the increasing

pressure. At the same time, further intensification of pressure against Russia is almost inevitable. This is caused by a number of factors.

What Does the Future Hold? Reflections Regarding the Hamburg Meeting

First, the pressure on Russia can and will go through numerous channels, bypassing the US president, even if we take for granted the fact that he would like to normalize relations with Russia. Trump himself may well use the Russian card to fight his opponents inside the US, periodically exacerbating conflict, as it happened with a missile attack in Syria. It is also important that the anti-Russian campaign in the United States is already living its own life and has become a chronic factor that will prevail over diplomats.

Second, the situation in Ukraine and especially in Syria remains extremely fragile and vulnerable to provocations. There are no reasons that could induce the Americans to change their position on the Ukrainian issue. Here we can observe further radicalization of the American position in case of another round of clashes. To provoke them, as recent experience shows, is very easy. It is far from obvious that communication with the new US special representative for Ukraine will solve the problems, especially given his "hawkish" position. The situation in Syria is even more unstable, where the number of players capable of destabilizing the situation is much greater.

Third, the modernization of the US armed forces and the growth of defense spending will intensify the tension in bilateral relations. Today, there are no serious grounds for Washington to change its position on spending increase. The modernization of nuclear arsenals will be particularly sensitive. In this area, one must be prepared for unpleasant surprises, like the further degradation of the INF Treaty.

Fourth, there is the survivability of the "authoritarian Russia" narrative and the positioning of Russia as a counterparty with dubious legitimacy. Trump diligently avoids bringing up the subject, for the time being. But its presence in the American discourse is only increasing.

The “Southern Deal” Between Moscow and Washington: A Duel of Diplomacies

Finally, fifth, the anti-Russian policy of the United States is close to get a comprehensive legislative framework. Voting in the House of Representatives on anti-Russian sanctions is an important step along this path. The adoption of the bill will determine the US policy towards Russia for decades to come. And this will be a policy of strangling Russia. The bill is notable for the following components.

First of all, Russia is not the only subject of the bill. The document also provides sanctions against Iran and North Korea, as well as actions to counter terrorism. In other words, the bill places Russia in the line of "rogue states", as well as together with issues comparable to terrorism. This cuts the ground out from under the feet of those who hoped to minimize the damage from sanctions and preserve the Russian-American cooperation within the framework of the "five on Iran" and "six on Korea". In Moscow it is now quite natural to ask the question: what is the point of cooperation with Washington on these issues, if we are equated with the same problems?

The next important point:  the bill includes a wide range of "misconducts" for which Russia should be punished. Here are Ukraine, Syria, cyber space, medium and short range missiles, interference in elections, propaganda, corruption, human rights, and energy policy. This means that any steps towards Washington or attempts to compromise on certain issues are doomed to failure in advance. The bill devalues diplomacy in Russian-American relations, making meaningless any initiatives to resolve the accumulated problems. Why should Moscow negotiate with the United States and its allies on Syria or Ukraine if they can always get the human rights out of their pockets, or democracy, motivating them to keep sanctions and hostile policies in general? Such an approach makes any theoretical compromises on the part of Russia a game in one gate.

Further. The bill twists the hands of any country of the world, which plans to cooperate with Russia. This is mainly about energy, although sanctions are also implied in a number of other sectors - railway transport, mining, defense, etc. One can understand the indignation of the European allies of the United States, which are Russia's key trading partners. It is interesting that the bill directly spells out the goal of the American companies to enter the energy market of Europe by ousting Russia from it. The EU taxpayers will have to pay for this. But more importantly, sanctions can be applied against any country, including, by the way, the members of the EAEU and any other country that is more or less friendly towards Russia.

Breaking the U.S.-Russia Impasse: Keeping the Door Open to Dialogue

It is interesting that the bill also presupposes a very strict reporting system. Practically in all directions the Congress will have to receive regular reports from the executive branch. Such reports should, for example, include information on Russian businessmen and the extent of their relationship with the Russian government. This means that any more or less big Russian

businessman should be kept under surveillance and contracts with the state, for example, can become a matter for sanctions. Their introduction is left for the executive. The administration can look at this or that "violation" through fingers, but at the same time it receives a tool for pressure and manipulation.

Finally, the verification of many provisions remains extremely vague and fuzzy. Especially that many of the claims of the American side are still unproven. This negates any hopes for any constructive discussion.

In the final analysis, sanctions leave Russia the only alternative — to accept the US as a strategic and key challenge to its security. And if earlier such a position could be disputed, now it is receiving the most serious legitimacy by the hands of the congressmen. The irony is that sanctions threaten not only Russia's security, but also the security of the US itself. The power and capabilities of Russia cannot be overestimated. But they should hardly be underestimated. And if earlier diplomats had a wide maneuver for cooperation where both sides benefited, now the space for such a maneuver is reliably concreted at the legislative level.

For the sake of justice, it should be noted that the bill provides a softening of positions in the event that corresponds to the vital interests of the United States. The big question is whether Moscow cooperates if Washington has really vital problems.

The U.S. in Central Asia: between «С5+1» and «Make America Great Again»

October 30 to November 3, 2015, was marked by the first large-scale visit made by the U.S. Secretary of State to Central Asia, covering all five countries of the region. In the course of this visit, Samarkand hosted the first summit meeting for the foreign ministers of the Republic of Kazakhstan, the Kyrgyz Republic, the Republic of Tajikistan, the Republic of Turkmenistan, and the Republic of Uzbekistan and the Secretary of State of the United States of America, which signified the launch of the C5+1 format and the issue of the Joint Declaration of Partnership and Cooperation.

This document underscores the commitment of the sides to the principles of sovereignty, independence, and territorial integrity, while simultaneously setting the tone for cooperation in many areas: regional trade, the transport and transit potential of traffic, energy linkages, favorable business climate enhancement and attracting investment, sustainable environment, addressing climate change, developing energy efficient technologies, etc. The following points are at the end of the list: enhancement of cooperation to prevent and counter transboundary threats and challenges (such as terrorism, trafficking of weapons of mass destruction, illicit drugs, etc.); providing support to Afghanistan and recognizing it as an important factor in security and stability for the entire region; Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone in Central Asia; developing closer cooperation in the humanitarian sphere and (people-to-people ties, and encourage wider educational, cultural, and business exchanges). The document itself does not list any new ideas; rather it is the format of cooperation that serves as the innovation meant to push the goals outlined within the document forward.

It is expected that the first meeting in the C5+1 dialogue format put the development of multilateral cooperation into motion and signified, firstly, that all participating countries were

ready for cooperation and interaction, and, secondly, indicated the common (the widest) range of regional issues that will shape the multilateral dialogue.

It is assumed that several work groups will be created in the course of the following meetings in order to cover specific areas of cooperation. What is the essence of the new format? It has been since 2001 that the USA was deeply involved in the regional affairs in terms of anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan and the creation of Northern Distribution Network. The U.S. and Uzbekistan were in close cooperation on Afghan issue, Kyrgyzstan was hosting Manas Air Base that closed only in 2014, and Tajikistan hosted the Ainy facility. USAID, the U.S. Agency for International Development, is actively operating in Central Asia, and the U.S. is one of the major donors in Kyrgyzstan. The U.S. has been implementing the New Silk Road initiative since 2011 in the region, which implies the launch of CASA-1000 in order to sell electricity and electric power produced by Kyrgyz and Tajik hydroelectric power stations to Afghanistan and Pakistan, and the construction of Turkmenistan–Afghanistan–Pakistan–India Pipeline (TAPI) to provide South Asia with Central Asia resources while ensuring the development of Afghanistan.

Prospects for Russian-Chinese Cooperation in Central Asia

Though the withdrawal of the coalition troops from Afghanistan eliminates the need for the large-scale extra-regional partners’ presence in the countries of the region. CASA-1000 and TAPI projects have been stalling for several years as no one is ready or able to ensure their safety in the territory of Afghanistan, which raises questions of the New Silk Road on a broader scale. At the same time, China is becoming increasingly interested in the Central Asian region with its Silk Road Economic Belt initiative and the active investments in the countries of the region. Since 2015 two Central Asian states — Kazakhstan and Kyrgyzstan — have been members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), demonstrating their desire to develop closer cooperation with Russia and Belarus. It seems clear that the U.S. is likely to remain outside the processes going on in the region. And though the U.S. does not have direct economic interests in Central Asia, being an outsider clearly contradicts the U.S. pursuit to «diversify» the relations between the states of the region and the outside world, and to keep Russia and China from obtaining a greater role of influence in the region. Creation of C5+1 format will apparently show the five states that it is not only Russia and China who might help to resolve regional issues but also the U.S., who at this point is not seeking to serve any specific interests, except regional development enhancement. It is notable that John Kerry didn’t emphasize the situation over the human rights in the region during his tour and did not declare the Islamic Renaissance Party of Tajikistan ban or the situation with the independent media in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, etc. reprehensible. That would suggest that the U.S. has given up its conviction in the opportunity to influence the domestic political affairs in the countries of the region, and admitted the defeat of its almost 30-year-long course towards the democratization of the region, having decided to focus on maintaining its presence in the region even without any meaningful content.

The absence of any specific U.S. initiatives or programs on regional security proves that in the last years of B. Obama’s presidency Washington D.C. was not ready to make significant investment in the resolution of regional issues, namely in economic development, political regime change, and even terrorism threat increase, religious extremism, etc., giving them away to the neighbors involved, i.e. Russia and China. C5+1 format, being initiated by John Kerry, was possibly aiming at clarifying positions of the leaders of the countries in the region and the current situation, as well as showing a «disinterested» ally (alternative to Russia and China) in addressing development issues to the government of the Central Asian states.

New administration office of D.Trump has not come up with any exact agenda on Middle Asian region. There seems to be no dynamics in the C5+1 format development as well. At first sight it seems logical that getting involved in the Middle Asian affairs does not fit into the «Make America great again» concept and would look as if the U.S. administration office is dispersing resources in the context of current discourse, given that there is a need to resolve more pending issues, both domestic and foreign. However, the rhetorics of the U.S. President as well as a number of «new tendencies» in the region (first of all, Sh. Mirziyoyev’s inauguration for the post of the President of Uzbekistan and the start of reforms in Kazakhstan) suggest some of the most obvious lines for further U.S. policy line in Central Asia.

It is necessary to note that safeguarding human rights and the essence of political regimes in Central Asian states are not being a key issue in the speeches of D.Trump and the U.S. administration office representatives. The most famous American human-rights organizations have noted R.Tillerson’s absence in the course of State Department human rights annual report presentation (1, 2), and it is possible that the U.S. will cut budgets for the United Nations Human Rights Council, and many experts treated it as a cessation of human rights issues by the new administration office.

Post-Soviet Turkmenistan: A Little-Known Present and an Uncertain Future

Obviously, in the near future we are unlikely to hear any significant criticism over the Central Asian governments on this issue. Moreover, there might be some positive signals towards Uzbekistan, including the growing interest from American business, due to the «warming» of the political climate in Uzbekistan with Mirziyoyev holding the office, the announced reforms, and the attempts to establish contacts with neighbors from the U.S. side. If this scenario develops, the direct relationship between the political changes and the amount of investment received will demonstrate the U.S. economic interest in Uzbekistan and can serve as a clear example for all other states in the region. It seems that this example will be more convincing and effective than the criticism repeatedly spread by the U.S. to address political regimes and the situation with human rights. Reforms proclaimed in Kazakhstan also give the United States a reason to think about the possibility of increasing economic contacts with this state. The likelihood of such scenario, however, directly depends on how much the real development of events in Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan will correspond to the declared course.

At the same time, the administration of D. Trump is quite serious about countering terrorism and remains active in this direction in Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. According to the former director of the Kazakhstan Institute for Strategic Studies (KazISS) E. Karina, this is perhaps the main convergence of the interests of the U.S. and Central Asian states [1]. According to the Soufan Group, about 2,000 militants from Central Asian countries are fighting on the side of ISIS [1]. It is obvious that preventing further radicalization of Central Asia can become the basis for closer cooperation between the U.S. and the states of the region. At the same time, the latter will be

happy to receive funding from the U.S. for the implementation of appropriate measures, as well as the possibility to balance the influence of Russia and China on security issues. For the U.S., in its turn, this can be an effective mechanism to influence the leadership of the states of the region and form an alternative line to cooperation with PRC and Russia.

Of course, the development of cooperation in countering terrorism will be directly affected by the dynamics of the situation within the countries of the region, and in case of its sharp deterioration, we will be able to observe very unexpected scenarios.

Thus, should the new U.S. administration have interest to further develop the C5+1 format, two major opportunities will be used: enhancing economic contacts with the countries of the region and thus influencing the political situation within, and fostering cooperation on countering radicalism and extremism. The U.S. donor activity in the region and USAID significant impact on civil society and the social environment in some countries of the region should also be taken into consideration. For example, in Kyrgyzstan, USAID funds cover the costs for project studies held by ministries and government agencies, including Eurasian economic integration issues. It seems that this U.S. activity in the region will be supported regardless of the dialogue format development.

A number of European companies recently concluded large investment deals in the Iranian market, an indication that Iran has reaped some benefits from the nuclear deal. Moreover, the development also coincided with President Hassan Rouhani’s landslide win of a second presidential term at the May 19, 2017 elections.

The recent deals sealed with Western states give four key indications. Firstly, the international powers are

committed to the implementation of the provisions of the nuclear deal, and the lifting of restrictions on Western

companies doing businesses with Iran. Secondly, some Western companies are keen on hunting for potential

investment returns in the Iranian market despite existing risks. Thirdly, the European countries continue to

support Iran’s moderate camp on which they rely not only because to avoid to violation of the nuclear deal, but

also to initiate economic reforms required to encourage foreign investment inflow.

Fourthly, increasing difficulties might face any moves the United States may make to influence involved

companies’ commitments towards Iran, especially after several large deals were concluded through bilateral

investment partnerships between international powers. 

However, Washington’s recent effort to impose more sanctions on local and international entities and

businesses for supporting Iran’s ballistic missile program, and largely enhancing its military capability, may

Will European Businesses Refrain from New Deals with Iran? 

send quite the opposite messages that the business climate in Iran will live up to their expectations. This would

slow down the conclusion of investment deals in the Iranian market in the coming period, at a time when this

the business climate continues to face several challenges such as bad regulations and the Iranian

Revolutionary Guard Corps’ large-scale intervention in various economic activities. 

Several IndicationsThe Iranian market appears to be entering a new stage of recovery spurred by large investment deals

concluded between European companies and the Iranian government. This presents several indications

concerning the investment outlook for the country’s market. The following indications stand out:

1- Declining Restrictions. In July 2016, the US Department of Treasury gave its approval for aviation giant

Boeing to sell 80 airliners to Iran for $16.6 billion. The approval sent a signal that risks of doing business with

Iran are already gone, and that many Western companies now have an opportunity to hunt for investment

projects in the country’s various economic sectors, at a time when Iran appears to be in dire need for foreign

investments that can help overcome economic hardships. 

Moreover, despite US President Donald Trump’s frequent threats that he would order a  full review of the

nuclear agreement with Iran - to certify Iran’s compliance and whether the removal of sanctions is in the US

national interest- the US has not taken procedural steps in this direction. This did reflect on the conclusion of

large investment deals between Western companies and the Iranian government in recent months, of which

the deals with Boeing, France’s oil giant Total and Europe’s planemaker Airbus stand out.

2- Seizing Opportunities. Soon after the nuclear deal was sealed, Western companies sought to capitalize

on the lifting of sanctions on doing business with Iran. The Iranian market holds significant investment

opportunities in various economic sectors, and in the oil and gas industry in particular that have high

investment returns. 

Moreover, President Rouhani, on January 18, 2017, affirmed that the country needs needs annual foreign

investment of $30-$50 billion to overcome economic hardships. The oil minister Bijan Zangeneh, stated later

on February 9, that the country needs $200 billion of investment in the next five years to increase production

and exports. 

For Total, its $5 billion contract with Iran for the for the development and production of phase 11 of South Pars

(SP11), the world's largest gas field is a risk worth taking. That is because that deal is expected to generate

$84 billion in revenue over the next 20 years, which is the duration of the contract signed with the National

Iranian Oil Company (NIOC). 

Likewise, Western companies operating in other sectors, such as transportation, the auto industry, expect

equally large attractive commercial and investment returns from their business in the Iranian market. 

3- European Commitment. Due to the continuous restrictions on doing business with Iran and another list of

sanctions on Iran, European companies appeared to be more capable of gaining access into the Iranian

market. This  disparity enabled the European companies to seize an opportunity to enter the country’s market

more easily. However, at the same time, European companies eagerness to pump capital into Iran has sent a

message that Europe is serious and committed to the implementation of the nuclear deal regardless of the

United States’ position on it.

Of course, Iran’s conclusion of investment deals, such as the contract on development of South Pars gasfield,

through a partnership between French, Chinese and Iranian companies, means that the Unites States will not

be able to convince or coerce all of its allies to give up the benefits of similar deals. Moreover, international

banks’ reluctance to fund deals with Iran appears to be useless because interested companies can continue to

do business with Iran through reliance on other financial institutions such as Chinese banks. 

4- Supporting the Moderates. European companies’ deals with Iran appears to be a result of some positive

domestic developments in Iran, including moderate President Rouhani’s win of a second term in the May 19

elections. This meant that these deals were more like an incentive for the moderate camp to continue its

commitment to the provisions of the nuclear deal signed with international powers. 

Moreover, the deals represent part of Europe’s support for President Rouhani’s effort to carry out economic

reforms and encourage foreign investment to counter the Revolutionary Guard Corps’ intervention in the

country’s economic activities. 

Curbing the DealsThe nuclear agreement with the United States has not prevented new sanctions on international and national

entities for backing Iran’s ballistic missile program. The US Department of Treasury, on March 24, 2017,

imposed sanctions on 11 companies and individuals accused of transferring sensitive missile technology to

Iran. Later on July 18, the Department imposed new sanctions on 18 other companies and individuals for

backing the Revolutionary Guard Corps by developing drones and military equipment, producing and

maintaining boats, procuring electronic components, and orchestrating the theft of U.S. and Western software

programs sold to Iran's government. 

The most recent list of sanctions is limited in scope because it targets specific entities and does not have its

focus on blocking Iran’s oil exports from reaching the international market or blocking Western companies from

doing business within Iran. This means the sanctions do not pose a large-scale threat to the Iranian economy

due to its limited effect.  

Against this low cost, the US Administration of President Donald Trump may attempt to rectify Iran’s behavior

by ratcheting up the sanctions that are likely to include effective bans that can damage the critical components

of the Iranian economy. However, this does fuel the fears of Western companies willing to pump fresh

investments into the Iranian market. 

Without a doubt, the Trump Administration’s eagerness to ratchet up sanctions against Iran in the coming

period will send across the adverse message that Iran’s business climate will not be as easy as expected for

international companies. These companies may have to be more cautious about pumping more capital into the

Iran at a time when the country's investment environment is facing multiple challenges including, as mentioned

above, bad regulations and the Revolutionary Guard Corps’ large-scale intervention in various economic

activities. 

It can be concluded that despite the fact that the nuclear agreement represented a new stage in investment partnership between Iran and European countries, the possibility that US sanctions against Iran will be ratcheted up can push European companies to adopt a more cautious policy on pumping

investments into Iran, thus slowing down potential investment deals with Iran in the coming period.  

Doctors working in government hospitals and field clinics have, in recent years, been increasingly targeted in armed conflict zones in the Arab region - particularly in Syria, Iraq, Libya and, to a lesser extent, in Yemen. Killings, assaults, arrests, forced disappearances and extra-judicial detentions are cited among tools used by governments, terrorist organizations, militias, criminal gangs and violent sectarian groups to target doctors. This phenomenon can be explained by several drivers, including attempts to weaken political opponents, cover up crimes committed by government authorities, the growing influence of criminal gangs, the dominance of tribalism as well as driving highly qualified scientists and physicians  out of their countries. 

Certain incidents reflect the grim reality facing doctors and other medical staff in Arab conflict zones, in Iraq in

particular. In July 2017, woman dentist Shaza al-Samarrai was murdered by unknown people using knives

when they broke in her home in al-Iskan district in western Baghdad and stole all her personal belongings and

furniture. The crime took place only two days after a doctor named Salim Abdul Hamza, was stabbed to death

by unknown attackers in his clinic in al-Maamel district in eastern Baghdad. Reports had it that the motive was

revenge. 

 

Soon after that, on July 18, the Iraqi Medical Association announced that an armed group kidnapped Dr. Ali

Mohammed Zayer, head of Surgery at the Al-Hakeem General Hospital, while he was heading from his house

to his clinic. The next day, the surgeon was found alive and handcuffed in a Baghdad alley.   Eight days later,

on July 26, the Association decided to stage a sit-in for all doctors across the country (except for emergency

and ICU doctors and anesthesiologists) to protest against failure to provide needed security measures to

protect doctors. Banners held up by protesters read: “Enough with your complacency concerning the rights

and safety of doctors”, “Protect doctors”, and “doctors’ dignity is the country’s dignity".

 

There are no accurate statistics to indicate the real extent of the phenomenon, although the international

health institutions reveal its upward trend and increasing violations against respecting and protecting medical

units. Literature indicates that there are a number of factors that explain the increasing targeting of doctors in

Arab conflict zones, as follows:

Military Superiority1- Weakening political opponent’s resistance. Just like fighters, medical workers have become targets in

ongoing conflicts. In Syria, warring parties used doctors and hospitals as part of its war strategies. Last year,

Syria became the most dangerous place on earth for healthcare providers, according to the World Health

Organization. The US-based Physicians for Human Rights also announced that Syria was the most dangerous

place for doctors.

 

Why are Doctors targeted in Arab Conflict Zones?

Doctors are no longer the sole target of assaults. Nurses, pharmacists, volunteer healthcare professionals,

medical transport companies, ambulance drivers and just anyone who can provide healthcare services, have

all been targeted by attacks aimed at ensuring that the regime of Bashar al-Assad gains military advantage

over armed opposition groups and depriving their supporters from any medical aid.

 

Chief of the UN Commission of Inquiry on Syria, Paulo Pinheiro, told the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva

on June 21, 2016, that widespread, targeted aerial attacks on hospitals and clinics across Syria have resulted

in scores of civilian deaths, including much-needed medical workers. Pinheiro added that 'as civilian casualties

mount, the number of medical facilities and staff decreases, limiting even further access to medical care'.

 

For instance, Syrian government forces target medical workers and facilities in areas controlled by armed

opposition factions after besieging these areas, blocking the injured who are not among the regime’s loyalists

from receiving medical aid at government hospitals, as was the case in the provinces of Aleppo and Idlib. The

measures poses a serious threat to the lives of thousands of citizens. Moreover, a sufficient reason for the

Assad regime to arrest Syrian doctors living in areas under its control would be that they belong to the Sunni

majority, according to identical accounts from residents.

 

In a news conference held in August 2016, Tawfik Sujua’, the president of the Union of Medical Care and

Relief Organizations (UOSSM), a non-profit organization of Syrian doctors, warned that the situation of

healthcare in Aleppo City was deteriorating. This is primarily due to a decline in the numbers of doctors, a

severe shortfall of medical equipment, supplies, a lack of operating rooms, sufficient sterilization and

anesthetic drugs as well as power outages, all coupled with the regime’s surveillance and crackdown on

activist doctors who treat injured people at field hospitals.

 

Yemen’s rebel Houthi group followed a similar approach targeting some doctors in the country. This prompted

Meinie Nicolai, the president of Doctors Without Borders/Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF), to state, on

October 3, 2016, that "Over the past year, we recorded 77 attacks against medical facilities operated or

supported by MSF in Syria and Yemen. This is unprecedented.”

Uncovering the Crimes2- Covering up the crimes of authoritarian regimes. This became evident in the case of al-Assad regime

which carried out targeted attacks on activist doctors in the early days of the

Syrian Revolution. In 2011, a group of revolutionaries working in secret formed what became known as

“Doctors Coordinate of Damascus” (or Damascus Doctors) and created their own Facebook page. The aim of

the network of health care workers was not only to save lives but also to expose al-Assad regime’s crimes and

its exercise of intimidation, assassination and violation of the neutrality of the medical profession enshrined in

International human rights law.

 

The Damascus Doctors group also set up secret clinics in neighborhoods witnessing protests, but they had to

keep changing their places so that even doctors providing medical equipment and care would not know where

the clinic would be set up the next day. The aim is to spare doctors from crackdown by al-Assad regime forces

which succeeded in capturing a number of them while others either joined militias or fled the country.

 

In one of the accounts, a physician working for MSF once said, “Syrian doctors say that catching a doctor in

the company of a patient is like being caught with a gun.” A highly famous Yemeni doctor from Taiz who heads

the Yemeni Center for Transitional Justice (YCTJ), was arrested in June 2013 for supporting the Yemeni youth

revolting against the regime of the now-ousted president Ali Abdullah Saleh. 

Fragile Rule of Law3- Flourishing criminal gangs taking advantage of weak rule of law in conflict zones in certain states kidnap

doctors of high income to extort ransoms. In both Syria and Iraq, although kidnappings, extortion and assaults

against healthcare facilities and workers are increasing on daily basis, no deterrent measures have been taken

against perpetrators who remain  and escape justice for their actions. The failure makes doctors and other

medical staff feel more unsafe.

 

Despite increasing demands in Iraq for enforcing Law No. 26 of 2013 on Doctors - which provides for the

punishment for anyone threatening or assaulting a doctor with a three-year jail term and a fine of 10 million

Iraqi dinars- Iraqi security authorities have not been responsive because they prioritize confrontations with ISIS

in Mosul. For instance, on September 29, 2013, a tribe from Basra threatened a surgeon named Kazim

Hussein, after one of his patients died during surgery. Kazim was forced to pay 20000 dinars as a

compensation. Generally, this situation shows that insecurity blocks doctors from practicing the profession.

Tribal Law4- Prevalent tribalism, obviously, affects doctors across Iraq, where they fall victims to frequent targeted

assaults, according to local media reporting and social media. Pictures of deserted homes published by the

media show writings on the walls and doors that read “The owner of this house is wanted for blood (fued)”, a

marking indicating that the owner is vulnerable to killing or has to pay a ransom to those threatening him.

 

Tribes in Iraq enforce their own laws when a failed surgery or a wrong prescription leads to the death of, or

causes a permanent disability for a member of the tribe, and even when he cannot afford to pay financial

compensation. The situation reveals weak social awareness of the crucial role of doctors and the medical

profession as a whole. 

Eliminating Qualified People. 5- Driving highly-educated people out of Iraq. Available literature highlights the issue of rampant gangs

driven by political agendas that target doctors in Iraq for instance, where the goal is to empty Iraq of its highly-

educated people, academics and scientists.

 

Ayad Allawi, Iraqi Vice President and leader of the National Coalition, made a statement to the press on July

24, 2017, saying “evil agendas are behind the targeting of doctors across the country. What doctors are

exposed to is a security setback that requires urgent security plans.”  The next day, the Iraqi Medical

Association issued a statement saying “these assassinations are recurring unabated and the perpetrators

escape due to a lack of effective governmental or legal measures against their crimes, which are the result of

increasing incitement in the media against doctors. The goal is to empty the country of its qualified people and

undermine its health and national security.”

 

 The situation plays into the hands of Western countries of which Germany is home to the largest community

of expatriate Syrian doctors. While thousands of Syrian doctors leave their country each year for work abroad,

Germany estimates that it will need 111 thousand doctors by 2030 to serve its citizens. According to Foreign

Policy, the number of foreign doctors in Germany increased 60% between 2010 and 2014, with Syrian doctors

competing with Romanians on the top spot of the list of Germany’s largest community of foreign doctors.

 

Politicization of the healthcare sector. Healthcare has been militarized due to several factors including escalating internal conflicts in the Arab region,

interference of warring parties to employ it to serve their own military and strategic goals, increasing primitive

loyalty to traditional social environments, receding rule of law as well as under performance of the government

security establishment. This situation imposes several obstacles for development of plans to provide a safe

environment in Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Libya, a demand driven by the growing power of terrorist organizations

and other militias, the use of hospitals for non-medical purposes and taking actions to undermine opponents.

That is, hospitals are increasingly being used to harbor militants, stash arms and ammunition and are even

turned into military checkpoints and installations for military operations.

 

Such actions prevents the provision of “neutral” medical treatment, endangering the lives of patients and medical workers as well as threatening the humanitarian use of medical facilities. International human rights law does state that under no circumstances a person shall be punished for carrying out medical activities compatible with medical ethics regardless of the person benefiting therefrom, or shall be compelled to perform acts or to carry out work in contravention of medical ethics, regardless of religion, race and political affiliations. However, when hospitals are used for non-medical and non-humanitarian purposes, their protection may not be removed  before an appropriate warning is issued, and a reasonable deadline is set, in all cases, even after these hospitals ignore warnings.

Restricted Movement:Can Iran Threaten US Interests?

The US Administration of President Donald Trump has started to deal with the nuclear agreement -reached two years ago between Iran and the P5+1 group on July 14, 2015- in such a manner that separates between its political and technical aspects. The new approach was evidenced by the US Administration’s July 17 announcement that President Trump agreed to certify again that Iran is complying with the international nuclear agreement. This means that, among other compliance measures, Iran is operating 5060 first generation centrifuges, configured to enrich uranium to only 3.67%, a level well below that needed to make an atomic weapon, while also moving heavy water outside of Iranian territory.

 However, the announcement coincided with signals from the Trump Administration that the issue with Iran is

not limited to its technical compliance with the nuclear deal. Iran’s deliberate exploitation of this deal to bolster

its presence and expansion in crisis-ridden countries is the matter in question. This explains the

Administration’s keenness on accusing Iran of "not living up to the spirit" of the agreement.

 

This particular position illustrates the U.S. approach to the agreement.  This approach relied primarily on the

view that the states which concluded the nuclear deal with Iran sought to further promote their efforts to

achieve regional stability and support any opportunity to settle regional crises. Nonetheless, this did not

happen because of Iran’s de-stabilizing policies that further escalated turbulence within crisis-hit countries and

obstructed settlement efforts. 

The US Administration expressed this approach by accusing Iran of taking advantage of the funds freed up

under the nuclear deal to support terrorism and develop its stockpile of advanced weapons, including ballistic

missiles, which it started using outside its territory, including in Deir Ezzor City in eastern Syria on June 19,

2017.

 

Within this context, CIA Director Mike Pompeo, on July 20, stated that Iran is extending its reach in the Middle

East and wants to be a “kingpin” in the region. This is yet another sign that the United States’ sole priority in its

interaction with Iran is no longer the nuclear deal, where its other priorities are Iran’s role in crisis-hit countries

such as Syria, Iraq and Yemen.

 

To present justifications, Washington, on July 18, built its accusations on an announcement of new sanctions

on 18 Iranian individuals, groups and networks over non-nuclear behavior, such as support for ballistic

missiles development. Seven entities and five individuals were sanctioned for involvement in activities carried

out by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps. The new blacklist also includes an Iran-based international

criminal organization and three other individuals involved with it. Moreover, this provided a motive for the US

House of Representatives to approve new sanctions on both Iran and Russia on July 25. 

Preemptive ThreatsIn response, Tehran considered the United States’ re-certification that Iran is complying with the nuclear

agreement does not show any positive change in the US Administration's position. It even described the move

as a prelude to a new move through which the US aims to negatively impact the continued implementation of

the agreement and initiate an open-ended conflict with Iran, where the Trump Administration does not conceal

its resentment over the deal. This is especially so because the latest sanctions might not be the last, meaning

Iran’s military establishment, and the elite Revolutionary Guard Corps in particular, is is likely to be targeted

with more severe sanctions in the coming period.

 

That is what pushed Tehran to escalate its threats to Washington hinting once again that it would unilaterally

withdraw from the nuclear deal if the United States continues to take such measures. The escalation was

reflected in statements made by Iran’s foreign minister Mohammad Javad Zarif to the National Interest on July

17. Zarif said if it comes to a significant nonperformance by the United States, then Iran has other options

available, including withdrawing from the deal.

 

However, Iran’s most severe threats were issued by its top military commanders.  Major General Mohammad

Ali Jafari, the commander of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, on July 19, demanded the U.S. withdraw

all of its military bases within 1,000 kilometers of Iran's borders, if it insists on imposing sanctions against Iran.

Limited OptionsHowever, it is not possible to say that Iran can take the risk of entering into a direct confrontation with the

United States. That is because available options within this context are limited, which means that it will face a

predicament in the current period because of the nuclear deal. That is because it will not be easy for it to carry

out its threats to withdraw from the deal and revert back to the pre-agreement levels.

 

At the same time, Iran cannot put pressure on Washington to support the chances of continued

implementation of the nuclear deal and pave the way for the government of President Hassan Rouhani’s

efforts to gain as much economic benefits from the deal as possible. 

 Moreover, Iran’s threats to US interests are not in harmony with the reality on the ground that indicates that

Tehran would not opt for direct confrontation and risk tasking its allies to conduct strikes against American

interests. The reason is that Washington will  hold Iran responsible for any such attacks, in particular because

Iran is focused now on establishing its strong relations with terrorist and armed groups in crisis-hit countries.

Through these groups, Iran seeks to establish the so-called “Shiite Crescent”, a term that is being more

frequently used by US officials, including CIA Director Mike Pompeo who stated on April 15, 2017, that the

Shiite crescent is close to being developed, “And that is not in America’s best interest to permit that to

happen.”

 

The irony is that the US Administration’s insistence on  Iran’s compliance with the nuclear deal might

exacerbate the predicament that Iran found itself in currently. This is especially true because it would prevent

the hardliners - conservative fundamentalists and the Revolutionary Guard Corps- from seizing the opportunity

to put more hurdles to block the continued implementation of the nuclear deal. This is particularly so because

Iran, currently, cannot afford the possibility that the international community will hold it responsible for halting

the implementation which will impose disastrous consequences for its own security and interests. 

Hence, the most likely course that Iran would take is that it will continue its current “pull and push” tactics in the

coming period as long as the sanctions imposed by the US remain limited and do not impose severe impact,

as was the case with sanctions imposed before the nuclear deal was concluded.

 

What stands out within this context is that despite its criticism of the policy pursued by the current US

Administration, Rouhani's government believes that there is still an opportunity for opening communication

channels with Washington, based on the view that this might prevent the US Administration from taking more

effective measures that can increase the possibility of the  Nuclear deal's collapse.

 

Iran’s top diplomat Zarif expressed this approach when he noted, during a conversation with the Council on

Foreign Relations in New York on July 17, 2017, that there are no communications between him and  US

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. He added that “It doesn’t mean that there can’t be, because the possibilities

for engagement with regard to the nuclear deal have always been open. My colleagues have regular contact

with U.S. colleagues on the implementation of the nuclear deal.”

 This exchange of threats and the intertwined moves overall mean that tensions between Tehran and Washington will continue in the coming period and could possibly lead to severe consequences on the nuclear deal that is already facing no easy challenges. 

Out of 54 most interesting comments of this autumn, readers of the "Caucasian Knot" have chosen 12 best ones

For four years in a row, the "Caucasian Knot" has been marking the most meaningful, informative and topicalcomments made by its users. A year ago, we paid special attention to readers' comments about the freedom of religionand the problem of corruption in the Caucasus. This autumn we decided to award prizes to best commentators every week. Traditionally, the final choice and definition of the winner are with our readers.

Starting September 1, during three months, the "Caucasian Knot" marked the most interesting comments, while our readers were free to choose the best comment of the

elapsed week. We considered all the comments posted on interactive platforms of the "Caucasian Knot", namely, on the news tape, on the pages of our bloggers, in the forumand online discussions, in twitt broadcasts, and in the messages, received by the SMS-service of the "Caucasian Knot".

In the course of the contest, from September 1 to November 30, in total, 529 users sent over 13,000 messages, having commented 635 articles, news items, and posts in blogs. The "Caucasian Knot" has identified 54 comments to the most actual topics of the autumn, which gathered a total of 31,073 votes, and defined 12 winners.

Earlier, the "Caucasian Knot" held the following contests of readers' comments:

1. The best comment on the "Caucasian Knot" – in 2010;

2. Best comments of the readers of the "Caucasian Knot" – in January 2011;

3. The most active and critical commentator in blogs of the "Caucasian Knot" – in 2011;

4. The most active and informative news commentator of the "Caucasian Knot" – in 2011;

5. The best message on the Twitter of the Internet-medium "Caucasian Knot" – in 2011;

6. The best comment of the readers of the "Caucasian Knot" on the Facebook – in 2011;

7. Best comments on the materials of the "Caucasian Knot" from LiveJournal users – in   2012;

8. "Choice of the Caucasus": contest for the best post about the election of the President of the Russian Federation on the page of the "Caucasian Knot" on the Facebook – in 2012;

9. "Choice of the Caucasus": contest of comments about the election of Russian President to the materials of the "Caucasian Knot" – in 2012;

10. The most active and critical commentator of news items of the "Caucasian Knot" – in 2012;

11. Best comments to materials of the "Caucasian Knot" about corruption in Northern Caucasus – in 2013; and

12. Best comments to materials of the "Caucasian Knot" about the freedom of religion in Northern Caucasus – in 2013.

"Islamic State" threatens the Caucasus

Our readers used to demonstrate great interest in and activeness to the topics and events, caused by the current international political situation: the Ukrainian crisis, Russia's reaction to the Western sanctions; and appearance of the so-called "Islamic State" (IS) in the Middle East. The threats of the IS to transfer military actions to the Caucasus and Russia were differently perceived by our readers.

The user with the nick ahtichai expressed doubts as to a physical possibility of such scenario: "))))))) Have they already 'liberated' Syria, Iraq and Lebanon?))) And how will their equipment get to the Caucasus: via the space))) or by sea)))? If they move by land, they need first to conquer Iran or Turkey; and to reach RUSSIA, they also need to cross Azerbaijan or Georgia. IN short, it's delirium of insane persons (((In general, I think that this ISIL is a complete utopia; and they'll reach nothing. They were grown up on the money of the USA, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and, possibly, UAE. They could and can do almost nothing, even fighting – they faced nobody serious there; they can do nothing even with Assad."

The user Ernesto, on the contrary, believes that bringing militants to the Caucasus is theoretically possible, but they will find no support from local residents: "Sure, ISIL militants won't reach Northern Caucasus by themselves; but should they are helped, they may fly there. In Afghanistan, mujahideens possessed, not without external help, American weapons, which allowed them to efficiently confront the Soviet Union. In Vietnam Soviet weapons fought against Americans, and so efficiently that Yankees had to go home. In Ukraine, a handful of some separatists are totally defeating the Ukrainian Army, and everybody understands with whose help. But in Northern Caucasus, and, especially, in Chechnya, people are sick and tired of war. Besides, you go out into the street and see that the today's Chechnya has nothing in common with what was here before. Of course, there are people, who are not happy with the rule of KRA (Kadyrov, Ramzan A.). But this will not raise the population to riots or revolts. Recollect the end of the voyage of Ernesto Che Guevara to Bolivia. He failed to get support from the local population, was captured and executed."

The user drugan bratanov recollects the experience of transportation of Islamic militants to the Caucasus in the course of Chechen war campaigns, and believes that they should be confronted also by "duly ideologically trained fighters": "I greet you, esteemed Kyamal! In my humble opinion, the point is in resources... in the material basis... in good stock of ammunition... And, of course, in the idea... Even if these 'guys' are brought here in helicopters, with 'smoking breaks' [as it was during Chechen Wars 1 and 2] in the Pankisssi Gorge of Georgia, they can be met there by properly armed forces and 'liquidated, by fertilizing the soil with their bodies some two-three miles away from the place of their landing... But for this we need to have ideologically prepared fighters... That is, the 'comrades', who would probably confront them, should ideologically hate them, for their hands give no shake! For example, I could have some pleasure in duly beating some militant of the 'Iraq and the Levante' just because of their hypocrisy and deviant behaviour from the viewpoint of both the Islamic and Soviet way of thinking. Since eating the heart of a killed soldier in front of a video camera, and – at the same time – appeal to supreme forces is the behaviour of a self-liquidator, who begs to be shot dead as soon as possible..."

The user with the nick radiowerewolf finds specific "pros" for the Russian authorities in the activities of IS in the Middle East: "I tell you something, even paradoxical at first sight: for the current Russian regime it is extremely beneficial to continue that massacre in the Middle East. All the Caucasian radical young people are at war there, not only they; but Tatars and Bashkirs are also at war there. Thus, in the Caucasus, there are fewer of those who could ideologically fight. Bringing the war to the Caucasus? Why – those, who could fight in the Caucasus against Putin, are killed in Syria and Iraq. The underground is decentralized completely; only some semi-criminal racketeering rabble remains; but at the same time, the Kremlin should stop harassing local Muslims; and those who return from

Syria and Iraq should be immediately taken at the airport and brought to the court; there are the respective precedents already."

The user Monro wonders about the interest of ISIL fighters to the Caucasus and Russia at the background of another outbreak of violence in Israel and in Palestinian territories: "I wonder why they do not want to liberate Palestine; they are also very close to them; moreover, during the recent massacre in Palestine, arranged by Israelis, where some 500 children were killed, ISIL did not even make an accidental shot from a tank at the territory of Israel, while they are very close to the occupied Golan Heights...? "

The greatest number of readers' votes were cast for the comment of the user DruzЪ, in which he calls for peace in the Caucasus, where people are regularly lost without IS militants:

"As to these statements to transfer the war to the Caucasus, EVERYTHING is clearly showing that there are people sitting somewhere in Washington or nearby there, who give orders to the heads of those guys who are now fighting under the flag of the Levante and Iraq. And just in the time, when the world is being split into the 'open' West and 'closed'

East; it very clearly shows or gives rise to reflections about who owns and who controls the project named ISIL. In any case, residents of the Caucasus have seen and suffered a lot, and nearly died out because of war. A war never brings fortune to ordinary people, who

become victims of war machines. In the Caucasus. people perish almost every day without it – enough!!! We're sick and tired, the Caucasus needs peace, not war."

The facts the ranks of the "Islamic State" include fighting Russian citizens and people from the Caucasus are confirmed by various sources, in including and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). The courts in Northern Caucasushave already convicted regional locals for participation in hostilities in Syria.

Caucasian recruits are again at service in Russian Army

Against this background, the Russia's Ministry of Defence announced a call of about 4100 recruits from Northern Caucasus to the regular military service. This is the first such mass call up in recent years. Earlier, media discussed the information about a covert directive, which recommended not recruiting young people from the Caucasus and natives of the Caucasus. Such a turn in the policy of army formation was differently assessed by user of the "Caucasian Knot".

The user nice.konan has treated this decision as contradicting Russia's interests: "In the tsarist Russia, non-Russian nationals were exempted from conscription, because they are first and foremost Muslims, then, they are countrymen, and only then – they are soldiers. For them the oath on the Koran is everything, and the oath given to non-Muslims is nothing. Little has changed since then. Let these 'warriors' first normally pass the United State Examination (USE), and only then, then they can be trained in handling the weapons in the Air Force or in Strategic Missile Forces, and so on. Now, except for a Kamaz driver and a company colour sergeant (to write-off or sell something), they are not fit for the service, especially under contracts. Military higher schools, in including the elite ones, already have experience of such mistakes, while access to state secrets is not a joke, but the most important component of Armed Forces. Training at our expense militants for the

Mullahs who lack mosques, is a pure betrayal of state interests of the Russian Federation."

The user DruzЪ continued discussion in the sphere of interaction of the state with religion; in his opinion, in the Russian Army there are no conditions for the service of Muslims: "Is the Russian Army fit for the service of Muslims therein? Let's start with the food: do they cook halal food in the canteens of the Russian Army? In Soviet time, they didn't. But now we have no atheism; and every citizen has the right to profess and follow his/her own religion, and Islam forbids eating non-halal food. Has the daily routine of the Russian army time for 5 prayers a day? Muslims must administer five prayers a day. Muslims cannot take part in the war against Muslims on the side of infidels (that is, Christians). What is the Russian Army doing in the Caucasus? We must first solve at least the basic problems in our own army prior to start the populist action of recruiting the boys, whom 15 years ago the Supreme Commander of the Russian Army called to 'get in toilets'; and they really 'got' a lot of them. It is necessary first to bring our army up to civilized level, clean it from thieves and drunks, rapists and maniacs, who rape soldiers, and other dirty mischief. We must start building it from the very top down; and to start with, at least liberate the army from those 'brave officers' who killed people in Chechnya."

The user with the nick awesome, on the contrary, thinks that young Caucasians are those whom the Russian Army really needs: "Worthy guys shall be recruited! In the army - go worthy! The times have gone, when they recruited everybody! Strong, tough and motivated! In general, the best! I have an opportunity to compare. And now I see those who serve the Motherland! Selected guys of all nationalities! And if you talk about Caucasians... then, who, apart of them, are more suitable for service to the Motherland? Strong, aggressive... well and duly financially motivated…"

Most votes were given to the user with the nick BenJoice, he believes that religion or nationality cannot be an obstacle for the service; and the army should be formed on the voluntary basis:

"To begin with, we have a secular state, and nobody will adapt to religious feelings of believers, as well as to organize their life, schedule and food rations. This applies to

everyone, not just Muslims, especially since we have alternative service, if religion does not allow serving. Forming unit on the basis of soldiers' confessions? Then, let's apply this

principle in hiring, treatment, training... it's madness? I agree, let only those go to serve, who really want it; in order not to start thinking about who and how can serve under one's religion. On the voluntary basis, same as in the Wild Division, which covered itself with

unfading glory in the First World War, as well as those officers and Caucasians – ordinary horsemen, who refused to serve the Soviet Power and were shot dead, but remained faithful

to their oath."

Day of People's Unity: "Caucasian March" in Moscow

The official return of Caucasians to the Russian Army is understood as an explicit desire of the authorities to show that the Caucasus is a part Russia, like any other region: autumn conscripts from Chechnya and Dagestan went to take their service in the Crimea and the Far East. Similar objectives were pursued by the organizers of the "Caucasian March", which was held in Moscow on November 4, on the National Unity Day.

The user with the nick Alan alanovskiy is sure that such actions are related to the desire

of supreme authorities to minimize the risks of interethnic conflict in the country, but he sees no practical sense in them: "In my opinion, everyone should understand that without a signal from the Kremlin such marches could not be held in the current situation in the country; moreover, the organizers were pro-governmental, and it is clear – organizations funded by the state. I cannot judge the organizers and the participants of such events. For me, as a native of the Caucasus, the practical aim and meaning of them are not clear. Well, they gathered one day, well, they marched, and what? It does not mean that representatives of the natives of the Caucasus can go out into the street one day and dance their dance – lezginka. In the best case, they will be accused of inciting interethnic hatred and violation of public order. Now, the authorities are trying to win the trust and support of the Caucasian youth through such events. Because now authorities find it unprofitable to have, as it was some time ago, a strong dissociation and hostility at the international level of Russian citizens. After the events in Ukraine, the Kremlin's policy has changed radically, its current goals and plans have also changes. While prior to the Maydan, the main Russia's problem was in the Caucasus and Caucasians, now they want the Caucasus to became a part of Russia, in which case young men of Caucasian origin, same as their peers from Northern Caucasus could be used anywhere in hot spots – to defend the interests of the Kremlin."

The user siminer believes that such actions are necessary and useful, even if they are initiated by the authorities: "Alan Alanovsky, even if this event was organized by someone from the top, still it's good that it took place, IMHO (in my humble opinion). Muscovites will get used to the idea that Caucasians are theirs, theirs, more than Ukrainians, who hate Muscovites. And if it is the policy of the Kremlin, as you write, so this is great... The practical goal is clear, the sense too: Caucasians are not aliens in Russia. Why don't you like it?"

The user with the nick Mohmad considers the "Caucasian March" as a healthy alternative to the "Russian March", which gathers supporters of nationalistic viewpoints: "I think they were good guys who went there; they danced and had fun there from there heart, while skanky guys throw their hands up to the sky showing the moral decay of all the values, which they call the 'Russian World', Caucasians have demonstrated who are patriots in this country; and there's no need to associate it with support of power: authorities come and go, but the country remains."

The user nice.konan is less optimistic, and believes that such festivals and marches have more populism than real action: "It is much easier once a year to celebrate unity and friendship, than invest, on a daily basis and constantly, into education and development! Hypocrisy is beyond scale!"

The greatest number of votes was scored by the comment of the user with the nick Maktub, who states that the National Unity Day has not become a nationwide holiday in Russia; and he does not see such day in the future:

"Most of those who celebrate and those who don't, do not even know the meaning of the holiday. Yes, and it bothers nobody. And we all know how they gather crowds in squares.

Thus, there's no need of 'bla-bla'. There was and there is no unity. The eastern proverb says: 'You may say 'halva' many times, but it won't become sweeter in your mouth."

Hijabs in higher schools: pros and cons

There is no uniform approach to religious attributes. Some higher schools, for example, introduce provisions prohibiting the wearing in their school "of the clothes indicating the belonging to some particular nationality or religion," which causes negative reaction, in particular, of students from Northern Caucasus. They believe that the true purpose of these initiatives is to ban the wearing of hijabs.

The user with the nick Amnistiya believes such protests to be exaggeration, and points to the fact that in some higher schools the observance of strict dress code is mandatory: "Medical educational institutions have always has their dress code... conditioned by the nature of their chosen specialities... one of the most socially demanded and versatile professions should be free of personal ambitions and declared provisions of the Constitution..."

The user stuart2 points to the fact that the right to wear hijab is guaranteed by the Russia's Constitution: "'…to freely choose, have and disseminate religious and other beliefs, and act in accordance therewith' – this is a quote from Article 28 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation. There is no sense to debate. 'Wearing religious clothes is a most important part of a person's ethics, which is not contrary to one's civil and public duties' (М. Shevchenko:http://kavpolit.com/blogs/shevchenkomax/8084/). It's hard not to agree with it. And if the nations of Russia so much dislike the religious attributes of gentiles, then, it's time to talk about editing Article 28."

The user with the nick arznevmuskia believes that similar bans are only spoiling the image of the higher school that adopts them, and offers higher school bosses to pay attention to more pressing topics: "The position of the higher school is not surprising. In general, I have a feeling that we live in a mono-national and monotheistic state. What do they have against a hijab? Don't they have other problems in the higher school? And what foreign girls should do? They wouldn't go without scarves. The most interesting point is that they had paid for training; and, probably, quite a lot. OK, you are free to introduce a ban on hijab – and they'll all leave and take their money to some other country; as if we have plenty of money here. So much that we are discussing sequestration of the yearly budget by 16-17 percent. In conclusion: education abroad brings billions into the budgets of higher schools and countries, where they think with their heads, not other parts of the body. And they are fighting for students, be them in hijabs or any other clothes, because by receiving money from them, they give them, apart of training, a part of their culture. These students return home, and remember the people, their culture, etc. Recollect, how many foreigners had been educated in the USSR; and how they are now treating Russia. It's stupid to rush on hijabs and tune people against you. We should look a bit forward and make people – be them in hijabs, or in cassocks, or in dressing gowns, or even in fig-leaves – loyal to ourselves, not enemies."

The largest count of votes was won by the comment of the user with the nick Monro, who criticises the attack on the freedom (including the religious one) of people's choice, if they don't break laws; the user believes that such initiatives are aimed against national and confessional "minorities":

"I've ever thought that a fundamental distinction of democracy from other forms of ruling is in the freedom of choice: whether to wear some strict religious clothes, or dress to one's

own discretion – the main point here that it should not prejudice others' rights and freedoms. I've never treated myself to be a religious fanatic, and, possibly, I'm more secular than many others here, who blame the Islam; nevertheless, still, I don't like any attacks on one's choice, be it of clothes, or viewpoints, provided the person abides by the law. Most probably, in this case, we are dealing with ordinary human rottenness, when a stronger

human tried to suppress a weaker one – it's always easy to find a reason, since this law is aimed, first of all, against the national minorities, professing other faiths, conquered by

Orthodox empires. It's quite easy to guess that the law was initiated by the Orthodox clergy and neo-nationalists […], who sit in the top echelons of this country's power."

Dagestan: cancellation of direct elections

In the case with the N. I. Pirogov Moscow Medical University, a decision was finally found that satisfied both the Rector and Islamic students. However, sometimes restrictions of rights touch on broader layers of population. This autumn Dagestan made a decision to cancel direct elections of municipality heads.

The user with the nick Gorynych notes a low level of political consciousness of Dagestanis, who, as it seems, have lost trust in elected bodies of power: "Unless Dagestan completely dismantles its clans; until the republic gets rid of odious figures, here, at any form of voting these very clans and financial 'fat cat' will dictate their terms. It's no difference – nationwide elections, or elections by representative bodies – they will buy votes and impose their will through falsifications, use of money, firearms and profitable connections. Until there is proper order in place, corruption mechanisms will work in both cases," Magomed Bisavaliev told the 'Caucasian Knot'. These are the truest words in this article! I'd just like to add here a problem of the extremely low political and civil activeness of Dagestanis, who attend not only rallies, but even the elections either under constraint, or by pursuing their own, extremely narrow mercantile interests. People have forgotten, or just don't understand that elections are the only legal way for every citizen of any country to influence the domestic political situation and, accordingly, his/her future and the future of his/her descendants. We can, of course, blame the authorities, who had strained their efforts in creating the situation as it is; however, everyone should remember that he/she is a human, not a mankurt!"

The user U-2 associates the roll down of the electoral process with the fear of the authorities to lose in a fair rivalry to candidates with radical views: "They don't trust the people's ability to decide who will rule them. This is a result of the notorious confrontation of power agents to radical believers; they are probably afraid that voters will prefer radicals."

The user Pavel1602  indicates to not very local cause for the cancellation of local elections: "This project is being lobbied for the election of City Manager of Makhachkala. There is not a single worthy candidate; while the acting one failed to meet the hopes of citizens! Makhachkala is drowning in garbage; they plan to disconnect water for the second time; roads are in poor condition…"

The user Anji1983 ironically notes that people have lost not only their voting rights, but also some help in households: "Here we are; before they brought flour or sand and spread in exchange for votes; however, ARG has deprived us of this either."

The majority of the votes were cast by the comment of the user with the nick Musulmanin, who believes that by taking such a decision, the authorities have even more distanced off from the people; and they cannot now rely on people's support:

"Thus, we are deprived of the right to elect best candidates in a free competitive rivalry. I used to think earlier that the most stupid politician in the world was George W. Bush the

junior, but now I changed my mind in favour of our home-grown ones! What kind of people's support can we talk after such decisions? People will curse you; and when you'll

be replaced by others by your boss, then, you will, more likely, regret that you have deprived people of their rights. However, people are silent; thus, we deserve such attitude."

Kabardino-Balkaria: parliamentary elections

The Dagestani initiative to abolish municipal elections will, probably, be borrowed by other regions of Northern Caucasus. Meanwhile, Kabardino-Balkaria held its parliamentary relations, which were described by users of the "Caucasian Knot" in most glowing colours.

The user with the nick Akim writes that the outcome of the elections was known in advance; and, in general, he doubts of the expediency of the existence of such a body as the Parliament of the KBR: "Unfortunately, siminer, you're right. The instruction of splitting the seats in the parliament was known back on August 18, and, I think, nobody was hiding it. Nobody counted ballot papers, they were just thrown into bags and then – into a distant corner. The bad news is that we perceive falsifications as something routine, like as it should be; and there's a good point in all this mess. The parliament has never decided anything. If they disappear without notifying anyone, you can be sure that this would have passed unnoticed. In fact, for the previous 8 years the parliament adopted only 5 their own acts. Well done, guys!"

The user helmut-lipfert writes that he went to vote and opposes those, who ignore the voting and treats it as unfair well in advance: "Three days before the elections, they shouted: 'Let's don't go to the polls! It's all not fair there!' And now they are outraged at the fact that they decide everything without them?! (((So, don't go there further! And the insane Vladimir Zhirinovsky will by means of you 'wash his boots in the Indian Ocean!')))) As long as you yourself treat yourself as cattle… nobody will treat you differently! I went to the polls and voted as I saw it necessary! By the way, the fact that the 'greens' have won so many votes… says that all are sick and tired of others... This is point one! And the elections were more or less honest! Point two! And I voted not for the 'greens'! Point three!)))."

The user with the nick BenJoice disagrees with this opinion, as he sees no difference in which political forces will win and how many seats they get in the parliament: "What is the difference in who has passed? Oppositional parties have ignored the elections; and those who took part were united as never, in a single gust...). Is it not the same who will receive budget money, while sitting in cosy armchairs? The pursued policy will always be the same, which is, by the way, quite correct, especially now. "

The user neru.javakharlal believes that people would not like changes; while some of them vote "for presents": "Even if all KBR does not vote, it will be a drop in the sea of 150 million. people. But people vote and receive gifts at polling stations. Basically, they are given to pensioners and women with children. I myself saw how they gave boxes of

chocolates sweets; and people do not vote for changes; they vote for peace. If we change the power, then, again we'll have resignations, conflicts of interests, and even possible crime. People do not want what is happening in Ukraine and what took place in Chechnya."

The comment of the user with the nick Dobry gathered the highest number of votes. The reader questioned in official figures on the voter turnout at poling stations:

"35% would come to vote, if these elections were fair. We should not exaggerate the electoral activity of people in the impoverished country. All have long neglected the

elections and the possibility to somehow influence the life in the republic. Parliament is a normal trade union, where one can get some privileges for oneself. Not a single political

initiative, not a single slogan or suggestion. And for this rotten matter 35% voted by noon. Are there any who has voted here? Please reply. At least one?"

Is it possible to defeat corruption?

The distrust in the elections in the Kabardino-Balkarian Republic (KBR) has to do with a whole range of resonant corruption-related cases initiated against local officials of all possible ranks, starting since 2012, when some of them, accused of corruption, were solemnly detained in their offices and convoyed to Moscow. The latest judicial decisions were announced in relation to employees of the Federal Treasury for the KBR.

The user with the nick exist believes that the war on corruption in the republic is not a senseless idea – it may be successful: "Why not? How can we then explain the phenomenon of Tatarstan? And what about the Belgorod, Tula, Kaliningrad Regions and other most successful regions of Russia? They also have officials there, but officials are different. Recollect the time of Malbakhov. Everything built in the republic was built under the leadership of Timbora Malbakhov, the then head of the regional communist party committee. Yes, the country is really deep in corruption; but the problem is not only in the very structure of power. A change of names of federal bodies of power into regional ones, their content won't change. Maybe, finally, people are the point? Both in the centre and in regions."

The user erik_cartmann predicts that soon the KBR will see new corruption scandals related to the cadre "cleansings" in bodies of power: "As to the essence of the article and comments of those 'communicated', I can repeat my recent conclusion that (it looks like, but not the fact) we see a 'bulldogs' fight under the carpet' in bodies of power! So far, they do it as a 'test of the pen', of course! They test the soil for more serious 'Brownian movements'. There are too many 'overfed' and 'long-sitters' there! And too many 'young and green', thirsty for posts and awards… and, of course, sources! How can we do without them?!))) From here we have 'cases' with idiotic formulations of 'corpus delicti' and inconsistent modus operandi..."

The user with the nick w753qk, on the contrary, believes that no tough measures and criminal cases will follow: "Akim: 'Khloponin, all the terrorism and extremism stems from the bureaucrats' social policy.' Everybody knows where terrorism and extremism stems from, Since the 1990s, everything is done in the country for the sake of the authorities and for the sake of bureaucrats; the KBR cannot be an island of stability and order, is the whole country is immersed in corruption. Example: Vasilieva is under arrest, but they let her to create, sing, dance and amuse people. There is and will be no prison for those 'attached';

and everything stems from here!"

The highest support of the voters was given to the user with the nick Akim. The reader writes that the main obstacle in fighting corruption is that it has completely penetrated all the management mechanisms; as an example, he describes the corruption scheme in the sphere of construction:

"The whole republic's system is built under a corruption model. If you touch it, all the management links will get broken. It looks like everyone is happy; otherwise we have a

natural question already to the new power. There are new people in armchairs of the power, but their management schemes are old and corrupt. Let's take, for example, the work of our city administration in Nalchik. The system of issuing construction permits is of obviously

corrupt character at the level of local legislation; and huge money is circulating around these temporary regulations. Everybody knows the procedure, and everyone is happy.

According to the regulations, no construction is allowed in the city at the level of legislation; but they are building and legitimating new structures. The 'cost' of the issue is already above 100,000 roubles. It's high time for the new authorities to start working, but I

can hardly believe, since those who had written the regulations, now are in charge of issuing permits. They are not so mad to lose these stable revenues. Khloponin said that 'all the terrorism and extremism stems from bureaucrats' social policies.' I agree with him 100

percent. As to the Treasury, a request will follow to the federal management as to the cleanness of thoughts in fair serving the state, including in the KBR."

Southern Caucasus: where will the new Maydan break out?

The corruption level beyond all limits was one of the reasons of the crisis that Ukraine is now facing, which resulted in overthrowing the power, actual loss of a part of the territory and a civil armed conflict. Readers assessed the chances of the Maydan scenario in the Caucasus.

The user TEDE recollects the experience of the Georgian "Revolution of Roses": "Maybe in Georgia, which is easy to rise, there might be a relapse, just if the events in Georgia are covered by the Russian state-owned mass media. In case of Armenia, Russian TV mass media can easily block any news from there, as it already happened. That is why any unrest in Armenia will hardly affect the public opinion in Russia."

The user hmaeak does not suppose that in the current situation the countries of Transcaucasia may gather enough supporters of mass protests against the authorities: "There are quite plenty of those who wishes to have a Maydan, even here, at the forum of the 'Caucasian Knot'; however, they are, thanks God, not in the majority; thus, who will trust them now? Armenia had something like semi-Maydans, but people understand that it means death. It's all clear with Georgia: they have generated the immunity. Azerbaijanis, being oriental people, are ready to tolerate – for them a bird in hand is worth two in the bush."

The user with the nick Rock has least hopes for the Maydan scenario in Azerbaijan: ",,,,)))))))) Good guy Berg...man, a brilliant post (without irony)))),,, they are right saying that brevity is talent's sister,,,,, the strength of the post is that we can argue and argue,,, agree and agree,, suppose and suppose,,,, Maydan in Transcaucasia is possible everywhere – and impossible everywhere,,,, to be more precise, like that: in Georgia, it is,

of course, possible, and should Misha have stayed at the top, it should have been happened; and he should have been driven to the hell,,, in Armenia, it is at all most probable, BUT,,, all the leaders were notable for flexibility and ability to persuade people,,,, well, and in Azerbaijan – it is the most Impossible variant,,, since people will hardly ever grasp stones, fearing a blank execution and losing what 'the family' is voluntarily giving them,,, while the family will never give their power away,,, that is, it will be the bloodiest variant,,,,"

In the opinion of the user with the nick turist, there will no copy of Ukrainian unrests in Transcaucasia; he emphasizes that the final aim of all the Maydans in the Caucasus is Russia: "It will happen nowhere. The least probable variant is Armenia. In order to shake Southern Caucasus again, the West should neutralize the core of Russian influence, that is, Armenia; and NGO activists are still 'breathing' there. Georgia is already exhausted; it has lost all it could lose. Azerbaijan is hardly probable, since a priori the power is very strong and cruel there. But Armenia also has one nuance, meaning that the events of March 2008 may repeat here, since Putin understands quite well: if he loses Armenia, the whole Southern Caucasus will sail away from him. besides, all the three countries are dependents or pawns in the chess match of RUSSIA with BRITAIN."

The largest count of votes was awarded to the user with the nick karen, who suggests in his comment that an attempt to   overthrow the power will be undertaken in Armenia, noting that he himself is against such course of history for his country:

"My idea is that the next attempt should be in Armenia, but I hope that our authorities will cope with it and won't admit it. Corrupt persons, like Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk and the like, are among any nation; and imagine, if such people take power in Armenia, they may easily refuse from Nagorno-Karabakh in favour of Azerbaijan; and it means that Azerbaijan will sharply turn away from Russia' and the Caucasian region will become anti-Russian. Thus,

in Azerbaijan there is no sense of Maydan, while Georgia is already under pindo-Europeans."

Russia and Georgia: ways of rapprochement on Abkhazia and South Ossetia

The Ukrainian crisis has also launched new integration processes in Southern Caucasus. Russia signed a new cooperation treaty with Abkhazia, and is drafting a new integration treaty with South Ossetia. Georgia, which considers Abkhazia and South Ossetia its illegally occupied territories, failed to find any contact points with the self-proclaimed states. Is any Russian-Georgian dialogue possible in this situation?

The user with the nick LeningradSKY suggests starting with economic cooperation: "O-oh, I'm sick and tired of repeating: a mutually profitable business and economic integration, etc. is the only way for further integrations. Start with the railways... Well, let them cut still another tunnel somewhere to northern slopes under the slogan: 'One seasonal tourist voucher to the best alpine ski resorts of Northern and Southern Caucasus!' Let them finally start building their alpine Switzerland with Austria."

The user xevisberi sees the way for normalizing the Russian-Georgian relations only through recognition of independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia: "Bergman, I'm all the time writing: if we want good Russian-Georgian relations, we should do what Russia frankly tells us: to recognize Abkhazia and South Ossetia; otherwise we should admit that

the relations will remain the same as of Greece with Turkey, of the USA with Cuba, or of Serbia with Albania. Without the recognition all out statements and motions will be fruitless."

The user with the nick guran believes that the new Russian-Abkhaz treaty is in fact an implementation in Abkhazia of the Crimean scenario, and incorporation of Abkhazia into the Russian Federation: "Berg, you should have at least a bit of compassion to the Georgian power – if Russian and Abkhazia sign the treaty in the form as it is now – it will mean an actual incorporation of Abkhazia into the Russian Federation on the terms of association; we cannot otherwise interpret such provisions of the treaty like elimination of the internal border and creation of the common external one; creation of the joint army and harmonisation of the Abkhaz and Russian legislation. Then, Russian business will arrive in Abkhazia, and the Krasnodar Riviera will extend to the Abkhazian seashore. This is, in fact, a Crimean variant, but without landing operations and noise in media; but Tbilisi has to react somehow, like in the anecdote: 'Well, Sir, do at least something! But what, damn it, Can I do!? Well, at least say good-bye."

The majority of the votes were cast for the user with the nick АLIK, who believes that Russia, having recognized the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, has played a positive role, including also for Georgia, but now it is time for Georgia to fix relations with its "occupied territories":

"I don't know about the recognition, but, I think, sooner or later, there will be some contact of officials of South Ossetia and Abkhazia with their counterparts in Georgia without any

mediators. It is obvious, in the end, that the territory of former Georgia have become almost the most peaceful area after Russian had recognized these two republics. In fact, Georgia has benefited from this, to say nothing about the republics as such. It looks like Americans are also grown cooler to Georgians, to be more exact, they have more global

directions. Same as Russia – too much headache apart from these young republics. They should use the moment and set up relations. This is my naïve and optimistic opinion."

Will the foodstuff embargo help Caucasian villages?

The Ukrainian crisis has activated Russia's foreign policy in the post-Soviet environment. The West has considered these actions (first of all, the incorporation of the Crimea by the Russian Federation) to be an aggressive violation of the international law and introduced sanctions against Russian companies and individuals. In response, Russia introduced an embargo on foodstuff imports from the countries, which had joined the anti-Russian sanctions. Can these measures help farmers of Northern Caucasus?

The user with the nick Dobry warns that the embargo as such gives no privileges and shows that to scale up the yield of agriculture, the Caucasus needs accessible credits: "As they say, intentions are good; but why does it happen as usually? Because banks are state-owned; and they issue, as a rule, problematic and non-repaid loans and credits. If the sum is large, then, they sell it to some other creditor under a high discount. Why they issue, I think, it's clear. Another issue is that how then state banks influence the crediting market and equalize their indicators: they do it through subordinated credits from the state. Such poor banks, which always repair their position through the state funds, make the main acting force in the credit market. On the other hand, the state has complicated to the maximum the access to 'long money' for commercial banks. As a result, it looks like there

is some proposal of credit resources, but they are provided to entrepreneurs by state banks under very complicated conditions for an ordinary agrarian: no land mortgage, right to lease, etc., but plenty of evaluation criteria, which give the right to make use of s sort of "upon-will crediting". Besides, commercial banks, which have no 'long money' for crediting, have to compete with state banks, which have already won the race because of direct help of the state. The end of the story will always be the same: they will always grant credits for alcohol, vodka, trade in clothes, direct swindling, but never to support the agriculture. Because there's always a guy, who is worried about his own pocket much more that about the progress of agriculture."

The user with the nick Аcc offers to help farmers of the Caucasus by means of interest-free loans and exemption from rental fees: "Just grant them into lease what they process – the land, and do like in Canada; planting under schedule in order not to have excess or deficit of some product; and in animal husbandry – they should receive, for several years, interest-free loans and release from rental fees."

The user Rock arrives at the conclusion that only new and tougher sanctions of the West can influence Russia's financial monopolists, whose crediting policy affects agrarians: "Indeed, the agrarian policy has been reduced to a donation auction; while agrarians have transformed, in some magic way into sub-purchasers of melons and strawberries, standing along and across highways. The only instrument that may affect the crediting policy of our state is in the Western sanctions against Russian banks-financial monopolists – SB, VTB, VTB-24, VEB and other subdivisions headed by inert and non-initiative holders of the control stake, whose all initiative was in reselling of cheap European inter-bank loan to some Russian creditor,,, now the conditions will change,,, and Polish apples will look like flowers before the berries of the credit crisis. Frankly speaking, I don't know whether it is good, or still better,,))))."

Most votes went to the user with the nick nice.konan, who believes that the first measure to help Caucasian farmers should be a solution of the legal status of agrarian lands:

"Until the agrarian lands are returned within the scope of the legal sphere, there will be no good. All the investments will be spread among 'users' themselves... The 'Rial-Agro' was put in place of the farm closed because of brucellosis, and what? Same collective farm

thefts, same manure storages, and the same project of the mid-20th century! Dogs from the dump, foxes, mice, elite cows, intoxicated by stillage calve in the delivery premise;

however, now, we can watch this intimate process online!"

Rouble exchange rate: how is the Azeri economy dependent on it?

The final link in the chain of implications of the Ukrainian crisis and subsequent exchange of economic sanctions among Russia, EU and USA was a serious drop of the rouble exchange rate and oil prices, which affects the economy not only of Russia, but of other countries, in particular, of Azerbaijan.

The user with the nick Roma, however, feels no great worry about the mess in the markets: "Our manta is rigidly tied, first of all, to the US dollar, while the latter is tied to the oil price. Thus, during the 2008 crisis, oil went down to 40 dollars per barrel, while the manat remained at 0.78 per dollar, even when last year oil went up to 123 dollars per barrel. From the viewpoint of an ordinary citizen, it's profitable to have this exchange rate,

but it makes locally-made goods non-competitive, and tells negatively on the state budget and decreases the reserves of the National Bank. This exchange rate suits local oligarchs, they are same as high-ranking bureaucrats, who have monopolized the imports."

The user with the nick vosov objects by indicating that almost half of capable citizens of Azerbaijan work in Russia and maintain their families and relatives in their homeland by earning roubles: "I support Roma's opinion; and I'm happy that your Azerbaijani currency is solid like a stone from the Kurmukhchai River. But, in general, the rouble downfall is seriously touching on the economic and social interests of many Azerbaijanis, and the country's economy. Out of 4.5 million capable citizens of the country, about 2 million mainly work in Russia and other countries; the money transfers they send get depreciated, that is, their families and relatives will buy less goods and services. Thus, they will invest less into social economy of Azerbaijan. This will affect the progress rates of the spheres of construction and services. Thus, the level of life in Azerbaijan will degrade. The fact that the national currency is strong brings no warmth or cold to an ordinary citizen of Azerbaijan, maybe more cold."

The user Vito believes it an exaggeration to think that the Azerbaijani economy depends on money transfers from Russia: "vosov, from when has the Azerbaijani economy began depending on 'investing' the transfers received from Russia? Haven't you, by chance, mixed it up with Armenia? Your opinion is wrong... strong currency is warm... of course all countries are interconnected economically... it will be less comfortable... but not fatal!"

By their largest count of votes, our readers supported the opinion of the user with the nick borcali, who evidenced the already established   crisis in the building sphere in Azerbaijan:

"Roma, you should keep tour money in some strong currency, it's profitable. Since we have already the third economic crisis, it's hard to predict what currency will be strong. It's better to keep assets in real estate and precious metals and stones. Of course, the rouble drop has affected Azerbaijan. The residential rates go down; and in future we'll have problems in

construction, while other economy sectors will be affected insignificantly, if at all."

Armenia and Azerbaijan: who is blamed for downing helicopter in Karabakh?

Apart from certain economic problems in Azerbaijan, this autumn saw an aggravation in the Karabakh conflict zone. On November 12, Azerbaijani militaries shot down a military helicopter. Under the version of the Ministry of Defence (MoD) of Azerbaijan, a helicopter of the Armed Forces of Armenia was downed by response fire after it attacked Azerbaijani positions. Under the version of the MoD of Nagorno-Karabakh, the Azerbaijani party had violated the ceasefire regime and shot down the helicopter of the Air Force of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic (NKR), which was on its training flight. The readers' opinions on the reasons and guilt of the parties diverged.

The user Vladivostok2000 treats the episode with the helicopter as an aggravation of the conflict by the Azerbaijan party in response to the demonstration of force by Armenia: "As far as I understand, in this case, on the part of the NKR it was a demonstration of force, without any direct intention to provoke military actions.Azerbaijan decided to aggravate the situation at the armed forces contact line. I strongly doubt that your government had really planned to resume the warfare as a result thereof. Now, both parties will keep silent,

expecting local shootouts. The only thing that I don't understand: why have you decided that this event should surely entail a wide-scale war with involvement of the Russian Army? The contact line is in place; the armies are in their places. Maybe for me, because of Ukrainian events, such episodes are already not associated with anything supernatural. Thus, here, already during ceasefire, we had losses on both parties."

The user Grant believes that losses of militaries can be avoided, should politicians and militaries on both sides of the conflict be more responsible: "In my opinion, in the tragedy, a part of responsibility is also on the Armenian command. The feelings of the defeated party should be understood and spared; and its reaction and possible actions should be forecasted and simulated. Should out exercises take place farther from the border, they'd pass normally; and victims and tension could have been avoided. And here, we have a frank hint on our party, and demonstration of force – 'we're ready' – in response. Given the everyday rising tension in the world, both regional politicians and militariesshould be especially correct and responsible. If something is doomed to blow up, let it be not in our common house."

The user borcali believes that Azeri militaries were right by downing the helicopter, as it violated the air space of Azerbaijan: "Ilkham, you're not sincere. Whose helicopter was it: of Armenia or NKR? Comment to your answer: 1) There is no air space of the Nagorno-Karabakh republic (NKR), but there is the Azerbaijani air space, recognized by the whole world; 2) Why didn't earlier exercises come so close? It follows that Armenia wanted this incident; 3) Read again the statement of your 'clever guys'; and you'll understand that if Armenia starts moving, Azerbaijan can easily go to the international court; maybe they'll do it in future, because the helicopter belongs to Armenian Armed Forces, and the crew was made up of citizens of Armenia. And it indicates a violation of the Azerbaijani air space, which is globally recognized. While you write about some 'air space of Nagorno-Karabakh', not recognized even by Armenia, which is afraid to recognize it."

Most of the votes went to the comment of the user Ilkham, who believes that Azerbaijanis acted against the ethics of war, since they were warned about the military exercises conducted by the Armenian party:

"borcali, I've answered. OK, let's do it point by point: 1. Armenians are told that the helicopter was flying in the air space of Nagorno-Karabakh; in the Armenians' opinion, the craft did not violate the air space of Azerbaijan; 2. No, I don't think so, Armenians want no war; 3. Armenians do not ask Sargsyan and Oganyan, since they are sure that the craft was downed in the air space of Nagorno-Karabakh. My personal opinion is that there is some ethics of war; and Azeris acted against the ethics; moreover, they had been warned about

the military exercises."

By the outcomes of the autumn months, out of the weekly comments, recognized to be the best by the readers, the best comment of the fall of 2014 was chosen out of those posted on the pages of the "Caucasian Knot". The contest outcomes were published on October 15. We hereby ask all the winners and prize holders to report their contact data, for us to be able to contact you and agree about the delivery or transfer of your awards. It can be done by means of the feedback form.