Armenia (right), Azerbaijan (left), courtesy of wikipedia.org

I meant for this most latest article in the Faster Times to come out right on the tail of my last, provocatively-headlined article, but a vacations got in the way.

In it, I take a look at a fascinating game theory study done by a master’s student in Tbilisi and the international controversy it caused. Check it out!

The four-year-old International School of Economics at Tbilisi State University (ISET) in Tbilisi, Georgia was founded to unite students and faculty from all three South Caucasus countries for a Western-style education in economics. And, as if undergoing a rite of passage in its growth as an institution, it underwent its first major academic controversy this year.

Students were agitated, donors threatened to withdraw funding and an ambassador warned of unilateral sanctions.

What caused all the fuss? — A master’s thesis that used game theory to create a model for the probability of war between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Ani Harutyunyan, 23, originally of Vanadzor, Armenia, set out last November to create a model that could determine the probability of all-out war breaking out between the two countries over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh based on a variety of factors.

Now, mind you, creating a game theory model is not the same as predicting whether war will happen or not – it’s not a magic eight ball.

To keep reading click here.

Here’s some of the recent news that caught my eye:

1.) RUSSIA-  The number one story has got to the that Russia is will be firing up Iran’s first nuclear reactor, although it’s not nearly as alarming as it sounds. First off, Russia will move all plutonium that could be weaponized back to Russian territory as a part of the deal, and just because the Russians are forging ahead with this deal doesn’t necessarily mean they are abandoning the U.S. on sanctions.

Russian officials, who are also concerned about Iran’s nuclear progress, had long appeared to use the plant’s construction schedule and the drawn-out start-up process as leverage with Iran’s leaders and in wider Russian diplomacy in the Middle East. Often, delays for ostensibly technical reasons have come just days after Russian leaders made statements critical of Iran.

2.) TURKEY – Der Speigel is reporting that photos obtained by German journalists, politicians and activists purportedly provide evidence Turkey has used chemical weapons against Kurdish rebels in its restive Eastern regions.

It would be difficult to exceed the horror shown in the photos, which feature burned, maimed and scorched body parts. The victims are scarcely even recognizable as human beings. Turkish-Kurdish human rights activists believe the people in the photos are eight members of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) underground movement, who are thought to have been killed in September 2009. [...]

German politicians and human rights experts are now demanding an investigation into the incident. “The latest findings are so spectacular that the Turkish side urgently needs to explain things,” said Claudia Roth, the co-chair of Germany’s Green Party. “It is impossible to understand why an autopsy of the PKK fighters was ordered but the results kept under seal.”

The politician said there had been repeated “mysterious incidents of this type that are crying out for an independent investigation.” Roth demanded that Turkey issue an official statement on the possible use of chemical weapons “in order to nullify further allegations.”

3.) INGUSHETIA, RUSSIA – Why do such bad things happen to such good people? Earlier this month, Ibragim Evloev, former deputy head of security of the Autonomous Republic of Ingushetia in the Russian North Caucasus was gunned down in a cafe. In August 2008, Evloev shot opposition politician and journalist Magomed Evloev (no relation) in the head in the back of a police car shortly after arresting him at the Nazran airport. According to the official police version the whole thing was an accident. After initially being sentenced to two years in prison for the obvious assassination, he was pardoned and released three months later. I guess some things do work themselves out in the North Caucasus.

Saakashvili meets with Georgian troops at the Krstanisi military base in February.

Apparently I missed a rather odd weekend in Tbilisi.

Throughout the region, local journalists and politicians mark August 7-8 on their calendar for the usual stories and statements about the anniversary of the August 2008 war between Georgia and Russia. The political leaders of Russia, Georgia, South Ossetia and Abkhazia snipe and grandstand and journalists write up something quick about where the two sides stand today.

I didn’t stay for the fireworks and instead marked the war’s birthday by trekking my way through Borjomi-Kharagauli National Park in central Georgia.

Surprisingly, what I missed in Tbilisi was, indeed, fireworks.

This year’s anniversary was quieter than the previous when Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili pulled out all the stops to commemorate the biggest blunder of his presidency. A year ago, a Soviet-era armored vehicle blocked off Rustaveli Avenue in downtown Tbilisi (to symbolize Russia, I guess) and Georgian officials stood around a “unity bonfire” in Gori, a city that was heavily bombed during the war. This year the festivities came from the broadcast media, where the president delivered message of victory, echoing a statement he had made earlier in the week.

“Moreover, not only the enemy failed to subdue Georgia… on the contrary, Georgia as disobedient nation, has turned into a symbol of success for all post-Soviet states and that’s contrary to what the enemy planned… That’s a historic process, which will be followed by irreversible dismantling of old imperia and imperial sphere of influence,” he said.

Fireworks lit up the Tbilisi sky I was told. One of my Georgian fellow hikers in Borjomi received a text from an exasperated friend in Tbilisi, “Don’t turn on the TV.”

It is sad to me how Georgia continues to deceive itself in such absurd ways. For Saakashvili’s historic “disobedience” the “symbol of success” lost 20 percent of the country’s total territory in the war, and the biggest share of the blame for that falls on Georgia’s bull-headed policies towards the breakaway republics since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Has Russia been a helpful influence here? Most certainly not. Did they want to topple the Saakashvili regime in 2008? Most certainly so. Were they halted from doing so by the Georgian military? Not even close. Within a couple of days of fighting, the Georgian military was in full retreat, and after testing the international waters, Putin correctly perceived that he could get away with destabilizing one of the West’s favorite little strategically located countries, but there would be serious consequences for a full occupation and regime change.

For that Saakashvili should be gracious, not gloating.

All of that said, looking back on the last two years, the most stunning thing is how Saakashvili has remained in control. After the war, he appeared dead in the water. The opposition shut down central Tbilisi for months with sit-in protests aimed at forcing his resignation, a coup attempt was foiled and Russian troops poured into the territory of their newly recognized allies — Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

And yet, he survived. The protests lost steam, and the opposition itself lost all credibility as it failed not only to dislodge Saakashvili, but also failed to form an organized coalition or even a clear message for why they were a better choice than the incumbent. The threat of Russian intervention died down as Obama and Putin “reset” the Bush-era acrimony back to levels of mistrust that were unlikely to end up in proxy wars.

In fact, not only has Saakashvili survived, he is soaring. His poll numbers are up, his party won big in May’s local elections, and he’s about to sign constitutional reform that will allow him to follow the same playbook as his nemesis, Vladimir Putin — step down when his presidential term limit is up only to take a spot as the prime minister in a new government that gives this new position more power, and, of course, no term limits.

People who work closely with Saakashvili’s inner circle tell me that “the existential threat of Russia” is the driving force behind these authoritarian moves and, thanks largely to pro-government media, the public agrees.

The opposition has been painted as pro-Russian and Saakashvili himself can hardly utter two words publicly without dramatically illustrating all the Russian guns pointed at Georgia’s head. Georgia continues to slide down the lists on levels of democracy and free press, and Saakashvili has made himself out to be the only trustworthy politician the nation has to offer.

Looking back at the last two years it is clear there was a Georgian winner in the August war. But it wasn’t the Georgian people at large, or the future of the nation. Mikheil Saakashvili won, Georgia lost.

A week or two after graduating from American University I nervously approached the offices of the Washington Times. I was overdressed for the casual, coffee-stained nature of the newsroom and I had probably over-caffeinated myself as I tried to remember the points I wanted hammer into my pitch for why they should give regular freelance work to a 21-year-old kid headed to a tiny post-Soviet republic.

Barbara Slavin, via AOLnews.com

After eating a cafeteria lunch with Foreign Editor Willis Witter, I was led around the newsroom, and eventually to the office of the head honcho — Managing Editor Barbara Slavin. She listened and took notes through my jittery spiels on story ideas, and then tried to hone in on what could be a tighter focus within a few of them. She then asked me a key question “Вы говорите по-русски? (Do you speak Russian?)”

I explained in Russian that I did, and the conversation continued in that language. Eventually she asked me where I learned it. “I spent a year studying in St. Petersburg,” I said. “Where did you learn Russian?” I asked her. “In Leningrad,” she smiled. She then officially welcomed me to the team and bid me a “всего хорошего!” as I walked out with a smile.

A few weeks later, I flew off to Tbilisi, Georgia with little more than a few pairs of summer clothes, some graduation money and a freelance contract with the Washington Times.

I had no clear indication that I was up for the task ahead of me — filing correspondence reports from a foreign country, interviewing foreign leaders in foreign languages and making some sort of a living from freelance scraps. But thanks in large part to that initial trust from Willis and Barbara, I was given the opportunity to prove I can hold my own weight, and after more than a year in Georgia I have found a way to sustain myself with the enthralling, albeit impoverished, life of a freelance journalist.

Sadly, last December the Washington Times went through a major restructuring, laying off roughly half of its staff and drastically reducing the scope of the publication. Among those who were gone when the dust settled were both Willis and Barbara.

However, in the past few months I have been very happy to see Barbara’s byline next to several insightful pieces on this part of the world in various prestigious publications.

Last week, she had an extremely interesting piece in Foreign Policy on a former-Iranian-hostage-turned-Bush-era-voice-of-calm. The piece highlights the unfortunate clumsiness of Iranian-American relations and the culture of confrontation in both Tehran and Washington.

“Here’s the problem,” [John] Limbert said. “For 30 years, careers were made both here and in Tehran by how nasty you could be to the other side and how creative you could be in being nasty to the other side. So if you’re going to change that, what happens if it doesn’t get some immediate result? It’s very easy to slip back into what you always have been doing.”

Quite a perspective from a guy who had an Iranian gun pointed to his head for 444 days.

This week, Barbara came out in favor of the new START treaty in an opinion piece for AOL News. I sorta poo-pooed the treaty in a post last week, and she makes good points in defense of it — namely because it helps to improve U.S.-Russian in three key domains:

Iran: While the U.S. and Russia remain at odds over Russia’s treatment of former Soviet republics, such as Georgia, and Russia’s poor record on human rights, the two are increasingly cooperating on restraining Iran’s nuclear program.

Investment: Russian President Dmitry Medvedev is eager to diversify his country’s economy, which currently relies on energy exports, and is seeking U.S. investment, particularly in high tech. U.S.-Russia trade last year was a mere $24 billion and needs to grow to give the relationship a solid footing.

Afghanistan: Russia is facilitating the U.S. war in Afghanistan by providing transit corridors for supplies and wants the U.S. to succeed in stabilizing the country that was the graveyard for so many Soviet troops in the 1980s and is the source of drugs that kill ordinary Russians every day.

It’s good to see some of the good folks back at the Washington Times have landed on their feet. Don’t worry, Willis, I’ll keep an eye out for you too in the future!

Such is the question I posed in my most recent article in the Faster Times.

Armenia and Azerbaijan have had quite a summer of discontent, and it’s already come to blows once. Is now the time that the two sides will fight it out once and for all?

"Occupant killer" Ensign Mubariz Ibrahimov.

“Bellicose” has become the favorite word of South Caucasus diplomacy this summer as rhetoric and actions have been ramping up between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the past few months despite several moderated peace summits, leading some to fear a definitive heating up of the two nations’ frozen conflict over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.

After backing an ethnic-Armenian secession movement in the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijan in the early 1990’s, Armenia continues to militarily control most of Karabakh and other Azeri lands.

To a certain extent, these new daggers in the dialogue are not surprising as politicians from both sides have made diplomatic sniping into a sort of sport, but Azerbaijan has increasingly shown its dissatisfaction with the peace talks, with statements focusing on a expedient resolution “by any means possible.” On June 25, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev said publicly that if the long-running peace talks did not yield a positive result soon, then Azerbaijan was prepared to retake Karabakh and the Azeri territories surrounding it by force.

To keep reading click here.

Speaking at the United States Institute of Peace  in Washington, DC July 26, State Department officials could hardly contain their enthusiasm for the START arms reduction treaty with Russia, saying, “the United States is better off with this Treaty than without it.”

Assistant Secretary Rose Gottemoeller, courtesy of state.gov

Strong words, Assistant Secretary Rose Gottemoeller, strong words.

She is right, of course, but considering many U.S. senators, who have yet to ratify the treaty, maintain serious doubts about it, you would expect a bit of a bolder sales pitch than “this washing machine probably won’t make your life worse.”

Nevermind that all but one commander of U.S. strategic nuclear command from 1981 to 2004 signed a letter to the Senate endorsing the treaty, Senate Republicans still love our nukes and hate the Ruskies.

Well, in this case they do actually have reason for suspicion.

According to a State Department report made public today, it’s not entirely clear Russia has complied with past arms reduction treaties.

The document says the U.S. government does not believe Russia is in compliance with the Chemical Weapons Convention because it has not declared all its stockpiles nor destroyed those it has acknowledged, despite a 1997 plan to do so.

The report also says Russia may not be in compliance with the international convention banning biological weapons. Russia committed in 1992 to dismantle a secret biological weapons program it inherited from the Soviet Union. Although Russia has said it is in compliance, it has “not satisfactorily documented whether this program was terminated,” according to the report.

Frankly, having dealt with the Russian government before, I have to say that a lack of proper paperwork doesn’t necessarily mean conspiracy, it usually just means inefficiency and laziness, but still, this new information doesn’t help make the case that we should voluntarily dismantle and demobilize a significant portion of our nuclear arsenal on the assumption the Russia will do the same.

But, since the old START I Treaty expired last December, the only way for us to have any type of agreement with the Russians that allows us to verify they are not increasing their active nuclear deployments is to sign a new treaty, even if it isn’t perfect.

“The new Treaty provides for an annual quota of 18 on-site inspections a year. While this is less than the number permitted under START (28), the number of Russian facilities that are eligible for inspection will be 35, which is half the 70 total former Soviet facilities that were subject to inspection under START. And, of course, the number of inspections without the New START Treaty is and will be zero,” Gottemoeller said.

“Its comprehensive verification regime will provide predictability, but it recognizes that we are no longer in a Cold War relationship. Thus, it allows each Party to determine for itself the composition and structure of its strategic offensive arms and how reductions will be made,” she continued.

Where the treaty is lacking on enforcement, it does theoretically decommission a lot more nuclear weapons, reducing each side’s deployed ICBM’s from 2,200 to 1,550, and places limits on other delivery systems. However, given the amount of military hardware we are talking about and the limited nature of the inspections, this agreement does seem pretty cosmetic.

Still, something is better than nothing. I guess.

Broadcasting to you at from my office at Kala cafe in the Ortachala neighborhood of Tbilisi, I formally announce that the two dark months without Three Kings Blog are officially over. I finally overcame my technical ignorance by … asking for help from the nice guys at Evolutsia.net to reboot my broken blog.

First things first! You may notice the blog looks different, and I want your imput. I figured if I was going to go through all the trouble of reinstalling stuff on the hosting site and what not I might as well go with a new look. Unfortunately the only new blog templates I liked also crashed site, so I went with a slightly different version of the previous theme.

I’m not totally happy with the new design and I will be tweaking it myself over the next week or so, so let me know what you think about it.

Keep checking in! We have a lot of catching up to do.

Not pictured: me.

In this edition I finally got to do a story that I had been dying to sell to someone for a while: the genesis of the Pheasant’s Tears Winery, a great wine company started literally because of a joke. Check it out on flash version at their site (pages 63, 64) or squint at these png files below.

Turn the page …

When the Live Journal “virtual community” first came online in 1999, it basically operated as a venue for whiny American middle-schoolers to overshare, write bad poetry and meet pedophiles. At least that’s how I saw it. I was in middle school at the time.

Ten years later, after Myspace, Facebook, Twitter, WordPress, and iPhones apps seemed to have successively killed off the first generation of blog platforms and social networks, I was stunned to find that not only was Live Journal not extinct, but was in fact an influential vehicle for grass roots activism, social discussion and independent news sharing in Armenia — a country lacking in all three.

Armenia is rated “partly free” on democracy and “not free” on the status of its freedom of the press by Washington-based pro-democracy NGO Freedom House. According to internetworldstats.com little over six percent of Armenia’s population uses the internet, while most turn to exclusively pro-government broadcast media for information. But for Armenians, seeing isn’t believing.

To read the rest of the article, click here!

In reaction to the plan, Russia suspended its participation in a Cold War deescalation treaty (which it rightly claimed the U.S. had already violated), began plans to redeploy ICBM’s to Eastern Europe and upped the rhetoric towards NATO on all fronts.

The plan to place a permanent defense that would ostensibly protect Europe from the threat of ballistic missiles from Iran and North Korea — curiously located on the border with Russia — seemed to have the potential to reignite an escalation of forces between the East and West for the first time since the fall of the Soviet Union.

The rift only deepened after the Russia’s 2008 war with Georgia, after which NATO and Russia ceased all dialogue with one another, and the missile shield agreement with Poland was beefed up to include an increase of conventional NATO forces on the Polish-Russian border.

Although the Bush administration never admitted the system had anything to do with eliminating Russia’s strategic deterrence, even 2008 Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain put on his website that the the missile shield was designed to “hedge against potential threats from possible strategic competitors like Russia and China.” Russia was not impressed.

But that all changed with the Obama administration.

Last September the White House announced it was scrapping the Bush era plan primarily for technological reasons saying his new plan to work with already developed interceptors on naval vessels in the Black and Mediterranean Seas “will provide stronger, smarter and swifter defenses of American forces and America’s allies.” But in reality, the new strategy, as outlined in a speech given last week in Tel Aviv, Israel, is totally different in technology, location and purpose.

U.S. State Department official Frank A. Rose who gave the speech said “we also seek to cooperate with Russia. As Secretary Clinton said in January, the United States and Russia face similar threats from the proliferation of ballistic missiles, and so the United States would welcome the opportunity to cooperate with Russia on missile defense.”

Technically, the new strategy diversifies missile defense into multiple regions each with a distinct approach. In practice, it eliminates any substantial development of static missile defense in Europe and East Asia, while retooling the entire approach to the Middle East into anti-missile-and-rocket blanket for Israel.

Under the new strategy, the U.S. envisions guarding Israel against not only Iran, but also Syria, Hamas and Hezbollah as well, and will utilize a variety of different missile programs including one (very Israeli-sounding) system called “David’s Sling” which will be used to strike down short and medium range missiles– presumably from Gaza and Southern Lebannon.

This is quite a change from supposedly defending Europe from a hypothetical attack from Iran. Now the United States is taking on the personal security of Israel from both state actors and insurgents in territories it either occupies or considers itself in a constant state of war with.