Russia Prepares An Adequate Answer To Potential American And Israeli Strikes At Iran

This problem is one of the items on the agenda of the Russian-EU summit in Brussels today. Russian Representative to the EU Vladimir Chizhov warned the other day that the Israeli or American strike at Iran would result in "catastrophic consequences" and pointed out that these consequences would affect more than the region in question alone, WPS: What the Papers Say writes.  (It was actually recently that Russia started putting Europe and the international community in general under diplomatic pressure on the subject of a possible war in Iran and its corollaries. It all started with publication of a report on the Iranian nuclear program by the IAEA in November.)

Military preparations for minimization of the damage expected from the hostilities against Iran began in Russia more than a year ago. Fortunately, nearly everything has been done already. Sources within the Defense Ministry claim that the 102nd Military Base in Armenia was optimized in October and November 2011. Families of servicemen were flown to Russia, the garrison posted near Yerevan was reduced and moved to Gyumri closer to the Turkish border. It is from the territory of Turkey that the Americans might pounce. Exactly what tasks the 102nd Base will have to tackle in connection with it is not clear at this point. The Russian troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia have been on an alert since December 1. Surface combatants of the Black Sea Fleet are on station not far from the coast of Georgia that might side up with the anti-Iranian forces in this conflict.

A battery of Bal-E coast defense missile complexes (their range is 130 kilometers) was put on an alert in Izberbash, Dagestan, right near the Azerbaijani border. All missile boats of the Caspian Flotilla were moved from Astrakhan to Makhachkala and Kaspiisk. It is known that the missiles they carry have the range of up to 200 kilometers.

Ships of the Northern Fleet under the command of the flagship Admiral Kuznetsov, Russia's only aircraft-carrier, are already steaming to the Mediterranean. At least the flagship is scheduled to make a stop in Tartus, Syria. Sources within the Defense Ministry neither confirm nor deny the rumors that nuclear submarine accompany the group of ships on this sortie. No official information is given on the tasks the Army and Navy will have to perform in the event of a war on Iran. The impression is that the Defense Ministry is worried about the 102nd Base in Armenia, Russia's bulwark in the Caucasus. The Kremlin apparently fears that the base might stop being a geopolitical asset. Should the Americans and their Israeli allies go to war on Iran, this loss of a geopolitical asset in the Caucasus will spell a catastrophe for Russia.

This April, Georgia annulled the treaty that permitted Russian military transit to Armenia.  The Russian-Armenian military group in the Caucasus is as good as isolated at this point.  Fuel, food, and whatever else the Russian contingent needs have to be airlifted there. A war in Iran will make this route unavailable.

Formerly second-in-command of the Russian army group in the Caucasus, Lieutenant General Yuri Netkachev said that a war in Iran would force Russia to start looking for a supply route to its contingent in Armenia via Georgia. "We may even find it necessary to break through the Georgian blockade and have the transport corridors connecting us and Armenia protected by the military," said Netkachev.

The head of the Center of Political forecasts Anatoly Tsyganok said, "Russia is quite suspicious and wary of Azerbaijan these days. This country doubled its military budget in the last three years. It never gives a thought to the concerns of Iran and Armenia that are clearly upset by the Azerbaijani penchant for buying unmanned reconnaissance craft and other sophisticated weapons from Israel... Baku even put Russia under additional pressure insisting on a higher pay for the use of the Gabala radar. And yet, I would not go so far as to suggest with any degree of certainty that Baku will necessarily back a military campaign against Iran... even despite the disputes between Iran and Azerbaijan over oil fields in the southern part of the Caspian Sea. That Azerbaijan will go to war on Armenia is unlikely as well."

Military expert Colonel Vladimir Popov disagreed with Tsyganok. (An expert on the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict in 1991-1993, Popov is also an authority of the military reforms carried out by President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev.) Popov said, "The Nagorno- Karabakh conflict resolution talks are taking way too long. Revanchist statements are openly made in Baku. I reckon that the Azerbaijanis might strike at Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh in an attempt to reclaim the runaway province and finally settle the territorial dispute." The expert said that a good deal would depend on Russia's behavior.  "Should Azerbaijan backed by Turkey use the war on Iran as a distraction for its own little war on Armenia, Russia and the Armenian antiaircraft forces will provide air cover for all of Armenia. There is no saying at this point whether or not it might be regarded as participation in the hostilities. That the Russian army is not going to participate in the hostilities on the territory of Karabakh need not be said. Still, the Russian military will probably have to fight in Armenia itself, whenever they themselves are threatened."

As a matter of fact, Popov even allowed for the possibility of Russian participation in the conflict in Iran. "Should it come to that... should the fall of the Iranian regime become imminent, Russia will offer it military aid. At least on the military-technical level," said Popov.

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Editor's choice
News
European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

European Union and Canada agree on "Alliance for the future" at milestone Montreal summit

António Costa, President of the European Council, and Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, represented the EU at the 21st EU-Canada summit, which took place in Montreal on 29 and 30 October 2026. Prime Minister Mark Carney represented Canada. The summit marked a major milestone in EU-Canada relations, paving the way for an even broader and deeper political partnership. Leaders took stock of progress made since the previous EU-Canada summit and issued a joint statement launching an Alliance for the Future. Building on their longstanding strategic partnership, the alliance aims to deepen cooperation and create a common prosperity and economic security space. This is a moment to act with clarity and ambition. By aligning more closely – economically, technologically and strategically – Canada and the EU are building an Alliance for the Future based on trust and shared values that meets the scale of today's challenges and opportunities and will reinforce the freedom, prosperity and safety our citizens expect and deserve. We are stronger together. Building on their existing Strategic Partnership Agreement, the EU and Canada will deepen political engagement and coordination on shared priorities. Leaders welcomed the increasingly frequent exchanges with Canadian ministers at relevant Council and ministerial meetings. The EU and Canada will build on these exchanges through regular summits, joint ministerial meetings and cooperation committees. The partners will work to define the concept of an ever-closer association of Canada to the EU, short of full membership, by the 2027 EU-Canada summit. (click image to read more)

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)