There are only 4 options for the CAR gas and oil pipelines:-
1)Through Russia or Azerbaijan but that would greatly enhance Russia’s political and economic control over the region.
Through Iran but US not keen on strengthening a regime which it has been seeking to isolate.
Through China but that is thethe long way, strategically unfeasible and hugely expensive.
PAKISTAN
why not tajikistan-kaspian sea-azarabijan-turkey. russia does not have much control on azarbaijan.
[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited October 30, 2001).]
[quote]
Originally posted by ZZ:
**why not tajikistan-kaspian sea-azarabijan-turkey. russia does not have much control on azarbaijan.
[This message has been edited by ZZ (edited October 30, 2001).]**
[/quote]
That is the most unfeasible and ridiculous option that I have ever heard in relation to these pipeline ventures.
What you are in effect in saying is that pipeline goes North into Tajikistan, then west through Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, then under the Caspian Sea and back overland into Azerbaidjan, then through Armenia into North Eastern Turkey and down to the Turkish ports on the Mediterranean sea? That would mean crossing through six countries, of which three are in effect under Russian control, including going under the Caspian sea to which Russia has also has claims. Not to mention the ongoing instability caused by violent conflicts in Tajikistan, Armenia/Azerbaidjan and Turkish Kurdistan over the years. For these and many, many other reasons I'm sure that this option has not even been considered by any of the parties concerned.
[quote]
Originally posted by Malik73:
** That is the most unfeasible and ridiculous option that I have ever heard in relation to these pipeline ventures.
What you are in effect in saying is that pipeline goes North into Tajikistan, then west through Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, then under the Caspian Sea and back overland into Azerbaidjan, then through Armenia into North Eastern Turkey and down to the Turkish ports on the Mediterranean sea? That would mean crossing through six countries, of which three are in effect under Russian control, including going under the Caspian sea to which Russia has also has claims. Not to mention the ongoing instability caused by violent conflicts in Tajikistan, Armenia/Azerbaidjan and Turkish Kurdistan over the years. For these and many, many other reasons I'm sure that this option has not even been considered by any of the parties concerned.**
[/quote]
if u look at the map, caspian sea is at shore of tajikistan, azarbaijan is at shore of kaspian sea so u go from tajikistan to azarbaijan. azarbaijan and turkey share border. u dont have to go through 6 countries.
[quote]
Originally posted by ZZ:
** if u look at the map, caspian sea is at shore of tajikistan, azarbaijan is at shore of kaspian sea so u go from tajikistan to azarbaijan. azarbaijan and turkey share border. u dont have to go through 6 countries.**
[/quote]
No if you look at the map Tajikistan borders China. It does not have a shoreline on the Caspian sea - that is some 800 miles west of it. I think you mean Turkmenistan, which does have a shoreline with the Caspian Sea. But Russia sees Turkmenistan as part of it's sphere, plus five countries including Russia (and Iran) have competing claims over the Caspian sea. Azerbaidjan proper and Turkey do not share a land border as such. Yes, the Azerbaidjani enclave of Nakichevan shares a very tiny (a few miles) border with Turkey, but and this is a big but Nakichevan is separated from the main body of Azerbadijan by Armenia proper and Armenian-cotrolled Azeri territory. So this totally unfeasible route would still have to cross the territory of four countries before reaching the Turkish ports in the Mediterranean. As I mentioned before conflicts in the Caucasus (Armenia/Azerbaidjan) and Turkish Kurdistan are more reasons against this route.
in that case take it from azarbaijan to georgia and make georgia part of NATO.
[quote]
Originally posted by ZZ:
in that case take it from azarbaijan to georgia and make georgia part of NATO.
[/quote]
I wish you would take some time to understand the location, geography and history of the countries you mention before suggesting alternatives, then you would be able to understand why such options have never been considered in the first place.
Georgia, is a Christian-Orthodox country like Russia (and Armenia). Russia has always viewed Georgia as virtually an extension of itself since the days of the Tsars, and, despite Georgia's declaration of independence in 1990, thousands of Russian troops remain on Georgian soil. Georgia is a fractious nation with at least three ‘break-away’ ethnic provinces – Abkhazia on the western (Black Sea) coast, South Ossetia in the North, ad Adjaria in the South (also on the black sea coast). These regions have fought bitter civil wars with the Georgian’s are now virtually independent states. Most importantly they are home to thousands of Russian troops who are indefinitely stationed there as ‘CIS peace-keeping troops’ led by Russian generals. The Russian’s will always have a permanent miltary presence in Georgia, and would never allow Georgia to become a member of NATO.