• porno
  • jigolo sitesi

  • Armenian Singles
    Page 51 of 232 FirstFirst ... 414849505152535461101151 ... LastLast
    Results 751 to 765 of 3472

    Thread: Regional geopolitics

    1. #751
      Registered User
      Join Date
      May 2011
      Posts
      7,689

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      «Եթե Ադրբեջանն անդամակցի ԵՏՄ-ին, կունենանք այն իրավիճակը, ինչ ունեինք մինչեւ 88 թվականը»
      Lragir.am
      Քաղաքականություն - Շաբաթ, 07 Հունիսի 2014,



      Medialab.am. Սահմանին հնչած վերջին կրակոցներով Ադրբեջանը Հայաստանին հասկացնում է, որ իրականում Հայաստանը դաշնակից չունի,-անդրադառնալով հունիսի 5-ին Երասխ գյուղին հարող հայ-ադրբեջանական զորքերի շփման գծի միջադեպին` «Մեդիալաբին» ասում է «Մոդուս Վիվենդի» կենտրոնի ղեկավար Արա Պապյանը:

      «Ադրբեջանը հստակ հասկացնում է՝ եղբայր, դուք դաշնակից չունեք, ձեր դաշնակիցն իմ դաշնակիցն է: Հիշենք Ռուսաստանի վերջին ուղերձը՝ ուղղված Ադրբեջանին, որտեղ Ադրբեջանը գնահատվեց որպես ստրատեգիական գործընկեր: Վլադիմիրի Պուտինը մայիսի 28-ին շնորհավորեց Ադրբեջանին, բայց չշնորհավորեց Հայաստանին` Հանրապետության օրվա առիթով: Ադրբեջանը հասկանում է, որ եթե ռուսն իրեն զենք է ծախում, մեր դաշնակիցը չէ» ,- «Մեդիալաբին» ասում է Արա Պապյանը:

      Ըստ վերլուծաբանի, որքան ավելանում է Ադրբեջանի զենքն ու տնտեսական հզորությունը, այնքան նրա ինքնավստահությունը մեծանում է:

      Մյուս կողմից, ըստ Արա Պապյանի, Ռուսաստանը, որը համարվում է Հայաստանի ռազմավարական դաշնակիցը, աչք է փակում Ադրբեջանի գործողությունների վրա:

      «Ադրբեջանը հարձակումներ գործեց նաեւ Տավուշի մարզի վրա, գնդակոծեց Ոսկեպարը, որը ՀՀ մաս է, երեք զինծառայող սպանվեց Հայաստանի տարածքում: Հայ-ռուսական համաձայնագրով այդ սահմանը պետք է պաշտպանվեր նաեւ ռուսների կողմից, բայց Ռուսաստանը ոչ միայն որեւէ քայլ չարեց, այլեւ անգամ չարտահայտվեց, հետեւաբար Ադրբեջանը ղարաբաղյան ճակատից հարվածը տեղափոխում է այս ուղղությամբ, դրանով իսկ պատերազմի մեսիջ հղելով Հայաստանին»,-նշում է Արա Պապյանը` հավելելով, որ Ռուսաստանի խաղն անազնիվ է նաեւ ԵՏՄ հարցում:

      Քաղաքագետի խոսքով, այսօր Ռուսաստանը մի կողմից շահագրգռելով Հայաստանին մտնել Եվրասիական տնտեսական միություն՝ քաջ գիտակցելով, որ մեզ համար հիմնական գործոնը Ղարաբաղի անվտանգությունն է, մյուս կողմից հրավեր ուղարկելով Ադրբեջանին՝ դրանով իսկ չեզոքացնելով եւ վատթարացնելով այդ հարցը:

      Հիշեցնենք, որ դեռ մարտ ամսին Ռուսասատանի տնտեսական զարգացման նախարար Ալեքսեյ Ուլյուկաևը Բաքվում հայտարարել էր, որ Ադրբեջանը կարող է քննարկել Եվրասիական տնտեսական համագործակցության շրջանակներում ինտեգրացիոն գործընթացներին մասնակցելու հարցը:

      «Ինտեգրման բոլոր ձևերը քննարկման ենթակա են: Այստեղ որևէ արգելք գոյություն չունի: Կարծում եմ, որ տրամաբանական կլիներԱդրբեջանի անդամակցությունն այդ համաձայնագրերում»,- ասել էր նա:

      «Մեզ համոզում էին, որ սա բխում է Ղարաբաղի անվտանգությունից, որ մենք Ղարաբաղի հետ ընդհանուր դաշտի մեջ ենք, դա ասվել է պաշտոնապես, բայց հիմա պարզվում է, որ Ղարաբաղը մնալու է ռուսների ասած՝ За бортом: Ստացվում է մենք դուրս եկանք ԽՍՀՄ-ից, որտեղ ավելի լավ կարգավիճակ ունեինք , որ մտնենք բոլոր պարամետրերով ավելի վատ միություն »,-նշում է Արա Պապյանը:

      Հիշեցնենք, որ Եվրասիական տնտեսական բարձրագույն խորհրդի ընդլայնված նիստին Ղազախստանի նախագահ Նազարբաեւն ընթերցել էր Ադրբեջանի նախագահի նամակը, որի համաձայն՝ Հայաստանը Եվրասիական տնտեսական միությանը պետք է անդամակցի իր միջազգայնորեն ընդունված սահմաններով, այսինքն՝ առանց Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի։

      Հայաստանի նախագահ Սերժ Սարգսյանը Նազարբաեւի հայտարարությանն արձագանքել էր օրեր անց՝ Երեւանում՝ հայտարարելով, որ Հայաստանի՝ ԵՏՄ-ին անդամակցելու հարցում որեւէ խոչընդոտ չկա:

      «Ինչ վերաբերում է Նազարբաևի հնչեցրածին. նախ այն գլխից սխալ է սահմանների մասին խոսելը: Ի՞նչ սահմանների մասին ենք խոսում: Ղարաբաղի խնդիրը Մաքսային միությունում չի լուծվում: Իսկ ո՞վ է ասել, որ մենք Ղարաբաղով ենք մտնելու Մաքսային միություն: Այդպիսի բան չի եղել և չի էլ կարող լինել, որովհետև Ղարաբաղը գոնե մեր օրենսդրությամբ, գոնե մեր պատկերացումներով Հայաստանի մաս չէ այսօր կազմում: Իսկ որ Մաքսային միությանն անդամակցելը նպաստում է Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի խնդրի լուծմանը սա միանշանակ է:Իհարկե, Նազարբաևի հնչեցրածը տհաճ էր, բայց դա որևէ վնաս չի կարող մեզ տալ»,-ասել էր Հայաստանի նախագահը:

      Ավելին կարդացեք սկզբնաղբյուր կայքում

      - See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/arm/0/pol....Cy2ECEfg.dpuf

    2. #752
      Registered User
      Join Date
      May 2011
      Posts
      7,689

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      Armenia Warns Azerbaijan After Deadly Border Shooting
      http://www.armenialiberty.org/conten.../25413294.html

      Irina Hovhannisyan եւ Ruzanna Stepanian
      Հրապարակված է՝ 06.06.2014

      Armenia threatened Azerbaijan with “severe consequences” on Friday after two of its soldiers were shot dead on its border with the Azerbaijani exclave of Nakhichevan.

      According to the Armenian military, the 26-year-old Andranik Yeghoyan and Boris Gasparian, 22, were killed on Thursday by sniper from Azerbaijani army positions located about 70 kilometers southeast of Yerevan. The area is much closer to Nakhichevan’s short border with Turkey.

      “For several days the enemy created tension, through disinformation and various political provocations, on the Nakhichevan border,” said Artsrun Hovannisian, the Armenian Defense Ministry spokesman. “We lost two soldiers as a result of yesterday’s shooting. The enemy was silenced after we returned fire.”

      There has been no official reaction yet from the Azerbaijani side.

      Ceasefire violations on Armenia’s border with Nakhichevan have been very rare unlike at other sections of the long Armenian-Azerbaijani frontier and “the line of contact” around Nagorno-Karabakh. Still, armed incidents there appear to have somewhat increased since last year. An Azerbaijani soldier serving in Nakhichevan was reported killed in action on Monday.

      The ensuing fatal shooting of the two Armenian servicemen prompted Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian told hold an emergency meeting in Yerevan with Andrzej Kasprzyk, the chief OSCE official monitoring the ceasefire regime in the Karabakh conflict zone.

      According to Hovannisian, Ohanian asked Kasprzyk to help ease tensions on the frontlines. The minister warned that “the situation is fraught with very severe consequences for Azerbaijan,” Hovannisian told RFE/RL’s Armenian service (Azatutyun.am).

      The shootings around Nakhichevan followed an upsurge in fighting at a section of the Karabakh frontline adjacent to Iran. One Armenian and two Azerbaijani soldiers were killed there last week in what the Karabakh Armenian army described as a failed Azerbaijani commando attack. The Azerbaijani military said that Armenian forces themselves attacked its frontline positions in the area southeast of Karabakh.

      The Nakhichevan incidents led official Yerevan to accuse Baku on Friday of torpedoing the latest international efforts to kick-start the Karabakh peace process. Deputy Foreign Minister Shavarsh Kocharian claimed that Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev is specifically trying to scuttle a fresh meeting with his Armenian counterpart Serzh Sarkisian, which is sought by the U.S., Russian and French mediators.

      “The mediators are intent on trying to end this stalemate,” Kocharian told RFE/RL’s Armenian service (Azatutyun.am). “This is at odds with Azerbaijan’s actions.” “They are doing everything to prevent a step forward in the negotiation process,” he said.

    3. #753
      Registered User Haykakan's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2009
      Posts
      6,098

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      This article is spot on!

      Quote Originally Posted by Hakob View Post
      EU lost its foreign policy sovereignty to US – Marine Le Pen to RT
      Published time: June 07, 2014 03:05
      French National Front (FN) president Marine Le Pen (AFP Photo / Fred Dufour
      The EU has lost control of its foreign policy to Washington, France's National Front leader Marine Le Pen told RT, calling the bloc's diplomacy a “catastrophe” in which no independent voice of reason could be heard.

      “The European Union's diplomacy is a catastrophe,” Le Pen told RT's Sophie Shevardnadze in an exclusive interview to be broadcast Monday. “The EU speaks out on foreign affairs either to create problems, or to make them worse.”

      Where Ukraine is concerned, Le Pen believes that Europe had no right to blackmail the country into breaking up its historical and cultural ties to Russia.

      “When offering a partnership agreement to Ukraine – which would mean breaking off of its allied relations with Russia – the EU has clearly set blackmail in motion. And that can't help but fuel dissent inside the country,” Le Pen told RT, adding that “pouring oil onto the fire” could lead to an increasing risk of a civil war.

      “The EU has been doing nothing but making the situation worse using threats, blackmail and sanctions, which, as we can see now, clearly do not encourage anyone to sit at the negotiation table in order to come up with a peaceful and reasonable solution to the conflict.”

      As Le Pen sees it, all of this bluster over Ukraine joining the EU has been for not, as the country is far from having the economic development necessary for integration.

      “Ukraine’s entry into the European Union; no need to tell fairy tales. Ukraine absolutely does not have the economic level to join the EU.”

      Le Pen says she is personally opposed to any expansion of the EU, and would not wish the bloc’s troubles on a country as economically deprived as Ukraine.

      “I am sympathetic to Ukrainians, and therefore wouldn’t wish to invite friends to this table of nightmares. I myself want to get out of the EU, so I will not say to them: ‘Come on into the EU,’” she said.

      Le Penn, whose National Front party in late May secured a third of France’s seats in the European Parliamentary elections, says the EU's foreign policy has been badly misguided by the United States – Syria and Libya being just some of the most recent examples.

      “We've made a great deal of foreign policy mistakes under Washington's influence, but the worst of them is Syria,” Le Penn said.

      There are “no independent states left in Europe” that would call for peaceful solutions to conflicts, the National Front leader says.

      “We [National Front] have been the only party to stand against the option of intervening in Syria. When the crisis first started, we said France is supplying arms to jihadists, who would spread terror if they win. That's what already happened in Libya.”

      “That's the way the US acts in the international arena. But what is even more horrible, is that one can't hear the voices of European countries,” Le Pen added.
      Hayastan or Bust.

    4. #754
      Registered User
      Join Date
      May 2011
      Posts
      7,689

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      8 June 2014
      BBC
      Bulgaria halts work on gas pipeline after US talks


      Bulgaria is to halt work on its Russian-backed South Stream gas pipeline following criticism from the EU and US.

      Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski announced that he had "ordered all work to be stopped".

      "We will decide on further developments following consultations with Brussels," he said after meeting with US senators.

      The Gazprom-financed pipeline would ship gas to western Europe via the Balkans, thus avoiding Ukraine.

      The European Commission had sent Bulgarian authorities a letter at the start of the month, asking them to suspend work on the project.

      The EC claimed Bulgaria may have broken EU public procurement laws by choosing local and Russian bidders.

      Bulgaria has previously said it is being targeted by Brussels as a means of retaliating against Russia over the situation in Ukraine.

      If built, the pipeline would deliver 63 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year, via Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and Slovenia before entering Italy.

      Construction work on the pipeline began in Bulgaria in October 2013.

    5. #755
      Registered User
      Join Date
      May 2011
      Posts
      7,689

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      Իրանը հայտարարել է ԱՄՆ-ի հետ ուղիղ բանակցություններ անցկացնելու մասին
      08.06.14


      ԱՄՆ-ն հաջորդ շաբաթ վերջին մի քանի տասնամյակում առաջին անգամ ուղիղ բանակցություններ կվարեն Թեհրանի միջուկային ծրագրերի վերաբերյալ։ Ինչպես տեղեկացնում է Lenta.ru-ն` IRNA գործակալության հղումով, այդ մասին տեղեկությունը հաստատել է Իրանի փոխարտգործնախարար Աբբաս Արաքչին։

      Արաքչիի խոսքերով՝ իրանական պատվիրակությունը, որը կգլխավորի ինքը, հունիսի 9-10-ին Ժնևում հանդիպում կունենա ԱՄՆ դիվանագետների հետ։

      ԱՄՆ պատվիրակությունը կգլխավորի պետքարտուղարի տեղակալ, Մոսկվայում ԱՄՆ նախկին դեսպան Ուիլյամ Բերնսը։ Մինչև հունիսի 16-ին կայանալիք «միջնորդ վեցյակի» հետ հանդիպումը Թեհրանի ներկայացուցիչները կբանակցեն նաև ռուսական կողմի հետ։

      France Presse գործակալությունը իրանա-ամերիկյան այդ բանակցություններն «աննախադեպ քայլ» է որակում՝ Թեհրանի և Արևմուտքի միջև կնքվելիք լայնամասշտաբ համաձայնագրին ընդառաջ։

      Լուրեր Հայաստանից - Թերթ.am

    6. #756
      Registered User
      Join Date
      Sep 2012
      Posts
      1,273

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      Quote Originally Posted by Vrej1915 View Post
      8 June 2014
      BBC
      Bulgaria halts work on gas pipeline after US talks


      Bulgaria is to halt work on its Russian-backed South Stream gas pipeline following criticism from the EU and US.

      Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski announced that he had "ordered all work to be stopped".

      "We will decide on further developments following consultations with Brussels," he said after meeting with US senators.

      The Gazprom-financed pipeline would ship gas to western Europe via the Balkans, thus avoiding Ukraine.

      The European Commission had sent Bulgarian authorities a letter at the start of the month, asking them to suspend work on the project.

      The EC claimed Bulgaria may have broken EU public procurement laws by choosing local and Russian bidders.

      Bulgaria has previously said it is being targeted by Brussels as a means of retaliating against Russia over the situation in Ukraine.

      If built, the pipeline would deliver 63 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year, via Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and Slovenia before entering Italy.

      Construction work on the pipeline began in Bulgaria in October 2013.
      There you go. Thanks for posting this vrej. THis shows how much suvereinity EU membership leaves for small countries.
      Since Bulgaria is suffering acute energy shortages and 7 fold price increase in energy since joining EU and shutting down it's nucklear station, this gas pipeline was a god sent for Bulgarians in cheap getting cheap gas and transit fees.
      This shows that not only EEU, but also EU is limiting a countrie's independent decision making for it's own good.
      Both EU and Eurasian Economic Union are going to controll countries participating.
      The policies in Europe are dictated by US and IMF. They are not for the benefit of Europeans, and more and more people realise that in Europe. This policies are about world hegemony and financial control.

    7. #757
      Registered User
      Join Date
      May 2011
      Posts
      7,689

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      Quote Originally Posted by Hakob View Post
      There you go. Thanks for posting this vrej. THis shows how much suvereinity EU membership leaves for small countries.
      Since Bulgaria is suffering acute energy shortages and 7 fold price increase in energy since joining EU and shutting down it's nucklear station, this gas pipeline was a god sent for Bulgarians in cheap getting cheap gas and transit fees.
      This shows that not only EEU, but also EU is limiting a countrie's independent decision making for it's own good.
      Both EU and Eurasian Economic Union are going to controll countries participating.
      The policies in Europe are dictated by US and IMF. They are not for the benefit of Europeans, and more and more people realise that in Europe. This policies are about world hegemony and financial control.
      Of course.
      Who said the contrary?
      There is yet a small difference.
      Russia limits the sovereignty by blunt military blackmail, and anhilates the economy of its vassals, the EU compensates by sending in billions of euros of subventions......, part vanishes in the pockets of the regime, yet a seizable part goes in the modernization of the infrastructures of the given member.
      One just needs to compare state of the infrastructure in Bulgaria now, compared to what was 10 years ago.
      Most factories now paying the salaries of Bulgarians are German or French owned, yet they are direct investments...
      In Armenia, not a single russian investment did create a new job in the last decade......, only bla, bla.

      Concerning the Atomic energy, you are damn right.
      Yet Bulgaria has much more resources, and possibilities to import, than us, where Metzamor is a vital necessity.
      For Bulgaria, it was only an economic matter, and the Bulgarians did not want to invest in a new reactor.
      If they ever did, french Areva or german Siemens are ready at any time.
      The closure of their Tchernobyl era reactor was a matter of security for the EU, a luxury they could afford to compensate, and they did.
      I wish, we could do the same, get rid of the soviet model, for a brand new french or japaneese reactor, the best available in security matters...

      Yet it is thanks to russian policy, that our Metsamor will not be replaced, any way, not on time any more.
      Russia`s dirty game, by the blind complicity of our actual `president/ruler`, managed to neutralise any option..... at least for any times soon.
      Yet Russia builds much more lucrative ones in Turkey, `with the express promise, to sabotage any new Armenian NPP`.....

      So, if you look at it honestly, there are differences in the style, and the content of both policies.
      Last edited by Vrej1915; 06-08-2014 at 10:45 AM.

    8. #758
      Registered User
      Join Date
      May 2011
      Posts
      7,689

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      Quote Originally Posted by Vrej1915 View Post
      8 June 2014
      BBC
      Bulgaria halts work on gas pipeline after US talks


      Bulgaria is to halt work on its Russian-backed South Stream gas pipeline following criticism from the EU and US.

      Prime Minister Plamen Oresharski announced that he had "ordered all work to be stopped".

      "We will decide on further developments following consultations with Brussels," he said after meeting with US senators.

      The Gazprom-financed pipeline would ship gas to western Europe via the Balkans, thus avoiding Ukraine.

      The European Commission had sent Bulgarian authorities a letter at the start of the month, asking them to suspend work on the project.

      The EC claimed Bulgaria may have broken EU public procurement laws by choosing local and Russian bidders.

      Bulgaria has previously said it is being targeted by Brussels as a means of retaliating against Russia over the situation in Ukraine.

      If built, the pipeline would deliver 63 billion cubic meters of natural gas a year, via Bulgaria, Serbia, Hungary and Slovenia before entering Italy.

      Construction work on the pipeline began in Bulgaria in October 2013.
      Yet,
      frankly speaking, I do not see the necessity, for Russia, to built the ST according pre-Khrim plans.
      The only advantage would be, avoiding to pay new studies, new files and and Ok-s from different states....which is not much, when it comes to the financial benefits, of changing the plan all together.
      If they do so, they will shift turkish EEZ, thus will not pay billions of commission for nothing to Turkey, and probably not use anymore Bulgaria as a terminus to their pipe on shore from Khrim, rather Romania.
      No need to mention, the huge cost effectiveness of a short shallow water pipe from Khrim to Romania, compared to deep-sea, long and hard to built line from Northern Kavkaz to Bulgaria....
      So I`m not sure, Bulgaria really looses anything.
      I bet, they are out of the plan already, and try to get most benefit from EU as compensation, for their `sacrifice`.
      I will really not be surprised.
      Last edited by Vrej1915; 06-08-2014 at 10:38 AM.

    9. #759
      Registered User Haykakan's Avatar
      Join Date
      Jan 2009
      Posts
      6,098

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      "So, if you look at it honestly, there are differences in the style, and the content of both policies."
      Yes there are differences indeed! The difference is the West will destroy Armenia while Russia will protect it. You think Bulgaria was given a choice or an ultimatum? You think the west will hesitate even a second to give all of Armenia to the Turck in exchange for o say anything like not joining the ECU? Honestly think about it - which saide is going to make sure Armenia stays around? To whom is Armenia more important?
      Hayastan or Bust.

    10. #760
      Registered User
      Join Date
      May 2011
      Posts
      7,689

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      Quote Originally Posted by Haykakan View Post
      "So, if you look at it honestly, there are differences in the style, and the content of both policies."
      Yes there are differences indeed! The difference is the West will destroy Armenia while Russia will protect it. You think Bulgaria was given a choice or an ultimatum? You think the west will hesitate even a second to give all of Armenia to the Turck in exchange for o say anything like not joining the ECU? Honestly think about it - which saide is going to make sure Armenia stays around? To whom is Armenia more important?

      Ay mart, intch lezvov assem???

      Yess kez asselu pan tchunem, intz mi nchi, votch el khossi.
      Gartatzadzet enhanrabess tchess hasganum, el ur mnatz verludzess....
      Im hed kordz tchuness.

    11. #761

    12. #762
      Registered User
      Join Date
      Sep 2012
      Posts
      1,273

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      Looking at EU conduct in Ukraine. Specifically double standards in policies and media blockade or outright missinformation, I hink the end gme is the same for both EU or EEU. Diffrence is just one puts a soft pilow under heads of countries, while the other is more rude.
      The question is with whom are we more connected with and who is geoplotitically closer at influencing most in our area.
      Security is number one. Even with all the critics about arms supply or double game, I still don't see any alternative options from west that can fulfill our needs.
      Lets face it, Eurasian economic Union will never be an equal competitor with west economically or innovatively. It's value will be natural resources and barter and profit distribution coming from it. Since the economic equilibrium is shifting from manufacturing and services to natural resources and controll of them by day, EEU has or will have some good options at prosperity. The point for us is the infiltration and bringing back home a bit bigger share than our country is allocated.
      Remember the facts that in Soviet Union, Armenia being very small in every way had secured a bigger share for itself than any comparable population area, exept places like Moscow or Leningrad.
      I believe in Armenian Business savvy. Also it could be that in just like SSSR, Armenia could become an IT center for EEU economy.
      Most depends from us. The socioeconomic situation has to be improved in Armenia.
      By the way, with entry into EEU, I see a better possibility for opposition in replacing current ruling government. Once, oposition will stop being synonimus with Prowest orange movement (since after entry to EEU, this political struggle will quiet down, and moscows fears with it), it will be easier to concentrate on fight against oligarkhy and corruption. At least reigning on those oligarkhs as much as in russian federation will be a big breakthrough.
      As I said before, we've got to go behind this East -west divide as soon as posible. I don't see at this moment Prowest opposition succeding accept creatng unnecesary and divisive cyvil strife.
      Once the choice is made and completed, the political field will be more clearer and more safe for internal political confrontations.
      Actually, I will welacome those.
      Last edited by Hakob; 06-08-2014 at 12:41 PM.

    13. #763
      Registered User
      Join Date
      May 2011
      Posts
      7,689

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      Quote Originally Posted by Hakob View Post
      Looking at EU conduct in Ukraine. Specifically double standards in policies and media blockade or outright missinformation, I hink the end gme is the same for both EU or EEU. Diffrence is just one puts a soft pilow under heads of countries, while the other is more rude.
      The question is with whom are we more connected with and who is geoplotitically closer at influencing most in our area.
      Security is number one. Even with all the critics about arms supply or double game, I still don't see any alternative options from west that can fulfill our needs.
      Lets face it, Eurasian economic Union will never be an equal competitor with west economically or innovatively. It's value will be natural resources and barter and profit distribution coming from it. Since the economic equilibrium is shifting from manufacturing and services to natural resources and controll of them by day, EEU has or will have some good options at prosperity. The point for us is the infiltration and bringing back home a bit bigger share than our country is allocated.
      Remember the facts that in Soviet Union, Armenia being very small in every way had secured a bigger share for itself than any comparable population area, exept places like Moscow or Leningrad.
      I believe in Armenian Business savvy. Also it could be that in just like SSSR, Armenia could become an IT center for EEU economy.
      Most depends from us. The socioeconomic situation has to be improved in Armenia.
      By the way, with entry into EEU, I see a better possibility for opposition in replacing current ruling government. Once, oposition will stop being synonimus with Prowest orange movement (since after entry to EEU, this political struggle will quiet down, and moscows fears with it), it will be easier to concentrate on fight against oligarkhy and corruption. At least reigning on those oligarkhs as much as in russian federation will be a big breakthrough.
      As I said before, we've got to go behind this East -west divide as soon as posible. I don't see at this moment Prowest opposition succeding accept creatng unnecesary and divisive cyvil strife.
      Once the choice is made and completed, the political field will be more clearer and more safe for internal political confrontations.
      Actually, I will welacome those.
      1/ There is no such Pro West structured opposition in Armenia, as in Ukrain, or Georgia, etc..., the supposed opposition, is largely artificial, a toy in the hands of the regime, and claiming day and night their readiness to accept any russian diktat, provided they return to power, to plunder as they once did under MNA-Levon.

      2/ Return to CCCP is not as accurate as a description. Probably more realistic would be return to Russian Empire of the Tzarist times. The CCCP was a historical accident, that will never return in its essence, since there is no such ideology in offer. The `new/old` Russian empire is as capitalist and rude, as any other entity, as was the case of Tsarist Russia. So the dreams of a new ASR are non substantial in any scenario. What did happen in the CCCP was, and can`t return. At best, we will have the autonomy of an oblast, like Kalmukia or Tatarstan. As we are not rich in natural resources, the best we can hope, is some share for the future `Erivan`oblast, in the Molybden and Copper exported, rather than full `Talan` as of now.... If anybody else than the Tsar of Russia will have any say, that will be the Kazakh Khan.....

      3/ No Empire can last, relying only on natural resources, however huge they may be, in the XXI century. Specially when they have a shrinking population, and a huge, empty Sibir, next to the worlds most populated, and probably next N1 power. So the new Russian Empire is condemned, before its proclamation, rather sooner than later.

      4/ Accepting as granted, the security garantee from Russia is very ungrounded. One needs to analyse what really happened between 1991-94, who did garantee what, and for how long? A honest and fact based analysis will show, that while roles were modified in both directions during all this vital period, our security was not, and thanks God for that, an object of interest only for Moskwa. The only power that was our ally from day 1 to the end, was our southern neighbor.

      5/ While having some objective grounds, comparing the situation with beginning of XX century is not serious. The games, risks, and center of powers are not same. Regional powers, means of intervention, neither.... some of the changes are good, some others are bad.

      6/ Major changes, put aside of the major two players that were non existent on global scale (US and China):
      - Europe is no more the center of decision, with conflicting interests between France, UK and Germany, but yet unorganised, nevertheless virtually unique player (reserves on the UK)
      - Iran, inexistant in the XX, is one of the three main regional players on the rise, and the only one in the region, with whom we have no conflicting strategic interests.
      - Turkey is not the sick man of Europe, Europeans wanted to share, but a rising, pretentious entity, claiming global place, and center of a would be Turan. Contrary to 1900, technologically, Turkey is the best armed, compared to Russia and Iran, and less and less dependant on European know how. This same dangerous factor, is the reason, the EU (France/Germany/Poland) have strategic interest in any INDEPENDANT, or if possible allied force, able to contain Turkish threat.
      - The US has a conflicting relationship with EU, as a potential threat if unified (since technologically and economically equal), and has used Turkey, as a tool to destroy the potential contender, but yet, for the last decade, sharing the objective of containment, when Turkey began to pretend to much bigger role, than what the US was ready to offer. So, partially, our strategic interests do coincide with the US, as long as the US is bullish. Things go bad, when they turn bearish...
      The return of an agressive Russian Empire, aspiring to expand, is the best argument, strengtening the turkish hand for the US (much less for the EU, for whom, the turkish threat is such, that the Russian gestures will never reach (put aside Poland and the ex easterners).
      - For the US, and the EU, there is no much choice, when it comes to conter Turkey on the south-east. Kurds or Armenians. Whit our suicidal policies, we do not let them much choice...


      7/ The Armenian factor as a such, was perceived as a danger, not only for Turks, but for Russia, since ever. No need to mention soviet period. But we can recall objective collaboration of Tzarist Russia with the Osmans just before and after 1912, or 1875.... (remember Kukunyan? Remember 1905-07?? Remember confiscation of `Azkayin galvazk`, and persecution of the Armenian APOSTOLIC church, perceived as ENEMY of ORTHODOXY???) . We were interesting only in times of need, during active fighting against the ottomans, or as sheep, to fill the place of the expelled muslims in Northern Kavkaz, Abkhazia.....

      8/ Tzarist Russia , most of the time (put aside the first years after conquest in XVIII cent) never, objectively helped the strengtening of an Armenian factor, inside eastern Armenia. Contrary, it did its best, to divide and rule, always at our expense (eastern Armenia was divided artificially, to make us minority in Georgian provinces, or muslim ones (Lori, Javakhk in Tiflis), Artsakh and Zankezur in Elizavetpol, etc.... The real and only objective reason was our blind Russophilia. We would never protest, no matter how hard they would threat us (after 6 centuries of muslim yoke), while muslims or Georgians needed to be bribed...
      The proportions you gave were first inaccurate, second the `purification` was not due to russian policy, rather a combination of 2 main factors:
      a- All mixed regions, generally more prosperous and rich, ended out of the borders of the Armenian CP, so with it, automatically their muslims... and not due to purification (from the original 90.000 Km2 of eastern Armenia under russian control in 1914, only less than 30.000 ended in the Armenian CP+++): thanks to Soviet policy.
      b- The few districts that were cleansed, were not due to Russian or Soviet policy, but thanks to a handful realistic minds, of our own: namely Rupen, Njdeh, Tro... . ( Harg tchem dessnum sa ankleren krel, payts yete kez bedk a, garam Hayerenov, arantzin tvargel kyugh ar kyugh, ov yerp a um makrel....). Contrary to your assumtion, after the return of soviet yoke, most of the few districts cleansed, ending in ACCP, did saw return of their muslims..., exeption being Talin, while trhe opposite never happened, neither in Northern Artsakh, Nakhitchevan AR, in the rest of Azarbaijan, inside NKAO, or inside Georgia (Treghk, Javakhk, etc...)

      9/ If history has to teach us lessons, concerning Armenian-Russian relashionship, we must accept sad reality:
      Russia`s policy was favorable to us, ONLY when Russia was weak and defeated, on the retreat.
      Each time Russia was expending and self confident, we were treated as `granted mujiks`, good for any advanturus, however unlikely barter, to please the turks....
      Last edited by Vrej1915; 06-08-2014 at 03:00 PM.

    14. #764
      Registered User
      Join Date
      May 2011
      Posts
      7,689

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      Quote Originally Posted by Vrej1915 View Post
      Yet,
      frankly speaking, I do not see the necessity, for Russia, to built the ST according pre-Khrim plans.
      The only advantage would be, avoiding to pay new studies, new files and and Ok-s from different states....which is not much, when it comes to the financial benefits, of changing the plan all together.
      If they do so, they will shift turkish EEZ, thus will not pay billions of commission for nothing to Turkey, and probably not use anymore Bulgaria as a terminus to their pipe on shore from Khrim, rather Romania.
      No need to mention, the huge cost effectiveness of a short shallow water pipe from Khrim to Romania, compared to deep-sea, long and hard to built line from Northern Kavkaz to Bulgaria....
      So I`m not sure, Bulgaria really looses anything.
      I bet, they are out of the plan already, and try to get most benefit from EU as compensation, for their `sacrifice`.
      I will really not be surprised.
      After second taught,
      I think all this is just a part of the propaganda war.
      News of an unofficial veto of the EU(off course with US blessing or inspiration) was around in concerned circles much before Khrim, at the beginning of Maidan episode.
      So, as a matter of fact, much before Russia did anything serious on the ground, while Putin taught he had the upper hand via Yanukovitch, this South Stream project, at least first version, was effectively vetoyed.
      After Khrim, all the same, even with a EU blessing, the project turns senseless.
      So, perfectly aware of the reality, Bulgarians try to grab something in concession for their loss from Brussells, and the EU/US do play the fool game, just to give the impression of a success, in their sanctions policy.
      Won`t be surprised, if Russia does protest, to give the change, in same spirit, while knowing perfectly all the gesture is BS.
      Better to protest about a harmless act, to avoid a real sanction.....

    15. #765
      Registered User
      Join Date
      May 2011
      Posts
      7,689

      Re: Regional geopolitics

      US delegation told by White House: Don’t leave talks with Iran without an “improved” interim deal
      DEBKAfile
      June 8, 2014



      The US delegation to the bilateral talks with Iranian officials taking place in Geneva on June 9-10 has been directed by the White House not to leave the table empty-handed. The meeting was initiated for a supreme effort to cover up the fact that the P5+1 negotiations with Iran are at an impasse, with no chance of achieving their goal of a final nuclear accord by the July deadline – or even by the extended timeline of Jan. 15, 2015 (first revealed by DEBKAfile on May 24.), and have something to show for the venture into nuclear diplomacy.
      A US official said that the bilateral stage was fitted in ahead of the full-dress round between all six powers and Iran on June 16-20 “to engage in as much active diplomacy a we can to test whether we can reach a diplomatic solution with Iran on its nuclear program.”
      The avowed objective which the negotiations started out with, of a comprehensive agreement finally setting to rest the issues of Iran’s nuclear program, has obviously been dropped from US officialese. But the optimistic comments of “progress” accompanying round after round of failed discussions had to be explained away.
      To this end, US President Barack Obama whipped out the undercover team which had been running his back-channel to Tehran from Oman in the past year. It was on that track that the real business was contracted between Washington and Tehran, whereas the P5+1 forum was pretty much a showpiece (as DEBKAfile reported.)
      Therefore, for the Geneva meeting starting Monday, US Deputy Secretary of State Bill Burns, who headed the back-channel team in Oman, was brought out in the open. He supersedes Under Secretary of State Wendy Sherman, who failed to make any headway in the formal rounds of talks. With him is another team member, Vice President Biden’s national security advisor Jake Sullivan.
      President Obama brought the team out for a last-ditch effort to save the day because of four developments:
      1. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has forbidden President Hassan Rouhani and Foreign Minister Mohamed Javad Zarif to make any further concessions, especially on uranium enrichment and nuclear-capable ballistic missiles, thus foredooming to failure the diplomatic process Obama so cherished. Khamenei dug in his heels after he heard the US president virtually rescinding America’s option against Iran in his West Point speech.
      2. Obama and his advisers came to the conclusion that the most the Iranians can be expected to cede – and only then in the second half of 2014 - is an improved version of the interim nuclear accord struck by the six powers and Iran last November.
      DEBKAfile’s Washington sources report that William Burns is under orders from the White House to clinch an “improved interim accord” in Geneva. This is vitally important in order to turn the failed nuclear negotiations around and hold them up as a success.
      3. Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi announced Saturday that Iran would take part in the bilateral talks, but would go straight from the meeting with the US delegation to a separate one with Russian negotiators in Rome on June 11-12.
      Tehran has thus provided itself with the option of improving on Washington’s offer by getting a better deal from Moscow. This maneuver also brings to the attention of the Obama administration that Iran means henceforth to line up its Middle East policy and strategy with Moscow.
      The American source commented wryly that the two-day Geneva encounter would undoubtedly provide the stage for further US concessions if the delegation wishes to come out with any sort of accord in hand.

    Page 51 of 232 FirstFirst ... 414849505152535461101151 ... LastLast

    Thread Information

    Users Browsing this Thread

    There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

    Similar Threads

    1. Do you think Turkey has become a regional Leader?
      By jameson in forum General News
      Replies: 106
      Last Post: 05-10-2016, 07:19 AM
    2. ARF holds regional meeting in French parliament
      By A.R. in forum Armenian News
      Replies: 1
      Last Post: 06-03-2004, 12:47 PM

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •