Armenia and the information war

[Armanen]

Re: Armenia and the information war

I agree to action such changes takes time because things have to go through stages and processes before reaching to the intended goal.
Some of the key indicators of “change is in the air” are:
Announcement of important policy changes
Discussions/debates of the alternative approaches
Gradual actions taken to “evolve” to the intended course.

None these are happening.
Can you explain what actions have been taken to that effect.


I have heard politicians making promises and not keeping them, but never heard promises which will be achieved in two generations!!!.
In two generations most Armenians alive today will be dead, its like making promises to a dead man.

Change has to happen, gradually.
Has to be seen and expected to keep peoples moral high about the future.

NONE OF IT IS HAPPENING FOR ONE SIMPLE GOOD REASON.
IT IS NOT IN THE INTEREST OF THE PRESENT FORCES IN POWER
THEY ARE HAPPY AND CONTENT WITH THINGS AS THEY ARE.

Yerevan city administration has not improved in your opinion? The Armenian military morale hasn't been raised since the 90s? Armenia has not advanced its strategic ties with Russia? The government has not encouraged diaspora Armenians and foreigners in general to invest in Armenia? (See TUMO). New roads and other infrastructures have not been constructed? I could go on and on. But you are too obsessed with positive change now, and change in a Anglo-American style as you constantly aim to compare Armenia with the West.

I suggest you look at the so called democracies of the EU and US which are listening to their wall street and banking masters and ignoring the people who supposedly they are answerable to.

[Federate]

Re: Armenia and the information war

Washington Post also mentions that Stalin gave Artsakh to Azeris! A pretty good article Fuk the NY Times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Karabakh, the first post-Soviet war

By Will Englund, Updated: Thursday, July 7, 4:05 AM

STEPANAKERT, Nagorno-Karabakh — Nothing blindsided Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s more than the outbreak of intense national feeling among minority populations in the Soviet Union, much of it laced with religious antagonism.

In Dagestan, Muslims angry about restrictions on the hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, stormed a government building. In Ukraine, Eastern Catholics demanded independence. But nowhere was the tension more acute than in Nagorno-Karabakh, a mountainous redoubt in the South Caucasus, famous for mulberries, honey, ancient monasteries, precipitous gorges and centuries of warfare.

It is populated overwhelmingly by Armenians but was assigned, by Joseph Stalin, to the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic in 1921. Stalin was, at the time, the commissar for nationalities, and in a divide-and-rule strategy, he frequently drew borders to divide ethnic groups. Those borders, in the Caucasus and Central Asia, still bedevil current efforts to maintain peaceful relations.

Armenians, for instance, have been Christians for nearly 1,700 years, and Azerbaijanis are Muslims, closely related to the Turks. Harsh Soviet rule suppressed their mutual hostility and distrust, but when Gorbachev’s reforms relaxed the constraints, the old hatreds reemerged.

In 1988, Karabakh’s leaders said they wanted to be joined to Armenia proper, just to the west. Moscow never really answered, but in Azerbaijan, pogroms were launched against ethnic Armenians in response, with dozens killed. The Soviet army sent in troops, Azerbaijanis fled Karabakh, and Azerbaijan deported more than 5,000 Armenians. By 1991, nearly 1,000 people had been killed in sporadic fighting.

A state of emergency helped to keep the lid on. But in July, Gorbachev decided to pull Soviet troops out. Gun battles erupted almost immediately. On July 7, 1991, reports reached Moscow that Armenian villages along Karabakh’s border were under attack and at least three people were dead.

The president of the Armenian republic, Levon Ter-Petrossian, accused Gorbachev of trying to blackmail Armenia into joining a new Soviet treaty of union, thus forgoing independence, by showing that it was helpless without the protection of the central government.

This new treaty was scheduled for signing on Aug. 20, but by early July, only nine of the Soviet Union’s 15 republics had shown any interest in it, and Gorbachev’s hard-line critics said he was risking the dissolution of the country. He desperately wanted more republics to sign on.

Armenia wasn’t to be one of them, nor was Azerbaijan. Both went on to declare independence, as had Nagorno-Karabakh itself, and by 1992, they were engaged in a full-scale war — the first war connected to the Soviet collapse. When it ended in a cease-fire in 1994, Nagorno-Karabakh had broken free.

But no nation has ever recognized it. It is a de facto republic, with close ties to neighboring Armenia but a firm sense of independence. Karabakh today is a prickly place, immensely proud of its victory over Azerbaijan, confident in the face of continuing Azerbaijani threats of renewed war, and irritated that it hasn’t been given a place at the negotiating table, where its interests are represented by the nation of Armenia — and where little progress has been made over the years.

The latest attempt to hammer out a framework peace deal, under the sponsorship of Russia, France and the United States, came to nothing at a meeting in the Russian city of Kazan on June 24.

Sidelined, Karabakhis would appreciate international recognition, but they’re not about to beg for it. “Unrecognized? So what. We’re used to it by now,” says Tevan Poghosyan, formerly Karabakh’s representative in the United States. People here are convinced that if the international community had refused to recognize what they view as Azerbaijan’s artificial Soviet-era borders back when the U.S.S.R. broke up, Azerbaijan wouldn’t have been emboldened to attack and their history would have been very different.

Instead, thousands died under bombardment, Stepanakert was half-destroyed, and the legends of the “martyrs” of Artsakh, the traditional name for Karabakh, took hold. There’s still plenty of shooting across the line of contact: 43 incidents in one recent 24-hour period. Seven people on the Karabakh side were reported killed in 2010, and, says Defense Minister Movses Hakobyan, “We always shoot back.”

Karabakhis aren’t inclined to make concessions for peace, of territory or anything else. “We liberated those lands. They are historic Armenian lands. We shed the blood of our sons for those lands,” said Robert Baghryan, who today heads the Union of Freedom Fighters of the Artsakh War.

Now a lieutenant colonel in the Karabakh reserves, Baghryan got his military training in the Soviet army, where he served as a sergeant. The biggest difference in outlook between the two armies? Combat readiness, he says. The Soviets never paid much attention to it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/in-karabakh-the-first-post-soviet-war/2011/07/06/gIQAF7tm1H_story.html

[ninetoyadome]

Re: Armenia and the information war

Poor Mr. Englund

-----------------------------


One more journalist appeared in Azerbaijani “black list”
BY TIMES.AM AT 7 JULY, 2011, 6:07 PM

The article on Artsakh was published in the US’ “The Washington Post” newspaper on July 7. The newspaper’s Moscow correspondent Will Englund visited Artsakh Republic Armenia and prepared the article on the visit.

Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry added several journalists, who paid visit to Nagorno Karabakh, to the “black list”. Among them there is deputy editor-in-chief of “Ekho Moskvy” radio Sergey Buntmann and correspondent of “Izvestiya” Yuri Snegiryov.

It seems to be too difficult for Azerbaijanis to realize at last that Artsakh is an independent state and nobody has to ask permission from Azerbaijan to visit it.

/Times.am/

http://times.am/2011/07/07/one-more-journalist-appeared-in-azerbaijani-%E2%80%9Cblack-list%E2%80%9D/

[Federate]

Re: Armenia and the information war

Poor Mr. Englund

Anyone know how to contact Mr. Will Englund? We should send him "thank you" emails as a preemptive measure against an Azeri mass email attack on him. He's a Pulitzer prize winner btw.

[UrMistake]

Re: Armenia and the information war

Anyone know how to contact Mr. Will Englund? We should send him "thank you" emails as a preemptive measure against an Azeri mass email attack on him. He's a Pulitzer prize winner btw.

Well that would be great post info later

[Mos]

Re: Armenia and the information war

Washington Post also mentions that Stalin gave Artsakh to Azeris! A pretty good article Fuk the NY Times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Karabakh, the first post-Soviet war

By Will Englund, Updated: Thursday, July 7, 4:05 AM

STEPANAKERT, Nagorno-Karabakh — Nothing blindsided Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev in the late 1980s more than the outbreak of intense national feeling among minority populations in the Soviet Union, much of it laced with religious antagonism.

In Dagestan, Muslims angry about restrictions on the hajj, or pilgrimage to Mecca, stormed a government building. In Ukraine, Eastern Catholics demanded independence. But nowhere was the tension more acute than in Nagorno-Karabakh, a mountainous redoubt in the South Caucasus, famous for mulberries, honey, ancient monasteries, precipitous gorges and centuries of warfare.

It is populated overwhelmingly by Armenians but was assigned, by Joseph Stalin, to the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic in 1921. Stalin was, at the time, the commissar for nationalities, and in a divide-and-rule strategy, he frequently drew borders to divide ethnic groups. Those borders, in the Caucasus and Central Asia, still bedevil current efforts to maintain peaceful relations.

Armenians, for instance, have been Christians for nearly 1,700 years, and Azerbaijanis are Muslims, closely related to the Turks. Harsh Soviet rule suppressed their mutual hostility and distrust, but when Gorbachev’s reforms relaxed the constraints, the old hatreds reemerged.

In 1988, Karabakh’s leaders said they wanted to be joined to Armenia proper, just to the west. Moscow never really answered, but in Azerbaijan, pogroms were launched against ethnic Armenians in response, with dozens killed. The Soviet army sent in troops, Azerbaijanis fled Karabakh, and Azerbaijan deported more than 5,000 Armenians. By 1991, nearly 1,000 people had been killed in sporadic fighting.

A state of emergency helped to keep the lid on. But in July, Gorbachev decided to pull Soviet troops out. Gun battles erupted almost immediately. On July 7, 1991, reports reached Moscow that Armenian villages along Karabakh’s border were under attack and at least three people were dead.

The president of the Armenian republic, Levon Ter-Petrossian, accused Gorbachev of trying to blackmail Armenia into joining a new Soviet treaty of union, thus forgoing independence, by showing that it was helpless without the protection of the central government.

This new treaty was scheduled for signing on Aug. 20, but by early July, only nine of the Soviet Union’s 15 republics had shown any interest in it, and Gorbachev’s hard-line critics said he was risking the dissolution of the country. He desperately wanted more republics to sign on.

Armenia wasn’t to be one of them, nor was Azerbaijan. Both went on to declare independence, as had Nagorno-Karabakh itself, and by 1992, they were engaged in a full-scale war — the first war connected to the Soviet collapse. When it ended in a cease-fire in 1994, Nagorno-Karabakh had broken free.

But no nation has ever recognized it. It is a de facto republic, with close ties to neighboring Armenia but a firm sense of independence. Karabakh today is a prickly place, immensely proud of its victory over Azerbaijan, confident in the face of continuing Azerbaijani threats of renewed war, and irritated that it hasn’t been given a place at the negotiating table, where its interests are represented by the nation of Armenia — and where little progress has been made over the years.

The latest attempt to hammer out a framework peace deal, under the sponsorship of Russia, France and the United States, came to nothing at a meeting in the Russian city of Kazan on June 24.

Sidelined, Karabakhis would appreciate international recognition, but they’re not about to beg for it. “Unrecognized? So what. We’re used to it by now,” says Tevan Poghosyan, formerly Karabakh’s representative in the United States. People here are convinced that if the international community had refused to recognize what they view as Azerbaijan’s artificial Soviet-era borders back when the U.S.S.R. broke up, Azerbaijan wouldn’t have been emboldened to attack and their history would have been very different.

Instead, thousands died under bombardment, Stepanakert was half-destroyed, and the legends of the “martyrs” of Artsakh, the traditional name for Karabakh, took hold. There’s still plenty of shooting across the line of contact: 43 incidents in one recent 24-hour period. Seven people on the Karabakh side were reported killed in 2010, and, says Defense Minister Movses Hakobyan, “We always shoot back.”

Karabakhis aren’t inclined to make concessions for peace, of territory or anything else. “We liberated those lands. They are historic Armenian lands. We shed the blood of our sons for those lands,” said Robert Baghryan, who today heads the Union of Freedom Fighters of the Artsakh War.

Now a lieutenant colonel in the Karabakh reserves, Baghryan got his military training in the Soviet army, where he served as a sergeant. The biggest difference in outlook between the two armies? Combat readiness, he says. The Soviets never paid much attention to it.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/...m1H_story.html

Article wasn't that bad actually. Washington Post is a little more sane when it comes to bias, though their counterpart (Washington times) is known for its anti-Armenian bias.

[Eddo211]

Re: Armenia and the information war

Anyone know how to contact Mr. Will Englund? We should send him "thank you" emails as a preemptive measure against an Azeri mass email attack on him. He's a Pulitzer prize winner btw.

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/staff/email/will+englund/

Message sent.

[Mos]

Re: Armenia and the information war

stupid azeris

Բաքուն հնարավոր է՝ իր «սև ցուցակում» ներառի նաև The Washington Post–ի լրագրողին
19:02 • 07.07.11




Ամերիկյան The Washington Post հեղինակավոր պարբերականում այսօր լույս է տեսել Լեռնային Ղարաբաղին նվիրված մի հոդված։

Ինչպես տեղեկացնում են ադրբեջանական լրատվամիջոցները, հրապարակման հեղինակ, The Washington Post թերթի լրագրող Ուիլ Ինգլուդն անձամբ այցելել է Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ, շրջել տարբեր շրջաններով և իր տպավորությունները հանձնել թղթին։

Ադրբեջանական կողմի զայրույթն է առաջացրել այն հանգամանքը, որ լրագրողն օգտագործել է Բաքվի համար անընդունելի տեղանուններ։ Օրինակ, Ինգլուդը Լեռնային Ղարաբաղն անվանում է Արցախ, իսկ մայրաքաղաքը՝ Ստեփանակերտ։

Բացի այդ, լրագրողն իր հոդվածում ներկայացրել է պատմական փաստեր և ղարաբաղյան հակամարտության պատմությունը։

Նշենք, որ նախկինում Ադրբեջանն իր «սև ցուցակում» է ներառել մի շարք լրագրողների, ովքեր, ինչպես պնդում է Բաքուն, «անօրինական» կերպով այցելել են Լեռնային Ղարաբաղ։


Tert.am

[Federate]

Re: Armenia and the information war

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/s.../will+englund/

Message sent.

Thanks mate, I also sent a little something.

[Armanen]

Re: Armenia and the information war

Thanks mate, I also sent a little something.

Ditto!