Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

[DieHard69]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

This is a Artsakh war thread stop blabbering about unrelated stuff and go create another thread.

So stop arguing of how Persia wants to stick a xxxx up our ass and concentrate on the main subject.

[Vahram90]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

1. That is ridiculous. Iran has border guards and military divisions in Iranian Azerbaijan. You are telling me that those division commanders sat on their asses while Azerbaijani military divisions were coming into their territory? You are telling me they shunned an invasion by Azeri divisions? Come on man, I know you aren't that dumb.

Iran was generally very interested in Armenians taking control over the regions neighbouring to Iran and don't forget: Iran gave us economic support. The whole story with strikes from iranian side is in the dark and not confirmed. It refers to the last battle during the war over Horadiz station. We don't know if this generally happened and if yes, then to which extent. The border is not completely secured by border guards and can be crossed easily. The only thing we can notice is that Iran was clearly pro-armenian during the war.

2. I never said Russia did it out of goodwill, I said they did it out of the need for friendly nations to their south. That is a goal of realpolitik.

3. Russia has not proved anything? Is the deliver of Iskander nothing to you? No other nation has Iskander missile systems other than Russia and Armenia. The Poles shake in their boots at the mention of the system's name. The Russians are the only thing standing between Yerevan and the Turkish Army. There is no way Armenia can shield all of its borders.

Read again. I said "Russia has not to prove anything..." Besides that your arguments have nothing to do with the issue. There is no doubt that Russia plays an important role in our defense system. I'm not anti-russian or accusing Russia in being anti-armenian. I'm very happy that there is a russian base. But the same power which protect us on the western side can put us under pressure on the eastern side. This is realpolitik. "need for friendly nations"??? Yes, they need us as loyal vassals. But they know we will never "betray" them even if they make a deal over Karabakh with the Azeris because the turkish threat is totally enough for us to stay under russian influence.
The Iskander missiles will never be used. They make people like you think that Russia is on our side but in reality they don't change the balance. Armenia and Russia have different interests in Karabakh and that's it.

4. The "Armenia without Armenians" was a mere proposal by Slavic nationalists within the Russian foreign ministry and military. It was never true policy or implemented. General Yudenivich made this proposal amidst the genocide, the land was already without Armenians and was taken by the Russian Empire. You seriously misunderstand the history of the Russians plan for Western Armenia.

The plan was implemented in 1915-1916. Russian troops evacuated the remaining western Armenians although there was no need because the area was under russian control. When russians took over Van and Karin villayets, the Armenians were still there or ready to return. But they wanted the Armenians to settle in the east.
By the way, the fact that this "proposal by Slavic nationalists within the Russian foreign ministry and military" existed is fully enough to understand that Russians were not friends back in 1915. It's not an accusation but I hate this russian tale that they have saved us during genocide.

5. Which Tsar? Armenia was in the empire for over 200 years. Every Tsar had policies unlike the last. Alexander II had a friendly relationship with the Finns while others suppressed them. Nobody under the Tsars was successful, mainly if you weren't Slavic. That was one of the driving reasons behind the Soviet revolution. There was never equality and the Russian Empire was a backwards agrarian nation while states like Germany industrialized and became strong world powers.

[/QUOTE]

Your logic: if the iranian Shah deports and kills Armenians in 1605 and safavid Persia opresses Armenians it is a reason to see Iran as a potential enemy today. If some russian rulers are anti-armenian, organize anti-armenian riots by using azeri bandits (1905-1907), organize "evacuation" of Armenians from western Armenia (1915), cede armenian lands to turks (1921) and help azeris to deport Armenians from Northern Artsakh (1989) we should differentiate between the rulers, the state form, the time period etc ???
I understand that there were differences between the tsars and that there is a big difference if Russia is a Monarchy, Socialist xxxxland or Oligarchy like today. But then we have to look at Iran in the same way. Iran has helped us during the war and was pro-armenian regarding the conflict until Russians got friendly with azeris.

You described Iranians as "two-faced muslim backstabbers" and Russians as...

The Russians have done more for Armenia than any other nation. At first, out of Christian solidarity and empire building. Now, out of sheer need for friends and a better position in the Caucasus.

They were both two-faced backstabbers in the past and will be the same in the future. And it's ok because everybody has to act according to his very own interests. I wish Armenia becomes also a two-faced backstabber and deport people for fun

7. Just so you know, I do believe the Treaty of Kars is void and meaningless, and we should immediately make claims on our former territories. However, if there was no partitioning by Bolshevik troops, then the Turks could have taken all of Armenia in 1920.

1. If you make a claim, you should guarantee that you have the possibility to realize your claim if the other side does not accept the claim. If we are too weak we should shut up. The position we have today regarding this problem is the best compromise. We don't accept the border and the treaty but don't make impotent claims.

2. In 1920 the turks were successful because the bolsheviks attacked simultaneously alongside with azeris. No offense, but you are interpreting armenian history like russians want us to interprete our history.

[Vahram90]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

This is a Artsakh war thread stop blabbering about unrelated stuff and go create another thread.

So stop arguing of how Persia wants to stick a xxxx up our ass and concentrate on the main subject.

The role of Iran is very important regarding the military balance. And we are also discussing events of the war. There is the problem?

[Lori]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Iran was generally very interested in Armenians taking control over the regions neighbouring to Iran and don't forget: Iran gave us economic support. The whole story with strikes from iranian side is in the dark and not confirmed. It refers to the last battle during the war over Horadiz station. We don't know if this generally happened and if yes, then to which extent. The border is not completely secured by border guards and can be crossed easily. The only thing we can notice is that Iran was clearly pro-armenian during the war.

There is testimony from Azerbaijani commanders that this happened and from Iranian villagers. Its in a video, from a Russian-Czech documentary. Ill have to find it, he speaks Turkish and the subtitles are in Russian. You keep saying that Iran was pro-Armenian and that they gave Armenia economic support. Yet, you have given no evidence of this happening. What economic support? When? Of what kind? Was it after the war or throughout?

Read again. I said "Russia has not to prove anything..." Besides that your arguments have nothing to do with the issue. There is no doubt that Russia plays an important role in our defense system. I'm not anti-russian or accusing Russia in being anti-armenian. I'm very happy that there is a russian base. But the same power which protect us on the western side can put us under pressure on the eastern side. This is realpolitik. "need for friendly nations"??? Yes, they need us as loyal vassals. But they know we will never "betray" them even if they make a deal over Karabakh with the Azeris because the turkish threat is totally enough for us to stay under russian influence.
The Iskander missiles will never be used. They make people like you think that Russia is on our side but in reality they don't change the balance. Armenia and Russia have different interests in Karabakh and that's it.

You keep arguing that the practice of realpolitik somehow invalidates Russia's reassurances of Armenian security and their historical alliance with Armenia. This is a logical fallacy.

The plan was implemented in 1915-1916. Russian troops evacuated the remaining western Armenians although there was no need because the area was under russian control. When russians took over Van and Karin villayets, the Armenians were still there or ready to return. But they wanted the Armenians to settle in the east.
By the way, the fact that this "proposal by Slavic nationalists within the Russian foreign ministry and military" existed is fully enough to understand that Russians were not friends back in 1915. It's not an accusation but I hate this russian tale that they have saved us during genocide.

No they were not. What is this madness? The Armenians of Karin were exterminated and deported by the Turks to Kangal and many others were killed there. Also, you keep asserting this "deportation" as fact. Not only is this confirmed to have never been implemented, but it is also a common Turkish denialist argument. I'm not throwing around any accusations, but I suggest you watch where you get your information.

Your logic: if the iranian Shah deports and kills Armenians in 1605 and safavid Persia opresses Armenians it is a reason to see Iran as a potential enemy today. If some russian rulers are anti-armenian, organize anti-armenian riots by using azeri bandits (1905-1907), organize "evacuation" of Armenians from western Armenia (1915), cede armenian lands to turks (1921) and help azeris to deport Armenians from Northern Artsakh (1989) we should differentiate between the rulers, the state form, the time period etc ???
I understand that there were differences between the tsars and that there is a big difference if Russia is a Monarchy, Socialist xxxxland or Oligarchy like today. But then we have to look at Iran in the same way. Iran has helped us during the war and was pro-armenian regarding the conflict until Russians got friendly with azeris.

You described Iranians as "two-faced muslim backstabbers" and Russians as...

They were both two-faced backstabbers in the past and will be the same in the future. And it's ok because everybody has to act according to his very own interests. I wish Armenia becomes also a two-faced backstabber and deport people for fun


1. If you make a claim, you should guarantee that you have the possibility to realize your claim if the other side does not accept the claim. If we are too weak we should shut up. The position we have today regarding this problem is the best compromise. We don't accept the border and the treaty but don't make impotent claims.

2. In 1920 the turks were successful because the bolsheviks attacked simultaneously alongside with azeris. No offense, but you are interpreting armenian history like russians want us to interprete our history.

Firstly, stop making strawman arguments. Its shameful. I never argued that we should be wary of Iran on a historical basis. Our wariness of Iran should be based on their current behavior. All I did was give historical background.

Secondly, I will go your way on this one. Lets interpret Iran the same way we interpret Russia, on a case by case basis. Shah Abbas was a Shia Muslim fundamentalist who started a forced mass conversion to Shia Islam. Not only did he do that, but he undertook a genocide against Christian Armenians and Georgians. Today, Iran has resubscribed to the beliefs of this madman and to Shia Muslim fundamentalism. Why on earth would you want to border with such a state? Why the hell would you ever think that such a state would side with Christians against fellow compatriots and Shia Muslims. On logical and ideological grounds, what you are saying is nonsense.

Now lets throw Russia into the pot. Armenians, like all other Soviet nations, suffered heavily under Soviet rule. Deportations, purges, political repressions. The whole nine yards. Rule under the Russian Empire was much better for Armenians, objectively. We now have a Russia, that is a federalized state, and embraces not only controlled democracy but also the values of the Russian Empire. Listen to Putin's speeches and what he says, the man clearly has begun to resent Soviet leadership. So, to the North we have a nation that embraces the values of an empire that did Armenia well. To the South, we have a nation that embraces the values of a religion that treats us like human trash. To the east and west, Big and Little Mongolia of course.

As for the claims, I can't say the same. Territorial claims must be made now. We lose legitimacy by the year. We could also factor in compensation for genocide. There is no need to take Turkey to international court. A simple, forever-lasting claim on those lands would be alright. As long as Armenia has the Russians within its borders, Turkey will do nothing. It will become similar to the Hatay province feud.

In 1920, the Turkish Army was much stronger and much more united than its Ottoman predecessor. Fighting off a continued invasion would have been a doomed hope.


I am not saying Armenians should kiss the feet of Putin. All I am saying is, Russia is ten times more trustworthy than Iran. They have shown that historically and today. The folk to the south are to never be trusted, and having a border with them is nothing but a burden, not a gain.

[burjuin]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

[burjuin]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

[burjuin]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

[Haykakan]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Yerevan/Mediamax/. Foreign Minister of Russia Sergey Lavrov said today that it’s necessary to reduce tension on the borders in order to start substantive negotiations on the NK issue.

He made that statement after the negotiations with Azerbaijani FM Elmar Mammadyarov in Moscow.

“We believe that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be settled. It’s evident in results of multiple meetings, which led to mutual understanding in the issues important for the settlement,” Sergey Lavrov said.

According to him, those are issues such as “security, humanity, return of certain NK areas and definition of the status of Nagorno-Karabakh”.

“We agree on most of those points,” Sergey Lavrov noted. “However, there are two or three topics, key parts of the final package, which are still being discussed. To be honest, we are far from the time when the conflict parties form a common approach to these aspects.”

Elmar Mammadyarov noted that Russia takes serious measures towards settlement of the NK issue.

“We discussed in detail today the direction we need to move in. There are some preconditions, more or less,” said Azerbaijani Foreign Minister.

- See more at: http://www.mediamax.am/en/news/karab....9valcA8M.dpuf

[burjuin]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Russian 3624th Air Base, Erebuni, Yerevan, Armenia

[Azad]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Since the last visit of Netanyahou with aliyev their love affair is turning to a hate affair.
azeri's rapprochement with Iran is making the western shekelists furious. Their propaganda services is turning on the hand that fed them caviar for years.

https://qz.com/925067/the-trump-organizations-azerbaijan-partner-supports-iranian-terrorists-says-the-new-yorker/

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/03/13/donald-trumps-worst-deal