Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

[Vahram90]

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

There's a difference between words and deeds. Despite negotiations and statements about "the return of territories," the fact on the ground is that Armenians haven't given an inch. The fact on the ground is, kelbajar, one of the "occupied surrounding districts", is being heavily invested in road infrastructure and being linked the Republic of Armenia. This is not a sign of an intention to hand it over.

The investments in Kelbajar and Lachin began and were more intensive during Ter-Petrosyan's era. Around 2000 there was already a population of 30.000 in Lachin, now less than the half is still there. It's logic to invest in Kelbajar and Lachin because according to the negotiations Lachin won't be returned and Kelbajar not immediately, not in the first step. A big armenian population there will give us the chance to negotiate about a potential withdrawal from Kelbajar.
So if these investments are the proof that the current government won't cede territories, then you can say the same about Ter-Petrosyan. The only difference between Ter-Petrosyan and the current government regarding the solution of the conflict is that Ter-Petrosyan communicated openly what he is negotiating about. Serzhik and Kocharyan said "no land to the enemy" in 1998, in the HHK-programme of 2017 they talk about a solution according to the OSCE principles including the territorial concessions. If you like to believe that Serzh will trick the whole world do it, good luck!

There's a lot of talk about vazgen sargsyan. All we can look at are the facts, that being his wartime leadership was instrumental in our victory. #2) he was responsible for levon stepping down due to his readiness to handover lands.

I didn't want to talk down Vazgen Sargsyan's merits. But the "common state"-proposal was his idea. I wanted only to show the contradiction in the reception of the politicians and their concepts.

As far as talk of giving up Meghri, that's is utter non-sense. That would mean being encircled by Turks.

Yeah, you're right but Kocharyan was ready to agree in this catastrophe.

There's a difference between words and deeds

This sentence in this context is killing my mind. You think that the consent of Armenia to the Madrid principles in 2007/8 is nothing, a joke Armenia can withdraw from anytime it wants???
You are right, there is a difference between words and deeds. But the difference is between the pseudo-patriotic rhetoric on the one hand and the consent to Madrid priciples, the weakening of our economy, army and people on the other hand. The "investments" in Kelbajar are not deeds. If you don't want to cede an area you have to create facts, a relative dense population, development of infrastructure, roads, electricity, schools. We have only very very very small settlements besides Kelbajar and Lachin districts. Guess why...

[Vahram90]

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

He was president for years. Why hasn't he accepted the peace plan ? Why only come now as the savior of Artsakh ?
Too much talk , typical politicians.
He even said it himself in the interview , Aliev (wheter father or son ) doesn't want peace.

No offense bro, but you are not informed very well in this question. He wanted to accept the peace plan and that's exactly why he was forced to dismissal.
The other point... If we sign the paper proposed by the OSCE Minsk Group and Azerbaijan does not, it would be the best that can happen. Russia would use us to force the Azeris to sign. And that means: More territories for us The problem was never the readiness of the azeris to sign. If we sign this paper, they will sign too. They are not so stupid like they present themselves in their TV. Aliev knows what will happen if he is the last party of the conflict refusing to sign the peace plan. The problem was that both, Armenia and Azerbaijan, speculated that time will work in their favour. You can judge if this happened for our part.
It's another question what happened if our government wouldn't be so corrupted in the last twenty years. But to say that Ter-Petrosyan is a traitor because of his very logic approach is populist non-sense spread by the guys ruining Armenia today.
My intention is only to bring more rationality to this question in this forum. Ceding lands hurts every Armenian soul, but we have to listen to the voices that warn that it can become worse if we don't do it today.

[Artsakh]

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

Yeah, you're right but Kocharyan was ready to agree in this catastrophe.


This sentence in this context is killing my mind. You think that the consent of Armenia to the Madrid principles in 2007/8 is nothing, a joke Armenia can withdraw from anytime it wants???
You are right, there is a difference between words and deeds. But the difference is between the pseudo-patriotic rhetoric on the one hand and the consent to Madrid priciples, the weakening of our economy, army and people on the other hand. The "investments" in Kelbajar are not deeds. If you don't want to cede an area you have to create facts, a relative dense population, development of infrastructure, roads, electricity, schools. We have only very very very small settlements besides Kelbajar and Lachin districts. Guess why...

No, not Kocharyan nor anyone else seriously contemplated giving up Meghri. Armenia, under dial blockade of Turkey and Azerbaijan, was not about to trade off it's "life line" with Iran to become totally encircled by Turks.

Secondly, you should know by now a piece of paper guarantees nothing. All those principles aren't worth toilet paper if you're unable to defend yourself. And that's a fact of life.

[Vahram90]

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

you should know by now a piece of paper guarantees nothing. All those principles aren't worth toilet paper if you're unable to defend yourself. And that's a fact of life.

You didn't get the point. What guarantees our security is another question. My point was that Armenia can't easily step back from its consent to Madrid priciples (which include the withdrawal from some territories) and the whole process and that's why you can't say that the current government is only playing with the OSCE Minsk Group. This was the essence of your argument with the difference between words and deeds.

[Artsakh]

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

Pretty interesting, about the "common state" idea:

http://www.rferl.org/a/1095808.html

[Artsakh]

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

You didn't get the point. What guarantees our security is another question. My point was that Armenia can't easily step back from its consent to Madrid priciples (which include the withdrawal from some territories) and the whole process and that's why you can't say that the current government is only playing with the OSCE Minsk Group. This was the essence of your argument with the difference between words and deeds.

Even if Armenia didn't agree to the principles, do you think it would come out and say "ok, we disagree, there's nothing more to talk about"? Then what? It's called politics. The talk goes on. Why do u think the Azeri's participate? they have said it clear out, "not only karabakh is our, so is Yerevan." they surely have nothing to negotiate about in their stance, but participate in the talks nevertheless.

[haydavid]

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

No offense bro, but you are not informed very well in this question. He wanted to accept the peace plan and that's exactly why he was forced to dismissal.
The other point... If we sign the paper proposed by the OSCE Minsk Group and Azerbaijan does not, it would be the best that can happen. Russia would use us to force the Azeris to sign. And that means: More territories for us The problem was never the readiness of the azeris to sign. If we sign this paper, they will sign too. They are not so stupid like they present themselves in their TV. Aliev knows what will happen if he is the last party of the conflict refusing to sign the peace plan. The problem was that both, Armenia and Azerbaijan, speculated that time will work in their favour. You can judge if this happened for our part.
It's another question what happened if our government wouldn't be so corrupted in the last twenty years. But to say that Ter-Petrosyan is a traitor because of his very logic approach is populist non-sense spread by the guys ruining Armenia today.
My intention is only to bring more rationality to this question in this forum. Ceding lands hurts every Armenian soul, but we have to listen to the voices that warn that it can become worse if we don't do it today.

I know that he wanted to accept the plan ( I worded it badly in my previous posts) but it didnt happen right?

What I meant is why no peace came while he was president.
Why is he criticising the current government for not finding peace, while he didnt too ?
He knows whatever is holding the plan back but is acting like its all Sarkissians fault for not finding peace.



Did you watch the interview? He said that he agreed to the peace plan in front of Aliev and international politicians. Who forced Azerbaijan to do anything?

[Vahram90]

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

I know that he wanted to accept the plan ( I worded it badly in my previous posts) but it didnt happen right?

What I meant is why no peace came while he was president.
Why is he criticising the current government for not finding peace, while he didnt too ?
He knows whatever is holding the plan back but is acting like its all Sarkissians fault for not finding peace.



Did you watch the interview? He said that he agreed to the peace plan in front of Aliev and international politicians. Who forced them to do anything?

Armenia and Azerbaijan were very proach to a peace agreement in 1997. He wanted to sign the plan but Vazgen Sargsyan, Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan forced him to dismissal in 1998 because they thought that Armenia should hold the status quo and that time would work in our favour. If he had signed there would have been an intervention of the army. Listen to his resignation speech.

[Hakob]

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

He was president for years. Why hasn't he accepted the peace plan ? Why only come now as the savior of Artsakh ?
Too much talk , typical politicians.
He even said it himself in the interview , Aliev (wheter father or son ) doesn't want peace.

What about recognizing independence of Artsakh right after independence? Who was the president?
Wouldn't it mean that Azerbaijan would have to negotiate with Artsakh regardless wanted or not?
Who agreed to keep negotiating with Azeris after Baku rejected Stepanakert's participation?
Remember this was long before Azeri oil boom and armaments.
If I remember correctly Azerbaijan asked and agreed to ceasefire with Stepanakert. That is de facto recognition of Artsakh independence.
Who started the political game of negotiation, stepping over on Artsak's military achievements.
Wasn't that a treason?

[Vahram90]

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

What about recognizing independence of Artsakh right after independence? Who was the president?
Wouldn't it mean that Azerbaijan would have to negotiate with Artsakh regardless wanted or not?

No, because our recognition changes nothing as long as Artsakh is only recognised by us. Nobody would support our position. It's a general national doctrine of Armenia (accepted by all three presidents) not to recognise Artsakh because that will be the end of negotiations. If you recognise Artsakh as independent state you can't take part in negotiations about the status of Artsakh anymore. Azerbaijan was without this recognition forced to negotiate with Artsakh because Ter-Petrosyan always said that Armenia isn't involved. This diplomatic step is highly appreciated even by his biggest opponents. The best example how disastrous an one-sided recognition could be is Northern Cyprus. That was a big diplomatic mistake of the turks.
If it had been correct to recognise Artsakh it would have been done by the successor of Ter-Petrosyan. If nobody does it there is a reason

Who agreed to keep negotiating with Azeris after Baku rejected Stepanakert's participation?

During Ter-Petrosyan's time Baku first rejected, then was forced to negotiate with both, Armenia and Artsakh. I mentioned the reason above.

If I remember correctly Azerbaijan asked and agreed to ceasefire with Stepanakert. That is de facto recognition of Artsakh independence.

Azerbaijan agreed in ceasefire with Armenia and Artsakh. It is a trilateral ceasefire agreement. This is not a recognition of independence but the recognition of Artsakh as a party of the conflict. It was one of the biggest achievements of our diplomacy. This achievement was only possible because Ter-Petrosyan and his government always denied any involvement of Armenia and emphasized the self-determination of Artsakh. This couldn't be dismissed as a game by the international community because there were real differences between Yerevan and Stepanakert. So it was clear that there can't be any solution without the consent of Stepanakert.

Who started the political game of negotiation, stepping over on Artsak's military achievements.
Wasn't that a treason?

I can tell you who kicked Artsakh out of the negotiation process. It was Kocharyan back in 1998/9 with the disastrous statement that he as a Karabakh-Armenian could represent both. Since then our diplomatic position is a horrible catastrophe. We fight for the self-determination of Artsakh by cutting off its voice in the negotiations. It was the biggest present to Aliev ever.
By the way, the negotiations with their logic of compromise (territories for intermediary status, then referendum) didn't begun because of Ter-Petrosyan, Kocharyan or Aliev. This logic was dictated by the members of the OSCE Minsk Group.

It would be great if you check your information before talking about treason. I'm not here for spreading propaganda for Ter-Petrosyan but if we talk about such questions we have to talk about the same facts. I can suggest you all the book of Leonidas Chrysanthopoulos. He was the first greek ambassador in Armenia during the early 90's. He tells a lot about the diplomatic problems regarding the conflict and especially about Ter-Petrosyan and the first government in a very objective way. You will get a very good impression what was going on and even you will appreciate the diplomacy of Ter-Petrosyan.