Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

[crusader1492]

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

Official reports more fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh

BAKU, Azerbaijan: More than 20 Azerbaijani and Armenian soldiers have been killed in the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh since July, an Azerbaijan government official said Thursday. Armenia disputed the claim.

Eldar Sabirogly, a spokesman for the Azerbaijan defense ministry, said at least 15 Armenian soldiers died during that period. He said the number of Azerbaijani soldiers was about half that number.

However, officials with Armenia's defense ministry said that Armenia had lost no soldiers during that period. Officials in Nagorno-Karabakh, which lies within Azerbaijan, also said their forces had seen no losses.

Both sides routinely accuse the other of breaking a cease-fire and try to highlight one another's military losses.

Armenian and ethnic Armenian forces drove Azerbaijan out of Nagorno-Karabakh in one of the bloodiest conflicts of the post-Soviet era. Some 30,000 people were killed and about 1 million were driven from their homes before the cease-fire was reached in 1994.

The lack of resolution on the region's status has held up development in the strategic South Caucasus region and raised fears of a new war between the two countries.

From http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/...an-Armenia.php

This might be Baku's way of letting out the information (little by little)concerning the operations in Martakert (The one Armenian brought to our attention).

If Baku was honest, they would have reported that 20,000 hectres of land had been caputured by Armenian forces anf hundreds of Azeri soldiers have been killed.

...expect more of these articles in the near future as Baku tries to mask the loss through peice-meal and dishonest reporting.

[RSNATION]

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

This might be Baku's way of letting out the information (little by little)concerning the operations in Martakert (The one Armenian brought to our attention).

If Baku was honest, they would have reported that 20,000 hectres of land had been caputured by Armenian forces anf hundreds of Azeri soldiers have been killed.

...expect more of these articles in the near future as Baku tries to mask the loss through peice-meal and dishonest reporting.

I was thinking the same thing when I read this same bogus reports this morning. Here is the Azeri's feeble reaction to what was probably a significant battlefield loss.

[crusader1492]

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

I was thinking the same thing when I read this same bogus reports this morning. Here is the Azeri's feeble reaction to what was probably a significant battlefield loss.

This article actually made me happy because it indirectly confirms (through blatant Azeri spin) Armenian's news.

I guess it won't be long now before the facts on the ground are told to the general public.

[crusader1492]

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

If you read between the Lavrov's diplomatic lines, you can see that his underlying message is that Abkhazia and S. Ossetia can be a precedent for NKR if Azerbaijan decides to act militarily.
His message is actually a stern warning to Baku...i.e., attack NKR and Russia will recognize it's independence.

...pretty crafty!

RECOGNITION OF ABKHAZIA AND SOUTH OSSETIA NOT PRECEDENT FOR KARABAKH, MOSCOW SAYS

The recognition by Russia of Georgia’s Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent states does not set a precedent for other post-Soviet breakaway regions, the foreign minister said on Thursday. Sergei Lavrov said that unlike Georgia, other ex-Soviet states involved in territorial disputes do not plan to use military force to resolve them. "There can be no parallels here," he said. Moscow said its counterattack following Georgia’s offensive to retake South Ossetia in early August and the subsequent recognition of the two breakaway regions’ independence were its moral duty and necessary to protect them from possible new acts of aggression. The majority of Western states have sided with Tbilisi in the dispute, and strongly criticized Russia. "Russia will actively promote a peaceful solution to all the conflicts in the CIS [Commonwealth of Independent States] in line with international law and UN Charter principles," he said. "We will pursue our mediation in peace talks, including over Transnistria and Nagorno Karabakh." "None of the sides engaged in the Nagorno Karabakh and Transnistria talks have nurtured plans to violate international law, existing agreements, the settlement format and to bomb civilians and peacekeepers," Lavrov said, RIA Novosti reports.

[jgk3]

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

which is why I didn't note anything insulting to Armenia about his statement that was criticized by us earlier.

[crusader1492]

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

which is why I didn't note anything insulting to Armenia about his statement that was criticized by us earlier.

We all have to get better at reading between the lines when it comes to geopolitical speak.

[jgk3]

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

exactly, it's all very diplomatic stuff, it has to be seen as such. The clauses in the statements are essentially multidimensional, so long as the speaker behind them has the balls to make them so.

[Armenian]

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

If you read between the Lavrov's diplomatic lines, you can see that his underlying message is that Abkhazia and S. Ossetia can be a precedent for NKR if Azerbaijan decides to act militarily.
His message is actually a stern warning to Baku...i.e., attack NKR and Russia will recognize it's independence...pretty crafty!

Generally speaking, all political statements have to be read in between lines. The Russian Federation has not (yet) signaled any anti-Armenian stances. Everything that the Kremlin has done in the Caucasus since the collapse of the Soviet Union has benefited Armenia, at times directly, other times indirectly. And regarding Artsakh, Moscow has always said that the "territorial integrity" of a nation and a "people's right of self-determination" were both recognized by international law and one should not be elevated over the other. But no, that's not good enough for us, we want them to bomb Baku! It's very sad that we as a people (similar to most other peoples) don't have a healthy understanding of the mechanisms behind politics. And a lot of times Armenian reaction to complicated political situations is very 'Jew' like in character.

Case in point: Consider our reaction here to Lavrov's stance regarding the political status of Artsakh, and Russia Today's report regarding the history Artsakh. Since Moscow did not express great love and admiration for the Armenian nation, our patriots insulted, attacked and criticized Moscow for "betraying" Armenia and for being "anti-Armenian". One even went as far as saying - even Azeris don't fabricate such lies about Armenians...

Time and again, I find myself explaining to Armos - If they (in this case, Russian officials) don't worship us, it does not mean they want us dead.

Let's stop acting like a bunch of whiny Jews.

Some people also always bring up 1921 as a case against Russia. Besides the fact that what happened then was not the work of Russia (it was Bolshevism and ethnic Russian suffered most under Bolshevism), signs that the Armenian Republic was doomed was very clear. Moscow had on its hand a nation that was utterly worthless and hopeless. Other than several thousand poorly equipped soldiers, no significant military force existed in Armenia; no economy whatsoever existed in Armenia; the population in Armenia was severely impoverished; there was less than a million inhabitants in the entire country, half of whom were refugees from Western Armenia; chronic disease and starvation was rampant throughout the country; landlocked; tiny; friendless; Armenia had no natural wealth...

It was xxxxing obvious the country would not last long with those qualifications, especially in the Caucasus.

Had I been one of the Bolshevik officials at the time trying to win over Turkey (and Azerbaijan) I would have also sacrificed Armenia without even giving it much thought. It was a smart move on the part of the Bolsheviks, but it backfired on them when Ataturk made a deal with western powers instead. If one observed Armenia's geopolitical and socioeconomic situation prior to 1921, it would have been very obvious that Armenia as a nation was utterly worthless, thus disposable.

Compared to the Armenia of 1921, today's Armenia is a superpower. Unlike in 1921, Armenia today has a very capable military. Unlike in 1921, Armenia today has managed to defeat its enemies both on the battlefield and in international diplomacy. Unlike in 1921, Armenia today plays a pivotal role in regional politics. Unlike in 1921, Armenia today plays a significant role in Russian politics. Unlike in 1921, Armenia today does have an economy. Unlike 19921, Armenia today has a signification support base in the diaspora. Unlike 1921, Armenia today does have international friends. Geopolitical conditions that existed in 1921 do not exits today.

So, let's stop comparing what happened to Armenia back in 1921 with what is occurring today. Anyway, I'm am just trying to point out our severe political immaturity.

which is why I didn't note anything insulting to Armenia about his statement that was criticized by us earlier.

And I got criticized for being an obsessive Russophile...

I am glad you dudes are beginning to better assess the nature and character of international diplomacy.

[jgk3]

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

I'm glad that you're one of the mentors for this around here.

[RSNATION]

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

Generally speaking, all political statements have to be read in between lines. The Russian Federation has not (yet) signaled any anti-Armenian stances. Everything that the Kremlin has done in the Caucasus since the collapse of the Soviet Union has benefited Armenia, at times directly, other times indirectly. And regarding Artsakh, Moscow has always said that the "territorial integrity" of a nation and a "people's right of self-determination" were both recognized by international law and one should not be elevated over the other. But no, that's not good enough for us, we want them to bomb Baku! It's very sad that we as a people (similar to most other peoples) don't have a healthy understanding of the mechanisms behind politics. And a lot of times Armenian reaction to complicated political situations is very 'Jew' like in character.

Case in point: Consider our reaction here to Lavrov's stance regarding the political status of Artsakh, and Russia Today's report regarding the history Artsakh. Since Moscow did not express great love and admiration for the Armenian nation, our patriots insulted, attacked and criticized Moscow for "betraying" Armenia and for being "anti-Armenian". One even went as far as saying - even Azeris don't fabricate such lies about Armenians...

Time and again, I find myself explaining to Armos - If they (in this case, Russian officials) don't worship us, it does not mean they want us dead.

Let's stop acting like a bunch of whiny Jews.

Some people also always bring up 1921 as a case against Russia. Besides the fact that what happened then was not the work of Russia (it was Bolshevism and ethnic Russian suffered most under Bolshevism), signs that the Armenian Republic was doomed was very clear. Moscow had on its hand a nation that was utterly worthless and hopeless. Other than several thousand poorly equipped soldiers, no significant military force existed in Armenia; no economy whatsoever existed in Armenia; the population in Armenia was severely impoverished; there was less than a million inhabitants in the entire country, half of whom were refugees from Western Armenia; chronic disease and starvation was rampant throughout the country; landlocked; tiny; friendless; Armenia had no natural wealth...

It was xxxxing obvious the country would not last long with those qualifications, especially in the Caucasus.

Had I been one of the Bolshevik officials at the time trying to win over Turkey (and Azerbaijan) I would have also sacrificed Armenia without even giving it much thought. It was a smart move on the part of the Bolsheviks, but it backfired on them when Ataturk made a deal with western powers instead. If one observed Armenia's geopolitical and socioeconomic situation prior to 1921, it would have been very obvious that Armenia as a nation was utterly worthless, thus disposable.

Compared to the Armenia of 1921, today's Armenia is a superpower. Unlike in 1921, Armenia today plays a pivotal role in regional politics. Unlike in 1921, Armenia today plays a significant role in Russian politics. Unlike in 1921, Armenia today does have an economy. Unlike 19921, Armenia today has a signification support base in the diaspora. Unlike 1921, Armenia today does have international friends. Geopolitical conditions that existed in 1921 do not exits today.

So, let's stop comparing what happened to Armenia back in 1921 with what is occurring today. Anyway, I'm am just trying to point out our severe political immaturity.



And I got criticized for being an obsessive Russophile...

I am glad you dudes are beginning to better assess the nature and character of international diplomacy.

Well said!!!!!