Serge the traitor

[Armanen]

Re: serje the traitor

All Armenians would love to interpret it that way. Unfortunately, the ambiguity of the protocols lets it open for Turks to interpret "non intervention in internal affairs of other states" as do not try to interfere in the affairs of Azerbaijan, i.e. Artsakh. In the best case scenario though, us proceeding to interfere in Azeri affairs would bring to the annulment of the protocols .

If that is how they read it, Armenia can use the same tactic with regards to northern Cyprus and the islands in the Aegean which Greece and turkey bicker over.

[ninetoyadome]

Re: serje the traitor

All Armenians would love to interpret it that way. Unfortunately, the ambiguity of the protocols lets it open for Turks to interpret "non intervention in internal affairs of other states" as do not try to interfere in the affairs of Azerbaijan, i.e. Artsakh. In the best case scenario though, us proceeding to interfere in Azeri affairs would bring to the annulment of the protocols .

Thats the thing about the protocols. i think its just so Armenia and turkey can have diplomatic relations. its a vaguely written agreement so they can open the border. after the border is open they will talk about the important things. i dont know how important this is but a turkish writer recently wrote in the milliyet advising azerbaijan to forget about Artsakh because they will never get it.

In a very positive and balanced approach to the conflict of Nagorno Karabakh Turkish writer Kadri Gursel wrote in yesterday's Milliyet advising that Azerbaijan's interest will be better served if it forgot about Nagorno Karabakh. Looking at the issue from a realistic point of view and championing peace in the region he sees no way to return Nagorno Karabakh to Azerbaijani rule. This is in the light of Turkey Armenia rapprochement.

Gursel, an analyst for one of the top newspapers in Turkey, concerned about the settlement of Nagorno Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and the break-away Karabakh Armenians (Armenia supports the cause of Nagorno-Karabakh Armenians' right to self-determination through referendum), calls on his brothers in Azerbaijan to act more wisely and give up their hopes for ever bringing back Nagorno Karabakh.

In a story, titled "Forgetting Karabakh Is In The Interest of Azeris," he writes with a certain certitude. "Azerbaijan cannot return Nagorno Karabakh under its rule neither through diplomacy, nor through war. It cannot do so with an economic embargo either. It's not even possible to predict such a development in the future either."

However, Gurcel also mentions that it may be realistic to think that Azerbaijan may be able to return the territories around Nagorno Karabakh back to its rule provided that a land corridor between Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh is left. The president of Azerbaijan has also spoken with an understanding about the land corridor between Armenia and Karabakh. In return Armenia on several occasions has shown clear signs for a compromised honorable peace with Azerbaijan and hinted that its ready to work on return of land for Nagorno Karabakh's status deal.

Yet, Turkish analyst notes that "since the day that the issue of Nagorno Karabakh has become a battle center between the government of Azerbaijan and its opposition, that country is not showing the necessary flexibility for negotiating with Armenia for peace." He wants to clearly point out that the official Baku can't hope to reach a settlement by making war like statements. Azerbaijan on every occasion reminds its population and the world that its army is ready to "liberate" Nagorno Karabakh with force. This puts the country in contrast with the position of mediators, Turkey and the international community.

He concludes by making parralels between Cyprus and Nagorno Karabakh. "As Turkey in regard to Cyprus is trying hard to convince the world and the Greeks that it's impossible to return to the status that existed before 1974, in the same way there is a need to tell the brothers in Azerbaijan that to return Caucasus to the status that it had before 1992 is something that can't be achieved."

At the same time good things are happening on Armenian an Turkish relations. It is expected that Turkey will open the border with Armenia by the end of the year and both countries seem to be determined in giving a start to new chapter in their common history.

Now the need is to convince Azerbaijan to come on board.

Written by Armen Hareyan

http://www.huliq.com/1/85843/turkey-advises-azerbaijan-forget-karabakh

[Hye]

Re: Serge the traitor

just FYI Kocharian refused a comssion of historians as itself but on return proposed establishment of deplomatic relation opening of the border and creation of intergovernmntal comissions that discusses differnt challnges and problems between Armenia and Turkey together with the border issue, Armenian Genocide and others excluding Karabakh issue which has nothing to do with Turkey. and have a look wht serj did anything different?

[Haykakan]

Re: Serge the traitor

just FYI Kocharian refused a comssion of historians as itself but on return proposed establishment of deplomatic relation opening of the border and creation of intergovernmntal comissions that discusses differnt challnges and problems between Armenia and Turkey together with the border issue, Armenian Genocide and others excluding Karabakh issue which has nothing to do with Turkey. and have a look wht serj did anything different?

There is a big difference between the two cases. Kocharian did not have as much to gain at the time. Armenia has a mch sweeter deal today because of the georgia situation.

[Gavur]

Re: serje the traitor

I do not think it's a matter of Serge giving up Artsakh to the Azeris. The fictitious NKAO portion of Artsakh is certainly ours. The liberated territories is what worries me. Anyway, outside of this there is this paragraph that can be interpreted in many ways which is really the problem with these protocols: they are too ambiguous.

Exactly, and that makes it more of a war document rather then peace.

[Hye]

Re: Serge the traitor

"There is a big difference between the two cases. Kocharian did not have as much to gain at the time. Armenia has a mch sweeter deal today because of the georgia situation. "
can you elaborate please what do you mean?
Im not comparing which situation was better or who gained more Im just saying Armenia's position didn't change from Kocharian to Sargsian we got what Kocharian was asking for

[Haykakan]

Re: Serge the traitor

"There is a big difference between the two cases. Kocharian did not have as much to gain at the time. Armenia has a mch sweeter deal today because of the georgia situation. "
can you elaborate please what do you mean?
Im not comparing which situation was better or who gained more Im just saying Armenia's position didn't change from Kocharian to Sargsian we got what Kocharian was asking for

I explained this befor but here i go again. Serj has a better deal because of the situation in Georgia which did not exist during kocharians rule. Today everyone is looking at Armenia as the transit country for oil and many other projects since the situation on georgia made that country unreliable. This means there will be way more economic benefits for Armenia now vs back then. This new reality on the ground not only makes Armenia the favored trade rout but it also puts tremendous pressure on azerbadjian to settle the kharabagh conflict with Armenia. While some kids here are crying doom and gloom i am cautiously very optomistic.

[ninetoyadome]

Re: Serge the traitor

here is an interview with Serzh that took place yesterday:

Presidential
Update: 2009-10-13 00:12:52 (GMT +04:00)

ARMENIAN PRESIDENT SERZH SARGSYAN BEFORE LEAVING FOR MOSCOW ANSWERED THE QUESTIONS OF THE REPORTERS IN ZVARTNOTS AIRPORT

Armenpress: Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan before leaving for Moscow yesterday answered the questions of the reporters in Zvartnots airport.

Q: Mr. President, now, when the protocols are signed, may it be considered that the condition forwarded by you - visiting Turkey in case of the open borders - has been implemented?

S. Sargsyan: We have never spoken with pre-conditions. Just the opposite we have always insisted that our relations must develop without preconditions. We are speaking of enough prerequisites and I think that today these prerequisites exist. Besides in relations I greatly underscore the principle of mutuality: president of Turkey responded to my invitation and came to Armenia and now I do not have serious grounds not to accept his invitation. My counterpart has sent a written invitation and if in the coming two days no extraordinary events happen I will visit Bursa to support my favorite football team - Armenian national team.

Q: How will you assess the yesterday's statements of the Turkish prime minister and foreign minister.

S. Sargsyan: Unfortunately, our public learns about such statements first of all from the Azerbaijani web sites the authors of which, naturally, are trying to distort the statements of Turkish officials. Nevertheless there were such statements and in my opinion they are first of all directed to Azerbaijani audience. In the opposite case it is very strange for me: if the Turks are not going to ratify the protocols why they have signed it on the eve. May be they were thinking that we cannot display enough will and step back. May be. In any case today the ball is on the Turkish side and we have enough patience to wait for the development of events. We have publicly stated about our steps and without hesitation will move in that direction. Will the Turks ratify the protocols, will they follow the approved graphic we will continue the process, no, we have nothing to hesitate and will do what we have stated.

Q: After Kishinev negotiations Azerbaijani president stated that the issue of return of the Nagorno Karabakh's nearby territories is already agreed. Will you confirm or reject this statement.

S. Sargsyan: The strange thing in this interview is not that the Azerbaijani president is dissatisfied with the results of negotiations. The strange is several thoughts expressed by him, including what you have said. I do not know with whom the Azerbaijani president agreed and if you have noticed there are several uncertainties in this paragraph. He is not saying when, where. We have never discussed with Azerbaijan the issue of return of territories. He is displeased with the process and results of negotiations because we have discussed only two issues -final status of Nagorno Karabakh and middle status. And if he is displeased I cannot help him in this issue.

http://www.azg.am/EN/2009101301

[hipeter924]

Re: Serge the traitor

The Azeri and Turkish government's are like wolves, once they get a slice of Armenia they will want all of it. Its what happened to the Czechs, they gave a slice to Hitler and he invaded and destroyed the country.

There can be no compromise with Azeris and Turks about Nagorno Karabakh, to even consider it would condemn to extinction not only the Armenians that live in Nagorno Karabakh but the Armenian nation itself. Why bother to please the Azeri's and Turks about Nagorno Karabakh at all? Why not say the blunt and honest truth, that they will have to genocide the Armenians again to take it.

This is just my view, but I cannot understand why Serge can't have more backbone and stand up for his country when it really needs him to stand firm and tell the Azeri's and Turks enough is enough, that Nagorno Karabakh is forever Armenian and the Azeri's and Turks can keep their blood soaked hands off it.

[Hye]

Re: Serge the traitor

Haykakan
Im saying that we didn't change our position from Kocharian to Sargsian we got what we set to get in the first place but you are right it didn't happen during Kocharian because of different reasons and Georgian war is part of it since as you remeber Sargsian sent the football match invetation before the war and Turkey was totally lost about the invetation Georgia war was a way out to them in a way to say yes
you talk about Armenia being transite root specially oil root but where is the Russian stance in all this in your opinon I know Russia isn't a big oil exporter it is gas but still how much will Russia be comfortable seeing Armenia in this role seeing a country fully under its control to slip a little away
Im sorry if im making you to repeat yourself Im new in the forum I have read some threads before but still thanks for your time