Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

Vrej

Bro your so annoying. It was Vazgen that made armenicum into a big deal.

Vrej reproduced a report with Sarkisian making it into a big deal. So produce some news reports to back up your claim - or apologise.

At the time the Armenicum story broke I remember making a post comparing it to the silly quack medical "inventions" that eastern European countries during the Soviet Period would sporadically come up with, things like cures for baldness.

[Eddo211]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

and the jackass award of the month goes to our friend Serjik, lol.

[Hakob]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

Dear, You are turning things upside down.
You would be better inspired, if you conter the arguments of the article, rather than the container, as you do so often.
Vrej, please read my post one more time for what am I really saying. You are asking an irrelevant question, because I am accusing lragir of criticizing (criticizing is not enough word) our government of not negotiating with Iran exactly now, when relations of Iran and west are thawing. Why was not lragir critisizing government before, about not trying to buy more gas or getting more close relationship with Iran? Why not then, but now when it's safe with west to criticize our government with this subject?
Before current Iran-west thawing, it would not serve western interests to bring the subject of closer relations with Iran for a euroservant "lragir" right?
Badalian automatically admits "Whatever Iran has stated or not stated for three years is one thing, and what it is saying now is something else. Iran has a new president, there is a new international situation relating to Iran and in the region in general", "three years ago the presidents of Iran and the United States did not telephone each other and a few months ago they did. Three years ago the relations between Iran and the West were escalating while now the opposite tendency is noticed."
He views Armenia-Iran relations from point of west not from Armenia's interests. Otherwise Badalian or anybody from "lragir" would bring up the issue and criticise the government for not "doing enough starting from 1995".
Also, "lragir' is not just critisizing. It basically repeats word for word whatever azeri and turkish media are spreading about our government for their own propaganda. Things like "Armenian government does not exist", "Armenian government is a vassal of russia", "Armenians want to annex Karabakh to russia", "Armenia is never independent", "Armenian government is an usurper" etc, etc.
What was I doing with my post?

The question was ever present, I sent you back at the time of the construction of the Gas pipe between Kajaran and Tavriz. Back then the Russians did their most, to minimize the diameter of the tube, and back then, the same did criticize the Government.
Later, the same corrupt guys, sold in a magic transaction, the Armenia/Iran Gas Pipe, that WAS NOT PART OF HAYRUSGAZART, to the latter, and the same guys did criticise, just as today...

Why now?
Because it is now that Serjik is selling the last remnants of our statehood, and it is now, that the Iranian ambassador is proposing gas at 100 USD...

And why is azeri point of view, to begin with? Does a reality automatically stops being such, just because the azaris or turks state it, and use the sad reality in their propaganda?
Look at the other side of the medal. The Armenian media is full of arguments, about the corrupt character of Ilham Aliyev and his regime. Does that mean automatically, (from an azari point of view), that all that is marazm, slander, just because the enemy says so??
There are many many more mdeia out there, who critisize our government just like azeris do to their own. But imporant thing is to critisize when its due, not when it's safe and condoned by media's sponsors.

Was not Serjik the Voralez, who did every effort, to please Putin, and save his seat, just on Dec 2, Sept 3....? Or was it not reality??
Was that not the Tavajan Sejik, with his hilarious laugh, sitting and pleasing Mr Gul, in the center of Yerevan, to please the West and Russia in the same time? Was not him who changed the emblem of the Armenian football federation, taking off Mount Ararat, to please the Turks? (A symbol that did survive under communist regime, but Serjik dared, because he has no sense of National pride, and he is not the unique in his case. Most comsomol made minds, today at most decision making posts, are the product of the same extruder....., that's why they do survive so well). And what was the result of all that indignity??
Was not Serjik the one stating that Akna(aka Agdam) was not his fatherland (in his words, ours)? just to give credentials in Moskwa and the West, earning his seat as President, as one ready to any concessions and the least nationalist ?? (at least from his point of view..)
Was not Serjik, while sill minister, the stupid guy, believing in Armenicum?, Do you remember that thing?? For a couple of years, was not him, who made all the fuss about that marvelous scam?? All over the TV?? If anything this sole example is enough, how unwise, to say the least, he really is.... Do you remember all the money that he invested, for that ridiculous forgery, while honestly believing (and this is the real sad point, the fact that he beleived in it!!) in that extravgant, kazakho/russo/mafioso/copperfieldo scam??
Or is it the chess boards he likes to display every here and there, that gains him his credentials?

Do you genuinly think he does mind a fraction of a second, about National interests???

Have you seen me ever defending Serj Sargsian or any oligarkhs?
In order to defend "lragir" you are puting Serjik's character out. ---- Who does not know that? But what has it to do with what we were discussing?
What has Armenicum or any aother stupidity to do with blatant and low level propaganda outlet?
I do not like the comment that kid "serjik" put and insulted you, let me say that first. Like Artashes says, no necessary to be rud and disrespect each other.
I will continue on the thread that you have started just to justify "lragir".

[Vrej1915]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

Have you seen me ever defending Serj Sargsian or any oligarkhs?
In order to defend "lragir" you are puting Serjik's character out. ---- Who does not know that? But what has it to do with what we were discussing?
What has Armenicum or any aother stupidity to do with blatant and low level propaganda outlet?
I do not like the comment that kid "serjik" put and insulted you, let me say that first. Like Artashes says, no necessary to be rud and disrespect each other.
I will continue on the thread that you have started just to justify "lragir".

You were accusing the Lragir of slandering the Government, isn't it, and complaining once again about the container, not the content.
Our Government=Serjik, or else we do not live in the same world.
I just said, that the cricism IN THE ARTICLES I QUOTE, is very founded, in my view.
If you do not agree, than I invite you as always, to counter the arguments.
And I would be so happy, if the reality was not such bleak...., and you could inform us of the slanderous character of the POINTS, IN THE ARTICLES I QUOTE ++++

PS: Forget about that kid, I just, exceptionally replied, since he was slandering the memory of a passed away man, who might have a lot of defaults, but certainly not stupid gambler character, to fell in the Armenicum trap , his two feet joined. Some in his kind here have the capacity to state, that "Mount Ararat is not solid rock made, but Ice....",

[Serjik]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

You guys have a very funny way of making a proud armo feel comfortable here. I mean Im speaking my mind to someone that is a fake and making he is making a fool of you guys. For example if he is realy from Armenia he will know that it was Vazgen Sarkisian that was promoting armenicum besides what does armenicum have anything to do with the topic here?

and the jackass award of the month goes to our friend Serjik, lol.

[Eddo211]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

You guys have a very funny way of making a proud armo feel comfortable here.

Its all in good fun Serjik bro.....

I mean Im speaking my mind to someone that is a fake and making he is making a fool of you guys. For example if he is realy from Armenia he will know that it was Vazgen Sarkisian that was promoting armenicum besides what does armenicum have anything to do with the topic here?

We don't care....this is the internet forum, you can claim to be anybody you want......you will be judge by how you present yourself here, whatever you may claim to be we have no reason to question/judge/or not believe and makes no difference anyway and the worst enemy would be yourself in long run.
You are entitled to your opinion Serjik bro but you must also know when to STFU bro....there is a good discussion here between adults, don't derail it bro.

btw, congrats on the award....just kidding bro, lol.

[Haykakan]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

"what does armenicum have anything to do with the topic here?"
Its just another negative thing about Armenia for Vrej to dwell on..If you tell him this is offtopic he will just open up his one millionths thread where he is the only poster having a conversation with himself about how awful Armenia is.

[Vrej1915]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

"what does armenicum have anything to do with the topic here?"
Its just another negative thing about Armenia for Vrej to dwell on..If you tell him this is offtopic he will just open up his one millionths thread where he is the only poster having a conversation with himself about how awful Armenia is.

What am I supposed to do now?
Respond? you will accuse me of derailing ....
Just I'll say this: ARMENICUM is the PH-meter of SERJIK's BRAIN

If you want more, I let you the honor of beggining a new thread

[Vrej1915]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

Ռուսաստանը դատապարտել է «հայկական ագրեսիան»

Lragir.am
Ուրբաթ, 28 Մարտի 2014,

1993 թ. ՄԱԿ Անվտանգության խորհուրդը 4 բանաձեւ է ընդունել ղարաբաղ-ադրբեջանական հակամարտության վերաբերյալ՝ ապրիլի 30-ին՝ թիվ 822 բանաձեւ, հուլիսի 29-ին՝ թիվ 853 բանաձեւ, հոկտեմբերի 14-ին՝ թիվ 874 բանաձեւ, նոյեմբերի 12-ին՝ թիվ 874 բանաձեւ: Այս բանաձեւերով դատապարտվել է տարածքների ազատագրումը, «վերահաստատել տարածաշրջանում բոլոր պետությունների ինքնիշխանությունն ու տարածքային ամբողջականությունը, միջազգային սահմանների անխախտելիությունը եւ տարածքի ձեռքբերման նպատակով ուժի կիրառումը»: Բանաձեւերով Հայաստանին կոչ է արվել օգտագործել «իր ազդեցությունը Ադրբեջանի ԼՂ շրջանի հայերի նկատմամբ բանաձեւերի վերաբերյալ համաձայնության հասնելու ուղղությամբ»:

Բոլոր այս բանաձեւերին Ռուսաստանը, որպես ՄԱԿ անվտանգության խորհրդի անդամ, քվեարկել է կողմ, այսինքն՝ Հայաստանին դեմ:
Երեկ Ռուսաստանը դեմ քվեարկեց ՄԱԿ-ի այն բանաձեւին, որով դատապարտվում էր Ուկրաինայի տարածքային ամբողջականության խախտումը:

- See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/arm/0/pol....7ISib7Wq.dpuf

[Hakob]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

Originally Posted by Hakob
In lew of latest azeri statements of none confidence on US representative in minsk group, it is evident that baku is prepared for the flip flop, sensing that minsk group can be none existent in very near future. So no harm in fake actions creating impression that this group is still important and to confuse adversary more. US silence or mild reaction speaks volumes too.
Baku knows, where true support for restarting the war will come.
It is our job to see all clear and prepare.



Did not have to wait too long. Here comes the proof of my words. US is and will allways favor turks and azeris. It will reignite Artsakh war to divert Russia's attention.


James Warlick: 6 elements have to be part of peace agreement on Karabakh



May 07, 2014 | 18:16
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair James Warlick delivered a speech on Karabakh at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on Wednesday, outlining U.S. position on the peace process.

The text of the speech is as follows:

“Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

Thank you for joining me this morning. I recognize a number of you who have served as counsel or sounding-board for me over the past eight months and I want to extend a special thanks to you.

Let me start by saying that I do not want to revisit the history of the conflict. Our goal should be to find a pragmatic way forward to bring about a lasting settlement.

Although I speak to you today as the U.S. co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, I do not speak for the co-chairs. My message to you is a statement of official U.S. government policy that guides our engagement as we help the parties find peace.

And peace is within reach. The sides have come to a point where their positions on the way forward are not that far apart. They have almost reached agreement on several occasions – most recently in 2011. And when they inevitably returned to the negotiating table after each failed round, the building blocks of the next “big idea” were similar to the last time.

There is a body of principles, understandings, and documents already on the table that lay out a deal, and no one has suggested we abandon them. The challenge is to find a way to help the sides take that last, bold step forward to bridge their remaining differences and deliver the peace and stability that their populations deserve.
For two decades, however, peace has been elusive. All parties distrust each other and a generation of young people has grown up in Armenia and Azerbaijan with no first-hand experience of each other. As many have noted, older generations remember a time when Armenians and Azerbaijanis lived side-by-side and differences did not need to be resolved through the barrel of a gun.

As Churchill once reminded us, “you negotiate peace with your enemies, not with your friends.” The key to any successful negotiation is for all parties to conclude that they have won something, and in the case of the Armenians and Azerbaijanis there is no question that a deal will unlock a new era of prosperity across the region. The benefits of peace far outweigh the costs of continued stalemate, and avoid the catastrophic consequences of renewed hostilities.

Armenia would immediately benefit from open borders, greater security, and new opportunities to trade, travel, and engage with all its neighbors.

Azerbaijan would eliminate a key impediment to its growth as a player on the world stage, regional trade hub, and strong security partner, while giving hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons a prospect for reconciliation and return.

The thousands of people living in Nagorno-Karabakh would be freed from the prison of isolation and dependence.
A peace agreement, properly designed and implemented, would also eliminate the tragic, steady stream of casualties – both military and civilian – along the border and the Line of Contact. Numbers are hard to pin down, but there have already been at least a dozen killed and even more injured on the front lines this year so far. This is unacceptable.
No less significant is the huge financial burden that military readiness and a growing arms race imposes on national budgets – a peace dividend that, used more productively, could itself be a game changer for both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Next week will mark 20 years since a ceasefire agreement was signed. While we can take some pride in having avoided a return to outright war, we must also agree that the current state of affairs is unacceptable, and unsustainable.

Perpetual negotiations, periodic outbreaks of violence, the isolation of Armenia and the people living in Nagorno-Karabakh, frustration in Azerbaijan and anger among its populations of IDPs – this is not a recipe for peace or stability and it is certainly not the path to prosperity.

The people of the region deserve better.
----
I began this job last September with a trip to the region, with visits to Baku and Yerevan to meet the two presidents and their foreign ministers. I also made a side trip to Nagorno-Karabakh to join Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk’s team for an OSCE monitoring mission along the Line of Contact on the road between Agdam and Gindarkh.
I joined the team on the west side of the Line of Contact, and got my first glimpse of the front lines. I saw the bleak reality faced by young soldiers on both sides of this Line, who live and work behind trenches and berms, with nothing but barbed wire and land mines keeping them apart.

The sides live under threat from sniper fire and landmines. They are concerned for the lives of their civilian populations and their access to farmland, cemeteries, and buildings that happen to fall “too close” to the Line of Contact or the international border between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

OSCE monitors have been working for two decades to keep an eye on this fragile peace, but have neither the mandate nor the resources to put a stop to the frequent casualties, or even to identify responsibility.
The sides themselves report thousands of ceasefire violations every year, but have been unable to reach agreement on any means of reducing that tally.

I have also traveled throughout Nagorno-Karabakh itself, where I have met with the de facto authorities to hear their views. I plan to do so again next week with the other co-chairs. There is no question that any enduring peace agreement must reflect the views of all affected parties if it is to succeed.

In the capitals, I have heard a more reassuring message. Both presidents want to make progress. Both agree that the series of documents negotiated over the past several years contains the outlines of a deal.

The co-chairs hosted the presidents in Vienna last November. This was their first meeting since January 2012 – and the first time since 2009 for them to meet one-on-one. We were encouraged by their conversation, and by their stated commitment to find a way forward. Since that time, we have met on ten separate occasions with one or both foreign ministers to keep the discussion alive.

It is clear, however, that only the presidents have the ability to conclude a deal with such transformative consequences for their countries. It is the presidents who must take the bold steps needed to make peace. The United States has pressed both leaders to meet again soon and take advantage of this window of opportunity when peace is possible.
----
When I made that first trip to Baku and Yerevan last fall, I carried with me President Obama’s endorsement and reaffirmation of the U.S. commitment to working for peace as a Minsk Group co-chair and a close partner with both countries. The outlines of a compromise were already well established by that point, and my message was that the time had come for a renewed effort to bring peace to the region.

Let me walk you through the key elements of that “well-established” compromise, all of which have been in the public domain since appearing in joint statements by Presidents Obama, Medvedev, and Sarkozy in L’Aquila in 2009 andMuskoka in 2010. These principles and elements form the basis of U.S. policy toward the Minsk Group and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

At the heart of a deal are the UN Charter and relevant documents and the core principles of the Helsinki Final Act. In particular, we focus on those principles and commitments that pertain to the non-use or threat of force, territorial integrity, and equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

Building on that foundation, there are six elements that will have to be part of any peace agreement if it is to endure. While the sequencing and details of these elements remains the subject of negotiations, they must be seen as an integrated whole. Any attempt to select some elements over others will make it impossible to achieve a balanced solution.

In no particular order, these elements are:

First, in light of Nagorno-Karabakh’s complex history, the sides should commit to determining its final legal status through a mutually agreed and legally binding expression of will in the future. This is not optional. Interim status will be temporary.

Second, the area within the boundaries of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region that is not controlled by Baku should be granted an interim status that, at a minimum, provides guarantees for security and self-governance.

Third, the occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh should be returned to Azerbaijani control. There can be no settlement without respect for Azerbaijan’s sovereignty, and the recognition that its sovereignty over these territories must be restored.

Fourth, there should be a corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh. It must be wide enough to provide secure passage, but it cannot encompass the whole of Lachin district.

Fifth, an enduring settlement will have to recognize the right of all IDPs and refugees to return to their former places of residence.

Sixth and finally, a settlement must include international security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation. There is no scenario in which peace can be assured without a well-designed peacekeeping operation that enjoys the confidence of all sides.
----
The time has come for the sides to commit themselves to peace negotiations, building on the foundation of work done so far. It is not realistic to conclude that occasional meetings are sufficient by themselves to bring about a lasting peace.

When such negotiations commence, the parties should not only reconfirm their commitment to the ceasefire but also undertake much-needed and long-sought security confidence-building measures.

Once we get into such peace negotiations, there is a much broader range of practical issues that we can put on the table to benefit all sides. There are economic and commercial incentives to develop; energy, transportation, and communications links to rebuild; and travel and people-to-people programs that can begin to counter the dangerously one-sided narratives that currently prevail.

The co-chairs of the Minsk Group share a common interest in helping the sides reach a peaceful resolution. We intend to continue working through the Minsk Group as the primary channel for resolving this conflict. Together with France, the United States and Russia share a common commitment to peace and security in Nagorno-Karabakh. The United States stands ready to help in any way we can. I would also call on the diaspora communities in the United States and around the world to speak out for peace and to help bring an end to this conflict.

Of course, it is up to the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan to take the first step. They should consider measures, even unilateral ones, that will demonstrate their stated commitment to making progress, reducing tensions, and improving the atmosphere for negotiations. They should reduce the hostile rhetoric, and prepare their populations for peace, not war.

Track II efforts to build people-to-people contacts between Azerbaijanis and Armenians are no less integral to a lasting settlement. Programs of this kind can help citizens of both countries prepare for peace and find reconciliation with the pain of the past. We expect the sides to support organizations and individuals which are committed to Track II and people-to-people programs.

I hope trhat you will work with us to make the case for a lasting peace. The co-chairs have the mandate to facilitate negotiations, but we should all be supporting engaged citizens, secular and religious leaders, NGOs, media outlets, and others working towad these goals. A lasting peace must be built not on a piece of paper, but on the trust, confidence, and participation of the people of both countries.

Let’s work together to build the demand for peace. Let’s demand the benefits that a peaceful settlement will bring to people across the region.

Thank you.”
From News.Am

P.S. The curtain came down afterall on US double game. It fully and one sidedly holds baku's point of view for resolution of conflict.
One may ask, why this speach now? It is abvious, to give azerbaijan the green light for bold moves. We are going to see more tensions on border and bigger military actions by azeris. Until the day US/west will reignite the war.
I would also say that latest proArmenia resolutions in US are also a dust trown on our face to hide the truth an confuse and immobilize Armenian american community in case of war.