Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

LOL

I can see you digging a hole for yourself.
You really disappoint me.

Surely when you make a statement ( let alone debate ) about a subject some knowledge of the subject is prerequisite, otherwise its pure prejudice and bias.

.

And I am disapointed that you did not see the correctness of my argument.

And isn't pure prejudice and bias the normal situation on ANY Armenian-related message board. One only has to look at out latest arrival, hagopn, to see that golden rule in action.

[hagopn]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

Keep in mind that not only the IE cultures exhibited such behavior, but the Chinese in their early stages, the Native Americans - particularly of North America. The Romans were also IE, but they went on a different path altogether. They were in fact the antithesis to the Celts (and Armenians) in terms of political character. Same with the Persians, Parthians, Sassanians, three phases of an empire that were progressively more imperialistic and fascistic in character.

Armenians were natives. Native is the key word. The not so definitive language family theories also haven't yet explained why the majority of Armenian root words are not IE. Let me elaborate a bit: Movses Boyajian, a linguist who used to publish in the now defunct Armenian Quarterly (sad story), wrote in an article (I wish I could remember the title) that only about 10% of Armenian roots have "affinity" to the IE language. That in itself says only little. Most languages in the IE tree that are dead languages, such as the Tocharian, only have scant literature to provide a vocabulary with. They could very well have been more closely related to Armenian, but we'll never know. Also, no one wants to discuss the large number of terms in common between Armenian and Sumerian.

The Russians, IE, are imperialists, of total political construct, in stages of conquest, conflict, that even yielded newer nationalities such as the Ukrainian (U-Krayina, still don't know where the "U" came from), Byelorussia and so on. The Russians were originally theorized to have been formed by a third party at the request of the local tribes in present day Russia west of the Urals to settle their internal conflicts for them! Do you know anyone who can refute this?

Armenians on their Plateau rarely engaged in imperialism (Parthian educated/weaned Tigran II, and that is all she wrote), and the "old school ways" won out. The "old school" won at the original home of this grouping. Armenian-like tribes in Asia Minor, however, did engage in imperialism. The Hittite/Hatti, according to the most trustworthy source on them for me (before the anti-Armenian paradigm I mention early on), Peter Jensen, were speakers of a "dialect that is Old Armenian." He had no doubts. [1] The Hittites were expansionists, conquerors, who faced the equally imperialistic at the time Egypt at the battle of Kadesh, which, many think is an important source of the Sassna Tzrer epic's plot. [2]

Ah, let me add: Richard Cowen postulates, and he will probably be proven correct, that the Phrygians did not only not conquer the Hittites, but the name "Phrygian" is a Greek misnomer for the Hittites. There is no record of conquest of the Hittites by the Phrygians, only the assumption of a supplantation or displacement. The only "proof" that is brought for this is the usage of the Greek characters for the Phrygian language. This naturally proves nothing, since the latter Artasheshian during the Hellenistic era was also using Greek characters to also record in Armenian.

[1] Hittiter und Armenier - Peter Jensen

[2] David Sassunskii - Joseph Orbeli - Orbeli said, in noo uncertain terms, that "This Epic has roots that go beyond Armenian historical periods, easily far beyond the proposed 8th century."

[Hakob]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

Hakob, I agree with your thought above.

In fact, a long time ago I was reading an author named Jean Markale extensively, until I discovered that he is a die-hard Marxist with a different agenda than expected. Regardless of his political leanings and agenda, he had a very interesting idea about the Celts around which formed the basis of his political characterization of the Celts versus the Romans.[1]

First, he said, the Celts were not as territorial, literal, and legalistic about such core aspects of life as "owership, proprietorship" and so on and considered land to be sacred, a living organism almost of which the Celts considered themselves a part.

The "Urartuan" (Armenian kings of the Aramian dynasty, please, let's stop it with the Turkophile charade) king's "Oath to Haldi" (I think it was mentioned in S. Kramer's works) upon ascending the throne is remarkably similar to the later Celtic ideas as described by Markale to the land and people, entities which were considered as inseparable parts of a single, for lack of a more distinct term, organism. Vahan Mamikonian's last will upon his deathbed was also very revealing and also made evident that even in Christian times this paradigm prevailed. Even Robert Thompson admitted in his writings that the usage of the term "orenk" (law of the land) by the opponents of Sassanian (a reformed and more fascistic form of Zoroastrian) religious imposition upon Armenians used the term to denote "our traditions and attachment to the land of our forefathers."

Second, Markale noted that despite the tribal and ethnic divisions, the Celts did consider themselves to be a part of a larger national/cultural entity and were often united against the Romans in defense of this ideal versus the more territorial and legalist concept of "country, territory, region" as separate from the overall ideal that is the nation and the land to which it is attached and to which owes its very existence and character.

Armenians did not differ much in this sense. Armenians rarely adopted a similar political character to those of empires, legalist and possessive empires for whom displacement of their conquered subject's autonomy, dispossession of their land, weakening and impoverishment of subjects through collection of taxes and tributes, as the main order of business. Empire simply means large scale banditry that in turn glorifies its accomplishments by sanctifying with in fictitious myth. Empire means the construction of an artificial identity and mythology through imposition and destruction of the mythology (historical/ancestral memory and value systems) of its conquered subjects.

Nothing has changed when it comes to behavior of empires in terms of what the goals and agenda are. Only the methodology and means of waging this war against target subjects has changed.

Armenians grew out of a set of tribes in a specific territory who had blood relations. Now, when England and Germany were not yet inundated with anti-Armenian paradigms, their scholars were recognizing the pervasiveness and extensive presence of the Armenian identity and language throughout a quite large territory. Robert Ellis and Peter Jensen are my two favorite authors of an era when politics apparently didn't influence scholarship as much as it did after the well-documented anti-Armenian paradigm kicked in. [2]

Your assertion that the "identity survives" has a lot of merit. The "identity" is strong if it is rooted the idea that there is a sacred being, this nation and land, that are one and the same, not something based on political successes or conquest, but that of being something "that just came to be" through an ancestral mythology, indicative of very ancient roots. For example, even the loss of the King as "ordained" by political entities such as the Sassanian or Byzantine courts didn't seem to dissolve the Armenian State itself, which adopted a status of Sparapetutyun upon having no Tagavor, in a Tagavorutyun that considered all its Nakharar, great and small, to be "equal and among many". [3] This "equal among many" is a strong confederate idea, a trait of very ancient and primordial formed national identities. We see a loser form of this among the Iroquois, Sioux, Cherokee, (all of whom were [con]federations) and so on in the neolithic cultures of the New World as well.

[1] "King of the Celts" - Jean Markale

[2] Imperialism, Racism, and Development Theories: The Construction of a Dominant Paradigm on Ottoman Armenians By Hilmar Kaiser

[3] Armenia, Survival of a People - Christopher Walker

Hagopn.
You are discussing very core of our identity, my friend.
The age of culture and how it has suvived for ages.
One has to ask, how is that some other nations with indo european roots or specifically arian roots ( god seal my mouth for brinfging that name LOL) were so behind in unifying on their land as modern governships. Specifically, why were Germany and Italy unified only in 19th century by Kaizer or Garibaldi, when so many other nations(states) were carving world around?
Also, why is that india being one of most populated areas in the world has never produced an empire of it's own?
The answer my friend is in the identity of those nations, or rather the way idenity of people and their association to land has evolved in ancient times.

[londontsi]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

But his (alleged) ignorance of Armenian history does not actually disprove his point, it only makes it difficult for him to argue for it!

LOL

I can see you digging a hole for yourself.
You really disappoint me.

Surely when you make a statement ( let alone debate ) about a subject some knowledge of the subject is prerequisite, otherwise its pure prejudice and bias.

.

[hagopn]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

Hakob, I agree with your thought above.

In fact, a long time ago I was reading an author named Jean Markale extensively, until I discovered that he is a die-hard Marxist with a different agenda than expected. Regardless of his political leanings and agenda, he had a very interesting idea about the Celts around which formed the basis of his political characterization of the Celts versus the Romans.[1]

First, he said, the Celts were not as territorial, literal, and legalistic about such core aspects of life as "owership, proprietorship" and so on and considered land to be sacred, a living organism almost of which the Celts considered themselves a part.

The "Urartuan" (Armenian kings of the Aramian dynasty, please, let's stop it with the Turkophile charade) king's "Oath to Haldi" (I think it was mentioned in S. Kramer's works) upon ascending the throne is remarkably similar to the later Celtic ideas as described by Markale to the land and people, entities which were considered as inseparable parts of a single, for lack of a more distinct term, organism. Vahan Mamikonian's last will upon his deathbed was also very revealing and also made evident that even in Christian times this paradigm prevailed. Even Robert Thompson admitted in his writings that the usage of the term "orenk" (law of the land) by the opponents of Sassanian (a reformed and more fascistic form of Zoroastrian) religious imposition upon Armenians used the term to denote "our traditions and attachment to the land of our forefathers."

Second, Markale noted that despite the tribal and ethnic divisions, the Celts did consider themselves to be a part of a larger national/cultural entity and were often united against the Romans in defense of this ideal versus the more territorial and legalist concept of "country, territory, region" as separate from the overall ideal that is the nation and the land to which it is attached and to which owes its very existence and character.

Armenians did not differ much in this sense. Armenians rarely adopted a similar political character to those of empires, legalist and possessive empires for whom displacement of their conquered subject's autonomy, dispossession of their land, weakening and impoverishment of subjects through collection of taxes and tributes, as the main order of business. Empire simply means large scale banditry that in turn glorifies its accomplishments by sanctifying with in fictitious myth. Empire means the construction of an artificial identity and mythology through imposition and destruction of the mythology (historical/ancestral memory and value systems) of its conquered subjects.

Nothing has changed when it comes to behavior of empires in terms of what the goals and agenda are. Only the methodology and means of waging this war against target subjects has changed.

Armenians grew out of a set of tribes in a specific territory who had blood relations. Now, when England and Germany were not yet inundated with anti-Armenian paradigms, their scholars were recognizing the pervasiveness and extensive presence of the Armenian identity and language throughout a quite large territory. Robert Ellis and Peter Jensen are my two favorite authors of an era when politics apparently didn't influence scholarship as much as it did after the well-documented anti-Armenian paradigm kicked in. [2]

Your assertion that the "identity survives" has a lot of merit. The "identity" is strong if it is rooted the idea that there is a sacred being, this nation and land, that are one and the same, not something based on political successes or conquest, but that of being something "that just came to be" through an ancestral mythology, indicative of very ancient roots. For example, even the loss of the King as "ordained" by political entities such as the Sassanian or Byzantine courts didn't seem to dissolve the Armenian State itself, which adopted a status of Sparapetutyun upon having no Tagavor, in a Tagavorutyun that considered all its Nakharar, great and small, to be "equal and among many". [3] This "equal among many" is a strong confederate idea, a trait of very ancient and primordially formed national identities. We see a looser form of this among the Iroquois, Sioux, Cherokee, (all of whom were [con]federations) and so on in the neolithic cultures of the New World as well.

[1] "King of the Celts" - Jean Markale

[2] Imperialism, Racism, and Development Theories: The Construction of a Dominant Paradigm on Ottoman Armenians By Hilmar Kaiser

[3] Armenia, Survival of a Nation - Christopher Walker

[Hakob]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

If you are disagreeing with lampron's assertion, and have access to sources detailing historical hindsight, why don't you tell us, for example:

What opportunities were seized?
what correct decisions were made?
what objectives were set and attained?

Of course Lampron is being deliberately overly dismissive and painting with an overly broad stroke - and I'm sure you can give numerous examples of successful leaders - but that doesn't mean there is not a core truth behind Lampron's feeling that the quantity of the failure in leadership is significant. And I bet Lampron's comment was prompted more by the behaviour of current leaders than past ones. These days it's honorary medals and honorary dinner banquets rather than shish-kebabs. And at least when that cartoon dog Muttley demanded yet another meaningless medal for doing next to nothing, he didn't demand a celebratory meal with it as well!

Name one nation that had to deal with as many "empires" as Armenians and keep it's national identity. Assirian empire, Roman empire, Persian Empire, Arab counquerors, Monghol counquerors, Seljuk conquerors, Ottoman empire, Russian empire, Soviet empire...
The important point that mr lampron is missing is that all those times the survival politics were brought up and strengthened not by specific leaders but by national will and mentality. Armenian leaders have allways followed national movements and were just figures in our struggles in history. We never had Lui 14s, napoleons or elizabeths, Peters or hitlers, and we never needed such, because no individual could encompass and serve or use such a broad politcal/national identity as Armenians. And any such leader that mr Lampron is trying to see could present an easy target to our enemies and could be destroyed or used to weaken our national struggles. Most of our leaders have been either military or religios ones and as such have done excellent jobs. That is one of our national characters that has been established by our history. Even the leaders now, they have done perfect job in the battlefields against azeris and are doing such in the defence of our country. We are currently in an economic crisis that is brought upon by blockade and geopolitical situation. That is why when any one that brings up economic plans, cannot but weaken countrie's defenses, or vise versa. That is why there has allways been large opposition to any of our leaders in our history resulting in their weakness. That is a suvival policy. That is why when nation unites(produces) a viable survival movement, we produce leaders with whom we allways achieve the unachievable, from times of Vardan and Ashot Ergat till now.
Our nation is tired at this moment of blockade, economic crisis all around, left over soviet legacy like oligarkhs and such. That is why we have emigration( which is a survival instinkt by itself) or such cynical relations between government and people. But make no mistake. Armenia is going to stay where it is. It's not the first tme that after dispersing we come together for next buildup of our country, just like in 1920's. 1940's or any time before that.
One of the proofs is the fact that there is no empty living space in country, because majority of people who has left, still keps their apartmens or houses, because they know they will return.
One cannot judge by just opportunities or actions of single person about us, or what our future will be.
So mr Lampron is not asking any meaningfull questions. He is uninformed enough not to know to not expect any unswers to those.

[Vrej1915]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

YEREVAN IN THE CLUTCH OF GEOPOLITICAL POLES (SECOND ROUND)

Vestnik Kavkaza, Russia
Sept 20 2013

20 September 2013 - 10:44am

Susanna Petrosyan, Yerevan. Exclusively for Vestnik Kavkaza

President Serzh Sargsyan's declaration about joining the Customs Union
did not put an end to geopolitical processes around Armenia. Moscow
won the first round of the struggle. The second round has already
started. It is peculiar with topicality of the favourite issue of
the West - the violation of human rights. Concerns about the problem
were expressed by the US Embassy in Armenia and Human Rights Watch,
urging the Armenian authorities to punish people responsible for
attacking civil activists.

The reaction of the Europeans was very harsh, in general. But the
violence targeted Russia, a country that, according to the EU, put
pressure on Armenia, threatening to escalate the situation in the
Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone. The European Parliament considers
pressure on any member of the Eastern Partnership program (Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Ukraine, Moldova and Belarus) unacceptable. The
countries are close to signing bilateral agreements on EU association.

Such evaluations and threats to alter the status quo of
Nagorno-Karabakh if Armenia takes the European path were taken
by Yerevan as a sign of intolerance between the West and Russia, a
recurrence of the Cold War. Armenia is an object in the clutch of two
poles. Using the awkward and hasty attempts by Yerevan to go for the
West, the Kremlin expanded its unmeasured influence on the little ally.

Stepan Grigoryan, head of the Analytical Center for Globalization and
Regional Cooperation, believes that, by deciding to join the Customs
Union, the Armenian authorities handed over the security of their
country to Russia: "The authorities hint that there are security
problems. I agree with them. Security is in danger after this step.

The most essential problems of Armenia will be resolved in Moscow from
now on. Secondly, we lose the chance of becoming a law-governed state."

Maybe Armenia should not have started the process of moving towards
the West to avoid the situation of being forced into the Customs
Union. Armenia was "asked" to join the Customs Union after numerous
declarations by high-ranking functionaries of the Republican Party
of Armenia. They said that Yerevan had taken the European path of
development. People, including Shavarsh Kocharyan (Vice Chairman of
the Republican Party, Deputy Foreign Minister of Armenia), praising
the association agreement, suddenly changed their attitude and became
devoted supporters of the Customs Union on September 3.

Political analyst Yervand xxxoyan, explaining the choice between the
EU and the Eurasian Union, noted that it was more of a geopolitical
choice than a system of values: "Our society has no problems with
choosing a system of values, because we are part of the European
system. De facto, Armenia was forced to make the choice of the Customs
Union." The political analyst assumes that Armenia, a state that has
no common borders with the Customs Union, will have serious problems,
including some in Nagorno-Karabakh: "It would be in the national,
state interests of Armenia to bring its legal acts closer to the
standards of members of the Customs Union, doing the same process
for the EU at the same time. This way we can become a link between
the West and Russia. Armenia was not ready to join a big system."

Therefore, Yerevan forced itself into the Customs Union, depriving
itself of a chance for manoeuvre. Meanwhile, Armenia's history has
examples when some countries patiently waiting for the right moment
made well-executed, rather than hasty steps towards the West, without
creating threats to its national security or relations with Russia.

http://vestnikkavkaza.net/articles/politics/45332.html

[hagopn]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

Every country has those problems too, but would the concerns have the same degree of importance to you if you were in, say, France or Germany? In Armenia, you need to assume the worst, in France of Germany you would tend to assume the best. That shows there is a serious failing at all leadership levels in Armenia.

It depends on who you ask. In the US, for example, you have racism galore at every step, within the justice system, the corporate employment realm, etc. Impartiality is selectively applied.

In Armenia, the toxins are visible. The "western countries" have learned to hide their toxic hatred of others in wonderfully crafted cammouflage.

Ah, needed to add also that it is a well known fact that the US and other western states are increasingly devolving into police states where, particularly in the US, police brutality outstrips the civilian sector in the number of violent crimes. It is also a problem that most such cases never get prosecuted, or, if prosecuted, the law enforcement officer or agent usually faces little punitive action.

Armenians are just not good at being dictators, olligrarchs, criminals, and so on. They get caught. As the British "ethic" says, "it is only against the law if you get caught." Certainly the ethic of a "morally dependable" paradigm.

Now, if the Bentley Bishop was in, say, the US or UK (and there are a great many, I assure you), I would imagine he would keep his concubines and real-estate assets in much stricter confidence, perhaps sharing them with civilian leadership (of course, those "paragons of vritue") and so on. "You scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours" goes the saying.

[bell-the-cat]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

Actually I was trying to prove through his own words his ignorance of the Armenian history,
of course if he knows the history then his logic and judgement.

I thought you were smarter than him !!

.

But his (alleged) ignorance of Armenian history does not actually disprove his point, it only makes it difficult for him to argue for it!

He may not know about Hovhannes Katchaznouni's damning post-war essay of the wartime Dashnak leadership and the failure of the organisation's political aims - but that just means he cannot use it as an argument to support his point, not that the point itself is fundamentally wrong.

I'm not saying that the point is right, but that it has some foundationin truth. And I think it does need to be extended downwards into the lower eschelons of leadership and be more to do with today's Armenia.

Would you trust doing business with the business leaders of todays Armenia? Would you trust the leaders of the legal profession in todays Armenia to hand down correct and impartial judgements. Would you trust the lawyers and accountants of todays Armenia to represent you and not rip you off or set you up? Would you trust the politicians of today's Armenia to represent the people and the rule of law rather than their own personal interests? Would you trust the minor officials of Armenia to do what they are paid to do without the need for bribery to get them to do it? And would you trust that they had the actual training and competence to do the task at all? Every country has those problems too, but would the concerns have the same degree of importance to you if you were in, say, France or Germany? In Armenia, you need to assume the worst, in France of Germany you would tend to assume the best. That shows there is a serious failing at all leadership levels in Armenia.

[londontsi]

Re: Is Russia an ally or foe, nowadays?

If you are disagreeing with lampron's assertion, and have access to sources detailing historical hindsight, why don't you tell us, for example:

Actually I was trying to prove through his own words his ignorance of the Armenian history,
of course if he knows the history then his logic and judgement.

I thought you were smarter than him !!

.