Iranian-Armenian relations

[Mos]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

I oppose Western peacekeepers in Artsakh too. You know your country is fuked anytime the UN deploys peacekeepers. We can do that ourselves. At best, maybe Russian ones.

Most likely I would think it would be EU/OSCE sending peacekeepers. I am all for anything that may diffuse the tension at the border and be a deterrent to an Azeri attack.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

Most likely I would think it would be EU/OSCE sending peacekeepers. I am all for anything that may diffuse the tension at the border and be a deterrent to an Azeri attack.

Africa has shown what Western peace keepers can do, nothing. It's better not to have a single soldier guarding the border then having Western peace keepers there.

[Mos]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

Africa has shown what Western peace keepers can do, nothing. It's better not to have a single soldier guarding the border then having Western peace keepers there.

The only way they could be useful is that Azeris would have to think twice before attacking as there would be established 3rd party witnesses to their aggression. It would also remove snipers, and thus end all the sniper deaths. So as you see, mostly indirect benefits, as directly they are more or less useless.

[Federate]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

Most likely I would think it would be EU/OSCE sending peacekeepers. I am all for anything that may diffuse the tension at the border and be a deterrent to an Azeri attack.

We are our own deterrents. Nothing strikes fear into the enemy more than a confident local population bent on defending its borders and survival. Foreign peacekeepers will probably not serve as deterrents if they follow the Rwanda or Lebanon model, they will be there to make sure we enforce any agreement and then sit by idly if a war breaks out, even if they come under attack. Ban Ki Moon will probably go on TV and say we should stop fighting, words nobody will care about. A NATO/Western peacekeeping operation (the worst thing that can happen) would never be accepted by Russia anyway.

[Federate]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

The only way they could be useful is that Azeris would have to think twice before attacking as there would be established 3rd party witnesses to their aggression. It would also remove snipers, and thus end all the sniper deaths. So as you see, mostly indirect benefits, as directly they are more or less useless.

The one thing that will definitely continue to happen with peacekeepers around is sniper fire. It happens on the Israeli-Lebanon border all the time. Azerbaijan will never agree to withdraw snipers.

[Mos]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

The one thing that will definitely continue to happen with peacekeepers around is sniper fire. It happens on the Israeli-Lebanon border all the time. Azerbaijan will never agree to withdraw snipers.

Well if Azerbaijan doesn't withdraw snipers than there's no point to this.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

The only way they could be useful is that Azeris would have to think twice before attacking as there would be established 3rd party witnesses to their aggression. It would also remove snipers, and thus end all the sniper deaths. So as you see, mostly indirect benefits, as directly they are more or less useless.

Azeris can do as they please as long as they are really careful that no Westerner dies even with minimal casualties they can do as they please. If they start and win the war no one will care what they have done. They just need to win.

[Mos]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

Azeris can do as they please as long as they are really careful that no Westerner dies even with minimal casualties they can do as they please. If they start and win the war no one will care what they have done. They just need to win.

Which they won't and for every day of the war they will be under immense pressure, and their precious oil money will also be dwindle along with investments. Given the amount of money the Aliyev clan is sitting on and making, a war would be a big blow to them, and they know that very well. In my view, it's just big words to keep the trust of the people - practically the status quo is the best way right now.

[KarotheGreat]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

Which they won't and for every day of the war they will be under immense pressure, and their precious oil money will also be dwindle along with investments. Given the amount of money the Aliyev clan is sitting on and making, a war would be a big blow to them, and they know that very well. In my view, it's just big words to keep the trust of the people - practically the status quo is the best way right now.

Conquest of Artsakh will give the clan liberty to do as they please and the destruction of what opposition there is and it also opens a road to Yerevan. So if they think that they can win they will attack.
Why would the West do that? As we have seen countries that deliver oil to the West can do as they please without a mention of all their crimes. The biggest mistake we can make is a retreat of our troops from the front line and giving up defense positions that we have today;

[Mos]

Re: Iranian-Armenian relations

Conquest of Artsakh will give the clan liberty to do as they please and the destruction of what opposition there is and it also opens a road to Yerevan. So if they think that they can win they will attack.
Why would the West do that? As we have seen countries that deliver oil to the West can do as they please without a mention of all their crimes. The biggest mistake we can make is a retreat of our troops from the front line and giving up defense positions that we have today;

I never said we retreat our troops. I was just referring to accepted points in the negotiations (withdrawing from security belt after independence of Karabakh).

It's not about the West doing it, it's about foreign investors not wanting to invest in a country that is in a war via its own initiated attack. This includes oil investors and the pipeline projects.