Originally posted by Mos
View Post
Turkic union is an option. Of course, Russia won't let the Turkic union happen. The CIS has most of the Turkic states anyway (and it doesn't look like that's gonna change anytime soon). It's a plan that's doomed to fail today, but invest now, give it about half a century, and you will begin to see fruits if you're unlucky (a forest if you're lucky). Then there's neo-Ottomanism. Now, all this seems like it's wishful thinking on the part of Turkey, but we must consider them nevertheless, along with their more realistic goals, and plan ahead accordingly.
First, I don't think the idea of a Turkish invasion is outdated. Forced/encouraged assimilation is the best weapon Turkey and Azerbaijan have against Armenians: make sure Armenia doesn't develop economically, encourage its population to leave. Give them no hope. Assimilation elsewhere will happen one day or another. Steer the river to let them eliminate themselves. This is part of the war, too. (Of course, this hasn't proven too good for Turks so far, since we have developed the 3rd largest lobby in the USA as a result of this policy, counterbalancing the damage caused by the loss of assimilated/intermingled Armenians).
I also don't think wars are outdated. They are just more sugar-coated with "politics." Or you can put it this way: wars are no longer fought exclusively on the field like they used to: economy and information are also battlefields today, and that is the war Azerbaijan is fighting against us today, and we're not doing so good. Traditional wars are also happening all over the world, right under our noses, and no one knows xxxx, or are misled to concentrate on other "major news" things while it's going on. The Nagonoro-Karabakh war was extremely violent, massive, and it could have led to a much bigger war if super powers got involved (some even extend it to a cause of WWIII) -- and this threat is not gone until the conflict is settled (in fact, if the NK war resumes, it will be more catastrophic on the international scale than it was 20 years ago in my opinion). But ask an American if they've heard of Nagorno-Karabakh. 95% will probably answer, "no." The whole world knows Lady Gaga though.
Wars are not dead. Iraq was not the last war. There have, and will be others to follow it (we saw rising tensions between USA and Iran recently). WWIII could happen in the 21st century. Pretending it's impossible and acting accordingly is futile. If an event like WWIII happens (the worst case scenario), and Turkey (+Azerbaijan) managed to reach the direction that they want to by that time (whether it be Turkic union, neo-Ottomanism, EU, etc), what does Armenia do? Which side does Armenia take? If it takes no sides, stays unprotected, then believe me, an invasion by Turkey is very likely, and Karabakh will be their sugar-coating casus belli for their true intentions (if enmity between us has continued till then).
So what do we do? Russia is not exactly what I wish it was, but Russia has proven to be loyal to Armenia more than any other state so far. Although I'm tempted to welcome Iranian support, I don't like siding with USA's current "enemy." I have no solid opinion on EU -- France betrayed Armenia during/around the time of WWI (although, today it shows itself as supporting Armenians to a certain extent), Germany is closer to Turkey, UK has $deals$ with Azerbaijan, the rest of Europe is neutral at best. No, a state that recognized the Armenian Genocide will not "definitely" side with Armenia on other issues (i.e.: "WWIII"). USA is on Turkey's side for now. Yup. I'm going to have to agree: Long live the Russian Federation!
Then again, there's China

Leave a comment: