Regional geopolitics

[londontsi]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Yusuf Çınar , he is turk my dear . thats why he promotes and writes such xxxx articles .

And why is Vrej1915 serving it to us.

.

[UrMistake]

Re: Regional geopolitics

And why is Vrej1915 serving it to us.

.

Other than having him as analyst (God make him one) just like Richard Giragosian . having closer contact to such people is not bad idea, know your enemy they say !!
But i will refrain from promoting their analytical center and propaganda ...

[Haykakan]

Re: Regional geopolitics

ARMENIA CAUGHT IN WEB OF GEORGIAN POLITICS

Mirror Spectator
Editorial 9-5 Sep.t 2015

By Edmond Y. Azadian

There is no love lost between the Armenians and Georgians. These two
Christian nations in a heavily Muslim neighborhood, have lived together
for centuries. Armenians, true to their propensity for flourishing
in foreign lands, built Tbilisi, Georgia's capital, into a center
for arts and culture during most of the 19th century. As a reward,
they suffered Georgian jealousy which grew until the Soviet takeover
of the country in 1920, when under the guise of the proletarian ruling
over the capitalists, Georgians expropriated the homes and lands of
the Armenians and began to implement the darkest kind of nationalism
under the Soviet rule.

When the Soviet empire collapsed, many nationalities on the periphery
found themselves with conflicting territorial claims. A similar
situation erupted earlier in the 20th century, when the Czarist
empire collapsed. Armenians and Georgians had a brief war as a result
of which the historic Armenian province of Javakhk was left on the
Georgian side of the border.

Jealousy, conflicts, back-stabbing have characterized the relations
of these two nations more than cooperation and friendship.

Since its independence, Georgia has sided and cooperated with Turkey
and Azerbaijan in every possible instance, whether voting at the United
Nations or building rail and energy networks. Tbilisi has cooperated
with Turkey and Azerbaijan to isolate Armenia and to strangle its
economy. In a recent interview, the Georgian ambassador to Ankara,
Irakli Koplatadze, announced that the trilateral cooperation between
Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey is "on the rise. In line with the
pipeline, projects of global importance [Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan
oil pipeline, the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline, ongoing
Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railway construction and the Trans-Anatolian gas
pipeline] the recently launched energy-producing and transmitting
projects serve the best long-term interests of the whole region to
ensure security, stability and prosperity."

Of course, Armenia does not figure in any of the above projects and
it has been deliberately left out, thanks to the collusion of Tbilisi
with Armenia's enemies.

Parallel to a hostile foreign policy, a domestic repressive rule
is also applied to the sizable Armenian community in Georgia --
confiscation of churches, closure of schools, theaters, newspapers
and above all, persecution of the Armenian majority in Javakhk.

Unfortunately, Armenia does not have leverage over Georgia and
is forced to pursue a policy of pretend friendship, simply not to
aggravate relations.

Landlocked Armenia, blockaded by Turkey and Azerbaijan, has only two
access points to the rest of the world markets, Iran and Georgia.

Armenia has mostly been left to the tender mercies of merciless
Georgians.

During the war in August 2008 between Russia and Georgia, Armenia's
trade and communications suffered tremendously. It was implied by the
Iranian government that Armenia can serve as a trade bridge between
the Gulf states and the Black Sea. In order to achieve that status,
Yerevan has to preserve friendly relations with Tbilisi.

Much of the tension between the two nations has been the result of
the hostility between Moscow and Tbilisi, since Armenia is pro-Russia.

President Mikhail Saakashvili's knee-jerk anti-Russian policy left
Georgia in shambles, during which the country suffered territorial
loss and economic decline. The Georgian Dream Party, headed by Bidzina
Ivanishvili, performed some damage control and brought back a measure
of normalcy. Armenia exercised a policy of complementarity for a
while successfully. Now it is Georgia's turn to adopt a multi-vector
foreign policy.

The country remains torn between the two poles, best illustrated by the
different approaches by two representatives, one Tbilisi's ambassador
to Ankara Irakli Kopladze, the other the former speaker of the Georgian
Parliament, Nino Burjanadze, who was on a speaking tour in Moscow.

The former continues to advocate for NATO membership and European
integration; the latter is lamenting the cost of Saakashvili's
anti-Russian policy and provocation to start a war. At that time,
even Washington slapped the wrist of its ally for going too far.

Russia has drawn a line against having NATO forces on its borders. In
2011, Russian President Dmitri Medvedev made a statement that Russia's
military action was intended to counter Georgia's NATO ambitions.

To continue the same policy is tantamount to tempt the devil and it
will not yield any better results this time than Saakashvili was able
to achieve.

The former speaker of the Georgian parliament, Burjanadze, who no
longer enjoys any official capacity, was in a public relations stunt
to improve relations with Russia. She has met many in the media
and politicians in Moscow and is even rumored to have met President
Vladimir Putin. She openly blames Georgia's woes on Saakashvili and has
stated, "At one time, I believed that joining NATO would be beneficial
for my country and I have contributed to that policy. But since 2008,
I have changed my views radically."

Borjanadze is seeking to restore relations with Russia. Recent polls
also indicate that there is 31 percent support of that policy. Many
Georgians openly embrace the idea that their country should join
the EEU.

Incidentally, Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Garibashvili this week
fired his foreign minister and replaced her with the economy minister
in a surprise move.

Burjanadze has concluded one of her remarks by stating, "small nations
have to think about their own self-interest and should not have the
illusion that others may stake their interests for them."

Burjanadze's trip to Russia was covered by Ruben Hayrapetyan, Moscow
political analyst of Azg newspaper in Yerevan. Referring to rising
anti-Russian sentiment in Armenia, the analyst has used a shrewd title,
"Let us learn from the mistakes of others."

However, there is some relaxation on the border between Armenia
and Georgia, mostly because Tbilisi is trying to repair the broken
relations with Moscow. Armenia has been helpful in that rapprochement,
because that role also contributes to its self-interest.

Recently, it was announced that a school for 1,000 students in being
built in Tbilisi for Armenian students. Trade delegations and exchanges
on all levels have been rising between the two countries.

The government is even introducing measures for improving the economy
in Javakhk.

We cannot count too much on Georgian good will but Armenia can
certainly benefit from its improved relations with Tbilisi. Armenia is
closer to capitalizing on its role as a trade bridge by coordinating
the two components of its foreign policy. On the one side Iran is
emerging from sanctions while on the other hand, Georgia seems to be
more amenable to better relations with Russia and this Armenia.

Armenia has been a hostage to Georgian politics and now its improved
relations will bring Yerevan out of the Georgian political web.

[demetrios]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Nothing will happen then.... NAME ME Few Armenians of the Fat Diaspora WHO shall ever invest in these HIGHLANDS...with free ideas accompanied with closed minded money- most important never came as a TOURIST here; is it bad? I AM NOT FAT as well....so, leaves only one third option, touristic AGENT....

[demetrios]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Nothing will happen then.... NAME ME Few Armenians of the Fat Diaspora WHO shall ever invest in these HIGHLANDS...with free ideas accompanied with closed minded money- most important never came as a TOURIST here; is it bad? I AM NOT FAT as well....so, leaves only one third option, touristic AGENT....

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Syria conflict: How far is Russia prepared to bolster Assad?
BBC News

By Jonathan Marcus, Diplomatic correspondent
2 September 2015



Just how far is Russia prepared to go to back the Syrian regime of President Bashar al-Assad?

Recent sightings of brand new Russian armoured vehicles in Syria, of types never previously supplied to its ally, suggest that with the Assad regime suffering serious reverses, Moscow is intent on redressing the military balance.
On 20 August, a heavily-laden Alligator class landing ship of the Russian Navy, the Nikolay Filchenkov, was seen passing southwards through the Bosphorus.
On board, according to experts who have analysed the images, were trucks and armoured vehicles.

The ship was believed to be on its way to Syria.

Subsequently, the Syrian army has released video material that shows seemingly brand new BTR-82A infantry combat vehicles in action or on exercises - a variant of the vehicle that has never before been supplied to the Syrian military.

The vehicles appear to be in a Russian paint scheme and thus may have been taken straight from Russian army stocks.

Separate images have emerged of Russian Tigre military utility vehicles; again a type that has not been exported to Syria before.
Caution must always be used when analysing this kind of material.

But Joseph Dempsey, an expert at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, says that the images "if authentic, provide strong evidence of the BTR-82A and Tigr being in Syria".


Pictures released by Syrian's army appear to show new Russian military vehicles
The delivery of these weapons raises all sorts of questions.
Why should new types not previously operated by the Syrians be supplied by Russia rather than older vehicles - like the BMP-tracked combat vehicle with which the Syrian army is familiar?

Syria did receive a small number of the related BTR-80 armoured personnel carrier in late 2013/early 2014 but the BTR-82A has a more modern and very different turret and weapons station.

Is this the first delivery of many? And who actually is operating the system?

Russia is one of the Syrian president's few foreign allies. It has long been a major arms supplier to Syria and, in the current crisis, it has given the Syrian regime important diplomatic support.

Russia was instrumental in helping to negotiate the deal in 2013 under which the Assad regime gave up its chemical weapons.

Russia has long maintained a small naval base on the Syrian coast at Tartus. It represents a toehold for Russian influence in the region that peaked during the 1970s at the height of the Cold War.

However, the Syrian crisis has alarmed Moscow.

It is every bit as concerned by the rise of the murderous religious radicals of the so-called Islamic State (IS) movement as is the West.

Russia did not respond to the upheavals of the "Arab Spring" with the enthusiasm of many Western governments.

And in retrospect, given that hopes for a democratic surge through the region have collapsed, Russia's hard-headed pragmatism looks to be a little more realistic than much of the West's "aspirational" diplomacy.

The Syria crisis also provides Russia with an opportunity. Its ties to the Assad regime make it a key player.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has forcefully reiterated Russia's position that the departure of Mr Assad cannot be a condition for any peace deal.

Such demands, he says, are "totally unrealistic and counterproductive".

Russia insists that it is working to create what it calls a "broad anti-terrorist front" to counter IS.

President Assad: "For the last four years the Russians have proved they are honest, transparent and have principles"

But the crucial thing for Russia is that the Assad regime must survive, whatever Mr Assad's personal fate in the longer term.

Much of the attention over recent weeks has focused on Russia's diplomatic efforts regarding Syria; its talks with senior Saudi and Iranian officials, for example.
But, in the meantime, things have not been going well for Mr Assad on the ground, with his opponents pressing ever closer to the Alawite heartland - the coastal basin to the east of the Mediterranean, inland from Latakia and Tartus.

Amidst the uncertainty, a host of rumours are flying round of a much greater Russian role. Russia has denied that it recently delivered advanced warplanes to Syria.
Some Israeli analysts, for example, believe that Russia is preparing to use its own aircraft against IS and might even be willing to play a greater role on the ground if the Assad regime's fortunes do not change.

This for now may be little more than speculation.

The Russians themselves have denied that any aircraft have been deployed to Syria to prepare for strikes against IS.

One expert, Ruslan Pukhov, a spokesman for Russia's arms industry, believes that what the Syrian forces require right now is "ammunition, light weapons, communications and UAVs [drones]".
But the signal from the Nikolay Filchenkov may be that if needed, Russia is willing to provide a good deal more.

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

And why is Vrej1915 serving it to us.

.

The blatant turkish propaganda character seemed so ridiculous, that I did not see the need to comment it......
The only interest of the post, is the outlet, STRATFOR, .....

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Azerbaijan: Is It Time to Consider Sanctions?
September 3, 2015 - ,
by Giorgi Lomsadze

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/74936

Investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova was sentenced in Azerbaijan to 7.5 years in prison. US, British and European Union diplomats have publically called for Ismayilova’s release, and have urged Azerbaijani leaders to stop a crackdown on government critics. (Photo: Aziz Karimov)

Some regional experts want the United States and European Union to consider imposing economic and political penalties on Azerbaijan to put pressure on Baku to respect basic individual freedoms.

The sentencing of investigative journalist Khadija Ismayilova to a seven-and-a-half-year prison sentence on September 1 should be seen as a tipping point in relations between the United States and European Union and Azerbaijan, some rights advocates contend. Ismayilova was convicted on criminal charges of embezzlement, abuse of power and illegal business practices. Her supporters contend the case against her was fabricated to stop her investigations into the corrupt practices of top Azerbaijani officials and their family members.

US, British and European Union diplomats have publically called for Ismayilova’s release, and have urged Azerbaijani leaders to halt a crackdown on government critics. Azerbaijan has brushed off such criticism, describing it as an attempt to “politicize” its judiciary and “distort reality.”

Azerbaijan’s Foreign Ministry representatives did not respond to EurasiaNet.org’s request for comment, but in the days following the announcement of Ismayilova’s verdict, officials in Baku called on foreign governments to stop meddling in Azerbaijan’s affairs.

Baku’s response, rights activists say, confirms that quiet diplomacy cannot dissuade Azerbaijani leaders from pressing ahead with a crackdown that already has resulted in the jailing of dozens of individuals as political prisoners, including Ismayilova.

“Given the unprecedented crackdown in Azerbaijan, it should simply be no more business as usual for any of Azerbaijan’s international partners,” said Jane Buchanan, associate director for Europe and Central Asia at Human Rights Watch. “Expressions of concern have no effect. There must be concrete consequences for wrongfully imprisoning Khadija Ismayilova and others.”

She proposed that the EU should freeze negotiations on a strategic partnership agreement with the country, and suspend the voting rights of the Azerbaijani delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe, the continent's main human rights body.

“Baku has calculated, so far correctly, that its outrageous behavior comes at no diplomatic or other price,” noted Buchanan.

If the US and EU want Azerbaijan’s government to demonstrate greater tolerance for individual liberties, Western leaders should consider punitive measures, such as the introduction of travel and financial sanctions against Azerbaijani officials responsible for rights violations, said Richard D. Kauzlarich, who served as the US ambassador to Baku from 1994-1997, and who now heads the Center for Energy Science and Policy at George Mason University.

“Without any follow-up, the [Azerbaijani] regime interprets quiet diplomacy and official statements as implicit endorsement,” Kauzlarich said. “The case for sanctions is stronger in the light [of] government-manipulated judicial proceedings that have everything to do with punishing anyone who speaks out and nothing to do with [the] rule of law.”

So far, there are no indications that the US Congress is mulling the potential introduction of targeted sanctions against Azerbaijani officials. The State Department has, however, included Ismayilova on a list of 20 “unjustly” imprisoned women whose cases American diplomats are highlighting.

Two major factors over the last decade-plus have encouraged the West to mute its criticism of Azerbaijani rights practices: one was Azerbaijan’s status as a major exporter of Caspian Basin energy; the other was Baku’s strategic role in assisting the international coalition’s war efforts in Afghanistan, and in containing Iran’s nuclear ambitions. The importance of these factors has diminished significantly since 2014. For example, lower global prices for oil, along with the potential reemergence of Iran as a global supplier, has reduced Azerbaijan’s importance as an exporter in the EU’s eyes. Meanwhile, Ismayilova’s conviction indicates that Baku does not value US ties like it used to, said long-time Caucasus analyst Thomas de Waal.

“Evidently jailing the woman [Ismayilova] who used to be the most prominent journalist for a US-government-funded radio station [RFE/RL] after [US Secretary of State] John Kerry telephoned the president and specifically raised her case last December 21 draws a line under any ideas of ‘strategic partnership’ between Azerbaijan and the United States,” de Waal said.

While old constraints may have eroded, a new geopolitical factor, namely the deepening antagonism between the West and Russia, will likely discourage US and EU diplomats from adopting a significantly tougher stance toward Baku.

Azerbaijani officials seem keen to take advantage of the situation. Indeed, as Western officials criticized Ismayilova’s verdict, President Ilham Aliyev played host to Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and spoke of ways to deepen ties with Moscow.

Political observers in Baku, hesitant to speak openly out of fear of government retribution, noted that officials could cause a great deal of self-inflicted damage to the Azerbaijani economy by alienating the United States and EU. A deterioration of relations could hamper banking and trade ties at a time when cheaper oil has hit Azerbaijan’s revenues hard and significantly weakened its currency, the manat.

De Waal does not expect any drastic realignment of Azerbaijani alliances. Baku could downgrade ties with the West “issue by issue,” but that does not mean it would realign itself firmly with Moscow.

“I think it [Azerbaijan] is moving more in the direction of Uzbekistan-proud isolation, with certain privileged partners” such as Russia, Turkey and corporate energy partner BP, he wrote in an email.

*This story was updated on September 4, 2015 to clarify Human Rights Watch's comment to EurasiaNet.org about actions toward Azerbaijan.

Editor's note: Giorgi Lomsadze is a freelance journalist based in Tbilisi. He is a frequent contributor to EurasiaNet.org's Tamada Tales blog.

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Հայկական բանակի վճռական հարվածը

ՀԱՅԿԱԶՆ ՂԱՀՐԻՅԱՆ, Գլխավոր խմբագիր
Մեկնաբանություն - 04 Սեպտեմբերի 2015,


Ռուսաստանի ԱԳ նախարար Լավրովի Բաքու կատարած այցը նշանավորվեց հայ-ադրբեջանական սահմանին Ադրբեջանի ռազմական գործողություններով: Լավրովը Բաքու էր գնացել Ադրբեջանին զենք վաճառելու առաջարկությամբ: ԱՄՆ-ն նոր պատժամիջոցներ է մտցրել ռուսական ռազմարդյունաբերական համալիրի դեմ, ինչի հետեւանքով ռուսական զենքի վաճառքը կարող է խիստ սահմանափակվել: Սպառազինության վաճառքը նավթից ու գազից հետո Ռուսաստանի եկամուտների հիմնական աղբյուրն է, եւ այդ պատժամիջոցները կարող են նոր հարված հասցնել ՌԴ տնտեսությանը:

Ադրբեջանը ռուսական զենքի հիմնական սպառողներից է, եւ Լավրովը դրա համար էր շտապել Բաքու, պատժամիջոցների մասին լուրն առնելուն պես: Միջազգային պրակտիկայում հայտնի է, որ երբ նման հարցով զբաղվում է արտաքին գործերի նախարարը, նշանակում է պետք է լինի շատ կոնկրետ պայմանավորվածություն: Առավել եւս, որ Ադրբեջանին զենքի մատակարարումները ոչ թե սովորական կոմերցիա է, ինչպես հայ ժողովրդին փորձում են հրամցնել ռուս պաշտոնյաներն ու փորձագետները եւ հայաստանյան պրո-ռուսական խաժամուժը, այլ քաղաքական, կարելի է ասել անգամ՝ աշխարհքաղաքական խնդիր: Այդ պատճառով էլ, կոնկրետ, «համալիր» պայմանավորվածության համար Բաքու է մեկնել Լավրովը:

Ըստ ամենայնի, պայմանավորվածությունը տեղի է ունեցել, կամ տեղի է ունեցել խիստ կոնկրետ պայմանների շուրջ քննարկում: Ադրբեջանն անմիջապես ձեռնամուխ է եղել դրանց «փորձարկմանը», ընդ որում, ինչը հատկանշական է՝ ոչ թե Արցախի, այլ հենց Հայաստանի սահմանին, գնդակոծելով բնակավայրերն ու քաղաքացիական բնակչությանը: Սա ագրեսիա է, միջազգային նորմերի խախտում: Սակայն խնդիրն այստեղ միայն միջազգային նորմերը չեն:

Հայաստանը ՀԱՊԿ անդամ է, ինչպես նաեւ Ռուսաստանը: Ռուսաստանը նաեւ համարվում է Հայաստանի անվտանգության երաշխավորը: Բաքուն Հայաստանի սահմանին կրակելով, նպատակ ունի պարզել՝ արդյոք ՀԱՊԿ-ը եւ Ռուսաստանը կատարելու են իրենց պայմանագրային պարտավորությունները: Ալիեւն իհարկե գիտե, որ չեն կատարելու, եւ այդ մասին թե Մոսկվան, թե ՀԱՊԿ-ը բազմիցս հայտարարել են: Բացի այդ, Բաքվում հիանալի գիտեն, որ Ռուսաստանն ընդունակ չէ ընդհանրապես ունենալ դաշնակիցներ եւ կատարել որեւէ պարտավորություն:
Խնդիրն այս դեպքում այդ փաստն արդեն բոլորին ամբողջական, երկարատեւ ու համոզիչ ցուցադրելն է:

Ներկայում պայքար է ընթանում Ադրբեջանի համար, իսկ սովորաբար պայքարում են այն երկրի համար, որը վարում է անկախ քաղաքականություն: Ռուսները փորձում են «պահել» Ադրբեջանը, եւ այլ միջոց չեն գտել, քան հայկական շահերով ու զենքով Ադրբեջանի հետ առեւտուրը: Զուր չէ, որ Լավրովի այցի ժամանակ միջազգային մամուլում տեղեկատվություն հայտնվեց Արցախի տարածքի մի մասը Ադրբեջանին հանձնելու հնարավորության վերաբերյալ:

Բնականաբար, այս իրավիճակում թելադրողը լինելու է Բաքուն, որտեղ հասկացել են, որ դրա հարմար ձեւերից մեկն էլ Հայաստանը գնդակոծելն է: Այդպիսով, մի կողմից ցույց տալով Ռուսաստանի ներկայիս վիճակը, որն ընդունակ չէ կատարել իր պարտավորությունները, մյուս կողմից՝ ծանրացնելով սեփական նժարը Մոսկվայի հետ երկխոսությունում:
Պետք չէ կասկածել, որ Ադրբեջանը Հայաստանի սահմանին իր գործողությունները համաձայնեցրել է Մոսկվայի հետ: Մոսկվան շատ է ուզում ցույց տալ, որ ինքն է դրության տերը, եւ հանուն դրա պատրաստ է ամեն ինչի: Իսկ իրականում նրա ուժը ներկայում միայն Հայաստանի վրա է պատում: Բաքուն էլ հմտորեն օգտագործում է այս հանգամանքը՝ այդպիսով նվաստացնելով երբեմնի ազդեցիկ տերությանը:

Իրավիճակը կարող է հանգուցալուծել հայկական բանակը՝ վճռական հարվածներ հասցնելով, այդ թվում՝ հակառակորդի տարածքում, Հայաստանի սահմանների երկայնքով ստեղծելով «անվտանգության գոտի»: Դա համահունչ է միջազգային նորմերին, որի լուսանցքում են հայտնվել Ադրբեջանն ու Ռուսաստանը:

- See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/arm/0/com....5rZi3f8Z.dpuf

[Armynia]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Lragir1915????????