Regional geopolitics

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

And for your pain: stop seeing others with your own lense.

This part must be a joke, since you even do not realise that you are just doing it

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

I cannot // militarily.

My Dear,
none of what you say contradict what I did say.
You just need to put aside the pre-conceived idea, that I am defending the west, or any specific foreign side, loudely propagated by some untalented minds, made during soviet era, and stamped in the caves of the Lyubliyanka ( that to say, if I do not answer repeated provocations, out of disrespect, not out of argument)

1- Since when did I post defending the West? Please have your fun, find my words. I do disclose Russian behavior, since in my opinion Russia behaves like an enemy today, while supposed to be our strategic partner. But having an "anti-russian policy" posture is not yet being "pro-west" nor anti-russian, unless you are yourself a russian tchekist. If you do not see the difference, you do have a problem, not me.

2- When it was the Goble plan, or Key-West, I was as ardantly anti US. When it was the Iranian plan of sheperds, I was as ardantly anti Iranian..., yet again, you would easily find "anti" posts signed by me, but I have rarely the occasion to defend someone... unfortunately. And guess what, in those days I was accused from same anti islamist, anti west, pro-russian labels... I am used to live among slave minded people, educated by the Tchekist regime.... no one can beleive, you can be against any superpower, out of your own interests, since you are so insignifant, that you just can't have any.... you must necesserily serve the other side, never yourself! For me, that is a direct consequence of slave mentality...
I would have preferred by far, having a russian ally similar to the US ally Israelis have. I may assure you, I would have posted "pros"... or versus, a US ally of same quality... unfortunately, we have none. And if you read my posts on our MFA, you would realise I do not only blame others for it, I do expose our own, major faults for this disastrous situation.

3- When did I defend France to beggin with? And then, is France supposed to be our stretegic ally? Should I remind you, that if someone may have pretenzias, like mine against Russia, regarding France, the US.. it is Turkey. Since they are strategic allies .... you can blame you allies, not the allies of your enemy.

4- Your "tone" is better, but yet, you stop short of admitting a basic reality. Your opinion is necesserily based, or must be based on hard facts. If not, it is irrelevant, a dream, or a novel, ....so the facts you declared: "parity Israel/arabs" never existed. Quite the contrary.

5- Concerning the other examples you now cite, yes, there might be debated, and might well be relevant, specially Turkey/Greece, and if you had used that example, I would not have said what I said. But yet again, you bring back Israel/arabs... I repeat myself, no. This one is irrelevant.
I remind you how it began:
- you began posting an internal UK political debate extract, I did not even understand what the link to the subject was.
- I gently asked you the relation to the subject, in case I did miss something, since having watched twice the show, I still did not get, even allusive link.
- Your explanation seemed irrelevant to me, and I just told you that. I think, with a second taught, you would yourself accept the irrelevance of the US/UK in WWII with Armenia/Russia today, whether you admit it or not publicly.
- You replied, by US/Israel. I myself told first, this second example, while apparently much similar, was not proving your point at all, quite the contrary. You still insisted, with your theory of balance by a sole arms marchant... Well, that is no more an opinion, it is a theory. A theory must be based on facts, or pretended elements. ....
- I just told you, those facts do not exist.
- I still reiterate, those facts do not exist, quite the contrary, the Israeli/US relashionship, and the US sales to the middle eastern countries, INCLUDING NATO MEMBER, non arab Turkey, ally of Israel, ARE THE EXACT COUNTER EXAMPLE of the Russian style in transKavkaz.

6- When did I ask you to predict the future?

7- By definition, if you consider yourself as an Independent entity/nation, your interests may change, but yet, your interests come first in any situation. In the same time, since same true of any other entity, pole/superpower. Refusing to accept the idea, that the interests of superpowers do change concerning yourself, is by itself a refusal of the idea of independence, and identification with any superpower, or other entity.
Thus, if the interests of the US do coincide with ours today, that is a chance for us, but certainly not a fixed reality. Tomorrow they may contradict just as well.
I am tired be reminding, that the same US trying to derail the Ankara/Maskwa/Baku axis today (childish resume), was the one pushing for the Goble plan in 1992..., or concocting the Key West in 2001.
Realising where your interests are, is the object of this thread.
If you have arguments proving contrary of what I say, please, feel free...

8- I do not get at all your words about christianity.... did I say something like that? Wasn't I the one repeating all day long, that no one will fight for us??

Conclusion: If you have a second taught, you will realise, nothing I say is contradicting your views, or v.versa, posted above. (put aside your arms supply theory, and balance/disbalance I still disagree, since the base you use to formulate it, are false)

[Haykakan]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Wow not only has this davachan been exposed but it seems we have managed to get under his skin as well. Anyways I think we need to get back on topic in this thread.

TURKISH-UYGHUR TERROR INC. - AMERICA'S OTHER AL QAEDA

[ Part 2.2: "Attached Text" ]

23.09.2015 Author: Tony Cartalucci

Column: Politics
Region: Middle East
Country: Turkey

207545894 It is no longer tenable for the United States and its
regional allies in and near the Middle East to claim they are backing
"moderate rebels" in the proxy war raging in Syria, Iraq, and parts of
Lebanon. There is the Syrian government on one side, and terrorists
including Al Qaeda and its various franchises such as the Al Nusra
Front and the so-called "Islamic State" (ISIS/ISIL) on the other.

If one is not supporting the Syrian government, it is very clear
they are supporting Al Qaeda. So obvious is this fact, that the
Western press and the corporate-financier think tanks that produce
for them their talking points, have begun a campaign to re-brand Al
Qaeda as a lesser evil vis-a-vis ISIS. In reality, there is virtually
no difference, with the US and its regional allies clearly arming,
funding, and supporting both.

The most recent and obscene manifestation of this re-branding was US
Army General and former CIA Director David Petraeus' open calls to
use Al Qaeda to "fight" ISIS. In the Daily Beast's article, "Petraeus:
Use Al Qaeda Fighters to Beat ISIS," it was reported that:

Members of al Qaeda's branch in Syria have a surprising advocate in
the corridors of American power: retired Army general and former CIA
Director David Petraeus.

The former commander of U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan has been
quietly urging U.S. officials to consider using so-called moderate
members of al Qaeda's Nusra Front to fight ISIS in Syria, four sources
familiar with the conversations, including one person who spoke to
Petraeus directly, told The Daily Beast.

Within this rhetorical shift we find an admission that there is indeed
no "moderate rebel" force to speak of. All that exists, admittedly, are
extremists operating under the various banners of Al Qaeda and ISIS.

Revelations of America's support behind Al Qaeda may not have ever
been so overt, but are certainly nothing new. It is admitted that the
US and its Saudi allies first created Al Qaeda as a proxy mercenary
force to fight the Soviet Union in a proxy war in Afghanistan in
the 1980s. In 2007, long before the current war in Syria broke out,
it was warned by Pulitzer Prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh in
the pages of the New Yorker that under the then Bush administration,
support already began to flow to the Muslim Brotherhood in Syria
and other extremists groups including Al Qaeda for the purpose of
violently undermining the Syrian government in Damascus.

Hersh's article, "The Redirection: Is the Administration's new policy
benefiting our enemies in the war on terrorism?" it is explicitly
stated:

To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush
Administration has decided, in effect, to reconfigure its priorities in
the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has coöperated with
Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations
that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is
backed by Iran. The U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations
aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of these activities has
been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant
vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.

Past and present, it is clear that Al Qaeda was and still is a central
instrument of the United States in achieving geopolitical objectives
- particularly where Western forces cannot immediately or in any
practical sense intervene directly.

But Al Qaeda and its various affiliates are only one faction among
many terrorist groups minding the vast interests of American global
hegemony. A recent bombing in the heart of Bangkok, capital of
Southeast Asia's nation of Thailand, and ongoing violence in China's
Xinjiang region expose another vast network of US-sponsored terrorism
operating in tandem with Al Qaeda and in fact stretching from Asia
all the way to frontiers of America's proxy war with Syria.

Turkish-Uyghur Terror - the Other Al Qaeda

Because it relatively poorly understood and under-reported in
comparison to other more notorious terrorist groups, the Turkish-Uyghur
terror network is perhaps more dangerous and of greater utility to
the United States and its allies presently versus their increasingly
exposed Al Qaeda legions.

The genesis of modern Turkish-sponsored terrorism, like Al Qaeda, also
originates from the Cold War. Part of the wider stay-behind networks
known as "Gladios" created by NATO to allegedly fight Soviet forces
in the event of a Soviet invasion and occupation of Western Europe,
these terrorist groups were instead turned against the population of
NATO member states and engaged in violence, terrorism, mass murder,
and assassinations. A group of ultra-nationalists known as the "Grey
Wolves" would be cultivated for this task within Turkey.

In a 1998 LA Times article titled, "Turkish Dirty War Revealed,
but Papal Shooting Still Obscured," it would be reported that
(emphasis added):

In the late 1970s, armed bands of Gray Wolves launched a wave
of bomb attacks and shootings that killed hundreds of people,
including public officials, journalists, students, lawyers, labor
organizers, left-wing activists and ethnic Kurds. During this period,
the Gray Wolves operated with encouragement and protection of the
Counter-Guerrilla Organization, a section of the Turkish Army's
Special Warfare Department. Working out of the U.S. Military Aid
Mission building in Ankara, the Special Warfare Department received
funds and training from U.S.

advisors to establish "stay behind" squads of civilian irregulars
who were set up to engage in acts of sabotage and resistance in the
event of a Soviet invasion. Similar Cold War counter-guerrilla units
were created in every member state of the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization. But instead of preparing for foreign enemies, these
operatives often set their sights on domestic targets.

Another LA Times piece titled, "Turkey's Gray Wolves Nip at Heels of
Power," would reveal the extent of the Grey Wolves reign of terror
(emphasis added):

At the height of the Cold War, the army used the Gray Wolves as a
violent counterweight to Turkish Communists.

The party's coffers swelled with secret contributions from the
government.

By the late 1970s, the Gray Wolves had spun out of state control. Their
paramilitary wing fought a campaign against leftist rivals that
killed nearly 6,000 people. Ali Agca, who shot Pope John Paul II in
a 1981 assassination attempt, is alleged to have been affiliated with
the party.

The article would also reveal that despite this horrific past, the Grey
Wolves and their political allies were still a very potent political
force in Turkey. Today, the Grey Wolves function as a paramilitary
wing of the Nationalist Movement Party (MHP), which holds the third
largest number of seats in Turkey's parliament.

As troubling as this should be to Turks who may find themselves on
the receiving end of a politically powerful terrorist organization
apparently tolerated, even sponsored by NATO for decades and in
particular, supported by the United States, the Grey Wolves' terrorism
has branched out far beyond Turkey's borders.

NATO Gladio Goes Global

7233433 According to a 2009 New American Media report titled, "Behind
the China Riots -- Oil, Terrorism & 'Grey Wolves'," Turkey's Grey
Wolves have established militant training camps as far as China's
western Xinjiang region, helping produce violent terrorists who have
carried out a series of deadly attacks across China. The report would
state (emphasis added):

Enter the Grey Wolves, one of the world's most notorious terrorist
organizations. Founded in the 1960s, the Wolves are a pan-Turkic
paramilitary group with 1 million followers across the Near East,
Central Asia and inside Xinjiang. During the decade of political
violence in Turkey in the 1980s, the military-backed activists
launched a wave of assassinations, massacres of ethnic minorities,
and extortions of businesses. By official count, the Turkish government
holds the Wolves responsible for more than 600 murders, while leftists
estimate the victims numbered in the many thousands.

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Grey Wolves set up
training camps in Central Asia for youths from Turkic language groups,
including Uighur. Their indoctrination program embraces the goal of
establishing Turan, a Turkish empire across Euro-Asia, subjugating
non-Turkish races and unleashing violence to achieve their ends. Out
of the limelight, the Wolves provided commando training and material
support for the East Turkestan Independence Movement.

In essence, NATO's stay-behind networks had become NATO's "go-abroad"
networks, projecting the same sort of violence, terrorism, and
political coercion abroad after the Cold War that these networks
carried out domestically during the Cold War.

The alleged "struggle" by the Uyghur people in Xinjiang, referred
to by the terrorists and their foreign sponsors as "East Turkistan,"
consists of two essential components - a foreign harbored political
front including the Washington D.C. and Munich-based World Uyghur
Congress (WUC) and a militant front clearly backed by the US and NATO
through intermediary groups like Turkey's Grey Wolves.

Like the Grey Wolves, the World Uyghur Congress is a creation and
perpetuation of Western special interests. WUC is directly funded
by the US State Department via the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED) over a quarter of a million dollars (on record) a year. The NED
admittedly organizes and underwrites all of WUC's events, and their
annual meetings usually feature almost exclusively US representatives
reaffirming their commitment to support WUC's objectives which,
as stated on their official website, include:

The WUC declares a nonviolent and peaceful opposition movement against
Chinese occupation of East Turkestan and an unconditional adherence
to the international accepted human rights standard as laid down
in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and adherence to the
principals of democratic pluralism and rejection of totalitarianism,
religious intolerance, and terrorism as an instrument of policy.

And while WUC claims to stand for a "peaceful opposition" to resist
what it calls "Chinese occupation," it regularly justifies, defends,
or covers up violence. Perhaps the most appalling example of this was
when it failed to condemn the 2014 brutal murder of prominent Uyghur
imam, 74 year old Jume Tahir, in front of China's biggest and oldest
mosque. WUC would denounce him as a "tool" of the Chinese government
and even go as far as denounce China for sentencing his killers -
Uyghur terrorists - to death for the horrific murder.

Clearly WUC not only finds it impossible to denounce terrorism,
it willfully serves as rhetorical cover for it.

Looking at a map of China it is clear that this campaign of separatism
directly serves the long-standing plans of the United States to
encircle and contain China's rise - a campaign that has been openly
and repeated outlined in US policy papers for decades - the most
recent of which was published by the Council on Foreign Relations
(CFR) and was titled, "Revising U.S. Grand Strategy Toward China." It
states in no uncertain terms:

Because the American effort to 'integrate' China into the liberal
international order has now generated new threats to U.S. primacy
in Asia--and could result in a consequential challenge to American
power globally--Washington needs a new grand strategy toward China
that centers on balancing the rise of Chinese power rather than
continuing to assist its ascendancy.

[Haykakan]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Encouraging separatism in China's western Xinjiang region, if
successful, would carve off a substantial amount of territory. In
conjunction with US-backed separatism in China's Tibet region, an
immense buffer region stands to be created that would virtually isolate
China from Central Asia. And while the Grey Wolves and their Uyghur
proxies are working hard to create this barrier to China's west, with
their involvement in a recent bombing in Bangkok, it appears the US
is now using them to augment efforts to create a similar encirclement
across Southeast Asia.

NATO Terror Expands into Southeast Asia

The Turkish-Uyghur terror network, in addition to fomenting violence
across China, has more recently been trafficking terrorists from
Xinjiang, through Southeast Asia, and onward to Turkey where they
are staged, armed, trained, and then sent to fight NATO's proxy war
in Syria. This trafficking network apparently snaked its way through
Thailand - exposed when Thailand detained over 100 Uyghurs which it
then deported upon Beijing's request back to China in July.

On the same day the deportations occurred WUC and NATO's Grey Wolves
organized violent protests in Turkey both in Ankara and at the Thai
consulate in Istanbul during which the consulate was invaded and
destroyed.

A month later, a devastating bomb would detonate in the heart of
Bangkok, killing 20 mostly Chinese tourists and injuring over 100
more. In addition to the BBC already being on site before the blast,
the British network would conclude even before bodies were cleared
from the site that Uyghurs were likely behind the blast. This was
done specifically to deflect blame from another US proxy, Thaksin
Shinawatra, who has been attempting for years to regain power in
Thailand.

In reality, Shinawatra and the Uyghur terrorists are both functions
of the same Westesrn agenda to encircle and contain China by building
up a "wall" of proxy states around Beijing, and if nothing else,
to create chaos in which Beijing finds it nearly impossible to prosper.

What is perhaps most concerning regarding these two Western proxies is
the fact that many past bombings associated with Shinawatra's terrorist
networks - networks which are extensive - match the methods used by
Turkish-Uyghur terrorists making it likely that NATO's extraterritorial
networks New American Media reported on in 2009 being set up in China,
are likely now dotting Uyghur trafficking routes throughout Southeast
Asia as well.

The blast in Bangkok likely took place for a number of reasons. Not
only did Thailand ignore US demands to release the detained Uyghurs
to Turkey, as well as oust a long-cultivated US proxy - Thaksin
Shinawatra - but it has been cultivating unmistakably closer ties
to Beijing including the signing of major joint-infrastructure
development projects, closer military cooperation, and even the
potential procurement of 3 Chinese-made submarines - all of which US
policymakers have been decrying with increasing indignation.

Turkish-Uyghur Terror Beyond Asia

And while the US is using Turkish-Uyghur terror to extort concessions
from Southeast Asia and to destabilize China, it is likely that
this "other Al Qaeda" will turn up still in other regions - most
predictably, Russian Crimea.

Crimea rejoined Russia after a NATO-backed, violent Neo-Nazi
coup overthrew the government of Ukraine, creating a cascade of
anti-Russian violence across the country. Eager to avoid the fate of
many cities across Ukraine, the people of Crimea overwhelmingly voted
in a referendum to rejoin Russia. Since then, Crimea has enjoyed peace
and prosperity just across the border from a Ukraine now mired in
civil war and economic catastrophe, all compounded by an illegitimate
regime beholden to the US and NATO who thrust it into power.

The fact that the border between Russian Crimea and Ukraine also
represents the border between peace and pandemonium highlights the
criminal chaos fostered by US-NATO meddling in Ukraine. A peaceful,
stable Crimea serves as a constant reminder to all in Eastern Europe
that where ever NATO goes, chaos follows.

If the US and its NATO allies could destabilize Crimea, thus creating
chaos within newly repatriated Russian territory, the West could make
a compelling case that dealing with Russia is at least as undesirable
as dealing with NATO.

US-NATO backed Turkish terrorism would be the key to accomplishing
this. Crimea's proximity to Turkey and a sizable Turkish Tatar minority
serves as a potential medium for the West to carry this out.

Already the Western media has invested heavily in a narrative centered
around "disenfranchised Tatars" and has begun working with opposition
groups to stir up confrontations. Like in Xinjiang, those willing to
participate in such an opposition constitute a fractional minority -
but through the power of Western media, are inflated in the minds of
impressionable audiences.

The US State Department's Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty media outlet
in an article deceptively titled, "Putin Warns Crimean Tatars Not To
Seek Special Status," indicated that Russia was well aware of the ruse:

Putin suggested that foreign countries were funding rights activists in
an effort to "destabilize the situation" by playing up problems faced
by Crimean Tatars, the third-largest ethnic group after Russians and
Ukrainians on the peninsula, and said that Moscow would not allow this.

"You and I know full well who we are talking about.

There are a number people who consider themselves professional
fighters for rights," he said, adding that "they want to receive
foreign grants and acknowledgement and realize their ambitions,
including political ambitions."

Already in Kiev, these Tatar opposition fronts have begun organizing
and attempting to fan the flames of conflict in Crimea. This includes
ATR - a Tatar media channel with opaque funding, now based in Kiev and
now what US NED funded "Human Rights in Ukraine" (KhPG) calls fighting
"to counter the psychological and propaganda influence from Russia."

Understanding the scope of Turkish-Uyghur terrorism, their rhetorical
supporters, and the function both serve toward maintaining US global
hegemony helps disarm the West of its various volatile narratives and
criminal conspiracies aimed at creating and leveraging terrorism. If
when each bomb goes off, or when any consulate is attacked, the
public points the finger not at America's proxies, but directly at
the special interests upon Wall Street and lining Washington instead,
all benefits of carrying out a proxy campaign of global terrorism to
begin with will evaporate before the West.

As is already happening in Syria where Western plans have been
frustrated by growing global awareness of the West's true involvement
in the conflict and its role behind groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS,
by exposing their "other Al Qaeda," their plans elsewhere around the
globe will likewise be confounded.

And while the US has attempted for years to galvanize the world behind
its global agenda through the use of terrorism, it is ironic that now
China, Russia, and even nations like Thailand all now find themselves
on common ground, having reason to cooperate closer together in facing
a common threat - America's global terror enterprise.

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer,
especially for the online magazine"New Eastern Outlook".

Firstappeared:http://journal-neo.org/2015/09/23/tu...or-inc-america
s-other-al-qaeda/

[Haykakan]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 2015 04:59:02 +0000 (UTC)

TURKISH-RUSSIAN RELATIONS IN DECLINE

Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Sept 23 2015

Fatih Ozbay

Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is expected to attend the
opening ceremony of the newly reconstructed Moscow Central Mosque
this week. However, we can say that such a visit was quite unexpected
when recent developments in the relations between the two countries
are concerned. Both countries are having a difficult time, both
economically and politically. The first critical problem between the
two countries emerged in April 2015. "Genocide" statements made in
Russia during the 100th anniversary of the so-called Armenian genocide
disturbed Ankara. Following that, Turkey's official remarks calling
Russia to mind its own history prolonged the tension.

Russia is concerned about the abeyance in the construction of the
"Turkish Stream" natural gas pipeline which will transport Russian
natural gas to European markets through Turkey, running beneath the
Black Sea and bypassing Ukraine. The two countries have not signed
any official document on the Turkish Stream yet. Ankara expects Russia
to grant a discount for natural gas prices before signing any document.

Besides, the Turkish Stream project got stuck in the uncertain
political environment after the June 7 elections in Turkey.

Moscow is also disturbed by Turkey's interest in Crimean Tatars.

Turkey does not officially recognize the annexation of Crimea by
Russia. Actually, Turkey displayed a softer stance than expected in
Moscow. Nevertheless, meetings and statements made in Turkey about
Crimean Tatars are bothering Moscow. For instance, the Russian Foreign
Affairs Ministry announced the report about the current conditions
of Crimean Tatars prepared by the Turkish delegation after a visit
to Crimea on April 27-30 was "disappointing."

Turkey's Syria and Iraq policies are also criticized by Moscow from
time to time. Lately Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev gave a
statement to Egypt's El-Ahram newspaper, saying, "Military operations
by Turkish warplanes on [outlawed Kurdistan Workers' Party] PKK
positions in Iraq are suspicious in terms of legitimacy."This statement
was another indicator of this attitude. President Erdogan said,
"Russia's statements were quite shocking for me. I have difficulty
understanding that," as a guest on Becky Anderson's program "Connect
the World" at CNN International. Those sentences were implying that
Ankara feels uncomfortable with Moscow's attitude.

Turkey faces two terrorist threats in the south: The PKK and the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). Turkey officially
recognizes the PKK and ISIL as terrorist organizations but this is not
the case for Russia. Russia officially recognizes ISIL as a terrorist
organization, but the PKK has never been included in Russia's official
list of terrorist organizations. Russia is charging Turkey with
going to extremes in its fight against the PKK but at the same time,
it accuses Turkey of incompetency in its fight against ISIL. On the
other hand, Turkey could not get the desired reaction from Russia
about the PKK issue.

The most important problem is observed in the Syrian crisis. From the
outset, the two countries adopted different approaches in the Syria
issue, and they have not taken any step backward. Russia has supported
the Syrian regime on every occasion while Turkey has stood against it.

Russia is seeking for a solution with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad
but Turkey wants an al-Assad-free way. U.S.-led coalition forces'
plans to launch a joint military operation on ISIL positions and to
create a buffer zone have been a source of concern for Moscow. Russia
believes the Libyan experience will be repeated in Syria and there is
an effort to topple the al-Assad regime under the guise of fighting
with ISIL. Turkey's opening the Ä°ncirlik Airbase to U.S. warplanes
has further escalated Moscow's concerns. As a counterattack, Moscow
has boosted its longstanding military relations with Syria.

To sum up, Turkish-Russian relations are passing through a tough time.

Strengthening mutual ties that have been established in the last
two decades and maintaining high-level dialogue will sustain the
relations. The two countries have practically strategic relations
in certain areas, but there are also some disagreeable points that
are not clearly uttered. Both Turkey and Russia should review some
policies in order to keep up the relations that have been put on the
right track in the last two decades. However, this is not an easy task.

The two countries seem like they are growing away from each other.

That's why President Erdogan's visit to Moscow on Sept. 23 will define
the atmosphere in bilateral relations.

*Assoc. Prof. Fatih Ozbay is a senior fellow at the Caspian Strategy
Institute and professor at Istanbul Technical University Faculty of
Arts and Sciences Department of Humanities and Social Sciences

September/23/2015

http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/turkish-russian-relations-in-decline-.aspx?pageID=238&nID=88869&NewsCatID=396

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Ադրբեջանը Նյու Յորքում կտապալի ղարաբաղյան բանակցությունները
24 Սեպտեմբերի 2015,

https://www.yerkir.am/news/view/93314.html

Հայաստանի և Ադրբեջանի արտգործնախարարներն այսօր մեկնում են ԱՄՆ` մասնակցելու ՄԱԿ-ի Գլխավոր ասամբլեայի 70-րդ նստաշրջանին: Նախատեսված է, որ Նյու Յորքում տեղի կունենա նրանց հանդիպումը ԼՂ հիմնահարցի կարգավորման բանակցությունների շրջանակում, որի հիմնական նպատակը, ըստ էության, այս տարվա ընթացքում նախագահների հանդիպում կազմակերպելու հնարավորությունները ճշտելն է:

Ի սկզբանե նախատեսված էր, որ Նյու Յորքում բանակցությունները տեղի կունենան ոչ թե արտգործնախարարների, այլ հենց նախագահների մակարդակով: Սակայն առ այս պահը ո'չ Երևանը և ո'չ էլ Բաքուն որևէ պարզաբանում դեռ չեն տվել, թե արդյո՞ք նախատեսված է Սերժ Սարգսյանի և Իլհամ Ալիևի մեկնումը Նյու Յորք: Սա կարող է նշանակել, որ հարցը երկու կողմերի համար էլ մնում է անորոշ և, ըստ էության, կարող է կախված լինել արտգործնախարարների հանդիպման արդյունքներից:

Այնուամենայնիվ, ուշագրավ է մեկ հանգամանք. Էդվարդ Նալբանդյանի այցի մասին ՀՀ ԱԳՆ պաշտոնական պարզաբանման մեջ որևէ ակնարկ չկա, որ նա ելույթ է ունենալու ՄԱԿ ԳԱ նստաշրջանում, ինչը կարող է նշանակել, որ նախագահ Սերժ Սարգսյանը, ամենայն հավանականությամբ, մեկնելու է Նյու Յորք, և հենց նա է ելույթ ունենալու ՄԱԿ-ի ամբիոնից: Մինչդեռ` Ադրբեջանի ԱԳՆ-ի տարածած տեղեկատվության համաձայն` ՄԱԿ ԳԱ նստաշրջանում ելույթ է ունենալու արտգործնախարար Էլմար Մամեդյարովը: Հետևաբար, ի սկզբանե Ալիևի այց Նյու Յորք նախատեսված չի եղել, և ի սկզբանե Բաքուն բացառել է ԱՄՆ-ում Սարգսյան-Ալիև բանակցությունների անցկացումը: Սա չի նշանակում, թե Ալիևի որոշումը չի փոխվի: Սակայն դրա հավանականությունը չափազանց փոքր է:

Բացարձակ բռնատիրական համակարգի ձևավորման և մարդու իրավունքների ժողովրդավարական ազատությունների մասսայական խախտումների պատճառով Ադրբեջանի նկատմամբ վերջին շրջանում մեծացող արտաքին ճնշումները, որոնք աստիճանաբար հանգում են այդ երկրի նկատմամբ սանկցիաների կիրառման, լրջագույն հարված են հասցրել ինչպես ԵՄ-ի, այնպես էլ ԱՄՆ-ի հետ Ադրբեջանի հարաբերություններին: Բացի այն, որ, Նյու Յորք չմեկնելով, Ալիևը կարող է ցուցադրել Վաշինգտոնի վերաբերմունքից Բաքվի վիրավորվածությունը, Ալիևը չի կարող բացառել, որ ՄԱԿ-ի ԳԱ շրջանակներում կայանալիք երկկողմ կամ բազմակողմ անխուսափելի հանդիպումների ընթացքում իր առջև չեն բարձրացնելու Ադրբեջանում խորհրդարանական ընտրություններից առաջ ստեղծված իրավիճակի խնդիրը, հատկապես` ԵԱՀԿ-ի և ԵՄ-ի կողմից այդ ընտրություններին դիտորդներ չուղարկելու, դրանով ընտրությունների լեգիտիմությունը հարցականի տակ դնելու բացահայտ դեմարշի ֆոնին:

Երկրորդ` Ալիևը բազմիցս հայտարարել է, որ Հայաստանի հետ բանակցությունների շարունակումն իմաստ ունի միայն ռեալ առաջընթացի նախադրյալների պայմաններում: Իսկ առաջընթաց ասելով` Ալիևը նկատի ունի ԼՂ հարցում Հայաստանի բացարձակ կապիտուլյացիան, ԼՂ-ն ամբողջությամբ Ադրբեջանի կազմ վերադարձնելու` Երևանի համաձայնությունը: Նման նախադրյալներ, բնականաբար, չկան: Հետևաբար, բանակցությունները կարող են հետապնդել միայն երկու նպատակ: Առաջին` ԱՄՆ-ը կձգտի վերջնականապես չեզոքացնել այս փուլում շփման գծում միակողմանիորեն խաղաղապահներ տեղակայելու թեման: Երկրորդ` միջնորդները կփորձեն կանգնեցնել շփման գծում լարվածության մեծացման հետագա ընթացքը, ինչին գնալ Բաքուն չի ցանկանում: Պատահական չէ, որ հենց Նյու Յորքում բանակցությունների հերթական ռաունդից առաջ է ադրբեջանական զինուժը դարձյալ սադրիչ գործողությունների դիմում Տավուշի մարզի սահմանների ողջ երկայնքով` գնդակոծության և հրետակոծության թիրախ դարձնելով սահմանամերձ հայկական բնակավայրերը: Սա պարզ ու հասկանալի ուղերձ է միջնորդ երկրներին, որ այդ բանակցությունները Բաքվի համար ոչինչ չեն նշանակում և չեն նշանակելու նույնիսկ այդ դեպքում, երբ ինչ-որ հնարքով հաջողվի Ալիևին քարշ տալ Նյու Յորք:

Արևմուտքի հետ Բաքվի հարաբերությունների լարումը վերացնում է Արևմուտքի օգնությամբ բանակություններում դիրքային առավելության հասնելու` Բաքվի հույսերը: Դրան գումարվում են ադրբեջանական էներգակիրների և Ադրբեջանի նավթագազային ռեսուրսների հենքին էներգատար նոր նախագծեր կենսագործելու նկատմամբ եվրոպական երկրների` վերջին ամիսներին զգացվող հետաքրքրության ակնհայտ անկումը: Բաքուն կորցնում է ազդեցության հիմնական լծակները, կորցնում է վստահությունն իր նկատմամբ, և սա արագացնում է նրա միջազգային մեկուսացման գործընթացը, մղում փրկության խարիսխ նետել նույնպիսի մեկուսացման դատապարտված Ռուսաստանի հետ, որտեղ նրան սպասում են գրկաբաց: Վերջին օրերին Կրեմլին մերձ ռուսական փորձագիտական և քաղաքական շրջանակները Ադրբեջանին Արևմուտքից պաշտպանելու մի այնպիսի հզոր արշավ են սկսել, որ տպավորություն է, թե ճնշումները ոչ թե Ադրբեջանի, այլ Ռուսաստանի նկատմամբ են կիրառվում: Այս հանգամանքը Ադրբեջանին և Ռուսաստանին դարձնում է յուրատեսակ հակաարևմտյան դաշնակիցներ` միաժամանակ մեծացնելով դրա դիմաց իրարից հնարավորինս մեծ քաղաքական դիվիդենդներ քաղելու` նրանց ձգտումները: Առավել ևս, որ կոնկրետ ԼՂ հիմնահարցի առումով մեկ կետում Մոսկվայի և Բաքվի շահերը կարծես թե համընկնում են` ԼՂ հիմնահարցը ԵԱՀԿ Մինսկի խմբի ձևաչափից հանելը:

Պարզ է, որ Նյու Յորքում բանակցություններ կազմակերպելու նախաձեռնությունը ԱՄՆ-ինն է: Այն հնարավորինս աննպատակ և անարդյունք դարձնելը Բաքվի համար ոչ միայն միջոց է իր նկատմամբ քաղաքականության դիմաց Վաշինգտոնին ապտակելու համար, այլև կոնկրետ քայլ` ՄԽ ձևաչափի մաշվածությունն ու անպետքությունը մեկ անգամ ևս ցուցադրելու, իբրև միջնորդի` ԱՄՆ-ի և Ֆրանսիայի ազդեցությունը նվազագույնի հասցնելու ուղղությամբ: Այնպես որ` որքան էլ ՄԽ ամերիկացի համանախագահող Ջեյմս Ուորլիքը Նյու Յորքի ճանապարհին մեծ հույսեր է կապում արտգործնախարարների հանդիպման հետ, իրականում այն լինելու է հանդիպում զուտ հանդիպման համար:

Գևորգ Դարբինյան

[londontsi]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Senior Saudi royal urges leadership change for fear of monarchy collapse

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-arabia-senior-royal-urges-change-amid-fears-monarchy-collapse-1612130905

A senior Saudi prince has called for an emergency meeting to discuss replacing King Salman and his son Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed

A senior member of Saudi Arabia’s royal family has circulated a letter expressing fear that the monarchy may collapse unless the king is urgently replaced and the position of deputy crown prince scrapped, Middle East Eye can reveal.

On 4 September, a grandson of the late King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud wrote a four-page letter calling on the royal family to hold an emergency meeting to address concerns that the House of Saud may be losing its grip on power.

“We [have] got closer and closer to the fall of the state and the loss of power,” the letter read.

“We appeal to all the sons of King Abdulaziz – from the eldest Prince Bandar to the youngest Prince Muqrin – to summon an emergency meeting with all the family to discuss the situation and do everything that is need to save the country.”

The letter was signed “a descendant of the King Abdulaziz of the House of Saud”. MEE spoke to the letter’s author, who confirmed he is a grandson of Abdulaziz, but asked not to be named for fear of negative repercussions.

The document has been carefully circulated among princes, using secure means of mobile communication, because royal family members are under surveillance by those in power, the letter’s author said.
Generational change and power politics

King Abdulaziz Ibn Saud established the modern state of Saudi Arabia in 1932. Since his death in 1953, the country has been ruled by his sons but this is expected to change when the incumbent King Salman’s rule ends, as the heir to the throne Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef is a grandson of Abdulaziz.

This generational shift in Saudi Arabia – despite 13 of Abdulaziz’s sons still being alive – is likely to have been the source of much debate among royals, leading to the letter being written, a regional expert told MEE.

“The most important recent development in Saudi Arabia has been the transition occurring within al-Saud itself in terms of moving from the sons of Abdulaziz to the grandsons,” said Christian Koch, director of the Saudi-funded Gulf Research Centre.

“It is not at all surprising that in light of these changes there is debate going on in the royal family about its future direction.”

The letter partly represents a generational conflict within al-Saud and comes after powerful wings of the family battled for supremacy in the aftermath of the late King Abdullah’s death this January.

The zero-sum game of Saudi politics was exemplified then by the newly anointed King Salman replacing his predecessor’s men with his own people – including the powerful head of the royal court Khalid al-Tuwaijri who was switched for his Salman's inexperienced 30-year-old son Mohammed bin Salman.

It later emerged that during Abdullah’s final hours, Tuwaijri tried to secure his own position and the second generation of Saudi’s rulers by contriving to have Abdullah’s son Prince Meteb made deputy crown prince – the position now enjoyed by Salman’s son Mohammed. This attempt failed, but not before Tuwaijri also tried to have Salman declared mentally unfit to rule.....

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/saudi-arabia-senior-royal-urges-change-amid-fears-monarchy-collapse-1612130905

.

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Obama and Putin to hold talks at UN
BBC

US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin will hold their first face-to-face meeting in nearly a year on Monday in New York, officials from both countries say.
The meeting comes amid tension over Russia's military build-up in Syria and its annexation of Crimea last year.
The two leaders will meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, a US official told the AFP news agency.
They are last reported to have spoken by phone after the Iran nuclear deal.

"Given the situations in Ukraine and Syria, despite our profound differences with Moscow, the president believes that it would be irresponsible not to test whether we can make progress through high-level engagement with the Russians," a senior administration official told the BBC.

The official said that the main purpose of the meeting from the US point of view was to ensure that Russia abides by the terms of the ceasefire in Ukraine negotiated in Belarus in February.
It is not clear if the meeting will take place before or after President Putin speaks at the UN, correspondents say. The Russian leader is also due to meet Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Monday.
Relations between the US and Russia nosedived after the Russian annexation of Crimea in March 2014. The move led to the US and other Western countries imposing sanctions on Russia amid allegations that it was fanning the insurgency in east Ukraine by providing troops and arms.
Russia has strongly criticised the sanctions, describing them as a naked attempt to force President Putin from power.
Russia has also been accused by the US of becoming increasingly involved in the Syria conflict by sending weapons, troops and supplies to an airport near the coastal city of Latakia.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday that the build-up appeared to be limited to Russia protecting its own forces in the country.
His comments followed the publication of satellite images that suggested Russia was developing two additional military bases at a weapons depot and military complex north of Latakia.

[Artashes]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Obama and Putin to hold talks at UN
BBC

US President Barack Obama and his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin will hold their first face-to-face meeting in nearly a year on Monday in New York, officials from both countries say.
The meeting comes amid tension over Russia's military build-up in Syria and its annexation of Crimea last year.
The two leaders will meet on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, a US official told the AFP news agency.
They are last reported to have spoken by phone after the Iran nuclear deal.

"Given the situations in Ukraine and Syria, despite our profound differences with Moscow, the president believes that it would be irresponsible not to test whether we can make progress through high-level engagement with the Russians," a senior administration official told the BBC.

The official said that the main purpose of the meeting from the US point of view was to ensure that Russia abides by the terms of the ceasefire in Ukraine negotiated in Belarus in February.
It is not clear if the meeting will take place before or after President Putin speaks at the UN, correspondents say. The Russian leader is also due to meet Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on Monday.
Relations between the US and Russia nosedived after the Russian annexation of Crimea in March 2014. The move led to the US and other Western countries imposing sanctions on Russia amid allegations that it was fanning the insurgency in east Ukraine by providing troops and arms.
Russia has strongly criticised the sanctions, describing them as a naked attempt to force President Putin from power.
Russia has also been accused by the US of becoming increasingly involved in the Syria conflict by sending weapons, troops and supplies to an airport near the coastal city of Latakia.
US Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday that the build-up appeared to be limited to Russia protecting its own forces in the country.
His comments followed the publication of satellite images that suggested Russia was developing two additional military bases at a weapons depot and military complex north of Latakia.

---- Russia accused of sending " weapons, troops, and supplies " to Syria. ----
The USA & EU & Arab monarchs & who else? have been doing exactly that for 4 + years in Syria.

USA verses Isis, USA not doing to well, (so far).
EU , (France, Britain, Austraila?,and who else? Pretty tough battle against ??? Isis, isil, or the hundred +++ other nusra bla, bla, .... Against *** USA *** ????? + EU * saud + ???

Anyone think Russia went their to shuck & jive like the above mentioned fraud ?
Just my call.

[Hakob]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Now, when did I said Russia ALWAYS saved Turkey??

You disrespect yourself by manipulating that grossly my words.
First, find my post.
Then we will continue.

Here...

[QUOTE=Vrej1915;362341]

Թուրքիան կործանումից միշտ փրկել է ռուսը. «Cui prodest» կամ ում է ձեռնտու

14 sept. 2015



In this interview Mr Shirinian never gives that idea, which you have reworded in red headline (if I remember in one post you mentioned that whatever you consider important or relevant, you redline.
However Mr Shirinian only speaks about wests and Russia's alternating roles in saving turkey from troubles while it was in conflict with the other.
Very intelligent and respectfull interview by Shirinian.
But your headline was sensational.
Say or explain that it is misunderstood or you meant other things.
But you have been arguing for over 3 weeks over this.
Second above and in many posts you bring the word slave minded to insult people. I don't mind, because I know what that term started with orange revolutionaries, of which you are a member abviousely.
But your game is to play with people's feelings and in fear of personal insults shut them up.
Slave minded... Exactly a term taken from classic revolutionary vocabulary.
In above lengthy post you just about gave yourself a medal along with identifying the slaves. Good job mr Panchuni.
Anybody that disagrees is a slave minded.
But in retrospect you also trying to create a crowd mentality by derogatory terms by which it is easy to alienate disagreers.
In order to not be seen as weak or be called slave minded people better agree with you.
Needles to say that we know this fro Bolsheviks or any other revolutionary philosophy.
Hey, your protege, Mouradian has called the whole nation slave minded because only very fiew gave a rats ass about however he wants to re qualify historic events.
You hear my words? Re qualify. Never "not happened".
I was debating about shortcomings of our opposition with you and dangers of sponsored acts.
But today I see that you are not even an opposition.
Also the publications and political commentators you so ardently post here and defend endlessly, Mouradian, hayrumian, balayan. None of them is an opposition In Armenia's political events.
They are never there on gatherings, events, debates, protests or anything that has to do with opposition in normal way.
They are just instigators. Just pushers of some information in public.
I doubt if they are true anti Russians also. They are just apparatchiks. Paid musicians.
I believe that you are anti Russian. But I'd rather see you genuinely for something. Not anti something.
That Russia deserves to be criticized or resisted when needed, I fully agree. But that should be to everybody including the west.
Right now the whole world sees what west is doing. So we criticize.
But taking the leagir's or people's such as Mouradian's Vanda like revelations and raise the flag and March, nobody will.
I would take it in heart if you commented, explained and narrated latest events and people in electrical Yerevan or something, as s genuine interested person's.
But I can see your aimes and efforts and have no respect. Something is fishy, that everybody is leaving by hour of what's happening in Yerevan but this guy posts something like Russians always saved Turks or Russia is somehow fully responsible for everything.
What about corruption? Oligarchs, hundreds of issues there?
Even arguing with you about any of this issues eventually brings one talking about Russia only, at the end( because as I see, it is the obsession of your's). So that makes us "slave minded", in your words.
Because you constantly hit the root of Russian presence there.
But when asked directly if you'd like to see Russians kicked out, you give undefined unswer that "if they have to be there, because we need the alliance, they have to behave like this or that ( US and Israel).
Well this is Russia, the bear, the uncivilized and unorganized European outsider.
But what do you want? So we shook our heads and said "yea Russia has always saved turkey". "Yea Russians commuted genocide in 1992". "Yea Russians will sell Artsakh to Turks" ?
That is a real slave mindedness.
You don't even realise one important character that Armenian people have of mistrust to whoever speaks loud convictions.
They did not thrust soviets, will not thrust west, will not thrust Mouradian, pashinian, zurabian etc.
you too.
If you want to delegate ideas of Russia's misbehavior, you must do it in context of everything else and balanced. And without sensations. So people thrust in your message. And without labeling of any kind. Stay away from revolutionary practices. That way you will gain the thrust.