Regional geopolitics

[Hakob]

Re: Regional geopolitics

here is a clip from russian intellectual Alexander Dugin analizing current political situation.
It is in Russian unfortunately. But very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EISl9wF-rtY

[Haykakan]

Re: Regional geopolitics

here is a clip from russian intellectual Alexander Dugin analizing current political situation.
It is in Russian unfortunately. But very interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EISl9wF-rtY

My Russian is not what it once was Hakob. Can you please summerize what he was saying here?

[lampron]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Ո՞վ է պատասխան տալու արյան համար

ՀԱՅԿԱԶՆ ՂԱՀՐԻՅԱՆ, Գլխավոր խմբագիր
Հինգշաբթի, 15 Մայիսի 2014,



Իսկ այդ պատերազմում Հայաստանը մնալու է առանց դաշնակիցների՝ թե Արեւմուտքը, թե Ռուսաստանը շահագրգռված են լինելու Հայաստանի պարտությամբ, յուրաքանչյուրն՝ իր նկատառումներից ելնելով:


Ասում են, վերջերս Նալբանդյանին Մոսկվայում միլիոնանոց շքեղ մի տուն է բաժին հասել: Երեւի, առաջադրանքները փայլուն կատարելու համար:
- See more at: http://www.lragir.am/index/arm/0/com....6r5JxJFI.dpuf

This article is mixing two things, probably to confuse the reader

- Armenian's geopolitical orientation

- Corruption and incompetence in government

What the article ignores is that NATO has not given a single bullet to Armenia to defend itself, and has adopted an uncompromising anti-Karabakh position right from the beginning

[Hakob]

Re: Regional geopolitics

The unfolding Ukraine crisis signals a new world order

The best outcome for Ukraine, and for the west, would be an agreement with Russia to get the great powers out
Article by The Guardian
A woman with her children votes in the Ukraine referendum in May 2014. 'The best outcome for Ukraine would be the space to turn itself into an economic and political success'. Photograph: Alexey Furman/EPA
Tony Brenton
Friday 16 May 2014 11.13 EDT

A way out of the Ukraine crisis may now be faintly discernible. The round-table negotiations promoted by the Germans has the support of all the key governments. It is intended to produce a ceasefire, discussion of future Ukrainian constitutional arrangements, and the election of a new Ukrainian president on 25 May. There are still all sorts of ways it could go wrong: the east Ukrainian dissidents are not yet involved and will need to be; and polarisation continues, with both sides gradually losing control of their thuggish surrogates. But things now look marginally more hopeful than they have since the ill-fated Geneva agreement of a month ago.

The west has had to learn some hard lessons to get to where we are now.

It is generally accepted that the EU (in a mode splendidly described by one commentator as of "impotent megalomania") precipitated matters by blundering into the most sensitive part of Russia's backyard without seriously asking itself how it might react. This was not an isolated error but the culmination of 20 years of the west simply not taking Russia seriously, most notably with the Kosovo war and the expansion of Nato. When Russia did react in the (legally indefensible, but historically understandable) form of annexing Crimea and destabilising east Ukraine, the western view then swung 180 degrees to focusing on the need to "contain" a revanchist Russia intent on rebuilding the Soviet Union.



In the absence of any willingness among western publics to fight for the independence of Simferopol, the only weapon available was sanctions. These allowed western leaders to claim they were "doing something", but in fact cruelly exposed their unwillingness to take real economic pain on Ukraine's behalf. They have also become something of a badge of patriotic pride for those Russians targeted by them – of the six uses of sanctions by the west against the USSR/Russia since the second world war none have worked.

Happily, we now seem to be waking up to the reality that we are dealing not with a revanchist Russia, but with a coldly calculating one – a Russia that is neither patsy nor praying mantis. They don't want to fight a war or take on the economic burden of rebuilding eastern Ukraine, but they do have a minimal list of requirements – Ukrainian neutrality, more autonomy for Russian speakers – which have to be met before they will back off.

Should we concede these points? Ukraine is a big heterogeneous country where provincial autonomy makes sense, and in such a mess that Nato membership is certainly at least decades off. Nevertheless, I regularly hear two quite compelling arguments why we should not. First, if the Russians get what they want this time, they – and by extension others – will come back for more. We cannot let the annexation of Crimea go unpunished. Second, what business does Russia have telling Ukraine how it can govern itself anyway? The world has moved beyond the point where big states can tell small states what to do.

I am afraid my answer to these arguments has to be an uncomfortable one. Indeed, in a rules-based world aggressors would be punished and small states would not be pushed around by big ones. But the rules-based world we imagine we have been living in since 1991 was always an illusion, and is now a fading one. It was an illusion because the rules, as admirably set out in the UN charter, were in fact interpreted and enforced by an economically and militarily predominant west.

When the west saw need for an exception – Iraq, Kosovo, Israel – the rest privately grumbled but went along with it. And the illusion is now fading because, of course, western predominance is also fading. President Obama's trip to Asia two weeks ago saw a circle of allies diminishingly convinced by his assurances of support in their dealings with China. In Ukraine, perhaps the first real crisis of the new order, we are dealing with a newly confident Russia, and it is striking that the other "rising powers", which might have been expected to deplore an illegal annexation, have in fact stood carefully aloof.

Through the crisis the US has regularly charged Russia with behaving in a "19th-century way". This has provoked a leading Russian commentator to suggest that the time has indeed come for the world to relearn the diplomatic arts of that period. He was right. We are no longer in a world where the west can simply enforce its view. Great power politics is back. No doubt we could have a knockdown, drag-out showdown with Vladimir Putin about Ukraine's right to join Nato. But the result would be a split Ukraine, a lot of economic disruption, an even more aggrieved and destructive Russia, and a further enfeebled world order. The only winners would be the likes of China and Iran. As Henry Kissinger, the arch doer of deals with global pariahs, has noted, "We cannot abandon national security in pursuit of virtue".

The best outcome for Ukraine, and for us, would be an agreement with Russia to get the great powers out, as with Finland during the cold war, and give the country space to turn itself into an economic and political success, which would then be an example to Russia itself. And I am afraid we are going to have to brace ourselves for more such transactions in the future. The Guardian

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

This article is mixing two things, probably to confuse the reader

- Armenian's geopolitical orientation

- Corruption and incompetence in government

What the article ignores is that NATO has not given a single bullet to Armenia to defend itself, and has adopted an uncompromising anti-Karabakh position right from the beginning

My Dear,
1- You need to check your sources about bullets....
2- I never realized that our N°1 negotiator's legendary incompetence, systematic failures, 'abazkayin' essence, was a matter of usual corruption only....,

[londontsi]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Large countries and aspiring medium size countries do not only think about their borders
but also the geopolitical picture depending on their ambitions.

It goes without saying that I am referring to Russia and Turkey in the region.
Surprisingly despite Iran qualifying to be a player, it has a vey low profile.

The US may have ambitions in Armenia but then the US has ambitions everywhere in the world.

For practical purposes the US cannot overrule Turkey to promote its oven interests because of geography.
Arguably Turkey would have been an ideal candidate as a US proxy.
Time has shown that Turkey will not kick the ball for anybody else but itself.

When you say Russia will bargain away Karabagh it means you do not understand the game.

The whole point of geopolitics is to strengthen your outreach beyond your borders
to have maximum advantage for various reasons, political, economic, military security etc.

To actually concede territory where Russia has geopolitical influence because you think
geopolitics will freeze in time and we will have eternal peace is farcical.

Having said that mistakes have been made in the past and hopefully they have learned a few lessons.

If Russia allows Karabagh to pass to within Turkish geography it will be an own goal.
Russia has no practical reasons, such as economic, military or any other reason to go for that.

Peace?? There will never be peace in the world. Geopolitics will not go out of fashion.
The only reason a country will give up geopolitics is because it cannot play it any more that's all.
Others will take over.

If Russia forces Armenia to concede Karabagh it also means it is giving up on Armenia.
Russia may not care for Armenians but cares for the location of Armenia.

Its up to Armenians to care for Armenians and Armenia.


PS. Think of TransDniester, Kalingrad, Akbazia, Ossetia, Crimea etc.etc.

.

[lampron]

Re: Regional geopolitics

NATO's ambition is to encircle Russia. It will try to use Armenia in its anti-Russia strategy if it can

NATO's open support for Armenia's adversaries over many years, means that most Armenians recognize that Russia will remain Armenia's partner for the forseeable future. At the same time moderate Turks will be very important in improving relations with Turkey

[lampron]

Re: Regional geopolitics

My Dear,
1- You need to check your sources about bullets....
2- I never realized that our N°1 negotiator's legendary incompetence, systematic failures, 'abazkayin' essence, was a matter of usual corruption only....,

I don't like him and he should be replaced...but not liking him is not equal to making a disastrous U-turn in policy

[Hakob]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Large countries and aspiring medium size countries do not only think about their borders
but also the geopolitical picture depending on their ambitions.

It goes without saying that I am referring to Russia and Turkey in the region.
Surprisingly despite Iran qualifying to be a player, it has a vey low profile.

The US may have ambitions in Armenia but then the US has ambitions everywhere in the world.

For practical purposes the US cannot overrule Turkey to promote its oven interests because of geography.
Arguably Turkey would have been an ideal candidate as a US proxy.
Time has shown that Turkey will not kick the ball for anybody else but itself.

When you say Russia will bargain away Karabagh it means you do not understand the game.

The whole point of geopolitics is to strengthen your outreach beyond your borders
to have maximum advantage for various reasons, political, economic, military security etc.

To actually concede territory where Russia has geopolitical influence because you think
geopolitics will freeze in time and we will have eternal peace is farcical.

Having said that mistakes have been made in the past and hopefully they have learned a few lessons.

If Russia allows Karabagh to pass to within Turkish geography it will be an own goal.
Russia has no practical reasons, such as economic, military or any other reason to go for that.

Peace?? There will never be peace in the world. Geopolitics will not go out of fashion.
The only reason a country will give up geopolitics is because it cannot play it any more that's all.
Others will take over.

If Russia forces Armenia to concede Karabagh it also means it is giving up on Armenia.
Russia may not care for Armenians but cares for the location of Armenia.

Its up to Armenians to care for Armenians and Armenia.


PS. Think of TransDniester, Kalingrad, Akbazia, Ossetia, Crimea etc.etc.

.

Lets put it this way. If we make peace with turks by giving up Artsakh, or most of it, then why do we need Russia for? Turkey's preconditions will be fullfiled and they will open up border, normalise relations with us and the way will be open for us to europe(this will also enourmeosely strengthen turkey's position in caucasus and elsewhere and guarantee even closer relations with europe, so they will be very motivated for it). Azerbaijan will consider itself a winner and will welcome the restoration of our relations under US/EU umbrella(it will also strengthen Aliev's clan at home as winner and image of peacemaker with west, So they will be very motivated for this too). If we go this far, then I guarantee that US will arrange a peace deal with turkey about genocide grievances. Something in between our and turkish opinions that "satisfies" turkey and us too(no choice for us at this moment). By this time, with improvements in our economy also, our reliance on Russia will disappear. We will not need any high level military security guarantees, US/EU umbrella will be 100% enough. Actually any relation with Russia we will consider harmful.
This is the basis of US/EU policies and the reason of latest announcements by their representatives. That is what Serj calls "nothing New" and this has been there since Levon's times. 2009 protocols were part of this.
They are not talking this now for pleasing Aiev. They are doing it to remind us and convey that this choice is still there for us(there are enough russophobes in Armenia to influence government, or oligarchs will welcome it).
The pressure on Russia by west in Ukraine indirectly applies to us and can scare our government enough with thoughts that Russia might loose it and we will end up in containment zone with it....
They will keep this policy(or choice for us) as long as there is a chance that by economic pressures or by bad conditions at home, weakening Russia, or a change in our government, they will persuade us to take this road.
I am sure Mr. Hollande spoke about it few days ago(after first making sure in baku that they are up for game unchanged), and reminded Serj all this, asked him to reconsider our options one last time, plus gave France's personal guarantees for no unseen problems on this road.
Don't you guys think that Russia knows this all? There must be a reason, why the rulers in our country are Artsakh people, and Russia makes sure it stays that way. Because if Levon or anybody local would be in presidency, then Artsakh would not be the premier importance for Armenia, the economy and money will be instead. That is why there is a large movement in Armenia in trying to oust Karabaghtsis out of power. Some even call them turks.
Don't you know guys, that the opposition, namely, Igor and Lragir know this? Anybody that still talks for Yerevan/EU association, knows that it is going to go thru handing over Artsakh.
But as usual. As it is accepted in world propaganda manuals, the opposition is accusing government of something that they know they will do themselves when coming to power. That is why russia is blamed that it will hand over Artsakh. In actuality, Russia is very interested in keeping the status quo. Actually, the threats that our military and government voice sometimes that in case of war we will take more territories (nakhijevan?) from baku are coming from Russia itself.
As long as Serj and Karabakhtsis are in power in Armenia, Artsakh will never be put on table for exchange. That is also the reason that current government's internal policies or reforms are so restricted. They will stay this way untill final accession into Eurasian Economic Union.
I am sure, that US is keeping many cards to still put a lot of pressure on our government to reconsider. Change of ruling government is very desired by west, while it is not for russia. That is why we see some remarks about russian puppet government by opposition. They, being western puppets, are convinced that their choices for Armenia are better.
In case US looses patience with Serj's government, the opposition and the many sleeper cells will go to work at first given opportunity.

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Lets put it this way. If we make peace with turks by giving up Artsakh, or most of it, then why do we need Russia for? Turkey's preconditions will be fullfiled and they will open up border, normalise relations with us and the way will be open for us to europe(this will also enourmeosely strengthen turkey's position in caucasus and elsewhere and guarantee even closer relations with europe, so they will be very motivated for it). Azerbaijan will consider itself a winner and will welcome the restoration of our relations under US/EU umbrella(it will also strengthen Aliev's clan at home as winner and image of peacemaker with west, So they will be very motivated for this too). If we go this far, then I guarantee that US will arrange a peace deal with turkey about genocide grievances. Something in between our and turkish opinions that "satisfies" turkey and us too(no choice for us at this moment). By this time, with improvements in our economy also, our reliance on Russia will disappear. We will not need any high level military security guarantees, US/EU umbrella will be 100% enough. Actually any relation with Russia we will consider harmful.
This is the basis of US/EU policies and the reason of latest announcements by their representatives. That is what Serj calls "nothing New" and this has been there since Levon's times. 2009 protocols were part of this.
They are not talking this now for pleasing Aiev. They are doing it to remind us and convey that this choice is still there for us(there are enough russophobes in Armenia to influence government, or oligarchs will welcome it).
The pressure on Russia by west in Ukraine indirectly applies to us and can scare our government enough with thoughts that Russia might loose it and we will end up in containment zone with it....
They will keep this policy(or choice for us) as long as there is a chance that by economic pressures or by bad conditions at home, weakening Russia, or a change in our government, they will persuade us to take this road.
I am sure Mr. Hollande spoke about it few days ago(after first making sure in baku that they are up for game unchanged), and reminded Serj all this, asked him to reconsider our options one last time, plus gave France's personal guarantees for no unseen problems on this road.
Don't you guys think that Russia knows this all? There must be a reason, why the rulers in our country are Artsakh people, and Russia makes sure it stays that way. Because if Levon or anybody local would be in presidency, then Artsakh would not be the premier importance for Armenia, the economy and money will be instead. That is why there is a large movement in Armenia in trying to oust Karabaghtsis out of power. Some even call them turks.
Don't you know guys, that the opposition, namely, Igor and Lragir know this? Anybody that still talks for Yerevan/EU association, knows that it is going to go thru handing over Artsakh.
But as usual. As it is accepted in world propaganda manuals, the opposition is accusing government of something that they know they will do themselves when coming to power. That is why russia is blamed that it will hand over Artsakh. In actuality, Russia is very interested in keeping the status quo. Actually, the threats that our military and government voice sometimes that in case of war we will take more territories (nakhijevan?) from baku are coming from Russia itself.
As long as Serj and Karabakhtsis are in power in Armenia, Artsakh will never be put on table for exchange. That is also the reason that current government's internal policies or reforms are so restricted. They will stay this way untill final accession into Eurasian Economic Union.
I am sure, that US is keeping many cards to still put a lot of pressure on our government to reconsider. Change of ruling government is very desired by west, while it is not for russia. That is why we see some remarks about russian puppet government by opposition. They, being western puppets, are convinced that their choices for Armenia are better.
In case US looses patience with Serj's government, the opposition and the many sleeper cells will go to work at first given opportunity.

My Dear,
sorry but this is the common, classical, and totally erroneous analysis spread by Russia and its pundits, since Tzarina Caterina the Great.
So much unrelated with reality on the ground, I can`t even counter.
Some of the facts you describe are contemporary, well known for virtually anybody concerned by the matters in Yerevan or Stepanakert, and your description is virtually contrary to reality on most points.
You need to question you certitudes by a critical analysis.