Regional geopolitics

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

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

The question is not liking him , or not.
What the hell can he have, to anybody love him?
The question is, that we are supposed to be an independent country, actor, factor, force, player,...... anything you may call.
But the guy speaking for us, outside the front, on negociations table, is a total stranger, ungifted by God, and having no national (Armenian) identity at all. Has no Armenian roots, no identity, nor family, even not a small house in Armenia.
Poor of us.
On the diplomatic front, however crazy this may sound, our (Armenian) stand was much stronger during Berlin Conference in the XIX Century, when we had no army, no state, etc....., than today.
At that time we had Khrimyan Hayrik....., at least he cared about the fate of his people, and had a sense of history.
This calamity has no sense nor knowledge of anything Armenian.
And he has no fault in it, since he never pretended to be one.
The only responsible, if there is one, is the Guy who named him, and still keeps him in that position.

Mr Primakovoghlu was born and raised in the CCCP, as a homo sovieticus, integrated as a third class in the diplomatic corps of that structure, and was supposed to end, at best, as ambassador of the union is Monaco or Roma....., and if ever there might have been an earthquake in Moskwa, at best, he might have been ambassador of Belarussia, or Ukrain, in NY, as those two had `independent republic status`, even in the CCCP....

How did he end where he is, is an infamy.
While he was still ambassador of Armenia in Cairo, the echoes from the Armenian community there must have been enough, to momify him, if there was not his stepfather, declared enemy of the Armenian nation, Mr Primakov.

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Some points, that need to be reminded:

1/ The idea that Artsakh is more `pro-Russian`, than `Yerevan` is a common propaganda, originally imagined by LTP and his degenerated circles, and reshaped, refurnished by a chain of foreign correspondents, having to pond an article on the matter, most of the time from London or DC, sometimes from Tiflis, and rarely from Yerevan. Extremely rarely from Stepanakert, and if so, at the end of a journey never exeeding the 48 hours, travel included....
This is total fantasy, based on a very simple, however shiny fact: Artsakhians happen to master very badly `Yerevan Armenian`, and do speak pretty often Russian, during everyday life. This was more so, after 70 years of soviet azeri rule, when Armenian was virtually outlawed, and Russian served as a salvation, compared to turkish....
The problem was much more evident in Baku or Kantzag, Sumgait.... where the population was mainly from Northern or Southern Artsakh...., and some did return to their original districts, in 1988-89.
A bright example of this generation, is Mr Igor Muradyan. He speaks only Russian, or a hadrutski dialect, no one will understand in Stepanakert....

Today`s generation is as fluent in Yerevan dialect, as Russian.
Yet again, today much more Artsakhians or originally Artsakhians do live in Russia, than from anywhere else in Armenia.
But tis has nothing to do with love or mind, this is the legacy of History and bad fate....
From the original 400, or 450.000 Armenians having fled azarbaijan (yet again, most were originally from Artsakh), at least 300.000 are in Russia, not to mention generations of direct emigration from Artsakh to Northern Caucasus, Moskwa and Petrograd...

For the mindset of Artsakhians, any serious conversation, lasting more than 2 hours, with any veteran (virtually all the male population over 35), or litterate Artsakhian, will show that the same Mr Muradyan is a russian pundit....

[Hakob]

Re: Regional geopolitics

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

This guy is a Russian political scientist.
In brief. this is what he says. After russia reuniting with crimea, sharp escalation of confrontations with US/NATO is inevitable. That is a fact. We are not only talking of cold war but also possibility of hot confrontations. Compared to previous confrontations with west, for example chechnia and Georgia, where after sharp escalation, the situation returned to equilibrium, this time we have entered into an unreversible geopolitical confrontation, where not a set of opposing principles are positioned against one another, but hole western and Russian/eastern civilizations. In as much as after any border reconfiguration, russia is a different country after crimea. All of geopolitical equilibrium in world has changed into a new permanent situation. Taken this into consideration, it is very important for russia the transfer from emotional patriotism into an intellectual patriotism. In emotional state, the unity of government and people is nearly 100% and considered sufficient to withstand coming upheavals. But compared to this the intellectual patriotism is lagging far behind in as far as a clear picture in people of why and how their patriotism should function. This in fact comes from over 20 years of open liberalism injected by western ideologies and we have fully accepted those. But as in west those liberal ideas have been pitting individualism against national ideas, we having liked the influx of it, are constantly put into need of behaving emotionally in patriotism and find intellectual explanation or approval for it in ourselves and in world. We welcome those ideas and try to prove to world and ourselves that we value individualism. But at the same time we find it that on emotional level we always loose argument with west and to ourselves on any expression of our patriotism and liberalism. That is because in west they have replaced true patriotism with ultra liberalism. They, as much as being carriers of liberalism, can change the rules of it any time. and they have done so in past many times from one form to another. From this their society will always hold the winning arguments. Trying to confront west, we rely on ethnic, religious, cultural values in order to come up with intellectual explanation about russian patriotism, but as those categories are being termed and defined by western civilization, they always shuffle those in a conflicting setups in conflict to true or perceived liberalism. In as much as we have been subjected and degraded by 70 years of communism and 20+ years of ultra liberalism those values are not sufficient to work in this era in order to rebuild intellectual patriotism.
Using ideas of liberalism or conservatism, which are modern ideas, to counter west in proving that they themselves do not stick to their liberalism, or have broken the rules many times, will be sufficient maybe once(like in case of crimea) or twice. But that will not be sufficient to create an intellectual patriotic platform to withstand confrontation with them.
In as much as we did not initiate this confrontation, we also have no choice to stop it.
we have to understand first of what has happened in past 23 years with Russia.
From 1991 till 1999 Russia was a colony that having given up bipolar power ambitions and sovereignty, had become wests subject politically, economically and strategically.
Putins "fault"(by western thought) was in his desire to turn "Colony/Russia" into "Corporation/Russia".
What he tried to do in reality, was to protect russia's national interests by playing in acceptance of unipolar world governed by US, according with the rules of western liberalism, economy, human rights and world order, from 1999 to 2012( some say even now he tries this policy). He was trying to establish Russia as a giant corporate competitor. A member of the team that utilizes it's resources and ability in holding it's own in the market, but accepting the US dominance. He accepted liberalism and patriotism as equal ideologies. In this he had an enormous success, i would say too much for competition to bear. Russia rose up from weak underdog into a powerful world player, with it's energy market, finances, trade and political partners. Russia became a main concurrent. I am sure if this would continue, Putin would feel very satisfied of Russia's success and be contempt of our position in world.
But what happened was that west has changed the rules of game in as such saying that 'Because this is our game, we will change the rules the way we want and destory your corporation and dismantle it. no more keeping the agreements and no more old rules". And they have thrown Russia out of the market.
What happened in Ukraine is a blatant corporate take over of competitor's assets and attempt to financially and strategically choke him into submission, sellout.
They said "your only choice is to dismantle your Russia corporation and go back to Russia/colony. You will accept whatever we pay you to dismantle your crimea fleet and get out of here and wait for further orders.
What happened after that was the crimea reunification.
what Putin said was "there is no more Russian corporation, no more your rules. we are playing by the rules of power and we have our strategic interests. We do not interfere in venezuela or other places, but former soviet territory is our interest. we will challenge you in this areas because we say those areas are crucial to us.
You can protest or declare something as much as you want and hold a poker face all yo want, but like americans say "reality check", you have to drop the cards. After Olympic games we did that and what? Crimea is ours. Without shot or blood. Without WWIII. This was a clear win. But as soon as we did that they threw hundred cards on us. We have to pay for Ukraine debt, Gas, Water, rebuilding, Lives lost with money and our lives. That is because we have challenged the leader, US. All europe moves by US orders. Nothing will change them short of revolution. We will be encircled.
The heroism and valor worked. We won crimea, like winning a game. But that ends. Now the hardship of resistance and prolonged conflict will start, of which our people and maybe even government has no clear picture.
The corporate competition is over and war of civilizations is upon us.
The cold war that is coming upon us will sharpen and polarize our society. For example the liberals could become a 5th column. Political alternates will become enemies. We have to look into life or existence in war. We got used to peaceful existence, we want peace. But a war existence is thrown at us, which we have to get used to. There seems no common line or road to come to agreements, if your existence in any agreement is not accepted.
In that sense the only philosophy that can help withstand the coming challenges is the revival and spread of intellectual patriotism that will be means to unite intellectuals and business and politicians in common ground.

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

2/ Question is not being Pro-Russia, anti Russia, pro nato, or anti Nato, pro US, or anti US, pro China, or......
All these foreign actors, do have their mercenery, pundits, hired propagandist, in Armenia or in the Diaspora, as they do have in every country where they do have pretentzias.
The question is to accept the challenge of Pro-Armenian stance, however hard, difficult, or seemingly impossible this might seem at first sight.
I`m not preaching for old, virtually senilised minds (ID age is not the matter, we have a child of that same party in this forum) of `SLAVA RUSSIA` party, nor `HHSh pro West` here, some of the bright examples we do have here.
If impossible was Armenian, there must have never been Getashen, Karindag, Shushi, Sardarabad, Van, Urfa, Musa ler, Zeytun, Sassun, Tavit Pek, Avarayr....., to begin with. Some of these battles, all lost much before they were faught, on every logical probability, ended in success, most did not.
But if they were not, we wouldn`t be here today.

Accepting the idea, that we can`t keep our independence, just because it seems impossible, is ``accepting to turn the last page of our history``, with Avo`s words....

If we are to survive, while we are cornered geographically, and historically, we have to keep our capacity to decide, our decision making capacity.
Accepting (for some with incredible ease....) to loose this essential capacity, makes all the rest senseless.
We are not the Kurds, who did , and can still accept to postpone such matters, since they are on expansion mode...

If we had to accept, that countering Moskwa was hopeless, then we must have abandoned Artsakh from day 1, since all the struggle of Artsakh was a fight against fate, against evidence, logic, against Moskwa from day 1, Baku never really mattered...

And however odd this may seem to most, this original guilt of Artsakh was never forgotten in Moskwa, much like in Baku or Ankara.
It is much more a matter of pride, offense of a master, humiliated on all fronts, yet punishing his Mujik, as a scapegoat...., against all logic and common sense.

This guilt is much sharper today, while there is a mock revival of proto CCCP, than during Yeltzin era.


3/ For those wishful thinkers asserting `Russia`s or the US`s, or China`s interest in a strong Armenia: unfortunately a very common slave mentality.
The Mujik/Slave knows better than his master the interest of the master.....
We saw time, and time again, no least in 1915, where this did end up...
Armenia without Armenians was not a turkish motto, nor soviet, but a nationalist imperialist Russia....

No one has an interest in a strong Armenia, as a such, much like the case for Azarbaijan or Georgia.... (even brother Turkey is not that much altruist for its blood kin, to assert this), all is a matter of conjoncture.
Everybody, small or big, must do its outmost, to get the most, when possibility is offered, and to loose the less, when the fate turns...


But to begin with, N1 condition, is to have the ambition , the goal, the ultimate will, to achieve something by yourself, for yourself.
Accepting to loose independence, so easily, without even a fight, just because the danger is not coming in with a bloody yataghan in hand, is an insult to all the dreamers of our race......

Might be, because most of our `old` soviet era bandit rulers, were never taught Mikael Nalbantyan`s simple, XIX century `Azadutyun`.....

[Eddo211]

Re: Regional geopolitics

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

The NATO knows Armenia can defend herself and Armenians doing exercise with NATO its good and OK. US has held Arstakh as one of the most best example of a young democracy.
Peace is what they want between the two countries so they can run pipelines direct instead of going around Armenia like now.

[lampron]

Re: Regional geopolitics

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.

The US has put in place a government in Kiev that is taking its orders from the EU/NATO. How independent is Ukraine now?

Which countries are truly independent?

What does the US or France or Germany have to do with Ukraine? The name "ukraine" never applied to a large section from the present Russian border to Odessa which for centuries was known as Russia

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.

It would be highly dangerous to believe anything that Mr Hollande has to say

People easily forget how France gave support to Armenian autonomy to Cilicia in 1916 and then completely abandoned the survivors of the genocide who had returned there

Another recent example of French deception: In 1993 France sent aid to Nakhijeven, claiming it was under blockade by Armenia (but that territory has borders with Iran and Turkey)

The territory that was under real blockade was Karabakh, but France never showed any interest in helping it

[lampron]

Re: Regional geopolitics

On the diplomatic front, however crazy this may sound, our (Armenian) stand was much stronger during Berlin Conference in the XIX Century, when we had no army, no state, etc....., than today.
At that time we had Khrimyan Hayrik....., at least he cared about the fate of his people, and had a sense of history.
T.

Yes what you say is crazy

It was slave mentality in 1878, it is slave mentality today

Kh. Hayrik's calculations were mainly based on expected Russian intervention in Anatolia

If impossible was Armenian, there must have never been Getashen, Karindag, Shushi, Sardarabad, Van, Urfa, Musa ler, Zeytun, Sassun, Tavit Pek, Avarayr....., to begin with. Some of these battles, all lost much before they were faught, on every logical probability, ended in success, most did not.
But if they were not, we wouldn`t be here today

Many did not, because Armenians rose up in expectation of foreign intervention to help them, which did not happen

This is total fantasy, based on a very simple, however shiny fact: Artsakhians happen to master very badly `Yerevan Armenian`, and do speak pretty often Russian, during everyday life. This was more so, after 70 years of soviet azeri rule, when Armenian was virtually outlawed, and Russian served as a salvation, compared to turkish....

In the Russian empire, an Armenian addressing another Armenian in Russian automatically felt superior to him
In the Ottoman empire an Armenian addressing another Armenian in Turkish automatically felt superior to him

The above is the reason why Armenians preferred a foreign language
Armenian was not outlawed, probably discouraged. Many Armenians in Yerevan preferred Russian too
In Baku and Kirovabad (Gandzak), many Armenians had become Azeri-Turkish speakers

[Vrej1915]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Yes what you say is crazy

It was slave mentality in 1878, it is slave mentality today

Kh. Hayrik's calculations were mainly based on expected Russian intervention in Anatolia

Many did not, because Armenians rose up in expectation of foreign intervention to help them, which did not happen

In the Russian empire, an Armenian addressing another Armenian in Russian automatically felt superior to him
In the Ottoman empire an Armenian addressing another Armenian in Turkish automatically felt superior to him

The above is the reason why Armenians preferred a foreign language
Armenian was not outlawed, probably discouraged. Many Armenians in Yerevan preferred Russian too
In Baku and Kirovabad (Gandzak), many Armenians had become Azeri-Turkish speakers

1/ May be You should read me back. I did not defend the analysis; or positions of Khrimyan Hayrik. What I basically said:
- In the days of Khrimyan Hayrik, we had a 'Tghte Sherep', and a begging old priest to represent our interests, yet we were in a better position, than today, regardless of our army, combat ready, and armed with state of the art missiles, our military victory (something we did not have for centuries....) since we are represented by a total stranger, who has no interest in the fate of our country.
It seems odd enough to be clear.

2/ I'm not sure about your statements on the status of the Armenian language in soviet Azerbaijan, or even Georgia (except Javakhk & Treghk):
Armenian might not have been 'outlawed' in an international society, but basically, all Armenian schools were closed, education and media was available in Russian or Turkish. Reason why Russian was the main 'litteral' language used by Artsakhians. The epiphenomena you describe is just an epiphenomena. What you say was present in Yerevan too, so if this was the reason behind the dominance of Russian, the situation should have been similar in Yerevan and Stepanakert at least.....
Armenians were actively discriminated in soviet azerbaijan, just like in Georgia, but much more.
To have an idea of appartheid still in full action, you may do a tour to Akhaltzkha, heroic Armenian town, having resisted to the Turkish army in 1918, capital Javakhk, where Armenian is virtually in an outlawed situation, just as we talk, today...

3/ While most Armenians of Azerbaijan did knew turkish, as some in Artsakh, their knowledge was rather basic and poor. I am surprised of your statement on turkish speeking Armenians from Baku. As far as I know, from ex-Bakvetzis in NKR or Armenia I know, their language was Russian. Situation might have been different in Shamakh or Minketchavur. Such rare was the situation, that a couple of Armenian villages, speaking turkish in the districts of Vartashen and Gudgashen, were well known, and mentioned each time, as exeptions....

[Haykakan]

Re: Regional geopolitics

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.

LOL yes and i am sure that Lragir will provide such "critical analysis"

[Serjik]

Re: Regional geopolitics

Your Russiophobia is entering new phase. You must be clinically insane or delusional to think we were in a better position back then than today. Oh bro, I forgot you get your news and history lessons from a CIA run think tank like Lra-glir LOL

1/ May be You should read me back. I did not defend the analysis; or positions of Khrimyan Hayrik. What I basically said:
- In the days of Khrimyan Hayrik, we had a 'Tghte Sherep', and a begging old priest to represent our interests, yet we were in a better position, than today, regardless of our army, combat ready, and armed with state of the art missiles, our military victory (something we did not have for centuries....) since we are represented by a total stranger, who has no interest in the fate of our country.
It seems odd enough to be clear.

2/ I'm not sure about your statements on the status of the Armenian language in soviet Azerbaijan, or even Georgia (except Javakhk & Treghk):
Armenian might not have been 'outlawed' in an international society, but basically, all Armenian schools were closed, education and media was available in Russian or Turkish. Reason why Russian was the main 'litteral' language used by Artsakhians. The epiphenomena you describe is just an epiphenomena. What you say was present in Yerevan too, so if this was the reason behind the dominance of Russian, the situation should have been similar in Yerevan and Stepanakert at least.....
Armenians were actively discriminated in soviet azerbaijan, just like in Georgia, but much more.
To have an idea of appartheid still in full action, you may do a tour to Akhaltzkha, heroic Armenian town, having resisted to the Turkish army in 1918, capital Javakhk, where Armenian is virtually in an outlawed situation, just as we talk, today...

3/ While most Armenians of Azerbaijan did knew turkish, as some in Artsakh, their knowledge was rather basic and poor. I am surprised of your statement on turkish speeking Armenians from Baku. As far as I know, from ex-Bakvetzis in NKR or Armenia I know, their language was Russian. Situation might have been different in Shamakh or Minketchavur. Such rare was the situation, that a couple of Armenian villages, speaking turkish in the districts of Vartashen and Gudgashen, were well known, and mentioned each time, as exeptions....