The Struggle for Caucasia

[winoman]

U.S. Raises concern over Azeri vote

Who is at all surprised? I think the Azeri's are going to utimatly self destruct and Westerners will soon see what they are all about...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/07/AR2005110700830.html

The Associated Press
Monday, November 7, 2005; 6:23 PM

WASHINGTON -- The United States raised concern Monday about problems in Azerbaijan's elections, backing the findings of an OSCE electoral observer mission that weekend elections were beset by irregularities.

While there were some improvements over previous elections, "at the same time there were major irregularities and fraud that are of serious concern," said State Department spokesman Adam Ereli

The United States called on the Azerbaijani government "to take immediate investigations into these irregularities and fraud consistent with Azerbaijan's laws," Ereli said.
.....

etc

[Glock21]

By Azeris, I assume you mean the Azeri government, which is despised universally for having taken cronyism and corruption to new heights.

[skhara]

NATO in the Caucasus (Pravda.ru annalysis)

I came across this piece from a month ago.

http://www.pravda.ru/world/10-11-2005/67000-natokavkaz-0

Its in Russian, but I'd like to give the gist of what it says. It is essentially a geopolitical/geostrategic annalysis of the Caucausus situation.

It's titled: "NATO is ripping towards the Caucasus"

Here are its points:

NATO declared that they are ready to bring peacekeepers into Nagorno-Karabakh and also end the long-time enmity between Turkey and Armenia. NATO declaration says that they know of the problem between Turkey and Armenia and are taking it into account.

Anyway, after a brief intro, it goes into an annalysis interview with what Pravad.ru calls a Caucasus expert Mikhael Alexandrov.

On the question of NATOs intent:

He says:
"NATOs objectives in the Caucausus is to push Russia out and to surround Iran. Then to put Central Asia in its sphere and also threaten China."


On the Question of why Azerbaijan has so far rejected NATOs proposal:

He says that Azerbaijan is wary of backlash from both Russia and Iran. Essentially that Azerbaijan would have more to lose than to gain.


Same question for Armenia and Karabakh:

He says:
"They are afraid of losing Russia's support. "There is", he says, "a mood towards reorientation towards the west, but the west will force Armenians to aknowlege that Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan." He adds that "Azerbaijan is much more important for NATO than Armenia, its territory is rich in oil and has an exit towards the Caspian. The only thing keeping the west from taking a pro-Azeri position, is the influence of the Armenian diapora, but her influence is limited." He adds to remember that Turkey is a NATO member and a close ally of Azerbaijan.

The next couple of questions deal with Armeno-Turkish relations and the politics surrounding the Armenian genocide. The interviewer brought up the question of NATO promising to end Armeno-Turkish enmity and if that is possible. He answers that they have been promising that for a long time and briefly covered the political situation.

The last question asks if Georgia can act as a mediator between Armenia and Azerbaijan since Georgia has relations with both.

The answer is given is NO. That Georgia is too much of a small fry and is just a platform used to put pressure on Russia and Iran.

[Armenian]

Same question for Armenia and Karabakh:

He says:
"They are afraid of losing Russia's support. "There is", he says, "a mood towards reorientation towards the west, but the west will force Armenians to aknowlege that Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan." He adds that "Azerbaijan is much more important for NATO than Armenia, its territory is rich in oil and has an exit towards the Caspian. The only thing keeping the west from taking a pro-Azeri position, is the influence of the Armenian diapora, but her influence is limited." He adds to remember that Turkey is a NATO member and a close ally of Azerbaijan.

I happen to fully agree with the analyst.

For NATO, Armenia is just a geo-political problem within the region.

Turkey is the second largest Army within NATO after USA.

NATO is a tool of Washington DC.

NATO has a bad track record in Serbia.

NATO has long out lived its intent.I would like to see that organization get re-organized, perhaps into a Euro-Army of some sort.

Thank you Skhara for the information.

[skhara]

The prospect of NATO troops entering the Caucasus greatly worries me. Why would there need to be peace-keepers in Nagorno-Karabakh, when there is already peace there. It's like the time that Turks made that absurd proposal of offering peacekeeping.

Anyway, Serbia is a good example, and that is why it is such a worrying prospect for me.

[karoaper]

The prospect of NATO troops entering the Caucasus greatly worries me. Why would there need to be peace-keepers in Nagorno-Karabakh, when there is already peace there. It's like the time that Turks made that absurd proposal of offering peacekeeping.

Anyway, Serbia is a good example, and that is why it is such a worrying prospect for me.

The only time I would see NATO's presence as useful is if Artsakh become a recognized nation. I'd hate to revive old threads, but there was a thread I had opened about the difficult question of whether some regions outside Artsakh that Armenians hold should be given to Azeris in return for NATO recognizing Artsakh as a nation. While NATO is a bully, having it's recognition and protection from the turks/turkophiles in the region would be a great vindication of the liberation efforts.

Here's the thread.

http://forum.armenianclub.com/showthread.php?t=6272

[skhara]

The only time I would see NATO's presence as useful is if Artsakh become a recognized nation. I'd hate to revive old threads, but there was a thread I had opened about the difficult question of whether some regions outside Artsakh that Armenians hold should be given to Azeris in return for NATO recognizing Artsakh as a nation. While NATO is a bully, having it's recognition and protection from the turks/turkophiles in the region would be a great vindication of the liberation efforts.

Here's the thread.
http://forum.armenianclub.com/showthread.php?t=6272

There is no possible way that NATO can protect Armenia from Turks. In fact, NATO will not do so. Turkey is the largest NATO state directly bordering Armenia, and like Armenian said, "Armenia is just a geo-political problem" for them.

Your other thread turned into a communism discussion with Red, but on your point about concessions:

Conceding territory now with the "hope" for later likely would end up a dissaster. Why do you think they bring up that 10-15 year time frame? First NATO troops move in, Azeris get resettled in massive numbers, Armenians begin to get harrassed and forced out (just like what's going on in Kosovo right now), they will wait till the demographic changes, and Armenians will end up losing it.

[karoaper]

There is no possible way that NATO can protect Armenia from Turks. In fact, NATO will not do so. Turkey is the largest NATO state directly bordering Armenia, and like Armenian said, "Armenia is just a geo-political problem" for them.

Your other thread turned into a communism discussion with Red, but on your point about concessions:

Conceding territory now with the "hope" for later likely would end up a dissaster. Why do you think they bring up that 10-15 year time frame? First NATO troops move in, Azeris get resettled in massive numbers, Armenians begin to get harrassed and forced out (just like what's going on in Kosovo right now), they will wait till the demographic changes, and Armenians will end up losing it.

You have a point about the hidden agenda for Arcakh that NATO would like to implement, due to the importance of appeasing the Turks and the owners of the oil fields. And I too think that a mere promise of recognition in the next decade(s) is utterly useless and empty. However, an imidiate recognition of the nation would make a potential Azeri attack on Arcakh illegal. Only US can get away with that.

[skhara]

You have a point about the hidden agenda for Arcakh that NATO would like to implement, due to the importance of appeasing the Turks and the owners of the oil fields. And I too think that a mere promise of recognition in the next decade(s) is utterly useless and empty. However, an imidiate recognition of the nation would make a potential Azeri attack on Arcakh illegal. Only US can get away with that.

Well if I were in charge, my statement would be that making consetions for absolutely nothing in return is out of the question. That is, if Armenians are to withdraw from the Buffer zones, then Artsakh gets recognized right away in exchange -- by Azerbaijan. Who has ever heard of a victor signing capitulatory documentation?

[Armenian]

Iran, Russia Sign $1 Bln Defense Deal



(A Russian air defence missile system is seen in an undated file photo. Russia plans to sell more than $1 billion worth of tactical surface-to-air missiles and other defense hardware to Iran, media reported on Friday. Photo: Reuters)

Russia plans to sell more than $1 billion worth of tactical surface-to-air missiles and other defense hardware to Iran, media reported on Friday. Moscow is already at odds with the West over its nuclear ties with Tehran but has sought to use its warm relations with Iran to be recognized as a key mediator between the West and the Islamic Republic. U.S. Under Secretary of State Nicholas Burns, visiting Moscow, told Ekho Moskvy radio he had raised the issue of arms sales to Iran with Russia's Foreign Ministry.

"For the past 25 years, in our opinion, Iran has supported terrorists in the Middle East, in the United States, and that is why we have very bad relations with them. You can understand why we do not support the sale of weapons to such a country," he said in comments simultaneously translated into Russian. The Vedomosti business daily cited military sources as saying Iran would buy 29 TOR-M1 systems designed to bring down aircraft and guided missiles at low altitudes. The paper, calling it the biggest sale of Russian defense hardware to Iran for about five years, said Moscow and Tehran had already signed the contract.

Interfax news agency separately quoted a source as saying the deal, which would also include modernizing Iran's air force and supplying some patrol boats, was worth more than $1 billion. The move, likely to irritate Israel and the United States, could strain Moscow's efforts to broker a deal between Iran and European negotiators aimed at breaking a deadlock over Tehran's nuclear programme. Israel in particular is nervous about Iran's military potential after President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said in October that Israel should be "wiped off the map" -- comments condemned by Russia at the time.

WEST SUSPECTS IRAN

Russia's Defense Ministry declined to comment on the deal. Officials at state arms exporter Rosoboronexport, Russia's state defense supplier, were not available for comment. Western countries suspect Iran of seeking nuclear weapons under the cover of a civilian atomic programme, which Tehran denies, saying it wants only to generate electricity.

Russia is helping Iran build its first nuclear reactor and is preparing to launch it next year. Some in the West fear that Iran could use Russian know-how to make sensitive weapons. The defense industry source told Interfax there were no international restrictions on selling weapons to Iran. "Moreover, practically all the weapons that Russia is delivering to Iran in the coming years are defensive rather than offensive in character," the source said.

One Western diplomat who closely watches Russia-Iran dealings said news of the deal was alarming and would further increase tensions. "Russia has long positioned itself as a major peace broker between Iran and the West -- and all of a sudden they are throwing this bombshell. It just does not make any sense," said the diplomat, who asked to remain anonymous.

Source: http://en.chinabroadcast.cn/2239/[email protected]