Forum Rules (Everyone Must Read!!!)

1] What you CAN NOT post.

You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is:
- abusive
- vulgar
- hateful
- harassing
- personal attacks
- obscene

You also may not:
- post images that are too large (max is 500*500px)
- post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or cited properly.
- post in UPPER CASE, which is considered yelling
- post messages which insult the Armenians, Armenian culture, traditions, etc
- post racist or other intentionally insensitive material that insults or attacks another culture (including Turks)

The Ankap thread is excluded from the strict rules because that place is more relaxed and you can vent and engage in light insults and humor. Notice it's not a blank ticket, but just a place to vent. If you go into the Ankap thread, you enter at your own risk of being clowned on.
What you PROBABLY SHOULD NOT post...
Do not post information that you will regret putting out in public. This site comes up on Google, is cached, and all of that, so be aware of that as you post. Do not ask the staff to go through and delete things that you regret making available on the web for all to see because we will not do it. Think before you post!

2] Use descriptive subject lines & research your post. This means use the SEARCH.

This reduces the chances of double-posting and it also makes it easier for people to see what they do/don't want to read. Using the search function will identify existing threads on the topic so we do not have multiple threads on the same topic.

3] Keep the focus.

Each forum has a focus on a certain topic. Questions outside the scope of a certain forum will either be moved to the appropriate forum, closed, or simply be deleted. Please post your topic in the most appropriate forum. Users that keep doing this will be warned, then banned.

4] Behave as you would in a public location.

This forum is no different than a public place. Behave yourself and act like a decent human being (i.e. be respectful). If you're unable to do so, you're not welcome here and will be made to leave.

5] Respect the authority of moderators/admins.

Public discussions of moderator/admin actions are not allowed on the forum. It is also prohibited to protest moderator actions in titles, avatars, and signatures. If you don't like something that a moderator did, PM or email the moderator and try your best to resolve the problem or difference in private.

6] Promotion of sites or products is not permitted.

Advertisements are not allowed in this venue. No blatant advertising or solicitations of or for business is prohibited.
This includes, but not limited to, personal resumes and links to products or
services with which the poster is affiliated, whether or not a fee is charged
for the product or service. Spamming, in which a user posts the same message repeatedly, is also prohibited.

7] We retain the right to remove any posts and/or Members for any reason, without prior notice.


Members are welcome to read posts and though we encourage your active participation in the forum, it is not required. If you do participate by posting, however, we expect that on the whole you contribute something to the forum. This means that the bulk of your posts should not be in "fun" threads (e.g. Ankap, Keep & Kill, This or That, etc.). Further, while occasionally it is appropriate to simply voice your agreement or approval, not all of your posts should be of this variety: "LOL Member213!" "I agree."
If it is evident that a member is simply posting for the sake of posting, they will be removed.

8] These Rules & Guidelines may be amended at any time. (last update September 17, 2009)

If you believe an individual is repeatedly breaking the rules, please report to admin/moderator.
See more
See less

Interview with Heikki Talvitie of EU where he says absolutley nothing.

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Interview with Heikki Talvitie of EU where he says absolutley nothing.

    Sounds like double-talk to me. Why are these f*ckers so annoying?

    1. `There are no victories and defeats when there is no solution.'

    Interview by Tatul Hakobyan

    Interview with Heikki Talvitie, former EU special representative
    in the South Caucasus (2003-2006), Finnish former co-chair of
    the OSCE Minsk Group (1995-1996)

    Mr. Talvitie, what were, in general, the positions of the parties
    during your co-chairmanship of the OSCE Minsk Group? In other words,
    were the three conflicting parties ready to make daring compromises
    for the sake of establishing peace in the region?

    In those days when Finland was in the co-chairmanship, the system
    was a little bit different from the present one. Russia and Finland
    were co-chairs, and the Finnish co-chair was supported by the EU,
    the US and Turkey within the Minsk Group. In the negotiations the
    parties were Armenia, Azerbaijan and Nagorno Karabakh. Then Nizami
    Bahmanov [representative of the Azerbaijani minority of Nagorno Karabakh]
    was a silent partner in the Azeri delegation. So, this was the set-up.
    We really had negotiations; we had a kind of basic document which was
    finalized between the Russian and Finnish co-chairs and then discussed
    in the Minsk Group. Basically, the dilemma was that, O. K. the parties
    could not really agree, there was a general feeling that outside powers
    were trying to impose a solution on Armenia, Azerbaijan and NK. So, you
    had two difficulties. The parties could not get an agreement; secondly,
    the parties together felt that outside powers had agreed on something to
    impose on them. In that way we could not proceed very much.

    You mean that the big powers were trying to impose some kind of a solution?

    Not big powers but co-chairmen and the Minsk Group, because we were in
    agreement, we had one text agreed upon, a kind of a basic document. At
    that time, because the parties could not agree, they felt that somebody
    was imposing a ready-made blend on them. Even though we continued to have
    these negotiations all the time Finland was co-chair, basically these
    efforts failed.

    Former Russian mediator Vladimir Kazimirov confirms that then there were
    contradictions between the co-chairs. In particular, the US was using
    `neutral' Sweden to keep Russia from its aspirations to be the only
    mediator. Do you remember contradictions between Russia on one hand
    and the Minsk Group on the other?

    When Finland was in the co-chair, then we agreed that once Kazimirov came
    to the South Caucasus and was one of the co-chairmen then he had to consult
    the Finnish co-chairmanship; that was the policy. But Kazimirov had another
    hat; he was representing the President of Russia, and there we agreed that
    if he acted in that capacity, that was the business of Russia, but that he
    was the co-chair in consultations with the others.

    As I understand, there were two Russias in the negotiation process.

    Basically, yes.

    In those days,what was the general formula for the solution of the conflict?
    Was the maintenance of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity a priority?

    You have always had this situation where you have two very strong principles-
    the territorial integrity of a state and the self-determination of the
    people. At that time we used both terms, we used the territorial integrity
    of Azerbaijan and we used the term of self-determination of the people,
    because at that time there was no real understanding of what would be the
    status of NK. So, we used both terms.

    Was there a point in 1995-1996 when the parties were extremely close to the
    resolution of the conflict?

    No, no, even not near a solution. Later you had a situation in Key West where,
    very many people believed that the solution was very near, but I don't think
    that Heidar Aliyev ever, let us say, accepted that. Basically, I think that
    when returning home he understood that it would be hard there. So, it was near,
    but basically it was not near. Now there is a situation where you have momentum,
    let's say a creative Prague process, but there are outstanding questions
    which are not solved and it is very hard to say whether you are near or whether
    you are not near, because you are near when you can solve it, but up to now
    nobody can say that.

    Many countries recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, but on the
    other hand, for example, the United States does not prejudge the results of
    the negotiations. In the mid-1990's did you discuss a kind of solution
    whereby NK was not under Azerbaijani control?

    No we did not discuss this because we never arrived at a situation where
    there should be a clear picture of what kind of status NK should get. That is
    why we used the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and at the same time the
    self-determination of NK, because nobody knew whether it was autonomy,
    independence, or together with Armenia, whether it was in the framework of
    Azerbaijan. All these possibilities were open. There should be a balance
    between those two basic principals, so that both principles will be valued.

    Do you see any connection between the solution of the NK conflict and
    regulation of Armenian-Turkish relations? Do you believe this two principal
    issues in some way are connected?

    There is a certain solidarity between Turkey and Azerbaijan. In that way the
    NK conflict is connected with Turkish-Armenian relations, but this is not the
    whole picture, because then you have Turkish-Armenian bilateral relations and
    also you have some problems. Turkey has been in the Minsk Group and involved
    in that way in conflict resolution and Armenia and Turkey have conducted some
    bilateral discussions. In that way they are separate but belong together.

    You were at the Lisbon summit in 1996. In Armenia some people believe that
    Lisbon happened because of fraud in the 1996 presidential elections in Armenia.
    What is your assessment; do you believe that because of rigged elections we
    got Lisbon?

    The Lisbon document afterwards was considered a victory for Azerbaijan and
    a defeat for Armenia. And Armenia had domestic reasons why it was difficult
    to arrive at a better document. That might be so, but in this conflict
    resolution there are no victories and defeats when there is no solution.
    The situation in Lisbon, in Key West - I mean you can always say the other
    side was gaining and the other side was losing, but basically I don't
    really buy this theory because if one side loses a lot, that is very bad
    for the other side. It means you are not close to the solution, because
    there is discrepancy of the interest and in that way I remember Finns
    tried to calm down the situation in Lisbon. Basically, in Lisbon, Armenia
    was isolated.

    You are a former co-chair, now acting EU representative in the South Caucasus.
    You knew the situation in the mid-1990s and you are aware of what is going
    on now in the negotiation process. You met the former president of Armenia,
    now you meet the acting president. What is your assessment - Who is more
    flexible? There are lot of speculations that the first president, Levon
    Ter-Petrossian, was much more flexible than Robert Kocharyan.

    I don't see it this way. I met Ter-Petrossian when I was a co-chair, I met
    him the time when I was here; I know what Ter-Petrossian wanted to do. At
    that time it was really difficult to do that, also because of domestic
    reasons in Armenia. Now when President Kocharyan is trying to solve this
    problem, time is very different, very different. You cannot compare with
    flexible and with not flexible if the time is different, if the political
    situation is different. Basically, both presidents tried their best for
    Armenia and NK to achieve a kind of solution that it could last. As you see,
    so far there is no breakthrough in any negotiations because it is very
    difficult. I confess it.

    How did the format of the negotiations under the framework of the Minsk Group
    change after Lisbon?

    Everybody thought, because earlier on the Russians had told us also that they
    were ready to accept the US as a co-chair. Everybody thought that the US was
    a candidate. In the final moment of the Lisbon conference the US said that
    they were not ready, and just to save the situation France said OK, we will
    take it. So France saved the situation. After a few weeks the Americans said
    that then they were ready. But France said they were co-chairman. That is why
    we have three co-chairman.

    Do you think that the co-chairs work in full harmony? Do you believe that a
    Russian peace will be acceptable to the Americans or an American peace will
    be acceptable to the Russians?

    If you take Russia, the US and France, most probably those countries have
    different ideas how the conflict should be solved. But if you take the
    co-chairs, they have worked together, so they have to find solutions which
    are attractive to the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan. Basically,
    the co-chairs work in a way that they ask Armenia and Azerbaijan what might
    be possible and they draft something and see whether it is possible. If
    Armenia and Azerbaijan find a solution, then everybody will accept it.
    The international community will accept it.

    Can you recall any curious moments during your co-chairmanship?

    The main curious situation came when the co-chairmen and the Minsk Group had
    this joint position. When we came to Baku, Yerevan and Stepanakert, we found
    out that all three were against us. They joined forces against us. The real
    decision belongs to Armenia and Azerbaijan. Mediators can only assist.

    February 21, 2006
    General Antranik (1865-1927): I am not a nationalist. I recognize only one nation, the nation of the oppressed.

  • #2
    EU xxxxxxs, Recognize Artsakh NOW!

    Since you say he says nothing and I know the Euroxxxs shamelessly keep silent in order not to hurt their Turkish masters, I didn't read this article.

    I just wanted to say if it's about Artsakh issue, there is NO Artsakh issue because people peacefully voted for independence in Soviet era and according to Soviet law. They got genocide, war and destruction of heritage in return, about which the Euroxxxs shut up. Armenians won the war and the issue was solved in 1994.

    Now let those Turk sucking xxxxxxs recognize Artsakh and let us get on with our lives after 1000 years of suffering.
    Four things denialist Turks do when they are confronted with facts:

    I. They change the subject [SIZE="1"](e.g. they copy/paste tons of garbage to divert attention).[/SIZE]
    II. They project [SIZE="1"](e.g. they replace "Turk" with "Armenian" and vice versa and they regurgitate Armenian history).[/SIZE]
    III. They offend [SIZE="1"](e.g. they cuss, threaten and/or mock).[/SIZE]
    IV. They shut up and say nothing.

    [URL=""][COLOR="Red"]A country named Azerbaijan north of the Arax River [B]NEVER[/B] existed before 1918[/COLOR][/URL]