Ukraine

[Haykakan]

Re: Ukraine

Hmm Ukraine government is holding peace talks but the rebels are not included in the talks..i wonder who it is talking peace with? More and more this is looking like another war triggered by the USA who is ignoring the desires of its European "friends" and consistently opting for antagonization and war rather then negotiation and peace. It wants war to isolate Russia but i am begining to wonder if the opposite can happen here, just maybe the USA might find itself more isolated after this is all over. It will not win on the ground here via military and the European powers never wanted to go along with the USA on the Ukraine adventure to begin with and now the USA is pissing off the Germans and other europeans who do not want to isolate Russia because doing so is not in their interest. I wonder if tapping the phone of Merkel will clue the USA in on the fact that this will backfire on them or perhaps they are just too dumb to learn from the whole miserable Syria disaster.

[Haykakan]

Re: Ukraine

Hakob is right this is part of wests strategy to isolate and encircle Russia with Azerbadjan, Georgia along with other bordering states acting as the agents of the west. The vision of peace laid out by the representative of the USA above is actually a prelude to war because it completely one sided in nature. I hate to say it but it seems the end of the status-quo is near and war will soon be upon us again and it seems it will not be confined to just Armenia and Azerbadjan. Unlike many here i was fine with returning some territories for peace but this proposal is extremely one sided and should never be agreed to by our side. I would like all of those who have been wearing the rose/orange colored glasses smeared with western bs to take those glasses off and read what the west is really planning for us. Russia may have to bulldoze its way through Georgia if the later refuses to grant passage of Russian troops to Armenia-one way or another it seems that borders will be redrawn perhaps several times more in the near future not through negotiation but through war.

[Hakob]

Re: Ukraine

lol good one, these negotiations are a joke.
the mentality that anything close to this will ever be accepted by the Armenian public proves to me that nobody, not even the Americans believe they will ever lead to anything. The first politician to suggest giving even a single pebble of of sand of Artsakh Republic back will be hung in the hraparak, let alone saying give all of it back. there is no buffer zone, there is no security zone, there is no occupied territory. There is Tigranakert, Dadivank, and hundreds of churches and Armenian monuments that lie in these regions of the independent Republic of Artsakh. The only thing these negotiations are good for is keeping away war while we get to the end of this 10-15 year window of budgetary gap between us and the mongols.

Mher, You don't seem to understand the seriousness of US statements maybe. This statements are meant exactly to rekindle the war. This is the start of US/turkey/ azerbaijan coalition open politics. the war will start with US support. This is pointed at Russia.
EU will soon join the band. And Armenia will be isolated completely. The offer to join EU association was an ultimatum just like for Ukraine. This is a pressure on Armenian government.
Georgia will cut the transit to russia. There would be no other way exept to war.
This gets the oil pipelines issue involved, just like the gas lines in Ukraine. This is meant to solidify anti russian coalition.

[Mher]

Re: Ukraine

Fourth, there should be a corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh. It must be wide enough to provide secure passage, but it cannot encompass the whole of Lachin district.

lol good one, these negotiations are a joke.
the mentality that anything close to this will ever be accepted by the Armenian public proves to me that nobody, not even the Americans believe they will ever lead to anything. The first politician to suggest giving even a single pebble of of sand of Artsakh Republic back will be hung in the hraparak, let alone saying give all of it back. there is no buffer zone, there is no security zone, there is no occupied territory. There is Tigranakert, Dadivank, and hundreds of churches and Armenian monuments that lie in these regions of the independent Republic of Artsakh. The only thing these negotiations are good for is keeping away war while we get to the end of this 10-15 year window of budgetary gap between us and the mongols.

[Hakob]

Re: Ukraine

In lew of latest azeri statements of none confidence on US representative in minsk group, it is evident that baku is prepared for the flip flop, sensing that minsk group can be none existent in very near future. So no harm in fake actions creating impression that this group is still important and to confuse adversary more. US silence or mild reaction speaks volumes too.
Baku knows, where true support for restarting the war will come.
It is our job to see all clear and prepare.

Did not have to wait too long. Here comes the proof of my words. US is and will allways favor turks and azeris. It will reignite Artsakh war to divert Russia's attention.


James Warlick: 6 elements have to be part of peace agreement on Karabakh



May 07, 2014 | 18:16
OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair James Warlick delivered a speech on Karabakh at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace on Wednesday, outlining U.S. position on the peace process.

The text of the speech is as follows:

“Distinguished guests, ladies and gentlemen:

Thank you for joining me this morning. I recognize a number of you who have served as counsel or sounding-board for me over the past eight months and I want to extend a special thanks to you.

Let me start by saying that I do not want to revisit the history of the conflict. Our goal should be to find a pragmatic way forward to bring about a lasting settlement.

Although I speak to you today as the U.S. co-chairman of the OSCE Minsk Group, I do not speak for the co-chairs. My message to you is a statement of official U.S. government policy that guides our engagement as we help the parties find peace.

And peace is within reach. The sides have come to a point where their positions on the way forward are not that far apart. They have almost reached agreement on several occasions – most recently in 2011. And when they inevitably returned to the negotiating table after each failed round, the building blocks of the next “big idea” were similar to the last time.

There is a body of principles, understandings, and documents already on the table that lay out a deal, and no one has suggested we abandon them. The challenge is to find a way to help the sides take that last, bold step forward to bridge their remaining differences and deliver the peace and stability that their populations deserve.
For two decades, however, peace has been elusive. All parties distrust each other and a generation of young people has grown up in Armenia and Azerbaijan with no first-hand experience of each other. As many have noted, older generations remember a time when Armenians and Azerbaijanis lived side-by-side and differences did not need to be resolved through the barrel of a gun.

As Churchill once reminded us, “you negotiate peace with your enemies, not with your friends.” The key to any successful negotiation is for all parties to conclude that they have won something, and in the case of the Armenians and Azerbaijanis there is no question that a deal will unlock a new era of prosperity across the region. The benefits of peace far outweigh the costs of continued stalemate, and avoid the catastrophic consequences of renewed hostilities.

Armenia would immediately benefit from open borders, greater security, and new opportunities to trade, travel, and engage with all its neighbors.

Azerbaijan would eliminate a key impediment to its growth as a player on the world stage, regional trade hub, and strong security partner, while giving hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons a prospect for reconciliation and return.

The thousands of people living in Nagorno-Karabakh would be freed from the prison of isolation and dependence.
A peace agreement, properly designed and implemented, would also eliminate the tragic, steady stream of casualties – both military and civilian – along the border and the Line of Contact. Numbers are hard to pin down, but there have already been at least a dozen killed and even more injured on the front lines this year so far. This is unacceptable.
No less significant is the huge financial burden that military readiness and a growing arms race imposes on national budgets – a peace dividend that, used more productively, could itself be a game changer for both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Next week will mark 20 years since a ceasefire agreement was signed. While we can take some pride in having avoided a return to outright war, we must also agree that the current state of affairs is unacceptable, and unsustainable.

Perpetual negotiations, periodic outbreaks of violence, the isolation of Armenia and the people living in Nagorno-Karabakh, frustration in Azerbaijan and anger among its populations of IDPs – this is not a recipe for peace or stability and it is certainly not the path to prosperity.

The people of the region deserve better.
----
I began this job last September with a trip to the region, with visits to Baku and Yerevan to meet the two presidents and their foreign ministers. I also made a side trip to Nagorno-Karabakh to join Ambassador Andrzej Kasprzyk’s team for an OSCE monitoring mission along the Line of Contact on the road between Agdam and Gindarkh.
I joined the team on the west side of the Line of Contact, and got my first glimpse of the front lines. I saw the bleak reality faced by young soldiers on both sides of this Line, who live and work behind trenches and berms, with nothing but barbed wire and land mines keeping them apart.

The sides live under threat from sniper fire and landmines. They are concerned for the lives of their civilian populations and their access to farmland, cemeteries, and buildings that happen to fall “too close” to the Line of Contact or the international border between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

OSCE monitors have been working for two decades to keep an eye on this fragile peace, but have neither the mandate nor the resources to put a stop to the frequent casualties, or even to identify responsibility.
The sides themselves report thousands of ceasefire violations every year, but have been unable to reach agreement on any means of reducing that tally.

I have also traveled throughout Nagorno-Karabakh itself, where I have met with the de facto authorities to hear their views. I plan to do so again next week with the other co-chairs. There is no question that any enduring peace agreement must reflect the views of all affected parties if it is to succeed.

In the capitals, I have heard a more reassuring message. Both presidents want to make progress. Both agree that the series of documents negotiated over the past several years contains the outlines of a deal.

The co-chairs hosted the presidents in Vienna last November. This was their first meeting since January 2012 – and the first time since 2009 for them to meet one-on-one. We were encouraged by their conversation, and by their stated commitment to find a way forward. Since that time, we have met on ten separate occasions with one or both foreign ministers to keep the discussion alive.

It is clear, however, that only the presidents have the ability to conclude a deal with such transformative consequences for their countries. It is the presidents who must take the bold steps needed to make peace. The United States has pressed both leaders to meet again soon and take advantage of this window of opportunity when peace is possible.
----
When I made that first trip to Baku and Yerevan last fall, I carried with me President Obama’s endorsement and reaffirmation of the U.S. commitment to working for peace as a Minsk Group co-chair and a close partner with both countries. The outlines of a compromise were already well established by that point, and my message was that the time had come for a renewed effort to bring peace to the region.

Let me walk you through the key elements of that “well-established” compromise, all of which have been in the public domain since appearing in joint statements by Presidents Obama, Medvedev, and Sarkozy in L’Aquila in 2009 andMuskoka in 2010. These principles and elements form the basis of U.S. policy toward the Minsk Group and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

At the heart of a deal are the UN Charter and relevant documents and the core principles of the Helsinki Final Act. In particular, we focus on those principles and commitments that pertain to the non-use or threat of force, territorial integrity, and equal rights and self-determination of peoples.

Building on that foundation, there are six elements that will have to be part of any peace agreement if it is to endure. While the sequencing and details of these elements remains the subject of negotiations, they must be seen as an integrated whole. Any attempt to select some elements over others will make it impossible to achieve a balanced solution.

In no particular order, these elements are:

First, in light of Nagorno-Karabakh’s complex history, the sides should commit to determining its final legal status through a mutually agreed and legally binding expression of will in the future. This is not optional. Interim status will be temporary.

Second, the area within the boundaries of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region that is not controlled by Baku should be granted an interim status that, at a minimum, provides guarantees for security and self-governance.

Third, the occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh should be returned to Azerbaijani control. There can be no settlement without respect for Azerbaijan’s sovereignty, and the recognition that its sovereignty over these territories must be restored.

Fourth, there should be a corridor linking Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh. It must be wide enough to provide secure passage, but it cannot encompass the whole of Lachin district.

Fifth, an enduring settlement will have to recognize the right of all IDPs and refugees to return to their former places of residence.

Sixth and finally, a settlement must include international security guarantees that would include a peacekeeping operation. There is no scenario in which peace can be assured without a well-designed peacekeeping operation that enjoys the confidence of all sides.
----
The time has come for the sides to commit themselves to peace negotiations, building on the foundation of work done so far. It is not realistic to conclude that occasional meetings are sufficient by themselves to bring about a lasting peace.

When such negotiations commence, the parties should not only reconfirm their commitment to the ceasefire but also undertake much-needed and long-sought security confidence-building measures.

Once we get into such peace negotiations, there is a much broader range of practical issues that we can put on the table to benefit all sides. There are economic and commercial incentives to develop; energy, transportation, and communications links to rebuild; and travel and people-to-people programs that can begin to counter the dangerously one-sided narratives that currently prevail.

The co-chairs of the Minsk Group share a common interest in helping the sides reach a peaceful resolution. We intend to continue working through the Minsk Group as the primary channel for resolving this conflict. Together with France, the United States and Russia share a common commitment to peace and security in Nagorno-Karabakh. The United States stands ready to help in any way we can. I would also call on the diaspora communities in the United States and around the world to speak out for peace and to help bring an end to this conflict.

Of course, it is up to the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan to take the first step. They should consider measures, even unilateral ones, that will demonstrate their stated commitment to making progress, reducing tensions, and improving the atmosphere for negotiations. They should reduce the hostile rhetoric, and prepare their populations for peace, not war.

Track II efforts to build people-to-people contacts between Azerbaijanis and Armenians are no less integral to a lasting settlement. Programs of this kind can help citizens of both countries prepare for peace and find reconciliation with the pain of the past. We expect the sides to support organizations and individuals which are committed to Track II and people-to-people programs.

I hope trhat you will work with us to make the case for a lasting peace. The co-chairs have the mandate to facilitate negotiations, but we should all be supporting engaged citizens, secular and religious leaders, NGOs, media outlets, and others working towad these goals. A lasting peace must be built not on a piece of paper, but on the trust, confidence, and participation of the people of both countries.

Let’s work together to build the demand for peace. Let’s demand the benefits that a peaceful settlement will bring to people across the region.

Thank you.”
From News.Am

P.S. The curtain came down afterall on US double game. It fully and one sidedly holds baku's point of view for resolution of conflict.
One may ask, why this speach now? It is abvious, to give azerbaijan the green light for bold moves. We are going to see more tensions on border and bigger military actions by azeris. Until the day US/west will reignite the war.
I would also say that latest proArmenia resolutions in US are also a dust trown on our face to hide the truth an confuse and immobilize Armenian american community in case of war.

[gokorik]

Re: Ukraine

'The reality is that after two decades of Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west's attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit.

I couldn't agree more. Great article.
John McCain's trip to Kiev must have had alarms bells ringing in Moscow. The nerve this guy has to go destabilize an already unstable situation. I understand his intentions are "democratic" but there a lot of different ways to achieve that, of which he rarely pursues.

[Hakob]

Re: Ukraine

It's Not Russia That's Pushed Ukraine To The Brink Of War



Seumas Milne
The Guardian, Wednesday 30 April 2014 16.01 EDT


'The reality is that after two decades of Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west's attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit … '
The threat of war in Ukraine is growing. As the unelected government in Kiev declares itself unable to control the rebellion in the country's east, John Kerry brands Russia a rogue state. The US and the European Union step up sanctions against the Kremlin, accusing it of destabilising Ukraine. The White House is reported to be set on a new cold war policy with the aim of turning Russia into a "pariah state".

That might be more explicable if what is going on in eastern Ukraine now were not the mirror image of what took place in Kiev a couple of months ago. Then, it was armed protesters in Maidan Square seizing government buildings and demanding a change of government and constitution. US and European leaders championed the "masked militants" and denounced the elected government for its crackdown, just as they now back the unelected government's use of force against rebels occupying police stations and town halls in cities such as Slavyansk and Donetsk.

"America is with you," Senator John McCain told demonstrators then, standing shoulder to shoulder with the leader of the far-right Svoboda party as the US ambassador haggled with the state department over who would make up the new Ukrainian government.

When the Ukrainian president was replaced by a US-selected administration, in an entirely unconstitutional takeover, politicians such as William Hague brazenly misled parliament about the legality of what had taken place: the imposition of a pro-western government on Russia's most neuralgic and politically divided neighbour.

Putin bit back, taking a leaf out of the US street-protest playbook – even though, as in Kiev, the protests that spread from Crimea to eastern Ukraine evidently have mass support. But what had been a glorious cry for freedom in Kiev became infiltration and insatiable aggression in Sevastopol and Luhansk.

After Crimeans voted overwhelmingly to join Russia, the bulk of the western media abandoned any hint of even-handed coverage. So Putin is now routinely compared to Hitler, while the role of the fascistic right on the streets and in the new Ukrainian regime has been airbrushed out of most reporting as Putinist propaganda.

So you don't hear much about the Ukrainian government's veneration of wartime Nazi collaborators and pogromists, or the arson attacks on the homes and offices of elected communist leaders, or the integration of the extreme Right Sector into the national guard, while the anti-semitism and white supremacism of the government's ultra-nationalists is assiduously played down, and false identifications of Russian special forces are relayed as fact.

The reality is that, after two decades of eastward Nato expansion, this crisis was triggered by the west's attempt to pull Ukraine decisively into its orbit and defence structure, via an explicitly anti-Moscow EU association agreement. Its rejection led to the Maidan protests and the installation of an anti-Russian administration – rejected by half the country – that went on to sign the EU and International Monetary Fund agreements regardless.

No Russian government could have acquiesced in such a threat from territory that was at the heart of both Russia and the Soviet Union. Putin's absorption of Crimea and support for the rebellion in eastern Ukraine is clearly defensive, and the red line now drawn: the east of Ukraine, at least, is not going to be swallowed up by Nato or the EU.

But the dangers are also multiplying. Ukraine has shown itself to be barely a functioning state: the former government was unable to clear Maidan, and the western-backed regime is "helpless" against the protests in the Soviet-nostalgic industrial east. For all the talk about the paramilitary "green men" (who turn out to be overwhelmingly Ukrainian), the rebellion also has strong social and democratic demands: who would argue against a referendum on autonomy and elected governors?

Meanwhile, the US and its European allies impose sanctions and dictate terms to Russia and its proteges in Kiev, encouraging the military crackdown on protesters after visits from Joe Biden and the CIA director, John Brennan. But by what right is the US involved at all, incorporating under its strategic umbrella a state that has never been a member of Nato, and whose last elected government came to power on a platform of explicit neutrality? It has none, of course – which is why the Ukraine crisis is seen in such a different light across most of the world. There may be few global takers for Putin's oligarchic conservatism and nationalism, but Russia's counterweight to US imperial expansion is welcomed, from China to Brazil.

In fact, one outcome of the crisis is likely to be a closer alliance between China and Russia, as the US continues its anti-Chinese "pivot" to Asia. And despite growing violence, the cost in lives of Russia's arms-length involvement in Ukraine has so far been minimal compared with any significant western intervention you care to think of for decades.

The risk of civil war is nevertheless growing, and with it the chances of outside powers being drawn into the conflict. Barack Obama has already sent token forces to eastern Europe and is under pressure, both from Republicans and Nato hawks such as Poland, to send many more. Both US and British troops are due to take part in Nato military exercises in Ukraine this summer.

The US and EU have already overplayed their hand in Ukraine. Neither Russia nor the western powers may want to intervene directly, and the Ukrainian prime minister's conjuring up of a third world war presumably isn't authorised by his Washington sponsors. But a century after 1914, the risk of unintended consequences should be obvious enough – as the threat of a return of big-power conflict grows. Pressure for a negotiated end to the crisis is essential.

[lampron]

Re: Ukraine

Why does NATO ignore Russia's proposal to make Ukraine a neutral country? Unless the plan is to isolate Russia and control the oil fields from Azerbaijan to kazakhstan

We have seen in Yugoslavia that NATO's form of democratic debate is to say "Either you do as I say, or I'll bomb you!"

[Hakob]

Re: Ukraine

Powers in west know that more Russia is pushed into corner, more autoritarian and nationalistic it becomes. This in turn could frighten and push away it's closest allies, mainly Kazakhistan and Belarus.
So the eurasian union will be scratched up. Then Isolation can be achieved easly if Russia's partners will hasitate to get involved in open conflict with west.
The problem is, for us, even hugging wests knees will not help. There is no plan of prosperous and independent Armenia in west because it is very hard to incorporate that in west's relation to turkish/azery tandem. Maximum we can hope for is a tiny republic, carved from current teritory just to keep a small foothold.
So this conflict has big ramifications for us. It is very important that in any case, we be ready to fight for life or death, for whatever form russia remains afterwards, it still will be a guarantee for us left in final trade off. If even US is successfull, it still has a vested interest with russia in containing turkish expansion.
The other scenario is Russia succeding in establishing and defending it's geopolitical sphere very firmly, and ending wests expansion in a new order. Then we have a hope of even expanding our borders with azeris.
In any case we have to be an impossible to crack nut for azeris and possibly for turks too.

[Hakob]

Re: Ukraine

In lew of latest azeri statements of none confidence on US representative in minsk group, it is evident that baku is prepared for the flip flop, sensing that minsk group can be none existent in very near future. So no harm in fake actions creating impression that this group is still important and to confuse adversary more. US silence or mild reaction speaks volumes too.
Baku knows, where true support for restarting the war will come.
It is our job to see all clear and prepare.