Take Action Now

[Aaron]

Lav Karen,

 

I agree that 42000 km2 is a minimum for Armenia's physical security. I spoke of territorial concessions not because I like the idea but because I have the impression that we have no alternative. How can we tell Russia, France and the US? "mind your own business, we're not giving back anything. We have all legal, moral and historic rights to keep those territories, leave us alone"

 

What do you suggest? What would you do if you were president? Maybe there are things that I don't know, and maybe we can actually afford to speak that way with powerful countries without grave consequences. Maybe concessions are charyats medsaguynn yev votch pokraguynn. But I really want to know what can be practically done not to make those concessions. You're elected pres. tomorrow, what do you do?

 

Hartsn part e, jnshumn el dsanr odarneri goghmits!

 

A.

 

 

[_femme333_]

I don't understand where this panic is coming from. Do you guys really think that Russia and Iran would like to see a stronger Azerbaijan in the region? Let's not forget that Turkey has influences over Azerbaijan so neither Russia or Iran would like to see any Turkish-NATO-US influences and presence in Trans-Caucasus. I know for a fact that Iran would never want to see Azerbaijan as a major power in the Caucasus, not only because of its large Azeri population in the north, but also because of Iran's northern territory, which Azeris claim belong to them. I doubt that Iran would like any Azeri uprising in the north, and if Karabakh had to be transferred back to Azerbaijan, either through war or negotiations, then the uprising and territorial claims of northern Iran will definitely be inevitable in the long run. I doubt that Iran would like that.

Also, why would Russia try everything in its power to transfer Karabakh back to Azeris, when it was because of their help that we were able to liberate those lands? Armenia is one of the fewest countries that Russia has influence over, after the collapse of the Soviet Union. As you all may well know, Azerbaijan and Georgia have shifted (or try to shift) towards the West (NATO), and the last thing Russia needs is US-NATO forces right under its nose.

Obviously, Russia has lost its political influence over Georgia because of internal problems that Georgia has been faced with ever since the Soviet Union disintegrated. Armenia is the only influence and a friend that Russia has in Trans-Caucasus today, so why would Russia want to undermine its relationship with Armenia by turning its back against it? I doubt that Russia would like to loose it's last link in southern Caucasus.

 

I think the opposite... I truly believe that the current unresolved and de facto status of Karabakh benefits Russia a lot in terms of acting as a mediator, by extending its influence over the region. I think that if it was beneficial to Russia, the situation in Karabakh would have been resolved year ago...either Karabakh would have become a separate state, or it would have been part of Armenia. The current situation is what Russia wants for its own political gains, so I really doubt that anyone would be telling Armenia to give back anything. I'm sure that Russia and Iran know as well as Armenians, that those lands would never be handed over to anyone without a fight, if things came down to that. God forbid that there's another war, but if there is, then Armenia won't be alone in terms of foreign support. Russia and Iran would be the two major powers in the region that will definitely back us up just like they did in 1990's.

 

The best scenario would be if Azeris attacked Armenia and started another war. Then Armenia defeats Azeri forces within months, but this time penetrates further into Azerbaijan capturing another 10% as another “buffer zone”. I wonder if we would still be considered as “aggressors” when it is them who initiated the war. That scenario would be interesting, and I hope that if things came down to that, then Armenia must use that opportunity to go further into Azerbaijan. Then we will see Turkey’s and Azerbaijan’s reactions. I’ve heard stories how Armenian army had a chance to re-gain more territory, including Naxichevan, during 1990’s, but they were stopped.

Edited June 2, 2007 by _femme333_

[_femme333_]

I came across this today. Maybe this clip will shade some light on how Russia views the Karabakh situation when it comes to Armenians and Azeris. The first clip is in Russian, and the second clip is in English for those of you who do not speak the language.

 

 

 

 

 

[ALMA]

http://armenianhouse.org/ Sign the petition.

[Karen]

I don't know where you guys are coming from...

 

Your logic, as I see it, is the following:

 

"Let's make some sesible deal with Azeris, so they would be cool with us, and let's move on. If it takes any little concession from us, which does not harm much our security, let's do it".

 

You all are missing one thing. The Turk or Azeri Turk is not us. It is we, who would be satisfied by getting back the ruins of Ani and nothern slopes of Ararat. Not the Turk. The Turk isn't satisfied until the complete "return" of Artsakh to their jurisdiction (read, complete annihilation of Artsakh Armenians).

 

Same with Anatolian Turks. The recent article in Russian media says (quoting some top-ranking Turkish officials) that even if Armenia withdrows from occupied territory around Artsakh and agrees to a postponed referendum (in 15 years) on Artsakh's status (in former Soviet borders) - Turkey (SIC!) will still not open its borders with Armenia, up until the complete return of Artsakh to Azeri jurisdiction...

 

This is the logis we are dealing with. The only reason for, how you call it, the "hysteria", is that recently (in last couple of months) this very logis became even more pronounced than before. And in a recent week it was picked up by the OSCE Minsk Group mediators and, even more so, by some RoA officials, like Oskanian and such...

 

Stay tuned and see what's coming. We gonna have public protests in Yerevan, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, all over Russia, as well as in some communities over Europe, - held in front of Roa embassies. We don't need the Government, which admits the very thought of giving something back.

 

Sorry that you guys didn't even apply to your local Armenian organizations and RoA diplomatic offices for explanations.

[Karen]

I don't know where you guys are coming from...

 

Your logic, as I see it, is the following:

 

"Let's make some sesible deal with Azeris, so they would be cool with us, and let's move on. If it takes any little concession from us, which does not harm much our security, let's do it".

 

You all are missing one thing. The Turk or Azeri Turk is not us. It is we, who would be satisfied by getting back the ruins of Ani and nothern slopes of Ararat. Not the Turk. The Turk isn't satisfied until the complete "return" of Artsakh to their jurisdiction (read, complete annihilation of Artsakh Armenians).

 

Same with Anatolian Turks. The recent article in Russian media says (quoting some top-ranking Turkish officials) that even if Armenia withdrows from occupied territory around Artsakh and agrees to a postponed referendum (in 15 years) on Artsakh's status (in former Soviet borders) - Turkey (SIC!) will still not open its borders with Armenia, up until the complete return of Artsakh to Azeri jurisdiction...

 

This is the logis we are dealing with. The only reason for, how you call it, the "hysteria", is that recently (in last couple of months) this very logis became even more pronounced than before. And in a recent week it was picked up by the OSCE Minsk Group mediators and, even more so, by some RoA officials, like Oskanian and such...

 

Stay tuned and see what's coming. We gonna have public protests in Yerevan, Moscow, Saint Petersburg, all over Russia, as well as in some communities over Europe, - held in front of Roa embassies. We don't need the Government, which admits the very thought of giving something back.

 

Sorry that you guys didn't even apply to your local Armenian organizations and RoA diplomatic offices for explanations.

 

[abass80]

i belive that some of the things that i wrote in my previous posts were either misunderstood or misinterpreted!

the idea of returning 5 regions to the Azeri side should be considered after the final solution, when Artsakh will be a state recognized by the international community with it's institutions and boarders!

 

i strongly believe that we must look for a long turn solution of this conflict! keeping everything is the best option, no one will deny that! we can keep the lands and defend them successfully now and for the 20 or so years to come! but what happens next?

 

can we as a nation live the next 20,50,100 years in a constant threat?

 

also Armenians are leaving Armenia by thousands (i don't think that anyone really believes the current estimate that the population is 3 mil)! who will fight in 20 years time if a war starts? the Armenians who left the country? lots of Hayastantsis that i know left Armenia after the independence so that they could avoid the army and the war or Artsakh! u really believe that they will come back and fight? or maybe u think that the diasporans will come by the thousands to fight! how many from the diaspora participated in the Artsakh war? (no doubt there will be people that will go and fight but how many will they be?)

 

having this thoughts (along with some others) in my mind, i believe that if we come across a proposal for a solution that gives Artsakh it's independence and security (Kelbajar and Lachin are kept as a corridor that connects Armenia and Artsakh), guarantees the new Armenian-Artsakhi boarders and returns the other 5 regions to Azerbaijan, we should take it!

 

most probably the Azeris will refuse any proposal for a solution in the last minute! :D

Edited June 4, 2007 by abass80

[Error 404]

For those who can read russian:

 

http://utro.ru/mega/

 

Судя по заявлениям представителей Минской группы ОБСЕ, в ходе намеченного на 10 июня саммита СНГ может произойти прорыв в переговорах по проблеме Нагорного Карабаха. Основанием для оптимизма стали переговоры в Баку и Ереване, во время которых были частично согласованы рамочные соглашения и подтверждена готовность президентов Армении и Азербайджана на двустороннюю встречу в Санкт-Петербурге.

 

Тем не менее, даже на этом благостном фоне Баку и Ереван продолжают обмениваться резкими заявлениями. Одновременно бросается в глаза тот факт, что суть рамочных соглашений вообще оказалась за рамками информационного поля.

 

Все это позволяет говорить о том, что международные посредники уже знают, каким должен быть конечный результат, но, сталкиваясь с сопротивлением сторон, постоянно корректируют свои тактические планы. Между тем за 13 лет, прошедших после завершения "горячей" фазы армяно-азербайджанского конфликта, сформировалось устойчивое представление о неразрешимости проблемы Нагорного Карабаха, который все эти годы де-юре как бы принадлежал Азербайджану, а де-факто существовал как независимое, но никем не признанное государство.

 

В течение всех этих лет карабахский вопрос постоянно обсуждался на международных форумах, политики привычно говорили о решимости добиться мирного разрешения проблемы в соответствии с нормами международного права, но никаких реальных подвижек достигнуто не было. В итоге, карабахский вопрос, равно как и проблемы Приднестровья, Абхазии и Южной Осетии, получил неофициальный статус "тупикового". И эта невозможность договориться привычно объясняется внутренней противоречивостью международного права, которое одновременно опирается и на принцип территориальной целостности государства, и на право наций на самоопределение.

 

Азербайджан, ссылаясь на первый принцип, настаивает на возвращение Нагорного Карабаха под юрисдикцию Баку. Армения делает упор на праве народа непризнанной республики самому решать свою судьбу. А международные посредники пытаются найти такой сценарий, чтобы, делая свободный выбор, население анклава приняло "правильное" решение – т.е. вернулось под опеку Азербайджана.

 

Дальше начинается обсуждение деталей. Представители США предлагают начать со взаимных уступок: Армения выводит свои войска из зоны конфликта, т.е. из семи азербайджанских районов, отделяющих ее от Нагорного Карабаха, а Азербайджан дает согласие на проведение референдума по статусу Карабаха. При этом референдум предполагается провести через 10-15 лет, и формулировки его вопросов вообще не обсуждаются.

 

И это не случайно. Судя по неоднократно проводившимся соцопросам, в Армении считают, что альтернативой независимости может быть только присоединение к Армении. А в Азербайджане до недавнего времени полагали, что и выбирать нечего: Нагорный Карабах является частью Азербайджана, территориальная целостность которого признана международным сообществом. В последнее время Баку несколько смягчил свою позицию, согласившись на вариант автономии внутри Азербайджана.

 

Из Еревана возражают, предлагая Азербайджану вообще отказаться от вертикального подчинения и строить "общее государство". Это вариант уже был опробован на примере Чехословакии, которая сначала стала "Чехией и Словакией", а потом разделилась на два суверенных государства. Та же схема использовалась при отделении Черногории от Сербии. Но в Азербайджане прекрасно понимают, что общее государство открывает возможности для легитимного отделения Карабаха. И потому Баку заявляет, что автономия – это и так огромная уступка. Аналогичным образом происходят дискуссии и по другим вопросам, касающимся возвращения беженцев и обеспечения безопасности в зоне конфликта.

 

Между тем, в Армении и Карабахе действительно обеспокоены тем, как будут развиваться события в регионе, если начнется выполнение плана, предложенного Минской группой. Вкратце, сценарий выглядит так. Вместо армянских военных на территорию азербайджанских районов вводятся международные миротворцы. Они будут контролировать процесс возвращения азербайджанских беженцев, покинувших свои дома во время военных действий. Помимо этого, в поле их ответственности окажется Лачинский коридор, связывающий Нагорный Карабах с Арменией.

 

Такой вариант не устраивает армян, считающих, что миротворцы фактически перекроют "дорогу жизни" на Степанакерт, и этот фактор давления на армянское население "блокадного" Карабаха негативно скажется на ситуации в республике. Даже если дело не кончится новой войной и азербайджанская сторона выполнит свое обещание относительно референдума, к моменту его проведения армянское население Карабаха будет деморализовано, что с очевидностью скажется на итогах волеизъявления, тем более что в нем примут участие и возвратившиеся в регион азербайджанские беженцы.

 

Судя по всему, именно на такое развитие событий и рассчитывают международные посредники. Во всяком случае, сопредседатель Минской группы ОБСЕ от Франции Бернар Фасье, комментируя подготовку к встрече президентов Армении и Азербайджана в Санкт-Петербурге, прямо сказал, что "в конечном итоге все территории должны возвратиться под контроль Азербайджана". В том же духе высказался и сопредседатель Минской группы от России Юрий Мерзликин.

 

Таким образом, на сегодняшний день можно констатировать принципиальное единство позиций Азербайджана и международных посредников. Теперь дело за малым: убедить Армению смириться с неизбежным. А для этого ее поражение, как минимум, не должно выглядеть унизительным. К сожалению, этого не хотят понимать в Азербайджане, президент которого, используя любой повод, еженедельно делает воинственные заявления.

 

Постоянно озвучиваемые угрозы "нарастить военную мощь Азербайджана" и силой добиться "окончательного решения" карабахской проблемы, заставляющие армян всего мира вспоминать об ужасах геноцида 1915 г., объективно работают на поддержание воинственных настроений в Нагорном Карабахе и Армении. В такой ситуации официальный Ереван не может пойти на существенные уступки. Хотя бы потому, что позиция по Нагорному Карабаху является единственным, что консолидирует расколотое по всем остальным вопросам армянское общество.

 

Таким образом, международные посредники вынуждены решать две увязанные между собой задачи. Первая – убедить Армению, что, одобрив рамочные соглашения, она не только не проиграет, но получит некие дополнительные преимущества. И вторая – окоротить мешающий мирному процессу реваншизм Алиева. Эти цели выглядят вполне достижимым: Западу есть что предложить задыхающейся в фактической блокаде Армении в обмен на уступки по Карабаху. Речь, в первую очередь, идет о присоединении Еревана к масштабным транспортным проектам, которые реализуются на Кавказе.

 

Такая постановка вопроса не только весьма заманчива для Армении, но и выгодна Западу, так как позволить переориентировать Ереван с Москвы на Европу и тем самым окончательно выдавить Россию из Закавказья. Шаги в этом направлении уже делаются. США предлагают профинансировать "ликвидацию последствий военного конфликта", а Грузия дает понять, что возможности двустороннего сотрудничества напрямую зависят от готовности Еревана четко обозначить свою европейскую ориентацию.

 

Подобные намеки находят понимание в Армении, которая, как отмечают многие эксперты, хотя и не готова к "цветной" революции, но была бы совсем не прочь присоединиться к ЕС и НАТО. Располагает к такому повороту событий и внутриполитическая ситуация в Армении, где в следующем году заканчивается второй президентский срок лидера "карабахского клана" Роберта Кочаряна.

 

В стране, уставшей от нищеты, коррупции и постоянного ожидания войны, нарастают прозападные настроения, и президентские выборы, в преддверии которых уже началась перегруппировка элит, являются благоприятным фоном для "разворота в Европу", на фоне которого будет гораздо легче решить и проблему Нагорного Карабаха. Т.е. именно такая последовательность: сначала европейский выбор, потом – уступки по Карабаху.

 

А поскольку Роберту Кочаряну уже, как говорится, нечего терять, он вполне может позволить себе непопулярные действия, на критике которых в будущем году к власти придет его развернутый в сторону Европы преемник. И, похоже, именно вероятность такого сценария, подразумевающего сдачу позиций по Карабаху в обмен на обещания, а не на конкретные действия, спровоцировала беспокойство, наблюдаемое сегодня в армянском обществе. Масло в огонь подлили и заявления американских политиков, выражавших уверенность в том, что прорыв в решении карабахской проблемы произойдет в ближайшее время.

 

Для России реализация сценария "Карабах в обмен на Европу" будет означать ослабление ее позиций на Кавказе, для Азербайджана – победу и шанс избавиться от комплекса побежденного, а для Армении – не только перспективу начать новую жизнь, но и серьезный удар по основам ее националистической идентичности. Последнее, возможно, совсем не плохо, учитывая тот факт, что именно затея с присоединением Нагорного Карабаха к Армении стала первым ударом по незыблемости институтов бывшего Союза и, одновременно, "великой провокацией", запалившей фитиль межнациональных конфликтов по всей стране.

 

P.S. It looks like things are serious...

[Error 404]

And why the hell we should get the information and the news about such critical issue as Karabakh from other sources and not from ours?

 

Especially now when all of us are very nervous.

[Armenak]

Same with Anatolian Turks. The recent article in Russian media says (quoting some top-ranking Turkish officials) that even if Armenia withdrows from occupied territory around Artsakh and agrees to a postponed referendum (in 15 years) on Artsakh's status (in former Soviet borders) - Turkey (SIC!) will still not open its borders with Armenia, up until the complete return of Artsakh to Azeri jurisdiction...

They actually said that they will not open the border until Armenians stop pursuing recognition of the genocide. The Karabakh excuse is meant for the West.

[Aratta-Kingdom]

Aratta-Kingdom i agree with most of the things that u said but i believe that if we can get a deal by which:

 

1.Shahumina is returned to Artsakh

2.Artskh becomes internationally recognized either as part of Armenia or as an independent state(i prefer the first one)

3.UN guards the border with Azerbaijan

4.Kelbajar and Lachin remain under the control of Armenia and Artsakh

 

i do not see why we cannot give back, as a sign of good faith, the other 5 regions!

 

i agree that people have died to get this territories, but if we want to reach a settlement, i'm afraid that we have to give back something.

 

1. Shahumyan will never be returned to Artsakh unless taken by force

 

2. We don't need others to tell us how we should live. ...once again, let's build our house first and then think about the I.C.

 

3. The U.S. run U.N. can never guard the border with Azerbaijan. Let's not forget the bastards from the State Department were supporting the azeris and the afghan terrorists in a fight against the Armenians.

 

4. Kelbajar and Lachin are already under the control of the Armenians.

 

 

 

"i do not see why we cannot give back, as a sign of good faith, the other 5 region!"

 

and in return, as a sign of good faith, the azeri turks will give us back Nakhijevan, right?

 

 

 

"I agree that people have died to get this terrotories,"

 

this is what the turks say. people have died defending their homes and not some territories. these part of the armenian lands given to the turks by stalin.

 

 

 

"but if we want to reach a settlement,"

 

 

so the armenians and the turks can live side by side like brothers, huh? sounds good, doesn't it?

 

 

 

 

 

"i'm afraid that we have to give back something."

 

You are free to live in fear for as long us you want to. The Armenian people, on the other hand, have won the war because of their will power. Please don't think of the people as ignorant children that need to directed by your will power. The kind like you and I will come and go. The people live in their historical homeland and they have already spoken loudly about their will and desires.

[Aratta-Kingdom]

AZERBAIJAN DEMANDS FROM ITS NEIGHBOR THE LAND THAT HAD NEVER BELONGED TO HIM

"PanARMENIAN.Net" analytical department

 

PanARMENIAN.Net

02.06.2007

 

The UNO Charter states that the principle of the territorial integrity

isn't applicable for the countries which do not secure equal rights

for the nations and do not allow freedom of self-determination

 

The history of the modern Azerbaijan goes almost according to Orwell,

in spite of the historical facts and numerous confirmations about

this or that land's belonging to various neighboring countries. To

the territorial claims against Armenia the story with the Georgian

monastery complex "Davit Garedji" is added now. Who Azerbaijan will

sort out its relationship with next is hard to predict. It could be

Dagestan, Iran, or Turkey. But before making any demands it is better

to try and learn the history of the own nation and not to search

any family tree where it doesn't exist; among Albanians, Persians,

Turks etc.

 

/PanARMENIAN.Net/ In 1918 the Musafat party (Equality) first used

the term "Azerbaijan" for the area situated on the territory of two

Transcaucasian historical areas; Shirvana and Arrana. Before that the

place-name "Azerbaijan" only referred to the territories situated

to the south of the River Arax, in the area of Tebriz, Ardebil and

Lake Urmia. Later the land of Azerbaijan and Eastern Transcaucasia

(modern Azerbaijan) were populated with people of almost identical

ethnic origins. In 1936 Azerbaijan was integrated into USSR on the

bases of the Soviet Republic rights. The Azeri Turks were officially

called Azerbaijani; Azerbaijani was also the name of their official

language. It was then, when with the decision of the Soviet Government

the Azeri written language was translated from Latin to Cyrillic.

 

This is how the things had been before Heydar Aliyev came to power

in Azerbaijan. Taking the control of the country, he immediately

decided to "revise" the history of the country. It was then, when

Farida Mamedov's notorious work "The Caucasian Albania" appeared,

Guliyev's book about medieval architecture of Albania where all

the Armenian churches and khachkars were announced to be Albanian,

i.e. Azerbaijani. All this enabled Baku to "revise" the belonging

of the territories included in Az.USSR. The most interesting part

is that the Deputy Minister of the Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan

Khalaf Khalafov himself blurted out about the boarders. "In its time

the USSR authorities didn't regard the issue of delimitation of the

administrative rights among the former Soviet countries, which led to

a number of problems in boarder delimitation. According to his words,

often different documents referring to the issue of territories of

this or that country contradict each other," says Day.az. Historian

Jamil Hasanly is sure that, "Many native Azeri territories have gone

to the neighboring countries. Today we don't have to squander our

territories. We must try to save what has been left to us after giving

out Azeri lands, and today we cannot lose a single square meter".

 

The parties' incapacity of finding a peaceful solution of the

controversies concerning the territorial integrity as well as the right

of nations' self-determination leads to national conflicts growing

into military confrontation. The principle of territorial integrity

exclusively works for the protection of the country against external

aggression, and this is closely interconnected with its formula in UNO

Charter; "All the UN Members in their international relations refrain

from force or its implementation against the territorial inviolability

or political independence of any country, as well as any other method

incompatible with the objectives of the UNO". However the UNO Charter

states that the principle of the territorial integrity isn't applicable

for the countries which do not secure equal rights for the nations and

do not allow freedom of self-determination, and this, perhaps, is the

most essential point in the resolution of the Karabakh Conflict. It

should be reminded that the nation's right on self-determination

is considered to be one of the universally recognized principles

of international law. It gained recognition in the process of the

colonial system breakdown and was toughened in the Declaration of

Independence of the colonial countries and nations (by the Resolution

N 1514 XV of the UN General Assembly adopted on December 14, 1960)

and the consequent international pacts and declarations of UNO.

 

Creation of the multinational empires sooner or later brought to their

breakdown; the Roman Empire, the Golden Horde, the Ottoman Empire,

Austria-Hungary, USSR. Being one of the most significant features of

independence, territorial integrity became one of the weakest points

after the USSR breakdown. The main difficulty concerns the change of

the administrative bounds in the former Soviet Union into public ones.

 

But if Kosovo falls apart from Serbia why Nagorno-Karabakh can't

be proclaimed an independent Republic? Maybe because Serbia is of

much less importance to the USA than Azerbaijan, yet for Russia

everything is just vise versa. Unfortunately once again Armenia

has found itself between two rocks, in spite of all international

principles and treaties.

 

[LSergiu]

I am sorry as I am throwing this post into the conversation out of the blue but I cannot abtain myself anymore.

This is a little confusing, at best. Armenians need justifications to retake their own ancestral territories, and to create a buffer zone, again created from more Armenian territory? Justifications? Please, look. Please "learn" from the cancer that shares a border with you. They occupied the territory of a sovereign nation and they didn't gave a damn about that I(nternational) C(ommunity). Or the IC didn't gave a damn about their occupation? Does a t*rk's life has a greater value than that of an Armenian? Does it? It looks like it does, and indirectly, Armenians confirm this. Why you should always behave like the losing side? Aren't you tired of that? No negotiations. No centimeter of land. Your brothers, fathers, sons fought for every square inch of land (did they not?), an still, there is the shocking thought of giving that land back, for what? For "friendly" neighbour relations? Have you forgotten so quickly to whom you share a border with? Animals don't understand reason. Respect is reserved for friends. Do you have friends? Then keep it for them, otherwise keep it for yourself, for your family. Those animals want to have "friendly relations" only if you are resting under 2 meters of dirt.

 

History keeps repeating itself... The tatar animals will not stop. Those animals (act, behave, "think") should be satisfied as Armenia is not claiming her rightfull land that stretches till the Caspian Sea. Or maybe it should. Armenia will renounce her claims on Baku when Van will be a popular destination in Armenia. If the infected bird managed to maintain her occupation of the beautiful Greek island, then why wouldn't Armenia be able to maintain what is her rightful territory? You have a powerfull diaspora, and you need it as your own political leaders are forgetting their purpose. Use it wisely.

 

You have arrived this far... please, in the name of reason, do not give up, do not let the land that is soaked in Armenian blood be so easily discarded. If you want Ani, claim Sebaste, if you want Sebaste claim Nicomidea...

 

Remind your neighbours that an "azeri" nation did not exist before WWI...

 

Muriti in picioare? Sau traiti in genunchi?

Do you prefer to die on your feet? Or live on your knees?

 

[_femme333_]

I agree that the buffer zone is still part of the historical Armenia, and if we give back an inch of a land, then we are bunch of fools who only like to talk big. Any return of a land is uncalled for. I think that Armenian should wake up and stop acting so passive!

 

We finally have a sovereign state, and instead of preserving what we took back with blood, we're acting so passive.

In under no circumstances should we fall to the enemy's demands because that will be be teh end of it....not literary of course, but in many other ways.

 

We really need to be assertive and lay our own cards on the table, as oppose to making others happy.

 

 

[Aaron]

Did anyone follow the meeting of Aliev and Kocharian? The result is that there is no result! See? Was there a need to panic, to call the president a weak man, a sell out, a traitor? of course not.

 

As I had said, Robert (or Serge) will never yield if we don't have the deal we want. The deal is based on 3 principles announced in many interviews or documents by Armenia's leadership since Kocharian came to power in 1998. Those principles are non-negotiable. They are:

 

1) Horizontal relations between Stepanakert and Bakou. i.e. indepedence of Karabakh or impossibility to subject karabakh to Azeri rule (attachment to Armenia)

 

2) Impossibility for karabakh to remain an enclave. i.e. Lachin (and hopefully Kelbajar) are not to be returned.

 

3) Strong security guarantees for Karabakh. May be interpreted in many ways: UN peacekeeping troops, CIS troops, keeping control over more territories that reinforce Karabakh security (best option), Union with Armenia which is a UN member, etc.

 

This is the official stance of Armenia and for an official stance it is as gutsy as it can be. You can't act tougher than this in diplomacy, when dealing with superpowers. Perhaps our guys know azeris will never agree to those demands and that may explain our stance. In any case, don't worry and don't panic ... nobody will sell Artsakh. Things are ok!

 

A.

Edited June 12, 2007 by Aaron

[hosank]

i hope not....

 

giving the buffer zone (which is part of historical armenia) to azerbaijan would be strategic suicide, for we will be giving them all the highground, as well as a backdoor into artsakh. lachin is too vulnerable if left alone..

[Arpa]

I would much rather Artsakh be an independent and friendly state.

Not only it may be diplomatically more palatable to the international community, it will also give us two states, i.e. two chairs at word councils.

With a caveat. Only hoping that it does not turn into another debate of EA vs WA, Mother see vs diaspora see (church).

Union with ROA or not may be considered after a tet period, at which time we may even consider renaming the country United States of Armenia,

Հայկական Միցեալ Նահանգներ , with the prospect of addding more "states".

ONE TERRITORY, TWO COUNTRIES

 

DeFacto Agency

April 10 2008

Armenia

 

YEREVAN, 10.04.08. DE FACTO. On territory, two countries - that is

the formula the Nagorno-Artsax Republic President Bako Sahakian

determined in an interview with Polish "Rech Pospolita" newspaper

(21.03.08.), speaking of relations between the Nagorno-Artsax

and Armenia. Bako Sahakian underscored that integration between the

Nagorno-Artsax and Armenia deepened: "We are in a common economic

field. We have common currency, similar banking and custom systems.

 

We are quite integrated. And integration deepens year after year".

 

The NKR President noted the Artsax movement had started with the

idea of joining Armenia; however, later the Nagorno-Artsax had

chosen the path of independence. Answering a question what was the

difference between the RA and NKR, Bako Sahakian answered posing

another question: "What is the difference between Arabic countries,

or between Germany and Austria?"

[Armen Half-Celt]

I think Armenia will evnetually have to give the Buffer zone back, if there is to be peace.

[Aratta-Kingdom]

"I think Armenia will evnetually have to give the Buffer zone back, if there is to be peace. "

 

Oh really? There was no buffer zone in 1988 when the azeri bastards started to massacre the Armenians of Sumgait, Kirovabad, and the other cities of azerbaijan. There was no buffer zone in 1991 when the azeri dogs with the help of the sovit army started to massacre the Armenians of the Shahumyan region.

 

If you ever wanna live in peace, be ready for a war. There can ever be peace between the Armenians and the turks, including those from azerbaijan, unless they give up their dream of panturkism. The azerbaijan hate machine has already done enogh damage that which will be dealth with for the next 50 years.

 

 

 

read the article below

 

 

ArmInfo. 'If there is sincere aspiration for the conflict settlement,

no "precedents" can become an obstacle on this way. Public opinion

poll has been recently held in Azerbaijan as a result of which 29% of

population were for the military way of the conflict settlement. This

is a very dangerous tendency, which is the result of the militaristic

rhetoric that always sounds in Azerbaijan', - Armenian Foreign

Minister Edward Nalbandyan said in an interview with Russian

"Nezavisimaya gazeta".

 

[Aratta-Kingdom]

BTW, what do you mean by saying 'give the Buffer zone back'. The buffer zone was never part of their territory and will never be given to them.

[Armen Half-Celt]

The point I was making is that the purpose of the Buffer Zone is to protect Gharapakh, and therefore will not be needed in a hypothetical stable peacetime.

[Aratta-Kingdom]

This is a real life isssue and there is not such thing as 'hypothetical stable peacetime'. The statement you made, also comes out from the mouth of the azeri state officials. They ask for territories in return for peace. One must be an idiot and out of touch with the reality, to ever take the azeris for serious.

 

Yesterday, in the Russian city of Volgograd, two azeris have killed an armenian. The hate the bastards have for the armenians is so deep seated, that no armenians must ever put arms down.

[irlandahay]

ONE TERRITORY, TWO COUNTRIES

 

DeFacto Agency

April 10 2008

Armenia

 

YEREVAN, 10.04.08. DE FACTO. On territory, two countries - that is

the formula the Nagorno-Artsax Republic President Bako Sahakian

determined in an interview with Polish "Rech Pospolita" newspaper

(21.03.08.), speaking of relations between the Nagorno-Artsax

and Armenia. Bako Sahakian underscored that integration between the

Nagorno-Artsax and Armenia deepened: "We are in a common economic

field. We have common currency, similar banking and custom systems.

 

We are quite integrated. And integration deepens year after year".

 

The NKR President noted the Artsax movement had started with the

idea of joining Armenia; however, later the Nagorno-Artsax had

chosen the path of independence. Answering a question what was the

difference between the RA and NKR, Bako Sahakian answered posing

another question: "What is the difference between Arabic countries,

or between Germany and Austria?"

 

oh great, lets further divide the Armenians.

 

its not enogh we have the Tashnags calling non-Tashnag Armenians odars.

 

this is stupid.

sure it seems great at first, two seats at the UN, more influence

 

but then what happens when there is a tiny dispute that escalates? Are we going to fight each other? can you really imagine a civil war?

thinking about things like that brings tears to my eyes. Its sad enough that Turks kill us off at every chance they get, wer gonna make the job easyer for them?

 

it is my firm belief that no Armenian has the right to raise a hand on another, just like a man should never kill his brother.

 

its time to act and think like a family, if not we might as well dig our own graves.

 

No concessions, no good faith. too many young men my age died for every inch of that soil and I refuse to see it all be in vain.

Edited June 17, 2008 by irlandahay

[Arpa]

BTW, what do you mean by saying 'give the Buffer zone back'. The buffer zone was never part of their territory and will never be given to them.

Please!

Whoever knows how to post the below graphics of the map. And remove the link. Or I will remove the link once the map is posted.

===

http://www.geocities.com/fanthom_2000/maps/az-war.jpg

Let us see what so called “occupied territories” those morons are talking about.

If they think that the so called “kelbajar -lachin corridor” will be ceded back, once again letting them back between Stepanakert/Shushi and Yerevan, or they will ever come close to Aghdam…. They should look up the dictionary and see what “suicide” means. I only wish that that clown in Tehran, ahmadi/khomeini whatever his name, get off Israel’s ass and concentrate on how to tighten his land with Armenia. Look at the juxtaposition of that so called azeri enclave of Nakhjavan between Iran and Armenia. How many tanks will it take to cut off furkey‘s access?

http://www.geocities.com/fanthom_2000/maps/warmap.html

BTW. Dear Armenian Half Celt. We love you. But we don't use that furkish name of ghara-kara-gaga-kuku-manga here. It is Artsakh! Despite the fact that our ads and mods have placed a filter to weed out the deisignation and convert it to "Artsakh", there seems to be 1001 ways of spellings that elude the filter. Can we please accede to the fact that there is no such place as "ghara-kara-gaga-kuku-kaka-pupu-papa-baba-manga"?

Edited June 18, 2008 by Yervant1

[Armen Half-Celt]

This is a real life isssue and there is not such thing as 'hypothetical stable peacetime'. The statement you made, also comes out from the mouth of the azeri state officials. They ask for territories in return for peace. One must be an idiot and out of touch with the reality, to ever take the azeris for serious.

 

Yesterday, in the Russian city of Volgograd, two azeris have killed an armenian. The hate the bastards have for the armenians is so deep seated, that no armenians must ever put arms down.

 

So what? You think this situation will stay the same until the Sun burns out? Don't the Azeri state officials say shit like all of Nagorno-Kharapakh/Artsakh must become a part of Azerbejian and then maybe most of Armenia too? That isn't what I said at all.

 

EDIT: Oh and my father always pronounced it "Gharapakh," so it's something that I picked up too. It was years later that I noticed the spelling "Kharapakh." I just assumed for whatever reason it was pronounced with a "Gh." But eventually I understood that apparently Kharapakh was another way of saying it too.

 

I genreally use Gharapakh and Arstakh interchangably. I seem to vaugely recall reading somewhere (possibly even here) that Gharapakh is a Russian variation.

Edited June 18, 2008 by Armen Half-Celt