Arts&Arms Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 The issue whether NATO mobile military bases will be launched in Azerbaijan or Baku will agree to the Moscow proposal to give up those plans in exchange for the pledge to return two or three `seized` regions will be decided within January, an informed source in the defense ministry of Azerbaijan told `Echo` newspaper. Meanwhile, an officer of one of the military detachments situated in Apsheron told the newspaper the other day that US `F` warplanes are already in the territory of the military airdrome in Nasosny settlement. Besides, `Garaeybat` military ground in the Garadagh region has been encircled for some time. `Via binoculars we have seen US lorries, which were delivering military materiel and equipment. It was seen that something was being built on the ground,` he said. The informed source supposed that it were the Turkish military who recommended their NATO partners to use that ground to fulfill various military tasks. As of the airdrome in Nasosny, it will most probably become a place to locate the NATO mobile troops, the source noted. Certain arrangements for placing foreign troops in Azerbaijan are already being held, he stated. At that the source in the defense ministry of Azerbaijan reported that for the first quarter of 2004 some advancement in the Artsax issue will begin to show. `From conversations at a serious level` he became informed that Moscow promises support to Azerbaijan in liberating a few of the `seized` regions via peaceful means, in exchange for which Azerbaijan will have to lay aside the issue of placing NATO mobile bases in its territory. Considerable work is being done in this respect now, the source emphasized. In his words, already in January a meeting of presidents Ilham Aliyev and Vladimir Putin can be held, after which very serious changes in the Artsax issue will be observed.` According to the information possessed by the source, `Russia is ready to suggest Fizuli, Gubadly and maybe other lots of the adjacent territory - some three regions are at stake` as compensation to Azerbaijan. http://news.artsakhworld.com/ArCNews/Eng/i...over=1&id=14527 you guys, pay attention to that bolded part. The russians are promising Azerbaijan to give them three of OUR LIBERATED provinces. Hmm.... WHY? Did the russians fight for those in the first place? For all I know, the only thing the russians did for us was that they gave us weapons and as far as I know, WE PAYED FOR THEM. If this is true, what right do the russians have to decide our future? What right do they have to "GIVE" our territories to them? Do you guys know if Armenians are going to allow this? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 If they do, not you and not all the Armenians in the world combined can do anything about it. The existence of Armenia & Artsakh depends solely on Russia. I wouldn't be worried as there is no way this can happen. In any case I doubt Russia will ever do anything good for AzVeristan unless all the AzVeris in Moscow decided to move back to AzVeristan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 The existence of Armenia & Artsakh depends solely on Russia. I wouldn't be worried as there is no way this can happen. Please enlighten us why the above quote. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 Please enlighten us why the above quote. The first or the second line? From a strict military, geo-political and nationalist view Armenia along with Artsakh are absolutely NOTHING and irrelevant. Do you think there would be any Armenia if Russia didn't issue an ultimatum to Turkey just as they were about to annihilate less than 10% of Armenia that is now ROA during the Artsakh conflict? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 Your thinking reflects the slave mentality often reiterated by other Armenians especially from Diaspora without much merit. Present Armenian foreign policy is diversive luckily. ROA works with the Russians and with US and with EU Russia has its own strategic reasons for supporting Armenia militarily however Armenian foreign policy is much more broader. I believe that Kocharian has done an excellent job on foreign policy and he is on the right track. Russia was a deterrent factor for possible Turkish involvement but I also believe Turks are notoriously famous for bluffing. Much has changed last decade and lucky Armenia slowly is developing a true independent national consciousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 What right do they have to "GIVE" our territories to them? They dont need the 'right', when they have the power....and as the saying goes Might is Right The existence of Armenia & Artsakh depends solely on Russia. I wouldn't be worried as there is no way this can happen. Firstly, we dont 'solely depend on Russia' - I would be very worried if we were. Second, you dont have to look very far to see Russia 'betraying' her allies - Serbia for one, and their considered orthodox slav brothers and not 'blacks' like us. Im not saying Russia should have declared war on NATO over this, but she could have done more to save Milosevic going belly-up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 Your thinking reflects the slave mentality often reiterated by other Armenians especially from Diaspora without much merit. Present Armenian foreign policy is diversive luckily. ROA works with the Russians and with US and with EU Russia has its own strategic reasons for supporting Armenia militarily however Armenian foreign policy is much more broader. I believe that Kocharian has done an excellent job on foreign policy and he is on the right track. Russia was a deterrent factor for possible Turkish involvement but I also believe Turks are notoriously famous for bluffing. Much has changed last decade and lucky Armenia slowly is developing a true independent national consciousness. I agree with everything you said, sadly it does not refute anything I said. But right now the future looks alright (in comparison to georgia & azveristan), so good that i'm thinking of moving to Yerevan for good next year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 They dont need the 'right', when they have the power....and as the saying goes Might is Right Firstly, we dont 'solely depend on Russia' - I would be very worried if we were. Second, you dont have to look very far to see Russia 'betraying' her allies - Serbia for one, and their considered orthodox slav brothers and not 'blacks' like us. Im not saying Russia should have declared war on NATO over this, but she could have done more to save Milosevic going belly-up. If Putin was in power instead of that drunk fool Yeltsin I doubt there would be any bombing of Serbia. Second, out of the entire Russian population only 0.5% of Russians would call a full blooded Armenian "black" and those would be below the age of 18 without any kind of education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 (edited) Second, out of the entire Russian population only 0.5% of Russians would call a full blooded Armenian "black" and those would be below the age of 18 without any kind of education. may I ask where you got this statistic? PS. Im not saying that on the whole we have a too negative image in Russia. But Im sure you will agree to the fact that the Serbs are viewed as a much closer people (probably THE closest, after Ukraine and Belarus). Edited December 22, 2003 by Accelerated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 (edited) may I ask where you got this statistic? PS. Im not saying that on the whole we have a too negative image in Russia. But Im sure you will agree to the fact that the Serbs are viewed as a much closer people (probably THE closest, after Ukraine and Belarus). That's because they're Slavic on top of being Orthodox but in comparison to Czechs, Polaks, Slovenians, Georgians etc. Armenians are much closer to Russians as a recent poll conducted by Izvestia showed. Btw the "negative image" as you put it is strengthended by some of your kinsmen in Moscow, when I was there I could not tell the difference in their behaviour and manners and those of Azveris, Chechens, Uzbeks, Gypsies, Turks etc. Most of them bragged about their criminal activities. One Armenian was explaining to me how he dreams to be elevated to the status of a gogh (vor v zakone) lol. Edited December 22, 2003 by Teutonic Knight Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebastia Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 Well, it would really suck if the russians do this!!!! But if you look at russian characteristics, it does LOOK LIKE THEM. Only russians would go conquer land and then hand it back. The russians made it all the way to Ankara TWICE, and handed the lands back to Turkey. If the russians decide to give fizuli and the others back to azeris, it wouldn't surprise me. The only thing that would be different is that THIS TIME, IT WASN'T THE RUSSIANS WHO TOOK Artsax. P.S. Teuton, I like the way you say AzVeristan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 (edited) The russians made it all the way to Ankara TWICE, and handed the lands back to Turkey. All the way to Anakara!? Wow! strengthended by some of your kinsmen in Moscow what? Your not Armenian? Edited December 22, 2003 by Accelerated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teutonic Knight Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 what? Your not Armenian? Nope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 (edited) At every stage of history, Russia has betrayed Armenia. It starts from the era of early 18th century and the attempts of Armenians to liberate Armenia (David Bek and others.) Then, Russia has betrayed Armenia in 1828 when occupying Armenia instead of the promised help in liberation, and the replacement of the Iranian yoke with a despicable Russian Yoke. Next, Russia has betrayed Armenians after Berlin and San Steffano conferences. The most outrageous betrayal has taken place during the WWI, which has lead to almost 1.5 million Armenian's slaughter or loses otherwise. In 1920, Russia has betrayed Armenia yet another time - first by finanancing and arming the demolished Turkish Army and sending it on a march towards Armenia, and attacking (Russia) Armenia from her south. In 1921, Russia has betrayed Armenia yet another time by delivering the Armenian territories to Azerbaijan and some to Turkey and promising the execution of that delivery. In the same year, Russia has betrayed not just Armenians but the simplest rules of humanity - the treaty of 1921 was drafted in such a way that the WWI POWs of Russian descent would be exchanged with the Turkish POWs, but the Armenians would be left for further slaughter. In 1923, despite the will of Armenians, Russia delivered Karabagh to Azerbaijan. Since 1921, Russia established the most repressive regime on the territory of USSR. It failed to break the will of Armenian (and Georgian) people only. Pretty much every one gave in to Russification except the mentioned two. Russia consistently lobbied for making Russian language the language of Armenia ( as it had succeeded pretty much everywhere, as I said) but failed. In 1988, Russia provoked the bloodshed between Armenians and Azeries out of a sheer desire to have the two people slaughter each other so that she can easier control Caucasus under the circumstances of Russia's crumbling economy and state structure. In 1989-1990, Russia launched a campaign of depopulation of Armenians in Artsax. Practically the only Armenian populated geography left in Artsax was Stepanakert, which also was on the way of its depopulation. Russia occupied the Shahumian district of Artsax and gave to Azerbaidjan ( it is still so.) It was a direct battle between the Armenian forces under the command of Leonid Azgaldian and the Russian Army there. I will spare the details. Since late 1989, Russia imposed economic and transportation blockade on Armenia. Information blockade was imposed since 1988. The first thing that saved Artsax was the collapse of Soviet Union and the pullout of the Soviet Army - otherwise Karabakah was gone. After the collapse, what saved Artsax and Armenia was one thing only - the might and determination of Armenian soldiers and officers. In 1992 (or 93), Russia betrayed Armenia (and everybody else) yet another time by breaking its promise given to the Armenian government regarding the so-called ruble-zone and socked the entire monetary supply of Armenia out of Armenia - this was the most despicable event in the history of the relationship with Russia. Thus, Russia deliberately impoverished the Armenian population, Armenian Central Bank, and so on. In the last 10 years or so, Russia has betrayed Armenia any time she has had an opportunity to do so. It has sucked not only Armenia's blood out, but has started to suck her bones out, too. Russia has already given enough signs that her policy shifts towards Azerbaijan yet another time in history. Edited December 22, 2003 by MosJan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armat Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 MJ with all the reasons you mentioned Russia betraying Armenia why not push to have NATO bases in Armenia. This is rather simplistic I know but if history shows Russia is capable to do whatever she pleases with Armenia then why not closer ties with EU,US then Russia. It seems Azeris are playing that game. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sen_Vahan Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 MJ, Inch es aragarkum? Is there any other way than playing the diplomatic game with Russia, US, EU, etc? Don't you think that the so-called betrayal was also caused by our behavior on the political stage? And how about our irrelevance? In any case, what are the perspectives you think of? (I do not think you would start posting all these unless you have some ideas) V Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MosJan Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 Martin / MJ Name calling and insults are not permitted in our forum – at one time you your self as a Mod. have enforced this roll. Nairi or any other moderator would of act the same in this case – insults and name calling are no way to express your thoughts… Rest of my comments will be send to you in a PM MOvses Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 (edited) Until 1905, Armenians and Azeries (at that time they were called Caucasian Tatars) had no problems with each other whatsoever. It was all started by the Russian Army and political circles then and prior to that ( I am hinting on Russian General-Governor of Caucasus Golitsin as a representative of the Russian political elite, who was subsequently assassinated in an act of revenge by Drastamat Kanayan- Dro. Wasn’t Golitsin who had declared, “we need Armenia without Armenians?) By or around 1905, the revolutionary movement had started in Russia and as the result (or at least one of the reasons), and due to the crumbling Russian economy, the Russian Empire had started to decay. At the same time, the idea of liberation of Armenia from the Russian yoke was put in circulation; a decision was made by Russia, to save their rule in Caucasus, to turn Armenians and Azeries against each other. One documented account of this story is provided in the book called "The Bloody Massacres of Caucasus" ("Krovavaia Reznia na Kovkaze") published in St. Petersburg in 1907 ( I think) by a Russian intellectual (sorry, forgotten his name - more than a decade has passed since I have read it) on how the Russian army initiated the bloodshed. As described, the first instance has happened as follows: The Russian Army, dressed in an outfit characteristic of the Tatar civilians, overnight had stormed an Armenian village (in the province of Gandzak-Giandja-Kirovabad) and massacred the population of an Armenian village. Next morning, Armenians, as an act of revenge had attacked the neighboring Tatar village and responded in kind. The desired scenario was put in motion. In other similar areas, Russians had put cannon on the top of a hill separating Armenians and Azeris, and shelled both towards Armenian and the Azeri villages. Series of these types of events had started a snowball effect. As the result, two peacefully coexisting people were turned against each other. The rest is something better familiar to many. Edit: MosJan Edited December 22, 2003 by MosJan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 I don't see why Russia wouldn't sell our liberated territories (or even the whole of Armenia for that matter) if it was clearly beneficial for its interests. Russia has and will betray any country including Armenia if it is beneficial. That is the nature of international politics. All countries are out there to deceive, betray and abuse out of their interests. Every country has and will betray any other country should such an opportunity arise. So the best thing is to know this and act accordingly, which means in our specific case not to expect that there are big brothers who will protects us against their interests out of altruistic reasons. This is international politics 101 and luckily the current leadership of Armenia seems to know although there is not much to do about it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 A minor note - I corrected the thread title. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arts&Arms Posted December 22, 2003 Author Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 So... Most of you guys think that Armenia won't have much of a say if the russians decide to betray us one more time? Well, I think that if Russians do this, it would turn the tables. Russia will lose Armenia and gain Azerbaijan instead. Don't you guys think so? Hmm.. Oil does solve problems I guess!!!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 At this moment I don't think Russia would betray us in general. As to the liberated regions other than Lachin and Kelbajar Armenia itself has said that it will give away in return for a desirable peace deal. At any rate Armenia can always make new alliances if Russia is going to be anti-Armenian. I think the complimentary policy allows to always leave the options open for quickly realigning foreing relationships. There is no other choice for a small country IMO. But what is the likelihood that Russia is going to favor Azerbaijan and stop protecting Armenia militarily? Azerbaijan is favoring the West as opposed to Russia in oil deals so probably Russia would not get very close with Azerbaijan. Anyway, this is my opinion without analyzing much. There is much more to take into account and we simply don't have enough info to make confident predictions Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Accelerated Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 That is the nature of international politics. All countries are out there to deceive, betray and abuse out of their interests. I dont think this is the case. At its core politics is a primitive 'art' and international politics is just like a small town populated by 150+ people (countries). If one repeatedly abuses/betrays their neighbous and allies then they will only foster hatred and distrust. Case in point: US and Israel, what has America to gain from supporting Israel over the Arabs? what? Your not Armenian? Nope. So, what you doen here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted December 22, 2003 Report Share Posted December 22, 2003 Accel, I agree. It is a primitive (and inhumane) art. "Betrayal" is actually not the right word since there is no real friendship in the first place. So it is a matter of playing the rules of jungle where yesterday's friends could be tomorrow's enemies and vice a versa, there are no moral considerations. As far as Israel and the US are concerned, IMO we have to take into account the Jewish population in the US (a clear interest by any US leadership to have their support and represent their interests), and that if Arabs united and were powerful they would be a threat to US interests abraod. Well, alienating Arab's bears its harsh consequences too. It is a matter of weighing pros and cons of supporting Israel, I am inclined to think that in the net result the US has its best interests supporting Israel rather than Arabs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.