Before I get back to analysing the war in Ukraine, and in reaction to a number of related queries, here a ‘few words’ on the latest developments between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
British efforts to mediate a negotiated solution with Jewish and Arab representatives also failed as the Jews were unwilling to accept any solution that did not involve a Jewish state and suggested a partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, while the Arabs were adamant that a Jewish state in any part of Palestine was unacceptable and that the only solution was a unified Palestine under Arab rule. In February 1947, the British referred the Palestine issue to the newly formed United Nations. On 15 May 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations resolved that the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine be created "to prepare for consideration at the next regular session of the Assembly a report on the question of Palestine."
It is - because the very same people who are crying 'help Ukraine defend itself from the Russian war of extermination' - are, usually, supporting the war of extermination of Palestinians.
And, please, do not explain me about the League of Nations 'creating Israel'. I do not even demand anybody to read 'hard' stuff like Burr's Line in the Sand, Provence's The Last Ottoman Generation, or different works by Morris. At least get yourself David's 'Arabs and Israel for Beginners': any reasonably-intelligent person should be able of reading it within 2-3 hours.
Aha....now it's the Palestinian life expectancy to blame they've been ethnically cleansed while Israel was grabbing all of Palestine and then trying to conquer much of its neigbhours?
Well, in such case, no surprise it's me to blame that Israel is such a never-ending source of examples for what happens when lies, racism, and chauvinism rule...
Igor,
another friendly advice: if this is really the way you think, better avoid me.
I do not even see any kind of a 'disagreement': perhaps a difference in the depth of perception, based on one of us reading almost everything there is to read to the topic in question, and other, sorry, not.
It's a 'greatly simplified' - yet easy-to-follow/read story-telling of what too many claim is 'too complex'. Ideal for people who want to know what's going on in Palestine/Israel, and why, yet lack the time and will to read books going 'much more in-depth'.
Please, read, inform yourself, know, then we can discuss also 'what happened to Jews living under Arab rule anywhere in the Middle East and North Africa' and whatever else you might to discuss.
However, unless you do so, it's pointless to go on discussing this, simply because your depth of perception is not the same as mine.
I didn't say anything like 'Azeris didn't do anything like this previously' (where 'this' would stand for murder or ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Azerbaijan).
I did write that they didn't do anything of 'this' in September-November 2020.
Moreover, I'm constantly repeating myself: I do not have a crystal ball or any other similar utensils, can't make any kind of predictions, and I'm not making any kind of predicitions.
Therefore, I can't know if they are going or not going to discriminate, terrorise, or ethnically cleanse remaining Armenians in the NKR: that's why I say that now we have to trust their promises they do not intend to run such actions.
Reading such comments as yours I always wonder how people write about things they have absolutely no idea of. I have been to Armenia as well as to Azerbaijan several times. I do not want to discuss such complex problems if you do not understand the artificial character of Kharabakh conflict.
Where are you going with this? Stay on topic. Argue that Armenians deserve to stay in NK after it is a known and internationally recognized AZ territory. Ukrainians did not live in a “dangerous” land, they did not force anybody off their land, they were forced to flee their homes, by an aggressor, who made up stories to have a geopolitical advantage against a third party. Almost 30% of the people fled. All of them Ukrainians. Russia has been bringing their own people in to resettle and removing Ukrainians into concentration camps. Please do not speak of something you know nothing about.
During the Soviet Union, soviet leadership had no problem to redraw it's internal borders as they liked (e.g. joining Crimea to Ukraine). Armenia has asked several times the soviet leadership to join Nagorno-Karabakh, but were refused. (Do not know why?) During USSR dissolution, it was a consensus to keep internal USSR borders. If someone disputes Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to Azerbajan, then he/her may dispute Crimea belongs to Ukraine as well (and a good portion of other borders, too). So, the UN is last to blame, I think.
Crimea was not joined to Ukraine. It was exchanged into quite a large portion of Ukrainian land(very fertile and inhabited by Ukrainians). Mostly because after deporting Crimean Tatars from the peninsular ru**ian settlers didn't know what to do on the land and didn't know how to manage without water. So Ukraine (without it's consent of course) was supposed to take care of the water supply - hence the construction of Kakhovka dam on the sacred territory of old cossack's Siches. And also lets not forget about Ukrainian Starodubshchyna, which was simply stolen (with no exchange even) in the 1920-ies by ru**ian ssr. In other words Ukraine would not object at all the return to the borders of Ukrainian People's Republic, maps of which as of 1918 can be found online.
Yes, I just wanted to point out, that Soviet leaders have changed internal borders as they like and during USSR dissolution the current internal borders became internationl borders and that was taken as "fait accompli" and any disputes about that lead to wars. And it's not an UN fault.
The UN fault is in being passive and largely flaccid response to the wars that were triggered by such disputes, therefore "normalizing" wars as a way of approaching such disputes.
You neglected to mention that in exchange for Crimea, Ukraine gave up an equal amount of fertile land mass to Russia. It was a swap. I’m sure Ukraine would be happy to exchange Crimea for Kuban.
Interesting how people spend 12 years at school and only learn to combine letters into words, but not what they mean. What you stated, while a curious factoid, is completely irrelevant to the point Marmot made in the first place. Therefore, the least you can do is to be polite and respectful.
Well, Tom Cooper's "holy cows" in any attempts to speak about Nagorno-Karabagh conflict are:
1. Mentioning of Treaty Of Sevres as a "triggering point" for 2020 > not Russian-Azerbaijani-Turkish agreements in the wake of invasion to Ukraine, or arming of the Azerbaijan's genocidal dictatorship by Israel and Russia, but some regular article in the newspaper.
2. Whitewashing Azerbaijan's armed forces from any kind of mass atrocities, executions and tortures and mutilations and all ISIS-style "performances"
3. Speaking about "corruption" > I can bet that in every interview and article Tom ever produced the word corrupted/corruption are prevail over any other noun or verb
One can only guess, how come respected military specialist, so skillfully explaining complex operations of SAM systems, strategic blunders and breakthroughs, authoring so many truly high-class military history books, so short-sighted and incompetent is such a simple "good vs evil" case.
Tom, have you ever heard the name of the villages on the border? Can you please kindly help to find thousands of their inhabitants? Or the location of the pit where their mutilated bodies were thrown ?
1.) Nobody is forcing you to read. At least I didn't chain you to my blog and forced to you read and accept every single of my conclusions as any kind of gospel.
2.) Which in turn means that you're all the time free to go somewhere else and - especially - join the armies of those supporting Armenian chauvinism (or at least ignoring it) 'for the sake of Christianity'....or whatever other, similar ideas.
Problem: as long as you're some anonymous nobody - and then somebody anonymous and without trace of evidence proving you have the ability to soberly analyse at least one of current/ongoing- or recent conflicts - I've simply got no reason to spend more than 0.1 seconds with seriously considering even one letter of your _criticism_.
Oh, no problem: the 'bill' is to follow in a few seconds: after all, I'm not curious to waste even one additional 0.1 seconds of my time with characters like you.
All these arguments about the “absence of ethnic cleansing” can only be convincing without context. Armenians went through genocide in Turkey in the early 20th century and several massacres in Azerbaijan during1988-1992. Neither Türkiye nor Azerbaijan condemned this. The situation is similar to Kosovo, and if the Kosovars have the right to protection, then the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh are even more so.
Armenians were subject of repressions in Azerbaijan since Sumgait massacre in 1988, and it was the cause why Nagorno-Karabakh ceased to be subordinate to the Azerbaijani authorities. And after that Azerbaijan started the war.
The words of witness of Sumgait massacre: "Людей убивали в их же домах, но чаще выводили на улицы или во двор для публичного глумления над ними. Редко кому пришлось погибнуть сразу от удара топора или ножа. Большинство ждали мучительные издевательства. Избивали до потери сознания, обливали бензином и сжигали заживо. Нередки были случаи группового изнасилования женщин и девушек, часто насилие происходило на глазах близких, после чего их убивали. Не жалели ни стариков, ни детей".
This massacre was provoked by decisive propaganda and backed by soviet government as a responce to NKR desire to be a part of Armenia.
All responsible of this massacre were not punished. Many believe that such situation with Sumgait massacre started a war between two nations.
Up front: for me, anybody instigating a war = mass murderer.
I do not make any kind of distinctions in this regards: do not care about nationalities, ethnic or religious associations etc.
So, when you come to me to explain me about genocide on Armenians, can't but wonder: why aren't you discussing the genocide on Muslim population of south-eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries?
....and conclude that there is lots of 'selective memory' in this regards, resulting in a situation where 'people' (so also many visiting my blog) are recalling genocide on Armenians, but 'do not know' about genocide on Muslims of south-eastern Europe. Usually because 'if ethnic cleansing is run by Christians then it isn't ethnic cleansing'...
Thus, a friendly- (really: well-meant) recommendation: please, abstain from starting such discussions with me. I'm furious about any such acts, no matter who committed them - and very eager to remind people that the discussion 'who was first, egg or hen' is never over.
I'm against selective memory too. Just if the country doesn't condemn their previous genocides or massacres, no matter what they say about "no ethnic cleansing" in the current situation. I don't discuss the genocide on Muslim population because the topic of your article is different.
Therefore, if there was an independent Polish enclave on the territory of Ukraine, statements “we have the right to seize it, because this is our territory and we will not do ethnic cleansing” would have no meaning.
I believe the post-soviet Ukrainian governments were too lazy and corrupt to even think of any ethnic cleansing. That usually requires some kind of dictator.
It's still unknown who started this massacres between ukrainians and poles: one of the sides or soviet kgb provocateurs. In any case, ukrainian territory was occupied by poles.
The number of 'honourable exceptions' - the number of countries that publicly admitted, confirmed, regretted etc. own misdeeds (in sense of genocides, ethnic cleansing, mass-murder etc.) - can be counted on fingers of one hand. Indeed, the mass of 'noble' and 'civilised' West is still not ready to admit and assume responsibility for even one of their own atrocities.
In this regards, there is no difference between the USA and its genocide on native population of 'America'; the slavery or outrages like the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 and its support for the Zionist ethnic cleansing of the native population of Palestine since 1947 - and all the former (and current) European 'superpowers' that used to maintain 'colonial empires' for much of the last 500 years: none of them is ready to openly admit and assume responsibility for their misdeeds.
But, you expect countries like Turkey to make the start?
Why should they do so? What examples do they have, they can follow?
The fact that Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Greece, Armenia aren't anywhere near coming to the idea to admit the genocide on the Muslim population of south-eastern Europe of the 19th Century and the early 20th Century? Heck, Russia wouldn't even assume responsibility for pogroms of the Jews in the 19th Century...
The USA and other Western contries overall condemned crimes against native Americans and during colonial time. This cannot be compared with the hostile anti-Armenian narrative which dominated in Turkey and Azerbaijan.
The degree of hatred between Armenians and Azerbaijanis is such that Armenians will not be able to live in Azerbaijan. Ethnic cleansing is inevitable. Unless Azerbaijan grants them autonomy, but they are not going to.
The context is Armenians did commit a very real ethnic cleansing in 1994. Yet you dont care since the tormentors were Christians and the victims Muslims.
Instead and talk about a hypothetical one.
All theses comments fearing a potential ethnic cleansing of Armenians by Azeri would gain a modicum of credibly if they pressed for some justice for 1994. Instead it is just apparent how all of this is based on sectarism in its purest form.
From my point of view, the best solution would be to divide the territories according to their ethnicity in 1990. I condemn the ethnic cleansing of the territories around Nagorno-Karabakh and Shusha within it.
Afaik there were negotiations based on this idea until the mid 2000s. The idea would have been to restore the ethnically cleansed Azeri majority districts to AZ (aka the one AZ took back in 2020) while Armenia would keep the rest. But it failed as Armenia pursued a maximalist policy. Instead the local front Artsakh republic proceeded to formally annex the entirety of the occupied lands.
Pashinyan and some of his officials even admitted after October 2020 that pursing further conquests during their office had been a mistake. Thus admitting they were actually contemplating more conquests. As crazy as it sounds in retrospective.
That "special military operation" had all the signs of a staged conflict. Armenia's army proper neither panicked not reacted (even going as far as to issue an "all calm at the border" announcement which they woudn't do if they expected a potential strike any minute), Russia was the same and the west's reaction was something like the minimum amount of condemnation required. And Azeri army's movements were discussed beforehand, Armenia was complaining recently at Russian betrayal, and US/EU negotiators were active a few weeks ago then carefully went silent.
All of this seems to indicate that Armenia was forced at the negotiating table to surrender the NKR, but that was politically impossible without also suffering a military defeat. Maybe not all the details were cleared with Armenia but they definitely knew something was coming and Russia was almost certainly briefed in detail. They're so twitchy nowadays that in any other scenario they'd have threatened Azerbaijan with nuclear war or something.
It's perfectly possible that Pashinyan knew what's going to happen but, because of all the crazed chauvinists around him - including the 'commanders' of armed forces he's supposed to control (as prime minister) - found himself out of position to do anything at all.
At least it's so that, after years of monitoring his behavior (statements, actions etc.) I'm sure he's going to argument in style of, 'told you so, but you all refused to listen'.
Also, Pashinyan's gov's reaction was pretty sober and rational. If AZ keeps it's part of the bargain and there are no massacres of the population, but also Pashinyan shows some competence and shrewdness in politically surviving this, in the end it'll be a good thing for Armenia's future. They'll get rid of the Russians, become Western aligned, temper their diaspora's unhealthy influence and get a starting point to finally start to develop like a normal country.
Ironically, the "sick man" of the Caucasus will become Georgia, whos' government sold their peoples future refusing EU accession talks. It was once in a lifetime opportunity.
Hello Tom. Few edits and corrections to propose since I am sitting in Baku and have a lot of first hand information from my colleagues working in Khankendi. Number of casualties of NK side are exaggerated and are not close to 1000. Re RPKF, they were not killed in helicopter ( that happened in November 2020), 5 of them were killed by AZ SoF ( e.g. fog , rain , mistake) and top ranking AZ general in charge for the front line had been dismissed, Aliyev called Putin to apologize and offered compensation to families of dead, sixth RPKF soldier was killed by NK army. GoAZ is calling this " anti terrorist operation" with aim to regain territorial integrity of AZ that Pashanyan on many occasion acknowledged and even signed document in Prague last year. You are right, AR never pulled back army from NK, even now Pashanyan is " cleaning his hands" stating that there are no AR soldiers on the ground what is highly questionable. My personal opinion is that this is well prepared in advance with the aim of removing pro wester PM of AR, installing pro RF puppet, keeping military base of RF in AR and no NATO at the border with Iran and RF. To biggest absurd to the geo politic and the region, Iran was the biggest ally of AR but as soon as AR held join exercise with almighty 187 USA Army they changed narrative. Poor AR is without allies and will not interfere in this localized conflict with big geostrategic implication. Many thanks for good summary
Why they should? Iran always respected international borders, NK was not recognized even by Armenia? Iran was always rhetoric about AZ ( we will wipe them out) until the moment when Pashanyan invited USA ( 187 soldiers) for join exercise. To support someone who want to have NATO in the country at the border with Iran? Moreover Iran need AZ to bypass sanctions so they use both AR and AZ as way to transport the goods freely. Position of Russia. They are exporting gas from RF to Europe though AZ :) Aliyev signed contract that AZ will export 26 billion cm3 of gas to Europe while domestic productions in only 10 and no more capacities. Even those 10 billion cm2 are exported to EU and than for domestic consumption imported from RF.
The one very important topic is lost in every recent news from there- Azerbaijan was ready to trade Armenian road to NKR if Armenia allow for Azerbaijan to use road to Nakhichevan according to initial peace agreement. It could be even corridor instead of corridor and seems to me Azerbaijan was ready to provide better autonomy conditions for NKR for it. But probably there was a reason why Armenia preferred to politically support Iran instead of secure their people in NKR.
Thanks. The situation regarding the internationally recognized borders is clear and it's noteworthy that those countries backing Ukraine have muddied those waters given that its the basis of the support of Ukraine. But - "Safety of Armenians in the NKR" - *now, that's the question!*
Surely we shall see a migration crisis due to emigration from NKR to Armenia. The population of Armenia is very homogenous maybe because of former conflicts with Turkey namely the genocide of 1920 when 5 millions of Armenians were killed by Turks.
Your own argumentation is speaking against the logic you're expressing: the population of Armenia is as 'homegenous' - because they're not tolerating anybody else living next to them (at least not in Armenia).
Next part will be azeri will occupy part of Armenia to get access to their zone. They already talked about this in Russia and i don`t think Putin had something against.It`s funny how post USSR politics, split the land of such terrible manner. Karabah was obvious Armenian land and thinking Turkey was forced to do anything sound unreasonable, just like they have intervened in Syria just to get some extra land and kill kurds. The big guys play and the small guys just get destroyed in this games.
It seems that similar drawings of borders happened after both World Wars.
Maybe it is that in a peace time borders are kind of sacred/frozen, while after a big event (like a war or fall of an empire) persons in power don't have much time and stamina for negotiating correct borders with all the stakeholders. Moreover, often a land belonged to different nations in different generation, like Crimea, from where Stalin deported Tatars and settled Russians. And after the fall of USSR some of the Tatars returned. Or like Israel. These are next to impossible to settle.
Erm... gauging by affairs like the Berlin Congress and/or the Sykes-Picot Treaty, they've 'happened' very often, and already well before either of WWs.
Upto a few years ago one could, while registering on the Ryanair website as an Italian resident, choose the province of Rodi (or Fiume, but that's another story...)
As long as the Russian “peacemakers” remain, I doubt that the NKR will be integrated (i.e. NKR authorities will cease to exist) in Azerbaijan. Also, everything started shortly after a joint exercise in Armenia with the US army - could be a coincidence but unlikely. And Putin not answering calls...
Anyway, if the issue in NKR is resolved in any possible way, Russia will lose its foothold in that area and hence its attempts to keep the conflict alive (albeit “frozen”)
For Armenia, the ultimate loss of NKR can be a chance to finally liberate themselves from Russia, join “the Western” institutions and raise the living standards of Armenians to at least the level of Romania and Bulgaria. I think that one reason why USSR/Russia has so often mistreated Armenia is because it actually refused to join USSR unlike Azerbaijan, and has been quite independent-minded.
On the other side I think that the chances that Armenians would make the right choices in this situation are slim. In their constant victimhood and unrealistic “upholding” of the treaty of Severs, it looks that they will follow the fate of the Palestinians which failed to establish any semblance of proper governance in their quite-limited-autonomous territories.
Turkey has allowed both Greece (with which it is still saber rattling) and Bulgaria (also lots of bad history). Once NKR is gone, and if Armenia accepts the loss, the next steps - slight revision of their history narrative and their territorial aspirations, opening to the West and Turkey - and Azerbaijan - should be easy. Why not even NATO entry - together with Azerbaijan. If Armenia is to learn from its recent history, it will see that it was betrayed by Russia and Iran, and not Turkey, even less by the rest of NATO. Unless the grandstanding of Macron has created some overblown expectations, which were betrayed in due course :)
They're on the best way of becoming irrelevant. Azeri police is meanwhile patrolling Stepanakert.
The most the Russian 'peacemakers' proved to be good for was to collect all the arms and ammunition from the 'Artsakh Defence Forces': I'm sure Shoygu will want to have these sent to his hordes in Ukraine.
Sep 22, 2023·edited Sep 22, 2023Liked by Sarcastosaurus
I had forgotten Pashinyan went full retarded with Sevres prior to the October. In my memories it was the Armenian initiating a deadly skirmish in which they killed an Azeri general which prompted the Azeri-Turkish alliance. Thanks for the refresher.
Armenians acted with complete lunacy. They were acting as if the 44 days war never happened. I guess this is what happen when a people is so thoroughly drunk on warmongering and bigotry. I have never seen something like this. By the look of it the Azeri side could completely annihilate Armenians forces if they truly wished to.
Gotta say I am deeply disappointed by th way so many Ukrainian supporters and even proper Ukrainians were suddenly okay with foreign occupation of an other state. I would be lying if I was pretending this + the recuring bigotry professed by some of them did not affect my perception. I so a disturbing amount pro Ukrainian folk hopping Russian occupational forces would prevent AZ from re establish its integrity.
They act this way and latter wonder why so many people outside Europe and North America remain, at best, ambivalent regarding Ukraine. Either international law protects all or it does not exist at all. But it can't be protection for the West and free for all whenever westerners want to pertain to their recurrent crusade fantasy.
I was watching the feed on Twitter this morning. Half the European government were meeting between themselves and Pashinyan to discuss how NK should be occupied by Armenia and AZ should totally not enter its own territory. It had no difference to how Putin orchestrated his meeting with Lukashenko to discuss the fate of Ukraine prior to February 2022. In other words, it was gross.
Side note : Back in 2020 the consensus among French military commentators (journalists and ex military officers) was that despite Azeri superiority in equipment and numbers, the Armenians would win thanks to their superior skills. You know, being superior white Christians people against the inferior Muslims Asiatic slave like barbarians. Racism and sectarism sure arent good counsellors in military affairs ...
Many Ukrainians were OK with the Russian occupation of Crimea and Donbas.
However, none here is OK with the war which kills people and destroys cities. And the Russians were not OK to hold Crimea and Donbas - they wanted and still want to destroy Ukraine.
British efforts to mediate a negotiated solution with Jewish and Arab representatives also failed as the Jews were unwilling to accept any solution that did not involve a Jewish state and suggested a partition of Palestine into Jewish and Arab states, while the Arabs were adamant that a Jewish state in any part of Palestine was unacceptable and that the only solution was a unified Palestine under Arab rule. In February 1947, the British referred the Palestine issue to the newly formed United Nations. On 15 May 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations resolved that the United Nations Special Committee on Palestine be created "to prepare for consideration at the next regular session of the Assembly a report on the question of Palestine."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#British_Mandate
There's too much text there for me to understand those documents.
In practice, the state had mixed population with Jews in minority, was governed by British, and had immigration quotes for Jews.
Does that look like the modern Israel, or as an independent state?
Are they governed by the Great Britain?
It is - because the very same people who are crying 'help Ukraine defend itself from the Russian war of extermination' - are, usually, supporting the war of extermination of Palestinians.
And, please, do not explain me about the League of Nations 'creating Israel'. I do not even demand anybody to read 'hard' stuff like Burr's Line in the Sand, Provence's The Last Ottoman Generation, or different works by Morris. At least get yourself David's 'Arabs and Israel for Beginners': any reasonably-intelligent person should be able of reading it within 2-3 hours.
Aha....now it's the Palestinian life expectancy to blame they've been ethnically cleansed while Israel was grabbing all of Palestine and then trying to conquer much of its neigbhours?
Well, in such case, no surprise it's me to blame that Israel is such a never-ending source of examples for what happens when lies, racism, and chauvinism rule...
Igor,
another friendly advice: if this is really the way you think, better avoid me.
I do not even see any kind of a 'disagreement': perhaps a difference in the depth of perception, based on one of us reading almost everything there is to read to the topic in question, and other, sorry, not.
I'll repeat my recommendation: read David's 'Arabs and Israel for Beginners' (here a link to, for example, Amazon store, where you can buy it very quickly: https://www.amazon.com/Arabs-Israel-Beginners-Ron-David/dp/1934389161).
It's a 'greatly simplified' - yet easy-to-follow/read story-telling of what too many claim is 'too complex'. Ideal for people who want to know what's going on in Palestine/Israel, and why, yet lack the time and will to read books going 'much more in-depth'.
Please, read, inform yourself, know, then we can discuss also 'what happened to Jews living under Arab rule anywhere in the Middle East and North Africa' and whatever else you might to discuss.
However, unless you do so, it's pointless to go on discussing this, simply because your depth of perception is not the same as mine.
"Now everybody has to hope Azerbaijanis are going to stick to their promises regarding safety of Armenians in the NKR."
Are there any indications of the opposite? According to your text Azeri did not do anything like this previously, so why would they now?
I didn't say anything like 'Azeris didn't do anything like this previously' (where 'this' would stand for murder or ethnic cleansing of Armenians in Azerbaijan).
I did write that they didn't do anything of 'this' in September-November 2020.
Moreover, I'm constantly repeating myself: I do not have a crystal ball or any other similar utensils, can't make any kind of predictions, and I'm not making any kind of predicitions.
Therefore, I can't know if they are going or not going to discriminate, terrorise, or ethnically cleanse remaining Armenians in the NKR: that's why I say that now we have to trust their promises they do not intend to run such actions.
Armenians will escape by their free will.
Ukrainian territory IS OCCUPIED partly and Russia attacks the remaining part. If you do not see the difference who am I to explain it to you.
Reading such comments as yours I always wonder how people write about things they have absolutely no idea of. I have been to Armenia as well as to Azerbaijan several times. I do not want to discuss such complex problems if you do not understand the artificial character of Kharabakh conflict.
Where are you going with this? Stay on topic. Argue that Armenians deserve to stay in NK after it is a known and internationally recognized AZ territory. Ukrainians did not live in a “dangerous” land, they did not force anybody off their land, they were forced to flee their homes, by an aggressor, who made up stories to have a geopolitical advantage against a third party. Almost 30% of the people fled. All of them Ukrainians. Russia has been bringing their own people in to resettle and removing Ukrainians into concentration camps. Please do not speak of something you know nothing about.
During the Soviet Union, soviet leadership had no problem to redraw it's internal borders as they liked (e.g. joining Crimea to Ukraine). Armenia has asked several times the soviet leadership to join Nagorno-Karabakh, but were refused. (Do not know why?) During USSR dissolution, it was a consensus to keep internal USSR borders. If someone disputes Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to Azerbajan, then he/her may dispute Crimea belongs to Ukraine as well (and a good portion of other borders, too). So, the UN is last to blame, I think.
Interesting observations. The role of the USSR in all this
Crimea was not joined to Ukraine. It was exchanged into quite a large portion of Ukrainian land(very fertile and inhabited by Ukrainians). Mostly because after deporting Crimean Tatars from the peninsular ru**ian settlers didn't know what to do on the land and didn't know how to manage without water. So Ukraine (without it's consent of course) was supposed to take care of the water supply - hence the construction of Kakhovka dam on the sacred territory of old cossack's Siches. And also lets not forget about Ukrainian Starodubshchyna, which was simply stolen (with no exchange even) in the 1920-ies by ru**ian ssr. In other words Ukraine would not object at all the return to the borders of Ukrainian People's Republic, maps of which as of 1918 can be found online.
Yes, I just wanted to point out, that Soviet leaders have changed internal borders as they like and during USSR dissolution the current internal borders became internationl borders and that was taken as "fait accompli" and any disputes about that lead to wars. And it's not an UN fault.
The UN fault is in being passive and largely flaccid response to the wars that were triggered by such disputes, therefore "normalizing" wars as a way of approaching such disputes.
You neglected to mention that in exchange for Crimea, Ukraine gave up an equal amount of fertile land mass to Russia. It was a swap. I’m sure Ukraine would be happy to exchange Crimea for Kuban.
Yes I agree, but it's not important in this story. See my comment to Theodora.
Interesting how people choose to throw out partial factoids, but continue to argue their side...
Interesting how people spend 12 years at school and only learn to combine letters into words, but not what they mean. What you stated, while a curious factoid, is completely irrelevant to the point Marmot made in the first place. Therefore, the least you can do is to be polite and respectful.
Well, Tom Cooper's "holy cows" in any attempts to speak about Nagorno-Karabagh conflict are:
1. Mentioning of Treaty Of Sevres as a "triggering point" for 2020 > not Russian-Azerbaijani-Turkish agreements in the wake of invasion to Ukraine, or arming of the Azerbaijan's genocidal dictatorship by Israel and Russia, but some regular article in the newspaper.
2. Whitewashing Azerbaijan's armed forces from any kind of mass atrocities, executions and tortures and mutilations and all ISIS-style "performances"
3. Speaking about "corruption" > I can bet that in every interview and article Tom ever produced the word corrupted/corruption are prevail over any other noun or verb
One can only guess, how come respected military specialist, so skillfully explaining complex operations of SAM systems, strategic blunders and breakthroughs, authoring so many truly high-class military history books, so short-sighted and incompetent is such a simple "good vs evil" case.
Tom, have you ever heard the name of the villages on the border? Can you please kindly help to find thousands of their inhabitants? Or the location of the pit where their mutilated bodies were thrown ?
1.) Nobody is forcing you to read. At least I didn't chain you to my blog and forced to you read and accept every single of my conclusions as any kind of gospel.
2.) Which in turn means that you're all the time free to go somewhere else and - especially - join the armies of those supporting Armenian chauvinism (or at least ignoring it) 'for the sake of Christianity'....or whatever other, similar ideas.
Problem: as long as you're some anonymous nobody - and then somebody anonymous and without trace of evidence proving you have the ability to soberly analyse at least one of current/ongoing- or recent conflicts - I've simply got no reason to spend more than 0.1 seconds with seriously considering even one letter of your _criticism_.
'Case closed'.
Oh, no problem: the 'bill' is to follow in a few seconds: after all, I'm not curious to waste even one additional 0.1 seconds of my time with characters like you.
All these arguments about the “absence of ethnic cleansing” can only be convincing without context. Armenians went through genocide in Turkey in the early 20th century and several massacres in Azerbaijan during1988-1992. Neither Türkiye nor Azerbaijan condemned this. The situation is similar to Kosovo, and if the Kosovars have the right to protection, then the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh are even more so.
Armenians were subject of repressions in Azerbaijan since Sumgait massacre in 1988, and it was the cause why Nagorno-Karabakh ceased to be subordinate to the Azerbaijani authorities. And after that Azerbaijan started the war.
Azerbaijan started massacres and started the war.
Uhmm.. yes.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ring
And https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nagorno-Karabakh_War
The words of witness of Sumgait massacre: "Людей убивали в их же домах, но чаще выводили на улицы или во двор для публичного глумления над ними. Редко кому пришлось погибнуть сразу от удара топора или ножа. Большинство ждали мучительные издевательства. Избивали до потери сознания, обливали бензином и сжигали заживо. Нередки были случаи группового изнасилования женщин и девушек, часто насилие происходило на глазах близких, после чего их убивали. Не жалели ни стариков, ни детей".
This massacre was provoked by decisive propaganda and backed by soviet government as a responce to NKR desire to be a part of Armenia.
All responsible of this massacre were not punished. Many believe that such situation with Sumgait massacre started a war between two nations.
Up front: for me, anybody instigating a war = mass murderer.
I do not make any kind of distinctions in this regards: do not care about nationalities, ethnic or religious associations etc.
So, when you come to me to explain me about genocide on Armenians, can't but wonder: why aren't you discussing the genocide on Muslim population of south-eastern Europe in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries?
....and conclude that there is lots of 'selective memory' in this regards, resulting in a situation where 'people' (so also many visiting my blog) are recalling genocide on Armenians, but 'do not know' about genocide on Muslims of south-eastern Europe. Usually because 'if ethnic cleansing is run by Christians then it isn't ethnic cleansing'...
Thus, a friendly- (really: well-meant) recommendation: please, abstain from starting such discussions with me. I'm furious about any such acts, no matter who committed them - and very eager to remind people that the discussion 'who was first, egg or hen' is never over.
I'm against selective memory too. Just if the country doesn't condemn their previous genocides or massacres, no matter what they say about "no ethnic cleansing" in the current situation. I don't discuss the genocide on Muslim population because the topic of your article is different.
Ukraine did not condemn the Volhynia massacre
Therefore, if there was an independent Polish enclave on the territory of Ukraine, statements “we have the right to seize it, because this is our territory and we will not do ethnic cleansing” would have no meaning.
I believe the post-soviet Ukrainian governments were too lazy and corrupt to even think of any ethnic cleansing. That usually requires some kind of dictator.
Do not manipulate and involve Ukraine in this.
It's still unknown who started this massacres between ukrainians and poles: one of the sides or soviet kgb provocateurs. In any case, ukrainian territory was occupied by poles.
The number of 'honourable exceptions' - the number of countries that publicly admitted, confirmed, regretted etc. own misdeeds (in sense of genocides, ethnic cleansing, mass-murder etc.) - can be counted on fingers of one hand. Indeed, the mass of 'noble' and 'civilised' West is still not ready to admit and assume responsibility for even one of their own atrocities.
In this regards, there is no difference between the USA and its genocide on native population of 'America'; the slavery or outrages like the Tulsa Race Massacre of 1921 and its support for the Zionist ethnic cleansing of the native population of Palestine since 1947 - and all the former (and current) European 'superpowers' that used to maintain 'colonial empires' for much of the last 500 years: none of them is ready to openly admit and assume responsibility for their misdeeds.
But, you expect countries like Turkey to make the start?
Why should they do so? What examples do they have, they can follow?
The fact that Russia, Bulgaria, Serbia, Romania, Greece, Armenia aren't anywhere near coming to the idea to admit the genocide on the Muslim population of south-eastern Europe of the 19th Century and the early 20th Century? Heck, Russia wouldn't even assume responsibility for pogroms of the Jews in the 19th Century...
The USA and other Western contries overall condemned crimes against native Americans and during colonial time. This cannot be compared with the hostile anti-Armenian narrative which dominated in Turkey and Azerbaijan.
....while the Armenian, Greek, French, Russian etc. narratives are 'exceptionally Turkey/Turks-friendly'....?
The degree of hatred between Armenians and Azerbaijanis is such that Armenians will not be able to live in Azerbaijan. Ethnic cleansing is inevitable. Unless Azerbaijan grants them autonomy, but they are not going to.
Can you recommend some books or articles on the genocide of Muslim population in the late 19th and early 20th centuries?
For example:
https://www.bloomsbury.com/us/ottoman-peoples-and-the-end-of-empire-9780340706572/
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/review-of-middle-east-studies/article/abs/death-and-exile-the-ethnic-cleansing-of-ottoman-muslims-18211922-by-justin-mccarthy-368-pages-maps-tables-notes-appendix-bibliography-index-princeton-nj-darwin-press-1996-3500-cloth-isbn-0878500944/BB02FDFF14D67DC27E26FA880205A383#
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13602004.2019.1654188
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3180785
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_exchange_between_Greece_and_Turkey
The context is Armenians did commit a very real ethnic cleansing in 1994. Yet you dont care since the tormentors were Christians and the victims Muslims.
Instead and talk about a hypothetical one.
All theses comments fearing a potential ethnic cleansing of Armenians by Azeri would gain a modicum of credibly if they pressed for some justice for 1994. Instead it is just apparent how all of this is based on sectarism in its purest form.
From my point of view, the best solution would be to divide the territories according to their ethnicity in 1990. I condemn the ethnic cleansing of the territories around Nagorno-Karabakh and Shusha within it.
Afaik there were negotiations based on this idea until the mid 2000s. The idea would have been to restore the ethnically cleansed Azeri majority districts to AZ (aka the one AZ took back in 2020) while Armenia would keep the rest. But it failed as Armenia pursued a maximalist policy. Instead the local front Artsakh republic proceeded to formally annex the entirety of the occupied lands.
Pashinyan and some of his officials even admitted after October 2020 that pursing further conquests during their office had been a mistake. Thus admitting they were actually contemplating more conquests. As crazy as it sounds in retrospective.
That "special military operation" had all the signs of a staged conflict. Armenia's army proper neither panicked not reacted (even going as far as to issue an "all calm at the border" announcement which they woudn't do if they expected a potential strike any minute), Russia was the same and the west's reaction was something like the minimum amount of condemnation required. And Azeri army's movements were discussed beforehand, Armenia was complaining recently at Russian betrayal, and US/EU negotiators were active a few weeks ago then carefully went silent.
All of this seems to indicate that Armenia was forced at the negotiating table to surrender the NKR, but that was politically impossible without also suffering a military defeat. Maybe not all the details were cleared with Armenia but they definitely knew something was coming and Russia was almost certainly briefed in detail. They're so twitchy nowadays that in any other scenario they'd have threatened Azerbaijan with nuclear war or something.
It's perfectly possible that Pashinyan knew what's going to happen but, because of all the crazed chauvinists around him - including the 'commanders' of armed forces he's supposed to control (as prime minister) - found himself out of position to do anything at all.
At least it's so that, after years of monitoring his behavior (statements, actions etc.) I'm sure he's going to argument in style of, 'told you so, but you all refused to listen'.
I think that topic was discussed in the recent Erdogan - Putin meeting.
Also, Pashinyan's gov's reaction was pretty sober and rational. If AZ keeps it's part of the bargain and there are no massacres of the population, but also Pashinyan shows some competence and shrewdness in politically surviving this, in the end it'll be a good thing for Armenia's future. They'll get rid of the Russians, become Western aligned, temper their diaspora's unhealthy influence and get a starting point to finally start to develop like a normal country.
Ironically, the "sick man" of the Caucasus will become Georgia, whos' government sold their peoples future refusing EU accession talks. It was once in a lifetime opportunity.
Hello Tom. Few edits and corrections to propose since I am sitting in Baku and have a lot of first hand information from my colleagues working in Khankendi. Number of casualties of NK side are exaggerated and are not close to 1000. Re RPKF, they were not killed in helicopter ( that happened in November 2020), 5 of them were killed by AZ SoF ( e.g. fog , rain , mistake) and top ranking AZ general in charge for the front line had been dismissed, Aliyev called Putin to apologize and offered compensation to families of dead, sixth RPKF soldier was killed by NK army. GoAZ is calling this " anti terrorist operation" with aim to regain territorial integrity of AZ that Pashanyan on many occasion acknowledged and even signed document in Prague last year. You are right, AR never pulled back army from NK, even now Pashanyan is " cleaning his hands" stating that there are no AR soldiers on the ground what is highly questionable. My personal opinion is that this is well prepared in advance with the aim of removing pro wester PM of AR, installing pro RF puppet, keeping military base of RF in AR and no NATO at the border with Iran and RF. To biggest absurd to the geo politic and the region, Iran was the biggest ally of AR but as soon as AR held join exercise with almighty 187 USA Army they changed narrative. Poor AR is without allies and will not interfere in this localized conflict with big geostrategic implication. Many thanks for good summary
Why did not Iran help Armenia in the 2020 war, if it was such a good ally, and even Russia has to on its military resources?
Why they should? Iran always respected international borders, NK was not recognized even by Armenia? Iran was always rhetoric about AZ ( we will wipe them out) until the moment when Pashanyan invited USA ( 187 soldiers) for join exercise. To support someone who want to have NATO in the country at the border with Iran? Moreover Iran need AZ to bypass sanctions so they use both AR and AZ as way to transport the goods freely. Position of Russia. They are exporting gas from RF to Europe though AZ :) Aliyev signed contract that AZ will export 26 billion cm3 of gas to Europe while domestic productions in only 10 and no more capacities. Even those 10 billion cm2 are exported to EU and than for domestic consumption imported from RF.
Thus, Iran was useless as an ally anyway.
Useless like others , namely France and USA. How they will help except some nice talks for eras without action.
Iran helped Armenia in 2020 by allowing Russia to deliver military equipment to Armenia through its territory.
The one very important topic is lost in every recent news from there- Azerbaijan was ready to trade Armenian road to NKR if Armenia allow for Azerbaijan to use road to Nakhichevan according to initial peace agreement. It could be even corridor instead of corridor and seems to me Azerbaijan was ready to provide better autonomy conditions for NKR for it. But probably there was a reason why Armenia preferred to politically support Iran instead of secure their people in NKR.
Thanks. The situation regarding the internationally recognized borders is clear and it's noteworthy that those countries backing Ukraine have muddied those waters given that its the basis of the support of Ukraine. But - "Safety of Armenians in the NKR" - *now, that's the question!*
Surely we shall see a migration crisis due to emigration from NKR to Armenia. The population of Armenia is very homogenous maybe because of former conflicts with Turkey namely the genocide of 1920 when 5 millions of Armenians were killed by Turks.
Your own argumentation is speaking against the logic you're expressing: the population of Armenia is as 'homegenous' - because they're not tolerating anybody else living next to them (at least not in Armenia).
Next part will be azeri will occupy part of Armenia to get access to their zone. They already talked about this in Russia and i don`t think Putin had something against.It`s funny how post USSR politics, split the land of such terrible manner. Karabah was obvious Armenian land and thinking Turkey was forced to do anything sound unreasonable, just like they have intervened in Syria just to get some extra land and kill kurds. The big guys play and the small guys just get destroyed in this games.
Thats the most decent map i could get https://cdn.segodnya.ua/i/original/media/image/5f7/0b2/641/5f70b26417b5e.jpg.webp
Do you mean the area next to Turkey?
Well, how did they access it before?
It seems that similar drawings of borders happened after both World Wars.
Maybe it is that in a peace time borders are kind of sacred/frozen, while after a big event (like a war or fall of an empire) persons in power don't have much time and stamina for negotiating correct borders with all the stakeholders. Moreover, often a land belonged to different nations in different generation, like Crimea, from where Stalin deported Tatars and settled Russians. And after the fall of USSR some of the Tatars returned. Or like Israel. These are next to impossible to settle.
Erm... gauging by affairs like the Berlin Congress and/or the Sykes-Picot Treaty, they've 'happened' very often, and already well before either of WWs.
Oh, the Treaties of Ouchy, Sevres and Lauzanne...
Upto a few years ago one could, while registering on the Ryanair website as an Italian resident, choose the province of Rodi (or Fiume, but that's another story...)
Thank you very much for this report.
As long as the Russian “peacemakers” remain, I doubt that the NKR will be integrated (i.e. NKR authorities will cease to exist) in Azerbaijan. Also, everything started shortly after a joint exercise in Armenia with the US army - could be a coincidence but unlikely. And Putin not answering calls...
Anyway, if the issue in NKR is resolved in any possible way, Russia will lose its foothold in that area and hence its attempts to keep the conflict alive (albeit “frozen”)
For Armenia, the ultimate loss of NKR can be a chance to finally liberate themselves from Russia, join “the Western” institutions and raise the living standards of Armenians to at least the level of Romania and Bulgaria. I think that one reason why USSR/Russia has so often mistreated Armenia is because it actually refused to join USSR unlike Azerbaijan, and has been quite independent-minded.
On the other side I think that the chances that Armenians would make the right choices in this situation are slim. In their constant victimhood and unrealistic “upholding” of the treaty of Severs, it looks that they will follow the fate of the Palestinians which failed to establish any semblance of proper governance in their quite-limited-autonomous territories.
Turkey has allowed both Greece (with which it is still saber rattling) and Bulgaria (also lots of bad history). Once NKR is gone, and if Armenia accepts the loss, the next steps - slight revision of their history narrative and their territorial aspirations, opening to the West and Turkey - and Azerbaijan - should be easy. Why not even NATO entry - together with Azerbaijan. If Armenia is to learn from its recent history, it will see that it was betrayed by Russia and Iran, and not Turkey, even less by the rest of NATO. Unless the grandstanding of Macron has created some overblown expectations, which were betrayed in due course :)
They're on the best way of becoming irrelevant. Azeri police is meanwhile patrolling Stepanakert.
The most the Russian 'peacemakers' proved to be good for was to collect all the arms and ammunition from the 'Artsakh Defence Forces': I'm sure Shoygu will want to have these sent to his hordes in Ukraine.
I had forgotten Pashinyan went full retarded with Sevres prior to the October. In my memories it was the Armenian initiating a deadly skirmish in which they killed an Azeri general which prompted the Azeri-Turkish alliance. Thanks for the refresher.
Armenians acted with complete lunacy. They were acting as if the 44 days war never happened. I guess this is what happen when a people is so thoroughly drunk on warmongering and bigotry. I have never seen something like this. By the look of it the Azeri side could completely annihilate Armenians forces if they truly wished to.
Gotta say I am deeply disappointed by th way so many Ukrainian supporters and even proper Ukrainians were suddenly okay with foreign occupation of an other state. I would be lying if I was pretending this + the recuring bigotry professed by some of them did not affect my perception. I so a disturbing amount pro Ukrainian folk hopping Russian occupational forces would prevent AZ from re establish its integrity.
They act this way and latter wonder why so many people outside Europe and North America remain, at best, ambivalent regarding Ukraine. Either international law protects all or it does not exist at all. But it can't be protection for the West and free for all whenever westerners want to pertain to their recurrent crusade fantasy.
I was watching the feed on Twitter this morning. Half the European government were meeting between themselves and Pashinyan to discuss how NK should be occupied by Armenia and AZ should totally not enter its own territory. It had no difference to how Putin orchestrated his meeting with Lukashenko to discuss the fate of Ukraine prior to February 2022. In other words, it was gross.
Side note : Back in 2020 the consensus among French military commentators (journalists and ex military officers) was that despite Azeri superiority in equipment and numbers, the Armenians would win thanks to their superior skills. You know, being superior white Christians people against the inferior Muslims Asiatic slave like barbarians. Racism and sectarism sure arent good counsellors in military affairs ...
Many Ukrainians were OK with the Russian occupation of Crimea and Donbas.
However, none here is OK with the war which kills people and destroys cities. And the Russians were not OK to hold Crimea and Donbas - they wanted and still want to destroy Ukraine.
Brutal lie
Which of the three statements?
"Many Ukrainians were OK with the Russian occupation of Crimea and Donbas"
Do you live in Ukraine to claim this for a lie?
Of course, as you do unfortunately.
That's why I'm - actually - 'pointing out': see, this is where chauvinist lunacy is leading - and that in every single case.
Didn't follow the build-up. Thank you for the summary.