Tweet
SOUTH CAUCASUS: AN "EMPTY TRICK"
Igor Muradyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/politics25751.html
Published: 14:42:04 - 09/04/2012
The ballyhoo around Iran once again confirmed that the value of the
South Caucasus for the strategic and tactical aims of the U.S. is
doubtful.
Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh have issued their
positions in relation to the military actions against Iran quite
clearly. Such a prospect is catastrophic for all the countries of
the South Caucasus, not only in short-term but also in strategic
perspective.
The U.S. is quite restricted in connection with this position of
the South Caucasus states, but we can propose that they assessed the
positions of the regional countries with dissatisfaction. It was found
out that all the possible materials expenditures for the defense of
these countries turned out quite senseless in the strategic sense
and are important only in terms of security to fulfill two functions:
fulfillment of the military transit and oil transporting.
These two functions keep losing strategic meaning in view of limiting
the military presence in Afghanistan and de-politicization of the
significance of the Caspian oil. It is quite clear that the presence
of limited in number and functions military contingents of the South
Caucasus countries in various NATO operations is symbolic. Sooner
or later, the paradox when for the U.S. strategy in the region, the
Armenian armed forces and its defense commitments towards Russia will
gain more meaning, will become evident since this "knot" is important
in the U.S. strategy on the repression of the Turkish expansion.
The armed forces of Georgia and Azerbaijan, states which try to lead
revenge policy, will always have a local significance for the U.S.
related to the security of the military infrastructure tasks in the
Black Sea, Caucasus and Central Asia regions. Americans understand
that if Turkey manages to solve the issues related to Armenia and
involve Armenia in its plans, the Turkish policy in the South Caucasus
(at least) will become less controllable.
In different reflections on the reduction of importance of the South
Caucasus for the U.S. policy, it would be good to take into account
also the Americans' disappointment concerning the egoistic relation of
the Caucasian countries, which, according to an American expert, who
has spent many years for the region, "present themselves in the world
focus". The U.S. is tired of the caprices and parasitical behavior of
its numerous partners in Europe and it doesn't try to cultivate the
properties of these countries which are in the vestibule of upcoming
big events.
Perhaps, the fact that the U.S. doesn't trust the Caucasian countries
more in the plan of cooperation in the regime of "free-swimming" and
"weak institutionality" and decided to involve NATO, hence solving
this formal issue. Sure, this is no less paradoxical, but logic.
It should be taken into account that Hillary Clinton relying on
influential forces in the "democratic" establishment actually ruined
Obama's foreign policy in many directions, in particular, in the
Eastern Europe and now, under the veil of her provocative program,
she is trying to undermine the president's policy in the Middle East
realizing the plans of Israel and its friends in the U.S.
So, leaving the administration, Hillary Clinton will try to leave
her followers in the State Dept. who won't have anything else to do
but to make noise in the Eastern Europe.
Igor Muradyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/politics25751.html
Published: 14:42:04 - 09/04/2012
The ballyhoo around Iran once again confirmed that the value of the
South Caucasus for the strategic and tactical aims of the U.S. is
doubtful.
Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and Nagorno Karabakh have issued their
positions in relation to the military actions against Iran quite
clearly. Such a prospect is catastrophic for all the countries of
the South Caucasus, not only in short-term but also in strategic
perspective.
The U.S. is quite restricted in connection with this position of
the South Caucasus states, but we can propose that they assessed the
positions of the regional countries with dissatisfaction. It was found
out that all the possible materials expenditures for the defense of
these countries turned out quite senseless in the strategic sense
and are important only in terms of security to fulfill two functions:
fulfillment of the military transit and oil transporting.
These two functions keep losing strategic meaning in view of limiting
the military presence in Afghanistan and de-politicization of the
significance of the Caspian oil. It is quite clear that the presence
of limited in number and functions military contingents of the South
Caucasus countries in various NATO operations is symbolic. Sooner
or later, the paradox when for the U.S. strategy in the region, the
Armenian armed forces and its defense commitments towards Russia will
gain more meaning, will become evident since this "knot" is important
in the U.S. strategy on the repression of the Turkish expansion.
The armed forces of Georgia and Azerbaijan, states which try to lead
revenge policy, will always have a local significance for the U.S.
related to the security of the military infrastructure tasks in the
Black Sea, Caucasus and Central Asia regions. Americans understand
that if Turkey manages to solve the issues related to Armenia and
involve Armenia in its plans, the Turkish policy in the South Caucasus
(at least) will become less controllable.
In different reflections on the reduction of importance of the South
Caucasus for the U.S. policy, it would be good to take into account
also the Americans' disappointment concerning the egoistic relation of
the Caucasian countries, which, according to an American expert, who
has spent many years for the region, "present themselves in the world
focus". The U.S. is tired of the caprices and parasitical behavior of
its numerous partners in Europe and it doesn't try to cultivate the
properties of these countries which are in the vestibule of upcoming
big events.
Perhaps, the fact that the U.S. doesn't trust the Caucasian countries
more in the plan of cooperation in the regime of "free-swimming" and
"weak institutionality" and decided to involve NATO, hence solving
this formal issue. Sure, this is no less paradoxical, but logic.
It should be taken into account that Hillary Clinton relying on
influential forces in the "democratic" establishment actually ruined
Obama's foreign policy in many directions, in particular, in the
Eastern Europe and now, under the veil of her provocative program,
she is trying to undermine the president's policy in the Middle East
realizing the plans of Israel and its friends in the U.S.
So, leaving the administration, Hillary Clinton will try to leave
her followers in the State Dept. who won't have anything else to do
but to make noise in the Eastern Europe.