Tweet
CAUCASUS IN GLOBAL SECURITY SYSTEM
by Hrachya Arzumanyan
arminfo
Thursday, February 16, 14:33
"Moskovskie Novosti" (The Moscow News). Assessments and forecasts on
the Karabakh conflict's resolution given in Alexander Kharmchikhin's
item "Fight for Karabakh 2.0" do not cover properly the latest
qualitative changes in the international security environment. Experts
prefer speaking about Artsakh and the Artsakh problem within the frames
of the usual and well-studied confrontation of Armenia (represented
by the Republic of Armenia and NKR) and Azerbaijan.
Such approach meets the realities of early 1990s when Russia as the
USSR's heir had enough weight to prevent any attempts of external
military and political pressure on the conflicting parties. The borders
of the USSR that no longer existed as a political phenomenon were
still real then and restricted the activity of other geopolitical
centers. However, much has changed in the region and in the world
over the past 20 years.
Artsakh has passed the evolutionary path of its statehood that was
quite rich with events. It is a little strange and unusual process
for the external world, indeed, as the NKR was established without
participation of the world community. However, unlike many other
crisis flashpoints, it has proved successful. In the new conditions,
any attempts to ignore Artsakh in the Karabakh process are obviously
unsound.
As for the international context, the 5-day war of August 2008 and
the Arab awakening of 2011 that drew the line under the post-Soviet
period have fundamentally changed the geopolitical landscape. In these
new conditions any military-political scenarios aimed at isolating
the Caucasus from the global processes on the wave of instability
are becoming inadequate and even dangerous.
All the aforementioned can be shown on the example of Azerbaijan's
foreign policy of the latest time when some parliamentarians raised the
issue of renaming Azerbaijan into Northern Azerbaijan. "The two-third
of Azerbaijan's territory is part of the present Iran, therefore it
is necessary to rename the Azerbaijani Republic into the Republic of
Northern Azerbaijan," Gudrat Hasanguliyev, parliamentarian from The
Azerbaijani Popular Front Party, declared lately. "It is rather an
important issue. There are such examples as North Korea and South
Korea, Northern Cyprus and Southern Cyprus. It would be reasonable
if Azerbaijan as a split country were called Northern Azerbaijan,"
said Siyavush Novruzov, Deputy Executive Secretary of Yeni Azerbaijan
Party. Inherently, Azerbaijan is making territorial claims to its
southern neighbor.
Such behavior of Azerbaijani politicians has become something prosy
for the Armenian party and the entire post-Soviet area. Everyone here
has got used to the language of ultimatums of Azerbaijani politicians
who never care for their phrases or possible consequences of their
statements. In the given case, however, Azerbaijan has exceeded
the bounds of permissible and now crossing the borders of the
post-Soviet space it threatens a country that is in the phase of
serious military-political confrontation with the West.
In this light, Iran will hardly come down to the "psychological
complexes" of the Azerbaijani statehood and will have to take
such statements as well-thought and coordinated political steps,
especially that Iran is reluctant to regard Azerbaijan as a foothold
for destabilization of the situation inside that country. Tehran
has already warned to take adequate measures of counteraction and
even make military attacks if Azerbaijan's territory is used for
hostilities against Iran.
Thus, the borders of the post-Soviet area in the Caucasus have become
"perforated" and do not rule out force projection. In this light, it
is at least not serious and even irresponsible studying restricted
scenarios of the Armenian-Azerbaijani war. It is obvious that the
military-political situation around Artsakh is an element of a wider
picture.
National interests may become a reason for provocation, indeed,
given the poor-judgment and rashness of political leaders like it
was in 2008, but national interests cannot be a real motive for
military actions.
From: Baghdasarian
by Hrachya Arzumanyan
arminfo
Thursday, February 16, 14:33
"Moskovskie Novosti" (The Moscow News). Assessments and forecasts on
the Karabakh conflict's resolution given in Alexander Kharmchikhin's
item "Fight for Karabakh 2.0" do not cover properly the latest
qualitative changes in the international security environment. Experts
prefer speaking about Artsakh and the Artsakh problem within the frames
of the usual and well-studied confrontation of Armenia (represented
by the Republic of Armenia and NKR) and Azerbaijan.
Such approach meets the realities of early 1990s when Russia as the
USSR's heir had enough weight to prevent any attempts of external
military and political pressure on the conflicting parties. The borders
of the USSR that no longer existed as a political phenomenon were
still real then and restricted the activity of other geopolitical
centers. However, much has changed in the region and in the world
over the past 20 years.
Artsakh has passed the evolutionary path of its statehood that was
quite rich with events. It is a little strange and unusual process
for the external world, indeed, as the NKR was established without
participation of the world community. However, unlike many other
crisis flashpoints, it has proved successful. In the new conditions,
any attempts to ignore Artsakh in the Karabakh process are obviously
unsound.
As for the international context, the 5-day war of August 2008 and
the Arab awakening of 2011 that drew the line under the post-Soviet
period have fundamentally changed the geopolitical landscape. In these
new conditions any military-political scenarios aimed at isolating
the Caucasus from the global processes on the wave of instability
are becoming inadequate and even dangerous.
All the aforementioned can be shown on the example of Azerbaijan's
foreign policy of the latest time when some parliamentarians raised the
issue of renaming Azerbaijan into Northern Azerbaijan. "The two-third
of Azerbaijan's territory is part of the present Iran, therefore it
is necessary to rename the Azerbaijani Republic into the Republic of
Northern Azerbaijan," Gudrat Hasanguliyev, parliamentarian from The
Azerbaijani Popular Front Party, declared lately. "It is rather an
important issue. There are such examples as North Korea and South
Korea, Northern Cyprus and Southern Cyprus. It would be reasonable
if Azerbaijan as a split country were called Northern Azerbaijan,"
said Siyavush Novruzov, Deputy Executive Secretary of Yeni Azerbaijan
Party. Inherently, Azerbaijan is making territorial claims to its
southern neighbor.
Such behavior of Azerbaijani politicians has become something prosy
for the Armenian party and the entire post-Soviet area. Everyone here
has got used to the language of ultimatums of Azerbaijani politicians
who never care for their phrases or possible consequences of their
statements. In the given case, however, Azerbaijan has exceeded
the bounds of permissible and now crossing the borders of the
post-Soviet space it threatens a country that is in the phase of
serious military-political confrontation with the West.
In this light, Iran will hardly come down to the "psychological
complexes" of the Azerbaijani statehood and will have to take
such statements as well-thought and coordinated political steps,
especially that Iran is reluctant to regard Azerbaijan as a foothold
for destabilization of the situation inside that country. Tehran
has already warned to take adequate measures of counteraction and
even make military attacks if Azerbaijan's territory is used for
hostilities against Iran.
Thus, the borders of the post-Soviet area in the Caucasus have become
"perforated" and do not rule out force projection. In this light, it
is at least not serious and even irresponsible studying restricted
scenarios of the Armenian-Azerbaijani war. It is obvious that the
military-political situation around Artsakh is an element of a wider
picture.
National interests may become a reason for provocation, indeed,
given the poor-judgment and rashness of political leaders like it
was in 2008, but national interests cannot be a real motive for
military actions.
From: Baghdasarian