Tweet
Scenarios Like Criteria
Igor Muradyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/politics26258.html
Published: 14:39:39 - 19/05/2012
At last the issue of the future war between Armenia and Azerbaijan is
considered actively though these considerations are not discussions yet but
judgments of separate experts. Judgments on this issue were in a small
professional circle, not public.
It should be noted that this discussion is definitely late, and now some
publications are absolutely unserious and even if their authors are invited
to a respectable campaign, they will not be taken seriously. Even though
all the premises were there to develop serious scenarios of escalation of
the future war as a criterion of justification, these authors followed the
path of their unfulfilled hopes and convincing engagement.
It did not happen for clear subjective reasons. Mainly two issues are
discussed, `two answers' which have only private meaning. Possible
participation of Russia in the war and the reaction of the West to what is
underway on the front line. In addition, the role of Turkey in the possible
war is attaches no importance, neither is the similarity or divergence of
the positions of Russia and the West in the second war in Karabakh (or in
the war that will start). In addition, the supporters of the radical
opposition claim for whatever reason that the war is impossible (they
should explain why).
In the beginning it is necessary to understand the following - the conflict
over Karabakh and the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan is already viewed
in the West not as a possible development but quite practically, gathering
the necessary information and using the entire set of concepts in current
considerations. Things occurred in an order that the focal points
multiplied, and it looks like a game where everyone fights against
everyone.
The Western community (with more or less agreed positions of the United
States and Europe) intends to stop the expansion of Turkey and Russia whose
ambitions are considered equally dangerous though the Turkish expansion
appears more dangerous in the Western understanding of stability and
security. The West is looking for ways of diverting Turkey and Russia from
directions which are dangerous to Europe and the United States. In other
words, such expressions as `distract', `attract', `engage' are
more
appropriate to the policy of the western community.
In addition, independent from the initial stages of the confrontation
Russia and its partners will not only punish Turkey and its partners but
also change the situation in favor of Europe and the United States. A more
critical way of achieving these goals is the war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan. In this regard, the West has no reason to affect stabilization
of this situation, that is the `war of snipers'.
Russia has not seen to this situation or is too confident that it benefits
from the war of snipers. NATO summit in Chicago on May 20 will confirm the
supposition that it will be the stage of Turkey's secession from NATO.
Turkey would not like to leave NATO. Moreover, it appreciates its current
position. The problem is that the United States, France, Germany and other
states push Turkey to leave NATO. To understand the goals and objectives of
the West regarding Turkey-Russia confrontation correctly, it is necessary
to take into account the interest of the West in maintaining the balance of
forces in the Black Sea and Caucasian regions. The game is not so
complicated to understand, even for the experts of hopelessly provincial
nature. In addition, any version is fantastic enough till the dénouement
when all the versions and authors are forgotten.
Proceeding from this premise, the understanding of the logic of the Western
community's policy on Armenia, as well as the parliamentary election and
domestic issues comes. The Americans and Europeans are interested in the
establishment of a legitimate government in Armenia by a rigid scenario
which does not allow for expected turns.
Everything is arranged for Armenia, the country will get considerable
economic, as well as military and technical assistance. Why Armenia?
Because Azerbaijan's military defeat will not mark dramatic change of the
military balance in the region, and Armenia will be more dependent on
Russia, maintaining close military and political relations with it.
They would like to turn Armenia to a military and economic camp, and the
purpose of Armenia should be the choice of the model of this camp, trying
to prevent fulfillment of the models of Israel, Georgia, Azerbaijan, as
well as solving the issue of transformation of the second contour of this
scenario, otherwise the first contour will remain meaningless as well.
Igor Muradyan
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/engsrc/politics26258.html
Published: 14:39:39 - 19/05/2012
At last the issue of the future war between Armenia and Azerbaijan is
considered actively though these considerations are not discussions yet but
judgments of separate experts. Judgments on this issue were in a small
professional circle, not public.
It should be noted that this discussion is definitely late, and now some
publications are absolutely unserious and even if their authors are invited
to a respectable campaign, they will not be taken seriously. Even though
all the premises were there to develop serious scenarios of escalation of
the future war as a criterion of justification, these authors followed the
path of their unfulfilled hopes and convincing engagement.
It did not happen for clear subjective reasons. Mainly two issues are
discussed, `two answers' which have only private meaning. Possible
participation of Russia in the war and the reaction of the West to what is
underway on the front line. In addition, the role of Turkey in the possible
war is attaches no importance, neither is the similarity or divergence of
the positions of Russia and the West in the second war in Karabakh (or in
the war that will start). In addition, the supporters of the radical
opposition claim for whatever reason that the war is impossible (they
should explain why).
In the beginning it is necessary to understand the following - the conflict
over Karabakh and the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan is already viewed
in the West not as a possible development but quite practically, gathering
the necessary information and using the entire set of concepts in current
considerations. Things occurred in an order that the focal points
multiplied, and it looks like a game where everyone fights against
everyone.
The Western community (with more or less agreed positions of the United
States and Europe) intends to stop the expansion of Turkey and Russia whose
ambitions are considered equally dangerous though the Turkish expansion
appears more dangerous in the Western understanding of stability and
security. The West is looking for ways of diverting Turkey and Russia from
directions which are dangerous to Europe and the United States. In other
words, such expressions as `distract', `attract', `engage' are
more
appropriate to the policy of the western community.
In addition, independent from the initial stages of the confrontation
Russia and its partners will not only punish Turkey and its partners but
also change the situation in favor of Europe and the United States. A more
critical way of achieving these goals is the war between Armenia and
Azerbaijan. In this regard, the West has no reason to affect stabilization
of this situation, that is the `war of snipers'.
Russia has not seen to this situation or is too confident that it benefits
from the war of snipers. NATO summit in Chicago on May 20 will confirm the
supposition that it will be the stage of Turkey's secession from NATO.
Turkey would not like to leave NATO. Moreover, it appreciates its current
position. The problem is that the United States, France, Germany and other
states push Turkey to leave NATO. To understand the goals and objectives of
the West regarding Turkey-Russia confrontation correctly, it is necessary
to take into account the interest of the West in maintaining the balance of
forces in the Black Sea and Caucasian regions. The game is not so
complicated to understand, even for the experts of hopelessly provincial
nature. In addition, any version is fantastic enough till the dénouement
when all the versions and authors are forgotten.
Proceeding from this premise, the understanding of the logic of the Western
community's policy on Armenia, as well as the parliamentary election and
domestic issues comes. The Americans and Europeans are interested in the
establishment of a legitimate government in Armenia by a rigid scenario
which does not allow for expected turns.
Everything is arranged for Armenia, the country will get considerable
economic, as well as military and technical assistance. Why Armenia?
Because Azerbaijan's military defeat will not mark dramatic change of the
military balance in the region, and Armenia will be more dependent on
Russia, maintaining close military and political relations with it.
They would like to turn Armenia to a military and economic camp, and the
purpose of Armenia should be the choice of the model of this camp, trying
to prevent fulfillment of the models of Israel, Georgia, Azerbaijan, as
well as solving the issue of transformation of the second contour of this
scenario, otherwise the first contour will remain meaningless as well.