Tweet
HOW AZERBAIJAN WILL "LOSE TERRITORY" AND SAVE FACE
Naira Hayrumyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/politics/view/27906
Politics - Wednesday, 31 October 2012, 13:15
After the meeting of the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan
in Paris on October 27, the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group stated
that they proposed "new ideas" to the sides on the Karabakh issue
settlement. It is noteworthy that even the most "notorious" experts
don't dare to guess what ideas the co-chairs mean.
Sure, it is easier to say that if there is no leakage, there is no
idea. And the co-chairs, as if, traditionally, repress each other in
order not to change the status quo. However, the important question
is there - maybe they should try to reach a consensus on the change
of the status quo?
If such a consensus is reached then measures are necessary to stimulate
the change of the status quo, and measures, which would allow to
keep the situation under control and don't allow its becoming a
large-scale war.
If we follow the signals that are frequently voiced more and more
openly, you can even draw a diagram of the output from the status quo.
The Karabakh recognition by one or several countries, under the silent
approval of the neighbors, may really be the necessary stimulus. (By
the way, neither official Moscow, nor the U.S. or France made any
statement relating to the recognition of NKR by the Australian state).
Azerbaijan's aggression will immediately follow the recognition
which will leave the negotiations and will announce war. Armenia, in
response, as it was already stated, will strike the oil pipes. This
will cause the "rage" of the Western community and Russia, they
will intervene, and international peacekeepers will be deployed in
the region, which will be located on previously worked out lines,
which will be the final borders of NKR.
In this situation, pre-agreed decisions are as much important as the
"operative actions" of the parties at the moment when everything
is done. Since it is unknown what Russia, moreover, Turkey will do,
which always manages to strap its share from the burning cake. In war,
operative decisions are sometimes the decisive ones.
It is not ruled out that the status quo won't change and the "new
ideas" of the co-chairs are just the proposal to sign a non-aggression
pact. But there are far too many signs that the status quo will
change: Russia's insistence to open the Abkhazian railway, softer
positions of Georgia relating to Russia and the hints on the NKR
recognition by Uruguay, the statement by the Armenian side to strike
the oil infrastructures of Azerbaijan and Aliyev's quarrel with the
British Petroleum.
They clearly want to open communications in the region and, if they
agree on the topic, the status quo will change. Rather, the status
quo will be recognized internationally. And Azerbaijan, like Georgia
in 2008, will have no choice but to war in order to "lose territory"
and save its face.
From: Baghdasarian
Naira Hayrumyan
http://www.lragir.am/index.php/eng/0/politics/view/27906
Politics - Wednesday, 31 October 2012, 13:15
After the meeting of the foreign ministers of Armenia and Azerbaijan
in Paris on October 27, the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group stated
that they proposed "new ideas" to the sides on the Karabakh issue
settlement. It is noteworthy that even the most "notorious" experts
don't dare to guess what ideas the co-chairs mean.
Sure, it is easier to say that if there is no leakage, there is no
idea. And the co-chairs, as if, traditionally, repress each other in
order not to change the status quo. However, the important question
is there - maybe they should try to reach a consensus on the change
of the status quo?
If such a consensus is reached then measures are necessary to stimulate
the change of the status quo, and measures, which would allow to
keep the situation under control and don't allow its becoming a
large-scale war.
If we follow the signals that are frequently voiced more and more
openly, you can even draw a diagram of the output from the status quo.
The Karabakh recognition by one or several countries, under the silent
approval of the neighbors, may really be the necessary stimulus. (By
the way, neither official Moscow, nor the U.S. or France made any
statement relating to the recognition of NKR by the Australian state).
Azerbaijan's aggression will immediately follow the recognition
which will leave the negotiations and will announce war. Armenia, in
response, as it was already stated, will strike the oil pipes. This
will cause the "rage" of the Western community and Russia, they
will intervene, and international peacekeepers will be deployed in
the region, which will be located on previously worked out lines,
which will be the final borders of NKR.
In this situation, pre-agreed decisions are as much important as the
"operative actions" of the parties at the moment when everything
is done. Since it is unknown what Russia, moreover, Turkey will do,
which always manages to strap its share from the burning cake. In war,
operative decisions are sometimes the decisive ones.
It is not ruled out that the status quo won't change and the "new
ideas" of the co-chairs are just the proposal to sign a non-aggression
pact. But there are far too many signs that the status quo will
change: Russia's insistence to open the Abkhazian railway, softer
positions of Georgia relating to Russia and the hints on the NKR
recognition by Uruguay, the statement by the Armenian side to strike
the oil infrastructures of Azerbaijan and Aliyev's quarrel with the
British Petroleum.
They clearly want to open communications in the region and, if they
agree on the topic, the status quo will change. Rather, the status
quo will be recognized internationally. And Azerbaijan, like Georgia
in 2008, will have no choice but to war in order to "lose territory"
and save its face.
From: Baghdasarian