Tweet
Boycott or Plot?
Some high-ranking Armenian public officials claim there is no
alternative to supply of arms by Russia. Furthermore, they say, `It is
not known what we will get from the West, we don't know when it will
be, whereas we get weapon from Russia.'
It seems to be an apprehensible and clear idea. The issue of receiving
arms from the West is vague while we actually receive arms from
Russia. It should be noted that such statements are made with full
confidence in their rightness and with an air of winners.
There seems to be no answerability to anyone. But such `equivocalness'
occurs in full isolation of army building from the society, and it
should be noted for the sake of being fair that the Armenian society
has not paid due attention and has not tried to take part in
discussions and elaboration of tasks of the armed forces. Hardly
anyone can explain how come the country is at war. And whether the
armed forces are ready or not, the possible war will be a `patriotic'
war because not only soldiers but also people will fight, and like in
the previous war, the soldiers, not the military genius of colonels
will win.
So how come there is still no alternative to defense cooperation with
Russia after so many years of cooperation with NATO and separate
states of the West? Armenia has been tasked to limit relations with
NATO. Russia goes berserk from intentions to get weapon from the West.
And this footdragging of cooperation with the EaP participants is
related to prevention of perspectives of their cooperation with NATO.
Armenia seems to carry out its commitments in NATO programs with
discipline and consistency and receives good evaluations. However,
Armenia has never asked NATO member states questions about supply of
arms and serious formats. Last year most European states decided to
lift bans on supply of weapon to the South Caucasus irrespective of
interpretations. Azerbaijan does not need supply of weapon from these
states, having a lot of money, because this decision was made out of
the interests of Armenia and Georgia. However, it is possible that
these perspectives opened up for Armenia, and this was the intrigue.
Supply of arms implies costs but it depends on who and when and under
what conditions. The United States would hardly supply arms to the
countries of the South Caucasus, especially Armenia and Azerbaijan.
However, the stance of the United States on the readiness of the
European states for supply of arms to Armenia is apparently positive.
However, the chief circumstance is, and the Armenian political and
military leadership know, that Armenia has a lot of friends in Armenia
who are ready to supply serious weapons. In longer-term and
apprehensible relations the payment for supply of weapons may have a
symbolic meaning. But who has ever asked such questions, who and when
relayed to the West that Armenia is ready for such cooperation? Nobody
and never?
At the same time, NATO and the European Union are trying to conduct a
combined policy when limitations of one of these structures are
complemented with proposals of the other. There is no and there cannot
be full alignment of interests, and such a situation may occur during
the formation of the Transatlantic Common Market and emergence of a
new global currency.
The institutions where such projects are worked out are trying to
establish new rules of international relations for the forthcoming
decades, including reforms in such organizations as the UN or IMF.
With such expectations there are no doubts about highlights in some
global zones, and it will lead to definition of rules of relations
with the countries of `border areas' and no matter how the conditions
of the `global transition period' stretch, it will end.
As a global system of security, NATO is not imagined without
cooperation with new partners, and their tasks cannot be actualized
without close cooperation, including in defense. Therefore, the
statements about vagueness of arms supply from the West are at least
negligence or incompetence.
There are enough signs that NATO and some members of the alliance are
ready for bigger supply of arms to Armenia, while supply to Georgia is
a diversion.
Hence, the government of Armenia itself boycotts the perspective and
does nothing to achieve these tasks, announcing that supply of arms
from Russia is real unlike that from the West. Here is a combination
of boycott, plot and demagogy. There are no doubts that the policy of
vassalization of Armenia is not only due to the private interests of
politicians but also some military officials. Nobody will be able to
hide behind pseudo-concreteness, and it is possible to combine really
specific defense and political tasks.
At the same time, nobody in the Armenian society is interested in
discussing this issue due to different goals of the part of the
opposition which has received the right to vote in parliament. Nobody
asks such questions, so there is still an arena for relevant debates.
They are already speaking about the motives of the political and
military officials relating to Russia. This is, as is said, a subject
for future discussion when the role of Russia in the future war in the
South Caucasus becomes known.
Igor Muradyan
15:41 21/12/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/31597
From: Baghdasarian
Some high-ranking Armenian public officials claim there is no
alternative to supply of arms by Russia. Furthermore, they say, `It is
not known what we will get from the West, we don't know when it will
be, whereas we get weapon from Russia.'
It seems to be an apprehensible and clear idea. The issue of receiving
arms from the West is vague while we actually receive arms from
Russia. It should be noted that such statements are made with full
confidence in their rightness and with an air of winners.
There seems to be no answerability to anyone. But such `equivocalness'
occurs in full isolation of army building from the society, and it
should be noted for the sake of being fair that the Armenian society
has not paid due attention and has not tried to take part in
discussions and elaboration of tasks of the armed forces. Hardly
anyone can explain how come the country is at war. And whether the
armed forces are ready or not, the possible war will be a `patriotic'
war because not only soldiers but also people will fight, and like in
the previous war, the soldiers, not the military genius of colonels
will win.
So how come there is still no alternative to defense cooperation with
Russia after so many years of cooperation with NATO and separate
states of the West? Armenia has been tasked to limit relations with
NATO. Russia goes berserk from intentions to get weapon from the West.
And this footdragging of cooperation with the EaP participants is
related to prevention of perspectives of their cooperation with NATO.
Armenia seems to carry out its commitments in NATO programs with
discipline and consistency and receives good evaluations. However,
Armenia has never asked NATO member states questions about supply of
arms and serious formats. Last year most European states decided to
lift bans on supply of weapon to the South Caucasus irrespective of
interpretations. Azerbaijan does not need supply of weapon from these
states, having a lot of money, because this decision was made out of
the interests of Armenia and Georgia. However, it is possible that
these perspectives opened up for Armenia, and this was the intrigue.
Supply of arms implies costs but it depends on who and when and under
what conditions. The United States would hardly supply arms to the
countries of the South Caucasus, especially Armenia and Azerbaijan.
However, the stance of the United States on the readiness of the
European states for supply of arms to Armenia is apparently positive.
However, the chief circumstance is, and the Armenian political and
military leadership know, that Armenia has a lot of friends in Armenia
who are ready to supply serious weapons. In longer-term and
apprehensible relations the payment for supply of weapons may have a
symbolic meaning. But who has ever asked such questions, who and when
relayed to the West that Armenia is ready for such cooperation? Nobody
and never?
At the same time, NATO and the European Union are trying to conduct a
combined policy when limitations of one of these structures are
complemented with proposals of the other. There is no and there cannot
be full alignment of interests, and such a situation may occur during
the formation of the Transatlantic Common Market and emergence of a
new global currency.
The institutions where such projects are worked out are trying to
establish new rules of international relations for the forthcoming
decades, including reforms in such organizations as the UN or IMF.
With such expectations there are no doubts about highlights in some
global zones, and it will lead to definition of rules of relations
with the countries of `border areas' and no matter how the conditions
of the `global transition period' stretch, it will end.
As a global system of security, NATO is not imagined without
cooperation with new partners, and their tasks cannot be actualized
without close cooperation, including in defense. Therefore, the
statements about vagueness of arms supply from the West are at least
negligence or incompetence.
There are enough signs that NATO and some members of the alliance are
ready for bigger supply of arms to Armenia, while supply to Georgia is
a diversion.
Hence, the government of Armenia itself boycotts the perspective and
does nothing to achieve these tasks, announcing that supply of arms
from Russia is real unlike that from the West. Here is a combination
of boycott, plot and demagogy. There are no doubts that the policy of
vassalization of Armenia is not only due to the private interests of
politicians but also some military officials. Nobody will be able to
hide behind pseudo-concreteness, and it is possible to combine really
specific defense and political tasks.
At the same time, nobody in the Armenian society is interested in
discussing this issue due to different goals of the part of the
opposition which has received the right to vote in parliament. Nobody
asks such questions, so there is still an arena for relevant debates.
They are already speaking about the motives of the political and
military officials relating to Russia. This is, as is said, a subject
for future discussion when the role of Russia in the future war in the
South Caucasus becomes known.
Igor Muradyan
15:41 21/12/2013
Story from Lragir.am News:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/31597
From: Baghdasarian