Tweet
ARMENIA'S TWO WAYS TOWARDS INDEPENDENCE
According to our friends in different countries, with the emergence
of the new political situation after "September 3" the political
leadership of Azerbaijan found it difficult to assess this event,
especially the extent to which Azerbaijan is gaining or losing military
and political positions.
In Baku, apparently with a "universal" logic of Soviet thinking,
they were initially prone to consider Armenia's refusal to sign the
Association Agreement with the European Union and the intention to
join the Customs Union as an encouraging factor. However, Turkey's
influence on Azerbaijan is a commonly acknowledged fact, including
in the sphere of political understanding of developments and processes.
Azerbaijan and Turkey jointly came to the conclusion that "September
3" will undoubtedly lead to Armenia's international isolation and
blockade, which implies its military and political weakening despite
the promised support from Russia.
Turkey is literally encouraged by Armenia's decision as it believes
that it was a gift ahead of 2015 as the problem of recognition of
the genocide by the West has been cancelled. Azerbaijan has worked
hard to understand the situation and has arrived at the conclusion
that the isolation of Armenia opens up opportunities for Azerbaijan
for a rematch with impunity. And this is confirmed by the exigencies
of the situation in Armenia. Azerbaijan resorts to subversive acts
which kill soldiers to find out whether Armenia is isolated and left
without any support from both the West and Russia. And, apparently,
Azerbaijan has confirmed their assumptions.
If previously it had been assumed that the West is unlikely to
intervene in the military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan
and would be limited to political statements and relevant steps,
now there may not be even those "steps". In case of a war, Armenia
will have to face to deathly silence of the West which will have no
reason to intervene in the military actions and in this situation
because it would otherwise support the interests of Russia. The West
does not need to.
After Armenia had found itself in isolation from the West, it
automatically lost Russia's support, which is not responsible for
any development, including within the framework of the CSTO which
will collapse at the sound of the very first shot. If Russia were
interested in supporting Armenia, it would respond to the actual
military actions between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Why should the West respond if Russia demonstrates its indifference
to these events? Turkey's military intervention has not been explained
sufficiently, which could be expressed in many "legitimate" forms. The
situation has been reduced to a point when Armenia's military defeat
or obvious prerequisites for its defeat would be highly useful for
the West's strategy. And this happened just after the West, NATO and
the U.S. were reliable guarantors of non-interference in Turkey's
military actions.
Up until now, Armenia has had a "special" place in the region for
the Euro-Atlantic community and especially the U.S., fulfilling two
functions: ensuring balance of forces in the South Caucasus and in
a vaster area and deterrence of Turkey's regional expansion. These
functions are either exhausted or are not seen as something realistic.
Armenia is advised to use Turkey's "favor" and Russia's support at
its best. For other layouts no reasons are available.
What can make a difference and allow gaining sovereignty?
There are two ways. The first is to mobilize political will and
responsibility to accelerate integration into NATO because the
alliance has a different mechanics than the European Union, and the
"autonomy" of Armenia in this direction is more significant. There is
no doubt that, even in its current situation, Armenia has a lot of
opportunities for continued integration with NATO. It is necessary
to come up to the U.S. with proposals about signing a military and
political agreement with them, at least in the form of the charter
signed with Georgia after the developments of 2008; military victory
over Azerbaijan is an alternative to a "stationary" way.
If we do not offer and do not initiate civilized approaches in
returning our sovereignty in the field of politics, defense and
security, we will have to fight and prove our right to independence.
That is, the second one - towards sovereignty through war. Which one
does the political establishment choose?
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst 15:02 27/01/2014 Story from Lragir.am
News: http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/31806
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress
According to our friends in different countries, with the emergence
of the new political situation after "September 3" the political
leadership of Azerbaijan found it difficult to assess this event,
especially the extent to which Azerbaijan is gaining or losing military
and political positions.
In Baku, apparently with a "universal" logic of Soviet thinking,
they were initially prone to consider Armenia's refusal to sign the
Association Agreement with the European Union and the intention to
join the Customs Union as an encouraging factor. However, Turkey's
influence on Azerbaijan is a commonly acknowledged fact, including
in the sphere of political understanding of developments and processes.
Azerbaijan and Turkey jointly came to the conclusion that "September
3" will undoubtedly lead to Armenia's international isolation and
blockade, which implies its military and political weakening despite
the promised support from Russia.
Turkey is literally encouraged by Armenia's decision as it believes
that it was a gift ahead of 2015 as the problem of recognition of
the genocide by the West has been cancelled. Azerbaijan has worked
hard to understand the situation and has arrived at the conclusion
that the isolation of Armenia opens up opportunities for Azerbaijan
for a rematch with impunity. And this is confirmed by the exigencies
of the situation in Armenia. Azerbaijan resorts to subversive acts
which kill soldiers to find out whether Armenia is isolated and left
without any support from both the West and Russia. And, apparently,
Azerbaijan has confirmed their assumptions.
If previously it had been assumed that the West is unlikely to
intervene in the military conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan
and would be limited to political statements and relevant steps,
now there may not be even those "steps". In case of a war, Armenia
will have to face to deathly silence of the West which will have no
reason to intervene in the military actions and in this situation
because it would otherwise support the interests of Russia. The West
does not need to.
After Armenia had found itself in isolation from the West, it
automatically lost Russia's support, which is not responsible for
any development, including within the framework of the CSTO which
will collapse at the sound of the very first shot. If Russia were
interested in supporting Armenia, it would respond to the actual
military actions between Azerbaijan and Armenia.
Why should the West respond if Russia demonstrates its indifference
to these events? Turkey's military intervention has not been explained
sufficiently, which could be expressed in many "legitimate" forms. The
situation has been reduced to a point when Armenia's military defeat
or obvious prerequisites for its defeat would be highly useful for
the West's strategy. And this happened just after the West, NATO and
the U.S. were reliable guarantors of non-interference in Turkey's
military actions.
Up until now, Armenia has had a "special" place in the region for
the Euro-Atlantic community and especially the U.S., fulfilling two
functions: ensuring balance of forces in the South Caucasus and in
a vaster area and deterrence of Turkey's regional expansion. These
functions are either exhausted or are not seen as something realistic.
Armenia is advised to use Turkey's "favor" and Russia's support at
its best. For other layouts no reasons are available.
What can make a difference and allow gaining sovereignty?
There are two ways. The first is to mobilize political will and
responsibility to accelerate integration into NATO because the
alliance has a different mechanics than the European Union, and the
"autonomy" of Armenia in this direction is more significant. There is
no doubt that, even in its current situation, Armenia has a lot of
opportunities for continued integration with NATO. It is necessary
to come up to the U.S. with proposals about signing a military and
political agreement with them, at least in the form of the charter
signed with Georgia after the developments of 2008; military victory
over Azerbaijan is an alternative to a "stationary" way.
If we do not offer and do not initiate civilized approaches in
returning our sovereignty in the field of politics, defense and
security, we will have to fight and prove our right to independence.
That is, the second one - towards sovereignty through war. Which one
does the political establishment choose?
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst 15:02 27/01/2014 Story from Lragir.am
News: http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/31806
From: Emil Lazarian | Ararat NewsPress