Tweet
DOOR IS AJAR FOR KARABAKH WAR II
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - Friday, 30 May 2014, 15:11
NATO has realized that its charter is outdated and does not reflect
the reality, and it is time to revise the present stiff framework of
development of the alliance. At present, NATO is not making any effort
to avoid the current conditions of cooperation with different states
and combine "Point 5" and the resolution of defense and security
issues. Most probably, either "Point 5" will be reviewed or a new
format of cooperation with non-NATO members will be established.
Otherwise it is impossible to ensure the security of the countries
of Eastern Europe, Maghreb and the Near East without which European
security cannot be imagined. A more global system of security cannot
be limited to regional, European objectives, and even the toughest
of supporters of isolation, primarily Germany, have recognized this.
Of course, it would be far more effective to stop "praying" to the
NATO charter and rules and accept the countries of Eastern Europe
which do not differ from Western Europe much in terms of politics,
history, religion and culture.
NATO is having an intensive discussion not only on the upcoming summit
in the UK but on a much broader range of issues because many people
do not understand how they can resolve security issues when Eastern
Europe has been demagogically farmed to Moscow which would not hide its
contempt for the Western community and is undermining its positions.
Russia is an aggressive state, and this factor will be definitive in
the development of the alliance over the next two decades, especially
that NATO has understand that in order to curb Russian expansion it
must boost its military presence along the length of borders rather
than develop relations with Russia.
NATO is close to the decision on fulfillment of the objectives of
boosting its military presence in Georgia, Ukraine, the Black and
Baltic seas. The agreements with Russia in place on NATO military
presence in East Europe are obsolete. These agreements were an
important condition for the Russian expansion in its toughest form.
In addition, NATO understands that fulfillment of objectives of
military and political isolation of Russia is the most acceptable
and cheapest means of resolution of issues of European security. In a
long-term perspective, it would have been more costly to continue the
policy of concessions to Russia and alignment of security interests
to interests of some commercial banks and companies. These decisions
are already in place and have been agreed with all the NATO members,
and in this case Germany was one of the key initiators because it
fears the prospect of being an outsider in Atlantic policy despite
its economic capacity.
What is awaiting the "zone" in this situation and in a long-term
perspective? Though, in fact, deliberations on the destiny of the
"zone" do not have a political meaning, there is still a meaning in
the existence of the "zone" and its population.
One should first of all be aware that reanimation of Turkey's role
in the strategies of NATO and Russia will at least lead to oblivion
of the "zone's" interests which marks the end of the period of any
responsibility and interest of NATO and the United States for the
destiny and security of the "zone". NATO and the United States
have already identified their goals and priorities in the Black
Sea-Caucasian region, and there is no place for the "zone" in this
strategy, which is the best scenario.
In reality, the "zone" is hindering the policy of NATO and the United
States, and its interests will be constantly ignored, especially in the
context of the increasing role of Turkey and Azerbaijan in blockade and
isolation of Russia. This situation automatically leads to Russia's
readiness to give up on the "zone's" interests in a trade-off with
Turkey and Azerbaijan.
The international isolation into which the leaders of the zone have
led their country consciously and unconsciously allows all the foreign
sides to sacrifice its interests. Isolation is a universal situation of
the country in terms of its international helplessness and suppression
of its rights. The door is ajar for Karabakh War II. The minister of
defense Seiran Ohanyan has stated that he has no right to discuss
Russia's behavior, thereby conveying that the Armenian military
circles hate Russia but there is hardly anything to do. The "zone"
has irrecoverably lost its sovereignty.
At the same time, there are possible alternative that inspire little
hope for survival, if not a successful and secure existence. Modern
politics is moving on along a bumpy road rather than a railway, and
the deeper the confrontation in Eastern Europe, the more complicated
NATO's policy will be.
The most important issue in this regard is whether a "third force"
will emerge in the Black Sea-Caucasian region, and if yes, how long
it will function in this region. Only the intensification of the
military-political presence of NATO in this region will help prevent
rapprochement and plot between Russia and Turkey.
NATO and the United States have twice been close to this solution
but illusions in some political circles in the United States and
the UK have twice thwarted these plans. One way or another, the new
geopolitical situation in the Black Sea-Caucasian region must take
place or, otherwise, the policy of the United States and NATO in
Eurasia will be futile. Dislocation of American military bases in,
say, Georgia will be objectively aimed at supporting the ambitions
of Russia and Turkey.
It was mentioned in the publications in Lragir six years ago when
the United States and NATO were close to this solution. It make one
aware that this time too these plans may not come true. However,
even if more favorable conditions for the "zone" occur, one has to
remember that renegade and vassal states will have no "honorary"
place on the political map in the future geopolitical arrangement of
forces of the region. These countries which preferred loss of their
sovereignty will hardly be able to expect preferences.
Nevertheless, one has to understand that the expectations are
better, and the Americans and Europeans understand who is who in the
"establishment" of the "zone". Primarily, the military circles may
be bidden which only formally remain loyal to the political leadership.
The West understands that with the total capitulation of the "zone"
and its society to the Russian dictate any future government will need
a credit not only to fix the economy and administration but also to
dissect the society which has signed off its sentence.
In any case, the "zone" will have to pay for and always be reminded
of its degenerative mentality and hope that the sentence will not be
too severe.
- See more at:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32513#sthash.3rRht6Hi.dpuf
Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments - Friday, 30 May 2014, 15:11
NATO has realized that its charter is outdated and does not reflect
the reality, and it is time to revise the present stiff framework of
development of the alliance. At present, NATO is not making any effort
to avoid the current conditions of cooperation with different states
and combine "Point 5" and the resolution of defense and security
issues. Most probably, either "Point 5" will be reviewed or a new
format of cooperation with non-NATO members will be established.
Otherwise it is impossible to ensure the security of the countries
of Eastern Europe, Maghreb and the Near East without which European
security cannot be imagined. A more global system of security cannot
be limited to regional, European objectives, and even the toughest
of supporters of isolation, primarily Germany, have recognized this.
Of course, it would be far more effective to stop "praying" to the
NATO charter and rules and accept the countries of Eastern Europe
which do not differ from Western Europe much in terms of politics,
history, religion and culture.
NATO is having an intensive discussion not only on the upcoming summit
in the UK but on a much broader range of issues because many people
do not understand how they can resolve security issues when Eastern
Europe has been demagogically farmed to Moscow which would not hide its
contempt for the Western community and is undermining its positions.
Russia is an aggressive state, and this factor will be definitive in
the development of the alliance over the next two decades, especially
that NATO has understand that in order to curb Russian expansion it
must boost its military presence along the length of borders rather
than develop relations with Russia.
NATO is close to the decision on fulfillment of the objectives of
boosting its military presence in Georgia, Ukraine, the Black and
Baltic seas. The agreements with Russia in place on NATO military
presence in East Europe are obsolete. These agreements were an
important condition for the Russian expansion in its toughest form.
In addition, NATO understands that fulfillment of objectives of
military and political isolation of Russia is the most acceptable
and cheapest means of resolution of issues of European security. In a
long-term perspective, it would have been more costly to continue the
policy of concessions to Russia and alignment of security interests
to interests of some commercial banks and companies. These decisions
are already in place and have been agreed with all the NATO members,
and in this case Germany was one of the key initiators because it
fears the prospect of being an outsider in Atlantic policy despite
its economic capacity.
What is awaiting the "zone" in this situation and in a long-term
perspective? Though, in fact, deliberations on the destiny of the
"zone" do not have a political meaning, there is still a meaning in
the existence of the "zone" and its population.
One should first of all be aware that reanimation of Turkey's role
in the strategies of NATO and Russia will at least lead to oblivion
of the "zone's" interests which marks the end of the period of any
responsibility and interest of NATO and the United States for the
destiny and security of the "zone". NATO and the United States
have already identified their goals and priorities in the Black
Sea-Caucasian region, and there is no place for the "zone" in this
strategy, which is the best scenario.
In reality, the "zone" is hindering the policy of NATO and the United
States, and its interests will be constantly ignored, especially in the
context of the increasing role of Turkey and Azerbaijan in blockade and
isolation of Russia. This situation automatically leads to Russia's
readiness to give up on the "zone's" interests in a trade-off with
Turkey and Azerbaijan.
The international isolation into which the leaders of the zone have
led their country consciously and unconsciously allows all the foreign
sides to sacrifice its interests. Isolation is a universal situation of
the country in terms of its international helplessness and suppression
of its rights. The door is ajar for Karabakh War II. The minister of
defense Seiran Ohanyan has stated that he has no right to discuss
Russia's behavior, thereby conveying that the Armenian military
circles hate Russia but there is hardly anything to do. The "zone"
has irrecoverably lost its sovereignty.
At the same time, there are possible alternative that inspire little
hope for survival, if not a successful and secure existence. Modern
politics is moving on along a bumpy road rather than a railway, and
the deeper the confrontation in Eastern Europe, the more complicated
NATO's policy will be.
The most important issue in this regard is whether a "third force"
will emerge in the Black Sea-Caucasian region, and if yes, how long
it will function in this region. Only the intensification of the
military-political presence of NATO in this region will help prevent
rapprochement and plot between Russia and Turkey.
NATO and the United States have twice been close to this solution
but illusions in some political circles in the United States and
the UK have twice thwarted these plans. One way or another, the new
geopolitical situation in the Black Sea-Caucasian region must take
place or, otherwise, the policy of the United States and NATO in
Eurasia will be futile. Dislocation of American military bases in,
say, Georgia will be objectively aimed at supporting the ambitions
of Russia and Turkey.
It was mentioned in the publications in Lragir six years ago when
the United States and NATO were close to this solution. It make one
aware that this time too these plans may not come true. However,
even if more favorable conditions for the "zone" occur, one has to
remember that renegade and vassal states will have no "honorary"
place on the political map in the future geopolitical arrangement of
forces of the region. These countries which preferred loss of their
sovereignty will hardly be able to expect preferences.
Nevertheless, one has to understand that the expectations are
better, and the Americans and Europeans understand who is who in the
"establishment" of the "zone". Primarily, the military circles may
be bidden which only formally remain loyal to the political leadership.
The West understands that with the total capitulation of the "zone"
and its society to the Russian dictate any future government will need
a credit not only to fix the economy and administration but also to
dissect the society which has signed off its sentence.
In any case, the "zone" will have to pay for and always be reminded
of its degenerative mentality and hope that the sentence will not be
too severe.
- See more at:
http://www.lragir.am/index/eng/0/comments/view/32513#sthash.3rRht6Hi.dpuf