Armenia Is an Orphaned Client State(palladiummag.com)
palladiummag.com
Armenia Is an Orphaned Client State
https://palladiummag.com/2021/02/12/armenia-is-an-orphaned-client-state/
44 comments
It's a lot more complicated than that, that's why the UN supports the OSCE group. The pre-war consensus of the group was that a final solution would be an official status for NK, while armenia would return the surrounding territories that were occupied as buffer zone
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Principles
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Principles
The other missing part is that Nagorno-Karabakh was moved from Armenia to Azerbaijan by Stalin in order to mess up the region (reminding of Crimea) even though the population was massively of Armenian ethnicity.
After the USSR dissolved Azerbaijan held pogroms in Baku (1990), pushed all the Armenians to NK (at which point the NK population was 98% Armenians) and started eradicating their culture. Armenia started occupying Nagorno-Karabakh in 1991 after these things happened.
Add to this that Azeris are ethnically and historically related to the Turkish, who are responsible for genocide of Armenians in the early 20th century and have been denying it since, and you can see why Armenian occupation of NK deserves little more than a footnote.
After the USSR dissolved Azerbaijan held pogroms in Baku (1990), pushed all the Armenians to NK (at which point the NK population was 98% Armenians) and started eradicating their culture. Armenia started occupying Nagorno-Karabakh in 1991 after these things happened.
Add to this that Azeris are ethnically and historically related to the Turkish, who are responsible for genocide of Armenians in the early 20th century and have been denying it since, and you can see why Armenian occupation of NK deserves little more than a footnote.
It was also an "autonomous oblast" under USSR
[deleted]
This region has Christian monasteries [1] all around it dating as far back as the 4th century. Unless Muslims started building churches at some point in their existence, I would really have to disagree that Armenia held this land hostage.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Artsakh
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_Artsakh
If you're interested in what the region looks like from a daily perspective, Bald and Bankrupt YT channel has visited it recently, I really enjoyed this video:
https://youtu.be/_HBBSG7tAfQ
It's a reminder that while we're so busy with the pandemic and daily struggles, people in a place like Armenia struggle with the reality of war every day.
https://youtu.be/_HBBSG7tAfQ
It's a reminder that while we're so busy with the pandemic and daily struggles, people in a place like Armenia struggle with the reality of war every day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khojaly_massacre
Numbers by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch
Numbers by: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Rights_Watch
How is this relevant at all? The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict has been grinding on for a arduously long time, and both sides have committed atrocities [1]. War is war, and war is brutal. It is always a universal human tragedy when two groups of people resort to such violence against each other.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maraga_massacre
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maraga_massacre
This is the kind of reflexive reply that is posted in virtually every pro-armenia comment made everywhere. Facebook has already identified a network of bots used during and after the war
https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/removing-coordinated-inaut...
It doesn't even make sense to mention a single massacre against a history of genocide against armenians that counts more than 1.5 million dead and countless atrocities that continue to this day.
https://about.fb.com/news/2020/10/removing-coordinated-inaut...
It doesn't even make sense to mention a single massacre against a history of genocide against armenians that counts more than 1.5 million dead and countless atrocities that continue to this day.
So much of former USSR central Asia seems to have a rubber stamp quality to the troubles there. Are there any real success stories, aside from maybe just stability (which itself is an achievement in this area)? Maybe Kazakhstan?
I most vividly took away an image of the region and effects of Russian influence when I had read this article about how pro-Russia Crimeans should not be so quick to welcome Russian influence: https://archive.is/iZDJb ("If History Is a Guide, Crimeans’ Celebration May Be Short-Lived")
People only need look to past examples of broken promises and more political posturing than real economic and governmental progress when being absorbed under the Russian umbrella.
I most vividly took away an image of the region and effects of Russian influence when I had read this article about how pro-Russia Crimeans should not be so quick to welcome Russian influence: https://archive.is/iZDJb ("If History Is a Guide, Crimeans’ Celebration May Be Short-Lived")
People only need look to past examples of broken promises and more political posturing than real economic and governmental progress when being absorbed under the Russian umbrella.
This article feels very one-sided. I don't support any side in this conflict, but this article feels like Armenian propaganda.
This constant demand for balance is why people who don't think Covid is real are given so much time in the news.
Just because a story is one sided doesn't mean it is propaganda. It's very clear from this story that the situation in the Caucasus is very complex and that there are no straightforward solutions.
Just because a story is one sided doesn't mean it is propaganda. It's very clear from this story that the situation in the Caucasus is very complex and that there are no straightforward solutions.
Seriously? A pro-armenian, propagandistic article in top of HN?
Care to suggest a better alternative? The truth is , there are going to be many more pro-armenia articles in the international press, simply because armenia is a much free-er country than azerbaijan, and many more reporters are there. AZ is ran by a family oil dictatorship that ranks at the bottom of freedom of press, is known to bribe international committees and has a long history of preaching hatred to its own population. In addition, i don't think it's easy to sympathize with the ethnic cleansing of the region attempted by AZ.
https://rsf.org/en/azerbaijan
https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/13628-italian-court-sentences...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramil_Safarov
https://www.calvertjournal.com/articles/show/12442/azerbaija...
https://rsf.org/en/azerbaijan
https://www.occrp.org/en/daily/13628-italian-court-sentences...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramil_Safarov
https://www.calvertjournal.com/articles/show/12442/azerbaija...
I mean, for those of us who aren't versed on the Armenian politics, would you care explaining what exactly makes it a propaganda article? To my untrained and unfamiliar with the region eye it just looks like reporting on the situation there, but I'd love to know more.
For all who asked to elaborate on my comment.
Disclaimer: I am Azeri and yes, I was triggered by the article. My judgement is indeed biased, but hopefully not that much. I've been living in Finland for 12 years now, and in the past studied with armenian students at the same class room. We had good relationships and deep conversations about how our region is cursed and the only way to survive - is to live together in peace.
Back to the article - an excellent piece of post-truth era text. It is filled with statements, juggled, shuffled and left incomplete, so that the reader has to fill the missing pieces. The missing information is brilliant in its absence. The resulting picture a reader sees is "Poor christian democratic ancient Armenia is surrounded by rich aggressive muslim dictatorship countries, and it is doomed.
I want to explain myself being triggered, literally from the top of this "article".
"The war was fought over the disputed mountainous region of Nagorno-Karabakh and several surrounding territories." OH REALLY? Somewhere at the bottom the article elaborates, that the "several surrounding territories" are 7 regions claimed by Armenia as "security belt". It never says though, that six hundred thousand (that is 600, 000!) souls from those regions have been displaced and were never able to return to their homes in all these 30 years. These have never been "disputed territories".
"...Karabakh is an internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan, and Armenia is seen to have occupied the territory for over 30 years." - Except that Armenia has also *never* recognized the so-called "Republic of Artsakh" officially.
"...A smaller number of videos depicting Armenian war crimes also circle around Azerbaijan, but they pale in comparison in both quantity and ruthlessness to the Azerbaijani videos." - How about mentioning Armenian night-time ballistic missile attacks on the city of Ganja, which is located 50 km (30 mi) from the war zone? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Ganja_missile_attacks "Private Telegram channel video" huh?
...who increasingly see each other’s annihilation as indispensable to their own survival. ...while Azerbaijan’s appetite for Armenian land seems boundless.
Somehow azeris and armenians are able to live in piece all around the world. In Russia, in Georgia, in Europe, in US. As long as they remember being human, not ape-alike, as long as their brain takes control of their instincts. Azerbaijan does not give a damn for Armenian land officially or unofficially. In this war, not a single Azeri stepped on Armenian land. Azerbaijan and its people want to be able to freely walk on their own lands.
This conflict could have been resolved a decade ago or even earlier. My only wish and hope that our people would stop fighting each other and start learning to live together.
Disclaimer: I am Azeri and yes, I was triggered by the article. My judgement is indeed biased, but hopefully not that much. I've been living in Finland for 12 years now, and in the past studied with armenian students at the same class room. We had good relationships and deep conversations about how our region is cursed and the only way to survive - is to live together in peace.
Back to the article - an excellent piece of post-truth era text. It is filled with statements, juggled, shuffled and left incomplete, so that the reader has to fill the missing pieces. The missing information is brilliant in its absence. The resulting picture a reader sees is "Poor christian democratic ancient Armenia is surrounded by rich aggressive muslim dictatorship countries, and it is doomed.
I want to explain myself being triggered, literally from the top of this "article".
"The war was fought over the disputed mountainous region of Nagorno-Karabakh and several surrounding territories." OH REALLY? Somewhere at the bottom the article elaborates, that the "several surrounding territories" are 7 regions claimed by Armenia as "security belt". It never says though, that six hundred thousand (that is 600, 000!) souls from those regions have been displaced and were never able to return to their homes in all these 30 years. These have never been "disputed territories".
"...Karabakh is an internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan, and Armenia is seen to have occupied the territory for over 30 years." - Except that Armenia has also *never* recognized the so-called "Republic of Artsakh" officially.
"...A smaller number of videos depicting Armenian war crimes also circle around Azerbaijan, but they pale in comparison in both quantity and ruthlessness to the Azerbaijani videos." - How about mentioning Armenian night-time ballistic missile attacks on the city of Ganja, which is located 50 km (30 mi) from the war zone? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Ganja_missile_attacks "Private Telegram channel video" huh?
...who increasingly see each other’s annihilation as indispensable to their own survival. ...while Azerbaijan’s appetite for Armenian land seems boundless.
Somehow azeris and armenians are able to live in piece all around the world. In Russia, in Georgia, in Europe, in US. As long as they remember being human, not ape-alike, as long as their brain takes control of their instincts. Azerbaijan does not give a damn for Armenian land officially or unofficially. In this war, not a single Azeri stepped on Armenian land. Azerbaijan and its people want to be able to freely walk on their own lands.
This conflict could have been resolved a decade ago or even earlier. My only wish and hope that our people would stop fighting each other and start learning to live together.
Everything is written from Armenian perspective. That doesn't raise red flags for you?
Frankly, no. It's a report written from Armenia so of course it's written from that perspective. That alone doesn't make it propaganda. If I as Polish citizen write a report on Polish politics from my perspective that doesn't make it a propaganda piece now, does it? If there's a similar report from Azerbaijan I'll be happy to read it as well.
There is nothing propagandistic about this site. The OP, Zaurun Fikirləri, is either a Turk or Azerbaijani who is clearly triggered by the content of the article.
Yes, Turkey and Azerbaijan are pure evil and Westerner Christian White Armenia is innocent and poor. Right.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkZHOlQtYO8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFA7a6OtJvE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dkZHOlQtYO8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFA7a6OtJvE
[deleted]
[deleted]
Pity that this is also flagged, like most articles about the war (presumably by online mobs). It's an important conflict that the west should know about.
I read about half of article and facts were presented in naiive manner. From perspective of a person who only recently discovered everything that is going on.
It looks disingenuous, and from that it is definitely propaganda.
It looks disingenuous, and from that it is definitely propaganda.
While it is written from the armenian side, what does it propagandize? It expresses fear for a future war, how is that propaganda?
Looks like Turkey/Azerbaijan have made their homework regarding online propaganda.
That was a very interesting read - thanks for sharing.
well, that's what being Russia's ally gets you.
Armenia had a pro-west government, but it received no support, the UN SC did not even issue any resolutions, and western media practically buried the news of the war because it happened during the US elections. The people of NK see the russians as guarantors of their safety (rightly so). Meanwhile a NATO country (Turkey) provided major support to AZ, including mercenaries from syria.
Yep. Russia is a shitty ally.
> Armenia Is an Orphaned Client State
Of course, it is. My answer below is an attempt to explain why it is an orphaned state. It has been so since its formation.
During WWI, Armenian separatists in the Ottoman empire were tools used by Nicholas II to open an Eastern from to keep the Ottoman forces busy there so the British and their allies could take the straits and İstanbul and keep him in power. During the initial stages of the war, incompetence had already caused close to 100,000 Ottoman soldiers to be lost on the Eastern front[1]. The strategy of mobilizing a rebellion behind the lines was a smart one and Nicholas II employed it. The Ottoman Empire had been in decline for over 200 years at that time, and the western reaches of the empire had been shrinking through revolutions and rebellions.
Just like the Greeks and others, there were Armenians who had been wanting to break from the Ottoman Empire and had been working towards establishing their own state for many years. E.g., see Arshak Gavafian[2]:
> The battle of Sarikamish, which the British press boomed as an enormous Russian success, was absolutely won by the courage and determination of the Armenian soldiers in the Russian army, and by the military genius of Arshak Gavafian (familiarly known as Keri), whose gallant life was lost in the battle of Rowanduz, where he inflicted another heavy defeat on the Turks and saved the situation. If it were not for Keri and Armenian soldiers, the Sarikamish battle would have been lost, and the Turkish army would have reached Tiflis. - Diana Abgar,
Despite the smartness of the strategy, the Allies failed at get through Gallipoli and reach İstanbul. The Russian empire fell to the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were not fond of any friends of the Tsar.
Sure, later the Ottoman Empire fell as well[3]. But, then a group of Turks organized and fought a war of independence and changed the terms of the Sevres treaty[4]. During that war, the USSR was friendly with the revolutionaries. That meant the Armenians who were now in de facto Soviet territory did not have an ally to help them take land what they had thought they had been granted to them in Sevres[5]. They did not enjoy great support with the Soviet regime as they had been allied with the countries who had been trying to help Nicholas II stay in power and crush the Bolsheviks.
The Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic was their chosen tool of control. Their interest was in preventing rebellions.
The ASSR controlled nothing strategic. While Turkish presence in Anatolia had always been an obstacle on the path of the Russian Empire.
After WWII, Stalin considered using the Armenians to fell the Turkish Republic to ensure Soviet dominance in the Middle East and the Mediterranean. However, until 2008, U.S. administrations put priority on containing Soviet expansion, decided to "support" Turkey as a roadblock to Soviet expansion. As one of the consequences, ASSR remained a backwater, not having access to or controlling anything strategic. In Turkey, anything that harms the Armenian state is considered "good policy" regardless of political affiliation.
After the fall of the USSR, they tried to change this with the Karabağ campaign. The problem is, in a world with "big" uncertainties, no major players are interested in the details of one's cause. There doesn't seem to be anyone who is interested in the consequences of a strong Armenian state. Therefore, for the near future, their efforts on the battlefield are unlikely to succeed.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarikamish
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keri_(fedayi)
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lausanne
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union%E2%80%93Turkey_re...
Of course, it is. My answer below is an attempt to explain why it is an orphaned state. It has been so since its formation.
During WWI, Armenian separatists in the Ottoman empire were tools used by Nicholas II to open an Eastern from to keep the Ottoman forces busy there so the British and their allies could take the straits and İstanbul and keep him in power. During the initial stages of the war, incompetence had already caused close to 100,000 Ottoman soldiers to be lost on the Eastern front[1]. The strategy of mobilizing a rebellion behind the lines was a smart one and Nicholas II employed it. The Ottoman Empire had been in decline for over 200 years at that time, and the western reaches of the empire had been shrinking through revolutions and rebellions.
Just like the Greeks and others, there were Armenians who had been wanting to break from the Ottoman Empire and had been working towards establishing their own state for many years. E.g., see Arshak Gavafian[2]:
> The battle of Sarikamish, which the British press boomed as an enormous Russian success, was absolutely won by the courage and determination of the Armenian soldiers in the Russian army, and by the military genius of Arshak Gavafian (familiarly known as Keri), whose gallant life was lost in the battle of Rowanduz, where he inflicted another heavy defeat on the Turks and saved the situation. If it were not for Keri and Armenian soldiers, the Sarikamish battle would have been lost, and the Turkish army would have reached Tiflis. - Diana Abgar,
Despite the smartness of the strategy, the Allies failed at get through Gallipoli and reach İstanbul. The Russian empire fell to the Bolsheviks. The Bolsheviks were not fond of any friends of the Tsar.
Sure, later the Ottoman Empire fell as well[3]. But, then a group of Turks organized and fought a war of independence and changed the terms of the Sevres treaty[4]. During that war, the USSR was friendly with the revolutionaries. That meant the Armenians who were now in de facto Soviet territory did not have an ally to help them take land what they had thought they had been granted to them in Sevres[5]. They did not enjoy great support with the Soviet regime as they had been allied with the countries who had been trying to help Nicholas II stay in power and crush the Bolsheviks.
The Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic was their chosen tool of control. Their interest was in preventing rebellions.
The ASSR controlled nothing strategic. While Turkish presence in Anatolia had always been an obstacle on the path of the Russian Empire.
After WWII, Stalin considered using the Armenians to fell the Turkish Republic to ensure Soviet dominance in the Middle East and the Mediterranean. However, until 2008, U.S. administrations put priority on containing Soviet expansion, decided to "support" Turkey as a roadblock to Soviet expansion. As one of the consequences, ASSR remained a backwater, not having access to or controlling anything strategic. In Turkey, anything that harms the Armenian state is considered "good policy" regardless of political affiliation.
After the fall of the USSR, they tried to change this with the Karabağ campaign. The problem is, in a world with "big" uncertainties, no major players are interested in the details of one's cause. There doesn't seem to be anyone who is interested in the consequences of a strong Armenian state. Therefore, for the near future, their efforts on the battlefield are unlikely to succeed.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sarikamish
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keri_(fedayi)
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_S%C3%A8vres
[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Lausanne
[5]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet_Union%E2%80%93Turkey_re...
Yeah, I get the emotional downvotes, but a mention of what part of this (obviously broad-strokes) story is wrong would be appreciated.
The truth is that the future of Armenia is either with Russia or with Azerbaijan, a Muslim country. It’s their choice, but I know what I would choose myself.
Azerbaijan is also a small country, although it's correctly painted as the bigger and richer of the enemies in this conflict. Additionally, Azeris and Armenians hate each other. So Azerbaijan is too small, weak and culturally different to subsume Armenia.
The big powers in the region are Russia, Turkey and Iran. If you must argue that Armenia should pick a big power to cosy up to, those are the options. Turkey is likely committed to Azerbaijan, but Iran and Russia are willing to play both sides.
Pursuing closer links with Europe and the EU is a fourth option. As the article points out, Armenia has historic links to Europe (although in the same paragraph it concedes that the strongest of those are to Russia, not the Western countries...) and this would be more attractive to Armenians. Unfortunately, it doesn't have much to offer the EU. It's poor and geographically isolated and the EU, which doesn't have unified armed forces, isn't interested in projecting military power overseas.
The big powers in the region are Russia, Turkey and Iran. If you must argue that Armenia should pick a big power to cosy up to, those are the options. Turkey is likely committed to Azerbaijan, but Iran and Russia are willing to play both sides.
Pursuing closer links with Europe and the EU is a fourth option. As the article points out, Armenia has historic links to Europe (although in the same paragraph it concedes that the strongest of those are to Russia, not the Western countries...) and this would be more attractive to Armenians. Unfortunately, it doesn't have much to offer the EU. It's poor and geographically isolated and the EU, which doesn't have unified armed forces, isn't interested in projecting military power overseas.
How is their future with Azerbaijan where killing Armenians is something they are proud of.
Gurgen Margaryan was killed by an Azeri in Hungary. Once he was extradited to Azerbaijan he was released, promoted and got a big pay. Now he's a hero there.
Gurgen Margaryan was killed by an Azeri in Hungary. Once he was extradited to Azerbaijan he was released, promoted and got a big pay. Now he's a hero there.
I would choose the EU if the EU were to grow some cojones.
That would require getting a handle on economics, corruption and political mismanagement. It would take a decade or more of change. They could align themselves more with the EU, but remember: The EU cannot, AND WILL NOT, go to war over a small asian country, regardless of how it align it self with the union.
So Armenia would risk provoking it’s neighbors, with no way of defending it self.
So, yeah, the EU would need to grow a massive set of balls and build an army large enough to keep Russia away, and station troops in all EU friendly states bordering Russia. I’d call that a 2050 plan at best.
So Armenia would risk provoking it’s neighbors, with no way of defending it self.
So, yeah, the EU would need to grow a massive set of balls and build an army large enough to keep Russia away, and station troops in all EU friendly states bordering Russia. I’d call that a 2050 plan at best.
Turkey is a small, weak country compared to the EU and was able to send significant help to Azerbaijan.
It's not for the EU to be scared. They just need to setup camp in Armenia, then others will not dare attack.
The problem is to indeed grow a pair and show some backbone instead of always being scared and weak. Again, the EU is (or can be) a massive power that others, including Russia, will not cross.
It's not for the EU to be scared. They just need to setup camp in Armenia, then others will not dare attack.
The problem is to indeed grow a pair and show some backbone instead of always being scared and weak. Again, the EU is (or can be) a massive power that others, including Russia, will not cross.
> It's not for the EU to be scared. They just need to setup camp in Armenia, then others will not dare attack.
That should be the case but is not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
Specifically, show me one country in the EU whose internal politics could sustain losing significant numbers of personnel in a proxy war with the second largest military in NATO.
That should be the case but is not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre
Specifically, show me one country in the EU whose internal politics could sustain losing significant numbers of personnel in a proxy war with the second largest military in NATO.
The EU, it’s member countries and it general population have no grasp of the size, power and potential influence of the European Union and there’s almost zero interest in exploring it.
As a friend of mine suggested, one of the better routes the EU could take is to look to Switzerland and estabilish a confederation, with a single military, forereign policy and currency, but leave everything to the member states.
As a friend of mine suggested, one of the better routes the EU could take is to look to Switzerland and estabilish a confederation, with a single military, forereign policy and currency, but leave everything to the member states.
If... That’s unfortunately unlikely to happen.
“Karabakh is an internationally recognized territory of Azerbaijan, and Armenia is seen to have occupied the territory for over 30 years.”
In other words, it appears the whole territory is Azerbaijan’s, and the whole planet, EU, US and the UN confirms that this is so. Turns out, Armenia had an 30-plus year invasion force holding Azerbaijani territory.
That’s the kind of thing they should have put front and centre, because it completely changes the narrative.