View Full Version : Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict
FromMyColdDeadHand
10-06-20, 12:22
https://russiamatters.org/analysis/armenia-azerbaijan-war-military-dimensions-conflict
I have to say that I haven't paid attention to this, and I've seen nothing outside of RCP covering this. Turkey and Russia. Armenia and Azerbijan. They could have a circular firing squad and I thin I'd be most happy.
Kind of interesting line in the article about Russia not being a reliable ally and leaving local states out to dry. Sound familiar?
Can we kick Turkey out of NATO now? THey seem to be pursuing their own political/defense strategy that doesn't mesh well with the EU or US.
This and the internal political turmoil in Belarus, as a model for here if TRump wins, I think are two of the most ignorned, but interesting stories this year on the global scene.
Anyone have any insights?
SomeOtherGuy
10-06-20, 15:13
Here is another point of view, which lays out what a pickle Russia is in:
https://www.unz.com/pescobar/whats-at-stake-in-the-armenia-azerbaijan-chessboard/
In that author's view this is all part of Turkey's ambition to be the Ottoman Empire once again. MOEGA
FYI unz.com is a collection, as the topline on each page says. Some people will latch onto a certain view that is allowed to be said there, but there are 20 other points of view there as well. Look up the site owner's bio before making any claims about what that site is.
The article I linked is also available at:
https://asiatimes.com/2020/10/explosive-stakes-on-the-armenia-azerbaijan-chessboard/
but is behind a paywall there.
Regarding the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict, there are long simmering ethnic conflicts there that were only suppressed by the old Soviet Union. Without the strong hand of "mother Russia" keeping the kids under control, ethnic strife like this is inevitable if attitudes among the locals don't change as future generations are born and raised.
The same pattern plays out in parts of Africa every so often. Then there are the religious aspects of what we see between Iran and the rest of the MidEast.
Lacking the stong influence of a higher power (think USSR as a SuperPower) and no resolve by governments and large groups of people around today, conflicts like this will likely continue.
As a corollary, you have extremist groups in Europe (not just Islamic Jihadist sorts but, Neo-Nazi's, Fascists, and others) and even in the USA you have groups at extremes of the political and religious stresses building support for similar violence on a much bigger scale than general looting and riots.
Without the resolve from large groups of people and the enforcement that comes from a consistent and strong government, unfortunately conflicts like this are apt to continue for a long time.
In that author's view this is all part of Turkey's ambition to be the Ottoman Empire once again. MOEGA
They want their empire back, Russia wasn't their soviet union back. We all watched the Olympic while Russia snatched Georgia. I'm sympathetic to the Ukraine because they are a regular victim of Russian expansionist goals, but I think we need to steer clear of ethnic conflicts in that entire region, they will fight them until the end of time with or without our intervention.
I know it's hard to watch the innocent victims who always get brutalized in these things but it doesn't seem we ever prevent that from happening even when we do get involved.
They want their empire back, Russia wasn't their soviet union back. We all watched the Olympic while Russia snatched Georgia. I'm sympathetic to the Ukraine because they are a regular victim of Russian expansionist goals, but I think we need to steer clear of ethnic conflicts in that entire region, they will fight them until the end of time with or without our intervention.
I know it's hard to watch the innocent victims who always get brutalized in these things but it doesn't seem we ever prevent that from happening even when we do get involved.
Amen. Bring back isolationism.
Amen. Bring back isolationism.
Unless we have a dramatically compelling reason to be rolling tanks and troops in some other country, we have enough problems here at home.
While I do have a strong desire to rescue ever Anna Kornikova in the Ukraine, there must be a better way to do it. Perhaps we just mail order war brides again. I'm in for 3 because I like to help.
SomeOtherGuy
10-06-20, 20:29
They want their empire back, Russia wasn't their soviet union back. We all watched the Olympic while Russia snatched Georgia. I'm sympathetic to the Ukraine because they are a regular victim of Russian expansionist goals, but I think we need to steer clear of ethnic conflicts in that entire region, they will fight them until the end of time with or without our intervention.
I know it's hard to watch the innocent victims who always get brutalized in these things but it doesn't seem we ever prevent that from happening even when we do get involved.
I agree 100%, especially with the last paragraph. Iraq and Afghanistan should have absolutely loved the USA - of course they did not. We should have known before 2001, but definitely should have known by 2004.
I favor Armenia here, but it's by far the best for us if we don't get involved. It is high time to isolate Turkey and kick it out of NATO. Don't care about Incirlik, we can do without it. Don't care about Turkey getting friendly to Russia, as this conflict is already showing that won't last long.
Yes, in conflicts like this, the average people are the ones that get hurt the most generally. Like ISIS brides looking for domestic slaves, there are always some that will never change their minds and continue to abuse others for their own personal gains.
Turkey and Hungary are two more that suffer the tyranny of the majority syndrome. Political cronies benefit while the public masses are duped and brainwashed. In the end, it's all at the expense of the normal everyday workers and families with no control over their destinies. It's really very sad.
I tend to let live and let live and leave it to locals to settle their own internal affairs but, at some point, genocide and other atrocities really require intervention to save the innocents.
Like Iraq and Afghanistan, when you have generational brainwashing by politicians and religious zealots, even the oppressed suffer from 'Stockholm syndrome'.
In that author's view this is all part of Turkey's ambition to be the Ottoman Empire once again. MOEGA
While I do not put 100% validity into this guys opinion, he does cover some major talking points that I find interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCpL9JATq9I
SomeOtherGuy
10-07-20, 09:32
Turkey and Hungary are two more that suffer the tyranny of the majority syndrome. Political cronies benefit while the public masses are duped and brainwashed. In the end, it's all at the expense of the normal everyday workers and families with no control over their destinies. It's really very sad.
For Turkey I'm basically tracking you, although Erdogan is probably more popular inside Turkey than with literally anyone outside.
For Hungary - what's your source and what's your view? Hungary is, historically, a homogeneous nation-state. The current PM Orban seems to be working hard for his nation, at the expense of the EU and other globalists who want to destroy its cohesiveness. He's by no means perfect but seems better for his people than many leaders of other European countries.
I tend to let live and let live and leave it to locals to settle their own internal affairs but, at some point, genocide and other atrocities really require intervention to save the innocents.
If there is some point where "genocide and other atrocities really require intervention to save the innocents," what exactly is that point and how do we identify it? What number of people have to be killed? One, one thousand or one million? Or do we go by the UN definition of genocide, in which case there is a genocide going on in many European countries right now?
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Likewise, why didn't the US intervene in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge? Why doesn't the west punish Turkey for the Armenian genocide? Do you agree that the USSR committed genocide against Ukrainians in the 1930's and against ethnic Germans (many of whom were descended from pre-1900 settlers) in various eastern European countries from 1940 through the 1950's?
Today - right now - why are we not intervening in Tibet and Xinjiang where the centralized CCP "Han" Chinese are genociding the native populations of those regions? Or in South Africa, where white farmers are being systematically murdered by death squads sponsored by the country's ruling political party, and police at all levels do absolutely nothing? Should we intervene to protect innocent Christians in Syria, Turkey, and elsewhere in the mideast?
Going back to the topic of this thread: a Muslim country is invading a disputed region currently held by a Christian country, with a population that is mostly Christian (though admittedly because Armenia expelled the Muslims from this region 20-some years ago). For the moment Azerbaijan is not religiously oppressing Christians, but historically it's a 100% certainty they will do so at some future point, by the standard "you convert to Islam or we kill you" method. Should we go in and protect Armenia to prevent a future genocide that, historically speaking, is 100% certain to happen? And should Armenia's past actions affect our decision?
Like Iraq and Afghanistan, when you have generational brainwashing by politicians and religious zealots, even the oppressed suffer from 'Stockholm syndrome'.
I don't think many people in Iraq liked Saddam Hussein. But they dislike foreign invaders even more. Same times a million for Afghanistan. Tons of other historical grievances as well, many going back hundreds of years before the USA even existed. Most people don't want to be ruled or conquered by foreigners, no matter how bad their situation is with their co-ethnic rulers.
For Turkey I'm basically tracking you, although Erdogan is probably more popular inside Turkey than with literally anyone outside.
Again, Tyranny of the masses. Popularity doesn't mean your a 'good' guy. The list of POPULAR leaders that were not good for their country or citizens is pretty long if you are a student of history and politics. Turkey is a pretty hard case for the EU to ignore these days. Adding NATO membership makes internal politics even more concerning when they become so extreme with issues like the Kurds and ISIS not to mention downing a Russian aircraft from the Syrian conflict while technically in violation of their airspace but likely just a simple error by the Russian pilot during combat operations along a very complicated geographic border.
For Hungary - what's your source and what's your view? Hungary is, historically, a homogeneous nation-state. The current PM Orban seems to be working hard for his nation, at the expense of the EU and other globalists who want to destroy its cohesiveness. He's by no means perfect but seems better for his people than many leaders of other European countries.
I was in Hungary shortly before the fall of their "wall". It really was a striking country to visit in the mid-'90s. To be honest, I really admire the country for the most part considering their struggles for self-determination free from the Soviets. Definitely hugely different from my experience in the former East Germany.
Hungary has made HUGE STRIDES to join the larger EU community and has an economy that was really growing to move past the shackles of its past. However, Orban and his government have set back freedom in Hungary significantly with significant domestic meddling so he can hold the vote and keep himself in power. These policies make him popular inside Hungary but, it is a real setback for freedom in general for the citizens of Hungary.
Stoking nationalism towards refugees in Hungary is really bad. Whether those policies are worse than what is going on in Greece is debatable. In the end, Hungary is diminished because it is so far against what Hungary fought generations to overcome during Soviet occupation.
If there is some point where "genocide and other atrocities really require intervention to save the innocents," what exactly is that point and how do we identify it? What number of people have to be killed? One, one thousand or one million? Or do we go by the UN definition of genocide, in which case there is a genocide going on in many European countries right now?
https://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/genocide.shtml
Well, NATO and the EU went into Bosnia but, only waffled over Rwanda. :fie:
Then you have the Yazidi and ISIS type historical events in basically an active war zone with really only support of air-dropped food and water after the Yazidi began to die of dehydration and suffer significantly from starvation because they had to run for their lives away from ISIS.
To that, you can add the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, Myanmar ...
Likewise, why didn't the US intervene in Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge? Why doesn't the west punish Turkey for the Armenian genocide? Do you agree that the USSR committed genocide against Ukrainians in the 1930's and against ethnic Germans (many of whom were descended from pre-1900 settlers) in various eastern European countries from 1940 through the 1950's?
Not just the USA, the EU, and other transnational government groups should hold despots and tyrants accountable for the actions so far outside of the norm IMHO. I'm not in favor of unilateral military action in general, though in very limited cases I can see a valid argument to go it alone. The reality is that this sort of intervention generally requires military action and a national commitment due to the wealth required and the likely loss of life of the people there to 'help'.
The former Soviet Union committed many genocides including the genocide of their own population in addition to those you list and others not listed. Most of the former Soviet states have had and still have serious issues with the genocide of various groups and ongoing oppression. There are many well-documented examples here with enough other examples in more recent history to probably fill a textbook.
Regarding currently ongoing conflicts like we see in Turkey and Venezuela as two examples, regionally local neighbors are where things should start, and yes support should build from the larger global community, whether the EU, USA or other regions. Africa as a continent is one that continues to be overlooked by everyone except China which is trying to replicate a new set of atrocities there on the order of the former Colonial powers (which were horrendously brutal to the local populations).
Today - right now - why are we not intervening in Tibet and Xinjiang where the centralized CCP "Han" Chinese are genociding the native populations of those regions? Or in South Africa, where white farmers are being systematically murdered by death squads sponsored by the country's ruling political party, and police at all levels do absolutely nothing? Should we intervene to protect innocent Christians in Syria, Turkey, and elsewhere in the Mideast?
The USA cannot and should not fight all GLOBAL battles by itself. With near peers like the USSR and China, you can't really go in with a heavy hand without starting World War 3 so, a different approach is required. Arguably, the USSR was broken by the USA's economic strength and political will. Personally, I think the USA (and other countries) have already seeded the advantage to China. When Google stopped Artificial Intelligence research with the US D.O.D. and moved it to China I personally become concerned about the future in the USA. Outsourcing of the globe to China is enabling them to implement "social scoring" for its citizens and tyrannical policies that I am afraid will directly hurt not just Africa but, the EU and North America too. Tibet and Hong Kong are I'm afraid just the tip of the iceberg with an ever-growing China that will likely be the USA's primary rival in our children's lives. Russia and Putin continue to exert power on the world stage due to NUCLEAR ARMS and basically wartime economy supported by energy production. Don't get me started on Petrodictatorships with the various oil countries primarily in the Mid East and their generally horrendous human rights records.
Going back to the topic of this thread: a Muslim country is invading a disputed region currently held by a Christian country, with a population that is mostly Christian (though admittedly because Armenia expelled the Muslims from this region 20-some years ago). For the moment Azerbaijan is not religiously oppressing Christians, but historically it's a 100% certainty they will do so at some future point, by the standard "you convert to Islam or we kill you" method. Should we go in and protect Armenia to prevent a future genocide that, historically speaking, is 100% certain to happen? And should Armenia's past actions affect our decision?
The past can be changed for the future so, should we punish the Germans today for what Hitler and the Nazis did in the '30s through World War 2? With the local regional players being the starting point, I hope the EU doesn't tolerate another Balkan style conflict. Bosnia and that genocide wasn't that long ago! :sad:
I don't think many people in Iraq liked Saddam Hussein. But they dislike foreign invaders even more. Same times a million for Afghanistan. Tons of other historical grievances as well, many going back hundreds of years before the USA even existed. Most people don't want to be ruled or conquered by foreigners, no matter how bad their situation is with their co-ethnic rulers.
That's were SOFT POWER like we saw with the fall of the USSR comes into play. A heavy hand tends to cause or reinforce nationalism in the near term to the detriment of everyone.
Unfortunately, closed education systems make it hard to penetrate some enclaves of bad behavior. Saudi Arabia is an example that many completely miss. Saudi Madrasas were the breeding ground of a significant amount of the Islamic Jihadist atrocities we see globally. If 'white supremacists' pushed Christianity the same way, they would be run out of town by most people. With Saudi petrodollars and control of global economies, the distorted views of the royal family bred many global problems like 9/11 and similar events in Africa and Asia in particular. When global leaders can be bought and a large population can be pacified with false wealth, bad leadership is allowed to thrive.
Locally, we have had Cuba, Contras, Venezuela, and others. Europe, Asia, and, Africa have their own similar situations. With resolve, things can change but, with no willpower and extreme short-sightedness, I'm afraid we will RELEARN history, AGAIN. :sad:
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.