2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war #1

It is not perfectly logical....and you brought up what Hitler did so you really, majority of those killed by them where jews.

Azeri is not attacking NK for living space....they are attacking it because the land is considered theirs. Hitlar attacked countries that the world stage did not consider part of Germany. What the hell did they teach you in school?.

Depends, they didn't seek to outright kill civis people did die but the Russians have filled plenty of body bags in Syria with innocents. Civilians die in war that's just the reality of it.

"they believe belongs to them is amusing" The fact you said this is amusing and frankly pathetic. The Azeri's don't believe it, they know it. Russia you know the country you are oh so in love with but won't move there even says that land belongs to Azeri, so very very pathetic those words left your mouth. A new level of ignorance congrats.

That said since apparently....with you saying things 50 times over isn't enough. If Armenia wants the land they will have to fight for it, nor am i saying they should give it up just that they are occupying the land and it's no longer theirs. I will repeat my words again.

"they want that land they will have to fight and defend on it on their own. That is the price you pay when you occupy other countries land"

That depends..does the world consider Georgia, Armenia and Azeri has belonging to Russia? Oh wait they don't. So if they did that would be an actual invasion of sovereign nations.

You are completely ignoring the fact every nation on earth literally sees that has Azeri land, technically Azeri isn't invading. They cannot invade their own land, by definition its liberation. You are just showing me how full of it you are. "Believe" it belongs to them lol.

Canadians are funny. They sold those systems for years and they were used in Syria and Libya in huge numbers but when they are not used against muslims but another people they ban the sells.

Pretend to be good people when in reality thry are piece of shit.

I want to say something about adequate response and age of leadership. First if a response is adequate or sufficient, then it should act as a detterent. Or stop further aggressive behaviour. If it does not, then response has not been correct in intensity or longevity.

Second is age of leadership. The old have some advantage over the young. And vice versa. But the old mistake their personal physical weakness, for national ones. And the young mistake their own physical streanght, for national ones.

I will not say about Russia. But can say about Iran. What I do, if deciding. That is different to present time.

( 1 )  I would have made ICBM nukes for Iran, and displayed them a million years ago.

( 2 )  I would carry out all attacks, in the open, declaring reason for people.

( 3 )  I  would inform people of all enemy attacks.

( 4 )  I  would immediately retaliate in proportion to immediate attack.

This means for example, not informing Assad base, before attack. Taking credit for damaging UAE  oil Tanker, pumping too much oil to sanction,  retaliate against enemy that carried sabotage and taking credit. And now in caucases, hit Georgian airport sending terror cells, with BM. Sending a few ships to blockade against Usrael weapon in region.


I am 60 years old. Maybe I am crazy. Maybe not.

Ps. I like ultimate warrior. Do not ban him. To ultimate warrior : condense posts. Into one post.

nomadski wrote:
Ps. I like ultimate warrior. Do not ban him.  To ultimate warrior :  condense posts. Into one post.

He is a dilemma.

On the one hand he digs out some useful stuff that no-one else finds. On the other hand what he writes and how he puts it is often or usually a pain in the bum.

I have been on this forum now, for a few years. The mods are quite flexible with posts. Sometimes people go at a tangent, for numerous posts. Yet those posts are removed, or new topic made for them. They are not banned.

Ultimate warrior, seems broke rules first by posting twitter. But others posted from twitter. They are not criticised. And also others, post one liners. Sometimes putting no effort in. Useless posts. But they are kept. His posts are, as you said very revealing. And relevant.

So, to keep him, if others post from twitter. He should not be critisized for this. As long as he does not drown others, by numerous one line posts.

As a rule, I try not to post, unless someone replies to my post. It is not easy. Because sometimes no-one replies. And I can not modify original post, to fit the story in. So I reply to my own posts.

But ultimate can put all relevant posts together, belonging to same topic. This is true. As long as each posts, does not become over long. This again can block others. Shorter posts, done earlier.


Now, back on topic, Iranian advisor to leadership, a man who was kind to me, said that Armenia should leave Azeri lands. Previously legally Azeri. But this to be done without war.

This, I disagree with.  Armenians should only leave territory, occupied after the war, where there is no significant Armenian civilian presence. And this solution can only be imposed externally.

And the Azeris, should only return to territory,  legally owned, before the war, with significant civilian Azeri population. And this too can only be imposed externally. By Iran / Russia.

Where, there was a significant Azeri population, before the war, and there is now a significant Armenian population. There should be a territorial compromise. But the two peoples need to be separated.

But again the situation on the ground is war. Not peace.

Isos wrote:Canadians are funny. They sold those systems for years and they were used in Syria and Libya in huge numbers but when they are not used against muslims but another people they ban the sells.

Pretend to be good people when in reality thry are piece of shit.

I mean they've been selling stuff to the Saudis for years as well.
Here's a good greyzone article on the Ukrainian ultranationalist influence as well: https://thegrayzone.com/2020/03/26/canadian-conservative-party-bandera-canada/

kvs wrote:I find it funny in the way that America and its minions can be funny that they treat the borders of the Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin as sacrosanct.
They also have their cake and eat it too by recognizing both the sanctity of such borders and the right of places like Kosovo to secede.  
Once again, the supposedly anti-commie west supports Tito's carve up of Serbia.    

But when it comes to America and its treatment of aboriginals neither any border (as demarcated by the treaties they signed) nor
the people inhabiting the land matters.  

So what we see is zero-principles opportunism from America and its minions.   If they could, they would invade Russia and exterminate
every last Russian.   The behaviour of the yanquis and their doggies clearly indicates genocidal intent.

It's funny because they defend Khrushchev's delivery of Crimea to Ukraine as a god given holy decree...well if they're so adamant of supporting Khrushchev's actions on strategic islands, then they might as well support the return of Russkie IRBM's to Cuba!

https://twitter.com/GaninaSA/status/1313035644298461184?s=20

This may be good lesson for Armenians.

Their western friends.arent coming to their help.

kvs wrote:

miketheterrible wrote:https://twitter.com/GaninaSA/status/1313035644298461184?s=20

This may be good lesson for Armenians.

Their western friends.arent coming to their help.

That is why Russia should hold back in taking the bait.   All of these demented chihuahuas are insane on the delusion that
NATzO will wipe their asses for them.   No, you retarded fucks, it will eat you can crap you out.

That is the thing.  Azerbaijan didn't push anti russian hysteria like Armenia did.  I think Armenia fucked itself.  Which I find hilarious since there are more Armenians in Russia than there are in Armenia.  So what do they get for being Pro NATO?

Which now boils down for Russia to really look internally and start rounding up all the pro NATO enemies of Russia who live within.

It's funny because they defend Khrushchev's delivery of Crimea to Ukraine as a god given holy decree...

The Crimea was taken back to correct that historical mistake & the Armenians should fight to keep NK (& the surrounding areas) + perhaps 1 day retake Nachivan that Stalin gave to Azeris, like he divided Ossetia between Georgia & RSFR.

Tsavo Lion wrote:

It's funny because they defend Khrushchev's delivery of Crimea to Ukraine as a god given holy decree...

The Crimea was taken back to correct that historical mistake & the Armenians should fight to keep NK (& the surrounding areas) + perhaps 1 day retake Nachivan that Stalin gave to Azeris, like he divided Ossetia between Georgia & RSFR.

Well while Ukraine isn't ever getting Crimea back, the then head of the Soviet leadership gave that land to Ukraine which was perfectly legal. So from a legal standpoint that land is technically Ukrainian. That's just the facts. But like I said Russia will never hand over Crimea so to expect that is foolish.

I don't care if Russia has Crimea or not, I am simply keeping to my standard of every country is treated the same.

I just enjoy seeing the hypocrisy from all of you, you're all fine with countries you support using the historical excuse but will foam at the mouth if ones you don't use the same excuse. Really it's priceless.

medo wrote:



Only 26 of 62 Azerbaijani An-2 UAVs remain. Armenian PVO shot down 36 of them. It looks like Armenian numbers of shot down drones and planes are quite realistic.

Some say Azeri use that an-2UAV to detect armenian AD position.

That would be a good idea if there was a SEAD plane behind lunching antiradar missiles at those AD radars. But now they used half of them and it's been few days azrei don't fly their drones because of weather so armenian had time to switchbpositiins of AD systems making the use of those an-2 untill today totally useless.

They just destroyed tebs of them.

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:

It's funny because they defend Khrushchev's delivery of Crimea to Ukraine as a god given holy decree...

The Crimea was taken back to correct that historical mistake & the Armenians should fight to keep NK (& the surrounding areas) + perhaps 1 day retake Nachivan that Stalin gave to Azeris, like he divided Ossetia between Georgia & RSFR.

Well while Ukraine isn't ever getting Crimea back, the then head of the Soviet leadership gave that land to Ukraine which was perfectly legal. So from a legal standpoint that land is technically Ukrainian. That's just the facts. But like I said Russia will never hand over Crimea so to expect that is foolish.

I don't care if Russia has Crimea or not, I am simply keeping to my standard of every country is treated the same.

I just enjoy seeing the hypocrisy from all of you, you're all fine with countries you support using the historical excuse but will foam at the mouth if ones you don't use the same excuse. Really it's priceless.

From a US perspective the guy that gave crimea was a dictator so it wasn't really legal.

Anyone got any good websites for updates and maps.

Armenia stating downing of aircraft and helicopters yet haven't seen footage or listing what type were destroyed any info?

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:

It's funny because they defend Khrushchev's delivery of Crimea to Ukraine as a god given holy decree...

The Crimea was taken back to correct that historical mistake & the Armenians should fight to keep NK (& the surrounding areas) + perhaps 1 day retake Nachivan that Stalin gave to Azeris, like he divided Ossetia between Georgia & RSFR.

Well while Ukraine isn't ever getting Crimea back, the then head of the Soviet leadership gave that land to Ukraine which was perfectly legal. So from a legal standpoint that land is technically Ukrainian. That's just the facts. But like I said Russia will never hand over Crimea so to expect that is foolish.

I don't care if Russia has Crimea or not, I am simply keeping to my standard of every country is treated the same.

I just enjoy seeing the hypocrisy from all of you, you're all fine with countries you support using the historical excuse but will foam at the mouth if ones you don't use the same excuse. Really it's priceless.

From a US perspective the guy that gave crimea was a dictator so it wasn't really legal.

It was the then recognized government of the land, you can call it what you like but he was the head of the country so it was perfectly legal what he did there.

You don't have to like it or approve of it but it was a legal transfer of land.

kvs wrote:

Isos wrote:

SeigSoloyvov wrote:

Tsavo Lion wrote:

It's funny because they defend Khrushchev's delivery of Crimea to Ukraine as a god given holy decree...

The Crimea was taken back to correct that historical mistake & the Armenians should fight to keep NK (& the surrounding areas) + perhaps 1 day retake Nachivan that Stalin gave to Azeris, like he divided Ossetia between Georgia & RSFR.

Well while Ukraine isn't ever getting Crimea back, the then head of the Soviet leadership gave that land to Ukraine which was perfectly legal. So from a legal standpoint that land is technically Ukrainian. That's just the facts. But like I said Russia will never hand over Crimea so to expect that is foolish.

I don't care if Russia has Crimea or not, I am simply keeping to my standard of every country is treated the same.

I just enjoy seeing the hypocrisy from all of you, you're all fine with countries you support using the historical excuse but will foam at the mouth if ones you don't use the same excuse. Really it's priceless.

From a US perspective the guy that gave crimea was a dictator so it wasn't really legal.

US talk of legality is pure propaganda BS.   While Obummer yammered on about how Kosovo Albanians carried out a referendum on independence, which
never happened, he ignored the referendum in Crimea in 2014.   The US also ignored the referendum in 1990 which re-established the autonomy of Crimea
that the Ukrainian SSR officially recognized.    Ukraine annexed Crimea in 1991.   The US "recognized" this annexation and keeps on bitching about
Banderastani territorial integrity.   Clearly the US has no principles behind its foreign policy.   Pure opportunist BS excuses and claims are the fig leaf it
uses to deflect attention from this fact.

Both Kosovo and Crimea referendums are technically illegal.

I have never said what Kosovo did was legal it wasn't at all.

@ Tsavo lion

"... The Crimea was taken back to correct that historical mistake & the Armenians should fight to keep NK (& the surrounding areas) + perhaps 1 day retake Nachivan that Stalin gave to Azeris , like he divided Ossetia between Georgia & RSFR......"

I think that the security of NK, can be secured by a land bridge between Armenia and NK.  They don't need all the occupied territories for this. If they were supported in defence, by Iran and Russia, then withdrawal could be made. That is if, these territories have no significant Armenian population now.

A land swap with Nakichevan,  maybe a good idea. But this need cooperation with Azer. And we know they are under NAZTO. And the Rat master wants war. Not peace. Also it means moving more people.

But Iran / Russia and Armenia, can implement the first part of plan. But needs boots on ground........

Khruschev broke the constitution with his act. It was illegal under the law of the time.

It was the then recognized government of the land, you can call it what you like but he was the head of the country so it was perfectly legal what he did there.

You don't have to like it or approve of it but it was a legal transfer of land.

Law is made by the one who has the power.

But at the time it was USSR not Russia and Ukraine. People didn't care because it was within ONE country.

If they knew that USSR would fall in 1991, it wouldn't have been so easy and Kroutshchev would have been killed for such proposition.

If today Trump gives a part of California to a neighbour state, reactions will be different if they think US will stay forever or if they know it will end in 50 or 60 years.

Such "gifts" or partitions of a coubtry that fall apart always end up in wars. Law has nothing to do with it. Getting a fair agreement will bring them peace. Winning that land in a war will bring them a war in in some decades. Just like there will be more wars for kosovo or palestine or kurils or any other contested useless piece of land.

d_taddei2 wrote:Anyone got any good websites for updates and maps.

Armenia stating downing of aircraft and helicopters yet haven't seen footage or listing what type were destroyed any info?

Only aircraft lost so far has been one Armenian Su-25

Isos wrote:

It was the then recognized government of the land, you can call it what you like but he was the head of the country so it was perfectly legal what he did there.

You don't have to like it or approve of it but it was a legal transfer of land.

Law is made by the one who has the power.

But at the time it was USSR not Russia and Ukraine. People didn't care because it was within ONE country.

If they knew that USSR would fall in 1991, it wouldn't have been so easy and Kroutshchev would have been killed for such proposition.

If today Trump gives a part of California to a neighbour state, reactions will be different if they think US will stay forever or if they know it will end in 50 or 60 years.

Such "gifts" or partitions of a coubtry that fall apart always end up in wars. Law has nothing to do with it. Getting a fair agreement will bring them peace. Winning that land in a war will bring them a war in in some decades. Just like there will be more wars for kosovo or palestine or kurils or any other contested useless piece of land.

You are bringing up specifics to try and justify your point and they all change nothing.

Indeed he had the power therefore it was law, correct. He had the back of the entire Soviet Government when that decision was made, therefore the government approved the transfer. Indeed the USSR breaking up back then wasn't foreseen however that doesn't matter at all, the land was still legally transferred to Ukraine. Again you can whine about it all you like, fact is from a legal basis Crimea is Ukrainian land just as Kosovo legally still belongs to the Serbs.

The President actually doesn't have that power, you clearly don't know jack shit about law or even US law in what the president can do at home.

Be mad, I don't care at all.

I'm not mad over you. My world isn't really impacted by a random kid from the web.

What you don't understabd is that tge word "legal" has no reel signification since justice is never the same. It's the law of the powerfull.

Kosovo was filled by albanians over time and then serbia bombed by nato to give them their country. Who bombed Crimea during ussr or during 2014 crisis ? No one. Two different things. Crimea as gifted by a single guy in what was a single country. That country fell apart and now there is two countries with Nazis in 1 of those two. Crimeabs had the right to vite and save their ass. They left the sinking boat.

Not sure if true. If true someone thinks like me.

MiddleEastWatch
@MiddleEastWatc1
·
1h
Vice President of Azerbaijan: Armenia fired missiles at the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan power pipeline, without hitting it.