Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues
Ok, roach.The Ottoman wrote:If there is no Azeri progress or succes, the why is Pashinyan crying and screaming every day and calling every worldleader 88 times per day?
Pashinyan is today more famous than that crying emo on Youtube who once cried 'leave Britney alone!'.
I never saw a president of any country crying and complaining like this at international level.
Even Putin is sick of it.
flamming_python and Regular like this post
mnrck likes this post
Isos wrote:So Putin clearly say the conflict isn't happening in Armenia. So as long as it stays outside armenia he is not obliged to do anything but also say if it is in Armenia he will have to help them.
KoTeMoRe wrote:
Let us be a little more logical here.
Russia is playing its cardinal card in the Lesser Caucasus. If they let Azerbaijan take over Artsakh, then Armenia can directly push for a PP with NATO. Same story as with Georgia, but with extra spice as it would give the US a direct border with Iran and render the Russian SYRIAN B-route through the Caspian all but impracticable. This means a lot of shit sanwich for everybody. Iran, Turkey and Russia. Which would have a straight up open front with Georgia over YO and ABK while having a better strategic depth. If you think this is what the Russians want to deal with, then you are seriously misunderstanding the long term consequences of an Azeri Artsakh. It's a neutering of Armenia ala Serbia. Imagine the issues Serbia has regarding Kosovo, but with Armenia. The problem is that there's not enough cash in the fucking planet to apease the Armenians if they suffer an ethnic cleansing from Artsakh. This is going to lead to evacuation of Guymri, whic his the Russian trump card in keeping both Turkey and Georgia in check.
As for internal conflict, please man, please. That conflict exists already in Russia with a bunch of "formers" beating the shit out of eachother when they can.
Azeri territory, not really, FFS one of the biggest Soviet crimes of the Gorby era was the supression of Nakhchevan which was cleansed under the Soviet leadership. Similarly the Artsakh situation was poorly handled by Russia mostly because its bling apoplexia over the Chechen conflict and its spillover.
Russia is lucky Armenia has litterally nothing going for itself and that the cost of babysitting Armenia might be the biggest issue for new Western Sugar daddies, but for the US the rewards are huge. It can throat Iran, be a continuous nuisance for Russia and grow like a bad case of fungus in the region and who knows even take out Alyiev. That means a bigh puddle of shit for every one in the Caspian.
If Russia wants to turn the Caspian from a Russian lake into a shit lake, be my guest.
kvs and slasher like this post
Hole wrote:SeigSoloyvov wrote:Hole wrote:Khruschev broke the constitution with his act. It was illegal under the law of the time.
Okay by all means show and quote the law you claim he violated.
The soviet constitution which states that changes like that (giving control over a region to another republic) can only be made after a referendum has been held. Which didn´t happen.
slasher likes this post
KoTeMoRe wrote:
Let us be a little more logical here.
Russia is playing its cardinal card in the Lesser Caucasus. If they let Azerbaijan take over Artsakh, then Armenia can directly push for a PP with NATO. Same story as with Georgia, but with extra spice as it would give the US a direct border with Iran and render the Russian SYRIAN B-route through the Caspian all but impracticable. This means a lot of shit sanwich for everybody. Iran, Turkey and Russia. Which would have a straight up open front with Georgia over YO and ABK while having a better strategic depth. If you think this is what the Russians want to deal with, then you are seriously misunderstanding the long term consequences of an Azeri Artsakh. It's a neutering of Armenia ala Serbia. Imagine the issues Serbia has regarding Kosovo, but with Armenia. The problem is that there's not enough cash in the fucking planet to apease the Armenians if they suffer an ethnic cleansing from Artsakh. This is going to lead to evacuation of Guymri, whic his the Russian trump card in keeping both Turkey and Georgia in check.
As for internal conflict, please man, please. That conflict exists already in Russia with a bunch of "formers" beating the shit out of eachother when they can.
Azeri territory, not really, FFS one of the biggest Soviet crimes of the Gorby era was the supression of Nakhchevan which was cleansed under the Soviet leadership. Similarly the Artsakh situation was poorly handled by Russia mostly because its bling apoplexia over the Chechen conflict and its spillover.
Russia is lucky Armenia has litterally nothing going for itself and that the cost of babysitting Armenia might be the biggest issue for new Western Sugar daddies, but for the US the rewards are huge. It can throat Iran, be a continuous nuisance for Russia and grow like a bad case of fungus in the region and who knows even take out Alyiev. That means a bigh puddle of shit for every one in the Caspian.
If Russia wants to turn the Caspian from a Russian lake into a shit lake, be my guest.
slasher likes this post
flamming_python and Armenian like this post
Even back then, the locals wouldn't tolerate USN/NATO ships & exercises in Crimea. Don't blame them for not willing to live under new Kiev regime installed by the US.The 1990 referendum in Crimea fully restored its autonomy.
she already has it with Russia; Iran can still help clandestinely w/o it, to avoid rocking the boat with Turkey & Azerbaijan.Armenia needs security pact with Russia and Iran.
but to keep the land corridor to NK, that land won't be returned, freezing the war again.The solutions are obvious. NK joins Armenia. AZER gets occupied land back.
 |
| |||||||||
|
| In Pictures: Civilians Caught in Deadly Armenian-Azeri Crossfire | |
| Armenia's PM Says Turkey 'Reinstating the Ottoman Empire' in Sending Mercenaries |
| Iran's Rouhani Urges Regional Peace in Talk With Azerbaijan's Aliyev |
| Turkey Blasts Canada's Suspension of Arms Sales After Nagorno-Karabakh Allegations |
| Kremlin Says Fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh Must Stop |
| Residents Flee Azerbaijani Town of Tartar as Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict Escalates |
JohninMK wrote: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.
Hole wrote:SeigSoloyvov wrote:Hole wrote:Khruschev broke the constitution with his act. It was illegal under the law of the time.
Okay by all means show and quote the law you claim he violated.
The soviet constitution which states that changes like that (giving control over a region to another republic) can only be made after a referendum has been held. Which didn´t happen.
that's in an ideal world, but the reality is very different: Russia feels that her interests r at stake in & around Ukraine & the Black Sea, so it was justified to invalidate it in the new circumstances. Trump tore up the nuclear deal with Iran & all other signatories that was negotiated for years by the prev. admin.Treaties don't become invalid just because leadership changes either btw.
Treaties don't become invalid just because leadership changes either btw.
SeigSoloyvov wrote:Also, let's not forget in 1997 Ukraine and Russia signed a friendship treaty in which Russia formally acknowledge Ukraine's sovereign control over Crimea.
So even if you want to argue the 1954 transfer was illegal the Russian Federations leadership at that time also acknowledged Crimea belongs to Ukraine. Treaties don't become invalid just because leadership changes either btw.
kvs likes this post
Isos wrote:Treaties don't become invalid just because leadership changes either btw.
Yes they do. Just like the iranian deal was destroyed by Trump in matter of a signature.
slasher wrote:SeigSoloyvov wrote:Also, let's not forget in 1997 Ukraine and Russia signed a friendship treaty in which Russia formally acknowledge Ukraine's sovereign control over Crimea.
So even if you want to argue the 1954 transfer was illegal the Russian Federations leadership at that time also acknowledged Crimea belongs to Ukraine. Treaties don't become invalid just because leadership changes either btw.
The only change in leadership to note happened with the illegal overthrow of an elected President and government in a Western sponsored anti-constitutional coup in the Ukraine.
If you really want to educate yourself a bit, here's some good reading.
https://russiaeu.ru/en/news/crimea-decades-ukrainian-annexation-and-anti-humane-sanctions
slasher wrote:The only change in leadership to note happened with the illegal overthrow of an elected President and government of the Ukraine in a Western sponsored anti-constitutional coup. It is argued, as such, the Ukrainian statehood consequently ceased to exist, so there was no reason to deprive the people of Crimea of the right to determine their own fate. The Ukrainian parliament at the time abrogated its own constitution, leaving no legitimate power in Ukraine.
If you really want to educate yourself some more, here's some good reading.
https://russiaeu.ru/en/news/crimea-decades-ukrainian-annexation-and-anti-humane-sanctions
SeigSoloyvov wrote:Maybe if you weren't so emotional...you could see what I am saying... I am not going to turn a blind eye on the facts because of "feelings"
slasher and miketheterrible like this post
However none of what happened changes the fact legally speaking Crimea is part of Ukraine.
Tsavo Lion wrote:However none of what happened changes the fact legally speaking Crimea is part of Ukraine.
The dissolution of the USSR was also illegal- it was btw against the wishes of most people who voted in a referendum about its fate. So, by the same token, all other agreements after that, incl. regarding Ukraine's borders, r illegal. However, the Crimean referendum made it illegal for it to stay in Ukraine. Case closed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V5IhaNr7FTg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4BMs68Ggfw
slasher wrote:slasher wrote:The only change in leadership to note happened with the illegal overthrow of an elected President and government of the Ukraine in a Western sponsored anti-constitutional coup. It is argued, as such, the Ukrainian statehood consequently ceased to exist, so there was no reason to deprive the people of Crimea of the right to determine their own fate. The Ukrainian parliament at the time abrogated its own constitution, leaving no legitimate power in Ukraine.
If you really want to educate yourself some more, here's some good reading.
https://russiaeu.ru/en/news/crimea-decades-ukrainian-annexation-and-anti-humane-sanctionsSeigSoloyvov wrote:Maybe if you weren't so emotional...you could see what I am saying... I am not going to turn a blind eye on the facts because of "feelings"
Sir, everything I've stated/quoted here are reality based on the facts as they are. There's only one "emotional" person here stubbornly denying them because of personal "feelings", and that's you. Like that feeling you got the day before that Kosovo's secession was based on some mythical referendum.
it wouldn't happen w/o US & others interference; therefore, it's at least questionable.I will ask you one question then, do you see Kosovo as legal.
if it was illegal, then all other agreements by its successors r illegal as well.the dissolution of the USSR has nothing to do with the 1954 case or the 1997 situation so its a moot point.
Although the vote was boycotted by the authorities in Armenia, Estonia, Georgia (though not the breakaway province of Abkhazia, where the result was over 98% in favour,[3] and in South Ossetia),[4] Latvia, Lithuania, and Moldova (though not Transnistria or Gagauzia),[5] turnout was 80% across the rest of the Soviet Union.[2] The referendum's question was approved by nearly 70% of voters in all nine other republics that took part.[6] It was the only referendum in the history of the Soviet Union, as the August Coup prevented the formation of the renewed federation, causing the Soviet Union to be dissolved on 26 December 1991.Lol over 90 percent of those who lived in the USSR wanted it gone, you and your historical revisionism.
I'm writing, not talking! Self-determination to protect their human rights is the legal basis enough, & not only for me.Wrong Crimea again did not have any legal basis tosucceedsecede at all, your talking out your ass.
slasher likes this post
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
lyle6