Iran Military Forum

From the point of view of the international law this conflict represents a classical example of a deep and a difficult to solve contradiction between two fundamental principles: from one side – the right of every people to self-determine its own status and from the other side – the principle of territorial entity of the countries, in accordance to which there can be a change of the borders only through a peaceful way and with the agreement of both sides.

In this short conception the problem will not be looked from the point of view of its historical roots and its escalation within the years. These moments have been observed, analysed and exhibited numerous times, as by many researchers as well as in over ten publications of the author. The achievements of both countries and the world community will not be underlined since for more than 15 years already they are non-existent (with the important exception that from May 1994, all four-year-old violent military operations have been stopped although Armenia and Azerbaijan continue “de iure” to be in a state of a war).

1. Based on the fact that the conflict started more than 87 years ago predominantly as territorial separatist claims with the creation of the first independent republics of Armenians and Azeri in 1918 (not so much as religious contradiction or an aspiration towards a social and cultural autonomy). In this connection, so far there are included mainly historical arguments about Armenian or Azeri “primordiality” of the “Mountainous Black Garden” (or in Russian–Turkish: “Nagorno-Karabakh”). This does not lead to anything positive – only to never ending and unsuccessful tirades on some scientific subjects. This way of persuading is petty, even ridiculous – these are events from many years ago. Even the question is not really about national mentality, both peoples look alike so much in their way of life and social position, even in the way they look. Until 1990, in the conditions of the Soviet dictatorship, it was not possible to have any historical or territorial pretence – Socialist Motherland was common . After that however, it turned out that not only nothing is forbidden from the recent past but also distant historical insults are remembered. From that the tension begins with a new power. That's why, the “tomahawk” of history has to be buried (this is what happened to other Azerbaijani enclave Nakhichevan, also a historical Armenian territory, but subsequently with Azeri population – at the moment there are no more arguments and claims to it). There have to be always sensible versions in the contemporary reality. The involvement of purely historical arguments from the recent or the distant past should not be allowed in solving the conflict!

2. The main argument towards the approach in and after the negotiations: how to be actions with certain functions of the resolving of the crisis – packaged and graduated , did not have any result. Obviously there have to be accepted other variations as well that are easier to bend. Due to that certain resistance to the harder position of one or the other approach, the president Ter-Petrossian is no longer here and Aliyev Sr. was accused of being a national traitor (the insistence of wide political circles in their own countries). In the end there was no effect. The condition of consistency of the actions in pacifying the conflict should not be put in advance as bait for a successful outcome of the negotiations!

3. The tightening of the conflict widely depends on the peculiarities of the national Armenian and Azeri character. It was already emphasized that in certain aspects they resemble each other therefore the arguments are even worse. It has to be acknowledged, however, that the Armenians are more aggressive and more unlikely to compromise. In fact, the present Karabakh “status quo” is entirely in Armenia`s advantage and it is controlled by that country. This is as a result of the practically won military operations between 1990 and 1994 (not the entire war or cause, however). The victims of those war acts are twice as many on the Azerbaijani side. That is why , the Armenians (both in the actual country and the enclave) are negotiating from the position of the winners. It has to be clear to the participants in the pacification of the conflict that all the calls for the status of Nagorno-Karabakh such as “a common state with Azerbaijan”, “economic or judicial and state separation of Armenia” and others, offering non-Armenian passports for the Armenians in the enclave (over 90% of the population), are doomed to fail. The cause for territorial independence of Nagorno-Karabakh and the subsequent collision with Armenia is non-transitory and the Armenian people are fighting for it with an amazing persistency in their own country and throughout the whole world (another bright example for that is the acknowledgment of the Turkish genocide, the battle there has not stopped for the past 90 years). It is possible to negotiate: for a certain spread of the territory of the Karabakh Shaumian region (under the control of Azerbaijan), to legalize the status of the Lachin corridor, for complete freedom of the occupied territories that are “purely Azeri ” , for the creation of the corridor “Azerbaijan–Nakhichevan” (under the rule of UN or another international organization), etc. However, in order for the negotiations to work, all the variants have to include a “state” relation between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh!

4. During the last 14 years of independence all the government institutions in Armenia and Azerbaijan have been shamelessly exploiting the “Karabakh card” with political ideas. It has become vital for the excuses of all unpopular actions and the lack of such coming from both of the governing countries. Even the desires to discuss a compromise coming from some wise citizens of high rank have been punished severely. The international organizations and communities that are sincerely concerned, have to be able to use the right methods (judicial, financially-economic, social, etc.) of the governing circles of Armenia and Azerbaijan – not to use their media campaigns and appearances in a negative, definite and populist way together with the rational compromising propositions to settle the conflict! (It would not be an intervention into the internal affairs of the sovereign states, because it concerns the international relations and the achievement of a p eaceful settlement from the geopolitical aspect).

5. The mistrust between both countries is still very high. Every proposal coming from Yerevan or Baku is evaluated by the opposite side as a provocation and is undoubtedly refuted (with a following accusation of the offering country in unconstructiveness). So far obviously, the hope for a more serious development of the process is in the hands of the external authoritat ive powers. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) and its Minsk Group with its three Co-Chairmen (from the USA, Russia and France) have worked actively, to the point and effectively only to prevent new military operations. They have not, however, managed to influence the reaching of some progress and tangible results in the negotiations concerning the conflict. The frequent changes in their representatives (as well as the main participants from Armenia and Azerbaijan, related to the current state administration) lead not only to slowing the process of the negotiations but sometimes even to backing from an already “won” move. That is why, it is wise to engage in the conflict a certain country-mediator with power and without any negative historical connotation in either of the republics (in no way those countries could be Russia or Turkey which already have plenty of “contribution” to the condition of the conflict ) .

One thing you have to realize, the Armenians have always been used as Christian tools and conscripts by the Russian forces, in Turkey, Iran, Azerbaijan, and to a smaller extent Abkhazia. To destabilize these regions, and take over. The Karabakh conflict is a result of this. Yerevan and what is today known as Armenia, use to have a population of Georgians, Azeris, Yazidi Kurds, Muslim Kurds, and even Lezgis. But the Russians deported the Muslim populations, and eventually by the time Turkey and Russia were at war, Armenia was an award to Armenians for not having land. At one point around 1918, they wanted parts of Urmia, but the Azeris and Kurds fought them off and kicked them out, the Armenians and Assyrians were backed by the British, much like the British caused problems in Iraq, and later on in Iran.

No, this is not my analysis..its a professional one..

Well first the Armenians are not Zionists.
A few years ago members of the Armenian Parliament who bend down to the u.s. were assassinated in the Parliament and the u.s. said "our boys died" so in no way the Armenians are Zionists.
As for this hatred towards the Armenians is due to jealousy, the Armenians have always been a hard working people and developed, I live in Lebanon and I am of Armenian origin and still some people treat us differently because we are Armenians.
So Shiaben what you said in your first post is and insult to another culture and people and nation and to me so please don't escalate into a conflict.
As for why the Armenian diaspora seek autonomy is because of the discrimination they experience just like I mentioned.

Well first the Armenians are not Zionists.
A few years ago members of the Armenian Parliament who bend down to the u.s. were assassinated in the Parliament and the u.s. said "our boys died" so in no way the Armenians are Zionists.
As for this hatred towards the Armenians is due to jealousy, the Armenians have always been a hard working people and developed, I live in Lebanon and I am of Armenian origin and still some people treat us differently because we are Armenians.
So Shiaben what you said in your first post is and insult to another culture and people and nation and to me so please don't escalate into a conflict.
As for why the Armenian diaspora seek autonomy is because of the discrimination they experience just like I mentioned.

Karabakh is not diaspora, this has always been Armenian populated territory. The Russians gave it to the Azerbaijan SSR as autonomous regeon but than when the Soviet Union collapsed the Aliyev dynasty and their predecessors Mutalibov and Elchibey wanted to follow in Mustafa "Ataturk" Kemal's footsteppes, they endorsed facism and tried to exterminate all Armenians like their idol did. Their attempt however failed because neither Iran or Russia wanted to see a pan-Turanist Empire created on their soil.

This is what they want, and everyone who lives in here and is not Turk (so about 50-60% of that regeon's population) is doomed. If they're lucky they will be forcefully evicted like the Palestinians, if they are unlucky they'll all be brutally murdered (an idea popular among the majority of Turkey's Turkish citizens and among Aliyev dictator regime). That is, if they get their way.

Although this is the area with Turkish or Turkified population

Well I know that Karabakh is not diaspora I was responding to
Although he is also wrong in saying that Karabakh has an Armenian diaspora population

Well, it's no surprise. Pan-Turkists call everybody "illegal immigrants". All peoples which have been proven in all historical sources to have lived in the regeon for thousands of years are labelled as "illegal settlers" by the Turks which have their own history completely different from the rest of the world. But the only people who don't belong to the region (apart from the Zionists ofcourse), are the Turks. They are from Turan: Central Asia and forcefully Turkified parts of Iran, Caucassus and Anatolia. Now although the real Turks are no problem, the Anatolian Turks, brainwashed by Mustafa Kemal to believe they are real Turks and indegenious to the region and that they are the superior race, they have created a facist state which has murdered more people in the Middle East than the Zionists and Americans put together.

Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide, ethnic cleansing and occupation of Eastern Greece, ethnic cleansing and occupation of Western Armenia, ethnic cleansing and occupation of Syrian Alexandretta, occupation of Kurdistan and genocide opression against it's people, illegal land grab operation, ethnic cleansing and occupation in Northern Cyprus, these are all things that came forth out of Kemalism.

Well, it's no surprise. Pan-Turkists call everybody "illegal immigrants". All peoples which have been proven in all historical sources to have lived in the regeon for thousands of years are labelled as "illegal settlers" by the Turks which have their own history completely different from the rest of the world. But the only people who don't belong to the region (apart from the Zionists ofcourse), are the Turks. They are from Turan: Central Asia and forcefully Turkified parts of Iran, Caucassus and Anatolia. Now although the real Turks are no problem, the Anatolian Turks, brainwashed by Mustafa Kemal to believe they are real Turks and indegenious to the region and that they are the superior race, they have created a facist state which has murdered more people in the Middle East than the Zionists and Americans put together.

Armenian genocide, Assyrian genocide, ethnic cleansing and occupation of Eastern Greece, ethnic cleansing and occupation of Western Armenia, ethnic cleansing and occupation of Syrian Alexandretta, occupation of Kurdistan and genocide opression against it's people, illegal land grab operation, ethnic cleansing and occupation in Northern Cyprus, these are all things that came forth out of Kemalism.

Please no person attacks. Just respond to his message.

I didn't say Karabakh is a diaspora, I was referring to the diaspora outside of Armenia, who support separatist movements, like the dashnak fundings to separate countries like Azerbaijan, Georgia, and other areas.

The Armenians of Karabakh are not immigrants either, I never referred to them as such. Karabakh and the areas around it had Lezgis, Kurds, Azeris, who were slaughtered by Armenian forces. But I'm sure you don't know that either, I'm an expert on this area I read a lot about it. Their current plan is to create a new country. Implement the Azeris who lost their home, and create a new country like Kosovo.

There is no Armenian Genocide either, the term genocide was coined in 1945. The displacement of the Iraqi Turkmen can also be considered genocide. The massacres in Ninveh (Assyrians by Kurds) in Iraq, can also be considered genocide, based on your context. These were civil wars, and the Turks and Kurds won against the Russians and Armenians. I even know many Kurds who support Turkey.

So if Iran killed Assyrians in 1918, in a civil war against England, Assyrians, and Armenians, that is genocide too??? If the Azeris and Kurdish minority, helped get rid of them from annexing Urmia as part of some English mandate? I don't think so, more like civil war, the result a loser emerged, and that was the Assyrians in that specific situation, as well as the Brits next to them.

Armenians were agents of the Russian Empire, a large amount of them. The ones that were loyal to the Ottoman Empire, hid in Istanbul, under the guise of Muslims, as there were a lot of tensions back then, and they didn't want mix up with the Greeks who invaded Western Turkey. Some Armenians who were committed of crimes of treason, were deported to Syria, some died because of lack of enough food, the Ottomans were short on that, so in some cases they said, that's not our problem, so some people died, but a large amount made it, to Syria, there are probably 50,000 Armenians there. An additional 300,000 Ottomans (including Kurds, Bosnians, Albanians, Laz, Ukrainians and other groups), died against the Russian and Armenian wars against Turkey. Russians probably lost 50,000 men. The Armenians lost about 400,000 people in that civil war. Turks and Armenians both died in these civil war. The massacre of Van, where countless amount of Turks were killed by Armenians, I wouldn't doubt if Kurds were killed in that area as well, I've heard of Kurdish massacres in the 1880s by Dashnak like groups.

If you even read about the Russo-Turko wars, you will see there was two dying empires. The Russian Empire knew the Ottomans would collapse, so they invaded immediately prior to Ataturks ascension, so they can reap the awards, this was similar to the partition of Africa once Ataturk came. Think of the Russians like the English in Africa, they had some territories before other powers. Once the empire collapsed as a whole, Greece Italy Armenia Russia England and Kurds all wanted a piece of the pie for themselves, Ataturk regardless of his moral views, was an amazing leader, he unified Turkey and defeated all 6-7 of the groups I mentioned in one battle, Turkish War of Independence.

So this proves these were a collective amount of civil wars. Had Turks wanted genocide, they wouldn't ethnic cleanse (which is a term meaning to move people from one area to another, sometimes it can lead to genocide if you kill someone while you do it like in Sudan). If Turks wanted genocide they wouldn't move Armenians, they would kill them on the spot, all of them.

one of the reasons armenians were killed during the end of the ottoman caliphate  was that they were increasingly antagonistic towards the islamic state. They saw the ottoman empire in a crisis and did what they could with the help of the russians , who considered the ottoman empire teh sick man of europe , tried to cripple the caliphate . generals loyal to the caliphate and the majority of the muslim ottoman people did all they could to stop the destruction.

in short

Armenian christians were the catalyst to the fall of the ottoman empire.

Armenian genocide had nothing to do with Islam. Ataturk's biggest dream was to destroy Islam, he wanted Turkey to become a western state and saw Islam as a backwards religion preventing them from being like Europeans. He killed Armenians because he was a facist who wanted to murder everyone who wasn't Turks. The only reason why not all Kurds were murdered was because he never recognised their existance and always insisted that there is no such thing as a Kurd, all of them are Turks. But those Kurds who spoke out, were ofcourse brutally murdered by his regime.

Armenians were agents of the Russian Empire, a large amount of them. The ones that were loyal to the Ottoman Empire, hid in Istanbul, under the guise of Muslims, as there were a lot of tensions back then, and they didn't want mix up with the Greeks who invaded Western Turkey. Some Armenians who were committed of crimes of treason, were deported to Syria, some died because of lack of enough food, the Ottomans were short on that, so in some cases they said, that's not our problem, so some people died, but a large amount made it, to Syria, there are probably 50,000 Armenians there. An additional 300,000 Ottomans (including Kurds, Bosnians, Albanians, Laz, Ukrainians and other groups), died against the Russian and Armenian wars against Turkey. Russians probably lost 50,000 men. The Armenians lost about 400,000 people in that civil war. Turks and Armenians both died in these civil war. The massacre of Van, where countless amount of Turks were killed by Armenians, I wouldn't doubt if Kurds were killed in that area as well, I've heard of Kurdish massacres in the 1880s by Dashnak like groups.

If you even read about the Russo-Turko wars, you will see there was two dying empires. The Russian Empire knew the Ottomans would collapse, so they invaded immediately prior to Ataturks ascension, so they can reap the awards, this was similar to the partition of Africa once Ataturk came. Think of the Russians like the English in Africa, they had some territories before other powers. Once the empire collapsed as a whole, Greece Italy Armenia Russia England and Kurds all wanted a piece of the pie for themselves, Ataturk regardless of his moral views, was an amazing leader, he unified Turkey and defeated all 6-7 of the groups I mentioned in one battle, Turkish War of Independence.

So this proves these were a collective amount of civil wars. Had Turks wanted genocide, they wouldn't ethnic cleanse (which is a term meaning to move people from one area to another, sometimes it can lead to genocide if you kill someone while you do it like in Sudan). If Turks wanted genocide they wouldn't move Armenians, they would kill them on the spot, all of them.

Turks didn't ethnic cleanse, they did genocide. 1,400,000 Armenians and 750,000 Assyrians were deported to concentrationcamps and murdered because of their ethnicity. And this had nothing to do with that there were a few hundred Armenian militants active which had Russian support.

In 1921 they did use ethnic cleansing to get rid of all Greeks and Armenians to Turkify the occupied areas. Ataturk didn't unify Turkey, he stole other peoples land and unleashed an ethnic cleansing campaign far worse than that of the Zionists. In 1947-1949 some 700 thousand Palestinians were evicted, in 1921-1923 some 1.5 milion Greeks and 700 thousand Armenians were forcefully evicted.

And the invasion and occupation of Kurdistan was also followed by some brutal murders on civilians which like for instance the Dersim genocide (where almost the whole population of the city and region was murdered by Turkish troops after te-taking the area from tribes who rose against them as result over 80,000 people were murdered in cold blood, Dersim now after 80 years only has 75,000 inhabitants...) were so large scale taht they can be called genocide.

And yes Shiaben, there was some minor Kurdish involvement in the Armenian and Assyrian genocides. Though a majority of Kurds joined the British-Arab uprising against Ottomans, a minority fought at the side of the Turks and some of them were used alongside much more Turkish soldiers to slaughter Armenian and Assyrian civilians. However most Kurds are upset even about this minor contribution to the genocie and Kurdish leader Serok APO apologized to the Armenian government and people for it.

Turks on the other hand refuse to acknowledge what they did, they worship the man behind the genocide mor than allah, they call the men who murdered these innocent civilians heroes, they've banned anyone in the country to tell truth about the genocide and force their countries historians (which are all either part of the military junta or under their threat) to make false theories about the genocie never happening.

Only after Turks apologize for what they have done, show remorse, pay compensation, withdraw from all occupied territories, reject Kemalism, condemn their genocidal leaders and abandon future expansionist ambitions, can they ever be forgiven for their role in Middle Eastern history.

Turks didn't ethnic cleanse, they did genocide. 1,400,000 Armenians and 750,000 Assyrians were deported to concentrationcamps and murdered because of their ethnicity. And this had nothing to do with that there were a few hundred Armenian militants active which had Russian support.

They would have found their bodies, and there would have been proof, if these numbers had existed. But they didn't

It was a civil war, hence the Russo-Turko wars. Pegor you wave a hezbollah flag, yet you support Armenians who even fought Shiite Lebanese during the Lebanese war, interesting character you are lol.

It was a civil war, Russia supported the Armenians, if you guys can't see it that is your problem.

Kurds were massacred in Karabakh and the corridors as well, Kurds, Lezgis, Tatars, Azeris, and other groups that lived there.

I'm not a Pan Turkist, I'm pan Iran. As for Elchibey, he was a fool to make a false threat, even if it was out of anger, he should have kept his mouth shut, but Rafsanjani and other Iranians of that time should have been careful not to get involved, they should have remained neutral, not give electricity and support to Armenians, even if it was non-military.

It damaged Iran's reputation in this conflict. This was the only time Iran supported a Christian group over a Muslim one. In the past they supported Chechyna, Bosnia, and so on.

Again like I said it was ethnic cleansing not genocide. You force people to move. The Greeks and Turks both had population exchanges which resulted in ethnic cleansing. Which doesn't have to necessarily involve killing, but moving, even if it involves using boats and airplanes to remove someone and put them somewhere else, or relocate them.

Around the 1880's Armenians, Kurds, and Turks, had a three way war to figth over Van, Diyabakir, Kars, and other areas near Eastern Turkey. Each one was killing the other.