Post: #1

Armed conflict (re-)emerges on Azerbaijan-Armenia border in the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.

This is a long-time frozen conflict with periodic clashes between the two states a la Kashmir or South Ossetia. Karabakh has been under Azeri (predominantly Muslim) control since 1922, but is majority Armenian (Christian). Locals want reunification with Armenia, and fought a bloody conflict for independence in 1994 post-USSR. The territory is controlled by Armenia.

Periodic border patrol clashes are not uncommon, but this is the biggest conflict since 1994 and has involved tanks, heavy artillery and air support. Both sides are busy pointing fingers, claiming the other side started first.

Media seems to claim that Armenian mortar strikes against an Azerbaijan border guard post came first. Whoever started it, Azerbaijan promptly escalated with heavy shelling and UAV strikes, with both sides claiming upwards of 400 casualties on the enemy (with about 40 each in confirmed casualties). The initial initiative was with the Azerbaijan side, who claim to have taken several strategic points since the start of fighting. It appears that Armenia has since regrouped and is holding and launching counterattacks.

Russia has been involved as a peacekeeper in Karabakh and has a military base in Armenia. Both Russia and US are calling for a cease fire.

This looks like a vengeance play by Turkey to entangle Russia in this conflict, as well as sow discord between Russia and Iran. Azerbaijan speaks a Turkic language and has historically strong ties with Turkey. Turkey has openly voiced support for Azerbaijan. Iran, which shares a border with Azerbaijan, has also spoken in favor of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity.

Armenia has announced that it would recognize the region's independence in case of further escalation.

Post: #2

Rather convenient that as Russia draws down it's presence in Syria, a new conflict pops up. I wonder how you say George Soros in ether of their languages?

Post: #3

I don't think the Russian's "drew down" much at all.

There is another proxy war opening up (again) between Turkey and Russia.

It'll be interested what happens in the coming month and see if this escalates further.

My bets are, things will flare up.

Post: #4

(04-04-2016 03:41 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  Rather convenient that as Russia draws down it's presence in Syria, a new conflict pops up. I wonder how you say George Soros in either of their languages?

how you say George Soros in these languages: easy, its Oldson Ofabitschian in Armenian, and Oldsonof Awhorev in Russian.

Post: #5

Oh boy! This seems not to be some sort of saber-rattling regarding the pictures you can see at liveleak.
(You will find it by yourself, don't know if it is allowed to post here)

I know some armenian guys, both are friendly and calm. Also they are proud of their nation, on russians victory day they always accompanying my russian friends at the parades. Hopefully things will calm down quickly. The world don't need any more conflicts.

Post: #6

Armenia and Azeribaijan would've been better off if they had a population transfer ala the Greek-Turkish one of the early 1920s at the time of the USSR's demise.

And AFAIK, Iran favors Armenia over Azerbaijan here.

Post: #7

(04-04-2016 04:10 PM)RandomGuy1 Wrote:  Oh boy! This seems not to be some sort of saber-rattling regarding the pictures you can see at liveleak.
(You will find it by yourself, don't know if it is allowed to post here)

You can post links to NSFW images, clearly indicating them as such, but can't post such images directly in a thread.

Post: #8

(04-04-2016 04:14 PM)Yatagan Wrote:  Armenia and Azeribaijan would've been better off if they had a population transfer ala the Greek-Turkish one of the early 1920s at the time of the USSR's demise.

That's what happened in the early 90s when the war broke out. There are no Armenians in Azerbaijan proper (except in NK) and no Azeris in Armenia anymore.

What I see already popping up in this thread is the focus on great power politics. That viewpoint is too narrow, imho. Sure, Russia and Turkey wield tremendous influence in Armenia and Azerbaijan respectively.

But influence is not equal to direct control. What's happening right now on the frontline is in the first place determined by the leaders and local military commanders of both sides. Even a superpower like Russia cannot make military decisions for Armenia at goodwill.

Thomas de Waal wrote an absolutely brillant book on the conflict ("Black Garden. Armenia and Azerbaijan through Peace and War"). He is widely considered as the most unbiased and prolific expert on the South Caucasus. Instead of reading mainstream media or equally stupid "alternative media" (both leftist and rightist), you should pay attention to what people like him have to say.

These are his most pieces on the recent escalation:

http://carnegieeurope.eu/2016/04/03/nago...again/iwk8

http://carnegieeurope.eu/2016/04/03/nago...again/iwk8

In my estimation, this could turn into a long and very bloody war in case diplomacy should fail to stop the bloodshed at this point. I've been to both countries and to Karabakh and especially in Azerbaijan most people are absolutely uncompromising on the subject. Consider that more Azeris died during the war in the 90s and hundreds of thousands of them have been dispelled from Karabakh and the occupied territories.

International law is unequivocally in favor of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity and the UN resolutions against Armenia did underline that. But nothing has changed in the last 20 years in terms of the status quo, and Azeris were getting impatient. This could be their chance to reach a final victory over Armenia.

If Azerbaijan should succeed in regaining Karabakh, I'm a 100 percent sure that they will cause tremendous carnages on the Armenians who have not fled by then. The anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan is brutal, I would go as far as comparing it to antisemitism in the Third Reich before the Holocaust.

Armenians on their part have everything to lose in this conflict---which why they will fight till the last bullet. The diaspora support for the Karabakh Armenians is huge and their fighting morale is higher because of their survivor complex. Also, they have a geographical advantage. Even though Azerbaijan has more money, a bigger population and a much more advanced military, the Karabakh mountainous territory is incredibly hard to conquer. Historically, many big armies have failed under such circumstances against much weaker enemies.

Post: #9

(04-04-2016 03:58 PM)kaotic Wrote:  I don't think the Russian's "drew down" much at all.

There is another proxy war opening up (again) between Turkey and Russia.

It'll be interested what happens in the coming month and see if this escalates further.

My bets are, things will flare up.

I agree that something's afoot.

American's had military families in Turkey withdraw and Russia has not withdrawn as much as people think she has.

G

Post: #10

Justin Raimondo of antiwar.com has a good take on it:

http://original.antiwar.com/justin/2016/...fools-war/

The US wants a pipeline for the Caspian Sea oil. Azerbaijan is a country where the pipeline will travel. Here is a map. It's the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline and purposely avoids Armenia:



It's the same reason why the US stuck its nose into the conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia.

Post: #11

Here's a language map of the Caucasus region. If you thought the breakup of Yugoslavia was complicated, look at this:

Post: #12

(04-04-2016 06:22 PM)Flint Wrote:  Armenians on their part have everything to lose in this conflict---which why they will fight till the last bullet. The diaspora support for the Karabakh Armenians is huge and their fighting morale is higher because of their survivor complex. Also, they have a geographical advantage. Even though Azerbaijan has more money, a bigger population and a much more advanced military, the Karabakh mountainous territory is incredibly hard to conquer. Historically, many big armies have failed under such circumstances against much weaker enemies.

The survivor complex is incredibly powerful. I lost family in the WW1 Genocide and people of my ethnic origin are extremely passionate in making sure that doesn't happen again.

Post: #13

https://m.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/com...es_thread/

I follow the combat footage section of Reddit. It's Much more detailed than this thread.
It's got updates on actual battles including pictures. Lots of nsfw pictures here.

Just like every war, there is a group on the ground documenting everything and posting on social media.

Don't act like this was some forum revelation. A lot of people knew this was coming a long time ago. But they are using model drones and planes in attacks.




http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nagorn...SKCN0X11XE

Post: #14

(04-05-2016 05:57 AM)fiasco360 Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 06:22 PM)Flint Wrote:  Armenians on their part have everything to lose in this conflict---which why they will fight till the last bullet. The diaspora support for the Karabakh Armenians is huge and their fighting morale is higher because of their survivor complex. Also, they have a geographical advantage. Even though Azerbaijan has more money, a bigger population and a much more advanced military, the Karabakh mountainous territory is incredibly hard to conquer. Historically, many big armies have failed under such circumstances against much weaker enemies.

The survivor complex is incredibly powerful. I lost family in the WW1 Genocide and people of my ethnic origin are extremely passionate in making sure that doesn't happen again.

All victims of genocide have one thing in common. They are unarmed. Are all of the Armenians armed?

I was talking to a man from Estonia a few weeks ago. He told me Estonians are peace-loving people and can't win a war with the Russians. His attitude showed me the Estonians have sadly learned nothing from their experience from 1940 to 1991.

While it wasn't a genocide per se, many Estonians were arrested and shipped east to Siberia. Of course, the Estonians outnumbered the Russian troops who were occupying them. If all the Estonians had simply been armed, they could have killed the Russians instead. More likely, the Russians wouldn't have tried anything in the first place.

Post: #15

I was in Nagorno Karabakh last September. I don't know the motivation behind these attacks but would say that there is pretty much zero chance of Azerbaijan being able to take it back. It's completely mountainous, heavily forested and has a militarised population that hates Azerbaijan with a passion. Stepanakert has an airport that can take large military planes and troop movements which I am sure are being flown in as we speak from Yerevan and Gori.

Stepanakert the capitol is a well maintained pleasant city with friendly people. Would be a shame if the Azerbaijani junta bombed the shit out of it.

Post: #16

I spent part of my childhood in a city in Uzbekistan which had a large Armenian population, most of them fleeing the conflict in the 90s.

Azeris are absolute animals.

Post: #17

If you want to get dramatic you can call this a Christian versus Muslim conflict.

Post: #18

(04-05-2016 10:03 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 05:57 AM)fiasco360 Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 06:22 PM)Flint Wrote:  Armenians on their part have everything to lose in this conflict---which why they will fight till the last bullet. The diaspora support for the Karabakh Armenians is huge and their fighting morale is higher because of their survivor complex. Also, they have a geographical advantage. Even though Azerbaijan has more money, a bigger population and a much more advanced military, the Karabakh mountainous territory is incredibly hard to conquer. Historically, many big armies have failed under such circumstances against much weaker enemies.

The survivor complex is incredibly powerful. I lost family in the WW1 Genocide and people of my ethnic origin are extremely passionate in making sure that doesn't happen again.

All victims of genocide have one thing in common. They are unarmed. Are all of the Armenians armed?

I was talking to a man from Estonia a few weeks ago. He told me Estonians are peace-loving people and can't win a war with the Russians. His attitude showed me the Estonians have sadly learned nothing from their experience from 1940 to 1991.

While it wasn't a genocide per se, many Estonians were arrested and shipped east to Siberia. Of course, the Estonians outnumbered the Russian troops who were occupying them. If all the Estonians had simply been armed, they could have killed the Russians instead. More likely, the Russians wouldn't have tried anything in the first place.

Make no mistake, man. Even in before the Soviet occupation Estonia had only 1 million inhabitants. Soviet Union more than 180 million. No chance, for such a small country, even if every man had had a gun.

Actually, Estonians learned from history and did the one thing, they had to do for a country of that size: joining NATO.

Post: #19

I predict that media on the 20th century Armenian genocide will become strangely hard to find in the West, if this conflict gets hot.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and also has spotlessly clean hands. Trust us!"

Interesting point to consider: wouldn't an open war increase the odds of a Russian-aligned Greece?
Serbia needs EU money too much to keep their pride, but Greece's economy has more options available.
It would have tourism regardless of its currency, or degree of friendliness to Armenia or Russia.

Post: #20

Experts are saying:

-This was not all out war - major towns aren't under fire, and confirmed death toll is around 20 in Armenia and 30 in Azerbaijan.
-Any cease-fires on the border exist only on paper - exchanges of small arms fire already happen multiple times per day.
-International community sees the land as belonging to Azerbaijan (despite it being controlled by Armenia), but wants a peaceful resolution - in case of escalation, Azerbaijan could be seen as the aggressor.
-Azerbaijan's economy is in the shitter. They're extremely sensitive to oil-gas prices and have devalued their currency twice recently. They'd love a quick victory abroad, and this is likely part of the motivation.
-Azerbaijan doesn't want to negotiate over the region's fate. President Aliyev just came back from a trip to DC (nuclear summit, which was also attended by Armenia) - plausible deniability for start of conflict. Either A) he was encouraged (unlikely), B) he decided unilaterally despite outcomes in DC, or C) Turkey influence
-Even if this was influenced by Turkey, it is unlikely to support Azerbaijan in an all-out conflict. In part, this may be a proxy war between Russia and Turkey
-For Armenia, keeping the region is an idee fixe due to the prior genocide and ethnic conflict in the region. In 1994, they took some land to use as trading chips in case of future negotiations.
-Russia will support Armenia diplomatically over the region - and militarily if combat crosses the official border.
-The region is highly fortified by Armenia, and is mountainous - Azerbaijan doesn't have the forces to do a blitzkrieg and in case of all-out war it will be a siege. Armenian volunteers are coming in.
-If Azerbaijan can't take it quickly, both Russia and the West will lean on them hard. It's a paradox - an escalation of the conflict might actually lead towards peace negotiations.
-Keeping this conflict frozen, but unresolved, is a mandatory for Russia - if it is somehow resolved, such as via an international mandate of a 50/50 split, then Armenia will go West, and Azerbaijan will lean further towards Turkey.

Post: #21

(04-05-2016 10:03 AM)puckerman Wrote:  

(04-05-2016 05:57 AM)fiasco360 Wrote:  

(04-04-2016 06:22 PM)Flint Wrote:  Armenians on their part have everything to lose in this conflict---which why they will fight till the last bullet. The diaspora support for the Karabakh Armenians is huge and their fighting morale is higher because of their survivor complex. Also, they have a geographical advantage. Even though Azerbaijan has more money, a bigger population and a much more advanced military, the Karabakh mountainous territory is incredibly hard to conquer. Historically, many big armies have failed under such circumstances against much weaker enemies.

The survivor complex is incredibly powerful. I lost family in the WW1 Genocide and people of my ethnic origin are extremely passionate in making sure that doesn't happen again.

All victims of genocide have one thing in common. They are unarmed. Are all of the Armenians armed?

I was talking to a man from Estonia a few weeks ago. He told me Estonians are peace-loving people and can't win a war with the Russians. His attitude showed me the Estonians have sadly learned nothing from their experience from 1940 to 1991.

While it wasn't a genocide per se, many Estonians were arrested and shipped east to Siberia. Of course, the Estonians outnumbered the Russian troops who were occupying them. If all the Estonians had simply been armed, they could have killed the Russians instead. More likely, the Russians wouldn't have tried anything in the first place.

That was a very common thread amongst all the populations of the WW1 genocide. Assyrians, Armenians and Greeks were not well armed.

(04-05-2016 01:58 PM)Vicious Wrote:  If you want to get dramatic you can call this a Christian versus Muslim conflict.

History repeating itself over and over again.

(04-05-2016 05:07 PM)dispenser Wrote:  I predict that media on the 20th century Armenian genocide will become strangely hard to find in the West, if this conflict gets hot.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend, and also has spotlessly clean hands. Trust us!"

Interesting point to consider: wouldn't an open war increase the odds of a Russian-aligned Greece?
Serbia needs EU money too much to keep their pride, but Greece's economy has more options available.
It would have tourism regardless of its currency, or degree of friendliness to Armenia or Russia.

Well to be a little technical, it wasn't just the Armenians who were killed, but they were the largest population. 500,000-750,000 greeks were killed and about 300,000-500,000 Assyrians as well. I believe Assyrians lost anywhere from 60-80% of their entire ethnic population.

It blows my mind it is against the law to deny the holocaust of question it but there are countries who outright say our genocide didn't happen.

(04-05-2016 09:47 PM)polar Wrote:  Experts are saying:

-This was not all out war - major towns aren't under fire, and confirmed death toll is around 20 in Armenia and 30 in Azerbaijan.
-Any cease-fires on the border exist only on paper - exchanges of small arms fire already happen multiple times per day.
-International community sees the land as belonging to Azerbaijan (despite it being controlled by Armenia), but wants a peaceful resolution - in case of escalation, Azerbaijan could be seen as the aggressor.
-Azerbaijan's economy is in the shitter. They're extremely sensitive to oil-gas prices and have devalued their currency twice recently. They'd love a quick victory abroad, and this is likely part of the motivation.
-Azerbaijan doesn't want to negotiate over the region's fate. President Aliyev just came back from a trip to DC (nuclear summit, which was also attended by Armenia) - plausible deniability for start of conflict. Either A) he was encouraged (unlikely), B) he decided unilaterally despite outcomes in DC, or C) Turkey influence
-Even if this was influenced by Turkey, it is unlikely to support Azerbaijan in an all-out conflict. In part, this may be a proxy war between Russia and Turkey
-For Armenia, keeping the region is an idee fixe due to the prior genocide and ethnic conflict in the region. In 1994, they took some land to use as trading chips in case of future negotiations.
-Russia will support Armenia diplomatically over the region - and militarily if combat crosses the official border.
-The region is highly fortified by Armenia, and is mountainous - Azerbaijan doesn't have the forces to do a blitzkrieg and in case of all-out war it will be a siege. Armenian volunteers are coming in.
-If Azerbaijan can't take it quickly, both Russia and the West will lean on them hard. It's a paradox - an escalation of the conflict might actually lead towards peace negotiations.
-Keeping this conflict frozen, but unresolved, is a mandatory for Russia - if it is somehow resolved, such as via an international mandate of a 50/50 split, then Armenia will go West, and Azerbaijan will lean further towards Turkey.

I hope it doesn't escalate further. It does mimic the past though with Turkey and other Islamic countries fighting the Christian populations.

Post: #22

(04-05-2016 08:55 AM)Sourcecode Wrote:  https://m.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/com...es_thread/

I follow the combat footage section of Reddit. It's Much more detailed than this thread.
It's got updates on actual battles including pictures. Lots of nsfw pictures here.

Just like every war, there is a group on the ground documenting everything and posting on social media.

Don't act like this was some forum revelation. A lot of people knew this was coming a long time ago. But they are using model drones and planes in attacks.




http://www.reuters.com/article/us-nagorn...SKCN0X11XE

Thanks for mentioning r/CombatFootage. I just spent over an hour watching videos and reading about MH17 and ISIS attacks in Syria. Some interesting content over there, lots of historical stuff.

Post: #23

Some experts say Azerbaijan shouldn't stop marching until they open up a corridor to Naxcivan.

Post: #24

That entire region is incredibly complicated. Since the fall of the East Roman empire and later with the Sovjet Union, we Western Europeans have completely forgotten any knowledge of the area. It used to be a very important area because it is located between the turk/mongol empire of Khazaria later Kiev Rus and then the East Roman Empire and the Persian Empire and later the Arabian Caliphate. As a result you have huge diversity of culture, religion and genetics.

Armenia is an East Roman outpost surrounded by Turk and Arab tribes. Geneticially they are closer related to ancient Europeans than their neighbors. They survive mainly because of the mountaneous areas which makes it impossible to invade.

Quote:We find that Armenians form a distinctive cluster linking the Near East, Europe, and the Caucasus. We show that Armenian diversity can be explained by several mixtures of Eurasian populations that occurred between ~3000 and ~2000 bce, a period characterized by major population migrations after the domestication of the horse, appearance of chariots, and the rise of advanced civilizations in the Near East. However, genetic signals of population mixture cease after ~1200 bce when Bronze Age civilizations in the Eastern Mediterranean world suddenly and violently collapsed. Armenians have since remained isolated and genetic structure within the population developed ~500 years ago when Armenia was divided between the Ottomans and the Safavid Empire in Iran. Finally, we show that Armenians have higher genetic affinity to Neolithic Europeans than other present-day Near Easterners, and that 29% of Armenian ancestry may originate from an ancestral population that is best represented by Neolithic Europeans.

http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/vaop/...5206a.html


Underlined - whenever you read about bronze age cultures utilizing the chariot, this is newspeak for the Aryan migrations.

Bold - Neolithic Europeans means indigneous Europeans, as in Germanics, Celts, Basques.

No doubt the Turks would like to finish off this long lasting rebellion of Christianity as they attempted during the Armenian Genocide. One of the last living proofs that Turks are an invading tribe in Caucasus and Anatolia.

Quote:Armenians’ relationship to world populations

To study the Armenians’ genetic relationship to worldwide populations, we computed principal components using 78 populations (Supplementary Table 1) and projected the Armenians onto the plot in a procedure called ‘PCA projection’14 (Figure 2a), which ensures that the PCA patterns are not affected by the large number of Armenians used in the analysis. We observe that Armenians form a distinctive cluster bounded by Europeans, Near Easterners, and the Caucasus populations. More specifically, Armenians are close to (1) Spaniards, Italians, and Romanians from Europe; (2) Lebanese, Jews, Druze, and Cypriots from the Near East; and (3) Georgians and Abkhazians from the Caucasus (Figure 2b). The position of the Armenians within the global genetic diversity appears to mirror the geographical location of Turkey. Previous genetic studies have generally used Turks as representatives of ancient populations from Turkey. Our results show that Turks are genetically shifted towards Central Asians, a pattern consistent with a history of mixture with populations from this region.

Armenians = Spanish, Italians, Romanians

Turks = Central Asian invaders

Quote:In the present study, we investigate the Armenians, a population today confined to the Caucasus but who occupied Eastern Turkey, reaching as far as the Mediterranean coast, until the start of the twentieth century (CE; Figure 1). Political turmoil in the region during World War I resulted in the displacement of the Armenian population

What they don't tell you about history in post-WW2 schools. They don't tell you the Armenians were a European people occupying the Anatolia until modern times. They don't tell you that while they want the people who genocided same population to gain entry into Europe, what could possibly go wrong.

It's a damn shame that US and Europe allows Russia to monopolize these Caucasus states, when Europe should work to incorporate more of them into a broader European identity.

Post: #25

(04-06-2016 08:51 AM)nomadbrah Wrote:  It's a damn shame that US and Europe allows Russia to monopolize these Caucasus states, when Europe should work to incorporate more of them into a broader European identity.

That is a good point of view, I never thougth about something along those lines.

Have to say that I'm always astouned how complex this whole situation is over there and how far-recharing the ambivilance of this goes back into whatever-century(s).