New war breaks out in Nagorno-Karabakh

Random video from the Armenian side of the frontline on the 28th, with lots of incoming shelling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sojGGNB2-K0


The rhetoric used by Azerbaijan and Turkey is focused on a military solution to the conflict:

Quote:

---

"We only have one condition: Armenian armed forces must unconditionally, fully, and immediately leave our lands," President Ilham Aliyev said.

[...]

Turkey says it is "fully ready" to help Azerbaijan recover the enclave.

---

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54356334


Credible reports of Turkey paying Syrian mercenaries to go Azerbaijan are also emerging.

With Turkey firmly backing one side and Russia being at the core of a military alliance that includes the other, there is ample room for escalation.

Definitely will be following this closely. I think Turkey knows that fully jumping in would risk Russian escalation but honestly who knows. Seeing some pretty gnarly footage though.

From my limited long-term knowledge of the region, Russia had positioned itself to be a patron (of arms and investment among other things) to both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Why has Azerbaijan escalated the conflict now (and declaring war and proclaiming absolute aggressive intent to irredentism is a pretty big escalation), and what are its foreign policy tradeoffs?

Seems like a lot of complex realignment and adventurism going on between flexing powers in the heart of the Middle East these days.

I bet Turkey's in it for the irredentism and internal control too, they're trending in the 21st century. When is Orban going to place an ultimatum on the rescission of Triannon?



EDIT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gjX_oRXCiIA&feature=emb_title

Aaahhhh..... (check the date)


Azerbaijan neutralizes 2,300 Armenian soldiers

Quote:

---

Azerbaijani troops have neutralized at least 2,300 Armenian soldiers since Sunday, when border clashes broke out with Armenian forces targeting Azerbaijani civilian settlements and military positions.

In a statement, the Azerbaijani Defense Ministry said the Armenian soldiers were either killed or wounded in counterattacks launched to liberate occupied Azerbaijani territories.

It also said some 200 tanks and armored vehicles, at least 230 artillery and missile systems, around 30 air defense systems, six command and observation areas, five ammunition depots, around 50 anti-tank guns, 110 cars and a Russian S-300 missile system were destroyed between Sept. 27-30.

---

I mean, exaggerated or not, Azerbaijan has triple the population of Armenia...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Why has Azerbaijan escalated the conflict now (and declaring war and proclaiming absolute aggressive intent to irredentism is a pretty big escalation), and what are its foreign policy tradeoffs?

---

To be honest, Karabakh is internationally recognized as Azerbaijani territory, so technically it's the Armenians that are following irredentism, here. Of course, the majority of the population was Armenian even before the conquest, but that doesn't legitimise the Armenian position, in my opinion.

Fun fact: Every Greek can understand the etymology of Karabakh (Black Garden), because both components are being used on our daily language (although not in formal texts, because anything not sounding ancient Greek bad). That's perhaps a nice testament to our common heritage and of the fact that there are not so many things separating different nationalities. Hopefully Azeris and Armenians will also realise that, before they start massacring each other again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

To be honest, Karabakh is internationally recognized as Azerbaijani territory, so technically it's the Armenians that are following irredentism, here. Of course, the majority of the population was Armenian even before the conquest, but that doesn't legitimise the Armenian position, in my opinion.

---

I wasn't making any judgements on the validity of respective territorial claims but rather exclaiming about, holy crap why would multiple countries go to no-fooling war - right now - over what's long been a lame-duck enclave of one or two hundred thousand Armenians? A part of setting the stage for durable conflict may be that the small size of these countries contributes to 'knife-fight in a phone booth' claustrophobia, but I am not aware of nor can I think of any pressing security argument for maximalism in this frozen conflict. Then again, the existence of Republicans has given me a lot of insight into how humans can generate mindless self-immolating conflict.

"Peace isn't made between friends" is a great line.

Quote:

---

Fun fact: Every Greek can understand the etymology of Karabakh (Black Garden), because both components are being used on our daily language (although not in formal texts, because anything not sounding ancient Greek bad). That's perhaps a nice testament to our common heritage and of the fact that there are not so many things separating different nationalities. Hopefully Azeris and Armenians will also realise that, before they start massacring each other again.

---

Please elaborate.

Some interesting Armenian propaganda, that may or may not be timely.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDdfnas_Jyk

https://www.birthrightarmenia.org/es...ing-in-artsakh

I hope that girl got her ass back to Germany already.

It was a comment on the etymology of Karabach. Both words are Turkish, but are also used in modern Greek. The point was that the name of the region itself is a testament to the cultural and linguistic similarities of the people that populate the lands that once belonged to the Ottoman Empire. It would be nice if both Azeris and Armenians embraced their common ground, instead of bitterly fighting over long-dead issues and sheer tribalism. Unfortunately, it's easier to propagate hate by instigating a vicious circle of violence than actual reconciliation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

From my limited long-term knowledge of the region, Russia had positioned itself to be a patron (of arms and investment among other things) to both Armenia and Azerbaijan.

---

But at the same time, Armenia is Russian ally in ОДКБ, and Russia has a military base in Armenia. So ostensibly, it should support Armenia.

Speculation Azerbaijan wants to capture some of the land currently occupied by Armenian forces around the N-K enclave.
https://eurasianet.org/as-fighting-r...erbaijans-goal

Quote:

---

While the core of the conflict between the two sides is the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh, Fuzuli and Jabrayil are two of the seven districts surrounding Karabakh that Armenian forces occupy as well. Those districts, which were almost entirely populated by ethnic Azerbaijanis before the war, were home to the large majority of the more than 600,000 Azerbaijanis displaced in the conflict.

While there has been some modest settlement by Armenians into some of the occupied territories, Fuzuli and Jabrayil remain nearly entirely unpopulated.

Those two areas “had been largely left settlement-free, possibly due in part to pressure from Yerevan, which sought to leave itself the option of a peace deal that would return those areas to Baku’s control,” the International Crisis Group wrote in a report in December 2019. But it said that the de facto authorities in Nagorno-Karabakh planned to start developing those areas, in particular for agriculture.

---

Hmmm...


On Turkish geopolitics.

Quote:

---

The “blue homeland” naval concept, first coined in 2006, does not stem from Erdoğan’s Islamist-rooted Justice and Development Party. Instead, as Ryan Gingeras lays out in detail in his War on the Rocks piece, its origins lie with two staunchly secularist naval officers who later developed links with the Maoist-rooted neo-nationalist Homeland Party. The party and its predecessor, the Workers’ Party, were once fierce opponents of Erdoğan and his political party. However, the Homeland Party has since entered into a tactical alliance with the Justice and Development Party as the Turkish president gradually turned to his former adversaries among the ultranationalists and Eurasianists (a faction that advocates Turkey joining the Russia- and China-led anti-Western geopolitical camp) in a bid to hold onto power.

Cem Gürdeniz, a retired Turkish rear admiral who is one of the architects of the “blue homeland,” presents the concept as a response to an existential threat, and offers it as guaranteeing the ability to “sleep comfortably at home.” Gürdeniz sees the Ottoman failure to control the seas as the cause of the empire’s demise and warns that naval supremacy is crucial for the survival of the Turkish Republic, which in his opinion continues to remain in the crosshairs of Western imperialism. While the “blue homeland” is most immediately linked to maximalist Turkish claims in areas where Cyprus and Greece assert jurisdiction, Gürdeniz ultimately argues that it is also key for Turkey’s expansion of its political and economic influence across the region. Since he believes that “the Mediterranean is not sufficient for an expanding Turkey,” he urges Ankara to take control of the “Persian Gulf, Sea of Oman, Arabian Sea, Red Sea, the Eastern waters of the Atlantic Ocean, [and] North Africa.” Within the Eurasianist paradigm, the “blue homeland” is part of a broader strategy of confronting the West and establishing Turkish supremacy in the region.

---

Maybe that Friedman fella is proving prescient. On the other hand, this does sound pretty delusional. Dangerously so. Flack if I know an antidote to pervasive rabid nationalism other than heartbreak.

It's deeply troubling to me that a preponderance of these authoritarians and dictators remain comfortably-to-overwhelmingly popular: Erdogan, Orban, Putin, Modi, Duterte, Xi. Only Trump and maybe Bolsonaro have dim prospects in the short-term.

I guess Netanyahu is unpopular, but that's only because so many of even his allies detest him.

(This is an oversight of various African and Muslim-world despots, but I lack familiarity.)

Quote:

---

One of Turkey’s leading foreign policy observers warns that Erdoğan’s move is “just a tactical pause … until the end of the upcoming E.U. summit in a bid to dodge possible EU sanctions.” Nevertheless, Berlin’s reported and Washington’s rumored pressure on the European Union against sanctioning Turkey will strengthen Erdoğan’s strategy of repeatedly escalating and de-escalating tensions to extract concessions from his European counterparts.

---

Sounds like North Korea.

Some video of Armenian positions under fire. I can't even tell where they are being shot from, how does the military train you to find where the hell the bullets are coming from?

EDIT; NVM, this is the same video as the OP

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

Some video of Armenian positions under fire. I can't even tell where they are being shot from, how does the military train you to find where the hell the bullets are coming from?

EDIT; NVM, this is the same video as the OP

---

Perhaps it is like MAG, where my sniper was always required to use tracer ammo....

The Armenian side essentially admits defeat after being outdroned by the Azeris.

A country that is one NATO's largest members, and increasingly authoritarian, helped a dictatorship win a war against a fragile democracy. Good show.

Except that this fragile democracy had conquered one fifth of the neighboring country, including regions outside the disputed area, which then ethnically cleansed and tried to annex. The Armenian leadership has only itself to blame. If it was more diplomatically minded, instead of engaging in populist rhetoric and refusing to negotiate, the territorial losses might have been milder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

The Armenian leadership has only itself to blame. If it was more diplomatically minded, instead of engaging in populist rhetoric and refusing to negotiate, the territorial losses might have been milder.

---

Perhaps it had put too great hopes on their ally - Putin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

Perhaps it had put too great hopes on their ally - Putin.

---

Pretty sure the ally is called Russia, not Putin. Anyway, Russia is not responsible for the stupidity of the Armenian government. Russia was not obliged to get involved, since the fight never took place in Armenian territory. Russia also has good relations with Azerbaijan, while Armenia tried to limit Russian influence, so there was zero incentive, legal or geopolitical, for Kremlin to intervene. Still, the peace deal pretty much saved their asses, the Azeris were already in the outskirts of Stepankirt.

Any good maps of the battle lines/captured territories?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Any good maps of the battle lines/captured territories?

---

Rasul Hasan is biased in favour of Azerbaijan, but his maps are relatively reliable and I haven't found anything better anyway:

https://i.imgur.com/BdfAPtC.jpg

Light green represents Azerbaijan's most recent gains.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

Except that this fragile democracy had conquered one fifth of the neighboring country, including regions outside the disputed area, which then ethnically cleansed and tried to annex. The Armenian leadership has only itself to blame. If it was more diplomatically minded, instead of engaging in populist rhetoric and refusing to negotiate, the territorial losses might have been milder.

---

Armenian- and Azerbaijani-controlled areas are similarly cleansed. Əliyev and Erdoğan are kindred authoritarian spirits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Armenian- and Azerbaijani-controlled areas are similarly cleansed. Əliyev and Erdoğan are kindred authoritarian spirits.

---

Well, the difference is that Armenia, unlike Azerbaijan, also conquered a bunch of provinces that belonged to her neighbor, which then proceeded to ethnically cleanse. Several of them didn't even belong to the disputed area the Nagorno-Karabagh. As a result, I don't think that refusing to help Armenia in the war is morally reprehensible. Sucks for the civilians of both sides, but I'm not going to feel sorry for the Armenian government.

Here's a map of the peace deal.

https://i.redd.it/uilztba6oky51.png

As I understand it Azerbaijan won almost everything, including a corridor through Armenia to the Nakhchivan exclave and Turkey beyond. However, most of Artsakh remains independent and there will be some kind of formal corridor between it and Armenia. Russia and Turkey will get to maintain a peacekeeping force in or around both countries.

I can't help but think this episode will only reinforce the Israeli commitment to occupying as much land as they can get away with. The message of a territorially-larger country overwhelming a smaller one's occupation of its territory by dint of a bigger population and military as well as allies must for Israel be on par with the one received by North Korea and Iran when Hussein got wiped out. And Israel's holdings are honestly more modest than Armenia's were, following the return of the Sinai to Egypt. (I assume the logic behind the Armenian occupation around Nagorno-Karabakh was in the first place precisely to give itself, a smaller country than Azerbaijan in every way, a buffer between its heartland and the opposition.)

Moreover, that this was such a lopsided, quick, and decisive conflict might encourage future irredentism and authoritarian adventurism around the world: 'If it worked for Azerbaijan, maybe it can work for us.'

I hope such a crushing defeat/victory produces lasting stability in the region, but the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh's sovereignty remains outstanding and that leaves a permanent wedge for escalation. Hard to sustain peace when everyone (and not necessarily just in the Caucasus) thinks they need Lebensraum to survive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

Pretty sure the ally is called Russia, not Putin.

---

Have you ever heard of metonymy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

Well, the difference is that Armenia, unlike Azerbaijan, also conquered a bunch of provinces that belonged to her neighbor, which then proceeded to ethnically cleanse. Several of them didn't even belong to the disputed area the Nagorno-Karabagh. As a result, I don't think that refusing to help Armenia in the war is morally reprehensible. Sucks for the civilians of both sides, but I'm not going to feel sorry for the Armenian government.

---

If you are going to go into details you might as well drag in the Republic of Hatay, or the fact that the dispute over the area is of similar age as the first Azeri state itself.

https://i.imgur.com/3TwgDBy.png

(New York Times, 3 May 1920)


The point is not that Armenia should be helped, but to highlight the forms of government found on the winning and loosing side here.

What do the forms of government matter? A democracy is not inherently the good guy and neither is a dictatorship the bad one. In my opinion, what matters is the cause of the conflict and its result, the principal one of which that the Armenian conquests of Azerbaijani territories have been cancelled. That's directly relevant to the war, unlike the Hatay Republic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

A democracy is not inherently the good guy and neither is a dictatorship the bad one.

---

That's heavy, as Marty McFly used to say. All we need to know about the author of the statement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gilrandir

That's heavy, as Marty McFly used to say. All we need to know about the author of the statement.

---

So, Gilrandir, are you suggesting that a democracy can never be the aggressor or the imperialist in a conflict and a dictatorship can never be the legitimate defender?

Quote:

---

So, Gilrandir, are you suggesting that a democracy can never be the aggressor or the imperialist in a conflict and a dictatorship can never be the legitimate defender?

---

The list of US-backed coups is so long that it's not worth copy/paste....just peruse it for yourself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United..._regime_change

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

So, Gilrandir, are you suggesting that a democracy can never be the aggressor or the imperialist in a conflict and a dictatorship can never be the legitimate defender?

---

Praising dictatorship means supporting this type of government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

What do the forms of government matter? A democracy is not inherently the good guy and neither is a dictatorship the bad one.

---

Unless you believe that benevolent dictatorship has a role to play in the region, then the current systems of Azerbaijan and Turkey are bad guys, and the current system of Armenia is a good guy. This is not an evaluation of Pashinyan and his government; they do not constitute Armenia's democratic system, they were merely enabled by it.

Quote:

---

In my opinion, what matters is the cause of the conflict and its result, the principal one of which that the Armenian conquests of Azerbaijani territories have been cancelled.

---

The status of Nagorno-Karabakh seems to have been disputed more or less since the inception of the first Azeri state. It doesn't make any sense that if a state on its inception claims a territory and manages to suppress with force any dissent among the territory's inhabitants, then the state is the rightful owner of that territory.

If you do accept that argument, you also implicitly accept that might makes right. Then the combined might of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh and the state of Armenia would also be right in taking control of the disputed territory, and any other territory it manages to wrest out of Azerbaijani control.

Quote:

---

That's directly relevant to the war, unlike the Hatay Republic.

---

When Azeribaijani authorities are happy to receive help from a country that operates in the same business as their mortal enemy, it turns their argument that country borders should be respected into a joke.

One could think that Azerbaijan would tread carefully around the subject of Hatay given their claims to Nagorno-Karabakh, when in actuality, they are approaching the topic with the grace of a raging bull:

Quote:

---

The visit to Hatay began with a commemorative ceremony on 40th anniversary of the death of Tayfur Sokman, the first and only president of the Hatay state.

[...]

The delegation also visited Turkish soldiers who were wounded during military operations in Idlib and now are treated at Hatay State Hospital, and wished them recovery. The soldiers were given presents on behalf of Azerbaijan.

[...]

The brotherhood project “From Hatay to Caspian” which aims to deepen cooperation between the two countries in social, cultural and economic spheres, was presented at the meeting. It was noted that within the framework of the project it is planned to be brother with several cities of our country and 15 cities of Hatay region.

---

http://diaspor.gov.az/en/xeberler2020/x1264.php (posted 6 months before the war broke out)

A relevant tagline for the 'brotherhood project' would be "From Hatay to Nagorno-Karabakh - the more lands under Turkish and Azeri control, the better; principles be damned".

I still don't see how the internal government of each participant is relevant to moral evaluations about the conflict. Also, as I said, I would be more sympathetic to the Armenians, if the current war concerned only Nagorno-Qarabagh. However, the Armenians had also conquered several Azeri territories outside the enclave, which were populated by Azeris and recognized as Azeri even by the Armenians. These territories remained under Armenian occupation and the current administration had even taken a couple of measures (e.g. renaming Azeri cities) implying they were aiming at annexing them permanently. So, yeah, Armenia definitely didn't have the higher moral ground here, dictatorship or no dictatorship.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Unless you believe that benevolent dictatorship has a role to play in the region, then the current systems of Azerbaijan and Turkey are bad guys, and the current system of Armenia is a good guy. This is not an evaluation of Pashinyan and his government; they do not constitute Armenia's democratic system, they were merely enabled by it.



The status of Nagorno-Karabakh seems to have been disputed more or less since the inception of the first Azeri state. It doesn't make any sense that if a state on its inception claims a territory and manages to suppress with force any dissent among the territory's inhabitants, then the state is the rightful owner of that territory.

If you do accept that argument, you also implicitly accept that might makes right. Then the combined might of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh and the state of Armenia would also be right in taking control of the disputed territory, and any other territory it manages to wrest out of Azerbaijani control.



When Azeribaijani authorities are happy to receive help from a country that operates in the same business as their mortal enemy, it turns their argument that country borders should be respected into a joke.

One could think that Azerbaijan would tread carefully around the subject of Hatay given their claims to Nagorno-Karabakh, when in actuality, they are approaching the topic with the grace of a raging bull:



http://diaspor.gov.az/en/xeberler2020/x1264.php (posted 6 months before the war broke out)

A relevant tagline for the 'brotherhood project' would be "From Hatay to Nagorno-Karabakh - the more lands under Turkish and Azeri control, the better; principles be damned".

---

Good answer, but it's not unreasonable to think that Azerbaijan has a claim to lands that Armenia occupied and cleansed of Azeris.

Ultimately this war was not a good development unless it can somehow seed a permanent peace, which I doubt because the populations of both countries are very nationalistic, domestic rulers respond to that whether they want to or not, both are militarily vulnerable to one another (though objectively Azerbaijan less so), and foreign powers have a stake in the competition.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

I still don't see how the internal government of each participant is relevant to moral evaluations about the conflict. Also, as I said, I would be more sympathetic to the Armenians, if the current war concerned only Nagorno-Qarabagh. However, the Armenians had also conquered several Azeri territories outside the enclave, which were populated by Azeris and recognized as Azeri even by the Armenians. These territories remained under Armenian occupation and the current administration had even taken a couple of measures (e.g. renaming Azeri cities) implying they were aiming at annexing them permanently. So, yeah, Armenia definitely didn't have the higher moral ground here, dictatorship or no dictatorship.

---

The expressed intent of Azerbaijan has been to retake Nagorno-Karabakh, not just the adjoining areas. Of course, they've actually taken parts NK as well.

This victory will give undemocratic forces in Armenia more ammunition for their attempt tol undermine the country's democratic system, it strengthens Əliyev's position, it strengthens Erdoğan's position, and it may be beneficial to Putin as well.

Thousands of people have been killed. What's the big gain to justify that so that the fact that authoritarianism has gained becomes irrelevant?

There is no possible solution of this conflict because each party uses one of the two basic principles of international politics. Azerbaijan appeals to the inviolability of borders and integrity of the country and Armenia to the right of the nations for self-determination. These principles here are at odds hence no legally unimpeachable solution looming.

Dictatorship is rarely a long-term good. The supply of Bernadotte's is limited.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Ultimately this war was not a good development unless it can somehow seed a permanent peace, which I doubt because the populations of both countries are very nationalistic, domestic rulers respond to that whether they want to or not, both are militarily vulnerable to one another (though objectively Azerbaijan less so), and foreign powers have a stake in the competition.

---

Foreign powers don't have a stake in the competition. The conflict is definitely embarrassing for the US, but the same is now true for Russia, which enjoys good relations with both parties. That wasn't the case in the early '90s, when Russia actually added fuel to the flames, but the situation has changed considerably since then. In my opinion, the result of the 2020 hostilities has the prospects of easing up tensions. It was sealed by a peace agreement, according to which, the stronger side, achieved most of its goals and largely conciliating the de jure with the de facto situations. Nationalists on both camps will get salty, but they will never be satisfied and, if tensions do indeed deescalate, fervour will decline accordingly.

Anyway, an interesting article about how grossly Yerevan miscalculated. Ain't gonna lie, when you are diplomatically isolated and economically/militarily weaker, behaving so provocatively isn't a very astute move.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crandar

That wasn't the case in the early '90s, when Russia actually added fuel to the flames, but the situation has changed considerably since then.

---

If selling weapons to both parties to the conflict is short of adding fuel to the fire, then...