Author: Kajoyan Gevork

AN OUTLOOK FOR IRANIAN GAS IN ARMENIA

06.02.2014

Sevak Sarukhanyan
Head of the Centre for the Political Studies of the Noravank Foundation

In December 2013, after the Armenian-Russian gas agreement was signed,
there have been some intense discussions on importing gas from Iran to
Armenia. The main discussion topics are the price of the Iranian gas
and the nature of the Armenian-Russian gas agreement, which allegedly
might prevent Armenia from increasing volumes of the imported gas
from Iran.

The price of the Iranian gas

For discussions on the Iranian gas price, one may consider the price
of gas exported from Iran to Turkey and Nakhichevan, as well as the
Iranian experiences with exporting gas to Pakistan and Georgia.

Since 2001 Iran, Pakistan and India constantly negotiate over a gas
pipeline construction project and the main issue in these negotiations
is the gas price. Tehran refuses to set the price below international
market price levels, arguing that the gas price is something like
the oil price, to be calculated by a formula and not to be otherwise
changed. And this is stated under circumstances, where construction and
operation of the pipeline is a matter of a vital economic importance
for Tehran. In addition, as in case with Iran and Armenia, Iran,
India and Pakistan also have some common values (regardless of the
political situation).

However, since 2001 Iran did everything to dissuade Pakistan of any
false assumptions that Tehran might export gas Pakistan at prices lower
than the international ones. It has to be noted though, that Iranian
officials have stated on numerous occasions that cooperation between
the countries should develop not only based on economic categories,
but also under a priority of friendship values.

In 2012 Pakistan made the last attempt to get cheap gas from Iran:
taking advantage of the international sanctions against Iran and
realizing well that Tehran needs additional revenue sources, Islamabad
offered a long-term gas agreement to Iran, with a price somewhat
lower than the international level. However, this tactical offer was
again turned down by Iran, apparently due to the consideration that
sanctions will eventually come to an end, while long-term contractual
obligations for energy supply would remain.

The Iran-Georgia negotiations on gas trade are another good example.

Since 2004, former Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili made several
attempts to make an Iran-Georgia gas agreement. Hardly anyone remembers
that pro-Western former Georgian president M. Saakashvili twice held
high-level negotiations on exports of Iranian gas to Georgia with
M. Ahmadinejad, who had a negative image in the West.

Both times Iran expressed interest, but negotiations ended with no
specific agreement due to the very reason of high price for the Iranian
gas. This circumstance is often ignored in discussions taking place
in Armenia, during which an opinion is expressed that had there been
no pressures from Russia, Armenia could have become a transit country
for the Iranian gas. It can be said in this case that Moscow is not and
has never been interested in the seeing Iranian gas enter international
markets, although in practical terms there also has never been a real
opportunity for its transit through Armenia, since the Iranian gas
had no buyers anyway. This is because of its high price and Tehran’s
negative response to the idea of selling it below international levels.

The same price issue was subject to Iran-Ukraine negotiations that
ended with no positive outcome, regardless of what Russia and Gazprom
thought about it.

In this context it seems dubious that all of a sudden Iran would
significantly lower the gas price for Armenia, thus giving a pretext
to India, Georgia, Turkey, Europe and Pakistan to discuss the natural
gas pricing mechanism. As for the Iranian ambassador’s remark that
gas can be sold for $400 to one buyer, and for $100 to another one,
it is just a classic diplomatic statement, which again, has not been
confirmed in any way.

Is it possible to increase the imports of Iranian gas?

As far as this story is concerned, it does gave some objective
grounds. To date Armenia and Iran have not held actual negotiations
over the price. Despite this, the issue whether Armenia would
be able purchase natural gas from Iran after concluding the
new Armenian-Russian energy agreement has become a subject for
discussions. Moreover, even some opinions are voiced that Armenia
assumes obligation to buy only Russian gas.

In reality, the agreement does not imply Russian gas monopoly in
domestic market of Armenia, but rather, Russian monopoly in gas
transportation system. The system and market are quite different things
and equating them would be the same as, for example, equating airport
and airline company. Although an airport receives aircrafts flying into
the country, it may not regulate who and for what purpose arrives. The
same goes for the gas system: the Armenian-Russian agreement regulates
cooperation in gas infrastructure, but not gas sources.

Under these circumstances increase of the Iranian gas imports to
Armenia may not encounter any difficulties. In fact, if there is a
buyer, then the ArmRusGazprom-owned Iran-Armenia gas main have to
be used, for which either the buyer or seller would have to pay for
transit, which in case of a small country like Armenia would have a
negligible impact on the natural gas price.

However, it has to be realized that an increase of the Iranian gas
imports to Armenia may happen only in case of significant economic
development rates, especially in the quite energy-consuming industrial
sector. In absence of such prospect import volumes of gas will remain
low and natural gas imports from two sources will hardly be worthwhile
in economic terms.

“Globus” analytical journal, #1, 2014

________________________________ Another materials of author

JOINING OF ARMENIA TO THE CUSTOMS UNION WILL ALLOW PROVIDING LOW GAS
RATES – EXPERT[13.09.2013] CSTO AND COMMUNICATION SECURITY[01.08.2013]
IRAN AFTER THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS[01.07.2013] “IRANIAN GAS
CAN REPLACE RUSSIAN BUT IT IS MUCH MORE EXPENSIVE”[10.06.2013]
KARS-AKHLKALAKI-TBILISI RAILWAY AND ITS REGIONAL PROSPECTS
[25.04.2013] QAZVIN-RASHT-ASTARA OR IRAN-ARMENIA? [21.02.2013] IRAN
AND SANCTIONS[10.12.2012] SIGNIFICANCE OF NUCLEAR ENERGY FOR ARMENIA
[27.09.2012] ON THE REGIONAL POLICY OF IRAN[28.06.2012] TURKISH FACTOR
IN “LEVIATHAN” AND “APHRODITE” ENERGY “WARS”[03.05.2012]

DISAGREEMENT OVER ARMENIA-EU JOINT STATEMENT WITHIN EU-ARMENIA PARLIAMENTARY COOPERATION COMMITTEE

21:11 * 11.02.14

There is a disagreement within the EU-Armenia Parliamentary Cooperation
Committee.

Aghvan Vardanyan of the Armenian Revolutionary Federation
Dashnaktsutyun (ARF-D), Stepan Margaryan of the Prosperous Armenia
Party (PAP) and Nikol Pashinyan of the Armenian National Congress
(ANC) party told a press conference on Tuesday that an Armenia-EU
agreement, which was not signed at the final, 14th, meeting, should
have necessarily been approved by consensus. However, Committee
Co-Chair Samvel Farmanyan does not agree.

A lukewarm atmosphere has prevailed in the Armenia-EU relations since
September 3, which is the reason for Brussels and Yerevan missing a
chance to approve a joint document, which might have been approved
through negotiations.

“Armenia was unwilling to issue a statement so as not to provide
explanations to Russia,” Pashinyan said. According to him, the process
was orchestrated from Yerevan.

“We were in Strasbourg, but found out that [Parliament Speaker]
Hovik Abrahamyan and [FM] Edward Nalbandian were negotiating.”

Samvel Farmanyan stated that he was solely responsible for the document
not having been signed as he believed a joint statement should be
the result of combined opinions of two sides with equal rights.

“We could not reach an agreement on the final text. I completely
disagree with media reports claiming it to be a failure,” Farmanyan
said.

According to him, a disagreement over the final text does not at all
mean a stalemate in the Armenia-EU relations. The fact should neither
be exaggerated nor played down.

The matter concerns the European Parliament’s proposals relating to
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which have suddenly turned unfavorable
for the Armenian side after the statement made in 2012 and not approved
at that time.

Another proposal implies the EU’s greater role in the negotiation
process.

Aghvan Vardanyan said that he would support negotiations “for the
sake of signing the document and of Armenia’s present-day policy
toward the European Union.”

As to what is unacceptable to the Armenian members of the EU-Armenia
Parliamentary Cooperation Committee, Farmanyan said that all the
statements on Nagorno-Karabakh by Armenia refer to the fundamental
international documents on people’s right to self-determination as
a fundamental principle of settlement of conflicts.

“This is an answer to the question about the difference between the
previous documents and the document, which refers to the Helsinki
final act,” Farmanyan said.

Armenian News – Tert.am

HRAPARAK: KNESSET MAY RECOGNIZE ARMENIAN GENOCIDE

Saturday,
February
08

An international delegation of the Communist Party of China will
arrive in Armenia in mid February at the invitation of Republican
Party of Armenia (HHK), ‘Hraparak’ paper writes. The visit will
take place in the context of the latest developments in the region,
including in Syria and Iran.

The Chinese also expressed a desire to meet not only with Prosperous
Armenia Party (BHK) and its leader, ‘Chinophile’ Gagik Tsarukian,
but also with Orinats Yerkir Party (OEK) and its leader Arthur
Baghdasarian, which is noteworthy in terms of the latest internal
political developments.

By the way, a serious Israeli delegation will also visit Armenia in the
coming months. Some say it is not ruled out that in 2015 the Knesset –
Israeli parliament will finally recognize the Armenian Genocide, the
paper says, reminding its readers that the resolution on recognition
was presented to the Knesset several times, but was not approved.

Aysor.am

ARMENIAN EXPERT CRITICAL OF AUTHORITIES, POLICE FOR CRIMINAL SITUATION IN GYUMRI

13:15 * 26.01.14

Armenia’s authorities and police are responsible for the crime
situation in Gyumri, criminalist Sergey Galoyan told Tert.am.

He dwelt on the recent incident which involved ex-mayor Vardan
Ghukasyan’s son Spartak. The expert pointed out that Spartak Ghukasyan
“always gets over it.”

“After being involved in at least three notorious incidents, he was
sentenced to two years in prison. But he was released in two months.

And he will go on behaving like this if we fail to take a serious
view of the problem,” Galoyan said.

“Spartak Ghukasyan is a mere snotnose who is not only a thief, but is
also a rowdy charged with murder. And now he is charged with attacking
the Gyumri mayor’s house. Things will go on like this until a serious
investigation is conducted,” the expert said.

With respect to Vardan Ghukasyan’s political activities, Galoyan said:
“By engaging in politics, Vardanik [derogatorily about Gyumri ex-mayor
Vardan Ghukasyan – ed.] greatly benefited financially. Numerous
Armenian MPs and other political figures engage in politics only to
get financial benefits, provide for themselves and their families.

Nothing else is of interest to them…”

Hurriyet Daily News, Turkey
Feb 8 2014

Artifacts from ancient site Ani on view at Kars Museum

KARS – Anadolu Agency

Objects unearthed during excavations in the ancient Ani, as well as
metal work, glass work and coins are on display at the Kars Museum

Ancient pieces that have been unearthed since 1965 during excavations
at the ancient site of Ani, which is located between the border of
Armenia and the eastern Turkish province of Kars, are being displayed
at the Kars Museum. The pieces date back to at least 2,000 years ago.

Kars Museum Director Necmettin Alp said the ancient site of Ani was
the first trade city from the Caucasus to the entrance of Anatolia and
therefore it had international significance.

He said the pieces unearthed in Ani, one of the most important ancient
sites in Turkey, were covering an area of 85 hectares, adding, `Ani
had a population of 20,000 people and trade vas very active there.
Life continued in the ancient city until the 15th century. During this
time, mosques, churches, baths, palaces, structures of civil
architecture examples and castles had been built within a
five-kilometer long city wall.’

Alp noted the whole ancient city was a first-degree archaeological
area and continued, `Its vicinity was also declared as a third-degree
archaeological area. Excavations have been continuing there since
1965. Earthenware pieces found during these excavations, metal work,
glass work and coins are on display at the Kars Museum. Excavations
started in 1965 with Professor Kemal Baltan are still ongoing. Between
1989 and 2004, Professor Beyhan KaramaÄ?aralı maintained excavations.
Since 2005, work continued under the leadership of Professor YaÅ?ar
Çoruhlu for five years. The Kars Museum Directorate has also been
leading the excavations since 2001.’

New area

Alp said archaeological excavations had been completed at the Ancient
Road, Ebu Manucehr Mosque, the Seljuk Bath and PolatoÄ?lu Church in
Ani, and for this year’s excavations, they had determined a new area
close to the Bostanlı River outside the city walls.

He said thousands of objects unearthed in Ani were in the museum.
`During the first three-year excavation term, between 1965 and 1967,
Balkan brought more than a thousand pieces. KaramaÄ?aralı brought a
similar number of objects over the 16 years. New ones were also
brought to the museum after 2005. Now, the museum is home to thousands
of pieces. These pieces are from the early Bronze Age, 5,000 years
ago. The closest objects to our day dates back to 1,500 years ago.
They are earthenware and metal work.’

February/08/2014

Agence France Presse
February 7, 2014 Friday 3:26 AM GMT

Key players in WWI: the politicians

PARIS, Feb 07 2014

Here are pen profiles of the key political figures in World War I.

Britain

– David Lloyd George (1853-1945): A pacifist finance minister, George
rallied behind the war effort first as minister of munitions in 1915,
becoming war minister then prime minister the following year. He is
credited with creating the civil infrastructure to support the war,
and for unifying the Allied military command in 1917. He was a key
figure at the Paris Peace Conference of 1919.

– Horatio Herbert Kitchener (1850-1916): Became British war minister
in 1914. Known as an effective organiser, Kitchener managed to quickly
raise a massive volunteer army, building the force from 170,000 to 1.3
million by 1915. He was killed a year later when the ship he was on
struck a mine off the coast of Scotland.

– Winston Churchill (1874-1965): At the forefront of British politics
for 50 years, and a resolute and much admired leader during and after
World War II, Churchill was made First Lord of the Admiralty in 1911.

In late 1914 he realised that no breakthrough was in the offing on the
Western Front, and tried to advance against Turkish troops in the
Dardanelles in February 1915. The Gallipoli Campaign ended in disaster
and he was forced to resign.

Churchill served for a time on the Western Front before returning to
Britain where he was minister of munitions, then war secretary between
1917 and 1922.

France

– Raymond Poincare (1860-1934): A conservative French prime minister
and president noted for strong anti-German positions, he advocated
moving further into Germany before signing the Armistice. Said to be
cold and unimaginative, he came from the Lorraine region claimed by
both France and Germany. His 1914 call for a “Sacred Union” of
political figures struck a deep chord, and he was a highly respected
figure after the war.

– Georges Clemenceau (1841-1929): One of those who did not answer the
call for a “Sacred Union” in support of the war, Clemenceau was much
disliked by Poincare, who was nonetheless forced to appoint him prime
minister in 1917. Nicknamed “The Tiger”, Clemenceau had strong popular
backing owing in part to his front-line visits. He was one of the main
architects of the Versaillles Treaty in 1919.

Germany

– Kaiser Wilhelm II (1859-1941): Last king of Prussia and German
emperor who led his country to war in 1914. The grandson of Britain’s
Queen Victoria, Wilhelm ascended to the German throne in 1888 and
forced the resignation of chancellor Otto von Bismarck.

With support from conservative factions, Wilhelm put Germany on an
expansionist, colonialist path. He broke traditional alliances with
Russia and drew closer to Austria-Hungary and Italy. He was obliged to
abdicate on November 9, 1918, and went into exile in The Netherlands.

Austria-Hungary

– Franz Joseph (1830-1916): The emperor of Austria and king of
Hungary, he launched hostilities in World War I by declaring war on
Serbia on July 28, 1914, a month after the assassination of his nephew
and heir Franz Ferdinand in Sarajevo. A member of the Habsburg family
and widower of the famous Empress Sisi, he was the senior European
sovereign in 1914. He ascended to the Austrian throne after the 1848
revolution and ruled as an absolute monarch before being forced to
adopt a more liberal policy. He died during the war, in November 1916.

– Charles I (1887-1922): The last of the Habsburg emperors, Charles I
became heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian empire on June 28,
1914, following the assassination of his uncle Franz Ferdinand. He was
made emperor in November 1916 and crowned apostolic king of Hungary a
month later.

He was beatified by Pope John Paul II in 2004 for his commitment to
peace, but this caused controversy in Austria, where Charles I is
remembered for authorising the use of mustard gas during World War I.

– Archduke Franz Ferdinand (1863-1914), heir to the Austro-Hungarian
throne whose assassination is considered the spark that ignited World
War I. He was a Slavophile who favoured a federation to replace the
Austro-Hungarian Empire. He was murdered with his wife Sophie in
Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, by a Serbian nationalist.

United States

– Thomas Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924): US president who negotiated the
Versailles Treaty ending World War I based on his “Fourteen Points”
and creating the League of Nations. He was however unable to get the
US Senate to ratify membership. Wilson initially tried to keep the
United States out of the war but changed his mind when a German U-boat
campaign sank US ships crossing the Atlantic. He was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize in 1920.

Russia

– Tsar Nicholas II of Russia (1868-1918): The last Russian tsar, he
approved Russia’s entry into World War I in August 1914. The Imperial
Army’s severe casualties — some 3.3 million — are often cited as a
leading cause of the fall of the Romanov dynasty.

Earlier Nicholas II led his country into a disastrous 1904-05 war with
Japan. As the first Russian revolution erupted, the tsar was forced to
abdicate in March 1917 and he and his family were executed by
Bolsheviks on July 17, 1918.

– Leon Trotsky (1879-1940): A founder of the Russian revolution, he
declared his opposition to global conflict in 1914. After the October
Revolution, he became the de facto foreign minister and sought to stop
the war without signing a peace treaty. Trotsky hoped the revolution
would spread to Germany, but advances by German troops forced him to
adopt Lenin’s position and sign the Brest-Litovsk treaty in March
1918. Trotsky then reorganised the Red Army.

– Vladimir Lenin (1870-1924): Born Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov. A Russian
revolutionary who lived mostly abroad during the war, before returning
home in February 1917.

He convinced fellow Bolsheviks to revolt in October 1917, and became
head of the Council of People’s Commissars, mercilessly crushing any
opposition. He was the driving force in Russia for the Brest-Litovsk
Treaty.

Serbia

– Peter I of Serbia (1844-1921): Joined the Foreign Legion in 1870
under the name of Pierre Kara. He ascended to the throne in 1903, but
chose to retire due to ill health in June 1914. Peter I passed royal
prerogatives to his son, Crown Prince Alexander, who directed Serbian
military operations during World War I.

– Gavrilo Princip (1894-1918): The assassin of Archduke Franz
Ferdinand in Sarajevo on June 28, 1914, the event that sparked World
War I. He was a Serbian nationalist student from Bosnia-Herzegovina,
which at the time was under Austro-Hungarian domination.

Considered a hero in the Kingdom of Yugoslavia and later in the
Yugoslavia of former strongman Tito, Princip died of tuberculosis in
prison in April 1918.

Belgium

– Albert I of Belgium (1875-1934): Belgian king who succeeded his
uncle Leopold II in 1909. Albert took an active role in the war
alongside France, Britain and Russia on both the military and
diplomatic fronts, earning the nickname “The Knight King”. A keen
mountaineer, Albert died in a climbing accident.

Turkey

– Mustapha Kemal (1881-1938): Also known as Ataturk, he was considered
the father of modern Turkey. Victor of the Gallipoli campaign in 1915,
he led a nationalist movement that fiercely opposed the Treaty of
Sevres signed in August 1920 between the Allies and the Ottoman
Empire. He then commanded an army that reconquered Armenia and
Kurdistan and drove the Greeks out of Asia Minor.

– Enver Pacha (1881-1922): A leader of the 1908 Young Turk Revolution,
he became a member of the military triumvirate and war minister in
1913, and the architect of the Ottoman-German alliance forged soon
after the outbreak of the war. In April 1915 he authorised the
deportation of Ottoman Armenians, and he is considered a key figure
behind the Armenian and Assyrian genocides. He fled to Germany at the
end of the war and was sentenced to death in absentia. He tried to
return to Turkey in 1920 but was prevented by Kemal.

Armenia’s economic progress can be expected only under influence of
Russia – sociologist

February 08, 2014 | 14:12

YEREVAN. – Armenia’s economic progress can be ensured only in Customs
Union, sociologist Aharon Adibekyan said

Adibekyan is confident Armenia needs investments amounting to $120
billion to restore economy.

“Investments should be made not in small and medium-sized business,
but to dozen of large enterprises. The small and medium-sized business
will be formed around these companies,” he said.

He believes the government must review its economic role and become
more active in order to attract foreign capital by providing state
guarantees.

“Since the government remains on previous positions, we can not expect
any progress, or if there is progress under the influence of the
Russian side,” he said, adding that Russia invested $7.59 billion over
22 years.

News from Armenia – NEWS.am

Merkel urges Erdogan to acknowledge history ahead of Genocide centennial

February 8, 2014 – 11:37 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – German Chancellor Angela Merkelscolded Turkish Prime
Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan over Turkey’s continued denial of the
Armenian Genocide and urged the Turkish leader to “face its history,”
Asbarez reported citing the Turkish-language version of Hurriyet.

Erdogan, who was on an official visit to Germany, warned Merkel and
her ruling Christian Democratic Union party to be more cautious in
addressing the upcoming centennial of the Armenian Genocide.

“We are aware that in the coming year there are budgetary allocations
in your country for the 100th anniversary of 1915 event,” Erdogan
reportedly told Merkel.

“I recommend that you address this issue more carefully and caution
your party about any allocations,” added Erdogan.

In response, Merkel reportedly told the Turkish leader that Germany is
a democratic country and that her government cannot intervene in
decisions.

“Turkey must come to terms with its history. We cannot compare the
Armenians living in Armenia with the Armenians who were forcibly
dispersed around the world,” said Merkel adding that those in Armenia
are living under difficult circumstances and urged Erdogan to open the
border.

“You are forcing us to accept something we have not done,” said
Erdogan, denying the Armenian Genocide again and claiming that the
entire Turkish archives are open to the world.

“Do not do injustice against Turkey,” Erdogan urged Merkel.

Prior to his visit to Germany, a member of the German parliament urged
Erdogan to end the denial of the Armenian Genocide and apologize for
the crime, reported the Bild newspaper.

Erika Stenbach, a member of Merkel’s party, said: “I urge Turkish
Prime Minister Erdogan to stop denying the genocide of Armenians and
Assyrians by the Young Turk government of the Ottoman Empire 99 years
ago,” adding that it is high time for Turkey to apologize to the
descendants of the victims of the first genocide of the 20th century.

“It is Erdogan’s duty to face the truth nearly 100 years after that
terrible crime and ensure that the Turkish textbooks do not distort
this part of Turkish history,” said Steinbach.

Expert blog: Azerbaijan resorts to ‘Olympic trick’

Saturday, February 08, 2014

The head of the external relations department of Azerbaijani
president’s staff Novruz Mamedov wrote on Twitter that the Olympic
Games are considered a generosity check, but this evidently ‘applies
to everyone expect the Armenians’ , hinting at Azerbaijani defense
ministry’s report that an Azerbaijani serviceman was killed at the
frontline as a result of a ceasefire violation.

In addition to the fact that Armenian defense ministry refuted the
report as misinformation, there are a number of important
circumstances that reveal the incorrect comparison of facts and events
by Azerbaijan and their distortion.

First, although the Azerbaijani official claims that the soldier was
killed during the Olympic Games, the official statement of Azerbaijani
defense ministry said that the ‘incident’ took place around 6:40 pm on
February 6, and not on February 7.

Another unclear episode of the ‘incident’ is related to the ‘scene of
the incident’. As a rule, the Azerbaijani side indicates the specific
direction of frontline incidents or their episodes: it says that the
incident took place on the Line of Contact of the Karabakh and
Azerbaijani troops or on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and also
indicates the settlement at which it happened.
The fact is that the official report concerning this ‘incident’
contains a number of unclear claims that call into question the
veracity of the Azerbaijani defense ministry’s report.

It is not ruled out that the serviceman whom the Azerbaijani side
attempts to present as an ‘Olympic victim’ was in reality killed by
Armenian sniper fire, but evidently it happened earlier than it has
been alleged. That soldier might have been killed on the night from
January 19 to January 20 during the prevention of Azerbaijani
subversive groups and snipers’ provocations, but his body was kept and
then presented as a ‘fresh case’.

In connection with the Azerbaijani defense ministry’s report, the U.S.
Co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group James Warlick wrote on Twitter:
“Media report the death of an Azerbaijani soldier along the border
with Armenia. What happened with the Olympic truce?”
On the one hand the U.S. Co-chair’s concern is quite understandable,
given the latest regional visit of the Co-chairs and the ‘Olympic
agreement’ reached during it.

On the other hand the American diplomat takes quite a careful and
subtle approach to the Azerbaijani defense ministry’s official report,
when writing on Twitter: “media report the death”.

In any case, the reports from Azerbaijan, even in the form of official
statements, are not taken at face value by the mediators.
Azerbaijan’s mode of action that has undergone only tactical changes
in the past 20 years is well-known to the circles engaged in the
conflict’s examination and resolution. So the Azerbaijani ‘Olympic
trick’ will hardly serve its goal.

Aysor.am

West’s “Armenian” Proposal: What’s The Purpose?

Igor Muradyan, Political Analyst
Comments – Saturday, 08 February 2014, 13:42

In a week from the failure of the European integration of Armenia on
September 3, at least two Western powers offered, as a way out,
normalization with Turkey, including “exchange” of recognition of the
genocide with the recognition of the rights of Armenia to Karabakh.
This proposal came from specific and identical spheres of two powers,
either integrated with or part of the government agencies. In
addition, both powers offered their services during the process of
normalization of relations between Armenia and Turkey.

The question occurs whether these powers consider this political trick
as the only means of withdrawal of Armenia from Russian dependence
because this is a favor to Turkey or both. Most probably, yes.
However, such a proposal could be made to a country which either lacks
political resources and has to review the political-historical
paradigm of existential meaning, or there are plans of acceleration of
integration with the Atlantic community.

It should be noted that this proposal was rapidly put forth in a
period when relations of these two powers with Turkey are deplorable,
and there is total uncertainty. Only one way out is left – doing a
favor to Turkey and ending Russia’s high status in the South Caucasus.
Or, there is, nevertheless, a more complicated option, i.e. boost
control over Turkey. No matter how simple or complicated the possible
options may be, leaving Armenia between Turkey and Azerbaijan as a
victim is hardly possible because the West does not need total lack of
balance in the result of Turkish dominance in the Black Sea and
Caucasian region.

It should be noted that these proposals are presented in detail,
applying different factors and explanations, as well as ethnic and
psychological matters. In other words, there is a well-made project,
also intending to corner Turkey in 2015. Apparently, Armenia’s
situation is also taken into account. In this simple crossword there
are no labyrinths and unsolved puzzles. Everything could have been
more complicated had there not been for September 3. Maybe not
everything but a lot went well after this disgrace. Then every option
was called by their real names. Now every option can be called
“normalization”.

In the “Armenian school of vanity” one may try to guess how to use
this situation to gain a respectable place in the government under the
Russian aegis, occupying a traditionally collaborationist position.

At the same time, if the Armenian political leadership does not try
too hard to pretend to believe in the success of the Customs Union, it
is possible to find a way out of this idiotic and dangerous situation
without accepting the proposals by the Western powers. The page of the
experimental period in Obama’s policy has been turned over, and this
has been stated. Russia need not be dominant in this region and it
will not dare dictate its will to Armenia, even if it does not intend
to oppose. For the time being, Putin has been asked to behave himself,
and even if he does not do, the page has been turned over.

Shall we continue to wait until someone will hold Armenia’s hand and
lead it towards a better future despite what is happening or, more
exactly, is not happening in Armenia? The Armenian topic is a demo
model, which was confirmed once again by this situation. Despite the
skepticism of the Western community towards Armenia (in the
post-Vilnius period), the plan on Armenia was made immediately or
there might have been a reserve plan.

Shall we work it out, guys? Of course, we will. It is important to
break through, not to wait.

– See more at: