Aletho News

ΑΛΗΘΩΣ

Turkish Hercules Crashes on Azerbaijan-Georgia Border

By Alexandr Svaranc – New Eastern Outlook – November 17, 2025

Unfortunately, airplane crashes are becoming a common feature of our time that leads to human casualties. Such incidents are caused by technical failures, human error, or external interference. It seemed nothing foreshadowed the destruction of the Turkish C-130 military transport aircraft, but…

Why did the Turks fly to Azerbaijan, and what happened on the journey back?

Türkiye is a strategic ally of Azerbaijan and made an exceptional (military and political) contribution to the success of the Azerbaijani side in the Second Karabakh War.

Incidentally, after 2020, Türkiye, Israel, and a few others began competing over who provided more support to Azerbaijan and played the key role in Baku’s victory. In the fall of 2024, President Recep Tayypi Erdoğan, verbally threatening Israel and the West with a “night invasion” by the heirs of Ottoman askeri, repeatedly recalled Türkiye’s experience in Nagorno-Karabakh. For instance, on the eve of Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, as reported by the Turkish publication Al Ain Türkçe, Erdoğan stated: “Türkiye can enter Israel just like it entered Karabakh and Libya. We will do the same to them. There is no reason not to do it. We just need to be strong so we can take these steps.”

In turn, President Ilham Aliyev publicly tried to convince everyone that, allegedly, nobody provided military assistance to Azerbaijan and that he alone secured the victory. Nevertheless, Baku always emphasized the moral and political support of Türkiye and Pakistan.

On the Israeli side, certain people, e.g., blogger Roman Tsypin, express a certain resentment in this regard. Tsypin believes that the decisive role in Azerbaijan’s military success in Karabakh belongs to Israel, thanks to its weapons, specialists, and medical assistance. However, Aliyev did not invite Netanyahu to the parade celebrating the 5th anniversary of the victory (although on November 8 he demonstrated his army’s power, equipped predominantly with Israeli weaponry: the Harop loitering drone and the Orbiter mini UAV, the Lora long-range tactical ballistic missile system, etc.). The Israeli expert forgot, however, to mention how Aliyev could have invited Netanyahu to Baku if seats on the podium next to him were “reserved” for Israel’s sworn enemies, namely Erdoğan and Sharif?

A group of Turkish military personnel arrived in Baku along with Turkish President R. Erdoğan (including an F-16 flight group with the Chief of the Air Force Staff, Sergeant Major General Ilker Aykut) to attend the parade at Azadliq Square on November 8. The group of the Turkish Air Force in F-16 fighters, which have been stationed at the Ganja airbase since the summer of 2020, participated in demonstration flights in the sky over the Azerbaijani capital, demonstrating Turkic solidarity and collective strength. But the celebration ended, and it was time for the guests to depart.

Groups of officers and technical staff of the Turkish Air Force who participated in the Baku parade returned home in two groups. The first group completed the journey as planned. The second group, consisting of 20 people, was returning on November 11 on a C-130 Hercules military transport aircraft (tail number 68-1609) from Ganja, which had delivered spare parts and technicians for servicing the F-16s to Azerbaijan. However, in Georgia, in the Signagi area, very close to the border of brotherly Azerbaijan (5 km), the Turkish military aircraft disappeared from radars 27 minutes after takeoff and reaching cruising speed, unexpectedly went into a spin, and crashed. The entire crew of 20 people perished (including the Chief of Staff of the Turkish Air Force, Sergeant Major General Aykut). What happened?

Probable causes and speculation

Regarding this aviation accident, Georgian law enforcement agencies initiated a criminal case under the article on violation of air transport safety rules resulting in death. Search and rescue operations were conducted at the scene, the bodies of the deceased Turkish military personnel were found, and the black boxes were delivered to the Kayseri airbase for a subsequent investigation into possible causes by Turkish specialists.

Recep Erdoğan called this tragedy a “heavy blow for the country,” demanding its cause be thoroughly investigated by examining all versions, and also called on the public for political vigilance, to avoid panic, and to exclude all speculation regarding assumptions about the military aircraft’s crash.

According to data from the Turkish newspaper Sözcü, the Turkish Air Force aircraft had a history of over half a century (57 years); it was manufactured in 1968 and initially served in the Saudi Arabian Air Force. In 2010, it was purchased for the Turkish Air Force and included in the 222nd “Rhinoceros” Squadron of the 12th Air Base in Kayseri, and in 2020, it underwent a scheduled major overhaul. Lockheed C-130 Hercules aircraft have been in service with Türkiyr since the 1960s and are considered the most reliable in their class. However, many of them have reached the end of their service life (50-60 years), are possibly technically obsolete, and recently (in October), the Turkish Ministry of Defense announced plans to replace the outdated C-130s with new C-130J Super Hercules models.

Theories regarding the incident’s causes may be split into three categories: technical malfunctions, human factors, and external impact.

In an interview with Milliyet, Turkish security expert Joshkun Bashbug ruled out pilot error, as the aircraft’s pilot was an experienced pilot, the flight took place during the day, the crew was well-rested, the technical personnel of the Turkish Air Force are professionally “one of the best in the world,” and the weather was good. In other words, the Turkish expert confidently denies human error.

Regarding technical malfunctions of the aircraft, considering its long service life, expert opinions differ. Video footage of the crash online shows the Turkish C-130 falling like a rock without its nose and tail sections. Former C-130 pilot Bulent Borali, in an interview with the Turkish TV channel A Haber, suggested that the rupture in the aircraft’s fuselage could be related to “corrosion, rust, or oxidation of the outdated metal,” or that the special cargo in the cabin was not properly secured and broke loose during flight, destroying the airframe.

However, this particular aircraft was, firstly, serviced by a highly qualified technical group of the Turkish military. Secondly, if the special equipment being transported shifted during turbulence, it could have torn off the tail section, but how did it damage the cockpit? Thirdly, the C-130 is not a supersonic aircraft by design and was not in critical flight conditions (i.e., it did not experience overloads, which, according to Russian military expert Alexey Levonkov, does not indicate wear and “metal fatigue”). Due to the absence of fire during the fall and smoke coming from the wings, Levonkov does not rule out technical issues in the C-130’s four engines.

As for suggestions of external impact, a variety of versions – even mystical ones – have emerged. Among Turkish experts, there is an opinion that the aircraft could have been shot down. In particular, this is noted by expert Abdulkadir Selvi of the Turkish newspaper Hürriyet.

Joshkun Bashbug does not rule out “a collision between two aircraft, sabotage, or any other attack.” Considering the unstable nature of the Caucasus and the absence of a peace between Azerbaijan and Armenia, his colleague Ibrahim Keles did not exclude accidental (unintentional) external interference. Since the C-130’s flight route did not enter Armenian airspace and ran directly from Azerbaijan to Georgia, but crashed 5 km from the border, the Azerbaijani air defense systems located in the border area may have been automatically activated, failing to recognize the friend-or-foe system, and become the cause of the lethal fire.

It should be noted that President Aliyev was the first foreign representative to offer his condolences to Erdoğan and express readiness to provide all possible assistance in search and rescue operations and the investigation of the incident. The prompt reaction of the Azerbaijani leader is, of course, primarily related to special relations with Türkiye. Meanwhile, there is obviously a moral aftertaste that the tragedy happened in connection with the invitation to the victory parade over Armenia in Karabakh (the war itself ended on the night of November 9-10, but for some reason Aliyev held the parade on November 8). Finally, President Aliyev has often been the first to express condolences when similar aviation tragedies occurred (for example, the downing of a Russian military helicopter on November 9, 2020, in the sky over Armenia by an Azerbaijani missile from Nakhchivan, or the crash of an Iranian military helicopter on May 19, 2024, carrying Iranian President Raisi after returning from a meeting with Aliyev in Nakhchivan).

The host of the Armenian publication ProArmenia, Nver Mnatsakanyan, notes that some Azerbaijani media outlets have begun spreading unbelievable versions about the causes of the Turkish plane’s crash in the sky over Georgia. An opinion is being floated (for example, by military expert Abuzer Abilov) about the alleged involvement of a Russian missile launched from the 102nd military base in Gyumri (Armenia), supposedly due to the recent escalation of Russian-Azerbaijani relations. But why would Russia so primitively spoil such effective partner relations with Türkiye, which has effectively become our “southern gateway” to Southeastern Europe against the background of SMO-related sanctions?

Finally, in Armenia itself, a number of experts (Araiyk Sargsyan, Vladimir Poghosyan) believe that the main cause of the Turkish C-130 aviation tragedy is mysticism—divine wrath in response to the aggression and mass deportation of the Armenian population of Karabakh—that it is revenge for the 4,000 dead soldiers for the shameful attack by the anti-Armenian coalition. Let us leave mysticism to mystics.

However, considering that the Armenian authorities are making all conceivable and inconceivable concessions in favor of Azerbaijan and Türkiye, expressing readiness to restore interstate relations and open communications, there is great dissatisfaction with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s policy. Today, it is unlikely that the Armenian special services, which are under Pashinyan’s strict control, are capable of and would engage in sabotage operations against the Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem and drag the republic into another provocation and catastrophe. But nobody can rule out the involvement of special services of interested foreign states (for example, from Middle Eastern and Asian countries) and radical representatives of the Armenian opposition.

If there was any external damage (or an explosion inside the aircraft), then the technical expertise should reveal its trace and mechanism. I hope a thorough investigation by the Turkish side will reveal the true causes of the tragedy, which, in peacetime, is especially regrettable.

 

Alexander SVARANTS, Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor, Turkologist, expert on Middle Eastern countries

November 17, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

Iran, Russia, Azerbaijan reach major agreement on cargo transit

Press TV – October 13, 2025

Iran, Russia, and Azerbaijan have agreed to significantly increase the volume of cargo that passes through their territories from the Baltic Sea and the Barents Sea to the Persian Gulf.

Iran’s Minister of Road and Urban Development Farzaneh Sadegh said on Monday that Tehran, Moscow, and Baku had agreed to set a target of 15 million metric tons (mt) for annual cargo transit via their territories.

Sadegh made the remarks after a trilateral meeting in Baku, where he discussed transport, energy, and customs issues with Azerbaijan’s Deputy Prime Minister Shahin Mustafayev and Russian Deputy Prime Minister Alexey Overchuk.

Sadegh said the three countries had also agreed to streamline and modernize their customs operations to help increase the volume of cargo transit via their territories.

She said that Iran and Russia had accelerated works on the construction of a key railroad link in northern Iran that would significantly boost transit volumes via the International North–South Transport Corridor (INSTC).

Sadegh said that the Russian contractor of the Rasht-Astara railroad will be able to start work on the project after March 2026, when Iran finishes land purchases and other preparations for the construction of the 160-kilometer rail link.

Russia’s Overchuk also hailed the agreements reached during the trilateral meeting in Baku, saying that Iran, Russia, and Azerbaijan have been seeking to create a common commodity market with barrier-free logistics that could cover transit from the Barents and Baltic Seas to the Persian Gulf.

Overchuk told Russia’s Tass news agency that increased transit via the INSTC would lead to more economic welfare for the people of the three countries, adding that the project would entail major benefits for producers, exporters, and importers.

October 13, 2025 Posted by | Economics | , , , | Leave a comment

The fallacy of Armenian ‘Europeanness’: Emotional nationalist rhetoric in service of Atlanticism

By Lucas Leiroz | Strategic Culture Foundation | September 10, 2025

The recent shift by Armenian elites toward the European Union is not merely a geopolitical mistake — it is a clear manifestation of a historical and cultural fallacy. By invoking a supposed “Europeanness” of Armenia as a justification for its pro-Western pivot, the leadership in Yerevan resorts to a nationalist rhetorical myth with no grounding in objective reality. It is a fabricated narrative, sustained by emotional discourse and by inferiority complexes typical of post-Soviet elites who reject their own identity.

By any reasonable criterion — geographic, cultural, or even genetic — Armenia is an integral part of Asia. It is located south of the Caucasus, a region historically considered a transitional zone, but unmistakably Asian. Forcing its insertion into Europe is an act of geopolitical distortion that ignores physical geography and rewrites the map according to Atlanticist interests.

The only tangible “argument” used to support this supposed European connection is linguistic. Indeed, Armenian is an Indo-European language — just like Portuguese, Tajik, or Sinhala. But no one in their right mind considers Brazil, Tajikistan, or Sri Lanka to be European countries. Language alone does not define civilizational belonging, nor does it align peoples with geopolitical blocs.

In practice, the Armenian people possess a genetic and cultural composition derived from the autochthonous peoples of the Caucasus, with some minor external influences resulting from centuries of invasions and migrations. Their religion, Miaphysite Christianity, links them more closely to the Egyptian Copts, the Ethiopian Tewahedo Church, and the Assyrians than to Eastern Orthodoxy or Catholicism. The very ecclesiastical structure of the Armenian Apostolic Church reflects this Asian and Oriental specificity.

Armenian “Europeanness,” therefore, is nothing more than an ideological discourse, rooted in a desperate attempt to detach from its geographic and historical neighborhood — Russia, Iran, and the Turkic world — and artificially insert itself into a Europe that doesn’t even recognize them as “equals.” The alliance with the West is not based on “cultural affinity,” as claimed, but on an illusory calculation of “protection” from its regional neighbors, especially Azerbaijan and Turkey. A strategic misjudgment with high political cost.

Furthermore, the Armenian nationalist obsession with the so-called “Armenian hypothesis” — which postulates the origin of Indo-European languages in historical Armenian lands — is another rhetorical element without mainstream scientific acceptance. The dominant theory in historical and linguistic sciences remains the Pontic-Caspian steppe hypothesis, which holds that the Indo-Europeans originated in the Eurasian steppes, not on the Armenian Highlands.

Curiously, this rejection of Asian identity is shared by their Azerbaijani rivals, who in turn deny their Caucasian origins in favor of a “Turkic” link to Central Asia, justified solely by their use of the Turkic language. Both sides reveal the same symptom: rejection of local reality and glorification of external identities as a form of psychological compensation and a bid to integrate into geopolitical projects alien to their own history.

At its core, Armenia’s rapprochement with the European Union has nothing to do with “European values” or “shared identity.” It is a project of subordinate integration, in which Brussels offers vague promises in exchange for geopolitical loyalty. The stance of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan is symptomatic of this process of forced Westernization — even if it means isolating Armenia from its historical allies and falling into the hands of structures that will never guarantee its regional survival.

Russia, on the other hand, has always been the true guarantor of Armenian sovereignty — including during the most critical moments of its recent history. The attempt to break with Moscow in the name of an artificial identity project reveals the strategic myopia of Yerevan. True national freedom is not achieved by serving Ursula von der Leyen or Kaja Kallas, but by reaffirming a realistic and independent position within Greater Eurasia, under the multipolar security umbrella led by Moscow and its allies.

September 10, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , , | Leave a comment

Is Azerbaijan Considering Hosting a Turkish Military Base?

By Alexandr Svaranc – New Eastern Outlook – July 21, 2025

As Azerbaijan-Russia relations cool, discussions emerge in Baku about the potential deployment of a Turkish military base. Is this a random development — or is chance merely revealing an underlying pattern?

Between Iran and Russia, Azerbaijan chooses Turkey. At one point, when describing the political geography of modern Azerbaijan, Geidar Dzhemal — a Russian Islamic political and public figure, philosopher, and poet — characterized it as extremely vulnerable, considering its southern border with Iran and northern border with Russia. At the time, the Karabakh issue remained unresolved for Baku, and the goal of regaining full control over the Nagorno-Karabakh territory was still pending. In other words, despite being technically at war with Armenia, Baku did not perceive it as an existential threat.

Dzhemal’s assessment reflected Azerbaijan’s geopolitical choice to align with NATO-member Turkey, and to build partnerships with the UK, Israel, and the US. These allies, carefully selected by Baku, have political and economic agendas that are at odds with those of Russia and Iran.

Despite historical ties with Iran and its shared Shia Islamic heritage, Azerbaijan opted in the 1990s for an alliance with Sunni-majority Turkey. Turkey became a key facilitator in the implementation of the so-called “contracts of the century” in the oil and gas sector, with Britain playing a leading role.

Recognizing the deep-rooted tensions between Israel and Iran, Baku forged a pragmatic partnership with Tel Aviv. Azerbaijani oil — making up 60% of Israel’s overall oil imports — in exchange for Israeli weaponry and military technologies laid the foundation for robust bilateral relations. Israel, for its part, assisted Azerbaijan in strengthening ties with the US and Europe, both directly and through lobbying by the Jewish diaspora.

In return, Azerbaijan did not hinder the activities of Israeli intelligence services on its territory, particularly when directed at Iran. Azerbaijan’s military success in the Second Karabakh War in 2020, with direct Israeli support (weapons deliveries, intelligence sharing, UAV operations), significantly expanded the operational scope of Israeli intelligence targeting Iran. The results of the twelve-day Israel-Iran war in June 2025 have once again raised questions about Israeli security structures potentially using Azerbaijani territory.

Today, Tehran is unlikely to escalate tensions with Baku. On one hand, both sides have only recently emerged from a serious diplomatic crisis (following the terrorist attack at Azerbaijan’s embassy in Iran, the withdrawal of Baku’s ambassador, and the later restoration of ties). On the other hand, Iran’s conflict with Israel remains unresolved and without a peace agreement.

Azerbaijan’s relationship with Russia in the post-Soviet era has fluctuated — swinging between partnership and hostility. Moscow initially adopted a neutral stance in the Karabakh conflict, trying to retain both Armenia and Azerbaijan within its sphere of influence, and took the lead in conflict resolution efforts. Indeed, both Karabakh wars ended under Russian mediation, but with radically different outcomes. From the 2000s onwards, Russia began pursuing a more pragmatic approach in the South Caucasus, shifting toward a strategic partnership with Baku. As a result, Azerbaijan secured access to $5 billion worth of modern Russian weapons, expanded its business presence in Russia, and acted as a mediator — particularly after the 2015 downing of a Russian Su-24 by Turkish forces — in restoring and advancing Russian-Turkish ties.

Russia’s distant approach during the Second Karabakh War and the Azerbaijan-Armenia tensions of 2021–2023 allowed Baku to achieve military success and regain lost territories in Karabakh. Following its pragmatic logic, Azerbaijan did not join anti-Russian sanctions and, like Turkey, has maintained business ties with Russia, receiving considerable benefits from transit and re-export arrangements.

However, despite its strategic partnership with Russia, Turkey has not hastened to implement the Russian-proposed gas hub project in Eastern Thrace. Ankara continues to demand favorable financial terms (lower gas prices, deferred payments, joint trade) and also seeks Russian consent for its plans to access Central Asia via the Caspian Sea and tap into Turkmen gas.

Since autumn 2020, the “Turan Project” has begun to take more tangible shape. Ankara envisions the creation of an alternative alliance to the EAEU and the EU, involving Turkic states and Pakistan.

Iran opposes the Zangezur Corridor, Russia — due to Armenia’s position — cannot establish control over the project, and Azerbaijan may reconsider its support for the North–South International Transport Corridor, possibly obstructing Russia’s access through Iran to the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. This scenario could trigger new diplomatic — or worse, military-political — crises in the South Caucasus.

Amid all this, Azerbaijan is placing its hopes on Turkish military bases. Following the latest escalation in Azerbaijan-Russia relations — sparked by Baku’s harsh reaction to the tragic downing of a civilian aircraft and the detention of Azerbaijani diaspora members in Yekaterinburg (with investigations still ongoing) — former presidential aide Eldar Namazov raised the prospect of hosting a major Turkish military base in Azerbaijan. He even suggested that part of the base could be leased to the Pakistani Air Force as a potential deterrent against alleged provocations from Russia and Iran.

Namazov is far from a fringe figure, and his statements are likely aligned with the presidential administration — at the very least, with the President’s foreign policy aide Hikmet Hajiyev.

In fact, Turkey has long been involved in Azerbaijan’s defense and security — from the two Karabakh wars to military reforms and personnel training. Joint military drills are held regularly. After the Second Karabakh War, a Turkish-staffed monitoring center operated in Aghdam from November 2020 (Russian peacekeepers have since left the region, but no official information suggests Turkish forces have followed suit). Turkish military advisers remain active in Baku. The 2021 Shusha Declaration explicitly provides for mutual military assistance upon request. Iran is acutely aware that any attack on Azerbaijan would trigger Turkish intervention.

Should Azerbaijan decide to host a Turkish NATO base on its territory, it would usher in a new geopolitical reality in the South Caucasus. This would compel Russia and Iran to take additional security measures, plunging the region into uncertainty. Baku, while not necessarily hoping for a repeat of its Karabakh victory, risks forfeiting significant advantages — namely, threats to transit routes vital to its economy, and potentially even the loss of its hard-won control over Karabakh.

In chess, logic demands the elimination of reckless moves that may lead to failure. In political chess, the stakes are even higher: a miscalculated diplomatic move can result not only in defeat, but in far more serious consequences  —  human, material, and strategic. Sadly, history has shown that wars often spell the downfall of some states, while paving the way for the birth of others. President Aliyev, a diplomat by training with years of presidential experience and a cool, calculated approach, is unlikely to let the Azerbaijan–Russia crisis escalate unchecked. Most likely, this period of tension will soon give way to renewed cooperation  —  perhaps even in the form of a formal declaration of alliance.

Alexander Svarants – Doctor of Political Science, Professor, Turkologist, expert on the Middle East

July 21, 2025 Posted by | Economics, Militarism | , , , , , | Leave a comment

Lasha Kasradze: Azerbaijan as the Next Frontline Against Russia & Iran?

Glenn Diesen | July 13, 2025

As Azerbaijan takes an increasingly hostile approach to both Russia and Iran, it risks becoming a proxy in a wider regional war. Azerbaijan’s Zangezur corridor connects Azerbaijan closer to Turkey, and thus NATO. Many uncertainties emerge in terms of what happens to Armenia, to what extent Turkey and NATO can project power that deep into the South Caucasus, and how Russia and Iran will react. Lasha Kasradze is an international affairs analyst from Georgia, and an expert on the wider region.

July 14, 2025 Posted by | Militarism, Video | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Russian news outlet in Azerbaijan raided amid diplomatic row

RT | June 30, 2025

The Azerbaijani Interior Ministry has announced a raid on the Baku office of Russian news network Sputnik. The move comes amid tensions between the two nations, following a police raid on suspected Azerbaijani gangs in Russia.

There is a strong police presence around the building hosting the Sputnik newsroom in Baku, local media confirmed on Monday. The outlet’s central office in Moscow said it cannot get in touch with its journalists.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova expressed concern with the development, and that the government of Azerbaijan would not respond to requests for explanations sent by Moscow.

The raid is suspected to be part of Baku’s reaction to the arrests last week of several ethnic Azeri men, whom Russian law enforcement described as members of a gang responsible for several murders in Ekaterinburg.

According to Russia’s Investigative Committee, the alleged crimes date back to 2001 and were part of a criminal effort to exert control over local businesses. At least one of the victims had Azerbaijani citizenship, the agency revealed on Monday.

Officials in Baku expressed outrage over the deaths of two targets of the Russian raids, while local media alleged that Moscow was targeting Azeri people for their ethnicity. The Investigative Committee said one of the detainees died from a heart attack, while the cause of death of the second individual has yet to be determined.

The Azerbaijani government has canceled multiple cultural events associated with Russia in apparent retaliation for the incident, which the Kremlin said on Monday was regrettable. Spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Moscow “will keep explaining the causes and the nature of the events, which the Azerbaijani side cites as the reason for such demarches.”

In February, Baku threatened to effectively shut down Sputnik’s office, giving accreditation to just one journalist. However, the outlet told RT that it had received no formal prohibition, as the foreign ministries of the two nations were discussing possible issues with its work.

June 30, 2025 Posted by | Aletho News | , | Leave a comment

France freezes accounts of ‘Russian House’ – ambassador

RT | February 7, 2025

France has frozen the bank accounts of the Russian House cultural center in Paris, effectively blocking its operations, Russian Ambassador Aleksey Meshkov has told RIA Novosti.

Russian House, which promotes Russian language, culture and traditions, operates under Rossotrudnichestvo, a government agency. Moscow has argued that closing the center violates bilateral agreements.

“Attempts are being made to completely freeze the work of the Russian House due to the fact that accounts have been frozen. We are having difficult negotiations with the French on this issue, especially since the Russian House exists here legally, on the basis of a bilateral agreement, and a French cultural center operates in Russia. This is a negative development of events in recent weeks,” Meshkov said.

On Thursday, the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry formally demanded the closure of the Russian House in Baku, citing its lack of legal registration. Rossotrudnichestvo head Evgeny Primakov confirmed that despite multiple requests from the Russian Embassy and the agency for compliance assistance, Azerbaijani authorities had not responded.

In January, Azerbaijani TV aired a report alleging that the Russian House in Baku was engaging in espionage under the guise of cultural promotion. Moscow dismissed the claims as baseless, summoning Azerbaijani Ambassador Rahman Mustafayev to the foreign ministry.

Primakov announced plans to file a defamation lawsuit against Baku TV, demanding either evidence or a retraction and apology. Local pro-government media compared the Russian House closure to Azerbaijan’s recent decision to halt the operations of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) in the country.

In January, Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Jeyhun Bayramov stated that Baku had suspended cooperation with USAID, citing concerns that it was advancing US political interests and operating non-transparently. He insisted that any US assistance should be provided officially and with full transparency.

Primakov rejected comparisons between Russian House and USAID, emphasizing that Rossotrudnichestvo focuses solely on humanitarian and cultural cooperation.

“The comparison of the activities of the Russian House in Baku and the US Agency for International Development does not hold up to any criticism, as Rossotrudnichestvo does not engage in political matters, unlike the American organization,” he said.

Despite diplomatic efforts, the Russian House in Baku faces immediate challenges. Moscow has received official notification about its closure and expressed willingness to complete the registration process under Azerbaijani law. However, Primakov revealed that the center must vacate its premises within six weeks, as the property owner has decided to sell the building.

Russian Houses operate in dozens of countries worldwide. Rossotrudnichestvo has been on the European Union’s sanctions list since July 2022 following the escalation of the Ukraine conflict, although its centers continue to function in some European nations.

The institutions support regional artistic and cultural communities, organize events, language courses, poetry competitions, children’s activities, and theatrical performances.

February 7, 2025 Posted by | Progressive Hypocrite, Russophobia | , | Leave a comment

Türkiye protests latest US sanctions against Russia

RT | November 26, 2024

Türkiye is currently in talks with the US to secure a sanctions waiver that would allow it to continue using Russia’s Gazprombank to pay for natural gas imports, the country’s Energy Minister Alparslan Bayraktar told reporters on Monday.

Last week, the US Treasury Department imposed restrictions on more than 50 Russian financial institutions, including Gazprombank, which is linked to the eponymous Russian gas giant, and six of its international subsidiaries. The sanctions have effectively cut off Russia’s primary bank for energy-related transactions from the SWIFT interbank messaging system, meaning it can no longer be used for dollar-based transactions.

According to Bayraktar, unless a special exemption is made, Türkiye, which imports nearly all of its gas, won’t be able to pay Moscow for natural resources. Russia currently accounts for more than 50% of the country’s pipeline imports, according to Reuters.

In his comments, Bayraktar pointed to a previous waiver granted to Ankara when Washington had sanctioned Iran in 2012. At the time, the sanctions against Tehran included a clause that allowed the US President to issue a special exemption if an oil-importing country faced “exceptional circumstances” that made it impossible to reduce Iranian oil imports. Bayraktar has argued that Türkiye now needs a similar waiver for Gazprombank in order to secure its supply of natural gas.

“These sanctions will affect Turkey. We cannot pay. If we cannot pay, we cannot buy the goods. The foreign ministry is in talks,” Bayraktar said.

The latest US sanctions have also sparked disdain among several other European buyers of Russian gas. Last week, Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto accused Washington of trying to undermine energy security in the Central European region by imposing restrictions on Gazprombank.

In a post on Facebook, the diplomat stated that any attempts to jeopardize energy supplies to Hungary are “considered as an offence against our sovereignty” and stressed that Budapest denounces all such attacks and has vowed to “resist the pressure and pursue our national interests.”

He added that Hungary is currently in talks with other countries, such as Bulgaria, Serbia, Azerbaijan and Slovakia in hopes of finding a solution for securing energy supplies.

Meanwhile, despite the EU announcing plans to eliminate its dependence on Russian energy, it has remained one of the world’s major importers of Russian fossil fuels while its members have purchased record volumes of liquified natural gas (LNG) from Moscow.

November 26, 2024 Posted by | Economics | , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Sheikh Hasina speaks up on US plot

Bangladeshi Hindus fleeing to India for safety gather at the international border, Sitalkuchi, Cooch Behar, August 9, 2024
By M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | Indian Punchline | August 11, 2024

The exclusive report in today’s Economic Times carrying Sheikh Hasina’s first remarks after her ouster from power will come as a slap on the face of the nincompoops in our country who are waxing eloquently about developments in that country as a stand-alone democracy moment in regional politics.

Hasina told ET, “I resigned, so that I did not have to see the procession of dead bodies. They wanted to come to power over the dead bodies of students, but I did not allow it, I resigned from premiership. I could have remained in power if I had surrendered the sovereignty of Saint Martin Island and allowed America to hold sway over the Bay of Bengal. I beseech to the people of my land, ‘Please do not allow to be manipulated by radicals.’” 

The ET report citing Awami League sources implied that the hatchet man of the colour revolution in Bangladesh is none other than Donald Lu, the incumbent Assistant Secretary of State for South and Central Asian affairs who visited Dhaka in May. 

This is credible enough. A background check on Lu’s string of postings gives away the story. This Chinese -American ‘diplomat’ served as political officer in Peshawar (1992 to 1994); special assistant to Ambassador Frank Wisner (whose family lineage as operatives of the Deep State is far too well-known to be explained) in Delhi (1996-1997); subsequently, as the Deputy Chief of Mission in Delhi from 1997-2000 (during which his portfolio included Kashmir and India-Pakistan relations), inheriting the job, curiously enough, from Robin Raphel, whose reputation as India’s bête noire is still living memory — CIA analyst, lobbyist, and ‘expert’ on Pakistan affairs. 

Indeed, Lu visited Bangladesh in mid-May and met with senior government officials and civil society leaders. And shortly after his visit, the US announced sanctions against then Bangladesh army chief General Aziz Ahmed for what Washington termed his involvement in “significant corruption.”  

After his Dhaka visit, Lu told Voice of America openly, “Promoting democracy and human rights in Bangladesh remains a priority for us. We will continue to support the important work of civil society and journalists and to advocate for democratic processes and institutions in Bangladesh, as we do in countries around the world…

“We [US] were outspoken in our condemnation of the violence that marred the election cycle [in January] and we have urged the government of Bangladesh to credibly investigate incidents of violence and hold perpetrators accountable. We will continue to engage on these issues…”

Lu played a similar proactive role during his past assignment in Kyrgyzstan (2003-2006) which culminated a colour revolution. Lu specialised in fuelling and masterminding colour revolutions, which led to regime changes in Albania, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kyrgyzstan and Pakistan (ouster of Imran Khan). 

Sheikh Hasina’s disclosure could not have come as surprise to the Indian intelligence. In the run-up to the elections in Bangladesh in January, Russian Foreign Ministry had openly alleged that the US diplomacy was changing tack and planning a series of events to destabilise the situation in Bangladesh in the post-election scenario. 

The Foreign Ministry spokesperson said in a statement in Moscow,  

“On December 12-13, in a number of areas of Bangladesh, opponents of the current government blocked road traffic, burned buses, and clashed with the police. We see a direct connection between these events and the inflammatory activity of Western diplomatic missions in Dhaka. In particular, US Ambassador P Haas, which we already discussed at the briefing on November 22.

“There are serious reasons to fear that in the coming weeks an even wider arsenal of pressure, including sanctions, may be used against the government of Bangladesh, which is undesirable to the West. Key industries may come under attack, as well as a number of officials who will be accused without evidence of obstructing the democratic will of citizens in the upcoming parliamentary elections on January 7, 2024.

“Unfortunately, there is little chance that Washington will come to its senses and refrain from yet another gross interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. We are confident, however, that despite all the machinations of external forces, the issue of power in Bangladesh will ultimately be decided by the friendly people of this country, and no one else.” 

Moscow and Beijing have nonetheless taken a scrupulously correct stance of non-interference. True to Russian pragmatism, Moscow’s Ambassador to Bangladesh Alexander Mantytsky noted that his country “will cooperate with any leader and government elected by the people of Bangladesh who is ready for equal and mutually respectful dialogue with Russia.”

That said, both Russia and China must be worried about the US intentions. Also, they cannot but be sceptical about the shape of things to come, given the abysmal record of the US’ client regimes catapulted to power through colour revolutions. 

Unlike Russia, which has economic interests in Bangladesh and is a stakeholder in the creation of a multipolar world order, the security interests of China and India are going to be directly affected if the new regime in Dhaka fails to deliver and the country descends into economic crisis and lawlessness as a failed state. 

It is a moot point,  therefore, whether this regime change in Dhaka masterminded by Washington is ‘India-centric’ or not. The heart of the matter is that today, India is flanked on the west and the east by two unfriendly regimes that are under US influence. And this is happening at a juncture when signs are plentiful that the government’s independent foreign policies and stubborn adherence to strategic autonomy has upset the US’ Indo-Pacific strategy.

The paradox is, the colour revolution in Bangladesh was set in motion within a week of the ministerial level Quad meeting in Tokyo, which was, by the way, a hastily-arranged US initiative too. Possibly, the Indian establishment was lulled into a sense of complacency?  

British Foreign Secretary David Lammy reached out to External Affairs Minister S. Jaishankar with a phone call on August 8 coinciding with the appointment of the interim government in Dhaka, which the UK has welcomed while also urging for “a peaceful pathway to an inclusive democratic future” for Bangladesh — much as the people of that country deserve “accountability.” [Emphasis added.]

India is keeping mum. The only way Bangladesh can figure a way out of the foxhole is through an inclusive democratic process going forward. But the appointment, ostensibly at the students’ recommendation, of a US-educated lawyer as the new chief justice of the Supreme Court in Dhaka is yet another ominous sign of Washington tightening its grip. 

Against this geopolitical backdrop, a commentary in the Chinese daily Global Times on Thursday titled China-India relations easing, navigating new realities gives some food for thought. 

It spoke of the imperative for India and China “to create a new kind of relationship that reflects their status as major powers… Both countries should welcome and support each other’s presence in their respective neighbouring regions.” Or else, the commentary underscored, “the surrounding diplomatic environment for both countries will be difficult to improve.” 

The regime change in Bangladesh bears testimony to this new reality. The bottom line is that while on the one hand, Indians bought into the US narrative that they are a ‘counterweight to China’, in reality, the US has begun exploiting India-China tensions to keep them apart with a view to advance its own geopolitical agenda of regional hegemony. 

Delhi should take a strategic overview of where its interests would lie in this paradigm shift, as the usual way of thinking about or doing something in our neighbourhood is brusquely replaced by a new and different experience that Washington has unilaterally imposed. What we may have failed to comprehend is that the seeds of the new paradigm were already present within the existing one. 

August 11, 2024 Posted by | Deception, Militarism | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Caucasus and West Asia are joined at the hips

BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR | INDIAN PUNCHLINE | OCTOBER 10, 2023

Frozen conflicts can only be understood through history. That is why the ‘erasure’ of Nagorno-Karabakh from the map by Azerbaijan is an incredibly tumultuous development for Transcaucasia and its surrounding regions. 

The backdrop is the breakup of the Soviet Union, which left us with a rather odd map. Consequently, conflicts in Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Moldova, Ukraine and others left us with de facto boundaries that are unrecognised in law. There is an imperative need for a peace treaty that reflects the new facts on the ground. 

At issue is the status of Nakhchivan, which still remains the landlocked exclave of Azerbaijan located near the Turkish border. Azerbaijan, emboldened by its annexation of Nagorno-Karabakh last month, is on the lookout for a direct land link to Nakhchivan, which Baku regards as unfinished business.  

To attain this audacious objective, Azerbaijan — once again, with Turkey’s support — hopes to seize control of a hefty slice of Armenia’s territory, which is also that country’s borderland with Iran to the south. Unsurprisingly, both Yerevan and Tehran oppose any such move, which would otherwise mean that Armenia and Iran cease to be neighbours and get encircled by the Azeri-Turkish strategic axis. 

Through dialogue and negotiations a mutually acceptable formula must be found for any land link — known as “Zangezur Corridor” — guaranteed under international law, which preserves Armenia’s territorial integrity and its border with Iran, even while providing Baku with free access to Nakhchivan. 

What complicates matters is the geopolitics,  involving the 3 immediate stakeholders — Armenia, Azerbaijan and Iran — and two other regional states — Russia, Turkey — as well as certain intrusive extra-regional powers and entities — the United States, European Union and NATO. 

While Russia and Iran are also stakeholders, the same cannot be said for the extra-regional powers and entities who are meddling in a highly competitive regional environment. The “butterfly effect” of the Zangezur Corridor will be profoundly consequential to the Black Sea and Caspian regions and could impact the Middle East and Central Asia as well. 

Among the regional states, Iran stands out for its anti-revisionist approach. During separate meetings last Wednesday in Tehran with visiting Armenian and Azerbaijani officials, Iranian President Ebrahim Raeisi reiterated amid persisting tensions over the Karabakh region Iran’s opposition to the opening of the Zangezur Corridor, saying Tehran is against geopolitical changes in the region. 

Raesi reportedly stated that the Zangezur corridor would be “a NATO foothold, a national security threat for countries, and is thus resolutely opposed by Iran,” as his political chief of staff Mohammad Jamshidi put it. Tehran cannot but factor in that Israel has a strong intelligence presence in Azerbaijan.  

Speculation is rife that Azerbaijan might use force to open the Zangezur Corridor, Iran’s opposition notwithstanding. Turkey, the region’s number one revisionist power is a mentor and ally of Azerbaijan with whom it claims ethnic affinities. Turkey harbours grand visions of expanding its economic reach and political influence through a land route that extends from its European border in Eastern Thrace to the Caspian Sea and over to its ancestral lands of Central Asia that border China. 

Suffice to say, the Zangezur Corridor will make Turkey a strategic hub in the geopolitics of the region if the Silk Road to Europe passes through its territory and the Soviet era land route to Russia reopens. Russia has separately promised to make Turkey an energy hub for export of its gas as well.  

Much to Iran’s discomfiture, Turkey is exploiting Moscow’s dependence on Ankara in the conditions under western sanctions and the Ukraine conflict — Turkey controls the straits leading to the Black Sea from the Mediterranean— to muscle its way into the Caucasus and the Caspian, which has been traditionally Russia’s sphere of influence. 

Meanwhile, Russia’s influence in the Caucasus suffered a setback as Armenia’s gradual drift toward Western benefactors following the colour revolution and regime change in Yerevan in 2018 has dramatically accelerated lately and taken an overt form. The Western powers are encouraging Armenia’s current leadership to leave the CSTO and seek the closure of the Russian bases on its soil where 5000 troops are garrisoned. 

However, Armenia cannot do without Russia’s help. And Russia has strategic reserves to play itself back into the centre stage of the Caucasian chessboard. Of course, an optimal Russian comeback in the Caucasus will have to wait for its victory over the US and NATO in Ukraine, possibly by next year. Thus, Moscow seems confident that its pre-eminence in the Caucasus is a given.

Russia’s trump card, ultimately, is that much as the US and/or EU may try to get a toehold in the Caucasus, they are faraway powers and pretty much exhausted today with economic anxieties and growing war fatigue in Ukraine, amidst signs of disunity within the EU itself. 

Indeed, a summit gathering close to 50 European leaders, dozens of aides and legions of journalists in Grenada, Spain, on October 5, which was billed as an opportunity to broker peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan, ended as a damp squib when Azerbaijan’s Ilham Aliyev and Turkey’s Tayyip Erdogan decided to skip the gathering and Azerbaijan accused France of bias in negotiations. 

The bottom line is that in the power dynamic in the Caucasus, Iran is Russia’s natural ally and the two regional powers can be a factor of regional security and stability. This is important, since all sorts of dangers are lurking in the shade in the geopolitics of the Black Sea and Eastern mediterranean and Central Asia, and the darkening horizon presages storms ahead. 

To flag a few ominous signs, the US has seized Israel’s escalating confrontation with Hamas and Hezbollah to resort to a major show of force in the Eastern Mediterranean — as if it is preordained. Such force projection cannot be an end in itself. Can it be coincidental that US-trained jihadi groups are also stirring up the Syrian pot lately? 

Again, last week, a series of Ukrainian attacks in the Black Sea with Western-supplied cruise missiles forced Russian vessels to relocate from their main base in Sevastopol to the port of Novorossiisk 300 km to the east. British Defence Minister James Heappey promptly called it the “functional defeat of the Black Sea Fleet.” 

Moscow is now reportedly planning to build a permanent naval base on the Black Sea coast in the breakaway Georgian region of Abkhazia.

Only a week ago, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov warned that Moscow is alarmed by “the attempts of extra-regional players to become more active in the Afghan direction.” 

Make no mistake, the US has not reconciled to the ascendance of Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East or  the Iran-Saudi rapprochement that led to an overall easing of tensions, especially Syria’s normalisation with its Arab neighbours, all of which which has drained America’s regional influence and weakened Israel.

Equally, with the spectre of a humiliating defeat in Ukraine haunting the Biden Administration, the temptation must be there to assert American hegemony. A confrontation with Iran is just what may suit Washington as ramp to cover its retreat from Ukraine’s battlefields.  

Fundamentally, the US strategy is to get Russia bogged down on multiple fronts and prevent it from advancing Syria’s stabilisation optimally or consolidate its alliances with North African states — Egypt, Libya and Algeria — and expand its presence in the Sahel region which effectively thwarts NATO’s expansion plans in Africa.

Similarly, Iran’s surge as regional power has been to the detriment of Israel’s regional supremacy. Success of the US-Israeli strategy depends on piling pressure on Iran and Hezbollah, who were game changers in the Syrian conflict, and eroding the Russian-Iranian axis in West Asia, the Caucasus and the Caspian.

Armenia’s defection from the Russian orbit and the conflict situation currently developing in Gaza (and Lebanon) provide a window of opportunity to challenge Russia and Iran in the Levant. A vast armada of US warships is approaching the Eastern Mediterranean to intimidate Iran.

Meanwhile, the US hopes to undermine Saudi Arabia’s normalisation process with Iran and create contradictions within BRICS and OPEC Plus. 

In sum, like in the famous play by the German modernist playwright Bertolt Brecht, The Caucasian Chalk Circle, we are currently witnessing a play within a play in the great game in Transcaucasia — an extraordinary blend of high theatricality, folk storytelling, music and even dialectical inquiry. 

October 11, 2023 Posted by | Militarism | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Nearly half of ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh flee in fear: Armenia

Press TV – September 27, 2023

Nearly half of ethnic Armenians in Nagorno-Karabakh have fled the enclave in fear of reprisal from Azerbaijan, Armenia says, as part of an exodus caused by a military operation that brought the mountainous region back under Azerbaijan’s control.

Last week, Azerbaijan launched an operation designed to seize control of Nagorno-Karabakh, a landlocked region in the Caucasus that lies within Azerbaijan’s borders, to end a three-decade-old conflict between Baku and Yerevan over the region.

The long-troubled region has always been internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan though it is mostly populated by ethnic Armenians, who have resisted Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over the territory.

The operation ended on September 20 and Azerbaijani military routed Armenian forces in 24 hours and made the separatists agree to lay down weapons, under a Russian-mediated ceasefire.

On Wednesday, Yerevan announced that 50,000 ethnic Armenians arrived in Armenia, out of the 120,000 ethnic Armenians living in the Nagorno-Karabakh, adding that they were “forcibly displaced”, fearing their rights and security will not be protected in Azerbaijan.

The massive exodus from the 4,400 sq km region started after Azerbaijan lifted its nine-month blockade on the enclave on Sunday.

Ethnic Armenians of the region said at least 200 people lost their lives in the fighting, including 10 civilians. Azerbaijan’s ministry of defense, for its part, released, earlier in day, a list with the names of over 150 Azerbaijani soldiers who it said were killed in the military operation.

In recent days, long queues of cars have formed on the road linking the region to Armenia.

On Monday, a fuel depot explosion claimed 68 lives of the refugees, with Armenian officials saying that they are still trying to identify the whereabouts of more than 100 people reported missing in the blast.

Azerbaijan has repeatedly said it will guarantee Armenians’ rights and integrate the region. The Azerbaijani foreign minister in his UN General Assembly address on Saturday said his country wants to integrate ethnic Armenians as “equal citizens” and denied any intention to harm them.

Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan also said ethnic Armenians in Karabakh should not leave their homes unless it is absolutely necessary.

Russian peacekeepers are helping Azerbaijan disarm the Karabakh separatists.

The European Union and the United States, which have been mediating between Baku and Yerevan in recent months, have struggled to have an impact.

September 27, 2023 Posted by | Ethnic Cleansing, Racism, Zionism | , | Leave a comment

Nagorno-Karabakh and the failure of Armenia’s ‘colour revolution’

By Paul Robinson | Canadian Dimension | September 22, 2023

Thursday was Armenia’s independence day. This year, however, there was very little for Armenians to celebrate. Just one day earlier, the authorities of the region of Nagorno-Karabakh had in effect capitulated to Azerbaijan following a brief offensive by the Azerbaijani armed forces. The future of the region’s predominantly Armenian population remains uncertain, but the province’s complete integration into Azerbaijan is now inevitable and dreams of an Armenian Karabakh seem to be permanently shattered.

Despite its Armenian population, Nagorno-Karabakh became part of the Azerbaijani Soviet Socialist Republic as a result of a decision by the Soviet government in the early 1920s following the Bolshevik conquest of the Caucasus. Armenians, however, never reconciled themselves to this decision and when the Soviet Union began to unravel in the late 1980s, the people of Nagorno-Karabakh lobbied for their territory to be transferred to the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. After the dissolution of the USSR, newly independent Armenia and Azerbaijan fought what became known as the First Karabakh War, which resulted in an Armenian victory. Nagorno-Karabakh became de facto independent, while Armenia gained control of a swathe of Azerbaijani territory around it.

Subsequent diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute between Armenia and Azerbaijan failed. Azerbaijan bided its time, built up its armed forces, and in 2020 launched the Second Karabakh War, recapturing part of Nagorno-Karabakh. Poised to recapture the rest, the Azerbaijanis halted their offensive after the Russian Federation brokered a ceasefire which saw the Armenians hand back the Azerbaijani territory around Nagorno-Karabakh. This kept what remained of the latter out of Azerbaijani control but dependent on a narrow corridor through Azerbaijani territory protected by Russian peacekeepers.

In this way, the Russians saved Nagorno-Karabakh from complete conquest. This did not, however, earn them much gratitude from Armenia’s Prime Minister, Nikol Pashinyan, who had come to power in 2018 as a result of what has been called a “colourless colour revolution.” Since the 2020 war, Pashinyan’s relations with Russia have gone from bad to worse, and following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Pashinyan and his government have sought to reduce their dependence on Moscow, hinting that they would leave the Collective Security Treaty Organization, of which both Armenia and Russia are members, and more recently announcing the holding of joint military exercises with the United States. Last year Pashinyan also caused a stir by seeming to recognize Azeri sovereignty over Nagorno-Karabakh.

Azerbaijan has now stepped in to exploit the situation, launching an attack on Nagorno-Karabakh that after just one day of fighting forced the Karabakh authorities to agree to completely disarm. The region’s reintegration into Azerbaijan is now bound to follow. Artin DerSimonian of the Eurasia Program at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft comments that Azerbaijan’s actions are a direct consequence of the fact that “the Russian army is pinned down in Ukraine” as well as of “Prime Minister Pashinyan’s unwillingness to directly engage Armenian forces in this fight.” Azerbaijan’s victory seems complete.

Pashinyan and his followers are attempting to blame Russia for this debacle, claiming that Moscow allowed Azerbaijan to recapture Nagorno-Karabakh in order to discredit Pashinyan, remove him from power, and install a pro-Moscow Armenian government. The thesis is an odd one. There is, after all, no good reason why Russia should fight Azerbaijan when the Armenian government itself has proven unwilling to do so. Absurdity has, however, never stopped people believing conspiracy theories, and this one may help Pashinyan deflect blame to some degree. Whether it helps him enough, though, remains to be seen.

For while some Armenians may blame Russia, many others point the finger at Pashinyan himself. Dr Pietro Shakarian, a postdoctoral fellow at the Higher School of Economics in St. Petersburg, argues that “Pashinyan’s premiership has been a disaster for the Armenian people.” Until recently, says Shakarian, “Pashinyan was able to cling to power by relying on an array of manipulative populist tactics. However… his recent recognition of Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan became widely viewed among Armenians as an unambiguous act of betrayal. … Today he is almost universally disliked in the country.”

Pashinyan came to power on the back of a wave of protests against the corruption of what was called the “Karabakh clan,” a group of Armenian politicians who originated from Nagorno-Karabakh and who had run Armenia for many years. These included Presidents Robert Kocharyan and Serzh Sargsyan. According to Dr. Benyamin Poghosyan, Chairman of the Centre for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan, “hatred towards the ‘Karabakh clan’ started to be projected on Karabakh as a whole.” Consequently, many Armenians were reluctant to fight to defend it.

Beyond that, Pashinyan gave the impression of wanting to rid Armenia of the problem of Karabakh, viewing it as an impediment to his desire to turn Armenia politically westwards. Poghosyan notes that Pashinyan’s “primary goal is to normalize relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey, which will decrease the dependence on Russia and bring Armenia closer to the West. From this perspective, Nagorno-Karabakh was more a liability than an asset.” Pashinyan’s detractors, therefore, accuse him of betraying the people of Karabakh in pursuit of his broader pro-Western and anti-Russian political ambitions.

Dr. Shakarian comments that the loss of Karabakh puts into question “Russia’s whole position in the Caucasus.” “Many Western war hawks understand this,” and will seek to exploit it, he says. By contrast, Dr. Poghosyan is somewhat more ambiguous about the likely geopolitical consequences, arguing that it is harder for Armenia to turn westwards in practice than it is in theory. According to Poghosyan, “The only way for Armenia to move out of the Russian orbit and move towards the West is to accept some protection from Turkey and, in a midterm perspective, replace Russia with Turkey as a primary economic and security partner of Armenia. It will result in at least de facto Turkish and Azerbaijani control over the southern part of Armenia. … Will Pashinyan go for that? No clear answer exists.”

Equally unclear is Pashinyan’s political fate. Both Poghosyan and Shakarian express some doubt that the protestors who have now come out to demand Pashinyan’s resignation will be able to sustain their protests for long. Pashinyan himself, meanwhile, is insisting that he will remain in power. What is clear, though, is that like so many other so-called colour revolutions, the Armenian revolution of 2018 has not ended well.

Paul Robinson is a professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs at the University of Ottawa and a Senior Fellow at the Institute for Peace and Diplomacy. He is the author of numerous works on Russian and Soviet history, including Russian Conservatism, published by Northern Illinois University Press in 2019.

September 22, 2023 Posted by | Aletho News | , , , | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries