Comments on: Ter-Petrossian, Turkey, Azerbaijan & Nagorno Karabakh

By: GT

GT — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 18:30:16 +0000

I do not claim that LTP policy regarding Tukey/Azerbaidjan is popular. I just said it finds understanding among some part of intellectuals. I do not insist that LTP has gathered more than 50% either, if the elections were free and fair.
And I am not sure (Aram) that even with LTP tolerance anything could be achieved with Turkey, since they known to harden they stance as soon as opposite side agrees to any concession. What I am saying is, that policy persuaded by RK/SS duo is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
And we should be more open for alternatives, included what LTP suggests. Be it regarding Turkey or Iran or NATO or Georgia. Georgia actually needs to be castigated for its latest vote in the UN, and Armenia has means to do that by itself and through Russians. But what happens in reality, Armenia acts not by itself from its own interests, but always following prescription sent from Moscow. And message never gets to Georgians. And it is natural, the electric power can be turned off at any moment….

By: Aram

Aram — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 11:03:38 +0000

I am not sure that GT’s analysis is so cut-and-dry. It is not clear that the *only* way to generate a greater degree of independence (in this case, from Russia) is achieved through LTP’s political approach. This approach is at some level more pro-Turkish than pro-Russian, but I am not sure that this qualifies as “more independent” and I am positive that these are not the only two possible directions.

In any case, Petrosyan’s analysis is of breathtakingly poor quality. It combines the worst of bad logic, sensationalism, ad hominem attacking, glorification of some individuals/demonization of others, and willful factual mistakes.

By: Onnik

Onnik — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 06:43:54 +0000

GT, I don’t dispute your analysis and actually pretty much agree. However, that doesn’t mean that the majority of people in Armenia feel the same which is what Petrossyan is trying to convince people (who? the international community?) of and I suspect in a way to convince them to back Ter-Petrossian. Anyway.

By: Hambik

Hambik — Wed, 02 Apr 2008 02:23:39 +0000

When reading such biased and obviously exaggerated columns, I wonder how some people still give any credibility to an author like that or the news source. It would be interesting to see Mr Petrosyan actually turn up any sources for his numbers and claims.

By: GT

GT — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 23:16:06 +0000

The issue is much deeper than simple foreign policy. It is about independence. That is why LTP had considerable support of non-nomenclature intellectuals. The argument is that, unless Armenia starts to conduct a direct dialogue with Turkey and Azerbaidjan she will be trapped in Russian web and consequently loose independence. The most upsetting thing about this elections is that at the moment Armenia yields great importance for Russian aggressive policies of reestablishing its global dominance. But our “brilliant” duo instead of using this for advantage of Armenia are submitting to Russian interests in exchange of their presidential chair only. Apart from the fact that Armenia does not use in any advantageous way the present geopolitical situation, the very economic independence of Armenia was handed to Russians for nothing, and fate of Kharabakh is really decided now in Moscow only. Unfortunately at the moment it seems a good solution for our near-sighted politicians, but on long term it is very dangerous. Because two possible scenarios are: 1. repetition of 1920 (Russia uses Armenia as a platsdarm to invade neighboring countries, 2. using Kharabakh as a bargain chip to get Azerbaidjan back under its influence.
LTP suggests, that we talk to turks directly, which of course weakens our position today, but eliminates danger of being manipulated.

By: nazarian

nazarian — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:48:25 +0000

I don’t support the compromises in the Nagorno Karabakh issue and yet I support the opposition whose leader now is Levon Ter-Petrosian. But I support normalized political and economic relations with Turkey as long as there are no compromises in Karabakh.

Obviously, I do not fit in Mr. Petrosyan’s analysis even though I do not claim to represent the society and do not intend to.

By: Aram

Aram — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 14:53:44 +0000

I would say that not only are Mr. Petrosyan’s assumptions severely debatable, but his conclusions are non-sequitor, and dubious at best.

The # of people at the demonstration you already cited. His numerous neo-bolshevik assertions that “society wants this” or “society feels that” is misleading. Thankfully, the grand majority (well over 90%, conservatively) of Armenians in Armenia neither took part in unsanctioned demonstrations, nor did they follow Levon’s calls to dig in, arm themselves, disregard the elections etc.

Concluding that society feels this way or that way is poor journalism. Extrapolating from this faulty conclusion that most Armenians therefore feel this way or that way about Armenian-Turkey relations or Karabakh settlement issues shows ulterior motives more sinister than simple non-sequitor awkwardness.