Turkish-backed attack on Armenia by Azerbaijan with formal declaration of War

History Learner

Well-known member
I think Armenia badly miscalculated even if the Azeris and Turks initiated the war itself. They seemed to assume they’d either do better on the battlefield or they’d get more international support.

I don’t feel particularly sympathetic to the current Armenian government, it seemed to have made a lot of bad decisions, and poorly considered diplomatic maneuvers. I am sympathetic to the Armenian armed forces and people definitely though.They don’t deserve this humiliating defeat.

Their government clearly overplayed their hand, as you've noted. Still, as is usually the cause, it's the common people that have to suffer and suffering they are.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik

Looks like dueling narratives regarding peacekeepers though the Russian POV seems far more likely and Turkey waa just playing up a role they never actually had to make themselves look out even better.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder

Actually, from the looks of it, they're just leaving. No one is forcing them to go. And before Armenia complains...they did the same thing when they had control over the region.

I knew it was unlikely, but in my wildest dreams I was hoping the Armenians would win; marching on Baku would've been awesome but a status quo ante bellum was at least preferable to what has happened. I honestly feel so bad for them, the last few centuries in particular have been terrible for them.

Armenia destroyed itself. Alienating three of the four powers around you when you're landlocked is idiocy incarnate. I'm not saying they deserved it, but idiocy is its own reward.
 

gral

Well-known member
Actually, from the looks of it, they're just leaving. No one is forcing them to go. And before Armenia complains...they did the same thing when they had control over the region.

By that standard a lot of ethnic cleansing of the Yugoslav Wars wasn't. Not saying you're wrong(I happen to strongly agree with your second point), just that what is happening has been called ethnic cleansing before.
 

History Learner

Well-known member
Actually, from the looks of it, they're just leaving. No one is forcing them to go. And before Armenia complains...they did the same thing when they had control over the region.

Several of the people in the video state they were forced out by the Azerbaijanis.

Armenia destroyed itself. Alienating three of the four powers around you when you're landlocked is idiocy incarnate. I'm not saying they deserved it, but idiocy is its own reward.

Like I said elsewhere, their leadership was stupid but the common people deserved better.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
Several of the people in the video state they were forced out by the Azerbaijanis.



Like I said elsewhere, their leadership was stupid but the common people deserved better.

I'm somewhat skeptical, since the current trend seems to be people burning their shit and running for Armenia. Especially with the Russians there. That's not even considering that some Armenians are likely to have taken Azerbaijani property from when the Armenians drove them out of the region years before.

This is all one big clusterfuck.

And not to be a total ass, but this is for the local powers to solve.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik

Looks like France is subtly asking Russia to make sure the Turks stay out of NKR and meddling in it more then they have to in the wake of this cease fire... The negotiations of which will be continuing in Moscow.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Interesting article on the conflict though it comes with a heavy Turkish and Azeri POV boas since this article uses them as sources.


It goes into detail on the well known drone operations but also into the less known use of small saboteur infantry and soecial forces soldiers who infiltrated NKR immediately prior to the conflict and were both able to cut off towns in the mountains, be used to spot for air strikes and fire support and engage in close combat behind enemy lines.

However there are some egregious exaggerations made in the article...

 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik

Erdogan apparently is so flush with victory he started trolling Iran about how Irans northern provinces are actually Azeri clay as well. ;):sneaky:
 

ATP

Well-known member

Erdogan apparently is so flush with victory he started trolling Iran about how Irans northern provinces are actually Azeri clay as well. ;):sneaky:
He is not stupid enough to start war there.Unless USA attack Iran,like Clinton wanted.If Biden fraud succes,we could have that kind of war.Or not - Biden is Obama,not Clinton puppet.

P.S wait - maybe he is so sure that Biden win and is Clinton puppet,then he start rattling saber to take on Iran when USA arleady would defeat it ?
 
Last edited:

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
The idea that the democrats want to go to open war with Iran is stupid. They're the architects of the shitty nuclear agreement, they want to be friends with Iran and throw the moderate Muslim countries + Israel to the dogs, not go to war with Iran.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
The idea that the democrats want to go to open war with Iran is stupid. They're the architects of the shitty nuclear agreement, they want to be friends with Iran and throw the moderate Muslim countries + Israel to the dogs, not go to war with Iran.
Yup. They are far more interested in Syria, Afghanistan and Libya, worry about getting stuck in these for no good reasons.
 

The Original Sixth

Well-known member
Founder
The idea that the democrats want to go to open war with Iran is stupid. They're the architects of the shitty nuclear agreement, they want to be friends with Iran and throw the moderate Muslim countries + Israel to the dogs, not go to war with Iran.

Not exactly.

The Democrat plan was for the Iranians to give up their nukes and for Iran to try to re-engage with the rest of the world on a more normal footing. The hope was to establish a new balance of power between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran. Trump broke from this agreement, because Iran also has a very robust ballistic missile program. Trump felt that was too much of a threat to keep, so he demanded they nixed it. They told him no and it escalated from there.

What the Democrats want is not to be involved, but not let the whole shatterbelt go to hell. But without raising troop deployments, that's not likely to work out.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Not exactly.

The Democrat plan was for the Iranians to give up their nukes and for Iran to try to re-engage with the rest of the world on a more normal footing.
There is a deeper layer to this plan.
The normal footing is that Iran is free to realize its regional imperial ambitions through any non CRBN means - including proxy warfare and terrorism - without meaningful interference from the other signatories of the deal.
It is not stated explicitly into the deal, but it is technically implicit out of purely practical, predictable actions and reactions.
Any attempt to severely sanction Iran for whatever reason and in any way while the deal is in power was going to get Iran to object that USA is not keeping its end of the deal (not sanctioning Iran), and hence it will cease to follow its own end of the deal too (working on building nukes), so centrifuges go BRRRR.

Its hard to say for sure if the Democrats are totally fine with that, or are too stupid to realize that this is how things are going to go with the deal, you can probably find people willing to believe either case.
The hope was to establish a new balance of power between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran.
Yes, that would be one of the effects. With Iran being much more powerful, and taking out a significant portion of the oil monarchies influence in turn. If not taking them out more literally.
What the Democrats want is not to be involved, but not let the whole shatterbelt go to hell. But without raising troop deployments, that's not likely to work out.
Why not both? Its perfectly possible for the deal to be kept, DNC run USA not get involved, and shatterbelt to go to hell, as in Iran carving out a little empire they feel they deserve, as the Democrats send half hearted appeals for peace and virtue signal in the UN.
Trump broke from this agreement, because Iran also has a very robust ballistic missile program. Trump felt that was too much of a threat to keep, so he demanded they nixed it. They told him no and it escalated from there.
That also has a deeper layer, that goes into military technology\strategy.
Namely, everyone knows that ballistic missiles are an extremely suboptimal type of artillery in terms of cost effectivness. They are glorified terror weapons, and very expensive ones.
On top of that, with the rise of ABM systems, they got even worse.

The only way ballistic missiles can be worth their price is if you have a plan, or at least want to make the designated targets scared that you do, to put some kind of CBRN warheads on top of these missiles, with the N being the top of the 4. Hence, if you assume that Iran is bluffing about going for nukes, then it either needs to continue the bluff, or the threat value of their expensive missile program is going to be meager, making it a huge waste of money for a country that doesn't exactly shit money these days.
But if they aren't bluffing and the promises of not working on nukes they give are lies and delays, then it makes perfect sense for Iran to continue maintaining and advancing a ballistic missile program.
 
Last edited:

GoldRanger

May the power protect you
Founder
Not exactly.

The Democrat plan was for the Iranians to give up their nukes and for Iran to try to re-engage with the rest of the world on a more normal footing. The hope was to establish a new balance of power between Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Iran. Trump broke from this agreement, because Iran also has a very robust ballistic missile program. Trump felt that was too much of a threat to keep, so he demanded they nixed it. They told him no and it escalated from there.

What the Democrats want is not to be involved, but not let the whole shatterbelt go to hell. But without raising troop deployments, that's not likely to work out.

I'm not convinced. I see Europe's (and the American left's) main motivation vis a vis coddling Iran is opening up a fairly big market of 80 million people for trade. The relatively secular Iranian population (at least compared to countries like Saudi Arabia) helps with that.

If your interpretation is correct, that would mean the left is led by utter morons. Trying to create a geopolitical balance between rival regional powers might work if they're content with securing their own safety and interests abroad, but two out of the three you mention have hefty ambitions and will not tolerate rivalry to their power (Iran and Turkey). These kinds of hyper-nationalistic governments are not usually content with what they already posses, they have plans for the entire region, they have proxies tearing up half the continent in a struggle for domination, and they are also religiously motivated, which is never a good sign.

The result would be brutal and unending wars that ignite the whole region until one of the sides emerges dominant, rather than some sort of tense peace.

It could have worked with countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia who are mainly concerned with securing their own borders and interests in the region. Not nationalistic fanatics.
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
I'm not convinced. I see Europe's (and the American left's) main motivation vis a vis coddling Iran is opening up a fairly big market of 80 million people for trade. The relatively secular Iranian population (at least compared to countries like Saudi Arabia) helps with that.
The population may be partially secular, especially the city population with money, but the government isn't. Still, its a country of slightly lower wealth and similar population to Turkey, more distant, more unpredictable, and less economically free, and yet the wannabe Sultan is not getting as far as he would want.
Some EU countries may be hoping for some sweetheart deals, for USA its hard to see any big deal in the grand scale of things. Probably would need to be oil or gas for the former.

Geopolitics regarding "Islam relations", their own left, and third world international politics would need to be partially involved at least, if not downright leftist wish to set up strong enemies/"multilateral actors" in other regions to mess with any future western attempts to exercise power over the region.

It could have worked with countries like Israel and Saudi Arabia who are mainly concerned with securing their own borders and interests in the region. Not nationalistic fanatics.
Oh they aren't nationalistic fanatics, they would be only half as much of a problem if they were, they very much want to rule over at least most of the region, way beyond where their nation could even optimistically span. Both have heavy religious backing behind them, especially Iran, being a downright theocracy. Turkey could be called a classic former imperial power seeking to restore its former glory, while Iran is quite proud of the whole Islamic Revolution business and is completely open about wanting to export it wherever possible.
 

Husky_Khan

The Dog Whistler... I mean Whisperer.
Founder
Sotnik
Good ol' Armenian ingenuity! No details on it... like cost or performance or anything important like that, but it looks cool at this juncture. Plus it is impressive for a small country to actually copy a weapon system (AFAIK) like this in such a short period of time. An earlier post in the thread has a brief clip of it flying by...

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top