Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Igor Muradyan: Abkhazian-Ossetian-Nagorno Karabakh Problem: The US'

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Igor Muradyan: Abkhazian-Ossetian-Nagorno Karabakh Problem: The US'

    IGOR MURADYAN: ABKHAZIAN-OSSETIAN-NAGORNO KARABAKH PROBLEM: THE US' POLITICAL FIASCO

    Regnum, Russia
    July 3 2006

    Three subjects of the ethnic politics, three unrecognized South
    Caucasian states, Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh,
    are different in many parameters. Each of them has its own peculiar
    problems, its own unique fate, but also some things in common; and
    now we are witnessing one more quite special common factor looming
    large for all: the reality of war - not just minor demonstrative
    clashes on border but real war.

    The South Caucasus is facing a new Abkhaz-Ossetian-Nagorno Karabakh
    problem - a problem of war that can lead to total fiasco of the policy
    of the Western community and, first of all, of the US.

    Obviously, in Georgia the wars will not last for long: from several
    weeks to several months, with several time-outs. Georgia may well
    manage to gain control over some new positions in South Ossetia and
    low-lands in Eastern Abkhazia, but it may also be crushed, with all the
    three sides sustaining large-scale losses. This may lead to disastrous
    human casualties in Abkhazia and South Ossetia, who will, therefore,
    get more yielding in political issues. Depending on the scale and
    scenario of the war, Georgia may either win - or lose so much that
    further war will have no sense. Most probably, Georgia's enemies will
    manage to retain control over bigger part of their territories. Given
    more political will, the Georgian army could successfully start war
    even today. The only factor that might keep the Georgian authorities
    back is human casualties. However, if Georgia continues building up
    its army as actively as it is doing now it will shortly have no other
    decent way as to start new war. The availability of strong forces
    and growing internal political and social problems will be decisive
    in the matter.

    Azerbaijan is also eager to fight. Azeri generals keep calling for
    war, thereby, encouraging arms race and military spendings. Now its
    arms supplier is not only traditional Ukraine but also CSTO member
    Belarus. The general staffs of two western powers say that in case
    of active military actions in Karabakh, the Azerbaijani army may
    well lose their offensive capacity in just three weeks. They say
    that position war is very inconvenient for Armenia and, therefore,
    that country will try to knock out Azerbaijan with just one-two
    heavy blows. Azerbaijan will try to strike the nuclear power plant
    in Metsamor and some other vital centers in Armenia, in response,
    Armenia will destroy sea and other oil and gas facilities and oil and
    gas pipelines in Azerbaijan. In a couple of hours the West will lose
    $14bln-$16bln and any hope for Caspian oil import in the following
    5-7 years. The Caspian Sea will face an ecological disaster. There
    will be no need for the Armenians to get very close to oil pipelines,
    they have enough people knowing how to carry out such operations.

    Unless supported by Turkey, Azerbaijan may either lose its statehood
    at all or be given new borders and name - something the Iranians will
    be really happy to see. With military experts giving advantage to the
    side who will start the war the first, Armenia has no reason to wait
    for Azerbaijan's "victorious march" but will have to start the war
    itself - at least, three days before the enemy's planned attack. It
    is better to have advantage at the front than in the findings of
    international experts as a victim to aggression. Azerbaijan will lose
    25,000-35,000 soldiers and up to 100,000 civilians, Armenia will lose
    10-12 times less.

    After some delay, the international community will try to stop the
    war - of course, only when it sees that Azerbaijan is on the verge of
    a military and national disaster. If the Armenians try to destroy the
    west-sponsored oil-gas complex, the US and NATO will, most probably,
    decide to strike a counter-blow on the Armenian positions. This will
    not lead to Russia's interference. Russia will interfere only if the
    Armenian territory is attacked, while the US will interfere if Turkey
    meddles in or if Armenia gets into an extremely hard situation. In
    this case, the US will put an end to the war irrespective of its
    results. Will it be able to? Can the war be avoided at all? - idle
    question and vain supposition.

    All the three problems could never and can never be solved in the
    format the western community suggests. "Territorial integrity" can be
    restored only by war. The very thesis and principle of territorial
    integrity means a war that goes beyond the conventional idea of war
    and implies genocide and mass deportation as obligatory addendum to
    military actions. The US has never planned to solve these problems
    in this way, i.e. to restore the territorial integrity of Georgia
    and Azerbaijan at any price. The US has already got all it wanted
    in the South Caucasus, namely, it has already ensured successful
    oil transportation from the region. The last trifling thing the US
    had to do was just to gain control - together with the UK - over the
    "Caucasian Panama Canal." For this purpose, it carried out a consistent
    policy from Arytau to Batumi. All the other tasks were either
    subservient or - if going beyond those tasks - were either ruled out
    or stifled by feigned political games and endless negotiations. What
    kind of policy is this? Anti-Georgian, anti-Armenian, anti-Azeri,
    anti-Russian or anti-Iranian? This policy is purely American. The
    US is absolutely unwilling to see war in the region. War means the
    failure of its tremendous efforts to ensure the safe operation of the
    Caucasian-Caspian, or, more correctly, American-British energy complex
    in the region. The Americans may want some political tension in some
    parts of the region but only provided they have full control over them.

    Can we assert or deny that by expanding into the South Caucasus the
    US has been and is partly or fully preventing military actions in
    the local conflict zones? In the last 15 years the US has failed
    its policy in a number of regions. Even disorganized, bankrupt
    and capitulated Iraqi society has proved to be a hard nut to crack
    for the US. With all its might and power, the US has no sufficient
    military force for active suppression in even one - not very big -
    country, and has, in fact, failed to guarantee peace and security in
    any single country or region it held a military campaign in. Let's
    not dwell on the ideological and stylistic differences between the
    relevant policies of the Republicans and the Democrats.

    War is at the door. Despite their strategic interests, the Americans
    has been led by their partner-opponent Europeans into absolutizing
    the principle of territorial integrity - something they regard quite
    cynically. By their political-propaganda games, they have convinced the
    "victims" that they have the right to use military force to restore
    sovereignty over their lost territories. The US has come up with
    dubious initiatives to encourage arms race for ensuring the safety
    of energy communications - initiatives that have resulted in extreme
    militarization in the region. We can't deny the influence of both
    complex and individual factors on the military-political situation in
    the region. The positions and interests of the western and eastern
    great powers are certainly complex factors. However, the region's
    countries are becoming a loomingly large source of concern for the
    US in terms of their plans to resolve their conflicts by war.

    It couldn't be otherwise.

    By implementing its policy, the US has contributed to the collapse of
    the CAFE Treaty and, together with its Western and Eastern European
    allies, has launched an arms race in the South Caucasus. The only
    question is what they are training national armed units for. The US has
    "guaranteed" that they will not be used in ethnic conflicts. At the
    same time, the US and NATO are actively stimulating the militarization
    of the region. No doubt, this is part of the US' policy to ensure
    the safety of its oil complex. However, all these efforts are not
    augmenting the US' sway or diminishing Russia's presence in the region,
    but are, on the contrary, undermining the US' policy and ruining the
    oil complex together with the whole "Eurasian corridor" ("corridor"
    is always something vulnerable, something that leads to war).

    This spring the author questioned 88 British and US experts as to
    security problems in the South Caucasus and the possibility of new
    wars in Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Nagorno-Karabakh. None of them
    has denied that the US cannot guarantee non-resumption of war. At
    the same time, they clearly differentiated two questions: are there
    enough factors proving that new war is possible and is the US able
    to prevent this possibility. This refers to all the three conflicts.

    Pacifist Europe will react to war stoically. Their conservative
    media will call for interference and protection of oil facilities and
    pipelines, but no single European soldier will set foot in the region
    or will come here just to keep peace when the fight is already over.

    It will be for the US and Russia to react, of course, if Turkey is
    kept away and Iran is not very active.

    Igor Muradyan - expert of Caucasus analytical center.
Working...
X