Advertise On EU-Digest

Annual Advertising Rates
Showing posts with label Military operations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military operations. Show all posts

10/9/17

Armenia and Azerbaijan are Stuck with Russia and the U.S.

Over the years, Russia has served as the main arbitrator for the territorial dispute between Armenians and Azerbaijanis over the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The most vivid explanation lies in the past relationship of Russia with these two countries both of which have been former members of the Soviet Union. The collapse of the Soviet regime unleashed an economic, social, and political chaos across the regions of former member states. The end of the Soviet era granted independence to every single member state of the Union. The absence of Soviet supervision prompted the revitalization of old disputes between countries that had centuries long territorial, religious, and cultural conflicts.

The encounter between Armenia and Azerbaijan turned into an active military warfare in 1988 when the mountainous enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh region – that historically has been populated by Armenians of Artsakh – declared its willingness to join with the neighboring Republic of Armenia. Azerbaijani government opposed to this scenario and the war became inevitable. The conflict started in 1988 and rapidly escalated to a full-scale war. In 1993, the newly independent Armenians deployed military forces composed of local Armenians as well as Armenians from diaspora that captured geographically significant corridor of Lachin that provided a passage from Karabakh to Armenia. Other successful military operations included the recapturing of Shusha, Kalbajar, Qubadil, Jabrayil, Zangilan, Agdam, and Fuzuli.

Russia played a critical role in prevention of more violence in this war that lasted nearly six years within the Nagorono-Karabakh region. In May of 1994, the Russian government extenuated the ceasefire between Armenian and Azerbaijani governments. The decree nurtured by Russia became provisioned as satisfactory by both Armenian and Azerbaijani forces that reached an armistice. The problem that Russia left unsolved was that there was no definite and internationally agreed resolution on the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. The territories captured by Armenian fighters were proclaimed as Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, which is a de facto state but is recognized as de jure by majority of international community as still part of the Azerbaijan.

The circumstances are not favorable for any of the former Soviet Union member states to make a swift transition from Russia’s patronage into the Western democracy. Even though the strings are invisible, however, Russia’s steeled hand still manipulates the strings that move the internal and external activities of its post-Soviet proxy states.

As it stands, the government of Armenia has formed an illusory acquaintance in Russia and they believed that Moscow represents the best interests of Armenian people. However, on numerous occasions, the Russian government representatives and deputies such as Vladimir Zhirinovsky (who many consider to be a controversial figure) have been outspoken about Russia’s true image of Armenia as a country and an ally. More specifically, when asked about the situation with Nagorno-Karabakh conflict Zhirinovsky announced – “I could spit on Armenia and never look back. If Armenians try to find another ally (other than Russia) we will cut ties with them. If Armenians get on the way, Russia will let Turkey and Azerbaijan run over Armenians. Armenia has no prospects of economic growth.” Zhirinovsky is one of the many politicians who have undermined the importance of Republic of Armenia as Russia’s ally.

In order to enhance the already existing economic cooperation with Russia and its allies, and provide new avenues of military empowerment, Armenia welcomed the invitation to join the Customs Union and became a complete member in 2015. This step took the Russo-Armenian relations to a higher degree and instilled more trust and sense of loyalty in the eyes of Moscow administration.

The end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet regime in most communist countries of Asia and Europe did not necessarily represent an end of the rivalry between Russia and the democratic West. The Western countries never hesitated to take a backlash on Putin’s foreign policies and his decisions during recent international crises such as, 1) the Syrian Civil War that led to a chaotic situation in Northern Middle-East, 2) the Ukraine-Crimea territorial dispute where Russia intervened by claiming to resolve the issue but ended up annexing Crimea, and finally, 3) the Nagorno-Karabakh land dispute, where Russia protected the interests of the Armenians occupying those lands and meanwhile sold firearms to both parties in war.

The final, yet nonetheless significant explanation of lack of pro-Western diplomatic ties for Armenia is rooted in the reality of Azerbaijan’s positive relations with the United States, European Union member states and to a considerable degree also with Russia. Azerbaijan was able to promote its pro-Western tendencies by re-shuffling the deck of its cards that it used in global arena. It realized that since Turkey, its big brother and guardian is one of the vital NATO members, a crucial ally for the United States, and a possessor of an incredible military and economic power in the region, then it should also begin building similar connections with all of Turkey’s allies that can potentially become Azerbaijan’s new sponsors for regaining the Nagorno-Karabakh area.

Given this narrative, Azerbaijan was able to attract the attention of then Senator Barack Obama, who visited the country in 2005. By that time, the Section 907 implemented by the U.S. Congress in 1992 has been waived by President Bush, and further prolonged by Barack Obama during his presidency. The Section 907 prohibited any form of direct aid to or assistance to the Azerbaijani government. The relations further strengthened during U.S war against the terror in Afghanistan and Iraq when Azerbaijan provided intelligence information, airspace access, and refueling of U.S. aircrafts.

Azerbaijan also active participated in the NATO’s Partnership for Peace program.
In the economic sphere, Azerbaijan primarily currently cooperates with the US in the exportation of its energy resources to global markets, and particularly in Western Europe. The United States realizes the potential economic gain from the natural resources such as oil and gas available in Azerbaijan, as well as the geographical location of Azerbaijan and the access to Caspian Sea.

The United States will continue to create stable ties with Azerbaijan in order not to lose a potential important ally to Russia. Also, the United States does not rest on the matters pertaining to the security of the Azerbaijani people.

Within the context of Nagorno-Karabakh territorial dispute, it can reasonably be argued that Russia pulls the strings on Armenia as a “marionette,” whereas, the United States implements the same tactic with Azerbaijan. Ultimately, both superpowers defend their own security interests by offering partnership to the disputing states in the Caucasus, Armenia and Azerbaijan.

It becomes paradoxical when one realizes that in this situation these two conflicting states do not have any alternative options that can bring the resolution of the conflict in their favor, with Azerbaijan desiring to regain Karabakh enclave, and Armenia dearly holding on to every inch of the soil with the last drop of the blood. Alas, serving for the advancement of the global superpowers and their regional interests is the only way of survival for Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Read more: Armenia and Azerbaijan are Stuck with Russia and the U.S.

9/1/13

Syria: France, following US and UK, applies brakes on Syrian war rhetoric

Following Washington and London’s lead, French President Francois Hollande said he would wait for a parliamentary vote before committing France to a military attack on Syria.

The announcement comes as NATO countries reconsider whether to take military action against the Syrian government over a chemical weapons attack that killed hundreds of people in Damascus, amid growing public opposition to a US-led military intervention.

Paris backed off immediate military action against Syria after MPs in the UK House of Commons defeated Prime Minister David Cameron’s proposal that British forces take part in military action over the alleged use of chemical weapons by Assad’s government. The war vote – the first lost by a British prime minister since 1782 – was followed by US President Barack Obama saying Saturday that he would wait until he receives authorization from the US Congress before taking military action on Syria.

Surprisingly, given France’s past hesitation to join in military adventures, Hollande has been the most vocal supporter of a US military operation, which Obama said would not include “boots on the ground.”

The French president, unlike the British prime minister, does not require permission from the country’s parliament, the National Assembly, to order military action.

Read more: France, following US and UK, applies brakes on Syrian war rhetoric — RT News

10/9/12

Middle East: Curious U.S. and French Military Deployments

Stratfor, a provider of geopolitical analysis recently reported it had received multiple reports of U.S. and French military movements.

According to a worldwide network of aircraft spotters and trackers, at least a dozen MC-130H, HC-130N, HC-130P and AC-130U military transport planes and gunships crossed the Atlantic Ocean on Sept. 13 heading eastbound. These aircraft are typically used for a variety of special tasks, including in close cooperation with special operations forces. The last reported stop for the aircraft was Souda Bay, Crete. It is unclear as yet whether the aircraft have left Crete.

A week and a half later, on Sept. 24, the same network of aircraft spotters noted 12 U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18 Hornet fighter jets arriving in two waves at Moron air base in Spain.

Another report on Sept. 24, this one by the Le Figaro French-language newspaper, said some 100 French special operations troops had been deployed in the sub-Saharan region to counteract militants in northern Mali. Le Figaro also reported that maritime patrol aircraft that can be used to collect intelligence will be deployed to the region and that commandos of the French navy will reinforce the French special operations troops.

Also on Sept. 24, The New York Times published an article stating that Iraq and the United States were negotiating an agreement that could result in the return of small units of U.S. soldiers to Iraq on training missions. At the request of the Iraqi government, according to U.S. Gen. Robert Caslen, a unit of Army special operations soldiers was recently deployed to Iraq to advise on counterterrorism and to help with intelligence.

Finally, Italian journalist Guido Olimpio reported in September that U.S. unmanned aerial vehicles are currently tracking militants in Cyrenaica, the historical name for eastern Libya. He also said "reliable sources" had confirmed that U.S. special operations forces were planning to carry out intelligence operations that could be in preparation for surgical strikes in North Africa, including in Libya and in Mali.

All these deployments could be previously scheduled movements for training or part of ongoing operations, but on the other hand, taken together,these reports are too compelling to ignore. Given the fluid conflicts in North Africa, Syria and Afghanistan, as well as the current tensions with Iran.

EU-Digest

8/21/11

Germany:Are German Soldiers Secretly Helping Fight Gadhafi?

German soldiers are more directly involved in NATO air attacks against military forces of Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi than was previously known. In response to a specific inquiry recently submitted by Hans-Christian Ströbele, a Green Party member of parliament, Germany's government acknowledged that 11 German soldiers currently stationed at NATO facilities in Italy are performing duties including ones "in the area of so-called target selection" for NATO airstrikes. However, the Defense Ministry documents obtained by SPIEGEL ONLINE also note that the German soldiers do not hold any "leadership or decision-making positions."

The very skeletal information the ministry provided could become politically explosive. In early 2011, Germany openly opposed international military actions against Gadhafi, an act that triggered much criticism from around the world, particularly from the United States and France. It has already been known for weeks that, as part of Germany's obligations as a member of the NATO alliance, its soldiers have been assigned to work as parts of military staffs actively involved in the Libya mission. Nevertheless, Ströbele believes it is scandalous that German soldiers are also participating in selecting targets for upcoming attacks. "With these activities," he says, "we are secretly taking part in the Libyan war."

The German participation that Ströbele's very precise questions first brought to light once again illustrate the difficult balancing act Germany's government has to perform owing to its official stance toward the mission. Indeed, Germany's position already became tenuous, if not hollow, when it emerged that -- after having voiced such passionate opposition to the mission -- Germany was also supplying bomb parts for the Libyan war. The new details only strengthen the beliefs of those who dismiss Germany's refusal to participate in military actions as transparent political maneuvering.

For more: The War in Libya: Are German Soldiers Secretly Helping Fight Gadhafi? - SPIEGEL ONLINE - News - International