Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Nagorno-Karabakh

by Colman Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 09:43:41 AM EST

Continuing a series on frozen conflicts in the former USSR and thereabouts, Douglas on Afoe has a profile of the situation in Nagorno-Karabakh:

What the heck is Nagorno-Karabakh, anyway?

Briefly: it’s a small, mountainous territory in the Caucasus, about the size of a small US state or a large British county. Until the USSR collapsed, it was part of Azerbaijan. But the population was mostly Armenians. So there was a vicious little war in the early 1990s, which the rest of the world pretty much ignored.

The Azeris lost, so today Nagorno is almost entirely Armenian. It claims to be an independent country, but nobody recognizes it.

So why shouldn’t you care?

Because Nagorno is small, distant, poor, mountainous, thinly populated, lacking in natural resources, and completely without strategic value to anyone but the Armenians and the Azeris.[...]

So why might you have to care one day anyway?

Because of the pipeline.

The BTC pipeline runs from Baku (capital of Azerbaijan, on the Caspian Sea), up through Georgia, down into Turkey, and out to the Mediterranean Sea at Ceyhan in southern Turkey. Because Azerbaijan and Armenia are in a state of cold war — no diplomatic relations, borders closed — the pipeline goes around Armenia.

So many potential flashpoints, so little time.


Display:
Well, that doubles my knowledge of the area.
by Colman (colman at eurotrib.com) on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 09:48:13 AM EST
In my case, from nothing to something- infinite improvement.

Capitalism searches out the darkest corners of human potential, and mainlines them.
by geezer in Paris (risico at wanadoo(flypoop)fr) on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 11:26:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
In Armenia, they get lots of money from the diaspora. Money that goes to things like nice new paved roads. But Armenia is so poor only the military can afford gasoline. So all cars are run on natural gas, imported from and subsidised by Russia.

Appearantly, it it very easy to convert ordinary cars to run on natural gas.

In the event of a sudden cessation of oil imports to us, count on that happening.

http://iea.org/textbase/stats/pdf_graphs/AMOIL.pdf

That's what I call a steep decline rate...

See how they don't use any heavy fuel oil anymore? They switched to biofuels. Chopped down all their forests.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Feb 6th, 2008 at 10:26:21 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Starvid:
See how they don't use any heavy fuel oil anymore? They switched to biofuels. Chopped down all their forests.
You think you are joking...
Wikipedia: Charcoal
The massive production of charcoal (at its height employing hundreds of thousands, mainly in Alpine and neighbouring forests) was a major cause of deforestation, especially in Central Europe. In England, many woods were managed as coppices, which were cut and regrew cyclically, so that a steady supply of charcoal would be available (in principle) forever; complaints (as early as in Stuart England) about shortages may relate to the results of temporary over-exploitation or the impossibility of increasing production. The increasing scarcity of easily harvested wood was a major factor for the switch to the fossil fuel equivalents, mainly coal and brown coal for industrial use.


We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 6th, 2008 at 11:21:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Oh, I wasn't joking. Ironically, what saved them, beyond the Russian gas, was their decrepit old reactor at Metsamor coming back to life after having sustained earthquake damage a few years earlier.

I'm not really sure safety is tiptop there, to say the least, but just imagine the kind of cornercutting they must have been doing back in 1994 when the entire country was freezing in the darkness.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Feb 6th, 2008 at 11:36:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]
I'd like to disagree with his first point. In those days I still relied mostly on mainstream sources for news, mainly the Guardian and NYT, and I remember a lot of coverage of the conflict. It may have been very superficial, one sided (I seem to recall that the Armenians were always the good guys), but you certainly couldn't say that it was ignored.

Gabriel

by gk (gk (gk quattro due due sette @gmail.com)) on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 03:57:37 PM EST
Having been to Armenia (twice), Georgia (twice) and Azerbaijan (once), I was well aware of the conflict although not of the complete details.  The US has, and may still have a designated special diplomatic representative (an ambassador) that concentrates on issues relating to the conflict over Nagorno Karabakh.  The main result of the conflict, as I recall, has been the isolation of Armenia.  At one point Armenia was without a source of fuel and had to restart an old, damaged by earthquake nuclear plant (I was unfortunate to have been there at the time).  There were issues over the reliability and safety of the plant (that should be of enough to be of concern to just about everyone in the region) but Armenia had no choice.

I can swear there ain't no heaven but I pray there ain't no hell. _ Blood Sweat & Tears
by Gringo (stargazing camel at aoldotcom) on Tue Feb 5th, 2008 at 04:47:23 PM EST
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict was actually the one that broke the myth of peaceful coexistence of Soviet Union nations. Up to that point, you could still be wondering how that diverse mix of nations could last for over 50 years without significant national conflicts. Even if we know now that the Balts did not like too many Russians coming (and more visibly, started discussing greater economical and political independence), or that Caucasian and perhaps Central Asian nations did not like each other - there were hardly boiling developments noticeable. And yeah, people were telling jokes and anecdotes about other peoples - not so politically correct perhaps, but no one had the idea to hurt or provoke because of nationality. (Exceptions in the Army? For what we know, seniority was a bigger problem there.) Nagorno-Karabakh was a big shock to that perception.

As we know, the Armenian dominated Nagorno-Karabakh is inside the Azerbaijan territory, while Azerbaijan's Nakichevan is separated from the mainland by Armenia's piece:

That has the following history:

In April 1920, while the Azerbaijani army was locked in Karabakh fighting local Armenian forces, Azerbaijan was taken over by Bolsheviks. Subsequently, the disputed areas of Karabakh, Zangezur, and Nakhchivan came under the control of Armenia. During July and August, however, the Red Army occupied Karabakh, Zangezur, and part of Nakhchivan. On August 10, 1920, Armenia signed a preliminary agreement with the Bolsheviks, agreeing to a temporary Bolshevik occupation of these areas until final settlement would be reached. In 1921, Armenia and Georgia were also taken over by the Bolsheviks who, in order to attract public support, promised they would allot Karabakh to Armenia, along with Nakhchivan and Zangezur (the strip of land separating Nakhchivan from Azerbaijan proper). However, the Soviet Union also had far-reaching plans concerning Turkey, hoping that it would, with a little help from them, develop along Communist lines. Needing to placate Turkey, the Soviet Union agreed to a division under which Zangezur would fall under the control of Armenia, while Karabakh and Nakhchivan would be under the control of Azerbaijan. Had Turkey not been an issue, Stalin would likely have left Karabakh under Armenian control. As a result, the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast was established within the Azerbaijan SSR on July 7, 1923.

by das monde on Wed Feb 6th, 2008 at 02:22:13 AM EST
Speaking of the role of national tensions for the USSR collapse, "underground facts" are not dull. Sam Marcy:
Another personnel change, no less significant, was the removal of Vladimir Shcherbitsky from the Politburo in September 1989. He was the only Ukrainian on the Politburo. The Ukraine is the second largest republic.

[By] 1989, of the nine full members of the Politburo when Gorbachev took over, eight had been replaced. He had obtained the firm control which it had taken others years to obtain.

[The] organizational changes were a mask for a basic shift in the political and economic spheres of the Soviet Union. But they did not by themselves constitute the kind of rupture that took place with the ouster of Dinmukhamed Kunayev, a Kazakh who was a member of the Politburo from 1966 until January 1987.

Kunayev's removal as First Secretary of the Kazakhstan Party in December 1986, and his replacement by a Russian, Gennadi Kolbin, was followed by a major rebellion in the capital of Alma-Ata. This opened wide the gates to counter-revolution and the dissolution of the USSR. It was given very little prominence in the U.S. press.

The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was a great and unpredecented federation of socialist states based upon the equality of all nations. [The] three greatest pillars of this union were the Russian, Ukrainian and Kazakhstan republics. But after the Alma-Ata rebellion in Kazakhstan, and then the ouster of Shcherbitsky, a Ukrainian, two of the three pillars of the union had been weakened.

From the vantage point of the political struggle, these were gross violations of the rights of nationalities that could not possibly be lost on the other republics within the USSR.

And this is for a broader "perspective". Is it sour grapes from Romanov, or early perestroika (& collapse?) planning?

When Soviet President Konstantin Chernenko died, a hastily called meeting of the CPSU Politburo voted five against to elect Mikhail Gorbachev as his successor. Coincidentally (?) three opponents of Gorbachev in the Politburo, among whom was Grigori Romanov, were out of town and not present at this all-important meeting and were not notified to come immediately.

Grigori Romanov once was a powerful figure at the highest level of the Soviet State. [He] was considered one of the two possible successors to Chernenko; the other one was Vladimir Shcherbitsky. "No one seriously considered Gorbachev," says Romanov.

On the day that Chernenko died (March 10, 1985-19.20 hrs) Romanov was in Vilnius, Lithuania with his wife. They had been given a trip to the sanatorium and could only fly back to Moscow on the following day. Two other Politburo members were also at that time out of town; Dinmuhammed Kunaev was in Alma Ata, Kazakhstan and Shcherbitsky was in the United States. If these three members (the usual size of the Politburo is about 14 full members) had been present at the meeting, as they could have been the following day - Gorbachev would never had been elected, says Romanov. "By the time we arrived in Moscow, the very next day, he'd already done it without waiting for us as Politburo rules demanded. That fast! That was it... He'd already cut the deal in secret with all of them. And you think that the timing of Chernenko's death, I mean, was all accidental?.

by das monde on Wed Feb 6th, 2008 at 02:53:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That first one is very interesting. Certainly a different perspective from the dominant narrative.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 7th, 2008 at 07:41:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]
European Tribune - Nagorno-Karabakh
So there was a vicious little war in the early 1990s, which the rest of the world pretty much ignored.
To the contrary, that was followed with a lot of interest in the international press at the time. Maybe not the UK press, I don't know. I was 16 when Nagorno-Karabakh declared independence from Azerbaijan and I remember it was covered.

We have met the enemy, and he is us — Pogo
by Carrie (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Feb 6th, 2008 at 11:24:29 AM EST
I find it strange that nobody has mentioned the "Kosovo precedent" in this topic.

Russia has clearly stated that she will use the Kosovo model and apply it to unrecognized states in former Soviet Union.

Meaning that after EU and US recognition of Kosovo indepence, there is a very big chance of Russia recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state

This makes any future negotiations rather impossible.

Why Nagorno-Karabakh should settle on anything less than independence if you are recognized as such by the UN Security Council member?

Conversely, then any attempt by the Azerbaijan to recover Karabakh will be labelled by Russia as an agression against an independent state. (Also, Russia and Armenia have a military alliance. Independent Nagorno-Karabakh would probably be invited to that alliance as well.)

by citatel on Fri Feb 8th, 2008 at 11:46:24 PM EST
Welcome to ET, citatel!

Our knowledge has surpassed our wisdom. -Charu Saxena.
by metavision on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 06:28:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Nagorno-Karabakh is kind of cool on the Kosovo precedent, and not too keen to use the Russia connection. And Russia has absolutely no finger in this pie, other than balancing between a weak ally (Armenia) and an ascending oil and gas (power) which drifts away but is always ready to listen to Russian concerns.

The last thing Russia would wont is to get into troubles with the West over Nagorno-Karabakh.

by Sargon on Sat Feb 9th, 2008 at 01:28:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]