What's new

Turkey can fatally respond to syrian regime by going indirect

Us can't pressure Turkey, best they can do is advising Turkey, they can't get their relations worsened with a strategic ally for just few hundreds of thousand votes, plus whatever US does, first priority of Turkish politicans is people's stance, they can't do anything againts people's stance.

Treaty of Kars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Armenian

For some reason, I can't find the article explaining this. But whatever, don't really care about this.

How about you answer my previous question, about the legality of Azeri claims to NK and their occupation of Nakhchivan.
 
Treaty of Kars

"The Treaty of Kars specified the partition of Armenia and the region of Nakhchivan as an autonomous territory under the protection of Azerbaijan. In 1924, Nakhchivan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was formed on this territory as an exclave subordinate to Azerbaijan SSR, and sharing a 15-km boundary with now Turkish district of Surmalu. It was also agreed that both Turkey and Russia would become guarantors of Nakhchivan's status."


Armenian-Azerbaijani War

"Indecisive. Dispute over Karabakh territory is settled in favor of Azerbaijan. However Zangezur region, which was part of Elisabethpol Governorate, was taken by Armenia."

"Joseph Stalin, then acting Commissar for nationalities, granted the areas of Nakhchivan and Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan."
 
Treaty of Kars

"The Treaty of Kars specified the partition of Armenia and the region of Nakhchivan as an autonomous territory under the protection of Azerbaijan. In 1924, Nakhchivan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic was formed on this territory as an exclave subordinate to Azerbaijan SSR, and sharing a 15-km boundary with now Turkish district of Surmalu. It was also agreed that both Turkey and Russia would become guarantors of Nakhchivan's status."



Armenian-Azerbaijani War

"Indecisive. Dispute over Karabakh territory is settled in favor of Azerbaijan. However Zangezur region, which was part of Elisabethpol Governorate, was taken by Armenia."

"Joseph Stalin, then acting Commissar for nationalities, granted the areas of Nakhchivan and Nagorno-Karabakh to Azerbaijan."

I am familiar with both. And you would be right if USSR was still around. But because present-day Azerbaijan does not recognize Azeri SSR, this is all null and void. Treaty of Kars as it pertains to Azerbaijan and descisions of Stalin are not recognized.
 
They may call themselves successors of the first republic, but technically they're still successors of Azeri SSR and they still recognize decisions from Soviet era, include Treaty of Kars.

Even if they don't, nobody gave Nakhchivan to Armenia after Treaty of Kars.
 
They may call themselves successors of the first republic, but technically they're still successors of Azeri SSR and they still recognize decisions from Soviet era, include Treaty of Kars.

Wtf...no, this is what I have been saying all this time. According to Azerbaijan's own definition, they are NOT successor state to Azeri SSR. They are successor state to Democratic Republic. The years in between 1920 and 1991 may just as well been lost in a black hole.
 
Ask that to them, they still recognize Soviet era decisions and technically still Soviet successors.

And as I said nobody gave Nakhchican to Armenia, Karabagh was a disputed land before Soviet era, given to Azerbaijan in Soviet era, so basically you have no right on Nakhchivan, you just have claims on Karabagh, though Azerbaijan accepts Soviet era decisions thats why they got support for their claims from outside.
 
Ask that to them, they still recognize Soviet era decisions and technically still Soviet successors.

And as I said nobody gave Nakhchican to Armenia, Karabagh was a disputed land before Soviet era, given to Azerbaijan in Soviet era, so basically you have no right on Nakhchivan, you just have claims on Karabagh, though Azerbaijan accepts Soviet era decisions thats why they got support for their claims from outside.

Yes, Azeris are fond of breaking the rules in their favor, but become hysterical when Armenia does the same. I am aware...

Nobody "gave" Nakhchivan to Armenia, it has been Armenian since the beginning of our people. Both NK and Nakhchivan were internationally recognized as part of Democratic Armenia (Wiki "Democratic Republic of Armenia", it will give internationally recognized map).

NK was not disputed till Soviets begin meddling. Armenians and Azeris coexisted peacefully. Then Stalin gave Azeris NK, and suddenly Azerbaijan believes that NK was always theirs.

Even in 1989, after some 70 years of cleansing of Armenians, NK population was only 20% Azeri. 20%!!!! That's even before the war
 
Please defer to your friend Targon. At least he knows what he is talking about.

Your so called "khojaly genocide" killed ~650 people. There are ~50 million Azeris in the world. How is the death of 600 people genocide??????

There was cleansing of Armenians by Azeris in Nackijevan. Don't believe me? Armenians were majority there until Nackijevan was transferred to Azeri SSR. Google the destruction of khachkars at Dhuga (or "Culfa" as Azeris call it). For God's sake, "Nackijevan" is an Armenian word.

Besides, I am talking about legal sense.

I have no wish to discuss seriously on a topic that already been decided by states by treaties... This is why Armenia became a backwards third world country after dissolution of Soviets...

You don't even recodnized the treaties you have signed and accepted and try to ''reclaim'' lands from other nations.... Relax and try to improve your country's condition and stay away from other nations land. Then maybe you can do something for yourselfs other than bringing more misery to your people...
 
Please don't bring that ancient history bs again, as you know its have nothing with current situations, Nakhchivan taken from Armenia legally, even if Azerbaijan would deny past treaties, its still taken from Armenia, you have no legal rights on it.

Armenians and Azerbaijanis fought for it before Soviet era and war ended in the favor of Azerbaijan over Karabagh, yes it was a disputed land between two countries, then Soviet era came and Karabagh given to Azerbaijan, thats their decision to accept or deny past treaties.
 
I have no wish to discuss seriously on a topic that already been decided by states by treaties... This is why Armenia became a backwards third world country after dissolution of Soviets...

You don't even recodnized the treaties you have signed and accepted and try to ''reclaim'' lands from other nations.... Relax and try to improve your country's condition and stay away from other nations land. Then maybe you can do something for yourselfs other than bringing more misery to your people...

Two things: 1. I am very relaxed and 2. I don't care what you wish to talk about. I'll say what I want to say, and you comment if you want to.

Armenia has no problem with treaties. However, if Azerbaijan does not recognize its Soviet government, then why do they get to reap the benefit of the territory it acquired during Soviet times? It's not fair.

I'm really tired of people saying our country is miserable. It's not. People are generally happy in Armenia. People in Azerbaijan are miserable. They truly have a dictator, and none of the oil money is going to the people.
 
Russia halts plans to supply S-300 missile system to Syria


Russia’s main weapons producer has allegedly suspended its contract with Syria to supply S-300 long-range missile systems. Russia’s ‘Vedomosti’ daily published the report, citing unnamed sources within the military-industrial complex.
The very fact of the contract’s existence was not known until it was revealed in an annual report made only last week and published online by the makers of the S-300 systems, Almaz-Antey.
The report states that the company’s largest contracts are with Algeria (which is paying $39 million for a long-range missile defense system), and Syria, which signed a contract for the same system for $105 million.
The report also says that deliveries on the Syrian contract are expected to be made between 2012 and 2013. But ‘Vedomosti’ claims two separate sources, who chose to remain anonymous, have said deliveries have been put on the back-burner “after a direct order from above.”
It’s unclear whether these reports are true, but many are already speculating on the potential reasons for such a step. Some have suggested that Moscow has decided to placate Washington and Tel Aviv, drawing parallels between this situation and the one back in 2010, when Russia cancelled its contract for the same missile system with Iran.
However, the circumstances in 2010 were rather different. If Russia had fulfilled its contractual obligations back then, it would have been violating an international embargo. But no such embargo currently affects contracts between Russia and Syria.
Others have suggested that Damascus may be strapped for cash, and simply cannot afford the S-300 complex. This claim is also open to speculation as military cooperation between the two states is basically founded on the fact that Russia forgave Syria its $10 billion debt in return for future arms contracts.
No officials have yet commented on the matter, so it will be some time before light is shed on the situation. But President Vladimir Putin had previously said the arms that Russia delivers cannot be used in civil conflicts, and Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, stated the supplies were merely defensive weapons sold in contracts signed long ago.
“We are sending no battleships to Syria. We have been saying publicly that we have been implementing contracts under which we have to supply arms to Syria. These armaments are entirely defensive and they mostly consist of air defense systems, which cannot be used against the population and can only be used to respond to outside aggression,” Lavrov told RT.
Russia's military trade with Syria
Attention has been focused on military ties between Russia and Syria for some time, ever since international media claimed Russia was supplying helicopters to Bashar al-Assad’s regime. US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton at first even lashed out at Russia, but later backtracked and was forced to admit that the shipment that had got the West’s blood boiling merely consisted of some old helicopters sent back to Russia for repairs.
Although the Russian Ministry of Defense does not disclose the total value of the arms supplied to Syria, outside estimates exist. The US Congress says Russia has outstanding contracts to supply arms for $3.5 billion, while the Swedish think-tank SIPRI puts the figure at between $5 and $6 billion.
Among the widely reported shipments are two K-300 Bastion coastal defense batteries, equipped with supersonic Yakhont missiles. Two anti-aircraft systems, BUK-M2 and PANTSYR-S1, have also been purchased by Syria, though it is unclear if the orders have been fulfilled.
A $550 million contract for 36 Yak-130 planes was signed between the countries earlier this year. While nominally a sophisticated training jet, it can also serve as a light combat aircraft. Russia has also promised to deliver 24 modernized Mig-29 destroyers. It is assumed that neither of these contracts has been fulfilled.


Russia halts plans to supply S-300 missile system to Syria - reports — RT
 
Please don't bring that ancient history bs again, as you know its have nothing with current situations, Nakhchivan taken from Armenia legally, even if Azerbaijan would deny past treaties, its still taken from Armenia, you have no legal rights on it.

Armenians and Azerbaijanis fought for it before Soviet era and war ended in the favor of Azerbaijan over Karabagh, yes it was a disputed land between two countries, then Soviet era came and Karabagh given to Azerbaijan, thats their decision to accept or deny past treaties.

I brought up ancient history not to lay claims because of it, but to inform you that the reason there are no Armenians there today is because of ethnic cleansing. We have a legal claim to Azerbaijan. By Azerbaijan's own definition, Nakhchivan is not theirs. You keep rambling about treaties that Azerbaijan does not recognize.

Please, Azerbaijan has never defeated Armenia in a war. But if you are so quick to accept and respect the territorial changes of that war, why not accept the result of the war 20 years ago?

You are being very hypocrytical.
 
Again Azerbaijan does recognize treaties, thats their decision.

Azerbaijan doesn't acquired Karabagh in that war, I gave it as an example to show that land was disputed between two nations, land later acquired by Soviets, then given to Azerbaijan, same result, even if Azerbaijan would deny past treaties, its still taken from Armenia.
 
Again Azerbaijan does recognize treaties, thats their decision.

Azerbaijan doesn't acquired Karabagh in that war, I gave it as an example to show that land was disputed between two nations, land later acquired by Soviets, then given to Azerbaijan, same result, even if Azerbaijan would deny past treaties, its still taken from Armenia.

Targon, when a country does not recognize a former regime (at least in this case), it absolves itself of any treaties signed by that party. It has declared itself not to be the successor state. If countries still had to follow treaties even after un-recognizing past governments, present day countries would be following medieval treaties!

Azerbaijan cannot recognize some parts of Azeri SSR and not recognize others. That's BS.

I completely agree with your second point, and that would have been the case if Azerbaijan recognized Azeri USSR.

Regardless, Nakhchivan will still be taken back, one way or another.
 
Back
Top Bottom