Comments on: Why you shouldn’t care about Nagorno-Karabakh (and why you might one day have to)

By: Doug M.

Doug M. — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:43:33 +0000

@Dave, Aghdam was neither “vandalized” nor “recycled” — it was looted. First household goods and appliances, then fixtures, lamps, plumbing, copper electrical wire… everything of value was torn out and taken away. Perhaps some of the material was used in construction by Karabakhtsi Armenians, but most was taken away to be sold — as recently as the mid-2000s, you could still find stuff from Aghdam on sale in the vernissage in Yerevan.

@Gregory, so only one group of people can claim a piece of land? It was okay to drive out the Azeris because they’ve only been there five hundred years instead of three thousand?

Azerbaijan is indeed an authoritarian country with a hereditary presidency. On the other hand, Armenia is a de facto one-party state; as one observer noted, “elections in Armenia are perfectly free, as long as the HHK wins.” And when people got annoyed at this, the Armenian government showed no hesitation in gunning down protesters in the street a few years back.

Doug M.

By: Dave

Dave — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 05:04:30 +0000

@Teymur. Aghdam was not vandalized, it was recycled. Armenians used building materials from Aghdam to rebuild their homes after the war.

By: Teymur

Teymur — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 00:52:28 +0000

Gregory’s fascist comment about supposed “barbaric” customs of Azeris speaks for itself. One can only look at vandalized Azeri town of Aghdam to judge barbaric customs of Armenian military.

By: Gregory

Gregory — Wed, 07 Apr 2010 11:32:23 +0000

Karabakh can not be of interest for Azeri people, because it is Armenian land (Armenians were born and died there during last three milleniums).
Not so for Azerbaijan authorities – they are interested in drawing Azeris attention away from the situation inside of Azerbaijan. Modern Azerbaijan is a totalitarian poor country with hereditary lifelong “presidency” & barbaric customs.

By: Isoruku

Isoruku — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 16:46:39 +0000

HI. Very succinct and accurate analysis, Mr Muir. But in your essay (prior to the comments), you keep referring to NK as “Nagorno.” While it is often shorthanded as “Karabakh,” nobody says “Nagorno,” which is Russian for “Highland” as in “Highland Karabakh.” Just thought you should know. BTW, the drive into NK in May was quite lovely.

By: NHSMUN

NHSMUN — Thu, 06 Aug 2009 15:55:06 +0000

Hi, I’m writing a research paper on basically this exact topic. I really appreciated your succinct and clear explanation of the issue–it was exactly what I was looking for. I was wondering whether you had sources that I might be able to cite. I’ve cited your work; however, given the academic nature of my paper, I’m required to have sources beyond. I really appreciate any help you can lend.

Thanks!

By: On being the right shape | afoe | A Fistful of Euros | European Opinion

Fri, 15 May 2009 16:59:52 +0000

[...] is the subject of pipeline politics, amply discussed by m’colleagues, for example, here. Or here. Or [...]

By: Albert

Albert — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 14:03:07 +0000

So what is the U.S.’s economic and political interests in the conflict? I imagine that the regional oil plays a huge factor, as well as the push for democracy in the former second-world. I believe the State Dept.’s official stand is that Azer. is entitled to its soveriegn territory, and of course the Turkish-Aremnian conflict would push more U.S. support towards its key regional ally (Turkey) and its OEF/OIF contributer (Azer.). Iran’s good relations with Armenia definitely complicates things as well.

I would imagine that this could spur additional secessionist movements if the Armenians are successful, thereby perhaps igniting this caucausian powder keg.

So what else could be the U.S.’s key economic and political interests? How so?

By: More on Karabakh, Much More | afoe | A Fistful of Euros | European Opinion

Tue, 08 Apr 2008 05:47:32 +0000

[...] too long ago, Doug Muir wrote about why Nagorno-Karabakh may be coming soon to a front page near you. Back in the mid-1990s, I wrote something much longer on the conflict [...]

By: Bruce

Bruce — Fri, 29 Feb 2008 10:05:22 +0000

Armenia knows that the Karabakh problem must be resolved in an amicable way, and it has been preparing for the moment for the past several years. The problem is that whoever signs the agreement on the Armenian side will be ostracized by the people of both Armenia and Karabakh. So the decision has been held back until Armenia’s two Karabakhi dictators finally assert their dominance, by installing Sargsyan as President, after which Kocharian will undoubtedly be made Prime Minister. When that happens (maybe the first part already has?), be sure that the Karabakh problem will very quickly be resolved; not for any legal, moral or political reason, simply so that Kocharian, Sargsyan and their small (but soon to be quickly increasing) circle of cronies can cash in on the billions of dollars of ill-gotten gains they have been laundering in Yerevan through the past several years.