Military Review

Nagorno-Karabakh. And if there were no boundaries?


In any case, there will be thousands of dissatisfied people on both sides of the borders, which in other conditions, it might be better to abolish altogether. Even a divorce on a national or religious basis would not help.

Borderline syndrome

Only the presence of a stronger power, as it was in multinational empires, could not completely eliminate, but at least soften the centuries-old contradictions. However, the weakening empires, first the Russian and Ottoman, and then the Soviet state, preferred to act on the principle of "divide and rule."

They, and this, as a rule, tried more to use conflicts of this kind, as in Karabakh, than to liquidate them in the bud. At one time, when the Lenin Museum-Apartment was still in the Kremlin, the author, then a novice reporter, was struck by one of the cards in the meeting room of the Council of People's Commissars.

It was an ethnic map of the Caucasus, of course, from tsarist times. On it, the zones of complete predominance of a particular nationality in a particular area looked like bright spots against the background of an already motley picture. In general, the card looked more like some kind of animal - either a deer, or a leopard.

And the author had the idea that the desire to isolate on the territory of national states or not so independent autonomous formations is based simply on animal instincts. With all the notorious right of nations to self-determination from Vladimir Lenin and the idea of ​​nation states from Woodrow Wilson.

The stunning quirkiness of not only inter-republican, but intra-regional national borders is one of the main reasons for interethnic and interstate conflicts of the late XNUMXth and early XNUMXst centuries. All of them really started closer to the death of the Soviet Union.

And no matter what the stubborn members of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation say, it is hardly surprising that the very fact of the permanent growth of most of these conflicts, which continues to this day, only strengthens local nostalgia for the USSR. The most acute, as one might have feared, were the conflicts on the borders of the former republics.

Nagorno-Karabakh was almost the first, and certainly the first, when both sides at first seriously relied on Moscow's immediate help in resolving the old territorial dispute. More precisely, personally Secretary General Gorbachev, who, however, preferred to release everything on the brakes, by and large not deciding anything.

Here everyone is a border guard at heart

This kind of "freezing" worked, as you know, exactly the opposite - like a detonator. Both in Baku and in Yerevan, it seems, then they decided: if Moscow does not want to interfere, we will decide everything ourselves.

Meanwhile, the most dangerous time bomb - the inconceivably complicated borders of the two republics, in both republican capitals they preferred to forget for a while. And all because the most tasty of the disputed pieces of territory - Nagorno-Karabakh - was at stake.

But after all, long before the first war there, within the union autonomous republics and even the national-autonomous regions in the 20s and 50s, ethnic territories were created, which were allocated into enclaves and exclaves of the titular union republics. And this, as you know, was done not only in the Caucasus, but also in other regions.

And if in the North Caucasus, where the priority of a higher state education - the Russian Federation, still remains - this did not help, then what to say about other former republics of the USSR! Transnistria and numerous hot spots in Central Asia, even the seemingly “civilized” Baltic states cannot do without mutual claims, mainly territorial, literally everyone to everyone.

Once upon a time, the “cutting of borders” was supposed to guarantee a certain interethnic proportionality in all potentially disputed territories. They were created with the expectation that the leadership of the USSR would be the sole arbiter in interethnic disputes in any region of a union, autonomous republic or autonomous region.

In theory, this was to strengthen the leading functions of the central Soviet leadership and the Communist Party. But this approach in reality every year more and more actively stimulated territorial and ethnic conflicts. The process gained momentum since 1953 due to a noticeable, even uninitiated weakening of the Soviet management system.

The authorities of the Union republics and national autonomies have invariably sought to abolish in some way all sorts of geographical "exceptions" and "wedging-in" in the territory they governed. The latter, of course, intensified against the background of the notorious "perestroika" - an epilogue to the destruction of the Soviet system of government.

There were more than 60 such enclaves and exclaves in the USSR, including at least 40 in Central Asia. Since 1990-1991. almost all of them became mini-regions of neighboring countries, and this immediately predetermined the inevitability of conflicts at the level of independent states.

Armenia and Azerbaijan have failed to reconcile even though both countries are striving to be present in all integration structures with the participation of Russia (this is very beneficial).

In the same way, by the way, nothing happens with the real world between Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan, between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan. By the way, for many years there has been no talk of full agreement between Ukraine and Moldova.

Yours is mine, mine is yours

All the same questions remain among the main causes of the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan... However, the case of Nagorno-Karabakh in this series is perhaps the most unique.

Transcaucasian Socialist Federative Soviet Republic

When the national republics were separated from the ZSFSR, the Nagorno-Karabakh region was enrolled in the Azerbaijan SSR. And this is despite the clear predominance of the Armenian population there. The main factor was the territorial factor: Karabakh was and remains territorially within the Azerbaijani territory.

The Armenian population, the Christians of Karabakh, were promised autonomy, but it turned out to be somewhat strange: with a complete predominance of representatives of the Azerbaijani nationality, respectively, Muslims in the leadership. But who, then, took this into account? Internationalism in action, or simply "endure - fall in love."

At the same time, a couple of decades before the war within the Nagorno-Karabakh autonomy itself, five small, rather miniature, Azerbaijani exclave regions were scrupulously allocated. They, without agreement with Yerevan, which is understandable, but also without the status of at least national districts within the NKAO were consistently transferred under the direct, that is, direct control of Baku.

Some of these territorial entities were as close as possible to the borders between the Armenian and Azerbaijan SSR. I have the feeling that this was done intentionally - for the "promising" provocation of what is happening in Karabakh today.

Not much time has passed since Nagorno-Karabakh, having no chance of a legal transition to Armenia, gained independence. Independence, not recognized by almost anyone. Even Yerevan is limited mainly by streamlined formulas so as not to provoke Baku.

As we can see, it was not possible not to provoke, although military actions for today are at least limited to the disputed, but such attractive territory of Karabakh. However, it is precisely the events of 2020 that show how politically shortsighted the internationalists' games with geography were.

It remains only to remember that all kinds of “exceptions” and “wedging-in” still remain within the internationally recognized borders of Azerbaijan - internal and external. However, already at the very beginning of the conflict in NKAO, these exclave areas, of course, were de facto abolished by Armenian activists and soon de jure by the authorities of the purely Armenian Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Republic (the region is clearly shallow for them).

But it must be admitted that the authorities of Azerbaijan contributed to this by abolishing the Karabakh autonomy as such on November 26, 1991. And all this, alas, with well-known grave consequences for the Azerbaijani and Armenian population in that region. But, judging by the position of the authorities of the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, the problem of these regions does not exist at all.

Yes, and in Baku, they do not remind of those exclaves, insisting on the abolition of only the "self-proclaimed" republic itself. Hence, the Armenian side makes a literally suggestive conclusion that the Azerbaijani authorities, in the event of restoration of Baku's sovereignty in the former NKAO ... will simply carry out a total "Azerbaijanization" of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Photos used:,,
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Alexga
    Alexga 29 October 2020 12: 07
    A peculiar interpretation of history. It may be more fair to return to 1985, the last peaceful year of those territories. And track changes in the situation since that time?
    1. Machito
      Machito 29 October 2020 12: 31
      There is no time machine to return to the USSR. This war will end with another truce and preparations for a new war. I agree with the author that only the inclusion of Transcaucasia into the empire will bring peace to this land. To create independently the Transcaucasian Confederation, these countries, peoples, rulers will not have enough wisdom for this.
      1. Alesi13
        Alesi13 29 October 2020 13: 26
        And we need it,
        1. qQQQ
          qQQQ 29 October 2020 16: 34
          Quote: Alesi13
          And we need it

          With language removed.
      2. Silhouette
        Silhouette 31 October 2020 15: 26
        Well, let them fight themselves there until they turn blue, until they learn to live not by the laws of the mountains, but by the laws of reason. What is it to us? .. What does Russia get from this? .... There will be fewer tomatoes? ... Or kebabs? Neither one nor the other will never fight for Russia. Let's all go to the garden!
    2. Beringovsky
      Beringovsky 29 October 2020 13: 03
      Quote: AlexGa
      A peculiar interpretation of history. It may be more fair to return to 1985, the last peaceful year of those territories. And track changes in the situation since that time?

      I agree to all 100. The attempt to lay the blame on the USSR is far-fetched and looks childishly naive. This is happening all over the world and a universal good solution that suits everyone has not yet been invented. There will always be those who will say "but in that century this was our land, we lived there. Give it back." What was the USSR leadership supposed to do with this? To drive all non-titular from places of compact residence into national apartments? So the author sees a way out? Then the USSR would have collapsed even earlier.
      1. Lexus
        Lexus 29 October 2020 16: 37
        Attempt to place blame on the USSR

        hi This is just a miserable opportunity to cover your bare ass. For a little while.
        So the "fabulous" does not disdain to blame the Great Country for its own worthlessness.
    3. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 29 October 2020 22: 33
      The last year of peace in this area is 1988.
      1. fa2998
        fa2998 30 October 2020 23: 25
        It was as part of the consolidated detachment of 88 that we went on a business trip, which means peaceful-87.
  2. iouris
    iouris 29 October 2020 12: 09
    The borders are protected by amendments to the Constitution of the Russian Federation. I'm afraid only.
  3. Greenwood
    Greenwood 29 October 2020 12: 16
    will simply carry out a total "Azerbaijanization" of Nagorno-Karabakh.
    The total "Armenianization" of Nagorno-Karabakh obviously did not benefit either. Villages and settlements for the most part turned into ruins, and cities are a pitiful sight. There is no economy, no production, no infrastructure and no roads, the remnants of the population are poor. Does Nagorno-Karabakh really deserve such a fate?
    1. Nasdaq
      Nasdaq 29 October 2020 12: 21
      International isolation.
      This is the fate of all unrecognized republics.
      No investment required.
      Even the fruit is exported through the Armenian strip companies.
      The unrecognized republics are largely dependent on the supporting country.
      In this case, Armenia is not a rich country, and Karabakh is not rich.
    2. vVvAD
      vVvAD 29 October 2020 12: 28
      I agree. But after the collapse of the USSR, there was no other way: even at the end of its existence, the national elites turned into princelings who dragged "everything into the house" and only for themselves, without regard to the system of balances built by the USSR. And then, successfully destroying it, and, faced with the consequences of their actions throughout the former USSR, suddenly with innocent eyes
      at first they seriously relied on Moscow to help resolve the old territorial dispute.

      Complete irresponsibility - what then, what now.
    3. Ka-52
      Ka-52 29 October 2020 12: 30
      The total "Armenianization" of Nagorno-Karabakh obviously did not benefit either. Villages and settlements for the most part turned into ruins, and cities are a pitiful sight.

      the point is not "Armenianization", but the fact that any unrecognized state entity suffers from the separation of its economy from both the mother base and the whole world. No trade, no normal turnover, no investment, no funds in the budget - the social base is falling apart, enterprises (deprived of sales, resources and investments) go bankrupt, the population runs or lives in poverty
      1. Greenwood
        Greenwood 29 October 2020 13: 41
        Quote: Ka-52
        No trade, no normal turnover, no investment, no funds in the budget - the social base is falling apart, enterprises (deprived of sales, resources and investments) go bankrupt, the population runs or lives in poverty
        I understand it. But the question essentially remains unchanged. Was it worth condemning the region to poverty if it was clear that no country, including even Armenia itself, would recognize it, and there would be no normal life in this enclave. The Armenians would like to restore order in their country, otherwise they sit up to their ears in debt and poverty, the diaspora abroad is larger in number of Armenia itself, and everyone clings to this territory. For what, why ?!
    4. tihonmarine
      tihonmarine 29 October 2020 15: 32
      Quote: Greenwood
      There is no economy, no production, no infrastructure and no roads, the remnants of the population are poor. Does Nagorno-Karabakh really deserve such a fate?

      What you described is correct. Only this is not Russia's fault. Everyone got what they wanted, freedom, independence, prosperity. There is no Soviet Union, there is no one to blame. Maybe when they are full of freedom and independence, they will come to their senses. Although by this time they will become someone's vassals.
      1. kyznets
        kyznets 1 November 2020 10: 57
        Thank God they separated. There are no Russians there. We do not deserve to have such "proud, independent" and demanding fellow citizens in Russia. For all the years of their independence, it became clear that without Russia Armenia will not be able to remain independent for long. She has a choice only between those under whose influence to go, or to whom to surrender completely. Russia leaves them the maximum independence in these conditions and some other help. The rest of the options are between bad and very bad. Of course, Pashinyan and his electorate want to eat the fish and not wash the frying pan. But here Russia needs to establish boundary conditions for assistance and protection. For Russia, it is not the Armenian NKR that is needed, but rather the Azerbaijani one. Maybe with little future assumptions. Azerbaijan is at least more predictable in its policy than our Yerevan "brothers".
  4. Victorio
    Victorio 29 October 2020 12: 16
    Thank you for the article. the Caucasus is a delicate matter.
    1. iouris
      iouris 29 October 2020 12: 26
      No subtleties: everything is simple, the Caucasus has already been lost. This is already Erdogan's Turkish empire, backed by Britain, Pakistan, and Japanese finances. Time has gone!
      1. Beringovsky
        Beringovsky 29 October 2020 13: 21
        Quote: iouris
        No subtleties: everything is simple, the Caucasus has already been lost. This is already Erdogan's Turkish empire ... Time has passed!

        The navel will untie Erdogan's empire to build. Look closely at the map.
        Central Asia and Azerbaijan fully cut off from the outside world and from Turkey itself. Iran in the south, China in the east, Russia in the north, Armenia and Georgia in the west. All these countries do not have any sympathy for Erdogan's great Turkic ideas, to put it mildly. The Turks will block the passage and the "Turkish empire" give goodbye. And what will Erdogan do in this case? Nothing.
        1. tihonmarine
          tihonmarine 29 October 2020 15: 42
          Quote: Beringovsky
          The navel will untie Erdogan's empire to build. Look closely at the map.

          And also let him look at the calendar, at 1920, exactly one hundred years after the Kyrdyk of the Ottoman Empire. And who pointed to the place in the world not of an empire, but of Turkey. In April 1920, the premiers of Great Britain, France and Italy gathered in San Remo to settle the division of the Middle East. As a result, it was agreed that Britain would receive mandates for Palestine (including Transjordan) and Mesopotamia, and France would receive a mandate for Syria (including Lebanon).
          In July 1923, the Lausanne Treaty was signed, which established new borders for Turkey. This is who the "overseers" in Turkey are. They will have to answer for the "bazaar".
        2. iouris
          iouris 29 October 2020 17: 53
          Quote: Beringovsky
          And what will Erdogan do in this case?

          He will do it very soon, if he is not inflicted with a demoralizing defeat in a sensitive place. Ostrich, concrete floor!
      2. andrew42
        andrew42 29 October 2020 14: 33
        Right. The Caucasus was already lost in 1991, with the collapse of the USSR, that is a fact. But many talkers go on balaboling that "the king is not naked." To get into the lost, you must first pick it up in your hands. The Transcaucasian states do not need this; this is not why their local princes were separated from the Union. Therefore, they will be selected by whoever wishes, while having military strength. Turkey currently wishes. Let's look at the Turkish navel - will it be untied or not. That is what Russia should not do today - it is to "save" the Transcaucasian princelings with their anti-Russian elites and stupid nationalism - against their will. It would be another matter if there were pro-Russian elites with a stable position. But this is not the case. But no, and there is no trial. Without this, getting into this mess is not worth it even with the threat of the deployment of NATO bases in the Transcaucasus. The wars "just for the territories" have ended, and the population of the territories has ceased to be an asset; territories as a bridgehead have become less important - today they are punished not by campaigns of armies, but by Tomahawks and Calibers.
      3. andrew42
        andrew42 29 October 2020 14: 37
        And yes, the brave Georgians have quieted down for some time! Periodic anti-Russian shouts from the Georgian side died down. Not otherwise, as in Georgia breathed the Ottoman spirit from the Armenian border.
  5. deniso
    deniso 29 October 2020 12: 28
    These Transcaucasian republics were Russian lands conquered from Persia (Iran). They cannot exist independently. A lot of ambition, little use .. The UN recognition of the borders of Nagorno-Karabakh is complete nonsense, because Stalin cut the borders of the republics on the principle of ease of management, where enmity was not envisaged. The conclusion is simple: Since today the peaceful existence of Azerbaijanis and Armenians is impossible there .., it should be clear borders in Nagorno-Karabakh were determined with the direct participation of Russia .., without any intermediaries, including Turkey and the United States (NATO) .., and a plan was carried out according to the so-called Kazan formula.
  6. Guards turn
    Guards turn 29 October 2020 12: 31
    An excursion into history. "Russia and Turkey fought 12 times. Of these, Russia has 7 victories, 3 draws and 2 defeats. By the First World War, the Ottoman Empire became a wreck, a shadow of that" Sublime Port "that kept the whole of Europe in fear. The Germans favorably dragged Turkey into the war against Russia in 1914. As if the Germans on June 22, 1941, the Turks treacherously bombarded Odessa, Sevastopol and others at night on November 1, 1914. Russia's successful actions in the Transcaucasus alternated with British victories in Egypt and Iraq. Turkey was literally on the verge of complete defeat.But the subsequent revolutions both in Russia and in Turkey marked the end of two empires.Historians consider the Russian-Turkish confrontation of 1916-1914 to be no-man's, but it was during this period that the Russian soldier went as deep as possible deep into Turkey.This was the last war, when two countries clashed in a military conflict "..
  7. Daniil Konovalenko
    Daniil Konovalenko 29 October 2020 12: 38
    In Africa, in many countries, the same problems with state land surveying ... Rwanda, Somalia, Ethiopia ... And in Europe, the former Yugoslavia, for example ... By the way, Yugoslavia, the Entente was created, not by the Bolsheviks "internationalists", and Czechoslovakia by their hands business...
    However, the weakening empires, first the Russian and Ottoman, and then the Soviet state, preferred to act according to the principle of "divide and rule".
    ... where did you get this? Palestine, when it was part of the Ottoman Empire, there were no Jewish or Arab pogroms, there was no division into national sectors, everyone lived nearby. But how, during the years of Soviet power, let’s say the Russians were incited against the Kyrgyz and other nationalities ..?
    1. Silhouette
      Silhouette 31 October 2020 15: 31
      And how, during the years of Soviet power, let's say the Russians were set against the Kyrgyz and other nationalities ..?

      During the years of Soviet power, there were no Russians at all. Don't talk nonsense, the victim of the exam.
  8. icant007
    icant007 29 October 2020 12: 49
    The Armenian population, the Christians of Karabakh, were promised autonomy, but it turned out to be somewhat strange: with a complete predominance of representatives of the Azerbaijani nationality in the leadership, respectively, Muslims. But who then took this into account?

    Yes, hello. At the beginning of the conflict in 1988, the secretary of the NKAO regional committee (that is, the head of the region) was an Armenian, and most of the administrative positions were occupied by Armenians. Without this, the demarche with the transfer of NKAO to the jurisdiction of Armenia would have been impossible.
  9. Pashhenko Nikolay
    Pashhenko Nikolay 29 October 2020 13: 00
    Well, there was a total "armenization" of Karabakh in the recent past. Everyone swallowed. Now the reverse process will obviously take place.
  10. Stirbjorn
    Stirbjorn 29 October 2020 13: 11
    The Armenian population, the Christians of Karabakh, were promised autonomy, but it turned out to be somewhat strange: with a complete predominance of representatives of the Azerbaijani nationality in the leadership, respectively, Muslims. But who then took this into account? Internationalism in action, or simply "endure - fall in love"
    The USSR was a secular state, what kind of Muslim Christians are there ?! The author is some kind of anti-Soviet. While the USSR was, everyone lived peacefully, for it was a progressive society. As soon as the traitors destroyed it, a rollback into the past began, and interreligious and interethnic conflicts began accordingly. Likewise, with Yugoslavia. All these allegedly "interethnic bombs" appeared only during the collapse of these states.
  11. Scharnhorst
    Scharnhorst 29 October 2020 13: 40
    The so-called "independence" of any Lilliputians (Baltic extinctions, Caucasian goat herders, mamalyzhniki), as a rule, someone "recognizes" in their interests (workers, resources, strategic bridgeheads). And while these narrow-minded TV-ri amuse themselves with their imaginary, coming from the beginning of time, "greatness" must continue to be milked and played off. If they get a little smarter - to cut the borders on the colonial principle (see borders in Africa) and give a chance for real independence. They will start biting the owner's hand, bullying their neighbors, nationalism inside the country - again in the "Stone Age" with carpet bombing or "Caliber". Natural selection in the lab, nothing personal, just business.
  12. sevtrash
    sevtrash 29 October 2020 13: 53
    Only the United States can steer this problem as the most powerful country in the world, which can hang any nouveau riche official by me, because otherwise neither they nor their families will travel anywhere, and the United States will grab their money. So the United States - they can, but they don't need it - nobody canceled the principle of divide and rule.
    1. andrew42
      andrew42 29 October 2020 14: 17
      Ha, well, let's put the arsonists-marauders "arbiters". Until now, the United States has never been interested in order in the territories it controls - it was only interested in resources and puppets that provided access to these very resources, as for the population of such countries, this is a non-core unprofitable asset. Only business and nothing personal - the United States has no equal in this - set fire, find the right thing, squeeze out the profitable.
  13. yriuv62
    yriuv62 29 October 2020 18: 19
    The author is outright nonsense. The massacre of Armenians and Azerbaijanis began in his beloved empire, from the beginning of the 20th century. The authorities of the empire did not even budge during the pogroms. An underground Bolshevik committee headed by Stalin stopped the pogroms in Baku! The author does not know this? So who is he after that - an ignoramus or a provocateur? I think a provocateur. He is an anti-Soviet, and the whole anti-Soviet is built on total lies!
  14. Sotskiy
    Sotskiy 29 October 2020 19: 53
    Alexey Chichkin: "Nevertheless, it is the events of 2020 that show how politically short-sighted the games of the" internationalists "with geography were."

    Aha lol Internationalists, they are! laughing
    According to the Guarantor's version, they planted an atomic bomb under the future "individual apartments" of the nationalists. The "radishes" knew that instead of friendship of peoples in a common country, mankurt would come with the capitalist ideology of individualism and nationalism, and drive the former common country into cave-like civil wars. How can the "berries" of this ideology now be extinguished by those who revived and led this ideology? Not comfortable like that. So it will turn out from the point of view of such ideologists, the internationalists led by Lenin are to blame for everything. Who else? lol
  15. Azimuth
    Azimuth 30 October 2020 11: 35
    With history, it was rather weak in the secondary school.
    The authors of such articles need to be very careful in the selection of material for analyzing the events in the Caucasus in general, and they cannot be considered in isolation from the confrontation of large empires: British, Russian, Ottoman, as well as Germany in a number of segments. In the Caucasus, absolutely nothing happened at the behest of the population itself and local feudal lords, elites and authorities, all conflicts were inspired and sponsored by external forces in confrontation with each other.
    It is also incorrect to count how many of those or those lived there, whole nationalities resettled creating barriers or a buffer in the interests of one of the aforementioned parties.
    Let's take our North Caucasus and Armenians as an example. Armenian merchants certainly penetrated into various parts of the North Caucasus, in their hands was the entire trade of the Crimean Khanate. But they settled only with the beginning of the Russian-Persian and Russian-Turkish troops, starting from the territory of modern Armenia, then Georgia and Abkhazia, Adler, Sochi and our coast. By resettling the Armenians on these lands, we replaced the Muslim peoples with Armenians by Christians somewhere pushing them deep into the territory, somewhere and exterminating, thus using the Armenians as a barrier between the Muslim peoples in our new territories and Turkey or Persia. The same story is with the settlement strip in the Dagestan - Stavropol Territory region. The only exception is the Rostov region, where the lands are by the Armenians, or rather, the settlement was presented as a reward for service during the conquest of the Crimean Khanate.
    You need to understand the processes of those times, the Russian Empire was rapidly expanding by annexing ever large territories, but already practically without its own population reserves for the development and consolidation of these territories.
    So, for example, maps of the Russian Empire will show that the Armenians constituted the majority of the Christian population, outnumbering the Russians and Cossacks. In the Russian state, this was taken very and very seriously, therefore, many settlements were formed from retired soldiers, from which villages or stanitsas with ordered Cossacks were created. Moreover, the issue of women was also resolved in a rather original way, because many in the Stavropol Territory have great-grandmothers either from local Circassians and Turkish women converted to Orthodoxy, or, for example, from the northern regions of Russia, great-grandmothers of many southerners from the Vologda region and the Arkhangelsk region.
    But returning to the map and the ethnic composition of the territories after the resettlement of the same Armenians to them, to argue that the indigenous people thereby lost their right to it, or we do not have any rights and they say they transferred these lands to the Armenians, to put it mildly, is debatable or incorrect.
    The story is essentially the same in Transcaucasia. Maintaining our influence, we physically left the region after the successive collapse of the Russian Empire, and after it the USSR. In the process of joining these territories, we changed the demographic composition of these territories, which was caused by the necessity of that time. According to historical standards, 160-200 years from the moment of the annexation of these lands is not such a long period, especially since all the peoples living in this region at the time of the annexation and conquest of these lands are still represented.
    We talk a lot about Karabakh in the light of today's war, but this is only the process of completing the division and establishing the state borders of the ex-Soviet republics as national ones. But there is also the problem of Armenian and, incidentally, Azerbaijani separatism in Georgia, there are, albeit verbal, but Azerbaijan's claims to the territory of Armenia proper. Not everything is simple there.
    So there is a high probability that the conflict between two of the three main nations, Azerbaijanis, Armenians and Georgians, will not be the last in this region.
  16. Ganja
    Ganja 30 October 2020 21: 18
    The first president of Armenia, apparently the only more or less intelligent person in those parts, Levon Ter-Pertrosyan, having seized 20 percent of the land of Azerbaijan, came to the conclusion that everything that had been done was a mistake, the best in the collapse of the USSR would agree with the Azerbaijanis on good terms without war, in fact, the length a decade when the Muslims of Azerbaijan could not keep the fast, Armenian churches throughout the Caucasus functioned, I myself am a witness that in the churches in Ganja they raised money for some Miatsum for an organization called Krunk, when everything went well, we learned that Miatsum is the annexation of Karabakh to Armenia , with the next step also in Nakhichevan, while no one limited the Armenians in their rights within the framework of Soviet legislation. There were mixed marriages, as evidenced by the many thousands of Armenian women living in Azerbaijan today. As they say, despite what is written in the article, we see that you can live a normal life and spend the budget for the benefit of ordinary citizens and not at all on expensive weapons. This is our real story, which was only a few ten years ago, and not some kind of story about Vylyky Armenia during the time of some king Tigran II, two thousand years ago, in which ordinary Armenians themselves lived in poverty
  17. Gregory Charnota
    Gregory Charnota 31 October 2020 10: 27
    Lenin has done business! Nakhichevan is an Armenian territory! Why did you give it to Azerbaijan?
    I kept thinking for the friendship of peoples! but it does not exist in nature!
  18. Silhouette
    Silhouette 31 October 2020 15: 35
    Quote: Stirbjorn
    While the USSR was, everyone lived peacefully, because it was a progressive society

    Yeah. Another connoisseur of history. Everyone lived peacefully, because the country was ruled by a Caucasian. They also lived peacefully under the Ottoman Empire. Was it a progressive society too?
  19. Selevc
    Selevc 2 November 2020 12: 16
    It often seems to me that in the Kremlin there are traditionally people with plugs in their ears and black glasses in their eyes !!
    The conflicts in the Caucasus did not appear yesterday or even the day before yesterday in a historical context !!! In general, Russia has a traditional way of resolving conflicts in the Caucasus - as they say, time-tested. This is a simple way to resettle the Cossacks on the traditional imperial outskirts and evict Caucasians from Russian lands to the Caucasus !!!

    All Armenians without exception to Armenia, all Azerbaijanis without exception to Azerbaijan and other Caucasians to their historical homeland !!! - Note that you will have to come to such a decision someday !!! And yet - no one talks about links to Siberia - even though there are small peoples of the Caucasus who really deserve it !!! Let the Caucasians build paradise on their own in the Caucasus - what's wrong with that ??? After all, their province really lives there economically at the level of late feudalism !!! Why shouldn't millions of highly qualified specialists (natives of the Caucasus) raise the standard of living in their homeland ??? It seems to me that this, on the contrary, is an honorable and useful thing and not a link !!!

    And note the Russian people have been demanding this since the mid-90s, and maybe even earlier !!! But the authorities of democratic Russia traditionally live on another planet and do not want to listen to their people !!! This is very bad !!!
  20. Вера Васильева
    Вера Васильева 23 November 2020 20: 28
    А где мандат ООН на войну у Алиева???????
    Таким образом, «международное право не признает правомерности «целевых убийств» даже в отношении членов Аль-Каиды, даже в ответ на события 11 сентября, даже при наличии мандата на применение силы о т Совета Безопасности, даже при наличии разрешения конгресса США». Согласно резолюции Генеральной Ассамблеи ООН от 18 декабря 2013 г. «Защита прав человека и основных свобод в условиях борьбы с терроризмом» любые меры, связанные с борьбой с терроризмом, в том числе, связанные с использованием беспилотных летательных аппаратов, должны проводиться в соответствии с международным правом, международным гуманитарным правом и международным правом прав человека»