Armenia: a trap for Russia, a bomb for Transcaucasia
Indeed, the strange dance that Nikol Pashinyan is performing today, in which he is simultaneously trying to drag the United States into the circle and push Russia out, is fascinating with its provocative recklessness.
Today we are distracted by something else, we have the Northern Military District here, which occupies 70 percent of the independent information space, but in reality, beyond the Caucasus, something could now begin that will set many people in Russia on fire. And, apparently, not everyone clearly understands this.
However, today, there, beyond the Caucasus ridge, events are unfolding that could not only cause another badabum on a regional scale, but completely redraw the political map of the region.
The fact that Pashinyan was going to surrender Karabakh to Azerbaijan is just the beginning. And, by and large, this is the problem of Pashinyan and the Armenian people. How the Armenians there will perceive this, after two wars and hundreds of skirmishes, I don’t know, but it really doesn’t matter. It is important that Pashinyan furiously calls the United States into the region and really wants to join NATO. In fact, this is apparently the only way, because after so many spits in the direction of Russia, if the desire to defend Armenia among our rulers drops to zero, it will be completely understandable and logical. And yes, there is only one hope left - NATO.
And this is where the detective begins...
Let's go into the (recent) history of this very flammable region
In the 1950s, the US Central Intelligence Agency supplied weapons and Iraq with money, and in return tried to create an anti-communist front on the basis of the country. However, on the night of July 14, 1958, the pro-American administration of Iraq was overthrown as a result of an armed coup, General Kasym became head of state and opened the doors to Soviet-Iraqi friendship.
Considering the very good relations between the USSR and Iran, the Americans simply could not afford this. The CIA immediately began infiltrating the opposition Baath Party. At the same time, two attempts were made on General Kasym’s life, but they were unsuccessful. Five years later, there was another coup organized by the CIA, and US influence in Iraq increased again.
Ali Salih Sadi, who served as Iraq's interior minister in the 1960s, said: "We came to power on a CIA train". On this train there was also a young politician with a bright future.
This figure was Saddam Hussein, a member of the Baath Party, who made a stunning career in the party, which worked with CIA money. According to Yevgeny Primakov, both the USSR and the USA relied on Saddam as a promising leader.
Saddam managed to be friends with both great powers, which helped him a lot after the outbreak of the Iran-Iraq War, since the CIA sided with Saddam and provided him with every possible support. The West really feared the growth of radical Islamism of Ayatollah Khomeini, the leader of Iran, and did everything possible to prevent the implementation of Iranian plans to implement the ideas of the Islamic revolution. In 1982, the United States removed Iraq from its list of countries that sponsor terrorism. Two years later, bilateral diplomatic relations, interrupted during the Arab-Israeli War of 1967, were restored. At the same time, Iraq continued to remain an ally of the USSR and receive weapons from it. Although Saddam took weapons from France, Great Britain and the USA with no less pleasure.
During the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-1988, the US quietly supplied Iran with weapons for use against Iraq through Israel.
Mehdi Hashemi, one of the founders of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Army and an important figure in Iranian intelligence, was convicted and executed for a crime he committed in the past because he exposed an arms exchange between Iran and the United States (Israel).
Grand Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri, who was supposed to become the head of the country after Khomeini, was dismissed from his position as an MP because he opposed the purchase of weapons from Israel. He was under house arrest from 1997 until his death in 2009.
Montazeri describes arms sales from Israel to Iran as follows:
“Representatives of Ronald Reagan secretly came to Tehran and negotiated with Iran about arms supplies.
I objected to this and said, “Are we going to fight Iraq with the weapons we bought from Israel?” I said, "This is wrong." Because the US sold weapons to Iran through Israel. I said, “It is wrong to buy weapons from Israel, the enemy of Muslims, and to fight against Muslims in Iraq.”
One evening, when we were at Khomeini's house, I said that buying weapons from Israel was wrong. This news appeared in a newspaper in Lebanon and greatly alarmed the managers. That's why they tried and executed Mehdi Hashemi."
I objected to this and said, “Are we going to fight Iraq with the weapons we bought from Israel?” I said, "This is wrong." Because the US sold weapons to Iran through Israel. I said, “It is wrong to buy weapons from Israel, the enemy of Muslims, and to fight against Muslims in Iraq.”
One evening, when we were at Khomeini's house, I said that buying weapons from Israel was wrong. This news appeared in a newspaper in Lebanon and greatly alarmed the managers. That's why they tried and executed Mehdi Hashemi."
The US destroyed two Muslim countries that posed a threat to themselves by collaborating with their leaders. A million people died in the Iran-Iraq war.
The war caused $150 billion in economic damage. The war, in which there were no winners, over eight years undermined the military and economic resources of both countries, just as the United States wanted.
In 2003, in order to destroy Iraq and destroy Saddam, the same US invaded Iraq on the grounds that it had weapons of mass destruction. A year after the invasion, CIA chief Jim Pavitt said:
“We didn't have many sources of information inside Iraq. A ton of assumptions were made based on a gram of intelligence"
. He confessed and denied previous reports. The investigation revealed that the CIA's claims about Iraqi weapons were a fantasy. The British Prime Minister at the time, Tony Blair, who was one of the key figures in the war by supporting the invasion of Iraq in 2003, also admitted that the reason for the invasion of Iraq was a lie.
“I apologize for the fact that the intelligence we received was incorrect.”
, said Blair. “I also apologize for some mistakes made during the planning phase (of the war) and for our lack of understanding of what will happen with the overthrow of the regime.”
, - he said. 
As a result, Iraq was torn apart, one and a half million people died, and the country was plunged into chaos that would last for many years. The region has become a breeding ground for terrorist organizations such as Al-Qaeda and ISIS.
2011 was the so-called “Arab Spring”, in fact the “Bloody Autumn”. Libya and Syria were thrown into chaos following Iraq.
2022 Ukraine's membership in NATO and the EU was a “red line” for Russia. The United States constantly repeated its provocations regarding Ukraine's accession to NATO, making promises and statements through the mouths of politicians. Russia launched a special military operation in Ukraine on February 24, 2022.
The Iraqi scenario of the 80s is what happened to Ukraine. Ukraine has become a country with destroyed cities and destroyed infrastructure. The United States again implemented a similar scenario, the goal of which was to destroy Russia militarily and economically through Ukraine, thereby eliminating Russia as a threat to the United States. But the United States did not get what it expected. Russia did not collapse.
2023 The unchanged US scenario is in action again. This time provoking Russia through Armenia. The presence of NATO in the South Caucasus is not a “red line” for Russia; NATO already exists there in the form of Turkey and Azerbaijan, the latter, although not in NATO, is essentially the second part of Turkey with all that it implies.
If you want, you can figure out who was the first to put forward the idea of Armenia joining NATO, whose initiative was Brussels or Yerevan, but today Yerevan grabbed the opportunity to join NATO as a lifeline.
However, anyone who is even slightly familiar with NATO principles understands that Armenia simply has no chance of joining the bloc. There is an army that does not at all meet NATO standards and there is a territorial dispute with Azerbaijan. And these two things are more than enough to delay Armenia's entry into NATO.
But there is an even more compelling argument against it. This is Türkiye
Today we can see how Türkiye does not allow Sweden into NATO. It is clear that provocative burning of the Koran has nothing to do with it, although it is at least unpleasant for Muslims. But it’s one thing when this act is committed by an Iraqi Christian, another thing by a Swedish politician. But this is not the cornerstone.
If you look behind the Turkish bans and vetoes, you can see many years of attempts by Turkey to join the European Union. This difficult process has been going on for more than twenty years, and the Turkish leader once again (exactly after Finland’s admission to NATO) was punched on the nose, again starting the old song that “not everything is so simple in this world.”
Erdogan reacted immediately, saying that parliament will meet on this issue in October-November, and whatever independent and proud parliamentarians decide there, so be it.
For some reason, not many doubt that Turkish parliamentarians will decide that it is too early for Sweden to join NATO.
But let's return to Armenia. And in the same way, Turkey can block the entry of this country into NATO, because this does not bode well for Turkey.
If Yerevan and Brussels provocateurs could drag Russia into Armenia following the model and likeness of Ukraine, that would be simply gorgeous. Today it is clear that Russia is not capable of waging a war on two fronts, although a second front in Armenia would most likely be a short-lived phenomenon. The Armenian army is one big so-so in all respects.
But dragging Russia into another conflict is really very serious; the country cannot handle two fronts under any circumstances. But it’s not just about Russia in the region, right?
To set Russia against Armenia, fortunately, Pashinyan gives more than enough reasons for this.
To set Iran against Azerbaijan, fortunately, things are not so smooth in relations between the countries.
To set Turkey against Iran, which is generally the simplest thing in this triad.
The result is a significant weakening of Russia and Iran on the one hand and Turkey and Azerbaijan on the other.
Who is winning? That's right, USA
Russia, which is already waging a war, one might say, against NATO, will receive another front and may simply not be able to withstand this. This is good for the US.
Turkey, which demonstrates an overly independent line of behavior, being drawn into a war with such a serious rival as Iran, will be significantly weakened. This is good for the US.
Azerbaijan, which will definitely go to finish off Armenia together with Russia, since there are historically Azerbaijani territories there, will also not stand aside. And this is also useful for the USA.
As a result, we end up with an Armenia that is non-existent in both senses (military and political), it is not clear what the state of Russia is, and weakened Turkey, Azerbaijan and Iran.
Look at the map again. What a huge region will simply be plunged into chaos in addition to Iraq and Syria.
Russia, Türkiye, Iran – these are the three main points of application of political power.
The paradox is that Turkey and Russia have good relations. Russia and Iran have even better relations than Turkey and Russia. There is a very good chance that the parties will be able to reach an agreement. Especially if Türkiye takes a clear and definite position.
After all, by and large, Turkey is not very worried about Iran’s influence in Transcaucasia. Iran in its current position does not pose a serious political or economic threat to Turkey. And even in the military, because despite the size and training of the Iranian army and the IRGC, the Turkish armed forces are also not in last place in NATO. Some people think it's the second one.
Erdogan, if you believe his statements, would generally like some kind of stability in general in relations between Azerbaijan and Iran, because any clash on the topic of the same Armenia could lead to the situation in the region getting out of control and to a flow of refugees to Turkey, which Erdogan definitely doesn’t need it.
Turkish political scientist Orhan Gafarli, in response to allegations that Turkey is seeking dominance in the Caucasus, said:
“Turkey sells weapons to Georgia and Azerbaijan, but it has no plans to open its military base in the region. All the talk about Turkey subjugating Azerbaijan is nothing more than demagoguery.”
. One can and should agree with this, because a Turk and an Azerbaijani are like a Russian and a Belarusian. And with the same degree of logic we can say that Russia has subjugated Belarus.In fact, there are more than enough slippery moments and tensions in relations between countries in the region. However, here it is worth not picking apart your neighbor; the task of maintaining peace and stability is somewhat different.
The United States would be very happy to pit two pairs around Armenia, Turkey-Azerbaijan and Russia-Iran. This would indeed be a very, very successful move. The fact that Mr. Pashinyan, who is very short-sighted and not very educated in some aspects, wants to destabilize the situation in the region, turning it to his advantage, enlisting the help of the States, is due to ignorance stories.
Mr. Pashinyan should know how Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who came to power with the help of the CIA and American money, ended his days.
There is a third pair in the region, Türkiye - Russia. Unfortunately, relations between Azerbaijan and Iran are far from ideal, but nevertheless, as history shows, sometimes it makes sense even for not quite friends to unite against one big common enemy.
Armenia can be a trap for many. Especially for those who will be involved in conflict over the above issues. But Russia could really suffer the most.
Today Armenia, represented by the same Pashinyan, is rushing into the arms of the United States. But we should not forget that Armenia is a member of the CSTO, and its plenipotentiary representative in this organization, Grigoryan, is one of those who are ready to vote with their hands and feet for the dissolution of the CSTO and joining NATO.
And one can only laugh at the illusions of the Armenian leaders who believe that “NATO will come and restore order.” In the videos filmed by Armenian provocateurs, I heard shouts addressed to Russian peacekeepers, the essence of which boiled down to the fact that they, the peacekeepers, should fight for Armenian interests, since they were there.
This policy is present not only in videos with provocative content, it can also be seen in the speeches of a number of Armenian leaders. Why Russians should die for the interests of Armenia, and the Armenians will watch this from the sidelines, is not clear. But it is very clear that not a single NATO soldier will calmly die for Armenian interests. This is a stupid illusion that if “NATO comes...” then security will appear on its own.
And if he doesn’t come?
But Russia now has a different headache. On the territory of Armenia we have a military base, missile defense surveillance and tracking systems, and so on. And Mr. Grigoryan will give all this to the gentlemen from NATO with great pleasure. If you haven’t already, then you should generally prepare for the worst.
Russia has a certain risk of falling into a trap. But this is dangerous if the state’s rather toothless foreign policy continues, when all the activities of the Russian Foreign Ministry boil down to expressing concerns and drawing lines of unclear colors.
In the event that Russia, Iran and Turkey organize a political front against possible explicit and (especially) implicit US interference (once again) in the affairs of the region, everything may not turn out the way Washington or Langley would like.
Information