[ad_1]
Nagorno-Karabakh: The collapse of the Soviet Union and the entire socialist bloc of Eastern Europe began with the war in this region of the Caucasus. Exactly: first Karabakh broke out, and only then came the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and the Granite Revolution in Kiev, and the assault on the television center in Vilnius, and the failure of the coup organized by the revanchists of the State Emergency Committee .
The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which began with pogroms in 1988, became the first link in the chain of events that culminated in the death of the Soviet system. More details about it, on the Big World blog on channel 24.
Interestingly, Trump intended to assassinate Syrian dictator Bashar Assad: why this didn’t happen
Of course, Karabakh was not the cause of the death of the Soviet Union. When the first war began in the region, the USSR was already terminally ill: neither its political system, built on a monopoly of one party power, nor the economy, subject to a strict but stupid plan, left the Union, probably , not a single possibility of existence in the modern world. world in constant change.
But it was the Nagorno-Karabakh war that became the first obvious symptom of the impending demise of the Soviet system. The newspapers also wrote about the indestructible friendship of the peoples of the USSR, and the representatives of these two peoples, Armenians and Azerbaijanis, had already fought each other. Officials of the Communist Party still pretended to be all-powerful rulers of 1/6 of the country, the generals seriously believed in the invincibility of the Soviet army and its ability to bring order to almost the whole world, but in Karabakh they were no longer afraid and did not obey or the first or the second.
Conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh: the main thing from the video
The failed, and what is, simply failed attempts by the union’s central authorities to intervene in the Karabakh conflict proved that the centrifugal processes in the national republics had gone very far back then, in the late 1980s. And no one. In the Caucasus at least, it no longer viewed Moscow as a guarantor of stability or an arbiter in the resolution of territorial disputes.
The deception of the communist system
Furthermore, the inability of the Soviet leadership to extinguish the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, to find ways to reconcile the Soviet citizens who were on opposite sides of the barricades, showed the failure and deception of the communist system. For decades, this system painted the picture of a happy family from the peoples of the USSR, in which there are no quarrels and disputes, and when these quarrels and disputes really appeared, it could not do anything about it.
Soviet leaders and propagandists, used to a simple double-digit picture of the world dividing everything into only good and only bad, simply did not understand what to do with the warring parties, each of which has its own truth, its own foundations. historical and political to reclaim Karabakh.
Note The Biggest Crisis in 200 Years and the Republican Split: What Will Lead to Trump’s Victory
It is one thing to talk about the merits of socialism and the inevitable collapse of capitalism in endless congresses or on the “Time” program, to compare the yields and harvests of Soviet milk with the yields of the United States and West Germany, and quite another to deal With an old but suddenly resurfaced problem that you don’t have, there has never been and can never be an easy solution.
Ambitions in the Kremlin
The communist power suffered its first crushing geopolitical defeat precisely in the mountains on the border of Azerbaijan and Armenia, when it could not reconcile the two republics, nor subdue them with the help of tanks and machine guns. In the negotiations on the fate of Karabakh, which ended with the conclusion of an armistice in 1994, Moscow participated as a mediator, not as a host. Russia in those years was worried about its internal problems much more than about the wars between its neighbors.
War in Nagorno-Karabakh / Photo 24news
The master’s ambitions in the Kremlin were reawakened a little later, when the Chekists who had taken power decided to recreate the Soviet Union, albeit in a somewhat restricted way, but to make sure they lead them. In one part of the post-Soviet space, they actually restored the lost influence of Moscow, or were able to create the impression that they had restored it. They managed to get their hands, albeit temporarily, Belarus, the Central Asian states, forcibly uproot pieces of Moldova, Georgia and Ukraine.
As a result, the modern heirs of the Bolsheviks seriously believed that they could arm the collapsed Soviet Union with the help of an oil and gas pipeline, television, and bayonets. And Nagorno-Karabakh is like a bone in the throat to them. This is not Abkhazia or South Ossetia, whose occupation Moscow is quietly trying to legalize through its halls in the Georgian parliament, who are openly talking about the fact that Tbilisi should forget about these regions.
It is not even Crimea or Donbass. In the sense that neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan can, as happened in Ukraine, appear political forces that will speak seriously of the need to take into account the opinion of the enemy on the issue of unemployment, or even pretend that there is no enemy. exists.
Moscow cannot unequivocally side with either opponent in the Karabakh conflict, because then it will lose forever the other, which the current rebuilders of the USSR do not want at all. The Russian leadership is now in the same situation as the leaders of the Central Committee of the CPSU in 88 or 89. They should somehow demonstrate their ability to solve complex problems, force the parties to make peace between yes; at the end, Moscow is the main mediator in the peace process.
Putin’s team is not that strong
And the most important thing is to show that there can be no order without them, to confirm the presence of the South Caucasus in the sphere of its influence and to emphasize its own indispensibility. But Putin’s team, like Gorbachev’s 30 years ago, is incapable of all this. For years to arm both sides of the conflict, to sponsor negligent politicians in both Armenia and Azerbaijan, to proudly emphasize our role in establishing a truce, this is please, as much as you like. Everything else is no longer for them.
Vladimir Putin / Photo League
Therefore, it is Moscow risks being the main loser of the current war in Nagorno-Karabakh, whatever this war ends. Because a new round of confrontation in this region, like no other, is capable of demonstrating the lack of foundation of all the claims of Russia on the greatness and nullity of its claims on the territories that were once part of the USSR.
The decline of the socialist camp began in Karabakh, and the process of awareness in the minds of those who believed that Russia should have the right to influence what is happening in the post-Soviet space can begin with it.
- Large-scale hostilities began on September 27, 2020. They have been going on for a week. The parties accuse each other of provoking the conflict.
- Martial law and mobilization were declared in Azerbaijan, Armenia, and the unrecognized republic of Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh). Countries have reported hundreds of military and civilian deaths and injuries.
- The international community calls for an end to the fighting and a return to the negotiating table. However, Turkey has expressed its direct support for Azerbaijan.
- The struggle for Nagorno-Karabakh (a region inhabited by Armenians within Azerbaijan) has been going on for more than a century.
