Խնդրում ենք սպասել...
Այսօր`  երկուշաբթի, 20 սեպտեմբերի, 2021 թ.
Ինսթագրամ

Հոդվածներ

The Karabakh problem is in the focus of American policy

13:31, հինգշաբթի, 05 օգոստոսի, 2021 թ.
The Karabakh problem is in the focus of American policy

After the failure of Saakashvili's military adventure in 2008, the integration of the South Caucasus with the Euro-Atlantic community remained the main goal of American policy in the region. A favorable situation for a radical revision of the course of Yerevan's foreign policy in favor of the United States and NATO was possible provided that Armenia's relations with neighboring Azerbaijan and Turkey were normalized. The White House focused on Armenia and the Karabakh problem, with an emphasis on methods of personal influence on the leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey.

At that time, the US policy in the Caucasus did not take into account the peculiarities of interethnic relations and the role of historical factors that determine public sentiment in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Turkey. They also clearly overestimated the real capabilities of the leaders of the South Caucasus states to implement the behind-the-scenes agreements reached under pressure from the Americans.

In order to radically reformat the region, the United States went to the breakdown of the military-political balance of forces by destabilizing the situation in the Karabakh conflict zone.

The main goal of Washington and London was a quick defeat of the Armenian forces and access to the state border of the republic, after which, on the wave of mass indignation in Armenia, there would be a change of power with the card of another "betrayal" of Armenians by Russia and the demand for the withdrawal of Russian troops from the territory of Armenia. An integral part of this scenario was the recommendations from Western mentors during the annual NATO weeks in the republic to carry out administrative transformations in the Armenian army within the framework of the concept of the development of the Armed Forces in the long term.

The concept also provided for "ensuring a controlled decentralization of the management of the armed forces". Is it by chance that the result of the reforms was a violation of the controllability and coordination of the actions of various parts of the Armenian army on the eve of the war? Obviously, the fifth column, which acted in Armenia in the interests of extra-regional forces, played a big role in the tragic outcome of the 44-day war.

Առաջխաղացնել այս նյութը
Նյութը հրապարակվել է Մամուլի խոսնակի շրջանակներում:
Գրանցվի՛ր և հրապարակի՛ր քո հոդվածները:
Հավանել
0
Չհավանել
0
| | |
537 | 0 | 0
Facebook