Have We Considered Our Response to a Pro-Azeri Solution?

While visiting Baku on Aug. 8, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he wanted a solution to the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict where there would be no loser and no winner. Unfortunately, such a “nobody loses and nobody wins” solution where both sides benefit is an absolute impossibility. That is said without equivocation. How can any solution based on the Madrid Proposals result in a solution that will benefit both sides? The Proposals have been known for years to favor Azerbaijan’s claim of territorial integrity against Karabagh’s (Artsakh) right to independence.

Dizapait Mountain in the Hadrut region, Nagorno-Karabagh Republic (Artsakh/NKR) (Photo: Araz Chiloyan)
Dizapait Mountain in the Hadrut region, Nagorno-Karabagh Republic (Artsakh/NKR) (Photo: Araz Chiloyan)

To that end, the countries represented by the Minsk Group co-chairs have been obsessive in supporting the principle of territorial integrity against the inalienable right of self-determination. Even our Russian ally has not been forthright in support of Artsakh’s position, but continues to play both sides against the middle.  The Minsk Group Co-chairs by failing to respond to Azerbaijan’s egregious violations along the Line of Contact (LoC) have effectively granted Azerbaijan carte blanche to maintain, without fear of repercussions, a belligerent policy vis-a-vis Artsakh and Armenia. Other than their vacuous comments advising both sides to refrain from increasing tensions along the LoC, the co-chairs have never called Azerbaijan to account for its incessant border violations; its refusals to allow observers to visit certain sectors along the LoC; for the verified atrocities committed by Azeri soldiers; for occupying Artsakh territory seized during the April war, or for their four-day full-scale military offensive in April against Artsakh.

We seem to ignore the fact that the countries represented by the Minsk Group co-chairs have never recognized Artsakh’s declaration of independence or that the pro-Azeri Madrid Proposals do not provide for the de jure recognition of Nagorno-Karabagh. Why should any solution be predicated on the requirement that we evacuate the liberated territories and demobilize the Artsakh Defense Force before a promise that at some indefinite time in the future Artsakh’s status will be determined? These requirements are the death knell for Artsakh’s independence.

It is far too late in the process for us to rail against the Madrid Proposals or the pro-Azeri bias of those who mediate the negotiation process. To use the vernacular, this has been known to us from the get go.  It is what it is.

Contrary to what President Putin has suggested, there will be a winner and there will be a loser. How can the principle of territorial integrity to satisfy Azerbaijan be reconciled with the principle of self-determination to satisfy Artsakh’s right to be independent? If anyone can solve this conundrum, please speak up.

It is time that we focus on what our response will be when a solution to bring peace to the south Caucasus calls for restoring the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and reestablishing the Nagorno-Karabagh exclave where Armenians will be granted cultural autonomy under the guise of self-determination? This is the type of agreement that satisfies President Putin’s hypocritical expectation of a solution with no winners and no losers and with benefits for both sides. It is the type of agreement that the pro-Azeri bloc would readily endorse. This is the unfortunate reality of our situation. Ignoring it does not make it go away. It is amazing how we seem to take comfort from the comments of visiting foreign dignitaries who support the importance of a negotiated settlement for Artsakh.  Who would disagree with that? Yet these same foreign dignitaries do not support Artsakh’s right to independence or our claim to Kashatagh and Shahumian.

'President Putin’s comment on Aug. 8 while visiting Baku that he wanted a solution to the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict where there would be no loser and no winner.' (Photo: kremlin.ru)
‘President Putin’s comment on Aug. 8 while visiting Baku that he wanted a solution to the Nagorno-Karabagh conflict where there would be no loser and no winner.’ (Photo: kremlin.ru)

Faced with this harsh reality, our people have a serious decision to make. Either we accept an agreement which not only ignores the will of the Karabagh Armenians and the legitimate economic, political, and security interests of Armenia, or we reject it. That may be criticized as bold talk and rightly so. However, the prospect of cultural autonomy under Azeri jurisdiction is not why some 7,000 azatmartiks (freedom fighters) gave their lives to secure independence. And it is not why our soldiers, manning fortifications along the LoC since 1994, have given their lives to protect Artsakh.

Any agreement to be acceptable must effectively address the security needs of Armenia and Artsakh. The inclusion of Shahumian and Kashatagh is an absolute necessity. This physically unites Armenia and Artsakh and places the Vardenis-Martakert Road and the Lachin Corridor Road within Armenian territory.  Air flights from Armenia to Stepanakert International Airport would navigate only Armenian air space.

Lest we forget, reclaiming Artsakh would just be the beginning for Azerbaijan and its Turkish ally. A seriously weakened Armenia would only increase their determination to eventually demand the Syunak District (Zankezour) that would effectively isolate Armenia from Iran and provide a corridor by way of Nakhichevan connecting Turkey with Azerbaijan proper. Having lost our defendable borders, Armenia would be dismembered by our implacable enemies, piece by piece.

Contrary to what President Putin has suggested, there will be a winner and there will be a loser. How can the principle of territorial integrity to satisfy Azerbaijan be reconciled with the principle of self-determination to satisfy Artsakh’s right to be independent? If anyone can solve this conundrum, please speak up.

There are bargaining chips that can lead to a compromise solution. These include the Azeri occupied areas of northern Shahumian and the border regions of Martakert and Martuni from which Armenians were forced to leave, southeastern Artsakh and Agdam, as well as other issues such as the right of return, sharing water resources, compensation, etc. That agenda is for Artsakh and Armenia to determine.

A solution that does not address our legitimate security interests will condemn Armenia to economic and political subservience within the south Caucasus. And any agreement that proposes open borders is worth very little, contrary to what many Armenians may think. With an open border it will only be a matter of time before the Turkish economy, which generates more than an $800 billion Gross Domestic Product (GDP) would absorb Armenia’s economy of $11 billion GDP. How long after that before the Turkish Lira would replace the Armenian Dram? Does anyone expect that the xenophobic leaders of Georgia will be more accommodating with respect to Armenia’s interests as they are drawn more tightly into the Turkish-Azeri economic and political web. We can envision Georgia accelerating its depopulation of Javakhk. If conditions in Armenian are considered dire today, can there be a realistic expectation that conditions would get better? We can easily foresee emigration from Armenia accelerating and its population decreasing even further as more individuals and families leave in search of a better life.

Our struggle is not one just for land, but for the survival of our nation.  Artsakh is an indispensable part of a future Armenia. Have we survived the genocide that came close to annihilating our nation to have doubts about what is at stake today and our ability to respond? A century has passed and our enemies remain the same. Time has not changed their determination to destroy us. Whatever decision our brothers and sisters in the Homeland (Armenia and Artsakh) may make, our duty in the Diaspora is to provide them with our fullest support.

NKR Servicemen in Shushi (Photo: Araz Chiloyan)
NKR Servicemen in Shushi (Photo: Araz Chiloyan)

We cannot allow fear of renewed hostilities to force us to accept a solution that condemns us to political servitude. Should Azerbaijan opt to reignite the conflict, they run the risk of stirring-up the latent nationalistic passions on either side of the Caucasus as well as on either side of the Caspian Sea. With wars raging in Syria and Iraq, a highly unstable Afghanistan; a seriously deteriorated situation in Turkey and Europe still concerned with the potential for more people fleeing the war zones or seeking economic opportunity no government, pro-Azeri or not, would condone a protracted war whose unintended consequences could easily be more than any of them may envision.  That fact alone is a deterrent. However, if cooler heads do not prevail in Baku, the Azeri military may decide to gamble on their ability to penetrate key sectors of Artsakh’s defenses in a bid to occupy a commanding bargaining position.  The Azeri know that they do not have an open-ended time schedule, but can count on a 72-hour window of opportunity before pressure mounts for a ceasefire. Having said that, it is obvious that there can be no April surprises.

Let us keep in mind that any solution, once the hammer falls, will favor Azerbaijan (and its Turkish ally). This is not based on clairvoyance, but on the pro-Azeri bias of the Madrid Proposals and the countries represented by the Minsk-Group co-chairs. To accept a solution that ignores our legitimate political, economic, and security interests would be more devastating to the hopes and dreams we had for a greater Armenia then any consequences should we refuse.




Michael Mensoian

Michael Mensoian, J.D./Ph.D, is professor emeritus in Middle East and political geography at the University of Massachusetts, Boston, and a retired major in the U.S. army. He writes regularly for the Armenian Weekly.


  1. The Madrid Principals was forwarded, I believe, by Mathew Breeza the Azeri lap dog, and came about in 2007 when Kocharian was President. These one sided ridiculous principals of “lands returned for future referendum’ is absolute nonsense and a screw job towards Armenia. Who would agree to this? These principles were NEVER RATIFIED, thank God, and need to be ignored and basically dismissed as useless. The Madrid Principals popped its ugly head again after the 4 day war as a quick means, by some like Breeza, to end that conflict. However it seems that after the 4 day war, NO ONE in Armenia will ever again agree or entertain that, and the common expression is now ‘Artsakh can never ever be part of Azerbaijan”.. I believe the Madrid Principals Are All but dead. Not only that i believe that the current powers involved believe the status quo is best. As the Madrid principals would also usher foreign peace keepers in the Caucus and basically strangle Siunik and limit Iran’s trade routs as well. These are 2 things that neither Russia or Iran want as they understands that a long friendship with Sunni Turks isn’t viable. The only answer is trust no one but the ARMENIAN ARMY. That’s reality. Azerbaijan made it clear that its not going to cede any territory ever, even though it has for over 20 years. And now boasts of its army ready to reclaim its supposed lands. Azerbaijan dictatorship must be taken into account as well. The thug Aliyev regime is having its own domestic economic problems and needs the Armenian boogie man to deflect from his own noose..No on wants war but Armenian must be ready and make it perfectly clear that any resumption of war will lead to a destruction of anything Azerbaijan and that Armenia is ready willing and able to defend its territory: AND MUST WITHOUT QUESTION. Its the only thing Turks understand.

  2. But a pro-Azeri solution also fits Western interests with BP pumping oil and gas from the gas station called “Azerbaijan”… Have we considered our response to a pro-Azeri solution after US vice-president and secretary of state confirmed America’s support for the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and the US government rep to the OSCE Minsk Group declared that the “occupied” territories around Artsakh must be returned to the Azeris?

  3. Very insightful analysis. Referring to Russia as an “ally” is a dangerous joke. Russia’ only interest in Armenia is to again control it

    • {Russia’ only interest in Armenia is to again control it.}

      And all other mightier states’ interest in smaller states is not to control them?? Or maybe in the case of Armenia the West is charmed by beautiful Armenian eyes only?

      Russia is ally because she is a member in a politico-military alliance with Armenia and a signatory to the defense treaty with Armenia.

      America refers to Turkey as “valuable ally”. Why don’t we hear from your ilk that it’s a dangerous joke?

    • @ john Your comment makes no sense. We are talking about Russian policy to basically control Armenia, which it does. other then your angry that any Armenia would dare not trust your beloved mother Russia.. Russia is no REAL PARTNER. They will sell out Armenia if it would benefit itself. Those are facts. You dont think Russia knew of the coming 4 day war in April? And didn’t warn Armenia? of course it did. Trust ourselves. Trust our military. NOT RUSSIA.

    • The answer is Armenian unity. ONE ARMENIA. Anyone against this idea of ONE ARMENIA is a traitor. Instead of the usual, “you dont know know history” and throwing insults as typical Armenians do towards each other like the people on this blog, support each other. UNITE AS ONE. ITS THE ONLY ANSWER.

  4. We Hay are the indigenous people of Armenia and Artsakh, as well as the other lands that Stalin arbitrarily granted to others. Why does Europe support the arbitrary whims of a brutal communist dictator? Territorial integrity? Try petrodollars and Europe’s need for Baku’s energy supply?

    What about the rights of the indigenous Armenian people? Isn’t the age of colonialism and empire over? Doesn’t Armenia have a right to its territorial integrity, which the Azeri dictatorship is violating in Armenia’s (not Artsakh) border villages every day?

    What about the human rights of Armenians in Armenia and Artsakh? Does Europe support human rights violations by a brutal dictatorship in Azerbaijan? Do they value oil above human decency?

    Why does America support it’s “ally” Turkey in its fundamentalist war on its neighbors and its own people? Why do they support a government that supports known terrorist groups like Daesh and the Muslim Brotherhood? Questions to ask next time you hear American politicians spouting pro-Christian and anti-Muslim rhetoric.

    Speak up, Armenians. Silence buried our families and our ancient lands.

  5. We had enough enemies and enough friends to direct us to what is best for us. Enough is enough. Now is time to direct our own destiny and say ‘ARTSAKH IS ARMINIA’

  6. Armenians must never trust these Turkish criminals and their foreign agents. Remember the Armenia-Turkey Reconciliation fiasco? Let that be a lesson to you to never again fall for Turkish tricks and anti-Armenian treaties bought and paid for with petrodollars and regional geo-politics.

    Make no mistake about it, the ultimate goal of our two anti-Armenian racist Turkish and pseudo-Turkish enemies, one established in 1923 illegally on the lands of indigenous people they murdered and the other artificially invented in 1918, is to destroy the Armenian statehood. This was their plan throughout history and continues to be to this day.

    The liberated ancient Armenian province of Artsakh MUST remain Armenian, independent and devoid of Turkish criminals and eventually be joined to Armenia. Any western devised plan, bought and paid for with oil money, must be rejected and there should never be any compromise on that. Any plan that undermines Artsakh’s independence will not only threaten its population but it will also endanger Armenia itself.

    Given the fact that our fascist Turkish and pseudo-Turkish Azerbaijani enemies only understand and respect the language of force, both Armenia and Artsakh must continue to militarize with sophisticated weapons and take much more of preemptive and proactive stand against any aggression instead of a reactive one. Often times, in this case in particular, the best defense is a very strong and devastating offense!

  7. My response to the article above, is that not one inch of land from our precious Republic of Artsakh, should ever be delivered to Azerbaijan. Not one inch! Monte Melkonian, along with seven thousand of his freedom-fighting brothers, did not sacrifice their lives to liberate Artsakh with the idea that any piece of it would later be relinquished to the Azerbaijanis.

    As for Azerbaijan’s “territorial integrity”, exactly which territorial integrity are they talking about? Just like the Armenian province of Nakhichevan which was subjected to the same exact thing, the province of Artsakh had always been a part of historic Armenia until Soviet Russia made the decision to detach it from Soviet Armenia, and give it away to Soviet Azerbaijan in 1921. However, after the demise of the former Soviet Union on December 26th of 1991, the Soviet constitution became terminated. This therefore means that the previous Soviet law, which established Nagorno-Karabagh (Artsakh) as being a part of Soviet Azerbaijan, was no longer in effect after the termination of the former Soviet constitution on December 26th, 1991.

    In terms of the status for the Republic of Artsakh, its population (which happens to be 99.7 percent Armenian) made it perfectly clear a long time ago that it will never again live under the rule of Azerbaijan (which would obviously result in another Armenian Genocide), and will therefore never settle for anything less than full independence.

    • There are a few additional items, which I’d like to add to my above comment. In regard to Artsakh’s struggle for full independence, this certainly doesn’t mean that it doesn’t wish to reconnect with Hayastan; indeed, its ultimate goal is to once again become part of Hayastan. Therefore, this is the ideal solution that should immediately be undertaken by the leadership of Armenia, as opposed to continuously attending those silly meetings with those same three rogues from the OSCE, who reject any kind of solution that does not revolve around the pro-Azeri “Madrid Proposals”, which completely favors Azerbaijan’s claim of “territorial integrity” (in other words, just like it was during the Soviet period) against Artsakh’s right to independence.

  8. {… the countries represented by the Minsk Group co-chairs have been obsessive in supporting the principle of territorial integrity against the inalienable right of self-determination}

    Not true: the _only_ country that has obsessed about Turkbaijan’s so-called “territorial integrity” has been US. Neither Russia’s nor France’s OSCE reps have publicly expressed anything in that regard: only Warlick, who keeps repeating that “Armenians must leave the ‘occupied’ (sic) territories” at every opportunity he gets.

    Russia and France may or may not be Armenia’s “friends”, but Obama US State Dept is openly anti-Armenia and anti-Armenian.

  9. Good news… there is a project in the works to rename The Nagorno Karabakh Republic to its real name, The Artsakh Republic.

    Once this happens, it means Artsakh will not be limited by its Soviet artificially defined borders, but by its real destiny however it gets defined by the republic, and all those silly claims of “surrounding districts” will go up in smoke for those squatters to the east. In fact now Artsakh can actually claim all the rest of its territory currently under occupation by Chevronbaijan.

  10. {The province of Artsakh had always been a part of historic Armenia until Soviet Russia made the decision to detach it from Soviet Armenia, and give it away to Soviet Azerbaijan in 1921.}

    This is another unfailing mark of amateurism. There was no “Soviet” Russia when, in 1921, Armenian-populated Artsakh was placed under the jurisdiction of newly-created Azerbaijan. The Soviet Union came into existence in 1922. “Bolshevik Russia”, run by Judeo-Masonic decision-makers, is most commonly used term to refer to Russia before the formation of the Soviet Union. Consequently, there were no Soviet Armenia and no Soviet Azerbaijan in 1921. Therefore, Artsakh could not be “detached” from “Soviet” Armenia and be given away to “Soviet” Azerbaijan.

    This faux pas happens when a person tries excessively to portray himself more Armenian than Tigran the Great, paraphrasing the famous saying.

  11. Is Pres. Putin kidding by coming up with an agreement “No Winner or Loser”. Putin is not helping the Armenian Nation on its Historical Lands that Stalin & Kemal Attaturk took away from us back in 1922. Instead of telling the Azeri’s & the Turks that unless those Historical Armenian Lands are restored back to its rightfull owners their can be no peace. Those lands include the remaining parcel of Shahumian in the northern portion of Artsakh, Nakhichevan, Javakh Provence in Georgian & Kars & Ardahan in Turkey. Also, the Sevres Treaty is still a valid Treaty that Woodrow Wilson drew up in August of 1920 that the two illegal Dictators took over their Governments which were Lenin & Attaturk. Why are these issues not brought forward in the United Nations & being ignored year after year. The Armenian Government is also at fault for not working with Putin on these critical issues.

    • {Putin is not helping the Armenian Nation on its Historical Lands that Stalin and Kemal Ataturk took away from us back in 1922.}

      Or maybe he is, tacitly? Putin has just approved a proposal on creating joint Russian-Armenian Armed Forces. Against whom, do you think, such forces may be directed?

  12. It is the best time, for Armenian government, recognize Artsakh, instead of Լեռնային Ղարաբաղի Հանրապետություն.

  13. This will take a while to settle which will possibly work in your favor as USA has a new president and new some new members in government Invite Trump to Armenia and his family he could kill 2 birds with one stone while in the area he could visit Putin blah blah at any rate he will be spellbound by Armenias beauty as many are just looking at pictures Americans hated their government these last 12 years Trump has become our last hope so we Americans are going to hang on to that hope you must try to make him yours also

  14. “There was no ‘Soviet’ Russia when, in 1921, Armenian-populated Artsakh was placed under the jurisdiction of newly-created Azerbaijan.”

    As excessive as you are in your desperate attempt to portray yourself as being a “trained expert in Russian history”, the reality is that your knowledge of Russian history is equally as horrendous as your knowledge of Armenian history. For your own education, “Soviet Russia” did not begin in 1922; it began right after the demise of the Russian Empire in 1917. As a matter of fact, it was also called “The Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic”, which was established in November of 1917, and would last until the creation of the Soviet Union in December of 1922.

    In regard to Soviet Armenia, the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic was established in December of 1920, when Soviet Russia took over full control of the First Republic of Armenia. As for Soviet Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijan Soviet Socialist Republic was established in April of 1920. In December of 1922, both Armenian SSR and Azerbaijan SSR, along with Georgian SSR, would all become incorporated into the newly established Soviet Union.

    Therefore, as I correctly stated in my previous comment, the province of Artsakh had always been a part of historic Armenia until Soviet Russia made the decision to detach it from Soviet Armenia, and give it away to Soviet Azerbaijan in 1921.

    How extremely foolish of you to suggest that your idol (Russia’s Putin) might actually be helping the Armenian Nation in getting back its historical lands. And exactly how is he doing this, by never once condemning the Azeris for their brutal campaign of terrorism against the historic Armenian province of Artsakh, and never once publicly expressing any kind of disapproval against Warlick’s statement that “the Armenian-controlled territories must be returned back to Azerbaijan”? As for Azerbaijan’s big brother (Turkey), its relations with Russia have intensely warmed up in recent months. Their relationship is even stronger now than it was prior to that incident last year (in which Turkey unjustifiably shot down a Russian military jet) with numerous projects planned between Erdogan and Putin.

  15. When a dilettante, who passes himself off as an Armenian, is referring in his scrawls to “Soviet” Russia that “made the decision” to detach Artsakh from Soviet Armenia and give it away to Soviet Azerbaijan in 1921, less informed readers for whom I’ve posted my remark, may fairly understand that the poster is referring to these three nations as being part of the same Soviet state entity with Russia being a decision-making, dominant republic. Whereas, in reality, the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) was a separate state from 1917 until 1922. Therefore, it is amateurishly incorrect to state that Soviet Russia “made the decision” to detach Artsakh from Soviet Armenia and give it away to Soviet Azerbaijan thus creating a wrong impression as if both Armenia and Azerbaijan administratively formed part of the RSFSR. In reality, Bolshevik Russia, a sovereign state, ruled predominately by Judeo-Masonic leaders and not ethnic Russians, has forced the transfer of Armenian-populated provinces of Artsakh and Nakhichevan to Azerbaijan via an illegitimate regional body called the Caucasian Bureau, representing the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party, obviously, in the Caucasus. Next amateur blunder is that Artsakh, while the province was rightfully claimed by the First Republic of Armenia as part of her territory, in reality was ruled independently by the Karabakh Council until 1921, the representative body of the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh. Therefore, the province could not, technically, repeat: technically, be “detached” from Soviet Armenia which came to take over the remaining territory of the Sovietized First Democratic Republic.

    • (john // October 18, 2016 at 3:04 pm //)

      {It is certainly pleasant to observe how the boneheaded Azeri agent provocateurs make derisive attempts to paint themselves as Armenians by repeating ad nauseam profanities, such as “Hyena Aliyev” and “Terrorist Erdogan”, from thread to thread…}


  16. Our untrained “expert of Russian history”, continues to have that same bad habit of inventing up false stories. Where did I say that “Armenian SSR and Azerbaijan SSR formed a part of the state called “Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic”? And contrary to your horribly silly claims, Armenia and Azerbaijan who indeed became Soviet republics in 1920, were therefore under the full control of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (which was also called, “Soviet Russia”). As for your term of “Bolshevik Russia”, there never existed a sovereign state by that name.

    And, here’s some educational literature for those same two Turkbaijani-Russian nationalist commentators, who have a problem with my statement in regard to Soviet Russia’s decision to detach Artsakh from Soviet Armenia, and give it away to Soviet Azerbaijan in 1921:

    “After the proclamation of Soviet Azerbaijan in 1920, an agreement between Soviet Russia and the Republic of Armenia, allowed the Russian army to temporarily take control of Nagorno Karabakh until a peaceful settlement to the conflict could be agreed upon. However, immediately after the establishment of Soviet Rule in Armenia, the Revkom (Revolutionary Committee-the Bolsheviks’ main governing body at the time) of Azerbaijan declared the ‘disputed territories’, namely Nagorno Karabakh, Zangezur, and Nakhichevan as inseparable parts of Armenia. Based on the withdrawal of Azerbaijan’s claims on the ‘disputed territories’ and the agreement between the governments of Armenia and Azerbaijan, Armenia declared Nagorno Karabakh an inseparable part of its country on June, 1921.”

    “However, the Bolshevik leadership of Russia soon changed its attitude on the problem of ‘disputed territories’, including Nagorno Karabakh.”

    “In procedural violation, it adopted a decision to separate Nagorno-Karabakh from Armenia and annex it to Soviet Azerbaijan.”

  17. When petty Azeri agent provocateurs, in their rage to belittle and besmirch the significance of the Russian factor in safeguarding national security and defense of the RoA, are posting scrawls in AW, they should understand with their remaining few gray cells that their posts are read by a wide audience not all of whom may puzzle out that the term “Soviet” also referred to Russia, Armenia, and Azerbaijan BEFORE these nations became republics of the Soviet Union in 1922. Therefore, a clarification on that was needed, and I offered it to the readers. That is why in academic circles, and not in filthy Baku bazaars, RSFSR, which was, indeed, also formally called “Soviet Russia”, and which existed between 1917 and 1922 as a sovereign state, is informally more often referred to as “Bolshevik Russia” so a distinction is made between Soviet Russia (RSFSR) of 1917-1922 and Soviet Russia (part of USSR) of 1922-1991. As for “making a decision” on transferring Nagorno-Karabakh to the newly-created “nation” of Azerbaijan in 1921, a clarification was needed that Armenia and Azerbaijan were not administratively part of the RSFSR (1917-1922) so Russia “makes a decision” to transfer a chunk of territory from one of her republics to another, similar to what RSFSR (1922-1991) did in 1954 with regard to Crimea. No one argues that Armenia had a rightful claim on Nagorno-Karabakh and in 1921 declared the region as her part. But neither the Judeo-Masonic leadership of Bolshevik Russia nor the international community, unfortunately, ever officially recognized the region as part of Armenia and, in 1921, it was illegally attached to Azerbaijan based on a decree of Kavbureau (Caucasus Bureau of the Bolshevik Party), which was not a legislative body entitled with “making decisions”, but a party apparatus body.

  18. In regard to “Judeo-Masonic conspiracy”, this is nothing more than an unproven theory. You have no evidence whatsoever that Soviet Russia’s Bolshevik leaders were “Judeo-Masonic” (an alleged secret coalition, consisting of Jews and Masons).

    How extremely arrogant you are to say that the readers of these pages are “less informed” about the Soviet period of Russian history, and therefore a “clarification” was needed from you. On the contrary, most of the readers on these pages are a lot more informed than you in regard to Soviet Russian history. It seems that you’ve already forgotten that it was you who foolishly began this argument by absurdly uttering “There was no ‘Soviet’ Russia when, in 1921, Armenian-populated Artsakh was placed under the jurisdiction of newly-created Azerbaijan”, followed by, “there were no Soviet Armenia and no Soviet Azerbaijan in 1921”.

  19. Actually, in other threads I did offer evidence from contemporary witness accounts testifying to the fact that the prevailing majority of the highest echelons of power in Bolshevik Russia were Jews and that many of them belonged to Masonic lodges. This is not ‘conspiracy’. Repeat, it is evidence from contemporary witness accounts. It is not my intent to re-post this information. Do a search for my comments at AW to enhance your flawed education. What you call ‘arrogance’, normal people call participation in an intellectual—not divertive—debate. Therefore, for less informed readers on the subject of Imperial and Soviet Russia I felt I should offer a clarification what I meant by ‘Soviet Armenia and Soviet Azerbaijan in 1921’. The fact that my clarification was allowed by AW moderators demonstrates that it was, actually, needed.

  20. Well, attempting to falsely clarify that there was no Soviet Russia, no Soviet Armenia, and no Soviet Azerbaijan in 1921 as you did by beginning this argument, is certainly not the definition of a clarification, which again shows how highly flawed your level of education really is.

    And, you still haven’t produced any evidence which shows that Jews constituted the prevailing majority within Soviet Russia’s Bolshevik leadership. As a matter of fact, this particular claim of yours, happens to be the same exact unproven claim that every Russian nationalist persistently repeats, including Putin.

  21. Come back to us when you produce evidence to support your counter-claim that Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Sverdlov, Radek, Litvinov, Uritsky, and many, many others in the top echelons of the Bolshevik power were NOT Jews and/or Freemasons. In the meantime, expand your limited knowledge with this famous testimony of Winston Churchill:
    “Bolshevism among the Jews is nothing new. From the days of Spartacus-Weishaupt to those of Karl Marx, and down to Trotsky (Russia), Bela Kun (Hungary), Rosa Luxemburg (Germany), and Emma Goldman (United States), this world-wide conspiracy for the overthrow of civilisation and for the reconstitution of society on the basis of arrested development, of envious malevolence, and impossible equality, has been steadily growing.” ~Churchill, Winston. “Zionism versus Bolshevism,” in: Illustrated Sunday Herald. February 8, 1920.

    I already explained—two times—that by ‘no Soviet Armenia and no Soviet Azerbaijan in 1921’ I clarified for less informed readers that the term ‘Soviet’ was not to be understood as a term that most people associate with the republics of the Soviet Union, so that there is no confusion between ‘Soviet’ before 1922, the year of the Soviet Union’s formation, and after it. But especially for you I stand ready to repeat this for the third time. Let me know…

  22. Well, whether you wish to give the same foolish explanation again for a third time or not, the well-informed readers (on these pages) can clearly see your extremely false “clarification” in the fourth comment you wrote, which started this whole argument.

    In regard to Winston Churchill, he was never a scholar to begin with. That quote of his, is nowhere close to being evidence.

    In regard to Vladimir Lenin, his ancestry was 1/4 Jewish; but he himself, happened to be baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church.

    In regard to Karl Marx, unknowledgeable people who are so eager to falsely claim that the Jews were responsible for Bolshevism, will often say that Karl Marx was Jewish. Although his ancestry was Jewish, he was baptized as a Christian, but would later become an atheist. Instead, he was a rabid German nationalist who had very little sympathy for the Jews. In fact, in 1844, Karl Marx published a pamphlet (On the Jewish Question) which expressed hatred towards Jews and Judaism.

    And, here’s some much needed education for you which debunks your claim that Jews constituted the prevailing majority of Soviet Russia’s Bolshevik leaders:

    “Thus, when Bolshevism arose, it was quite in the line of traditional Russian policy to denounce it as the work of the Jews.”

    “The list of a few Jews involved in the Bolshevik Revolution must be weighed against much longer lists of non-Jews involved in the revolution.”

    “The list of Jews holding prominent positions in either the Soviet government or the Communist party contains less than twenty names. It includes the names of Trotzky, Steklov, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Uritsky, Volodarsky, Sverdlov, Ganetsky, Helfandt, Riazanov, Radek, Joffe, and Larin.” As you can see, Lenin is not included in the list of Jews.

    “The universally known fact that there were Jews among the leaders of Bolshevism, in Russia and elsewhere, was not evidence that Bolshevism is essentially or primarily a Jewish movement; neither is it evidence that Bolshevism was a part of a Jewish conspiracy to obtain world domination. All that it proved was that which needs no proof, that there were Jews among the Bolsheviks,” as opposed to the unproven claim that “the prevailing majority of Soviet Russia’s Bolshevik leaders consisted of Jews.”

  23. “Right”…

    Winston Churchill, one of the greatest statesmen of the 20th century, who wrote several books, monographs, and scholarly articles, including his monumental “The World Crisis” and “The Second World War,” is not a scholar.

    Robert Archibald Wilton, a distinguished British journalist and “Times” correspondent in Petrograd at the time of the so-called ‘Russian Revolution’, who wrote “The Last Days of the Romanovs” and “Russia’s Agony”, is not an eyewitness.

    But some lousy, obscured website “globalsecurity.com” is an “authoritative source”. Wow… Such crap is brought forward when one-track-mind people desperately cling to something—anything—that denounces, as they think, the testimonies and witness accounts of serious authors and contemporaries.

    Go educate yourself from Judaism 101 that traditional Judaism maintains that a person is a Jew if his mother is a Jew, regardless of who his or her father is. Therefore, Lenin is a matrilineal Jew even he was baptized into the Russian Orthodox Church hundred times. Maria Blank, Lenin’s mother, was Jewish. Same goes for Karl Marx, whose maternal grandfather was a rabbi, no matter how many times he was baptized as Christian.

    For one-track-mind persons it is necessary to understand that baptism doesn’t change ethnicity. It may or may not change a person’s religious beliefs, but not his it her ethnicity. Further, even though he was baptized as a Christian Karl Marx, for one, has become a Satanist according to Richard Wurmbrand’s account “Marx and Satan.”

    And, no, the list of Jews holding prominent positions in the Bolshevik government and the party contains much, MUCH more than twenty names. Overwhelming numbers…

  24. On the subject of Vladimir Lenin, his ancestry happened to also be 1/4 Russian. And, if according to traditional Judaism, a person is a Jew if his or her mother is a Jew, then Lenin’s mother was not a Jew due to the fact that her mother happened to not be Jewish (she was of German-Swedish ancestry). Therefore, according to traditional Judaism, Lenin is certainly not viewed as being a Jew.

    Here are some interesting details in regard to “Jewish Bolshevism”:

    “Jews in relatively large numbers joined various ideological currents favoring gradual or revolutionary changes within the Russian Empire. Those movements ranged from the far left (anarchists, Bundits, Bolsheviks, Mensheviks) to moderate left (Trudoviks) and constitutionalist (Constitutional Democrats) parties. On the eve of the February Revolution in 1917, of about 23,000 members of the Bolshevik party, 364 (about 1.6%) were known to be ethnic Jews. According to the 1922 Bolshevik party census, there were 19, 564 Jewish Bolsheviks, comprising 5.21% of the total, and in the 1920’s, of the 417 members of the Central Executive Committee, the party Central Committee, the Presidium of the Executive of the Soviets of the USSR and the Russian Republic, and the People’s Commissars, 6% were ethnic Jews.”

    Although Wikipedia isn’t the best source of information (for certain subjects, it’s very good; but for other subjects, it’s poor), why would it invent up false numbers in regard to the number of Jewish Bolsheviks?

  25. Thank you, Hagop.

    Starting from my March 11, 2015 at 11:28 pm // post in “Sleeping with Our Enemy: Russia Sells Weapons to Azerbaijan” and scrolling down the thread one can find excerpts from Robert Archibald Wilton’s first-hand accounts, in which he gives ethnic composition of the Central executive committee of the Bolshevik party, the Politbureau of the Central executive committee of the Bolshevik party, the Council of Ministers, the Peoples’ Soviets (legislative body), the Commissariats (ministries), the State security agency Cheka, etc.

    As a correspondent of the Times in Russia, Robert Archibald Wilton was an eyewitness of the so-called “Russian Revolution” and reflected in his primary accounts what he saw as contemporary about events and the ethnicity of the people who came to power. To regard Wikipedia as a source, which anyone can revise or alter, or to bring it into a serious debate, is a slap in the face of serious scholarship and an insult to the intellect of serious posters.

    1. Robert Wilton. 1918. Russia’s Agony.
    2. Robert Wilton. 1920. The Last Days of the Romanovs.

  26. Actually, Wikipedia is used by so many people throughout the world, which also includes researchers and scholars. If a person is not able to find some particular information from a better source, then where does he or she go? The answer is Wikipedia. Furthermore, Wikipedia is committed to the posting of accurate numbers and statistics.

    “As a correspondent of the Times in Russia, Robert Archibald Wilton was an eyewitness of the so-called ‘Russian Revolution’ and reflected in his primary accounts what he saw as contemporary about events and the ethnicity of the people who came to power.”

    This attempt of yours at showing “evidence,” does not show any numbers to back up your claim, and is therefore a slap in the face of serious scholarship as well as an insult to the intellect of serious posters. If you’re not capable of showing actual numbers that back up your claim, then your claim “the prevailing majority of Soviet Russia’s Bolshevik leaders consisted of Jews,” is nothing more than a false claim.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.