- Muslims Reject US Commandments 2015-05-29 11:11
- This Time It Is Different 2015-05-29 00:28
- The Elite Have A Great Fear Of Death 2015-05-26 22:21
- Senior NATO Official: “We’ll Probably be at War This Summer” 2015-05-25 23:54
- The US Created ISIS 2015-05-25 23:49
- America’s Survival Depends on Stopping Jade Helm 2015-05-23 23:39
- Wahhabis have appeared in Georgia? 2013-05-28 17:15
- Why dollar is cheapening in Georgia? 2013-05-27 18:56
- Burjanadze is riding high again 2013-05-23 14:23
- Justice vs. cohabitation 2013-05-20 19:43
- Azerbaijan prefers Russia to Georgia? 2013-05-18 12:14
- George Margvelashvili: Decent president instead of a sadist 2013-05-16 15:33
- Barisakho: Other world in Georgian mountains 2013-05-15 16:34
- "President Saakashvili gave Targamadze directives" 2013-05-14 20:04
- "Behind the scene" of the Georgian-Azerbaijani relations 2013-05-13 15:18
- Intimate details of Georgian blackmail 2013-05-12 23:04
- Vakhtang Kikabidze: I do not know what tomorrow brings to my country ... 2013-05-07 18:13
- Whole truth about Georgian wine 2013-05-06 15:36
- Prime Minister nominates a knockout candidate 2013-04-30 15:15
- Passport with antichrist mark 2013-04-29 12:43
Was the war in the Caucasus started by the Kurds?06.05.2010 | 22:05
An unusual version of the tragic events that happened in the South Caucasus two years ago was presented to the Armenian audience by the authors of the book titled "Pseudo-conflicts and quasi-peacemaking in the Caucasus" issued in Tbilisi in Russian. While presenting the book, Director of South-Caucasian Institute of Regional Safety Alexander Rusetskiy stated that the war was started by the Kurdish separatists with the explosion at the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline on August 5, 2008.
During his visit to Armenia, Alexander Rusetskiy stated that the right to solve the problems of the frozen conflicts should belong to all the conflict participants. For instance, the people of Karabakh are unfairly left out of the negotiating process between Armenia and Azerbaijan.
Another point is that it is not that easy to discover all the interested parties of a conflict, and the peacemaking forces often have their own geopolitical interests in the region, which does not at all contribute to the settlement of contradictions.
The scientists have come to a conclusion that the approach to the settlement of the frozen conflicts simply does not correspond to their essence. "There is a question whether the mediators really wish to succeed, or all these peacemaking approaches are sheer imitation. The actual parties of the conflict take no part in negotiations and their future is decided upon by the third countries. Sometimes, the role of a mediator is played by a country that pursues its own interests in the given region; this is absurd", - the guest of Yenaran Yerevan club underlined.
According to him, the multi-level conflicts are often simplified, only one aspect being considered at the negotiating table, say, the ethnic aspect.
The Georgian expert believes the Georgian-Ossetian conflict to be not only an ethnic conflict. "It was not Tskhinval or any other region that was the subject of the conflict. This was not a regional problem at all. The conflict developed because of the transit and had the geopolitical essence", - Rusetskiy stated in Yerevan.
The head of the institute specified that the war in South Ossetia partly accelerated the Armenian-Turkish dialogue. "Turkey must have realized that Russia's influence in the region has grown after the war. Bearing that in mind, Prime Minister of Turkey Recep Tayyip Erdogan hurriedly went to Moscow with a proposal of creating a platform of stability, which became the beginning of a new process where Ankara agreed to Russia's policy of withdrawing South Caucasus from the Black Sea region", - he explained to the Armenian audience. Mind that "it was Erdogan's statement that practically became the platform". "Me personally, I have not heard of any document", - the expert added.
Before that, in his interview to GeorgiaTimes, Rusetskiy forecasted that Turkey would accept Georgia's proposal to act as a mediator in settling the Georgian-Abkhaz relationship. In his opinion, the Turkish strategic interests in the Caucasus "practically differ from Russia's interests".
The common thing between the Turks and the Abkhaz is the numerous expatriate community of muhajirun, the forced migrants from the Russian Empire to the Turkish one. During the blockade of the breakaway regions of Georgia on the part of CIS, the Turkish ships supplied essential goods to Abkhazia despite the bans.
Rusetskiy's forecast turned out to be true. Not so long ago, in Sukhum, the Turkish delegates tried to present the Georgian strategy (Involvement Via Cooperation) concerning South Ossetia and Abkhazia. However, they were offered rebuff: the Abkhazians wish to actively cooperate only with those countries that have recognized them. Yesterday, the Abkhazian authorities suspended the operation of the Abkhaz-Turkish enterprise of Tamsash engaged in coal mining in Tkvarchali mountains. The reason is the ecological protests, while the Abkhaz-Turkish disagreement became a favourable condition. The fact also speaks of Russia's growing influence in the region.
The explosion in the Turkish territory of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline three days before the bombing of Tskhinval is among the facts that Alexander Rusetskiy and his colleagues directly connect with the Russian-Georgian war. As was reminded by the expert in today's commentaries to GeorgiaTimes, the responsibility for the explosion was fully assumed by the Kurdish Workers' Party.
This hydrocarbon flow was built despite the Russian and even American skeptics. It became a really independent way of transiting the Azerbaijani raw material to Turkey, although not a powerful one. Thus, it would be logical to suppose that it was the opponents of the diversification of the fuel supply who were interested in the explosion which caused damage to the Azerbaijani economics and Georgia as a transit country. That is characteristic of Russia, so it would be logical to suppose that it was Russia who placed an order with the Kurds, whose self-determination has been supported in Russia since the Soviet times.
However, Alexander Rusetskiy does not make any direct conclusions, leaving the issue for the journalists to investigate.