Показать сообщение отдельно
Старый 10.06.2009, 15:37   #741
Аватар для spectator
Регистрация: 02.01.2007
Адрес: Baku
Сообщений: 6,559
Сказал(а) спасибо: 344
Поблагодарили 861 раз(а) в 595 сообщениях
Вес репутации: 83
spectator на пути к лучшему
Мои фотоальбомы

По умолчанию

Сообщение от Prosecutor Посмотреть сообщение
Вначале Уэйн Мерри, старший научный сотрудник Американского совета по международным отношениям, долгие годы проработавший в Госдепартаменте США и в Пентагоне, выступил со своим прогнозом:...
Вот какую катастрофическую для Азербайджана картину рисует этот Мерри:


Warning to Azerbaijan

Unfortunately, in Azerbaijan the tendency has been toward resumption of the sword rather than acceptance of an unpalatable peace. In the increasingly bellicose rhetoric across much of the political spectrum, a significant detail is missing. In a renewed war, Azerbaijan would almost certainly again lose, and with even worse consequences than its defeat in 1994. How can this be true, they ask in Baku, when we have shiny new weapons purchased with our gas exports? To begin with, if money equated to military capability, neither Saudi Arabia nor the Gulf Arab states would require the military protection of the United States.

To retake Karabakh by military means, Azerbaijani forces would need to overcome five objective factors which give the Karabakh Armenians immense defensive strength in depth. First is ground or terrain, in that Karabakh is a natural highland fortress currently surrounded by the wide depth of field of the occupied territories. Second is firepower, in a man-made fortress of multiple overlapping fields of fire, employing the heavily-mined occupied territories as killing zones before any attacker could reach the edge of Karabakh itself. Third is reserves of ample weaponry and munitions so the attackers would run out of young men before the defenders would run out of ammunition, while Karabakh can call on extensive manpower reinforcement from Armenia. Fourth is operational art in which the Karabakh Armenians have a clear record of superiority they would exercise in the inherently advantageous role of defenders of a skilfully prepared position. Fifth is strategic depth in Russia, which in a showdown would support its permanent security partner, while the American military would no more come to the aid of a failing Azeri offensive than it did in Georgia.

This panoply of obstacles should persuade any rational Azeri not to resort to war. Even the most favourable battlefield outcome would leave Azerbaijan immeasurably worse off than before. Beyond the toll in blood, the country's export pipelines and foreign revenues would be cut.

Indeed, it is not out of the question that the existence of an Azeri state could hang in the balance, as in a major renewed war it might be in the combined interests of Armenia, Russia and Iran to redraw the map of the eastern Caucasus. Unlikely, but history is replete with precedents.
Karabakh: Is War Inevitable?

Мне кажется, что желание запугать здесь превалирует над анализом

spectator вне форума   Ответить с цитированием