Geopolitical dimensions of Armenian ethno-national expansionism in the South Caucasus
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.52340/isj.2022.25.06Abstract
Referring to the genesis of Armenian historical claims, we proceed from the widely acknowledged paradigm that the "Armenian idea" is a multi-layered phenomenon, which includes many political, socio-economic and ideological-psychological contexts. All of these components are invisibly present in the genesis of the conflicts of the Armenian people with neighbouring nations and states.
The ethno-political space of the Armenian people has always been characterised by a very complex and intricate set of problems and contradictions, which have often led to wars, deportations and violent disputes between different ethnic groups and states. The historical mission of the Armenian nation, prompted by the entire course of its development, has the aim of appropriating the territories of neighbouring nations and countries. Through the fault of the Armenian patriarch,[1] the effort to create a Georgian-Armenian federal state failed in the second half of the 18th century. Therefore, the new Armenian national leaders gave special importance to Russia, which emerged in the geopolitical struggle for the Caucasus. By the end of the 18th century, the formation of a secret Russian-Armenian geopolitical alliance began, which had as its goal the creation of an Armenian state in the Caucasus on the territories of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Turkey.
Downloads
References
The Armenian patriarch, fearing the loss of his meagre land holdings, betrayed the Armenian national idea by informing the Shah of Persia of the intentions of the Georgian king Irakli II.
It is known that Georgian kings over the centuries provided Armenians with land in various regions of Georgia.
Ballayev A. Azerbaijani national movement in 1917-1918, Baku, 1998, p.25; G.R.Markhulia. Administrative policy of the Russian empire in the South Caucasus and the issues of Armenian-Georgian antagonism. Tbilisi, 2004. p.19; G.R.Markhulia.
The War of 1877-1878, vol.III, The war in Asian Turkey. Edited by A. Zykov. SPb, 1881, pp. 416-417.
I.B.Najafov. History of Armenian Nationalism in Transcaucasus at the end of XIX -beginning of XX centuries. Baku, 1993, p. 39.
Ibid.
F. Martens. Collection of treaties and conventions concluded by Russia with foreign countries, vol.XII, Saint-Petersburg, 1898, p.116ff.
V.Gurko-Kryazhin. Armenian problem. BSE, vol.III, Moscow, 1926, p.7.
V. Gurko-Kryazhin. Armenian question. TSЭ. v. III, m.,1926, p.7.
A. Darbinyan. Armenia in the days of national liberation. Memories (1890-1940). Paris, 1947, p. 119.
Ibid, p. 125.
Ibid.
Thus, in August 1887 another nationalist party called "Hnchak" was organised in Geneva. (See History of the Gnchak Party (1887-1962). Beirut, 1962).
G.R.Markhulia.On the "Armenian Question" in the South Caucasus. Tbilisi, 2004, p.21.
M.Neyman. Armenians. Iravan, 1990, p.176ff.
S. S. Stepanyan. Armenia in the Politics of Imperialist Germany. (End of XIX - the beginning of XX century). Yerevan, 1975, p. 110.
A.Mansurov. White Spots of History and Perestroika. Baku, 1990, pp. 56-57.
Ibid.
Khalachoglu Yusuf. Armenian Resettlements and Realities (1914-1918). Published by the Institute of Turkish History. Ankara, 2001, p.70.
Ibid.
http://www.devletarsivleri.gov/yayn/osmanli/ermenikatliam/katliamlistesi.htm; Crimes of Armenian terrorist and bandit formations against humanity.(XIX-XX centuries) (Ed. by R.Mustafayev). Baku, 2002, p.46.
It should be noted that the descendants of these Turkish fugitives took part in the occupation of Daghlig Garabagh, historical territory of Azerbaijan. In South Georgia, in Javakheti, the descendants of these fugitives are now claiming that they do not live in Georgia, but on the territory of ancient Armenia. Georgia is currently in a difficult geopolitical situation due to Russian aggression and occupation of historical Georgian regions, based on which the country's leadership cannot afford to decide to deport these traitorous and ungrateful people.
Formation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Moscow, Nauka, 1972, p. 24.
Transcaucasian Sejm. Verbatim report. Tiflis, 1919, 7 March 1918, p.5.
State Archives of the Azerbaijan Republic. F.28, op.1, file 1, file 185, fol.7. In the book of A.Balayev. March events of 1918 in Azerbaijan.
The Caucasian calendar for 1917. Tiflis, 1916. In the book of A.Balayev. March Events of 1918 in Azerbaijan
See: B.A. Boryan. Armenia, International Diplomacy and the USSR. Moscow, 1929, part II, p. 58.
See: D.Chumburidze.Georgian-Armenian relations in 1918-1921. And Georgian Public Thought. Tb. 1999, p.16 and later (in Georgian language).
S.G. Shahumyan. Selected works. Moscow, 1958, v2, p.263.
Е. К. Sarkisyan. The Expansionist Policy of Ottoman Empire in Transcaucasia on the eve and during the First World War. Yerevan, 1962, p. 362.
Ibid. 363.
CGIAA. f. 200, op. 1, d. No. 74, pp. 40-41.
In Istanbul, Enver Pasha told the representatives of the Dashnak government: "The Turkish ministers thought for a fortnight whether to create Armenia or not, and finally decided to do it, because it was beneficial to both Armenians and Turks". (E.K. Sarkisyan. Expansionist..., p.401).
Here we should also note that the Armenian leaders were in no way willing to leave Tbilisi, considering the city Tbilisi, considering it as the capital of new Armenia, but soon the Dashnaks were delicately forced out of Tbilisi.
Jour. Artanuji. "Akhalkalaki Javakheti". Tbilisi, 1998, no. 7, p. 68.
In November 1918 there were negotiations between Armenia and Georgia regarding the territory.
TSGIAA. f. 276, op. 1, d. no. 594, fol. 56.
TSGIAA. f. 276, op. 1, doc. no. 59.
Podr. See G.R.Markhulia. Armenian-Georgian relations in 1918-1920. Tb. 2007.
TSGIAG. f. 1836, op. 1, doc. No166, fol. 10-12.
G. Mazniashvili. Memories..., pp. 123-124.
I.A. Javakhishvili. Borders of Georgia. Tbilisi, 1989, p.60-61 (in Georgian).
D.I. Kekelia. Territory and Borders of Georgia. Tbilisi, 1996, p.30 (in Georgian).
The Armenian question before the peace conference. Yekaterinodar, 1919, pp. 5, 9 (translation from Armenian by A. Kachejiyev). The original in French was presented to the peace conference by the Armenian delegation.
D. Berdzenishvili. "Akhalkalaki Javakheti", in Jurnal. "Artanuji. tb., 1998, no. 7, pp. 68-69.
V.A. Gurko-Kryazhin. History of the revolution in Turkey. M., 1923, p.137.
The Georgian Mail ("Georgian Mail"), an English-language newspaper published in Tbilisi by the British command, the editor of which was Scottish Liddel.
"The Georgian Mail", No. 12, 22 October 1919, A.M. Menteshashvili. The October Revolution..., pp. 156-157.
CGIAA. f. 276, op. №1, d. №112, fol. 24 (ob.).
A. Raevsky. English intervention and the Musavatist government. Baku, 1927, p. 115.
Guram Markhulia. Geopolitical Foundations of Conflicts in the Post-Soviet Space. THE CAUCASUS AND THE WORLD International Scientific Journal //.
The Caucasus and the World International Scientific Journal. Tbilisi, 2015, No.19, p.36.
. The Treaty of Sèvres was signed on August 10, 1920 and stipulated separation of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine and Iraq from Turkey (Iraq and Palestine went to England, while Syria and Lebanon to France). Turkey proper" was also considered for partition. In favour of Greece Izmir with extensive adjoining areas and almost all Turkish territory in Europe, except for Istanbul. In favour of France - Cilicia and adjacent regions in Southern Anatolia. In favour of Dashnak Armenia - part of eastern provinces of Anatolia; in favour of "autonomous" Kurdistan - part of south-eastern Anatolia. In addition, the spheres of influence of France and Italy were created in Anatolia. (The World History. Moscow, 1961, vol.VIII, p.117).
. Marina Izoria. Geohistory and Geopolitics in South Caucasus. THE CAUCASUS AND THE WORLD International Scientific Journal // Tbilisi, 2015, N., 19, p. 51.
