Alik
Bakhshi
The Great Religious Controversy
Returns
Today, it can undoubtedly be said
that the liberation of Azerbaijan’s territory from the Armenian occupiers was
openly disapproved by Western Europe, and this despite 4 UN Security Council
resolutions calling for the withdrawal of all Armenian occupation forces from
the occupied regions of Azerbaijan. For 30 years, European politicians, along
with the aggressor, ignored UN resolutions; they were not bothered by the
expulsion under threat of death of 186 thousand ethnic Azerbaijanis from
Armenia and 500 thousand from Karabakh and seven surrounding regions. There was
no political or economic pressure from the West to force Armenia to seize 20%
of Azerbaijani territory. But the Europeans reacted completely differently when
Azerbaijan complied with UN resolutions, liberating its lands from the Armenian
occupiers. Suddenly, Azerbaijan was called an aggressor country by Western
politicians, and without any intelligible arguments. They suddenly became
concerned about the Armenian refugees of Karabakh, although no forced
deportation was noticed on the part of Azerbaijan, the Armenians voluntarily
left Karabakh, despite the guarantees given by Azerbaijan for their safety,
endowing them with the same rights that citizens of Azerbaijan have. So what is
the reason for such an ambiguous attitude towards Azerbaijan and Azerbaijanis
on the part of Western democracies calling for economic sanctions and even
sending Western peacekeepers to Karabakh to protect the non-existent Armenian
population from supposedly bloodthirsty Azerbaijani Islamists?
A similar situation happened in Ukraine, when the Russians, having
occupied Crimea and Eastern Ukraine and then held a referendum, seized these
territories from Ukraine, on the grounds that a significant number of Russians
lived there. And in this case, the West identified Russia as the aggressor and
sided with Ukraine, which is absolutely correct from all points of view.
Sanctions were introduced against Russia, and both political and military
support were provided to Ukraine. But Armenia did exactly the same as Russia!
Why such an unfair assessment regarding Azerbaijan? The double standard of the
West is clearly evident here without any reservations.
In my opinion, there is an explanation for this, because there is a
reason for everything and it lies, strange as it may seem in our enlightened
age, in religion. Armenia is the only Christian country in the Middle East and
is perceived by the West as the leading stronghold of Christianity. Here it is
appropriate to turn to distant history, namely the era of numerous Crusades of
Western European countries, whose troops, during 1096 - 1272, rolled into the
Middle Eastern region in waves, bringing death and destruction to the Muslim
population. They were opposed mainly by the Turks, who put up stubborn
resistance and forced the Europeans to leave the region. It must be said that
the military confrontation between Christianity and Islam, represented by the
Ottoman Empire, continued until the 15th century. Few people know that the
fortress wall around Jerusalem, which the crusaders tried to capture, was built
on the orders of Suleiman the Magnificent. This wall still encircles the old
historical part of Jerusalem. It is appropriate to remember here that the
initiator of the Crusades was France, which even today shows the most active
support for defeated Armenia, provoking it to a new war with Azerbaijan.
France's demarche against Azerbaijan was stopped by the UN Security Council
(1), but France stubbornly continues to try to turn the EU against Azerbaijan
and exert political and economic pressure on Azerbaijan.
Thus, in the Karabakh conflict, France openly sided with Yerevan, not
taking into account all four UN resolutions, which clearly indicate the
withdrawal of Armenian occupation forces from Azerbaijan. (2) Today, because of
France, Armenia, not deciding on the issue of choosing a patron, is similar to
Buridan's donkey, which is characteristic of the historical past of the
Armenians. To betray Russia, which created an Armenian state on the lands of
Azerbaijan, a state that has never existed in those parts in history, is
entirely in the spirit of the Armenians. (3)
It should be noted that the West is very narrow-minded, accusing
countries that have recently gained independence from the Russian Empire of
insufficient Western-style democracy. In this regard, it is necessary to take
into account the fact that these countries, having fallen into colonial
dependence on Russia for a long time, whose people do not like democracy (4),
were cut off from world social progress. Democracy cannot suddenly be acquired
by the people, much less introduced at the bayonets of the Marines, as was the
case in Iraq. The people themselves must evaluate the advantages of democracy
without outside interference, and this is a striking example of Turkey, whose
people unconditionally accepted the democratic reforms introduced by Mustafa Kemal
Ataturk. The same France moved towards democracy through guillotines and bloody
revolutions, passing through five republics. By the way, Azerbaijan, having
gained independence, became the first in history in 1918 in the East, a
democratic republic in which religion was separated from the state, and women
received all rights equal to men, which was a very progressive step for a
Muslim country in those days. True, soon, after the arrival of the Red Army,
democracy in the young Azerbaijan Democratic Republic was ended for a long
time, the Azerbaijani people again found themselves under the harsh heel of
Moscow.
Western guardians of democracy do not want to take into account the
difficult conditions in which the Azerbaijani people found themselves, namely
the fact that democratic reforms had to be carried out from the very first day
of independence, namely, being in a state of war with Armenia, which did not
hide its aggressive intentions to seize significant territories , or even
completely capture the whole of Azerbaijan, if we take into account the plans
of the Armenian nationalists to create a chimerical Greater Armenia, in which,
judging by the map drawn by the Armenian would-be historians, there is no place
for either the Azerbaijani people or the country called Azerbaijan.(4)
Today, some European politicians are opening Pandora's box, and again at the initiative of France,
making plans for a new Crusade, but not under the pretext of saving Christ, but
under the absurd pretext of saving Armenia from non-existent Azerbaijani
Islamists and creating a vast Christian state in the Middle East.
Undoubtedly, it is absurd, but on the other hand, how else can we
explain the behavior of the West towards Azerbaijan, which finally expelled the
Armenian occupiers from its land.
1. Armenia and the failed Crusade. https://alikbahshi.blogspot.com/2026/04/armenia-and-failed-crusade.html
2. Corrupt girl of imperialism.
https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/97866.html
3. Armenia – history and legend.
https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/101164.html
4. Was there a “Great Armenia”
https://alikbahshi.livejournal.com/71952.html
02/05/2024
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий