I find it hard to see you all upset. The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death. For the entire 27 years of occupation, the number Azerbaijanis lived there was goddamns ZERO. Entire towns and cities were looted and destroyed. British journalist Thomas De Waal even referred to Aghdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" after visiting the region.
When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished. However, as these territories are internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (even Armenia itself acknowledges Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan), there will be no special status, autonomy, or illegal entities.
Nevertheless, Armenians living there chose not to be part of Azerbaijan.
Regarding civilian casualties, please provide clear numbers. If this were genocide or genuine ethnic cleansing, there would be hundreds of civilian casualties. Even your government's statements claim a maximum of 10 civilian casualties, which seems unlikely.
Thanks for this. Always interesting to see how Foreign Secretaries communicate. Will you consider doing a Q&A on Progressive Realism for subscribers on here?
> Azerbaijan has been able to liberate territory it lost in the early 1990s.
How much did Aliyev pay you? How much does it cost these days to get the British Foreign Secretary to abet ethnic cleansing by murderous dictators? Asking for a friend
I find it hard to see you all upset. The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death. For the entire 27 years of occupation, no Azerbaijanis lived there. Entire towns and cities were looted and destroyed. British journalist Thomas De Waal even referred to Aghdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" after visiting the region.
When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished. However, as these territories are internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (even Armenia itself acknowledges Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan), there will be no special status, autonomy, or illegal entities.
Nevertheless, Armenians living there chose not to be part of Azerbaijan.
Regarding civilian casualties, please provide clear numbers. If this were genocide or genuine ethnic cleansing, there would be hundreds of civilian casualties. Even your government's statements claim a maximum of 10 civilian casualties, which seems unlikely.
“Night after night, they prepare for another round of Russian strikes.”
Many of those strikes originate from targets within Russia that are in range of British supplied long range weapons… that your government forbids Ukraine from striking with those weapons. Will you be changing your policy?
Really interesting to get a view on the inner workings of foreign affairs. As someone noted below, it would be great to get a primer on what exactly 'Progressive Realism' is, and how it differs from Realism in foreign policy.
Azerbaijan did not "liberate" anything. They ethnically cleansed 120,000 Armenians from their own homeland, and this was preceded by beheadings of civilians and a 9 month blockade serving to starve the population.
The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death. For the entire 27 years of occupation, no Azerbaijanis lived there. Entire towns and cities were looted and destroyed. British journalist Thomas De Waal even referred to Aghdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" after visiting the region.
When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished. However, as these territories are internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (even Armenia itself acknowledges Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan), there will be no special status, autonomy, or illegal entities.
Nevertheless, Armenians living there chose not to be part of Azerbaijan.
Regarding civilian casualties, please provide clear numbers. If this were genocide or genuine ethnic cleansing, there would be hundreds of civilian casualties. Even your government's statements claim a maximum of 10 civilian casualties, which seems unlikely.
I was looking forward to reading this column until your leader, Mr Starmer, took us back to Regressive Realism with his tone deaf acceptance of £100,000 of donor gifts as he backs cutting off the winter fuel allowance to pensioners. I voted in hope of change from the dirty Tory politics of recent decades. Angry, disappointed and depressed. It’s as big a gaff as Liam Byrne’s infamous note - ‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ Kick Starmer’s arse please Mr Lammy and tell him to apologise, reverse the winter fuel cut and promise not to be such an idiot going forward.
On the perhaps naive assumption that the Foreign Secretary reads or is made aware of these comments, permit me to share views from an interested observer from the U.S.
First, while having amicable relations with your interlocutors on a personal level is unobjectionable, I would expect the Foreign Secretary to take on board Lord Palmerston dictum to the House of Commons in 1848, “Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
Second, Ukraine is facing an enemy that does not recognize its legitimacy as a nation, its right to remain sovereign or long history of attachment to the land. That enemy, Russia, sought Ukraine’s absorption into Mother Russia.
It is important to understand that Ukraine’s borders were set at its 1991 declaration of independence under the international law doctrine of uti possidetis juris. That doctrine makes any pro-Russian plebiscite and annexation of any part of Ukraine illegal under international law.
Third, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is, primarily, a European matter, and the US’s involvement is the direct result of decades of Western European countries taking the wrong lessons from its World Wars, downsizing their militaries and assuming that “soft power” would guarantee their peace. All those countries now must raise their defense spending accordingly so that they may become more like Israel: able to defend themselves by themselves. What is the Foreign Secretary’s understanding of this issue?
Fourth, with China as America’s primary antagonist, Europe needs to shoulder a greater burden on its home territory. While the continent is “too big to fail” for our foreign policy, simply put it is asking a great deal of American taxpayers to foot a bill that should be a pan-European responsibility.
Finally, what is missing from this piece is a strategy to defeat Russia and roll back its gains. If peace will come at the expense of ceding territory to an aggressor, then the public needs to know that - unless the point of this Substack is to be a travelogue.
I will look forward to the Foreign Secretary’s take on Israel. I hope he will address, among other issues,
1. The thinking behind supporting Egypt’s sealing of its border to all Gazan civilians, thereby trapping them in a combat zone - and then primarily blaming Israel for any civilian casualties,
2. The thinking behind doing nothing to prevent Hamas’ stealing food and energy supplies being sent into Gaza and blaming Israel for any nutritional deficits,
3. The UK’s plan to remove Hamas as the governing entity in Gaza,
4. The acceptance of legal advise to justify canceling only certain export licenses to Israel where that advice was grounded in a reversal of the burden of proof and standard of review applied to every other country, including Qatar, the terror supporting ally of Iran, and
5. The acceptance of Hamas generated casualty figures and descriptions of events in Gaza in the face of contrary findings by well respected former UK military officials showing that the IDF has exceeded the requirements of the Laws of Armed Conflict and
6. Why the UK does not push back against the false claim of “genocide” which, left unchallenged, has evidently placed a target on the back of every Jew in the UK? If the UK has long ago concluded, as it should have under any fair reading of the evidence, that Israel is not commuting any genocide and the charge itself is scurrilous, does it not owe it to the world community to proclaim this fact publicly and loudly or would such a declaration of moral clarity risk undermining “community cohesion” back home?
"Azerbaijan has been able to liberate territory it lost in the early 1990s."
What the actual fuck?
This essay will now be dragged out by every two-bit thug on the planet whenever the UK complains about ethnic cleansing. Thanks a lot.
I find it hard to see you all upset. The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death. For the entire 27 years of occupation, the number Azerbaijanis lived there was goddamns ZERO. Entire towns and cities were looted and destroyed. British journalist Thomas De Waal even referred to Aghdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" after visiting the region.
When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished. However, as these territories are internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (even Armenia itself acknowledges Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan), there will be no special status, autonomy, or illegal entities.
Nevertheless, Armenians living there chose not to be part of Azerbaijan.
Regarding civilian casualties, please provide clear numbers. If this were genocide or genuine ethnic cleansing, there would be hundreds of civilian casualties. Even your government's statements claim a maximum of 10 civilian casualties, which seems unlikely.
Thanks for this. Always interesting to see how Foreign Secretaries communicate. Will you consider doing a Q&A on Progressive Realism for subscribers on here?
Ok
> Azerbaijan has been able to liberate territory it lost in the early 1990s.
How much did Aliyev pay you? How much does it cost these days to get the British Foreign Secretary to abet ethnic cleansing by murderous dictators? Asking for a friend
I find it hard to see you all upset. The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death. For the entire 27 years of occupation, no Azerbaijanis lived there. Entire towns and cities were looted and destroyed. British journalist Thomas De Waal even referred to Aghdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" after visiting the region.
When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished. However, as these territories are internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (even Armenia itself acknowledges Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan), there will be no special status, autonomy, or illegal entities.
Nevertheless, Armenians living there chose not to be part of Azerbaijan.
Regarding civilian casualties, please provide clear numbers. If this were genocide or genuine ethnic cleansing, there would be hundreds of civilian casualties. Even your government's statements claim a maximum of 10 civilian casualties, which seems unlikely.
i give it about 2 months until you start blogging about how voices on Substack you disagree with should be censored
We'll see
Lol 😆
“Night after night, they prepare for another round of Russian strikes.”
Many of those strikes originate from targets within Russia that are in range of British supplied long range weapons… that your government forbids Ukraine from striking with those weapons. Will you be changing your policy?
Vacuous nonsense.
But kudos for using substack and trying to reach out to a different audience.
With your shared interest in music, I do hope to see you and Tony jam together with your take on Rocking in the Free World.
Really interesting to get a view on the inner workings of foreign affairs. As someone noted below, it would be great to get a primer on what exactly 'Progressive Realism' is, and how it differs from Realism in foreign policy.
this may be a good start on what Progressive Realism is
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/united-kingdom/case-progressive-realism-david-lammy
Azerbaijan did not "liberate" anything. They ethnically cleansed 120,000 Armenians from their own homeland, and this was preceded by beheadings of civilians and a 9 month blockade serving to starve the population.
Evil statement.
The real ethnic cleansing occurred in the 1990s when nearly half a million Azerbaijanis were displaced and faced a choice: leave or face death. For the entire 27 years of occupation, no Azerbaijanis lived there. Entire towns and cities were looted and destroyed. British journalist Thomas De Waal even referred to Aghdam as the "Hiroshima of the Caucasus" after visiting the region.
When Azerbaijan liberated these lands, it offered Armenians the option to stay if they wished. However, as these territories are internationally recognized as part of Azerbaijan (even Armenia itself acknowledges Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan), there will be no special status, autonomy, or illegal entities.
Nevertheless, Armenians living there chose not to be part of Azerbaijan.
Regarding civilian casualties, please provide clear numbers. If this were genocide or genuine ethnic cleansing, there would be hundreds of civilian casualties. Even your government's statements claim a maximum of 10 civilian casualties, which seems unlikely.
Blinken is likable but savage pro war Neocon. “Rules based”. He could end up igniting WW3 having already provoked the war in Ukraine.
I was looking forward to reading this column until your leader, Mr Starmer, took us back to Regressive Realism with his tone deaf acceptance of £100,000 of donor gifts as he backs cutting off the winter fuel allowance to pensioners. I voted in hope of change from the dirty Tory politics of recent decades. Angry, disappointed and depressed. It’s as big a gaff as Liam Byrne’s infamous note - ‘I’m afraid there is no money.’ Kick Starmer’s arse please Mr Lammy and tell him to apologise, reverse the winter fuel cut and promise not to be such an idiot going forward.
On the perhaps naive assumption that the Foreign Secretary reads or is made aware of these comments, permit me to share views from an interested observer from the U.S.
First, while having amicable relations with your interlocutors on a personal level is unobjectionable, I would expect the Foreign Secretary to take on board Lord Palmerston dictum to the House of Commons in 1848, “Our interests are eternal and perpetual, and those interests it is our duty to follow.”
Second, Ukraine is facing an enemy that does not recognize its legitimacy as a nation, its right to remain sovereign or long history of attachment to the land. That enemy, Russia, sought Ukraine’s absorption into Mother Russia.
It is important to understand that Ukraine’s borders were set at its 1991 declaration of independence under the international law doctrine of uti possidetis juris. That doctrine makes any pro-Russian plebiscite and annexation of any part of Ukraine illegal under international law.
Third, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is, primarily, a European matter, and the US’s involvement is the direct result of decades of Western European countries taking the wrong lessons from its World Wars, downsizing their militaries and assuming that “soft power” would guarantee their peace. All those countries now must raise their defense spending accordingly so that they may become more like Israel: able to defend themselves by themselves. What is the Foreign Secretary’s understanding of this issue?
Fourth, with China as America’s primary antagonist, Europe needs to shoulder a greater burden on its home territory. While the continent is “too big to fail” for our foreign policy, simply put it is asking a great deal of American taxpayers to foot a bill that should be a pan-European responsibility.
Finally, what is missing from this piece is a strategy to defeat Russia and roll back its gains. If peace will come at the expense of ceding territory to an aggressor, then the public needs to know that - unless the point of this Substack is to be a travelogue.
I will look forward to the Foreign Secretary’s take on Israel. I hope he will address, among other issues,
1. The thinking behind supporting Egypt’s sealing of its border to all Gazan civilians, thereby trapping them in a combat zone - and then primarily blaming Israel for any civilian casualties,
2. The thinking behind doing nothing to prevent Hamas’ stealing food and energy supplies being sent into Gaza and blaming Israel for any nutritional deficits,
3. The UK’s plan to remove Hamas as the governing entity in Gaza,
4. The acceptance of legal advise to justify canceling only certain export licenses to Israel where that advice was grounded in a reversal of the burden of proof and standard of review applied to every other country, including Qatar, the terror supporting ally of Iran, and
5. The acceptance of Hamas generated casualty figures and descriptions of events in Gaza in the face of contrary findings by well respected former UK military officials showing that the IDF has exceeded the requirements of the Laws of Armed Conflict and
6. Why the UK does not push back against the false claim of “genocide” which, left unchallenged, has evidently placed a target on the back of every Jew in the UK? If the UK has long ago concluded, as it should have under any fair reading of the evidence, that Israel is not commuting any genocide and the charge itself is scurrilous, does it not owe it to the world community to proclaim this fact publicly and loudly or would such a declaration of moral clarity risk undermining “community cohesion” back home?
I look forward to reading the Secretary’s response to these key questions about those who were slaves in Egypt.
This is wonderful…so grateful for your willingness to share your expertise and insight. 🌻🇺🇦🌻
Good to have you here David. Thank you for standing up for Ukrainians and thank you for standing up for the people of Grenfell.
Thanks for clarity and measure.
Beautifully written 👏