The violence perpetrated against Ukraine has raised questions regarding the direction of U.S. grand strategy since the end of the Cold War, with the Clinton administration’s decision to pursue a policy of democratic promotion in central and eastern Europe coming under specific scrutiny. Was this, as critics suggest, a strategic blunder that prompted Moscow’s apparent attempt to re-establish control over its former satellites, or, as was believed at the time, a necessary step towards political and economic reform of the European continent following the Cold War? This paper reveals how the Democracy Promotion pillar of the Clinton administration’s policy of Engagement and Enlargement aided the development of Ukraine without antagonizing the Kremlin, and the lessons that the Biden administration could glean from this policy thirty years later.
This article examines the peace settlements of 1815, 1919, and 1945 with an eye towards drawing out certain insights for current conflicts, specifically the Russo-Ukrainian War. Among the points covered in this article are the position and capability of military forces, the alignments and agreements which take place before and after the main peace negotiations, the assumptions around how long a settlement might last, the influence of existing social and intellectual currents which surround the statesmen and women negotiating peace, and the importance of individual personalities in arriving at a lasting and stable peace. How long the war between Russia and Ukraine will last is uncertain, but it is more likely than not that policymakers in Moscow and Kiev, as well as their counterparts in capitals across Europe and beyond, will consider eventual negotiations. This article provides ideas and approaches from some of the most notable precedents in the 19th and 20th centuries, as a way of stimulating thinking about a future peace settlement.
The ancient correspondence allegedly between the Toparch Abgar V of Edessa and Jesus of Nazareth is usually treated in modern scholarship as legendary, though possession of it was important for the legitimation of Armenia as the first Christian kingdom in ca. 314 A.D. (prior to Constantine’s ‘Christian’ rule of a united Roman Empire from 324, and well before Theodosius I’s Edict of Thessalonica in 380). This paper attempts to create a demythologized space in which to reconsider the historical probability that Jesus, widely reputed as a healer in the chief (Near Eastern) Jewish centre of influence, was asked for help by an ailing eminent and replied to his request. Along the way, questions will be raised for further research (italicized) and so in this sense the article takes the form of an Agenda.
While much ink has been spilled on the Armenian-American Lobby’s efforts to achieve the formal recognition of the tragic events in Anatolia of 1915–1918 as a Genocide, little is known about how the Turkish Lobby sought to prevent such recognition. This article is the first in the literature to offer a systematic account of how the Turkish Lobby advocated in the United States to prevent the recognition of the Armenian Genocide.
This paper focuses on the worship of Anāhitā in Western Asia examining some of the ideas put forward by James R. Russel in his volume on Zoroastrianism in Armenia in the light of more recent discussions about the role played by the goddess in Armenian religion before the conversion of the country to Christianity. While the evidence from more ancient periods has also been briefly presented, specific attention is given to Anāhīd’s worship in the Sasanian period and to the devotion of Narseh to this divinity. Finally, Middle Persian personal names containing the theonym Anāhīd are briefly introduced and discussed, showing that this important divinity is underrepresented in Sasanian and post-Sasanian onomastics.
Luigi Villari’s book Fire and Sword in the Caucasus, published in London in 1906, is widely quoted by the scholars who study the history of South Caucasus at the time of the first Russian Revolution in 1905. After a short introduction about the interesting figure of this author, the first part of the article will take into consideration Villari’s peculiar attitude toward the Armenians. The larger part of the article will consider his first-hand description of the massacres perpetrated by the Azeris (Tartars) in the region of Nakhichevan. As a matter of fact, Luigi Villari’s testimony of the tragic events of 1905 is more interesting than ever to understand the origins of a contrast that continues—even if in a deeply different situation—to stain with blood the relationship between Armenians and the South Caucasian Turks.
In this article I focus on thirty toponyms from the Swāt Valley, Pakistan, that incorporate the concepts of ‘big’ and ‘small’. In this context, ‘big’ is represented by three different adjectives, loy, luth, and mahā, while for ‘small’ we find two different suffixes, -ṛay and -g/k/xay, as well as the adjectives woṛ and waṛukay. Among other things, I also propose a new analysis of one of the toponyms already studied in my 2020 work on the Toponymy of the Swāt Valley, Altangurai.
This paper examines alignment in Literary Gorani by analysing an unknown Gorani manuscript titled ‘Dīwān-i Mawlawī’ (Manuscript 11092), which is housed at the Āstān-e Qods-e Raḍavī library. The paper has two main objectives. Following Haig (2017) regarding the extent of the micro-variation of ergativity within Iranian languages, the paper explores strategies of interrelated subsystems such as case, indexation, verbal suffixes, and pronominal clitic systems to discover whether Gorani manifests an accusative or an ergative pattern. This helps us to a