During the military parade held on May 28 in the Republic Square, there were different assessments of the weapons and military equipment (which were mainly acquired in 2022-2025, although there were also some purchased before that), and there were many political and non-professional assessments.

168.amtried to find out as well “Base” military analytical of the center founder Vitaly Mangasaryan the opinion regarding the weapons and systems displayed at the military parade, taking into account the resources of Azerbaijan and the requirements of modern warfare, as well as the fact that Armenia has adopted a defense policy, although the so-called defense contains offensive and counter-offensive elements.

– At first glance, the displayed equipment undoubtedly left an encouraging impression, especially a number of solutions developed and created by the local military industry. Many of them show that the engineering mind has been preserved and developed in Armenia, which continues to offer new solutions for the defense sector even in the most difficult conditions.

At the same time, it should be understood that the creation of such technological solutions is not the result of one or two years of work. They are the result of long-term, sometimes decades of accumulated knowledge, experience and consistent work. Moreover, even after the April 2016 four-day war, many Armenian engineers, scientists and specialists began to actively think and develop various technological solutions, taking into account the changing requirements and challenges of the modern battlefield. Today, the results of some of them have become visible to the public.

In the conditions of the defense policy adopted by Armenia, it is necessary to remember that security is never only defense. Yes, it also includes elements of counter-offensive and active operations, which are necessary to stop the enemy’s initiative, disrupt his operations and ensure the security of one’s own forces. Especially in the case of an adversary like Azerbaijan, with its significant financial, human and technological resources, every new technological solution should be evaluated from the point of view of real combat efficiency, not demonstration.

It is here that the most important question arises: no matter how impressive the equipment displayed at the military parade is, its value must be justified by practical application. It is necessary to make the transition from demonstration to military games, especially of medium and large scale, as quickly as possible. For an army equipped with innovative technologies, military exercises are not desirable, but a vital necessity. Only in those conditions can one assess how the new systems work in close to real conditions, what problems appear and what improvement is needed.

It is also important that the developed solutions reach all the ranks of the army as quickly and efficiently as possible. It is not only a question of mastering a given technique by a specific unit. Success in modern warfare is determined not by the efficiency of a single technical means or a single unit, but by the harmonious cooperation between different types of troops, units and management.

Even a unit equipped with the most modern technologies cannot fully realize its capabilities if that system is not embedded in the overall combat management and interaction chain.

Therefore, the main problem today is not the number or appearance of the equipment displayed during the military parade, but how quickly and effectively the mechanisms of their application will be checked and refined. And this can be done only through regular and large-scale military games, including the involvement of mobilization resources. Modern wars are won not only by technologies, but also by the systems formed around them.

If innovative solutions can become part of a unified, harmonious and multi-layered military system, they will turn into a real factor of the country’s security.

– Russian-Ukrainian about the war us approx often they remember, including in the context of the last military parade, accordingly: what? consequence shall do Armenia: net military component in terms of, weapon to buy, or did. Of course, the RA authorities assure that they have done so, in particular, they put emphasis on drones and 155 mm artillery means.

By the way, the other day Kirill Budanov, the head of the office of the President of Ukraine, stated that the Russian “Oreshnik” or “Kedr” complex is the first demonstration tool, and that other Russian weapons create more problems for Ukraine, in particular, the vital problem for them is “Iskander”, S-400 complexes, air and sea cruise missiles, and also drones. Here I want to ask one more question: Azerbaijan 44– daily in the war Turkish won drones? thanks to, or for example, exactly missile systems, czech artillery միջոցների՝ 155 mm: caliber.

– The experience of the Russian-Ukrainian war shows that in modern wars, no single weapon by itself ensures victory.

During discussions in Armenia, an attempt is made to find the “miracle weapon”, be it the “Iskander”, S-400, ATS or any other system, but success on the battlefield depends on the effectiveness of the entire military system. That system includes intelligence, communications, command, air defense, artillery, aviation, drones, logistics, and strategic objectives clearly articulated by the political leadership.

I think it is too simplistic to claim that Azerbaijan won solely because of Turkish drones. UAVs certainly played an important role, but they were only one component in the overall system. Azerbaijan also widely used precision missile systems, Israeli weapons, modern intelligence equipment, special purpose units, electronic warfare equipment and artillery systems of various calibers.

In addition, before the war, a process of modernizing the army’s rearmament, training and management had been carried out for many years. Therefore, I think that Azerbaijan won the war due to a systemic and complex advantage, and not due to any individual military unit or weapon.

In this context, the statements made in the Armenian political field in recent years also raise questions about the effectiveness of using different types of weapons during the war.

If the representatives of the country’s leadership later declare that Artsakh was “a rope wrapped around our neck” and it was necessary to get rid of that burden, then, naturally, questions of a political and military nature arise.

Against the background of such statements, some analysts conclude that perhaps the goal of creating serious problems for the opponent was not formulated, because in that case the process of “getting off the leash” could fail, or, in popular parlance, “fail”. Of course, this is a political assessment and requires additional arguments and research, but the emergence of such questions is completely natural.

Summarizing, I want to say that both the Russian-Ukrainian war and the experience of the 44-day war show one important truth. wars are won or lost not by individual missiles, ATSs or air defense systems, but by entire states with their political will, quality of military management, technological capabilities and coordinated actions.

– Recently, the President of Azerbaijan during his visit to Shushi region to announce is that Baku for Karabakh safety the question less important not, than of the region economic recovery, that and because of civilian infrastructures to create զուգահեռ՝ forming is also safety modern system. Aliyev here also mention is, that of the region strength to check or formed the realities doubt under to put regular the experiments, to whom by email it be, strictly to be suspended are Baku from whom? is danger see, this what? is assume.

– I think Aliyev understands very well what processes and consequences he may face in the future. He is well aware that what happened in Artsakh raises many serious questions from the point of view of international law, starting from accusations of ethnic cleansing to discussions about various war crimes. Regardless of how active or passive the reaction of international actors is today, history has repeatedly shown that political assessments and legal consequences are often formed not at the time of events, but years later, under new geopolitical conditions.

For this very reason, the “security system” created by Baku can be considered an attempt to insure against the uncertainties of the future. A priority for Aliyev is not only to preserve the current political results, but also the stability of his own government. Geopolitical rearrangements happen so quickly and unexpectedly that the realities that seemed unchanged yesterday can be completely revised in a short time.

If 10 years ago someone would have claimed that what we see today in reality could happen in Artsakh, for many it would seem a ridiculous and unrealistic scenario. The same can be said about the large-scale war between Russia and Ukraine, the recurring crises in US-Iran relations, or many other events of recent decades. International politics has repeatedly proven that even the most stable situations can change dramatically, and impossible scenarios can become reality.

Therefore, no matter how unrealistic the expectations and desires that many of us live, and especially in the hearts of Artsakh Armenians, the probability of their realization cannot be estimated as zero.

History is not a linear process, and there are almost no final and irreversible solutions in international relations. It is this realization that perhaps compels Baku not only to build roads and buildings, but also to create a security system designed to protect not only the present, but also political outcomes whose future it cannot fully predict.

– Turkey trying is restore Israel with the relationship, of course, specifically prerequisites proposing, including in relation to Israeli operations in Gaza. This what? will give Baku and: what? risks is contains of Armenia for

– In recent years, the relations between Turkey and Israel have gone through serious tests, especially in the background of the developments around Gaza and the intensified rhetoric between the leaders of the two countries. However, the history of international relations shows that states are guided not by emotions, but by interests. That is why Ankara’s attempts to restore relations with Israel should be considered as part of the process of reshaping the regional power balance. The issue is more important for the South Caucasus, as it is directly related to the positioning of Azerbaijan and the security environment of Armenia.

Azerbaijan has been one of Israel’s important partners for many years, especially in the energy and military-technical fields. Baku supplies Israel with oil, but in return receives modern weapons and technologies. If Turkey and Israel can restore full cooperation, Azerbaijan can be in a more advantageous position, becoming a kind of bridge between the two partner states. In that case, a stronger core of Ankara-Baku-Tel Aviv informal cooperation can be formed, which will have an impact on both energy projects and the security sector.

For Baku, such a development is also an opportunity to increase its political weight on international platforms. Turkey and Israel are among the most powerful military and technological states in the region, and improving relations between them could contribute to the advancement of new economic, logistical and defense programs. Especially important could be the expansion of cooperation in the fields of unmanned systems, intelligence technologies and air defense, where both Turkey and Israel have significant potential.

Overall, the possible restoration of relations between Turkey and Israel is likely to create additional opportunities for Azerbaijan, strengthening its regional position and expanding its partnership network.

—