Blackmail and mutually beneficial deal between Pashinyan and Aliyev, if Pashinyan is not elected, Aliyev

On March 27, a Facebook live with the caption “Peace is dignity”. ether  Nikol Pashinyan, referring to the claims of his political opponents that the peace established between Armenia and Azerbaijan is not dignified, said:

“With what? are justification they that the thesis, of justifications one it is, that Azerbaijan, note having 2021, 2022, 2023 of years the events, invasion is implemented RA: sovereign area: First՝ that place is had no or of peace, other of conflict in the situation: Preceding of the region all the invasions two from the sides place are had no or of peace, other of conflict because of, of war because of»:

In other words, the leader of Armenia is not referring to 2020. A tripartite signed after the 44-day war to the announcement, the first point of which clearly defines that after November 10 “the parties stop at their positions”, and emphasizes that Azerbaijan has not fulfilled the points of the tripartite declaration, justifies Baku’s steps beyond that. Even if we accept that the tripartite declaration of November 9 was a cease-fire document, and in fact it was, then why didn’t we immediately try to restore the losses of the army after the war, why didn’t the state live in the conditions dictated by the unfinished conflict?

In addition to this, Pashinyan does not mention in the text of his justification that it is about the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia, and whether there was a war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, whether Armenia officially declared war on Azerbaijan, or vice versa. Were the sovereign territories of RA the subject of negotiations, if we do not count some topics related to Meghri, but it was in the context of the Karabakh conflict, we are talking about something else.

Accordingly, can we say that Pashinyan legitimizes Baku’s illegal military operations against Armenia, in the event that after the 44-day period, Armenia did not invade the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan, and the fact that in the 1990s and after that both sides made positional improvements cannot be compared to the Azerbaijani invasions of 2021-2023? Սա՝ first:

Secondly, can we say that Pashinyan admits that the invasions of Baku into the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia were aimed at military, military-political and political pressure on Armenia in the context of the Artsakh issue, especially when Pashinyan himself in the background of the September 2022 military operations had confessed.

«Thus, Azerbaijan expresses its dissatisfaction with the results of the 44-day war, taking into account that NK has a contact line, the protection and security of which is guaranteed by the Russian Federation.  Now I can’t say many details…”

Another confession of Pashinyan had done 2021 in the context of the May Azerbaijani advances, that the army was given a political order not to fight, because the extraordinary NA elections were ahead. 2021 Azerbaijani invasions in May and 2022 between the September battles there were also the November 2021 battles. And the coordinated military operation of the Azerbaijani-Turkish tandem on November 16, 2021 was also in the context of aspirations related to the corridor of Nakhichevan, Zangezur and Lachin. As a result of the combat operations of those days, according to information published in the Azerbaijani media maps,the enemy’s armed forces were able to go to key and strategically important heights in the direction of the Eastern Sevan mountains or the mountain range towards Karvachar, and also captured several Armenian positions as a result of the battles around the Kilisali mountain. Azerbaijan aimed to keep the Lachin Corridor under its visual control, which, perhaps, it partially succeeded. Did the current government of RA not calculate all this? Why did Azerbaijan manage to carry out 3 such military operations in the sovereign territory of RA after 44 days? Are we dealing with a deal or criminal indifference – the conflict is not settled, we lived only for the finished in military and political conditions.

Third, although actual peace has been established at the cost of territorial and human losses, but if there is no final peace agreement, plus there are unresolved issues between Armenia and Azerbaijan, can we say that Baku can take local military steps that Pashinyan will justify?

And Pashinyan also mentioned in the above-mentioned live Facebook broadcast that the former military-political leadership of Artsakh appeared in Baku again due to the conflict, when Artsakh was depopulated and Baku could not kidnap people. Baku considers their trial and verdicts with fabricated articles as “Nuremberg”, when Pashinyan already claimed that peace has been established. And Pashinyan, in fact, justifying Aliyev’s “Nuremberg”, went too far and began to “play” the issue of their return.

“Continuation of the conflict reduces many times, if not makes it impossible to release them, and peace increases many times, if not guarantees their release.” he emphasized.

Yes, the release and return of the former military-political leadership of Artsakh is a political issue, and Pashinyan, in fact, says that if he does not win the upcoming elections, there should be no hope for their return at all. And giving back certainly comes at a price. In other words, the fact that the CP members say that they are working towards their return is actually what Pashinyan said in the broadcast of March 27. both Aliyev and Pashinyan are trying to turn the issue of the return of the former military-political leadership of Artsakh into a mutually beneficial deal.

And on March 30, Pashinyan made another Facebook post during the live broadcast   declared that before the peace he established, we only had a postponement of the war at the cost of casualties, injuries, lack of economic development and loss of independence.

Yes, it was possible to postpone the war, for better or for worse, but why couldn’t he do the same, why couldn’t he prevent the occupation of the sovereign territories of RA at the cost of several thousand casualties and territorial losses during the 44-day war? Moreover, Pashinyan says, after the four-day war in 2016, it became clear that “that means of payment has been exhausted.”

And why did he “get under it” or did he find out after coming to power, and when – before or after the 2020 war? Of course, before, which Pashinyan publicly admitted only after the war, it was necessary.

By the way, Pashinyan, considering today that after 2016, a different logic was operating, outside of the negotiation logic, on March 29, 2019, after meeting with Aliyev for several hours at the “Bristol” hotel in Vienna, he announced that  in the negotiation language, the parties should try not to harm each other, not to look for winners and losers, because the conflict has deep roots, it is not a simple situation.

And days after that, in a conversation with Armenian journalists, the same Pashinyan claimed that The formula “new war, new territories” in no way casts a shadow on the peaceful settlement process, on the contrary, it emphasizes the importance of a peaceful settlement, although this caused the anger of Baku. In other words, Pashinyan transferred the statement made by the former Minister of Defense of the Republic of Armenia in military logic to the political dimension and did not see any danger in the conditions of an unsettled conflict. But today he sees the danger of war from every word, when, as he says, we have established peace, there is no longer a post-2016 situation. Isn’t it a paradox?

—