Author: Babken Chilingarian

ANN/Armenian News – Conversation on Armenian News – Anastas Mikoyan – 12/03/2020

Babken Chilingarian

Armenian News Network / Armenian News

Conversation on Armenian News: Soviet or Armenian? The Life and Times of Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan

ANN/Armenian News

December 3, 2020


Introduction

Hello and welcome to Armenian News Network, Armenian News.

Thank you for listening and supporting our podcast. If you like what you hear, please help us reach a wider audience by subscribing to our channel, liking, and sharing our podcasts. We are on all your favorite media platforms, including Youtube, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Spotify, and more.

In this Conversations on Armenian News episode, we’ll be talking with historian Pietro A. Shakarian on the life and times of Soviet Armenian statesman Anastas Mikoyan. If you are interested in Armenia’s Soviet past and its continued impact on the country today, then this is an episode not to be missed!

This episode was recorded on Thursday, November 12, 2020.

  • Pietro Shakarian

  • Hovik Manucharyan

  • Asbed Bedrossian

Born in Sanahin, Armenia in 1895, Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan was the most prominent Soviet state figure of Armenian origin. A survivor, Mikoyan managed to weather every Soviet leader from Lenin to Brezhnev.  He was once the #2 man in Moscow after Nikita Khrushchev, and his legacy is complex.  Today on Armenian News, we will explore this extraordinary historical figure.

Mikoyan, with Soviet Armenian leaders Yakov Zarobyan and Anton Kochinyan in Sanahin, Alaverdi, Lori, Armenia.  Courtesy of the Russian State Archive, Moscow (f. 5446, op. 120, d. 1723, l. 21).

To help us unpack the historical legacy of Mikoyan, Pietro Shakarian joins us today from Cleveland. Pietro is a historian and a Ph.D. candidate in Russian History at the Ohio State University. His dissertation focuses on Mikoyan’s reforms in de-Stalinization and the nationality sphere in the Khrushchev-era USSR. His analyses on Russia, Armenia, and the post-Soviet space have appeared in The Nation, the Cleveland Plain Dealer, the Russian International Affairs Council, Russia Direct, and Hetq.  He has also worked with the Gomidas Institute in London on the republication of 19th century accounts of the Russian Caucasus and Armenia.

Who was Anastas Ivanovich Mikoyan?

  • How did he rise to power, his journey from his birthplace of Sanahin, in northern Armenia to the corridors of power in the Kremlin.

  • Few Soviet leaders were able to transcend the major political shifts that occurred within the USSR throughout its history. However, Mikoyan managed to survive from Ilyich Lenin to Ilyich Brezhnev, “without heart attack and paralysis” as the phrase goes. How did he manage to weather the storm of Stalinism and beyond?

Mikoyan and the internal/external politics of the USSR

  • There is a lot of controversy surrounding Mikoyan, especially regarding his role in Stalin’s Terror.  Along with Georgy Malenkov and Mikhail Litvin, he was tasked by Stalin to purge the Soviet Armenian leadership in September 1937. What was Mikoyan’s exact role in this episode?

  • What role did Mikoyan play in the process of de-Stalinization in the USSR generally, and in Soviet Armenia specifically?

  • How did Mikoyan contribute to the development of the Soviet nationality policy during the era of the Khrushchev Thaw? 

  • Mikoyan was a very prominent figure in Soviet foreign policy, from China and Hungary to the US and Cuba.  Can you tell us a little about some of the characteristics that made him a successful diplomat?

Soviet or Armenian?

  • Was Mikoyan a Soviet, an Armenian, or a Soviet Armenian leader?

  • What role did Mikoyan play in Soviet Armenian affairs?  Did he advocate, or lobby, on behalf of Yerevan in Moscow?  What does the documentary record say about his involvement?

  • What was Mikoyan’s position toward the issue of Artsakh – Nagorno-Karabakh?

Mikoyan’s Legacy

  • Finally, what is Mikoyan’s legacy in retrospect? Should we look upon this major figure as a hero or a villain?

That concludes this week’s Conversation On Armenian News on Armenia’s debate on Armenia’s IT Industry. We’ll continue following this discussion and keep you abreast on the topic as it progresses.

We hope this Conversation has helped your understanding of some of the issues involved. We look forward to your feedback, including your suggestions for Conversation topics in the future. Contact us on our website, at Armenian News.org, or on our Facebook Page “ANN – Armenian News”, or in our Facebook Group “Armenian News – Armenian News Network”.

Special thanks to Laura Osborn for providing the music for our podcast. I’m Hovik Manucharyan, and on behalf of everyone in this episode, I wish you a good week. Thank you for listening and talk to you next week.

YouTube           Apple           Google         Spotify       Facebook

Anastas Mikoyan, Soviet Armenia, Artsakh-Karabakh, Great Terror, Joseph Stalin, Lavrentii Beria, Nikita Khrushchev,  Khrushchev Thaw, de-Stalinization, Yerevan, Lori, Sanahin, Alaverdi, Syunik, Zangezur, Meghri, Lake Sevan, Arpa-Sevan canal, Caucasus, Yeghishe Charents, Aleksandr Myasnikyan, Grigory Arutinov, Suren Tovmasyan, Yakov Zarobyan, Anton Kochinyan, Stepan Shahumyan, Armenian Bolsheviks, Russian Revolution, Russian Civil War, Baku Commune, Cuban Missile Crisis

No, Kosovo Is Not a Precedent for Nagorno-Karabakh

Babken Chilingarian
The National Interest
Nov 29 2020

Time and time again, all sides have stated that Kosovo was a one-time thing and not a formal legal precedent. Invoking it in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh demonstrates an unwillingness to recognize this reality.

by Ayaz Rzayev
When major Western powers supported Kosovo’s independence bid, they unequivocally warned that Kosovo was sui generis—a one-time deal, a special case under international law that cannot be used under any circumstances as a precedent for other situations. However, in retrospect, it did not stop separatists from appealing to the Kosovo case whenever it seemed opportune to them. As British historian Timothy Garton Ash succinctly put it at the time: “Kosovo is unique, and there will be more Kosovos.” This was first demonstrated in South Ossetia and Abkhazia in 2008, and then in Crimea in 2014. After the Crimean referendum, Russian president Vladimir Putin argued that the Kosovo case which “our western colleagues created with their own hands in a very similar situation” was an appropriate precedent for Crimea.

The Crimea case has shed light on just how detrimental introducing exemptions to already established norms of international law can be. Separatists became convinced that the West’s stance on separatism is largely an issue of framing, regardless of how many times the Western officials have stated otherwise. So, they believe that they can succeed in lobbying their case in the West if only they can construct an attractive enough narrative that will appeal to the Western audience. During the Catalan Referendum of independence in 2017, for example, the Catalonian government’s strategy was to compel the European community to intervene in Spain by trying to convince them that, just like in Kosovo, there was no other viable solution except to secede in the face of the “authoritarian nature” of the Spanish government. 

Similar tactics have been employed by the Armenian government in the case of Nagorno-Karabakh as well. The Kosovo case was warmly welcomed by the Armenian separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh, the success of which they hoped to emulate. They also supported the annexation of Crimea, arguing that it was yet “another manifestation of realization of the right of people to self-determination.” Moreover, during the UN voting in March 2014, Armenia voted down the UN General Assembly resolution supporting Ukraine’s territorial integrity and declaring the annexation of Crimea illegal. At the time, Garen Nazarian, Armenia’s ambassador to the UN, framed Armenia’s decision to vote against the resolution as promoting “decolonization and self-determination.”

The Armenian advocacy groups in the West love to argue that based on the Kosovo case, the United States should urgently recognize Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence. And this is despite the fact that at the time the U.S. State Department explicitly warned that Kosovo was not a precedent and should not be seen as a precedent for any other place out there in the world and that it “certainly isn’t a precedent for Nagorno-Karabakh.” Armenian prime minister Nikol Pashinyan himself has repeatedly argued in recent months that the international community should recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as an independent state based on the principle of remedial secession. The problem is not just that the doctrine of remedial secession—which claims that secession can be accepted as the last resort for ending oppression—is a myth, does not have a strong theoretical foundation in international law, and overall has no relevance whatsoever to the “frozen conflicts” in the post-Soviet region. It also presents a false dilemma of having to choose between a well-integrated society and external self-determination while completely ignoring a much more effective third approach to the conflict resolution—an internal self-determination, which not only allows for both intergroup cooperation and sufficient autonomy to co-exist, but also is the only viable way to ensure sustained peace in the region.
While international law incorporates the concept of self-determination, it does not entail a right to secession. It is generally accepted that the right of self-determination may not be used to disaggregate the territory of a sovereign state outside the decolonization paradigm. Except in those cases of decolonization, international law is in favor of realizing the right to self-determination through internal means, which entails a right to self-rule without complete political separation. Territorial integrity of states against secession is guaranteed under international law and for good reason. If every separatist group, often driven by dangerous forms of nationalism, pursued external self-determination, it would completely destabilize the current liberal international order.

Then there is sometimes also the dark reality of occupation hiding behind the glitzy façade of self-determination. As it was the case with Crimea, occupiers try to portray their claim as democratic and strive to link their claim to liberal values in one way or another. When Armenian nationalists launched the Miatsum (Unification) movement in 1988, the ultimate goal was to annex Nagorno-Karabakh to Armenia. However, to get around international disapproval of irredentism and win over liberals, the occupation was later rebranded as a fight for self-determination. 

Moreover, separatists often seek to gather international sympathy for their cause by attempting to present a moral case for separatism. The main problem with ethnically based right to secede however is that it is very hard sometimes to separate secessionist logic from the mentality that advocates for ethnonational purity and ethnic cleansing. By denying a chance for a more pluralistic and inclusive notion of the nation to exist, the secessionist worldview can be very regressive by its nature, and as such epitomize the very ills of ethnic nationalism that the postwar liberal order has sought to do away with. Upholding the principle of territorial integrity also makes good sense, given that there are already too many failed states in the world that undermine the stability of their surrounding regions and increase the possibility of wars and human suffering.

The Armenian government also likes to argue that Nagorno-Karabakh achieved independence “through a popular democratic referendum.” In practice, such a referendum is nothing more than an opinion poll. Under international law, a unilateral declaration of independence based on a referendum is no more legitimate than a unilateral secession without a popular vote. Following Kosovo’s independence bid in 2008, Belgrade made a strategic mistake by asking the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to rule on the legality of Kosovo’s unilateral declaration of independence, rather than asking the ICJ to rule on the legality of Kosovo seceding from Serbia. If the ICJ decided that the act of secession had violated international law, major European powers would have found themselves in an extremely awkward position of having to defend an act that had been unequivocally declared illegal under international law. Alternatively, had the ICJ ruled that Kosovo’s secession had not violated international law, it would have opened the floodgates for numerous other acts of secession. In the end, Serbia’s error allowed the Court to avoid addressing the key issue of secession—whether there is a right to secede—and instead take the narrowest approach possible by stating that, in general, there is no prohibition in international law against declaration of independence as a mere statement, unless it is explicitly banned by the Security Council. In essence, a declaration of independence is a free speech issue. Like in Crimea, just because someone can say that they are independent does not make it a legally-binding reality. 
However, it goes further than this. Accepting the claim to external self-determination predominantly advanced by the ethnic Armenian community of Nagorno-Karabakh, which cannot alone represent the Nagorno-Karabakh population as a whole, risks legitimizing the ethnic cleansing of the Azerbaijani population of Nagorno-Karabakh. The atrocities against Azerbaijanis are still denied by the Armenian side because it does not align with the victimization narrative that has been carefully constructed over the years to legitimize violence against Azerbaijanis as resistance. Just like the Armenians, the ethnically cleansed Azerbaijani community of Nagorno-Karabakh and, in fact, all citizens of Azerbaijan have a right of self-determination, as well, which incorporates, among other things, the right to vote on the future of their country and not to have their country torn apart.
The Armenian government also loves to argue that Azerbaijan does not recognize the legitimate grievances of the Armenian community of Nagorno-Karabakh, which is blatantly false. If it were true, then, throughout the negotiation process, Azerbaijan would not have advocated for both the Azerbaijani and Armenian communities of Nagorno-Karabakh to be the interested parties of the conflict and repeatedly declared that it is ready to offer the region the highest possible autonomy existing in the world in order to allow the Armenian community to exercise their political and cultural rights to the fullest extent. If the sole reason of insisting that what happened in Nagorno-Karabakh was occupation by an aggressor state is just a complicated plot to ignore local grievances, then Azerbaijan—even now when negotiations obviously failed and Azerbaijan is winning the war that it wanted to avoid for a long time at all cost and under no obligation to do so—would not offer the region the cultural autonomy and introducing observers and peacekeepers to the region to rebuild the trust.
The fact of the matter is that the ceasefire of 1994 left Azerbaijani territories occupied by Armenia. Despite Armenia claiming otherwise, the fact of occupation has been confirmed numerous times by various impartial international bodies. In 2015, the European Court of Human Rights reaffirmed that Armenia’s military and political support to Nagorno-Karabakh amounts to “effective control” of the region. The Court pointed out the obvious fact, still vehemently rejected by Armenia, that “it is hardly conceivable that Nagorno-Karabakh—an entity with a population of less than 150,000 ethnic Armenians—was able, without the substantial military support of Armenia, to set up a defense force in early 1992 that, against the country of Azerbaijan with approximately seven million people, not only established control of the former NKAO but also, before the end of 1993, conquered the whole or major parts of seven surrounding Azerbaijani districts.” The concept of effective control lies at the heart of the notion of occupation. It is a conditio sine qua non of belligerent occupation. 
https://nationalinterest.org/feature/no-kosovo-not-precedent-nagorno-karabakh-173478


France wants European partners to discuss sanctioning Turkey, junior FM says in Yerevan

Babken Chilingarian

Save

Share

 16:32,

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 28, ARMENPRESS. There are issues that haven’t been included in the trilateral Nagorno Karabakh armistice, namely the withdrawal of the Syrian mercenaries who fought from the Azeri side from Nagorno Karabakh, French Minister of State attached to the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne said at a news conference in Yerevan.

“There are issues that aren’t included in the statement. For example, the issue of the withdrawal of the Syrian mercenaries from Nagorno Karabakh, as well as the issue of the future potential status of Nagorno Karabakh. There are issues relating to ensuring stability and security, and that is why it is necessary for the negotiations to resume within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairmanship. By the way, this desire was expressed to both the Armenian, as well as Azerbaijani authorities,” Lemoyne said.

Lemoyne noted that the French President Emmanuel Macron was the first leader who voiced the truth and said that it is Turkey who is transferring the Syrian mercenaries to Nagorno Karabakh.

“France expects concrete actions from Turkey, so that they withdraw the mercenaries from the region. France also wants its European colleagues to discuss the issue of imposing sanctions against Turkey. Naturally, we will continue being coherent to these political issues in order to be able to reach results,” he said.

Editing and Translating by Stepan Kocharyan

French Minister of State Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne to visit Armenia

Babken Chilingarian

Save

Share

 13:57,

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 27, ARMENPRESS. French Minister of State attached to the Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne will visit Armenia, the French Embassy in Armenia told ARMENPRESS.

During the two-day visit, Lemoyne will hand over the French humanitarian assistance to Armenia and also have meetings with the political leadership.

Editing and Translating by Stepan Kocharyan

France struggles to retain Karabakh sway after Armenia defeat

Babken Chilingarian
Millennium Post
Nov 27 2020

Paris: President Emmanuel Macron faces a major challenge to retain France’s influence over resolving the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, needing to take account of the large Armenian minority in his country and accused by Azerbaijan of bias.
 Macron has expressed discomfort over the Russia-brokered ceasefire this month that ended weeks of fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia and allowed Baku to consolidate significant military gains.
 France is, along with Russia and the United States, the co-chair of the Minsk Group of countries that for almost three decades have sought agreement on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, an Armenian-populated region of Azerbaijan which broke away from Baku in a war as the USSR collapsed.
 “We don’t consider this ceasefire to be sufficient,” Macron said in a meeting with French Armenians at the weekend.
 “It does not solve the political question and all the other issues,” he added.
 Macron was a vocal critic of the military offensive launched by Baku in late September to regain control of Karabakh and in particular the backing of NATO member Turkey, which he accused of despatching Syrian jihadists to fight for Azerbaijan.

Humanity has taken a major loss, not just Armenians of Artsakh – Kim Kardashian

Babken Chilingarian
Public Radio of Armenia
Nov 14 2020

Humanity has taken a major loss, not Jut Armenians of Artsakh, Kim Kardashian said, as she shared a video from the ancient Armenian Dadivank monastery in her Instagram stories.

“This is goodbye for now. If you’re sad, imagine how they feel,” Kardashian captioned a video of Armenians singing in front of the monastery days before the Karvachar region it is located in is to be handed over to Azerbaijan.

She said “120,000 people have been displaced from their ancestral home because Turkey got their way.”


Controversial Peace Deal In Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict Hits Close To Home In LA

Babken Chilingarian
LAist, Los Angeles
Nov 13 2020
Updated 6:33 PM
Published 6:32 PM

A boy holding a National Armenian flag marches with others from Pan Pacific Park to the Consulate General of Turkey, during an October protest in L.A. in support of Armenia amid the territorial dispute with Azerbaijan. (Kyle Grillot/AFP via Getty Images)

Earlier this week, Armenia and Azerbaijan announced an agreement to end the fighting over the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, which Armenians refer to as Artsakh. Although the region is inside Azerbaijan’s borders, mostly ethnic Armenians live there.

But there is still a dispute: Over the last two months, Azerbaijan’s military has gained control of more territory. The peace agreement basically locks in some of those gains — and costs Armenia control of some other territory as well.

Russian peacekeepers will be deployed to maintain the deal. Armenia’s prime minister Nikol Pashinyan called the decision to end the conflict painful but necessary — and in Armenia’s capital, Yerevan, thousands took to the streets to protest the agreement, saying “We will not give up our land!” Protesters in Armenia upset over the deal have been calling the prime minister a “traitor” and demanding his resignation.

Meanwhile, as reported this week, some ethnic Armenians in the territory that will change hands are preparing to leave their homes.

These developments are being closely followed in Southern California’s large Armenian American community, where disappointment over the terms of the deal is also deeply felt.

“Within the Armenian community, there is an overwhelming sense of abandonment,” said Alex Galitsky, communications director with the Armenian National Committee of America’s western region. “For months, the Armenian diaspora has called on the United States and the international community to confront Turkey and Azerbaijan’s aggression to prevent their efforts to continue the Armenian genocide. Repeatedly those calls fell on deaf ears, even as Azerbaijan perpetrated war crimes and major human rights violations against the Armenians of Artsakh.”

Salpi Ghazarian, director of USC’s Institute of Armenian Studies, spoke with KPCC’s Take Two about how the conflict has resonated locally.

“This community, particularly here in Southern California, everybody is somehow connected,” Ghazarian said. “Everybody knows, has, someone — an uncle, a cousin, a someone — who went to fight, who died…so it has not been a distant war by any means. Somebody called it ‘the war that came to Los Angeles.’ That is kind of what this has become.”

The news that Turkey was backing Azerbaijan was also deeply disturbing for local Armenian Americans, many of whom are descendants of survivors of the Armenian Genocide, in which as many as 1.5 million Armenians lost their lives at the hands of the Ottoman Empire starting in 1915.

Last month, Armenian Americans held large rallies around Los Angeles in support of Armenia, including one that drew an estimated 100,000 people. Some Angelenos even traveled to Armenia to join the effort or provide medical and other support.

Armenian President meets with Russian Ambassador

Babken Chilingarian

Save

Share

 16:35, 10 November, 2020

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 10, ARMENPRESS. President of Armenia Armen Sarkissian met today with Russian Ambassador to Armenia Sergei Kopyrkin, the Presidential Office told Armenpress.

The officials discussed the statement signed by the Armenian Prime Minister, the Russian and Azerbaijani Presidents on ceasefire and cessation of all military actions in the Nagorno Karabakh conflict zone, as well as its provisions.

President Sarkissian said the settlement of the Karabakh conflict is a matter of pan-national significance and importance, and it’s natural that any decision, especially a signing of a document relating to it creates people’s sharp reaction and sometimes also opposition.

President Sarkissian highlighted the key mediation role of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chair countries and especially Russia in ceasing the military operations.

The meeting sides attached importance to the necessity of security and stable peace in the entire region.

 

Editing and Translating by Aneta Harutyunyan

CivilNet: Let’s ensure this difficult test becomes an important cornerstone for the future. Pashinyan

Babken Chilingarian
CIVILNET.AM

16:24

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan addressed the nation today, explaining why he was forced to sign, in his words, the “infamous document.”

According to him, the enemy had reached Shushi and Stepanakert. “These cities were in the rear during the war, they did not have defensive structures, and what would have happened after the fall of these cities? Several defensive sectors of the Defense Army would have been surrounded by the enemy, which means that more than 20,000 of our soldiers would have been under threat,” Pashinyan said, adding that in these conditions, the fall of Kashatagh and Karvachar districts would have been inevitable.

The Prime Minister explained that the moment they realized that the Armenian soldier could not influence events, soldiers would no longer have to die for the motherland, instead the motherland would make a sacrifice for the soldiers. 

“According to this logic, I signed the infamous document known to all of you, and when I signed it, I realized that the probability that I would personally die is great not only in the political but also in the physical sense, but the life of 25 thousand soldiers was more important, I think, for you too.”

These soldiers, according to the head of government, had no chance to influence the situation that would unfold in the rear.

“It was time for the commander to endanger his own life for the lives of these soldiers, time for the Motherland to make sacrifices for the soldiers that spared nothing for sake of the Motherland,” Pashinyan said, explaining that in this situation it was necessary to make a decision within a few hours, otherwise the process would have started, which could have ended with the death of 25 thousand soldiers or their capture.

He also touched upon the issue of resignation. “And why didn’t I resign, so as not to sign this paper, because it would mean desertion, it would mean leaving the issue of fulfilling the hellish duty in the name of the soldiers on someone else’s shoulders.”

According to Nikol Pashinyan, the Karabakh issue is still not resolved. The next question that arises, according to him, is why in such conditions it was impossible to reach a ceasefire at the beginning of the war or a little later. “To do this, it was necessary to hand over seven districts without a fight, as well as Shushi, and we hoped that with the involvement of new resources, superhuman efforts, we would be able to make a breakthrough,” Pashinyan said. According to him, this is the reason that he and the President of Artsakh Arayik Harutyunyan periodically made calls for military conscription.

Pashinyan also touched upon the content of the document itself, saying that it is really bad for us, but we should not make it worse than it really is.

“In particular, there are rumors spreading about the surrender of Meghri, which is absolutely ridiculous, we are just talking about unblocking transport routes in the region, including from Azerbaijan to Nakhichevan, but this means that transport routes from Yerevan to Syunik via Nakhichevan, including the railway connection between Armenia and Iran, should also be unblocked,” the Prime Minister said, adding that this may have a significant impact on our economy.

As for the territories under the control of Artsakh, according to Pashinyan, thanks to the Russian peacekeepers, the Lachin corridor from Goris to Stepanakert will operate smoothly, and Russian peacekeepers will provide the same safe road across the entire territory in the Shushi section.

He also called on residents of the territories located within the perimeter of the deployment of peacekeepers to return to their homes, if viable

He also said that the international recognition of the Republic of Artsakh is becoming an absolute priority. “There are stronger arguments for this now.”

According to Pashinyan, at the moment, restoring the atmosphere of stability and security in the country is a priority for Armenia.

“The organizers and many of the active participants in the civil strife have been detained, but they will be identified and brought to justice.

“For decades, the country’s property and income have flowed into the pockets of people you know well, and not towards the development of the army,” the Prime Minister said.

According to him, our country has a future, and we must do everything to make this difficult test of ours an important cornerstone of this future.

“We must learn a lesson. Many will ask whether it is possible to talk about a good future after this brutal war. Yes, because there are countries in the world that were subjected to the most brutal capitulations of the 20th century, but today they are among the most powerful countries in the world.”

Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict: Israeli ‘kamikaze’ drones wreak havoc on Karabakh

Babken Chilingarian
Middle East Eye
Nov 9 2020
Israel and Turkey-made crafts are giving Baku the edge in the region’s latest war, leaving mounds of rubble in the city of Shusha
By Karlos Zurutuza in

Shusha, Nagorno-Karabakh
Published date: 9 November 2020 08:41 UTC       

In a basement in Stepanakert (known as Khankendi in Azeri), the capital of the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenian fighter Bilad has what he believes to be the remains of an Israeli drone.

“It’s bits and pieces gathered by our soldiers. We have removed the camera and the electronics but we’re sure it’s a Harop, one of those kamikaze drones,” explains the soldier, whose carefully trimmed beard is offset by heavy bags under his eyes.

It’s been weeks since Bilad had a proper night’s rest. On the morning of 27 September, Baku launched a major offensive against Nagorno-Karabakh, an unrecognised breakaway region that is officially part of Azerbaijan but is run by ethnic Armenians.

The conflict dates back to the middle of the Gorbachev era in 1988, and it’s the longest-running unresolved dispute in the former Soviet Union.

Azerbaijan-Armenia conflict: How Israel and Turkey became strange bedfellows

Read More »

The ongoing fighting is the worst seen here in decades. Conventional Armenian forces can barely cope with Azerbaijan’s air power, an invisible enemy holding superiority in the skies, razing buildings to the ground.

After six weeks of heavy shelling, Azerbaijan is currently pummelling Shusha, a strategic location on the road used to bring supplies from Armenia.

Shusha (known as Shushi in Armenian) also overlooks Stepanakert: it is the perfect spot to shell the breakaway capital as well as a point to sever vital supply lines.

Stray dogs in the debris bark at the noise of explosions. Every day the piles of rubble grow.

The destruction of the historic church of Ghazanchetsots on 7 October seemingly paved the way for a chain of attacks that hit residential blocks and schools, as well as a cultural centre. Its solitary piano and red velvet seats are now covered in pieces of the ceiling, following an air strike last week.

“It’s rifles against drones,” says Gevor, a 25-year old Armenian currently hiding in a basement in Shusha.

“How could I possibly defend myself against such an enemy?” he adds, pointing at his Kalashnikov rifle lying next to the mattress where he spends every night.


Gevor’s wife and his two-year-old daughter fled to the Armenian capital Yerevan last week, just when the air strikes started to get too heavy here. In fact, only men can be found in Shusha today, and one has to look for them underground.


Samvel, 51, is also among those who refuse to leave. He admits he misses the Soviet times and fought in the early 1990s war that led to the Armenian administration controlling Nagorno-Karabakh.

This conflict, however, is “something else”.

“It was man-to-man combat back then, everything was on the ground and you always knew where the enemy was,” he recalls.

Today, he stresses, the enemy is not just Azerbaijan but also Turkey, “and Israel is joining hands”.

Azerbaijan’s defence ministry releases daily footage of Armenian forces being destroyed by high-precision weapons.

A majority of the images are taken by drones – both Turkish-made Bayraktar ones and Israel’s “kamikaze” Hagops. The use of both has not only been proved by footage, but consistently acknowledged by top Azerbaijani officials.


When presented with images of the alleged Hagop remnants in Stepanakert, Wim Zwijnenburg, a weapons expert and the coordinator of the European Forum on Armed Drones, concluded it was “likely” the aircraft was of Israeli origin.

The Harop can find targets based on radar or radio wave emissions before destroying a target by ramming into it.

According to Zwijnenburg, these type of “kamikaze” drones – also known as loitering munitions – have become popular with armed forces because they are cheap to produce, easy to use and can hit targets with high precision without exposing your own military personnel to enemy fire.

In addition, adds the expert, some of these drones create a disturbing sound when approaching their targets, which can be psychologically unsettling.

The Harop’s use, however, is far from new. The Israeli drone was spotted in the 2016 clashes between Armenia and Azerbaijan.

Four years later, they have become a thorny issue, putting Armenian-Israeli relations in a very difficult position. Just a few days after the beginning of the offensive, Yerevan recalled its ambassador to Tel Aviv over arms sales to Azerbaijan.

Data gathered by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute shows that Israel has been the top supplier of arms to Azerbaijan over the past five years, with some $825m sales in weapons between 2006 and 2019. It is Azerbaijan’s second-largest supplier of weapons after Russia.


Azerbaijani officials deny they are targeting civilians, while claiming Armenians are building military sites next to schools and markets, and among other civilian infrastructures.

Some go even further by accusing the Armenians of destroying civilian structures themselves.

“We don’t target civilians and we actually have footage that proves that the church in Shusha was bombed by Armenians for propaganda purposes,” Samir Mammadov at the Azerbaijani Community of Nagorno Karabakh political body told MEE over the phone. 

‘We know that many of these war crimes are committed by those Israeli drones’

– Artak Beglaryan, Nagorno-Karabakh ombudsman

Mammadov, himself displaced from Karabakh back in the 90s war, also wanted to highlight Armenian attacks against residential areas in Ganja, Azerbaijan’s second city, as well as some villages located in the vicinity of Nagorno-Karabakh.

The Nagorno-Karabakh defence ministry has acknowledged over 1,000 Armenian military casualties since 27 September, but Baku has not disclosed similar information from its side.

When it comes to civilians among the dead, figures are also disputed: Armenians claim 46 casualties while Azerbaijan talks about 91 among their own. Russia has estimated a total death toll of around 5,000 people.

Senior officials from Armenia and Azerbaijan met in Geneva on 30 October and agreed to avoid targeting civilians in the conflict. Three previous ceasefires had failed, and the fourth one was no exception: the conflict still rages on.

MEE revealed on Sunday a fresh ceasefire was being negotiated via Turkey and Russia.

Over recent days, residents in Stepanakert have rushed to catch a last ride out to Armenia before the road was cut by fighting – this eventually happened on Wednesday.

“I’m worried about Shushi,” admitted Artak Beglaryan, the ombudsman of Nagorno-Karabakh, from an underground location in Stepanakert.

The 32-year-old, who lost his sight to a landmine at the age of six, talks of an “asymmetric war which is opening the door to a humanitarian catastrophe”.

“They’re clearly targeting civilians by destroying schools, hospitals, churches… We know that many of these war crimes are committed by those Israeli drones,” said Beglaryan, as the sound of explosions outside punctuated the conversation.

On Sunday, the Armenian administration in Nagorno-Karabkah called for the immediate evacuation of civilians and journalists still remaining in Stepanakert. Fears of a final crackdown on the battered city loom large.