President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev has been interviewed by Russian Interfax agency on October 28, 2020.
Trend presents the interview.
– Thank you, Mr. President, for finding the time for an interview with our agency despite your busy schedule. It was exactly one month yesterday since the counter- offensive of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces began in Nagorno- Karabakh. How would you assess this month from the point of view of the military- political settlement of the conflict?
– The Azerbaijani army has demonstrated its advantage on the battlefield. Significant parts of the occupied territories have been liberated in one month. Given that the Armenian side had been building fortifications in the occupied lands for almost 30 years, there were several lines of defense. Also, the terrain itself is more favorable for the Armenian side. It is mountainous and our servicemen had to overcome both engineering fortifications and mountainous terrain when carrying out the counterattack. Despite all these factors, significant territories in the occupied lands of our country have been liberated in one month, and this shows that the Azerbaijani army is considered one of the most combat- effective armies in the world for a reason. According to the rankings periodically published by organizations that assess the military potential of countries, the Azerbaijani army is among top 50 armies in the world. The professionalism, training, combat effectiveness and, most importantly, fighting morale have certainly contributed to our success in many respects. And, of course, the equipment available to the Azerbaijani army. We have liberated the cities of Fuzuli, Jabrayil, Zangilan, Gubadli, a part of Khojavand district. The successful mission, the successful advance of the Azerbaijani army continues. I have said several times during this month that we want the settlement of the conflict to move from a military to a political phase. But, unfortunately, the Armenian side has grossly violated the ceasefire regime for the third time, attempted to re- occupy the territories we have liberated, and is pushing for a continuation of the confrontation. Therefore, I am answering your question again: the military- political settlement is the only possible way. We would like the military phase to end and issues of further de- occupation of Azerbaijani territories to be resolved at the negotiating table.
– Mr. President, you noted that Baku is interested in completing the military phase as quickly as possible. How long do you think it can last at the present time and is Baku ready to be content with seven districts around Nagorno- Karabakh?
– I have repeatedly said in my appeals to the Azerbaijani people and in numerous interviews this month that we are ready to stop at any moment, even today. But for this to happen, the Armenian side must commit to withdrawing its troops from the rest of the occupied territories. Therefore, I cannot predict how long the military confrontation will last. It depends on the Armenian side. As I said, their constant attempts to recapture our lands have failed. I think this should already be enough for them to understand that they will not achieve anything by military means. Unfortunately, on the political plane they are demonstrating a non- constructive approach, as I said, and have grossly violated the ceasefire three times. Based on this, of course, we will continue to plan on further action. As for the occupied territories, of course, the Azerbaijanis must return to all the occupied territories where they used to live, and this has always been my approach. Not only to the seven occupied districts outside Nagorno- Karabakh, outside the former Nagorno- Karabakh autonomous region, but also to the territories, to the lands they had lived on for centuries. First of all, these are Shusha, Khankandi and other lands that have been inhabited by Azerbaijanis for centuries. I also said that our vision for a settlement lies in the co- existence of the Armenian and Azerbaijani population of Nagorno- Karabakh. It so happened historically that the Armenian population has been living on these lands for 200 years. We all know the history of the resettlement of Armenians from Eastern Anatolia and Iran. But it so happened. They have lived there for 200 years. And we have no objection to the continued presence of the Armenian population. On the contrary, I have always said that thousands of citizens of Armenian nationality live in Azerbaijan, that Armenians and Azerbaijanis live together in neighboring countries and get along quite well. Why can’t this be achieved in Nagorno- Karabakh? Our vision is this: Azerbaijanis should return to all the territories they lived in. The Armenian population should also live on this land. And in the conditions of good neighborliness, we will strive to heal the wounds of war.
– So it means that Baku will not stop until Armenian servicemen withdraw from all the occupied territories.
– We need the Armenian side in the person of its leadership to undertake a commitment to withdraw troops from the occupied territories. We haven’t heard that yet. As soon as this commitment is made by the Armenian leadership and as soon as it is confirmed and approved by OSCE Minsk Group co- chairs, we are ready to stop military action immediately. And provided that the Armenian side also stops it because all three violations of the ceasefire were committed by the Armenian side. Four civilians, including a seven- year- old girl, were killed as a result of a cluster missile attack on Barda yesterday. This is not a conflict zone. So this is a flagrant violation of the ceasefire, which was agreed in Washington. Prior to that, the ceasefire agreed in Moscow was violated by the Armenian side the next day when they launched a ballistic missile from the territory of Armenia to Ganja. And as a result of this, 10 people died. As a result of the second ballistic missile attack on Ganja, even more people died. There are about 30 victims in a peaceful city. Therefore, it is not our fault that the ceasefire is not observed. Therefore, the Armenian side must undertake that they will withdraw from the occupied territories they are still holding under occupation: these include a part of Aghdam district, the entire Lachin district and most of Kalbajar district. And then we will be ready, of course, to move on to a political settlement. It will cover many aspects. In principle, we have accepted the fundamental principles, while the Armenian side has rejected them. But the Armenian prime minister’s aggressive statement yesterday suggests that they say one thing to the mediators and do something completely different.
– Mr. President, you have said that Baku is mainly committed to the fundamental principles. The first point of these principles was the liberation of five districts around Nagorno- Karabakh. But at present, four out of five districts have already been liberated by the Azerbaijani army. It turns out that, at a minimum, the fundamental principles are either not relevant or need some adjustment.
– This will depend on the behavior of the Armenian side again. As you know, negotiations between the foreign ministers of Azerbaijan and Armenia are to be held in Geneva tomorrow. There we will see how committed the Armenian side is to the fundamental principles. After that, we will give our assessment of how relevant they are now not, although I have repeatedly stated during this month that Azerbaijan accepts them in general, there are certain aspects that do not suit us, of course, but we accept them in general. As for the return of five districts at the first stage, of course, this is no longer relevant because the fundamental principles determined the sequence of territories to be returned – five districts at the first stage, and Kalbajar and Lachin districts at the second. Then comes the return of Azerbaijanis to the territory of Nagorno- Karabakh, in principle, the return of all refugees to the places of their original residence. We have almost completed the first stage. Therefore, if the Armenian side expresses its adherence to the fundamental principles, we will talk about an immediate transfer of Lachin, Kalbajar and a part of Aghdam district that are still under occupation to Azerbaijan. Thus, we will somewhat facilitate the work of mediators because one of the important issues will already be implemented and we will not have to wait for a second stage. It must come right away. If we agree on a political settlement, then Armenian troops should withdraw from Kalbajar and Lachin districts and a part of Aghdam district immediately.
– You have already touched upon tomorrow’s meeting of foreign ministers and outlined the overall expectations of Baku. I would like to clarify if Baku still expects the Armenian side to show constructivism and the negotiations to be more substantive, not abstract and broad?
– I think we are still hopeful. Although the aggressive conduct of the Armenian side and the fact that they are flagrantly violating international law, the Geneva Conventions, and committing war crimes does not suggest that they are going to discuss the substance of the settlement issue, of course. Attacking peaceful cities with cluster munitions is a war crime. We have 69 civilians killed and more than 300 injured as a result of Armenian shelling. This is the face of Armenian fascism. At the same time, I think that the defeat we have inflicted on Armenia on the battlefield should nevertheless be a serious signal for them that they can no longer imitate things, deceive us, deceive the co- chairs of the Minsk Group and essentially evade substantive discussions. As for the process of negotiations, there was practically none for the past year, even more than a year. This was the first time this has happened since the 1994 truce. Because since then, the negotiations have been going on with varying degree of intensity and the parties have agreed on provisions of the fundamental principles. They did not fall from the sky. These were the principles proposed by the Minsk Group, its co- chairs, and agreed by the parties. Therefore, there was a process, albeit slow, and some progress was being made. But after the new government came to power in Armenia, they gave us and, as far as I know, the mediators, promises in the first year. But in the second year, they openly demonstrated their true intention that they would not give up a single centimeter of the land. Moreover, they threatened us with a new war for new territories. In fact, these were the words of their Minister of Defense who has been completely discredited as Minister of Defense both in the eyes of his own people and in the eyes of the world community. And after such a humiliating defeat, I am surprised he hasn’t resigned yet.
– What is your assessment of remarks by Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who on the one hand uses belligerent rhetoric but on the other hand says that Armenia should prepare for painful compromises, then changes his tone again? What is behind this?
– It is hard for me to comment on this. I would probably abstain from an assessment of what is happening to the Armenian prime minister. Probably, this military defeat influenced his state, otherwise how one can explain the series of inconsistent statements and actions that are absolutely irrational and harmful, primarily for himself as the country’s leader and dangerous and harmful for his country?
Many people ask why the clashes happened now and not before. Even those who have a biased approach to Azerbaijan and openly support Armenia would ask this question. Twenty- six years have passed since the 1994 truce. There were clashes, there were victims over those years, but not on such a scale. So what has happened? Nothing has changed in Azerbaijan.
I have been engaged in settlement of negotiations for 17 years, and I have gone a long way towards agreeing on the fundamental principles together with the two previous Armenian presidents. That is why it is clear to impartial observers that it is not our fault. This is the fault of the inappropriate, irrational, and dangerous conduct of the Armenian prime minister.
No former Armenian leader ever allowed insulting innuendos regarding the Azerbaijani people. None of them allowed the Nagorno- Karabakh head to be inaugurated in Shusha. None of them prided themselves on the demonstrative violation of the Geneva Convention showing the resettlement of the Lebanese Armenians to Nagorno- Karabakh, including Shusha. And so on and so forth.
So these are the results of the ill- conceived and dangerous activity of Prime Minister Pashinyan. I wouldn’t comment on his statements inside the country. But what he does concerning the settlement is very dangerous for Armenia itself. Today, Armenia can clearly see this. That is why I think that the Minsk Group co- chairs should clearly raise this issue before the Armenian foreign minister, who, as I understand, is in a very difficult situation. He has to answer for the inappropriate conduct of his leader, and in fact he deserves sympathy. He will have to get himself out of this and somehow explain his series of inconsistent actions.
On the one hand, he speaks about painful concessions, on the other hand, he says that there is no diplomatic solution. First, he says that he is ready for a compromise but then he says that he will defend Karabakh until the very end. On the one hand, he says that Karabakh is Armenia, but then he says that we should negotiate with Nagorno- Karabakh. This is an absolutely mutually exclusive palette of inadequacy. So I think that many issues of these will be clarified tomorrow.
– In your latest address to the Azerbaijani people, you quite severely criticized the mediators for essentially being inactive. Does this mean that Baku will insist on changing the Minsk Group format?
– I have spoken many times about the activity of the OSCE Minsk Group over the past month. And what I said in the address to the Azerbaijani people is the absolute truth. Any format, no matter what it is called and who it involves, should acknowledge its ineffectiveness if it doesn’t fulfill the set task. And the set task has not been fulfilled. Although I cannot deny that the Minsk Group made attempts to reach a settlement, because fundamental principles were elaborated with its assistance. They worked and they proposed options. There were some things we didn’t agree with, there were some things that the Armenian side didn’t agree with. So that was a process that had lasted until Pashinyan came to power in Armenia.
But from the point of view of effectiveness and efficiency, the Minsk Group, of course, didn’t justify itself, I mean the activity of the co- chairs. Should the co- chairs be other countries, this could have been explained by their insufficient international weight, by their lack of authority to implement even the UN Security Council resolutions that they had adopted themselves. But when the Minsk Group co- chairs are three members of the UN Security Council, when three nuclear powers cannot exert pressure on Armenia, this, of course, raises a lot of questions.
As for the composition, I have already said that the Minsk Group was set up in 1992. I don’t know how it was set up and what principles underlie the choice of its members. But as I said, if we formed a contact group today, its composition would, of course, have been completely different. It would include countries that have their positions in the region and that have potential and authority in the world. Of course, I think the countries that are current co- chairs could probably remain there. But this is not a question for me, because the mechanism and the procedure of forming the Minsk Group and its co- chairs is the prerogative of the OSCE.
I think that we should not cling to formalities in order to settle the conflict. The Minsk Group as such can continue working, but we should think about new cooperation mechanisms between the countries of the region in order to practically reach a political settlement. I think that Russian President Vladimir Putin probably meant the same when he spoke about this.
– In this regard, some experts propose the 2+2 formula. How acceptable is it to Baku?
– Two is Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the other two?
– Turkey and Russia.
– This would be acceptable to us, because Turkey and Russia are our neighbors and countries with which we have close mutual relations and countries with good potential for cooperation among themselves. It is enough to look at the history of the past few years. Turkey and Russia have reached a high level of mutual understanding on many issues, including the bilateral agenda and the international security agenda. We see that in Syria and in Libya, and in tackling issues of countering international terrorism, to say nothing of energy projects, economic, investment projects.
Even before this escalation, I said that we have always welcomed the rapprochement of Turkey and Russia. I believe that this is an important factor of regional security. Considering that Armenian separatism is the main threat for us, and not only for us but for the entire region, I believe that combining the efforts of Turkey and Russia would benefit the region and could accelerate the political settlement of the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict.
– Mr. President, you have repeatedly said that the mediators should apply sanctions against Armenia in order to secure a breakthrough in the settlement process. What might be at issue?
– I have been talking about it for a long time, but regrettably my calls remain unanswered. What sanctions could be applied? Sanctions that would make Armenia fulfill the UN Security Council resolutions and withdraw its troops from the occupied territories. For example, we could have a look at the sanctions that were imposed on Iraq after its occupation of Kuwait. Similar things took place from the point of view of international law. The internationally recognized territory of Kuwait was occupied by Iraq, war crimes were committed, ethnic cleansing occurred, and only the timely reaction of the international community helped stop this occupation. And that happened within a short period of time. Next, economic sanctions, an arms embargo were imposed on Iraq. Iraq became a no- fly zone. War criminals, who committed crimes against humanity, were brought to justice and sentenced.
All these sanctions should be applied to Armenia. Even if one of these sanctions had been applied, I am sure the conflict would have been resolved long ago. There has simply been no political will and desire to apply these sanctions. And more likely the position that prevailed was that as long as there is no escalation, let’s leave everything as it is.
-Is it frozen?
– Frozen, of course. Although everyone understood that this cannot last forever. Everyone understood this 10 years ago. The presidents of Russia, the US and France made statements, and said clearly many times that the status quo was unacceptable.
Well, fine. We welcomed this, and I remember this was praised in our country, I commented on this. But what happened next? Then they began to depart from this thesis gradually, stopped voicing it and invented a new thesis that the status quo is unstable. And we can clearly understand that these are completely different things. So the co- chairing countries moved away even from a political attempt to exert pressure on Armenia. And it was common knowledge that the status quo was unstable. And recent events proved this.
This is why, let me repeat that again, it is not too late to apply sanctions in order to end the conflict as soon as possible. I think that co- chairing countries should seriously think about what sanctions could be applied against the aggressor in order to make them leave the occupied lands.
– Do you think that the co- chairs managed to remain entirely neutral over the month of the military phase?
– Every country, including Azerbaijan, can have its own foreign political priorities. We have closer relations with some countries and less close with others. Our relations with some countries are based on historical factors and with others on pragmatic factors. That is why we have always treated with understanding the fact that there are very well structured and active Armenian communities in the co- chairing countries, in the US, in France, and in Russia. Even when we analyzed this situation, it is very hard to tell where they have greater influence on decision- making. That is why we have always taken and are taking this factor into account.
If there were some deviations at the first stage of hostilities that made us doubt their neutrality, I think now everything is fine- tuned. My contacts with the leaders of the co- chairing countries, as well as, I am sure, international support that Azerbaijan got, resulted in the fact that we can see this neutrality now. Once again, what some people have on their mind is not our business, but, of course, the mediators must adhere to international law and neutrality, otherwise they will just forfeit the right to be mediators. A mediator must be impartial, it must leave emotions at home or leave them for the bilateral format, and as part of the settlement it must take into account the mandate that the OSCE gave it and the desire to settle the conflict in line with international law rather than in line with the wishes of Azerbaijan or Armenia.
– You have said recently said that there will be no referendum in Nagorno- Karabakh. This is the new reality. Does this mean that Azerbaijan has changed its position, made it tougher?
– I have been talking about this for 17 years, and the OSCE Minsk Group co- chairs know my position. I don’t remember how many co- chairs have changed over these years, how many diplomats have been co- chairmen, but all of them can confirm that I have always said that there will never be a referendum on the internationally recognized territories of Azerbaijan. Moreover, if we look at the fundamental principles, there is no such word as ‘referendum’ there. There is a certain wording related to the _expression_ of will, to self- determination there.
We have always said that self- determination is an important principle of international law, but it cannot violate the territorial integrity of a country. Secondly, a country’s territorial integrity cannot be changed without the consent of this country. And I naturally adhere to this position today: we will not let a second Armenian state be set up on Azerbaijan’s territories. If someone is willing to create a second Armenian state, let them give a part of their territory and let them create it there.
– Armenia says that it can recognize the independence of Nagorno- Karabakh if hostilities continue. At the same time, there are calls for countries and international organizations to recognize Karabakh. How likely is this? And what could it lead to?
– What you are asking about once again proves the inconsistency and insincerity of the incumbent Armenian authorities, because while failing to recognize Nagorno- Karabakh themselves, they want other countries do that. And their regular blackmailing and threats that they will recognize Nagorno- Karabakh in case of escalation turned out to be yet another bluff. Military confrontation on Karabakh has lasted for more than a month. Why haven’t they recognized Nagorno- Karabakh yet?
It is very easy to do, let them just say that they recognize it. This is the essence of their policies, when they have been always trying for many decades, but regrettably they have sometimes succeeded under the cover of other states to have other states solve their problems. This is the essence of the ideology of the present- day Armenian state. It is based on very deep historical roots, it has been this way for the whole history. If we look at the past 200 years of the history of the Caucasus, we can see how many wars started because of them, how many provocations they caused for other countries, and then going to the backstage, hiding behind someone’s backs reaped the fruits of confrontation and the fruits of shedding the blood of other peoples.
We know the history of their appearance in the Caucasus well. Historically, there was no Armenian ethnicity in the region. How did they get here? This was their way, trickery, cunning attempts to use a cat’s paw to take roasting chestnuts from a fire. They are doing the same now. Hence my call for them in response – recognize Nagorno- Karabakh, recognize its right today. By the way, I have spoken about it quite recently. Let them recognize Nagorno- Karabakh today, but asking other countries to do this once again proves the inappropriateness of the Armenian leadership and very low political literacy. That is why if the Armenian leadership knew at least the basics of international politics a little, it would understand that the whole world recognizes Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. It is common knowledge that we joined the UN and other international organizations as a single state encompassing Nagorno- Karabakh. The Non- Aligned Movement – 120 countries – voices unambiguous support for Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. The European Union – 27 countries – our document with the EU states the support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and inviolability of Azerbaijan’s borders. Altogether there are almost 150 countries. Should we add the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, which, however, includes some NAM members but there are other countries that are not represented in the NAM, we get the whole international community.
Because of Armenia, its whim and caprice to recognize Nagorno- Karabakh, to spoil relations with Azerbaijan, and not just to spoil, as I said this will immediately lead to the rupture of diplomatic relations with any country that will do so, no- one will just do that. Moreover, they don’t recognize it themselves. Moreover, they are aggressors in line with the reality on the Earth and in line with UN resolutions. This is why this is a very indecent attempt to pull somebody’s chestnuts out of the fire.
– Russia has proposed deploying military observers in the conflict zone. Prime Minister Pashinyan in general agreed to deploying peacekeepers to the conflict zone and didn’t rule out that these could be Russian peacekeepers. So is it observers or peacekeepers? What is the position of Baku?
– This issue is reflected in the fundamental principles, but we have never seriously discussed it because we simply didn’t get to it. It was planned to dispatch peacekeepers to the region at the final stage of the settlement, when the aftermath of the occupation is mitigated, when refugees return to Nagorno- Karabakh, then, yes, in order to ensure that Azerbaijani and Armenian population can live side by side, disengagement forces will be needed at the first stage. But the fundamental principles don’t state for how long they should be deployed and what countries they should consist of. Simply because we didn’t reach it. First of all, all main provisions of the agreement must be agreed on.
As for the desire of the Armenian prime minister to see peacekeepers in the conflict zone, then firstly, this is none of his business, because when we speak about the conflict zone, we should understand that this is Azerbaijan’s territory. If we speak about peacekeepers at the border of Armenia and Azerbaijan, this is another issue. But as far as I understand, it is the Azerbaijani territory that is in question now, that is why we should have the final say.
And since this topic wasn’t broadly discussed, I think it is premature to speak about it. But for my part I would like to note that when we speak about it, we should firstly understand what mandate possible observers would have and where they would be deployed. One should understand that there is no contact line, so where will their posts be? Armenia breaches international law and ceasefire, shelling our cities. Just recently, Euronews aired footage that clearly shows a flying missile flying. And it was flying to our cities rather than military positions. So where they will be, what mandate, composition, numbers, arms, and functions will they have, and who will ensure their security? These questions require very thorough examination, and only afterwards will we be able to say whether we agree to it or not. That is why it is so far premature.
– In general, do military officials of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia discuss any mechanisms of ceasefire monitoring?
- No, there are no such discussions now.
– Are you ready to go to Moscow for negotiations on Karabakh with the Armenian prime minister? And on what conditions?
- I haven’t received such an invitation. I have repeatedly taken part in trilateral meetings between the presidents of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia, but there have been no such meetings since Pashinyan came to power in Armenia. These meetings were with the previous presidents of Armenia, and I have never avoided such meetings. I considered them to be very positive, because Russia as a co- chair of the Minsk Group plays a special role in the settlement, and historically Russia has always maintained close ties with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russia is very actively cooperating politically and economically with Azerbaijan and Armenia these days, it is our neighbor. Therefore, it is natural that most of these meetings have been held in Russian territory, but there have been no such meetings with Pashinyan. I don’t know how efficient they are going to be now with regard to the Armenian leadership. But if such a proposal is made, we have always viewed them positively and will continue to do so.
– Does this mean that you are ready to go if there is such an invitation?
- Yes, and without any preconditions as you have said. This is evident from the fact that our foreign ministers will be meeting in Geneva tomorrow also without any preconditions. Moreover, I would like to say that, when the conflict only just began, our foreign minister had plans to visit Geneva to meet with the co-chairs, and he did go there. And the Armenian foreign minister, who had planned to travel there a week before, in early October, refused to go. And when a proposal from Moscow came on a meeting between the foreign ministers to coordinate a humanitarian ceasefire, our foreign minister flew there from Geneva. In other words, we are not setting any terms, but again, I really doubt that the current Armenian authorities are capable of constructively working toward a settlement.
– Prime Minister Pashinyan has repeatedly said that Turkish troops are directly involved in hostilities in Nagorno-Karabakh. It was also said that Pakistani special units are also involved. Your comment?
- These are yet more of Pashinyan’s lies. I must say that there were no such things in my contacts with previous Armenian presidents. Yes, we are adversaries, we cannot have positive attitudes towards each other, but there have never been such open lies and such allegations at the negotiating table. This is all lies. There are no Turkish special units there. I have repeatedly said that, and there is no such need. He has now said that some kind of Pakistani special units are present here, and by the way I think he got a note of protest in return. This is nonsense, there is no such thing.
These are all attempts to firstly engage other countries into the conflict, make it international in order to conceal his shameful defeat, saying that allegedly it is not Azerbaijan that beats us up on the battlefield, but Turkish and Pakistani special units. He has recently made a ridiculous statement – as I was told – that the terrorists Azerbaijan had allegedly brought from Syria to Azerbaijan sneaked into Russia and staged a terrorist attack in Grozny. Just understand that this is absolute nonsense. Russian special services know for sure who staged the terrorist attack. Previously, he said that Turkey’s F- 16 brought down Armenia’s Su- 25. Everyone knows this is a lie. Such things are monitored by Russia and other co-chairing countries. We live in the era of technologies and nothing can be hidden.
This was simply idiocy when he said that it wasn’t Armenia that had launched ballistic missiles against Ganja, because any launch of a ballistic missile is monitored. Russia, America and France are well aware that this missile was launched and what combat mission it had. The combat mission was to hit a residential neighborhood, and another residential neighborhood for the second time. We have no military bases, no military towns in Ganja. He is simply lying.
And he says it was not us, when hundreds of journalists take horrible footage of these destructions, when foreign diplomats give interviews right from the destruction site, Pashinyan says that it was not Armenia. Then who? Did we strike at Ganja ourselves? Just imagine the level of deceit and, what is more, idiocy. Any reasonable person should understand that this is impossible to hide. It is yet another lie when he speaks about Pakistani and Turkish special units. He will say tomorrow that Martians were brought there in order to liberate territories. Anything can be expected from him.
– I would still like to specify Turkey’s future role in the conflict settlement…
- We see Turkey’s role in the settlement as effective. Turkey is a fraternal state to us. Turkey is the only country of the world that borders on three South Caucasian countries. Turkey today has a decisive say in many discussions not only on a regional but also on a global scale. Turkey pursues an absolutely independent foreign policy, thus evoking, as far as I know, much irritation among those who have got used to ordering everyone about. That is why I think Turkey, as a secure partner and friend of Azerbaijan, which has also have very close relations with Russia, will definitely play an important role.
It is already playing this role, and the fact that the presidents of Russia and Turkey, the foreign ministers, and the defense ministers are in constant contact with each other discussing these questions proves that Turkey is already engaged, whether Armenia likes it or not. But I am certain that Armenia is forced to recognize and accept this.
– Is there a risk that the Azerbaijani- Armenian conflict will escalate into a regional confrontation involving big states?
- Frankly speaking, I cannot fully rule this out, but I must say that for our part we will take no actions that could lead to this, there will be no provocations that would make this conflict international. We don’t need this, and I have said many times over the past month that we are against this, and I called on countries to show restraint and not to interfere. I am glad this is happening this way.
Although Armenia’s constant attempts to make this conflict international and constant requests of the Armenian leadership for Russia to almost send its troops to fight on Armenia’s side are exactly what I was talking about – to pull somebody’s chestnuts out of the fire. That is why I am sure that regional countries, and these are the countries that Azerbaijan enjoys close historical, cultural, political and trustworthy relations with – Russia, Turkey, Iran, Georgia – will naturally abstain from any actions that would play into the aggressor’s hands.
– Not long ago President Putin said that the death toll of the current escalation on both side is about 5,000 people. Do you have the same data?
- I said that we would publish the number of killed servicemen after the war is over. As for civilians, we are making data public. I told you about 69 people killed and more than 300 wounded.
As for the losses, I can say what losses Armenia could have according to our estimates. Just look, simple arithmetic, 256 tanks were destroyed as of yesterday, the figure is growing day to day, just multiply it by – how many crewmembers there are, three or four – this is almost 1,000. Next, over 50 infantry fighting vehicles were destroyed, it is roughly clear how many people are there. Hundreds of artillery guns, and each of them has several people, six S-300 systems, about 40 OSA air defense systems, the TOR, KUB, KRUG systems, more than 400 trucks – and the majority of them carried personnel and ammunition when they were destroyed. If we just calculate these figures… And how many people were killed in trenches? We were in those trenches, the contact lines – the footage is on the Internet. So according to our information, 5,000 Armenian troops may have been killed, and the number of wounded during war, as a rule, is two to three times higher.
As for our losses, I have said we will make them public after the fighting is over. But I have to say that they are a lot less, and bearing in mind the nature of the combat clashes, the difficult terrain, and the fortifications that the Armenians have built for 30 years, I believe that every human life is priceless, but our losses are minimal, bearing in mind all these factors.
– Military experts believe that Azerbaijan managed to minimize its losses during the active stage of hostilities thanks to the active use of drones. What is the reason for using drones?
- Of course, the arsenal of the Azerbaijani army consists not only of drones. We have modern air defense systems made in Russia, in Israel, in Belarus; several air defense systems are crisscross, which shoot down the bulk of missiles being sent from Armenian territory. Unfortunately, we can’t shoot down all of them.
Our armor is the most modern: upgraded T-72 tanks, the most modern T-90 tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, modern artillery that has a very long range. This includes Polonez rockets, LORA, Extra, Kasirga, etc. Our approach to the arming of our army was not one-sided.
But modern methods of warfare, of course, are different from those we had back in 1990s, and so unmanned aviation is an important factor of our combat capabilities, especially considering such fortified areas. That is why even the footage that we show on the Internet, just believe me that it is almost nothing compared to what is happening. This is what we can show.
They dug everything they could there. They have many kilometers of interconnected tunnels, rat holes where they get to as soon as they hear noise. There is a rat hole near every gun. That is why it would have been very hard to destroy this without modern hardware, this would result in a large number of casualties. We destroyed many Grad systems, and in this case unmanned aviation, Turkish and Israeli drones, helped us very much.
By using UAVs, we destroyed at least six S-300 air defense systems. In addition, modern UAVs conduct reconnaissance themselves, apart from independently carrying out strikes. They also coordinate artillery, which strikes afterwards. This is why it is an important factor of our success. But as I said, Azerbaijani soldiers and officers are liberating the lands, raising the flag. Because this is our heritage, and it is not by accident that the Azerbaijani army is considered as one of the most effective. I already know that this experience has been studied. In general, this experience will be useful for many countries in order to plan father military build-up.
And even for us. I recently held a meeting with the military and said that we should analyze both successes and shortcomings. And in the future, when we buy military hardware, we should be guided by experience in terms of what we need and what lies idle in storage depots.
– You spoke about Azerbaijan’s civilian losses. What is the reaction of the international community to this? Does it condemn it or does everything end with calls to Baku and Yerevan to stop shelling each other?
- Yes, this is so. And this is not news for us. What kind of condemnation of Armenia has there been over these years of occupation? Has it been condemned? There has been none. Has anyone condemned Armenia for occupation? Yes, UN Security Council resolutions were adopted in 1993, yes, we then attained the adoption of UN General Assembly, the Non-Aligned Movement and even the European Parliament resolutions. Of course, they created a judicial framework, a legal framework for the settlement. But we have heard no condemnation. Even when it was clear that Armenia breached the ceasefire, not a single day elapsed after the ceasefire was agreed on in Moscow when they attacked Ganja.
And now, a day after the ceasefire was agreed on in Washington – and they begged for one, they begged for a ceasefire in Moscow and now, and what was reached thanks to the efforts of the French side – not a single day passed before they shelled Barda. And before that they fired at a funeral procession in Tartar. Four people were killed there. These are inhumane actions. This proves who we have to war against. This means there are no moral norms, no honor, dignity, and no understanding of how wars are fought.
You know, everyone, even an adversary, even an enemy, should be respected to a certain extent, because there are rules, in particular for fighting wars. There is nothing of the kind for the Armenian side. That is why we didn’t pin much hope on condemnation. Fraternal Turkey backs us, Pakistan openly supports us. The Turkish president, the Pakistani prime minister have repeatedly voiced their support for us. Many countries support us. And when we say international community, almost every time the Western world is meant. But we haven’t expected any sympathy from there.
– Could attacks on Azerbaijan’s energy infrastructure, in particular Mingachevir and oil and gas pipelines, create certain risks for supplies of Azerbaijan’s oil and gas to the global market?
- If they do what they promised, that is, the bombardment of the Sangachal terminal, or our oil and gas pipelines, this will certainly pose some risks. I think that they will be condemned in this case. As it is European consumers who need this oil and gas most of all. It is no secret that the gas pipeline from Azerbaijan to a certain extent, certainly not to a large extent, but somehow contributes and will contribute to energy security of some European countries.
As for the oil supplies, some European Union countries get 40 to 50 percent of their oil from Azerbaijan today. If something happens to these oil and gas pipelines, Armenia will face already serious international pressure. However, this does not stop them. They attempted to bomb the Baku-Novorossiysk oil pipeline. This is a pipeline that connects Azerbaijan and Russia, a country Armenia constantly demands special relations from without giving anything in return. Absolutely nothing in both the political sense and international support. It is hard to expect anything different from the Soros team.
That is why the bombardment of the electric power plant in Mingachevir is aimed at destroying Azerbaijan’s energy system. This, of course, will have an effect to a certain extent, but we have already set up a branched power supply network, and new electric power plants.
This proves the predatory nature of the Armenian side. It is another thing that we have destroyed the majority of these missiles in mid-air, intercepted them, and some of them did not explode. This also speaks about their military potential. But such a threat certainly does exist, and we should respond to it adequately.
I have always said and continue saying that despite the barbaric bombardment of Barda, where a seven-year-old girl was killed and several more children were injured, I say that we are not them. We will respond on the battlefield, we will respond by liberating new lands, by raising the flag in new cities. We will bomb neither cities nor civilians.
Let me give you an absolutely recent example. It is an exchange of dead bodies and prisoners in question. Basically, this subject was first mentioned for humanitarian reasons in Moscow on 10 October. We contacted the Red Cross to say, ‘Let’s organize a swap.’ Moreover, I will give you further detail. I have ordered to maximally preserve the bodies of Armenian servicemen – in refrigerators or cold places. We all understand what happens to human bodies…
– They are decaying…
- Yes, absolutely right. And the Armenian side refuses to take them every time. It says every time, let’s do it where battles are under way. So, you understand, to put the lives of civilians in jeopardy. We say no. We have a state border. Let’s do it in Tovuz district, in Gazakh district. Let’s do it there. So yesterday, I decided to unilaterally hand over the bulk of the bodies of the killed Armenian servicemen. Plus, we have two civilians. These are elderly people who we are also handing over. And so we tried to do it yesterday. We sent cars with the bodies toward the border. We involved the office of the OSCE and the Red Cross. But the Armenian side doesn’t accept them. You see, it doesn’t take the dead! What are we talking about? How can this even be commented on? What norms of human moral does this fit into? That is why we will transfer the bodies in any case. Currently, we are looking at transferring their civilians and killed people via Georgia.
But if they refuse to accept them, I just don’t know what to do. This is who we are fighting with, you see. Everyone should understand this. These are all their false and whining assurances. Their cries, their moans, these are just crocodile tears. We know this well. That is why the Russian public shouldn’t be deceived by these lies and slander. Yes, it is clear that they got incorporated deep into Russia’s agencies. But that is not all. They are also there in France and America. They are in the media, they sometimes create a public background. But people should understand who we are fighting against and understand that we are right. We are fighting on our own land, and they are dying on our land.
– You have repeatedly said that the military phase of the conflict will end sooner or later. If Karabakh and seven districts are returned, how could this affect the pace of Azerbaijan’s economic development?
- It is hard to say. You know, there are different assessments. Of course, the return of large territories under our control is a big potential for growth and development, primarily in agriculture and tourism spheres. Because the Karabakh region is one of the most beautiful and bountiful regions of our country. It is rich in natural resources – gold, zinc, lead. By the way, Armenia illegally produces gold in Kalbajar together with some foreign companies. But we, of course, will hold all of them to account through relevant legal procedures.
That is why prospects of this region will be very important for the sustainable development of Azerbaijan and for ensuring food security, primarily. But one should understand that this will entail enormous financial expenditures at the initial stage.
– Restoration…
- Yes, of course. The footage that we demonstrate show that there is no house left there. When we liberated Fuzuli, we were unable to find a single building intact – just imagine. In the whole city. And tens of thousands people lived there. No building. I was called, and I said raise the flag on a flagpole. Do you understand? This is what they did. And look at the ruins of Aghdam, Jabrayil district. Everything is in ruins. It looked as if barbarians were there, not people. They took everything away, roofs, windows, toilets, sinks. They are just thieves. That is why we will face enormous expenditures. Infrastructure, roads, communications, housing, administrative buildings. Let me put it this way, at the first stage from the point of view of the gross domestic product this will probably have a positive impact on the construction industry, employment, and everything related to the production of construction materials. But from the point of view of expenditures, these will run to many billions.
We will calculate the damage. I have already ordered, given instructions to set up temporary command offices in liberated territories. I issued this order just a few days ago. We will take stock of everything that is left there, we will assess the damage inflicted there. Naturally, later, at the stage when our people will return there, we will employ relevant legal procedures and hold the aggressor accountable.
So I think in the long run, I think, in five or ten years this will add a good impetus to the non-oil industries, while this will be very costly in the short run. But there are no material dimensions that would stop us from restoring Karabakh and make it one of the most beautiful and comfortable place for living on earth.
– And my last question. What is your vision of the geopolitical development of the situation and alignment of forces in the region after the Karabakh conflict is settled?
- I believe the situation will certainly be different from what it used to be before the conflict. We have changed the geopolitical lie of the land in the region in many respects. It has already been changed, and a lot of stereotypes have become outdated – for instance, such a stereotype as confrontation between Russia and NATO. Now look: Russia and Turkey, a NATO member, have far more sincere and trusting relations than Turkey, a NATO member, has with some other country. It didn’t use to be this way. This is a new reality. That is why this very structured stereotypic geopolitical thinking is being consigned to history. I think this is a positive factor. So we have to proceed from the reality. And politicians shape the reality by their actions. I think our region today sees a very positive format of cooperation between leading policy-makers, who determine the region’s agenda and are focused on cooperation.
After all, we can talk about active cooperation between Turkey, Iran, Russia, and Azerbaijan in both trilateral and bilateral formats these days. I think one day we will start working in a quadrilateral format as well. This would be natural from the historical, economic, transport and geopolitical standpoints, and what is most important, from the standpoint of strengthening security in this region.
That is why Armenia should not remain foreign matter on the body of the Caucasus. It was the last to come here, and the Armenian state was created artificially on the lands that it never owned. I have said many times that the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic gave Yerevan to Armenia. This is a historical fact. On 29 May 1918, a day after the foundation of the republic was announced, Yerevan was given to Armenia. When this issue was being discussed, members of the legislative body from Yerevan were against it, but their opinion was ignored. So this is how Yerevan was given away, as simply as that. But, as they say, what is to be, will be.
Armenia shouldn’t be a foreign body. It must end the occupation and normalize relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey. This would only benefit them, believe me, this would only benefit them. All communications would be opened, and they would become part of energy and transport integration projects, they would become part of the common security system. After all, look, Turkey is buying S-400 systems from Russia. This is an absolutely new security system. This is not just the purchase of an air defense system, but this is a step toward a new security system and mutual confidence. This can’t be accomplished without mutual confidence. We bought S-300 from Russia a long time ago, this is also a factor of mutual confidence, you see.
Therefore, this arrangement in the region benefits all. Armenia should come to understand that it is being marginalized, and nobody will fight for it. And what’s next? If it continues confrontation with us, if it keeps making territorial claims on Turkey, well, it should understand, how can it oppose us? But we don’t want this opposition. We want peace, despite all the pain and tragedies that they have inflicted on our people. Therefore, I believe that geopolitical realities should be developing positively. At least as far as we are concerned, we will be doing all we can to make this happen.
– Thank you for your detailed answers.
-Thank you
—
Follow us on Twitter @AzerNewsAz
The council of elders of Yerevan, the self-government body of the capital city, approved on Tuesday a decision to erect a monument to the legendary Armenian gymnast Albert Azaryan. The statue will be put near the Youth’s School of Gymnastics of Olympic Reserve after Albert Azaryan in downtown Yerevan. The relevant proposal had been submitted by National Olympic Committee of Armenia.
To note, Albert Azaryan is the 1956 and 1960 Olympic Champion on the still rings. Azaryan is the first gymnast to become an Olympic Champion in Rings twice. During the gymnastics competitions held in Leningrad in 1953, Albert Azaryan carried out his most famous trick on the rings called “Azarian Cross.” The exercise could almost lead him to be disqualified, however later the same tick paved him a way to the USSR team.
Throughout his career, Azaryan has won 42 gold, 42 silver and 10 bronze medals and became USSR champion for 11 times. Azaryan was voted the top Armenian athlete of the 20th century by journalists from the Armenian Federation of Sport Journalists.
| By A. Savyon
Iran, South Caucasus | Inquiry & Analysis Series No. 1603
The War’s Ramifications For Iran
Until the second Nagorno-Karabakh war in 2020, Iran had been able to exert control over its ally Armenia and had direct land access to it, and through it to Europe, with the so-called North-South Corridor. Via this route, Iran was able to transfer goods from its industries, including those under Western sanctions. This land route was also used for the uninterrupted smuggling of goods of various kinds.
Following the November 2020 ceasefire, and Azerbaijan’s insistence,[1] with Turkey’s support, on creating an east-west corridor on Armenian soil – the Zangezur Corridor – linking the Azeri enclave on the Turkish border, the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic – with Azerbaijan to the east, Iran no longer enjoyed free access to Armenia. The north-south corridor once controlled by Iran was effectively closed by Azerbaijan, with tax roadblocks for inspecting all cargo and charging customs for all trucks from Iran travelling northwards.[2]
This development, and particularly Azerbaijan’s inspection and taxation of northbound truck traffic from Iran, prompted rage in Iran, and in late September 2021 it conducted two surprise military exercises, dubbed “Conquerors of Khaybar,” to intimidate Azerbaijan. Iran’s ideological camp and regime circles issued a series of direct threats to Azerbaijan, inter alia underlining its ability to launch thousands of missiles against the Azerbaijan capital Baku and to direct ethnic populations against Azerbaijan and its patron Turkey.
For example, Hassan Hanizadeh, an Iranian political analyst who is close to Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), hinted that Iran could use the Azeri, Shi’ite, and Kurdish ethnic groups against Azerbaijan.[3] Also, the IRGC unveiled, via its media outlets, the previously unknown “Hussainiyoun” Azeri Shi’ite militia established in the Caucasus by the late IRGC Qods Force commander Qassem Soleimani.[4] These media outlets also recently boasted of a Qods Force operation to kidnap Azeris on Azerbaijan soil in collaboration with this militia, and challenged Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev, asking whether “Aliyev has the courage now to threaten Iran.”[5]
The region following the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh ceasefire agreement. The green arrow indicates the Zangezur Corridor linking the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic (dark green) with Azerbaijan. Map courtesy of CIA Fact Book, “Azerbaijan.”
In October 2021, operating in the diplomatic arena, Iran sent Foreign Minister Hossein Amir-Abdollahian to high-level meetings in Russia in order to gain Russian political backing for Iran’s opposition to what it called border changes in the southern Caucasus. So far Russia has not complied with the Iranian demands, inter alia because it itself is party to the Armenia-Azerbaijan ceasefire agreement that it mediated – Russia is guarantor of the security of the transport arrangements set out in in the agreement.[6] Russia also does not want a stronger Iran or a stronger Armenia, Iran’s ally, whose prime minister Nikol Pashiniyan is known to be close to the U.S.
Further strengthening its claims against Azerbaijan, Iran accused it of allowing Israel to establish a military presence on its soil, in the form of military bases at the Azerbaijan-Iran border. This presence, it said, was aimed against Iran. Iranian regime officials and the Iranian media leveraged this claim to warn and threaten Azerbaijan, lest it allow what they called enemy forces from outside the region to impact the balance of power and impose geopolitical change at the borders.
Iran sees itself as an influential regional force with troops that is spreading its vision of a ruling order with the values and ideology of its Islamic Revolution, and prides itself on its glorious imperial heritage. As such, it takes a negative view of Azerbaijan’s geopolitical and economic gains on its border at Iran’s expense. It also finds infuriating the fact that Azerbaijan – its younger, smaller neighbor established on land torn away from the Persian Empire whose largely Shi’ite population, albeit secular, has a great deal in common culturally and historically with Iran, and which Iran thinks should by rights be closer to it – is shifting the balance of power in its own favor and in favor of Turkey, Iran’s greatest rival for areas of influence in the Caucasus.
Iran’s apprehensions about losing political influence and trade supremacy in the region following its loss of the north-south corridor to the Azerbaijan-Turkey axis are growing even more in light of the potential ethnic threat that Azerbaijan poses as the Azeri nation-state. Two-thirds of the Azeris in the world live in Iran’s north and constitute 24% of that country’s population; the other third lives in Azerbaijan itself. Iran fears stronger Azeri nationalism and separatism, as well as possible demands by the Azeri regions of northern Iran to secede and join Azerbaijan – as was hinted at during and after the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war.[7]
These fears, together with what Iran considers the Israeli-Turkish scheming against it, along with many Iranians’ sentimental links to Persian Empire territories lost to Czarist Russia due to Persian weakness, were described accurately by Ahmad Dastmalchian, a former senior official in Iran’s Interior and Foreign Ministries and former ambassador to Lebanon and Jordan, and former head of the Iranian consulate in Saudi Arabia. On October 17, 2021, he warned Azerbaijan President Aliyev not to challenge Iranian sovereignty, and even threatened his survival and the survival of his regime:
“What Azerbaijan is doing together with Turkey and Israel is an Israeli project… The Zionist regime wants a presence at Iran’s borders. Israel seeks to create a domino effect by inciting ethnic minorities in the region, if it can manage to foment unrest – thus harming the authority of the governments of the states in the region and establishing autonomous minority governments… The Zionist regime seeks a war between the border cities of Iran and Azerbaijan, [countries] that were [once] actually one single [state – i.e. the Persian Empire], and for Turkey too to help with this plan…
“Obviously, Iran has taken strategic deterrent [measures – i.e. the Conquerors of Khaybar military exercise] and in my view this is the best response that resulted – [a response] with strength. Iran has sent a good message to the neighboring countries, i.e. that it does not accept any geopolitical change of borders, and this is a firm stand.
“[President] Aliyev in Baku must know that [if] he takes a step, [even] the smallest step, against Iran’s security, he will receive a powerful slap. Iran has proven that it does not compromise on its security. Aliyev must know that [the ground] is shaking under his feet. Therefore, he must emerge from this delusion [of carrying out activity against Iran]. If he wants to play with Iran’s sovereignty, he is playing with his own life and existence. Iran’s political and military leaders have done a good job of clarifying this.”[8]
In effect, Iran is trying today to change the outcome of the war, or at least to influence the shaping of the new power relations in the southern Caucasus that are emerging following the war. Along with its military threats in the form of exercises at its border with Azerbaijan, and the escalating declarations, it appears that the Iranian regime is seeking to obtain its goal primarily via direct pressure through diplomatic channels with Azerbaijan and also with its rivals in the region, Turkey and Russia.
The Geopolitical Historical Basis For Iran’s Claim And Involvement In The Southern Caucasus
The Caucasus region, where Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia are now located, were part of the 19th century’s Qajar Persian Empire. Following the empire’s defeats at the hands of Czarist Russia, the subsequent humiliations of the Treaty of Gulistan (1813) and the Treaty of Turkmenchay (1828), the areas north of the Aras River were handed over to Czarist Russia’s control, and later became the independent states of Azerbaijan and Armenia. The territories south of the Aras remained under Iranian control. However, the territories lost by the Persian Empire due to its weakness are perceived by many Iranians to remain connected to Iran.
Persian territorial losses after the Gulistan and Turkmenchay treaties (source: U.S. Department of State)
The Treaty Of Gulistan, 1813
The Gulistan Peace Treaty was signed between Czarist Russia and the Persian Empire of the Qajar dynasty in October 1813, in the village of Gulistan in Nagorno-Karabakh, following the Persian defeat in the Russian-Persian war (1804-1813). As part of the treaty, Persia was required to hand over most of the territories that make up today’s Georgia and Azerbaijan: the khanates of the south Caucasus – Karabakh, Ganja, Sheki, Shirvan, Derbent, and Baku – and to relinquish any claim to the regions of Dagestan, Georgia, Mingrelia, and Abkhazia. In addition, Persia lost all maritime rights to the Caspian Sea, and was forced to grant Russia free trade access across all Persian territories. The treaty enraged the people of Persia, and was one of the factors leading to the fall of Fath-Ali Shah Qajar.
The Treaty of Turkmenchay, 1828
The treaty of Turkmenchay, which ended the Russian-Persian war of 1826-1828 with a Persian defeat, cemented the borders between the two until the early 20th century, and set the borders of the independent states of Azerbaijan and Armenia. In the Persian village of Turkmenchay, in February 1928, it was decided that the territory of the Nakhichevan khanate would be absorbed into the Yerevan khanate (which comprises most of Armenia’s territory today), and handed over to Russia. Due to some clauses of the Turkmenchay Treaty, the authorities of Czarist Russia encouraged Armenians to migrate from Persia and Turkey to Nakhichevan, causing tension between the Christian Armenians and local Muslims. In addition to losing the territories of the south Caucasus to Russia, Persia lost maritime rights to the Caspian Sea, and was forced to allow a Russian trade delegation access to all Persian territory, and to allow Russian merchants access to conduct trade in all areas of Persia. It was also required to issue an apology for its violation of the Treaty of Gulistan.
The khanates of Nakhichevan circa 1800 (Source: Armenica.org, prior to May 27, 2006)
*A. Savyon is Director of the MEMRI Iran Studies Project
[1] Azerbaijan President Aliyev said on April 20, 2021: “We are implementing the Zangazur corridor, whether Armenia likes it or not. If they do, it will be easier for us to implement, if not, we will enforce it… The Azerbaijani people will return to Zangazur, which was taken away from us 101 years ago.” En.president.az/articles/5121, April 20, 2021. The Azeri demand is based on Paragraph 9 of the ceasefire agreement of November 2020; Armenia opposes the Azeri interpretation: “All economic and transport connections in the region shall be unblocked. The Republic of Armenia shall guarantee the security of transport connections between the western regions of the Republic of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic in order to arrange unobstructed movement of persons, vehicles and cargo in both directions. The Border Guard Service of the Russian Federal Security Service shall be responsible for overseeing the transport connections. As agreed by the Parties, new transport links shall be built to connect the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic and the western regions of Azerbaijan” Statement by President of the Republic of Azerbaijan, Prime Minister of the Republic of Armenia and President of the Russian Federation.” En.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64384, November 10, 2020.
[2] For more on the unfolding of events since August 2021, see Iranian Foreign Ministry mouthpiece Tehran Times, September 24, 2021, “Iran warns of third-parties malign influence over Tehran-Baku ties.”
[3] ISNA (Iran), October 7, 2021.
[4] MEMRI Special Dispatch No. 9600, Azeri Shi’ite Militia ‘Hussainiyoun’ Founder Tawhid Ebrahimi: Qods Force Commander Qassem Soleimani ‘Issued Orders That Paved The Way For Us’, October 20, 2021.
[5] Tahririeh.com, October 12, 2021.
[6] Russia is meant to guarantee freedom of transport at the border crossings that are set out in the ceasefire agreement.
[7] MEMRI Inquiry and Analysis No. 1546, Anti-Turkey Statements In Iran – Part III: Erdoğan Is Undermining Iran’s Territorial Integrity, January 11, 2021.
Yesterday, at a meeting of the heads of the CIS member states, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said that Yerevan intends to open transport and economic communications with Azerbaijan, stating that this is “the only way that, we believe, can lead to the goal” of achieving peace and stability in South Caucasus.
“In this context, it is very important to implement the agreements that were reached in the Trilateral Statements of November 9, 2020 and January 11, 2021. I want to inform you that within the framework of the Trilateral Working Group headed by the Deputy Prime Ministers of Russia, Armenia and Azerbaijan, we are working on opening all transport communications and hope to achieve concrete results in the near future,” Nikol Pashinyan said.
The fallout from Israel’s objection to Iran’s nearing the development of a nuclear capability is the underlying though not the primary cause of the recent friction at Armenia’s border with Iran. As America begins to retrench from the Middle East wars, the overarching regional conflict between Iran and Israel is now shifting over to Azerbaijan and Turkey insisting on taking over Armenia’s borderland contiguous to Iran in violation of Armenia’s territorial integrity. This locus recently coined as the “Zangezur Corridor” would create a land link between Azerbaijan’s Nakhichevan exclave located at Armenia’s West to mainland Azerbaijan on Armenia’s East. Strategically, this will allow Turkey – a close ally, an ethnic and linguistic relative of Azeris— to expand its economic reach and political influence through an unobstructed land route that extends from its European border in Eastern Thrace to the Caspian Sea and over to its ancestral lands of Central Asia that border China. This expansion would effectively lay down the foundations of Turkey’s long-envisioned Turanian empire.
The takeover of the Zangezur Corridor has equal, if not more important, economic and geopolitical benefits for Turkey. Back in 2013, China’s President Xi Jinping announced the opening of China’s silk road –a brand new double trade corridor set to reopen channels between China and its neighbors in the West: most notably Central Asia, the Middle East, and Europe. What makes this plan, also known as the China-led Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), critical to understanding the Zangezur Corridor conflict is the fact that the silk road is designed to traverse through Turkey on its way to Europe while circumventing Armenia. Avoidance of Armenia becomes a pivotal geopolitical advantage to China’s competitors.
It is politically well established that China and India are Asia’s major adversaries. Within this complex geopolitical backdrop, China, Pakistan, and Pakistan’s close ally, Turkey including Azerbaijan have developed an unholy alliance against the competing forces of India and Iran. While not necessarily adversarial, as in China-Iran relations, these alliances are real and relevant within the context of the larger economic realities presented by the silk road.
To countervail the effects of the silk road, India has planned an alternative economic trade route of its own to prevent its isolation and compete against China. India’s proposed road to the European market must by necessity circumvent countries that are in alliance with the Chinese plan; namely, and most relevantly within the context of the Zangezur conflict, Turkey and Azerbaijan, which are in solid partnership and political and ideological alliance with India’s perennial nemesis, Pakistan.
This political polarization leaves India with the only alternative option of shipping its goods to Iran via the Arabian Sea and into the Persian Gulf. The goods will then traverse Iran by land to cross the Armenian border of Zangezur –the only friendly route available to reach the Black Sea ports of Georgia to be shipped across to the shores of Europe.
To prevent India from using Iran as its transit hub, Turkey, through its surrogate Azerbaijan has decided to capture the Zangezur Corridor to monopolize the economic trade routes to Europe. By capturing the corridor, Turkey and its client state, Azerbaijan, almost completely encircle Armenia, leaving the border of an unreliably neutral Georgia as Armenia’s only outlet to the outside world. The result is a landlock that foretells a bad omen reminiscent of the days Armenians were subjugated to the whims of their Ottoman overlords.
Azerbaijan has had close diplomatic, economic, and defense industry ties with Israel since relations began in 1992. During Azerbaijan’s war with Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh region last year, Baku — heavily backed by the Turkish military — deployed Israeli-made Kamikaze (IAI Harop) drones on the battlefield, which when coupled with the highly advanced Turkish Bayrakdar drones caused major havoc on Armenian forces.
Taking advantage of his victory over the defeated Armenian forces, Aliyev, who seems to be in a state of euphoric stupor, appears to be under the spell of his Turkish overlords, who stand to gain the most out of appropriating the Zangezur Corridor. Turkey’s rush to force Armenia to buckle under the pressure and deliver the corridor before it manages to recover from its military defeat is its strategy to strike while the iron is hot and before Western powers begin to intervene for an equitable peace deal.
A series of provocative events directly aimed at pressuring Armenia to give up its Zangezur Corridor with Iran as a pretext to simply link up the two separate parts of Azerbaijan was perceived as a tacit diversionary setup to deny Iran access to Armenia. By forcefully acquiring the Armenian borderland with Iran (i.e., the Zangezur Corridor), Iran would then be alternatively forced to ship the goods through the Turkish/Azerbaijani-acquired Zangezur Corridor to move India’s products to Europe. This would make Turkey and Azerbaijan the beneficiaries of both the Chinese silk road and its Indian counterpart. Iran’s reaction to this is that it will not tolerate any geopolitical or map changes in the Caucasus that would subordinate Iran’s interests to those of its Turkic neighbors.
The intensity of Azerbaijan’s provocative events of recent weeks caused the percolating years-long developments to erupt and enflame relations that had remained dormant for years.
The first signs of provocation began when Turkey, true to its tried and tested methods in Syria, Iraq, and Libya, sent its Syrian Islamist Jihadi terrorists to fight alongside the Azeris against the Armenian forces in last year’s Nagorno-Karabakh war. After the war, Jihadis never left the area. Azerbaijan and Turkey gave the Jihadi terrorists and their families incentives to begin settlements in the region. The precedent of surrounding Iran with settlements of Jihadis of the Sunni denomination of Islam who consider Shiites heretics did not sit well with Iran’s Shia leaders.
Tensions continued to mount between Tehran and Baku when Azerbaijani forces began to block, fine, and in a couple of instances detain, Iranian truck drivers on the Goris-Kapan Highway in Armenia’s Syunik Province where Azerbaijan had managed to occupy a strip of that Armenian land during the Karabakh war. Upon Iranian protest, Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev began delivering tirades and in an insulting move displayed a doctored poster of the assassinated Iranian commander of the Quds Force Qasem Soleimani to further provoke Iranian ire.
Tehran took Aliyev’s shenanigans as an affront to Iran’s sovereignty and its right to protect its citizens against unlawful levies and in some instances arrest of its citizen while transporting goods to stranded Armenians in the Artsakh region of Nagorno-Karabakh. In a move to escalate tensions, news emerged that an Azerbaijani assassin allegedly hired by Iran sought to kill wealthy Israeli businesspeople in Cyprus.
To further inflame the situation, Azerbaijan conducted a naval exercise allowing members of the Turkish military to join its naval forces in the Caspian Sea, triggering condemnation from Iran asserting that the exercise violated norms excluding non-bordering countries from deploying forces on Caspian waters.
Having had enough and sensing ulterior motives, Iran began holding large-scale military exercises near the borders of Azerbaijan.
THE UNDERLYING CAUSAL CONNECTION OF THE CONFLICT
The twin fundamental causes that underly the eruption of this conflict is: (A) Iran’s near completion of its nuclear weapons program that Israel considers to be an existential threat to Israel; and (B) the existence of known, but officially denied, Israeli military and intelligence bases in Azerbaijan conceivably to facilitate the launching of attacks and offensives against Iran and its nuclear facilities from a closer distance than Israel. Iran expresses “serious concerns” about Israel’s presence in the Caucasus as tensions between Iran and Azerbaijan mount over Baku’s ties with Israel, a major arms supplier.
The crescendo effect of these progressively worsening developments along Iran’s Armenian border has led Iran to mobilize forces and hold military drills close to its northwestern borders with Azerbaijan amid lingering tensions following Azerbaijan’s 44-day war with Armenia last year. In response, Azerbaijan and Turkey launched a joint military drill starting on Wednesday, the 6th of October – an ominous event reminiscent of last year’s drills that took place before the invasion of the Karabakh region.
The ace in the hole in this ongoing conflict is Putin’s role and influence in driving the forces and events that led to the Nagorno-Karabakh war and the unfolding developments and cascading reactions since the end of its kinetic phase. Russia is in the mode of making calculated concessions to Turkey to lure it away from NATO. Albeit adversaries in Syria, Libya, and Iraq, Russia, in an unprecedented move, allowed Turkey to establish a limited foothold in the Caucasus at the cost of facilitating the Armenian defeat in Nagorno-Karabakh by default.
To allay Turkey’s disappointment in denying its full integration into the Caucasus and to further alienate Turkey from the West, Putin offered Turkey the sale of the second tranche of its S-400 missiles and the free rein to capture its grand prize –the Zangezur Corridor. A prize from which Russia could also economically benefit as the two countries would secure a direct land-based passage through the borders between Russia and Azerbaijan to conduct trade.
Washington’s relative silence regarding the latter developments and particularly the anticipated purchase of the additional S-400 missiles from Russia may be a calculated measure awaiting the evolution of the Iran/Azerbaijan conflict that may draw Turkey into the fold. As the United States scales back its commitments throughout the Middle East, as recently manifested in Afghanistan, its reliance on regional partners will only increase. And in the wake of an impending nuclear Iran, the U.S. may very well be encouraging its surrogates Israel, Turkey, and Azerbaijan to accomplish its objectives. Such a war, sparked by the joint effort of Turkey and Azerbaijan to dispossess Armenia of its Zangezur border with Iran, however, will set the entire Middle East region on hell-fire that will create a tsunami of refugees that will engulf Europe with turmoil and chaos or even wars for decades to come.
In 2019, the United States kicked Turkey out of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program after NATO ally Ankara purchased Russia’s S-400 air defense system. The reason the Turks were expelled from the program was that the Russian hardware poses a threat to the security of the technology included in the Lockheed-Martin-made F-35.
And yet, a UK-based Arabic news site Elaph has reported citing a senior Israeli source that two advanced Israeli F-35 stealth fighter jets have been ‘permanently stationed’ in Azerbaijan. The report, published on 2 October, comes at a time of rising tension between Azerbaijan and Iran, with Iran threatening Azerbaijan and accusing it of hosting Israeli forces. If the S-400 indeed poses a threat to the security of the technology included in the F-35 when both weapons are concentrated in the same hands, how can one reconcile the fact that the anti-Iran protagonists in possession of the F-35 slated for use against Iran also have the possession and capacity to use Turkey’s S-400 missiles? It begs the question, could the F-35 be compromised in a quid pro quo exchange? Or do we trust our allies so much that we are willing to take the risk? Or perhaps the U.S. has already retrofitted the F-35 to prevent its vulnerability from the S-400.
Though Azerbaijan denies any Israeli presence on Azeri soil, the denial appears to be specious as this is not the first time reports of Israeli jets in Azerbaijan have emerged. In 2012, Foreign Policy magazine cited four senior American diplomats and military intelligence officers as saying that the U.S. believed Israel had been granted access to an airbase in Azerbaijan. It is well established through other sources including the 2009 U.S. Embassy cable leaks via Wikileaks that Israel and Azerbaijan enjoy close relations, with Israel selling billions of dollars worth of military equipment to Azerbaijan, including sophisticated drones that were heavily relied on to destroy Armenian forces in the 2020 Karabakh war.
But Russian pundits have a different take on the situation. They believe that neither Turkey nor Azerbaijan is in a position to engage Iran in an all-out war that could wreak havoc and devastation with an uncertain outcome. Pakistan is under Chinese influence and thus not inclined to directly participate in a war against Iran unless sanctioned by China.
If by some ill-advised move Turkey decides to attack Iran, it will have some very serious problems with Russia that could lead to its defeat, say the Russians. Moreover, Turkey does not have a unified popular front in support of a war with Iran as Iran does. Despite its various ethnic populations, including some twenty-plus million Azeris, Iran can mobilize its population around its religious Shia faith.
What Russian pundits do not consider is that after its latest adventurism in the region, Turkey is now standing on a slippery slope. Its recent announcement to purchase additional Russian S-400 missiles has further alienated the United States. News of requesting to purchase 40 US-made F-16 fighter jets from the United States,
which some suspect might well be a gambit to set the stage for warplane negotiations with Russia, comes as a classic play of both ends against the middle just days after Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced his government was planning to expand defense ties with Russia. This, while recognizing Crimea as Ukrainian territory seems to unsettle Russia. Russia knows that such recognition is meant to secure Turkey with military bases in the Ukraine, which Russia interprets as a further NATO intrusion upon its near abroad security belt. Regardless, Russia plays along knowing that luring Turkey away from NATO – by offering it, a heretofore denied, limited but concrete access to the Caucasus and a realistic opportunity to manifest its fledgling Pan-Turkist vision— is well worth it. But for Turkey to play both ends of the political chess game cannot but ultimately undermine its strategy.
To minimize the chances of an internal collapse and prevent a general uprising of its ethnic Azeri population that could trigger a copycat effect encouraging the remaining Arab, Baluchi, and Kurdish ethnic groups to take advantage of the opportunity to secede from Iran, Iran devised a strategic rallying cry uniting all Iranians behind the struggle to defeat the Israeli Zionist aggressor. Characterizing the conflict as an anti-Israel crusade triggers the mechanism that could draw universal allegiance to the cause regardless of ethnic affinities. This clever maneuver is a prophylactic measure aimed at drawing the loyalty of the Azeri population who could otherwise empathize with and decide to unite with their Azerbaijani kin.
RUSSIA/TURKEY LONG-TERM STRATEGIC VISION
Iran is the only geographic barrier that impedes the joint long-term ambitious plan of Russia and Turkey to spread their otherwise unilaterally unachievable influence across the Middle East, the Mediterranean basin, and over to South and South East Asia and Africa.
Notwithstanding Israel’s overt policy to destroy or diminish Iranian hegemony over it and the region, there is more reason to believe that the ultimate purpose of instigating and provoking Iran into war is to carry out a Russia/Turkey collusive plan of neutralizing Iran through a blitzkrieg operation. The plan hinges on whether Iran takes the bait. Turkey, including its Syrian Jihadi and Pakistani units, and Azerbaijan with the direct support of Israel presumably attack from the north/northeast of Iran while Pakistan strikes from the southeast. Meanwhile, Russia moves in to close the Armenia/Iran border to lock Iran within its territory and prevent it from activating India’s planned trade route to Europe. The by-product of this collusive plan, however, would likely trigger internal strife and spark secession movements with grave consequences for the entire region and the world. The probability of this collusive plan going into effect could very much be on the table despite the October 13, 2021, Azerbaijan and Iran agreement to de-escalate tensions through dialogue. Iran’s refusal to stop production of a nuclear bomb and/or Russia’s pressure forcing Armenia to allow Azerbaijan and Turkey the right to use its territory through the Zangezur Corridor may quickly reverse that process and spark a war. The collateral beneficiary of this war would, of course, be Israel – a plausible protagonist but not likely the architect.
Minding the fact that for the first time, an Indian Foreign Minister has just visited Armenia, it remains to be seen whether India will proactively take action to countervail the Russia/Turkish/Azerbaijani hostile plans in the region and protect its stake in its planned trade route to Europe through Armenia’s North/South Highway.
Trapped between the claws of the Russian bear, Armenia, with limited sway in conducting a free and independent foreign policy, will need all the diplomatic leverage it can muster from India to protect its Zangezur Corridor. Despite its desire to deepen its relations with India, Armenia will not overtly antagonize Russian interests for fear that the latter may allow a greater calamity than the Karabakh war to devastate the Armenian nation while the rest of the world turns a blind eye as it did during the 2020 war. The 2020 Karabakh war has taught the Armenians the bitter lessons of betrayal by a so-called untrustworthy Russian ally who sold them out when the going was tough. They have learned that history repeats itself and that they are just as all alone as they were during the Genocide of 1915 facing the overwhelming power and enemy forces who have for centuries ravaged their nation.
Ultimately, if Western powers decide, in the interest of preserving their geostrategic leverage, to undermine the ambitious plans of Russia and Turkey, the blitzkrieg strategy against Iran will fail. Only then will we know that the Zangezur Corridor will serve Armenia’s economic future through the India/Iran trade route to Europe; otherwise, Armenia’s loss, to say nothing of outright violation of its territorial integrity, will be Turkey’s gain, not only in monopolizing the transit of both the Chinese and Indian trade routes to Europe but also by offering it the opportunity to inaugurate its long-cherished dream of a Pan-Turkic federation. Notwithstanding the outcome, Russia will still emerge as the clear winner.
The Foreign Ministers of Armenia, Russia and Azerbaijan held a meeting in Minsk on October 14.
The Foreign Ministers discussed issues related to the Nagorno Karabakh conflict, including the implementation of teh trilateral statement of November 9, 2020.
Minister Mirzoyan commended the Russian mediation efforts aimed at the ceasefire, and in the context of ensuring the security of the Armenians of Artsakh, emphasized the presence of the Russian peacekeepers in Nagorno Karabakh.
At the same time, Minister Mirzoyan drew the parties’ attention to the fact that some provisions of the November 9 statement are yet to be implemented. In this context he stressed the need for immediate and unconditional repatriation of all Armenian prisoners of war.
Referring to the meeting held in New York with the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, Minister Mirzoyan reaffirmed that the comprehensive settlement of the Nagorno Karabakh conflict should be carried out within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs on the basis of elements and principles known to the parties.
Foreign Brief By Can Eker Oct. 14, 2021 The International Court of Justice (ICJ) will convene today to review provisional measures it imposed upon Azerbaijan. Last month, Armenia filed a complaint to the ICJ regarding Azerbaijan’s alleged war crimes during the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict of 2020, including ethnic cleansing and destruction of cultural heritage sites. Azerbaijan then responded that it would also submit a mirror complaint regarding Armenia’s alleged violations. While the ICJ will acutely take Armenia’s complaints into account to determine Azerbaijan’s guilt, Azerbaijan’s mirror complaint—although likely to be approved—in turn, will not be as fruitful due to the lack of Azeri minorities in Nagorno-Karabakh. Additionally, the court will look over the status of Armenian prisoners of war. As the ICJ will likely find Armenia’s appeal plausible, it could also acknowledge Armenian political legitimacy in the region. As a result, the ICJ could press to begin a territorial reorganization of Nagorno-Karabakh in the medium-term. In this framework, the Christian heritage sites in the region could be granted special status under Armenia’s purview. In the case of a negative verdict however, Baku’s retaliations against Yerevan could increase. With all things considered, the case will further provoke the rival states, making reconciliation all but unachievable in the long-term.
PanARMENIAN.Net – The remains of two more Nagorno-Karabakh servicemen were recovered on Tuesday, October 5 from Varanda (Fizuli), which came under Azerbaijan’s control during the 44-day in fall 2020, authorities report.
The bodies will be identified through DNA analysis, Karabakh’s State Service for Emergency Situations said.
Since November 13, the rescue teams have found the bodies and remains of 1680 people, including dozens of civilians, who had failed to leave their homes when their settlements went under Azerbaijan’s control.
The military supplies being carried in recent days from various countries to Azerbaijan are intensive, and this is due to the post-war situation in 2020. Tigran Abrahamyan, an MP from the opposition “With Honor” Faction in the National Assembly of Armenia and the founder of Henaket Analytical Center, wrote about this on Facebook.
“The issue is that regardless of the results of the [Artsakh (Nagorno-Karabakh)] war [last fall], Azerbaijan has used a lot of ammunition, a large amount of [military] equipment, technical means were destroyed, whereas the recovery process could not have been completed so quickly.
Azerbaijan was reaching new military-technical cooperation agreements with a number of countries since last December to replenish/complement its arsenal.
This speediness at this phase is connected with the sharp aggravation of relations with Iran. But the so-called re-militarization of Azerbaijan is a direct threat to Armenia as well.
While Azerbaijan is intensively arming [itself], Armenia’s authorities are obsessed with false ideas of building a dialogue with Turkey and Azerbaijan. It seems to them that the war is over and the demands of Azerbaijan and Turkey have been fully met.
But in fact, the pressures and the levers of influence on Armenia are expanding, and which will bring another set of problems for us,” Abrahamyan added.