Author: Emil Lazarian

The Armenian nation is not allowed the proper time to absorb the tragedy of Artsakh, partly because the threat to the sovereignty of Armenia is imminent. It reminds us that barbaric aggressors have no human compassion and are driven by an insatiable appetite for theft and atrocities. It is worth remembering that about a century ago, in the short span of five years, the Armenians experienced the beginning of the Genocide of 1915, the rebirth from the ashes at Sardarabad and the cruel division of our hope by the Turks and Soviet Russians. In 1988, the horrific earthquake occurred, followed by the brutal deportations of Armenians from Baku, only to be followed by the Artsakh liberation movement and the independence of Armenia—all within three years. Sometimes we are forced to postpone the full cycle of mourning in order to take advantage of an opportunity or prevent further losses. It is surreal to internalize that we have just witnessed what was considered unthinkable in our conscious reality. Our position can and has changed quickly—from humiliation to optimism and the inverse. It is never as hopeless as we may feel during difficult times and never as positive as we may believe during hopeful times. We must be ever cautious and self serving. Our experiences in Artsakh over the last 30 years teach us that painful lesson. Given the calamitous tragedies that have been our history, it is important to avoid wild swings in our emotions. This is where leadership earns its credibility, whether it is religious, political or social in nature. Leadership helps us avoid the peaks and valleys that can leave us damaged.

The prevailing view in our communities is that the loss of Artsakh will not satisfy the genocidal motivations of criminal Azerbaijan. Armenians are living in fear today, as they have lost hope in their leaders and other nations. Is our sovereignty as a nation state the next chapter? Are we simply waiting for the enemy? The Azeris are coy but uncomplicated. They usually telegraph their next exploits. While the Europeans and United States issued statements of concern and diplomatic consequences, the Azeris ignored civility by amassing troops on the border before their assault on Artsakh last month. War “games” were organized with their complicit genocidal cousins prior to the 2020 war. With the blood still fresh from occupied Artsakh and the deported residents seeking a new life, Aliyev, emboldened by a lack of military and diplomatic resistance, now speaks of demanding eight enclaves, while he audaciously occupies 145 km of sovereign Armenian territory, holds POWs from 2020 and arrests the leaders of Artsakh. When there is little substantive opposition from foreign powers, he is free to demand almost anything. 

Even though Azerbaijan has committed genocide and numerous other criminal acts, the Europeans have not sanctioned Azerbaijan, because Azeri energy is more important than their often-stated principles of human rights, freedom and the rule of law. The United States has not even been able to end the waiver of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. Regardless of the quantity of weapons shipped, it is a clear statement of values when they pander to a terrorist state. The relationship with Israel is also a major variable. The current war with the Palestinians has heightened the wall between Iran and the West, particularly the United States. Despite the despicable Azeri-Israeli arrangement of energy and spy presence in return for billions in military hardware used to kill Armenians, the U.S. is not expected to sanction Azerbaijan. The U.S. may be motivated to outflank the Russians in the Caucasus, but apparently not at the expense of rogue Azerbaijan. 

Presidents Erdogan and Aliyev lay the foundation stone for the so-called Zangezur Corridor, October 26, 2021 (Photo: Official website of the President of the Republic of Azerbaijan)

In addition, Aliyev continues to rant about the “Zangezur Corridor.” Imagine the arrogance of two nations, Azerbaijan and Turkey, demanding a sovereign corridor to connect their stolen land that would unite the Turkish criminals and would severely wound Armenia. Despite the outrageous nature of their demand, it is considered one of the prime motivators for conflict in the Syunik region. Recently, there have been sources, one Iranian and the other Azeri, suggesting that Azerbaijan is considering a “Plan B” to “Zangezur” due to Armenian opposition. The Pashinyan government has consistently stated that there was never such an agreement in the trilateral statement of November 2020 and that Armenia would never accept such a concept. For its part, Russia has also stated that such an agreement does not exist. Given Russia’s duplicitous politics towards Armenia, this should not be considered a reliable commitment for Armenia. The “Plan B” is a rail and land link on the Iranian side of the Armenian border. This plan is not a sovereign Azeri corridor and would be subject to the normal border and customs controls of the host nation. Iran seems to be offering this as an alternative to protect their interests in any territorial changes. Some sources believe Azerbaijan may find favor with this. Don’t believe a word of this. Azerbaijan wants the “Zangezur” corridor for two reasons: to establish a land route to connect Turkey, Nakhichevan and Azerbaijan and to destroy Armenian sovereignty. “Plan B” does not address the latter. They also want at least the eastern shore of Lake Sevan. In this sea of chaos, two conclusions can be drawn: Azerbaijan will attack, and Armenia should not expect much military support from the western defenders of democracy.

In light of the ominous clouds coming from the east, what should Armenia do to thwart such a challenge? As a baseline position, Armenia should continue bilateral talks with both Turkey on “normalization” and with Azerbaijan on a “peace” agenda. Let’s not fool ourselves. The Turks and Azeris are looking for capitulation and destruction of our sovereign state, but “negotiating” can serve as a small deterrent with Russian, U.S. and European sponsorship. The best case scenario is that Azerbaijan will continue to be uncooperative, which could strengthen the Armenian position. The European organizers must have been annoyed with the Aliyev boycott of the recent Granada sideline discussion. Armenia’s presence prevented a total embarrassment, but certainly not enough to overcome Europe’s energy obsession. Talk of sanctions by members of the European Parliament should not raise optimism on the Armenian side. The Americans have had similar rumbling, but Congress is not in a position to pass binding legislation, and the State Department will only serve as a mediator. After publicly criticizing Armenia, the Russians have signaled that they may be willing to sponsor another round of trilateral talks. Of course, this type of gamesmanship should be expected, as the Russians will alternate short-term tactical positions to serve the longer term interest of controlling their backyard. The high volume of diplomatic engagement by the Armenian government may yet yield a defensive option.

Whether motivated by self interest or a latent guilt complex, the West has offered several options to Armenia with onsite presence. The Artsakh disaster has Armenia flooded with European observers (increased and renewed), USAID personnel, a variety of diplomatic missions and other Western interests. Argentina has also offered onsite “white helmet” support to promote humanitarian needs and support. The military defense mechanisms to defend the homeland have been slow in developing. France has strongly hinted at providing military aid after a visit by a top official, but the content and timing is unclear. Deals have been announced with India, but again with uncertain timing. In an absurd irony, Russia maintains a military presence in Armenia, yet it has denied CSTO support several times in violation of the defense pact and has criticized Armenia’s Western engagement. Russia clearly cannot be trusted to support Armenia, but it is still dangerous as the only regional power that can greenlight the Azeris. The U.N. Mission to Artsakh was a farce and insulting, as it was limited to an Azeri-controlled “tour” and foolishly declared no evidence of civilian targeting. This is comparable to allowing the criminal to guide investigators through the crime scene. It is another example of how the U.N., in the interest of remaining a global facade, has rendered itself ineffective.

Perhaps the best option for Armenia is to invite as many foreign missions on the ground, particularly on the eastern front, as possible. The European and American presence could serve as a deterrent to Azeri military action. I don’t think the Europeans and Americans will be as forgiving to the Azeris as the Russians were when their peacekeepers were murdered by the Azeris. Fortifying the defenses militarily goes without saying, but a physical presence of humanitarian, military attachés and consulate presence in Syunik might slow the Azeris down long enough to build a stronger defense. This is not a time to say no to any legitimate foreign presence that can further the short-term humanitarian and intermediate-term security issues in the homeland. On the contrary, we should be recruiting physical presence. 

All of this is dependent on displaying a willingness to defend what is ours. Whatever the foreign presence can do will be limited if Armenia is totally dependent on a negotiated solution with the Turks. Azerbaijan has never honored any agreement with the Armenians and is not about to start now. This may be our generation’s Sardarabad. Let’s hope it does not come to life or die in battle, but we need to prepare on the assumption that the Turks’ definition of peace is synonymous with unconditional surrender. This is a time for all interior walls to be torn down in defense of the homeland. The church must become visible as raising the hope of the people. This is not politics. This is survival. Political instability is not going to help Armenia defend the homeland. We must ask ourselves: Are our disagreements more important than the survival of the homeland? It is time to put aside our differences on how to run the country, or there may not be a country to debate.