Author: Emil Lazarian

“I should like to see any power of the world destroy this race, this small tribe of unimportant people, whose wars have all been fought and lost, whose structures have crumbled, literature is unread, music is unheard, and prayers are no more answered. Go ahead, destroy Armenia . See if you can do it. Send them into the desert without bread or water. Burn their homes and churches. Then see if they will not laugh, sing and pray again. For when two of them meet anywhere in the world, see if they will not create a New Armenia.” - WS

Armenian President Sarkissian sits down with Asia Times – Part 1

Emil Lazarian
Asia Times
Dec 21 2021


Armenian leader weighs the Nagorno-Karabakh war, the lack of ‘historic justice’ in global affairs and Turkey’s ever-rising regional role
By KOUROSH ZIABARI

DECEMBER 21, 2021

Armenian President Armen Sarkissian in a file photo. Image: Facebook

Asia Times correspondent Kourosh Ziabari recently conducted an exclusive interview with Armenian President Armen Sarkissian in the capital Yerevan. This transcript has been edited for clarity and concision. Part 2 of the interview will be published on December 22.

Tensions between Armenia and Azerbaijan have been a mainstay of world news. Most journalists who talk to the leaders of the two countries start their conversations by directing vexed questions about why conflict over the Nagorno-Karabakh enclave has dragged on for so long and what the future holds for relations between two neighbors whose differences seem unbridgeable.

But Armenia is not all about its skirmishes with Azerbaijan. The first world country to officially adopt Christianity as a state religion in 301 AD, Armenia is the wellspring of an ancient civilization and has fared notably well in cementing its democratic credentials. It scores better than Singapore and Malaysia in the Freedom House’s rating of political rights, and has made tangible strides in combating corruption.

This writer was recently received by the President of Armenia, Armen Sarkissian, at the 70-year-old presidential palace on Baghramyan Avenue, Yerevan, for an exclusive interview on a Sunday afternoon. Sarkissian, a former University of Cambridge professor and well-known computer scientist, responded to all questions posed by Asia Times.

Like most of Sarkissian’s press engagements, the leader was composed but minced no words in critiquing Armenia’s state of affairs as well as those of its adversaries.  

Kourosh Ziabari: If history is indeed on your side, why hasn’t the Armenian government been able to draw the support of the international community and the UN Security Council that consider Nagorno-Karabakh as Azerbaijani territory, as reflected in UNSC resolutions 822, 853, 874 and 884?

Armen Sarkissian: What is interesting, I think, is that you’re not the first person nor the last one who would like to build the international relations on historic justice. But it doesn’t work like that in the real world. Am, I right?

Ziabari: Sure!

Sarkissian: I think historic justice is one of the components but the real world is the real world. Indeed, I think if you have the chance of traveling to the territories of Artsakh, Nagorno-Karabakh, it would be a fantastic trip, because you go through all of the different ages of our history. That area was always inhabited by ethnic Armenians. If you go back, you’ll find Armenian churches coming from the fourth or fifth century and so on.

I was recently on a state visit to Italy. As part of that visit, I visited the University of Bologna and had a very interesting tour to the library where they presented us some of their old Armenian manuscripts they had. There was a very interesting material which was an old 16th or early 17th-century map depicting Armenian cultural and religious centers.

Those who have founded and made it were in fact based in two places: in Jerusalem and in Constantinople. The map covers current Turkey, it covers current Armenia, it covers partially places in Iran up to Isfahan and other places. But it also covers Nagorno-Karabakh with hundreds of Armenian medieval churches and cultural centers there. So, this is about history.

Secondly, I think, unfortunately the history is pretty simple! That territory was rich of invasions, fights, relations with the Persian Empire, and you can find a lot of culture there, as well. But if you go back around 200 years ago, you’ll see that territory was taken over by the Russian Empire from the Persian Empire.

And then comrade Stalin, who was the great designer of borders and in reality, a great creator of problems between nations, including between Armenia and Azerbaijan, at that time gave Karabakh and Nakhchivan to Azerbaijan, because Soviets wanted to help create a common border between Azerbaijan and Turkey, and because Turkish leader Atatürk was seen as a great friend of Bolshevik Russia.

This is not about historic justice; this is about a desire for political manipulation and relations. And in more than 70 years of the Soviet rule, people of Nagorno-Karabakh at that time, Artsakh, were never happy living under Azerbaijan for many reasons.

And with the end of the Soviet Empire in 1985, when Gorbachev introduced changes, the emotional Armenian people, especially in Nagorno-Karabakh, believed in what was declared by Gorbachev: freedom of speech, Perestroika, redesigning, and so on, and then a movement started for the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh triggering Soviet Azerbaijan’s military operations and violence against ethnic Armenians living in Nagorno-Karabakh which turned into a full-fledged war that the Armenian side won. And then for last 26 years, Karabakh and attached territories were under the control of the Republic of Artsakh or Nagorno-Karabakh until the war of 2020.

Now, why the international community didn’t do this or didn’t do that? Well, the international community was involved; international community has decided that the organization that should be responsible for the future status of Nagorno-Karabakh is the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), not the United Nations, not the European Union.

And that organization has created a specific group, which is the Minsk Group, and the three co-chairs of this group were the United States, France and Russia, representing the interested parties, namely the United States as a superpower of the time, the European Union represented by France, and Russia. And basically, the sides were negotiating a possible solution with all its details.

So, there was an international institution that was in charge and I hope that we will go back to negotiations and we don’t have to recreate or create a new format or framework, because it already exits and has a history.

Unfortunately, the second war in 2020 has destroyed the process of negotiations, but I think the best solution that we can get today is to engage the same organization. Now why did we win the first war, but lost the second one?

Let’s speak about the first war. Azerbaijan was, at that time, supported by Turkey. But Turkey was different under President Demirel, Prime Minister Tansu Çiller and others. And Armenians, and Karabakh probably were different. To make it simpler, I would say that we were a bit ahead of Azerbaijan; we were ahead of designing construction of army; we were ahead of motivation, war, discipline and science.

There were generals, colonels, captains or soldiers who were serving in the Soviet army and had the experience of the Afghanistan War. So, the experienced soldiers were coming to a voluntary army, the army of Fedayeens or voluntary people creating an army. And we were a bit quicker than Azerbaijan. Unfortunately, during the past 26 years we didn’t manage to convert the victory into stable peace.

Why I’m saying we couldn’t manage? Because it’s always not one side. At least, there are two or several sides. But because we were victorious, I think we had the upper hand to be more proactive and quickly convert the victory into stable peace. And probably towards the end of 1990s and beginning of 2000s, there was a chance of doing that and I will explain to you why. That was the time that Azerbaijan was trying to build the pipeline from the Caspian Sea to the European markets, to the Mediterranean, to Turkey – Ceyhan.

President Heydar Aliyev was a very pragmatic person. I didn’t have that discussion with him but I have met him several times, and his son more later – but I can guess that in his list of priorities, the pipeline was of the higher significance. Without the pipeline, there was no chance that Azerbaijan would ever get back Karabakh, because the pipeline was power, money – money that helped them to rebuild their own army; and then it was also money that helped them to build their public relations and relations with other states including Europe.

For him it was a priority and at that time the Armenian army was the most powerful in the region. And that was the time that probably we should have gone into deep negotiations and sort it out. After that, the history started going 180 degrees in the other direction; Azerbaijan was becoming more powerful and Armenia was basically and gradually sort of falling behind the development.

The Armenian side was still enjoying the victories and believing that the issue was resolved and that the Minsk Group of co-chairs had a final conclusion. But the negotiations were not very successful, the sides were emotional while there were elections here and there, so these negotiations were being shaped in a different form.

Ziabari: I want to make a quick reference to Armenia’s present challenges with Azerbaijan. There was a massive rally in Yerevan in December last year, the March of Dignity, after the Russian-brokered armistice was signed, and many Armenians, mostly from the opposition party Homeland, were expressing frustration over the terms of the peace deal believing that the government didn’t act prudently and acquiesced to a ceasefire that took away from Armenia territories it had controlled for more than a quarter of a century.

Do you believe Armenians are right to be disgruntled? Do you personally find the terms of the peace deal favorable or think the government could have negotiated more persuasively?

Sarkissian: It takes me back to our Constitution. I’m the president of the parliamentary Republic and not in the position to comment on what I think about the parliament or the government.

As a president, I have very limited tools which are defined by the constitution. When something comes to my table, I have only two options; either to sign it or send it to the Constitutional Court.

Not every law that is on my table is anti-constitutional, but it can be anti-state, anti-education, anti-culture. The constitution is less effective until we don’t change it. And I made it clear that if we go on with the constitutional changes, I’m ready to resign.

Secondly, psychologically, for most of Armenians it is difficult to get the concept of parliamentary democracy. Probably it’s difficult for them to understand why the president cannot sack a minister.

Thirdly, our constitution was written at the time of the third president who was hoping to become the next prime minister. So, there were no checks and balances. If you have a constitution without checks and balances, then you will have very big problems. Any democracy, be that presidential or parliamentary, has to have checks and balances.

And the president doesn’t have enough power to stop any law or to balance the government or prime minister’s power. And that’s not healthy. What I’m pushing now is the change of constitution. And it doesn’t matter if it changes to presidential one or will change kind of by bringing more checks and some balances, but we need a change.

Now, there is a statement on ceasefire and further steps by leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia, but not an official agreement that has gone through the parliament or has come to my table. There was nothing on my table. Yes, the majority of people were unhappy, because a lot of them believed that the country was winning the war, and then one day it appeared that despite the thousands of lives lost, Armenia had also lost territory, cultural heritage and religious heritage.

What’s the solution then? The solution is classic. You don’t have to invent solutions in this world. If you are a non-democracy, you just keep going. If you are a democracy, there’s only one solution. You appeal to the people; whom do they want to continue running the country? This is exactly what I proposed openly. My proposal was the government to resign. I don’t have the power, I couldn’t force them, but to ask the government, not the prime minister, to resign and have a professional government, being appointed by the parliament.

Why professional? Because the aim was to go through the elections. It’s better to have either a government of national unity, which is much more complex, or a professional one which is not politicized. And, change the constitution.

Ziabari: Moving onto your foreign relations. I understand that Armenia and Turkey have had a long history of hostilities and challenges, and there are deep-seated grievances that might not go away momentarily. But still your country and Turkey were so close to a breakthrough on normalizing ties when the Zurich Protocols were signed in 2009 mediated by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group.

Yet the deal faced immense criticism in both countries and your predecessor Serzh Sargsyan recalled it from the parliament. Do you foresee any shift in the current antagonistic mood between Yerevan and Ankara? Is there any benefit to establishing official diplomatic relations and diffusing tensions?

Sarkissian: Is there anybody that would say there’s no benefit in normalizing relations between two individuals that don’t like each other or two families or two nations or two states? Of course, not. But every normalization is at minimum two-way or requires two players. This sort of normalization needs specific ingredients.

But, let me comment on what you said about the Zurich document. I didn’t really believe when this document was signed that it is going to be effective. There are several reasons, but I’ll give you the simplest one. The simple reason is that there was an attempt to bring together Turkey and Armenia while the Karabakh issue was not resolved. Could anyone prove or explain to me how Turkey could have normalized relations with Armenia when there was this unfinished war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, when Azerbaijan and Turkey were declaring that they are brotherly nations?

Obviously, in that room of peace talks, there were not only Armenia and Turkey; there was a third party that was not taken into account. And I never believed that there’s any way that Turkey can normalize relations with Armenia without Azerbaijan agreeing to that. And why should Azerbaijan agree to normalizing relations between Armenia and Turkey when the relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan aren’t normalized?

There is a fourth player and that fourth player is the Armenian nation. Armenian diaspora is a product of what happened in 1915 in the Ottoman Empire: the Armenian Genocide. Any president, cannot go on and negotiate on behalf of these people, on behalf of the grandparents that were killed or survived.

So, before negotiating with Turkey, there should be dialogue between the state of Armenia and its diaspora. And we have to have a common understanding and common policy on what we do, and that’s why when former president after that traveled to France or Lebanon, he was received not in a friendly [manner], for the first time, by his fellow Armenians.

This relationship is a much more complex issue. When you are speaking about relations between Armenia and Turkey, I think we don’t have a long history of Armenia and Turkey. We have a long history of Armenians in the Ottoman Empire, Armenians in Turkey. The history of Armenia and Turkey was short, and there was a war between the first Republic of Armenia and Turkey in 1920.

And the second part of relations is from 1991 when the third Armenian Republic was announced. And there are no relations today. Individuals travel; I have traveled to Turkey many times, when I was especially a free person, not in government office. I have visited universities, I have been chairing big conferences, giving lectures at Koç and other universities.

How can we improve relations now? Let’s look at the other nations’ experiences, for example France and England, France and Germany. They were destroying each other for centuries; but then something changed, when after huge disasters and tragedies, everybody understood that there’s only one way out from that hatred, and that is tolerance; tolerating other peoples’ language, faith, culture and religion.

If there were no tolerance in Europe, Europe would have been a messy place now. They’ve put aside all of that and then started tolerating each other, accepting each other, and then having a dialogue and being involved around ideas and principles that they share.

Tolerance means accepting; tolerance means being strong enough to say I am sorry. Saying I am sorry in individual relations or family relations or on the level of states is a sign of strength. If Germany would have not said I am sorry to Jews, do you think there would have been any relations? And the same happened with other nations as well. I was in Jerusalem when the president of Germany made a speech on the Holocaust Day.

And on the war in 2020, as I said, Azerbaijan was ahead, but it had another factor which was the factor of Turkey, and this is the modern Turkey maybe with huge ambitions to return the glory of the Ottoman Empire. But no one wants to analyze, go to the psychology of people. But what we see is that Turkey is active everywhere; Turkey is in Lebanon, effectively a lot now; Turkey is in Syria aggressively; Turkey is in the Mediterranean; Turkey is near Cyprus; Turkey is near Greece; Turkey is in Libya.

Turkey keeps Europe as a hostage by keeping a couple of millions of refugees on the border with the European Union. And the EU is paying billions of euros for these refugees. Turkey is in Libya, which is the gateway from northern African refugees to Europe. Somehow, Turkey now is in a very strong way in Azerbaijan. Europe is getting oil and gas now from the Caspian and Turkey is sitting there.

Ziabari: So…?

Sarkissian: So, what about your historic justice?

Ziabari: That’s ambitious to be able to always cling to historic justice!

Armen Sarkissian: The reality is some sort of pure reality; the oil, the gas, logistics, transportation, money and power!

Part 2 of this interview will be published on December 22. Follow Kourosh Ziabari on Twitter at @KZiabari

 

Construction of Iran-Armenia transit route to be completed soon: MP

Emil Lazarian
Iran Front Page
Dec 24 2021
ByIFP Editorial Staff
December 24, 2021

An Iranian legislator says the construction of a transit route that will directly connect Iran to neighboring Armenia is in a final stage and will be completed in the near future.

Lawmaker Jalal Mahmoudzadeh briefed on Friday media about the agenda of a visit by members of the Iran-Armenia Parliamentary Friendship Group to Yerevan, where they held meetings with their counterparts and other officials of the country.

He said the Iranian parliamentary delegation had a meeting with Armenia’s Minister of Territorial Administration and Infrastructure Gnel Sanosyan to share views on ways to expand bilateral trade and speed up the construction of the transit motorway.

“Currently, the 30-kilometer transit route between Iran and Armenia is under construction with the participation of both Iranian and Armenian contractors and is undergoing changes to directions,” he said.

Mahmoudzadeh said that a 20-kilometer section of the route was ready for use, and that the project would be “completed soon.”

In October, Iranian Deputy Transport and Urban Development Minister Kheirollah Khademi announced an agreement between Iran and Armenia for building new transit routes, which would eliminate the need for the two countries to use the roads that pass through Azerbaijan Republic.

He inspected the construction site of the transit route under construction between the northeastern Iranian town of Nordooz and Yerevan. The project, named Tatev, will enable freight between the two countries to run entirely on Armenian land.

Earlier this year, a diplomat dispute broke out between Iran and Azerbaijani Republic over Baku’s decision to set up checkpoints on the road and charge Iranian drivers $130 for transit rights.

The Iranian MP added Armenian members of the Friendship Group would also be invited to Iran in the future for talks with Iranian ministers and businessmen.

Pashinyan Discusses ‘Difficult and Sensitive’ Armenia-Turkey Talks; Relations with Baku

Emil Lazarian
by Asbarez Staff

 

 December 24, 2021

 

in Armenia, Artsakh, Featured Main, Latest, News, Top Stories

Turkey-Armenia border

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan on Friday said unreasonable optimism should not be expressed over discussions and negotiations with Turkey and Azerbaijan, pledging Yerevan’s commitment to advance relations between Armenia’s neighbors.

“We are ready to pursue that path,” said Pashinyan during an online press conference on Friday night local time, when he responded to questions from reporters and representatives of non-governmental organizations. He said Yerevan’s participation in talks is meant to “create a basis for optimism.”

Armenia and Turkey have appointed special envoys who will engage in negotiations․ Armenia will be represented by the Deputy Parliament Speaker Ruben Rubinyan, and Turkey will be represented by Ankara’s former ambassador to the United States and notorious Armenian Genocide denier Serder Kilic.

Pashinyan said that a first meeting has not been scheduled yet. He expressed hope that the meeting will be scheduled as soon as possible. “A rather long process is expected, and one should not have exaggerated expectations from one or two meetings in order to record a concrete result,” said Pashinyan.

President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Turkey has voiced preconditions for normalizing relations with Yerevan, among them calling on Armenia to recognize Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity that includes Artsakh, and more recently pressing for the creation of the so-called “Zangezur Corridor,” a plan advanced by Azerbaijan’s president Ilham Aliyev who seeks to create a route connecting Azerbaijan proper with Nakhichevan and Turkey through Armenia.

“Armenia has not discussed, does not discuss and will not discuss any corridor issue,” said Pashinyan.

As for relations with Turkey, he said, if building roads and opening transit routes will have greater regional significance, then the matter will be placed on Armenia’s agenda. “One of the issues, for example, might be the opening of the Armenian-Turkish border and the railway,” Pashinyan said, signaling his approval for opening air traffic between Turkey and Armenia—a point made last week by Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu.

“Our expectation is the normalization of relations [with Turkey], but we must understand that we are dealing with a complex problem, which has many nuances and sensitivities. There is a lot of emotional approaches to the issue in the Republic of Armenia,” said Pashinyan.

The prime minister explained that Armenia has always said that it is ready to normalize relations with Turkey without preconditions, which means, he said, that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide has never been a precondition for normalization of relations with Turkey and opening of borders. He added that the Armenian government has clearly stated its position on the issue of international recognition of the Genocide.

Pashinyan clarified that there is no agreement about a meeting with Erdogan. However, he said, if the negotiations between the envoys is successful “a high-level meeting can take place.”

On the issue of relations with Azerbaijan, Pashinyan said that Armenia is interested in negotiating a peace treaty, adding that such a document would be contingent of the comprehensive settlement of the Karabakh, which he explained the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs have proposed.

Saying that Armenia is open to talked and has not refused to negotiate, Pashinyan said this approach stems from his government’s plan for ushering in an era of peaceful development in the region.

“If we manage to formulate a model of peace that will be beneficial to both Armenia and Azerbaijan, then perhaps the negotiation process will have less conflict or opposition, and create an opportunity for understanding the other side’s point of view, come to some acceptable provisions from those points of view and to form some type of a new scheme,” said Pashinyan, adding that his talks with Aliyev in Sochi and Brussels focused on that approach.

According to Pashinyan, after Sochi, however, events took place that seriously called into question that conversation. Fortunately, no such events have taken place following the Brussels meeting.

To that end, however, Pashinyan said that if the security of cargo transportation through the territory of Azerbaijan is not ensured, cargo transportation will not be carried out.

“If in those conditions, suppose the Armenian cargo does not pass through the territory of Azerbaijan, the Azerbaijani cargo will not pass through the Armenian territory. Of course, this matter will be included on the agenda when we discuss these issues,” said Pashinyan.

Since the Brussels talks last week, the issue of opening the railway has been brought up by Armenian officials as part of a larger discussion of opening transit links with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan said on Friday that Armenia will never agree to provide a road to Azerbaijan without customs duty or inspections.

“Before the Brussels meeting, I had already outlined the red lines for the Armenian side on my Facebook page, according to which we do not accept any corridor-related proposal, and what we talked about and agreed to regarding the railway in Brussels, was a summation of the Sochi talks and what we registered there is that customs and border control will operate from both sides, which is acceptable for us, is acceptable for Azerbaijan and we agreed to launch the construction of the railway,” explained Pashinyan.

However, following the talks in Sochi, Aliyev demanded that his proposed “Zangezur Corridor” have the same status as the Lachin Corridor currently has.

Pashinyan explained that during his talks with Aliyev in Brussels he saw opportunities for reaching agreements on some practical issues with Azerbaijan. He emphasized, however, no agreement has been reached on the opening of transport links.

He also addressed the one-on-one meeting he had with Aliyev, which was announced by Michel, the European leader, who told reporters that he left Pashinyan and Aliyev alone to have a private conversation.

Pashinyan told reporters on Friday that the 20 to 30 minuted meeting with Aliyev focused on the same topics that were earlier discussed during the talks mediated by Michel.

COVID-19: Armenian CDC reports lowest daily death toll in 4 months – 12/24/2021

Emil Lazarian

COVID-19: Armenian CDC reports lowest daily death toll in 4 months

Save

Share

 11:19, 24 December, 2021

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 24, ARMENPRESS. 3 people died from COVID-19 in the last 24 hours, the lowest daily death toll in 4 months, the Armenian National Center for Disease Control and Prevention said Friday.

The total death toll reached 7939.

135 new cases were confirmed, bringing the cumulative total number of confirmed cases to 344,261.

407 patients recovered, raising the total recoveries to 329,983.

6236 tests were administered (total 2,522,916).

As of December 24 the number of active cases stood at 4843.

Why "Operation Baku" Failed

Emil Lazarian
Dec 26 2021
26/12/2021 International Affairs
By David Davidian
The following fictional Red Cell scenario is intended to stimulate alternative thinking and challenge conventional wisdom, tying together events in operational fiction with national realities.
Local Map of the Incursion into Baku from Iran.

We had set up for multiple diversions; any of our teams would be sacrificed for the mission’s success. Since the end of the Second Karabakh War, the goal was to free as many Armenian POWs (prisoners of war) held in several places in and around Baku, Azerbaijan. It was a very tough operation considering it was planned in Europe and did not involve the Armenian government. There was limited “kompromat” and money to pay off lower-level Azerbaijani oligarchs and several “third country” security services. Multiple escape routes were planned, with POWs being separated and funneled through third countries. The best intelligence we had was that most of our boys were being held in Penitensiar Xidmətin 10 and 11, near Lake Boyukshor, in Baku. If only a handful of POWs made it out — even one — the operation would be considered a political success. One problem was that only a few of our POWs knew Azerbaijani Turkish, while all of our team members knew enough Turkish and European languages and would pass as a Muslim, or Jew, upon inspection. Another problem was that Armenian diplomacy was unable to take on the task of addressing even one POW having been liberated. Armenian diplomats were well versed in business efforts yet towed the government line in all other cases.
The debate over such an operation took months, with military and intelligence experts from the Armenian diaspora stretching from Manchester, England, to Isfahan, Iran. Internal security was something akin to US Black Operations, with constant surveillance. It was estimated such security cost more than the actual Operation Baku. Several security breaches were planned to gauge the extent of regional counter-intelligence protection of Azerbaijan, which is why all references were associated with support of an ethnic separatist movement in Iran. Since Armenian sovereignty barely extends to its borders, there were never any Armenian threats worthy of alarm; besides, there has never been a critical mass of nationalism expressed in Armenia. Since the breakup of the Soviet Union, Armenian policies were always centered around the mystique of the oligarch, much like Azerbaijan, and to a lesser extent, Georgia. All three of these ethnic groups were among the most corrupt during the final years of the Soviet Union. Since then, all three Southern Caucasus republics have taken seemingly separate paths.
One of our commandos, known by locals in Northern Syrian Kurdistan as Jiko, spent several years with YPG groups. He did his best in trying to defend Syrian Armenians from pro-Turkish forces. Jiko knew some of the Al Nusra Syrian jihadists recruited by Turkish intelligence to fight Armenians in the Second Karabakh War. Jiko had only a tiny window of opportunity during the winter of 2020 to infiltrate Azerbaijan with a handful of fellow jihadist-looking, Arabic and Turkish-speaking Armenians.
The second group of infiltrators included Azerbaijani-speaking Armenians from Tabriz, Iran. This group could easily pass themselves off as Azerbaijani villagers, even in Baku. This was important as they would make their way in an Iranian Ghadir seven-man mini-submarine with a shore target of 8 Noyabr Prospekti. This mini-sub was modified for battery-only operation in a one-way trip. Purchasing such a vessel was easy in cash-strapped Iran, but the full-electric conversion was challenging. The Iranian Revolutionary Guard was recruited in towing this mini-sub as close as possible to Baku’s southern coast. The Guard looked the other way, for by 2021 Iranian forces were massing on the Azerbaijani border; an interesting cover. Azerbaijan was concentrating its monitoring of Iranian movements near the Iranian border, not the southern shores of Baku.
The third group, French business people, were already in place in Baku, making it very clear they were interested in increased French influence in the Southern Caucasus. A deep background check by Azerbaijani intelligence might suggest some of these businessmen were of Armenian heritage. Still, with their close association with the French Embassy and their military attache, no suspicion was generated. This group made initial contacts with Azerbaijanis in both Malta and Germany, and it was clear they were interested in participating in Baku’s Caviar Diplomacy. Azerbaijan’s seedy, corrupt underground is full of opportunities, such as “handing out” advanced placement in chemistry and chemical engineering at French universities. Narimzade, the deputy head of security at Penitensiar Xidmətin 10, had his lazy son rejected from Azerbaijani Technical University. The nepotism pervasive in Azerbaijani resulted in the position of gas service manager at both Penitensiar Xidmətin 10 and 11 for Narimzade’s brother-in-law. Narimzade would collect handsome fees as the intermediate between these French and potential students. Among other things, the French gave the impression they needed to know that the transfer schedule for prisoners over the next month as proof of Narimzade’s commitment and as advanced info. The French were to add lip service to human rights issues in Azerbaijan using Azerbaijani’s prisoner transfer regime. The French insisted that Narimzade’s brother-in-law set up a small gas explosion targeting political prisoners in transit, hopefully wounding only the political prisoners, not the Armenian POWs.
Regional Map White lines are incursions into Azerbaijan, red lines are general escape directions, black lines are diversions. Red dotted lines are undisclosed activity or travel on foot.
Unfortunately, there was no place to practice a Baku infiltration. The mini-submarine was a one-way trip. The French could come and go, and they did. Jiko and his Arab-speaking Armenians were the only groups that could function somewhat autonomously.
The Azerbaijani-speaking Armenians quickly made it onshore, but two were contaminated with partially enriched U235 powder from transport containers left in the Iranian mini-sub. This contamination set off radiation detectors near the Baku Marriot Hotel complex. Eventually, these two were released as they pleaded ignorance. Where they ultimately ended up was never known. The other five made it to the dual prison transfer time and place, except only one prison was transferring prisoners. A minor gas explosion diversion caused enough panic that two Armenian POWs were extracted, and several political prisoners escaped. The latter provided enough diversion for the Armenian POWs to hide in a medium-size van, change their clothes, and split up into two smaller cars. One car headed along the coast toward Russia’s Daghestan, the second one drove toward Armenia’s Tavush border area. It was through the Tavush region, where Jiko’s group entered Azerbaijan. The second car drove to the east of Nagorno-Karabakh, heading northwest. The first car made it to Russia’s Daghestan border, where they were waved through after having picked up three of Jiko’s commandos near that border. The car headed towards the Black Sea coast. The Tabriz Armenians were let off in a nondescript Daghestani village and would make it back to Iran through Turkmenistan. The second car drove to a secluded Russian-Georgian border area and headed into Georgia by foot. Three of Jiko’s guys and a POW gave themselves up to Georgian police near the Chechnya border. This diversion worked well with all three requesting political asylum in Georgia.
A general alert was sent to regional governments about the escape of an “unknown number” of Armenian POWs. Georgian police contacted Baku after they detained the single POW and Jiko’s fighters. Armenian authorities were also looking for some vehicle rumored to be driving north in Azerbaijan toward Tavush.
With soldiers and drones, much of Azerbaijan’s borders were more or less covered, but the Azerbaijani northwest/Armenia’s northeast border became the responsibility of Armenian authorities. Turkish satellite imagery shared with Baku suggested several cars were heading north for many kilometers past Nagorno-Karabakh, one near Armenia’s Voskepar. Baku gave this piece of Turkish intelligence to the authorities in Yerevan with the caveat that Ankara expects Armenia to capture the POW and any infiltrators. Ankara was particular and stated that any pending contracts with Armenian officials when their common border was open would be reviewed if these infiltrators were not apprehended. The car stopped near the Joghaz reservoir in Azerbaijan across from Voskepar. The Tabriz Armenians got out, and at dusk, walked across the Armenian border at old Voskepar. They split into two groups. One headed south toward the agricultural region hiding in a hothouse. The other group began walking north through a series of villages. They were eventually stopped by Armenian police and, with forged documents, made their way to Yerevan and eventually back to Iran. The car at Joghaz reservoir picked up what remained of Jiko’s men hiding in abandoned homes and headed towards the Georgian border near Tekali. They left their car and walked across an unsecured border section at night, where they eventually met up with contacts from Ajaria after well over a day hiding in an old truck.
Turkish intelligence was expecting the remaining POW and infiltrators to escape aboard a ship leaving either the Georgian ports of Poti or Batumi. since anonymous reports in the European press claim the POWs were in Adjaria. Instead, the POW and Jiko’s escorts were already in Armenia having been taken across an unprotected border area near Ninotsminda, Georgia.
For weeks, Armenian authorities, having received tips from regular citizens, searched for the POW and what remained of Jiko’s men. Baku threatened to cancel all contracts made with Armenians regarding interstate transportation routes and border properties. Armenian diplomats issued rubber-stamped updates to the international press. The Armenian government was scrambling since Baku suspended all transportation projects with the new class of Armenian oligarchs’ finances in suspension. Azerbaijani President Aliev was facing pro-nationalist, anti-government protests with hundreds jailed daily. Armenian PM Pashinyan reiterated how irresponsible these outside “Armenian terrorists” were since Armenian POWs are an Azerbaijani issue. Aliev began urging Azerbaijani oligarchs to pressure their Armenian counterparts, threatening them by exposing their off-shore shell companies and canceling border real estate contracts. Baku quietly enlisted the help of Israel’s Mossad, claiming an Iranian violation Azerbaijani sovereignty, but didn’t receive much actionable intelligence as Israel was more interested in seeing if Armenians could pull off this rescue, having a history of successful hostage extractions.
Speeches in the Armenian Parliament began to sound dire with near daily fist-fights between pro-government and all opposition group parties. The oligarch-funded Armenian media began demanding ordinary citizens keep their eyes open for the POW and Western Armenian-speaking Armenians. When the government announced a 10M AMD (~$21K) reward for information leading to the apprehension of this POW, there were so many tips offered on the first day that Armenia’s central mobile phone provider’s system crashed for several hours. The citizen frenzy was overwhelming.
Nobody noticed a small protest in front of the Armenian Foreign Ministry by what appeared to be an extended family, huddled together. Indeed, it was the family of the Armenian POW hiding in Armenia. The outraged family was trying to revoke their Armenian citizenship without success since the totality of the Ministry’s efforts were directed toward the apprehension of a 21-year-old Armenian POW in Armenia.
Yerevan, Armenia
Author: David Davidian (Lecturer at the American University of Armenia. He has spent over a decade in technical intelligence analysis at major high technology firms. He resides in Yerevan, Armenia).

PM Nikol Pashinyan says reactions to his interview “at least puzzling”

Emil Lazarian
Public Radio of Armenia
Dec 26 2021
, 20:22

 2 minutes read

Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan has said some of the responses to his December 24 interview are “at least puzzling” for several reasons. The Prime Minister took to Facebook to list the reasons:

  1. In that interview, I spoke about the content of the negotiations formed before I became Prime Minister in 2018, therefore, I could not have any influence on their formation.
  2. In response to a question, I denied Serzh Sargsyan’s assertion at the RPA Congress that the content of the negotiations left by them guaranteed that Nagorno Karabakh would be Armenian. I denied it because the right of Azerbaijanis living in the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic to participate in the decision on the status of Nagorno-Karabakh as a resident of Nagorno-Karabakh was enshrined in that content of the negotiations. Therefore, if they are residents of Nagorno-Karabakh according to the content of the negotiations, then they had to live in Nagorno-Karabakh, and the Armenian side never objected to this content before the 2018 revolution. And if we take into account that according to the content of the negotiations formed before I became Prime Minister, the referendum on the final status of Nagorno-Karabakh could take place 100 years later, it is predictable what changes in the demographic picture of Artsakh would be under the mentioned conditions.
  3. As for the status of Nagorno-Karabakh before the potential referendum on status, I said in an interview that in 2016 the mediators had presented three negotiation packages (one before the April war, two after), where, unlike the 2011 Kazan document, the wording “Nagorno Karabakh gets an intermediate status” was missing. The third of these three packages, presented in August 2016, contains a provision stating that the decision on the legal and practical mechanisms for the organization of life in Nagorno-Karabakh will be made by the UN Security Council in consultation with the OSCE Minsk Group Co-Chairs, Azerbaijan, Armenia and the OSCE Chairperson-in-Office. This is what I considered to be a catastrophe in the negotiation process, because it is obvious that the UN Security Council would make all the decisions following the logic of its own resolutions on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, where Nagorno-Karabakh was recognized as part of Azerbaijan.
  4. Taking into account these and several other important negotiation issues, I have insisted from the Parliament tribune that under the negotiation content and realities existing before I became Prime Minister in 2018, Artsakh had lost both theoretical and practical opportunities not to be part of Azerbaijan.
  5. Becoming Prime Minister, I did not accept this, but fought against it. And this is one of the reasons why the war started.
  6. People saying that I should not negotiate on behalf of Nagorno-Karabakh have been criticizing me since 2018 for saying that I do not have a mandate to negotiate on behalf of Nagorno-Karabakh.
  7. I understand that many respectable people are now protesting against the negotiation content that is the cause and consequence of the 2016 war. At that time they either did not know or did not have the right to complain. I also complain against that content and I did everything possible to neutralize that content. I am sorry I can not hide the truth.

The comments come in the wake of Artsakh President Arayik Harutyunyan’s statement, in which he said the full recognition of the right of the Armenians of Artsakh to self-determination is not subject to reservation and concession. Therefore, he said, only the authorities of the Artsakh Republic are authorized to speak on behalf of the people of Artsakh.

Coronavirus: 57% of fatalities in Armenia are men – NCDC

Emil Lazarian

Save

Share

 11:20,

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 25, ARMENPRESS. 57% of people who died from COVID-19 in Armenia are men, and 43% are women, according to the National Center for Disease Control and Prevention (NCDC).

However, from all confirmed cases of infections 41% are men while 59% are women, NCDC Director of the Department of Epidemiology of Infectious and Non-Infectious Diseases Romella Abovyan told reporters.

The COVID-19 death toll in Armenia stood at 7942 as of December 25.

More than 90% of health workers in Armenia vaccinated against COVID-19

Emil Lazarian

Save

Share

 11:35,

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 25, ARMENPRESS. 90,5% of health workers in Armenia are vaccinated against COVID-19, according to the National Center for Disease Control and Prevention (NCDC).

NCDC Director of the Department of Epidemiology of Infectious and Non-Infectious Diseases Romella Abovyan told reporters that between 2020 March and December 2021 a total of 7481 health workers were infected with COVID-19 (2297 doctors, 3238 nurses, 893 midwives and 1053 other specialists).

Armenia says interested in peace treaty with Azerbaijan

Emil Lazarian
PanArmenian, Armenia
Dec 25 2021
– 14:00 AMT

PanARMENIAN.Net – Yerevan is interested in signing a peace treaty with Baku and starting negotiations, Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan told a virtual press conference on Friday, December 24.

“We are, of course, interested in signing a peace treaty and starting negotiations on it,” Pashinyan said.

The Armenian PM also recalled the agenda for talks proposed by the co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, one of the points of which was the peaceful and comprehensive settlement.

“We haven’t refused to talk on the topic, and we are not going to,” he added.

Also Friday, Pashinyan said he will hold an unofficial meeting Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev at an informal CIS summit to be held in Saint Petersburg on December 28.

Opposition MP: Pashinyan carrying out duties of Azerbaijani propaganda groups for free

Emil Lazarian
Panorama, Armenia
Dec 25 2021

Nikol Pashinyan is carrying out the duties of the anti-Armenian propaganda teams in Azerbaijan for free, MP Tigran Abrahamyan from the opposition With Honor faction said on Saturday, referring to Pashinyan’s news conference held on Friday.

“The Azerbaijani groups engaged in anti-Armenian propaganda have probably already been dissolved. What is the point of keeping inactive groups if there is no shortage of people doing the same work for them for free at the expense of the Armenian budget? Pashinyan’s press conference yesterday came to confirm it,” he wrote on Facebook.

“In any direction in which Azerbaijanis have worked to inflict damage to the Republic of Armenia, the processes are now proceeding without their active participation, from the destruction of systems to propaganda.

“Incidentally, Pashinyan does not even try to deny my claims, he just presents it all through a remix of emotions and manipulations,” Abrahamyan stated.