Category: 2023

by Michael N. Schmitt, Kevin S. Coble | Sep 29, 2023

Editors’ Note: In a prior post, the authors presented background material and jus ad bellum analysis of an ongoing situation between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh region. In this post, they address jus in bello and other international legal issues related to the situation.

International Armed Conflict

Armenia and Azerbaijan have been involved in a continuous “international armed conflict” almost since they declared independence. Common Article 2 of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions (to which Armenia and Azerbaijan are parties) sets forth the accepted definition of such conflicts: “declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more [States], even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them.” It also extends the status to “all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance.” Thus, international armed conflict can exist because of hostilities between States or an ongoing occupation (or both).

Concerning the former, the 1960 Geneva Convention III Commentary to Common Article 2 explains:

any difference arising between two States and leading to the intervention of members of the armed forces is an armed conflict within the meaning of Article 2, even if one of the Parties denies the existence of a state of war. It makes no difference how long the conflict lasts, how much slaughter takes place, or how numerous are the participating forces.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) endorsed this interpretation, with which we agree, in its 2016 Geneva Convention I Commentary to the article (para. 237). Over the past decades, hostilities between Armenia and Azerbaijan have easily crossed the requisite intensity threshold for international armed conflict.

Yet there have been significant lulls in the fighting since 1991. This brings into play the second basis for the existence of an armed conflict – belligerent occupation. Article 42 of the Hague Regulations annexed to the 1907 Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land provides, “Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.” In other words, there is a two-part, factual test for occupation: 1) “the ousted government is incapable of publicly exercising authority in that area;” and 2) the foreign army is “in a position to substitute its own authority for that of the former government” (Benvenisti). As Yoram Dinstein has observed, “Effective control is a conditio sine qua non of belligerent occupation” (para. 136).

Admittedly, the NKR has the trappings of an independent State, including a President and Prime Minister, a National Assembly, typical ministries for, inter alia, foreign affairs, justice, and the economy, and a well-organized and equipped Defence Army. Nevertheless, it is clear that Armenian civil and military authorities have controlled Azerbaijani territory to the exclusion of Azerbaijani authority, both directly and by proxy, since 1992.

Indeed, in Chiragov v. Armenia, the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Human Rights considered the matter (see also Sargsyan v.Azerbaijan and Milanovic’s discussion). The Grand Chamber discussed how the NKR is integrated into and dependent on Armenia. For example, its residents are issued Armenian passports; politicians hold, at different times, positions in both Armenia and the NKR; Armenian law-enforcement agencies operate in the territory; and Armenian courts exercise jurisdiction in it (paras. 78 and 182). Based on these and other relevant facts, it concluded that “the ‘NKR’ and its administration survive by virtue of the military, political, financial and other support given to it by Armenia which, consequently, exercises effective control over Nagorno‑Karabakh and the surrounding territories, including the district of Lachin” (para. 186).

Indeed, the international community has regularly characterized Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding area as occupied by Armenia. As noted, the UN Security Council did so in four resolutions in 1993 alone. For example, the first “[d]emand[ed] the immediate cessation of all hostilities and hostile acts with a view to establishing a durable ceasefire, as well as immediate withdrawal of all occupying forces from the Kelbadjar district and other recently occupied areas of Azerbaijan” (UNSCR 822). Like the other three, it “[r]eaffirm[ed] . . . respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity of all States in the region,” as well as “the inviolability of international borders and the inadmissibility of the use of force for the acquisition of territory.”

Even more broadly, in 2008, the UN General Assembly passed Resolution 62/243. It referenced previous resolutions and Minsk Group reports, which referred to the territory as occupied, and “demanded the immediate, complete and unconditional withdrawal of all Armenian forces from all the occupied territories of the Republic of Azerbaijan” (the United States, United Kingdom, and Russia voted against the resolution on unrelated grounds). Similarly, two years later, an OSCE Minsk Group Field Assessment Mission identified the region as the “Occupied Territories of Azerbaijan.” Even the 2020 ceasefire agreement required Armenia to “return the Kelbajar region to the Republic of Azerbaijan by November 15, 2020, and the Lachin region by December 1, 2020,” thereby confirming the authority and control Armenia exercised over the territory. There appears to be broad consensus that Armenia has long occupied Nagorno-Karabakh and the surrounding area. As a consequence, an international armed conflict existed throughout this period.

End of Occupation and International Armed Conflict?

Armenia claims it no longer maintains forces in the area. Yet, that does not mean it was not occupying its adversary’s territory. As Tristan Ferraro has convincingly argued, “a state [is] an occupying power for the purposes of IHL when it exercises overall control over de facto local authorities or other local organized groups that are themselves in effective control of a territory or part thereof.” In support, he points to the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia Trial Chamber judgment in the Tadic case, which found that “‘the relationship of de facto organs or agents to the foreign Power includes those circumstances in which the foreign Power ‘occupies’ or operates in certain territory solely through the acts of local de facto organs or agents” (para. 584), as well several other decisions from that body and the International Court of Justice (Ferraro, p. 159). In other words, to qualify as an occupying power, a State must be in overall control of a proxy group that effectively controls the area. Although some degree of Armenia’s control over the occupied territory was lost in 2020, enough survived to meet the requisite tests (see also Vité p. 74-75). Thus, NKR’s “governance” preceding the recent round of fighting affected neither the fact of occupation nor the existence of the Armenia-Azerbaijan international armed conflict.

However, depending on how the facts on the ground unfold, the occupation may be coming to an end. Once Azerbaijan supplants NKR authority, the requisite NKR effective control will be absent, as will Armenian overallcontrol. Of course, as Yoram Dinstein has cautioned, “A definitive close of the occupation can only follow upon a durable shift of effective control in the territory from the Occupying Power to the restored sovereign” (para. 832). But it appears that shift might be underway.

As to the ceasefire, it has no bearing on the existence of the ongoing international armed conflict. As one of us previously explained, “ceasefires” suspend hostilities, “armistices” end the armed conflict, and “peace treaties” restore peaceful relations between the belligerents (see also Dinstein p. 36-64). Azerbaijan and Armenia had only entered into ceasefire agreements in the past, thereby temporarily halting hostilities. And because Armenia is not a party to the current agreement, it is but an agreement between Azerbaijan and proxy forces in the field (ceasefires are typically between fielded forces). Hopefully, the parties will move towards an armistice agreement or even a peace treaty. Still, for now, Armenia and Azerbaijan remain parties to an international armed conflict (on the separate issue of when the application of IHL ends, see Milanovic).

Humanitarian Assistance

Azerbaijan’s interference with the Lachin corridor, the only supply route from Armenia to Nagorno-Karabakh, raises additional legal issues regarding humanitarian assistance (see Pejic). The relevant rules are found in the Geneva Conventions, especially Geneva Convention IV on the protection of civilians, and customary international law. Although the 1977 Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions also addresses humanitarian assistance (arts. 68-71), it is inapplicable here since Azerbaijan is not a party.

Under IHL, the party in whose power civilians and other protected persons find themselves is responsible for satisfying their basic needs. In this regard, Article 55 of Geneva Convention IV provides that “[t]o the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring the food and medical supplies of the population; it should, in particular, bring in the necessary foodstuffs, medical stores and other articles if the resources of the occupied territory are inadequate.” It, therefore, fell to Armenia and its NKR proxy to care for the population of the occupied territory.

Should an occupying power be unable to supply the population with the necessary assistance, it must, under Article 59 of Geneva Convention IV, “agree to relief schemes on behalf of the said population, and . . . facilitate them by all the means at its disposal.” Further, Article 10 emphasizes the right of humanitarian organizations to provide assistance:

The provisions of the present Convention constitute no obstacle to the humanitarian activities which the International Committee of the Red Cross or any other impartial humanitarian organization may, subject to the consent of the Parties to the conflict concerned, undertake for the protection of civilian persons and for their relief.

Armenia had complied with this obligation by allowing the delivery of assistance into occupied areas through the Lachin corridor.

This raises Azerbaijan’s responsibility. By Article 59,

All Contracting Parties shall permit these consignments’ free passage and guarantee their protection.

A Power granting free passage to consignments on their way to territory occupied by an adverse Party to the conflict shall, however, have the right to search the consignments, to regulate their passage according to prescribed times and routes, and to be reasonably satisfied through the Protecting Power that these consignments are to be used for the relief of the needy population and are not to be used for the benefit of the Occupying Power.

The ICRC contends that this is a customary law obligation, reflected in Rule 55 of its Customary International Humanitarian Law study: “The parties to the conflict must allow and facilitate rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian relief for civilians in need, which is impartial in character and conducted without any adverse distinction, subject to their right of control.” We agree.

Therefore, the question is whether Azerbaijan’s actions were justified based on its right of control. In this regard, the 1958 Commentary to Article 59 provides, “The State granting free passage to consignments can check them in order to satisfy itself that they do in fact consist of relief supplies and do not contain weapons, munitions, military equipment or other articles or supplies used for military purposes.” While the State is entitled to prescribe routes and timing consistent to address security concerns, any decision that limits qualifying humanitarian assistance must not be “arbitrary” (see Pejic).

Although Azerbaijan asserts that security reasons justified interference with transit through the Lachin corridor, the claim is not credible, at least not in light of the extent to which the humanitarian assistance was blocked. For instance, Azerbaijan’s involvement in the protests blocking the Lachin corridor is at issue in an ongoing International Court of Justice case brought by Armenia alleging violations of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD). The court has noted that “restrictions on the importation and purchase of goods required for humanitarian needs, such as foodstuffs and medicines, including lifesaving medicines, treatment for chronic disease or preventive care, and medical equipment may have a serious detrimental impact on the health and lives of individuals” (para. 55). Accordingly, in February 2023, it ordered Azerbaijan to “take all measures at its disposal to ensure unimpeded movement of persons, vehicles and cargo along the Lachin Corridor in both directions.” (para. 67).

Although this ruling was based on Azerbaijan’s CERD and 2020 ceasefire obligations, the logic applies equally to the IHL obligations set forth above. It seems clear that Azerbaijan has violated the order (reaffirmed in July) and its humanitarian assistance obligations under IHL. Fortunately, aid, including from the ICRC, is beginning to trickle in.

Breach of Ceasefire

Azerbaijan’s failures to abide by the 2020 ceasefire agreement’s terms regarding transit through the Lachin corridor and suspension of hostilities amount to “material breaches” of the agreement, which are defined by the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties as “violation of a provision essential to the accomplishment of the object or purpose of the treaty” (art. 60(3)). The law governing material breaches of a ceasefire is found in the Regulations annexed to the 1907 Hague Convention IV (the treaty uses the term “armistice” to refer to what is today labeled a “ceasefire”). They reflect customary international law.

Article 36 of the Hague Regulations provides that parties to a ceasefire may resume their operations despite the ceasefire so long as they provide advance notice to the adversary (see also Dinstein paras. 171-75). There is no indication that Azerbaijan did so either before it interfered with the Lachin corridor or launched its current operations.

Article 40 provides the remedy for such breaches: “Any serious violation of the armistice by one of the parties gives the other party the right of denouncing it, and even, in cases of urgency, of recommencing hostilities immediately.” Accordingly, Armenia could have denounced the agreement when Azerbaijan violated it by impeding traffic in the Lachin corridor. It elected not to do so. And concerning the most recent hostilities, Armenia could likewise have denounced the ceasefire and resumed hostilities. It has not availed itself of that remedy, and it is difficult to see how it might make out a case for reparations under the law of State responsibility on the basis of injury suffered (see Articles on State Responsibility, arts. 31 and 34).

Amnesty

The 20 September ceasefire between Azerbaijan and the NKR provides for demilitarization of the latter’s forces. That appears to be underway, and there are reports that Azerbaijan is considering amnesty for members of those forces who voluntarily put down their arms. Generally, combatants enjoy belligerent immunity from prosecution for actions during an armed conflict that comply with IHL and do not require a separate grant of amnesty. This raises the question as to why one might be necessary here.

NKR soldiers satisfy the conditions for combatant status articulated in Article 4(A)(2) of Geneva Convention III on prisoners of war – being commanded by a person responsible for subordinates, having a distinctive sign or emblem like a uniform, carrying weapons openly, and conducting operations in accordance with the law of war. However, most members of the NKR forces are nationals of Azerbaijan. This precludes them from claiming belligerent immunity for participating in the conflict because, as the DoD Law of War Manual notes, “international law does not prevent a State from punishing its nationals whom it may capture among the ranks of enemy forces” (§ 4.4.4.2). Although there is a debate as to whether nationals of a detaining State are entitled to prisoner of war status (Biggerstaff/Schmitt here and here arguing against such status), the ICRC 2020 Commentary to Article 4 is in accord on the matter of belligerent immunity (para. 972). Thus, without Azerbaijan’s agreement to amnesty, NKR soldiers who hold Azerbaijani nationality will be at risk of prosecution in Azerbaijani courts for violations of that State’s domestic law (especially treason). To infuse stability into the crisis, therefore, Secretary of State Blinken has urged Azerbaijan to grant amnesty broadly.

Other Bodies of Law

Former ICC Prosecutor Luis Moreno Ocampo has labeled the current situation a genocide (see his earlier report here). Similarly, in a 22 September statement to the Security Council, the Armenian Minister of Foreign Affairs charged, “The intensity and cruelty of the offensive makes it clear that the intention is to finalize ethnic cleansing of the Armenian population of Nagorno-Karabakh . . . . [W]e have a situation where there is not an intent anymore, but clear and irrefutable evidences of policy of ethnic cleansing and mass atrocities.” Armenia’s Prime Minister similarly has observed, “I consider strange Azerbaijan’s statement that they will leave a humanitarian corridor for the civilian population to leave Nagorno Karabakh. This is a direct act of ethnic cleansing.” Whether Azerbaijan’s authorities are committing genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes is fact-dependent and beyond the scope of this post. Nevertheless, in light of past abuses, the international community’s attention must remain firmly fixed on issues of international criminal law as the situation unfolds.

Similarly, tens of thousands of Nagorno-Karabakh residents are fleeing to Armenia and beyond. This implicates refugee law, such as that outlined in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol. According to Article 1 of the Convention, a refugee is, inter alia, a person who:

owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it.

Accordingly, ethnic Armenians holding Azerbaijani nationality who flee Nagorno-Karabakh will be entitled to treatment as refugees by those countries to which they travel (see Grignon).

Finally, Azerbaijan owes international human rights obligations, such as respecting and protecting the right to life, to all individuals on its territory, irrespective of nationality. Human rights obligations are subject to the condition of feasibility in the circumstances. Now that Azerbaijan controls the territory previously occupied by Armenia and its proxy government, its international human rights law duties loom large. The international community is accordingly ratcheting up pressure on Azerbaijan to “uphold its obligations to respect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of the residents of Nagorno-Karabakh and to ensure its forces comply with international humanitarian law” (see, e.g., comments by U.S. Secretary of State Blinken).

Concluding Thoughts

This is not a simple case, legally or factually. And it is one in which, over the decades, there has been legal and moral blood on the hands of both parties and their proxy forces. We want to reemphasize that the discussion above is but a bird’s eye view of select issues. All are more nuanced than possible to explore here.

Moreover, the situation on the ground is evolving rapidly. In light of the risks the crisis poses to the affected civilian population and to regional and international instability (especially in light of Russia’s involvement), the international community must guard against allowing its attention to be distracted.

***

Michael N. Schmitt is the G. Norman Lieber Distinguished Scholar at the United States Military Academy at West Point. He is also Professor of Public International Law at the University of Reading and Professor Emeritus and Charles H. Stockton Distinguished Scholar-in-Residence at the United States Naval War College.

Major Kevin S. Coble is an active-duty Army judge advocate and a military professor in the Stockton Center for International Law in Newport, Rhode Island.

Just over two weeks ago, Acting Assistant Secretary of State Yuri Kim testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. 

“We will not tolerate any attack on the people of Nagorno-Karabakh,” Kim declared. But the Biden administration tolerated just that. The best the State Department could do in the wake of an Azerbaijani aggression that has so far driven close to three-quarters of Nagorno-Karabakh’s indigenous population out of the region is to say “we are quite serious” about the U.S. desire to have an international monitoring mission. The White House has yet to declare a cessation of military aid to Azerbaijan, even as Congress grows more frustrated with its tepid response.

While Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev has promised to ensure the rights of Nagorno-Karabakh’s Armenian population, this is little comfort. Aliyev has never kept a promise, nor has the West held him to account for his duplicity. Further, Azerbaijanis in practice have no rights. Freedom House ranks the country alongside China and the military junta-controlled Myanmar in freedom. It ranks below Russia, Iran, and Cuba.

To understand how Azerbaijan represses its own people, consider the case of Gubad Ibadoghlu, a prominent scholar the Aliyev regime detained. Aliyev’s security services said they arrested Ibadoghlu for allegedly being in possession of counterfeit currency. The problem is that they first reportedly tried breaking into his safe, and when they were unable to crack it, they simply left a paper bag with counterfeit currency in a paper bag on top. The alleged setup fails the logic test: Why would someone have a safe and keep their money on a bookshelf?

The episode is straight from the autocrat’s playbook. It does not pass the smell test. Nor does the whispering campaign about Ibadoghlu’s alleged religiosity. Put aside that religiosity is not a sin so long as no one tries to impose it on others. The fact is Ibadoghlu reportedly has one of the most impressive collections of wine that he shared openly with friends and associates. 

The real reason Aliyev may have acted against Ibadoghlu, his son Emin Bayramli told me, is that he was researching alleged corruption on the part of firms linked to Turkish leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan in portions of Nagorno-Karabakh seized by Azerbaijani and Turkish forces in November 2020.  Ibadoghlu also researched Azerbaijani “caviar diplomacy” in the United Kingdom, where Aliyev’s influence is high because of his partnership with BP (formerly British Petroleum).

Dictatorships thrive in darkness. This is why silence is never the answer when dictators arrest dissidents. After Ibadoghlu’s detention, his son Emin Bayramli worked to keep his father in the limelight and to focus attention on the conditions in which Azerbaijan kept him confined. 

It was an effective strategy that annoyed the Aliyev regime. Sometime late on Aug. 18 or in the early morning hours of Aug. 19, someone entered the New Jersey house in which Bayramli lived and ransacked his room. An investigation is ongoing, but Azerbaijani agents or those working on their behalf are among the chief suspects that federal law enforcement now investigate, Bayramli told me on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. 

The case should worry all Americans. Dictatorships are becoming increasingly bold about targeting Americans not only abroad, but also inside the United States. Few remember that when Iranian radicals seized the U.S. Embassy in Iran and took 52 American diplomats hostage, President Jimmy Carter did not sever relations. He did that only five months later when the Iranian embassy in Washington, DC, organized the assassination of an Iranian dissident in nearby Bethesda, Maryland. That reaction set a red line that Iranian revolutionaries abided by until recently, even after repeatedly targeting dissidents in Europe.

Those red lines have eroded. The Iranian government, for example, has sought to kidnap Iranian-American dissidents from New York. Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi openly brags about putting hits on former American officials Mike Pompeo and Brian Hook. Erdogan’s bodyguards have attacked American protesters in the heart of Washington, DC. The Bayramli case marks the first apparent attempt by the Azerbaijani regime to target dissidents in the United States. That should be a wakeup call.

Aliyev is riding high. He has conquered Nagorno-Karabakh, a territory Azerbaijan has never truly controlled, and expelled the indigenous Armenian population. He has called the American bluff without consequence. He believes, quite literally, that he can get away with murder. Quite simply, Aliyev is out of control. Words are not enough. The Biden administration needs to act now to stop Azerbaijan from taking its repression on the road, right into the heart of America. 

Now a 19FortyFive Contributing Editor, Dr. Michael Rubin is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Dr. Rubin is the author, coauthor, and coeditor of several books exploring diplomacy, Iranian history, Arab culture, Kurdish studies, and Shi’ite politics, including “Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East?” (AEI Press, 2019); “Kurdistan Rising” (AEI Press, 2016); “Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes” (Encounter Books, 2014); and “Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos” (Palgrave, 2005).

https://www.19fortyfive.com/2023/09/joe-biden-must-act-dont-let-azerbaijans-regime-get-away-with-murder/

With catastrophe and crises erupting all over the planet every week like never before, the ongoing horror in Artsakh, the Armenian enclave Stalin a century ago unethically handed over to Azerbaijan as Nagorno-Karabakh for authoritarian divide and conquer control, was hit on Tuesday last week with an Azeri “lightning strike” invasion against the heavily outmanned, outgunned Artsakh separatist militia, forced to surrender 24-hours later with another Russian brokered ceasefire. On the day a truce was brokered, Putin declared:

Peacekeepers are working very actively with all parties involved in this conflict. They are doing everything to protect civilians.

However, for one civilian, Russian peacekeepers apparently didn’t do enough. During the subsequent mass exodus of Armenians leaving Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenian civilian Ruben Vardanyan, a billionaire investment mogul never made it out. Vardanyan, who up till last year was a Russian citizen and until February this year held a ministerial post within the Republic of Artsakh was arrested while attempting to travel the 3-mile Lachin corridor to the Republic of Armenia. Taken into custody by Azeri authorities, he was swiftly transported to a Baku prison and is now facing charges of financing terrorism. Per RT:

[Vardanyan’s] wife, Veronika Zonabend told journalists her husband was ‘taken prisoner’ alongside ‘thousands of other Armenians’ who were trying to leave the region. Azerbaijani authorities reported taking a senior leader of ‘Armenian separatists’ into custody at the Lachin checkpoint.

Over 200 Armenians were killed and 400 more injured. Even Russian peacekeepers returning from an observation post were fired upon by Azerbaijani troops, killing the Russian soldiers in their vehicle. On Thursday September 21st, the Kremlin reported Azerbaijan President Ilham Aliyev contacted Putin to apologize, claiming those responsible will be punished.

The three decade long Azerbaijani dictator Aliyev, who inherited his job upon his tyrannical father’s death in 1993, is now forcing Armenian families to either leave their ancient sacred homeland since the Bronze Age (many centuries prior to Azeri people even inhabiting this earth), or be subject to Azerbaijan’s deadly, genocidal rule should they choose to stay. As a result, the 120,000 Artsakh population must leave their home that’s been under siege, inhumanely cut off from food, fuel and medical supplies for the last ten months after Azerbaijan closed the 3-mile Lachin corridor on December 12th, 2022, separating Artsakh from its lifeline the Republic of Armenia. Artsakh Armenians are now forced to flee their homeland for their own safety, as thousands upon thousands are sadly leaving to start a new life in Armenia.

A Wednesday September 20th Moscow Times article cited two Russian independent news outlets Meduza and Vyorstka, reporting:

The Kremlin has ordered media and lawmakers to blame Armenia for Azerbaijan’s latest attack on the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh.

This reflects the cooling off of the once close diplomatic relations shared between the Russian Federation and Republic of Armenia since the Soros “velvet revolution” induced Armenian coup that brought Armenia’s President Nikol Pashinyan to power in Yerevan in 2018. Sadly and tragically, with Russia and Armenia’s falling out, the citizens of the breakaway Artsakh Republic have been hung out to dry by both nations and leaders. This schism backed by officialdom’s recognition that Nagorno-Karabakh belongs to the Baku government, overruling Artsakh Armenians declaration of independence in 1991 as an autonomous republic, vulturous Azerbaijan seized the moment last week. And so, Armenian families that have called this mountainous region their ancient ancestral homeland for millennia, for the first time in their history, now find themselves displaced refugees this week. They can thank the Soviet genocidal dictator Josef Stalin exactly one century ago for this grave and gross travesty of cruel justice.

In early September a feeble plea by the UN Security Council emergency meeting called for the Azeris to reopen the Lachin corridor, and in August a former International Criminal Court prosecutor’s report asserted that another Armenian genocide is already in progress with the willful starvation of Armenians allowed to unfold, with all food, fuel and medicine supplies cut off since last December by Azerbaijan. Despite Moscow deploying 2,000 Russian peacekeeping troops stationed on the Azeri-Artsakh frontline border, given Putin’s orders to passively stand down and allow this humanitarian crisis to grow worse the last ten months, in the end, the smug, opportunistic Aliyev knew the rest of the world would simply remain impotent while Baku’s military invasion of Artsakh last week would finish off any last Armenian resistance attempting in vain to defend their historic mountainous region against the advancing, well-armed Azeri aggressors… another sad and tragic ending for yet more persecuted Christian Armenians for simply being born in the wrong place and the wrong time.

Bolstered by the world feebly paying only lip service to this inhumane genocide-in-the-making or feebly looking the other way, Azerbaijan as well as Turkey harbor deep historic animosities and even hatred toward the world’s first Christian nation-state as their sworn enemy. A century ago, Turkey massacred 1.5 million Armenians in last century’s first genocide. Aliyev has vowed to wipe Armenians off the face of the earth in the past. As recent as September 26th, RT quotes the notorious human rights violator Aliyev claiming Armenians are “not even worthy of being servants.” Other hateful Ilham statements include:

We are also informing the world community, the world public that not only Nagorno-Karabakh but also present-day Armenia are our historical lands.

Few Armenians who value their life will remain in Nagorno-Karabakh, but they unfortunately remain in this madman’s crosshairs even as Republic of Armenia residents.

As a NATO member, fellow Islamic nation Turkey provided ample military aid and support to oil-rich Azerbaijan with overwhelming firepower in drones, artillery and US-made F-16 fighter jets during 2020’s September to November 44-day war. Right afterwards, Turkey’s Erdogan and Aziri Aliyev rubbed it in on December 10, 2020, proudly participating in their military victory parade, surveying their land grab while gloating over Azeris having taken control of more than 70% of Artsakh territory, leaving a broken, more isolated breakaway republic virtually defenseless in last week’s aggressive campaign.

So, it was only a matter of time before the next Azerbaijan attack on September 19th would be launched to finish off Artsakh. Seizing the celebratory moment yet again on Monday September 25th, 2023, Erdogan met with Aliyev at yet another onetime Armenian ancient homeland, one that’s been culturally erased and destroyed of all historic remnants of medieval Christian churches and enshrined artifacts by Islamic Azeris since today Nakhichevan also belongs to Azerbaijan as its autonomous exclave, where the Islamic duo again gloated over their latest conquest with another groundbreaking opening ceremony. A June 22, 2023 Mirror Spectator headline declared:

Report by Caucasus Heritage Watch Shows Near Total Destruction of Armenian Heritage in Nakhichevan

And now the same sad fate awaits Artsakh with thousands more Armenians forced to flee their ancient homeland. David Babayan, advisor to Artsakh Republic’s President Samvel Shahramanyan lamented in a Reuters article:

Our people do not want to live as part of Azerbaijan. Ninety-nine-point nine percent prefer to leave our historic lands. The fate of our poor people will go down in history as a disgrace and a shame for the Armenian people and for the whole civilized world.

On Sunday September 24th, the Baku authoritarian government finally opened the Lachin corridor after keeping it closed for nearly a year to allow hungry, malnourished, desperate Armenian refugees in Artsakh to board buses in a caravan to escape to the Republic of Armenia. Just one day later on Monday, already 6,650 residents and by Tuesday 28,120 had already somberly left their ancestral home for good. The Armenians of Artsakh fear severe repression and ethnic purging, motivating all or the vast majority to flee, undeterred by Azeri assurances guaranteeing their rights as “citizens of Azerbaijan.” Adding insult to injury, while Artsakh Armenians awaited rationed fuel to be able to depart their homeland, under suspicious still undisclosed circumstances, the fuel depot exploded on Monday night September 25th, killing 125 more Armenians and injuring nearly 300 of the fleeing refugees.

After the latest Baku invasion last Tuesday the 19th, the Washington Post on Monday September 25th concluded:

Moscow was unable to prevent the military operation by Azerbaijan, to protect the Armenians living in the region or to enforce the terms of the 2020 cease-fire, which called for maintaining a highway that connects [Artsakh capital] Stepanakert and Armenia. 

Not so much unable as unwilling. Clearly, with an axe to grind against Pashinyan, Putin wrote off the hapless Armenians of Artsakh as did Pashinyan, though he has his hands full suddenly taking in up to 120,000 refugees in his country with a struggling economy. Again, ordered to blame Armenia, Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov defensively claimed:

We understand the emotional intensity of the moment, but we categorically disagree with the attempt to put the responsibility on the Russian side, and especially on the Russian peacekeepers, who are showing real heroism, performing their functions in accordance with the mandate that is in place.

Meanwhile, pro-Western Armenian President Nikol Pashinyan, whose failure in 2020 to come to the military aid of his fellow Armenians in Artsakh, drew thousands of Yerevan protestors in the streets demanding his resignation. Speaking on Monday with Samantha Power, head of the CIA cutout US Agency for International Development (USAID) and a US State Department representative, Pashinyan regretted:

We tried to inform the international community that this ethnic cleansing was going to happen, but unfortunately we failed to prevent it.

Pashinyan felt abandoned by both Russia for not honoring its security agreement as well as by the Russian led six nation Collective Security Treaty Organization while Moscow officials blame Pashinyan for “recognizing Azerbaijan’s sovereignty over Karabakh last fall” and embracing the West after placing Pashinyan in power in the 2019 coup. Yet you will never hear Pashinyan blaming the US for this pathetic sobering outcome, as the US also simply let it all passively happen. So, as a Western pawn, Pashinyan once in as Armenia’s leader, clearly pivoted to America, engaging just last week in joint military exercises with the US, with the objective to train his security forces to respond not to an external threat or enemy but to quell an uprising from the enemy within, his own angry Armenian citizens.

Pashinyan also joined the Rome Statute in accordance with the International Criminal Court that last year issued a warrant for Putin’s arrest on the bogus claim of forcing deportation of Ukrainian children to Russia. In actuality, the children were at risk of becoming sex trafficking victims. In this tit for tat blame game for the sad fate of the Artsakh Armenians, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov criticized Pashinyan for “unacceptable [verbal] attacks on Russia” that were “inspired by the West,” intent on further damaging Moscow-Yerevan relations.

With a majority of more than 65,000 of the 120,000 total Artsakh population already having fled their homeland, on Thursday September 28th the now former Artsakh President Samvel Shahramanyan issued the decree ordering:

The dissolution of all state institutions and their branches by January 1, 2024. The Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) ceases to exist.

Finally, aside from the historical context of Armenians again getting the short shrift, ethnically, geopolitically and religiously, overpowered by apparent eternal Muslim enemies on each side, the loss of Artsakh to Azerbaijan holds enormous geopolitical, even global significance as well. A land bridge between Turkey and Azerbaijan is established, without Armenia, Russia, Iran or China standing in the geographical way of a Pan-Turkism with inclusion of the 5 stans of Central Asia – Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. Turkish President Erdogan’s wet dream is reviving the Ottoman Empire glory days, and a coalescing emergence of this Turkic bloc with vast natural resources along the old Silk Road trade route from the western border of China, Xinjiang Province of the Turkic Islamic Uyghurs, to the Azeri province in northeastern Iran. Biden during last week’s UN General Assembly met for this very reason with the 5 Central Asian stans. This untapped potential power bloc economically as well as the geopolitical wild card, could pose problems for the West, China, Russia, Iran, as well as the little powerless landlocked Christian Armenia.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate, former Army officer and author of “Don’t Let the Bastards Getcha Down,” exposing a faulty US military leadership system based on ticket punching up the seniority ladder, invariably weeding out the best and brightest, leaving mediocrity and order followers rising to the top as politician-bureaucrat generals designated to lose every modern US war by elite design. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field with abused youth and adolescents for more than a quarter century. In Los Angeles he found himself battling the largest county child protective services in the nation within America’s thoroughly broken and corrupt child welfare system.

The experience in both the military and child welfare system prepared him well as a researcher and independent journalist, exposing the evils of Big Pharma and how the Rockefeller controlled medical and psychiatric system inflict more harm than good, case in point the current diabolical pandemic hoax and genocide. As an independent journalist for the last decade, Joachim has written hundreds of articles for many news sites, like Global Research, lewrockwell.com and currently https://jameshfetzer.org. As a published bestselling author on Amazon of a 5-book volume series entitled Pedophilia & Empire: Satan, Sodomy & the Deep State, his A-Z sourcebook series exposes the global pedophilia scourge is available free at https://pedoempire.org/contents/. Joachim also hosts the Revolution Radio weekly broadcast “Cabal Empire Exposed,” every Friday morning at 6AM EST (ID: revradio, password: rocks!).