cease-fire violations by azeris

[Yervant1]

By Line Times

Nov 12 2020

RAGE & GRIEF

Armenia Loses its War With Azerbaijan

Tom Mutch

12 November 2020

Tom Mutch reports from Yerevan as Armenia grapples with military defeat and internal political turmoil It was a moment that could only have happened in 2020. When the demonstrators that had stormed Armenia’s parliament ran out of bottles of water to throw, they pelted the speakers with hand sanitizer instead.

Various Armenians, some dressed in military uniform, others draped in the national flag passed around the bullhorn on the central podium, venting their fury at the government. No one could agree on what they wanted. Some argued for a military coup, others for the leader of the opposition to take over. Others wanted Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan to arrive and face a ‘people’s assembly’ that would force him to continue the war. A small but vocal minority argued that he had made the right choice to stop the bloodshed.

“We need to go back” Vayan Asaikyan, a 49-year-old man from the captured town of Shushi, told me with tears in his eyes. “I lost my 20-year-old brother in this war. Now I have no home and no family of my own. I want to go back and fight for my land. Karabakh will always be Armenian.” This grim spectacle capped off one of the darkest years in the country’s modern history.

The Peace Agreement Nobody Wanted

Just a few hours earlier, the country’s Prime Minister had ended the bitter 44-day war with Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh. In a 2 am statement, Pashinyan announced he had chosen to sign an ‘extraordinarily painful’ peace agreement with the Russian and Azerbaijani governments.

Under its terms, the Armenian backed government of Artsakh would give Azerbaijan control of the three regions of Nagorno Karabakh that had been captured during the war. They would also return all of the Azerbaijani lands outside of Karabakh that had been controlled by Armenian forces as part of a buffer zone. Armenia would keep just a narrow sliver of land as a corridor connecting the country to the regional capital Stepanakert. Just under 2,000 Russian peacekeepers were to be deployed to patrol the line of contact and protect the remnant of Karabakh still under Armenian control. For a country extremely proud of its rich heritage and military prowess, it seemed a moment of national surrender.

Within minutes of the deal being announced, people flooded the streets of the country’s capital Yerevan and a crowd filled Republic Square in the centre of the city. Groups of vigilantes began breaking into various government institutions, claiming they were searching for Pashinyan. Wild rumours started spreading that Pashinyan had fled to Moscow, or even Canada. One witness described gunshots being fired in warning near the building of the Ministry of Defence.

Hripsime Hakobyan, an 18-year-old economics student who grew up in Yerevan, recalled how just over two years ago, Armenia’s ‘velvet revolution’ had given Armenians so much to be optimistic about.

“For several weeks in May, my friends and I would leave school and instead walk eight kilometers’ to protest in this same Square. People shared food, water and clothing- but more importantly, we were sharing the hope for a better future for Armenians. We were fighting to throw out dictators and oligarchs, end corruption, and install a government that represents ordinary people. We were peaceful and united”. This time, she felt a deep helplessness as she saw her fellow citizens defeated and divided. “I felt so much anger and disappointment at the chaos I was seeing.”

Yet as far as riots go, this one was rather tame. There was a lot of broken glass and a few ransacked government offices, but no widespread violence or destruction. But there were few injuries and no widespread destruction. The unrest never seemed like it would escalate out of control. Even within the occupied parliament, the majority wanted to shout rather than fight. Sensibly, the authorities recognised this and let the demonstrators tire themselves out. By the following morning, MPs were returned to their seats and calm had returned to the streets of Yerevan. It was more a spontaneous outpouring of grief than a concerted attempt to take down the government.

But a strong undercurrent of discontent remains, and recriminations are expected. Many claim that regardless of the military situation, Pashinyan’s real failure was that he had not been honest with the public. Shake Isayan, a Parliamentary Deputy from the opposition ‘Prosperous Armenia’ party told Byline Times: “We are not angry about the agreement itself so much that we are angry that Nikol failed to consult the people or their elected representatives. He signed this with no warning.” She showed us a piece of paper with around two dozen signatures from her fellow representatives demanding him and his party to come to parliament and explain themselves.

One particular issue was that it appeared Pashinyan had misled the public over the status of the battle in Shushi, claiming that it was ongoing when in fact the city had fallen several days previously. Lika Tumanyan, a local news anchor, accused him on Armenian TV of “hiding the facts from the public… he fed us with news about victory, never talking about the fact we had so many casualties and we were losing the war”. On Facebook she posted that “Pashinyan is a traitor who will go down in history as the leader who handed over Artsakh”. Many of Pashinyan’s supporters have been promoting their own narrative of a ‘stab in the back’. They say he was betrayed by fifth columns within the oligarchs he had replaced after the revolution, who had made secret deals with rogue elements in the military and foreign powers.

In the middle are those who believe the Prime Minister faced an impossible situation and had no choice but to act on the advice of his generals.

Yezras Tellanian, a Deacon in the Armenian Church who had left the US to go to Artsakh and witness the war, said: “Remember that Arayik Harutyunyan, the President of Artsakh, also agreed to this deal. This was not Pashinyan’s decision alone.” Regardless, he added: “This is not yet the time to blame other Armenians. Instead, it is a moment for our society to come together so we can grieve and figure out how to move forward. We can disagree with our leaders while still supporting them because that is what is right for the country. This is what you do in a democracy, even a young and inexperienced one such as ours.”

Failed by the International Community

It is not just within Armenia that anger is directed. One thing all Armenians seem to agree on, is that the international community failed them. The United States, the European Union, the United Nations had played almost no role during the conflict. Instead, they left the details of the ceasefire to be hashed out by Russia, with Turkey’s presence looming in the background.

A local UN source said that employees in the organisation’s Yerevan office had been instructed to say nothing publicly about the conflict – even about nonpolitical issues such as civilian casualties. A UN spokesperson told Byline Times that no such instructions were given to UN Armenia’s staff and that it has commented on the conflict, but that staff members have to follow the UN’s social media guidelines.

When Byline Times visited the conflict zone several weeks ago, the only major international organisation on the ground was the Red Cross. Their work had been severely hampered by the indiscriminate shelling which Azeri forces had inflicted on the whole of the conflict zone. Shushan Doydoyan, head of the Armenia Freedom of Information Center, said she tried to make NGOs take notice of the situation, but found little interest.

She told me, “the modern world and international organisations didn’t put any effort to defending our young democracy from corrupted and oligarchic influences”. With the world distracted by the US elections and the COVID pandemic, no one wanted to get involved a war over a disputed territory in the South Caucasus that most people in the world knew little about.

Just days on from the war’s end, a semblance of normality is returning to Yerevan. Cafes and bars are filling up again. Billboards in public squares that had been showing photos of heroic soldiers and patriotic slogans are now advertising regular goods such as designer clothes and perfumes again. At present, this ceasefire continues to hold. There have been a series of peaceful protests across the capital, but they are yet to pose a serious threat to stability.

But even now, the conflict is far from settled. There was nothing in the peace deal about the status of the remaining areas of Nagorno Karabakh, which had been the key sticking point in the previous decades of negotiations. If Azerbaijan follows through on its threats to bring Turkish peacekeepers to its side of the conflict line, then Russian and Turkish troops will be facing each other on either side of a volatile conflict zone with only a few kilometers separating them.

Social media on both sides threatens the resumption of conflict. A popular slogan going around Armenian Twitter and Instagram accounts says, “Shushi will be Armenian again”. On the Azerbaijani side, many seem to go further. Encouraged by President Aliyev, they say with no evidence that Armenia’s capital Yerevan is rightfully part of Azerbaijan, calling it ‘Irevan’.

Despite the bloodshed and tears, this conflict is still not over.

https://bylinetimes.com/2020/11/12/rage-and-grief-as-armenia-loses-its-war-with-azerbaijan/?fbclid=IwAR2ueJzrKEJWTEgZbkeoqz-yfB6M6UhCD1ruMfu89m-m_ZIsjZ-c0ePZanc

[Yervant1]

Street Insider

Nov 12 2020

Preserve Artsakh: An Open Letter to the World Community

November 12, 2020 1:08 PM EST

Academics call on global institutions to save Armenian heritage before it's too late

New York City, Nov. 12, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- The end to active combat in the 2020 Nagorno Karabakh war is far from the end of the war on a key victim: the rich and irreplaceable cultural heritage of Artsakh, as the republic is known to Armenians.

Only two years ago, Armenian art, history, and culture were celebrated by some of the world’s most acclaimed cultural institutions. Armenia! at the Metropolitan Museum of Art was a major international exhibition of Armenian medieval art. The wonders on display broke attendance records, earned critical praise, and demonstrated the major contributions of Armenians to world civilization. The Smithsonian Folklife Festival celebrated Armenian artistic and cultural traditions during its annual interactive exposition on the National Mall in Washington DC, drawing record numbers. That same year, the global consortium of French-speaking nations gathered in Armenia’s capital of Yerevan for the Summit of the Francophonie, hosting hundreds of world leaders, visitors and the international media.

Now, just two short years later, the world looks away as Armenian art, architecture, and history are being destroyed. On September 27, 2020, Azerbaijan launched a large-scale military attack on the Republic of Artsakh. Turkey, which continues to deny its genocidal project of the annihilation of the Armenian people perpetrated in 1915-1922 in their historical homeland, has lent its full political and military support to Azerbaijan in this latest act of aggression.

While the war was just brought to a sudden end by Russia, for over a month, the Republic of Artsakh suffered dire civilian and military casualties. The continuous shelling with cluster bombs and other artillery layed waste to homes, hospitals, and schools. The aggression has also been targeted at heritage sites, with the aim to erase the unique cultural contributions of the Armenian people and their history in the region.

On October 8, 2020, Azerbaijani forces launched two intentional assaults on the Holy Savior Ghazanchetsots Cathedral, causing significant damage. Located in Shushi, the cultural capital of Artsakh, the cathedral is a masterpiece of nineteenth-century Armenian architecture and a landmark of Armenian cultural and religious identity. Online photos show a gaping hole in the masonry vaults, with the floor and pews covered in debris.

Shushi Cathedral is just one of thousands of heritage sites in Artsakh now in grave danger. Most of the structures are much older, dating as early as the fourth century AD, when Armenia converted to Christianity. These extraordinary architectural monuments feature ancient inscriptions, wall paintings, and sculpture. They are not only artistic and historic treasures, but also material evidence for the long history of Armenians in the region. With every cluster bomb, with every hour that the international community is silent and passive, we lose a precious memorial, destroyed forever.

The bombings also targeted archaeological sites, damaging evidence for ancient habitation, including fortification and ecclesiastical architecture and precious artifacts.

This wholesale destruction is part of a violent denialist policy by Azerbaijan that includes the intentional elimination of Armenian cultural heritage in Artsakh. Both Azerbaijan and Turkey have continuous, well-documented policies of destroying the Armenian cultural heritage found in their territories. Azerbaijan’s 1997–2006 erasure in Nakhichevan of its Armenian culture, with more than 89 medieval churches, 5,840 khachkars, and 22,000 historical tombstones is illustrative in this regard. The 16th General Assembly of the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS) adopted a resolution in October 2008 expressing its grave concern regarding these acts of cultural vandalism. We call attention, by contrast, to Armenia’s efforts to restore the Gohar Agha Mosque in Shushi.

Is the Monastery of Gandzasar, a crown jewel of thirteenth-century Armenian architecture, fated to similar oblivion? What about the fourth-century Amaras Monastery, the location of the first school to use the Armenian script and the burial place of Saint Grigoris, grandson of the patron saint and evangelizer of Armenia, Gregory the Illuminator? Grigoris’s fifth-century tomb is one of the earliest Armenian Christian funerary structures surviving.

What will become of the Monastery of Dadivank, a large, picturesque complex of buildings and carved cross-stones dating from the thirteenth century? The main church, with its delicate exterior arcades and sculpted donor portraits, shelters an extraordinary set of interior frescoes showing sacred and historical figures and Armenian inscriptions. While recent restoration efforts by an Italian team have sought to stabilize its deteriorated state, their work is now under imminent threat of reversal.

These are only a few examples of the thousands of sites across Artsakh that are now vulnerable to destruction. Once they are gone, it will be too late. We acknowledge the value of cultural heritage and recognize that the loss of any one culture constitutes a harmful impoverishment of the heritage of all the nations of the world, and not only of the nation to which the cultural property belongs. We call upon UNESCO, ICOMOS, The Blue Shield, World Monuments Fund and other international organizations committed to the conservation and protection of cultural heritage sites to assist immediately in safeguarding and monitoring these monuments and documenting them for posterity.

Prof. Christina Maranci, Tufts University (US)

Prof. Theo Maarten van Lint, University of Oxford (UK)

Prof. Emma Loosley, University of Exeter (UK)

Prof. Ivan Foletti, Masaryk University (Czech Republic)

Prof. Annemarie Weyl Carr, Southern Methodist University (US)

Dr. Sylvie L. Merian, The Morgan Library & Museum (US)

Prof. Igor Dorfmann-Lazarev, SOAS University of London (UK)

Prof. Heghnar Watenpaugh, University of California, Davis (US)

Prof. Ina Baghdiantz McCabe, Tufts University (US)

Prof. Sergio La Porta, California State University, Fresno (US)

Prof. Patrick Donabédian, Aix-Marseille University (France)

Fr. Garabed Kochakian, Diocese of the Armenian Church of America (US)

Prof. Elizabeth H. Prodromou, Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts University (US)

Prof. Alexandros K. Kyrou, Salem State University (US)

Prof. Ara H. Merjian, New York University (US)

Prof. Talinn Grigor, University of California, Davis (US)

Dr. Felicity Harley-McGowan, Yale University (US)

Prof. Zara Pogossian, University of Florence (Italy)

Prof. Erik Thunø, Rutgers University (US)

Prof. Ioanna Rapti, École Pratique des Hautes Études (France)

Prof. Roberta Ervine, St. Nersess Seminary, (US)

Prof. Haig Utidjian, Charles University (Czech Republic)

Prof. Valentina Calzolari Bouvier, University of Geneva (Switzerland)

Prof. S. Peter Cowe, University of California, Los Angeles (US)

Prof. Robert Dulgarian, Emerson College (US)

Prof. Rachel Goshgarian, Lafayette College (US)

Dr. Jeffrey Kloha, Museum of the Bible, Washington DC (US)

Prof. Lori Khatchadourian, Cornell University (US)

Dr. Marc Mamigonian, National Association for Armenian Studies and Research (US)

Dr. Boris Adjemian, AGBU Nubar Library in Paris (France)

Prof. Houri Berberian, University of California, Irvine (US)

Prof. Hakem Al-Rustom, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (US)

Prof. Kevork Bardakjian, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (US)

Prof. Taner Akçam, Clark University (US)

Prof. Vahram Shemmassian, California State University, Northridge (US)

Prof. Barlow Der Mugrdechian, California State University, Fresno (US)

Prof. Melanie S. Tanielian, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (US)

Prof. Bedross Der Matossian, University of Nebraska-Lincoln (US)

Prof. Simon Payaslian, Boston University (US)

Prof. Stephan Astourian, University of California, Berkeley (US)

Prof. Salpi Ghazarian, University of Southern California (US)

Prof. Ara Sanjian, University of Michigan, Dearborn (US)

Prof. Dickran Kouymjian, California State University, Fresno (US)

Prof. Michael Pifer, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (US)

Prof. Tamar M. Boyadjian, Michigan State University (US)

Dr. Lana Sloutsky, Museum of Russian Icons (US)

Prof. Peter Bouteneff, St. Vladimir’s Orthodox Seminary (US)

Dr. Vazken Davidian, University of Oxford (UK)

Dr. Alice Sullivan, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (US)

Dr. Laurent Dissard, University College London (UK)

Prof. Sebouh Aslanian, University of California, Los Angeles (US)

Prof. Richard Hovannisian, University of California, Los Angeles (US)

Prof. Lisa Gulesserian, Harvard University (US)

Dr. Levon Avdoyan, Library of Congress, Washington DC (US)

Prof. Michael Stone, Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Israel)

https://www.streetinsider.com/Globe+Newswire/Preserve+Artsakh%3A+An+Open+Letter+to+the+World+Community/17592356.html?fbclid=IwAR296q3y3mq8vPLPEGe8td-HMG7mf14ina-E8PMNaiVIF27nMFZCOjv3cpc

[Yervant1]

Foreign Policy Research Institute

Nov 13 2020

The Realist Victory in Nagorno-Karabakh

• Maximilian Hess
• November 13, 2020
• Eurasia Program

Armenia’s accession to a Russian-mediated settlement with Azerbaijan over their long-running conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, known as Artsakh to Armenians, on November 10 marks a major, perhaps irreversible, loss for Yerevan. But it is not just Armenian forces who stand defeated. It also marks the trouncing of a liberal approach to the region and the supremacy of realist power politics.

In mid-September, Yerevan held significant de jure Azeri territory outside the borders of the Soviet-era Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast (NKAO)—today, it is at the mercy of Russian peacekeeping forces to maintain control of a rump Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenia moved to agree to the terms after the symbolically and strategically significant citadel city of Shushi (Shusha in Azeri) was seized by Azeri forces. Under the deal, Azerbaijan will retain Shushi, granting them control of the heights over Armenian-controlled Stepanakert, as well as its other territory gains in the recent fighting. Furthermore, Armenian forces also have to evacuate from crucial districts outside the NKAO that the country has held since 1994, and access to the Armenian mainland will only be possible through a five-kilometer-wide corridor overseen by Russian troops.

Though many other details of the settlement remain murky and undefined, including to what extent Armenian forces can stay in the remaining territory, there are additional losses for Yerevan.

A sense of dread and encirclement could follow if Azeri President Ilham Aliyev follows through on his comments to allow Turkish troops to deploy to the area, amid already significant fears of renewed ethnic cleansing of Armenians in territory being returned to Azerbaijan. Finally, there is genuine fear that the democratic government of Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan may not survive the capitulation—the announcement led to such an outpouring of anger that Armenians stormed the national assembly and assaulted parliamentary speaker and longtime Pashinyan ally Ararat Mirzoyan.

The second Karabakh war, however, does not just represent an Armenian defeat. It is proof that the liberal international order is completely absent from the South Caucasus, and unlikely to return anytime soon.

Pashinyan’s surrender has even been criticized by President Armen Sarkissian, the sole senior government official to remain in his position following the 2018 Velvet Revolution that brought Pashinyan to power. However, the reality is that a failure to stop fighting after Shusha’s capture and after weeks of fighting had made clear that Armenia was unable to hold off steady, and extremely deadly, Azeri advances would have been disastrous and extremely irresponsible.

Pashinyan will be well aware that the same corrupt forces he ousted from power in 2018, who almost to a man are veterans of the first Karabakh war, could seek to use the loss to oust him. Other forces, such as Gagik Tsarukyan, head of the largest opposition party, already spoke out against him. Russia arguably would even prefer such an outcome, having long been uncomfortable with Pashinyan’s image as a liberal reformer. The November 11 arrest of Tsarukyan and other politicians who fomented unrest in Yerevan in the wake of the deal may have staved off any such challenge, but further challenges are sure to come.

In his time in power, however, Pashinyan has been keen to avoid antagonizing Moscow. He has not moved Yerevan out of the Russian orbit politically or economically, despite having previously been a sceptic of Armenia’s ties with the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union. Once in power, even when criticizing Russia’s gas politics and arms sales to Azerbaijan, he did so in a feint manner, sure to remind Moscow of its status as Armenia’s strategic partner.

While Pashinyan’s 2018 Velvet Revolution was hailed as a beacon of hope amid the populist waves coursing through Western politics by the liberal stalwart that is the Economist¸ conferring upon Armenia the honor of “country of the year,” Yerevan did not receive even a fraction of the political or economic support from the West offered to Ukraine after its 2014 Euromaidan Revolution. Nor has the West given any significant support to Armenia in the latest fighting, not even bothering to attempt to cast the conflict as one between liberalism and illiberalism as with the Russo-Ukrainian war. The European Union and United States may not have said so publicly, but its economic and strategic interests in Azerbaijan prohibited such a declaration.

Where the West was active in Armenia, its actions proved counterproductive. Highlighting the failure of the West to offer an alternative route for Yerevan is the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development’s failed investment in the Amulsar gold mine, cancelled this August in light of steadfast local opposition. The United Kingdom and United States wasted political capital pressuring Pashinyan into supporting the project, ignoring the fact that many of those protesting it were among the coterie that brought him to power in the first place.

It would be unfair to say that Pashinyan’s government had any hopes of significant Western support in its conflict with Azerbaijan. There was no significant Western response to the April 2016 fighting, which was until this year the most significant in Karabakh since 1994, nor was there when conflict flared up in July 2020 along the de jure Armenian-Azeri borders.

Even advocates of the liberal order face difficulty endorsing Armenia’s position given that its 1994-2020 control of not just Nagorno-Karabakh but also surrounding Azeri districts represented an effective redrawing of borders by force (though this is often confused), contravening the United Nations Charter and Helsinki Final Act. The same language has been used to oppose Moscow’s annexation of Crimea and recognition of the “independence” of the Georgian breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Furthermore, the realist interest pervades: Azerbaijan is not only a significant oil supplier, with BP having led investment in the sector since the collapse of the Soviet Union, but also the key to Europe’s Southern Gas Corridor strategy. Azerbaijan’s lack of democratic credentials has not proven an impediment to its purchase of Western arms. It has been a major customer of Israeli arms as well, with the relationship shored up by the fact that Baku is Tel Aviv’s largest supplier of crude.

It is improbable that the Second Karabakh War will change the West’s interests vis-à-vis Armenia and Azerbaijan. Armenia and Azerbaijan both stand credibly accused of using cluster munitions, and neither side has proven capable of enabling peaceful co-existence. Longtime observers of the region will recall that when the West did back a peace agreement in 1997—not too dissimilar from the November 10 statement signed by Pashinyan, Aliyev, and Russian President Vladimir Putin—that then-President of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosyan was forced to resign by the following February.

This despite the fact that U.S. President-elect Joe Biden called in late October for a “stop [to] the flow of military equipment to Azerbaijan.” The statement also called for the United States to lead a diplomatic effort alongside its European partners, but the Azeri military advance and Russian-negotiated agreement have precluded that outcome. It also gives legal cover to the Russian military overseeing transportation and trade between NKAO and Armenia proper, as well as between mainland Azerbaijan and its exclave of Nakhchivan, on Armenia’s west. While the agreement limits the number of Russian peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh to 1,960 soldiers, it includes no limit on the number of Russian border guards who will now oversee the latter corridor, which will run along the Armenian-Iranian border.

Much has been made of the fact that Russia has witnessed tumult on its borders in recent months, with unrest in Belarus, a coup-cum-revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, raising questions about whether Putin had lost his grip on Russia’s vaunted “near abroad.” While some have argued that this deal represents a potential loss for Moscow given Turkey’s key role—with Baku’s success in large part enabled by its use of Turkish drones—it remains to be seen how active Turkey will be in the new settlement. More likely than not, it will refrain from actions that risk upsetting its entente cordiale with Moscow, a relationship also enabled by Ankara’s adoption of a realist approach to power politics with Moscow.

However, the outcome in the Second Karabakh conflict, in which Moscow is a victor second only to Baku despite the defeat of its nominal ally, highlights that as an uber-realist power Moscow is able to turn such situations to its advantage, particularly in contrast to a West that still espouses liberal values but fails to follow through on them. Unless the West adopts a more realist approach, it is likely to remain in retreat not just in the South Caucasus, but across wider Eurasia.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Foreign Policy Research Institute, a non-partisan organization that seeks to publish well-argued, policy-oriented articles on American foreign policy and national security priorities.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://www.fpri.org/article/2020/11/the-realist-victory-in-nagorno-karabakh/

[Yervant1]

This happened with the blessing of USA, Europe, Russia, turkey and Israel! It's all about money. I hope they all choke on it.

Public Radio of Armenia

Nov 14 2020

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

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

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

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

https://en.armradio.am/2020/11/14/humanity-has-taken-a-major-loss-not-jut-armenians-of-artsakh-kim-kardashian/

 

[Yervant1]

National Review

Nov 14 2020

How the Armenian Genocide’s Legacy Explains a Conflict on Pause

By Stephan Pechdimaldji

November 14, 2020 6:30 AM

For far too long, the West has turned a blind eye to Turkey’s egregious behavior.

For Armenians around the world, the recent one-sided peace deal to end the conflict involving the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh must be seen through the lens of history. And that history is stitched together by widespread persecution and mass suffering over hundreds of years. It is a history that includes the first genocide of the 20th century, when more than 1.5 million Armenians were systematically exterminated by the Ottoman Turks, an event Turkey still denies to this day. Framing today’s conflict over land gravely misses the point.

Armenians see these latest acts of aggression by Turkey vis-à-vis Azerbaijan as a continuation of genocide and a threat to their very existence. In some ways, history is repeating itself. Regardless, these events further underscore why recognition of the Armenian genocide and the war over Nagorno-Karabakh are not mutually exclusive.

To fully understand why this decades-old conflict suddenly reignited, one must examine the rise of authoritarianism in Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. During his rule, Erdogan has sought to increase Turkey’s regional influence and on many occasions has glowingly talked about resurrecting the Ottoman Empire, all while styling himself as a modern-day sultan.

During the Trump administration, Erdogan has tried to stretch that influence from the Aegean Sea to the South Caucasus. It is one of the reasons that Turkey has been a staunch supporter of Azerbaijan in the latter nation’s efforts to retake Nagorno-Karabakh. With the two nations bound by strong cultural, ethnic, and historic ties, Turkey has vowed to help Azerbaijan on the battlefield or at the negotiating table. However, Erdogan’s belligerent and hostile behavior has only reminded Armenians of their terrible past.

Since the conflict erupted last month, Turkey has armed and sent Syrian mercenaries, including Islamic terrorists, into the region to help Azerbaijan fight Armenians where there have been confirmed reports of war crimes and atrocities. We’ve seen this before. A hundred years ago, Ottoman Turks enlisted the help of Kurds, who participated in massacres of Armenians and played a vital role in the Armenian genocide. It is as if Erdogan has turned to the Ottoman Empire’s playbook.

There’s no denying Turkey’s role in fueling the fire in Nagorno-Karabakh through its reckless actions and rhetoric. But Ankara’s ongoing campaign to deny the Armenian genocide has also helped it there. Denial has helped establish a level of insouciance from countries such as the United States, Great Britain, and Israel, thereby allowing Turkey to continue to act with impunity. Thus it can, for example, provide Azerbaijan with drones that are indiscriminately killing innocent civilians and destroying cultural centers and churches that have stood since long before Azerbaijan became a country.

For far too long, the West has turned a blind eye to Turkey’s egregious behavior. There is a reason that more journalists sit in Turkish prisons than anywhere else in the world, and that Ankara regularly tops the annual lists of human-rights violations. Turkey’s considerable success in refusing to acknowledge its historical role in the Armenian genocide makes Ankara today believe that it can do what it wants without consequences. It is why Erdogan felt compelled to challenge the United States to impose sanctions on his country for its involvement over Nagorno-Karabakh and launched a personal attack on French president Emmanuel Macron.

These recent actions by Erdogan did not happen overnight. Ankara has been trying to shape U.S. foreign policy for years concerning Turkey and the Armenian genocide. As part of an effort to sow doubt about the veracity of the Armenian genocide, Turkey has embarked on a years-long campaign to block any U.S. legislation that formally acknowledges it. For the most part, Turkey has successfully used the cover of NATO and realpolitik to convince lawmakers that recognizing the Armenian genocide is not in the political interests of the United States. When Congress finally passed a nonbinding resolution last year that formally affirmed recognition, Ankara officially responded by calling the bill political theater. There were even multiple reports that President Trump tried to thwart the resolution on the Senate floor to appease Erdogan.

It should not surprise us, then, when we see Turkey’s wanton disrespect for the rule of law and aggressive behavior in its actions in Nagorno-Karabakh. In many ways, we have allowed it to happen, and have even encouraged it. We have only ourselves to blame.

It is often said that those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it. It is also often said that denial is the last stage of genocide. That is why recognition of the Armenian genocide goes hand in hand with a real resolution of the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. Armenians know all too well what happens when this type of aggression goes unchecked. Until Turkey comes to terms with its past, we can expect Ankara to continue its quixotic quest to revive the Ottoman Empire.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/how-the-armenian-genocides-legacy-explains-a-conflict-on-pause/

[Yervant1]

Armenian Foreign Minister resigns

Save

Share15

15:51, 16 November, 2020

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 16, ARMENPRESS. Minister of Foreign Affairs of Armenia Zohrab Mnatsakanyan has tendered his resignation, his spokesperson Anna Naghdalyan said, posting a photo of the letter addressed to PM Nikol Pashinyan.

Speaking in parliament, Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said on November 16 that it was his decision to dismiss Mnatsakanyan from office.

Editing and Translating by Stepan Kocharyan

[Yervant1]

Chairman of Military Industry Committee of Armenia dismissed

Save

Share

13:30, 16 November, 2020

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 16, ARMENPRESS. Artak Davtyan has been relieved from the position of Chairman of the Military Industry Committee of Armenia.

The respective decision has been signed by Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan.

Editing and Translating by Aneta Harutyunyan

[Yervant1]

Monday, November 16, 2020: With the recently signed ceasefire agreement ending weeks of combat in Artsakh, Armenia is now left to confront the immense impacts of the war.

 

Armenia’s signing of the Russian-brokered peace deal to end the heavy fighting between Artsakh and Azerbaijan on November 9, 2020 has prompted large protests in Yerevan. Many Armenians are calling for the resignation of the Prime Minister and are urging Armenia to withdraw from the cease-fire agreement. Prime Minister Pashinyan is publically standing by his decision to sign this ceasefire stating that this “document does not envisage a substantive solution to the issue: only a cessation of hostilities.”

 

Notwithstanding the above, this agreement presents Armenia with the opportunity to now focus its attention to the peoplewho were impacted by the weeks of violence. Immediate humanitarian action is needed to ensure the wellbeing and the future protection of the peoples of Artsakh.

 

As of October 27, 2020, the Government of the Republic of Armenia estimated that over 90,000 Armenians fled from Artsakh due to the vast destruction of homes, schools, churches and public spaces. The welfare and safety of the internally displaced peoples (IDPs) and refugees, and the survivors who continue to live in Artsakh, must remain the upmost concern for Armenia. To rebuild areas of destruction, provide humanitarian aid for displaced families, and support to wounded soldiers, the stability of the state and the proper function of its government should not be compromised by threats of violence and demands.

 

The confidence of the Armenian people in its democratically elected government must not be undermined. Armenia’s institutions must continue to operate with even greater efficiency and determination than before, and the nation’s leaders must find the courage and wisdom to make the tough decisions and ensure that the rule of law continues to prevail. If changes are required for the nation, then they must be made constitutionally through fair elections and by an orderly change in state management and policy. This will ultimately guarantee a better outcome for the nation.

 

As past evidence has shown, Armenian people have the tremendous ability to persevere in the face of adversity. Armenians have both the will and the resources to recover from this conflict and gain renewed strength from its recovery, but only if they act as a united nation, including the Diaspora. It is not the time for Armenia to be divided. Armenian people around the world need to join together in solidarity for the sake of security, stability and the future of Armenia and Artsakh.

Zoryan Institute, a non-profit organization, serves the cause of scholarship and public awareness relating to issues of universal human rights, genocide, and diaspora-homeland relations. This is done through the systematic continued efforts of scholars and specialists using a comparative and multidisciplinary approach and in accordance with the highest academic standards.

[Yervant1]

Public Radio of Armenia

Nov 16 2020

Early parliamentary elections inevitable: President of Armenia addresses the nation

Dear compatriots in Armenia, Artsakh and the Diaspora,

Armenians all over the world are currently living one of the turning points in the millennial history of our nation.

The goals we were striving for nationally after the long-awaited independence of the motherland have been shaken.

We lost the war that was imposed on us, both on the battlefield and in the diplomatic and international public arenas.

I once again offer my condolences to the families and relatives of the victims and wish the injured a speedy recovery.

We are the children of a people who survived the Genocide and overcame it.

A battle can be lost, but we cannot lose as a nation.

The house burned down with one’s own hands, the lost homeland can be restored with only in one way, by rediscovering our victory, building the state of which we will all be truly proud.

And we can do it with confidence, soberly assessing the situation, learning from the mistakes made, joining the national revival united.

Whatever the differences in our assessments of the past, it is clear that we are facing unprecedented problems.

Artsakh is seriously injured.

We have a turbulent society.

The vulnerable economy is burdened with enormous social problems.

There is a humanitarian catastrophe as a result of the large flow of people from Artsakh to Armenia.

The situation caused by the epidemic is too complicated.

In the end, the Armenian spirit is hurt in any corner of the world.

Our country today is no longer the country we had on September 26, it is not even what we had on November 8.

We can not ignore this reality and continue to live a normal life.

In the last few days, in line with the imperative of the moment, I have held dozens of political consultations with parliamentary and extra-parliamentary forces, various non-governmental organizations and individuals. I had telephone conversations with our compatriots from different structures of the Diaspora.

The absolute majority of the participants in the meeting agree on one issue: the Prime Minister’s resignation or termination of his powers in accordance with the Constitution – and early parliamentary elections.

It is obvious that despite the cessation of the war, the Republic of Artsakh, the Republic of Armenia and the entire Armenian people are entering a period of new trials in which every mistake can have catastrophic consequences.

In the current situation, there is no alternative for the Armenian people than to be united.

These days, each of us, especially politicians, government officials, must have a high level of external responsibility and restraint, focusing our efforts exclusively on finding ways to overcome the crisis.

In this situation, I want to turn to law-enforcement bodies.

You have a great responsibility today, first of all to ensure order in our country, to be strong, determined, but at the same time, remembering every time, on every occasion that in front of you is your sister or brother.

Any deviation, any violation of the law is unacceptable and unforgivable. I call on you to uphold and protect the law and legality.

My observations based on meetings and consultations are as follows:

Given the urgency of overcoming the current situation with dignity, listening to the public demand, it is obvious that in order to keep the country from shaking, early elections to the National Assembly will be inevitable.

In this context, in my opinion, the only responsible approach may be to objectively assess the government’s own potential by the ruling political force, to present a roadmap in a short period of time, which will provide deadlines for initiating relevant constitutional processes, which will allow early parliamentary elections. Management will be handed over to a highly qualified National Accord government.

For the Republic of Armenia, the Republic of Artsakh and the whole Armenian people living in different countries of the world, my above-mentioned observations aimed at overcoming the crisis in these difficult days are based exclusively on national interests.

I hope that all the political forces will realize the responsibility of the moment, will fulfill their part of the historical mission with dignity.

I would like to remind you that today everyone is behind Armenia, both our friends and our enemies.

We have no other duty but to strengthen our country.

We have no choice but to unite the people without paying tribute to any step that threatens to divide society.

Only through unity will we be able to turn our backs on the burden of defeat, to present ourselves and future generations and the world community as the children of a nation that is impossible to defeat.

I am confident that the Armenian people will emerge from the difficult situation with honor and victory.

God bless us all.

 

 

https://en.armradio.am/2020/11/16/early-parliamentary-elections-inevitable-president-of-armenia-addresses-the-nation/

[Yervant1]

Public Radio of Armenia

Nov 16 2020

Armenian PM says he tried to change the logic of negotiations on Nagorno Karabakh

No doubt for me and there can be no misreading that I am the number one official responsible for what happened in Artsakh, Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan said during an online press conference.

“I understand that I will stand the trial of the people. But for the judge – the people in this case – to make conclusions – it must be aware of all circumstances of the case. Therefore, it’s important to listen to all – the soldiers, the opposition, the government,” Pashinyan said.

He said that as of May 2018 [before he came to power] the negotiations on Nagorno Karabakh had crossed the point of irreversibility and the issue had stepped into a phase of “territories for nothing.”

According to the Prime Minister, his policy since has been aimed at changing that logic.

“Actually now we can say that, unfortunately, we have not succeeded, because we faced a situation of an international consensus that the territories must be handed over to Azerbaijan without any precondition. Whole our policy has been aimed at trying to change that logic, but we have not succeeded,” PM Pashinyan stated.

“I couldn’t put up with that and have done my best to improve the resisting ability of Armenia, to raise the combat readiness of the armed forces,” he said.

“We are accused of opposing things. We are accused of signing a paper to cede certain territories and accused of failure to sign that paper earlier,” the Prime Minister said. “We are therefore accused of both ceding and not ceding lands.”

“The responsibility first of all lies with me, but to bear that responsibility, I think it necessary for all circumstances to be explained to the society,” he reiterated.

The Prime Minister said “we must analyze and form the agenda on the situation today, focusing on the status of Nagorno Karabakh.”

“The issue of status should be put in the basis of negotiations, as should the communication, humanitarian and transportation issues,” he emphasized.

The Prime Minister noted that there are a number of provisions in the trilateral statement that need to be interpreted and discussed “and we will try to call the best proposals to life.”

“Could we avoid war? Yes, we could, had we agreed to hand over seven regions including Shushi. But was that the policy we wanted to pursue? No, it wasn’t. Artsakh’s Defense Army, Armenia’s Government and Armed Forces decided to accept the challenge, which unfortunately did not produce the result we wanted,” PM Pashinyan stated.

“The events of July showed we were ready to fight against Azerbaijan, but the involvement of Turkey and mercenary terrorists were the main cause of our failure. Could we prevent this development. Yes, we could had we agreed to cede the territories, without the status of Nagorno Karabakh. That’s why, we tried to fight and try to ensure more favorable conditions,” Pahsinyan stated.

https://en.armradio.am/2020/11/16/armenian-pm-says-he-tried-to-change-the-logic-of-negotiations-on-nagorno-karabakh/

[Yervant1]

Asia Times

Cultural erasure may spark next Nagorno-Karabakh war

If Azerbaijan truly wants peace in Artsakh it should allow Armenians
to keep five sacred Christian monuments

By Simon Maghakyan
November 16, 2020

Azerbaijan’s recent 44-day war on Armenia-backed Artsakh, better known
by its Soviet name of Nagorno-Karabakh, resulted in a Moscow-brokered
deal earlier this week that effectively ends millennia-old Armenian
existence in much of the region.

In addition to land already lost on the battlefield, the deal dictates
Armenians to cede to Azerbaijan many more territories by December 1.
As they evacuate these lands, traumatized Armenians are leaving behind
hundreds of sacred sites. Given Azerbaijan’s terrible record with
cultural erasure, long-term peace may seem hopeless.

Over the past 15 years, I have been researching cultural erasure as an
understudied aspect of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. My research
was prompted in December 2005 when, as a 19-year-old, I watched a
newly-taped video of 100 Azerbaijani soldiers deliberately destroying
Djulfa, the world’s largest medieval Armenian cemetery that at its
height housed 10,000 medieval khachkars (cross-stones).

Within a year, I produced a short film about the destruction. Last
year, my conclusive report, co-authored with historian Sarah Pickman,
demonstrated that Djulfa’s erasure was the grand finale of a
systematic, covert, and total destruction of 28,000 medieval monuments
that represented the indigenous Armenian past of the Nakhichevan
region.

According to Azerbaijan’s authorities, Armenians’ ancient past is fake
news. A top Azerbaijani diplomat has dismissed my research as “a
figment of Armenia’s imagination.” The 89 medieval churches, 5,840
cross-stones and over 22,000 historical tombstones of Nakhichevan
never existed in the first place because, Azerbaijan insists,
Armenians are not indigenous to the Caucasus.

[Photo: A young woman lights candles in a church in the
self-proclaimed Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. Photo: Maksim Blinov /
Sputnik via AFP]

Until 1997, however, Azerbaijan had largely preserved these monuments
after relabeling them “Caucasian Albanian.” Since the 1950s, in order
to challenge Armenian antiquity and to create a myth of
indigenousness, Azerbaijan has “Albanized” medieval Armenian
Christianity by proclaiming it the stolen heritage of “Caucasian
Albania,” a kingdom nowhere near Nakhichevan that existed until the
7th century.

Despite its Turkic roots in Central Asia, Azerbaijan prefers to be
seen as the Islamized heir to the long-extinct Caucasian Albanians.

In practice, Azerbaijan’s “Albanization” of Armenian monuments is an
inevitable erasure. In the short term, a medieval Christian monastery
stripped of its unique Armenian lettered inscriptions may be preserved
in Azerbaijan as “Caucasian Albanian,” but likely not permanently so.

“Albanization” certainly did not prevent the destruction of even
Agulis, the most culturally-rich town in Nakhichevan, where all sacred
Armenian sites, including the Saint Thomas Cathedral that, per
tradition, was originally founded as a chapel by a disciple of Jesus,
were methodically destroyed by Azerbaijan’s military starting in 1997.

The destruction of Agulis (Azerbaijani spelling Yukhari Aylis) was
witnessed by its most prominent native son Akram Aylisli, the
Azerbaijani novelist that currently lives under house arrest in the
capital Baku, in part, for protesting this cultural erasure.

Right now, hundreds of sacred Armenian sites are in the process of
being transferred to Azerbaijan. Some were already captured on the
battlefield, especially in the Hadrut region and in the prominent city
of Shushi (Azerbaijani spelling is Shusha).

Many others are in the process of being ceded to Azerbaijan under the
ceasefire agreement. In light of how Azerbaijan erased 28,000
monuments in Nakhichevan, Armenians and cultural rights defenders
rightfully fear a similar fate for the sacred sites of Artsakh.

If history is a guide, this is how Azerbaijan will treat the sacred
sites of Artsakh.

First, it will destroy the numerous medieval statuesque khachkars that
are nearly impossible to “Albanize” given their rich Armenian
inscriptions. One of the most prominent khachkars at grave risk is the
14th century Angels and the Cross in the Vank village of Hadrut
region, which Azerbaijan captured last month.

[Photo: The Gandzasar Monastery, an outstanding monument of Armenian
culture, on the left bank of the Khachen river near the village of
Vank in Nagorno-Karabakh. Photo: AFP via Sputnik/R Mangasaryan]

Second, Azerbaijan is likely to swiftly destroy all lesser-known
medieval Armenian churches, as well as medieval inscriptions on
secular structures, especially those already under its control in the
Hadrut region. In fact, video evidence suggests that Azerbaijani
soldiers are already desecrating sacred sites.

Third, the best-known Cathedrals will likely be “Albanized” and
preserved in the short-term, although “Albanizing” the majestic
Dadivank Monastery, for instance, will be a particular challenge given
its over 100 Armenian inscriptions. Again, in light of what happened
in Nakhichevan, Albanization of major sites is an unlikely hope for
long-term preservation.

Finally, for public relations and to underscore the myth that
Armenians are not the indigenous peoples of Artsakh, Azerbaijan will
likely restore the Holy Savior Ghazanchetsots Cathedral of Shushi it
air bombed twice on October 8.

Although Azerbaijani forces further vandalized the Cathedral after
Shushi’s capture, the 19th century structure’s age fits Azerbaijan’s
anti-Armenian historical narrative perfectly; a church of similar age
has been similarly preserved in Azerbaijan’s capital of Baku for that
very purpose.

The likely token restoration of Shushi’s Holy Savior should not give
anyone false hope: the monuments in real danger are the numerous
medieval sacred sites that attest to the region’s indigenous Armenian
past, especially if they are not well known.

[Photo: The Azerbaijani military’s destruction of the medieval Djulfa
cemetery in December 2005 as seen from Iran’s territory. Photo: Arthur
Gevorgian]

Cultural erasure and desecration are heartbreakingly painful for
Armenians. Some Armenian families are literally digging up the burials
of their ancestors to evacuate with them as they leave the lands that
will soon be transferred to Azerbaijan.

One day, perhaps, Armenians may reconcile with the idea that most of
their early heritage has been erased. However, five ancient Artsakh
monuments are particularly sacred for Armenians, their erasure would
permanently scar generations to come:

· Amaras, founded in the 4th century upon Armenia becoming the first
Christian nation, preserves a 5th century mausoleum to a local saint.
It is located in the Martuni region. As of this writing, it is unclear
who controls the area.

· Dadivank, the origins of which date back to a 1st century chapel
founded by the earliest preachers of Christianity, was built into a
monastic complex between the 9th and 13th centuries. Over the past few
days, hundreds of Armenians have been flocking to the majestic
monastery to light a candle one last time. It is located in the
Kelbajar region.

[Photo: A general view of the Dadivank Monastery in Nagorno-Karaakh.
Photo: Dr. Hamlet Petrosyan]

· Gtichavank, rebuilt in the 13th century, was a key Cathedral for the
autonomous principality of Khachen and its Melikdom successors that
relentlessly compromised with Arab, Mongol, Persian, and Turkic
conquerors to ensure Armenian existence, even if it meant adopting
Islamic names. (My mother’s own ancestral Armenian Christian family
included names like Aziz, Manuchar, and Sultan.) It is located in the
Hadrut region that Azerbaijan captured last month.

· Tigranakert is a Hellenistic Armenian city likely founded by the
Greek-speaking Armenian emperor Tigranes II and also preserves
newly-excavated early medieval Christian temples. It is located in the
Agdam region and has been recently shelled.

· Tsitsernavank is one of the first basilica churches in the world.
Some of its unique architectural features suggest that it may have
been founded as a pagan temple before the year 301. It is located in
the Lachin region.

All of these sacred Armenian sites are within several kilometers of
the current or upcoming Armenian-Azerbaijani line of contact. None of
them are located in strategic areas. Having lost the 1990s Karabakh
war and now won the second one this month, Azerbaijan should deeply
consider preventing a third war.

As painful as the loss of people, homes, lands, mountains, numerous
khachkars and many lesser-known churches may be for Armenians, being
allowed to keep Amaras, Dadivank, Gtichavank, Tigranakert, and
Tsitsernavank may help Armenians heal.

I am not asking for mercy. I am suggesting a potential path to peace.

*

Simon Maghakyan is a lecturer in International Relations at the
University of Colorado Denver and a human rights activist.

https://urldefense.com/v3/__https://asiatimes.com/2020/11/cultural-erasure-may-spark-next-nagorno-karabakh-war/__;!!LIr3w8kk_Xxm!4CyzuVZ-jgRDv-hE04hdEXmU8MYpsg78u6yi413xPbdeUdUQKvCp3Y78PiV-iQ$

[Yervant1]

‘Statement’ on Artsakh War by Armenia,

Azerbaijan & Russia Should be Rejected

By Harut Sassounian

Publisher, The California Courier

www.TheCaliforniaCourier.com

The leaders of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia signed an agreement,
calling it a “Statement,” on November 9, 2020 to stop the 45-day war
in Artsakh and return to Azerbaijan the territories previously
belonging to Armenians.

This shocking announcement was made by Armenia’s Prime Minister Nikol
Pashinyan creating distress and despair among Armenians worldwide.
There are four reasons why Armenians reacted with such pessimism and
grief:

1) After 45 days of constantly hearing from Armenian officials that
“We are winning,” all of a sudden we are told that we have in fact
suffered a devastating defeat. Even the number of our dead soldiers
was underreported, according to the latest announcement of the
Armenian Health Ministry. Regrettably, the final toll is expected to
be in the thousands.

2) This was probably the greatest loss since the Armenian Genocide of
105 years ago. Armenians are demoralized and deceived by their own
leaders. It shook the very essence of their souls. This was a
humiliating capitulation. The descendants of the Armenian Genocide,
who still carry in their genes the transgenerational trauma of that
greatest tragedy, are deeply affected by this enormous defeat,
exposing their long unhealed wounds.

3) The thousands of young Armenian soldiers killed in the battle have
deeply saddened all Armenians. Many are wondering if their sacrifice
was in vain.

4) Armenians lost a large portion of their historic territories along
with their homes, churches, monuments and cemeteries. Just like the
effects of the Genocide a century ago are still raw in today’s
generation, this latest disaster will have a lasting effect on the
psyche of all Armenians.

A huge controversy has been raging in Armenia and the Diaspora after
the release of this problematic “Statement.” The Armenian people, who
were united like one person throughout the war, all of a sudden have
been divided and at each other’s throats. There have been many ugly
incidents in Yerevan which will hopefully not spill into the Diaspora.
No Armenian should commit an act of violence against any other
Armenian or destroy any property. Even though we have a very serious
problem, attacking each other will not solve anything. At the same
time, those who are engaged in peaceful protests in Yerevan should be
allowed to do so without any harassment by the government. People’s
right to free speech should be respected especially by a leader who
came to power touting democratic rights and values.

The next controversy is identifying those responsible for this
debacle. Here again we have two opposing camps. Prime Minister
Pashinyan and his supporters acknowledge that he had no choice but to
sign the tripartite “Statement” in order to avoid the loss of more
territories to Azerbaijan and save thousands of Armenian soldiers who
may have been captured or killed. Those supporting this point of view
have blamed the previous presidents for enriching themselves at the
expense of the nation and not strengthening the military. Pashinyan
said that if he had refused to sign the “Statement,” the consequence
would have been much worse for the Armenian nation. Azerbaijan would
have taken over the rest of Artsakh.

Those opposed to Pashinyan’s position state that the Prime Minister is
merely dumping responsibility for the defeat on his predecessors. They
point out that Pashinyan made the decision to sign the “Statement”
unilaterally, consulting only with the President of Artsakh and the
military leaders. Pashinyan did not inform the President of Armenia,
the Foreign Minister who just resigned or the Armenian Parliament.
They all found out about this ill-fated announcement from the media.
This was not expected from a Prime Minister who came to power as a
defender of democracy and transparency. Not even France and the United
States, the two other mediating members of the Minsk Group, were
consulted. Pashinyan also did not respect the promise he had made on
August 17, 2018, in front of the 300,000 people at the Republic
Square, announcing that he “will not sign secretly any paper on
Artsakh.” He added that “if there is such a situation, I will come and
stand here, present to you all the details, and you will decide if we
are going to accept that option or not.” Pashinyan now claims that
this “Statement” is merely a ceasefire, not an agreement on the
Artsakh conflict. Obviously, the signed “Statement” is much more than
a ceasefire. It is the return of the seven regions in addition to
giving up a large portion of Artsakh. As a result, Pashinyan’s
opponents seek his resignation.

In my view, there is a much simpler explanation. Ever since the 1994
ceasefire, Armenians in and out of Armenia were totally opposed to
returning the liberated territories to Azerbaijan, as were the leaders
of Armenia and Artsakh. The only exception was Pres. Levon
Ter-Petrosyan who wanted to make territorial concessions to
Azerbaijan, as a result of which he was forced out of office. The
subsequent Presidents of Armenia knew well that the Armenian people
would not accept any kind of territorial concessions regarding
Artsakh. Ever since the 1994 ceasefire, there have been dozens of
fruitless meetings between the foreign ministers and heads of Armenia
and Azerbaijan, mediated by the Minsk Group of France, Russia and the
United States. The Armenian position was that we will consider
returning some of the territories around Artsakh, if Azerbaijan
recognized Artsakh’s independence. Armenians wanted a package deal
rather than a step-by-step solution. The reason was that should
Armenians give up the surrounding territories first, Azerbaijan would
then be in a position to take over Artsakh itself.

In the meantime, Armenians and the rest of the world repeatedly stated
that there is no military solution to the Artsakh conflict which
should be resolved through peaceful negotiations. However, Pres.
Aliyev kept threatening to use military force to recover the lost
territories. Using its huge oil income, Azerbaijan bought billions of
dollars of sophisticated weapons from Israel, Russia and others.
Armenia also bought some weapons, but did not have the resources to
match Azerbaijan’s military buildup. Armenians did not take Aliyev’s
threats seriously. Finally, Azerbaijan secured the support and
participation of the powerful Turkish military and recruited several
thousand Islamist terrorist mercenaries to fight on its side. The
highly technological war with remote control drones and missiles
devastated the Armenian military and conquered what Armenia and
Artsakh was not willing to give up, despite the heroic efforts of the
Armenian soldiers.

Therefore, rather than asking who is to blame for this fiasco,
Armenians need to acknowledge that we paid the price for being unable
to counter the powerful weapons of Azerbaijan and Turkey which has the
second most powerful military in NATO. As Prime Minister Pashinyan
acknowledged, if he had conceded some of the territories around
Artsakh earlier, there would not have been this capitulation. However,
if we had given up these areas without an agreement on the final
status of Artsakh, Azerbaijan would have then attacked and captured
Artsakh itself.

There are two basic facts that we must all admit:

1) The powerful side always wins in a war, no matter how just the
weaker side’s cause is. Armenians did not use the last 26 years to
turn Artsakh into an impenetrable fortress. They should have had a
defense system to shield Artsakh from drone attacks.

2) When you are weak and rely on others to save you, you would be
disappointed and defeated. Armenians kept saying that we were left
alone. This is not surprising. All countries make decisions based on
their own national interests.

The “Statement” signed by Pashinyan is devastating. We need to find a
way to minimize our losses. Besides losing the territories in and
around Artsakh, we should not have agreed to provide a corridor
through Armenia to Azerbaijan to connect with Nakhichevan. This would
allow Turkey to cross Armenia by land and link with Azerbaijan and
beyond to other Turkic republics. This is the realization of Turkey’s
Pan-Turanian dream which we should not permit at all cost.

Finally, the text of the “Statement”, which is the equivalent of a
treaty according to Armenia’s constitution, should be submitted to
Armenia’s Constitutional Court and the Parliament for ratification.
Otherwise, it would have no legal value. Armenia should also involve
France and the United States, the other two Minsk Group of mediators,
in the negotiation process to get a better deal.

Even though Pashinyan acknowledged that as Commander-in-Chief he is
responsible for Armenia’s defeat, he refuses to resign. Therefore, a
referendum should be held to see if the Armenian public approves or
rejects the “Statement.” If they reject it, Pashinyan would have no
choice but to resign. The elected new leader, hopefully not one from
the discredited previous regimes, would then try to negotiate a
revised agreement considering the one signed by the ousted Pashinyan
to be null and void. This option, however, carries the risk of a fresh
attack on Artsakh by Azerbaijan.

I hope Armenia’s new leaders will go through this traumatic experience
with sound judgment and concentrate their energies on building a
powerful military so they can counter any future attacks by Azerbaijan
and Turkey.

Finally, this is the right time for Armenia to recognize Artsakh’s
independence or its unification with Armenia, thereby introducing an
unexpected new factor in the negotiations with Azerbaijan.

[MosJan]

https://www.europa-nu.nl/id/vlduoz1zjrzu/nieuws/kamer_wil_sancties_tegen_president?ctx=vh6ukzb3nnt0&s0e=vifdkm1d06kk&fbclid=IwAR0IrYasjTAxfwNjff43E-VkJ6MdIozfeHoOmVEGn_jDztpvsTO1OyvqDEw

 

Chamber wants sanctions against President Azerbaijan- Main content
Tuesday 17 November 2020, 17:12
De Tweede Kamer zonder personen [flickr/-JvL-]
Source: flickr/-JvL-
THE HAGUE(Reuters)- The House of Representatives wants the European Union to impose sanctions against Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev and his immediate neighbor. Minister Stef Blok (Foreign Affairs)must make the case in Brussels, according to a majority of the parliament.

According to the CDA and Christian Union motion, the President should be punished for the military of Azerbaijan and Turkish-led jihadists from Syria having "committed widespread war crimes in Nagorno-Karabakh". Azerbaijan and Armenia have fought fiercely in Nagorno-Karabakh in recent months.

Last week, both countries reached a deal to stop the fight. Christian Armenia is resealing several parts of and around Nagorno-Karabakh. Nagorno-Karabakh has been ruled by Armenian separatists for several decades, but according to the international community is part of Islamic Azerbaijan.

Blok had not recommended the motion. He says it's not the right order. He believes that investigations should first be carried out into possible human rights violations in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Only then can sanctions or legal action be taken against suspects, the minister said.

[Yervant1]

France 24

Nov 17 2020

Nagorno-Karabakh: Turkey to send peacekeepers to Azerbaijan to monitor truce

Turkey’s parliament on Tuesday granted President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s government permission to deploy peacekeepers to Azerbaijan to monitor a cease-fire deal between Azerbaijan and Armenia that aims to end the conflict in the region.

In a show of hands, legislators voted in favor of a one-year mandate allowing the government to send troops to Azerbaijan, where they would observe possible violations of the truce from a joint Turkish-Russian monitoring center. The cease-fire ended six weeks of intense fighting between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the Nagorno-Karabakh region.

Erdogan’s government would determine the number of troops to be sent and it wasn't immediately clear how many the country planned to deploy. The motion states that civilian personnel could also be deployed as part of the peacekeeping mission.

Last week, the defense ministers of Russia and Turkey signed a memorandum to create a joint monitoring center in Azerbaijan, although technical details of the mission are still being worked out.

Azerbaijan has been pressing for its ally Turkey, which has supported Baku in the conflict, to take an active role in the peace talks and was the first to announce its involvement in the monitoring of the cease-fire agreement.

Russian officials have said that Ankara’s involvement will be limited to the work of the monitoring center on Azerbaijani soil, and Turkish peacekeepers wouldn't go to Nagorno-Karabakh. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has said the center will operate remotely, using drones and other technical means to monitor possible violations.

The mandate further extends Turkey’s military engagements stretching from the Middle East to Africa. The country, which has been trying to craft itself a role as a regional power, has sent troops to Iraq and Syria to battle Kurdish militants and to Libya where its presence helped change the balance of a conflict there in favor of the Tripoli-based government. Ankara also maintains a military presence in Qatar, Somalia and on Cyprus and has peacekeepers in Afghanistan, Lebanon, Africa and the Balkans.

The motion for the deployment in Azerbaijan was backed by four out of five parties in Turkey's parliament. Erdogan's government said the Turkish peacekeepers were crucial for the region's peace and welfare and for Turkey's national interests.

“Turkey and Azerbaijan who regard themselves as one state and two people, will continue to struggle together for their independence and future,” said Ismet Yilmaz, who heads the parliamentary defense committee. “It is our historic and strategic responsibility to ensure that (Turkish troops) take up duty at the joint center to maintain the cease-fire and prevent violations.”

Ahad Andican, a legislator from the nationalist opposition Good Party, said the Turkish troop presence would help prevent Armenian attempts to “rearm.”

Russia, which negotiated the cease-fire, is sending about 2,000 peacekeeping troops under a five-year mandate.

Nagorno-Karabakh lies within Azerbaijan but has been under control of ethnic Armenian forces backed by Armenia since a separatist war there ended in 1994.

(AP)

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/20201117-nagorno-karabakh-turkey-to-send-peacekeepers-to-azerbaijan-to-monitor-truce?fbclid=IwAR0oD5mS2PVT6NY0rNc7jraSBWlAF-DAWaP2F99jSotLtOIgAuGykxjJuNQ

[Yervant1]

Jerusalem post

Nov 17 2020

Did Russia miscalculate in recent Azerbaijan-Armenia clashes?

By SETH J. FRANTZMAN NOVEMBER 17, 2020 15:40

Russia has behaved throughout the conflict like it had other important issues to deal with.

Russia brokered the end of fighting in Nagorna-Karabakh last week in a deal that will see many Armenians leaving their homes and areas handed over to Azerbaijan. It is a humiliating defeat for Armenia, a reverse of what happened in the 1990s when Armenia defeated Azerbaijan in the same disputed area.

For Russia, it is a point of prestige. On Tuesday, Russia’s TASS media said Moscow was sending 64 pieces of military equipment for its peacekeepers that are being deployed.

Russia has behaved throughout the conflict like it had other important issues to deal with. An Egyptian naval group was scheduled to arrive in mid-November. Turkey was testing Russia’s S-400s. The southern Caucasus is not the priority. That would surprise many who believed that Russia was deeply invested in Armenia and saw it as an ally.

Pro-Azerbaijan voices, including pro-Turkish lobbyists in Washington, celebrated the war against Armenians by claiming that defeating Armenia would be a setback for Russia and Iran. Yet Iran supported Azerbaijan’s claims under international law and Russia basically held the same view. As long as the fighting was confined to Nagorna-Karabakh, which was supposed to be an autonomous area under Azerbaijan control, it wasn’t a setback for Moscow.

Defending Armenia is ostensibly part of Russia’s strategic interests. It launched a massive surprise military drill in February 2016 and July 2020 in southern Russia to show off its power. Kavkaz drills also involved Armenia in September 2020. Belarus, China, Iran, Pakistan and Myanmar were involved.

Furthermore, there is the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) which was formed in 1992 with several post-Soviet states, such as Armenia, Russia and Kazakhstan. But this isn’t the Warsaw Pact, and Russia didn’t feel the need to defend Armenians in Nagorna-Karabakh, only Armenia inside its international borders.

Why not? One might have assumed that Russia, which under President Vladimir Putin has rapidly expanded its military and improved its capabilities, would defend a small and poor Christian Armenia against a Turkish-backed Azerbaijan offensive. And Russia has the capabilities to do so. Former Russian airborne commander Vladimir Shamanov had said seven years ago, according to an RIA Novosti report, that Russia’s airborne troops could be moved quickly to places like South Ossetia, or Armenia.

SO WHY wasn’t Nagorna-Karabakh seen as similar to Abkhazia, which Russia defended in the 2008 war with Georgia? Why wasn’t it like the Donbass and Crimea, which Russia has defended, and in the second case annexed, in 2014? It’s not even like Transnistria, apparently.

To understand why is to try to understand Russia’s current geopolitical stance. Moscow sees the Caucasus as part of its historic sphere of influence, but it apparently did not see Azerbaijan’s war as harming that influence. It believes that it can broker a deal with peacekeepers and remain the key player, with Baku and Yerevan relying on it. Russia has in the past balked at countries in its sphere seeking out Western support.

When the war broke out in September, many experts said that Moscow was displeased with Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan. Moscow remembered that he had come to power after the “Velvet Revolution” of 2018, and that he was critical of Moscow’s role in Armenia. In short, he had said in the past, according to reports, that Armenia was treated as a kind of vassal, a relationship with Moscow of “speaker and listener” – and Armenia was supposed to listen.

He also reportedly opposed Armenia’s role in the Eurasian Economic Union, an economic pact led by Russia and including Belarus and Kazakhstan, believing that Armenia’s sovereignty was being eroded.

However, Armenia was not in a position to make many changes. Sandwiched between a hostile Turkey and Azerbaijan – and with an Iran that is not helpful and also under sanctions, and a Georgia that was not deeply supportive – the country had no real options. It couldn’t rely on the West because the era of Western expansion was over. The US no longer cared about protecting countries like Armenia. And Turkey, although it is hostile to the US, is a NATO member – and Armenia wasn’t going to grow closer to NATO with such a hostile neighbor and Azerbaijan seeking a closer relationship with the US and NATO.

As such, Armenia was not only forced to be dependent on Russia but there was a powerful group of people deployed by Turkey to cheerlead a war against Armenia and pretend that it was actually a war that would harm Russia and Iran’s interests. Armenia was forced into the tragic position, by voices in the US close to the Trump administration, of being sacrificed as the last hurrah in a policy designed to appease Turkey and confront Iran by destroying the lives of a few thousand Armenians.

BUT RUSSIA didn’t buy into this. Moscow believed its role in the end was to swoop in and treat the squabbling countries like children. It saw this as a kind of police action. Russia has done this before in Syria and Libya: It moves in and appears to end the fighting and creates a tenuous cold peace or frozen conflict. It did this as the Trump administration created chaos in eastern Syria through a withdrawal in October 2019.

That Trump decision was also pushed by the same pro-Ankara voices in Washington claiming that the Syrian Democratic Forces – US partners in eastern Syria who defeated ISIS – were somehow a leftover from the Obama administration’s pro-Iran policy. As the Armenians were forced to pay the price for a mythical link to Iran, so the Kurds were also sacrificed.

Russia doesn’t see the region this way; it didn’t view the defeat of Armenia’s fighters in Artsakh as a setback. It did appear to hope to teach Yerevan a lesson: Depend on Moscow and listen to us, or more of this will happen. Armenia’s army proved woefully incapable of confronting Baku’s modern army which is festooned with drones, some supplied from Israel and others from Turkey.

This should be humiliating for Russia’s arms industry, that it couldn’t supply Armenia the right weapons. But Moscow has proven cynical in this respect before, enabling Turkey to punish Assad’s forces in February 2020, before Russia swooped into areas near Aleppo and Idlib to stop the fighting. This is the Russian model.

PUTIN HAS old memories of the humiliation of Serbia in the Balkan Wars of the 1990s. He has vowed to remake Russia as a massive power and project strength amid the chaos unleashed by US withdrawal from areas in the world and Trump’s isolationism. However, that comes at a cost. Moscow is willing to let some areas of countries be sacrificed, for what it sees as the greater good. That is why airstrikes can hunt down Iranian elements in southern Syria while Moscow claimed it would send S-300s to Syria in 2018.

Moscow believes in the long game. That game is consistent, reliable foreign policy based on a Clausewitz model of policy following military affairs. It believes in energy as a weapon of policy and foreign military sales. For Moscow, Turkey is a bigger prize than Armenia. Ankara is moving toward the authoritarian alliance of Tehran, Moscow and Beijing, and that is the bigger goal.

Russia wants to weaken Europe more than it is already weakened and encourage US isolationism. And if getting there means a few thousand people fled Nagorna-Karabakh and now Armenia is even more dependent on Moscow, then Russia thinks it has won. After all, there are no more humiliations like the Kosovo War and the battle for Grozny in the 1990s. Now Russia can wait; time is on its side, it thinks.

Did it make a mistake in waiting too long and no enforcing a ceasefire in October with Armenia and Azerbaijan? It appears that it may think that it is the senior partner with Turkey but that Ankara’s ambitions are larger and that it may find that constantly coddling Ankara has enabled Turkey to do the same to Russia as it did with the US: run circles around them while pretending to be friends to both.

The problem is that Moscow and Washington compete for Ankara’s affections while Turkey views itself as an equal to both. This is the trouble that Moscow got itself in now in the Caucasus. It thinks it won by weakening Armenia. But in the long run, it may not see that it lost a bit of prestige by not standing by Yerevan.

Russia prefers its partners to be weak and subservient. That is why the Donbass republics, poor and incapable, like Abkhazia and other areas, are preferred. But that does not add to Russia’s strength; it means it has to prop up a bunch of poor countries. Turkey has preferred a strong Azerbaijan, while Russia preferred a weak Armenia. Time will tell if Russia played this conflict right.

https://m.jpost.com/international/did-russia-miscalculate-in-recent-azerbaijan-armenia-clashes-649357/amp?fbclid=IwAR1E28afBrzxVDgt1sT8J9fvb8UW6QSi5aCYIKovmCMoIImgyzFTkdXpT90

[Yervant1]

Channel News Asia

Nov 17 2020

Putin defends Karabakh deal after France criticism

MOSCOW: Russian President Vladimir Putin on Tuesday (Nov 17) defended a ceasefire deal he brokered between Azerbaijan and Armenia after France called for him to fix "ambiguities" in the text.

Putin said the deal laid the basis for "long-term normalisation" for the disputed Nagorno-Karabakh region.

However, he admitted that the ceasefire, which allowed Azerbaijan to consolidate major territorial gains after several weeks of bitter fighting, had not solved the "problem" of the final status of Karabakh.

France earlier urged Russia to clarify the role of Turkey, make provisions for foreign fighters and put in place a plan to discuss the future status of the region.

French Foreign Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian told parliament in Paris the issues would be discussed at a meeting in Moscow of the so-called Minsk Group - a decades-old talking shop seeking a solution to the conflict, co-chaired by France, Russia and the United States.

The US State Department echoed France's view, saying there were still questions the Russians needed to clarify about the deal, "and that included the role of the Turks".

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on a visit to Georgia, which borders both parties to the conflict, said the ceasefire was just a first step towards creating a peaceful settlement.

He urged all sides to start talking under the Minsk Group.

But Putin defended the deal, saying on Russian state television: "The fact that hostilities have stopped and there is an agreement to unblock transport, restore economic ties, it's extremely important."

Conceding that there was a problem with deciding the final status of Karabakh, he added: "What happens next should be decided in the future, or by future leaders, future participants in this process."

Nagorno-Karabakh is part of Azerbaijan populated by ethnic Armenians that broke away from Baku's control in a war as the Soviet Union collapsed in the 1990s.

Under the ceasefire, Russian troops have deployed in the enclave since last week to keep the peace

Putin said Turkey, which supports Baku, will be associated with the peace-keeping process through a joint control centre with Russia that will use drones, but that Turkish troops will not enter Nagorno-Karabakh.

Source: AFP

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/putin-defends-karabakh-deal-after-france-criticism-13581256

[Yervant1]

AHVAL

Nov 17 2020

Turkey called Russia's bluff in Nagorno-Karabakh

• Ahval
• Nov 17 2020 09:34 Gmt+3
• Last Updated On: Nov 17 2020 04:51 Gmt+3

Russia defeated at least partially by Turkey in the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan over the Nagorno-Karabakh region, said Mark Galeotti, a senior associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI) in London, during a youtube interview with Ahval on Monday.

On Nov. 10, the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh came to a pause after almost two months of fighting when the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed to a truce that was guaranteed by their powerful neighbour Russia. A lasting ceasefire eluded international mediators for weeks but in this moment, President Vladimir Putin appeared to be the one to deliver on this front.

To many observers, the latest round of violence in the Caucasus was seen as another episode of a wider competition between Russia and Turkey, who strongly supported Azerbaijan. Following the truce brokered in Moscow, analysts immediately went to work debating who the winner was between the region’s two historic hegemons.

On the surface, Russia appeared to be as the powerbroker. Moscow maintains close relations with Armenia as well as Azerbaijan, two former Soviet republics, and its soldiers soon deployed to the frontline to enforce the new truce. Turkey was not signatory to the final agreement despite its enormous support for Azerbaijan and Turkish participation in the peacekeeping mission was rejected by Russia.

Mark Galeotti, however, said who the perceived victor depended in part to analytical biases related to Russia’s geopolitical strength. In many ways, Galeotti believes it has been Moscow who was outplayed by Ankara.

“I personally feel this is something of a partial defeat for Russia,” Galeotti told Ahval in a podcast interview. He insists that Russia maintains significant capabilities that could alter the balance of power but Turkey effectively cracked the veneer that it has any monopoly over the Caucasus.

Shortly after the fighting started on Sept. 27, Russia’s first remarks came on Oct. 2 in a joint statement with the United States and France, fellow co-chairs of the so-called Minsk Group set up to mediate the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh in 1994. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov brokered a ceasefire a week later in Moscow, but it almost immediately collapsed.

Russia is officially a military ally of Armenia through the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), but its actions took on tepid and uncertain tones. Putin himself said in an interview that the fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh was not on Armenia proper, so Russia saw no reason to intervene. He also emphasised Russia’s close ties to Azerbaijan as well.

In comparison to Russia’s uncertainty, Turkey offered its full support to Azerbaijan. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan rejected Russia’s initial call through the OSCE for a ceasefire and provided diplomatic cover to Azerbaijan.

Turkish jets were later deployed to Ganja International Airport and Azerbaijan’s President Ilham Aliyev announced that they would protect against external aggression. As the sole military power capable of making a difference on the ground, this was interpreted as a veiled reference to Russia.

Galeotti says that Turkey’s visible support to its ally in comparison to Russia’s indecisiveness lent towards Turkish success further from the frontline.

“Turkey’s role was crucial, not only on the battlefield, but in the political battlefield,” said Galeotti, adding that it exposed Russian insecurities about its hegemony over what it considers its ‘near abroad’ in the former Soviet Union. “Turkey has, by its presence in the region, called Moscow’s political bluff.”

The damage may already be unfolding. As Azerbaijanis flowed into the streets to celebrate what they saw as a national triumph thanks to Turkish support, Armenians protested violently in the capital Yerevan.

Throughout last week, protestors stormed government buildings and called for the resignation of Nikol Pashinyan as prime minister. While no fan of Pashinyan, Russia may see its truce compromised if his government were to fall and be replaced by a more nationalistic alternative.

Even though it was excluded from the truce in Moscow, Turkey did win some concessions.

While excluded from the peacekeeping operation itself, Turkey won a token presence in a Russian operated observation centre in Azerbaijan to monitor the mission. Significantly, a land corridor was secured between Nakhchivan province on Turkey’s border and Azerbaijan itself, a long held Turkish goal.

In spite of the damage to its regional clout, it is unlikely Russia will dramatically alter its relationship with Turkey even as some question how far their disagreements can go.

Asked in an interview whether Russia was growing too dependent on Turkey to solve regional problems including Nagorno-Karabakh, Foreign Minister Lavrov defended the relationship as cooperative and based on pragmatism that trumps their disagreements.

This emphasis on the pragmatic element of the relationship was echoed by Putin, who has forged a robust working relationship with Erdogan. Speaking at the annual Valdai Forum, Putin insisted Russia has no fear of Turkish ambitions and described Erdogan as a “flexible person” who he works well with.

Galeotti holds that in many ways Russian officials respect Turkey’s willingness to forcefully assert itself over national interests, even if it goes against Russia’s own. It is this shared language of realpolitik referenced by Putin at the Valdai Forum that in the end allows them to avoid any larger confrontation between their nations.

“The Russians feel they are on familiar territory,” said Galeotti. “Sometimes they’re going to win, sometimes they’re going to lose, but they do not have a problem with rules of the game when it comes to Turkey.”

https://ahvalnews.com/nagorno-karabakh/turkey-called-russias-bluff-nagorno-karabakh

[Yervant1]

Reuters

Nov 16 2020

Russia moves rocket launchers towards Nagorno-Karabakh after peace deal

By Reuters Staff

3 Min Read

LACHIN, Azerbaijan (Reuters) - Russia has moved truck-mounted multiple rocket launchers into a land corridor it controls between Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh as its peacekeeping forces secure new territory for a deal struck over the enclave last week.

Moscow brokered an end to six weeks of fighting between Azerbaijan and ethnic Armenian forces over the enclave, an accord that prompted the deployment of almost 2,000 Russian peacekeepers to the area, a process that is continuing.

The Russian defence ministry said on Monday it had set up seven temporary observation posts in the Lachin Corridor, which runs from the edge of Armenia to the enclave inside Azeri territory, to ensure the safe passage of Russian peacekeepers to Armenian-controlled parts of Nagorno-Karabakh.

Reuters reporters saw two Russian truck-mounted Grad multiple missile launch systems in the Lachin Corridor. The Soviet-era system can fire 40 rockets in around 20 seconds and their deployment suggests Moscow is not taking any chances with the security of its peacekeepers.

Both Grads were manned by Russian crews and the servicemen confirmed to Reuters that they were from Russia.

One of the Grads had a Russian military license plate with regional code 94, indicating it belonged to the Transcaucasian military district. The other Grad had no license plate, but was accompanied by a Kamaz military truck with a Russian license plate from the same military district.

Reuters reporters also spotted a Russian tank in the area.

A statement about the Russian deployment on the Kremlin website says the armed peacekeepers will be accompanied by armoured personnel carriers and other vehicles and hardware. It made no specific mention of rocket systems.

The Azeri defence ministry did not immediately reply to a request for comment.

The Russian defence ministry said on Monday its soldiers were de-mining the Lachin corridor, and clearing the road of abandoned and damaged armoured vehicles and cars.

Moscow will monitor the peace with the help of 18 Russian-manned observation posts, it said. Russian peacekeepers were in constant contact with the armed forces of Azerbaijan and Armenia to help prevent misunderstandings.

(This story corrects to smooth phrasing in lede paragraph)

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-armenia-azerbaijan-rockets-idINKBN27W2GQ

[Yervant1]

National Catholic Register

Nov 17 2020

Experts: Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict Is Christian Genocide Under the Pretext of War

NEWS ANALYSIS: Memories of the genocide at the hands of the Ottoman Turks 100 years ago are still fresh.

Under duress, Armenia signed a Russian-brokered peace deal with Azerbaijan. The territory in turquoise, including the town of Shushi (in gray oval) was taken by Azeri military force in November and retained in the peace agreement of Nov. 10. Shushi has been part of the Armenian ‘cradle of Christianity’ for centuries; Armenia adopted Christianity even before Rome did. (photo: Emreculha)

Victor Gaetan World November 16, 2020

Under the cover of a global pandemic, benefiting from U.S. self-absorption during the presidential election, a battle that raged for 44 days against a compact community of Armenians — some 150,000 people territorially enclosed by Azerbaijan — has ended.

The region under siege is widely known as Nagorno-Karabakh, but its citizens voted to call it the Republic of Artsakh in 2017.

Describing it as an “unspeakably painful agreement,” Armenia’s prime minister signed a peace deal Nov. 9 with the aggressor, Azerbaijan. In Yerevan, Armenia’s capital, people responded by rioting in Parliament, while people danced in the streets in Baku, Azerbaijan’s seaside capital.

Russian President Vladimir Putin brokered the detailed cease-fire, which requires Armenia to retreat from about one-third of historically Armenian homeland, basically rewarding Azerbaijan for a massive military onslaught backed by Turkey.

Long- and short-range missiles, internationally banned cluster bombs, suicide drones and mercenaries brought by Turkey from Syria overwhelmed the Armenian side. Evidence of crimes against humanity has emerged: Azeri soldiers filmed themselves shooting a wounded soldier in the head. Hospitals were targeted as well as churches.

The Congressional Armenian Caucus Nov. 10 demanded accountability for war crimes committed by Azerbaijan and Turkey against Artsakh and Armenia.

Pope Francis pleaded for dialogue between the two countries following the Angelus prayer on Nov. 1, three weeks after he prayed for a truce. But at that time, the aggressors did not yet have a coveted prize, the town of Shushi (or Shusha), which was secured by the Armenian side in a 1994 cease-fire of hostilities that raged for two years.

On Nov. 8, Azerbaijan announced the military takeover of Shushi, strategically located, culturally treasured and still scarred by a massacreinstigated by Azeri troops against the majority Armenian community in 1920. That’s when Azerbaijan stopped fighting.

Ongoing Genocide?

To educated observers and the victims themselves, this year’s aggression has all the markings of an ongoing Christian genocide: initiated by Ottoman Turks in 1895; intensified by the Young Turk Movement between 1915 and 1923; continued against Greeks in the 1950s; and now reignited as part of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s dream of restoring Ottoman power and territory.

Evidence of genocide is especially petrifying to the Armenians because it suggests Azerbaijan and Turkey will not stop until they’ve “cleansed” this cradle of Christianity of its indigenous people.

Proof of the connection is startlingly overt: When Azerbaijan dropped a bomb on Oct. 8 through the dome of Shushi’s Holy Savior Cathedral (known to Armenians as Ghazanchetsots), one of the largest Armenian churches in the world, they targeted a sacred place damaged in the notorious 1920 attack when Azerbaijani soldiers set the Armenian half of the town on fire, killing, raping and driving out its inhabitants.

This past is hidden, and the intentional obliteration of Armenia’s Christian culture denied, by the powerful family that has controlled Azerbaijan for two generations, the Aliyevs.

To comprehend this new threat of ethnic cleansing and its geopolitical implications, the Register listened to and consulted experts assembled by In Defense of Christians (IDF) a Washington-D.C. based organization.

 

‘Three-Part Unity’ of Aggression

Robert Avetisyan, Artsakh’s designated representative to the United States, describes forces arrayed against the new state as a “triple unity” comprised of neighboring Azerbaijan, Turkey, and international terrorists transported by Turkey from Syria. He sees Turkey, with NATO’s second-largest army after the U.S., as “instigating attacks and pushing Azerbaijan,” which prepared for war by spending its “easy oil money stockpiling state-of-the-art arms and drones to use against us.”

Although Turkey is not mentioned in the peace deal, President Reytip Erdogan publicly declared that Turkey and Azerbaijan, both once part of the Ottoman Empire, are “two states, one nation,” while Artsakh belongs to Azerbaijan’s “occupied territories.”

Speaking to the Register by phone from Artsakh, Avetisyan contended that Turkey brought extremist mercenaries from Syria “by the thousands” to fight, making it a conflict “between Artsakh and international terrorism.” He said the population withstood a veritable “blitzkrieg” of weaponry.

Another regional actor in the mix is Israel, Azerbaijan’s main weapons’ supplier. Last month, Armenia withdraw its ambassador to Israel to protest its support for the Azeri arms buildup. (Between 2016-2019, Israel sold $625 million worth of arms to Azerbaijan, compared to Turkey’s direct sales of $32 million.) The convergence of interests between Israel and Azerbaijan relates to Israel’s ongoing conflict with Iran. Iran borders Azerbaijan to the South; Baku gave Israel access to its airfields for potential use against Iran, according to Israeli sources.

While the U.S. Congress overwhelmingly passed a resolution recognizing the Armenian genocide last year, Israel has not recognized it. Azerbaijan and Turkey adamantly reject it ever happened.

Pope Francis was the first pope to publicly recognize the mass murder of Armenians as the 20th century’s “first genocide” in June 2016.

Unfinished Business

Asked about Turkey’s motives, American Enterprise Institute defense analyst Michael Rubin is blunt: “primarily, animus toward Armenians as a people and Christianity as a religion.”

Rubin told an IDF news conference that Erdogan has no historical claim to Artsakh and no security excuse for fomenting war. Besides being anti-Christian, his motives are political and nationalistic: “Turkey is on the warpath, and it will get worse as Erdogan deflects attention from his failing economy and nears the anniversary of the Turkish republic” founded in 1923.

Aram Hamparian, executive director of the Armenian National Committee of America, summarized, “What’s at stake here is Erdogan trying to finish the work of 1915.”

Recounting the Armenian peoples’ losses at Turkey’s hands as “two-thirds of our people and nine-tenths of our territory,” Hamparian reframed the current situation in the South Caucasus as “not a conflict but a crime,” requiring a swift response from the West.

A representative of the Greek American community agreed. “We’re approaching the centennial of a republic built on the bones and blood of Christian minorities. Today, Artsakh is an inconvenience to Turkey’s idea of dominance in the region,” said Endy Zemenides, executive director of the Hellenic American Leadership Council.

 

What to Do?

For Zemenides, the U.S. government should immediately impose sanctions on Turkey, triggered by Ankara’s violation of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (CAATSA). The 2017 law is directly related to Russia, but Turkey violated CAATSA when it took delivery of a Russian-made S-400 air defense system in August 2019.

“It’s time to hold Turkey accountable because, if that’s not done, Turkey believes it can get away with everything it’s doing in Artsakh right now,” Zemenides told the Register. Last month, seven U.S. senators introduced legislation to investigate human-rights violations by Azerbaijan and Turkey “throughout the South Caucasus.”

Hamparian said not only does the U.S. need to condemn Azerbaijan’s crimes, it needs to end all military aid to the rogue nation: “Even as bombs are falling on Artsakh, they are getting aid!”

Several experts also insisted that the vast network of highly-paid Washington lobbyists working on behalf of Turkey and Azerbaijan should be named and shamed. Zemenides described them as following the maxim, “Whatever money can’t buy, more money can buy.”

 

Recognition for Artsakh?

Artsakh official Avetisyan believes recognition of the republic’s very existence would be most beneficial, a scenario comparable to American recognition of Kosovo as an independent state in 2008 in order to blunt Serbia’s designs on destroying it. Rubin sees this as a way to give the U.S. government a familiar model. Rep. Grace Napolitano, D-Calif., has called for recognition of Artsakh.

But advocates told the Register they ran into a wall when they tried to get the U.S. State Department to acknowledge the unfolding disaster for Armenians in the South Caucasus — with Washington preoccupied by the presidential election.

Although France, Russia and the United States issued a joint statement calling for a halt to regional “hostilities” last month, it was hardly convincing. The three nations comprised the triumvirate that mediated a truce in 1994, under the auspices of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). In fact, this month’s peace agreement signed by Russia, Azerbaijan and Armenia excluded the U.S. and France from future participation, de jure and de facto.

 

Diplomacy: The Magic Word

Against the assumption that Iran would line up with Azerbaijan based on religion — Azerbaijan is one of the few countries where, like Iran, the Muslim majority practices a form of Shiite Islam — in fact, Iran is sensitive to Armenian culture.

AEI’s Rubin explained to the Register, “When I lived in Iran, I lived in the Armenian quarter of Isfahan. The Armenians settled in Isfahan more than 400 years ago, after Shah Abbas I forcibly relocated them there. The area was dotted with Armenian churches, Armenians groceries and posters marking the commemoration of the Medz Yeghern [Great Crime, as Armenians call the 1915-23 genocide]. The Persian or Iranian shahs always interacted with Armenians, understood and appreciated Armenian culture, and even took prominent Armenians to be their trusted advisers. Likewise, Russia and Armenia have always had cultural affinity — and Armenia, of course, hosts a Russian military base.”

“Tehran and Washington need not be friends or allies to find mutual interest in countering Baku’s aggression,” Rubin continued. “Aliyev showed his true colors by bringing in Turkey and Turkish-backed Syrian mercenaries. Wherever Turkey’s Syrian mercenaries go, al Qaeda and the Islamic State follow, and so this highlights common interest.”

Rubin added, “Iran and the United States might be enemies, but they have also made common cause. After the fall of the Taliban, for example, both Tehran and Washington worked together to help establish the new Afghan government. Both Iran and the United States also largely were on the same side in the fight against the Islamic State.”

“What I am saying is that many countries can see what is happening to Armenia is wrong and work to reverse it, even if they agree on nothing else. That’s what diplomacy is all about,” Rubin said. He also believes that within the American policy-making establishment, “people have woken up to the threat of Turkey.”

Regarding Azerbaijan, the AEI analyst explained, “Azerbaijan long had friends because of its post-2001 anti-terror cooperation, but the fact that they now link up with Syrian mercenaries to attack Christian villages and churches suggests that they are no longer a security partner.”

Heydar Aliyev, a member of the Soviet Politburo and high-ranking KGB official (according to the CIA), ruled Azerbaijan from 1993 until his death in 2003. (The first contemporary suppression against Armenians occurred in 1988.) His son, Ilham, inherited the country — and an offshore network of mega-wealth built from corruption, according to the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Three years ago, President Aliyev appointed his wife first vice president.

Rubin said, “They are nothing more than just another family-run dictatorship in which the United States need not have a continuing interest.”

https://www.ncregister.com/blog/armenia-azerbaijan

[Yervant1]

Armenpress.am

Spanish MPs adopt motion on suspending arms sales to Azerbaijan, providing relief aid to Artsakh

Save

Share

10:15, 17 November, 2020

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 17, ARMENPRESS. The Congress of Deputies of Spain adopted lawmaker Jon Iñarritu’s motion on sending humanitarian aid to Nagorno Karabakh and suspending arms sales to Azerbaijan, the Armenian Embassy in Spain reported.

Iñarritu personally visited Artsakh (Nagorno Karabakh) during the September 27-November 10 war.

Editing and Translating by Stepan Kocharyan

 

 

https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1035085.html?fbclid=IwAR23unoQ5bgwm4faP1Wq7GWdDEJbZnBUSNY_A70syrfe06FiAXuO4O1QfP8

[Yervant1]

Armenpress.am

Pompeo calls Turkey’s recent actions “very aggressive”

Save

Share

10:34, 17 November, 2020

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 17, ARMENPRESS. The U.S. administration and Europe need to work jointly on addressing actions led by Turkey in the Middle East over the past few months, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told French daily newspaper Le Figaro, reports Reuters.

“France’s president Emmanuel Macron and I agree that Turkey’s recent actions have been very aggressive,” Pompeo said, citing Turkey’s recent support to Azerbaijan in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict as well as military moves in Libya and the Mediterranean.

“Europe and the U.S. must work together to convince Erdogan such actions are not in the interest of his people,” Pompeo said, referring to Turkish President Tayyip Erdogan.

Pompeo said increased use of Turkey’s military capability was a concern.

 

 

https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1035086.html?fbclid=IwAR1KtA5oK1Dhsa-mLOJByl1QbXS4iSi6Zu_sS-HAmyMDQYvL6LM1bCly2Zc

[Yervant1]

Armenpress.am

Moscow persuaded Ankara not to send peacekeepers to NK, given difficult legacy of the past– Putin

Save

Share

23:06, 17 November, 2020

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 17, ARMENPRESS. Moscow has been able to persuade Azerbaijan and Turkey that conditions that can thwart the agreements on Nagorno Karabakh should not be created, ARMENPRESS reports Russian President Vladimir Putin told Russia-24.

''As refers to the peacekeeping mission, Azerbaijan and Turkey always talked about the possibility of Turkey's participation in peacekeeping efforts. Anyway, I think that we have been able to persuade our Turkish partners and our colleagues in Azerbaijan that conditions that can thwart our agreements should not be created, conditions that can push one of the parties of the agreement to some extreme methods and extreme actions'', Putin said, clarifying that he means the very heavy legacy of the past years and the tragic and bloody incidents and the genocide that took place during the years of the World War I.

''It's a factor that can be recognized or not recognized. Someone recognizes it, someone does not recognize it. But there are no issues for Russia here. We recognized it long ago. So why to provoke Armenia with the presence of Turkish soldiers on the contact line? I think President Erdoğan also admitted this andunderstood. We encountered no problems here'', the Russian President said.

 

 

https://armenpress.am/eng/news/1035178.html?fbclid=IwAR0yIpzXBT5xugJkoPiEVRjmAIXxwONGyhh33ZqrIAQZwxEIsdWm2EWDBTU

[Yervant1]

Turkey understands military actions against Armenia would mean Russian-Turkish war – expert

Save

Share2

13:34, 18 November, 2020

YEREVAN, NOVEMBER 18, ARMENPRESS. Turkey understands that launching military actions against Armenia would mean a Russian-Turkish direct war, but the Turkish-Russian relations have not yet reached the degree of tension which could lead to a direct war, Expert on Turkish studies Ruben Melkonyan told Armenpress, commenting on the reports that Turkey is deploying troops and military transport aviation in Igdir section on the border with Armenia.

According to Melkonyan, this issue can be viewed in a broader perspective, mainly from the perspective of regional developments. He said Iran as well has deployed troops on the border, Russia is increasing its military presence in the region, with the deployment of peacekeepers in Artsakh. “Moreover, Russia’s entry is an expected and legal entry to the region and Artsakh. And it’s natural that Turkey, as another key role player in the region having aggressive goals with the South Caucasus, should have applied to political and military element, which is the deployment of troops and military equipment in the border”, he said.

The expert stated that all this can pursue several goals. According to him, the first one is the demonstration of power and the political message addressed to the two regional players – Russia and Iran. “Secondly, it will try with this to strengthen its aggressive aspirations in Azerbaijan in terms of having a military presence and already legitimizing its military presence in Azerbaijan. Thirdly, the issue of Nakhijevan has a potential for activation, and let’s not forget that Iran’s positions on Nakhijevan greatly differ in many points. And the accumulation of troops can also have a meaning of a message addressed to Iran. And the last one is of course Turkey’s traditional threat to Armenia”, the expert said, reminding that Turkey did similar accumulations also during the first Karabakh war.

Asked whether Turkey’s these actions would lead to concrete military operations, Ruben Melkonyan said starting direct military operations against Armenia doesn’t mean Armenian-Turkish war only, it means Russian-Turkish war, CSTO-Turkey war, CSTO-NATO war. “I think that the Turkish genocidal authorities clearly understand and calculate well that launching direct military actions against Armenia will be a war against Russia. And the current developments allow to assume that the Turkish-Russian relations have not yet reached the degree of tension which could lead to a direct war”, he said.

The expert, however, stated that Turkey itself is an unconstructive, aggressive state, therefore, nothing can be ruled out. But according to him, Turkey’s actions now contain attributes of a political message and demonstration of power.

Editing and Translating by Aneta Harutyunyan

[Yervant1]

MSN.com

Nov 18 2020

Patriots coach Belichick calls on US to take action against Turkey and Azerbaijan for attacks on Armenians

New England Patriots head coach Bill Belichick called for U.S. action on behalf of Armenia in ongoing clashes along its border with Azerbaijan.

Reporters at Belichick's Wednesday morning press conference asked him for his reaction to a memo from acting Defense Secretary Christopher Miller invoking the coach's "Do Your Job" slogan. Miller had added to military personnel, "We are a team, and that should be our mindset."

"Well, I really appreciate the kind words from Secretary Miller," Belichick said in the video call, according to CBS Boston. "When you consider the type of leadership that he's shown throughout his career serving our country, it really means a lot. I'm flattered by the reference that he made."

"I'll just say, while we're on the subject, I read his point about combating traditional threats. And I couldn't help but think and hope that we've seen from other countries around the world, and I hope that our country will take action against Turkey and Azerbaijan for their unprovoked and deadly attacks on Armenians," Belichick continued. "We've seen that when a humanitarian crisis and things like that, like ethnic cleaning, go unpunished, that they just continue to happen. I hope that we can put a stop to that."

Belichick has weighed in on Armenian politics before, making similar comments in a video posted to Patriots director of football Berj Najarian's Instagram profile in October.

Nejarian himself has long spoken out on issues relating to Armenia and has urged the U.S. to recognize the killing of 1.5 million Armenians by Ottoman Turks as a genocide despite pressure from Turkey to not use the designation. Nejarian said he directly pressed then-President Obama on the matter when the team visited the White House in 2015.

The Boston area has one of the country's largest concentrations of Armenian immigrants and their descendants, with about 50,000, according to the Armenian Diaspora Survey, which tracks Armenian communities.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/patriots-coach-belichick-calls-on-us-to-take-action-against-turkey-and-azerbaijan-for-attacks-on-armenians/ar-BB1b8pLK?ocid=opal0003&fbclid=IwAR0ejK8URTVlCCEfwysZ_1H709ZlhpJ5HZTSyFpa4HSrj1tNazKDG5K-yoQ

[Yervant1]

Fox 11 Los Angeles

Nov 18 2020

Exclusive: Eric Hacopian breaks down war between Armenia and Azerbaijan

By Araksya Karapetyan

Published 4 hours ago

FOX 11

Exclusive interview with Eric Hacopian

American political consultant Eric Hacopian who now lives in Armenia, explains why the war wasn’t immediately stopped by world powers and contextualized what happened.

LOS ANGELES - It’s been over a week since a ceasefire agreement was signed between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia— bringing in Russian peacekeepers for the next five years into the region.

There are a lot of unknowns about the agreement including what happens when the five years are up.

RELATED: Armenia, Azerbaijan agree to end fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh

American political consultant Eric Hacopian who now lives in Armenia, explains why the war wasn’t immediately stopped by world powers and contextualized what happened — and why it happened this way.

RELATED: Click here for more coverage of the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan

In an exclusive interview with FOX 11’s Araskya Karapetyan, Hacopian provides historical insight on the war between Armenia and Azerbaijan, how this war was unlike any other, the war crimes committed, the recent ceasefire, the political chess match in the Caucasus, why there was a lack of international involvement, why it is important to recognize Artsakh, and his message to the Armenian Diaspora— among other things.

Full interview with Eric Hacopian

FOX 11's Araksya Karapetyan sits down with Eric Hacopian a week after the ceasefire agreement was signed between Armenia, Azerbaijan and Russia— bringing in Russian peacekeepers for the next five years into the region.

Hacopian is a 30-year veteran of American politics, having worked on local and presently campaigns over the years. Hacopian has his own political consulting firm— EDH & Associates, a Southern California-based firm.

https://www.foxla.com/news/exclusive-eric-hacopian-breaks-down-war-between-armenia-and-azerbaijan