In a recent discussion on Noyan Tapan, analyst Andrias Ghukasyan, the chairman of the Armenian Constructive Party, highlighted critical issues surrounding Armenia's defense. Ghukasyan emphasizes that recent casualties are not isolated incidents but stem from the inadequacy of our frontline positions and the overall defense system. He consistently advocates for the Republic of Armenia to construct defense regions along the line of contact with Azerbaijan, comprising robust iron-concrete structures. Despite his repeated emphasis on this need, the existing problem persists, prompting him to call upon citizens to actively promote this demand. This extends to disseminating materials and even writing letters to military leadership, urging them to prioritize the establishment of these defense zones.

 

Presently, there is a social outcry for the creation of effective defense zones along the Azerbaijani border. However, the current strategic focus, labeled as the "peace agenda" by the general authorities, neglects the crucial preparations needed for these defense regions. This oversight becomes a pressing issue as our soldiers face harm due to the absence of these essential defense zones. Recognizing the difficulty some may have in comprehending this concept, he deems it necessary to elaborate on the importance of defense zones. Fundamentally, a trench serves as a protective pit where a soldier can seek refuge from debris and shock waves in the event of an explosion on the trench's side—an essential but minimal defense measure in contemporary military operations.

Closing trenches with concrete slabs is imperative due to the threat posed by enemy missiles, especially those from volley systems, which can shower fragments into open trenches, causing harm to soldiers. Considering the increased use of drones in modern warfare, it becomes apparent, especially post the 2020 war, that leaving trenches exposed to the open sky is not a viable option. Protecting soldiers from potential sniper attacks while in combat positions within the trench necessitates the coverage of trenches with concrete slabs.

 

Each regiment, comprising approximately 30 primary positions, involves trenches accommodating 7-8 squads with a length of 100 meters, serving as firing positions. This is an extensive industrial undertaking, requiring state planning to calculate the number of positions, determine the necessary meters, design slabs, and place orders. Despite the presence of cement and concrete factories in Armenia and considerable interest from potential workers, the realization of this essential defense project faces stagnation.

 

Drawing examples from global military practices, such as Hamas going underground or how Russia and Ukraine have organized their positions, underscores the feasibility and importance of implementing such defense programs. However, the current leadership in Armenia pursues a divergent policy, evident in actions like removing Mount Ararat from national symbols and altering historical narratives. This shift in focus hampers motivation within the military sector to protect the country, as the emphasis on alternative agendas undermines the critical need for fortified defense regions.

The predicament of protecting Artsakh, acknowledged by Armenia as part of Azerbaijan, raises concerns about the government's stance aligning with perceived enemy demands outlined in the constitution. This situation, akin to a hybrid war, employs psychological tactics to diminish public and army resistance. Despite clear questions posed by the representative of the Collective West to Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, his evasive responses regarding potential attacks from Azerbaijan, lack of Russian Federation support, and refusal of Western military aid contribute to the uncertainty surrounding Armenia's preparedness for conflict.

 

The public, influenced by this psychological warfare, faces a notable drop in resistance, fostering a perception of individual powerlessness. Recognizing the gravity of this situation, there is a call for people to disseminate and support a proposed plan, urging a collective effort to address the challenges.

 

Pashinyan's ambiguous answers to crucial questions leave room for assumptions, creating an air of uncertainty regarding the government's readiness for potential conflict. The refusal of Western military aid, while understandable from a geopolitical perspective, raises questions about Armenia's strategy and potential consequences.

 

The geopolitical implications are clear: the West opposes Azerbaijan attacking Armenia, understanding that such an event could lead to Russian intervention, potentially compromising Armenia's independence. The prospect of joining a union state underscores the high-stakes nature of the situation and the need for a transparent and strategic approach to safeguard Armenia's future as an independent nation.

The imminent threat of war, dependent on Ilham Aliyev's decisions, underscores the fragility of the current situation, necessitating logical and collective actions by the public. Supporting the distribution of materials that address crucial issues becomes a vital step in shaping public opinion and influencing political decisions, particularly in the context of potential conflict.

 

In the narrative, the army emerges as a vulnerable entity, with middle-level military leadership facing grim possibilities in the event of an Azerbaijani attack—either being casualties or becoming subjects of subsequent judgment, depending on governmental determinations. Drawing parallels to the aftermath of the 2020 war, where numerous individuals, including officers and leaders, were accused, highlights the pivotal role of society.

 

Reflecting on historical instances, such as the lifting of the ban on the term "genocide" in Armenia in 1965, emphasizes the significance of public activism. The people's rebellion against prohibitions ultimately led to denazification in Soviet Armenia, showcasing the undeniable impact of collective action on government policies.

 

In the present context, denazification involves recognizing Artsakh as part of Azerbaijan, renouncing the term "genocide," preserving it in the collective memory while removing it from the political agenda. This nuanced approach aligns with the notion that societal involvement is pivotal in shaping the trajectory of the nation and influencing governmental decisions during challenging times.

 

The interconnection between actions such as revising history, diminishing the role of the church, severing ties with the Diaspora, and questioning Mount Ararat's significance is perceived as a deliberate effort to influence the identity of Armenians. Stripping away national common problems and symbols aims to create a society devoid of national pride and dignity, essentially demoralizing the people through psychological tactics, orchestrated by external forces. This manipulation of identity is seen as a means to coerce Armenians into accepting illegal demands, eroding their resistance to perceived enemy pressures.

 

Andrias Ghukasyan raises a critical question regarding the defense of the country, emphasizing it as a collective responsibility. He draws an analogy, likening it to owning a house without a fence. In this scenario, if advised to construct a fence for security, refusing to do so risks potential harm. Ghukasyan points out the concerning perception within a significant portion of the public, suggesting that the mere act of building a defensive barrier might provoke aggression. The prevailing sentiment seems to hinge on the hope that abstaining from fortifying defenses will deter potential attacks. This analogy underscores the delicate balance between proactive defense and the fear of escalating tensions.

 

The geopolitical strategy of Russia, seemingly encouraging Nikol Pashinyan's engagements with Europe, becomes a subject of scrutiny. While Russia may not explicitly prevent these interactions, allowing Pashinyan to speak in Brussels is seen as a tactic to later blame him for seeking Western support, possibly in the form of armored vehicles from France. This strategic move by Russia is speculated to create a narrative where external alliances are used as scapegoats for challenges, akin to the situation with Artsakh.

 

In conclusion, Andrias Ghukasyan, the analyst and chairman of the Armenian Constructive Party, paints a dire picture of Armenia's current defense vulnerabilities and the potential repercussions of geopolitical decisions. The urgent need to fortify the nation's defense zones with concrete slabs is underscored, reflecting not just a military concern but a broader societal issue. 

 

 

  -   Politics