A Russian-Azerbaijani special operation in Armenia? The response of the military police should also be investigated
22-02-2024 12:23:24 | Armenia | Politics
In a thought-provoking discussion hosted by Noyan Tapan, renowned analyst Hovsep Khurshudyan serves as the distinguished guest. The backdrop for this interview is the recently concluded Munich Security Conference (MSC), where key figures such as Nikol Pashinyan, Aliyev, and our foreign minister, and the foreign minister of Azerbaijan in attendance. Against the backdrop of this forum, it's crucial to examine recent events, specifically the tragic incident a few days prior – the killing of Armenian servicemen by Azerbaijan. Azerbaijan alleges provocation by Armenia, framing their actions as preventing a major escalation attempt.
Recalling the Security Council meeting on the Karabakh issue, scheduled for September 21 and 19, the focus shifted to Azerbaijan's labeled "anti-terrorist activity." The claim made in the Security Council insinuates negative actions by Armenians in Artsakh.
The pivotal question arises: Does the West align with Azerbaijan's stance, accepting their narrative? Unquestionably, the West does not endorse Azerbaijan's perspective. No Western entity, apart from Russia, acknowledges the deportation of ethnic Armenians and civilian murders as an anti-terrorist operation. Russia consistently advocates for Azerbaijan, echoing the sentiments of Aliyev and his team.
Notably, Pashinyan's significant meeting with the Prime Minister of Kosovo at the The Munich Security Conference stands out. This strategic engagement, given the strained relations between Kosovo and Armenia, emphasizes the complexity of regional dynamics. Understanding Albania's affinity with Azerbaijan-Turkey and Kosovo's chilly relations with Armenia adds depth to the geopolitical landscape.
A poignant message emerges from Armenia and the West – the organized ethnic cleansing by Azerbaijan in Artsakh doesn't close the issue, drawing parallels with the Serbs' actions in Kosovo. This joint message signals a united front in addressing the ongoing challenges surrounding the Artsakh conflict.
Adding to the discussion, analyst Hovsep Khurshudyan points out the convergence of messages on the same day. The statement from the United States representative to the EAEU/ODIHR supports the view that elections in Azerbaijan were not free and fair, with various violations. Interestingly, despite the protocol dictating congratulations only after the official entry into force, the United States has refrained from congratulating Aliyev, underscoring the nuanced diplomatic landscape where strength often prevails over correctness and Western humanitarian values.
During the Munich conference, negotiations between an Italian military-industrial enterprise and Bayramov regarding weapon production for Azerbaijan come into focus. Khurshudyan suggests leveraging ties with France and Germany to pressure Italy against supplying weapons, echoing the U.S. approach of applying sanctions on military supplies. While Resolution 907 is acknowledged, Khurshudyan proposes additional technological sanctions on Azerbaijan for dual-use technologies or military technology supplied to Israel.
Commenting on Borel's statement about Azerbaijan's inadequate response, Khurshudyan raises a critical point. The swift acceptance of blame by the Armenian military police, without a thorough investigation, prompts speculation. It is posited that this could be part of a Russian-Azerbaijani operation, where Russians might have influenced Armenians to shoot, exploiting the absence of European observers and potentially encouraging, leading to an unintended escalation. This underscores the complexity and potential manipulation of events in the region.
Khurshudyan continues to emphasize the need for a thorough investigation into the statements made by the Armenian military police. The lack of clarity surrounding the sequence of events, the party responsible for initiating the incident, and potential instigators necessitates careful examination. Khurshudyan raises the possibility of Russian involvement, suggesting that Russians, possibly acting under an agreement with Azerbaijan, may have influenced the situation.
Expressing concern over Azerbaijan's demands for explanations, Khurshudyan underscores the unsettling issue of mercenaries in Armenian border positions, particularly Yerkrapah volunteers among the casualties. He rejects the classification of Armenian units working in cooperation with the state as mercenaries, asserting that Yerkrapah is a legitimate military structure within the Ministry of Defense. Internal affairs, he argues, should not be subject to Azerbaijani interference, emphasizing the inappropriateness of external officials or experts intervening.
In summary, Khurshudyan contends that Azerbaijan's demands and the characterization of the situation as a Russian-Azerbaijani special operation lack merit, urging a nuanced understanding and cautious approach to unraveling the complexities surrounding the recent events.
In reference to Azerbaijan, Khurshudyan draws parallels with Ukraine's Territorial Defense model. He points out that Azerbaijan's utilization of local individuals in their territory, providing them with payment, weapons, instructions, and orders for defense, does not categorize them as mercenaries or terrorists. This comparison serves to challenge any attempts by Azerbaijan to label Armenian units working within their state's cooperation as such.
Khurshudyan delves into the broader context, questioning the origin of the current situation and probing into Russia's role in the narrative. He suggests that Russia's influence over Armenia is diminishing, with economic sanctions losing their potency. While acknowledging the mutual impact of trade, he contends that stopping trade with Armenia would cause equal harm to both Russia and Armenia. However, he highlights a political component, asserting that Armenia might exit the EAEU after terminating trade, signaling the intricate balance between economic and political considerations in the region.
Khurshudyan underscores Russia's weakened leverage over Armenia, highlighting three key pitfalls. Firstly, he recalls a recent incident in December when Russia applied sanctions by closing Lars for a week and threatening to increase gas prices. In response, Armenia, viewing these actions as hindering rather than assisting, threatened to leave the EAEU. The sanctions were lifted, emphasizing Armenia's determination to navigate obstacles independently.
Secondly, Khurshudyan mentions the use of the Aliyev regime against Armenia as a leverage point, which has proven less effective, especially following the presence of European observers at the Armenian border.
The third lever involves Russia's influence on public opinion, executed through the so-called soft power. Khurshudyan points out the production of a controversial film, “The Boys Word”, which, according to some researches, has become highly popular among the youth. He raises concerns about the film instigating wrong morals and contributing to bullying in schools.
In conclusion, Chairman of "Free Citizen" NGO and analyst Hovsep Khurshudyan provides a comprehensive analysis of the current geopolitical dynamics involving Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Russia. Khurshudyan dismisses the idea that the West supports Azerbaijan's perspective, asserting that only Russia aligns with Azerbaijan's narrative.
In essence, Khurshudyan presents a nuanced perspective on the multifaceted challenges Armenia faces, emphasizing the importance of careful examination, diplomatic finesse, and a nuanced understanding of regional dynamics in navigating the intricate geopolitical landscape.
ENGLISH 
Հայերեն
Русский
Դաս. հայերեն
French
