The events in Karabakh in early April cannot be called a war yet. However, a war cannot be ruled out, because Azerbaijan has lost or almost lost a hope for a peaceful settlement of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. After another escalation of the conflict, such words as ‘There is no alternative to a peaceful settlement’ cause different emotions – fury or sarcasm. Such outdated statements evoke a rhetorical question: “Are there conflicts which must be settled by force?” It seems there are!
Do Azerbaijanis want a war?
A peaceful settlement of any conflict is possible when the international community not only clarifies who the victim is and who is the guilty one, but also defines what place each of them deserves. On the other hand, the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is a different story, as the international community is trying to find ‘the guilty’ party for destabilizing the situation, when the guilty one was found and convicted 25 years ago. Due to incredible efforts, Azerbaijan achieved adoption of four resolutions by the UN Security Council in 1993. Each of them separately confirmed occupation of the Azerbaijani territory, i.e. the mountainous part of Karabakh and seven neighboring regions, by Armenian troops. Each of the resolutions demands from Armenia to immediately withdraw its troops from the occupied Azerbaijani lands and return the territory under full jurisdiction of Azerbaijan. It should be noted that the UN Security Council resolution is an imperative documents which requires immediate implementation.
Unfortunately, we could see that in reality over 23 years after the adoption of the documents, Armenia had not withdrawn its troops from occupied Karabakh, instead it had turned this beautiful place into a fortified zone. But the Armenian defenses came apart at the seams during the successful counterattack of the Azerbaijani army on April 2-4.
The countries which recognize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan still hesitate during the negotiating process and take their time to fulfill the UN basic principles. In other words, one the one hand the countries admit the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan in words, but on the other, speak about the right of a nation to self-determination at meetings in Yerevan and Khankendi (Stepanakert). We often hear about the right of a nation to self-determination in PACE, the US Senate, the State Duma, and other stages of international politics, even though leaders of these countries signed long ago the document which clearly stated that Karabakh belonged to Azerbaijan. We have been witnessing these double standards for over 25 years, while the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict remains unsettled.
Only Azerbaijan speaks about the need to make Armenia a subject of enforcement of peace. This call is met with silence or even mockery in other countries. Such an indifferent attitude to the conflict, a ‘hide-and-seek’ game, and hypocrisy had to result in an escalation and tension. And it did! The four-day fighting in early April does not mean that Azerbaijan wants a war, but a result of a passive position on the part of those who are supposed to find a peaceful resolution to the conflict or at least demonstrate a political willingness to do so. And the conflict can explode again at any moment, till the work of the peacemaking countries brings fruits.
An ‘aggressor’ within its own borders?
From the very beginning of the counterattack of the Azerbaijani armed forces at the Contact Line, all Armenian and some international media called it an aggression. That is, the sovereign right of Azerbaijan or any other country, which is protected by the UN charter, to restore its territorial integrity by military means, seemed an aggression to some journalists.
The approach resembles the recent statement by the ex-Premier of Ukraine, Arseniy Yatsenyuk, about an assault of the Red Army on Germany. The Ukrainian politician presented liberation of Europe from the Nazism as an occupation of Germany. Of course, such irresponsible and immoral statements caused natural indignation. The position of those who speak of Armenia as a victim and Azerbaijan as an aggressor evoke the same feelings. Many call such position highly biased and urge people to study history.
The Azerbaijani army didn’t attack the capital of Armenia or even border areas of the aggressor-country. The Armed Forces of Azerbaijan didn’t cross the Armenian-Azerbaijani border. They were fighting on their own territory, inside the country. Unfortunately, shells, howitzers, and probably, heavier lethal weapons which are used for liberation of the country from the occupation will burn the Azerbaijani land in the future. The land that will be cleaned up and put in order after the victory. Alas, the hesitation and the peace seeking that have been going on for so long, leave Azerbaijan no alternative, but a war.
Has there been a Turkish factor?
Today talk is often heard concerning the calls by Turkish President Erdogan, Prime Minister Davutoglu, Foreign Minister Cavusoglu and Azerbaijani President Aliyev on the threshold of the operations in Karabakh. At the same time many people forget that, since the day of the beginning of the conflict, Turkey has supported Azerbaijan only with the help of documents and a resolution expressing its concern, in comparison with many other countries. It was consistent in its demands that Armenia return the occupied territories. As for the contacts between Azerbaijan and Turkey, they were just a demonstration of solidarity.
The Baku authorities have repeatedly noted that they do not negotiate for the sake of negotiating, and urged members of the OSCE Minsk Group to force Armenia to make peace. Some figures didn’t like the frequent visits of some Turkish leaders to Azerbaijan. A lot of people thought that those contacts were associated with the deterioration of relations between Russia and Turkey. After the counter-offensive operation by the Azerbaijani army, the same 'political scientists' linked those visits to the Syrian crisis, beginning to consider the escalation by Turkey as a provocation against Russia. The accusations against Turkey in this conflict were groundless.
Firstly, the aggravation of relations between Moscow and Ankara is considered by Armenians as the realization of a long-standing dream. Accordingly, the escalation in Karabakh is a good reason to create an enemy image of Turkey in alliance with Azerbaijan in the form of a counterweight to the Armenian-Russian alliance, which is consistent with the plans of the Armenian diaspora.
Secondly, some political analysts have blamed Turkey, relying on the formation of Armenia's image as a patriotic and ardent defender of the interests of Russia, as the State Duma elections are to take place soon. But the piquancy of the situation is that it will take place not due to the Kremlin’s initiative, but the personal interests of 'politicians' and 'journalists'.
Accusing the Turkish special forces of failure is not beneath criticism, and Armenian military leaders cannot produce any physical evidence. They have only statements of fact that Azerbaijanis train Turkish 'red berets'. Azerbaijan has never hidden its military cooperation with Turkey and Russia. Don’t Russian instructors work in the Azerbaijani air defense? It is quite natural that the country that produces S-300 missile systems trains those who have purchased these kinds of weapons. By the way, not only Turkey, but also other countries, including Pakistan, express full support for the position of Azerbaijan. However, for some reason patriots and dishonorable journalists stay silent about the support of these countries. Maybe the buzz around this topic doesn't pay?
Economics is beside the point
According to the logic of its opponents, Baku took this step because of the economic crisis. The support by so-called Russian patriots for this thesis is also surprising. If they are correct, does this mean that the participation of the Russian Air Forces in Syria is also due to the crisis? Has the protection of Russian interests in Ukraine had any economic goals? If we speak about the socio-economic situation in Karabakh, and we compare it with other regions of Azerbaijan, there is complete devastation, which is reminiscent of Stalingrad. Shusha, Aghdam, Fuzuli and other regions of Karabakh, occupied by Armenia's occupying corps for 25 years, have been destroyed. But there are also unseized parts of Aghdam, Fuzuli and other front-line areas with infrastructure, salaries, social benefits and, most importantly, villages with their residents. In this case, the question is where and how the crisis influenced Azerbaijan if the country doesn’t abandon the projects of recovery and the procurement of expensive weapons? The crisis seized Armenia and the status quo is beneficial for it. Azerbaijan earns oil dollars and invests them in the country's infrastructure. But the most interesting question is where is the money sent by the Armenian diaspora to protect Karabakh?
And the last thing
It is clear to everyone that the mission of mediation has finally stalled, and it doesn’t require any special comments. It is vulgar to blame the victim of the aggression in this case. If the peace process continues in this way, then the events that took place at the beginning of April will be repeated. Then the war may become widespread. Its center will be Khankendi and Shusha, not Fuzuli, Martakert or the small village of Talysh with a population of 30 people.
