Referring to the agreement about reached ceasefire agreement on April 5 in Moscow, the political analyst noted: “I do not think that the reached agreement about ceasefire can be long-lasting and robust. Azerbaijani side did not aim to start a large-scale war or to occupy Stepanakert. Their goal was to break the stereotype of defeater lasting 22 years, to show that they also can fight and demonstrate it on TV. In the 21-st century the war is won not only and not as much on the battlefield as “on TV”.
He added that, this was the reason why on the second day Baku expressed its readiness to cease fire unilaterally.
“The fact that the meeting took place in Moscow demonstrates to me the role of Russia in this issue,” stated another member of discussion, the expert of the Armenian Center for Democracy, Security and the Development, Marta Ayvazyan. According to her “The ceasefire cannot be reached until the interests and the gains are not satisfied and in this case Russia was the initiator of the latest clashes”.
“Certainly Azerbaijan has its own interests as well, however, Russia’s interests are also vivid for me. If for the Azerbaijani side those actions had some internal impact, Russia’s objective was the deployment of Russian peacekeepers on the territory of the NKR; however they failed to reach their goal mainly due to the response from the Armenian side. Thus, until Russia did not reach its goal, similar incidents might take place,” concluded the speaker.
According to the assessment of the founder of the Armenian Institute for International and Security Affairs, Styopa Safaryan, the situation has reached the level, when Azerbaijan cannot make steps forward; moreover it has even lost what had been achieved on April 2.
“It is not accidental that Azerbaijan declared unilateral ceasefire on April 3, since it aimed to keep the occupied villages, such as Talish and Seysulan, while the Armenian side did not intend to counterattack”.
Mentioning the goals set by Azerbaijan, Safaryan noted: “It is important to know whether the Azerbaijani side is satisfied with the objectives achieved that underlay behind the start of the escalation. Azerbaijan had a desire to get rid of the 1994 agreement, where, in fact, the Nagorno-Karabakh is one of the parties. However, it is very dangerous. If a new agreement is on ceasefire it is useless, since the ceasefire agreement is already signed; it only needs to be maintained. If the agreement is on non-use of force, it’s a completely different issue which needs to be resolved by the OSCE Minsk Group rather than in Moscow”.
A MP of the NKR, the head of the “National Renaissance” party, Hayk Khanumyan also joined the discussion via video call and stated that Artsakh did not take part in the agreement reached in Moscow and NKR Defense Army is not obliged to comply with the terms of this agreement.
“During 1992-1994 years, dozens of ceasefire agreements were reached. I do not trust much the reached ceasefire agreement. It is just an oral agreement that will at least enable the parties to take a breath and reorganize themselves”.
He also added that the information regarding the occupation of Seysulan by the Azerbaijani side does not correspond to reality. “Nothing has changed in regards with Seysulan. Although in Talish we lost some positions at the beginning, however Talish has never been under Azerbaijani control. Most of the positions in Talish are returned and the enemy is thrown away” pointed out the MP of NKR.
Hayk Khanumyan also stressed that Azerbaijan failed exclusively thanks to self-sacrifice and devotion of our soldiers and officers. “However, we faced serious technological difficulties and have had many casualties due to unmanned aerial vehicles. This experience demonstrates that the military technology of our Defense Army is pretty weak.
And Serzh Sargsyan's confession in Berlin shows that those people who hinder the technological modernization of our army must leave the army leadership. Neither Yuri Khachaturov nor Seyran Ohanyan does not meet the needed requirements Today's military modernization obstacles, inaction are associated at least with these two persons. These two persons should leave the army and the new leaders must lead the army through technologically developed path,” added Khanumyan.
Arshaluys Mghdesyan, editor/events coordinator at “Media Center”
To contact the author please send an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.