Köhnə versiya

Latest news

Son buraxılış

More than one month have passed over Tovuz clashes...

Why did the aggressor Armenia change its tactics of aggression against Azerbaijan on July 12, 2020?

On July 12, Aggressor Armenian armed forces fired artillery at Azerbaijani positions in the Tovuz region of the Azerbaijani-Armenian border, as well as in the direction of Shahbuz and Julfa regions, violating the ceasefire. Undoubtedly, the military and moral courage of soldiers and officers of the Azerbaijani National Army prevented another attack of the enemy, and a number of enemy battle-fronts were destroyed. The question arises: why Armenia carried out this provocation not on the border with Nagorno-Karabakh, but on the Azerbaijani-Armenian border? First of all, one of the main reasons is is the principle of "new territories in a new war" uttered by Tonoyan, the current Minister of Defense of the Pashinyan regime at a meeting with representatives of the Armenian lobby in New York a few hours after the meeting of President Ilham Aliyev with Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan on March 30, 2019 that eventually failed.Why did the aggressor Armenia change its tactics of aggression against Azerbaijan on July 12, 2020?

On the other hand, as a result of more than 30 years of negotiations, the official position of both the OSCE Minsk Group and Russia is to liberate 5 regions around Nagorno-Karabakh in the first stage and 2 regions in the next stage and choose a step-by-step solution. Roughly 4 months ago, on April 21, during an online roundtable organized by the A.M.Gorchakov Foundation for Support of People's Diplomacy, the question was addressed to Sergey Lavrov, MFA of Russian Federation on “which steps should be taken by the world community to implement UN Security Council resolutions on the resolution of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagorno-Karabakh?”  Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov answered the question as follows:

"These resolutions are known documents. They were adopted at the height of the hostilities and, above all, meant the transition to a complete cessation and settlement of hostilities. Yes, they affirmed the territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan, but there was also a demand to stop the war and continue negotiations ... "

Lavrov said it was a "useful and good" format that embodied the UN Security Council's call to end the war and start negotiations. ...

At the end of his speech, referring to other documents, Lavrov said:

“These documents are "Madrid Principles", as well as a document prepared by the Russian Federation in 2010-2011 called the "Kazan Document". A year ago (in April last year) in Moscow with the participation of co-chairs, Russia, there are projects announced at the meeting of the Armenian and Azerbaijani foreign ministers. They are now being actively discussed. These documents are aimed at resolving the most pressing issues - the liberation of a number of regions around Nagorno-Karabakh and the lifting of the blockade of transport, economic and other communications. I am confident that the decision to sign these documents will be a major step in the implementation of UN Security Council resolutions, and I repeat, they require an end to the war and the start of negotiations. They started negotiations. Now you have to agree. We, as co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group, want to achieve this. "

Of course, the position of the Russian Foreign Minister also demonstrates Russia's position in resolving the conflict and reveals the true nature of the negotiation process. Even the Russian official said, “Negotiations have begun. We have to agree now." His statement was a decisive message to the Pashinyan regime. Although the Pashinyan regime agrees with all this at the negotiating table and when he is back to Armenia, Pashinyan demonstrates completely different position in front of the Armenian people and always considers it expedient only if Azerbaijan agrees to mutual concessions and recognizes the right of the "Nagorno-Karabakh people" to self-determination. In this sense, we can say that the

Pashinyan regime is in a desperate situation under the influence of the international community.

Surely, in this dilemma, the Pashinyan regime has two options: either to liberate 5 regions from occupation in accordance with the format of international law and the negotiation process, to sit at the peace agreement table, or to unilaterally withdraw from the talks, unilaterally violating the negotiation process.

Naturally, in accordance with the centuries-old Armenian ideology, the Pashinyan regime chose the second option and attacked state border of Azerbaijan in the direction of Tovuz and Nakhchivan. The question may arise as to why the Pashinyan regime, supported by the Armenian lobby, was chosen to attack Tovuz and Nakhchivan, and in July 2020? Why did the Pashinyan regime think this step would be successful?

To understand why, if we have to take a tour in history, we will find answers to many questions. The answers to these questions were reflected in the official correspondence between the Bolshevik leadership in June and July 1920, after the collapse of Azerbaijan Democratic Republic 100 years ago. Thus, on June 19, 1920, from Vladikavkaz, G.K. Orjonikidze, the emergency commissioner for the southern region of the RSFSR, telegrammed to Lenin, Chairman of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR, and Chicherin, People's Commissar for Foreign Affairs: “Azerbaijan claims the Karabakh, Zangazur, Nakhchivan and Sharur-Daralayaz uezds. Soviet power was established in Karabakh and Zangazur, and the above-mentioned territories consider themselves part of the Azerbaijani Soviet Republic. At that time, Nakhchivan was in the hands of Muslim rebels for several months. (Azerbaijanis supported by Turkey) I have no information about Sharur-Daralayaz accident. Azerbaijan cannot dispense without Karabakh and Zangazur. In general, in my opinion, the Azerbaijani representative should be summoned to Moscow and all issues related to Azerbaijan and Armenia should be resolved there. This must be done before concluding an agreement with Armenia. "(State Archives of the Russian Federation, GARF, p. 130, op.4,d.603, p.206,).

Apparently, Moscow authorizes Kirov, a member of the Caucasus Bureau of the Central Committee of the RK (b) P, to resolve the issue on the spot, and in this connection a conference was organized in Gazakh district and instructed to resolve territorial issues between the two countries:

From a telegram sent by Kirov from Tbilisi (Tbilisi) to Chicherin on July 6, 1920: “Armenian regular units are attacking the Nakhchivan region and the Kazakh region. Azerbaijan strongly protested. Stop all attacks immediately. Through my mediation, an agreement was reached between the Armenians and Azerbaijan on June 12 to convene a conference in Kazakh in the coming days to resolve all disputes between Azerbaijan and Armenia. Now this agreement has been failed... "(State Archives of the Russian Federation, GARF f. 130, op.4, d.603, l.206).

Precisely, at the expected Kazakh conference, the decision to keep Zangazur and Karabakh within Azerbaijani SSR was leaked to Armenian Dashnaks from Moscow. And that was also major concern of nazy-dashnak Garegin Nzhdeh that Soviets will leave Zangazur within Azerbaijan SSR and that was the reason he fought against Soviets. Subsequently, Armenians started attacks to the direction of Azerbaijan. As a result, the Dashnak Armenians did not give up their territorial claims to Zangazur and Karabakh and even occupied the Dilijan and Ijevan parts of the Gazakh district that eventually disrupted the conference in Kazakh by continuing their attacks on the Nakhchivan region and the Kazakh district, and continued their efforts to separate Zangazur and Karabakh from Azerbaijan. However, on December 2, 1920, under the influence of the Dashnak Armenians, the Soviet government retained the Karabakh region as part of Azerbaijan, but turned a blind eye to the annexation of the Zangazur and Dilijan, Icevan districts of Kazakh uyezd to Azerbaijan.

Consequently, today's Armenia tried to disrupt the negotiation process again with the same scenario that considered to be successful 100 years ago. However, Armenia had forgotten two points. First, unlike then, today`s Azerbaijan, under the leadership of President Ilham Aliyev, modern Azerbaijan makes own decisions about his fate and destiny independently. Secondly, Azerbaijan has sufficient military potential and political will to restore its territorial integrity both peacefully and militarily.

Board member of NAP Youth of Nasimi District, Parliamentary assistant

21 August 2020 10:48 -

Köhnə versiyamızdan xəbərləri izlə