BREAKTHROUGH

The April escalation of the Armenian-Azerbaijani Nagornyy Karabakh conflict overshadowed even a major nuclear summit that took place in Washington in those days, not to mention the fact that from the point of view of international attention, Syria, Ukraine, Turkey, Russia and even the ill-fated flow of refugees to Europe remained in the shadow of Karabakh. And despite the fact that the fierce fighting in Karabakh ended on 5 April, the information battle on the front pages of the world press continues to this day. Someone is looking for the culprit of what is happening, someone else is analyzing the lessons of what happened. What will be the future course of events? Let's try to understand.

Breakthrough

Thus, the Armenian provocations, which have become commonplace in the 22 years of truce, escalated into fierce fighting this time and eventually resulted in the Armenian side losing control over part of the territory they occupied in the distant 1990s. Azerbaijan retook the strategically important heights around the village of Talis, the village of Seysulan in Tartar District and the Lalatapa height in the direction of Fuzuli and Cabrayil districts. Thus, the Azerbaijani armed forces came close to the occupied cities of Fuzuli, Cabrayil and Agdara, ensuring, as a minimum, control over the actions of the enemy in these areas and at the same time, protecting the population of the frontline villages of Goranboy, Tartar and Fuzuli districts from regular attacks carried out by Armenians from these heights.

Of course, there were major losses: dozens of dead and wounded from the Azerbaijani side and more than 200 dead and several hundred injured - from the Armenian side; 1 tank and 1 helicopter from the Azerbaijani side, and dozens of tanks, armoured vehicles and artillery units from the Armenian side. On both sides there are victims among the civilian population. And all this was perhaps the first hottest lesson of the unprecedented aggravation of the situation in Karabakh over the years of truce.

The rapid offensive of Azerbaijan revealed the great backwardness of the Armenian army. By the way, in these days the American research centre Global Fire Power announced the list of the most powerful armies in the world in 2016. On the list of the first one hundred countries, the Azerbaijani Armed Forces ranked 60th and Armenian - 94th.

Three days were enough for Azerbaijani soldiers to chase the fleeing Armenian provocateurs and break the vaunted "line of defence of Seyran Ohanyan". "Azerbaijanis showed that they fully own the initiative on the battlefield - whenever they want, they advance the border and take base stations, and whenever they want - they leave. They demonstrated the use of very dangerous weapons such as TOS Solntsepek, from which fortifications do not protect. As a result, the Armenians had to retreat. And the use of certain other weapons such as Israeli attack drones was a total surprise because few people knew that the Azerbaijani army had them," Russian political analyst Andrey Yepifantsev says in the article "3:1 in favour of Azerbaijan" on the website of the Vzglyad newspaper.

There are no two wars alike

"The three-day war" showed that the point is not even so much about the most modern weapons as the goals and the approach of the parties to the war itself. If the Armenians hit schools, residential homes, substations and other civilian facilities, Azerbaijan destroyed with a crushing blow a command-staff point where there were Armenian generals.

If Armenian soldiers fled from the front, Azerbaijani youth, on the contrary, rushed to the front. It is also significant that the leadership of the Armed Forces of Azerbaijan refused the services of volunteers, whereas Armenian Internet resources showed footage of Armenian volunteers - participants in the first Karabakh war - being drafted into the army. But the patriotic show, or the operation code-named "Only Old Men Are Going to Battle" was fatal for the Armenian "Rambos". They were never destined to get to the point of stationing, as their bus travelling from Syunik was rammed by an Azerbaijani suicide drone in the occupied territory.

The gap between the Azerbaijani and Armenian perceptions of the war in Karabakh made itself known even after the cessation of hostilities. If the Azerbaijani public demanded that the successful offensive continue, in Armenia protests by parents who do not want to send their sons to serve in a foreign, according to their own admission, land became louder and louder. In recent years, a whole movement called Soldiers' Mothers, who periodically object to their sons' service in the occupied territories of Azerbaijan, has formed on this basis in Armenia.

The mood of Armenian society is clearly conveyed by social networks, where people scold the Armenian authorities for the deaths of young people in the Azerbaijani land.

Armenia held hostage by Karabakh

It is not difficult to understand protesting Armenian citizens. Being hostage to the Karabakh clan that has seized power in the country, they are forced to send their children to die in a foreign land. This was confirmed by the death toll from the Armenian side during the recent fighting. Almost all of the soldiers fallen in Karabakh are conscripts from Armenia. And even after that, the Armenian side continues to lie to the world with enviable persistence that the Azerbaijani territories are occupied not by Armenia, but by some unrecognized entity in the mountainous part of Karabakh.

In this regard, the Azerbaijani political analyst Fuad Axundov highlighted Yerevan's intention to sign an agreement on mutual military assistance between Armenia and the "NKR": "Having provoked an aggravation of the situation on the front line with Azerbaijan, Armenia is trying again to present the Karabakh Armenians to the world as a party to the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. But Sargsyan is too late in giving the case a legitimate look and sense. The armed stage of the Karabakh conflict has been going on for more than 25 years, and the world has long realized that a small area with a population of little more than 100,000 is physically unable to occupy 20 per cent of the territory of a state with 9m people," Axundov told Interfax-Azerbaijan news agency.

Yerevan does not realize that it exposes itself with its own actions. But it would be half the trouble if Armenia was trying to mislead the world with its own forces. The lies about Azerbaijan fighting not Armenia, but the so-called "NKR defence army" became widely circulated around the world with the help of the Russian press. During these days, many Russian media outlets turned out to be more Armenian than the Armenians themselves. And it's not that Russia does not like Azerbaijan. On the contrary, the Russian leadership demonstrated an understanding of the position of Azerbaijan, to which we shall return. It is just that there are witch hunters, who, in order to keep up with the trend, seized the opportunity to blame everything on Turkey. Allegedly, Ankara is trying to kindle a fire on the southern borders of Russia through Azerbaijan.

However, according to their own logic, it is theoretically possible to say the opposite. The aggravation in Karabakh took place against the backdrop of the successful visit of President Ilham Aliyev to Washington and the apparent thaw in relations between Azerbaijan and the United States. Is it a reason to assume that the aggravation of the situation in Nagornyy Karabakh could be a "message" or "warning" from Moscow to Baku?

All the more so Russia has an incomparably more influence on Armenia than Turkey on Azerbaijan. We know from recent history that on orders from Moscow, Yerevan is ready to give up an agreement with the European Union at the last minute or, on the contrary, agree to sign an agreement with Turkey.

Azerbaijan has repeatedly demonstrated that its relations with fraternal Turkey are built on an equal basis. Even in the context of the conflict between Moscow and Ankara, Baku did not give up its balanced foreign policy and sacrifice relations with Russia for the sake of Turkey.

Armenian-style gratitude

Azerbaijan was not looking for perpetrators these days and continued to chase the enemy until the same Russia asked on behalf of Yerevan. But Armenia still remained dissatisfied with the position of Moscow and the CSTO. Serzh Sargsyan even complained about his strategic ally to German Chancellor Angela Merkel. He complained about Russian arms sales to Azerbaijan. But it is clear that he was offended because of a completely different matter.

At the same time, Sargsyan forgot that neither Russia nor the CSTO can openly take the side of Armenia in this conflict, as Baku, unlike Yerevan, is waging a war in its own lands. And what does the CSTO have to do with this if Sargsyan himself claims that the war with Azerbaijan is being waged not by Armenia but by the "NKR"? The latter is not a member of this military bloc.

Yerevan apparently hoped that by provoking violence in the conflict zone, they will be able to move the skirmishes to the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, which will then make it possible to involve the CSTO in their adventure. With the successful implementation of this idea, it could attract greater attention of the world community to the danger of a liberation war by Azerbaijan, which would be followed by condemnations and calls for restraint. However, it is a typical method for Armenians. "Once there is some progress in the negotiations, Armenia tries to break it in various ways. This is evidenced by examples from recent history," Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev said, noting that in 2014, immediately after a successful meeting in Paris on the initiative of French President Francois Hollande, Armenia initiated large-scale exercises in the occupied territories, during which an Armenian military helicopter was shot down in the Azerbaijani sky. That is to say Sargsyan is doing everything to prevent the progress of the negotiations and maintain the status quo in the conflict zone, and therefore, the power of the Karabakh clan in Armenia. But the recent events have created a new situation around the conflict.

Mediators move, a llies turn away

Firstly, not only the conflict itself but also the process of peaceful settlement is now unfrozen. If earlier when tensions escalated in the region, the mediators limited themselves to appeals to exercise restraint and respect the ceasefire, now the world is convinced that the preservation of the status quo in the Karabakh conflict, i.e. the further continuation of the occupation of Azerbaijani territories is fraught with a new large-scale conflict in the region.

Secondly, Azerbaijan received support or at least tacit consent from many countries to its legitimate actions. Even Russia, which is the closest ally of Armenia, did not sacrifice relations with Azerbaijan for the sake of Armenian ambitions. "We value our relations with our neighbours and in this sense, it is necessary to ensure that all contacts develop in a symmetrical manner," said Russian Prime Minister Dmitriy Medvedev, who paid an unscheduled visit to Baku immediately after Yerevan in the days of conflict escalation. Armenia's partners in the CSTO - Belarus and Kazakhstan - also demonstrated support for Azerbaijan. Astana refused to hold a meeting of EAEU heads of government in Yerevan. Of course, Armenia described it as a betrayal on the part of partners, as stated by Sargsyan to Russian Prime Minister Dmitriy Medvedev. Armenia's resentment at its allies resulted in anti-Russian rallies that are held even in Moscow itself.

Thirdly, the Armenian authorities themselves have finally realized that it is impossible to further preserve the status quo. Azerbaijan's resolute resistance and advance were a cold shower for the ruling team in Armenia, which barely keeps its power through the Karabakh card. Apparently, Sargsyan realized that the same card can be the end of his government.

Tomorrow is already here

It is not surprising that immediately after the cessation of hostilities in Karabakh, the Armenian leader rushed to enlist the support of the former president, now Armenian opposition leader Levon Ter-Petrosyan. It is noteworthy that Sargsyan personally went to see Levon Ter-Petrosyan, whom he himself overthrew in 1996 for his constructivism in the negotiations with Azerbaijan.

Apparently, Levon Ter-Petrosyan reminded Sargsyan of his warning made in 1997 in his article "War or Peace": "What we reject today, we will be asking for it tomorrow, but will not get as it happened many times in our history." And Sargsyan realized that tomorrow is already here. Proof of this can be Levon Ter-Petrosyan's appeal to Armenian society to support Serzh Sargsyan, in fact hinting at the inevitability of compromises. "Soon the war will move from the battlefield to the arena of diplomacy or difficult negotiations," Ter-Petrosyan said. Thus, Serzh Sargsyan himself actually confirmed that so far the negotiations have come to a standstill because of the stupid obstinacy of the Armenian leadership. Now it can be expected that negotiations will be conducted not for the sake of negotiations, but to achieve real results.

And the international community is determined, as indicated by the extensive consultations of the mediator countries with the parties to the conflict and between themselves. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in an interview with TASS that there are several options on the table, which he discussed at a meeting with the Azerbaijani president. Moreover, as evident from the statements of the American co-chair of the OSCE Minsk Group, James Warlick, we are talking about a unified position of the co-chairing countries.

At the same time, the Baku statements of the Russian foreign minister about the possible liberation of the occupied territories around Karabakh with a simultaneous agreement on its status somewhat alarmed the Azerbaijani expert community. There are suggestions that it could be the package settlement version that is unacceptable to Azerbaijan.

Emotions subsided only after Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev reiterated the main condition for the Karabakh conflict settlement. "The solution is very simple - the Armenian armed forces must leave the occupied lands, Azerbaijani citizens must return to their native land, and then peace and security can be established in the region. As for the principle of self-determination, the principle must not violate the territorial integrity of countries, and it is precisely these expressions that are reflected in the Helsinki Final Act," the Azerbaijani head of state said.

Details of the situation were clarified by the spokesman for the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, Hikmat Haciyev. "The settlement of the conflict in the form of a single package is impossible. The phased approach involves, first of all, the liberation of the seven occupied regions around Nagornyy Karabakh. A phased approach is also possible in the issue of liberating these areas: Five districts can be liberated in the first stage, refugees and internally displaced persons return to these regions, these territories are cleared from land mines, and infrastructure is restored. In the next stage, Kalbacar and Lacin districts are returned," he said in an interview with Trend.

According to the official representative of the Azerbaijani Foreign Ministry, the phased settlement of the conflict is accepted by the international community, including the OSCE Minsk Group.

Haciyev noted that the Armenian side, engaging in political manipulation, raises the question of creating a corridor. If these districts are returned and the borders are opened, a corridor will not be necessary. At the last stage, the status of Nagornyy Karabakh can be discussed. The Azerbaijani community returns there, and the status is determined within the borders of Azerbaijan, he said.

For his part, the Azerbaijani MP and political expert Rasim Musa-bayov recalled that in 2011, Azerbaijan rejected Russia's proposal and made 10 amendments to them. "Now they are partially accepted and Azerbaijan can discuss them. Ilham Aliyev said that in the latest approach of Russia there are elements that suit Azerbaijan," he said in an interview with Voice of America.

Asked about the essence of the proposals, Musabayov said that they relate to the time of the referendum on the status of Nagornyy Karabakh, its forms and actors. Armenians, he said, are demanding a final status, which actually reflects the mechanism of "alienating" Nagornyy Karabakh from Azerbaijan. "Azerbaijan will never agree to this. If Lavrov was referring to an interim status, then yes, it can be a matter of debate," he said.

In any case, Azerbaijan demonstrated with its decisive response to Armenia that the cup of its patience is not unlimited, and most importantly, it is able to liberate its lands in a military way. This means that the fragile ceasefire does not guarantee a long-term and sustainable peace in the region. Therefore, the clashes in the occupied Azerbaijani territories, unprecedented in 22 years, should spur all interested sides to action.