YEREVAN’S BLATANT MISTAKE

"Igor Yuryevich, you have been closely following the development of the situation in and around Nagorno-Karabakh. How did the aggravation of the situation in the conflict zone lead to a full-fledged war? What are the main reasons?”

"The main reason was the lack of effective negotiations in the last decade. The military reason is Pashinyan annulled previous agreements, thereby unleashing certain forces in Armenia, which began to provoke Azerbaijan by shelling its territory. We saw this in July 2020, and then it continued into September. Of course, Yerevan bears responsibility for the war, both political and military responsibility."

"Military actions demonstrate the undeniable advantage of Azerbaijan on the battlefield. Some experts argue that Armenia is simply not ready for war. How do you assess the military component of the conflict?"

"I do not agree with the idea that Armenia was not ready for war. If we look at the doctrinal documents adopted recently, after Pashinyan came to power, he abandoned the principle of ‘Peace in exchange for territories’ replacing it with a new principle ‘New war - new territories’. Armenian Defense Minister Tonoyan has repeatedly spoken about this.

“The first attempt to probe Azerbaijani defences was in July 2020 in Tovuz of Azerbaijan, which suggests that Armenia was going to blackmail Azerbaijan by striking at national infrastructure facilities, in particular pipelines and oil and gas production facilities. The point of provocation in July was not accidental - it was only 12 km from the location of strategic pipelines, an element of Europe's energy security. Obviously, Pashinyan hoped that Europe would put pressure on Azerbaijan in order to prevent an operation to liberate the occupied territories to ensure its energy security. In general, this was an elaborated work done by Armenian authorities. Therefore, we can say that the country was seriously preparing for war.

“The fact that Armenia is suffering defeat on the fronts is also complex. First, the calculation of Armenian strategists proved to be wrong. They were thinking that it was impossible to break through the defense line in Nagorno-Karabakh, and Azerbaijan would not dare to storm these positions. The Armenians created a kind of Maginot Line here and believed that it was inaccessible. Secondly, Armenia has been actively acquiring weapons all this time, such as the latest deliveries of Su-30 fighters and Tor air defense systems to Armenia.

“But the headquarters of the armed forces of Armenia underestimated the combat potential of Azerbaijan, the level of training of the enemy's command-officers, and Azerbaijan's determination to plan and organize offensive operations. In fact, Armenia made a serious mistake. After the July events, they thought that Azerbaijan would simply snap at the next provocations, respond with fire to fire, and would not risk continuing hostilities for more than 2-3 days. The real course of events caused a real panic in Yerevan.

“I am confident that the scale of hostilities with the use of modern weapons, including the drones, loitering ammunition, means of high-precision target destruction is very carefully studied by the general staffs of the leading countries of the world. The world has not yet known such examples when one army can use so many precision weapons. In terms of the scale and intensity of the use of attack drones, this is the first such case in world history. Neither the US, nor Russia, nor Israel, nor any other country in the world have used drones on such a scale. UAVs in conflicts of this type have proven their indisputable advantage. We can add to this the tactics of the Azerbaijani army to eliminate the enemy's air defense forces and the subsequent massive use of drones to destroy armored vehicles, highly protected targets and manpower. The Azerbaijani army has shown an example of waging war in the 21st century.

“It should also be noted that the use of high-precision weapons minimizes civilian casualties. From this point of view, Azerbaijan has achieved military success, and at the same time saved the lives of civilians living in Nagorno-Karabakh.

“I think there will be significant changes in the tactics of conducting combat operations. Of course, the experience of the Azerbaijani army will be studied in detail.”

"In parallel with the fighting at the front, there is an active information war. Armenia appealed for international support, and some countries openly sided with Yerevan. What was the result of this attempt?"

"Armenia is actively using information warfare to achieve its goals. It is enough to look at the statements made by the Armenian side, in particular the press service of the Armenian Defense Ministry. Even Goebbels could learn from Armenian propagandists how one should lie in a dodgy, sophisticated way, distorting reality.

“All Armenian propaganda is now based on the establishment of a united diplomatic front of pressure on Baku. We see the efforts of the Armenian lobby in countries such as France, where in fact President Macron has become hostage to myths spread by the Armenian diaspora, voluntarily or through delusion. We see active efforts of Armenian lobbyists in the US. Here, in Russia, a number of big businessmen, billionaires of Armenian origin, almost shouted to Putin to send troops into the conflict zone. But President Putin made it clear that hostilities were not being waged in Armenia, so neither Russia nor the CSTO would interfere. That is, Moscow is not considering military solutions, but is looking for political and diplomatic opportunities for a settlement.

“I do not think that Armenia has succeeded in creating a united political and diplomatic front against Baku. But Armenia still has some victories here. I regularly watch Evronews, and it seems that the Armenians simply paid for its broadcast. The methods of black PR that this seemingly respected European TV channel uses are simply surprising. Armenian efforts in the field of information war can be observed on other television channels and in the print media in a number of European countries. But you know, propaganda is propaganda, and in war everything is decided by victories on the battlefield. No matter how much you shout, the military successes of the Azerbaijani troops speak for themselves.”

"Europe's support for Armenia was expected and predictable. How unexpected was the support of Azerbaijan from many countries of the world? Can this be called a diplomatic victory?"

"I was not surprised, because Azerbaijani diplomacy has been very active in recent years. I would like to note the new Minister of Foreign Affairs of Azerbaijan. Only a few months have passed since his appointment to this position, and you can already see his effective work. Jeyhun Bayramov's activities are strikingly different from the work of the former minister.

“Considering that Azerbaijan chairs the Non-Aligned Movement, which involves 120 member states, Azerbaijan’s international prestige has grown significantly. The fact that many countries have been quite active, unequivocally supported Azerbaijan, is amazing in terms of the work of the Azerbaijani diplomacy. Azerbaijan has a strong presidential power and all strategic decisions, including in the diplomatic field, are made by the country's president. Therefore, I was not personally surprised that many countries supported Azerbaijan.”

"You have already condemned Armenian rocket attacks on the peaceful cities of Azerbaijan calling this a crime against humanity. What goals does the military-political leadership of Armenia pursue using such barbaric actions?"

"There are concrete principles of waging a war. There is the Geneva Convention. There are principles of humanitarian law. They clearly state that neither the civilian population nor civilian objects should suffer from hostilities. It seems to me that initially Armenia’s objective was to provoke a retaliatory strike in order to turn to Russia and the CSTO for help. The missile strikes that we are seeing now are already the answer for military failures at the front. When there is no way to achieve superiority on the battlefield, this leads to impotent anger, pouring out into the shelling of peaceful cities.

“When Mr. Putin said that this was not our war, it was a response to five calls from Pashinyan and the efforts of the Armenian lobby to involve Russia in hostilities on the side of Armenia. Therefore, the situation changed dramatically, and Armenia sat down at the negotiating table, although before that it did not want to hear about it.”

"Recently, we all witnessed negotiations in Moscow, which resulted in the declaration of a humanitarian truce. How long can it last?"

"I am skeptical that hostilities will stop. Immediately after the ceasefire came into force, there were reports that Armenia was again carrying out rocket attacks, military operations, etc. How long the humanitarian truce will last is unknown. Probably, as long as Azerbaijan has patience to be an observer when military strikes are delivered on its territory. Baku will definitely not want to play a role of a whipping boy, and if Armenia does not stop its tactics of military provocations, the hostilities will resume in full.

“As for the negotiations, I can hardly imagine that Pashinyan could now implement the Madrid principles or the Kazan formula. During the short talks in Moscow and according to the final document of negotiations, the Armenian side actually abandoned the idea of involving the representatives of the puppet regime in Nagorno-Karabakh to the negotiating table. Even this can be considered a diplomatic victory of Azerbaijan.”

"It is reported that the Armenian population voices its dissatisfaction with the current situation at the front. Do you think this can lead to the fall of the Pashinyan regime. If so, how soon can this happen?"

"Armenia has recently introduced martial law. Accordingly, military censorship is in force, which means it is forbidden to criticize Pashinyan and the course of military operations. Obviously, the main events will unfold a little later, when the censorship restrictions will be removed from the Armenian press and TV channels. Currently punitive actions are in place, which means the violators may be subject to the confiscation of equipment,  closure of editorial offices and publishing houses. But 2-3 weeks later, the censorship will weaken. A critical understanding of military failures will certainly lead to criticism of Pashinyan. My forecast is that in a few months he will no longer be prime minister and, possibly, early parliamentary elections will be held. The Armenian society will certainly present Pashinyan with a bill for military and political defeat. I believe that Pashinyan as a politician is over, and the question of his dismissal is only a matter of time. But these are his personal problems and the choice of the Armenian people."

"There are opinions that Russia has assumed the role of an arbitrator in this conflict. How do you assess Russia's position in this situation?"

"Russia is not a judge in this conflict. This is a war between two sovereign states, and the hostilities are taking place on the territory of Azerbaijan. Russia assumed the role of a neutral country, perhaps for the first time in the entire history of the conflict. Before that, certain sympathies of Russia were on the side of Armenia for many reasons. But now Russia is neutral and this has become a cold shower for both Pashinyan and the Armenian lobby of Russia. I have heard hundreds of calls to the country's leadership, including from quite influential people, to send troops, protect Armenians, and so on. But by its principled position, Russia has reserved for itself the opportunity to come up with a proposal to start a peaceful dialogue. I said from the very beginning that the parties will sit down at the negotiating table when one of the countries wins, and the other is on the verge of defeat. Which is exactly what happened. This became possible only with such an equidistant position of Moscow and I think it is absolutely correct. We should not pay with the lives of Russian soldiers for Pashinyan's political adventures."

"You are talking about the influential Armenian lobby in Russia and your attitude to the war. Have you received any threats for your principal position?"

"You know, I will comment on this because the answer is obvious. I am a self-sufficient person, and no threats, pressure can affect my position. Because my position is extremely clear – to defend the national interests of Russia.”

"The possibility of deploying peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh is considered one of the guarantees of a lasting peace. To what extent Russia is ready to share powers in this matter with the Turkish side, as we know examples of such cooperation in the past."

"I think that Turkey will not be in demand at the talks as a peacekeeper. This is an unattainable goal. Russia has a clear position. We do not want to quarrel with Turkey. We regard Turkey as an important geopolitical and military-technical partner, but at the same time, we absolutely do not need Turkey's strengthening in the South Caucasus region."