EFFECT OF THE MINSK GROUP

Reports from the battlefield are coming from Karabakh continuously. Yet it is too early to judge whether it will be possible to introduce a humanitarian truce. In fact, there are many ‘ifs’: if the negotiation mechanism can be restarted, if the ceasefire agreement is respected by both parties, if Armenia, which even during the first Karabakh war has accumulated a fair amount of experience in using the ceasefire to regroup forces, observes the truce, and most importantly - if the parties and the region as a whole succeed not only in ceasefire, but also in launching a working mechanism of political settlement, which Azerbaijan has always insisted on. This is the recognition of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan and the recognition of the ownership of plain and mountainous Karabakh by Armenia (the rest of the world community does not doubt this anyway). This also includes an apology from the Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan before the people of Azerbaijan for all his provocative rhetoric like ‘Karabakh is Armenia, period’. And most importantly, we need a clear timetable for the withdrawal of the Armenian occupation forces from the territory of Azerbaijan.

A bit of history

Let’s shift the focus slightly. Let’s remember the events of all these years, or rather, the events that could but did not take place in the diplomatic sphere. It may seem surprising, but the legal background for the diplomatic settlement of the conflict had been developed by the mid-nineties. The UN Security Council adopted four resolutions, which demanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of Armenian troops from the territory of Azerbaijan, including both plain and mountainous Karabakh. There is not a single legal document where Karabakh is recognized as something else, but the territory of Azerbaijan.

Finally, the OSCE Minsk Group was established as a mediating mechanism between the parties to the conflict. In fact, the real mediation was carried out mainly by its three co-chairs - Russia, the United States and France. They delegated diplomats to the OSCE Minsk Group, while Russia took part in the 7+1 and G8 meetings, and the three presidents of co-chairing countries made respective statements... It was stated that the status quo was unacceptable, that it should be changed, but nothing happened in reality.

Perhaps this was a sure sign that, alas, the diplomatic route to a settlement was not working. One can repeat mantras such as "a bad peace is better than a good quarrel", "the conflict has no military solution," "you need to look for ways to peace," and so on. But if all this is not accompanied by a real settlement, then the statements will not and cannot work. Lasting peace in the region could not be achieved amidst the lasting occupation of 20% of the territory of Azerbaijan by Armenia and a million of internally displaced persons deprived of their right to return to their own homes. And the mediation mechanism of the OSCE Minsk Group did not provide for the main thing - forcing Yerevan to withdraw its troops and respect international law.

Who blew up the world?

The situation in the region could not last forever, and the diplomatic ‘dynamite’ worked at some point. Moreover, contrary to what many believed, the trigger was activated by Armenia itself in the spring of 2016. Back in 2015, David Tonoyan, at that time the Deputy Minister of Defense of Armenia, in one of his interviews, threatened Azerbaijan: “...Who says that the security belt created in 1994 with the current level of Azerbaijan’s armament is sufficient. Who says that the security belt around the Nagorno Karabakh Republic is sufficient for us. Whose rating is this? Under current circumstances, the level of armament in Azerbaijan the level of our defense is no longer enough. Armenian forces will demonstrate their restraint until the completion of the Olympic Games in Baku…" It was a clear claim for new territorial conquests, which the Armenian expert community interpreted as "whether the hostilities begin, this time it will Armenia who decides where her tanks stop."

However, the Armenian tanks had to move in the opposite direction. At the end of March 2016, Armenia went from words to deeds and shelled the Azerbaijani villages on the front line. In response, Baku used at best 10-15% of its combat potential, but the flag over the Leletepe height, the return of refugees to the village of Jojug Merjanly and the offensive defeat of Armenia became a reality. After that, Yerevan changed tactics.

"Cameras", peacekeepers and the collapsed status quo

Flashback. Nagorno-Karabakh, at least until 2014, remained the only conflict on the territory of the former USSR, where there were no peacekeepers or clear guarantees of a ceasefire agreement. Azerbaijan from the very beginning opposed such measures, believing that it would only conserve the front line, which is unacceptable. Until 2016, Armenia preferred to threaten Azerbaijan with new territorial claims. But then they changed their mind and urgently demanded "guarantees of observance of the ceasefire", "video cameras", etc. And they didn't get what they demanded.

But there was no adequate reaction of the mediators to these dangerous preparations in Armenia. We heard the same statements and the same calls from Armenia. With the same zero result.

And now history has repeated itself. First came another statement from the same Tonoyan, now the Minister of Defense of Armenia: "New war - new territories." A provocation in Tovuz, an unsuccessful deployment of a sabotage group and, finally, an armed provocation undertaken by Armenia early in the morning of September 27. The latest provocation has created a fundamentally different alignment in the region. “I have changed the status quo on the battlefield. There is no status quo any more. Contact line? There is no contact line any more. We broke these lines and destroyed them,” President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev said. A military solution to the conflict was introduced in the region, which completely changed the overall picture.

Today Azerbaijan has crushed not just the line of defense of Armenian occupants in Karabakh. The former mediating mechanism was also crumpled and thrown away. Now the OSCE Minsk Group faces a challenge: either to develop a new, already working mechanism, or quietly step aside and not interfere.

And it should keep in mind that Azerbaijan will not retreat.