Says former Defense Minister of Armenia, also the Head of the Center for Democracy, Security and Development, Andranik Kocharyan.
– The Defense Ministry of Azerbaijan announced that their missiles are aimed at Armenia and are ready to utterly ruin even Yerevan if such a command is issued. Later, Serzh Sargsyan stated that we have ballistic missiles and they are capable “to turn into ruins any flourishing settlement in a glimpse, like the ruins of Aghdam.” Where can such mutual intimidations lead our countries to again, or they have already led to?
– They can lead to implementation of these threats. I think that our state leaders as of today should not speak to each other with threats, but in the language of solutions because these threats leads Azerbaijan and us to nowhere. And clearly, when we achieved peace in 1994, it became clear that the Karabakh conflict has no more military solution, and the political solution should be achieved through mutual concessions. In fact, we achieved peace by military means. Beyond it, there is a threshold of war, of what we should stay far away.
– Prior to the Sochi meeting, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair had stated that this conflict ceases to be frozen, and the expert on conflict affairs, Sabine Freizer, had said, “Unfortunately, this could be the beginning of a new war.” Can we tell that the Sochi meeting alleviated the tension?
Read also
– In the beginning, the Sochi meeting caused tension, later it should alleviate it to some extent. This proves to be the logic of the process. I see that the causes generating this tension, as well as the possible processes for mitigating the tension, which were supposed to give some political dividends to the system or the power, which is applied by Russia by gathering all possibilities for solution of this problem politically in its hands.
– Even after the meeting, the fire on the border continues, although less. Therefore, it, however, did not fully eliminate the tension.
– Shootings have always been in different parts of the border. The question is what problems the fires solve. There might be just shootings saying that we are in the positions, also, there might be just uncontrollable shootings. And there are actions that cause tension, which may turn into a threat of military actions, which we witnessed. These were subversive organized activities, which promptly should be given an answer, and it naturally could be continued. And it, in fact, is the way, with which we could stand on the threshold of the war.
– Many were previously assuming that the goal of the subversive actions was the access of peacekeepers to the region. There were even clear presumptions that Vladimir Putin will suggest the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan in Sochi to deploy Russian peacekeepers in Karabakh. Can we record that these presumptions were substantiated?
– I think that at this stage, not the deployment of peacekeepers is resolved but the matter of further actions by the Minsk Group. I think that so it happened. Actually, Russia substituted the Minsk group. Although Vladimir Putin had announced that internationally accepted formats are also acceptable for him, which includes also the Minsk Group, but, in fact, Russia is trying for the second time to take on the initiative in its hands instead of the Minsk Group. And as to what kind of solutions Russia will suggest based on its interests, we may only assume, and the opportunity of using Russian peacekeepers also can be seen here. Naturally, it will take place when Azerbaijan and Armenia agree to this proposal. I think that at this moment, both Azerbaijan and Armenia are not ready to say “yes” to such proposal, and as to how the events will develop in the future are due to the fact of how the geopolitical realities would develop in the Caucasus.
– In response to raised questions of why the following provisions defined by CSTO did not operate, “In case an act of aggression is committed against any of the Member States, all the others Member States will provide it with necessary assistance, including military one,” Armenia’s government representatives claim that there is no need to apply to the CSTO, our army is fully capable of solving these problems independently without the CSTO assistance. Is this argument reasonable for you?
– I think that Armenia’s government is right on this, because they know very well what the CSTO represent in itself. In fact, CSTO is just the different wording of Russian armed forces. As Vladimir Putin stated that there is no Soviet Union, it was Russia, there is no CSTO entity either, there are Russia’s armed forces. And Armenia clearly understands what kind of danger can be caused to Artsakh sovereignty as a result. Armenia has quite conceded its sovereignty to Russia, but at least Artsakh could so far preserve the elements of its sovereignty. And this is the matter that we need to stay away from the CSTO assistance. Life shows that Armenia’s armed forces are currently able to defend our borders independently. CSTO at this point has nothing to do inside our borders.
– Even in this situation, Russia did not cease supplying weapons to Azerbaijan. While the OSCE Minsk Group co-chair, James Warlick, said in this regard, “That does not prohibit them from working productively to find the way to peace”. But, actually, it is possible to supply weapon, in the one hand, and act with peacekeeping mission, on the other hand.
– In my opinion, Russia should cease supplying weapons to the states in war. The possibility for resumption of war should be frozen, whereas the supply of weapon simply encourages the process that can lead to military action. It does not matter whether the weapon is supplied to one side or both. Now, it is necessary to rule out the possibility of increasing the excessive supply of weapons. Whereas Russia does not rule out because one of the parties in conflict, Armenia, however, should have presented other claims to the Russian side about ceasing the supply rather than encouraging that it is merely the business interests of Russia. The suggestion by the Armenian side were raised only when it already turned into a real serious danger. But we could have talked about it earlier, when the fact of supply had become evident.
– Are you inspired by the unity, with which particularly all of our parliamentary factions acted in the face of external danger?
– I was inspired not by this but the fact that, nevertheless, the person left in Armenia feared of suddenly losing his victories. This concern was present not only among the armed forces that everything should be done to avoid this subversive actions of turning into war and we would not lose the achievements, with which we keep being proud of until now. I also noticed this fear among the society, but not only in the form of fear. People are also ready, if necessary, to stand up for its victories. Of course, there were many elements of PR in this movement, many people were going to be seen and photographed on the Contact line, but this is not essential. It is essential that the sentiment that we stand up for our victories is seen in our society.
– It is also interesting that even the “old guard”, war veterans, that we witness the injustice or not enough attention towards them over these years, anyway, from the very first moment, many of them went again to stand up next to 18 years old youth.
– Yes, along with the old guard, surprisingly, many young people expressed a desire to find ways to a day before appear on the boundary line. And not because their type was at stake but for the fact that obtained even if fragile peace border should be preserved. In other words, this border line gives serious security guarantees to achieve dignified peace in the future. This is very important because if someone today is talking about peace, many forces are trying to humiliate him and say that you’re just afraid of him-and-him. No, it is not like that. General, we fear of war, but not give up victories. The most important thing in these days is exactly this problem, which became visible.
Interviewed by Anna ISRAELYAN
