Sergey Minasyan, Director of the “Caucasus” Institute, agrees that the four-day war unleashed by Azerbaijan in April were of a political nature, “No “Blitzkrieg” was envisaged. Azerbaijani authorities were trying to show that the 1994 status quo does not exist, both in a political and military sense. During the “Caucasus-2015” international conference, the political analyst also noted that Azerbaijan could not even reach the “liquidation” of agreements concluded in 1994, under also had the signature of Nagorno-Karabakh underneath, although, in Moscow, the Head of General Staff of Armed Forces of Armenia and Azerbaijan agreed on a truce. Sergey Minasyan considers this not only or not so much an achievement of Armenia’s diplomacy and the co-chairs as Russia’s role. As a result of hostilities, according to him, it became more “predictable-explosive”, but the problem-solving elements did not change. The political analyst does not see real progress in the future in the negotiation process. He believes that after reaching some agreements to negotiate, the parties will again face an impasse for a more complicated situation has been created after the April events for negotiation. “In Vienna and afterward, there are steps towards certain fixation of mutual trust. The problem now is that whether the parties will manage to ease the tensions and create a foundation for real negotiations. I have a fear that after these agreements, the parties will face an impasse of real negotiations,” – he said.
Moscow-based expert Ahmed Yarlikapov, referring to the Islamic factor in this conflict, said that it did not work as twenty years ago so as now, in spite of all analysis that this element is available. Another expert Sergey Krylov disagreed with him, noting that nevertheless, there was information that Islamist gangs were also involved in this four-day war. Ahmed Yarlikapov believes that today the Islamic state is not interested in dealing with what is going on in Karabakh and around it. Cengiz Aktar, a political scientist at the Institute of Suleyman Shah in Istanbul, speaking of Turkey’s attitude, place and role in the conflict, said, “it is untidy and impressionistic.” He notes, “Despite Ankara’s apparent diplomatic support to Azerbaijan, even Turkey’s foreign minister does not know the location of Karabakh, not to speak about the public.” Georgian expert Giorgi Kanashvili said in his remarks that it was remarkable that not only Tbilisi officially but also the Georgian society did not display obvious sympathy and antipathy towards any of the parties.
Everyone was very loyal and had a balanced posture. He noted that the same number of Armenians and Azerbaijanis are living in Georgia. He says that there was information during the four-day hostilities that there were certain movements in Armenian- and Azeri-populated areas. “It is not known how all of it would end if it had not ended in all four days,” – said the expert, adding that the Armenian side was giving very operative and comprehensive information during the four-day war. Azerbaijan was giving much late and more incoherent information. He is convinced that no matter how strange but the guarantee for non-resumption of war was Aliyev with his regime and system that is available today in Azerbaijan, “Aliyev is not ready to lose everything that he has and he needs a hundred percent guarantee. If democratic processes are held in Azerbaijan, a full-scale war will definitely be kicked off.” Armenian expert and journalist David Petrosyan noted that these hostilities in our society should close the rumors of what army we need: a statutory or contractual, “We saw that the conscripts were able to give an adequate response to the elite and well-trained units.”
Read also
Nelly GRIGORYAN
