On December 29, the subversive penetration attempts in Tavush put a very important question before Armenia: where does such process of events lead to? We have three victims in the Armenian “active front,” a meaningless statement by already former CSTO Secretary-General which was remembered with the phrase the “Republic of Nagorno-Karabakh”, a MG “balanced” statement, where “two sides” are urged to refrain from brutal actions and to speed up the introduction of investigation mechanism as well as to return the body of Azeri subversive, and our “strategic ally” Russian MFA representative’s immoral statement that “the key to solution of complex issues is in the hands of two sides.”
If we have to pay a “blood tax” to the “great politics” at the cost of lives of our soldiers whose process we are following as a passive statistician, then there is something unhealthy in it. Certainly, let Azerbaijan and Azerbaijani people care on their part which does the same thing, and it is no less morbid if not more since the initiator is Azerbaijan itself. But our task is not to given to fatalism, saying, “What Azerbaijan can do, it can and has to shoot” and to continue our daily tasks, at the same time counting the victims, accepting the abnormal as normal, to seek other ways and provide solutions. Otherwise, choosing shame between war and shame as Churchill used to say, we will get both the one and the other.
Instead of active and practical political consequences, we have put empty clichés into circulation like “nation-army” similar content which is inadequate to the current realities while it is even meaningless to talk about real consequences when the discussion of this issue is almost missing in the political arena. RA first president Levon Ter-Petrosyan, referring to “nation-army” issue, brought three successful examples: Mongol Empire, Switzerland, and modern Israel, concluding that in the case of Armenia, “even the entire annual budget were given for the implementation of this project, it would be insufficient too.”
Responding to his criticism, RA Defense Minister explained that the matter is not about militarization of the state but the close cooperation between the society and armed forces, “The armed forces is the ideology to closely connect with the public, to use the potentials of the armed forces for the progress of the society and the state.” And nothing more. The debate ended and was almost forgotten. Closely connect as much as you want. Which issue does it solve? And what does it change? Aliyev’s subversive in December showed that nothing. Furthermore, it showed that if Azerbaijan was trying to essentially change the status quo in Artsakh last year in April, but did not allow almost any shot on the border with Armenia, then its message to Armenia in December was as follows: “Irrespective of your CSTO, your “age-old friendship” with Russians, irrespective of the fulfillment of your commitments before EaEU with your school A-grade diligence, I do and will do what I want, when I want, where I want, and nobody can say me anything.”
Read also
Now, Yerevan is demanding the international community to be more addressed and consistent in its assessment, to call a spade a spade. I am sorry but what question of the international community have you solved to have the moral right to demand something? If you really demand the introduction of the mechanism of responsibility for the incidents then why did you go to St. Petersburg? What did this meeting in St. Petersburg give to you? What did the Vienna agreement add? It is understandable why Aliyev went: therewith he refrained from the responsibility and could not have expectation from anywhere but Russia. In this sense, as Ter-Petrosyan would say, Aliyev acted rationally in order to free his hands and do what he did in December and will do in the future as long as the Armenian side has not made a conclusion.
While the Armenian side remained in the role of a beggar. You will not get it. Because Russians will not do it based on their imperialistic interests in the region, and the West will not do it too as long as Armenia has not come out of the status of a “blind gut” of Russia and has not realized that it is the main threat of the threat. After all, what should the West do when the hand of Armenians was put on the Vienna agreements and the Armenians depleted it in St. Petersburg, EaEUs, and CSTOs.
Now when you grunt over the Secretary-General of the Council of Europe by sending letters at the level on home-made Indian film, you grunt over the statement of the MG co-chairs, ignoring the fact that one of them is Russia but you delight with Bordyuzha’s “Nagorno-Karabakh Republic” phrase or with Russian Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Zakharova’s “keys” holding “in the hands of the two sides”, don’t you think when the West has given up from addressee. And whether in this case the first demand of the addressee should not be addressed to Moscow. Armenia being in the oblivion of self-deception and placing its interests under Moscow is not perceivable and interesting to the international community. After the April war, the Armenian side has made a voluminous military-technical type of work in the line of contact. Here, indeed, there are effective and practical consequences. But the military-organizational and political consequences are different.
December shows that Armenia has a lot to do here. Ter-Petrosyan by-passed the successful experience of Finland when the country with limited resources gave a powerful counterblow to Russian invaders thanks to the democratic regime, high self-organization, high combat readiness of the depot battalion, skilled military management and a number of other factors. It was based on “Shyutskor” system: Civil Guard, people’s volunteer corps, skilled foreign policy, inflexibility and intolerance against invaders.
Mannerheim, General of tsarist army, Marshal of Finland, skillfully combined all these factors in favor of the interests of the state and rescued the country from a bitter experience with honor. Stalin’s USSR gave 126 thousand victims in that senseless war, while Stalin’s dream to celebrate his birthday in Helsinki with a military parade remained a dream. The Finnish people proved to be worthy and able to have an independent and sovereign state whose military-political factor was accepted by the totalitarian regimes: Nazi Germany and Bolshevik Russia, as well as democratic England and the USA. Currently, the Finns are one of the heavily equipped nations in Europe. Finland has maintained the universal conscription system, and this military system is directed not at the possible threats by neutral Sweden or NATO-member Norway but at 1256 km border Russia so that no temptation arises again all of a sudden like in the case of Ukraine or Georgia.
Finns, based on the historical experience, have quite rationally calculated their threats and the ways to resist them without “age-old friendship” or “strategic ally” by becoming one of the most advanced and developed countries, with only five million population. There are no rigged elections there, there is almost no corruption there. There is no oil and gas, however, the normal relations with Russia do not assume hand over of all spheres to Russians. Finns do not have the need for Kiselyov, and the army fully meets the NATO standards but they do not access to NATO either… Whereas Armenian villages are often defenseless even against the attacks of wolves. And you are saying “nation-army”, EaEU, CSTO, Bordyuzha, Zakharova, Vladimir Putin, “Russians hold the keys to the conflict”, “age-old friendship”, “addressee” and other amazing things …
