“Armenia had a weapon to neutralize the Bayraktar, but you did not utilize it. When the Bayraktars were near Shushi in the final days, the Krasukha was utilized, which destroyed 20 Bayraktars in one strike,” Russian analyst Stanislav Tarasov recently said.
Military expert and analyst Artur Yeghiazaryan believes that such statements are being made for political speculation, especially since military and political affairs have mixed recently. It is unbelievable and even strange for the expert to claim that 20 Bayraktars can be destroyed with one Krasukha strike. “The noise would have been very loud. It would have been impossible not to hear that.” Therefore, he approaches such statements with some reservations.
Yeghiazaryan also cited the infamous story about the Iskanders as an example of political and military affairs mixing together. It was not clear whether the Armenian side fired those missiles or not. Referring to the Azerbaijani side’s claims about the use of the Iskander, the expert provided a description. “It’s almost like striking in the middle of a square. You don’t see it for 4-5 months, then one day, you see it, and say, ‘Oh!’ Azerbaijanis are showing a number for the Iskander, but it is a number that Armenia does not have.” The analyst does not believe in the theory that the Russians may have struck Shushi with an Iskander. “Russians used those missiles in Syria. It is possible that the Azerbaijanis brought the missiles and are just showing them off.”
In general, in Artur Yeghiazaryan’s opinion, this is the kind of subject where it is not clear who is telling the truth and who isn’t without proper research and deep analysis. “A committee needs to be established. It is strange that one hasn’t been established yet. The strategic plan to the tactical proposals need to be studied. What was offered, what was not offered, what was used, and what was not used? It will be possible to reveal the truth if the committee so wishes.”
Read also
Yeghiazaryan believes that Armenia absolutely had the resources to defend against the Bayraktars. However, it is difficult to say what was used, what wasn’t used, and why those weapons weren’t used. He spoke about how back in 2018, the Armenian side displayed interesting UAVs during an expo, and then spoke about their production. “We did not hear any noise, but just because we didn’t hear anything does not mean that they weren’t used. But the answers to the remaining questions need to be provided after research is complete,” the expert said.
Military expert Karen Vrtanesyan also had difficulty commenting on the Russian analyst’s statement. “The knowledge I have regarding Bayraktars, Krasukhas, and how they are to be implemented contradict Tarasov’s statement on one strike destroying 20 Bayraktars.”
Vitaly Mangasaryan, an expert from the Henaket analytical center, was also confused due to the fact that Krasukhas are a means of radio-electronic defense, and its strike is simply beyond military logic. “I do not know if Armenia had weapons to neutralize the Bayraktar or not, but I can definitely say that Azerbaijan’s use of the Bayraktar should not come as a surprise to our armed forces because they began to be widely used in Syria from February-March 2020, and since then, we should have done everything to gather as much information as possible about them to form a defense and to make the fight against the UAVs as effective as possible.” The expert is convinced that if Armenia had taken the appropriate measures in the fight against air defense, particularly against the UAVs, we could have fought quite successfully in the 44-Day War and had a completely different outcome today.
Nelly Grigoryan
