Rat za Nagorno-Karabah

[Krošek]

pasinjan kada je dosao na vlast, iste sekunde je trebalo da sazna da je vojna situacija katastrofalna i da konacni poraz u ratu (zapocetom pre 30 godina) ceka iza ugla. da se tako nesto sazna prvo treba da se to hoce saznati odnosno da se bude spreman i na tu mogucnost. 

 

znas ono ramsfeldovo, parafraziram: known knowns - things we know we know; known unknowns - things we know we don't know; unknown unknowns - things we don't know we don't know (pun sam floskula danas izvini)

u situaciji u kojoj je jermenija decenijama unazad pasinjan je morao po svaku cenu da zaroni u te unknown unknowns i da dodje do potpune istine. da je to bilo tako, ne bi on radio one provokacije azerbejdzana, nista to nema ama bas nikakvog smisla u retrospektivi. kao neko ludilo. 

[Nikodije]

ako se ne varam azerbejdzan je nudio kompromis, ako im se moze verovati, cak i da ovaj gasovod sto je otisao na gruziju, prolazi kroz jermeniju (u zamenu za dogovor oko nk i oslobadjanje ovih teritorija oko nk) cime bi se stvorila medjuzavisnost drzava sto bi bio osnov za bolje odnose. morali su jermeni da budu pametniji.

[Krošek]

alijev je hteo da ponizi jermene na bilo koji nacin, i rat nije jedini nacin za to. pozicija azerbejdzana nije sustinski kompromisna nego maksimalisticka, a nominalni nudjeni kompromis je mamac da jermeni pristanu za njih (u odnosu na azere) ponizavajuce odredbe mira, iako iz trece perspektive, mozda i nase odavde, takvo razresenje izgleda kompromisno, racionalno i normativno prihvatljivo - stvar je perspektive.

 

jermeni su dospeli u takvo stanje svesti da je kompromis poraz za njih a pobeda za azerbejdzan, sto je neverovatno glupa i paralisuca pozicija. kao kolektivno ludilo, ne znam kako da prenesem svoje utiske o tome, a da ne bude ruzno i omalovazavajuce. 

 

znaci jermeni su morali da se izdignu iznad niskih pobuda alijeva (i kog god neprijateljskog vladara) i pocnu proces razracunavanja sa unutrasnjim demonima u cilju spasavanja nacije od propasti u koju su vec duboko zagazili posle vise decenija izolacije i siromasenja.

 

da nisu verovali u pravednost svog drzanja bafer zone i da su znali da je to jedan uzas, a to zapravo jeste jedan uzas, jedan samar covecnosti, jer su od lepog mesta na planeti gde su zivele stotina hiljada ljudi napravili jedno nista, jedno veliko sranje... i alijev kad sa gadjenjem prica o tome, makar to i ne bilo iskreno ljudsko gadjenje nego slavodobitno nasladjivanje, potpuno je u pravu (pa sad da se covek zamisli koliki slepac moras biti da takvoj figuri dozvolis moralnu superiornost)... dakle da nisu verovali u to, jermeni bi imali sansu. oduzeli su sebi sansu time sto su pustili da se spontano krnji moralnost njihove pozicije, misleci da su postigli pobedu koju su hteli i da je vreme za njih stalo. malo banalizujem ali mislim da je to otprilike to. 

[apostata]

 

[vememah]

Quote

 

Putin: Pashinyan rejected a peace deal accepted by Azerbaijan on 19-20 October

 

In an interview with Russia 24 Vladimir Putin said that he had managed to convince Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to ‘end military actions’ during discussions on 19 and 20 October, but Armenia turned the offer down.  

‘I managed to convince Aliyev that it's possible to end military actions, but a mandatory condition on his side was the return of refugees, including to the city of Shusha. To my surprise, the position of our Armenian partners was formulated in such a way that this was unacceptable to them. (Armenian Prime Minister) Pashinyan told me directly, that he saw in this a direct threat to the interests of Armenia and Karabakh’, the Russian President said. 

‘Now, I can’t really understand what this threat was supposed to be, considering that this would presume the return of peaceful civilians, with the maintenance of control by the Armenian side over this part of the territory in Karabakh, including Shusha, along with the presence of our peacekeepers, which we were already discussing with Armenia and Azerbaijan.’ 

 

https://oc-media.org/live-updates-armenian-president-calls-on-pashinyan-to-resign/

 

Evo i snimka na ruskom:

 

 

 

[vememah]

Autor jedne od najpreporučivanijih knjiga o sukobu oko Karabaha, Crna bašta (Black Garden), Tomas de Val:

 

Quote

 

Perspectives | Now comes a Karabakh war over cultural heritage

Fears are growing in particular for Armenian monuments being handed over.

Thomas de Waal Nov 16, 2020

 

Azerbaijan’s military success confirmed by a Russian-brokered ceasefire has rapidly changed the map of the South Caucasus. Attention has now turned to the rich cultural heritage, in particular the Armenian churches falling under Azerbaijani control.

Beyond preserving these precious monuments for future generations and as places of worship, this is a test of goodwill. Armenia and Azerbaijan have agreed to a cessation of hostilities but are still a long way from peace. On an issue where human lives are not at stake, can the parties agree to a more inclusive narrative of regional history that does not seek to erase the identity of the other? The early signs are not positive.

This is not a simple story. As Azerbaijani armed forces recaptured territories this autumn that had been under Armenian occupation since 1993, the scale of cultural devastation became apparent. Armenians had not just destroyed almost all the houses, but also, in many cases, wrecked graveyards. Pictures of a mosque in Alkhanli village of Fizuli region, which had been turned into a cowshed, caused outrage.

The Azerbaijani Ministry of Culture also expressed indignation at Armenian excavations at the famous Azykh cave, a prehistoric site in the Martuni region which was extensively researched in the Soviet period, and at alterations to the Shahbulaq fortress in Aghdam region.

As Azerbaijani forces moved deeper into Karabakh, the issue then arose of the hundreds of Armenian churches, tombstones and monuments there. Azerbaijan now controls most of Hadrut region and its monuments such as the Gtichavank church, which dates back to the 13th century.

As Armenians prepare to cede Azerbaijani territories under the November 10 deal, they are handing over many significant monuments. These include the Tsitsernavank basilica church in Lachin region and the archaeological site of the old city of Tigranakert in Aghdam region. The Amaras monastery in Martuni region, which contains a 5th century mausoleum and is said to date back to the era of St. Gregory the Illuminator, the founder of the Armenian church, is situated on the new front line and it is not clear whether Armenians or Azerbaijanis currently control it.

Most attention has focused on the 12th century Dadivank monastery in Kelbajar region, now due to be returned to Azerbaijan on November 25. News footage showed Russian peacekeepers at the site.

Azerbaijan’s Ministry of Culture has said it regards churches such as Dadivank to be “Albanian,” not Armenian. Anar Karimov, first deputy culture minister of Azerbaijan, posted a controversial tweet in which he referred to the monastery as having been “built by wife of Albanian prince Vakhtang.”

The “Albanian” reference is to a bitter political-historical quarrel that has raged in parallel to the military Karabakh conflict.

The idea that churches in Karabakh are not Armenian but actually “Caucasian Albanian” stems from a 1960s Soviet Azerbaijani thesis advanced by Ziya Buniatov, an influential scholar who was later regarded as Azerbaijan’s national historian.

The Albanians were a small Christian people in the Caucasus region who had mostly died out by the 10th century – although the Udins, a small ethnic group in northern Azerbaijan, are their likely successors. A handful of old fragments of Albanian script have survived and been deciphered.

However, Buniatov and others argued that a Christian ecclesiastical eparchy named the “Church of Albania” had lasted until the 19th century and that this was proof of a separate Albanian identity lasting hundreds of years longer than previously thought. This ambiguity allowed Azerbaijani politicians to assert that Karabakh’s churches were not actually Armenian (and its people were therefore not either) – while ignoring the fact that they were built in an Armenian style and covered in Armenian-language inscriptions.

What will happen to Karabakh’s Christian monuments now? Judging on past experience, their future may be one of preservation, unilateral restoration or destruction.

Destruction has been the fate of almost all Armenian monuments in Azerbaijan’s exclave of Nakhchivan. The most egregious case was the razing of the famous medieval Armenian cemetery at Djulfa, with thousands of khachkar cross-stones, in Nakhchivan in 2005-06. As Nakhchivan is relatively unvisited, this story has not received the attention it would if the region were more accessible.

 

Unilateral and tendentious restoration has been visited on several monuments on both sides of the conflict.

For example, Armenians have restored and re-opened a “Blue Mosque” in Yerevan, a city which had a strong Muslim identity in the 18th and 19th centuries. The mosque is mostly used for worship by resident or visiting Iranians. A smaller less conspicuous mosque in Yerevan situated at Vardanants Street near the city center was pulled down as the Karabakh conflict began.

The Karabakh Armenian authorities also controversially restored the two mosques in the town of Shusha. The Yerevan and Shusha restorations used the mirror image of the “Albanian theory.” Armenian restorers called the mosques “Iranian” or “Persian,” seeking to deny any Azerbaijani identity to them – even though it is clear that the Turkic-speaking Shiite builders of these mosques were the ancestors of modern-day Azerbaijanis.

Similarly, the Azerbaijani authorities have restored the Armenian church in the center of Baku. However they have not put a cross on the dome, and the only public service in the church in the last 30 years occurred when Catholicos Karekin visited Baku in 2010. A smaller 18th century church of the Virgin Mary near Baku’s Maiden Tower was pulled down in 1992. In 2008 many graves in the Christian cemetery in the north part of Baku, known as Montino (the main Armenian cemetery in the city), were also hastily razed to make way for a new road.   

The Azerbaijani authorities have also restored churches in the towns of Nij and Gabala in controversial fashion. The Nij church – which has good reason to be called “Albanian” as it is located in a region populated by the Udin ethnic group – was restored with the support of a Norwegian NGO, Norwegian Humanitarian Enterprise. However, Armenian-language inscriptions on the church were erased at the end of December 2004, with the result that foreign ambassadors declined to attend the re-opening of the church.

Based on that experience, Steinar Gil, Norwegian ambassador to Azerbaijan at that time, commented, “I am worried because Azerbaijan has a sad reputation related to Armenian religious monuments,” and referred to “the almost total Albanization of Armenian churches and monasteries, irrespective of their time of construction.”

As members of UNESCO, Armenia and Azerbaijan are both obliged to honor international cultural conventions, including the 1954 Hague Convention which is designed to protect monuments at risk due to armed conflict. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov also invoked UNESCO in comments on November 12. But UNESCO mainly operates in a country at the discretion of a national government. So pressure to preserve monuments may come down to mobilization by international heritage experts.

Well-known monuments may remain untouched after the intervention of no less an authority than Russian President Vladimir Putin, who personally asked President Ilham Aliyev for – and reportedly received – reassurances on the “preservation and normal operation” of churches such as Dadivank.  

Simon Maghakyan, an Armenian scholar who researched the Djulfa cemetery destruction, says he is more worried about the fate of lesser-known Armenian monuments. He said, “My fear is that the monuments at the highest risk for immediate erasure are being overlooked, including smaller medieval churches and especially the numerous statuesque khachkars that are nearly impossible to ‘Albanize,’ given their rich Armenian inscriptions. One of the most prominent khachkars at grave risk is the 14th century Angels and the Cross in the Vank village of Hadrut region, which Azerbaijan captured last month.”

Those Armenian and Azerbaijani experts who work to an international standard rather than a nationalist agenda can play a positive role – but only if given the space to do so. Azerbaijani scholar Cavid Aga argues, “By preserving Armenian heritage, we can learn Caucasian Albanian heritage too.”

 

Thomas de Waal is a senior fellow with Carnegie Europe, specializing in Eastern Europe and the Caucasus region. He is the author of numerous publications about the region. 

 

https://eurasianet.org/perspectives-now-comes-a-karabakh-war-over-cultural-heritage

Edited November 17, 2020 by vememah

[Peter Fan]

1 hour ago, vememah said:

Autor jedne od najpreporučivanijih knjiga o sukobu oko Karabaha, Crna bašta (Black Garden), Tomas de Val:

 

https://eurasianet.org/perspectives-now-comes-a-karabakh-war-over-cultural-heritage

Da jebote, Ko kontrolise proslost, kontrolise buducnost.

 

Inace, sa istog sajta:

https://eurasianet.org/perspectives-did-russia-win-the-karabakh-war

[mlatko]

 

a Irance slika Mosad kog slika Hezbolah koje slika Nato koji slikaju FSB koji je na slici.

Inviato dal mio Mi 9 Lite utilizzando Tapatalk

[Peter Fan]

7 hours ago, apostata said:

 

Ovo koncanica sa snajpera ili mitraljeza? Izgleda su bili na oko 300 metera.

[vememah]

Ceo Putinov današnji nastup (na ruskom) i Deepl prevod transkripta.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87URcZZj9_4 (ne može se embedovati)

 

Spoiler

Question: Vladimir Vladimirovich, already a week has passed since the signing of the most important statement between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia. How do you now assess the progress of its implementation? What has been successful? What may be the problem? But the most important thing is whether, in your opinion, this agreement will allow to cut that very tight knot, such a long and very difficult question, when, as you said yourself, each side has its own truth?

 

V. Putin: The most important thing we managed to do is to stop the bloodshed. I have already said that over four thousand people died, only according to official data. In fact, I think there are more. Tens of thousands were wounded and mutilated. Look, this is not a movie. It is a tragedy that happens in life with specific people, with specific families. Therefore, the end of the bloodshed is the main result.

But in order to understand what is happening, we will have to go back to history, literally in a nutshell. I have to remind you that all this began in 1988, when clashes on ethnic grounds took place in the Azerbaijani city of Sumgait. At that time the civilian population suffered, the Armenian population, and then these events spread to Nagorno-Karabakh.

And since the then leadership of the Soviet Union did not react properly to the events ... I will repeat once again: these things are subtle, here I do not want to take sides, who is right there, who is guilty, now it is impossible to say at all, but it was necessary to restore order, it was necessary to protect people, the civilian population. This was not done. And then Armenians took up arms themselves, and this protracted, in fact, multi-year conflict began, which led to the fact that in 1991 Karabakh declared its independence, sovereignty, independence, and in 1994 the Bishkek agreements were signed, the Bishkek memorandum, which stopped the fighting at that time. And what happened as a result? As a result, Karabakh declared its independence, as I have already said, and seven other neighboring districts were taken over by Armenians, in fact, under Armenian control.

In fact, that's what we got from the past and what had to be solved.

In my opinion, the fact that the hostilities have ceased and, what is very important, we have agreed to unblock all transport communications and restore economic ties is extremely important and it creates a good basis for normalizing relations for a long time.

 

Replica: Going back to history, no one recognized Karabakh's status then either.

 

V. Putin: This is true: neither then, nor later, did anyone recognize it. By the way, Armenia itself was not recognized either.

 

Question: Is there any problem with the status of Karabakh now?

 

V. Putin: Yes, such a problem exists, the final status of Karabakh has not been settled. We have agreed that we maintain the status quo, the status quo that exists today. What will happen next is to be decided in the future or by future leaders, by future participants in this process. But, in my opinion, if conditions are created for normal life, for restoration of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan, between people on the domestic level, especially in the conflict zone, it will also create conditions for determination of Karabakh's status.

As for recognition - non-recognition of Karabakh as an independent, independent state, here it can be assessed in different ways, but it was without any doubts an essential factor, including during the bloody conflict that has just hopefully ended. Because the very fact of non-recognition of Karabakh, including by Armenia, significantly affected the course of events and its perception.

Here we must say bluntly: in due time, after the criminal, no doubt, actions of the former Georgian leadership, I mean strikes against our peacekeepers in South Ossetia, Russia recognized the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. We recognized as fair the will of the people living in the Crimea and the desire of the people living there to be united with Russia, we went towards the people, we did it openly. Somebody may like it, somebody doesn't like it, but we did it in the interests of those people who live there and in the interests of all Russia, and we are not ashamed to speak about it directly. With regard to Karabakh it wasn't done, and it certainly had a significant impact on all the events taking place there.

 

Question: The Armenians who left Karabakh during the fighting are now returning to their homes. How safe, in your opinion, is it at all?

 

V. Putin: This is a very important question, this is a very sensitive question. It's just to ensure the safety of these people that the Russian peacekeeping contingent is being deployed. As you can see, this document has the signature of both the Prime Minister of Armenia and the President of Azerbaijan, and my signature is on it. We all understand very well, we are aware of the fact that based on the gravity of this conflict, based on the fact that the wounds have not healed yet, of course, are very fresh, a lot of losses, as I said, the trouble has come to many homes, many families, and by the way, both in Azerbaijan and Armenia. So, it takes time for everything to calm down, calm down and people to really feel that peaceful life has returned to their hearts, to their souls, that is the most important thing. And before that, of course, one should think about the real security of people, including refugees, returning, by the way, from both sides. And that mission is entrusted to the Russian peacekeepers.

 

Question: That night, right after the signing of the agreement, we witnessed how literally within an hour there were reports from Yerevan that the situation there had stalled. And we can see that the situation is still boiling. The opposition accuses Prime Minister Pashinyan almost of treason, of betrayal of his homeland. In turn, Pashinyan just the day before said the following: the Armenian side could have avoided war if it agreed to give Azerbaijan seven districts, as well as the city of Shusha, but we did not want to agree to it, accepted the challenge and fought to the end. Was it really the same question that was raised during the negotiations?

 

V. Putin: The question of returning five and then two districts to Azerbaijan, which were under control (in fact, under the control of Armenia, I must say it directly), was raised for a long time. In 2013, within the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group, Russia formulated the conditions that, in our opinion, could give a start to the peace process. And by the way, all participants of that Minsk process, the OSCE Minsk Group, including the Co-Chairs, which, I remind you, Russia, France and the United States of America, all agreed with it and supported it.

What was the basis of those proposals? The return of five Armenian-controlled districts in the first stage and then two additional districts, the creation of a corridor that would connect Karabakh and Armenia in the Lachin district of Azerbaijan (which is why it was conditionally called the Lachin corridor) and recognition of the status quo of Karabakh itself without fixing its final status.

Indeed, this is what I have always said to our Armenian and Azerbaijani friends, too, in my opinion it would be a solution. But, unfortunately, we approached the final solution on this basis several times... Yes, by the way, another obligatory condition was the return of refugees, and on both sides, both Azerbaijani refugees and Armenian refugees to their homes. And this is an unconditional requirement of international humanitarian law. In my opinion, if we had managed to do it, we would have been able to reach agreements on this basis, and there would have been no war, it is true. I am absolutely convinced of this even now.

Unfortunately, when we approached, it seemed that we were very close to solving the issue on this base, on the one hand, and on the other hand, there were obstacles that we could not overcome. In the end, it turned out to be such a bloody, let's say, armed conflict, which we all had just witnessed.

As for the city of Shusha, there was never a question about the transfer of Shusha. I repeat, the status of final Karabakh was transferred for the future, and everyone had to agree that the status quo as an unrecognized state was preserved.

As for the city of Shusha, this question arose during this conflict, during this crisis. Indeed, it was, but in what context? On October 19-20 I had a series of telephone talks with both President Aliyev and Prime-minister Pashinyan. And then the armed forces of Azerbaijan regained control over a small part, the southern part of Karabakh.

On the whole, I managed to persuade President Aliyev that it was possible to stop fighting, but obligatory condition from his side was return of refugees, including to Shusha city.

Unexpectedly for me, the position of our Armenian partners was formulated in a way that is unacceptable for them. And Prime Minister Pashinyan directly told me that he sees it as a threat to the interests of Armenia and Karabakh. It is not very clear to me now what this threat would be, I mean that it was supposed to be the return of civilians while maintaining control over this part of the territory of Karabakh, including Shusha, from the Armenian side, and bearing in mind the presence of our peacekeepers, which we had already negotiated with both Armenia and Azerbaijan then. And the Prime Minister told me at that time: "No, we cannot go for it. We will fight. We will fight. Therefore, accusations of some kind of betrayal against him have no grounds either. It was right or wrong, this is another issue, but here we can't talk about any betrayal.

 

Question: You have already mentioned the Minsk Group, the OSCE. And the day before France and the USA, as co-chairs of that group, called on Russia to clarify Turkey's role in Karabakh settlement. In general, there are a lot of questions about the ceasefire monitoring center with Turkey. President Erdogan and Turkish Foreign Minister stated that the Turks would participate in the peacekeeping mission on a joint basis with Russia. Is it really so? And what will this center do? And the most interesting thing, where will it eventually be located?

 

V. Putin: As for Turkey, the role of Turkey, it is well known, it was directly talked about repeatedly in Azerbaijan, and the Turkish side has never concealed it, they unilaterally supported Azerbaijan.

But what can I tell you? These are the geopolitical consequences of the collapse of the Soviet Union. We talk about it all the time somehow in general. It is not in general, it is absolutely concrete events that we are witnessing now. What do I mean? Azerbaijan is an independent sovereign state. Azerbaijan has the right to choose its allies as it sees fit. So who can refuse it? This is the first one.

And it is the second. I have already said that nobody, not even Armenia, has recognized Karabakh's independence. What does it mean in terms of international law? That Azerbaijan was returning the territories that it considered (Azerbaijan), but the whole world community considered it to be Azerbaijani territory. And in this regard, it had the right to choose any ally who provided it with known assistance.

By the way, Turkey was initially a member of the OSCE Minsk Group on Karabakh settlement. So it was also inside the international institution, the international mechanism of settlement. It was not as a co-chair. We had three co-chairs: France, Russia and the USA. Turkey was not among the co-chairmen, however, it was a member of that group, there are 11 states in total.

You can assess Turkey's actions in any way you want, but it is difficult to accuse Turkey of violating international law. There may be any assessment of taste there, but it is nevertheless the case as I just said.

As for the peacekeeping mission, yes, indeed, both Azerbaijan and Turkey have always talked about the possibility of Turkey's participation in peacekeeping operations. Still, I think I have managed to convince both our Turkish partners and our colleagues in Azerbaijan that there is no need to create conditions or prerequisites for the destruction of our agreements, such conditions that would provoke one of the contracting parties to some extreme measures and actions.

What do I mean by that? I mean a very hard heritage of the past years and what is connected with tragic, bloody events of the First World War, with genocide. This is a factor that can be recognized, someone recognizes, and someone in the world does not recognize.

For Russia there are no problems here, we have recognized it all long ago. But why should we provoke the Armenian side with Turkish soldiers on the line of contact? It seems to me that President Erdogan understood and understood that very well.

We didn't have any problems here. We agreed that Turkey will take part in monitoring the ceasefire at the request of Azerbaijan. We will do it together with Turkey, I mean we have a very good experience of cooperation in the Middle East, including Syria, where we both in Idlib zone and on the border between Syria and Turkey will organize joint patrols, convoy.

This kind of interaction is not required here, but we have agreed that we will create a joint center that will use unmanned aerial vehicles, together we will monitor the situation along the border line with the help of these aircraft, together we will receive information and together analyze it and, accordingly, draw conclusions from what is really happening in reality, in life online, in the current time.

Where it will be placed is another question. It is obvious that it will be on the sovereign territory of Azerbaijan, and Azerbaijan has the right to make a decision on its own where it considers it appropriate to place it.

 

Question: About the flavor assessments. Still, there is a lot of talk and discussion about Turkey's role in this region. How do you generally evaluate its role in everything that has happened in recent months?

 

V. Putin: I think it is not my responsibility to assess Turkey's role. Different people, different countries assess it differently. At the moment, relations with Turkey differ from country to country. We know the background, and sometimes the dramatic background of relations between Turkey and Russia over the centuries.

But I want, you know, what to pay attention to? The fact that, say, no less difficult and tragic history has been in relations with many European nations. For example, the same France and Germany. How many times have they fought with each other? Now they are working together within NATO on defense and security as they see fit, cooperating within the European economic community. They've overcome it all, they've crossed over, and they're moving on for the future of their nations. Why can't we do the same here in the Black Sea region?

Yes, we don't always have the same positions and viewpoints in everything, they sometimes differ diametrically. But that is the art of diplomacy - to find a compromise. And compromise is based on respect for the partner.

 

Question: France and the U.S. are almost offended that they were not called to participate in this agreement. In general, does this format - the OSCE Minsk Group - have a future?

 

V. Putin: Well, I don't know about offenses. When the issues are solved, they are discussed at this level and in this context, when it comes to health and life, the fate of millions of people for a long time in history, there is not much resentment, not much lips chewing. Here completely different categories are considered. And I think that this is actually hyperbole, such an artistic exaggeration, that someone is offended at someone.

As for the role of France and the United States, I highly appreciate them, the role of both France and the United States, because they have always been in the material, always looking for ways to solve this problem. I have already said, starting from 2013, when Russia proposed the basis for the future settlement format, both France and the United States supported our proposal and worked together in solidarity.

The question is how and whether it was possible to take into account in detail the opinion of each of our partners when preparing the final document that formed the basis of our trilateral statement, the ceasefire, but this is a purely technical issue, because it does not undermine the basis of our common position on the principles of the settlement. The statement we made is fully based on the trilateral position.

As for the signing itself, I have already said that on the 19th-20th I had a series of telephone conversations with both President Aliyev and Prime Minister Pashinyan, and in general, as it seemed to me, we have almost reached an agreement on the cessation of hostilities. But it did not work out, unfortunately. And the situation began to develop in such a way that, in general, what could have been foreseen happened, namely the armed forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan took control of Shusha. And how absolutely fair and honestly, addressing to his people, Prime Minister Pashinyan, in my opinion, said yesterday. He said that the situation is critical for the Armenian side. The bill was counting for hours. It was possible to take Stepanakert and move forward. Under those circumstances, it was in the interest of the Armenian side to stop fighting immediately. Where should we hold additional consultations in the framework of the OSCE Minsk Group? That is simply unrealistic. We have to proceed from the realities that have developed on the battlefield at the moment. We have done so in the interests of both the Azerbaijani and Armenian peoples.

 

Question: You said this, and it is widely known, nobody hid that Azerbaijan supported Turkey. There was quite a lot of information about the transfer of militants from the Middle East to the conflict zone. And Armenia was supported, did it feel help? Armenia is known to be a CSTO member.

 

V. Putin: I want to bring you back to the part I was talking about in the beginning. Armenia has not recognized the independence and sovereignty of Nagorno-Karabakh. This meant, from the point of view of international law, that both Nagorno-Karabakh and all the districts adjacent to it were integral parts of the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan.

The CSTO (Collective Security Treaty) provides for mutual assistance in the event of aggression against the territory of a country party to that Treaty. No one has made an attempt on the territory of the Republic of Armenia. And that did not give us any right to take direct part in those hostilities.

As to whether Armenia felt alone, I can assure you that the Russian Federation fully fulfilled all its obligations within the framework of both multilateral and bilateral commitments, including in the sphere of military-technical cooperation, for which the leadership of Armenia, including in the person of Prime Minister Pashinyan, has repeatedly expressed the words of gratitude and emphasized that Russia fully meets all its obligations (I apologize for the tautology) in this sphere.

By the way, we also proceeded from the fact (you have now mentioned the role of Turkey, the informal armed groups), we proceeded from the fact that even in the course of such serious events the balance of power must be respected. And I assure you that Armenia did not feel abandoned and forgotten. And Russia did everything to make sure that it was not. But the situation on the battlefield is exactly the way it is, which is what Prime Minister Pashinyan said frankly and honestly in his address to the nation yesterday in his statement.

 

Question: Returning to the domestic political situation in Armenia, where the situation is very acute, the President of Armenia is already demanding to call parliamentary elections and transfer power to the government of national consent. Well, the situation is really booming. Is there no danger that in the end, people will come to power in Armenia, who simply refuse to do everything that is signed.

 

V. Putin: That would be suicide.

I repeat once again, Prime Minister Pashinyan - it's hard for him, of course, but he said he outlined the true picture, the true state of affairs as it is, as it was at the moment of signing our trilateral statement, and as it is today. I have nothing to add. He said the whole truth, truthfully, honestly absolutely, here, I repeat, nothing to add. Therefore, it is of course a matter for each party to respect or not to respect the agreements reached, but I repeat once again, it would be a huge mistake. I hope this will not happen. This is the first time.

The second. As for the domestic political situation, it is not our business, it is Armenia's business. Armenia is an independent, sovereign state. This state has the right to solve its internal affairs as it considers necessary. But if you want my assessment, a country that is at war or is in danger of resuming hostilities, as it has always been during the previous years, still cannot afford to behave in such a way, including in the sphere of organizing power to split the society from within. I think it is absolutely unacceptable, counterproductive and extremely dangerous. In my opinion, we are witnessing, at least in part, but at least in part, what has been happening recently.

 

Question: After the agreement, Russian peacekeepers were rapidly moved into the conflict zone. Is the number that is there enough to accomplish its tasks? And an important

Question: will our servicemen get the so-called "combat" for such service?

 

V. Putin: We have a regulatory framework. It is regulated by the relevant Presidential Decrees that were adopted earlier. The servicemen who perform peacemaking functions, perform this mission, receive additional payments, but not for combat service, namely for performing their peacemaking functions abroad.

As for whether there is enough or not, this issue must be addressed from the real demands of life, which of course arise every day. In principle, we assume that it is enough. But if something can and should be changed, it can be done only by agreement of the parties.

 

Question: You have already said several times that you have talked to both the Prime Minister of Armenia and the President of Azerbaijan many times during the whole conflict, and you have also talked about it before. If you go back to that night, at what moment, when and how did the document become what we all saw it?

 

V. Putin: You know, it was a complicated process, I would say, energy-consuming, I think from all sides. And it was a result of tripartite consultations. In fact, I had to assume the role of mediator when I talked to one and the second leader, listened to their demands, claims to the text, made some changes, contacted the other side, listened to their wishes and demands, then consulted with the first one about the acceptability of these provisions for other partners. But in fact, it was an equal, equal, tripartite work.

 

Question: Did it all happen on this very day or were there any hints before?

 

V. Putin: It was on this very day.

Yes, I come back to what was said by Prime Minister Pashinyan. It's just that there was a situation in the war zone when, frankly speaking, Armenia came to such a hell when it was necessary to make a decision. But, I have to hand it to you, and under those conditions, of course, the battle was fought from both sides for every phrase, every point, you could say, every comma.

 

Question: That night we were all witnesses, you had a teleconference with Aliev. Pashinyan was not in that bridge. Why not?

 

V. Putin: You should ask him. He just did not think it was possible, necessary. It was not the picture that was important, but the essence of our agreements.

 

Question: You can often hear reproaches from Armenia and Russian Armenians even now that the Armenian leadership's rather peculiar, to put it mildly, position towards Russia as well, in general, led to the end of everything. How do you evaluate such assessments?

 

V. Putin: I do not understand what is meant by this. I don't note any peculiarities in our relations with Armenia recently, including during the time when Prime Minister Pashinyan was in power. Yes, I have already spoken about today, but I have also considered the situation several years before and I believe that a country that is in a rather difficult situation, on the verge of fighting, can not afford to organize domestic political life and power through the streets. That does not make it a good thing. A split society does not lead to anything good. Society must be consolidated, not destroyed.

But everybody knows my position, I speak about it openly, here I do not hesitate to speak about it publicly. But it has not affected our relations in any way. Yes, I had a good relationship with my former management, I never concealed it and never hid it. But it did not affect our interstate relations in any way. Because, first of all, we also had a personal relationship that was quite trusting and constructive. Therefore, these hints are not very clear to me. First of all.

And the second one is very important. In addition to persons endowed with a certain trust in their own country, there are people of this country. And if you speak about the Armenian people, Russia and Armenians have centuries-old relations that go back to the past.

Our relations are based on cultural and religious closeness and many things connect us historically. This is even more important than relations between specific people. We remember this and never forget it, and it is the basis of our interaction with Armenia. 

http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/64431

[Krošek]

Azeri mirno usli u agdamski rajon

[Nikodije]

Agdam izgleda kao Pripjat, čak i gore, a nekad je tu živelo 40k ljudi. Baš me zanima šta Azeri imaju u planu za Agdam, Šušu, Kalbadžar i ostala mesta gde ih nekad bilo puno, a sada nema žive duše jer je i ono malo Jermena otišlo. Neke pare će sigurno uložiti da ožive ta mesta, pretpostavljam da će na razne načine stimulisati ljude da se doseljavaju u ova mesta, ne samo one koji su nekad živeli tu već i druge.

[vememah]

Quote

 

The Azerbaijani government is pushing forward with an ambitious plan to reconstruct the territories that it recently won from Armenia, many of which have been virtually leveled since Azerbaijan lost control of them in the 1990s.

President Ilham Aliyev highlighted the reconstruction plans during a November 16 tour of some of the territories along with his wife and first vice president, Mehriban Aliyeva.

“A new master plan will be drawn up. Relevant instructions have been given. A master plan will be developed for each city. All office buildings, public buildings, schools and medical centers will be established here. All infrastructure will be put in place. Streets, parks and alleys will be built. Victory monuments will be erected in all the cities and life will return here,” Aliyev said during a visit to Jabrayil.

The government has not said how much it intends to spend on all of this. Independent economists have estimated the costs in the tens of billions of dollars; Azerbaijan’s annual state budget is currently about $15 billion.

Economist Togrul Valiyev told Eurasianet that fully reconstructing the newly retaken territories would likely take 10 years and cost 25 billion manats (about $15 billion). 

“There is basically no infrastructure left in Jabrayil, Fuzuli, Zangilan, and Gubadly,” four of the seven regions that Azerbaijan regained control of, Valiyev said. “It’s going to cost about as much as Azerbaijan spends in a year” on its entire budget, he said. 

 

https://eurasianet.org/azerbaijan-starts-rebuilding-in-newly-won-territories?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=facebook&fbclid=IwAR0WdHAe8RcJ7mCt2Y0HopZIXDwMvCjpDgMRz1cipl-PP6BBh5kvhBCqqvM

[Nikodije]

Kul, hvala. Pretpostavio sam da će "neke" pare zapravo biti milijarde, da pokažu Jermenima kako se to radi kad osvojiš/oslobodiš teritoriju.

[Kundera]

3 hours ago, Nikodije said:

Kul, hvala. Pretpostavio sam da će "neke" pare zapravo biti milijarde, da pokažu Jermenima kako se to radi kad osvojiš/oslobodiš teritoriju.

Ja sve imam utisak da ce to biti Potemkinova sela i da ce taj kraj biti u principu trajno mrtav, poput nase Krajine.

Edited November 21, 2020 by Kundera