CC BY
23NAGORNO KARABAKH WAR
Damirli K.
Baku State University Specialty: Human rights Master
Orchid: 0000-0001-9453-8802
Abstract
The article aimed to clarify the scientific and educational nature of the Armenian - Azerbaijani conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, which has been widely covered in the literature. It reflects the completely opposite views of the most diverse and sometimes relatively provocative motives that led to the ongoing armed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Numerous studies have been written. It is an undeniable fact that the conflict has claimed the lives of many people and remains unresolved. The process of political solution to this problem is protracted, and there is an ideological confrontation that plays a special role in explaining the causes and consequences of interstate problems. While reviewing the approaches of most authors trying to shed light on the differences between Armenia and Azerbaijan, it is important to note that either researchers are biased and therefore come to hasty and meaningless conclusions, or that historical events are based on abstract false and accidental motives.
Keywords: Nagorno - Karabagh, history, Azerbaijan, war, conflict.
INTRODUCTION
Throughout history, the struggle for the Caucasus has been waged by the great empires - the Roman Empire and the Arab Caliphate, Parthia, Byzantium and the Sassanids, the Safavids and Ottoman Turkey. A major turn in the fate of the Caucasus took place after the Ku-rakchay treaty signed on May 14, 1805, as a result of which the Karabakh Khanate, together with its original Azerbaijani population, came under the legal rule of the Russian Empire. In 1813, the fate of other khanates of Azerbaijan was already decided in Karabakh itself. After the end of the First Russian-Iranian War, the Gu-lustan Peace Treaty divided Dagestan, Georgia, Abkhazia, as well as the Baku, Ganja, Shirvan, Sheki, Der-bent, Guba, and Talish khanates into Russian-controlled territories.
At that time, the majority of the population in these lands were Muslim ethnic groups with a large number of Azerbaijani Turks, and the number of Armenians was very small. They began to spread there only fifteen years later, after the Second Russo-Iranian War of 1826-1828.
Due to its central position, the Caucasus, located on the line of continental, inter-civilizational and inter-religious divisions, has always played an important role in the geopolitical projects of the world's central powers. In turn, Karabakh was, in a sense, the key to the region and played a crucial role in controlling the Caucasus, especially its southern part. In the conclusions reached by most historians and conflictologists are based on selective historical evidence (or data) and therefore do not reflect the whole picture. For this reason, many studies cannot be considered seriously scientific and objective.
At the same time, special attention was paid to Armenian and foreign sources in order to expand them. It is possible to show that the opinion of "numerous ancient sources, European and Russian researchers of this region confirm the Armenian historical concept, as well as the convincing territorial claims against Azerbaijan" is incorrect.
It is known that any information expressed by
stakeholders about this or that conflict is sometimes not devoid of extreme levels of selfishness. Positive exceptions arise only when the construction of a chronological chain of silent events is resolved on the basis of impartiality and is accompanied by a consistent sequence of results with a broad and reliable reliable evidence base. Such a statement of the problem allows to create a more complete configuration of the motives of the investigation, so the conflict creates the basis for the creation of a perfect exposition, which plays a key role in the creation.
THE OCCUPATION OF THE KARABAGH
The occupation of the Nagorno-Karabakh region of Azerbaijan reveals a common problem of the two states - Armenia and Azerbaijan, which belong to different cultures and live in different socio-economic conditions. Azerbaijan plans strategic development for the coming decades, while Armenia is trying to somehow solve the problem of survival. However, even such a clear situation does not give grounds to say that the conflict between the two sovereign states remains one of the characteristic acts of the clash of civilizations, and virtually all Armenian researchers stubbornly slow down, covering up the fact of open aggression. Interestingly, such a biased explanation is often repeated by foreign experts and conflictologists.
The emergence of a cold approach to the interstate conflict requires from each researcher an accurate analysis of the ideological, ethnopsychological civilization - cultural, and, finally, the historical aspects of the problem. Regardless of the breadth and diversity of the general potential, it is necessary to be extremely honest and careful in the study of the material, to thoroughly analyze every detail that is the basis for judging the turn of any historical process, to follow a strict sequence of events. This is the only way to get a fuller picture of the past and present of the conflict.
Numerous analytical and informational content has been collected by experts on the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, in which interest has grown. The perception of quantitative indicators in the research is unsatisfactory with the quality of the available material.
According to most researchers, the results and opinions, unfortunately, do not allow the reader to clarify the nature of the objective conflict. Therefore, the ignorant, who fall into a very large flow of information, sometimes face subjective hurricanes, and sometimes distorted judgments and conclusions.
The differential approach to some events in the past, overt and covert falsified history, and a biased approach to understanding the process create confusion in the general picture and mislead information users.
If we follow every point of logic, the rules of consistent research of the subject, the search for answers to all questions without exception, in the analysis of materials, seems more reasonable and appropriate.
Such an approach, based on the principle of impartiality, can provide a comprehensive picture of the explanation and causes of interstate conflict. Anyone who wants to investigate unexpected changes in a problem needs help. Refusing to discriminate, it is important in every way to put all the points on the "i" to show the myriad unexplored events and the misunderstandings that arise from them.
Every fact, every element, every detail carries a logical burden, determining the evolution of the problem. An academic approach is important to understand the nature, causes and current state of the source of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, the bloodiest in the post-Soviet space.
Many Armenian and foreign authors unequivocally affirm that the existence of two sovereign entities on the line of demarcation between Christian and Muslim areas is an indisputable proof that two neighboring civilizations are forced to overlap on the principle of "wall to wall". For this reason, some authors consider the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict not as a socio-economic and political state crisis, but as a clearly expressed cultural and ideological debut.
There is no doubt that the difference in civilization between ethnic groups is more fundamental than the disagreement over political ideological systems. The truth is that religion often divides people because this commonality is stronger than their ethnicity.
If we unconditionally agree with this logical assumption, then, by the way, why does Christian Georgia act as a strategic partner of Azerbaijan, and Muslim Iran actively cooperates with it by investing in Armenia? In the context of this confrontation, it is appropriate to refer to the legacy of Francis Fukuyama, who claimed that after the collapse of communism, political calm in Eastern Europe would inevitably be disrupted by intolerable and aggressive nationalism. The officially declared democracy of the Armenian political leadership disguises its true intentions by putting into practice the extreme chauvinism. In both his domestic life and in foreign policy, the dominance of this trend is striking. Today, Armenia, with an absolute majority of the main nation, is considered the world's least mono-ethnic country, and this is in fact the logic of systematic ethnic "cleansing" from the Soviet era.
HÍSTORY OF KARABAGH
After the Second World War, the USSR leadership began to implement a program of repatriation of
Armenians to the so-called "historical homeland". In the name of liberating the living space for the purposefully returning residents of non-Armenian Armenians of Soviet Armenia, the majority of whom are local Azerbaijanis, as well as Russians, Malakans, Yezidi Kurds, Georgians and others.
Most of the repatriates were descendants of the same Armenians who left Eastern Anatolia after the First World War. Thus, they had no direct contact with the lands of Soviet Armenia, ie they were not originally emigrants from the border areas of the former USSR.
The mass expulsion of the Azerbaijani population, the closure of administrative borders within the USSR, the numerous ethnic "cleansings" organized by Azerbaijanis forcibly deported from Karabakh in the late 1980s and early 1990s laid the foundation for instability in the Caucasus.
The aim is to exaggerate the religious secrecy of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, which Armenian historians and ideologues have turned into a source of trade, to win over the West, as well as the entire Christian world, and to obtain material benefits. Their first and last task is to fully master the so-called "disputed" status of the lands of Azerbaijan, currently occupied and to be occupied in the future, by invited experts.
The cornerstone, the idea of "returning lost lands" using all methods of struggle, the Armenian elite of several generations is brought up on the principles of extreme nationalism.
In the implementation of their plans of open aggression, they use this ideological concept for the so-called "weakly expressed self-identification of Azerbaijanis" and the disputed historical rights of those areas, past and present.
According to numerous sources, historically, Azerbaijanis had more centralized statehood than their neighbors. In 1918, when the world order system withstood radical changes, the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic (ADR) became the first secular democratic country in the Muslim East and the previous successor to national institutions. The secularism of the new state did not affect the religious feelings of the population, but the fact that the main ethnic group of the young republic belonged to the Muslim religion had a decisive impact on the political system of the country. From the first days of its existence, the ADR aimed to create a perfect national-state model. All ethnic, social groups and political parties were represented in the ADR Parliament.
Unlike Azerbaijan, which demonstrates a vivid model of nation-building, Armenia's political system represents a classical ideology. At the heart of its legitimacy, according to its classics, is the claim to the realization of a utopian project of the future. It is not the people's government and any social groups that act as subjects, but the caste or order of like-minded people, groups of experienced ideologues who summarize the utopia and show how to act to achieve the goal of restoring "Greater Armenia".
The pre-Christian legacy has left such a strong imprint on the minds of the political elite that it is so deeply rooted in the national consciousness of the
Armenians that this phenomenon separates them from the general flow of all-Christian identity. But this is not the most characteristic feature of the implementation of utopian ideology.
The chosen model, in general, does not meet the needs of modernity and the Armenian people, only because it is not relevant in its essence and purpose. In addition, it is far from the current social realities and still does not ensure the solidarity of the people and the government. The demographic depletion of the country has become a logical consequence. According to the UN and the Armenian Ministry of Health, the birth rate in 2013 more than halved compared to 1988. Thus, in 1988, there were 87,000 children in the population of 3.4 million in Armenia, and in 2013, only 41,906 children were born in Armenia. According to this indicator, it is possible to draw conclusions about the scale of population decline in Armenia.
When the forces implementing the Greater Armenia utopian project are in power, the Armenian elite relies not on the majority of social groups and the democratic system, but on the small leverage and resources it has in its hands, ignoring the task of uniting the nation and pursuing its interests.
Not surprisingly, the nucleus movement is the key to the goal for the ruling elite in modern Armenia. If they stop it, it will become clear that the dynamics are not based on the realization of socio-cultural goals and the needs of the ethnos, but on ideological inertia.
It is noteworthy that many modern researchers also note that a part of the Armenian people, turning away from the spiritual heritage of the church, politically active and chauvinistically oriented, activates the segment of neo-paganism, appealing to the early archetypes of national self-consciousness. This tendency is also evident in the modern elite of the Armenian people and in the formation of political ideology.
Deviation from traditional evangelical laws, obviously so strange, if not terrible, Armenian ideologues unanimously proclaim the psychological incompatibility of the two neighboring peoples attracts the transformation of the mind. After all, history is a witness to the times when Azerbaijanis and Armenians lived together and shared common values.
A revolutionary coup in the minds of the Armenian elite took place at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, when the leadership of the so-called Armenian military aristocracy, which had maintained its allegiance to the Ottoman Empire, sought to restore "a statehood lost centuries ago."
A new version of religious-mystical ideas about "Greater Armenia", which destroyed the abstract basis of identity and dominated the minds of many representatives of the national intelligentsia, was published.
The results of the First World War, which led to unprecedented ethnic and inter-religious massacres (in 1915) due to the scale of Armenian officers under the influence of extreme chauvinism and separatist forces, were not enough for Armenians. The incredible deportation of the ethnos in Eastern Anatolia soon drew a line under the dream of national statehood. In any case, the Armenians were able to gain statehood in the Azerbaijani lands that were part of the USSR. However, this
was not an incentive for them to refuse armed resistance, and as a result, the Tsar's successor first grew to Azerbaijani public figures of Turkish descent, Turkish diplomats, USSR politicians and statesmen, and finally to a secret war of terror against independent Azerbaijan. Dissatisfaction with their position led to a new leap of nationalism and aggression against Azerbaija-nis.
Despite the fact that the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic reached out to the newly formed Republic of Armenia in 1918 and voluntarily gave part of these ancient lands to it, it compromised Yerevan (Yerevan) as the ancient historical and cultural center and capital of Azerbaijan. It was small. After the Sovietization of the South Caucasus, the Armenians already raised the issue of whether Karabakh and Nakhchivan belonged to them, that they are the lands of ancient Azerbaijan. Again, the blood of thousands of people was shed, and Azerbaijanis remained the legitimate heirs of the two disputed territories from the point of view of Armenian chauvinists. President of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev repeatedly reminded about this from various tribunes: "Armenian state has been established in the ancient lands of Azerbaijan, which is today's Armenia. These are our native lands, the lands of our ancestors. Iravan khanate, Zangazur district - all these names are Azerbaijani toponyms" USSR After the collapse, the stepfather forces of local and other recruited separatists attacked a small and weakly organized group of Azerbaijani armed forces, predicting the fate of the military campaign of international terrorists who joined them, as well as Armenian nationalists of the regular troops of the CIS countries. The active military operations in Nagorno-Karabakh in 1991-1994 were an open intervention against a young country in a state of socio-political and acute internal crisis, which was not ready for a radical change of events. However, the victory in the first stage of the conflict with the financial, organizational and military-technical assistance of foreign forces and the direct participation of the Republic of Armenia ended in great losses for anyone who blessed the revengeful separatists and mercenaries. Neither the Republic of Armenia nor the rest of the world has recognized the independence of the so-called "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic." He demanded his immediate removal from the zone and recognized him as an occupier.
At the same time, the country, which is expanding against Azerbaijan, has become a hostage of aggressive policy. Twenty years later, after the end of the active phase of the armed conflict, Armenia and co-occupied Nagorno-Karabakh faced a deep socio-economic crisis. As a result of the hopeless stagnation, they are forced to live between two temporary structures - one known and the other unrecognized. They still rely on the help of the diaspora, multibillion-dollar transfers of Armenian migrant workers and the help of international financial institutions and sponsor states.
Armenia is weakening, Karabakh's military regime continues to keep people in military conditions, and the diaspora is raising funds around the world to support the toy government of the toy dwarf. For the Armenians of the world, Nagorno-Karabakh, proudly
called Artsakh, has become a symbol of endurance, ceremonial devotion and self-sacrifice.
However, if it is possible to avoid ideological problems, in fact, something completely absurd is obtained. As the country is in conflict with Azerbaijan, it is losing the potential of its national sovereignty and is struggling to make ends meet.
All this happens when the "dream" comes true. Victory cost the Armenian society costs, losses, including blood. The realized idea has completely changed into a harsh reality.
Now the fate of Armenian society has suffered a severe psychological defeat. Occupied Karabakh not only keeps Armenia and Armenians, but also draws a line under its plans to live in sufficient conditions in the conditions of the unfinished war with Azerbaijan.
The system of compulsory separation, which has been practiced for centuries, is still applied, and it ensures the maintenance of such a national-religious unity, even in the event of the bankruptcy of the state body of Armenia's homeland parameters. At the same time, "Liberated Karabakh", which has been playing a unifying role for the Armenian people and diaspora for a long time, is living a hard life.
In such a bizarre situation, it would be naive to hope for a common position between the three poles of the OSCE Minsk Group (which has the right to sue and has a decisive say in the supremacy of its position). And as a result, against the background of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict, the additional pro-Armenian antagonistic layer, which makes it difficult to resolve the interstate dispute by establishing an internal regime, has clearly increased.
Now the political consciousness of the Armenian people is far from the declared unity. The appeal of the politically active and extremist part of the people to the ideology of neo-paganism clearly shows the high level of psychological aggression of the destructive political system. For these forces, the Turkish segment acts as a deterministic object of collective aggression. The emergence of an alarming form of rejection of enemies in the face of modern Azerbaijanis and feathers may lead to the expansion of the theater of Khojaly tragedy, the resumption of the Karabakh war and acts of violence. The growth of the spirit of commitment has made the elite of the former Soviet republic hostage to the foreign diaspora, which is based on the development of the Armenian statehood and suppresses the interests of the natural state. For this reason, the strange metamorphosis of Armenia's dependence on external factors is explained.
The spectrum of Yerevan's political influence is narrowing, and it is becoming a tool in the hands of a foreign organization.
For this reason, the contours of the peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict are expanding. Against this background, Azerbaijan's power is growing, and Armenia is suffering a clear psychological defeat. The balance of the military-technical confrontation, which has become an economically decisive factor in the ongoing conflict, is also in Azerbaijan's favor.
The morale of the Armenian people is violated by the socio-economic stagnation, which has hit the tone
of life of ordinary citizens of the country more and more. Those who are able leave the borders of Armenia in a hurry, hoping for a better life. The idea that Karabakh (Artsakh) is also a good place becomes a meaningless abstraction.
Armenia, with the participation of the diaspora, created a conflict around Nagorno-Karabakh and fell into a geopolitical trap, putting the legend of creating a "Greater Armenia" at the corner of reincarnation. The current realities are clear - the dividing line that emerged after the signing of the Interim Reconciliation Agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan in 1994 will never be accepted by Azerbaijan as new interstate borders. A strong Azerbaijan will not allow it. Because Armenia must return to its previous positions with a concerted approach in its interests. Otherwise, the infidel will sway to the radical side, and the fate of the de-stabilizer of regional stability will be forced peace. The best way to resolve the conflict is a just solution to the conflict. According to the general opinion of the Azerbaijani people, justice passes through the inviolability of the territorial integrity of the Republic of Azerbaijan. Behind this public opinion is a socio-political history that includes the rules and traditions of hundreds of years. The political and social processes taking place in the settlement stages show that any option that undermines the territorial integrity of the South Caucasus can not contribute to stability and can lead the region to deeper crises and endless conflicts.
THE REZULTS
The OSCE Minsk Group, established to resolve the conflict, has not taken any concrete steps for 28 years. Armenia artificially extended the negotiation process to maintain the status quo.Armenia resettled Armenian families from abroad and settled in the occupied territories, plunder ing its underground and surface resources. President Ilham Aliyev was patiently negotiating for the liberation of our territory through negotiations without bloodshed. However, relying on its supporters, Armenia did not want to liberate its lands. The end of 220 painful years has come. A new stage of our history has begun. Over the past 17 years, the strengthening of the country's economy, the creation of foreign exchange reserves, the provision of the army with modern equipment, the successes achieved in the field of diplomacy have created conditions for the Azerbaijani Army to start a victorious march. The counterattack, which began on September 27 in response to another Armenian provocation, ended in victory in 44 days. The Azerbaijani Army, which is among the 50 strongest armies in the world, has written a new page in the world's military history with its bravery in the Second Karabakh War. Implemented UN Security Council resolutions that have not been implemented since 1993. Restoring our territorial integrity, the Azerbaijani Army has once again demonstrated to the world that we are a heroic, invincible and proud nation. In 44 days, 5 cities, 4 settlements, about 300 settlements, a large number of strategic heights were liberated from occupation.
The liberation of Shusha on November 8 decided the fate of the war. On November 10, the Prime Minister of Armenia signed an act of caputulation. Armenia
surrendered, raised a white flag and fell to its knees. Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who put forward 7 conditions against Azerbaijan and said "Karabakh is Armenia", signed an act of unconditional surrender. After that, Aghdam, Lachin and Kalbajar districts were returned to their owners without a single shot being fired. The territorial integrity of the state was restored. On December 10, the Victory Parade was held with the participation of Turkish President Recep Tay-yip Erdogan, who helped to ensure our victory. The seized military equipment of the Armenian army was demonstrated. This was the overthrow of the Armenians, who for more than 100 years considered themselves victorious and invincible, by an Azerbaijani soldier.
It was the defeat of the Armenian Diaspora. The message of the President to the Armenians during the visit of the victorious Supreme Commander-in-Chief Ilham Aliyev to Gubadli on December 23 should be kept in their ears: "We have crushed the head of Armenian fascism. Armenian fascism brought our lands to this day. We have broken the back of the Armenian fascist state, the state of terror, and today we are forced to kneel before us and draw the right conclusions. Armenian society must draw the right conclusions. If they live with a sense of revenge, their end will be bad."
We have now introduced ourselves to the world as a victorious nation. Armenian supporters could not save him. However, we must know that the enemy will use all kinds of humiliation and corruption to make up for this defeat. The enemy will look for an opportunity. Just as in the first Karabakh war, he took advantage of the chaos in our country, the opportunity created by the internal strife for power.
As the head of state said, "Azerbaijan has never achieved such a brilliant victory in history, it has never been stronger in history. Our strength is in our unity. We have shown unity, perseverance, heroism, and as a result, we have crushed the head of the enemy with an iron fist and liberated our native lands. " At present, the process of clearing the liberated territories of mines and other explosive devices has begun. Shusha has been declared the capital of our culture again. International organizations see the consequences of Armenian vandalism with their own eyes. The difference between the Armenian savagery and vandalism of the Azerbaijani people is obvious. It is a great happiness to be a veteran and witness of the victory we have won at the expense of the blood of our martyrs at this stage of our history.
References
1. AFP, Reuters (February 20, 2016). Dw.com. Russia sends fighter jets to Armenian base. https://www.dw.com/en/russia-sends-fighter-jets-to-armenian-base/a-19063187.
2. APA News (March 19, 2014). Ilham Aliyev: Azerbaijan will restore its territorial integrity and sovereignty
3. Babayeva, J. (February 5, 2014). Azerbaijan reserves right to free its occupied lands: Minister. Azernews. Accessed November 19, 2019, https://www.azernews.az/ nation/64096.html.
4. Askerov, A. (2019). Shadows of the April 2016 war: Armenia and Azerbaijan back in a deadlock? Eurasia Daily Monitor, 16 (45)
5. Azernews (October 29, 2013). Deputy PM: Azerbaijan to liberate its occupied lands by any means. AZG DAILY (#79, 03-05-2005), "Shooting of the Armenian parliament was organized by Russian special services," FSB colonel claims freeze page. com /1270569339JOFECUAZJM?url=http:// www.azg.am/EN/200505037.
6. BBC (April 7, 2016). Bakida gencler "Qarabag bizimdir suari ile aksiya kecirib," https://www.bbc.com/azeri/multime-dia/2016/04/160407_baku_karabakh_demo.
7. Bodner, M. (April 6, 2016). How Nagorno-Karabakh conflict could spark major international crisis. The Moscow Times
8. Cornell, S. (1997). Undeclared war: The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict reconsidered, Journal of South Asian and Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 20, No. 4, pp. 1-24.
9. Efegil, E. & Kasimli, C. (2015). Daglik Karabag uzerine yazilar. Gundogan Yayinlari.
10. Ellena, M. (May 23, 2016). Nagorno-Karabakh: The slow-motion conflict. Accessed April 28, 2019, Intellinews.com.
11. Freizer, S. (2014). Twenty years after the Nagorny Karabakh ceasefire: an opportunity to move towards more inclusive conflict resolution; Caucasus Survey, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 109-22.
12. Fuller, L. (November 3, 2008). "Moscow Declaration" a victory for Armenia. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty. Accessed April 27, 2019, https://www.rferl.org/a/Moscow_Declaration_A_Vic-tory_For_Armenia/13 37592.html
