The shooting on the officially unrecognized state border by Armenia and Azerbaijan is becoming intense, and Russia`s attempts, as a signatory of the trilateral peace agreement on November 10, 2020, to transfer the process to a peaceful channel were unsuccessful. The Kremlin`s latest ceasefire proposal of July 28 was accepted by the parties and violated less than a day later.

The 44-day war put an end to the 29-year-old Armenian occupation of part of the territory of Azerbaijan. The parties observed the ceasefire regime on the existing contact line of fire, until April, despite at times it came to the operational demarcation of certain sections of the border by the Azerbaijani side and border concessions to Armenia (in Kelbajar, Zangelan).

At the end of April, President Ilham Aliyev said that the revanchist forces that were raising their heads in Armenia were again putting forward territorial claims against Azerbaijan. He had in mind the statements of the candidate for the early parliamentary elections, ex-President of Armenia Robert Kocharian. In his election campaign, he made a statement that he would be able to return Shusha and Hadrut to the Armenians, and would raise the issue of Karabakh’s independence if he won the elections.

Border tensions fit into the agenda of those who cherish revenge, and not only because of this. The same Kocharian said that “it is quite possible that the events in Yeraskh prepare the ground for a peace treaty, which cannot be signed without Armenia’s recognition of the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. This will mean a big cross on the future of Karabakh.”

The shooting on the border somehow coincided with the elections and has both pre-election and post-election character. The first phase of the use of weapons by the parties was marked from May 26 to June 4. We have recorded five such cases. This outbreak of the use of weapons fits into Kocharian’s first thesis about the inevitable return of Shusha and Hadrut and the implementation of the idea of ​​independence for Nagorno-Karabakh. Then there was a lull, which was broken after the elections. From June 27 to this day, there have been 10 cases of the use of weapons, two of which in Karabakh. The second outbreak of gunfire may be related to Kocharian’s thesis, which sees in the conclusion of a peace agreement between Armenia and Azerbaijan, including the recognition of the borders of the Soviet period, the loss of Karabakh.

Today, this topic is becoming the main problem for those who categorically oppose such an agreement and visually embraces the so-called forces of revenge, but does not exclude the presence of such individuals and groups in Nikol Pashinyan’s entourage. These groups are trying to delay as possible the signing of the contract until favorable times. Kocharyan, in an interview with the host of the First Russian TV Channel Pozner, noted that he was counting on some geopolitical changes that could cancel out the November 10 agreement and start the conflict in another round. Most likely, he means the experience of Gorbachev’s perestroika, which allowed launching the Armenian separatist movement, as well as the defeat of the State Emergency Committee in 1991, which opened the way for an armed struggle of Armenia against Azerbaijan for Karabakh, which resulted in the occupation of 20% of the territory of Azerbaijan.

“We become ourselves when we enter into a borderline situation with an open eye.” Karl Jaspers.

The revanchists are well informed and aware of international efforts to resume the peace process and prepare a comprehensive peace treaty. The fact that the process is being launched is evidenced by the intensified contacts of Brussels, Moscow, Washington with the parties to the conflict immediately after the elections in Armenia, in which the war party was defeated.

In this pre-contractual context, various provocative actions of revanchists should be expected. Their motives are clear – there is nowhere to retreat. The matter may even go as far as the physical elimination of Pashinyan and his associates, as it was on the eve of the brewing Armenian-Azerbaijani peace agreement in 1999, thwarted by shooting in the Armenian parliament.

The new parliament will meet on August 2 for self-affirmation and the subsequent formation of a new government. The legislative and executive branch, which is dominated by Pashinyan’s party, will have to determine the future fate of Armenia and the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict. Conceptual dramatic events are to be expected after this.

Azerbaijan

The war, which resulted in the liberation of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan and the strengthening of Aliyev’s positions, both domestically and in the international arena, he should first be interested in the soonest signing of an agreement with Armenia in order to consolidate what has been achieved.

In our case, Aliyev’s statements about the return to historical lands and the unilateral restoration of the internationally recognized borders of the Azerbaijan SSR, the legal successor of which has become the modern Azerbaijan Republic, look contradictory to this line. Most likely, this is caused by discontent with the attempts of the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs to revive the negotiation process without taking into account the status quo that has developed after the war. Aliyev has repeatedly spoken about the need to revise the agenda of the talks, which were available on the eve of the war. This especially concerns the status of Nagorno-Karabakh. According to Aliyev, there is no status and there is no artificial geographical and administrative formation of Nagorno-Karabakh, created by the Bolsheviks after the collapse of the Russian Empire. Aliyev wants an early conclusion of a peace treaty and mutual recognition of territorial integrity, but does not want to discuss the status of NK. This contradiction can also provoke participation in a border situation.

Source: Turan News Agency