By Anush Dashtents

The heated political debate over the captives was followed by a lawyer’s post, which published testimonies of returnees about how 62 soldiers from the Shirak region were voluntarily taken prisoner without firing a single bullet, which was seen as an attempt to justify the statements of Nikol Pashinyan and Alen Simonyan. We talked to Movses Hakobyan, former head of the General Staff, former chief military inspector.

• As a military man, do you think it is right that the pre-investigation testimonies of the captives were published?

“I think not.”

• From the point of view of the preliminary investigation, or do we have such cowardly soldiers and the army is discredited?
• None of those who testified were from the army, they were the volunteers from Gyumri, gathered by the governor. But that lawyer did it in vain.
• 60 people surrender to 4-5 people, and after the war they brought arms and legs in parts, handed them over to their parents, wasn’t all this for them to break so that we think this nation is not a nation?
• The title is not mine, but I share it somewhere ․ If a herd is ruled by a lion, it becomes a lion cub; if a lion is led by a sheep, those lions become a flock of sheep. 
• Do you agree that the process of discrediting the army continues and is done from the highest circles? 

“I’m not sure, I can guess.”

• Nikol Pashinyan stated that the border was not furnished because the army was busy with internal political mutilation ․ Chief of Staff, etc.
• How many calendar days have passed since then, the sewing border would have been furnished?
• You said that after the November 9 document it was not a secret for you that there will be a “Zangezur corridor” or a road, depending on who understands how. Aliyev now says, tell me when you will give the “Zangezur Corridor”.
• According to the document signed on November 9, the head of state undertook to give way to the Azerbaijanis, which will be controlled by another country.
• That is, a corridor without sovereignty.
• Absolutely not.
• Another country can be Russia, it can be Azerbaijan.
• The Russian border troops will control. The next question is smooth movement ․ How will it be understood, there is a need to comment on this.
• In that case, what was the theater? Nikol Pashinyan’s supporters were celebrating a “victory” on the day of the Sochi meeting, did you see that there is no corridor, you have no place to talk and so on.
• If a part of the society claims that there will be a corridor, they understand that the road will be handed over to Azerbaijan. There is no such thing, but by giving way, the security of Azerbaijani cars will be controlled by the Russian border troops.
• It was clear from Sochi, wasn’t it, that a peace treaty would be signed? Will this be a Ribbentrop-Molotov agreement (on non-attack)? What guarantee is that Azerbaijan will not attack, despite the “era of peace”?
• At any time, if we work badly, we will lose our homeland in parts. The second ․ I am afraid that we will not allow the mistake of our people 100 years ago again. If we want a lot, we will lose everything altogether. 
• If the corridor is not given, in your opinion, is the alternative to war?
• I said, am I not afraid that we will repeat our mistake of 100 years?
• We ask Russian analysts why you behave like this, they say, why does your army not defend your homeland?

“They are right.”

• We say the army is broken, they say you have so many troops in the rear, why don’t you move to the border? Is that also true?
• In my opinion, you, no one else, should be engaged in the defense of your homeland. Others could help.
• A delimitation commission came from Russia yesterday, according to our information, they are only military, we have preliminary information that we will have only military in the commission.

“I can not say anything.”

• There are a number of people in the army, I am talking about high-ranking officials, against whom no criminal case has been initiated, including the head of the General Staff. Is this normal in the situation we are in?
• It is difficult to answer, I think you can work at any time.

“But how do they work in those conditions?”

• My subjective opinion is that it is not honest.

“In other words, are they scapegoats in that sense?”

• In general, the issues are not clearly stated. It is my subjective opinion, I may be wrong, but knowing the current political authorities, their steps during these years, it seems to them that they could lead the army with political statements. While the army demands that when the problem is received, the problem, as it is written, should not contain ambiguity (ambiguity, which gives rise to misinterpretations). And any material announced by today’s politicians causes not only hesitation, but also pluralism among people. As far as I remember, it is Article 37 or 38, where it is clearly written that orders or directives are given clearly, according to subordination, and should not contain hesitation. If necessary, clarification is made, it is repeated. That’s why the army and politics…,I have said several times that a military man cannot become a politician and a politician cannot become a military man.
• But doesn’t life prove the opposite, that they are well regulated by political processes?
• If a politician is a politician by nature and becomes a military man, woe to that army.
• Now we have a politician at the head of the army, whom, by the way, you praised at the time of his appointment.
• He is not in charge of the army, he is the Minister of Defense. And we praise in comparison that he is the most adequate person in this government.

The Armenian side suffered one casualty and a few other soldiers are injured following the exchange of fire that began after the units of the Armed Forces of Azerbaijan made an attack today at noon.

The Ministry of Defense of Armenia reports that it will provide the data of the deceased serviceman and information about the health condition of the injured servicemen later.

As of 2:30 p.m. the exchange of fire has stopped. The situation is under the full control of the Armed Forces of Armenia.

The police detained 11 people on Friday after a protest held at the building of the foreign ministry in Yerevan. As Panorama.am learned from the press service of the Police, administrative records have been prepared having regard to Article 182 of the RA Code of Administrative Violations which is failure to comply with the lawful order of a police officer.

As reported earlier, a group of citizens got into the building of the foreign ministry to stage an anti-government protest action. Among participants were the head of opposition Zartonk (Awakening) party Ara Zohrabyan and journalist Nairi Hokhikyan. 

Police officers prevented the action and pushed the participants out of the building, later taking them to police stations. 

On December 10, at around 12:00, the subdivisions of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces attacked the Armenian military positions located in the eastern part of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, the Ministry of Defense reports. 

As a result of the retaliatory actions of the Armenian side, the enemy, suffering human losses, was thrown back to the starting positions, the source said, adding the Armenian side suffered casualties, including one killed and several injured. The identity of the killed soldier and information about the health condition of those injured will be communicated further. 

As of 14։30, the firefight stopped. The situation remains under the full control of the RA Armed Forces, the ministry added.  

The Yerevan court released on Friday Armenian professor, lawmaker from opposition ‘Armenia’ bloc Armen Charchyan, granting the appeal of the defense team to change his preventive measure. The Court, however, barred Charchyan from leaving the country. 

The ruling is subject to appeal at a higher instance court within 10 days of its release.  The people present at the trial met the court ruling with applause. Charchyan left the courtroom and hugged his family members and colleagues standing at the entrance to the courtroom.  

Recall, Charchyan, the former head of the Izmirlian Medical Center in Yerevan, has been charged for allegedly pressuring his employees to participate in the June 20 parliamentary elections and to vote for the ‘Armenia’ bloc. The defense lawyers have repeatedly requested the court to release him from pre-trial custody, citing his worsening health.

YEREVAN. – At noon Friday, units of the Azerbaijani armed forces attacked the Armenian military positions at the eastern direction of the Armenia-Azerbaijan border, the Armenian defense ministry reported.

But as a result of the retaliatory actions by the Armenian side, the adversary suffered human losses and was thrown back to its initial positions.

The exchange of fire continues at this moment.

By Noubar Serabian,

On Nov.03, 2021, the Turkish news agency Anadolu Ajansi (AA) published an article titled “Part of Armenian society favors normalization with Turkey” written by a veteran reporter named Ayse Rabia Sarioglu.

To project the image that the article is strictly an attempt to gauge the “predisposition” of the Armenian society toward the resumption of diplomatic relations with Turkey, and ultimately signing a peace treaty with Turkey and Azerbaijan that will turn Armenia into the land of “Honey and Milk”, Ms. Sarioglu interviews Prof. Benyamin Poghosyan, the director of the Center for Political and Economic Strategic Studies in Yerevan. 

The Master Plan adopted by Ms. Sarioglu of assigning a prominent position in her article for the views expressed by Prof. Poghosyan, covers well the ploy of sending to the key decision makers in Yerevan, the subtle message that a valuable opportunity will be lost with dire consequences for Armenia, if Mr. Pashinyan does not take, in a timely manner, the proper steps to accept the “Olive Branch” extended by Turkey.

At the very end of the article, Ms. Sarioglu delivers the well crafted subtle threat to the Armenian government and nation, via the following statements made in November 2021 during a visit to Baku, by Turkey’s Defense Minister, Hulusi Akar: “…take the hand of peace extended by Turkey and Azerbaijan…There are conflicts and troubles in many parts of the world, but the places where people have come together for talks and to find political solutions are now much safer and more prosperous…If Armenia understands this, makes the necessary contributions and responds positively, serious progress can be made in terms of both security and welfare.” 

Mr. Hulusi Akar, a well-rounded politician, conveniently forgets that a few hundred kilometres away from Ankara, an Arab Israeli conflict, often bloody and brutal, has been going on for decades. In 1978, under intense US diplomatic efforts, Israel and Egypt reached an understanding on the basic formula of “Exchanging Land For Peace”. In 1979 a Peace Accord/Treaty was signed and exchanging land for peace removed permanently Egypt, the country with the largest Arab Army, from the big picture of any future military confrontations with Israel.

Of course the absence of war does not necessarily mean “PEACE” in a region. After more than 4 decades of zero military confrontation with Egypt, Israel has no peace. Why? Because more fundamental issues (The Palestinian Right for statehood being one item on a long agenda of many issues) were trivialized and neglected, to accommodate the security imperatives facing Israel based on assessments disseminated by the Gurus of the Israeli intelligence community.

Applying the realities of the Arab-Israeli conflict to the Caucasus and the bloody results of the First Artsakh War, and the capitulation treaty following Armenia’s defeat in the Second Artsakh War, we can confidently claim to decision makers in Baku and Ankara that temporary absence of war will not automatically pave the way for a peace treaty because too many wrong assumptions are being made by Ankara and Baku, and unless the false assumptions are revisited, reformulated, and repackaged in a way that addresses, in a well balanced fashion, the long-term interests of all concerned State and Non-State actors (Armenian Diaspora), peace will remain elusive at best, and more wars will follow at worst. 

But before we confront some of the warped assumptions that Turkey and Azerbaijan are using to pursue the so called “Peace Building” efforts, we need to mention another Turkish source that is trying to make the Armenian nation more malleable to the notion that a “Peace Loving” nation like Turkey, can maintain strong ties with Azerbaijan while offering Armenia an unprecedented prosperity once the borders are opened following the signature of a peace treaty.

The source we mentioned above is Yeni Şafak (New Dawn), a conservative Islamist Turkish daily newspaper, well known for its blind support for the expansionist policies of Sultan Erdogan, that published an “Expert Opinion”article dated Nov.03/21, titled “Armenia should negotiate with Turkey, Azerbaijan without mediators” using as a mouthpiece Dr. Stepan Grigoryan, the director of the Analytical Center on Globalization and Regional Cooperation, located in Yerevan.

The Turks are not only pursuing, via the statements of Dr. Grigoryan, the goal of selling to the Armenian nation the idea of “Peace Without Preconditions”, but are suggesting the absurd notion that Armenia will be better off without any Russian involvement in the peace negotiation process. The following are the pearls of wisdom Dr. Grigoryan is trying to dispense to the Armenian nation:

“Armenia has lost the (Karabakh) war and is currently in a weak state. The government has to negotiate with Turkey and Azerbaijan, but this should happen without intermediaries like Russia”

“Turkey follows a serious foreign policy in line with its interests.”

Turkey’s support and alliance with Azerbaijan is understandable and not open to discussion.”

“While doing this, it can establish a reasonable and balanced relationship with Armenia. The same goes for Armenia.”

Let us review some of the most serious obstacles that hinder peace and the underlying false assumptions that are shaping the behaviours of both The Doves and The Hawks in each country. Turkey’s perception of PM Pashinyan’s interest in forging diplomatic ties with Turkey. According to Prof. Benyamin Poghosyan, Pashinyan and his followers “…are in favor of overlooking Turkey’s role in last year’s Karabakh conflict…” and support the moves of the Armenian government to open new channels for dialogue with Turkey and Azerbaijan to achieve peace and usher a new era of economic prosperity that will turn Armenia into an earthly paradise of honey and milk. 

Turkey is making a big mistake by cherishing the warped logic that Pashinyan enjoys a “Popular Mandate” based on the results of the elections  held in June 20, 2021. Of the 2.6 million eligible voters in Armenia slightly less than 49% did cast votes-1,273,859. Out of the 1,273,859 Armenians who performed their civic duty only 687,414 supported Mr. Pashinyan and his Civil Contract Party (CCP). 

When 1 out of 4 Armenians supported Mr. Pashinyan and The CCP, how can Turkish policy makers jump to the conclusion that they can negotiate “Peace” and anchor a “Peace Treaty” in a solid foundation with the help of a Prime Minister whose compatriots (3 out of 4) perceive him as a power-hungry opportunist ready to sell on the auction bloc every sacred element of the Armenian national identity? 

Dr. Grigoryan’s twisted logic sees no contradiction in the assertion that Turkey can extend, did extend full military and diplomatic support to Azerbaijan during the Second Artsakh War, and will extend again and again full military support if Azerbaijan becomes the target of any military venture in the future. Yet “While doing this, it can establish a reasonable and balanced relationship with Armenia. A wolf in a sheep’s clothing remains a wolf, and as long as Pan Turkish expansionism is an integral part of Turkish foreign policy, and its military doctrine is based on neutralizing Russian allies (especially Armenia) perceived as an obstacle to reach “The Stan” countries eyed by Turkey (Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan…) Turkey cannot become a genuine peace partner for Armenia. It will remain the biggest existential threat undermining the national security of Armenia. The threats can materialize under the form of military operations by proxy, or a total ravage of the Armenian economy by dumping cheap Turkish products (agricultural or consumer goods) that Armenian producers cannot compete with.

Also, how can we dismiss very casually the intentions of Sultan Erdogan who proudly wants to emulate the legacy of Sultan Abdulhamid II? On February 10, 2018, during a ceremony marking the centenary of the death of Ottoman Sultan Abdulhamid II held at The Yildiz Palace in Istanbul, Sultan Erdogan proudly declared:“The Republic of Turkey, just like our previous states that are a continuation of one another, is also a continuation of the Ottomans…Of course, the borders have changed. Forms of government have changed… But the essence is the same, soul is the same, even many institutions are the same.” 

Sultan Erdogan continued his diatribe against “bigoted” secular Western democracies, that often referred to Abdulahamid II as “The Red Sultan”, by insisting that Abdulhamid II, who slaughtered more than 200,000 Armenians (Hamidian Massacres), was one of the “…most important, most visionary and most strategic minded” ruler that left indelible marks on the political landscape of Turkey for the last 150 years.

Sultan Erdogan concluded his speech by adding the following statement: “Some people insistently try to start this country’s history from 1923. Some unrelentingly try to break us from our roots and ancient values…We take pride in our history without making discrimination.”

How can we, as a nation (Hayrenik & Diaspora) trust a wolf who is insisting that the Republic of Turkey is nothing but a continuation of The ottoman Empire, and genocidal policies will be dusted off and re-adapted to the new Geo-political realities of the 21^st century if need be?

If Sultan Erdogan wants to build trust or earn the trust of Armenians (Fatherland and Diaspora)

a) He has to renounce expansionism, accept the Genocide of 1915 as a historical fact “not open to discussion” by historians or scholars.

b) Change the denialist history books currently used in Turkish schools and thus remove the veil of ignorance keeping in the dark the majority of Turkey’s population that has no clue about the Genocide of 1915 perpetrated by Ottoman Turkey.

c) Erdogan has to make a historic trip to the Genocide Monument in Yerevan to lay a wreath honoring the memory of the Armenian victims who were massacred by Abdulhamid II, and those who survived the Hamidian massacres became the target of the Genocidal savagery and extermination orchestrated and executed by the Ittihadists. 

d) The bodies of the criminals who perpetrated the Genocide were repatriated to Turkey and honored as “National Heroes” after the establishment of modern Turkey. Sultan Erdogan must classify them as symbols of “Man’s Inhumanity to Man”.

If the proposals made above are accepted and implemented by Sultan Erdogan, then there is a reasonable chance that The State of Armenia, represented by the Government of the day, without any interference from the Diaspora may consider to accept Turkey and Sultan Erdogan as a Bona Fide negotiator of “Peace”.

But it is highly unlikely that the Sultan is interested in peace because he sincerely wants Armenia to enjoy Turkish and Azerbaijani largess in the form of unprecedented economic boom in Armenia. Erdogan is facing a rapidly declining economy in Turkey. Hundreds of Turkish millionaires have transferred their wealth to other countries with more stable currencies, and better protected investments. His cronies closely tied to the construction industry in Turkey, are pressuring him to attract foreign investors willing to pour more than $200 billion USD in the mega reconstruction projects of the seven Azerbaijani districts recovered by Azerbaijan at the end of The Second Artsakh War. 

The Sultan’s failure to attract investors, who are vehemently insisting on a peace treaty before a single penny is thrown into a dangerous zone that can change hand unexpectedly, is not only impeding the recovery of the Turkish Lira and economy, but it is seriously turning 600,000 Internally Displaced Persons (IDP), currently living in Baku since the end of The First Artsakh War, into a powder keg threatening the stability of the Aliyev regime in Azerbaijan.

Pashinyan has yet to realize that he is dealing with a wolf in a sheep’s skin. A wolf who has dipped a poison called “Economic Prosperity” in honey, to make the poison more palatable for a spineless lackey who decided that Artsakh is too much of a burden for Armenia to carry, and determined that an “Engineered Defeat” can make it easier to throw Artsakh under the bus once and for all. History will prove him wrong.

Our editorial team believes in the free exchange of ideas. You are free to republish this article both online and in print, as long as the following conditions are respected:

Hetq Araks Mamulyan:

law enforcement sources say six of the ten Armenian soldiers that Azerbaijan returned on December 4 have been criminally charged with “violating combat duty regulations.” (Criminal Code – Article 365).

Armenia’s Investigative Committee has not yet provided any details on the matter.

The ten Armenian soldiers were taken prisoner on November 16, 2021, along the eastern section of the Armenian-Azerbaijani line of contact, after Azerbaijani troops targeted Armenian military positions with artillery fire.

Russian mediated the return of the ten in exchange for Armenian minefield maps.

The Armenian Defense Ministry reported that six servicemen were killed, thirteen captured and eighteen unaccounted for.

Armenian government officials, notably National Assembly Speaker Alen Simonyan, have been widely criticized for labeling many Armenian POWs as “deserters” who must be prosecuted.

Simonyan was caught on a video secretly filmed as he spoke with French-Armenians during a recent visit to Paris saying many Armenian POWs “laid down their weapons and ran away.” 

Simonyan, a close political ally of PM Nikol Pashinyan, didn’t back down from his statement when he spoke with journalists on December 7.

“Unfortunately, there are soldiers and officers who did not perform their duty and were taken prisoner,” he said.

YEREVAN, DECEMBER 9, ARMENPRESS. Two Armenian servicemen have been slightly injured as a result of the Azerbaijani provocation on the eastern part of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, ARMENPRESS was informed from the press service of MOD Armenia.

On December 9, the units of the Azerbaijani Armed Forces once again carried out provocation, firing from different caliber firearms in the direction of the Armenian military positions located in the Gegharkunik region of the Armenian-Azerbaijani border starting from 16:25. The Armenian side retaliated.

UN Secretary-General António Guterres often laments limits to the UN’s authority. In the United States especially, many politicians often roll their eyes at UN pronouncements and then proceed to ignore them. In 1994, for example, John Bolton—who, ironically, would briefly serve as the US Ambassador to the United Nations during the George W. Bush administration, famously said, that if the UN headquarters “lost 10 stories, it wouldn’t make a bit of difference.”

Such sentiment might spark outrage among progressives and proponents of expansive, UN-centric international law but, often, the UN itself is to blame for the cynicism it engenders. This was the case when Kofi Annan, then-undersecretary for Peace-Keeping Operations, stood down while Hutu génocidaires conducted their anti-Tutsi genocide and, as secretary-general, presided over the institution’s worst corruption scandal. It was also the case when Mary Robinson, a former Irish president who subsequently became the UN’s High Commissioner for Human Rights, sponsored a conference in Durban that became a magnet for anti-Semitism and intolerance; her action, denial, and deaf ear did more to delegitimize the UN’s moral authority than almost any outside entity could have done.

Unfortunately, Guterres now makes a similar mistake. Turkey is increasingly defiant of international law. Turkey has violated UN Security Council Resolutions and decades of status quo to move into Varosha, a once-vibrant quarter in Famagusta, initially transformed into a ghost town when Turkey invaded Cyprus almost a half-century ago. The Varosha land grab had nothing to do with peace and everything to do with Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan seeking to funnel reconstruction contracts to his political supporters and family members.

In recent years, Erdoğan has additionally poured Turkish settlers into Cyprus to drown out the voice of northern Cyprus’ more moderate indigenous Muslim community. In recent months, Erdoğan abandoned any pretense of resolving the Cyprus issue diplomatically and instead seeks permanent division. Erdoğan has also thumbed his nose at the international community with his conversion into a mosque of the Hagia Sophia among other violations of religious freedom as well as his imprisonment of philanthropist Osman Kavala despite multiple acquittals.

Ordinarily, a moral UN that took its own words seriously would ostracize Turkey for its actions under the Erdoğan regime rather than reward them. Unfortunately, Guterres chooses the latter.

The UN has recently decided to transform Istanbul into a hub for its operations. “The U.N. will relocate some headquarters to Istanbul from Geneva and open an Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in the metropolis to support field operations worldwide,” Hürriyet Daily News reported earlier this week.

Istanbul is a wonderful city—certainly my favorite—and Turkey hosts many refugees from Syria, but the UN move is a mistake: It legitimizes both Erdoğan’s repeated weaponization of refugees in an effort to extract concessions from the European Union as well as the demographic games Erdoğan plays as he seeks to dilute the Alevi and Kurdish communities in Turkey. The facilities the UN will lease will directly benefit Erdoğan’s supporters if not Erdoğan himself. The move also signals to Erdoğan that the UN is no longer serious about resolving the Cyprus dispute; otherwise, it would make transfer of offices to Istanbul contingent upon a resolution. Most importantly, operating from inside Turkey gives Erdoğan the ability to hijack U.S. assistance to benefit those willing to support him while denying it to those who are not.

If Guterres wishes to understand why so many hold the UN in low regard, he need look no further than this latest decision. Principle should take precedent over the desire of UN officials to enjoy Istanbul’s good life. Unfortunately, the secretary-general shows that on his watch, it does not.

Now a 1945 Contributing Editor, Dr. Michael Rubin is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Dr. Rubin is the author, coauthor, and coeditor of several books exploring diplomacy, Iranian history, Arab culture, Kurdish studies, and Shi’ite politics, including “Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East?” (AEI Press, 2019); “Kurdistan Rising” (AEI Press, 2016); “Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes” (Encounter Books, 2014); and “Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos” (Palgrave, 2005).

WRITTEN by Michael Rubin

Now a 1945 Contributing Editor, Dr. Michael Rubin is a Senior Fellow at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI). Dr. Rubin is the author, coauthor, and coeditor of several books exploring diplomacy, Iranian history, Arab culture, Kurdish studies, and Shi’ite politics, including “Seven Pillars: What Really Causes Instability in the Middle East?” (AEI Press, 2019); “Kurdistan Rising” (AEI Press, 2016); “Dancing with the Devil: The Perils of Engaging Rogue Regimes” (Encounter Books, 2014); and “Eternal Iran: Continuity and Chaos” (Palgrave, 2005).