Gagrule.net

Gagrule.net News, Views, Interviews worldwide

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact
  • GagruleLive
  • Armenia profile

The Minsk Group urges the parties to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to pull the heavy artillery out of the front line.

April 23, 2018 By administrator

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

Nagorno-Karabakh conflict

YEREVAN, APRIL 23, ARMENPRESS. The OSCE Minsk Group has issued a statement on the situation in the region. “Armenpress” presents the statement completely.

“In the light of recent developments in the region and taking into account the possibility of tension in the line of contact, the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs (Igor Popov of Russia, Stefan Visconti-France and Andrew Sheffern-USA) underline the importance of the ceasefire in this important period, keeping the heavy artillery away from the line.

The Co-Chairs urge the parties to take immediate action to alleviate tensions, as well as wait for the upcoming meeting of the parties to resume intensive negotiations to find a peaceful and lasting solution to the conflict. ”

On April 21, the Artsakh Defense Army stated that the enemy violated the ceasefire regime intensively at the line of contact between the Karabakh and Azerbaijani armed forces. In addition to violating the ceasefire violations in different parts of the contact line, particularly in the eastern and southeastern directions, active movement of live force and military equipment of the Azerbaijani army was observed.

Filed Under: News Tagged With: Conflict, Nagorno-Karabakh

Nagorno-Karabakh to remain under Armenian control ‘in case of any settlement scenario’ – Thomas de Waal

February 26, 2018 By administrator

Thomas de Waal

The plausible likelihood that Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) will remain under Armenian contol in case of any outcome in the current conflict settlement process is, by and large, understandable all actors, according to Thomas de Waal, a senior fellow at Carnegie Europe.

In an interview with RFE/RL (Echo Kavkaza), the expert described the fact as the most painful and acute issue in the entire conflict settlement process.

“I think everybody understands, more or less, that Nagorno-Karabakh will remain under the Armenians’ control in case of any settlement scenario. But here we also deal with the  problem of the [surrounding seven] regions which are also under Armenian troops’ control. Baku will never certainly reconcile with the loss of those territories which used to be home to half a million Azerbaijanis (who are still refugees).

And on the other hand, Armenia will never hand them over unless there are strong security guarantees. I think this problem was much easier to solve some 20 years ago,” he noted.The analyst further warned of a high risk of renewed military operations, admitting at the same time that neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan want any war now.

“No one is likely to take such chances to instigate a confrontation potentially leading to many deaths and ravages. Yet on the other hand, there is a high proneness to conflict [in light of] mutual threats, verbal statements and accumulation of heavy armament (artillery, aviation) along the Line of Contact,” he added.

Thomas de Waal described long lasting conflicts as “stable components of instability” for the entire world. In his words, the existing high challenges are better visible to those who closely follow the developments in the region. Meantime he admitted that the world superpowers (US, EU etc.) are now more focused on other hotspots (Syria, Iran, North Korea and Ukraine) as “more urgent priorities.”

“I think that the danger surely exists as this conflict is not frozen at all, and the threat of renewed military operations is really very serious. What we need now is, I think, to give more attention to it, investing every possible effort [to prevent an escalation] instead of waiting until the conflict unexpectedly resumes any time in the future,” de Waal added.

In an article published earlier on the foundation’s website, the expert said he expects the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict to remain  a “Project Minimum” for Russia US and France unless the “key actors, local and international, decide to rethink their strategic priorities”.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Conflict, Karabakh, Thomas de Waal

Karabakh conflict settlement should respect all inherent rights of the people of Artsakh, FM Nalbandian says

December 7, 2017 By administrator

“Next year people of Nagorno-Karabakh will mark 30 years of their struggle for the right to choose their destiny, for human dignity and freedom. In three decades people of Artsakh despite the devastating war and all difficulties, succeeded to create a society based on the respect of human rights, fundamental freedoms and democratic institutions,” Armenia’s Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian stated today at the 24th Meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Council, adding the settlement of the conflict should respect all inherent rights of the people of Artsakh and should ensure their unhindered implementation.

In Nalbandian’s words, on numerous occasions Armenia has reiterated its readiness to continue negotiations based on the accepted principles and elements with the aim of the exclusively peaceful settlement of the conflict. “Azerbaijan’s uncompromising and maximalist stance has become a serious obstacle to the advancement of the peace process and has heavily contributed to the preservation of the status-quo. The Co-Chairs’ conflict settlement proposals are a way that could bring to the change of the status-quo. However, Azerbaijan rejects those proposals, doing everything to keep the status-quo intact at the same time claiming that allegedly it is advocating for the change of status-quo,” added Nalbandian.
Nalbandian pointed to number of reasons, obstructing the peace process despite numerous meetings on the presidential and ministerial levels, including,  the selective approach by Azerbaijan towards the elements proposed by the Co-Chairs, Baku’s failure to comply with the reached agreements and backtracks from them, constant profanation of the Co-Chairs’ efforts and the attempts to shift the mediation to other formats the use or threat of use of force by Azerbaijan, regular ceasefire violations and provocations, the April aggression launched against Artsakh, as well as the refusal to implement the agreements reached during the Vienna and St. Petersburg summits.

“Azerbaijan continues to practice anti-Armenian hate speech, it calls all Armenians of the world its enemy number one, it writes in the textbooks that Armenians are genetic enemies of Azerbaijan, it erases all traces of indigenous Armenian cultural heritage and religious sites, it claims that allegedly territories of Armenia are ancient Azerbaijani lands. Azerbaijan has long blacklisted the people of Nagorno-Karabakh, and then it started to put in the blacklist all those who visit Nagorno-Karabakh. Those who genuinely aspire for peace do not do such actions,” Nalbandian stated.

The Armenian FM however noted that yesterday’s meeting with my Azerbaijani colleague generally passed in the positive mood. “We will see the developments after it,” said Nalbandian.

 

Source Panorama.am

Filed Under: News Tagged With: Conflict, Karabakh, OSCE

OSCE PA president urges to redouble Karabakh conflict resolution efforts

November 25, 2017 By administrator

In his first address as OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (PA) President, Georgian parliamentarian George Tsereteli touched upon the conflict resolution issue among the others.

As the OSCE PA reported in a press release, a key focus of President Tsereteli’s remarks was on the need to redouble the efforts into resolving conflicts, including the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.

“Whether we’re talking about the conflicts in Ukraine, about Nagorno-Karabakh, or about the conflict in Georgia and occupation of territories – all of these have tragic human consequences each and every day,” he said. “This must continue to be our focus.”

He noted one of his priorities as OSCE PA president is to ensure that the OSCE is fully prepared to address these issues.

“One of my priorities as President is to ensure that the OSCE is fully equipped to address these challenges, to uphold the founding principles of the Helsinki Final Act, promote common values, and lend the PA’s contribution to resolving conflicts,” the president said.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Conflict, Karabakh, OSCE

Moscow summons Israeli diplomat over airstrike in Syria

March 20, 2017 By administrator

Russia’s Foreign Ministry has confirmed it summoned the Israeli ambassador to Moscow to discuss a mission by Israeli warplanes in Syrian airspace. The incident in question took place near the city of Palmyra last week.

Russia summoned the Israeli Ambassador Gary Koren for questioning, several Russian news outlets reported on Monday.

Deputy Russian Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov said the country “expressed concern” over the incident on March 17 during which the Israeli military bombed targets inside Syria. Syrian state forces used anti-aircraft weapons in retaliation.

At the time, the Syrian army said it had shot down an Israeli warplane, hit another and forced the rest to flee, but Israel’s military denied that account. Israel said one Syrian missile was intercepted by its Arrow air defense system.

In comments carried by state news agency RIA Novosti on Monday, Bogdanov said Russia demanded that Israel more closely communicate its military plans in the region to avoid such incidents.

Russian troops were reportedly in the targeted region near the famed city of Palmyra, which had once again been captured by Syrian troops from “Islamic State” forces earlier in March.

Israel says Hezbollah targeted

Israel said its planes were targeting a weapons convoy destined for Hezbollah, an Iranian-backed Lebanese militant group bent on destroying Israel, which is fighting alongside troops loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

On Sunday, Israel’s Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman warned Syria not to fire Israeli jets carrying out missions over Syrian territory.

“The next time the Syrians use their air defense systems against our planes we will destroy them without the slightest hesitation,” Lieberman said on Israeli public radio.

Read: Syrian government forces beat back surprise rebel assault in Damascus

International allegiances

Russia is a key ally of Assad. Backing from Moscow has seen the military conflict turn in Assad’s favor in recent months. Russia has also maintained close relations with Israel despite the long-standing animosity between Syria and the Jewish state. Israel seized most of the Golan Heights from Syria in 1967 and annexed it in 1981, a move never recognized by the international community.

The multisided Syrian war has been going on for more than six years, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives and forcing millions to flee their homes. While Israel has mostly kept out of the war, its military has from time to time been reported to have conducted airstrikes within Syria, especially against Hezbollah forces. Israel’s government normally neither confirms nor denies these strikes.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Conflict, Israel, Russia, Syria

Settlement of Karabakh conflict ruled out as long as ‘mutual concessions’ perceived as loss – expert

November 16, 2016 By administrator

karabakh-conflict-osceIn an interview with Tert.am, Philip Gamaghelyan, the co-founder and director of programs at the Imagine Center for Conflict Transformations and adjunct professor at the School of International Service at the American University of Washington DC, commented upon the repeated calls for “mutual concessions” over Nagorno-Karabakh and the general attitude toward the concessions in the Armenian and Azerbaijani societies.
According to him, a breakthrough in the conflict settlement talks cannot be achieved as long as the mutual concessions are equated to a loss in the perception of both countries.
Mr. Gamaghelyan, despite the widely discussed “peace negotiations” and the conflict settlement projects that seemed to be under way, the war in April became inevitable. What do you think caused that? Was there no other option for resolving the conflict?
2008-2011 was the period most conducive for the resolution of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. [Dmitry] Medvedev and [Barack] Obama, then the newly elected presidents of Russia and the United States, made some genuine efforts toward advancing a settlement. It was a rare period, not seen since 2000, when the favorable geopolitical environment provided an opening for the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis to decide on their own future. Doing that, of course, would require a meaningful cooperation and mutual concessions. And, undoubtedly, those concessions were to be painful for both sides. Moreover, in the absence of external factors, I would say these concessions could be considered unacceptable. But we are small states, and the influence of external factors on small states is always significant. The failure of the Armenian and the Azerbaijani sides to find a common ground when there was an opening, turned us into playing cards at the hands of others contributing to a gradual weakening of our sovereignty. This and other painful consequences of our inability to resolve the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict are now clearly visible.
I would think that your “Dialogue ” projects were implemented and continue being implemented before and after April? What do you think are the relations between the two societies before and after the confrontation? What are their wishes?
I cannot make a judgement about the relations between the two societies based on the impressions I got from only a few groups. The societies are never homogeneous, and there may be profound disagreements within them. As for the groups I have worked with since April 2016: some people are disappointed in “the other side”, and the level of mistrust is once again very high; they think that a war is inevitable. Others are disappointed in their own governments that over decades proved unable or unwilling to find a solution to this and other problems, putting their societies, and especially young men, at risk. The others find that this is not the time to be disappointed or despaired, as the future cannot be surrendered to nationalists and to perpetual warfare, and they believe that it is necessary to work even more persistently towards solutions. Among my Armenian and Azerbaijani colleagues, this latter view is prevalent.

 

You had mentioned in the past that during such meetings there are also political proposals voiced among others. What remarkable political proposals were made, in your view, in regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement talks and that would be practical in terms of paving way for a success?

 

The meetings that we organize are not aimed at finding a political solution. The problem is that the Armenian and the Azerbaijani governments have monopolized the work toward the political settlement. They make it very clear that they have no desire to listen to the civil society or academia, despite the international experience showing that any successful peace process relies heavily on civil society and academia for paving the way for a sustainable solution. With this ineffective government monopoly persisting, the focus of our work is on the transformation of the conflict and not on political solution or settlement. Now, how are these two different?

 

The concept of a political solution, I would think, is obvious. It implies a signed political document that details the commitments taken upon themselves by the governments and that clearly outlines the implementation steps and its control mechanisms. Conflict transformation – and our organization is called Imagine Center for Conflict Transformation – starts by admitting that no sustainable political solution is possible in the atmosphere of deteriorated relations, fear, and deep distrust. Hence, we work toward a step-by-step transformation of relations.

 

We work in such political discourse creating spheres as are media, history and social science education, conflict analysis etc. In their everyday work, these spheres are responsible for the reproduction of the enemy images and the myth of “innate hatred” between the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis; they persuade us in the hopelessness of the situation and the inevitability of the perpetual war. If we look from the lens of conflict transformation, there are numerous possible political proposals.

 

These proposals relate to the development of freedom of press and to other processes of democratization; to the modernization and liberalization of history and social science education; to the development of an inclusive society committed to protection of minority rights; to the end of calls for violence, etc. For instance, as long as the minorities in Armenia and Azerbaijan do not feel as equal citizens, or as the refugees displaced from their homes more than 20 years ago are still not able to return, it is hard to imagine the Armenian and the Azerbaijani societies with their history of mutual violence coexisting in one territory. Yet any peaceful solution to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict implies, in one form or another, such coexistence. Summing up, we need a comprehensive strategy for building political, legal, social and discourse foundations on which a political agreement can stand. And yes, enough experience has been accumulated in the realm of the international civil society and academia in designing and implementing conflict transformation agendas.
A few years ago you noted that the NK peace process was conducted with the mid-20th century methods, with no modern methods employed. What is your opinion of the negotiating process after the April war? Talking of the Armenian side, what is its conduct in the negotiating process? Can it adequately represent our interests at the negotiating table?
Back in the mid-20th century the wars were understood to be a mere intra-states affair. The solutions, respectively, were seen to be either a comprehensive defeat and colonization of one by the other or an official negotiating process. The Nagorno-Karabakh peace process today follows these same two scenarios: either one has to crash and subdue the other or the top officials have to resolve the problem between themselves.
It has been at least 50 years, however, since we understood that wars seldom break out or end at one official’s whim. Fortunately, we do not live in the era of monarchs. Conflict today is seen as a much more complex phenomenon. I have mentioned already that beside the political dimension, it also involves discursive, legal, historiographic or interpretative (rather than historical) dimensions, the economic one and many others. Yet in the NK conflict context we are focused only on political and doing seldom if any work in these other dimensions. There is no foundation being laid for a transformation of relations and an eventual solution.
In regard to the post-April negotiation process: there is no negotiation process. There has not been any meaningful negotiation process since the Kazan Summit. Instead, we have a working group focused on averting, or at least delaying, the large-scale war. Neither the Armenian nor the Azerbaijani side has since 2001 made any step to find common ground and both preferred to meaningful negotiations their imitation.

As to whether the Armenian government is capable of presenting our interests at the negotiating table: if our interest is to retain the status quo in Nagorno-Karabakh irrespective of the cost, even if the cost is the possible loss of Armenia’s sovereignty, the answer is yes. If, however, our interests are the sustainable peace, security, independence and prosperity for Artsakh’s and Armenia’s populations, then the answer is a resounding no. The common today in Armenia jokes about the “vanishing of the foreign ministry”, or, in other words, the lack a discernable and pro-active foreign policy strategy since 2010, are the reflection of this inadequacy.


Let us talk about the format of negotiations through the mediation of the OSCE Minsk Group. Do you think it is adequate? And are the mediators on the right track to avert confrontation?

The OSCE Minsk Group was a rather successful mediating structure during its first 10-15 years. The United States, Russia, and France (the latter also represented the EU) were the countries whose support could guarantee (and fund) the successful implementation of any possible agreement. In these years the co-chair countries cooperated in the international arena, and when they had disagreements – these did not apply to their positions in regard to the Nagorno-Karabakh settlement. Moreover, as I mentioned above, in 2008-2011 the US, France and, first of all Russia, invested political capital at the presidential level to advance the settlement. The Presidents Sargsyan and Aliyev did not recognize or use this opportunity. Since 2012, both the US and France (and by extension the EU) have shown very little interest in a pro-active engagement. Today Nagorno-Karabakh slipped so low on their agendas that the meetings on the topic attract barely a dozen of experts and policy makers in Washington or Brussels. Further, the relations between Russia and the West have grown hostile to a degree that it is hard to imagine a comprehensive cooperation between the co-chairs. The role of the US in the South Caucasus is likely to diminish even further, following Donald Trump’s election, while Russia’s role will continue growing. The latter looks poised, once again, to assume the role of a regional hegemon. The OSCE Minsk Group still plays an important role, averting the large-scale war. However, with each passing year it is playing this role less and less effectively. As to a real and comprehensive peace process: it is in an obvious need in new and creative formats.
In the Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, “mutual concessions” are equated with a loss or defeat. The Madrid and Kazan principles have been looked upon unfavorably since the April war. The status of Nagorno-Karabakh and the return of territories is a subject of most heated debates. Where are these debates leading to? Given the current developments, what should we expect from the future?
True, today both the Armenian and the Azerbaijani societies perceive concessions as a loss. The mutuality is lost, making the settlement unattainable. We have no vision nor (let’s not be afraid of this word) a dream of an alternative future – independent, prosperous and sustainably secure, in a neighborhood of Caucasus states living in harmony. For centuries the Europeans destroyed each other in wars, all while having no dream and perceiving concessions as a loss. Eventually, the vision of the European Union enabled them to see in mutual concessions not as a loss but an investment into mutual confidence, into the foundation on which they build a common future.

 

Hripsime Hovhannsiyan

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Azerbaijan, Conflict, Karabakh, OSCE

Turkey directly involved in Karabakh conflict

April 15, 2016 By administrator

Azerbaijani armed forces continue the “slow” mobilization after the bilateral agreement to put halt on fire reached in Moscow and albeit assurances by the Azerbaijani Defense Army about the lack of any need to mobilize the personnel reserves.

Considering the losses suffered by the elite unites of the Azerbaijani army during the assault against the NKR Defense Army (Azerbaijani open sources indicate 90 bodies fully identified) an urgent need arose to involve relevantly trained personnel.

For that purpose, as revealed, Azerbaijani cadets studying at Turkish military institutions, were urgently recalled.

The photo, which was shot in a Turkish airport, speaks vividly of a mobilization presumably under a seal of secrecy to avoid criticism from both own population and the international community. The photo shows the Azerbaijani servicemen boarding the plane that had brought the bodies of the so-called “The Grey Wolves” units and the Turkish military.

Despite the silence of the Azerbaijan media on the numerous losses, that is obvious that number of Azerbaijani websites (for example – Optime.az) citing unnamed sources of the Azerbaijani Defense Army reported on April 11 that Azerbaijani side had recovered 56 bodies from the scene of the clashes based on the previously reached bilateral agreement.

According to Azerbaijani media publications, “Body identification is currently underway, and the official information will be provided later.”

 

Filed Under: News Tagged With: Conflict, involved, Karabakh, Turkey directly

Solve Nagorno-Karabakh conflict before it explodes – Thomas de Waal

April 8, 2016 By administrator

f5707937e6d3aa_5707937e6d3e1.thumbBelow is an article by Thomas de Waal, a senior associate with Carnegie Europe and the author of “Black Garden: Armenia and Azerbaijan Through Peace and War”, posted by The New York Times. 

For almost three decades, the most dangerous unresolved conflict in wider Europe has lain in the mountains of the South Caucasus, in a small territory known as Nagorno-Karabakh. In the late 1980s, the region confounded the last Soviet leader, Mikhail S. Gorbachev.

In the early 1990s, the conflict there created more than a million refugees and killed around 20,000 people. In 1994, after Armenia defeated Azerbaijan in a fight over the territory, the two countries signed a truce — but no peace agreement.
Nagorno-Karabakh erupted again last weekend. It seems one of the players — most likely Azerbaijan — decided to change the facts on the ground. Dozens of soldiers from both sides were killed before a cease-fire was proclaimed on Tuesday. It could fall apart at any moment. The situation is volatile, and there is a danger that the conflict could escalate further unless the international community stops it.

A new all-out Nagorno-Karabakh conflict is the stuff of nightmares. Given the sophisticated weaponry both sides now possess, tens of thousands of young men would most likely lose their lives. Russia and Turkey, already at loggerheads and with military obligations to Armenia and Azerbaijan, respectively, could be sucked into a proxy war. Fighting in the area would also destabilize Georgia, Iran and the Russian North Caucasus. Oil and gas pipeline routes from the Caspian Sea could be threatened, too.

At the heart of the issue is the status of the Armenian-majority highland enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh, which was part of Soviet Azerbaijan. As the Soviet Union crumbled, ethnic Armenians in the territory campaigned to join Armenia. This became a full-scale war, and the Armenians have maintained control of the territory since.

Nagorno-Karabakh has been mostly quiet, save for occasional skirmishes. Most international diplomats pay little attention to this protracted conflict in the Caucasus, giving the impression that Nagorno-Karabakh is intractable but not especially dangerous, like Cyprus. The hope among the international community has been that the problem can be left alone.

That notion was shaken over the past week. More than 20 years on, nationalist hatreds have not abated. In fact, they’ve been fed over the years by official propaganda on both sides. Meanwhile, the very geography of the conflict makes it inherently dangerous.

The 1994 truce left the Armenian side in control not just of the disputed province, but also of a section of Azerbaijani territory around Nagorno-Karabakh. The Armenian side has no legal claim on these lands, regarding them as a protective buffer zone, but they were home to more than half a million Azerbaijanis, who were made refugees. That occupation is unsustainable and unjust, but the use of force will not deliver justice.

Azerbaijan has wasted years in denunciations of “Armenian aggression” without ever offering the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh credible guarantees that it respects their rights and does not merely wish to destroy them. A just solution of the conflict will require a serious commitment by both sides to make compromises and live together.

Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s president, has blamed France, Russia and the United States, the countries charged with mediating the conflict by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe, for failing to clean up the mess. This is wrong, too. Yes, more could have been done over the years to resolve the dispute over Nagorno-Karabakh, but mediators mediate — they cannot alone solve conflicts between intransigent parties.

The bitter truth is that leaders in Armenia and Azerbaijan have become trapped by their own rhetoric, promising their publics total victory that can never be achieved. They have employed the status quo as a weapon to shirk hard questions about their own legitimacy or to divert people’s attention from socioeconomic problems.

A similar temptation is to identify Russia as the real villain. For sure, the Kremlin has played a role in manipulating the ethno-territorial conflicts that emerged from the breakup of the Soviet Union. And Russia continues to sell weapons to both Armenia and Azerbaijan. But Russia’s role in Nagorno-Karabakh is much weaker than it is in Georgia’s frozen conflict, let alone in Ukraine. Russia shares no border with the conflict zone, has no troops on the ground and, in different ways, supports both sides. Its ability to control what happens in Nagorno-Karabakh is limited.

If there is one ray of hope in this bleak landscape it is that there is a peace process — albeit a faltering one — in place already. A draft of a sophisticated peace plan, dating from 2005, promises both sides much of what they want: a return of Azerbaijani displaced persons and restoration of lost Azerbaijani lands in exchange for security for the Armenians of Nagorno-Karabakh and a promise of self-determination and perhaps, eventually, independence.

What is missing in the South Caucasus is the political will to engage with a plan that involves doing a deal with the enemy. What is missing internationally is the admission that there is no low-cost option to resolve the conflict. Over the past week, mediators helped to broker a new cease-fire. But Nagorno-Karabakh requires more than just shuttle diplomacy. A resolution requires a complex multination peacekeeping operation and coordination between the United States, Russia and France to be joint guarantors of a peace deal.

That is a big challenge, but one dwarfed by the prospect of a new catastrophic war in the Caucasus. The big powers could start by convening a peace conference in Minsk, Belarus, first called for in 1992, but never even attempted. That would send the message that the world finally takes this conflict seriously — before it is too late.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Conflict, Karabakh, Thomas de Waal

If Azerbaijan was capable of something more, it would have done it: Armenian Major-General Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan

April 2, 2016 By administrator

f570029b9f3cdb_570029b9f3d12.thumbAccording to the hero of Karabakh War, Major-General Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan (Commandos), Azerbaijan deliberately aggravated the situation on the Karabakh-Azerbaijan border as had no other choice. In an interview with Tert.am, Major-General noted that the current situation is not new, the only difference is the use of military technology, in particular, military helicopters.

“If Azerbaijan was capable of something more, it would have done it. This country is sitting on the oil needle, and if at least one projectile falls in this country, the whole of Azerbaijan will explode. However, they are now trying to show themselves strong. They are trying to convince people that soon Karabakh will become Azerbaijani, bragging, that in 20 minutes they can capture Artsakh. But in this case we will simply undermine Azerbaijan in the period of same 20 minutes,” – said Arkady Ter-Tadevosyan.

The general also said that our soldiers are heroically defending the borders and clearly fulfill all orders. “Well done, our guys today showed everything very well, shot down two helicopters, which is very important,” – he said.

We should note that, according to the press-service of the NKR Defense Army, as confirmed by the data, in the south-east direction Karabakh forces brought down 3 tanks, 2 military helicopters and two drones. As a result of the fire by “Grad” system 12-year-old boy was killed, two other children were wounded. NKR Defense Army discovered and defused the Azerbaijani subversive group.

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Conflict, Karabakh

PACE president deeply worried at #Karabakh escalation

April 2, 2016 By administrator

default kPresident of PACE is deeply worried at the escalation of violence in Nagorno-Karabakh.

“I call on sides to observe the cease-fire and resume negotiations,” he tweeted.

Azerbaijan launched outright offensive military actions along the Line of Contact between the Karabakh-Azerbaijani opposing forces, from late Friday night through Saturday morning, and using a variety of weaponry as well as artillery, armored vehicles, and air force. A 12-year-old boy was killed, two other children were wounded. The Karabakh forces have reported about destroying two Azerbaijani helicopters, four tanks and two drones. Azerbaijani side has suffered over 200 casualties.

https://twitter.com/gagrulenet/status/716357035365769217

Filed Under: Articles Tagged With: Azerbaijan, Conflict, Karabakh

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • Next Page »

Support Gagrule.net

Subscribe Free News & Update

Search

GagruleLive with Harut Sassounian

Can activist run a Government?

Wally Sarkeesian Interview Onnik Dinkjian and son

https://youtu.be/BiI8_TJzHEM

Khachic Moradian

https://youtu.be/-NkIYpCAIII
https://youtu.be/9_Xi7FA3tGQ
https://youtu.be/Arg8gAhcIb0
https://youtu.be/zzh-WpjGltY





gagrulenet Twitter-Timeline

Tweets by @gagrulenet

Archives

Books

Recent Posts

  • U.S. Judge Dismisses $500 Million Lawsuit By Azeri Lawyer Against ANCA & 29 Others
  • These Are the Social Security Offices Expected to Close This Year, Musk call SS Ponzi Scheme
  • Breaking News, Pashinyan regime has filed charges against public figure Edgar Ghazaryan,
  • ANCA’s Controversial Endorsement: Implications for Armenian Voters
  • (MHP), Devlet Bahçeli, has invited Kurdish Leader Öcalan to the Parliament “Ask to end terrorism and dissolve the PKK.”

Recent Comments

  • administrator on Turkish Agent Pashinyan will not attend the meeting of the CIS Council of Heads of State
  • David on Turkish Agent Pashinyan will not attend the meeting of the CIS Council of Heads of State
  • Ara Arakelian on A democratic nation has been allowed to die – the UN has failed once more “Nagorno-Karabakh”
  • DV on A democratic nation has been allowed to die – the UN has failed once more “Nagorno-Karabakh”
  • Tavo on I’d call on the people of Syunik to arm themselves, and defend your country – Vazgen Manukyan

Copyright © 2025 · News Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in