My considerations…

In each of his speeches, how did the president, who said that the mediators were arming Armenia and those who provided free weapons to one side could not be mediators, accept Russia, which armed Armenia and guarded its borders with the three countries, as a mediator and allowed it to enter the country as a "peacekeeper" with troops and heavy military equipment after 27 years?

Russia, which committed the tragedy of January 20 and shed the blood of hundreds of our martyrs, gave the green light to the organizers and perpetrators of the Khojaly genocide.

A Russian helicopter accompanying a Russian military convoy was shot down near our border at about 18:30 last night. Our border guards took this step in accordance with their duty of protection. However, they did not know that the Russian military convoy was coming to Karabakh as a "peacekeeper" and that Azerbaijani officials agreed to this at the table.

At 3 o'clock at night, it became known that the Russian troops had already crossed the border at 24:00 Moscow time and entered the line of contact where military operations took place. Three hours later, we learned that it had been agreed upon. In other words, we are faced with the fact that Russian troops cross the border and enter our territory without any legal documents...

There are many legal questions here. I will not go into them now. For example, the entry of troops, regardless of the name of another country, into Azerbaijan without any legal documents, with a simple statement and control over certain territories, the inconsistency of the issue of the corridor with the issue provided for in Article 11 of the Constitution, and so on.

Why did the Azerbaijani side go for it while it was one step closer to defeating the enemy, one step closer to the final victory, and save Armenia from complete defeat?

Many considerations can be made here.

But there are some factual points.

At a time when the President of Azerbaijan has the highest level of popular support with the full support of both political parties and all segments of society, when the members of the army persevere in achieving all their goals despite the losses, what is the reason for allowing Russian troops to enter the country by taking a step that undermines Azerbaijan's sovereignty?

Although I do not know the situation behind closed doors, it is possible to make some considerations here.

In my opinion, although Aliyev, who said that he would chase the Armenians "like a dog" to the last armed soldier, did not agree with this statement, the Russian units insisted on entering the area. Because, after the liberation of Shusha, the complete surrender of Khankendi and the so-called regime was a matter of time. The head of the so-called regime, Araik Harutyunyan, acknowledged this in his latest address to the Armenian population.

Russia did not want Azerbaijan to completely win in this process. Moreover, it wants an environment in which Russia's presence is unalterable for both sides.

Unlike the entry of Russia, which insisted on entering the region, into Georgia on August 8, 2008, then into Crimea and Donetsk, it was probably allowed to enter Azerbaijan with such a statement because if it enters Azerbaijan for a certain period of time and with restrictions, maybe one day there will be a chance to be expelled in a more civilized way due to the situation. Because, 6 months before the end of the 5-year term in the statement, the termination of the mandate will remain at least on paper by being notified by one of the parties.

Secondly, although such an agreement seems like a step back from the liberation of Shusha and 72 surrounding settlements on November 8-9 and a step towards absolute victory, compared to the date September 26, 2020, the liberation of 7 occupied districts and 2 towns and several settlements of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as Shusha, is a superior achievement alone. While achieving such a success, Russia's unilateral intervention in the region could promise unpredictable surprises to Azerbaijan.

At the same time, while our soldiers who fought for every inch achieved good results at the expense of considerable loss, taking 3 districts without a fight is a positive result.

But the biggest problem is that after 27 years, Russian troops have entered the heart of Azerbaijan. It is a tried and tested reality that Russian troops will not leave easily, and from time to time, we will see that our sovereignty is threatened.

The Armenian side views this agreement as gaining temporary and new strength. Because the Armenians of Armenia and Karabakh understood that defeat was inevitable if the military operations continued for another week. This was clearly stated in Pashinyan's address to the nation last night. Armenia has not given up on the so-called Artsakh issue. At the end of Pashinyan's address, he said, "Long live Artsakh."

As for the signed statement;

Armenia has not stated that it signed the document within the framework of Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. The document does not emphasize the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan. Paragraph 1 of the document simply mentions "the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict zone" and does not include the expression of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan.

In Paragraph 2 of the document, by saying the expression "Aghdam district is returned to the Republic of Azerbaijan", such a concept is formed that other territories are not the territory of the Republic of Azerbaijan and will not be returned. For example. Khankendi, Khojaly, Aghdara, Khojavend, and etc.

In Paragraph 3, in the phrase "360 cars and special equipment", the essence of "special equipment" is very important. Whether this includes air defense systems, etc., is debatable. The number 360 is a very high number, and the consideration of so much special equipment for a small area and a Russian Regiment of 2000 people can be a problem in itself.

Paragraph 4 states that Russian troops are "deployed in parallel with the withdrawal of the Armenian armed forces" - although it sounds positive and covers all Armenian militants, both local Armenians and those who came from Armenia, it is contradictory not to specify a specific point that clearly states that there will be no Armenian armed groups in Nagorno-Karabakh, where all the "peacekeepers" are stationed.

Although Paragraph 5 provides for the establishment of a "peacekeeping center for ceasefire control", there is reason to believe that only the signatories of the statement will participate. Although some claim that Turkey's role is envisaged in this clause, I am sure that the Armenian side will insist on from the first day that the document they signed does not include Turkey and that this condition will be limited to the parties and, at the utmost, the Minsk Group. It is a separate issue that we do not see in this statement the role and place of the Minsk Group in the conflict. If, as it was said, Turkey's participation was meant here, it should have been clearly stated.

In addition, since I am often asked about Turkey's approach to this issue, I must say that from the first day, Turkey has openly stated that, “Our support depends on what Azerbaijan wants. We will say yes to whatever Azerbaijan says yes. That is, all the responsibility is on the Azerbaijani side. We are with you even if you say war, even if you say peace.”

One of the most worrying points is the announcement of the 5 km wide Lachin corridor and its transfer to Russian control. The fact that Azerbaijan's control, customs checkpoints, etc. are not considered here in any way is the motivation for the continuation of separatist relations and the "eternal" continuation of the conflict.

Alesker Mammadli