Why are Armenians arming themselves?

Armenia's purchase of weapons from France and India has long been one of the main topics in the media space.  A number of other topics are indirectly related to this: Baku's tough position in border negotiations, the actualization of the concept of "West Azerbaijan" and the sharp deterioration of relations between Baku and the West (the United States and France).

Official Baku accuses Armenia of territorial claims, and the state propaganda calls the purchase of weapons a manifestation of revanchism and regards it as a threat to Azerbaijan.

How justified is Armenia's desire to purchase weapons? 

From the point of view of international law, Armenia is not under sanctions (such as Iran or North Korea). Therefore, formally, the country has every right to acquire any weapons and it is impossible to prohibit it. If we proceed from the results of the war with Azerbaijan, then in the five points proposed by Azerbaijan for the conclusion of peace, there is no point prohibiting Armenia from purchasing weapons. There is no such prohibition in the three joint statements of the leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia, as well as in the joint statements of Baku and Yerevan adopted at European and American venues. Therefore, the demands to stop the purchase of weapons are legally unfounded. At the same time, Baku is not outraged by Yerevan's purchases of weapons from Russia, but is indignant about supplies from France and India, which is illogical.

Yerevan explains its actions by the desire to protect itself from an external threat, which is the right of any sovereign state. It is impossible to draw parallels between the Second Karabakh War and the results of the Second World War. Then Germany signed an act of unconditional surrender and was forced to completely disarm.  As a result of the Second Karabakh War, Armenia had no such obligations.

Whether we like it or not, Armenia will rebuild its army and acquire weapons. It is already clear that Yerevan will have access to weapons from France, India and probably from the United States and other countries.           

Why are Armenians arming themselves?

Armenia's purchase of weapons from France and India has long been one of the main topics in the media space.  A number of other topics are indirectly related to this: Baku's tough position in border negotiations, the actualization of the concept of "West Azerbaijan" and the sharp deterioration of relations between Baku and the West (the United States and France).

Official Baku accuses Armenia of territorial claims, and the state propaganda calls the purchase of weapons a manifestation of revanchism and regards it as a threat to Azerbaijan.

How justified is Armenia's desire to purchase weapons? 

From the point of view of international law, Armenia is not under sanctions (such as Iran or North Korea). Therefore, formally, the country has every right to acquire any weapons and it is impossible to prohibit it.

If we proceed from the results of the war with Azerbaijan, then in the five points proposed by Azerbaijan for the conclusion of peace, there is no point prohibiting Armenia from purchasing weapons. There is no such prohibition in the three joint statements of the leaders of Azerbaijan, Armenia and Russia, as well as in the joint statements of Baku and Yerevan adopted at European and American venues. Therefore, the demands to stop the purchase of weapons are legally unfounded. At the same time, Baku is not outraged by Yerevan's purchases of weapons from Russia, but is indignant about supplies from France and India, which is illogical.

Yerevan explains its actions by the desire to protect itself from an external threat, which is the right of any sovereign state. It is impossible to draw parallels between the Second Karabakh War and the results of the Second World War. Then Germany signed an act of unconditional surrender and was forced to completely disarm.  As a result of the Second Karabakh War, Armenia had no such obligations.

Whether we like it or not, Armenia will rebuild its army and acquire weapons. It is already clear that Yerevan will have access to weapons from France, India and probably from the United States and other countries.

"Armenians will regret if they do not give up revanchism"                             

This is the most popular thesis, repeated by so-called experts who do not get off the TV screens. What exactly they mean is not specified. Let us assume that the Armenians decide to retake Karabakh and start fighting. Our adequate response with the further opening of the road through Zangezur to Nakhchivan will look like another lesson to the occupiers. However, the international community, represented by the UN and all other structures, will condemn us. The United States, France and others may impose sanctions and demand the liberation of the sovereign territory of Armenia recognized by the UN.  References to the conditional border and maps of 1920 are unlikely to convince anyone. We will be reminded of the very 4 resolutions of the UN Security Council, which Baku has been trumping for 30 years, proving Armenia's gross violation of the principle of territorial integrity.

Does this mean that we will not achieve the opening of the road to Nakhchivan? Of course not. It is just that Yerevan's current proposal that the Armenian customs and border guards will operate on the road through Zangezur does not suit us. But is it possible to convince Yerevan to abandon this and establish a free regime on the road? 

The fact is that the same regime will apply to Armenian goods and citizens. Now it is difficult to imagine that the Yerevan-Moscow passenger train would travel through the territory of Azerbaijan. However, freight trains will certainly go through us. The presence of a customs and border regime for them will make the transportation of goods to and from Armenia more expensive and slow them down.

The same applies to Armenia's railway connection with Iran via Nakhchivan. In this case, passenger transportation looks real, but Armenian citizens will have to pass control twice at the entrance to Nakhchivan (Sadarak) and at the exit (Julfa).

The creation of a simplified regime on the Zangezur road will also favorably affect the opening of communications and the border between Turkiye and Armenia. The parallel railway to Nakhchivan via Iran makes Baku independent of the situation in Armenia if the government changes there.

From an economic point of view, the Zangezur corridor is beneficial to Yerevan, considering the growth of transit from China to Europe. If we consider that Armenia's only land connection with Russia, the road through Verkhniy Lars, is closed for 4-5 months a year, then the benefits of the Zangezur corridor are obvious even without Chinese transit. However, there is a significant intrigue here. Armenia does not want to give control over the Zangezur road to the Russian border guards. Moreover, Yerevan is taking steps to withdraw Russian border guards from Armenia. Therefore, maintaining their presence in Zangezur contradicts the strategy of "freeing" Armenia from Russian custody.

Why can't we come to an agreement?

As it becomes clear from recent statements by officials of both countries, the Peace Treaty has become hostage not only to the Zangezur corridor, but also to the delimitation of borders and the content of the Armenian Constitution.

Baku's demands to Yerevan to eliminate the clauses of the Constitution implying that Karabakh belongs to Armenia look logical. The removal of this mention somehow deprives Armenia of legitimate claims to Karabakh. However, if the Constitution is changed, it does not mean that Armenians will abandon such claims once and for all. Not mentioning Karabakh in the Armenian Constitution does not mean that territorial claims cannot be made in the future. Any government that replaces Pashinyan can do this.

It must be recognized that there will always be political forces in Armenian society that consider the return of Karabakh to be their holy cause. It is impossible to cure this one. The only way to do this is to make this idea counterproductive for the Armenians, so that cooperation is clearly better than hostility.

The delimitation of borders rests on recognition:  who borrowed what

We demand the return of 8 villages captured in the early 90s, the Armenians are talking about the 150 km kilometers of their territory captured by us. The idea of barter does not work, and neither side is ready to do something unilaterally.

There is an opinion that delimitation is still a secondary issue and the road through Zangezur is in the foreground. Apparently, without an agreement on Zangezur, the issue of delimitation will hang in the air.

Talking about the relations between Baku and Yerevan, we must not forget that the number of players is greater. These are  Moscow, Brussels, Washington, Paris, Tehran and Ankara. Each of these capitals has an impact on the situation in the region and the course of negotiations. The contradictions between Moscow on the one hand and Washington and Paris on the other clearly do not help Azerbaijan and Armenia to come to an agreement.

Yerevan's recent steps indicate that a break with Moscow has become inevitable. This does not bode well for the stability of the region and will affect us to one degree or another.

How long will it last? 

Do not think that the current situation will drag on for years. Any change in the geopolitical situation threatens new destabilization and subsequent uncertainty.  Armenia is resolving issues not only with Azerbaijan, but also with Russia. More precisely, Yerevan is trying to shed its centuries-old dependence on Russia. Whether it is good or bad is another question. However, being an instrument of pressure on Armenia in favor of the imperial interests of others is hardly strategically justified. As they say, there are no eternal friends and enemies in politics, there are only eternal interests.

Baku should hurry up. The conclusion of a peace treaty will significantly improve the situation. The opening of communications will remove many factors that can resume armed conflict. The delimitation of borders will take place according to a mutually acceptable formula that excludes the preservation of enclaves, and pressure on Azerbaijan will cease.

The alternative is tension and an unfavorable international environment, the threat of sanctions and the opportunity for big powers to intervene in the situation.