The war in Karabakh is the result of an unjust peace

***

- Arastun bey, the beginning of the Karabakh conflict between the two countries coincides with the last years of Soviet rule and the beginning of calls for independence in Azerbaijan. Did the beginning of this conflict have anything to do with these processes?

- The Karabakh conflict began almost at the same time as other ethnic-territorial conflicts in the USSR, and this was not accidental. The reforms that Mikhail Gorbachev wanted to implement exposed the struggle between the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the KGB which had lasted for years under the leadership of the USSR, but mostly behind the scenes. The main difference of that stage from the previous one was that while in 1950-1980, this struggle took place in the form of the struggle of the elites in Moscow for power in the provinces (republics), during the perestroika period, some societies and their subgroups were also involved in this struggle. In addition, ethnic and territorial disputes, which were founded for the same purpose during the establishment and formation of the USSR, began to intensify, and this was directly led by the USSR Committee for State Security (KGB). For example, a team of chekists led by Filipp Bobkov, the head of the 5th Main Directorate of the KGB, controlled the Armenian separatism in Karabakh and the associated political activism in both Azerbaijan and Armenia. One scenario was to slow down Gorbachev's reforms by creating internal conflicts in various parts of the country, and the other was to maintain Russia's dominance in the regions by influencing former Soviet subjects in the event of conflict if the process spiraled out of control and the USSR collapsed. It so happened that the second scenario worked, and the members of the KGB, who came to power in Russia after the collapse of the USSR, began to use these conflicts as a means of influencing the newly independent states. By the way, all these issues were reflected in the memoirs of many former high-ranking KGB officials, which were later published. Today, the same plan is working but the difference is that the ability to influence the conflicts in the post-Soviet space is not only in the hands of Russia now, and Russia's influence is weakening. This is natural because the newly independent states are subjects of international law and determine their foreign policy mainly by themselves, although not completely.

- How did Azerbaijan lose Karabakh and 7 other districts? Did any third-party have a finger in this matter? What was the interest of third party or parties in the occupation of Azerbaijani lands by Armenia?

- The direct cause of Azerbaijan's territorial losses was the unstable political situation in the country. In 1990-1993, the government changed three times, first in the Azerbaijan SSR and then in the Republic of Azerbaijan. Each change of government had led to the loss of seven districts during those three years due to the paralysis of the country's governance system, the predominance of political interests over national interests, and the inability of the Azerbaijani political community to compromise internally. Undoubtedly, a leading third-party, Russia, was behind such political developments because it was already clear at the time that Western transnational oil companies were interested in Azerbaijani oil and that Russia was trying to prevent their interference in the post-Soviet space. The best way to do this was to create instability and failure in the conflict. At that time, the Russian military often fought openly on the side of Armenia, and on the other hand, Russian spies stationed in the newly formed Azerbaijani army were committing acts of sabotage. As a result, we lost 7 districts, and after the establishment of Heydar Aliyev's former communist-KGB government, stability was relatively established in the country. But heavy losses had already been inflicted, and the country continued to live according to the model of a de facto defeated nation - defeated country. It is true that there were attempts to change the government at that time but they failed; however, this did not take us out of the status of the defeated but rather strengthened this status.

- Why the lands could not be liberated during these years? What is the reason?

- First of all, because the country's political leadership was not interested in it. Oil contracts were already in place, money was coming, and it was a priority to distribute it and strengthen positions. At that time, another influence was also added to Russia's influence. This was the influence of the West, which has had energy interests in Azerbaijan. Western countries were interested in political stability in both the region and Azerbaijan; therefore, they had imitated the resolution of the conflict as well as democratic reforms. They were completely satisfied with the authoritarian government in Azerbaijan, and such a compromise was an ideal model. I mean a compromise between Russia and the West. Such that the West needed oil and was taking it, and Russia needed Azerbaijan's political course towards it. In other words, everyone was satisfied with everything. As the process dragged on, the Karabakh issue became a reliable tool of both foreign and domestic policy, to the satisfaction of all parties. At that time, only once, in 1999, a serious attempt was made to resolve the conflict. This was a solution to the conflict based on the exchange of corridors, in the name of US Deputy Secretary of State, Strobe Talbot, which was also prevented by the shooting of the parliament in Armenia. After that, there was a long silence, and the three co-chairs of the OSCE Minsk Group were entrusted with managing that silence. Apparently, the imitation of the resolution of the conflict also aimed at the fact that over time and as generations change, the conflict and its consequences would gradually fade into the background. As for the non-implementation of UN resolutions, there is nothing unusual here, because the UN has very limited resources and mechanisms to achieve the implementation of its decisions and resolutions, and this has not only occurred in our conflict. But in such a calculation, an important element I mentioned above was either not taken seriously or not taken into account at all. This was to turn the conflict into a tool in the internal political struggle. Another factor that was overlooked was to incorrectly evaluate Azerbaijani society, which seemed to be reconciled to defeat.

- Why was Azerbaijan not allowed to liberate its lands from occupation?

- Despite all the factors I have mentioned, the army building in Azerbaijan continued, as well as the creation of obstacles to it. For example, during the rule of Heydar Aliyev, there were many Turkish advisers and specialists in the Azerbaijani army, many Turkish instructors were teaching in the country's military schools, which, in fact, meant a transition to NATO standards in the future. In the post-Heydar Aliyev period, in virtue of the works of the 5th column of Russia in the upper echelons of power, Turkish military specialists were expelled and this kind of integration was terminated. However, after a while, again in the military field, but this time with Israel, extensive cooperation began, the pace of which was significantly weakened by the brutal intervention. I mean the unsolved assassination of the late General, Commander of the Air Force, Rail Rzayev. It was after this assassination that Azerbaijan's vector of military cooperation changed in Russia's favor. For Russia, this meant both arms sales and control of Azerbaijan's armed forces. Finally, in April 2016, a successful operation by the Azerbaijani army was thwarted by strong pressure from Moscow, the operation was disrupted, and the worst happened after that: Russian subordinates in the country's prosecutor's office made false accusations against Azerbaijani military servicemen, who showed heroism in battles, and alleged that they were working for Armenian intelligence. This treacherous group, which united Zakir Garalov, Rustam Usubov, Khanlar Valiyev, Najmaddin Sadikov, and others, literally took the lives of hundreds of our servicemen. 14 people were tortured to death, more than 200 people were expelled from the army for the physical and mental trauma they suffered as a result of torture, and many servicemen are still in prison today. As a person who has studied this issue in detail, I repeat that the fact that the perpetrators of this heinous crime remain free and some of them remain in office even today is a serious threat to our state, our people, and our national security. As I have studied this issue in detail, I receive dozens of messages from dozens of servicemen almost every day, and all are waiting with hope and confidence that after today's success of the army, these traitors will receive their deserved punishment, justice will be restored, and their innocence will be proven. Rather than waiting for justice to gain victory, I prefer to work for its victory. Therefore, this issue will remain open for me until these traitors receive a deserved punishment.

- How did this conflict flare up again? What was the reason?

- In fact, the conflict should have flared up again because an unjust peace means a new war. Both Russia and some Western countries (especially European countries) urged us to reckon with the status quo. We must never forget the negative role of Europeans in this issue. It seems that they needed us to remain defeated, poor, humiliated people. Let me draw a line here: I do not say this by chance, because even today, some leading European countries are openly negative and irritated by the successful operations of the Azerbaijani army to liberate the country's territories. This is no longer even a double standard. However, the fact that Armenia, which has been nurtured and protected by Russia and European countries, crossed the "red line" inspired by this, and especially the politically illiterate, dangerous, and bizarre statements of Prime Minister Pashinyan, accelerated the process. Azerbaijan's patience ran out and our country, our people, and our army showed that they were not defeated. And this time not only to Armenia and its patrons but to the whole world. The Azerbaijani army has successfully tested a model of a new war that will go down in military history and will be studied in military schools. We can call it a technological war, a drone war, or something else, but the fact is that all the standards of war that have existed so far have been shattered. It is no coincidence that the world's leading military publications are already talking about the success of the Azerbaijani army, saying that our country has demonstrated what the future war will look like. But this time there was a different and more important reason for the war. It was to prove that the Azerbaijani people were not oppressed people, it was their desire and will to regain their pride. This is what happened. Regardless of the end result, Armenia is already defeated, and I think that the zeal of its patrons, such as Russia and France, to stop military operations under various pretexts will not work because it is already a people's war and only the people can stop it. But the people do not seem to have such a desire until the final victory.