(
MENAFN- Trend News Agency)
BAKU, Azerbaijan, October 28. The
Azerbaijani
army launched a counter-offensive operation, later
called the "Iron Fist", on September 27, 2020, in response to the
large-scale provocation of the Armenian
armed forces along the
frontline.
The erupted 44-day Second Karabakh War ended with the
liberation of Azerbaijan's territories from nearly 30-year Armenian
occupation and the restoration of territorial integrity.
President of the Republic of Azerbaijan Ilham Aliyev was
interviewed by Russian Interfax agency.
Trend presents the interview:
- Thank you, Mr. President, for finding the time for an
interview with our agency despite your busy schedule. It was
exactly one month yesterday since the counter- offensive of the
Azerbaijani Armed Forces began in Nagorno- Karabakh. How would you
assess this month from the point of view of the military- political
settlement of the conflict?
- The Azerbaijani army has demonstrated its advantage on the
battlefield. Significant parts of the occupied territories have
been liberated in one month. Given that the Armenian side had been
building fortifications in the occupied lands for almost 30 years,
there were several lines of defense. Also, the terrain itself is
more favorable for the Armenian side. It is mountainous and our
servicemen had to overcome both engineering fortifications and
mountainous terrain when carrying out the counterattack. Despite
all these factors, significant territories in the occupied lands of
our country have been liberated in one month, and this shows that
the Azerbaijani army is considered one of the most combat-
effective armies in the world for a reason. According to the
rankings periodically published by organizations that assess the
military potential of countries, the Azerbaijani army is among top
50 armies in the world. The professionalism, training, combat
effectiveness and, most importantly, fighting morale have certainly
contributed to our success in many respects. And, of course, the
equipment available to the Azerbaijani army. We have liberated the
cities of Fuzuli, Jabrayil, Zangilan, Gubadli, a part of Khojavand
district. The successful mission, the successful advance of the
Azerbaijani army continues. I have said several times during this
month that we want the settlement of the conflict to move from a
military to a political phase. But, unfortunately, the Armenian
side has grossly violated the ceasefire regime for the third time,
attempted to re- occupy the territories we have liberated, and is
pushing for a continuation of the confrontation. Therefore, I am
answering your question again: the military- political settlement
is the only possible way. We would like the military phase to end
and issues of further de- occupation of Azerbaijani territories to
be resolved at the negotiating table.
- Mr. President, you noted that Baku is interested in
completing the military phase as quickly as possible. How long do
you think it can last at the present time and is Baku ready to be
content with seven districts around Nagorno- Karabakh?
- I have repeatedly said in my appeals to the Azerbaijani people
and in numerous interviews this month that we are ready to stop at
any moment, even today. But for this to happen, the Armenian side
must commit to withdrawing its troops from the rest of the occupied
territories. Therefore, I cannot predict how long the military
confrontation will last. It depends on the Armenian side. As I
said, their constant attempts to recapture our lands have failed. I
think this should already be enough for them to understand that
they will not achieve anything by military means. Unfortunately, on
the political plane they are demonstrating a non- constructive
approach, as I said, and have grossly violated the ceasefire three
times. Based on this, of course, we will continue to plan on
further action. As for the occupied territories, of course, the
Azerbaijanis must return to all the occupied territories where they
used to live, and this has always been my approach. Not only to the
seven occupied districts outside Nagorno- Karabakh, outside the
former Nagorno- Karabakh autonomous region, but also to the
territories, to the lands they had lived on for centuries. First of
all, these are Shusha, Khankandi and other lands that have been
inhabited by Azerbaijanis for centuries. I also said that our
vision for a settlement lies in the co- existence of the Armenian
and Azerbaijani population of Nagorno- Karabakh. It so happened
historically that the Armenian population has been living on these
lands for 200 years. We all know the history of the resettlement of
Armenians from Eastern Anatolia and Iran. But it so happened. They
have lived there for 200 years. And we have no objection to the
continued presence of the Armenian population. On the contrary, I
have always said that thousands of citizens of Armenian nationality
live in Azerbaijan, that Armenians and Azerbaijanis live together
in neighboring countries and get along quite well. Why can't this
be achieved in Nagorno- Karabakh? Our vision is this: Azerbaijanis
should return to all the territories they lived in. The Armenian
population should also live on this land. And in the conditions of
good neighborliness, we will strive to heal the wounds of war.
- So it means that Baku will not stop until Armenian
servicemen withdraw from all the occupied territories.
- We need the Armenian side in the person of its leadership to
undertake a commitment to withdraw troops from the occupied
territories. We haven't heard that yet. As soon as this commitment
is made by the Armenian leadership and as soon as it is confirmed
and approved by OSCE Minsk Group co- chairs, we are ready to stop
military action immediately. And provided that the Armenian side
also stops it because all three violations of the ceasefire were
committed by the Armenian side. Four civilians, including a seven-
year- old girl, were killed as a result of a cluster missile attack
on Barda yesterday. This is not a conflict zone. So this is a
flagrant violation of the ceasefire, which was agreed in
Washington. Prior to that, the ceasefire agreed in Moscow was
violated by the Armenian side the next day when they launched a
ballistic missile from the territory of Armenia to Ganja. And as a
result of this, 10 people died. As a result of the second ballistic
missile attack on Ganja, even more people died. There are about 30
victims in a peaceful city. Therefore, it is not our fault that the
ceasefire is not observed. Therefore, the Armenian side must
undertake that they will withdraw from the occupied territories
they are still holding under occupation: these include a part of
Aghdam district, the entire Lachin district and most of Kalbajar
district. And then we will be ready, of course, to move on to a
political settlement. It will cover many aspects. In principle, we
have accepted the fundamental principles, while the Armenian side
has rejected them. But the Armenian prime minister's aggressive
statement yesterday suggests that they say one thing to the
mediators and do something completely different.
- Mr. President, you have said that Baku is mainly
committed to the fundamental principles. The first point of these
principles was the liberation of five districts around Nagorno-
Karabakh. But at present, four out of five districts have already
been liberated by the Azerbaijani army. It turns out that, at a
minimum, the fundamental principles are either not relevant or need
some adjustment.
- This will depend on the behavior of the Armenian side again.
As you know, negotiations between the foreign ministers of
Azerbaijan and Armenia are to be held in Geneva tomorrow. There we
will see how committed the Armenian side is to the fundamental
principles. After that, we will give our assessment of how relevant
they are now not, although I have repeatedly stated during this
month that Azerbaijan accepts them in general, there are certain
aspects that do not suit us, of course, but we accept them in
general. As for the return of five districts at the first stage, of
course, this is no longer relevant because the fundamental
principles determined the sequence of territories to be returned –
five districts at the first stage, and Kalbajar and Lachin
districts at the second. Then comes the return of Azerbaijanis to
the territory of Nagorno- Karabakh, in principle, the return of all
refugees to the places of their original residence. We have almost
completed the first stage. Therefore, if the Armenian side
expresses its adherence to the fundamental principles, we will talk
about an immediate transfer of Lachin, Kalbajar and a part of
Aghdam district that are still under occupation to Azerbaijan.
Thus, we will somewhat facilitate the work of mediators because one
of the important issues will already be implemented and we will not
have to wait for a second stage. It must come right away. If we
agree on a political settlement, then Armenian troops should
withdraw from Kalbajar and Lachin districts and a part of Aghdam
district immediately.
- You have already touched upon tomorrow's meeting of
foreign ministers and outlined the overall expectations of Baku. I
would like to clarify if Baku still expects the Armenian side to
show constructivism and the negotiations to be more substantive,
not abstract and broad?
- I think we are still hopeful. Although the aggressive conduct
of the Armenian side and the fact that they are flagrantly
violating international law, the Geneva Conventions, and committing
war crimes does not suggest that they are going to discuss the
substance of the settlement issue, of course. Attacking peaceful
cities with cluster munitions is a war crime. We have 69 civilians
killed and more than 300 injured as a result of Armenian shelling.
This is the face of Armenian fascism. At the same time, I think
that the defeat we have inflicted on Armenia on the battlefield
should nevertheless be a serious signal for them that they can no
longer imitate things, deceive us, deceive the co- chairs of the
Minsk Group and essentially evade substantive discussions. As for
the process of negotiations, there was practically none for the
past year, even more than a year. This was the first time this has
happened since the 1994 truce. Because since then, the negotiations
have been going on with varying degree of intensity and the parties
have agreed on provisions of the fundamental principles. They did
not fall from the sky. These were the principles proposed by the
Minsk Group, its co- chairs, and agreed by the parties. Therefore,
there was a process, albeit slow, and some progress was being made.
But after the new government came to power in Armenia, they gave us
and, as far as I know, the mediators, promises in the first year.
But in the second year, they openly demonstrated their true
intention that they would not give up a single centimeter of the
land. Moreover, they threatened us with a new war for new
territories. In fact, these were the words of their Minister of
Defense who has been completely discredited as Minister of Defense
both in the eyes of his own people and in the eyes of the world
community. And after such a humiliating defeat, I am surprised he
hasn't resigned yet.
- What is your assessment of remarks by Armenian Prime
Minister Nikol Pashinyan, who on the one hand uses belligerent
rhetoric but on the other hand says that Armenia should prepare for
painful compromises, then changes his tone again? What is behind
this?
- It is hard for me to comment on this. I would probably abstain
from an assessment of what is happening to the Armenian prime
minister. Probably, this military defeat influenced his state,
otherwise how one can explain the series of inconsistent statements
and actions that are absolutely irrational and harmful, primarily
for himself as the country's leader and dangerous and harmful for
his country?
Many people ask why the clashes happened now and not before.
Even those who have a biased approach to Azerbaijan and openly
support Armenia would ask this question. Twenty- six years have
passed since the 1994 truce. There were clashes, there were victims
over those years, but not on such a scale. So what has happened?
Nothing has changed in Azerbaijan.
I have been engaged in settlement of negotiations for 17 years,
and I have gone a long way towards agreeing on the fundamental
principles together with the two previous Armenian presidents. That
is why it is clear to impartial observers that it is not our fault.
This is the fault of the inappropriate, irrational, and dangerous
conduct of the Armenian prime minister.
No former Armenian leader ever allowed insulting innuendos
regarding the Azerbaijani people. None of them allowed the Nagorno-
Karabakh head to be inaugurated in Shusha. None of them prided
themselves on the demonstrative violation of the Geneva Convention
showing the resettlement of the Lebanese Armenians to Nagorno-
Karabakh, including Shusha. And so on and so forth.
So these are the results of the ill- conceived and dangerous
activity of Prime Minister Pashinyan. I wouldn't comment on his
statements inside the country. But what he does concerning the
settlement is very dangerous for Armenia itself. Today, Armenia can
clearly see this. That is why I think that the Minsk Group co-
chairs should clearly raise this issue before the Armenian foreign
minister, who, as I understand, is in a very difficult situation.
He has to answer for the inappropriate conduct of his leader, and
in fact he deserves sympathy. He will have to get himself out of
this and somehow explain his series of inconsistent actions.
On the one hand, he speaks about painful concessions, on the
other hand, he says that there is no diplomatic solution. First, he
says that he is ready for a compromise but then he says that he
will defend Karabakh until the very end. On the one hand, he says
that Karabakh is Armenia, but then he says that we should negotiate
with Nagorno- Karabakh. This is an absolutely mutually exclusive
palette of inadequacy. So I think that many issues of these will be
clarified tomorrow.
- In your latest address to the Azerbaijani people, you
quite severely criticized the mediators for essentially being
inactive. Does this mean that Baku will insist on changing the
Minsk Group format?
- I have spoken many times about the activity of the OSCE Minsk
Group over the past month. And what I said in the address to the
Azerbaijani people is the absolute truth. Any format, no matter
what it is called and who it involves, should acknowledge its
ineffectiveness if it doesn't fulfill the set task. And the set
task has not been fulfilled. Although I cannot deny that the Minsk
Group made attempts to reach a settlement, because fundamental
principles were elaborated with its assistance. They worked and
they proposed options. There were some things we didn't agree with,
there were some things that the Armenian side didn't agree with. So
that was a process that had lasted until Pashinyan came to power in
Armenia.
But from the point of view of effectiveness and efficiency, the
Minsk Group, of course, didn't justify itself, I mean the activity
of the co- chairs. Should the co- chairs be other countries, this
could have been explained by their insufficient international
weight, by their lack of authority to implement even the UN
Security Council resolutions that they had adopted themselves. But
when the Minsk Group co- chairs are three members of the UN
Security Council, when three nuclear powers cannot exert pressure
on Armenia, this, of course, raises a lot of questions.
As for the composition, I have already said that the Minsk Group
was set up in 1992. I don't know how it was set up and what
principles underlie the choice of its members. But as I said, if we
formed a contact group today, its composition would, of course,
have been completely different. It would include countries that
have their positions in the region and that have potential and
authority in the world. Of course, I think the countries that are
current co- chairs could probably remain there. But this is not a
question for me, because the mechanism and the procedure of forming
the Minsk Group and its co- chairs is the prerogative of the
OSCE.
I think that we should not cling to formalities in order to
settle the conflict. The Minsk Group as such can continue working,
but we should think about new cooperation mechanisms between the
countries of the region in order to practically reach a political
settlement. I think that Russian President Vladimir Putin probably
meant the same when he spoke about this.
- In this regard, some experts propose the 2+2 formula.
How acceptable is it to Baku?
- Two is Armenia and Azerbaijan, and the other two?
- Turkey and Russia.
- This would be acceptable to us, because Turkey and Russia are
our neighbors and countries with which we have close mutual
relations and countries with good potential for cooperation among
themselves. It is enough to look at the history of the past few
years. Turkey and Russia have reached a high level of mutual
understanding on many issues, including the bilateral agenda and
the international security agenda. We see that in Syria and in
Libya, and in tackling issues of countering international
terrorism, to say nothing of energy projects, economic, investment
projects.
Even before this escalation, I said that we have always welcomed
the rapprochement of Turkey and Russia. I believe that this is an
important factor of regional security. Considering that Armenian
separatism is the main threat for us, and not only for us but for
the entire region, I believe that combining the efforts of Turkey
and Russia would benefit the region and could accelerate the
political settlement of the Nagorno- Karabakh conflict.
- Mr. President, you have repeatedly said that the
mediators should apply sanctions against Armenia in order to secure
a breakthrough in the settlement process. What might be at
issue?
- I have been talking about it for a long time, but regrettably
my calls remain unanswered. What sanctions could be applied?
Sanctions that would make Armenia fulfill the UN Security Council
resolutions and withdraw its troops from the occupied territories.
For example, we could have a look at the sanctions that were
imposed on Iraq after its occupation of Kuwait. Similar things took
place from the point of view of international law. The
internationally recognized territory of Kuwait was occupied by
Iraq, war crimes were committed, ethnic cleansing occurred, and
only the timely reaction of the international community helped stop
this occupation. And that happened within a short period of time.
Next, economic sanctions, an arms embargo were imposed on Iraq.
Iraq became a no- fly zone. War criminals, who committed crimes
against humanity, were brought to justice and sentenced.
All these sanctions should be applied to Armenia. Even if one of
these sanctions had been applied, I am sure the conflict would have
been resolved long ago. There has simply been no political will and
desire to apply these sanctions. And more likely the position that
prevailed was that as long as there is no escalation, let's leave
everything as it is.
-Is it frozen?
- Frozen, of course. Although everyone understood that this
cannot last forever. Everyone understood this 10 years ago. The
presidents of Russia, the US and France made statements, and said
clearly many times that the status quo was unacceptable.
Well, fine. We welcomed this, and I remember this was praised in
our country, I commented on this. But what happened next? Then they
began to depart from this thesis gradually, stopped voicing it and
invented a new thesis that the status quo is unstable. And we can
clearly understand that these are completely different things. So
the co- chairing countries moved away even from a political attempt
to exert pressure on Armenia. And it was common knowledge that the
status quo was unstable. And recent events proved this.
This is why, let me repeat that again, it is not too late to
apply sanctions in order to end the conflict as soon as possible. I
think that co- chairing countries should seriously think about what
sanctions could be applied against the aggressor in order to make
them leave the occupied lands.
- Do you think that the co- chairs managed to remain
entirely neutral over the month of the military phase?
- Every country, including Azerbaijan, can have its own foreign
political priorities. We have closer relations with some countries
and less close with others. Our relations with some countries are
based on historical factors and with others on pragmatic factors.
That is why we have always treated with understanding the fact that
there are very well structured and active Armenian communities in
the co- chairing countries, in the US, in France, and in Russia.
Even when we analyzed this situation, it is very hard to tell where
they have greater influence on decision- making. That is why we
have always taken and are taking this factor into account.
If there were some deviations at the first stage of hostilities
that made us doubt their neutrality, I think now everything is
fine- tuned. My contacts with the leaders of the co- chairing
countries, as well as, I am sure, international support that
Azerbaijan got, resulted in the fact that we can see this
neutrality now. Once again, what some people have on their mind is
not our business, but, of course, the mediators must adhere to
international law and neutrality, otherwise they will just forfeit
the right to be mediators. A mediator must be impartial, it must
leave emotions at home or leave them for the bilateral format, and
as part of the settlement it must take into account the mandate
that the OSCE gave it and the desire to settle the conflict in line
with international law rather than in line with the wishes of
Azerbaijan or Armenia.
- You have said recently said that there will be no
referendum in Nagorno- Karabakh. This is the new reality. Does this
mean that Azerbaijan has changed its position, made it
tougher?
- I have been talking about this for 17 years, and the OSCE
Minsk Group co- chairs know my position. I don't remember how many
co- chairs have changed over these years, how many diplomats have
been co- chairmen, but all of them can confirm that I have always
said that there will never be a referendum on the internationally
recognized territories of Azerbaijan. Moreover, if we look at the
fundamental principles, there is no such word as 'referendum'
there. There is a certain wording related to the expression of
will, to self- determination there.
We have always said that self- determination is an important
principle of international law, but it cannot violate the
territorial integrity of a country. Secondly, a country's
territorial integrity cannot be changed without the consent of this
country. And I naturally adhere to this position today: we will not
let a second Armenian state be set up on Azerbaijan's territories.
If someone is willing to create a second Armenian state, let them
give a part of their territory and let them create it there.
- Armenia says that it can recognize the independence
of Nagorno- Karabakh if hostilities continue. At the same time,
there are calls for countries and international organizations to
recognize Karabakh. How likely is this? And what could it lead
to?
- What you are asking about once again proves the inconsistency
and insincerity of the incumbent Armenian authorities, because
while failing to recognize Nagorno- Karabakh themselves, they want
other countries do that. And their regular blackmailing and threats
that they will recognize Nagorno- Karabakh in case of escalation
turned out to be yet another bluff. Military confrontation on
Karabakh has lasted for more than a month. Why haven't they
recognized Nagorno- Karabakh yet?
It is very easy to do, let them just say that they recognize it.
This is the essence of their policies, when they have been always
trying for many decades, but regrettably they have sometimes
succeeded under the cover of other states to have other states
solve their problems. This is the essence of the ideology of the
present- day Armenian state. It is based on very deep historical
roots, it has been this way for the whole history. If we look at
the past 200 years of the history of the Caucasus, we can see how
many wars started because of them, how many provocations they
caused for other countries, and then going to the backstage, hiding
behind someone's backs reaped the fruits of confrontation and the
fruits of shedding the blood of other peoples.
We know the history of their appearance in the Caucasus well.
Historically, there was no Armenian ethnicity in the region. How
did they get here? This was their way, trickery, cunning attempts
to use a cat's paw to take roasting chestnuts from a fire. They are
doing the same now. Hence my call for them in response – recognize
Nagorno- Karabakh, recognize its right today. By the way, I have
spoken about it quite recently. Let them recognize Nagorno-
Karabakh today, but asking other countries to do this once again
proves the inappropriateness of the Armenian leadership and very
low political literacy. That is why if the Armenian leadership knew
at least the basics of international politics a little, it would
understand that the whole world recognizes Azerbaijan's territorial
integrity. It is common knowledge that we joined the UN and other
international organizations as a single state encompassing Nagorno-
Karabakh. The Non- Aligned Movement – 120 countries – voices
unambiguous support for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity. The
European Union – 27 countries – our document with the EU states the
support for the territorial integrity, sovereignty and
inviolability of Azerbaijan's borders. Altogether there are almost
150 countries. Should we add the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation, which, however, includes some NAM members but there
are other countries that are not represented in the NAM, we get the
whole international community.
Because of Armenia, its whim and caprice to recognize Nagorno-
Karabakh, to spoil relations with Azerbaijan, and not just to
spoil, as I said this will immediately lead to the rupture of
diplomatic relations with any country that will do so, no- one will
just do that. Moreover, they don't recognize it themselves.
Moreover, they are aggressors in line with the reality on the Earth
and in line with UN resolutions. This is why this is a very
indecent attempt to pull somebody's chestnuts out of the fire.
- Russia has proposed deploying military observers in
the conflict zone. Prime Minister Pashinyan in general agreed to
deploying peacekeepers to the conflict zone and didn't rule out
that these could be Russian peacekeepers. So is it observers or
peacekeepers? What is the position of Baku?
- This issue is reflected in the fundamental principles, but we
have never seriously discussed it because we simply didn't get to
it. It was planned to dispatch peacekeepers to the region at the
final stage of the settlement, when the aftermath of the occupation
is mitigated, when refugees return to Nagorno- Karabakh, then, yes,
in order to ensure that Azerbaijani and Armenian population can
live side by side, disengagement forces will be needed at the first
stage. But the fundamental principles don't state for how long they
should be deployed and what countries they should consist of.
Simply because we didn't reach it. First of all, all main
provisions of the agreement must be agreed on.
As for the desire of the Armenian prime minister to see
peacekeepers in the conflict zone, then firstly, this is none of
his business, because when we speak about the conflict zone, we
should understand that this is Azerbaijan's territory. If we speak
about peacekeepers at the border of Armenia and Azerbaijan, this is
another issue. But as far as I understand, it is the Azerbaijani
territory that is in question now, that is why we should have the
final say.
And since this topic wasn't broadly discussed, I think it is
premature to speak about it. But for my part I would like to note
that when we speak about it, we should firstly understand what
mandate possible observers would have and where they would be
deployed. One should understand that there is no contact line, so
where will their posts be? Armenia breaches international law and
ceasefire, shelling our cities. Just recently, Euronews aired
footage that clearly shows a flying missile flying. And it was
flying to our cities rather than military positions. So where they
will be, what mandate, composition, numbers, arms, and functions
will they have, and who will ensure their security? These questions
require very thorough examination, and only afterwards will we be
able to say whether we agree to it or not. That is why it is so far
premature.
- In general, do military officials of Azerbaijan,
Armenia and Russia discuss any mechanisms of ceasefire
monitoring?
- No, there are no such discussions now.
- Are you ready to go to Moscow for negotiations on
Karabakh with the Armenian prime minister? And on what
conditions?
- I haven't received such an invitation. I have repeatedly taken
part in trilateral meetings between the presidents of Azerbaijan,
Armenia and Russia, but there have been no such meetings since
Pashinyan came to power in Armenia. These meetings were with the
previous presidents of Armenia, and I have never avoided such
meetings. I considered them to be very positive, because Russia as
a co- chair of the Minsk Group plays a special role in the
settlement, and historically Russia has always maintained close
ties with both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russia is very actively
cooperating politically and economically with Azerbaijan and
Armenia these days, it is our neighbor. Therefore, it is natural
that most of these meetings have been held in Russian territory,
but there have been no such meetings with Pashinyan. I don't know
how efficient they are going to be now with regard to the Armenian
leadership. But if such a proposal is made, we have always viewed
them positively and will continue to do so.
- Does this mean that you are ready to go if there is
such an invitation?
- Yes, and without any preconditions as you have said. This is
evident from the fact that our foreign ministers will be meeting in
Geneva tomorrow also without any preconditions. Moreover, I would
like to say that, when the conflict only just began, our foreign
minister had plans to visit Geneva to meet with the co-chairs, and
he did go there. And the Armenian foreign minister, who had planned
to travel there a week before, in early October, refused to go. And
when a proposal from Moscow came on a meeting between the foreign
ministers to coordinate a humanitarian ceasefire, our foreign
minister flew there from Geneva. In other words, we are not setting
any terms, but again, I really doubt that the current Armenian
authorities are capable of constructively working toward a
settlement.
- Prime Minister Pashinyan has repeatedly said that
Turkish troops are directly involved in hostilities in
Nagorno-Karabakh. It was also said that Pakistani special units are
also involved. Your comment?
- These are yet more of Pashinyan's lies. I must say that there
were no such things in my contacts with previous Armenian
presidents. Yes, we are adversaries, we cannot have positive
attitudes towards each other, but there have never been such open
lies and such allegations at the negotiating table. This is all
lies. There are no Turkish special units there. I have repeatedly
said that, and there is no such need. He has now said that some
kind of Pakistani special units are present here, and by the way I
think he got a note of protest in return. This is nonsense, there
is no such thing.
These are all attempts to firstly engage other countries into
the conflict, make it international in order to conceal his
shameful defeat, saying that allegedly it is not Azerbaijan that
beats us up on the battlefield, but Turkish and Pakistani special
units. He has recently made a ridiculous statement – as I was told
– that the terrorists Azerbaijan had allegedly brought from Syria
to Azerbaijan sneaked into Russia and staged a terrorist attack in
Grozny. Just understand that this is absolute nonsense. Russian
special services know for sure who staged the terrorist attack.
Previously, he said that Turkey's F- 16 brought down Armenia's Su-
25. Everyone knows this is a lie. Such things are monitored by
Russia and other co-chairing countries. We live in the era of
technologies and nothing can be hidden.
This was simply idiocy when he said that it wasn't Armenia that
had launched ballistic missiles against Ganja, because any launch
of a ballistic missile is monitored. Russia, America and France are
well aware that this missile was launched and what combat mission
it had. The combat mission was to hit a residential neighborhood,
and another residential neighborhood for the second time. We have
no military bases, no military towns in Ganja. He is simply
lying.
And he says it was not us, when hundreds of journalists take
horrible footage of these destructions, when foreign diplomats give
interviews right from the destruction site, Pashinyan says that it
was not Armenia. Then who? Did we strike at Ganja ourselves? Just
imagine the level of deceit and, what is more, idiocy. Any
reasonable person should understand that this is impossible to
hide. It is yet another lie when he speaks about Pakistani and
Turkish special units. He will say tomorrow that Martians were
brought there in order to liberate territories. Anything can be
expected from him.
- I would still like to specify Turkey's future role in
the conflict settlement...
- We see Turkey's role in the settlement as effective. Turkey is
a fraternal state to us. Turkey is the only country of the world
that borders on three South Caucasian countries. Turkey today has a
decisive say in many discussions not only on a regional but also on
a global scale. Turkey pursues an absolutely independent foreign
policy, thus evoking, as far as I know, much irritation among those
who have got used to ordering everyone about. That is why I think
Turkey, as a secure partner and friend of Azerbaijan, which has
also have very close relations with Russia, will definitely play an
important role.
It is already playing this role, and the fact that the
presidents of Russia and Turkey, the foreign ministers, and the
defense ministers are in constant contact with each other
discussing these questions proves that Turkey is already engaged,
whether Armenia likes it or not. But I am certain that Armenia is
forced to recognize and accept this.
- Is there a risk that the Azerbaijani- Armenian
conflict will escalate into a regional confrontation involving big
states?
- Frankly speaking, I cannot fully rule this out, but I must say
that for our part we will take no actions that could lead to this,
there will be no provocations that would make this conflict
international. We don't need this, and I have said many times over
the past month that we are against this, and I called on countries
to show restraint and not to interfere. I am glad this is happening
this way.
Although Armenia's constant attempts to make this conflict
international and constant requests of the Armenian leadership for
Russia to almost send its troops to fight on Armenia's side are
exactly what I was talking about - to pull somebody's chestnuts out
of the fire. That is why I am sure that regional countries, and
these are the countries that Azerbaijan enjoys close historical,
cultural, political and trustworthy relations with – Russia,
Turkey, Iran, Georgia – will naturally abstain from any actions
that would play into the aggressor's hands.
- Not long ago President Putin said that the death toll
of the current escalation on both side is about 5,000 people. Do
you have the same data?
- I said that we would publish the number of killed servicemen
after the war is over. As for civilians, we are making data public.
I told you about 69 people killed and more than 300 wounded.
As for the losses, I can say what losses Armenia could have
according to our estimates. Just look, simple arithmetic, 256 tanks
were destroyed as of yesterday, the figure is growing day to day,
just multiply it by – how many crewmembers there are, three or four
– this is almost 1,000. Next, over 50 infantry fighting vehicles
were destroyed, it is roughly clear how many people are there.
Hundreds of artillery guns, and each of them has several people,
six S-300 systems, about 40 OSA air defense systems, the TOR, KUB,
KRUG systems, more than 400 trucks – and the majority of them
carried personnel and ammunition when they were destroyed. If we
just calculate these figures... And how many people were killed in
trenches? We were in those trenches, the contact lines – the
footage is on the Internet. So according to our information, 5,000
Armenian troops may have been killed, and the number of wounded
during war, as a rule, is two to three times higher.
As for our losses, I have said we will make them public after
the fighting is over. But I have to say that they are a lot less,
and bearing in mind the nature of the combat clashes, the difficult
terrain, and the fortifications that the Armenians have built for
30 years, I believe that every human life is priceless, but our
losses are minimal, bearing in mind all these factors.
- Military experts believe that Azerbaijan managed to
minimize its losses during the active stage of hostilities thanks
to the active use of drones. What is the reason for using
drones?
- Of course, the arsenal of the Azerbaijani army consists not
only of drones. We have modern air defense systems made in Russia,
in Israel, in Belarus; several air defense systems are crisscross,
which shoot down the bulk of missiles being sent from Armenian
territory. Unfortunately, we can't shoot down all of them.
Our armor is the most modern: upgraded T-72 tanks, the most
modern T-90 tanks, infantry fighting vehicles, modern artillery
that has a very long range. This includes Polonez rockets, LORA,
Extra, Kasirga, etc. Our approach to the arming of our army was not
one-sided.
But modern methods of warfare, of course, are different from
those we had back in 1990s, and so unmanned aviation is an
important factor of our combat capabilities, especially considering
such fortified areas. That is why even the footage that we show on
the Internet, just believe me that it is almost nothing compared to
what is happening. This is what we can show.
They dug everything they could there. They have many kilometers
of interconnected tunnels, rat holes where they get to as soon as
they hear noise. There is a rat hole near every gun. That is why it
would have been very hard to destroy this without modern hardware,
this would result in a large number of casualties. We destroyed
many Grad systems, and in this case unmanned aviation, Turkish and
Israeli drones, helped us very much.
By using UAVs, we destroyed at least six S-300 air defense
systems. In addition, modern UAVs conduct reconnaissance
themselves, apart from independently carrying out strikes. They
also coordinate artillery, which strikes afterwards. This is why it
is an important factor of our success. But as I said, Azerbaijani
soldiers and officers are liberating the lands, raising the flag.
Because this is our heritage, and it is not by accident that the
Azerbaijani army is considered as one of the most effective. I
already know that this experience has been studied. In general,
this experience will be useful for many countries in order to plan
father military build-up.
And even for us. I recently held a meeting with the military and
said that we should analyze both successes and shortcomings. And in
the future, when we buy military hardware, we should be guided by
experience in terms of what we need and what lies idle in storage
depots.
- You spoke about Azerbaijan's civilian losses. What is
the reaction of the international community to this? Does it
condemn it or does everything end with calls to Baku and Yerevan to
stop shelling each other?
- Yes, this is so. And this is not news for us. What kind of
condemnation of Armenia has there been over these years of
occupation? Has it been condemned? There has been none. Has anyone
condemned Armenia for occupation? Yes, UN Security Council
resolutions were adopted in 1993, yes, we then attained the
adoption of UN General Assembly, the Non-Aligned Movement and even
the European Parliament resolutions. Of course, they created a
judicial framework, a legal framework for the settlement. But we
have heard no condemnation. Even when it was clear that Armenia
breached the ceasefire, not a single day elapsed after the
ceasefire was agreed on in Moscow when they attacked Ganja.
And now, a day after the ceasefire was agreed on in Washington –
and they begged for one, they begged for a ceasefire in Moscow and
now, and what was reached thanks to the efforts of the French side
– not a single day passed before they shelled Barda. And before
that they fired at a funeral procession in Tartar. Four people were
killed there. These are inhumane actions. This proves who we have
to war against. This means there are no moral norms, no honor,
dignity, and no understanding of how wars are fought.
You know, everyone, even an adversary, even an enemy, should be
respected to a certain extent, because there are rules, in
particular for fighting wars. There is nothing of the kind for the
Armenian side. That is why we didn't pin much hope on condemnation.
Fraternal Turkey backs us, Pakistan openly supports us. The Turkish
president, the Pakistani prime minister have repeatedly voiced
their support for us. Many countries support us. And when we say
international community, almost every time the Western world is
meant. But we haven't expected any sympathy from there.
- Could attacks on Azerbaijan's energy infrastructure,
in particular Mingachevir and oil and gas pipelines, create certain
risks for supplies of Azerbaijan's oil and gas to the global
market?
- If they do what they promised, that is, the bombardment of the
Sangachal terminal, or our oil and gas pipelines, this will
certainly pose some risks. I think that they will be condemned in
this case. As it is European consumers who need this oil and gas
most of all. It is no secret that the gas pipeline from Azerbaijan
to a certain extent, certainly not to a large extent, but somehow
contributes and will contribute to energy security of some European
countries.
As for the oil supplies, some European Union countries get 40 to
50 percent of their oil from Azerbaijan today. If something happens
to these oil and gas pipelines, Armenia will face already serious
international pressure. However, this does not stop them. They
attempted to bomb the Baku-Novorossiysk oil pipeline. This is a
pipeline that connects Azerbaijan and Russia, a country Armenia
constantly demands special relations from without giving anything
in return. Absolutely nothing in both the political sense and
international support. It is hard to expect anything different from
the Soros team.
That is why the bombardment of the electric power plant in
Mingachevir is aimed at destroying Azerbaijan's energy system.
This, of course, will have an effect to a certain extent, but we
have already set up a branched power supply network, and new
electric power plants.
This proves the predatory nature of the Armenian side. It is
another thing that we have destroyed the majority of these missiles
in mid-air, intercepted them, and some of them did not explode.
This also speaks about their military potential. But such a threat
certainly does exist, and we should respond to it adequately.
I have always said and continue saying that despite the barbaric
bombardment of Barda, where a seven-year-old girl was killed and
several more children were injured, I say that we are not them. We
will respond on the battlefield, we will respond by liberating new
lands, by raising the flag in new cities. We will bomb neither
cities nor civilians.
Let me give you an absolutely recent example. It is an exchange
of dead bodies and prisoners in question. Basically, this subject
was first mentioned for humanitarian reasons in Moscow on 10
October. We contacted the Red Cross to say, 'Let's organize a
swap.' Moreover, I will give you further detail. I have ordered to
maximally preserve the bodies of Armenian servicemen – in
refrigerators or cold places. We all understand what happens to
human bodies...
- They are decaying...
- Yes, absolutely right. And the Armenian side refuses to take
them every time. It says every time, let's do it where battles are
under way. So, you understand, to put the lives of civilians in
jeopardy. We say no. We have a state border. Let's do it in Tovuz
district, in Gazakh district. Let's do it there. So yesterday, I
decided to unilaterally hand over the bulk of the bodies of the
killed Armenian servicemen. Plus, we have two civilians. These are
elderly people who we are also handing over. And so we tried to do
it yesterday. We sent cars with the bodies toward the border. We
involved the office of the OSCE and the Red Cross. But the Armenian
side doesn't accept them. You see, it doesn't take the dead! What
are we talking about? How can this even be commented on? What norms
of human moral does this fit into? That is why we will transfer the
bodies in any case. Currently, we are looking at transferring their
civilians and killed people via Georgia.
But if they refuse to accept them, I just don't know what to do.
This is who we are fighting with, you see. Everyone should
understand this. These are all their false and whining assurances.
Their cries, their moans, these are just crocodile tears. We know
this well. That is why the Russian public shouldn't be deceived by
these lies and slander. Yes, it is clear that they got incorporated
deep into Russia's agencies. But that is not all. They are also
there in France and America. They are in the media, they sometimes
create a public background. But people should understand who we are
fighting against and understand that we are right. We are fighting
on our own land, and they are dying on our land.
- You have repeatedly said that the military phase of
the conflict will end sooner or later. If Karabakh and seven
districts are returned, how could this affect the pace of
Azerbaijan's economic development?
- It is hard to say. You know, there are different assessments.
Of course, the return of large territories under our control is a
big potential for growth and development, primarily in agriculture
and tourism spheres. Because the Karabakh region is one of the most
beautiful and bountiful regions of our country. It is rich in
natural resources – gold, zinc, lead. By the way, Armenia illegally
produces gold in Kalbajar together with some foreign companies. But
we, of course, will hold all of them to account through relevant
legal procedures.
That is why prospects of this region will be very important for
the sustainable development of Azerbaijan and for ensuring food
security, primarily. But one should understand that this will
entail enormous financial expenditures at the initial stage.
- Restoration...
- Yes, of course. The footage that we demonstrate show that
there is no house left there. When we liberated Fuzuli, we were
unable to find a single building intact - just imagine. In the
whole city. And tens of thousands people lived there. No building.
I was called, and I said raise the flag on a flagpole. Do you
understand? This is what they did. And look at the ruins of Aghdam,
Jabrayil district. Everything is in ruins. It looked as if
barbarians were there, not people. They took everything away,
roofs, windows, toilets, sinks. They are just thieves. That is why
we will face enormous expenditures. Infrastructure, roads,
communications, housing, administrative buildings. Let me put it
this way, at the first stage from the point of view of the gross
domestic product this will probably have a positive impact on the
construction industry, employment, and everything related to the
production of construction materials. But from the point of view of
expenditures, these will run to many billions.
We will calculate the damage. I have already ordered, given
instructions to set up temporary command offices in liberated
territories. I issued this order just a few days ago. We will take
stock of everything that is left there, we will assess the damage
inflicted there. Naturally, later, at the stage when our people
will return there, we will employ relevant legal procedures and
hold the aggressor accountable.
So I think in the long run, I think, in five or ten years this
will add a good impetus to the non-oil industries, while this will
be very costly in the short run. But there are no material
dimensions that would stop us from restoring Karabakh and make it
one of the most beautiful and comfortable place for living on
earth.
- And my last question. What is your vision of the
geopolitical development of the situation and alignment of forces
in the region after the Karabakh conflict is settled?
- I believe the situation will certainly be different from what
it used to be before the conflict. We have changed the geopolitical
lie of the land in the region in many respects. It has already been
changed, and a lot of stereotypes have become outdated - for
instance, such a stereotype as confrontation between Russia and
NATO. Now look: Russia and Turkey, a NATO member, have far more
sincere and trusting relations than Turkey, a NATO member, has with
some other country. It didn't use to be this way. This is a new
reality. That is why this very structured stereotypic geopolitical
thinking is being consigned to history. I think this is a positive
factor. So we have to proceed from the reality. And politicians
shape the reality by their actions. I think our region today sees a
very positive format of cooperation between leading policy-makers,
who determine the region's agenda and are focused on
cooperation.
After all, we can talk about active cooperation between Turkey,
Iran, Russia, and Azerbaijan in both trilateral and bilateral
formats these days. I think one day we will start working in a
quadrilateral format as well. This would be natural from the
historical, economic, transport and geopolitical standpoints, and
what is most important, from the standpoint of strengthening
security in this region.
That is why Armenia should not remain foreign matter on the body
of the Caucasus. It was the last to come here, and the Armenian
state was created artificially on the lands that it never owned. I
have said many times that the Azerbaijani Democratic Republic gave
Yerevan to Armenia. This is a historical fact. On 29 May 1918, a
day after the foundation of the republic was announced, Yerevan was
given to Armenia. When this issue was being discussed, members of
the legislative body from Yerevan were against it, but their
opinion was ignored. So this is how Yerevan was given away, as
simply as that. But, as they say, what is to be, will be.
Armenia shouldn't be a foreign body. It must end the occupation
and normalize relations with Azerbaijan and Turkey. This would only
benefit them, believe me, this would only benefit them. All
communications would be opened, and they would become part of
energy and transport integration projects, they would become part
of the common security system. After all, look, Turkey is buying
S-400 systems from Russia. This is an absolutely new security
system. This is not just the purchase of an air defense system, but
this is a step toward a new security system and mutual confidence.
This can't be accomplished without mutual confidence. We bought
S-300 from Russia a long time ago, this is also a factor of mutual
confidence, you see.
Therefore, this arrangement in the region benefits all. Armenia
should come to understand that it is being marginalized, and nobody
will fight for it. And what's next? If it continues confrontation
with us, if it keeps making territorial claims on Turkey, well, it
should understand, how can it oppose us? But we don't want this
opposition. We want peace, despite all the pain and tragedies that
they have inflicted on our people. Therefore, I believe that
geopolitical realities should be developing positively. At least as
far as we are concerned, we will be doing all we can to make this
happen.
- Thank you for your detailed answers.
-Thank you
MENAFN28102024000187011040ID1108823171