Without Armenia, Artsakh is not needed by Russia, and I want those who are inclined to leave their homeland to understand this, says political expert

Armenian political expert and participant in the April and recent wars in Artsakh, Zhiraire Azizyan, answered a series of questions in an interview with ArmDaily.am.

- What is the current situation in Artsakh, and what is the psychological state of the people?

- The military actions have left significant effects on the life of the people living in Artsakh, both physically and psychologically. Today, extensive rehabilitation works are being carried out, and we can say that all of Artsakh has turned into a construction site, which undoubtedly has a positive impact on societal moods. Besides recovery efforts, the government is also implementing a number of social support programs that are critically important during this period. Psychologically, it is natural that society is still in the phase of overcoming war syndrome; in general, there are many questions regarding security, social issues, and politics that citizens expect answers to from the authorities. However, in reality, the authorities do not have clear responses to all these questions, and this is natural, as there are global geopolitical interests, making it difficult to predict what will happen as a result of clashes over these interests. In this uncertain situation, people's imagination begins to develop, and as they say, there is nothing more terrifying than human imagination; this imagination is often fueled by the eccentric and destructive theses circulated by the political opposition for opportunistic purposes.

- There were rumors that there would be a reduction in the ranks of the Armed Forces in Artsakh following the new realities. Are these rumors true?

- Aside from the enormous social issues mentioned, the primary condition for peaceful survival in Artsakh at this moment is security. Of course, the presence of peacekeepers creates certain guarantees for security, but they do not have the functions that the Defense Army possesses. According to circulating rumors, soon Armenian troops must be withdrawn from the territory of Artsakh, and plans are already being developed for the formation of a new security system.

- What is the psychological state of the servicemen and the Armenian army in general?

- We communicate with servicemen almost every day; it would be a lie to say that the fighting spirit is as high as before, and this is natural considering the outcomes of the war. Everyone has lost combat friends and commanders. It is difficult to overcome that pain and grief immediately, but it also wouldn't be correct to say they are entirely desperate and demoralized. Today, they are carrying out combat duty under much more difficult conditions, which is clear evidence of their fighting spirit and moral-psychological state.

- What provocative actions are the Azerbaijanis taking?

- Several times, there were shots fired from Armenian territories that are now under Azerbaijan's control, which has naturally drawn significant public attention and raised concerns. In reality, this is a well-crafted psychological weapon by Baku aimed at the Armenian population living in Artsakh. The goal is clear: subjecting the population to psychological terror in order to force them to leave their homeland. Azerbaijan has always aimed to ethnically cleanse Artsakh, as demonstrated by the demographic picture of the former Autonomous Region. Nevertheless, we must not give in to provocations, and no matter how difficult it may be, we must stand firm on our land at all costs.

- Babayan announced that the Turks are establishing a school for gray wolves in Shushi. What is the purpose of this, and what dangers does it pose?

- The official policy of Baku is not foreign to us; they are now trying to populate the Armenian territories that have come under their control, especially border communities, with nationalists. In the case of resettlement, they are aiming to promote nationalism, shape reactionary sentiments, and preach hatred against Armenians. Naturally, this is being done everywhere, but there is a significant difference in how this propaganda is targeted in Baku versus Shushi or Veysalou.

- Do you see attempts to give a different direction to the activities of Russian peacekeepers, and why is the presence of Russian peacekeeping missions crucial in Artsakh at this moment?

- The presence of peacekeepers creates security guarantees; we must understand that with our available resources, we cannot ensure our country's safety independently, and from this perspective, the peacekeeping mission becomes the only option. It is clear that Russia has specific interests in the region, and currently, it is defending those interests. We also must take into account the fact that besides the peacekeeping mission, we continuously receive substantial social support from Russia, which also attests to its interests. Thus, one can assume that Russia does not need a homeland without Armenians in Artsakh, and I want all those Armenians in Artsakh, who are inclined to leave their homeland, to grasp this first of all.

- Today, the monitoring center’s activity starts in Akna occupied by Azerbaijan; what implications does this hold for the Armenian side? This refers to the presence of Turks.

- First, I want to mention that the topic of Russian peacekeepers had actively been discussed even before the end of 1994, and after the April War in 2016, it entered the circulation of the Lavrov Plan for conflict resolution. Before the Budapest Summit, Russia was aiming to conduct a unilateral peacekeeping mission, which it successfully carried out in Abkhazia under the CIS mandate in September 1994. Moscow tried to do the same in Nagorno-Karabakh, where it managed to sign a trilateral agreement on a permanent ceasefire. The concluding documents of the OSCE Budapest Summit and the proposed settlement proposals since 1997 anticipated the entry of peacekeepers into the region. In December 1994 in Budapest, contrary to Russia's position, a proposal to introduce international peacekeeping forces into the conflict zone was accepted, after which four peacekeeping proposals were developed and presented to the parties, which, however, were not accepted due to one party or the other’s refusal. Following the ceasefire in May 1994, only two countries expressed real interest in deploying peacekeepers in the conflict zone: Russia and Turkey. Azerbaijan has been categorically against Russian peacekeepers, while Armenia has been against Turkish peacekeepers. Ultimately, like in many cases, Russia managed to achieve its goal. Regarding the existence of a joint monitoring center, we must first understand that its functions are purely theoretical and limited to observation, evaluation, and similar issues, while the practical functions are held by the peacekeeping forces. It is logical for the second side to be involved in the formation and future activities of this monitoring joint center, in the sense that in case of possible violations, a more objective evaluation is given. And why Turkey specifically? Because it was evident that during the war, Turkey was able to expand its influence in the conflict zone. I do not think that the existence of the monitoring joint center poses destabilizing threats.