In April, the Armenian side managed to impose its will on the adversary, which was not possible in the autumn of 2020: Hasratyan

Five years ago, on April 2, 2016, Azerbaijan launched offensive operations on the northern and southern fronts of the contact line between the conflicting forces, employing unprecedented numbers of personnel and equipment. This was noted by former head of the Artsakh Defense Army, Senor Hasratyan, on his Facebook page. He specifically wrote, "After four days of fierce fighting, the adversary seized approximately 400 hectares at a great cost, but failed to develop further advances and was forced to request mediation from Moscow, leading to a ceasefire. In what circumstances and how the Armenian side succeeded in imposing a ceasefire on Baku can be understood from the more detailed, fact-based text below...

DEVELOPMENTS

On the morning of April 2, Azerbaijan's military-political leadership initiated a large-scale attack, deploying almost all modern weapons and equipment at their disposal, including weapons of mass destruction prohibited by international conventions, such as the "Smerch," "Kasirga," "Uragan," GRAD multiple launch rocket systems, the "TOS-1A" (Sunburn) heavy artillery system, Israeli-made offensive and reconnaissance unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), "SPIKE" type guided anti-tank missiles, "MI-24G" attack helicopters, and more. However, despite the mobilization of such forces and means, the adversary failed to achieve even the minimal goals set before them.

In fact, as a result of the four-day military operations, the adversary managed to secure control over a line of 1500m wide and 450m deep (67.5 hectares) on the southern flank, or capture 6 combat positions, and, on the northern front, to take control over a front line of 4300m wide and 700m deep (approximately 300 hectares) or 13 combat positions. Overall, during the four days of intense fighting, the Azerbaijani army captured 19 positions, totaling around 370 hectares.

It should be noted that the Azerbaijani command deployed its elite 052 (YASHMA) special forces brigade units to ensure the element of surprise against the temporarily stationed frontline forces of Artsakh and subsequently transitioned to a large-scale offensive using several corps, combat helicopters, and artillery and armored units. Experts familiar with military affairs can attest that the operation undertaken with such a scale of forces and means was not an achievement but a complete failure for Azerbaijan. This conclusion is supported not only by the fact that the tasks at hand could have been accomplished by a platoon, or at most, a company-level force, but also by the considerable number of losses sustained by the adversary in such a short confrontation.

Although official Baku kept the real number of its casualties secret until the end, claiming that "information on casualties and injuries represents a military secret," based on radio transmissions and various media reports, including online and international expert sources, it is evident that the number of Azerbaijani casualties reached around 1000, with approximately 2000 wounded. In addition to significant personnel losses, the Azerbaijani army lost 24 tanks, 4 infantry fighting vehicles (IFVs), 1 "Grad" rocket artillery system, 1 engineer-clearing vehicle, 2 "MI-24" type combat helicopters, 14 different types of (attack and reconnaissance) UAVs, dozens of vehicles, and more.

In contrast, from April 2 to 5, the Armenian side reported 75 deaths (63 soldiers, 12 reservists), 121 wounded, and 14 tanks out of service (of which 6 were repaired and returned to service) along with several vehicles. It is also important to state that both sides suffered losses during the subsequent artillery, missile, and armored exchanges after the active combat operations.

From April 6 to 30, the Armenian side reported another 13 casualties, 8 of whom were soldiers and 5 reservists. Meanwhile, Azerbaijani losses continued to significantly outnumber their Armenian counterparts, with dozens of deaths and 6 UAVs lost (in total during the April escalations, the adversary lost 20 UAVs) alongside other military equipment.

Having suffered a devastating counter-strike on the battlefield, Azerbaijan's military-political leadership not only lost the opportunity to exert pressure on the Armenian side at the negotiating table but also had to resort to its own methods of fabricating the reality to mask its failures. Initially, Baku attempted to present the confrontation as a result of preemptive actions undertaken by the Armenians. However, the facts demonstrate the opposite. This has been a widely accepted opinion, not only among Azerbaijani observers but also within the international community and especially among experts.

Indeed, the adversary's operations were pre-planned and executed under unified command, as evidenced by simultaneous artillery preparations across the entire front and the deployment of large elite forces in infantry assault groups. Moreover, it is illogical for the defending side to use various modern missile artillery and airstrike means, especially considering that the Armed Forces of Artsakh also had offensive weaponry at their disposal.

Realizing that proving the credibility of their claims was not promising, Azerbaijan's military-political leadership went even further, claiming that their army liberated a range of strategically important positions and tens of thousands of hectares of land, including settlements. It is notable that the authorities in Baku, consciously distorting the facts, tried to depict tactical successes as strategic triumphs, particularly citing the positions captured near Talish in the north and the "Varazatumb" height in the south. However, the truth is that by occupying these points, the adversary was able to solve only the tasks of a platoon, which did not pose any operational or, even more so, strategic danger to the full defense of the Armenian side.

As for the "liberated tens of thousands of hectares and... settlements," this was nothing more than a propaganda trick to cover up their failures. The Azerbaijani command, by conducting simultaneous offensive operations in various sectors of the frontline but failing to achieve any substantial success and, moreover, suffering heavy losses in nearly all directions, either publicly or most likely with internal conviction reached the conclusion that, in terms of tactical preparation of personnel and, especially, the system of command and troop cooperation, the state of the Armed Forces of Artsakh is significantly better than their own army.

This understanding may have prompted the adversary to new and more monstrous steps, namely to shift directly from infantry clashes under immediate contact to indiscriminate missile, artillery, and air strikes, selecting targets both in frontline and rear military positions as well as in civilian settlements. The objective was patently clear: to inflict maximum losses on Armenian troops and civilian homes, as well as to create panic among the civilian population. It is significant that this approach by the Azerbaijani side was applied not only during the four days of active military operations but also after a ceasefire agreement was reached.

According to the operational data of the Defense Army, from April 2 to 5 alone, Azerbaijan's missile, artillery, and armored forces fired approximately 30,000 shells at the positions of Artsakh and civilian areas. With almost the same intensity but with different calibers, breaches were recorded from April 5 to April 30. During this time, the Azerbaijani military fired around 104,000 bullets towards Armenian positions and frontline settlements, of which more than 4500 were from cannons, "Grad" and "TR-107" type systems, tanks, IFVs, and other large-caliber weaponry.

From the above, it is evident that the military plan formulated and implemented by the Azerbaijani command was nothing more than a series of actions built on miscalculations. Perhaps the adversary's most significant error lay in underestimating the defensive and tactical capabilities established by the artsakhian army at the front, opting for a rather hopeless tactic of breaking through with a lightning strike and resolving subsequent issues within a matter of days by seizing operational depth.

The course and results of the April four-day confrontation clearly demonstrate that, in contrast to the Azerbaijani side's strategically shortsighted and propaganda-driven initiatives detached from reality, the Armed Forces of Artsakh, from the outset of the adversary's sudden attack and throughout the subsequent period, and even during transitions from defense to counter-offensive in some sectors, executed their operations exclusively according to the requirements of combat decisions based on a thorough analysis of the operational-tactical developments at the front.

Taking a comprehensive assessment of the ratio of forces and resources at the disposal of both sides and the potential directions of their application as well as further developments, the command of the Defense Army, in accordance with the transition plan from defense to offense, proceeded first to regroup its troops after the adversary's launched three assaults (Talish, Seysulan, "Varazatumb") and then directed the main strike towards Aknagh-Askhran, engaging combat units in operational points, while also preparing for and managing necessary logistical support.

This indicates that the management system of the Armed Forces of Artsakh, proficient and professionally controlling the created situation at all its levels, was adequately prepared to manage its forces and means appropriately, including under unprecedented conditions of tactical surprise.

The actions of the Armenian forces defending the frontline during the April operations deserve special recognition. Being primarily conscripts aged 18-20, they forged their combat glory against not only heavily armed adversary special forces acting under the command of Turkish instructors but also against corporations augmented with the most modern military-technical means. Based on the sacred actions conducted during that time, it is clear that Armenian fighters were not just capable of unconditionally fulfilling the assigned combat tasks with their spirit and tactical preparedness but also withstood the brutal impact of the horrifying acts perpetrated by the savage enemy (beheading, mutilation, and desecration of Armenian soldiers and civilians) and remained at a chivalrous high standard befitting a soldier.

The artillery of the Defense Army particularly shone in thwarting the adversary's offensive plans, especially in the direction of the main assault. Throughout the active combat operations in April, as well as throughout the period following the ceasefire agreement, the artillery units cumulatively incapacitated 807 targets, 531 of which were planned, and 276 unplanned. Anti-tank defense units also performed excellently, destroying nearly two dozen armored vehicles through targeted strikes.

Throughout the confrontation, the air defense forces of the Defense Army also demonstrated high preparedness. The adversary, aiming to utilize military air power vigorously, repositioned around 40 helicopters at the primary airbases of Jdanovsk and Yevlakh under the pretext of training flights between March 30 and April 1. However, the Armenian air defenses met fierce resistance from the outset of combat operations, resulting in Azerbaijan's decision to abandon its further engagement.

Employing their available forces and means effectively (organized and timely deployment of air defense elements, stable and uninterrupted command, rapid and covert maneuvers and movements, and the use of tactical maneuvers to strike against the adversary's aerial assault assets), the air defense calculation units completely fulfilled their assigned combat missions, resulting in the destruction of an enemy helicopter and UAVs of assault and reconnaissance types.

In addition to the aforementioned branches of the army, other combat, technical, and logistical support services and units of the Defense Army demonstrated the necessary level of operational execution during this time. Despite the unbearable conditions created at the frontline (especially in the north and south), where positions and trenches were lost and it was necessary to create new defenses in the process of incoming fire, when connections were severed and had to be restored immediately, when damaged military equipment needed repair directly on the battlefield and required immediate redeployment, and when soldiers ran out of provisions and food had to be delivered regardless of the raining projectiles, the corresponding military services performed their professional duties without hesitation. The engineer, communications, armored, and various logistical support services played pivotal roles in these critical operations.

To speak of the four-day war and not refer to the holy actions of the people who stood behind the army and multiplied its power would mean depicting the reality of those days as incomplete. The April confrontation revealed anew the concentrated patriotism and boundless dedication of the Armenian people towards their country's defense. From the very first day of combat operations, hundreds of volunteers representing different segments of the Armenian population disregarded their age and rushed to protect their sons and brothers on the front lines without any calls or declarations. During this time, especially active participation came from veterans of the first Artsakh war, who, organizing around various civic groups, headed to the front and carried out combat duty in the hardest-hit areas of the frontline for nearly two months.

Moreover, during this period, at the direct initiative of the Union of Artsakh Freedom Fighters, a special unit was formed, which, apart from carrying out combat duty, was ready to undertake counter-offensive operations if necessary. It is also remarkable that, besides their direct involvement in combat operations, the Union of Artsakh Freedom Fighters allocated approximately 670 million AMD for the defense of the country, reaffirming their multifaceted readiness for the sacred cause of supporting their homeland.

The contributions of the global Armenian community and all the foreign political and social figures standing beside them were undeniable, which, through their material and moral support, not only fortified and made the defense of Artsakh more invulnerable but also alerted the world to who the real provocateur of the April operations was. During those days, approximately 5.5 billion AMD worth of material assistance was aggregated and sent to Artsakh from around the world. Various parliamentarians and notable social figures of different countries condemned Azerbaijan's aggression with declarations from international platforms concerning the issues of the Armenian people. In a published statement in the newspaper "Le Monde," French deputies were the first to blame the international community for the situation, emphasizing that their indifference led to this aggression and that it proved once more that the people of Artsakh cannot be safe under Azerbaijani control. Meanwhile, at the same time, another statement from 85 U.S. Congress members called upon the President of the United States to take concrete steps towards the peaceful resolution of the conflict, particularly to introduce investigative mechanisms at the contact line and to withdraw snipers, among others.

Meanwhile, significant informational and propaganda activities were also carried out by the diplomatic representations of the Republic of Artsakh and the Armenian embassies abroad. Diplomats representing Artsakh found themselves in the spotlight of the international press almost in all major powers and Armenian-populated countries. They were able to express their views and present the truth through reputable media outlets such as "France 24," "Aljazeera," "ABC News," "Sputnik," and "AI-Masdar." Additionally, over 100 foreign journalists positively covered the April four-day events directly from the scene, allowing for a more comprehensive and objective presentation of the real developments occurring in the conflict zone and importantly, neutralizing the misinformation disseminated by Azerbaijani agitprop.

In conclusion, it can be stated that due to these and other factors combined, the Armenian side succeeded once again in imposing its will on the adversary, which, unfortunately, did not succeed in the autumn of 2020... As for why, judge for yourself.