The Simplest Function of Ensuring the Security of One's Own Country Belongs Only to Armenia, Says 'Patsht'

'Patsht' newspaper writes: 'Armenia and the Armenian people have not managed to overcome the political, economic, territorial, social, and other issues that arose as a result of the 44-day war, and the threat of another war hangs over us—this time on the territory of the Republic of Armenia. In reality, what happened on the afternoon of November 16 did not begin just two days prior, when an Azerbaijani soldier forced an Armenian soldier to abandon his position without firing a shot; it actually started much earlier—on May 12 of the same year—when the same Azerbaijani armed units invaded the sovereign territory of Armenia, calling into question the ownership of those areas and imposing political and official statements regarding delimitation and demarcation on the Armenian side.

For the sake of justice, it should be noted that those statements were not particularly justified from the perspective of alleviating the tense situation; instead, they were highly risky, and many experts state they could even be catastrophic. In other words, the tolerance of the events of May 12 gives a legitimate opportunity for the establishment of checkpoints, for the presence of Azerbaijani military units in other parts of the Republic of Armenia’s sovereign territory, or for the initiation of military operations. Regarding minimizing damage or exiting the tense situation advantageously, it is imperative to first examine the political assessment of the situation, which should be followed by purposeful actions concerning it.

The situation far exceeds being categorized merely as a 'border incident', 'border tension', or 'clash.' It can be noted that assessing Azerbaijan's actions should not solely rely on recent events. Azerbaijan has positioned itself as an antagonistic state toward Armenia for 30 years and has not hidden this. Before the 44-day war, Azerbaijan repeatedly took advantage of possible and impossible excuses to portray Armenia as the aggressor state, providing fabricated justifications, and the presence of Azerbaijani military units within Armenia's sovereign territory should and must be framed in connection with the actions of an aggressor state. It is important to emphasize—not aggressive actions, but the conduct of an aggressor state.

It should also be noted that in crisis situations, a state, as a viable and self-referential system, has mechanisms to get out of, resolve, or manage the crisis, namely, executing its primary function of ensuring the security of the state and its citizens as prescribed by the constitution, appealing to partner states, international organizations, and military alliances, and presenting the situation to achieve an appropriate and sanctioned assessment.

One must permanently understand that the simplest function of ensuring the security of one’s own country and its population will not be fulfilled by any partner state or international organization; that function belongs solely and exclusively to Armenia, and its failure to execute this not only endangers state and societal existence but also raises questions regarding international subjectivity.'

For more details, see today’s edition of the newspaper.