India Will Stand by Yerevan in the War Against Azerbaijan: What Indian Media Reports

The Indian publication The Print has published a comprehensive article discussing the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and the international community's stance, including that of India. We present the article with partial excerpts, as reported by Tert.am.

Author Kapil Komiredin writes that "Armenia is in a difficult situation in the context of its conflict with the corrupt dictatorship of Azerbaijan." The journalist recalls that the European Union, in an effort to reduce dependence on Russian energy, is turning to alternative energy suppliers, with Azerbaijan being one of them.

“In July, this was announced by European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Weeks after her return home, Europe’s new bold partner began killing more than 200 Armenians (referring to the military aggression of Baku against the sovereign territory of the Republic of Armenia in September) as part of a new phase in the pan-Turkic campaign to completely subjugate Armenia. There was a great uproar in the West, but no substantial intervention was made to assist Armenia... "Universal" principles are for the weak. Cold self-interest disguised as altruism governs the West's behavior in the international arena. Europe has decided to free itself from Russian energy sources either independently or under American pressure. As an alternative supplier, it has chosen Azerbaijan. It does not matter that Azerbaijan is waging a revanchist war against its sovereign neighbor or that it is more dictatorial, unfree, and repressive than Russia. What is important is that Azerbaijan is not Russia. It does not matter that Armenians have been subject to mass killings, forced conversions, and deportations from their ancestral lands by Turks and Azerbaijanis for centuries,” the author writes, providing a historical overview of the Armenian Genocide and the history of the Nagorno-Karabakh issue.

Komiredin reminds us that Azerbaijan did not fight the 2020 war alone; its troops were trained and controlled by NATO member Turkey, which also trafficked thousands of Syrian mujahideen to serve as cannon fodder. The author then recounts their actions on and off the battlefield, including torture, beheading of Armenian civilians, and the infamous "Strategist's Park" opened in Baku by Ilham Aliyev after the war.

“None of the powers that preach lofty sermons about peace moved a finger during that time. India was one of the few countries that offered tangible assistance to Armenia in the form of weaponry at a time of need. Three separate sources have confirmed to me that Delhi was close to transporting sophisticated weaponry by air, but the war had thrown Armenia into such chaos that its government, operating without a command structure, could not understand how to receive those materials,” the author notes.

He emphasizes that in the current situation, Armenia is increasingly turning to India for its defense needs. Recently, Yerevan ordered locally produced missile systems and artillery, Komiredin writes.

“As a rule, India should not intervene in the affairs of other nations or become a party to distant conflicts. But India's non-intervention in this specific conflict is unlikely to deter Armenia's adversaries from interfering in India’s affairs. We must remember that the forces striving for the annihilation of Armenia also seek to undermine India. A complete victory for them in Eurasia would mean delaying and thwarting their plans in South Asia. Only the Armenians can ultimately save Armenia. But it is in India’s interest to do more than just supply arms to Yerevan. It should offer training for the Armenian armed forces and could also send a high-level delegation to Yerevan to demonstrate to Ankara, Baku, and Islamabad that India is significantly interested in the security of the region... India’s choice to stand by Armenia would be a wise one,” the author concludes.