Part 1

PROLOGUE

This article analyzes the role of regional and global players in the conflict as we try to identify who stood to benefit from the resumption of the war in the Caucasus, what caused the resumption of the war in the first place, what were the immediate consequences of this war for the parties involved and what are the most immediate military and political implications for the region in the coming years.

INTRODUCTION

In the aftermath of the four day war caused by the unprecedented Azerbaijani military aggression against Armenians of Artsakh since the signing of the 1994 ceasefire agreement, many opinions and theories have been expressed and discussed in public as the civil society in Armenia and the diaspora at large tried to make sense of the events and tried to understand who stood to benefit from yet another war in the Caucasus. Since then, both Armenian and non-Armenian local and international media outlets have actively discussed the brief resumption of the war in the region in an attempt to identify the culprits behind the resumption of the war.

A shadow of suspicion has shrouded prior and current actions of Russian, Turkish and western governments (U.S.A. and E.U.) in the Caucasus as people in the region wait in suspense for yet another round of war to breakout in the most immediate future. Lack of direct criticism of Azerbaijani aggression against people of Artsakh and the Republic of Armenia for the past twenty two years by the international community in the face of O.S.C.E. and U.N. has only added fuel to the fire and raised further questions about their role in the region and their willingness to help resolve this conflict through diplomatic means.

Part 2

CAUSES

The oil boom of the 1990s and 2000s allowed the Azerbaijani government to engage in large militarization efforts for the past twenty two years which lead to accumulation of large quantities of offensive weapons and creating a false sense of overpowering strength and military capabilities which they didn’t possess previously.

RUSSIA AND THE C.S.T.O.:

For the past twenty two years Azerbaijan has been shelling Armenian towns and villages along the contact line with the republics of Armenia and Artsakh. Yet, despite Armenian membership in Russian led military alliance of post-Soviet states known as the CSTO (Collective Security Treaty Organization), none of its members, including Russia, ever subjected Azerbaijan to serious criticism. None of them took the Azerbaijani attacks against Armenian military border positions, as well as civilian towns and villages of the Republic of Armenia as an attack against the alliance that required collective defensive actions in support of Armenia. Moreover, for the past twenty two years Russia continued supplying Azerbaijan with large caliber offensive weapons such as howitzers, long range cannons, rocket-propelled artillery systems, aircrafts and helicopters which were readily unleashed against Armenians in Artsakh resulting in nearly one hundred military and civilian fatalities and dozens of wounded.

The inaction by Russia and the CSTO towards Azerbaijani attacks against Armenians and continued supply of heavy weaponry by Russia and other non-CSTO countries has played a role in encouraging the Azerbaijani government to engage in a large scale military aggression against Armenians in Artsakh.

THE WEST (U.S.A., E.U. and O.S.C.E.):

Similarly, the western governments and international institutions have failed to directly criticize the Azerbaijani aggression against Armenians for the past twenty two years. Spurious diplomatic actions and falsely equalizing statements by the representatives of the OSCE’s Minsk Group and foreign governments have further contributed to an Azerbaijani sense of invincibility and self-righteousness which further encouraged the Azerbaijani leadership to embark on a new military aggression against the Armenians of Artsakh, thus unleashing the four day war with all its devastating consequences to its own detriment.

Regional Actors (Turkey and Israel): Unlike the path chosen by the western governments and similar to Russian position, for a very long time Turkey and Israel provided Azerbaijan with large quantities of offensive weapons (e.g. attack drones, artillery, etc.) and ammunitions. Furthermore, Turkish government took an extra step of providing Azerbaijan with military advisors, special forces, and jihadi mercenaries from the Middle East who actively took part in the failed Azerbaijani blitzkrieg against the Armenians of Artsakh. Moreover, continued political backing of Azerbaijan by the Turkish government, perceived mutual interest in undermining the security of Armenian people in the region and shared xenophobic beliefs in Pan-Turkic ideology gave an additional impetus to the Azerbaijani decision to resume the war in Artsakh.

CORRUPTION, OIL AND CIVIL STRIFE IN AZERBAIJAN:

Decades of corruption in the Azerbaijani government highlighted by the release of the Panama Papers and the recent collapse of oil prices in the world markets have created a wave of social discontent in Azerbaijan. As people in the country began challenging the legitimacy of the Aliyev regime and express their discontent with social and economic policies of the ruling government, the Azerbaijani leadership seemed to have decided that it was the most opportune moment for them to launch a war of conquest against the Armenians of Artsakh as a way to distract their own people from real problems plaguing the Azerbaijani economy and undermining the political process and civil discourse in the country.

Part 3

CONSEQUENCES

The unexpected Azerbaijani aggression against Armenians of Artsakh galvanized all Armenians from around the world. As the news of the Azerbaijani military offensive spread, diaspora based organized immediately launched multi-prong political campaigns and charity fundraisers to aid the Armenian military and put to bear tremendous political pressure upon the Azerbaijani government to stop its hostilities against the Republic of Artsakh. More than twenty thousand volunteers, both male and female have self-mobilized themselves from every corner of Armenia and diaspora, and rushed to the war zone. Short range ballistic missiles in the possession of the Republic of Armenia were transported to Artsakh while warning of planned missiles strikes against Azerbaijani oil refineries, oil and gas pipelines, and other strategic infrastructure were issued by Artsakh’s Ministry of Defense.

In less than forty-eight hours Azerbaijan’s offensive bogged down in all battlefields across the line of contact due to significant losses of military personnel and military hardware. The Azerbaijani government was forced to declare a unilateral ceasefire and beg international powers such as Russia and the U.S. to intervene and stop the Armenian counteroffensive that was rapidly degrading Azerbaijani military capabilities. The false sense of confidence, significant miscalculation of geopolitical factors and underestimating the strength of the Armenian military to retaliate in case of war became the Achilles Heel of the entire military operation that brought down the Azerbaijani aggression against the Armenian people to a screeching halt.

Nearly one hundred fatalities among soldiers and civilians on Armenian side and more than five hundred fatalities on Azerbaijani side were the end result of the brief war between the warring countries. Combined, the war resulted in hundreds of wounded soldiers and civilians from both sides of the conflict and economic losses estimated to be in tens of millions of dollars. Implications

There were also a number of implications for both countries as well. Azerbaijan once again proved to be an unreliable partner to negotiate with, leading the international community to rule out any possibility of Azerbaijan exercising any political control over Artsakh in a future negotiated settlement. Furthermore, the conflict revealed the extent of the panic in the Azerbaijani leadership due the plunge of oil prices and emergence of social unrest and political instability within the country, that it was willing to resume a deadly war to distract its own people from rising to address the multifold domestic problems that are plaguing the country as a result of the systemic corruption of the Aliyevs and their regime.

Subsequent reconsiderations of the status quo in the region has prompted some European parliamentarians to speak publically about the need to recognize the independence of Artsakh and invite the leadership of the unrecognized republic to become an active party in international negotiations over its status.

In case of Armenia, the war revealed multiple gaps within the Armenian military establishment which failed to adequately equip its forces for the resumption of war in Artsakh. Specifically, there were instances of front line units quickly running out of ammunition and anti-tank projectiles needed to halt enemy advances. A shortage of portable air defense systems (MANPADS) to engage Azerbaijani helicopters sweeping over their positions was another challenge for the infantrymen to overcome. Subsequently, some of the frontline units were forced to resort to using RPGs to down enemy helicopters at dangerously close distances from their positions.

The high ranking authorities in charge of equipping the Armenian military were soon removed from their positions by presidential decrees. Additionally, failure of Armenian military intelligence to obtain advance knowledge of the coming attack raised questions about the competence of its leadership and led to additional presidential decrees removing leadership in charge of this fiasco from the positions that they have occupied.

CONCLUSION

The results of the four day war are forcing the Armenian political establishment to reevaluate established military alliances and interstate treaties of mutual support and collaboration which have partially failed to serve their purpose at the time that they were most needed. Static Armenian foreign policy formulated for the past decade has failed to deter Azerbaijan from engaging in continuous military aggression against the Armenian people and to prevent the resumption of war in the region.

Changes in the foreign policy of Armenia leading to the recognition of Artsakh’s independence, and changes in the military doctrine leading to the development and acquisition of precision weaponry and autonomous weapon systems will be the necessary steps for Armenia to undertake as a way to deter further military adventures against it.

Self-reliance and diplomatic pragmatism, introduction of greater transparency and government accountability, elimination of corruption and nepotism, greater civic engagement and economic plurality seem to be the missing ingredients for Armenia’s success. Perhaps it is time for Armenia to look in the mirror for answers.