Sergei Lavrov Justifies Azerbaijan’s War against Armenia

The reason Pashinyan refused to sign the document was that it did not name Azerbaijan as the aggressor in the war, and in addition, the participants failed to recognize Armenia’s border with Azerbaijan.

Mr. Lavrov, a veteran of diplomacy, in his eloquent way, tried to blame Armenia for refusing to host CSTO observers on its territory, when the CSTO is by definition not a monitoring group, but a military alliance bound to defend its members. Armenia said thanks, but no thanks. Certainly the group had numerous chances — as well as signed obligation — to help Armenia during the disastrous war. They instead twisted and turned their statement of purpose and watched from the sidelines as Armenia was pummeled and Karabakh occupied. Indeed, most of the members of CSTO, particularly Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan congratulated President Ilham Aliyev on his “victory” against Armenia. Additionally, Kazakhstan, in particular, last week took part in wargames headed by Turkey and Azerbaijan, in Kars, near Armenia’s borders.

Mr. Lavrov has taken the European Union (EU) monitors’ presence on Armenian-Azerbaijan border more painfully. Last year the EU stationed 40 civilian monitors on Armenia-Azerbaijan border. Azerbaijan did not admit them on its territory, but took their presence under advisement.

Last year’s 40 monitors could not deter a massive aggression, but they played a restraining role as witnesses on the border. And indeed, their presence discouraged any escalation. This time around, based on last year’s experience, the EU has been stationing 100 monitors for a two-year period. Their number could rise to 200 to include 70 French gendarmes who will carry light weapons.

Incidentally, the EU monitors have been stationed on the Georgia-Russia border since 2008 and the border has remained quiet.

President Aliyev has argued against the stationing of the EU monitors. But Mr. Lavrov, assuming Azerbaijan’s advocacy, has carried the argument further by stating that without Azerbaijan’s consent, this move could prove to be “counterproductive,” which is a veiled threat against Armenia. That means Russia is up to mischief to disrupt the stationing of the EU monitors. Sure enough, this veil fell apart last week, when Russia announced that it was moving the joint Turkish-Russian monitoring center in Shushi (now called Shusha) near Armenia’s border in Azerbaijan.

We must remember that Russia’s Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu in 2020 was bragging about this joint monitoring station as a “brilliant arrangement with Turkey.”

Mr. Lavrov has grumbled over the fact that Armenia has refused to invite within its borders the Trojan horse that he had offered. He has said that CSTO is ready to send its monitors, “even within days, but our Armenian colleagues preferred to invite EU monitors.”

Russia would prefer to maintain Armenian-Azerbaijani relations under its control to keep the crisis percolating, in perpetual need of a stabilizer.

The EU monitors are security assets for Armenia to gave it some breathing room to recover from the devastation of war. But Russia perceives the move differently and accuses Armenia of inviting Western forces into the Caucasus region to push out Russia from its zone of influence. Armenia’s intent certainly is not that, but its very urgent defense against the existential threat that it faces.

Mr. Lavrov, unable to defend his country’s catastrophic failure to defend its allies, has thrown the most potent political bomb in his arsenal by justifying Azerbaijan’s criminal actions and turning realities upside down. What makes this betrayal even more painful for Armenia and the Armenian nation worldwide is that Lavrov himself is of Armenian extraction.

Indeed, on February 2, Mr. Lavrov gave an interview to Dmitri Kisselev on Rossya 24 and among other things, he stated, “For many years, Armenia occupied seven regions of Azerbaijan. Russia offered numerous options for a diplomatic solution. But the Armenian leadership wanted to keep the territories. Azerbaijan, exasperated, took back the lands that belong to it,” he said.

“Now, the parties have signed an agreement on their readiness to conclude a peace agreement on the basis of the 1991 Almaty Declaration. It states that the borders of independent states will run along the borders of the Union Republics. Karabakh was part of the Azerbaijan SSR.”

As a skilled diplomat Mr. Lavrov is entitled to lie to his heart’s content, but he cannot turn history upside down and shy away from Russia’s obligations:

• Russia was obligated to prevent the 44-Day War and not to ask for gratitude from Amenia for stopping it.
• Russia betrayed Armenia by supplying it with faulty armaments and refusing to deploy the air defense system.
• “Russia offered numerous options for a solution. But the Armenian leadership wanted to keep the territories.” This statement defies the facts because Russia encouraged Armenian leaders to continue to hold those territories as a bargaining chip in Kremlin’s hand against Azerbaijan. A case in point is that in 2012, Armenia was negotiating a deal with the EU but then Premier Serzh Sargsyan’s arm was twisted, and overnight, he turned the tide and Armenia abandoned the EU to opt for CSTO. Therefore, Moscow had the power to impose any solution it desired.
• Russia has subscribed to the principles of the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), which are based on three elements: The refusal to solve conflicts through the use of forces, maintain territorial integrity of nations and the minority’s rights for self-determination. By justifying Azerbaijan’s armed aggression against Armenia, Mr. Lavrov’s tramples the first of the OSCE principles.
• “Karabakh was part of the Azerbaijan SSR” is a misstatement because Karabakh was an autonomous region placed arbitrarily under Azerbaijan’s tutelage by Stalin, against the will of the population. Then Karabakh used the same constitutional mechanism as Azerbaijan to cede from the Soviet Union.

Armenians traditionally have proven to be a pro-Russian people. The recent change in public sentiment is the direct result of Russian actions, not necessarily the result of efforts from the West.

It is obvious that at the present time, Armenia and Russia are on a collision course. Armenia cannot push its luck too far, because Russia has the means and the will to react.

Just last week, a very articulate diplomat, Armen Kharazyan, promoting pro-Western policy for Armenia, mysteriously died. Speculations indicate that this is the beginning of things to come.

Prudence and caution are most valuable political assets at this time.