They are lacking access to essential services like healthcare, energy, and even fundamental necessities such as food and water, which are in short supply. This outcry has garnered attention from the global community, including journalists, politicians, and officials from various countries, who are collectively urging Azerbaijan to guarantee the unobstructed movement of both goods and people. However, it seems that the perspective of Azerbaijan is being disregarded in this situation.
The term “blockade” suggests a complete restriction on entry and exit from the Karabakh region, but in reality, the Lachin road remains open for individuals to travel. The primary challenge here revolves around the transportation of goods. Azerbaijan maintains its stance that it has the sovereign right to inspect all deliveries heading to Karabakh. Nevertheless, Armenians are opposing this demand. This raises the question: Why is this the case? Allow me to provide an explanation.
At the heart of the recent tensions lies the Lachin road, a pathway that traverses Azerbaijan, linking Armenia with the Karabakh region. Video footage shared by the Ministry of Defence of Azerbaijan have proven that Russian “peacekeepers’ ‘ and Karabakh Armenians have exploited this route to illicitly transport weapons and munitions from Armenia to Karabakh. In response to these actions, Azerbaijan has erected a border checkpoint along the Lachin road, with the intention of thoroughly examining all trucks that pass through. This action has encountered opposition from Armenians, who contend that Azerbaijan lacks the authority to scrutinize shipments traversing its territory.
Azerbaijan’s rigorous inspection of each truck serves to eliminate the possibility of weapons smuggling into Karabakh. It appears that one of the causes for the Armenian outcry is the inability to deliver weaponry. It’s crucial to recognize that by gaining control over the Lachin corridor, Azerbaijan undermines the sustainability of the separatist regime. Behind the facade of the blockade narrative, the separatist administration seeks to prolong its existence. The humanitarian catastrophe narrative is constructed to mask this objective and generate sympathy within the global community.
Efforts to facilitate a resolution have led to negotiations in Brussels, resulting in an accord between Armenia and Azerbaijan to unseal the Aghdam road connecting Azerbaijan and Karabakh. The terms of the agreement specified that no inspections would be conducted along this route. However, the Karabakh Armenians have obstructed the Aghdam road, contending that they are grappling with starvation due to the alleged blockade. This has escalated the standoff between the involved parties. The Karabakh Armenians’ refusal to engage with the Azerbaijani representative in Yevlakh adds weight to the argument that the primary issue isn’t solely a humanitarian crisis. If the proclaimed humanitarian crisis and the purported starvation of the Armenian population, which they assert has persisted for eight months, were truly the core concerns, the Karabakh Armenians would not have physically barricaded the Aghdam road. As previously mentioned, the fundamental matter here revolves around gaining complete control of the Lachin road. More accurately, the underlying objective appears to be granting Russia full authority over the Lachin road.
Armenia and Azerbaijan seem to share a common goal of achieving peace and stability within the region. However, a contrasting agenda seems to be held by the Karabakh Armenians. Speculation suggests that their aim could be to deliberately orchestrate a crisis that has the potential to escalate into a full-fledged war. This strategy might be based on the expectation that other nations will intervene and engage in a conflict against Azerbaijan on their behalf. Central to this manipulation appears to be Ruben Vardanyan, often referred to as Putin’s laundromat who was appointed by Russia as a de facto “governor” of Karabakh. Despite lacking any official position within the self-declared “Artsakh Republic”, Vardanyan wields significant influence.
Should Armenia and Azerbaijan manage to establish a peace accord, it would render the presence of Russian peacekeepers unnecessary and potentially lead to Azerbaijan requesting the withdrawal of Russian troops from Karabakh by 2025. However, it’s evident that the Russian side is not in favor of this outcome. Consequently, Vardanyan, acting as their representative, is constructing a narrative around a humanitarian crisis, ostensibly justifying the continued presence of Russian peacekeepers. Regrettably, the international community, particularly Western media and expert circles, either fail to perceive this scheme or choose to overlook it for reasons that remain unclear. This situation underscores a glaring hypocrisy within Western political institutions and media. Despite condemning Russia’s actions in Ukraine, they appear to align with Russia’s objectives in the Karabakh context.
Understanding the historical context is crucial. In the early 1990s, Karabakh Armenians supported by Armenia engaged in a military campaign, taking over nearby areas and displacing Azerbaijani residents. Despite continuous calls for the return of these seized lands by the global community, Armenia largely ignored these appeals. In 2020, Azerbaijan reclaimed these regions through military action.
At present, an important decision point has been reached. Armenia acknowledges that a sustainable solution requires establishing peaceful ties with Azerbaijan. The international community consistently pushes for an end to hostilities and diplomatic talks. However, the Karabakh Armenians continue to emphasize their victim status, portraying themselves as oppressed and struggling with hunger. The Karabakh Armenians’ repeated spread of false information, from claims about uninhabited territories to warnings of imminent genocide, has damaged their credibility. The global community is growing more doubtful about their true intentions.
Ultimately, the course of the Karabakh Armenians’ future rests in their own hands. They face the choice of either prolonging a conflict that seems unwinnable or reaching a compromise with Azerbaijan to finally bring an end to the strife. The campaigns against Azerbaijan may evoke sympathy for the Armenian cause, but their impact on the ground is limited. The current leadership of Karabakh Armenians appears to prioritize Russia’s interests over the well-being of ordinary Armenians living within Azerbaijan’s borders. By endorsing the fabricated narratives of the Armenians, the international community inadvertently encourages their delusions. For the region’s benefit, it would be advantageous if the international community unequivocally supported Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity and sovereign rights. This stance could hasten the decision-making process for the Armenians and contribute to the resolution of the conflict. Unless, of course, the primary intention is to prolong the conflict.
