The concept of “war” is always associated with destruction and deprivation, and this is indisputable in every sense. However, if we approach this ominous phenomenon from a philosophical perspective, there is also something natural in it that one can come to terms with.
Wars often sweep away old systems of relationships, dismantle outdated world orders, and bring new understandings. It is not without reason that they are called the midwife of history.
However, where a war is unjust and waged under a fabricated pretext, the situation is entirely different. Destroying what is useful and necessary while bringing immense suffering to people, it leaves behind terrible scars. The instigator always has to be held strictly accountable.
The two Karabakh wars took thousands of lives and resulted in the destruction of 20% of Azerbaijan’s territory. The aggressor razed several flourishing cities and villages to the ground and devastated the functioning infrastructure of a vast region.
Now, Azerbaijan is restoring everything that was destroyed with its own resources, making titanic efforts. A vast territory is being brought back to a livable condition with great difficulty. Reconstruction efforts face serious challenges, one of which is the threat of landmines—but more on that later.
At present, as Armenia is euphoric over the agreement on seventeen points of the peace treaty, its politicians and public opinion leaders emphasize the significance of the mutual commitments undertaken by both sides. The primary focus is on the withdrawal of lawsuits filed in international arbitration institutions. However, in this context, there is an omission of crucial significance—not only for Azerbaijan.
Yerevan deliberately downplays its guilt, pretending that it had no role in the bloody frenzy provoked by the ideology of “Miatsum,” which ignited in the late 1980s and paved the way for aggression. This was followed by two large-scale military campaigns that left deep scars in the hearts of Azerbaijanis. And when the Armenian side insists on the withdrawal of lawsuits, it is knowingly engaging in a risky gamble.
The ongoing trial in Baku of twenty-three individuals accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, and other serious offenses is being condemned at every turn by Armenians and their foreign supporters, who claim that the rights of the accused are allegedly being violated. The painful reaction of those who had long supported the criminal separatist regime in Khankendi is understandable.
The testimonies of the accused—former “presidents” of the so-called Nagorno-Karabakh Republic, its military commanders, and other leaders—shed light on Armenia’s direct involvement in the bloodshed. As revealed in their confessions, criminal orders for the bombardment of sleeping Azerbaijani cities—Ganja, Terter, Barda, as well as Baku and Mingachevir—were issued from Yerevan. The so-called leaders of the illegal entity followed the orders of Armenia’s political leadership and the General Staff of its armed forces precisely and without question.
Silence and denial of guilt are not a cure-all. Armenia bears direct responsibility for the aggression, occupation, and destruction of Azerbaijani lands, as well as for acts of genocide in Khojaly and other locations. It is responsible for two wars and numerous crimes, and attempts to mask its involvement and shift the blame onto the so-called “people” of Karabakh with their artificially created “self-defense army” lack any evidentiary basis.
The regular Armenian army fought on the occupied lands of Azerbaijan, and its remnants—amounting to a 10,000-strong force—were neutralized within 23 hours on September 19–20 during counterterrorism operations.
There can be no doubt that Armenia is obliged to compensate Azerbaijan. It will resist, seek various excuses and pretexts, but this will have no effect. Compensation for war-related damages fully aligns with international law norms and requirements. The payment of reparations by the defeated state to the victorious country is as natural a phenomenon as the alternation of day and night.
If Yerevan refuses to make payments, it will have to offer an equivalent form of compensation. One such option could be the opening of the Zangezur Corridor with the development of all necessary infrastructure.
History provides many examples of aggressor states, finding themselves in a position of debtor, compensating the victor with territorial concessions or by transferring industrial assets. Moreover, these must be operational—repayment cannot be made with “dead weight.” Armenia has border-region deposits of precious metals, gold mines, ore-processing plants, and other enterprises.
The endless wars between Germany and France in the 20th century completely drained the German state. During World War I and World War II, Berlin had to transfer the historical region of Alsace-Lorraine to France as part of reparations, along with its industrial potential.
Another example is Corsica, which became part of France for the same reason: The Republic of Genoa lost a war and, unable to pay reparations, compensated Paris with the island.
As for the mine problem, it will remain a direct threat to Azerbaijanis for a long time. According to estimates from specialized UN agencies, demining Azerbaijani lands will require $25 billion and several years. Armenia is obligated to pay this amount in full.
War is always a tragedy, and it never comes alone. Especially when its instigators overestimate their capabilities and commit crimes of the century. Their end is always bitter and disastrous. And they have no one to blame but themselves.
Tofig Abbasov
