Relying on a few radars or armored vehicles in the current situation is self-deception and a path to new defeats. Ara Poghosyan

Political scientist Ara Poghosyan answers the questions of "Detq".

"Recently, the ruling faction in the Armenian parliament talked about the fact that Azerbaijan has partially occupied or is holding 31 villages from the territory of Armenia. After that, Armenian-Azerbaijani negotiations took place in Antalya, after which Baku's rhetoric became even tougher. Today even one of the Azerbaijani MPs stated that "a military operation should be carried out in Tavush and the 8 occupied villages should be united". According to you, what do these developments prove?"

"I think that the authorities of Armenia have already given agreements on certain issues, and unfortunately, these agreements are sometimes not delivered to the Armenian people, and the people have to face them after the fact. In particular, when Aliyev talks about this or that demand, he states that they do not want more from Armenia and the Armenian authorities than what was promised to them. This is said in the context that the Armenian authorities, in fact, in Prague and during other meetings, agreed to both the return of the "enclaves" and the solution to the demarcation and demarcation issue with the current Azerbaijani vision."

But for us, the starting point is not the statement of the leader of the enemy country, but the behavior of the RA authorities and the events and developments taking place. In particular, we can record that the demands set by the head of the enemy state and his political teammates, at least in the future, were either met by the Armenian authorities or were extorted by military force. It can be said that we are faced with the realization of these statements post-facto. And now reasonable logic tells us that a certain process took place here as well, based on which the Azerbaijani side makes statements.

When the Armenian authorities talk about 31 villages, they don't say that they are not talking about direct occupation in some cases, but indirect occupation or the threat of it. With this, it seems that they are preparing the ground for later delivering that Azerbaijan balances its claims to those 31 villages with its claims to 8 villages of Tavush, and if we give the 8 villages, then the other occupied villages are freed. This is a dangerous statement, taking into account how the process and dynamics of the Armenian-Azerbaijani relations are often presented to us. As you remember, on the Artsakh issue, the Armenian authorities put forward the proposition that if we lower our bar, then a wide consolidation will be formed around Artsakh by the West. In essence, we lowered that benchmark to a level lower than the threshold, but even then, no consolidation took place around the Republic of Artsakh, no process took place in defense of Artsakh, moreover, Azerbaijan, receiving each successive lowering of the benchmark, was sure that it could force use to solve the problem. As a result, Azerbaijan physically occupied the Republic of Artsakh. And even with all that, we did not see the wide consolidation promised by the RA authorities. The same is true in this case. We are assured that if we do this, it will be this way, but at least we have no reason to be sure, moreover, we can believe that the exact opposite will happen. It is realistic that at some point Azerbaijan's demand for 8 villages will be transferred from the political to the military level.

"In his recent speeches, Nikol Pashinyan constantly talks about the possibility of military escalation by Azerbaijan, but never mentions how, say, Armenia is preparing for a possible escalation. What does this speech of Pashinyan and other representatives of the government mean and what consequences can it have?"

"This is also a saying used in the past in connection with the same Artsakh Republic, or, let's say, in connection with the same Ishkhanasar, when they announced that it snows there for half of the year, we will not go and die for a mountain, etc. We have already seen this talk in practice. Taking this as a basis, we can say that it is a process taking place in the propaganda field. If the authorities of Armenia had not said this, if other states had said this, we could clearly state that it is an information war against the Armenian people.

As a result of such processes, it is natural that internal fears will arise among the people, especially since just 3 years ago the people faced defeat, just a few months ago they lost a part of their motherland, they have not yet overcome all that, when they constantly say that they can If you lose more than you lost, there is naturally a decrease in public immunity, and after that, naturally, society will have to accept new defeats and concessions because of the same fears, which are not only not overcome, but deepened."

"Recently, the issue of acquisition of new military equipment by Armenia was discussed a lot. Especially regarding the equipment purchased from France and sent to Armenia - radars and night vision devices - there were opinions that it had more of a propaganda veil than it was aimed at increasing the defense capability of the army. How about this?"

"Military science has clear and measurable answers. As a political scientist, let me say that a state that does not have strategic depth, is subject to an aggressive war, does not have large mobilization resources, an inclusive and self-sufficient military economy, does not have large logistical capabilities, cannot afford purely defensive means, as you mentioned: radars and other accumulating similar equipment in the hope that he might be safe. States in our status must have an aggressive or, in other words, offensive army, which in turn implies offensive weapons, as is the case in Israel, for example. Although Israel has a developed defense system built at the expense of its own infrastructure, the Israeli army is an offensive army capable of waging an aggressive war. In our case, when the territory of the entire state is observable by our enemies, and it will not be very difficult for the enemy to discover our defense systems, relying on a few radars, armored vehicles, night vision devices in the current situation is self-deception, and this is a path to new defeats. : If, let's say, there is no such secret process that lethal weapons are also brought, but we really acquire purely defensive weapons, for us, I think, is a path of new defeats."

"And do you see any change in the army that corresponds to the current challenges?"

"I have said before that our army no longer meets the modern challenges that exist in our region and, especially, in relation to our state. It is no accident that I spoke of attacking armies. It doesn't just mean weapons, it also means a certain form and type of military. Certain logic of subdivisions and operational management. In our case, the Russian or Soviet model army will no longer work, and the demand to have new, more mobile military units, the demand to create elite troops, which our enemies are already doing, is emerging. It is a way that requires a lot of investment for the states, but it is perhaps the only way that can make the army competitive. All other ways - shortening the term of military service, creating women's units, etc. - will be mere fictions if they do not respond to the challenges."