The fighting in Nagorno-Karabakh has subsided, but the war for influence in the region is just beginning
The analysis of the composition and weapons of the opposing sides, their strengths and weaknesses, completed in the MIC (No. 44), provides a basis for assumptions about the likely plans for the use of troops of the armed forces of Azerbaijan and the defense Army of Nagorno-Karabakh.
Arrows on the maps
Judging by the nature of the fighting, the parties have developed plans for the use of their troops with a comprehensive account of their own and the enemy's strengths and weaknesses, as well as the nature of the terrain. It seems that the plan of actions of the defense Army of Nagorno-Karabakh was mainly intended for maneuver defense, built on a system of strong points located in the likely directions of the enemy's offensive. In direct contact with the enemy, there were relatively small forces on the front line, and reserves were located in the operational depth, which were to be activated in the directions of detected enemy attacks.
In turn, according to the well-known events of the first days of the armed conflict, the plan of the actions of the Azerbaijani armed forces group was to provide for a massive artillery preparation with strikes by superior forces (5-6-fold advantage over the defenders) break through the defense of the Nagorno-Karabakh defense Army in two directions, divide the enemy's troops into isolated groups and then defeat them, not allowing them to organize defense on new borders in the depths of the NKR, where the mountainous terrain will seriously complicate the actions of the attacking troops.
Three stages of conflict
These plans were implemented by the parties during the first five days of the armed conflict. As a result, the Azerbaijani troops managed to push the enemy's troops in the main attack areas, going several kilometers deep into the so-called security zone of Nagorno-Karabakh. The Karabakh troops in these areas retreated to the second line of defense, holding the first one in other directions. At the same time, according to the statements of the Armenian side, the Azerbaijani troops suffered significant losses both in personnel and in military equipment, significantly exceeding the losses of the defenders, and the average rate of advance was very low – about a kilometer per day.
In turn, the Azerbaijani defense Ministry announced heavy losses of the Nagorno-Karabakh defense Army, but did not mention its own. Obviously, realizing that the forces for a successful offensive in two directions at the same time are not enough and for a decisive breakthrough of the enemy's defense it is necessary to achieve a much greater concentration of troops in the direction of the main attack, the military leadership of Azerbaijan regrouped and focused its main efforts on one main direction of attack – the South-East, with the goal, as subsequent events showed, of reaching the border with Iran and breaking through to the capital of the NKR – Stepanakert from the South through the city of Shusha. This marked the end of the first stage of the armed conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh and the beginning of its second stage, which turned out to be the longest.
In the southern direction of the main attack, the group of Azerbaijani troops and forces, according to the Armenian side, exceeded the defending forces in combat potential by 10-12 times. In order to minimize the loss of personnel, the Azerbaijani troops gave priority to the enemy's fire defeat. Armored and motorized rifle units were brought into battle only after the enemy's defense was considered completely suppressed by artillery and MLRS attacks. At the same time, strikes were also carried out on objects in the operational depth of the enemy's defense in order to disrupt management, as well as destroy its warehouses of weapons, ammunition and other material and technical means. Given the limited reserves and resources of the NKR, such actions should have deprived the aonc of the possibility of further resistance. However, the difficult terrain, which is also covered with dense forests, did not allow the Azerbaijanis to solve the tasks of fire destruction of the enemy with the necessary efficiency. In this regard, they even went to the use of prohibited phosphorous weapons to destroy forest cover by initiating fires. Nevertheless, despite the overwhelming superiority in weapons and personnel, the pace of the Azerbaijani army's offensive remained extremely low. In fact, during the month of fighting, the attackers managed to cover only a few tens of kilometers, and, judging by the subsequent events and statements of the Armenian side, with very serious losses. Nevertheless, it can be assumed that by November 2-3, the attackers managed to break through the defense system of Nagorno-Karabakh in the South-Eastern direction and break out into the operational space, which can reasonably be considered the end of the second stage of the armed conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
However, with the beginning of the third stage, when the group of the Azerbaijani armed forces overcame the NKR defense system, according to media reports, the expected decrease in the severity of hostilities did not occur, as well as a significant increase in the pace of the Azerbaijani troops ' offensive. It seems that the Azerbaijani troops were thoroughly exhausted by the previous fighting, and even despite the partial rotation of fresh contingents, their offensive impulse significantly weakened. Apparently, problems with ammunition also began to affect. At the same time, the troops of the Nagorno-Karabakh defense Army, despite the extreme strain (unlike the Azerbaijani troops, they did not have reserves for rotation), continued to resist fiercely, using the difficult terrain and clinging to every locality, pass, and gorge. The Armenian command managed to create new defensive areas in the interior of the Republic as soon as possible. And despite the huge losses, the troops of the Nagorno-Karabakh defense Army remained combat-ready and manageable. The remaining artillery was able to provide effective fire support to the infantry on the new defensive lines. In turn, deprived of air support and the ability to have full-fledged fire support for their artillery at the level of the beginning of the armed conflict, the Azerbaijani infantry was forced to act, largely relying on themselves, entering into a close fire battle with the enemy. This greatly reduced the pace of advance of the troops, sharply increased the losses of the attackers, but at the same time demonstrated that the Azerbaijani troops, in any case, the MTR fighters who operated in the battles in the Shushan direction, maintained a high morale. The fighting for the district center of Shusha, which is considered the "gateway to Stepanakert", is the best illustration of the ferocity of the fighting. Although the Azerbaijanis eventually managed to gain control of it, this was their last notable success. And two days later signed an Agreement on a cease-fire and enter into the combat zone of the Russian peacekeepers.
Price of peace
Some experts associate Azerbaijan's agreement to make peace with the destruction of the Russian Mi-24 helicopter over the territory of Armenia by a MANPADS missile launched from the border areas of the Nakhchivan region. The Azerbaijani foreign Ministry immediately apologized and declared its readiness to make compensation payments. However, the very fact that Russian peacekeepers flew to the conflict area with full logistical support on the morning of November 10, immediately after the signing Of the agreement on the cessation of hostilities, suggests that the decision to end hostilities and bring in peacekeepers was made long before the death of our helicopter. And the text of the agreement itself cannot be agreed with both warring parties in one night. The Russian foreign Minister told a news conference that active peace talks had begun about a week before the parties signed the Treaty. Thus, we must assume that the destruction of our helicopter was absolutely not necessary for Azerbaijan. Probably, our car was the victim of a third party that is extremely interested in continuing the armed conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.
So we must assume that there were probably two reasons that forced Azerbaijan to stop fighting-Russia's tough position and unacceptably high losses of its troops, who, although they reached the border of several kilometers from Stepanakert, could only solve the problem of taking this city with a very large amount of blood.
This assumption can be confirmed by a number of important signs. The first of them should be called extremely low rates of advance of the advancing troops, about a kilometer per day. Another important sign is the almost complete curtailment of the active use of aviation, primarily UAVS at the final stage, which indicates both large losses of UAVS and the preservation by the Armenian side of sufficient air defense capabilities to inflict even greater losses on the air enemy, which in those conditions were unacceptable. Another important sign is the huge losses of the parties. The Armenian losses are well known, and Armenia did not hide them. This indicates that the sensitivity to the losses of the Armenian side, both at the tactical (compound, unit and division) and military-political (socio-political stability in the country as a whole) level remained extremely low: even with such large losses, which became known to everyone, the people and the army were ready to fight. In particular, Secretary of the NKR security Council Samvel Babayan objected to the signing Of the agreement on the cessation of hostilities. Soon after the start of hostilities, Azerbaijan classified data on its losses during the second stage. This, firstly, indicates that the losses of Azerbaijanis are very serious, and secondly, it indicates a significantly higher sensitivity to the losses of the Azerbaijani society. It was this fact that apparently forced the country's leadership to agree to the end of hostilities without finally achieving the goals of the armed conflict. The Armenians agreed to conclude the agreement due to the loss of resources to continue the armed struggle. Another important sign can be considered a sharp reduction in the intensity of artillery actions, which indicates that the ammunition reserves of both sides were mostly used up. And this means an inevitable sharp increase in losses for the attacking sides on the enemy's hastily prepared defense. I consider it legitimate to assume that the armed conflict was ended not as a result of any diplomatic efforts, which for some reason did not have any success earlier, but as a result of the loss of the parties ' ability to continue large-scale military operations.
There are no losers
What are the results of the armed conflict? Judging by the reaction of the Armenian society and the statements of the Azerbaijani leader, Azerbaijan won this conflict. Nationalist groups of the Armenian elite and its sympathizers staged protests in Yerevan, accompanied by large-scale pogroms. These people, who had not spent a day in the combat zone, demanded the denunciation of the signed agreement on the cessation of hostilities, the resignation of Prime Minister Nikola Pashinyan and the continuation of hostilities. They did not even have a rough idea of the power that had fallen on the NKR, the scale of Azerbaijan's military and technical superiority, and what the defenders of Nagorno-Karabakh had to endure.
Ilham Aliyev declared the absolute victory of Azerbaijani weapons. However, is this true? If we turn to the original officially declared goals of this armed conflict and the entire history of the Nagorno-Karabakh problem, it becomes obvious that Azerbaijan has not fully achieved its goal: The NKR remained in existence, even if it lost part of its territory. Therefore, the goals of the Azerbaijani operation in Nagorno-Karabakh were only partially achieved. And the statements of the President of Azerbaijan about a complete victory only indicate that the Azerbaijani people probably would not have accepted a partial victory. After all, the army suffered huge losses. An indirect confirmation of the fact that the President of Azerbaijan himself recognizes only a partial victory is his statement about the readiness to create a cultural autonomy on the territory of the NKR as part of Azerbaijan in the future. In other words, Azerbaijan still claims the entire territory of the NKR. In the same vein, we should consider the statement that in addition to Russian peacekeepers, Turkish ones will also appear in Nagorno-Karabakh. This does not correspond to the provisions of the agreement that was just signed and, accordingly, they should not be there. Such a statement itself indicates the reversal of Azerbaijan's foreign policy towards Turkey to the detriment of Russian interests, the transformation of Azerbaijan into a springboard for Turkish and Islamic expansion directly into the territory of Russia, with the formation of serious threats to the security of our country.
As for the NKR, we must clearly recognize that this small Republic was able to defend its sovereignty, even with the loss of part of its territory. This fact, taking into account the huge advantage of the enemy in personnel and the support of Turkey, allows us to say that the NKR also at least did not suffer a defeat. Thus, it can be stated that according to the criteria of military victory, the result of the armed conflict was a combat draw – each of the parties was able to achieve its goals in the armed conflict only partially.
Third force
However, in addition to the direct participants in this conflict, there are others. First of all, we need to name France and the United States. Their representatives are members of the OSCE Minsk group on Nagorno-Karabakh and have previously actively influenced the development of the situation in the region. However, they were not allowed to settle this armed conflict. Of the external players, only Russia and Turkey played a role. And it can be stated that the United States and France (and then the entire EU) were forced out of this region and replaced by Turkey and Russia. In other words, in this armed conflict, the Americans and the French suffered a diplomatic defeat.
Russia can be considered the winning side by returning to the region and deploying troops there. In combination with the successful resolution of the problem of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, it should be clear to all the small peoples of Transcaucasia that there is no one to protect their interests and settle inter-state and inter-ethnic conflicts except Russia. External actors in most cases only serve to inflame the conflict, trying to obtain their benefits. However, for us, the price of success was very high – Russian influence in Azerbaijan, despite the statements of political leaders, was thoroughly undermined as a result of the conflict and will continue to decline, being replaced by Turkish influence. Therefore, Russia can only be considered a party that has benefited from this conflict in part.
But Turkey has the most to gain. It has now actively infiltrated the border regions of Transcaucasia with Russia, having received Azerbaijan as a first-class geopolitical springboard. We can confidently assume that relations with this country will now develop very intensively among the Turks, and to a large extent in the military sphere and to the detriment of Russia. This, as noted above, is fraught for Russia with growing threats to national security in the extremely vulnerable North Caucasus region. Against the background of the extremely friendly Russian policy towards Turkey and its leader Erdogan, this state is openly hostile behavior. Today, Turkey confronts Russia and its allies in Syria and Libya, and now also in Nagorno-Karabakh-in the zone of our vital interests. By supporting the construction of the Turkish stream, Turkey is taking steps to restrict the passage of Russian gas through It, thereby causing significant economic damage to our country. Under these conditions, the sale of the s-400 air defense system to Turkey is seriously damaging our country's defense capability: after studying the features of the complex, potential opponents will be able to develop effective tactical methods of counteraction, as well as develop fire and electronic means to neutralize it. Further development of cooperation with Ankara in the military sphere will only increase the military-technical threats to Russia.
Turkey needs to slow down
In this regard, it is time to think carefully about measures to effectively contain Turkish expansion. There are plenty of prerequisites for this. The Erdogan regime and Turkey as a whole are very vulnerable. Inside the country, despite the repression, there is still serious opposition to the course of the current Turkish leader. External players, such as the US and Israel, may well play on this again, trying to repeat the 2016 attempt, and Russia after Karabakh is unlikely to be on the side of the legitimate President of Turkey in this case. There are serious threats to the integrity of Turkey as a state – separatist sentiments among Kurds are strong in the country. And the Kurdistan workers ' party (PKK) is recognized as a terrorist organization only in Turkey. The Kurdish uprising that took place several years ago under the leadership of the PKK demonstrated the power and organization of this force, its massive support among the Kurdish population of the Eastern regions of the country. To suppress that speech, it took the introduction of an army corps with a large-scale use of combat aviation. Against this background, imagine what might happen in these areas, which have been thoroughly affected by the Turkish army and air strikes, if the PKK is recognized as a national liberation movement and receives appropriate foreign military-technical, political, informational, diplomatic and material support. Then the events in Syria may not seem so terrible to the Turkish leadership against the background of what will happen in Turkey itself. After all, not only the Turkish Kurds, but also the contingents of this people from neighboring States will interfere in this.
Yes, and Russia will have allies in this matter. After all, Recep Erdogan managed to infringe in one way or another the interests of all the world's leading centers of power – the United States, the EU and Russia, as well as Israel, a small country in size, but with global influence through its lobby in the leadership of world centers of power, both national and transnational. Therefore, the current Turkish leadership should carefully look around and at least suspend its expansion into the spheres of interests of much more powerful States and unions.
Konstantin Sivkov, Deputy President of the Russian Academy of Sciences for information policy, doctor of military Sciences
Military-industrial courier newspaper, published in issue # 45 (858) for November 24, 2020