COMMENTARY ON THOMAS DE VAAL’S REPORT "THE KARABAKH TRAP

Azat Artsakh Daily
24 Feb 09
Republic of Nagorno Karabakh [NKR]

Threats and Dilemmas of the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict" 2009-02-23
16:51 In the middle of January Thomas de Vaal’s report "The Karabakh
Trap: Threats and Dilemmas of the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict" was
published in a number of Azerbaijani internet resources. (as it was
mentioned in the foreword to the report, it is the rough draft for
discussion). The report covers the force majéur scenarios of the
development of the Azerbaijani-Karabakhi conflict and gives a number
of recommendations both to the Armenian and Azerbaijani parties, as
well as to the mediators. According to the author himself, his work
aimed at persuading the parties that "neither of them can completely
"win" in the NK conflict".

In a wider context, the author’s aim was to convince all the actors,
involved in the Azerbaijani-Karabakhi conflict settlement process,
of the necessity to change the present status-quo. The author’s task
was complicated by the fact that the current state of affairs, to
this or that extent, suits both the parties directly involved in the
conflict and the main centers of power. This circumstance influenced
the arguments and theses brought by the author, which in most cases
were of declarative character, were not =0 D corroborated with real
facts and very often contradicted one other. The author had chosen
the "scare tactics" as a means of persuading the Armenian party. In
particular, in the part "The situation in the region: the Armenian
party" the author tried to describe the development prospects of
Armenia in the darkest colors by using the following formulations:
"Isolation of Armenia", "Armenia’s vulnerability within its closed
borders", "global economic crisis presents a real threat for Armenia",
"Russia stops subsidizing the gas exported to Armenia", "ten-year
development "boom" comes to an end", etc. Meanwhile the situation
in Azerbaijan is described in a rather different way: "Azerbaijan is
changing due to its rich oil reserves" , "the international reputation
of the country is today much more influential", "today Azerbaijan has
50 embassies abroad", "a grandiose military parade took place in Baku",
"Azerbaijan demonstrates its newly-acquired military might to the
world". The author compared the military potential of Azerbaijan and
Armenia in the analogous manner. Speaking about Azerbaijan the author
has used such assertions as: "in 2008 the military budget of Azerbaijan
exceeds the military budget of Armenia three times", "Azerbaijan buys
a great number of new 0Aequipment", "American and Turkish instructors
train the personnel", etc. Whereas Armenia was favored with only one
positive evaluation – "deeper martial traditions exist in the Armenian
Armed Forces, and they continue playing a leading role in the Armenian
society". However, it was immediately leveled with the statement that
"this, in its turn, brings to the corruption and distortions in the
economy". The assessment of the military might of a state is one of the
actual tasks of military-scientific researches. The methodology of the
solution of this task is not simple, as it deals with heterogeneous
indices, characterizing various resources. In the technical sense
the correlation of the potentials of the two republics was reduced
to the comparison of the air park of the air forces and the reactive
systems of volley fire of high caliber, as a result of which the author
came to the conclusion that "the technical basis of the Armenian air
forces is much more modest". In the meantime the military might of any
country involves several potentials: economic, scientific, military,
moral-psychological and social. The author superficially touched only
two of the above-mentioned potentials. Whereas it’s hardly possible
to get an objective assessment of the military might of Armenia and
Azerbaijan, without analyzing the whole complex of the mentioned aspec
ts. With this comparison the author also tries to lead the key players
to the idea that it is impossible to keep the status-quo in the future,
as "the defeated party feels itself surer and surer and impatiently
craves for changing it (the status) in its favor". Meanwhile, fearing
that the analysis of the situation, suggested in this report, may
somehow play into the hands of the revanchist forces in Azerbaijan,
the author of the report warns against hasty conclusions: "To conclude
with I would like to say that there is not any real military solution
of the conflict for Azerbaijan and that the military aggression may
lead to a catastrophe for the country". Three possible scenarios
of war have also been covered in the report. From the military
viewpoint, the given modeling may hardly present any interest, as
it is of superficial character and contains general phrases. On the
whole, Thomas de Vaal, justifying his surname, under the cover of an
expert-peacemaker practically calls Azerbaijan to unleash a new big
war in the South Caucasus. Meanwhile, it seems to him that he and
his like will not be responsible for anything. But he is mistaken…