Asia Times [Turkey and Ukraine are deepening technological cooperation with strategic implications for Russia, EU and the wider region] By MK Bhadrakumar December 24, 2020 Turkey under President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has been variously accused of “neo-Ottomanism,” revanchism or radical Islamism. But the meeting of the foreign and defense ministers of Turkey and Ukraine in the “2+2” format in Kiev on December 18 did not fit into any of these narratives. The event throws light on the moorings of Turkish regional policies that seldom get discussed. The “2+2” format is generally regarded as a level of diplomatic and political interaction by two countries that have vital stakes in the relationship. The Turkish-Ukrainian relationship has gained gravitas since 2014 following the pro-Western regime change in Kiev, and palpably so after Volodymyr Zelensky became president in May last year. More recently, Azerbaijan’s dramatic success in recovering lost territory in Nagorno-Karabakh, thanks to Turkey’s robust support, captivated the Ukrainian elite. Zelensky’s visit to Turkey on October 16 turned out to be a turning point in bilateral relations. During Zelensky’s visit, a framework agreement on military cooperation was signed. Zelensky was much impressed by Erdogan’s affirmation that Turkey considers Ukraine to be “the key to the establishment of stability, security, peace and prosperity in the region” and his reiteration that “Turkey has not recognized Crimea’s illegal annexation [by Russia] and it never will.” Zelensky later announced the construction of two naval bases “for the protection of the Black Sea region” and emphasized his intention to develop an army that will not allow the loss of national territory. Ukraine has emerged as Turkey’s main partner in a number of military technologies such as turboprop and diesel engines, avionics, drones, anti-ship and cruise missiles, radar and surveillance systems, space and satellite technologies and active and passive robotic systems. It’s a match made in heaven, as Ukraine also has a strong base for the defense industry dating back to the Soviet era. Thus Turkey is funding the research and development work in Ukraine to develop advanced engine technologies; Turkish companies have acquired a quarter of the shares of Ukrainian engine manufacturer Motor Sich, along with terms related to the transfer of know-how; Turkey is open to co-production of its famed combat drones in Ukraine. Ukraine has agreed to transfer know-how to Turkey to boost its fledgling space agency and a satellite R&D laboratory in Roketsan, Turkey’s leading manufacturer of rocket and missile engines and satellites, and will give assistance for the development of jet engines in Turkey’s TFX fighter project, and the two countries will jointly develop and produce military satellites. The technology that Turkey is offering ranges from the Bayraktar TB2 surveillance and combat drones and Atmaca anti-ship missiles (with a range of 200 kilometers) to advanced corvettes. All in all, the two countries are now working on 50 joint defense projects. Analysts speculate that Ukraine might repeat the Karabakh example to win back territories it lost to Russia-backed separatists in 2014 in Donbas and could use drones to undertake surveillance over Crimea and the Kerch Strait linking the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov. During a visit to Turkey on December 2, Ukrainian Foreign Minister Kuleba Dmytro openly voiced the hope, while invoking the heritage of the Ottoman Empire until the 18th century, that Ankara would assume a “leadership role” on the Crimean question. Indeed, the joint statement issued after last Friday’s “2+2” meeting “noted the existence of threats and their implications for the stability and security of the broader Black Sea region that needs to be strengthened on the basis of international law and respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty of states within their internationally recognized borders.” It flagged Turkey’s support for Ukraine’s “integration with European and trans-Atlantic structures, including the EU and NATO,” as well as its “sovereignty and territorial integrity within internationally recognized borders including the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the city of Sevastopol.” After the 2+2 meeting, Foreign Minister Kuleba estimated at a joint press conference that the format “will become an important driving force not only for Ukraine-Turkey relations, but also for the development of the situation in our region in general” and will be “useful for Turkey’s support for Ukraine’s Euro-Atlantic integration.” Compared with such hype, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavuşoğlu responded that the impasse in the Donbas “should be solved within the territorial integrity and we are happy that the ceasefire continues, despite some small breaches.” Çavuşoğlu said Turkey does not recognize the “unlawful annexation of Crimea” and it is a known position voiced at the United Nations. Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar also told the press conference that Ankara is aware of the importance of peace and stability in the Black Sea region, adding: “We would like everyone to know that we are very cautious and sensitive about this. We are taking all measures not to let any provocations, tension [in the region].” Akar also flagged that Turkey is seeking a broad-based relationship with Ukraine. Surely, the Turkish ministers cautioned against over-interpretation. The Crimean Tatars form an important lobby in Turkey’s domestic politics, and Ankara has also been pursuing a pan-Turkic agenda regionally. However, the deepening technological cooperation between Turkey and Ukraine has far-reaching implications for the power dynamic in the Black Sea basin where the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is now establishing a presence to rival Russia. The big question is about Turkey’s intentions. Does it aim to counterbalance Russian supremacy in the Black Sea? Some analysts estimate that this is Ankara’s way of pressuring Moscow in its own back yard as retaliation for Russian efforts undermining Turkey’s agenda in Libya and Syria. Some Russian experts have also expressed apprehension that the Ukrainian generals might copy the Azeri tactics in Karabakh to launch a military operation in Donbas. There has been a buildup on the Donbas front recently with Ukraine deploying tanks, armored vehicles, anti-aircraft systems and rocket-propelled grenades. The Turkish TB2 drones could easily hit pro-Russian separatist positions. But Erdogan is a hardcore realist who knows that Moscow wouldn’t tolerate a Ukrainian military offensive in Donbas, and that neither NATO nor the US and the European Union wants a war. Erdogan has no reason to confront Russia, either. Moscow has gone the extra mile to accommodate Ankara’s interests in Syria and Nagorno-Karabakh. To be sure, Erdogan is conscious of the West’s machinations to create a rift between Turkey and Russia. The entente with Russia creates space for Turkey to negotiate more optimally with the EU and the US, while it is in Russia’s interest, too, to create such space for Turkey. Arguably, it is a variant of the new type of inter-state relationship that exists between Russia and China. Turkey instantaneously reacted to the recent US sanctions by reaffirming that there is no going back on the S-400 missile deal with Russia. Defense Minister Akar’s reaction was that Turkey will turn to “other nations” (read Russia) to source its weaponry. Surely, Erdogan’s independent foreign policies won’t be sustainable without a resilient “Russia option.” President Vladimir Putin appreciates that, as evident from Moscow’s willingness to have an equal relationship with Turkey based on mutual respect and mutual interest, be it in Nagorno-Karabakh or in Syria. (Libya falls in an altogether different category.) On the contrary, Turkey’s strained relations with the EU stem from substantial and opposing interests that are virtually impossible to reconcile any time soon. Equally, Turkey’s tensions with the US go far beyond its acquisition of the S-400 missile defense system from Russia. US President Donald Trump kept tensions with Turkey under check, but Erdogan can expect a more adverse situation in the Joe Biden presidency. As vice-president, Biden witnessed the failed coup attempt of July 2016 against Erdogan in which the latter narrowly escaped assassination. More important, the United States’ dalliance with Syrian Kurdish groups (affiliated with the terrorist group PKK) dates back to 2014 during Barack Obama’s presidency. It is no coincidence that Foreign Minister Çavuşoğlu has pointedly reverted to Ankara’s demand for the extradition of Islamist preacher Fetullah Gulen as a necessary condition for the improvement of relations with Washington. Turkey suspects that Gulen is a CIA “asset” and the 2016 coup attempt aimed at a Gulenist takeover with US backing. Turkey faces a phalanx of hostile regional states; the EU and the US are in adversarial mode; and NATO is of no help. Suffice to say, Turkey’s efforts to create “strategic depth” in the Black Sea must be put in perspective. * M K Bhadrakumar is a former Indian diplomat.
Author: Emma Jilavian
Armenia’s NSS ex-director Artur Vanetsyan summoned to SIS
Aysor, Armenia
Dec 23 2020
Former director of National Security Service, leader of Homeland party has been summoned to the Special Investigation Service.
Vanetsyan said he has been summoned for interrogation but it is not clear in the framework of which case.
SIS has not unveiled to Aysor.am in the sidelines of which case Artur Vanetsyan has been summoned.
Bishops of the Church of England urge UNESCO to help protect Armenian cultural heritage in Artsakh
Public Radio of Armenia
Dec 23 2020
The Lord Bishop of Southwark, the Right Reverend Christopher Chessun, has written to UNESCO Director-General Audrey Azoulay, along with the Bishops of Leeds, Coventry and Ebbsfleet, about the danger of Azerbaijan’s cultural genocide, reports the Armenian National Committee of the United Kingdom.
The Bishops warn that “it is time to act now before centuries of history are lost forever.”
“We are concerned by the reports of damage to several historic religious sites in the region and that this has been motivated by a desire to diminish historical roots and cultural diversity. If true, and if left unchecked, such action risks fueling and exacerbating an already complex post-conflf environment so impeding attempts at post-conflf reconciliation,” the letter reads.
The Bishops, therefore urge UNESCO to take all possible and appropriate measures to protect the sites on the territories currently under Azerbaijani control.
Armenians March To Pay Tribute To Slain War Soldiers, Demand For ‘traitor’ PM To Resign
Republic World
Dec 20 2020
Citizens of Armenia flooded the streets on December 19 to march in honour of the slain soldiers and pay tribute to the war victims of Nagorno-Karabakh military conflict. The rally to pay respect to the deceased was led by the Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan in the capital Yerevan. The anti-government protesters, however, opposed PM Pashinyan for his agreement to Russia’s brokered truce, as a result of which, Armenia had to cede the larger part of the disputed territory to the Azerbaijan army. Several in the march criticised the Armenian leader as they pelted eggs and chanted slogans, “Nikol, you traitor!”. The citizens demanded that Pashinyan steps down.
According to The Associated Press, hundreds of thousands of Armenians gathered around the Yerablur military memorial cemetery located on the outskirts of the capital of Yerevan as they observed the three-day mourning, laying a wreath to pay tribute to the soldiers’ sacrifice. Shortly after the honouring ceremony, a confrontation broke out between the opponents and the security forces. Citizens expressed angst against their leader’s territorial concession to the rival country and demanded that he turns in a resignation.
Three days of national mourning is declared in #Armenia & #Artsakh to pay tribute to the memory of those who fell protecting our #Homeland. Eternal glory to our brave soldiers. #thankyou pic.twitter.com/FHwQk6pB9V
— MFA of Armenia🇦🇲 (@MFAofArmenia)
In midst of the police and protesters scuffle, officers paved way for the Armenian PM and his security guards by dispersing crowd, making arrests, and providing camouflage of umbrellas and gun shields to protect Armenian PM from the egg pelters and angry mob attack. As many as 20,000 supporters later rallied at Yerevan to uphold the memorial church service to honour the fallen. This was followed by at least 14 retired military generals issuing a statement to the PM, demanding his resignation for mishandling of the conflict situation.
Earlier, Armenian Prime Minister agreed to exchange the prisoners of war with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan said he was ready to swap war captives and the corpses of the soldiers and victims killed during the military confrontation in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. Azerbaijan had confirmed its intention to conduct an exchange of prisoners with Armenia on the “all for all” principle. As the Azerbaijan armed forces entered the Nagorno-Karabakh region, making relentless advances, culminating in the seizure, thousands torched their homes and fled.
Several houses were set on fire in the village of Charektar that borders the district of Martakert. Civilians expressed fury over the peace agreement, saying, that Russian President Vladimir Putin “abandoned and wronged” them. “Why has Putin abandoned us?” they asked when AP approached them for a statement.
Asbarez: On the Heels of the Artsakh war
December 19, 2020
Thousands gather in Yerevan Liberty Square demanding Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan’s resignation on Dec. 5
BY KHATCHIG TAZIAN
Almost forty days into the signing of the declaration to stop the war between The Republic of Artsakh and Azerbaijan more question remain than have been answered.
On November 9 a nine-point declaration that was signed basically:
- Stopped the shooting
- Ushered in Russian peace keepers
- Relinquished control of Armenian held lands
The declaration that was to have stopped the war and resolved the conflict (Aliyev’s word) in its essence is a key to a door that opens to a wider and bloodier war. The declaration is fraught with opaque wording that involve opening “all” transit and communication links, which in turn ushers in issues dealing with oversight of the same, and sovereignty issues for both Armenia and Azerbaijan. Two of the most glaring examples of these issues are the Lachin Corridor link between Armenia and Stepanankert, and the proposed link between Azerbaijan and Nakhichevan. What will be the status of these roads? Does each country agree to a sovereign land route? If not, will Russia guarantee the safety of each into perpetuity?
Is that not an infringement on the sovereignty of both countries? What exactly does a corridor connecting Nakhichevan with Azerbaijan have to do with the Nagorno Karabakh Conflict. Wasn’t the conflict and internal one to Azerbaijan carried out by Armenian separatists as proclaimed by Ilham Aliyev? What about the borders being drawn up between Armenia and Azerbaijan… who is the decision maker on these issues? Does Artsakh revert back to Nagorno Karabakh Oblast borders? Will that include Shahumian? Getashen? Shushi? How about the issue of returning refugees? Who gets to go where and by what ratio…? And Armenians returning to their homes in occupied Artsakh…will they be given Azerbaijani citizenship? If so why are the areas that have been taken over by the Azeri Armed forces being emptied from their inhabitants? Why do Azeri Armed forces insist on emptying villages under their control? Aren’t Armenians considered Azerbaijani citizens? If not, then how is it that Azerbaijan would like to extend its sovereignty over an indigenous people who it considers to be its subjects yet insists on expelling them from their homes situated on their ancestral lands? What is going to be the final status of what is left of Artsakh, independence? A Russian protectorate? Azerbaijan? Then of course there is the legality of what Pashinyan is signing away. Does the parliament have to ratify any of the changes taking place? Can future Armenian governments go back to the negotiating table and claim all of this was done at the end of a gun, by a prime minister who didn’t have the authority without the parliament’s approval…. Why, what, where, when, how, by whom….
Armenians everywhere are searching for answers and are rightfully looking to the government of Armenia and Artsakh to provide them where none are to be had. Villagers are left to their own devices in many cases having to negotiate borders, and possession with Azeri Armed forces. Whole villages in the 5-kilometer wide Lachin Corridor were told to evacuate and then told to stay put after the villagers had started tearing apart their homes so as not to leave them to the enemy. Civilians are still being kidnapped and in some cases being beheaded. The Armenian government simply does not exist. The prime minister insists on staying in office having delivered the state of chaos the Armenian nation worldwide is confronting today. The parliament mostly made up of his cronies can’t find the strength to hold a vote of no confidence. The armed forces are rightfully not taking sides, yet don’t have the necessary orders to station on the borders where needed. The fate of the soldiers missing action, and the number of fallen has still not been confirmed and published. The economy is in ruins. The dollar is rising. The cost of necessary staples is rising. Coronavirus is out of control….
Any administration in any civilized country that delivered the chaos we have on our hands at this point would have automatically resigned. Any self-respecting politician that oversaw the destruction of his country and its diaspora to the extent that Nikol Pahshinyan did would have resigned or committed suicide by now. This begs the question: Why has Pashinyan and his team stayed on. There are of course no verifiable answers to that question at this point. One likely scenario is that the Kremlin has in him a cooperative subject who is putting to work all decisions mandated to him with no questions asked. A new person in that same position would more likely be resistant to the same. In Pashinyan they have a willing partner for the handing over of lands without disputing borders. Someone who is ready to concede villages in Artsakh when they were held by Armenian forces at the end of the conflict. A collaborator in the literal meaning of the word.
However, the facts remain. The credibility, trust, and authority of the administration and the Prime Minister are by any measure fatally wounded. For the country to stabilize, and for the people to regain their trust in their leaders for the long-term viability of the country, there needs to be change, and change for the better. A prerequisite for that change is the resignation of the Prime Minister.
The people need to be brought out of the deep depression and grief they are in due to the loss of the war, the loss of Artsakh, and in many cases the loss or injury of a loved one. They need to be led towards hope, towards brighter days, and toward confidence in their safety and that of their state. The diaspora as well as Armenia needs to recalibrate itself for the short / mid-term and long-term needs of Armenia and Artsakh. Neither Armenia, nor the Diaspora have the luxury at this point to waste time, to fracture further, or to resign itself to defeat as a long-term phenomenon. This may have been a defeat in the short term but in the long term it may have been the single most important catalyst for the Armenian nation to re-invigorate itself and re-assess its national goals and ideals. To not take Armenian statehood for granted. For the Diaspora to rethink its role both in support of the homeland, and its role as a stakeholder at the table, both politically and economically.
For us to start anew, we need to start with burying the past. Nikol Pashinyan and his My Step coalition now belong to the dustbin of history as do the ruling elites of the past. From Levon Ter Petrosian to Pashinyan any political party that has had the control of the country has shown their capabilities in governance. They have proven their best, and collectively it was not good enough for us to win this war. None should be allowed to regain power. A caretaker government needs to insure this is the case by revamping the electoral law of Armenia and insuring fair and free elections.
Finally, as a nation if there is one takeaway from this war it is this: The national security of the Armenian nation at any threat level must be guaranteed by our organic abilities. Therefore, any planning for the future in every sector of the country and the nation, whether, social, economic, defense or diaspora should have that premise as the cornerstone of any strategy going forward.
We may have lost this battle, but the war is just beginning…
Armenia, Government of — Moody’s announces completion of a periodic review of ratings of Armenia, Government of
Yahoo! News
Dec 18 2020
Announcement of Periodic Review: Moody's announces completion of a periodic review of ratings of Armenia, Government of
Global Credit Research – 18 Dec 2020
Singapore, — Moody's Investors Service ("Moody's") reviews all of its ratings periodically in accordance with regulations — either annually or, in the case of governments and certain EU-based supranational organisations, semi-annually. This periodic review is unrelated to the requirement to specify calendar dates on which EU and certain other sovereign and sub-sovereign rating actions may take place.
Moody's conducts these periodic reviews through portfolio reviews in which Moody's reassesses the appropriateness of each outstanding rating in the context of the relevant principal methodology(ies), recent developments, and a comparison of the financial and operating profile to similarly rated peers. Since 1st January 2019, Moody's issues a press release following each periodic review announcing its completion.
Moody's has now completed the periodic review of a group of issuers that includes Armenia and may include related ratings. The review did not involve a rating committee, and this publication does not announce a credit rating action and is not an indication of whether or not a credit rating action is likely in the near future; credit ratings and/or outlook status cannot be changed in a portfolio review and hence are not impacted by this announcement. For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for the most updated credit rating action information and rating history.
The credit profile of Armenia (issuer rating of Ba3) reflects the country's "ba2" economic strength, which balances high growth potential and increasingly diverse growth drivers against the economy's small size and low income levels; its "baa3" institutions and governance strength, which takes into account improved credibility and effectiveness of macroeconomic policies and institutions that buffer the impact of economic shocks, as well as structural reforms aimed at strengthening the control of corruption and rule of law; the government's "b1" fiscal strength given its moderately high debt burden and high share of foreign currency debt; and "ba" susceptibility to event risks driven by geopolitical risk, which relates to a low probability, high impact scenario involving an escalation in tensions with Azerbaijan over the disputed territory of Nagorno-Karabakh to full scale hostilities.
This document summarizes Moody's view as of the publication date and will not be updated until the next periodic review announcement, which will incorporate material changes in credit circumstances (if any) during the intervening period.
The principal methodology used for this review was Sovereign Ratings Methodology published in November 2019. Please see the Rating Methodologies page on www.moodys.com for a copy of this methodology.
This announcement applies only to EU rated and EU endorsed ratings. Non EU rated and non EU endorsed ratings may be referenced above to the extent necessary, if they are part of the same analytical unit.
This publication does not announce a credit rating action. For any credit ratings referenced in this publication, please see the ratings tab on the issuer/entity page on www.moodys.com for the most updated credit rating action information and rating history.
Nishad Harshit Majmudar AVP-Analyst/Manager Sovereign Risk Group Moody's Investors Service Singapore Pte. Ltd. 50 Raffles Place #23-06 Singapore Land Tower Singapore 48623 Singapore JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Client Service: 852 3551 3077 Marie Diron MD - Sovereign Risk Sovereign Risk Group JOURNALISTS: 44 20 7772 5456 Client Service: 44 20 7772 5454 Releasing Office: Moody's Investors Service Singapore Pte. Ltd. 50 Raffles Place #23-06 Singapore Land Tower Singapore 48623 Singapore JOURNALISTS: 852 3758 1350 Client Service: 852 3551 3077
© 2020 Moody's Corporation, Moody's Investors Service, Inc., Moody's Analytics, Inc. and/or their licensors and affiliates (collectively, "MOODY'S"). All rights reserved.
CREDIT RATINGS ISSUED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE, INC. AND/OR ITS CREDIT RATINGS AFFILIATES ARE MOODY'S CURRENT OPINIONS OF THE RELATIVE FUTURE CREDIT RISK OF ENTITIES, CREDIT COMMITMENTS, OR DEBT OR DEBT-LIKE SECURITIES, AND MATERIALS, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND INFORMATION PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S (COLLECTIVELY, "PUBLICATIONS") MAY INCLUDE SUCH CURRENT OPINIONS. MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE DEFINES CREDIT RISK AS THE RISK THAT AN ENTITY MAY NOT MEET ITS CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS AS THEY COME DUE AND ANY ESTIMATED FINANCIAL LOSS IN THE EVENT OF DEFAULT OR IMPAIRMENT. SEE MOODY'S RATING SYMBOLS AND DEFINITIONS PUBLICATION FOR INFORMATION ON THE TYPES OF CONTRACTUAL FINANCIAL OBLIGATIONS ADDRESSED BY MOODY'S INVESTORS SERVICE CREDIT RATINGS. CREDIT RATINGS DO NOT ADDRESS ANY OTHER RISK, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO: LIQUIDITY RISK, MARKET VALUE RISK, OR PRICE VOLATILITY. CREDIT RATINGS, NON-CREDIT ASSESSMENTS ("ASSESSMENTS"), AND OTHER OPINIONS INCLUDED IN MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT STATEMENTS OF CURRENT OR HISTORICAL FACT. MOODY'S PUBLICATIONS MAY ALSO INCLUDE QUANTITATIVE MODEL-BASED ESTIMATES OF CREDIT RISK AND RELATED OPINIONS OR COMMENTARY PUBLISHED BY MOODY'S ANALYTICS, INC. AND/OR ITS AFFILIATES. MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE OR PROVIDE INVESTMENT OR FINANCIAL ADVICE, AND MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT AND DO NOT PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO PURCHASE, SELL, OR HOLD PARTICULAR SECURITIES. MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS DO NOT COMMENT ON THE SUITABILITY OF AN INVESTMENT FOR ANY PARTICULAR INVESTOR. MOODY'S ISSUES ITS CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS AND OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLISHES ITS PUBLICATIONS WITH THE EXPECTATION AND UNDERSTANDING THAT EACH INVESTOR WILL, WITH DUE CARE, MAKE ITS OWN STUDY AND EVALUATION OF EACH SECURITY THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR PURCHASE, HOLDING, OR SALE.
MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS,ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS, AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY RETAIL INVESTORS AND IT WOULD BE RECKLESS AND INAPPROPRIATE FOR RETAIL INVESTORS TO USE MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS, ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS OR PUBLICATIONS WHEN MAKING AN INVESTMENT DECISION. IF IN DOUBT YOU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR FINANCIAL OR OTHER PROFESSIONAL ADVISER.
ALL INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN IS PROTECTED BY LAW, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, COPYRIGHT LAW, AND NONE OF SUCH INFORMATION MAY BE COPIED OR OTHERWISE REPRODUCED, REPACKAGED, FURTHER TRANSMITTED, TRANSFERRED, DISSEMINATED, REDISTRIBUTED OR RESOLD, OR STORED FOR SUBSEQUENT USE FOR ANY SUCH PURPOSE, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN ANY FORM OR MANNER OR BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, BY ANY PERSON WITHOUT MOODY'S PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT.
MOODY'S CREDIT RATINGS,ASSESSMENTS, OTHER OPINIONS AND PUBLICATIONS ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE BY ANY PERSON AS A BENCHMARK AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED FOR REGULATORY PURPOSES AND MUST NOT BE USED IN ANY WAY THAT COULD RESULT IN THEM BEING CONSIDERED A BENCHMARK.
All information contained herein is obtained by MOODY'S from sources believed by it to be accurate and reliable. Because of the possibility of human or mechanical error as well as other factors, however, all information contained herein is provided "AS IS" without warranty of any kind. MOODY'S adopts all necessary measures so that the information it uses in assigning a credit rating is of sufficient quality and from sources MOODY'S considers to be reliable including, when appropriate, independent third-party sources. However, MOODY'S is not an auditor and cannot in every instance independently verify or validate information received in the rating process or in preparing its Publications.
To the extent permitted by law, MOODY'S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability to any person or entity for any indirect, special, consequential, or incidental losses or damages whatsoever arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information, even if MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers is advised in advance of the possibility of such losses or damages, including but not limited to: (a) any loss of present or prospective profits or (b) any loss or damage arising where the relevant financial instrument is not the subject of a particular credit rating assigned by MOODY'S.
To the extent permitted by law, MOODY'S and its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors and suppliers disclaim liability for any direct or compensatory losses or damages caused to any person or entity, including but not limited to by any negligence (but excluding fraud, willful misconduct or any other type of liability that, for the avoidance of doubt, by law cannot be excluded) on the part of, or any contingency within or beyond the control of, MOODY'S or any of its directors, officers, employees, agents, representatives, licensors or suppliers, arising from or in connection with the information contained herein or the use of or inability to use any such information.
NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO THE ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE OF ANY CREDIT RATING, ASSESSMENT, OTHER OPINION OR INFORMATION IS GIVEN OR MADE BY MOODY'S IN ANY FORM OR MANNER WHATSOEVER.
Moody's Investors Service, Inc., a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Corporation ("MCO"), hereby discloses that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by Moody's Investors Service, Inc. have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to Moody's Investors Service, Inc. for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from $1,000 to approximately $2,700,000. MCO and Moody's investors Service also maintain policies and procedures to address the independence of Moody's Investors Service credit ratings and credit rating processes. Information regarding certain affiliations that may exist between directors of MCO and rated entities, and between entities who hold credit ratings from Moody's Investors Service and have also publicly reported to the SEC an ownership interest in MCO of more than 5%, is posted annually at www.moodys.com under the heading "Investor Relations — Corporate Governance — Director and Shareholder Affiliation Policy."
Additional terms for Australia only: Any publication into Australia of this document is pursuant to the Australian Financial Services License of MOODY'S affiliate, Moody's Investors Service Pty Limited ABN 61 003 399 657AFSL 336969 and/or Moody's Analytics Australia Pty Ltd ABN 94 105 136 972 AFSL 383569 (as applicable). This document is intended to be provided only to "wholesale clients" within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. By continuing to access this document from within Australia, you represent to MOODY'S that you are, or are accessing the document as a representative of, a "wholesale client" and that neither you nor the entity you represent will directly or indirectly disseminate this document or its contents to "retail clients" within the meaning of section 761G of the Corporations Act 2001. MOODY'S credit rating is an opinion as to the creditworthiness of a debt obligation of the issuer, not on the equity securities of the issuer or any form of security that is available to retail investors.
Additional terms for Japan only: Moody's Japan K.K. ("MJKK") is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of Moody's Group Japan G.K., which is wholly-owned by Moody's Overseas Holdings Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of MCO. Moody's SF Japan K.K. ("MSFJ") is a wholly-owned credit rating agency subsidiary of MJKK. MSFJ is not a Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organization ("NRSRO"). Therefore, credit ratings assigned by MSFJ are Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings. Non-NRSRO Credit Ratings are assigned by an entity that is not a NRSRO and, consequently, the rated obligation will not qualify for certain types of treatment under U.S. laws. MJKK and MSFJ are credit rating agencies registered with the Japan Financial Services Agency and their registration numbers are FSA Commissioner (Ratings) No. 2 and 3 respectively.
MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) hereby disclose that most issuers of debt securities (including corporate and municipal bonds, debentures, notes and commercial paper) and preferred stock rated by MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) have, prior to assignment of any credit rating, agreed to pay to MJKK or MSFJ (as applicable) for credit ratings opinions and services rendered by it fees ranging from JPY125,000 to approximately JPY250,000,000.
MJKK and MSFJ also maintain policies and procedures to address Japanese regulatory requirements.
Artsakh denies announcement of Azerbaijani official about withdrawal of Armenian forces
19:29,
YEREVAN, DECEMBER 17, ARMENPRESS. The claims of the Azerbaijani side about the withdrawal of Armenian forces from Artsakh pursue the goal of distorting the November 9 trilateral declaration on ceasefire and are the continuation of the recent-days' provocations by the armed forces of that country aiming to thwart the efforts of the Russian peacekeepers, ARMENPRESS reports the Foreign Ministry of Artsakh announced, commenting on the remarks of an Azerbaijani foreign ministry official in an interview with Russian ''Kommersant'' saying that the Armenian forces must withdraw from Karabakh.
''At the same time, we note that the Defense Army of the Republic of Artsakh was, is and will be the key guarantor of the statehood of Artsakh and its people. After the establishment of a ceasefire mediated by Russia on November 10, the Artsakh Defense Army together with the Russian peacekeeping forces continues its mission to ensure stability and peace in the conflict zone’', reads the statement.
Repatriated POWs questioned by Armenian detectives probing Azeri war of aggression
16:51,
YEREVAN, DECEMBER 15, ARMENPRESS. The Committee of Investigations says its detectives have carried out ‘necessary investigative and other procedural actions’ with the participation of the 44 prisoners of war and captive civilians who were repatriated from Azerbaijan.
The Committee of Investigations said the actions were namely “questionings”, and that a number of examinations will take place. It added that its criminal investigation into the Azeri war of aggression, international terrorism, gross violation of international law norms and involvement of foreign mercenaries against Artsakh is still ongoing.
The prisoner swap between Armenia and Azerbaijan was carried out as part of the terms of the armistice which ended the war.
Editing and Translating by Stepan Kocharyan
Two men beheaded in videos from Nagorno-Karabakh war identified
The Guardian, UK
Dec 15 2020
Exclusive: Ethnic Armenian men refused to leave their villages before Azerbaijani forces arrived, locals say
Andrew Roth Moscow correspondent
Tue 15 Dec 2020 05.00 GMT
- Share on Facebook
- Share on Twitter
- Share via Email
Two elderly men who were beheaded by Azerbaijani forces in videos widely shared on messaging apps have been identified, confirming two of the bloodiest atrocities of the recent war in Nagorno-Karabakh.
The ethnic Armenian men were non-combatants, people in their respective villages said. Both were beheaded by men in the uniforms of the Azerbaijani armed forces. The short, gruesome videos of the killings are among the worst of a torrent of footage portraying abuse, torture and murder that has continued to emerge more than a month after a Russian-brokered ceasefire came into force.
The villagers’ testimony in interviews with the Guardian corroborates identifications by a human rights ombudsman for the Armenian-backed local government and two prominent Armenian human rights lawyers preparing a criminal case relating to the murders.
The Guardian also confirmed one of the victim’s identities with a relative, and reviewed a passport application photograph that strongly resembles the other victim.
Human rights groups detail 'war crimes' in Nagorno-Karabakh
In videos posted online on 22 November and 3 December, men in uniforms consistent with those of the Azerbaijani military hold down and decapitate a man using a knife. One then places the severed head on a dead animal. “This is how we get revenge – by cutting off heads,” a voice says off camera.
Two residents of the village of Madatashen, in Nagorno-Karabakh, identified the victim as Genadi Petrosyan, 69, who had moved to the village in the late 1980s from the city of Sumgait, in Azerbaijan.
Gayane Petrosyan (no relation), the head of the local school, lived directly across from Petrosyan’s modest, two-room house. She said his father had helped install the village’s electrical system, and he had shown her pictures of a son who had moved to Russia with his ex-wife.
She said of one of the videos: “I could clearly see his face and I could recognise that it was him.” The Guardian has also seen a photograph of Petrosyan that closely resembles the victim in the video.
Genadi Petrosyan, who lived alone, resisted leaving the village as Azerbaijani forces closed in. When a neighbour tried to drive him away, he got out of the car and walked home.
Eduard Hayrapetyan, the village head, said he had known Petrosyan for more than three decades and considered him a close friend of his family’s. He received his last call from Petrosyan on the morning of 28 October, to say he had seen enemy forces in the village. Then, after weeks of silence, the video emerged.
“I feel great sorrow that I took him away from the village and then he came back and this happened,” Hayrapetyan said. “I just can’t find my place.”
Artak Beglaryan, a human rights ombudsman for the local Armenian-backed government, said Petrosyan had been identified by combing 35 missing persons reports for the region and then contacting acquaintances, who confirmed his identity.
He called for greater efforts by the international community to investigate war crimes from the conflict. “Western countries have kept silent and they haven’t taken practical steps,” he said. “They have the duties and levers to speak about this … we don’t see any results, we don’t see any process from them.”
Siranush Sahakyan, a human rights lawyer, also confirmed Petrosyan’s identity and said she and a colleague, Artak Zeynalyan, had prepared a criminal investigation into the murder.
“Emotionally, it is hard to watch the videos. From a professional perspective, it can be very useful evidence,” Sahakyan said, cautioning that they had to carefully vet videos to make sure they were not faked.
Amnesty International has called on Armenia and Azerbaijan to investigate videos of the decapitations and desecrations of corpses. The organisation has used digital verification techniques to authenticate the footage reviewed in this article, as well as footage of the murder of an Azerbaijani border guard who had his throat cut. Other videos show soldiers desecrating the bodies of enemy fighters.
While both sides have been implicated, online channels are increasingly dominated by videos of Armenian soldiers and civilians being abused by advancing Azerbaijani troops.
New revelations of torture and abuse mean that for many the violence continues even long after the war was halted. “Armenians and Azerbaijanis are watching those videos day in and day out, and every day there is a new video which is sending a new wave of assault on the public and public sensibilities,” said Tanya Lokshina, a researcher for Human Rights Watch, which prepared a painstaking report on abuses against Armenian prisoners of war, released early this month. “That trauma also results in increased levels of hatred. Even now when the active stage of the fighting is over.”
Some of the most gruesome and widely watched videos have also been some of the most difficult to confirm. A video posted on a Telegram channel on 7 December showed two soldiers in uniforms consistent with the Azerbaijani military pinning down an elderly man near a tree. Another soldier passes a knife to one of the attackers, who begins slicing at the victim’s neck. The victim’s head begins to separate from the neck before the video ends.
Three residents of the village of Azokh identified the victim in this video as Yuri Asryan, a reclusive 82-year-old who had refused to leave the village on 20 October as Azerbaijani forces approached.
“He didn’t communicate with others very much. He just refused to leave,” said Georgi Avesyan, the longtime head of the village until 2019 and one of the people who identified Asryan. He said it was possible Asryan did not fully understand what was happening.
Azerbaijani forces entered the village days later and it has remained under Baku’s control under the ceasefire agreement signed on 9 November.
There was no news of Asryan’s fate until a 29-second video appeared last week on social networks, including Telegram channels that traffic in gory footage from the conflict.
Araik Azumanyan, the current head of the village, said: “I received calls from many people from the village, and even people who had moved from the village to Armenia many years ago saying it looked like [Asryan] in the video.”
A third villager who recognised Asryan said: “I felt terrible after watching it, my blood pressure was high, I couldn’t compose myself for a week after seeing that.”
Beglaryan, the human rights ombudsman, and Sahakyan, the human rights lawyer, also confirmed Asryan’s identity. His closest relative, an elderly sister who occasionally visited him, knows that Asryan has died but has not seen the video. Asryan’s niece also confirmed to the Guardian that it was him in the video.
Azerbaijan’s general prosecutor last month publicly launched an investigation into war crimes by both Baku and Yerevan. On Monday it made its first arrests, detaining two Azerbaijani soldiers for defiling the bodies of dead Armenian troops and two for destroying graves. It has not publicly opened any criminal cases into beheadings.
There are hundreds more videos of abuses online. Sahakyan said she and a colleague were pursuing 75 cases of captive Armenian soldiers and civilians in the European court of human rights, including 35 that included video evidence. On Monday evening, the two government conducted a mass prisoner exchange, media in both countries reported.
In one video, a villager named Kamo Manasyan is kicked and beaten as blood streams from his right eye. “How many more of you are here,” his interrogator yells in heavily accented Russian, aiming a rifle at Manasyan’s head. “Shoot me if you want,” Manasyan replies. The man hits him with the rifle instead.
“It was hard to watch this video with this cruelty,” said Gagik, his nephew, in a video call. “I think they just want to show their success in this war and to humiliate Armenians, to show that they won.”
Manasyan’s sister, Nora, cannot bear to watch the video. “I want the prisoners of war to come back as soon as possible,” she said, crying. “I want peace.”
Asked for comment on allegations of human rights abuses during the war, a spokesman for the Council of Europe’s Commissioner on Human Rights said: “At this stage we can only say that the Commissioner has received videos and other material alleging human rights violations. Before expressing herself publicly, she wants to carry out a mission in order to assess the situation in first person. She is planning a mission to the region soon.”
* Gohar Martirosyan contributed reporting and translating from Yerevan, Armenia
Wounded servicemen to receive rehabilitation treatment with state-of-the-art equipment
16:35,
YEREVAN, DECEMBER 14, ARMENPRESS. With the support of the Hayastan All-Armenian Fund, the Prosthetics and Rehabilitation Center of the Arabkir Medical Complex will be equipped with state-of-the-art equipment to help wounded servicemen recuperate and lead full lives, the Fund said in a statement.
“During a visit to the ArBeS healthcare center, Haykak Arshamyan, Executive Director of HAAF, and Ara Babloyan, Chairman of the Board of Directors of the Arabkir Medical Complex, saw the work of the current on site prosthetic workshop and noted that the planned upgraded equipment would significantly improve the rehabilitation and recovery of our servicemen wounded defending the Homeland.
The center now has an adult rehabilitation department in addition to the previous pediatric services.
To improve the amenities of the center, the medical complex began the construction of a new wing a few months ago, to be completed by spring.
The Hayastan All-Armenian Fund will provide modern rehabilitation devices and equipment for the new wing.
Since the first weeks of the war, the Fund has been working with a number of international organizations and charities specializing in the production of, prosthetics / orthotics for post-war rehabilitation and treatment as well as those providing psychological support and this will be the second such workshop in Yerevan.
Our highest priority is to ensure that all needs of our brave soldiers are met and they are able to lead full and content lives”, the statement says.