Nagorno-Karabakh security zone not enough for us against Azerbaijan’s ammunition – Armenian defense official

In an interview with Tert.am, Armenia’s first deputy minister of defense, David Tonoyan, shared his concerns over the situation on the Nagorno-Karabakh (Artsakh) frontline against the backdrop of the Azerbaijani authorities’ offensive rhetoric and armed forces’ attempts to escalate tension along the Line of Contact and the interstate border with Armenia.

Commenting on the incidents along the Armenian-Azerbaijani border and the Line of Contact, the spokesperson for the Ministry of Defense [shared a status on Facebook] earlier this year, saying, “We are in a state of a slow war” So is the slow war still going on or has anything changed?

What we need is to evaluate is the possible renewal of war from the standpoint of Azerbaijan. And that’s what they periodically speak of. What’s even more, they declare that officially and on the highest level.

What about their plans and the “duty of Azerbaijani soldiers” “to liberate lands” and “to kill the Armenians”? I quote this from a statement by their minister of defense. 

Yes, and that’s due to their disagreement with the outcomes of the process. They are attempting to recompense for their non-advantageous position in the negotiations with a tough position and repeated overt acts of provocation. What testifies to an escalation of the conflict is that they replaced the snipers used initially them with commandos. And now the trench mortar fire has added to that … And that’s what we see every day. We have called the mediators and allies’ attention to the fact. Meantime, they impose tougher anti-intelligence and administrative intelligence regimes in the transboundary zone where journalists’ access and the publication of news on the security situation is prohibited. That is, they are preparing for military operations in all respects. As to whether they will undertake large-scale operations or just pursue the tactics of gradually expanding the local ones, I find both options possible, so we are ready for both. What’s also important to note is that the Azerbaijani authorities have become the hostage of their own statements unlike Armenia. Neither the Armenian president nor the minister of defense uses that kind of rhetoric.

In that context I would like to raise one rhetorical question: who says that the security zone, established in 1994, is sufficiently secure to fulfill its role in light of Azerbaijan’s continuing ammunition? In our estimation, it is no longer enough against the backdrop of that armament. While Baku is hosting the Olympic Games, Armenia’s [armed] forces will demonstrate restraint until they are over … And that’s what they do today; it’s clearly visible as we never incite tension or escalate the situation.

When the border tension escalated in January, the state events marking the Genocide centenary were yet to come. The reason I emphasize it is because several analyst cited the 100th anniversary as the reason behind the activeness. 

The organization of the events marking the Genocide centenary was just a pretext behind the border escalation. I could also point to another scenario: they tried to exert pressure on us under the pretext of the European Games in Baku to prevent us from taking any action in that period.  Over the past fortnight or so, the situation can be evaluated as calm in terms of the intensiveness of the violations. That’s due to the international pressures against  Azerbaijan and the losses Azerbaijan suffered; though unexpected for them, they are an adequate reaction to the subversive operation they launched in an attempt to destabilize the situation. That’s probably why they use the period of the games  to reconsolidate their potentials and prepare for new provocations. Or rather, actions, as they not only provoke but also take specific actions towards escalating tension.

What actions? How do you term them?

Those actions are aimed at what their leadership calls the return of territories. For us, however, this is a fatherland; and so is it for the people of Artsakh.


Do you expect Azerbaijan to take more actions of the kind until the end of this year?

I consider it quite probable; after the games in Baku or perhaps, close to their end, Azerbaijan may intensify its actions. Let us bear in mind that the games are very important for the Azerbaijanis when it comes to image, as they will be a chance for them to show themselves off as a developed country organizing games on such a level and at the same time “playing the old tune” of the 20% [of “Azerbaijani lands”]. Unlike Azerbaijan, lands are not the problem for us, the Armenians. What we fight for is not for territory but rather, the protection of the right to live in our homeland through the creation and preservation of a statehood.

Each of their attacks is followed by statements that Azerbaijanis acted on Turkish instructions. I can say that Azerbaijan and Turkey have seriously intensified their military, military technical and politico-military cooperation in the last three or four years.

This is a serious military training program, which is being implemented in terms of military exercises and maneuvers, particularly in the direction of Nakhijevan. This is the highest-level of military cooperation. And these are not mere instructions. Rather, these are joint military exercises by armed forces, command post exercises (CPX) and commando unit trainings.

I would like to note that other nations participate in joint military exercises with Azerbaijan as well, in the Caspian Sea, for example. However, we are not so deeply concerned over it as those nations are seeking balanced relations with Azerbaijan and Armenia. As to Turkey, I can say that it is the only state in the region unilaterally acting with anti-Armenian ends in view. This is the cause of concern rather than military exercises as such. Armenia has its troops in four theaters. That is, Armenia can deploy its rapid reaction forces in Afghanistan, Kosovo, Lebanon and Tajikistan. We show high-level battle readiness, including that at the international level. And if Azerbaijani-Turkish cooperation is within the international military cooperation framework, then we are only concerned over the fact that this is the only regional state that has no diplomatic relations with Armenia. Therefore, this cooperation can be viewed as unilateral support to Azerbaijan. And any state selling arms to Azerbaijan or co-producing arms with that nation says it can sell the same arms to Armenia as well. Even such actions we do not view as unilateral support to Azerbaijan. Another question is our own decisions on purchasing or producing as much arms and ammunition as we need. We can decide on doing more in this field.

Armenia’s military doctrine indicates Azerbaijan and Turkey as major challenges to Armenia’s security. Given the latest developments in the region – Syria, Iraq and the so-called Islamic State – aren’t there more factors threatening Armenia’s security?

A strategic revision of defense is in progress now. The threat assessment was completed last year. Armenia’s military and political leaders revised all the present and potential threats. You can be sure that not only threats, but also all the regional and extraregional present and probable developments, have been assessed. They are viewed in terms of not only Armenia’s security, but also the Armenians’ security. Moreover, we considered possible threats to our allies as well – for example, threats to Russia or other allies. Methods of neutralizing them have been developed as well.

Although the Ministry of Defense has not a final document, it plans to submit a draft ruling out only sons being spent to the border. Are you for such a draft?

I think this draft will enable us to settle quite a serious problem. I mean Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh. The two Armenian states are implementing such defense organization tasks, which are most significant in terms of both economy and demography. As to who will or will not be drafted, I can say the following: countries that are not facing demographic problems follow the “family principle” in manning their armed forces. That is, one of several hundred young people is called up, considering social and health factors. That is, the states in question use 1/100 of their resources in manning their armed forces, whereas we have to use almost one hundred percent. It may sound paradoxical, but I think that in our situation we cannot afford manning our armed forces by drafting families’ only sons and sending them to the frontline. This is a serious moral issue because if they are killed, their family line will be cut off. Some people say it will cause a demographic problem because families will start having only one child. It is a matter of common sense, isn't it?