Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

[Haykakan]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

One of the reasons why we should grow our borders eastwards. Punishing both Turkey and their alllies, and Azeris for starting a new war. It will make them think a thousand times before starting one again.

I do not believe we have the manpower to go further east and to create and secure longer borders. We have a hard time populating the lands we already have. I think they are punishing themselves quite well with these commando raids as they seem to get slaughtered for the most part. I think defending the current border is strategically the best thing to do. If we were to attack we would suffer too many losses but defending we suffer only a few while they suffer many more. We have for the most part the better positions and the only land grabbing that would make sense would be if it would better our strategic position and decrease exposure of our troops to enemy fire.

[Chubs]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

VICE News (Basically, a semi independent, alternative News source that's extremely popular) puts Armenia-Azerbaijan clashes in NKR in their Beyond the headlines update. (VICE News tends to have a bit of an..Anti-Russian rhetoric..) They basically say that Armenia might annex NKR like Russia annexed Crimea...xD

[arakeretzig]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

I do not believe we have the manpower to go further east and to create and secure longer borders. We have a hard time populating the lands we already have. I think they are punishing themselves quite well with these commando raids as they seem to get slaughtered for the most part. I think defending the current border is strategically the best thing to do. If we were to attack we would suffer too many losses but defending we suffer only a few while they suffer many more. We have for the most part the better positions and the only land grabbing that would make sense would be if it would better our strategic position and decrease exposure of our troops to enemy fire.

That makes alot of sense, but think about it. As it is now Armenia is sandwitched by two countries that want to destroy it. What we need is strategic depth. This is a historical opportunity that comes only once in a long while. We don't need to populate these lands, we need them to create a buffer against azeris. Population will happen naturally, with time. Today they just need grads missles that can easily hit Stepanakert.

About manpower. We really don't need a huge army to take these lands. A whole bunch of grads will depopulate their cities for us. Look at ISIS for example, they only have about 7000 troops, and they have conquered large swathes of lands against an experienced syrian army and even the iraqi army with it's superiority in numbers and tech is having a hard time with them. Look at Mali, a few years ago, Al-qaida, no more than 3000 fighters, overran the mali army and the other factions, and took over huge territory. You just need to exact fear and destruction in your enemy.

In the last war, the bulk of their army was in retreat, and their moral so low, that the way to baku was wide open. They're still the same people who left aghdam in droves once they knew we're coming. When they lose their momentum, and the tide of war turns to us, a domino effect will be set in motion. The political fallout will be big, but, would you rather give them a good defeat, or have a war that destroys Artsakh every few decades until both Artsakh and Armenia becomes depopulated, because people will get sick of war, and start leaving in droves?
Not only that, Armenia would be come a regional power if it does this and our deterrence would be ten fold. Historical justice justifies it too. these lands were part of Utik. even before Byzantium empire was created.

About borders, we have borders with Azeris now and they're not secure. Far from it, they can easily get in and out during day and night time because it's impossible to monitor such a long border. So the situation wont be any worse or better, than it is now in the trenches along artsakh or, in tavush. If anything, our Tavush villages will be sleeping alot better once we create such a buffer.

We may win the next war, but the next next war, we will lose because our population is in decline. That's why we need strategic depth, to make their missles harder to hit us. Mutual destruction doesn't work with this enemy, because they'll stop at nothing to destroy us.

just my 2cents.

[Joseph]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

That makes alot of sense, but think about it. As it is now Armenia is sandwitched by two countries that want to destroy it. What we need is strategic depth. This is a historical opportunity that comes only once in a long while. We don't need to populate these lands, we need them to create a buffer against azeris. Population will happen naturally, with time. Today they just need grads missles that can easily hit Stepanakert.

About manpower. We really don't need a huge army to take these lands. A whole bunch of grads will depopulate their cities for us. Look at ISIS for example, they only have about 7000 troops, and they have conquered large swathes of lands against an experienced syrian army and even the iraqi army with it's superiority in numbers and tech is having a hard time with them. Look at Mali, a few years ago, Al-qaida, no more than 3000 fighters, overran the mali army and the other factions, and took over huge territory. You just need to exact fear and destruction in your enemy.

In the last war, the bulk of their army was in retreat, and their moral so low, that the way to baku was wide open. They're still the same people who left aghdam in droves once they knew we're coming. When they lose their momentum, and the tide of war turns to us, a domino effect will be set in motion. The political fallout will be big, but, would you rather give them a good defeat, or have a war that destroys Artsakh every few decades until both Artsakh and Armenia becomes depopulated, because people will get sick of war, and start leaving in droves?
Not only that, Armenia would be come a regional power if it does this and our deterrence would be ten fold. Historical justice justifies it too. these lands were part of Utik. even before Byzantium empire was created.

About borders, we have borders with Azeris now and they're not secure. Far from it, they can easily get in and out during day and night time because it's impossible to monitor such a long border. So the situation wont be any worse or better, than it is now in the trenches along artsakh or, in tavush. If anything, our Tavush villages will be sleeping alot better once we create such a buffer.

We may win the next war, but the next next war, we will lose because our population is in decline. That's why we need strategic depth, to make their missles harder to hit us. Mutual destruction doesn't work with this enemy, because they'll stop at nothing to destroy us.

just my 2cents.

I agree with Haykakan. The only thing Armenian forces should worry about is trying to improve upon their current positions and possibly take small positions when necessary with better vantage points (such as the recent move in Nakhichevan), which clearly needs to be done near Tavush (but could possibly escalate things)- at the same time. In the of full blown war, I don't think moving too far east in counterattack will be too advantageous…though moving Northwest, to say Kazakh would put the knife in Azerbaijan- you would effectively cut off the whole western border.

[ninetoyadome]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Explainer: The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict
August 6, 2014 - 12:10pm, by Carl Schreck and Luke Johnson Armenia Azerbaijan Nagorno Karabakh
A EurasiaNet Partner Post from: RFE/RL
Deadly skirmishes have erupted recently between Azerbaijani and Armenian forces over the breakaway region of Nagorno-Karabakh, with each side blaming the other for the escalation in violence. Here are answers to five central questions about the conflict.

Why Are They Fighting?

Azerbaijan and Armenia have been at loggerheads for decades over the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, a mountainous region inhabited almost entirely by ethnic Armenians but which is located within Azerbaijan’s internationally recognized borders.

The Soviet government designated the territory an autonomous region within Soviet Azerbaijan in the 1920s. Under Moscow’s iron rule, violence between the Armenians and Azerbaijanis that predated their incorporation into the Soviet Union was kept largely in check.

But as the Soviet Union began to wobble in the late 1980s, simmering tensions boiled over into a six-year war after Nagorno-Karabakh sought to formally join Armenia. The region’s self-styled government declared unilateral independence in 1991, and an estimated 30,000 people died in the conflict before Russia brokered a cease-fire in 1994.

The territory occupies some 4,400 square kilometers of land, and Armenian forces control buffer zones surrounding the breakaway region.

Nagorno-Karabakh has maintained de facto autonomy since the cease-fire, while Azerbaijan maintains its claim to the region.

Internationally mediated negotiations by the Minsk Group co-chaired by France, Russia, and the United States and organized under the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) have failed to yield a resolution to the so-called frozen conflict.

Cross-border violence has remained constant in the two decades since the 1994 cease-fire but has not escalated into a full-scale war.

Why Is The Violence Flaring Up Now?

Circumstances surrounding the recent surge in violence over Nagorno-Karabakh remain in dispute.

Azerbaijan says 13 of its soldiers have been killed in recent days in clashes with what it calls “Armenian sabotage groups,” while the self-proclaimed government in Nagorno-Karabakh says several of its soldiers have been killed while repelling attacks by Azerbaijani units.

Nagorno-Karabakh’s self-styled ministry of defense said in an August 2 statement that Azerbaijani forces had made moves on Armenian positions, which an RFE/RL correspondent in the area said on August 2 had indeed come under fire.

The claims and counterclaims typically have a cyclical quality to them, said Thomas de Waal, a South Caucasus expert and a senior associate in the Russia and Eurasia Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

“In general, these episodes have a logic where one side starts it, the other side decides to respond, and then after a few exchanges of incidents it’s very hard to know who is the aggressor and who is not, because both sides are really the aggressor, as it were,” he said.

Weather also seems to play a role, de Waal said, adding that the recent spike in casualties was preceded by other incidents over the previous months.

“That seems to be a pattern, that in the winter it’s much quieter when...everyone sort of just hunkers down in their trenches,” he said. “And in the spring and summer it gets worse."

What Are Each Side’s Claims?

Azerbaijan considers Nagorno-Karabakh an illegally occupied territory, noting that its self-declared government lacks international recognition.

Armenia, meanwhile, says that Nagorno-Karabakh has "no future as a part of Azerbaijan" and believes that the conflict must be resolved with the "recognition of the Nagorno-Karabakh people's right to self-determination."

That recognition would likely lead to independence or reunification with Armenia. The breakaway republic estimates that of its population of around 145,000, some 95 percent are ethnic Armenians.

What Are The Chances Of A Settlement?

The Minsk Group has called on the presidents of Azerbaijan and Armenia "to take immediate action to defuse tensions and respect the cease-fire agreement" and "resume as soon as possible negotiations on peaceful settlement of the conflict."

The two presidents met in November, but prospects for a resolution to the conflict are not promising, de Waal told RFE/RL.

"There is a document on the table," he said. "But there seems to be completely zero trust in each other and in the process at the moment. So there is sort of a shadow of a peace process, but it doesn’t have much content at the moment."

Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on August 4 that Russian President Vladimir Putin would hold talks with Armenian President Serzh Sarkisian and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in Sochi, Russia at the end of this week. He added that Putin would first speak to the leaders separately before trying to convene trilateral talks.

Novruz Mammadov, deputy head of Aliyev’s administration, however, said in an interview with Azerbaijan's ANS television channel on August 4 that there had been no decision on whether the Azerbaijani leader would travel to Sochi.

What Are The Chances of War?

Armenian Defense Minister Seiran Ohanian said on August 4 that despite the recent spate of violence, Yerevan does not believe the conflict will escalate into outright war.

"The situation at the front line remains tense.... But analyses of the recent days [show] that in a global context there are no grounds today for a large-scale war," Ohanian told journalists, according to Reuters.

De Waal echoed that opinion, saying that Azerbaijan is unlikely to launch a large-scale offensive. Baku “is not in a condition militarily” to undertake such a move and is also likely keeping an eye on Moscow’s role in the conflict, he added.

“It’s one thing to kind of have pinpricks," de Waal said. "And a little bit of instability suits them. But a major military offensive could blow back in their faces, particularly if the Armenian-Russian relations are a bit stronger, as it is at the moment."

The danger of a further escalation, however, remains and threatens a potential increase in casualties on the frontlines, up from the “two or three a month [that] we’ve been seeing over the last few years,” de Waal said.

“We’d suddenly see 20 a month. And that would be bad enough.”

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/69406

[ninetoyadome]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Karabakh Reloaded: A Chance for Putin to Make a Play?
August 6, 2014 - 12:07pm, by Giorgi Lomsadze Tamada Tales Armenia Foreign Policy Azerbaijan Nagorno Karabakh Russia Foreign Policy
The renewed ruckus between Armenia and Azerbaijan has prompted calls for rehashing the international approach to finding a peaceful resolution to the 26-year-long Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. But, so far, it appears to be only Russian President Vladimir Putin who's planning to meet with the two countries' leaders.

The reasons for reviving the half-dormant ex-Soviet conflict remain moot. For years now, gusts of fighting have occasionally disrupted the 1994 ceasefire agreement, which ended a full-blown war over breakaway Karabakh. To quote Armenian Defense Minister Seyran Ohanian, Karabakh ever since has been a place of “no war, no peace.”

But with a record number dead in recent weeks, a real threat of another ex-Soviet war is in the air.

With reports of casualties coming in daily, Azerbaijani military officials have claimed that volunteers have been stepping forward to help national forces with the “liberation of the occupied lands.”

In Armenia, Defense Minister Ohanian said on August 5 that, so far, there is no need for mobilization or the deployment of an international peacekeeping force. “Karabakh is the only conflict zone in the world where relative peace is maintained through a balance between Armenian and Azerbaijani forces,” Ohanian declared at an August-6 press-conference.

But this standoff may snap. Some believe that the separatist war in Ukraine could have inspired the fighting in the Caucasus, as the Karabakh sides come to think that escalation is the way to grab international attention for their respective agendas. Calls for international sanctions against Yerevan already have come from Baku, which has long being frustrated with the status quo.

“As the losing side in the conflict, the Azerbaijanis make it their business to challenge the status quo, make the other side nervous and remind the world of the conflict,” wrote Thomas de Waal, senior associate fellow with Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in an August-5 commentary. Armenia could also be at fault, but once the fighting kicks off, “the issue of ‘who started it,’ rapidly becomes irrelevant,” de Waal said.

The question is what the world is prepared to do to pull the fighters apart. Russia, France and the US have been mediating the conflict through the Minsk Group, run by the Vienna-based Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), but this effort is seen by many, especially in Azerbaijan, as futile.

Seeing little prospect of Armenia surrendering Karabakh or nearby lands back to Azerbaijan, Baku often has criticized the trio for a lack of results. Azerbaijan officials recently scoffed that the US representative in the group, James Warlick, is doing little more than providing Twitter updates on Karabakh.

Largely as a note to his own organization, Joao Soares, the special representative for the Caucasus for the Parliamentary Assembly of the OSCE, on August 5 stated that “the international community, and the OSCE, must take a fresh look at efforts to resolve the conflict and consider new ideas and mechanisms.”

But, so far, it is seems to be left to Russia, which brokered the 1994 ceasefire, to make some form of attempt at getting the two sides talking. President Putin will host Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev in Sochi on August 8-9.

But Russia’s interests in this have been called into question. Moscow is often accused of exploiting the Karabakh conflict to lure Armenia and Azerbaijan both into its pet project, the Eurasian Economic Union, a planned neo-Soviet adaptation of the European Union.

“If you put the facts together, you could infer that these incidents are directly linked to the arrangement of this meeting,” Andranik Kocharian, an Armenian ex-deputy defines minister, told RFE/RL. Russia grabbed the peace button to use it to strengthen its geopolitical foothold in the South Caucasus, just as the war in Ukraine weakens its positions elsewhere in the ex-Soviet world, he argued.

Meanwhile, as Putin prepares to sit down with Sargsyan and Aliyev, the West, already distracted by bloody, chaotic conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan, looks more inclined to stick to long-distance calls for restraint.

http://www.eurasianet.org/node/69396

[burjuin]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Units of the 2nd Army Corps on the Eastern borders of Armenia

[burjuin]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

Ադրբեջանական հենակետեր, որոնց հայկական կողմը լռեցնում է

[Hakob]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

That makes alot of sense, but think about it. As it is now Armenia is sandwiched by two countries that want to destroy it. What we need is strategic depth. This is a historical opportunity that comes only once in a long while. We don't need to populate these lands, we need them to create a buffer against azeris. Population will happen naturally, with time. Today they just need grads missles that can easily hit Stepanakert.

About manpower. We really don't need a huge army to take these lands. A whole bunch of grads will depopulate their cities for us. Look at ISIS for example, they only have about 7000 troops, and they have conquered large swathes of lands against an experienced syrian army and even the iraqi army with it's superiority in numbers and tech is having a hard time with them. Look at Mali, a few years ago, Al-qaida, no more than 3000 fighters, overran the mali army and the other factions, and took over huge territory. You just need to exact fear and destruction in your enemy.

In the last war, the bulk of their army was in retreat, and their moral so low, that the way to baku was wide open. They're still the same people who left aghdam in droves once they knew we're coming. When they lose their momentum, and the tide of war turns to us, a domino effect will be set in motion. The political fallout will be big, but, would you rather give them a good defeat, or have a war that destroys Artsakh every few decades until both Artsakh and Armenia becomes depopulated, because people will get sick of war, and start leaving in droves?
Not only that, Armenia would be come a regional power if it does this and our deterrence would be ten fold. Historical justice justifies it too. these lands were part of Utik. even before Byzantium empire was created.

About borders, we have borders with Azeris now and they're not secure. Far from it, they can easily get in and out during day and night time because it's impossible to monitor such a long border. So the situation wont be any worse or better, than it is now in the trenches along artsakh or, in tavush. If anything, our Tavush villages will be sleeping alot better once we create such a buffer.

We may win the next war, but the next next war, we will lose because our population is in decline. That's why we need strategic depth, to make their missles harder to hit us. Mutual destruction doesn't work with this enemy, because they'll stop at nothing to destroy us.

just my 2cents.

Arakeretzig is bringing some very important points here with which I fully agree. First of all about manpower to protect the gained territory. In case of war if we advance from Tavush region to North-Northeast and take Ganzak and go as far as mingechaur reservoir, we will have a very short line between Georgian border to Mardakert. In fact, about more than 3 times shorter than current Armenia-Azerbaijan border in our north east. So we actually will save in manpower necessary to hold the line. We will also be separated with azeris by the reservoir which is few kilometers in width and will present an impenetrable barrier. We will also free our Tavush region from daily Azeri shootings.
Sounds Crazy?
But wars have their own characters and they dictate the actions taken. Nobody calls the winners fools. Not taking advantage of opportunities presented is crazier and a luck of foresight. If Azerbaijan opens up a war in a scale they are promising and we crash their forces, it is very possible. We can hold those territories until a final agreement of piece is reached of maybe forever. LOL
There is another point that Arakeretzik is bringing, which is worth looking into. The example of ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Azerbaijanis are muslims just like the population in those areas and suffer from same lack of organization and weak individual resolve.
What ISIS is doing is very much like mongols or arab conquerors centuries ago. A small but a very mobile force that is hard to corner into facing any prepared conventional military confrontation in one place, is roaming fast and in any given point it shows up it has advantage of surprise, manpower and arms for a short time. By the time any resistance is prepared by defenders, it crashes the given area with brutality and moves on creating an atmosphere where defenders simply drop their arms and run.
It will not be hard to break behind the enemy line in war. The key is mobility. A unit of just a couple of thousand in transporters moving fast and destroying anything that comes up in front of them. Just like a pack of wolves in a large heard of ship. In a few days the Panic spread by rumors and witnessing of damages will make all of eastern Azerbaijan refugees trying to flee as fast as they can. That in turn will bring the armed forces into dropping their weapons and running too. The effect of fear factor is such in Azeris that we can count on it. Our soldiers, unlike azeris, have shown their ability in fighting independently and without fear.
The area is so small that our anti aircraft defense can protect them from the near distance. Plus Ukraine war shows the ineffectiveness of air force against guerillas who have shoulder fired rockets.
We do not have to worry about world opinion too. I can bet that it won't be any worse to us than it is now. We do not have anything to loose but a lot to gain.

[Artashes]

Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan

I some missed Arakeretzig's post about taking land eastward and not needing massive army and the benefits thereof.
I fully agree like Hakob said. Most appropriate if they launch yet another war against the rightful owners of the land.