Tweet
Re: Nagorno-Karabagh: Military Balance Between Armenia & Azerbaijan
There is a lot of talks within the civil society and the intelligentsia now, and for the first time so loudly and openly, about a change of tactics from our side.
Some ideas are not very serious, but most want a clear cut retaliation disproportionality officialised.
Most ask for at least 1/10.
I still think the question is ill presented.
1- The risk of 'accidental war' is simply nil. Not 1%, or less than 1%, but simply nil.
Given the sophistications, objective and subjective constraints on the ground, the essence of power, the fact that the clan in power in Baku is perfectly aware of the outcome of a new war, only 2 deciders can decide the launch of a war from the azeri side:
- Son Aliyev in person, and only him.
- Turkey (here possible decision centers might be more than one: AKP/MIT/Army...): if really Turkey wanted a war, it could impose it, regardless the objections of Ilham).
But as a matter of fact, Turkey is not in a position to do this kind of gamble right now, given its recent honeymoon with the US, and its vulnerabilities on virtually all sides, thank to US/EU led containment policy.
Simply speaking, Turkey has too much in stake elsewhere, to even think seriously of Armenia.
Remains Ilham: he is certainly not a master class player like his father, nevertheless there is no evidence to assume he is so stupid, to not understand where his basic interests are. You do not need to be Einstein to understand it.
So, as long as his clan's power pyramid is in place, he has no reason to change attitude.
We must be much more worried, if there was shaking of his power by mass protests, arab spring or color revolution style.
But given immediate futur priorities, no one has interest in it.
CONCLUSION: There will not be war, because an accidental war is impossible, and Ilham nor Turkey need a war now.
2- The military escalations, and loss of life on our side, is only happening, because Ilham has the conviction of immunity.
That is, he is 100 % sure, that we, on our turn, will not launch a war, since this is an outcome he wants to avoid at any cost.
If we could convince him, or his sponsors, that we, from our side can end up launching a preemptive attack, he would certainly stop his actual tactics.
But on this point, I must admit, his presumptions are quite founded.
Our leadership, purely interested in keeping its grip on power, is not interested in a war neither.
They could do it, only in case of immediate war threat.
Since that threat in its turn depends from Ilham.....
CONCLUSION: Ilham acts like a jerk, because he is certain his action, no matter how bloody, will not end up by a war.
3- Now, if we want to halt the useless bloodshed of our young boys, and since conceivably we are not willing to use the threat of preemptive big war ( no matter here if this is wise or not), we need to find an other way to make him think twice, and eventually spare most young lives lost every year.
Till now, our army's strategy was :
- make sure we have the edge technologically and operatively.
- make sure they (and their sponsors) know we will win the war, if they dare to launch it.
- punish every loss of life by relative disproportional retaliation tactics.
I must say, this tactic worked rather fine, for a very long time. Specially during old Aliyev's days.
The problem is, things had changed.
The oil revenues exploded, and to justify a much bigger plunder than ever before, Ilham feels he must 'deliver' much more than before. (once more, no matter here, if he is right or wrong)
Feeling immunity, he has opted for this criminal tactic....
Now, by declaring our will to retaliate or actually retaliating disproportionally, we can not have results, since he has no consideration whatsoever about the life of ordinary conscripts. Most are poor family, minority childs...we see rarely people from central Baku among the eliminated guys.
We may as well eliminate 1/25, it may not change much.
It will be much better, but will not change the basics of the problem.
The only retaliation effective must be so much disproportional, that its very huge cost, may create risk of shaking his power.
This is something not easy to achieve, by our actual tactics.
(For the 4 lives lost, we must have retaliated by something like 400...)
So we must rethink all together the rules of the game, and accept the glove he is throwing on our face.
If he can afford this tactics, rightfully assuming the risk of 'accidental war' is nil, then we may do just the same calculus.
Wich means: we may certainly afford using not only equivalent (small calibers, at best mortars/RPG) use, but disproportional use of armements, without risking an incontrolable escalation of events to a full war, provided we declare our intentions clearly and firmly, and stick to them.
- You kill a soldier by a sniper bullet, or even attempt to kill one, the nearest blindage and the trenches around will be smashed by heavy artillery fire in the coming hours. If they chose to follow, we will push one step more, ad every level, until the moment they will stop from escalating, since they do not want the war...
- You sent a dyversia group, immediately a heavy artillery barrage of several hundred rockets will retaliate on the launching pad of the assailants (thus making sure most of the very attackers, their 'best troops' will get decimated, and not only 'innocent' conscripts on other sections), and even nearest civil targets, like a town or village...., even if they follow, at some point, they will be forced to desescalate...
-Or, if we want to avert civil losses, then, hit a big civil economical target, a pumping station, a tube, etc...
At some moment they will have to stop following the escalation...
We just have to convince ourselves, that this will not lead to total war, since they do not need nor want it.
There is a lot of talks within the civil society and the intelligentsia now, and for the first time so loudly and openly, about a change of tactics from our side.
Some ideas are not very serious, but most want a clear cut retaliation disproportionality officialised.
Most ask for at least 1/10.
I still think the question is ill presented.
1- The risk of 'accidental war' is simply nil. Not 1%, or less than 1%, but simply nil.
Given the sophistications, objective and subjective constraints on the ground, the essence of power, the fact that the clan in power in Baku is perfectly aware of the outcome of a new war, only 2 deciders can decide the launch of a war from the azeri side:
- Son Aliyev in person, and only him.
- Turkey (here possible decision centers might be more than one: AKP/MIT/Army...): if really Turkey wanted a war, it could impose it, regardless the objections of Ilham).
But as a matter of fact, Turkey is not in a position to do this kind of gamble right now, given its recent honeymoon with the US, and its vulnerabilities on virtually all sides, thank to US/EU led containment policy.
Simply speaking, Turkey has too much in stake elsewhere, to even think seriously of Armenia.
Remains Ilham: he is certainly not a master class player like his father, nevertheless there is no evidence to assume he is so stupid, to not understand where his basic interests are. You do not need to be Einstein to understand it.
So, as long as his clan's power pyramid is in place, he has no reason to change attitude.
We must be much more worried, if there was shaking of his power by mass protests, arab spring or color revolution style.
But given immediate futur priorities, no one has interest in it.
CONCLUSION: There will not be war, because an accidental war is impossible, and Ilham nor Turkey need a war now.
2- The military escalations, and loss of life on our side, is only happening, because Ilham has the conviction of immunity.
That is, he is 100 % sure, that we, on our turn, will not launch a war, since this is an outcome he wants to avoid at any cost.
If we could convince him, or his sponsors, that we, from our side can end up launching a preemptive attack, he would certainly stop his actual tactics.
But on this point, I must admit, his presumptions are quite founded.
Our leadership, purely interested in keeping its grip on power, is not interested in a war neither.
They could do it, only in case of immediate war threat.
Since that threat in its turn depends from Ilham.....
CONCLUSION: Ilham acts like a jerk, because he is certain his action, no matter how bloody, will not end up by a war.
3- Now, if we want to halt the useless bloodshed of our young boys, and since conceivably we are not willing to use the threat of preemptive big war ( no matter here if this is wise or not), we need to find an other way to make him think twice, and eventually spare most young lives lost every year.
Till now, our army's strategy was :
- make sure we have the edge technologically and operatively.
- make sure they (and their sponsors) know we will win the war, if they dare to launch it.
- punish every loss of life by relative disproportional retaliation tactics.
I must say, this tactic worked rather fine, for a very long time. Specially during old Aliyev's days.
The problem is, things had changed.
The oil revenues exploded, and to justify a much bigger plunder than ever before, Ilham feels he must 'deliver' much more than before. (once more, no matter here, if he is right or wrong)
Feeling immunity, he has opted for this criminal tactic....
Now, by declaring our will to retaliate or actually retaliating disproportionally, we can not have results, since he has no consideration whatsoever about the life of ordinary conscripts. Most are poor family, minority childs...we see rarely people from central Baku among the eliminated guys.
We may as well eliminate 1/25, it may not change much.
It will be much better, but will not change the basics of the problem.
The only retaliation effective must be so much disproportional, that its very huge cost, may create risk of shaking his power.
This is something not easy to achieve, by our actual tactics.
(For the 4 lives lost, we must have retaliated by something like 400...)
So we must rethink all together the rules of the game, and accept the glove he is throwing on our face.
If he can afford this tactics, rightfully assuming the risk of 'accidental war' is nil, then we may do just the same calculus.
Wich means: we may certainly afford using not only equivalent (small calibers, at best mortars/RPG) use, but disproportional use of armements, without risking an incontrolable escalation of events to a full war, provided we declare our intentions clearly and firmly, and stick to them.
- You kill a soldier by a sniper bullet, or even attempt to kill one, the nearest blindage and the trenches around will be smashed by heavy artillery fire in the coming hours. If they chose to follow, we will push one step more, ad every level, until the moment they will stop from escalating, since they do not want the war...
- You sent a dyversia group, immediately a heavy artillery barrage of several hundred rockets will retaliate on the launching pad of the assailants (thus making sure most of the very attackers, their 'best troops' will get decimated, and not only 'innocent' conscripts on other sections), and even nearest civil targets, like a town or village...., even if they follow, at some point, they will be forced to desescalate...
-Or, if we want to avert civil losses, then, hit a big civil economical target, a pumping station, a tube, etc...
At some moment they will have to stop following the escalation...
We just have to convince ourselves, that this will not lead to total war, since they do not need nor want it.
Comment