BAKU, Azerbaijan (A.W.)—Russian President Vladimir Putin arrived in Baku on Aug. 8 to take part in the first trilateral meeting between the presidents of Azerbaijan, Iran, and Russia.
On the same day, Putin and Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev held a joint press conference as well as a bilateral meeting, during which Aliyev mentioned Russia’s role in the settlement of what he called the “Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict in Nagorno-Karabagh.” “We value this role, and your personal involvement plays a very important part in the settlement process,” he said, adding “We had a meeting in St. Petersburg in June devoted specifically to this issue, and I thank you for your active participation in this process.”
“[Nagorno-Karabagh] is indeed one of the problems that we have inherited from the Soviet past,” said Putin during the press conference, calling the conflict “a sensitive issue” for both Azerbaijan and Armenia. “We have but one sole aim–for Armenia and Azerbaijan to find a solution that would be a mutually acceptable compromise for both sides; for there to be no victors in this conflict—no victors other than the peoples of both countries; and for both countries to know that they have resolved this complicated task in the interests of current and future generations,” Putin said.
On Aug. 10, Armenian President Serge Sarkisian will conduct a work visit to Russia to meet with Putin.
According to Sarkisian’s office, the two will discuss “pivotal items on the cooperation agenda of the two strategic partners, such as political, trade, economic, and humanitarian, as well as issues related to the development of integration processes in the Eurasian area.”
“[Nagorno-Karabagh] is indeed one of the problems that we have inherited from the Soviet past,” said Putin during the press conference, calling the conflict “a sensitive issue” for both Azerbaijan and Armenia.Yes-but why Mr. Puting you did not include also Nakhijevan, Western Armenian territories issues which were inherited from the Soviet past, too. Isn’t too much Mr. president? And now you’re talking about compromise from both sides. Armenia already compromised too much by the Russian help, how much we can give up just to see Russian Military base in Armenia, isn’t too much Mr. president?……………..
Russia inherited a lot of sensitive issues, but Russia did not inherit the Artsakh-Azerbaijan confrontation.
Artsakh won the war.
What Russia did – Russia convoluted the peace agreement into ceasefire agreement. This is the Russia’s role. In order to manipulate the “issue” later.
Putin stated most recently that gold and oil of Azerbaijan change the formulas and overweight people’s basic right on self-determination. He should not be used for references.
As a possible help: Putin needs to be stopped and corrected when he does “wrong” statements. Very politely, of course. Exactly with the same tone he uses to tell things.
I think Mr. Manasarian’s comments are spot on.
With what Armenia/Armenians lost in the past, due to Russian “assistance”, it is better if he now begins to right the past wrongs.
However, I believe that he is out to court Azerbaijan at the detriment of Armenia and do not trust what is about to transpire.
Armenians in the Diaspora have absolutely NOT RIGHT to demand ANYTHING It is Armenians of Artsakh and to a lesser extent Armenians of Armenia that have the right to make a decision about land concessions. In the end, I believe Artsakhtsis have the foresight to agree to land concessions IF doing so will lead to genuine peace between the two nations. Armenia’s/Artsakh’s red line have to be Artsakh proper and the region between Armenia and Artsakh. The “five territories” can be returned if Baku recognizes Artsakh’s independence. Another 25 years of the geopolitical climate we have had during the previous 25 years will sink Armenia hopelessly deeper into a third world existence. The south Caucasus region desperately needs peace and stability for it to develop economically. If the powers that be (primarily Russia) can guarantee that land concessions will bring lasting peace, then so be it.
Artsakhtsis will hardly ever agree to land concessions even if doing so will lead to peace with the Azeris. Because Artsakhtsis know—more than anyone else—that the very notion of “genuine peace” with TurkoAzeris is a pipe dream no matter what.
Even if Baku recognizes Artsakh’s independence, the five regions cannot be returned. Because if these zones are returned, Artsakh proper and the region connecting Armenia and Artsakh will become extremely vulnerable, insecure, and practically indefensible.
No foreign powers, even Russia, can guarantee that land concessions will bring lasting peace. Because no peacekeeping forces have ever been able to guarantee peace, anywhere they were/are stationed.
Reports on Sargsyan’s meeting with Putin on August 10th indicate that hardly was he pressured to agree to land concessions by the Russian president.
The South Caucasus region can develop economically in a variety of formats. Putin-Rouhani-Aliyev meeting testifies to the fact that trilateral or even quadripartite formats can be found and successfully implemented.
{Armenians in the Diaspora have absolutely NOT RIGHT to demand ANYTHING It is Armenians of Artsakh and to a lesser extent Armenians of Armenia that have the right to make a decision about land concessions.}
Agree: unless a diaspora Armenian is at the LOC or has a son at LOC, he or she has no right to demand anything from the parents of 18-20 year olds in RoA or NKR who are at the LOC.
{I believe Artsakhtsis have the foresight to agree to land concessions IF doing so will lead to genuine peace between the two nations.}
Don’t be naive: Turks (Caspian and Osmanli) want the remaining Armenians in their ancestral homeland to be gone. You can possibly believe Turks want “genuine peace”.
{If the powers that be (primarily Russia) can guarantee that land concessions will bring lasting peace, then so be it.}
No country, including Russia, can guarantee anything. The closest Armenia and NKR have to a guarantee, is defensible, strategic land depth. If NKR is forced by Russia to give up any lands, it will be the end of NKR, and in time the end of Russian presence in Caucasus, and in a long time after that the end of Russian presence in the Volga region, which Russia’s new Turk buddies consider “Turkish lands”.
If Turkey leaves NATO, which is becoming a near certainty, and if Russia pressures NKR to curry favour with the perfidious Turk, then in desperation Armenia might do things that she might not do under normal circumstances. Then so be it. When Turkey leaves the Western orbit, it will become a target for destruction by the West. If Russia wants to play footsie with Turks at the expense of RoA and NKR, well then……..
CORRECTION: You _can’t_ possibly believe…
I really wonder whether the Armenian Homeland even appreciates the worldwide Armenian Diaspora. To state political, historical, geographic or strategic viewpoints doesn’t necessarily imply that those ideas express demands.
The Karabakh territories that surround Nagorno-Karabakh shouldn’t be sacrificed for a peace agreement for a number of reasons:
(1) They have strategic value, which guarantees security for the Armenian residents of Karabakh.
(2) There was great sacrifice of brave Armenians to acquire those lands.
(3) That area is historically part of the Armenian Highlands.
(4) Armenians have a case for territorial integrity, as well as self determination.
(5) Azerbaijan has an untrustworthy legacy of pogroms, massacres and genocide.
(6) The destruction of Armenian churches and cemeteries is unacceptable.
(7) Azerbaijan infused Turkic people into Armenian populated areas to cleanse them.
First of all, it is wrong to speak of Armenians by dividing them into three groups, Armenia-Artsakh-Diaspora, because by doing so we are playing into the hands of the enemy. If Artsakh was joined to Armenia two decades ago I don’t think we would be dealing with these problems today. We brought the enemy to her knees but we left our work unfinished.
Also, do you remember when the Turkish terrorist-in-chief Erdogan did exactly that by classifying the Armenians in three groups: 1. Turkish Armenians, 2. Armenians from Armenia and 3. Diaspora AND rated them as good, indifferent and bad meaning those Armenians who live under his control are good, those who live in what’s left of the homeland don’t care about the Turks one way or the other AND those whose families were murdered as part of the premeditated and state-sponsored genocide are the “no good” Armenians.
I understand that those with closest proximity to the conflict zone have more to say about what should happen in terms of conflict resolution but we must show a united front because weather we like it or not all three groups play important roles in this.
Armenians must realize, if they have not already, that neither the artificial gas-station of Azerbaijan can be trusted nor her genocidal partner-in-crime the illegally-established fascist state of Turkey. Also, the Russians should be handled very carefully because, even though they are our ally, they are primarily concerned about their own interests in the region. We must make them realize that they need us as much as we need them because without Armenia Russia will disappear not from the South Caucasus alone but from the entire Caucasus region simply due to the fact that the only friend Russia has in that entire region is Armenia.
Lastly, the more you give to these hungry wolves the more they will want and demand. Just take a look at one of the Azerbaijani maps from 1920s, an unofficial map according to the world map, and you will see with your own eyes that their ultimate intention is the destruction of Armenia by establishing a border with Turkey.
We must never make any concessions and instead we must acquire nuclear weapons and point them towards Baku and Ankara and get on with our lives.
Disagree again with Harutik’s post as usual lately, almost word for word. Artsakhtsis are living on their land and fought for it and only they can decide. Fair enough. But… first you claim only Artsakhtsis have the right to make decisions, then promptly proceed to make decisions for them on behalf of who? Mother Russia? So which is it?
And giving away Armenian lands to Central Asiatic squatters is not called ‘foresight’ – ‘shortsight’ is a more correct description for it. And what if Artsakhtsis have the actual foresight not to believe in the fantasy that there can be such a thing as “peace” with Squatterbaijanis, then what? Armenia is not in the position of Russia where they can extend “trust” to a primitive nation along with the threat of retaliation if they abuse that trust, such a move on Armenia’s part can prove fatal and irreversible. Try Armenian Patriotism for a change instead of Russian Patriotism. We are Armenians, not Russians.
Fortunately for all of us, the division with the diaspora, Armenia and Artsakh is a lot less than you are trying to suggest, and where land concessions are concerned, there is absolutely no division.
Good posts by all others here, John, Avery, Laurence and Ararat. Glad to see all the real patriots giving their views. And Ararat’s sentence about Russia…
“the Russians should be handled very carefully because, even though they are our ally, they are primarily concerned about their own interests in the region. We must make them realize that they need us as much as we need them”…
Is exactly what I believe too.
Right Hagop:
We have had this discussion with [Harutik] many times before.
The same sentiment is also expressed in my favourite Russophile blog, that [Harutik] is no doubt familiar with.
I read the blog regularly. Whoever runs it does a lot of hard work and background research: good blog, although I disagree with many things the author writes.
Interesting factoid: when Gyumri murders took place, and the SorosaMobs were raining rocks on the policemen, the blog ran an article about Gyumri situation. The guy that runs it wrote something interesting at the time: he wrote “Russia takes Armenia for granted”.
Highly unusual, because author routinely deifies Russia/Russians and denigrates Armenia/Armenians. That sentence was later removed by the blog. Yes: Russia _does_ take Armenia for granted.
That’s how it is, that’s how it is: we have to live with it for the time being and make the best of the situation we are in.
But, as I wrote at another time, one can’t be an Armenian and be Ռուսամոլ.
I am Ռուսամետ: I am not Ռուսամոլ.
I am Հայամոլ: can’t be Armenian and be anything else.
All of us, Russophiles, Westophiles, Baloneyphiles, etc need to remain united for the sake of Artsakh and Armenia. Nothing else matters.
Our Russo-centric compatriots need to stop ragging on their own and help any way they can.
Russia is the largest country in the world. It is about twice the size of US. Yet Russia will not give back a couple of spits of land (Kuril Islands) that do not historically belong to Russia, but which USSR won in WW2. Why?
Russia took back Crimea. Arguably, Crimea, although very important for Russia, is not existential for Russia.: Russia _can_ exist without Crimea.
How come Russia risked sanctions by the West to retain Crimea?
Artsakh is existential to Armenians. The NKAO footprint is indefensible.
The LoC will become twice as long without the liberated lands. As it is, NKR and ROA don’t have enough troops to adequately cover the existing LoC: how are RoA and NKR going to guard a LoC that is twice as long?
It will be the end of NKR, and some years later the end of RoA.
Exactly same words “Armenians in the Diaspora have absolutely NOT RIGHT to demand ANYTHING” but without capitals belong to Azeri-Turk leadership.
Right at this moment everywhere in the world where money can reach strange grey people whisper these very words.
I do not ask you if you are an Armenian. Notice, I don’t!
Without Russian support not only Artsakh but all of Armenia will eventually fall to Turks and Islamists. Armenia/Artsakh exist in the south Caucasus because of the Russian factor in the region. Almost exactly one hundred years ago our “nationalists” not only lost all of Western Armenia but also parts of Eastern Armenia because they were stubborn, Russophobic, shortsighted and maximalistic in their demands and also because they trusted Western powers. We can’t afford repeating the same mistake.
It may be said that Armenian nationalists were shortsighted and maximalistic in the sense that their struggle for independence made no reckoning of the isolated geographical location of Ottoman Armenian provinces, unlike the advantageous location of the Balkan nations. They overly relied on Western powers, true. They also chose to cooperate with the Young Turks even after the 1909 Massacre of Adana, ignoring, or not knowing, that most of the CUP ideologues and leaders were ethnically non-Turks and Freemasons. But it is incorrect to say that these nationalists lost Western Armenia and parts of Eastern Armenia because they were Russophobic. In fact, the most ardent of them, the Dashnaks, were founded in Tiflis, Russian Empire, and during the genocide relied heavily on Russian military advances. It is certainly not their fault that the Young Turk leadership has designed and implemented a plan of physical annihilation of Western Armenians. As for Eastern Armenia, parts of it were lost at the time when Russia was preoccupied with its post-revolutionary chaos and civil war, and also because Bolsheviks who seized power in Petrograd, the prevailing majority of whom were non-Russians, helped Mustafa Kemal with gold, arms, and ammunition against Democratic Republic of Armenia.
Well said, John:
Our Ռուսամոլ compatriots insist on conflating Orthodox Christian Russia with anti-Christian Bolshevik Soviet Russian when it suits their purpose. At the same time, they insist – and quite correctly – that it was Bolshevik Soviet Russia, not Orthodox Christian Russia, that abandoned Armenia to Turks – when it suits their purpose.
Our Ռուսամոլ compatriots keep falsely spreading the Turkbaijani lie that, allegedly, Russians “won” NKR war.
Yes, Russia told Turkey to “get” in 1993: not for Armenia, but for Russia; last thing Russia wants is a pan-Turanic chain under her Southern underbelly. Let’s not kid ourselves.
Russians did not defeat Turkbaijan and Afghan Muj mercenaries, and Uki-Nazi mercenaries, and assorted Islamist mercenaries, and the Chechen volunteer battalion of Shamil Basaev, who ran circles around Russian security forces for years inside Russia – after he admitted his battalion’s only battle-loss was at the hands of the special Dashnak Battalion @Shushi, headed by great Armenian hero and patriot(…..sadly) Lieutenant Colonel Jirair Sefilian.
How many citizens of RF are in the list of ~6,000 NKR and RoA KIA of NKR war?
People who falsely attribute the NKR victory to Russia insult the memory of our martyrs.
Absolutely disgusting.
John, I know you to be a very intelligent and sober minded individual. But I don’t think you are well versed about the history of the time period in question. Our nationalists at the time, a time when Armenia was on its knees and on the verge of death, not only refused to negotiate with Turks over the fate of Western Armenia, they also held a very hostile posture against the Bolshevik government that had come to occupy the Russian Empire – essentially because they were too rigid in their political thinking and they were expecting the British and French to come to their aid.
[Prior to the Bolshevik revolution. While some Armenians were indeed collaborating with Russia, many others, because of their ties with Western socialists, were actually against Russia. Armenians ties with the growing socialist movement in Eurasia in the late 19th/early 20th century sowed distrust between Armenian political parties such as the Hnchaks and the Dashnaks and the Czar’s government. In a sense, our “brilliant” nationalistic leaders not only rose against Ottomans but also against the only entity that made Armenia’s existence possible in the region.]
I believe, had the First Republic’s leadership been well versed in history and politics and had they been able to approach matters pertaining to Armenia rationally and with realpolitik, they would have – at the very least – saved Kars and Artsakh. By being hostile to the Bolsheviks (regardless of who they were) Armenia’s leadership guaranteed Armenia’s defeat. I fear similar things happening today.
PS: I saw a rerun of an interview by Richard Hovanissian last night on television. Disregard the Russophobic context of the interview and pay close attention to Richard’s comments about Armenia’s leadership at the time: http://hayojax.am/en/shows/kentron-tv/urvagits/25842/richard-hovhannisyan-25052016.html
Harutik,
Actually, the end of the Russian empire and early Soviet period is my cup of tea. It doesn’t make me an Armenian history expert, but the First Republic figures heavily in that period and, therefore, was researched fairly well. No evidence suggests that the republic’s government had an opportunity ripe to be seized to “negotiate with the Turks over Western Armenia”, and no historian ever had the gift of clairvoyance to suggest that if the First Republic’s leadership had an amiable posture for the Bolshevik government they could have saved some chunks of Eastern Armenia.
In history there are no givens or, more colloquially, history knows no ‘if’.
Richard Hovanissian reinforces this axiom by saying that if he were a part of the Armenian government at the time, perhaps he might have done exactly what they did, because its members considered the surrender of Western and Eastern Armenian lands to the Turks an act of national treachery. Hovhanissian also stresses the point that Great Powers had incomparably greater concern that Turkey might turn Red than for genocide-stricken impoverished Armenia. Sensing this, Kemal, with the slyness natural to him, was able to secure gold and ammunition from Moscow and support for his territorial designs from London—both of which were used against Armenia.
It is easy for a 21st-century man to say that Armenian leaders were too rigid in their political thinking and had they been well versed in history and politics they could have saved at least Kars and Artsakh. Hovanissian explains that from the historical point of view the First Republic’s leadership simply could not be well versed in politics, because for hundreds of years Armenians had no independent statehood with which comes the Realpolitik experience, speaking in modern terms.
By the way, in many places on the vast landmass of the former Russian empire—not only in Armenia—the Bolsheviks encountered hostility. Our northern neighbors, Georgians, fiercely opposed them while relying on the Germans. So did the Ukrainians. So did the Turkestani Muslims in Central Asia during the Basmachi movement. Now, we may call it rigidity or political myopia, but at the time, I’m sure, the events were seen through different lenses…
Who “we”? Who are you?
The NKR issue is a pan Armenian issue because it concerns our homeland, our right to self determination and freedom, an issue ingrained in every Armenian heart. We should all lend our moral, financial and political support to Armenia and Artsakh so that our compatriots negotiate from a point of strength and equality to the Azeris and not be forced to give up what is rightfully ours.
If the Russians push for a settlement then one way to insure Artsakh’s security is to redraw its boundaries in order to make it defensible. Give Artsakh the highlands, leave the low lands to the Azeri -Tatars. Make sure lachin and kelbajar remain in Armenian hands.
On another note, this is a critical time for Armenia. Turkey is pivoting east, we will be surrounded by an eastern alliance, Russia – Turkey – Iran. Best thing we can do is clean up corruption and build up the military as much as possible. I would forget any notion of getting closer to the west at this point.
To those who say diaspora has no right to say or demand anything is ridiculous. The excluding of Armenian voices is really just an instrument of DIVISON amongst us which seems insidious in our race. Lets not forget the diaspora is a major resource to Armenia and a major contributor to foreign backing period. No doubt Artsakh residences fought and sacrificed to win, however it would be foolish to exclude the ONLY REAL ALLY that Armenia has: its strong and genuinely supportive diaspora who wish it not but greatness. Its ironic that the same people that want to exclude the diaspora voices also think the current political system is perfect as it is. Lets rid corruption first. Most of all lets SUPPORT ITS ARMY AWAYS. Its the only true guarantee of its security. Thats what we should be raising money for.
Avery and John,
Continue reading the RoR blog even if you don’t agree with some of the things it says. The blog will eventually help you open your eyes to realpolitik and how Armenians are. I was also turned off by the blogger’s attitude towards Armenians at first but the passage of time (getting older), reading alternative sources like RoR, closely watching current events and revisiting our history with an open mind, has helped me better understand politics and our people. If you want to obtain true knowledge and have a clear understanding of politics and history, observe politics closely and research history without nationalistic emotions. Nationalism can only create illusions that can lead a vulnerable nation like Armenia to destruction. Like the RoR blogger says: The cat looking in the mirror and seeing a lion. I see a lot of us acting like that cat. It’s very dangerous.
Regarding our victory in NKR. A knowledgeable war veteran or someone who truly understand the region’s geopolitics and military matters will explain to you that Armenians were losing the war before the Soviet Union collapsed and began winning after the Soviet Union collapsed. A knowledgeable war veteran will also tell you that the Azerbaijani army was getting better by 1993 and that had there not been deliveries of large amounts of Russian weapons between 1992-1994, the outcome of the war would have been very different. Think about these tow points. You can have the bravest soldiers in the world but without superpower support (such as combat intelligence, anti-tank weapons, anti-aircraft weapons) they are doomed to failure.
PS: Before you get very excited about “Armenia surviving against all odd in the Caucasus” think of how well Armenia would have survived had there not been a Russian factor in the region. There is a fine line between love of one’s nation and illusions.
I visited the RoR blog once or twice and—while agreeing with many things—couldn’t but notice many historical discrepancies in it as well. Had I been “nationalistic”, I’d outrightly reject Armenia’s strategic alliance with Russia or with any other nation for that matter. But I don’t. Regional events interest me both from historical and political perspectives, and I must say that many things during the period in question were not only pertinent to “how Armenians are”, but mainly to how Russians and British were. I think the point of departure for this discussion, without nationalistic emotions, must be the 1878 Treaty of San Stefano and the Congress of Berlin, convened after the Russo-Turkish War. Yes, among the Armenians there was no unanimity about looking to Russia for deliverance from the Ottoman empire. Some segments of the Armenian population genuinely feared that if they were annexed by Russia they would be swallowed by Orthodoxy. It is known that on the outbreak of the war, Catholicos Nerses Varjabedian issued a bull calling to show loyalty to the Ottoman state. However, in the eastern provinces, at peasant level, Armenians desired an end of the Muslim tyranny that ruled them for centuries, and would often say: “Only God and His representative on earth, the Russian Tsar, can help us”. We cannot expect unanimous, monolithic posture on an issue from a whole nation, can we?
Now look how the Russians and the British were. Without nationalistic emotions.
The Ottoman empire refused to countenance self-governance for the Armenians. To the Russians the matter was not sufficiently important to push it at all costs. A visit by the Catholicos failed to convince the Russians of the need to insist on self-governance. Thus, Russia and Turkey agreed in San Stefano that the Russian forces occupying the Armenian provinces would withdraw only with the full implementation of reforms guaranteeing their security from Kurds and Circassians. As soon as the British Cabinet received a copy of the treaty, prime-minister Disraeli expressed opposition to the Russian influence in Armenia. At this point, my question, without nationalistic emotions, is as follows. What else the Armenians could have done—except for overpowering hope in the eastern provinces for Russian rule and appeals to the Russian government—so that Russia pushed the self-governance issue in San Stefano? Is it “nationalistic” to ask such a question?
To resolve the differences of the Great Powers, it was decided to hold a congress in Berlin. An Armenian delegation, headed by Khrimian Hayrig, set out to European capitals with a proposal for Armenia to acquire some form of self-governance within the Ottoman empire. But European leaders showed little interest in it. So did the Russians. In England, Lord Salisbury gave Armenians no more than platitudinous assurances. In Berlin, Britain took objection to Russia holding on to so much Ottoman territory and forced her to water down the San Stefano treaty, as a result of which all mention of the Russian forces remaining in the Armenian provinces was removed. Instead, the Ottoman government was periodically to inform the Great Powers of the progress of the reforms. The Congress of Berlin brought the Armenians no security at all. Armenian self-defense groups grew up as a consequence. The British have achieved their goal, while the Russians refused to come to Armenians’ help. I, therefore, repeat the question, without nationalistic emotions. What else the Armenians could have done—except for appealing to Russia and Britain—so that in Berlin Russia kept at least the same wording regarding the Armenian provinces as in San Stefano? Is it “nationalistic” to ask such a question?
As the historic chance was past, within a few years—in the 1880s and especially during the Hamidian massacres in 1894-1897—Armenians paid heavy price for negligence they had received from both Russia and Britain.
I believe I’ve done a brief research into the history of the causes of our problems, without nationalistic emotions. Exactly where was the fault of the Armenians, keeping in mind that the majority of them laid hopes on Russia?
{Armenians were losing the war before the Soviet Union collapsed and began winning after the Soviet Union collapsed. […] The Azerbaijani army was getting better by 1993.}
This is a deceptive statement.
It is generally accepted that the war started in 1988 and ended in 1994. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, in 1991, the “war” had the form of inter-ethnic clashes and violence, which compelled the Armenians living in Azerbaijan and around the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region to abandon their homes, while some 250,000 of Armenia’s Azeris left their homes. I fail to see how during the period preceding the Soviet break-up Armenians were “losing the war”. If you meant Operation “Ring” conducted in April-May of 1991, well, it wasn’t a military operation in which Armenians fought the Azeris tête-à-tête. The operation was conducted by Soviet internal security forces and OMON units against the Armenian-populated regions of Azerbaijan, several regions of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, and along the northwestern border of Armenia proper. You don’t seriously expect the Armenians to win a landslide victory over the Soviet troops, do you?
Full-scale fighting erupted only after the Soviet collapse, in the winter of 1992, with successful Armenian offensives and the capture of Khojaly, Shushi, and sealing of Lachin. The only successful breakthrough by the Azeris was Operation Goranboy, in which crew members of the armored units were claimed to be Russians. By the fall of 1992 the tide of Azeri offensives was stopped.