What does Azerbaijan want from Armenia? National interests over maximalism

Azerbaijan has been reproached on numerous occasions for allegedly presenting Armenia with maximalist demands. Such reproach is entirely unjustified; maximalist demands sound quite different. The best example of maximalist demands (and their immediate implementation) is what was done with fascist Germany after the end of World War II. Yes, exactly like that: sector division, reparations, massive industrial equipment export, and for all prisoners of war - hard physical labour in the open air for the benefit of the victors and for the redemption of their own heavy sins. That's maximalism. What Azerbaijan demands from Armenia cannot be called maximalism; rather, it is a rational pursuit of its own national interests.

The demand to change the constitution? Yes. The constitution is Armenia's internal affair as long as it does not include territorial claims against neighbouring countries, including Azerbaijan and Türkiye. However, if such demands are enshrined in the constitution, it ceases to be solely internal and becomes a matter of public concern, as one housing manager from a cheerful Soviet comedy once said. This is the right of the victor, not established by us, and not for us to change.

We recognize that neither the Armenian Constitution nor any peace treaty will provide effective guarantees. The Azerbaijani army stands as the sole assurance for Azerbaijan's territorial integrity, prompting Armenia to adopt exemplary, even precautionary conduct.

But from a legal point of view, making the necessary changes to Armenia's Constitution is necessary. In case of anything (you understand perfectly well what I mean by "in case of anything"), we can always refer to their Constitution, saying: look, you wrote it yourselves, and now you refuse, so we had to take measures to restore constitutional order and legality. And from a legal point of view, it will be very difficult to challenge us, because "that's how they wrote it there." This is the right of the victor, not established by us, and not for us to change.

There's no need for undue criticism; these are not maximalist demands but rather reasonable requests that align with our national interests. For example, the return of Azerbaijani citizens and their descendants to the areas where they resided during the Soviet era in the Armenian SSR. It's important to note they lived in these regions even before the formation of the Armenian SSR, so the Soviet period is not the primary issue. Are you familiar with the Iravan Khanate? I'm sure you are. This underscores our stance. These requests are not about territorial claims but about justice, international law, and human rights in the broadest sense.

It is crucial to resolve the enclave issues conclusively. I'm not just talking about the four villages that have peacefully returned to Azerbaijani control, without a single shot being fired. There are four more former Azerbaijani enclaves that also need to be returned. Why are these enclaves important to us? It's a matter of principle, as expressed by a literary character. I mean the principle of justice I mentioned earlier. Additionally, these enclaves enable us to oversee communications between Armenia and Georgia, as well as with Iran, which is an added strategic benefit. This is both a welcome and highly necessary advantage. Furthermore, this is the prerogative of the victor, not something we have instituted or can change. Armenia's fears that "Azerbaijan will be able to cut off our oxygen at any moment" are entirely unfounded. We would only take such action in response to Armenian aggression or the accumulation of Armenian troops and military equipment that pose a hypothetical threat to Azerbaijan. There is no intention to act indiscriminately or without cause.

Earlier, I mentioned the four villages that returned under Azerbaijani jurisdiction. Recently, a member of the "Civil Contract" faction in the Armenian National Assembly, Lusine Badalyan, commented on this: "I walked alone, saw both Armenian and Azerbaijani border guards, and felt no danger at all." Actions speak louder than a thousand words, as they say. If a woman feels no fear passing by Azerbaijani soldiers, then why do Armenian men feel apprehensive? Well, that's a question for the realm of the psyche.

Apart from restoring historical justice (referring to the return of Azerbaijanis to Armenia), there is also the issue of the Zangezur corridor. The essential point is that Nakhchivan must be connected to the rest of Azerbaijan by a direct transportation route, which therefore needs to be extraterritorial. This is not just a matter of national interests and national security; it concerns regional stability and the unhindered movement of people and goods. Let me explain simply: "unhindered" means "no customs or border posts, no visas or duties." All for our benefit and advantage.

Why the disregard for Armenia's interests? As I've mentioned before: this is the right of the victor, not something we established, nor something for us to change. Armenia's unwillingness and stubbornness are understandable, but their unwillingness cannot be considered mitigating circumstances, nor will it cause us to lower the bar of our just demands.

Furthermore, the more Armenia persists, the more grievances we will have, which is quite understandable: if Armenia refuses to conclude a peace treaty on Azerbaijan's terms (again: this is the right of the victor, not something we established, nor something for us to change), then we have every reason to suspect they are hoping for revenge. In that case, we may also demand additional measures regarding Armenia's armed forces, specifically quantitative and qualitative restrictions on armaments and equipment.

What do you think of this scenario? Personally, I find it fair and right—strike while the iron is hot.