Menu
Latest
Menu
Latest
NKR FM:

NKR FM:

3 May 2012

The crimes committed during the operation "Ring" ("Koltso") haven't got a proper political and legal assessment by the international community and their organizers and executors are still unpunished. This became a precedent for new military crimes and inhumane actions by Azerbaijan against the peaceful Armenian population, says the NKR Foreign Ministry on its commentary on the incidents of late April - early May 1991 when special police detachments (OMON) of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Azerbaijan, with the support of the USSR Interior Ministry's troops, launched a large- scale punitive operation of Ring, the essence of which was to exile the Armenian population of the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast, the Shahumian region, and some regions of Northern Artsakh (the Khanlar, Dashkesan, Kedabek, and Shamkhor regions of the former Azerbaijani SSR).

The NKR Foreign Ministry stated that as a result of that operation, dozens of Armenian settlements were completely devastated, destroyed or populated by Azerbaijanis. Tens of thousands of people were deported, hundreds were killed. It was the operation of Ring characterized by unprecedented cruelty and mass human rights violations that dramatically increased the level of tension in the region and transferred the Karabakh conflict to a military phase.

"The report of the CSCE Mission of February 28, 1992 noted that "particularly serious escalation took place in April-May 1991 when the Soviet Army, with the support of the Azerbaijani Interior Ministry's units, deported Armenians from many villages of the region. The deportation was carried out with extreme cruelty".

The events, which took place during the operation of Ring, were reflected in the documents of some international organizations, became a subject of hearings at the Human Rights Committee of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation and got the corresponding assessment in the resolutions of the European Parliament and the U.S. Senate.

The Human Rights Center of Memorial Moscow Association stated gross violations of the basic human rights: "They grossly violated the right of every person to life, liberty, and security; they used tortures, carried out arbitrary arrests and detentions and committed numerous property offenses. The practice of people's deportation acquired a mass character. Particularly cynical these violations were made by the fact that the mass violence against the civilians was committed by the law enforcement agencies. The responsibility for this rests with the top leadership of the Azerbaijani Republic, Azerbaijan's Interior Ministry and Committee for State Security (KGB), as well as with the leadership of the USSR Interior Ministry, Ministry of Defense and the Command of the USSR MIA Interior Troops. These crimes cast a shadow also on the top leadership of the USSR".

On May 1, 1991, the U.S. Senate unanimously adopted a resolution condemning the crimes committed by the authorities of the USSR and Azerbaijan against the Armenian population. The resolution, in particular, condemned "the attacks on innocent men, women and children in Nagorno-Karabakh, in the adjacent Armenian settlements and in Armenia; the large-scale use of military force and firing of the unarmed population on the eastern and southern borders of Armenia", as well as contained calls "to put an end to the blockades and other forms of force and the terror against Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh".

On May 25, a draft statement on the situation in some regions of Armenia and Azerbaijan was submitted to the session of the Fourth Congress of People's Deputies of the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (RSFSR) for consideration and was approved by the overwhelming majority of votes. The statement, in particular, noted that "in accordance with the internationally accepted norms and conventions on human rights, the deportation of civilians must be immediately stopped, the hostages must be freed, and the suspects on cases of armed clashes must be transferred to the prosecution of the USSR Prosecutor's Office", the statement reads.

For conclusion, the Ministry states that the deported residents are still unable to return to their homes and they haven't received any reimbursement so far. "Unfortunately, we also have to state that the Armenian villages deported during the operation of Ring are not mentioned in any of the documents proposed by the international mediators for the Azerbaijani-Karabakh conflict settlement," the statement reards.

Latest

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?
Trending

Monday Commentary: PEACE IN OUR TIME?

19 October 2026
Making peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan was never going to be simple, nor easy, nor quick. It is taking time, writes Dennis Sammut in this Monday Commentary. “There is a sense of realism coming from the leaders of the two countries – President Ilham Aliyev of Azerbaijan and prime minister Nikol Pashinyan of Armenia, that frankly, is necessary and welcome”, he writes. At a time when conflicts are raging all over the world – from Ukraine to the Gulf, from Africa to South Asia, the prospect that Armenia and Azerbaijan had finally, after decades of conflict that left thousands of dead and many more displaced, decided on embarking on a journey of peace was welcomed. Peace between Armenia and Azerbaijan can be top-down up to a point. Both leaders have spent political capital preparing for a peace deal. But both are aware that their people are not ready for peace yet. In fact, in Armenia, most of the elite are negative toward a peace deal with Azerbaijan. Pashinyan needs time to persuade his countryfolk. That is why 2031 is realistic. Ilham Aliyev runs a tighter shop, but he is also not immune to public opinion. Every time someone hits a landmine in Karabakh, which unfortunately happens often, peace comes into question. Which is why Aliyev chooses to sound hardline, more often than not. In pursuing the peace agenda, both Aliyev and Pashinyan need to proceed cautiously. But they are right in making peace the central issue in their agenda. It is the main issue, and the one that will define them in history. So forward, cautiously but resolutely! In pursuing the peace agenda, Aliyev and Pashinyan need to be supported clearly and unambiguously. There are too many people in Baku and Yerevan who are sitting on the sides, waiting. The international community is not doing enough. It is time to be counted. Otherwise, the spoilers will win, and the region will go back to its bad habits. (Click the image to read the full commentary).
Dennis Sammut

Popular

Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest
Trending

Monday Commentary: European-Azerbaijan relations need an intensive and multifaceted dialogue that is frank and honest

7 September 2026
Last week I visited Baku, Azerbaijan. My visit was relatively short, but very intensive, and had many meetings with stakeholders and colleagues. When I arrived in Baku first time in 1996,  Azerbaijan was a different country: weak, poor, and shaken by defeat in war. For thirty year the Karabakh issue dominated the agenda: the political agenda but also the popular mindset. Now, thirty years later, Azerbaijan has returned to Karabakh, and peace with Armenia is on the horizon. It is a new era for Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, for the South Caucasus, but also for Europe.  But we cannot be complacent: the Peace agreement has been initialed but not signed; borders remain closed; TRIPP is ambitious but remains an idea; and there are spoilers who want to turn the clock back. We must not allow them, and in this Europe and Azerbaijan must work together. Europe’ vanguard organization is the European Union – it is a free union of 27 member states; it is a strong global economic force, and increasingly a diplomatic and military force too. But it remains “work in progress” and can often appear dysfunctional. It often lacks collective and institutional memory. In its dealings with Azerbaijan the EU has made many mistakes – not least opening the delegation here late – in 2008. It sometimes appears condescending. Some utterances from the European Parliament and from some quarters in some member states are not understandable even for me. They irritate the Azerbaijanis, but serve no other purpose But Azerbaijan has also not handled relations with the EU well. It has failed to respond when the hand of friendship reached out; and it confused irritating actions, sometimes by well-meaning people; sometimes by outright spoilers, with strategic action. In short, EU-Azerbaijan relations have suffered from a lack of proper dialogue. This dialogue must be frank, honest and multi-faceted involving different segments of society on both sides.   Is Azerbaijan Europe? When Azerbaijan applied to join the Council of Europe in the 1990s, there were some who opposed, saying this was not Europe. I was one of the people who argued that Armenia and Azerbaijan may be on the periphery of the continent geographically, but were European in essence. Certainly their elites. During the discussion on 4 September in Baku, my friend Farhad Mammedov, mentioned that Azerbaijan is not interested in joining the EU, and was now close to the Central Asian countries in the 5 plus 1 format. Neither things mean that Azerbaijan is not Europe. There are several European countries that are not in the EU, and do not want to be, for example Norway and Switzerland. Iceland has recently voted to stay out of the EU. The UK was a member and left. Europe is bigger than the EU, and the holding of the European Political Community summit in Baku in 2027 proves that. Despite all the rhetoric, I never heard the president of Azerbaijan  saying that Azerbaijan is not Europe, nor have I heard any European president say it either. Not wanting to join the EU and forging close relations with neighbouring regions does not make Azerbaijan any less European. It is only logical that when Europeans talk to Azerbaijan they talk like family. The conversation is often frank. It must also be honest, and Europeans need always to remember this too. A frank, honest and multi-faceted dialogue A frank, honest and multifaceted dialogue will contribute to relations between Azerbaijan and the rest of Europe: it will avoid misperception, which unfortunately is very common on both sides; it will provide a forum where problems can be discussed and resolved, and it will increase mutual trust, so that together common problems can be addressed. (click image to read the full Monday Commentary)
Dennis Sammut
Editor's choice
Monday Commentary
Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”
Trending

Monday Commentary: “The barren rocks of Aden” and “These lands of Yemen are so ruthless”

21 September 2026
There are two early 20th-century tunes that mark foreign attempts to occupy and “pacify” Yemen. The Scottish tune “The barren rocks of Aden” marks the mobilisation of Highland soldiers, enlisted to be deployed to the Yemeni port of Aden, that in 1837 became the last colony to be incorporated into the British Empire. The tune talks of the harshness of the terrain, but is celebratory, It was even played as a farewell tune to Sir William Luce at the parade in Sharjah celebrating his end as “British Viceroy” in the Middle East in 1966. The second tune is an Anatolian lament. As Ilker Sezer reminded us this weekend, in his weekly feature on “Turkiye Today”, it “mourns the tragic fate of Ottoman soldiers dispatched to the harsh, remote deserts of Yemen during the fall of the empire, young men who marched away from their villages and never returned home. Most of their names, and numbers, were never recorded. Yet, their fate left a mark on the Turkish psyche.” Subsequent invaders have discovered that Yemen is a grave that cannot be overcome by the strength of modern technology, and that whilst Yemeni society is splintered and divided, building a reliable alliance with Yemeni factions is difficult. These are the harsh lessons facing Saudi Arabia, as the Kingdom faces its biggest challenge in its modern history. The leadership of the Kingdom now has to respond decisively. At stake is their very credibility. This is likely to be a long and messy conflict. Saudi military objectives need to be focused: to box in the Houthis rather than destroy them. This is likely to include: (a) regaining territory lost on the Red Sea coast; (b) control over Bab el Mandeb Strait; (c) some kind of cordon sanitaire on the Saudi-Yemeni border; and if things go well (d) the capture of Sanaa. All this would not eliminate the Houthi problem, but it will contain it. In the end the Saudis will have to continue managing Yemen with a mixture of carrot and stick. For the moment, the stick is likely, but the carrot cannot be forgotten either. (click the image to read the Monday Commentary in full)
Dennis Sammut