// IP Marketing video - START// IP Marketing video - END

Artsakh Defense Ministry debunks Azeri “seized territory” myth

Artsakh Defense Ministry debunks Azeri “seized territory” myth

PanARMENIAN.Net - Azerbaijan’s recent propaganda suggesting Azeri forces seized strategically important territory in the direction of Mrov mountain on July 27, with Armenian soldiers yielding themselves prisoners is just a myth, Artsakh Defense Ministry’s statement reads.

“Moreover, the disinformation proves both the author’s and Azeri Defense Ministry secret sources’ inability to present geographical layout,” NKR statement further reads.

“It’s ridiculous that the author of the article, citing an officer allegedly involved in the above-mentioned “military operations” says that Agdara (Martakert) and Kelbajar (Karvachar) are clearly visible from the “seized” territory. Though it is an ungrateful act to comment on such unserious information, Artsakh Defense Ministry’s information and propaganda department noted that, “firstly, Azeri side occupied the territory in the rear, rather than in the forefront. Secondly, Azerbaijan was the only side to suffer a loss for the period of July 29-31. Thirdly, Martakert and Karvachar are invisible from the “seized” territory; it has no tactical significance, except for being product of Azeri propaganda.

As a result, Azerbaijan once again appeared in pathetic state. Azeri propaganda must focus on true developments to overcome the current situation, not on hollow fantasies. Otherwise, Azeri soldiers will look down at their commander-in-chief’s Baku residence from the “seized” highland territory,” Artsakh Defense Ministry’s statement reads.

 Top stories
“We responded to the government’s call for support and think better elections can be held this time,” the ambassador said.
The packages will be distributed among the Armenian community and the Syrian people of Latakia, Damascus, Kessab and Aleppo.
“Azerbaijan’s defense ministry seems to decisively be losing the ability to soberly assess the reality,” Hasratyan said.
The case was considered in-camera, with the Supreme Court examining the legality and validity of a previous ruling by the Minsk City Court.
Partner news