The national question is again becoming acute in many parts of the world. Is it possible to draw a parallel between the annexation of Crimea to Russia and Nakhichevan to the Azerbaijan ASSR in 1921? Oleg Kuznetsov, Candidate of Historical Sciences, specialist in Transcaucasia, Vice-Rector for Research of the Higher School of Social and Management Consulting Oleg Kuznetsov spoke about this, the history and status of Nakhichevan, international conflicts and ways to resolve them live on the website's video channel.

Crimea repeats the fate of Nakhichevan?

- What is the status of Nakhichevan now?

- Now it is the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic within the Republic of Azerbaijan, that is, a self-governing territory within another sovereign state with a higher state-legal status.

— Does Armenia lay claim to Nakhichevan?

This territory is not disputed. The legal status, unlike many other autonomies, is regulated, including by the multilateral international Kars Treaty of 1921. It and all other acts of international law guarantee the inviolability of borders. The Russian Federation recognizes Nakhichevan as an integral part of the Republic of Azerbaijan. The Republic of Armenia is trying in some way to appeal to some 90-year-old political statements, but they have no legal force. Statements and international legal acts have different weight categories.

— Are there no Armenians left in Nakhichevan now?

- Practically.

- Nakhichevan for Azerbaijan is about the same as Kaliningrad for Russia - an enclave separated from the main territory by another country.

— The only difference is that the Kaliningrad region is one of the subjects within the Russian Federation, equal in rights with the bulk of other subjects in accordance with the 1993 Constitution. And the Nakhichevan autonomy is, of course, also an enclave, but it has a special legal status of an autonomous republic within Azerbaijan. It has its own state authorities, its own constitution.

- Now, throughout the entire post-Soviet space, there is a discussion that the Bolsheviks voluntarily cut the borders of the Russian Empire, didn’t it happen in this case, as well as with Ukraine, for example, that Novorossiya went to Ukraine, and now we have this problem? What was the situation like in 1921? Why did this enclave form?

- At the beginning of the 19th century there were two Russian-Persian wars. After the war of 1804-1813, northern Azerbaijan became part of Russia. The result of the war of 1826-28 was the accession to Russia, the Yerevan and Nakhichevan khanates entered, which, for the convenience of management by Russia, were united into one Armenian region, which later became the Yerevan province.

Was there a division along national lines in the Russian Empire?

- Basically, there were provinces, but when dividing into territories, the ethnic composition of the population was also taken into account. Territories where isolated ethnic groups of the population prevailed and did not mix with other nationalities were allocated to administrative units. For example, there was the Batumi district in the Caucasus, on the territory of which modern Adzharia is located, there was the Kars district, which ceded to Turkey in 1918, there was the Zagatala district in the north of present-day Azerbaijan, where Lezghins still live mainly. Russia entered the First World War. Turkey was the enemy. Then there was a revolution, and many independent states were formed on the territory of the former Russian Empire. On January 18, the First World War ended. The territory of Nakhichevan at that time was under the control of Turkish troops. In 1920, there was a war between Armenia and Turkey, in which Armenia suffered a complete and unconditional defeat. The remnants of the Armenian troops were driven into the mountains, where death awaited them as a result of frost and starvation. They went to the conclusion of the Alexandropol peace.

In March 21, the Moscow Treaty was signed. Bolshevik Russia saved Armenia from another destruction. And six months later, the Treaty of Kars was signed. Both treaties dealt with Azerbaijan's protectorate over Nakhichevan. The Treaty of Kars was signed by Armenia and Georgia. I just explained this question a week ago at a conference in Baku. And Azerbaijani historians wondered why they did not pay attention to this for 90 years.

Firstly, the status of a protectorate, which is spelled out in the Moscow Treaty, has a specific legal content. Russia exercised a protectorate at the end of the 18th century over the Commonwealth, which later turned into the Polish provinces of Russia. Carried out a protectorate at the end of the XVIII century again over the Georgian kingdom, which later became the Tiflis province. Under the treaties of 1805, Russia exercised a protectorate over some khanates of northern Azerbaijan. That is, the protectorate assumed at that time a specific legal form. Subordination of one state to another.

First of all, in foreign policy issues with the preservation of internal administrative autonomy, including financial, and with the preservation of their own dynasty. During the transition to a republican form of government, respectively, the dynasty was replaced by a set of its own governing bodies. The Turks in the Ottoman Empire also had a very clear understanding of the protectorate. The Ottoman Empire exercised a protectorate over Tunisia, Libya and some other Arab territories of the Maghreb, that is, North Africa. Therefore, this term has always and for everyone had a specific legal content.

At the time of the conclusion of the Moscow Treaty, the Turkish Republic did not exist. And therefore, the terminology of the feudal era, which was characteristic of the Ottoman Empire, was used. In the period between the Moscow and Kars treaties, the Turkish Republic was proclaimed. And in the new treaty, the term "protectorate" was replaced by the legally vague term "protection." And one more nuance. According to the Versailles-Washington system of international treaties following the results of the First World War, many territories of the former Ottoman Empire were transferred under the protectorates of the victorious countries. They could divide and exchange these protectorates. For example, part of the former Transjordan was divided into future Israel and Lebanon. The Turks took this into account.

Since Nakhichevan is a territory with a predominantly Muslim population, they began to say that the protectorate belongs undividedly to Azerbaijan. The Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic was formed in 1924, and in 1926 its constitution was adopted. She received her own legislation, which determines the legal status in accordance with the Kars international treaty. After the collapse of the USSR, Nakhichevan remained a part of Azerbaijan, which fully complies with all legal norms. Nobody canceled the terms of the Treaty of Kars. And I believe that Nakhichevan was the first Unionist model of autonomy. Because two parts of one ethnic group, living in geographical separation from each other, united within the framework of existing state-legal models into a single state through the autonomization of a smaller part as part of a larger part.

And along the same path, taking the Nakhichevan model, after 90 years, the reunification of Crimea with a predominantly Russian ethnic population and Russia took place. Here, the specific historical conditions are different, but the Republic of Crimea has a republican status, and in the Constitution of the Russian Federation, the status of a republic is fundamentally different from the status of other subjects. That is, in fact, we can say that the Republic of Crimea is a Russian republic within the Russian Federation.

The same is the Azerbaijan Republic of Nakhichevan as part of the Azerbaijan country. That is, both there and there is a dominant ethnic group. In one case, the Azerbaijanis, in the other case, the Russians are united, being territorially separated, having no common border, at least not a land one.

- And yet, what do the opponents say about Nakhichevan?

- Again, depending on what. Oddly enough, most opponents were found among Azerbaijani nationalists. They say that the majority - 20 percent of the territory of our country is occupied by Armenians, and therefore we categorically reject any form of separatism and autonomy, because this model can be used by the Armenians in order to tear our territories away from us. Of course, the position is rather stupid. No one claims, no one from the world community denies the territorial unity of Azerbaijan.

12:58 — REGNUM

In Armenia in the post-Soviet years, the question is very popular: did the Armenian people win or suffer because of Armenia's entry into the USSR? Points of view on this matter are very different, and all have their justifications. Many, mostly young people, did not think about this issue at all. And the older generation perfectly remembers the episodes of Armenia's entry into the USSR according to the stories of their grandfathers and great-grandfathers. The letter published today is written in a rather bold form for its time, even if we take into account the "thaw" that has already begun. Honored Art Worker of the Armenian SSR, Honored Architect of the Armenian SSR, Laureate of the State Prize Rafael Israelyan On July 20, 1962, he turned to the First Secretary of the Central Committee of the CPSU, Nikita Khrushchev. The letter reached Khrushchev. At one of the receptions in the Kremlin, S. Israelyan reminded the first secretary of the issues raised, to which Khrushchev replied: "The time will come." A copy of the letter is now kept in the National Archives of Armenia. publishes this letter without abbreviations.

Dear Nikita Sergeevich!

In No. 173 of the Pravda newspaper dated June 22, 1962, an article was published under the title "To the forthcoming edition of the multi-volume history of the CPSU", which also contains the following lines:

"The history of the CPSU will show the essence of the Leninist national policy of the party as a party of consistent internationalists, its uncompromising struggle against all manifestations of bourgeois nationalism (great-power chauvinism, local nationalism), for the implementation of complete political, economic and cultural equality of all nationalities of the Soviet Union, for the strengthening of friendship peoples of the USSR and their further rallying in the common struggle for the building of communism. I read this article and a question arose in front of me, the answer to which I would like to receive from the editors: was the Leninist national policy implemented correctly when creating the Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic in 1920-21? As an old agitator, propagandist and worker of political education, I would like to dispel the doubts that have arisen in me. Let me explain my point with facts.

Taking advantage of the devastation caused by the anti-people adventurist policy of the Dashnaks and the Turkish invasion of Armenia, the Georgian Mensheviks and Azerbaijani Musavatists decided to seize part of the original Armenian lands for themselves. But in the very first months, the theses of the Leninist national policy were solemnly proclaimed by the responsible leaders of the Soviet state and the Bolshevik Party: already on December 2, 1920, at the solemn meeting of the Baksovet on the establishment of Soviet power in Armenia, Comrade. Sergo Ordzhonikidze quoted the declaration of the head of the Azerbaijan Soviet Republic comrade. N.Narimanova regarding the Armenian regions of Zangezur, Nakhichevan and Nagorno-Karabakh, regions that the anti-people government of Musavatists tried to tear away from Armenia. Very characteristic is the speech of Comrade. Narimanov. He read his declaration about Zangezur, Nakhichevan and Karabakh. Tov. Narimanov says: "Take them for yourself! Take these lands for Armenia!" The head of the Republic of Azerbaijan comes out and says: "This terrible question no longer exists!" (see G.K. Ordzhonikidze. Selected speeches and articles, 1956, pp. 139-141). And here is the declaration itself. N. Narimanov dated 2/XII 1920 on behalf of the Revolutionary Committee of Azerbaijan: "The territories of Zangezur and Nakhichevan districts are an inseparable part of Soviet Armenia. And the working peasantry of Nagorno-Karabakh is given the full right to self-determination." (Central State Administration of the Armenian SSR, f. 114, d. 80, l. 1. First published in the Kommunist newspaper on December 2, 1920).

And on December 4, 1920, the People's Commissariat of National Affairs of the Soviet state headed by Lenin, solemnly confirmed on behalf of the Soviet government: "On the first of December, Soviet Azerbaijan voluntarily renounces the disputed provinces and declares the transfer of Zangezur, Nakhichevan, Nagorno-Karabakh to Soviet Armenia" (see I. V. Stalin, Works, volume 4, p. 414).

But then something completely inexplicable happens: the Nakhichevan Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic is created from these lands that form an indivisible part of the territory of Soviet Armenia. This is not enough - and the very management of this "autonomous republic" is transferred not to the Armenian SSR, but to Azerbaijan! But after all, the territory of this "autonomous republic" with its dense, compact Armenian population was still part of the Erivan province, and it was subordinate to the Erivan governor! By this, the territory of Armenia itself was torn into two parts: in order, for example, to get from Yerevan to the Armenian regions of Kafan, Meghri, Sisian, now you have to pass through the lands that are wedged into the territory of the Armenian SSR, but for some reason assigned to Nakhichevan " autonomous republic." Just half a century ago, the territory of this "autonomous republic" Nakhichevan was densely populated by a compact Armenian population. But during the years of artificially planted ethnic strife, this indigenous population was partially slaughtered, partially fled to the boundaries of the current territory of the Armenian SSR, where they live to this day, not daring to return to their native places. Gradually, the rest of the Armenian population also leaves their native places, leaving their original, historically always owned territory, on which it is unthinkable to live under the created conditions. But if the Armenian population has left and is leaving their native places, then the Armenian monuments of material culture, architecture, with which the whole earth is dotted here, cannot move from their places. At every step you come across monuments with Armenian inscriptions, with rare frescoes, which are threatened with oblivion and outright destruction. So, a few kilometers from the Kizil-vank station, there was an outstanding monument of Armenian culture - Karmravank, which was blown up in 1958. And there are so many similar examples of the barbaric attitude towards the national culture of the original Armenian population that it is inconvenient to talk about it in our time. For some reason, Nagorno-Karabakh was also turned into an autonomous region, and again it was subordinated not to the Armenian, but to the Azerbaijan SSR, contrary to the declaration of the leaders of Soviet Azerbaijan and the Soviet Union. But the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh is a direct continuation of the territory of Armenia, and 90% of its population are Armenians. Doesn't such a division of both the territory and the population of the Soviet socialist republic contradict Lenin's national policy?

Separated from Armenia, neither the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic nor Nagorno-Karabakh are developing in such a way that the pace of their economic and cultural development meets the requirements of building communism. Let's take Shusha, for example, the center of Nagorno-Karabakh that flourished in the past: the Musavatists burned this city, its population was slaughtered. Forty years ago, the sight of the city lying in charred ruins evoked feelings of shock and indignation, but these terrible ruins evoke exactly the same feelings now, because for more than 40 years they did not take care to build up and populate this Armenian Lidice (Czech Lidice, German Liditz) - a mining village in the Czech Republic, 20 km west of Prague and southeast of the city of Kladno, destroyed on June 10, 1942 at the request of the German government - IA REGNUM).

Can such a situation help "strengthen the friendship of peoples and unite them"?

In Nagorno-Karabakh, there is discrimination against the population, there are no achievements in the development of a national in form and socialist in content culture. Only the smallest part of the youth of Nagorno-Karabakh manages to overcome the applied discrimination and make their way to special and higher education. The Armenian youth of the territories torn away from the Armenian SSR are deprived of the opportunity to get acquainted with the history of their people, with its centuries-old literature and art, and study the monuments of the national culture of their native Karabakh. The population of the region is artificially kept away from its national culture, the attitude of the predominant Armenian population and the national minority - Azerbaijanis are far from dictated by the Leninist national policy.

It must be said frankly that all these questions would not have arisen if, when creating the Soviet republics of Transcaucasia, the national and historical characteristics of the Armenian population were reasonably taken into account (at one time recognized by the Soviet leaders, but for some reason not taken into account by them, or, rather, betrayed by them oblivion). Then there would be no place for such a situation, about which only 64% of the Armenian population of Transcaucasia is within the Armenian SSR, and a whole THIRD of this compact population would not live on Armenian lands, for some reason included and transferred to a foreign republic, which at one time declared its renunciation of claims to these territories, "constituting an indivisible part of the Armenian SSR."

I would be very grateful for an answer that would clarify to me how right I am in my judgments and conclusions.

I remain with deep respect (signature) S. ISRAELYAN (Lenin's order bearer)

My address: city. Yerevan-9, Tumanyan street, d. N73.

Prepared Ashot Poghosyan

The South Caucasus is of great geostrategic importance in the system of international relations, it is an actual connecting space between the Middle East and Russia, Europe and Central Asia. Geography, unlike ethnography, ethnopolitics and economics, has a more constant characteristic and naturally determines politics.

Unfortunately, the modern geopolitical characteristics of the South Caucasus indicate that this region remains one of the most controversial and conflict-prone, retains a high potential for destabilization due to the presence of acute territorial disputes.

Thus, the basis of the existing Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict was laid by the well-known agreements between the Bolshevik and Kemalist governments in 1920–1921. It is primarily about:

- secret agreements of August 24, 1920, which initiated another Turkish aggression against independent Armenia in September-November 1920;

- the Moscow Treaty of March 16, 1921, according to which Soviet Russia and Kemalist Turkey carried out the division of Armenia;

- The Treaty of Kars of October 13, 1921, which confirmed the borders with Turkey and Azerbaijan imposed on the same Armenia.

The possibility of a secret agreement between the Bolsheviks and the Kemalists in August 1920 is noted by a very competent, scientifically trained and politically informed source - the first president of Armenia Levon Ter-Petrosyan, as well as the course of subsequent events in September - November 1920, which led to the offensive of the Turkish army under the command of General Karabekir to Armenia.

After the Entente countries signed the Treaty of Sevres on August 10, 1920, according to the provisions of which Armenia received its own ethnic territory of 170 thousand square meters. km and access to the Black Sea near Trabzon, an official delegation of independent Armenia headed by Levon Shant urgently left for Moscow to negotiate with the head of the People's Commissariat for Foreign Affairs of the RSFSR Georgy Chicherin and conclude an appropriate Armenian-Russian treaty. Yerevan, which was in allied relations with the countries that won the First World War (Entente), expected that Russia would also recognize independent Armenia within the boundaries of the Treaty of Sevres, which corresponded to the provisions of the secret Sykes-Picot-Sazonov agreement of 1916, which was signed and Russian side. However, the Armenian side did not realize the fact that the government of V.I. Lenin renounced the obligations of tsarist Russia and the same Sykes-Picot-Sazonov agreement.

Following L. Shant, a Turkish delegation of the government of Mustafa Kemal Pasha, unrecognized at that time, headed by Ali-Fuad Jebesoy, left for Moscow with the sole purpose of preventing Soviet Russia from recognizing independent Armenia within the boundaries of the Treaty of Sevres, and in general to exclude the concept "Armenia" from the political map of the region. The result of the mission of A.-F. Jebesoy became the Turkish-Russian treaty of August 24, 1920.

The Russian-Armenian negotiations, as you know, were interrupted not without pressure from the Turks. Chicherin made the fact of recognition and signing of the treaty with Armenia dependent on Yerevan's rejection of the decisions of Sèvres. Naturally, Armenia could not renounce the Treaty of Sevres with its own hands, since it was about primordially Armenian territories with access to the Black Sea. At the same time, the Armenian people survived the genocide during the First World War and lost most of their people.

At the same time, Armenia guaranteed Russia the passage of the Red Army through its territory, but Moscow supported Turkey, suspended the negotiations and promised to resume them by sending its representative Legrand to Baku. In reality, the Bolsheviks concluded secret agreements with the Kemalists on the subject of launching a new military campaign (more precisely, another aggression) against independent Armenia, which is in allied relations with the Entente countries. The war, of course, led to the defeat of Armenia (since the West, represented by the United States and Great Britain, did not provide military assistance to Yerevan, and Menshevik Georgia remained neutral), the fall of the Dashnak government and the transfer of power to the Revolutionary Committee, that is, the Armenian Bolsheviks.

In other words, Moscow was not interested in the fate of Armenia and its tragedy, Lenin only hoped to stay in power and expand the movement of Bolshevism to the periphery of the former Russian Empire.

The results of the autumn military campaign of 1920 led to the Sovietization of Armenia and the signing of the Moscow Treaty of March 16, 1921, which determined the fate of the status of the ancient Armenian province of Nakhichevan as an autonomy within formally then independent Azerbaijan.

In the Soviet period of history, the Azerbaijani authorities undertook a targeted policy to oust the indigenous Armenian population from Nakhichevan. The Armenian population of the region in 1917 was 41%, despite the massacre by the Turks. By the end of Soviet power in this autonomy, the number of Armenians had decreased to less than 1%, but with the beginning of the next stage of the Karabakh movement in 1988, the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict and the collapse of the USSR, there were no Armenians left in the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic at all. In this regard, the question arises: what then is the essence of autonomy, if, apart from the Azerbaijani population, there is no one in this region? Autonomy for whom and from whom?

Conflict relations between Baku and Yerevan led to a transport blockade of Armenia and Nagorno-Karabakh by Azerbaijan and Turkey. And in this regard, the most important transport communication in the region - the Nakhichevan railway (connecting Iran, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Georgia, Russia, the Black Sea) ceased to function. At the same time, Nakhichevan, blockading Armenia, itself suffers from this economic absurdity.

Azerbaijan is deploying a large military group in Nakhichevan - the 5th brigade of the Armed Forces, and is trying to establish the economic life of this autonomy through Iran and Turkey. Armenia also keeps a significant part of its armed forces on the border with Nakhichevan to repel possible provocations from the neighboring side.

The issue of Nakhichevan in bilateral Armenian-Azerbaijani relations is of particular importance both from a political and legal point of view, and from a transport and economic point of view. The unblocking of the Nakhichevan railway is of serious regional and international importance, and this urgency is gaining momentum given the lifting of Western sanctions against Iran on January 16, 2016 and the April 4-day conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh.

Tehran, building up trade and economic relations with the outside world (primarily with the EU countries), is extremely interested in unblocking the Nakhichevan railway to connect Julfa and Yeraskh. China may also be interested in this communication, taking into account the implementation of the Silk Road megaproject, where Iran, the countries of the South Caucasus, and the Black Sea can become one of the routes to Europe. Accordingly, the parties interested in Nakhichevan in the new configuration after January 16, 2016 may be the EU countries and, of course, the United States.

However, the solution of this issue only within the framework of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations becomes unrealistic due to the unresolved Karabakh issue and the contradictory approaches of Yerevan and Baku to the topic of compromise. The Azerbaijani aggression against Nagorno-Karabakh on April 2–5, 2016, counting on a blitzkrieg, failed again, which further distanced the parties from the political settlement of this territorial problem. Until recently, the political and economic format for resolving the Nakhichevan problem in expert circles could only be considered in the format of a military confrontation between Armenia and Azerbaijan in the event of a new large-scale conflict in Karabakh. Although on April 5, through the mediation of the Russian General Staff, the conflicting parties reached an oral truce, however, skirmishes along the line of contact in Nagorno-Karabakh and on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border (including Nakhichevan) continue regularly. The authorities of Baku do not stop carrying out provocations, but they are not able to win a convincing military victory over Artsakh and force Stepanakert to capitulate.

Over the past years of Azerbaijan’s independence and the Karabakh conflict, the Baku authorities have taken additional anti-Armenian destructive actions in Nakhichevan aimed at destroying the material and ethno-cultural monuments of the history of the Armenian people in this province (for example, the destruction of the ancient Armenian cemetery in New Julfa by the Azerbaijani Armed Forces and turning it into a military polygon). All this further exacerbates the Nakhichevan issue.

Almost a century-long period of such a division of the territories of Armenia between Russia and Turkey is coming to a denouement. With the collapse of the USSR, Russia first recognized the independence of Azerbaijan, and then in 1992 was forced to withdraw its troops from this country, including the territory of the Nakhichevan autonomy. The latter, in my opinion, was an erroneous decision, however, as in the situation with the determination of the status of Crimea in the same 1992? and the fleet, then Moscow had no military presence in Nakhichevan and provided Turkey and Azerbaijan with all the opportunities to Turkify this province, unleash the transport blockade and create new geopolitical threats. And every time the Russian authorities hoped that, you see, the Azerbaijani government, in agreement with Turkey and the United States, was refusing Russia to place military bases and Russian border guards on its territory. But for some reason, the Kremlin does not remember the terms of the Moscow Treaty of 1921, does not remind Baku of how Nakhichevan became an autonomy and ended up in the same Azerbaijan.

Azerbaijan, hoping for a military-technical superiority, on April 2–5 unleashed a new military aggression against Karabakh, but its plan for a rapid breakthrough of the layered Armenian defense failed miserably, led to significant losses in manpower and equipment, which forced the Baku authorities to request a truce through Moscow . Azerbaijan opposes the initiatives of the American side, supported by other mediators and the EU, to place technical sensor devices on the line of contact in the conflict zone to identify violators of the conditions of the 1994 Bishkek truce. and conducting appropriate investigations into these facts.

What is Azerbaijan counting on? As the experience of the April 4-day war showed, Baku is not in a position to wage a large-scale war today, since it can get the opposite result to its expectations, which will inevitably lead to sad consequences for the country. Azerbaijan cannot count on military assistance and intervention in the conflict with Armenia from fraternal Turkey (despite the loud propaganda statements of its leaders and diplomats) in the current conditions in which Turkey finds itself, since such liberties by Ankara are unlikely to please Russia, the United States and Europe. Turkey will most likely find itself on the verge of territorial collapse, taking into account the Kurdish and Armenian issues.

Relying on Russian offensive military equipment (MLRS Smerch, TOS-1A Solntsepek, T-90S tanks, etc.) gives the Azerbaijani army a certain advantage, but does not bring the expected result due to the skillful defense of the NKR Defense Army. Yes, and Russia, with its supply of weapons and equipment to Azerbaijan, undermined its own political reputation as an ally of Armenia. The Russians cynically betrayed once again the interests of Armenia. Statements that if Russia does not sell weapons to Azerbaijan, then someone else will do it, sound even more ridiculous and unrealistic, because, firstly, this “someone” (or rather Turkey, Israel, Pakistan) as they sold and continue to supply these deliveries to Azerbaijan, and secondly, apart from Russia, other countries do not have such deadly weapons as the Smerch MLRS, TOS-1A Solntsepek, T-90S tanks.

The oil-dependent economy of Azerbaijan is suffering heavy losses due to the fall in world oil prices, which will soon affect the military budget. The West will put pressure on the administration of Ilham Aliyev on the fact of expanding purchases of Russian weapons, and not so much because of the interests of Armenia, but because of the need to increase the degree of economic pressure on Russia.

Baku must understand that Armenia and its Armed Forces are capable of not only adequately responding to military provocations and aggression in the Karabakh direction, but also creating a certain tension in the Nakhichevan segment. This can take place in two cases: a) if Azerbaijan does not stop the escalation of tension against Nagorno-Karabakh; b) if Iran, the US, the EU countries and Russia wish to change the situation around Nakhichevan and go for its unblocking.

The defense doctrine of Armenia is forced to move from "passive defense" to "containment and curbing" of the enemy. This strategy will be devoted to the strategy of rearmament of the Armenian army, the military-technical cooperation of Armenia with Russia, China and, possibly, Iran. Yerevan and Stepanakert are rather tired of Baku's provocations and intend to launch a counteroffensive in the event of another military provocation by Azerbaijan in order to change the status quo of the NKR in the direction of expanding the foothold in the eastern direction to natural boundaries. The fact that the Armenian command agreed to a truce on April 5, 2016 and did not give a command for a counterattack caused great criticism in the military circles of Artsakh and Armenia. However, this war showed that the Armenian side would be categorically against the issue of territorial concessions, because Baku once again showed its unwillingness to a political settlement of the problem. Moreover, the Armenian side will have a negative attitude towards any attempts to deploy foreign (international) peacekeeping military units due to the lack of trust in them and the corresponding rejection of them both by Yerevan and Stepanakert, and Tehran.

Iran and the six powers (USA, France, UK, Germany, China and Russia) reached a historic agreement in Vienna on July 14, 2015 to resolve the longstanding problem of the Iranian atom. As a result, the Vienna Accords led to the fact that January 16, 2016 became a historic day for Iran, as part of the sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council, the EU and the United States were lifted from it.

As a result of the lifting of sanctions, Iran gained access to its frozen foreign assets, which, according to the US Treasury Department, amount to more than $50 billion. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani called the nuclear deal a "golden page in Iran's history" and a "turning point" in the development of the country's economy.

The lifting of sanctions against Iran, undertaken by the West (or rather the United States), despite the steady opposition of Israel and its Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, comes from a new configuration in the Middle East and South Caucasus. The foreign ministries of the leading countries of the world (Russia, the USA, Great Britain, France, Germany, Italy, China) stated that the agreements with Iran contribute to strengthening security in the Middle East and the Persian Gulf.

In this regard, the geopolitical situation in the Transcaucasian region has also changed. Armenia, for one, has the opportunity to build strategic relations with Iran. As a direct neighbor of Iran, Armenia should benefit directly from the situation.

Iranian gas and oil are of great importance for the same Europe, which today opens its doors wide to Iran and provides large investments to the Iranian economy. As already noted, one of the routes of the Chinese Silk Road project can also pass through Iran, followed by Indian goods.

After the decisions to complete the first stage of creating new borders in the Middle East (that is, in Syria and Iraq), according to Igor Muradyan, “the United States and Europe will be forced to unambiguously choose Iran and the Shiite communities as their strategic ally in the region. This will be a difficult and difficult decision, but over the course of the 21st century. the Atlantic community will have no other strategic allies in the Middle East.”

In other words, Tehran considers Armenia as a link and a bridge for communication with Georgia, the EU countries and Russia (EAEU). Armenia can become an important logistical entity in the South Caucasus, in much the same way as Georgia for the connection of Western countries and Turkey with Azerbaijan and the republics of Central Asia, as well as Azerbaijan for the connection of Russia and Iran, Turkey and the EU countries with Central Asia.

The issue of opening a transport corridor between Iran and Armenia has become one of the discussed issues in official and expert circles in recent months. The main joint Iranian-Armenian economic projects are the construction of a hydroelectric power station on the Araks River near the Armenian city of Meghri, a third high-voltage transmission line and a railway.

China is showing particular interest in the Iran-Armenia Southern High-Speed ​​Railway project. According to the Chinese Ambassador to Armenia, Mr. Tian Erlong, Beijing is considering the possibility of investing in the Iran-Armenia railway construction project. The railway project was developed by China International Construction and Communications Company (CCCC International). Chinese banks are showing interest in the project and have expressed their readiness to finance 60% of the program. However, there is a time gap until 2022, during which important events may occur in the region. The high cost of building the Armenian section of the railway in high mountainous conditions not only delays the process of its implementation, but also allows Tehran to look for workarounds through Azerbaijan (Astara and Nakhichevan).

Thus, the February visit of Azerbaijani President Ilham Aliyev to Iran confirmed that by the end of 2016, Iran and Azerbaijan will unite the railways and they will become part of the North-South corridor. It remains to build across the river. Araks railway bridge connecting Iranian Astara with Azerbaijani Astara. The implementation of this project may "devalue" the Armenian-Iranian railway. If Azerbaijan unites its railways with Iran, then after the commissioning of the Kars-Akhalkalaki-Baku railway, trains from Iran can reach the Black Sea. Then the Armenian-Iranian railway, estimated at $3.5 billion, may lose its meaning for Tehran, if there was one.

True, in such a case, Iran will become dependent on the Turkish-Azerbaijani communication corridor and will be forced to take into account the interests of Ankara and Baku, which does not quite correspond to Tehran's intentions.

However, it is important for Iran to have alternative communications, given the unpredictability of regional relations and the presence of conflict potential. In addition, Armenia demonstrated a high degree of political loyalty towards Iran even under the sanctions regime, which is not forgotten in the East. And the West, represented by the United States, will be interested in the Armenian corridor of investment relations with Iran.

It was no coincidence that the April 4-day war in the Karabakh zone was unleashed by Azerbaijan after the Washington nuclear security summit and on the eve of the trilateral summit of the heads of the foreign ministries of Azerbaijan, Iran and Russia on the fate of North-South transport communications. But Russia is deeply mistaken that Azerbaijan will be Moscow's best friend in relations with Tehran, for which the interests of Armenia can be sacrificed. The war in Karabakh did not allow Azerbaijan to move south towards Fizuli, Jebrail, Zangelan and Kubatlu, that is, to restore Azerbaijani control over the lost areas and the 132-km border with Iran along the river. Arax. Conversely, the expected counter-offensive of the NKR Defense Army could plunge Azerbaijan and its allies (partners) into shock if Armenian control over the border with Iran is expanded. In other words, in the eastern direction, the construction of new communications across the river. Araks and Azerbaijan is an unsafe event, given the unresolved Karabakh conflict and the possibility of its resumption.

In this regard, the Nakhichevan theme is updated. If Iran and its Western partners succeed in "persuading" Azerbaijan to unblock Nakhichevan, then the corridor will become a reality.

Thus, Iran and the West (USA, leading EU countries) are faced with the need to unblock the Nakhichevan railway through Julfa in the direction of Armenia-Georgia-Black Sea-Europe. Given the fall in oil prices, Azerbaijan is suffering serious economic and financial losses, which leads to serious social costs. And from this point of view, Azerbaijan, like Armenia and Georgia, is objectively interested in Iranian traffic through Nakhichevan and Astara. The topic of the Nakhichevan railway (as, indeed, of Nakhichevan itself) is becoming an urgent geo-economic and geopolitical problem in relations with Azerbaijan (and not only and not so much Armenia, but also Iran, the USA, the EU, Russia and China).

Azerbaijan still considers the unblocking of Nakhichevan unacceptable for itself without resolving the Karabakh issue on the terms of Baku, because otherwise it may lead to a freeze on the Nagorno-Karabakh problem and the economic growth of Armenia, which will also change the military balance between the conflicting parties. However, in this case, as they say, the stake is higher than the issue of Azerbaijani-Armenian relations. It is no coincidence that Tehran recently reiterated its readiness to assist the Karabakh settlement, and representatives of the Iranian Foreign Ministry held relevant talks in Moscow with Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia Grigory Karasin.

Referring to the April military crisis in Karabakh, Iran, through the speaker of its parliament, Mr. Larijani, once again called on the parties to peaceful negotiations and a political settlement. At the same time, the Iranian politician noted that the resumption of a large-scale war in Nagorno-Karabakh is unacceptable due to turbulent processes in the region, which could lead to the proliferation and internationalization of the conflict itself, to devastating consequences for its participants. At the same time, Larijani stressed that it is not known who will emerge victorious in this new war. In other words, Iran made it clear to Azerbaijan that it is not worth counting on success in the Karabakh war, because this may force Tehran to take appropriate military measures. It is known that during the April war, the 7th Armored Brigade of the Iranian Armed Forces was put on full alert and could cross the Araks River to the north.

How will the West react? The US is very interested in opening a corridor for connecting Iran through Armenia with Europe. Washington, using its positions in the IMF and WB, actually refused to provide Azerbaijan with a loan in the amount of $4 billion. The West, of course, can achieve a default by Azerbaijan if I. Aliyev continues his uncompromising position on Karabakh. However, Washington can take this step if Yerevan adjusts its foreign policy from the EAEU in favor of the EU, the CSTO to NATO, Russia to the United States.

The Nakhichevan issue is acquiring a special geo-economic attraction for the outside world, and Azerbaijan should pursue a more cautious and pragmatic policy. The well-known high-profile propaganda action - the initiative of the deputies of the State Duma of Russia from the Communist Party faction V. Rashkin and S. Obukhov to denounce the Moscow Treaty of March 16, 1921, which determined, among other things, the status of the Nakhichevan autonomy - can also be considered a kind of signal to Azerbaijan on the fate Nakhichevan railway.

So far, Moscow does not unilaterally intend to revise the borders of the Transcaucasian republics, but it can, in agreement with the Western countries (the United States, for example), launch a new historical process and deploy its troops here as a guarantor of regional stability. In this regard, the fate of Azerbaijan itself will largely depend on the position of the leadership of Azerbaijan. Baku, while maintaining fraternal friendship with ethnically related Turkey, nevertheless does not lose reality and does not allow itself to be drawn into Turkish-Russian conflict relations. And on Syria, Deputy Foreign Minister of Azerbaijan Azimov noted the well-founded support of Russia.

The fact of the US-Russian regional partnership to establish a truce in Syria after the obvious success of the Russian Aerospace Forces, the positive assessment of Russia's role in the Syrian settlement given in February 2016 by US Secretary of State John Kerry, and his warning about sanctions against violators of the agreements (that is, Turkey ) speaks of the possibility of US-Russian success in the South Caucasus as well. Washington did not remove sanctions from Iran in order for someone to block Tehran's transport interchanges in the region.

In the Karabakh issue, Azerbaijan and Armenia are able to achieve great success if Nakhichevan is unblocked, the Azerbaijani-Armenian trade and economic cooperation is established and the ethnic communities in the region are reconciled. The issue of returning certain territories from the security zone around the NKR cannot be resolved without simultaneously determining the status of Nagorno-Karabakh, solving the problems of all refugees (both Azerbaijani and Armenian), returning the Shahumyan region to Stepanakert and unblocking Nakhichevan.

If Azerbaijan again stakes on the military method of resolving the issue and continues to propagate anti-Armenian hatred, then Baku has no chance of success. The military victory will be for Artsakh and Armenia.

The opinion of Russian politicians and diplomats that no one has solved problems like Karabakh by military means is, in our opinion, extremely inadequate. I wholeheartedly agree with everyone who advocates political methods for resolving this issue. But desire is one thing, reality is another. One might think that the capitulation of fascist Germany in May 1945 was the result of 4 years of painstaking Soviet-German negotiations. The fate of the same Crimea in the spring of 2014, Russia decided not at all based on the results of political consultations with Kyiv, but thanks to its naval base in Sevastopol and the so-called little green men of the Russian special forces, hastily transferred to Crimea to exclude provocations, to hold a meeting of the then Supreme Council of the Crimean autonomous republic in order to make the necessary political decision in favor of secession from Ukraine and joining Russia. One might think that the independent status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia was decided by a political settlement between Russia and Georgia, and not by the results of the 5-day war in August 2008.

At the same time, the 4-day war in Artsakh did not help Azerbaijan resolve the issue of Armenian capitulation, even despite the military-technical assistance from Russia. But who guaranteed Azerbaijan from another devastating defeat, the loss of new territories and complete capitulation under the threat of the collapse of statehood? No one will dare to give such a guarantee to Baku, since no one has a peaceful plan for solving this problem. The only way out is for Azerbaijan and Armenia, through the mediation of the same Iran, the United States, the EU countries and Russia, to gradually, step by step, restore trade and economic ties through the transit of the Julfa railway to Nakhichevan. This policy over time can lead to a decrease in the degree of mutual intolerance and hatred between the two societies, the restoration of the degree of trust and traditions of good neighborliness. Accordingly, the democratization of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations will also stimulate the political resolution of the territorial issue in Karabakh.

Alexander Svarants, Doctor of Political Sciences, Professor

The mausoleum in the village of Karabaglar, in the vicinity of the historically significant city of Nakhichevan, was built in the first half of the 14th century. Initially, it bore the name of a woman Godai Khatun, but now this name is rarely used. According to unverified reports, she was the wife of the local Abaga Khan. Her crypt is located on the lower tier of the mausoleum, which can be accessed through an open entrance. Inside, visitors are greeted by a hall with four semi-vaults arranged in a cross.

At the moment, the mausoleum is partially destroyed, but still retains its original shape. This is a twelve-sided cylinder placed on an octagonal pedestal made of white stone, quarried and hewn here. The height of the tower reaches 30 meters. It is round inside. Four entrances lead to the tower, located on the four cardinal points. The interior decor of the tower is represented by smooth green tiles and inscriptions from the Koran.

In addition to the mausoleum itself, two ancient 20-meter minarets, combined with the tomb into a single complex, deserve attention. Their construction dates back to the 12th century. The minarets are built of reddish brick and have round turrets ending in a cylinder at the base. Outside, the turrets are lined with small green tiles, which rhymes well with the facing of the mausoleum.

Momine Khatun Mausoleum

The Mausoleum of Momine-Khatun is one of the truly royal tombs erected in the "Noah's" city of Nakhichevan in Azerbaijan. This architectural monument crowns the grave of the mother of the local ruler, atabek (they bore such a title). The mausoleum was built in 1186 according to the design of the architect Ajami ibn Abubekr Nakhchivani. Initially, it reached 34 meters in height, of which only 25 have survived to this day. Once upon a time, a huge tent-shaped dome stretched higher, but history has not preserved it for us.

The decor of the mausoleum deserves special attention. Its exterior is decorated with ornaments of complex geometric shapes, and inscriptions from the Koran, unchanged for Azerbaijani mausoleums and mosques. The mausoleum has many facets made in the form of niches. Each of them is decorated with masterful carvings in the form of Kufic Arabic inscriptions. The top of the mausoleum, in the absence of a dome, is decorated with a stalactite composition.

Inside the mausoleum is round. The entire interior consists of four medallions with invariable inscriptions and ornaments. Somewhere under all this splendor is the grave of the "owner" of the mausoleum, Momine-Khatun, but there is no access to it.

What sights of Nakhichevan did you like? There are icons next to the photo, by clicking on which you can rate a particular place.

Mausoleum of Noah

The Mausoleum of Noah is the central attraction and the main shrine of the Azerbaijani city of Nakhichevan. Yes, we are talking about the Noah who overcame the Flood on his Ark! The legend says that it was in this place that he landed on land, he was buried here, and a tomb was built over his grave, and then a whole mausoleum.

The oldest part of the building dates back to about 1500 BC. This is all that has been preserved from the ancient structure - the lower part of the temple and the crypt itself. You can go down to it on a stone staircase to join one of the greatest mysteries of the Christian religion. They say that there, under a stone pillar, the relics of Noah are sleeping, and his sister is buried in the same city, but to the north.

Now the mausoleum has been qualitatively reconstructed, many elements had to be built literally from scratch. The decision on restoration was made by the government only in 2006. In general, the whole city of Nakhichevan is filled with reminders of Noah and that ancient era. Therefore, if you search, you can find many more legendary places associated with the name of the great prophet, his Ark and his family, who allegedly founded the city and restored the human race.

The Khudaferin bridges are a unique ancient structure dating back to the 12th-13th centuries. There is no exact data, so historians call the time of construction approximately. These engineering monuments connect the southern and northern banks of the Araks River in the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. The crossing is located just between the villages of Khudaferin (after whom the bridges are named) and Kumlak.

The Iranian historian Hamdallah Qazvini mentions in his notes that the first of the bridges, the "big one", was built in 636, but this date is unlikely. At the moment, this bridge is still functioning and makes it possible to cross the Araks River. The ancient Arabs used river cobblestone and burnt square-shaped bricks in its construction. There was no need to artificially build bridge abutments - nature itself took care of everything. Thus, the bridge rests on natural rock outcrops. Because of this, its shape is not perfectly straight. The length of the "big" bridge is 200 meters, width - 4.5 meters. It rises 10 meters above the water.

The small bridge was built later, in the 13th century, for the fast crossing of a large number of people from one bank to another. Its length was 130 meters, width - 6 meters. The bridge is currently destroyed.

Alinjakala fortress

Alinjakala is a fortress that once played the role of one of the most powerful and reliable defensive structures. It is located in Azerbaijan, on the top of Mount Alinja, west of the village of Khanega, near the city of Julfa, on the right bank of the Alinja River.

The fortress is also called Alinja or Alinja-kala. It is located on the border of the Armenian provinces of Vaspurakan and Syunik. According to the Armenian authors, this is one of the most ancient settlements in Armenia and one of the most famous residences in which the princes Orbelyans lived. Over time, the building belonged to the Turkic dynasty of the Ildegizids.

During the invasion of Tamerlane's troops, it was the defenders of the Alinjakala fortress that offered the most staunch resistance to the invaders.

Inside the fortress there is a large number of defensive, hydraulic, palace and residential buildings, which occupied the top and slopes of the mountain. From the foot of the mountain and to the very top, strong rows of stone walls stretch in several lines. The cistern pools collecting melt and rainwater were covered in shade. Once in this fortress the most important treasury of the Seljuk Atabeks was kept.

Mount Alinja

In Azerbaijan, there is a mountain peak called Alinja, or, as it is also called, Alinja-Dag. It is located in the southwest of the Zangezur Range, in the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic on the territory of the Julfa region, on the right bank of the Alinjachay River.

Its absolute height ranges from 1,810 to 1,821.4 meters above sea level. In the southeastern part of the slope is the village of Khanaga, and on the top of Alinja-Dag is the fortress of Alinjakala, dating back to the Middle Ages.

The mountain is composed of laccoliths, there is practically no vegetation on it, except for grass. From the top, a magnificent landscape opens up to the neighboring mountains.

Tomb of Yusif ibn Quseir

The tomb of Yusif ibn Quseir is considered one of the oldest monuments of Nakhichevan - the legendary city associated with Noah and his Ark. The time of construction of the mausoleum dates back to 1161-1162, as the inscription above the entrance says. The tomb was created by the architect Ajami ibn Abubekr Nakhchivani, the author of many other famous historical monuments and tombs of Nakhichevan.

The mausoleum has a relatively small size and is made of burnt bricks of different shades. The tomb of Yusif ibn Quseir has eight faces made exactly the same, not counting the face with the entrance to the mausoleum. Externally, the building is crowned with a pyramid-shaped tent, which is often found in this type of buildings. Above is an inscription from the Koran.

Inside, the tomb also has a traditional division into the upper, "official" part, and the lower tier of the crypt itself. The ceiling is made in the form of a spherical dome. It is noteworthy that not only the foundation, but also the entire unusual decor of the building is made of brick pieces. So, the planes of the outer faces are lined with brick slabs, whose thickness exceeds 10 centimeters. The slabs are made from fragments of bricks forming a geometric ornament. Also, with a sharp tool, the architects scratched a floral ornament on the surface of the not completely frozen solution.

The most popular attractions in Nakhichevan with descriptions and photos for every taste. Choose the best places to visit the famous places of Nakhichevan on our website.

Nakhichevan from A to Z: map, hotels, attractions, restaurants, entertainment. Shopping, shops. Photos, videos and reviews about Nakhichevan.

• Tours for May around the world
• Hot tours around the world

Nakhichevan is the ancient capital of the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, which, by the will of historical fate, was cut off from the territory of "big" Azerbaijan. Because of this circumstance, and also because of the rather strict rules for visiting the NAR, the city does not often receive guests from abroad. In the meantime, there is something to see in it. Firstly, it was here that the first president of Azerbaijan, Heydar Aliyev, was born. In addition, many monuments from the Middle Ages have been preserved in Nakhichevan, including the mausoleums of local rulers, mosques, palaces and powerful fortresses. And, of course, any local resident will surely tell that it was in the vicinity of Nakhichevan that the legendary Noah set foot on solid ground for the first time after many weeks of the Flood.

How to get to Nakhichevan

Perhaps the most convenient way to get to Nakhichevan is by direct UTair flight from Moscow. Planes fly three times a week - on Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays from Vnukovo, travel time 3 hours. Nakhichevan Airport is located on the outskirts of the city (only 6 km), it is connected with the central part by bus route No. 6. You can also use an inexpensive taxi, the trip will last about 10 minutes.

Search for flights to Nakhichevan

Transport

Public transport in Nakhichevan is buses and minibuses. But there is no need for their services - the main attractions are within walking distance from the city center. In which case you can call a taxi - it is inexpensive, especially if you order a car by phone. Parking is free everywhere. It is convenient to move around the city by bicycle, you can rent a bike in some hotels.

Nakhichevan Hotels

There are few hotels in Nakhichevan. Tourists and business travelers from Baku, rare for these places, mainly settle in the main hotel of the city, Tebriz 5*. A room in it will cost 130 AZN per day with breakfast. Budget three-star hotels cost around 100 AZN per night. Apartments can be rented for 60-70 AZN. There are no hostels in the city. Prices on the page are for October 2018.

Cafes and restaurants

Almost all establishments in Nakhichevan specialize in Azerbaijani cuisine. First of all, these are dishes from the grill: shish kebab, “lyulya-kebab”. Fresh vegetable salads are very popular, and all the ingredients are cut very finely: “Azerbaijan” (tomatoes, cucumbers, onions, radishes poured with sour cream), “Khazar” (boiled potatoes with cucumbers, tarragon and sturgeon), “kyukyu” from smoked kutum ( Caspian carp). In general, there are a lot of fish dishes on the menu of local restaurants. The region is rich in water resources, and fish, especially sturgeon, is often used instead of meat in dolma and even pilaf! Sour-milk products are also popular: “firni” (jelly made from milk and rice flour), “dovga” (sour-milk soup), “ovdukh” (okroshka on kefir).

A hearty dinner in a restaurant will cost 13-26 AZN per person. There are several establishments with European cuisine (with pizza and the ubiquitous Caesar salad), you can eat there for about the same amount.

Sights of Nakhichevan

The pride of Nakhichevan is its numerous mausoleums. True, the methods of reconstructing tombs with almost a thousand years of history raise questions. The most legendary of the tombs, the mausoleum of Noah, is located near the Old Fortress (or Kohnia-Gala) in the southern part of the city.

It is said that there was once a sanctuary on the site of the tower built in 2006, and the tomb was erected from the remains of its lower floor. In the center of the mausoleum stands a massive stone column, under which the relics of Noah supposedly lie.

Archaeologists have not yet found out the exact date of the foundation of this defensive structure. But during excavations in the late 1950s. found elements of stone sledgehammers and faience dishes up to 5000 years old. The width of the preserved walls is 1 m, and in the part adjacent to the city it reaches 4 m.

Not far from the fortress there are two more mausoleums. The tomb of Yusif ibn Kuseyr (Yusif ibn Kuseyr), or "Atababa", was built in the 12th century by the famous Nakhichevan architect Ajami ibn Abubakr Nakhchivani. The unusual building in the form of an 8-sided cylinder is decorated with geometric brick patterns and covered with a pyramidal dome. The Mausoleum of Momina Khatun (Momina Khatun Mausoleum) is also the work of Ajami Nakhchivani. Once the height of the mausoleum of the 12th century reached 34 m. Today it is a little lower - only 25 m. Each of the faces is covered with carved details - Arabic writing, stylized as a geometric ornament.

Another noteworthy attraction is the Khan's Palace (Heydar Aliyev Ave., 21). Starting from the time of construction (late 18th century), it was the residence of the Nakhichevan khans. In 1998, the State Carpet Museum was opened in a two-story building. It exhibits 283 products, grouped according to different schools of carpet weaving in Azerbaijan.

Weather in Nakhichevan

The climate of Nakhichevan is sharply continental with hot summers and frosty winters. Therefore, the best time to visit these places will be the off-season: autumn and spring.