ArmInfo. Ambassador Plenipotentiary and Extraordinary, General-in-Chief, VyacheslavTrubnikov, the Ex-Head of Foreign Investigations Service, Ex- Deputy Foreign Minister of Russia and the Board member of National Research Institute of World Economy and International Relations under Russian Science Academy , shares his opinion regarding Karabakh conflict settlement, states the unavoidable consequences of the possible war in one of the most militarized regions of the world, speaks about the options and abilities of co-chair countries in the Karabakh settlement, and shares his vision of involvement of new players in the peace talks process.
In late 90ies and in the beginning of 200-ies you were the Russian co-chair in the Karabakh peaceful settlement process. Did the reality and circumstances change within all these years? Which option of the problem settlement is the most feasible in your opinion for today?
The settlement of Karabakh issue I will address to Yerevan and, of course, to Stepanakert. Because here will be no any strong and sustainable settlement without Stepanakert. The situation of unrecognized state also makes its psychological impact on those who live in this country. I think that first of all this should be considered in Yerevan and in second turn - in Baku. I think that in respect to Baku the issue is solved - Karabakh will hardly ever be a part of Azerbaijan. And for Armenia - it is not solved by now, here is much to do and think yet. At that, the direct way from Azerbaijan to Nakhidjevan through the territory of Armenia is a certain compensation for Baku. As well as the return of 7 regions of the country controlled by Armenia today. Of course, this option could be not acceptable for all, but there will be no serious basis for any territorial claims.
Hence, this is exactlyYour vision of the compromise?
Yes, I imagine the compromise exactly like this, understanding at that the positions of all the parties of the conflict. I understand the intention of Yerevan to have guarantees of comprehensive solution of the conflict, because in this case the abilities of all the parties were equalized. Armenia will never give up such a mighty tool like 7regions without mighty guarantees. Such guarantees could be generated just and only upon the comprehensive solution of the conflict. And that should be understood in Baku. I would say also that the road to Nakhidjevan through the territory of Armenia will be an essential strategic (and I would like to stress this being exactly strategic) achievement for Azerbaijan.
You mean setting the corridor exclusively through Armenian territory?
The corridor mentioned should be set so that it should not impact the neighborhood of Armenia with other countries, because the Lachin corridor obviously will not open such options for Armenia.
Very often in Baku, and sometimes in Yerevan, an opinion is being voiced that it would be very expedient to suppress the opposite side to reach the settlement just within the consideration of own benefit. Such claims are addressed mainly and almost always to Russia. Do such claims have any meaning and prospective, in Youropinion?
I treat such claims very negatively. The position of Russia is clear - there should not be winners or losers. And no side of the conflict should strengthen itself at the cost of third party influence. Because that will end bad for all the sides of the conflict, including that same third party. It is quite wrong to be a participant of such a decision that will never put an end to Karabakh conflict. Any final settlement is impossible there, where will be no compromise, there, where the option of revenge will remain. That will be a temporary agreement only. That is why the Karabakh issue should be solved once and forever.
Do You have a clear vision of such preconditions for Karabakh settlement?
I think that today's leaders in Yerevan, Baku and Stepanakert are wise enough in political aspects to avoid one-hand beneficial solutions, and they understand that it is almost impossible. At the same time I think that the theoretical possibility of such solutions still exists. Guess also that there will be some hot blooded people. For instance, due to the reason that Azerbaijan develops and strengthens well. Mentioning that oil and gas open the opportunity for Azerbaijan to get improved materially, there will be those who will experience appropriate temptations.At the time of my co-chairmanship in OSCE MG, there was an idea being voiced like "time will pass, we will get stronger and we will solve the issue in our way". I am confident that this is not the essence of the problem settlement. This is the way to go deeper with this conflict, leaving the unavoidable explosion for the future generations. Meanwhile, wise leaders should not be ruled by categories of their lives and the lives of their children, they should look further in the future.
What are the threats and challenges of big war in our extremely militarized region could bring along if not the self-annihilation of Armenia and Azerbaijan?
A new war in Karabakhundoubtedly will end with annihilation of Armenia and Azerbaijan.That will be a war of annihilation, without winners. And there is nothing to conquer. It would be necessary to destroy people physically. It will be necessary to destroy nation, religion and culture. And fortunately it is impossible in 21st century",
Are there any preconditions , possibility and expediency of involvement of Iran , which has powerful interests in all three countries participating in the conflict and a broad border with Artsakh, in the settlement of the Karabakh conflict and in the negotiations process and how could that affect the process mentioned?
I think that the format of the Minsk Group for resolving this problem is quite sufficient. Anyways, this format is able not to let the conflict grow into the scale of international one. There are enough of intermediaries there. In an individual context Russia, USA, France play the most important role in the contacts on the highest level.
Do the countries of Southern Caucasus and Russia experience the life-based necessity to support the territorial integrity of Turkey and Iran, within the consideration that exactly these two countries are the natural obstacle separating our country from the mid-east unsustainability and terror?
I think that disturbing political balance is a very easy and simple thing. But it is difficult to forecast political consequences, which are absolutely unpredictable. In this respect, to my opinion, the countries of Southern Caucasus and Russia are interested in keeping the territorial integrity of Turkey. It is the same if we would talk about dividing Syria to separate parts: Kurdish, Sunnis and others, and somewhere will be Christians accumulated as well. in such situation the life of all neighbor countries will become very complicated. Because all these separate parts will search for external support. Nowadays, this support is anyway being provided either to pro-Asad and anti-Asad forces. But, anyway, Syria has legitimate and single Government, which main goal is to keep the integrity of the country. "Russia, Iran and Turkey do stand exactly at this position. We are for integrated Syria, because only such Syria could be the pledge of the sustainability in any region. I also stand for joint Turkey, because internal troubles of Turkey are good for nobody, first - to the neighbors of Turkey.
READ ALL COMMENTS