Friday, September 22 2017 12:16

Widely known  Azerbaijani political scientist Zardusht Alizadeh in an interview with ArmInfo shares his version of the reasons, goals and background of the latest statements  about the Karabakh settlement. He talks about the interests of Russia and the US, the ruling elites of the countries participating in the conflict in the negotiation process, and their influence on the prospects for settlement.

 

On September 18, Armenian Foreign Minister Edward Nalbandian at the Armenia-Diaspora forum designated territorial territories as possible territorial concessions, "in the transfer of which there will not be a threat to the security of Artsakh and will not be endangered by a final settlement of the conflict." In fact, the minister only once again voiced one of the Madrid principles, however, this was the reason for another surge in the spirit of "not a inch of land to the enemy." In your opinion, what are the reasons for such, and repeated, statements by Yerevan?

 The position of Armenia plus Russia,  is unchanged: the conflict must be endless. Armenia, of course, would like to "resolve once and for all" the conflict in its  favor, but it understands soberly that the demiurge will not allow this. Therefore Yerevan only has to imitate certain movements and "initiatives.

Competent experts who know the essence of the conflict, serious statements are not attached to the statements of the responsible persons of Armenia and Azerbaijan.  As for the statements of the "patriots", they are practicing their bread. "Nothing personal, it's just business." At the same time, Russia, according to his estimates, achieved its goal - hung the two states on the hook of the conflict, supports fully dependent and loyal Moscow authorities in Baku and Yerevan, skillfully and effectively manages the conflict both through it and the region.  "Well, you are not looking for good from the good of the good." And the plebes can be fed through various artists representing highly independent and patriotic statesmen, such as "just about to be solved," or "we'll die, but not a step back, or "the issue of sovereignty over Karabakh cannot be a subject of discussion.

 

The document lying on the negotiation table assumes giving up  of at least six regions, including Kalbajar. However, recently commissioned, an alternative Lachin, asphalt road linking Armenia to the north of Karabakh through Kalbajar is just one of the indicators of the ephemerality of the "Madrid principles". Is it possible, in this light, to talk about the absence of negotiations in the negotiating agenda, in fact, leading to the resolution of the Karabakh conflict?

 It is possible and necessary to state the absence of any nationally-oriented government, both in Armenia and in Azerbaijan. It is quite clear that the continuation of the conflict dooms both peoples to dependence, backwardness and degradation. But the political will to withdraw from the custody of imperialist Russia, and there is no compromise solution for the authorities, and is not foreseen. There is only a desire to hold onto the post and articulate sounds that serve to perpetuate their power and privileges.  

 

Of course, Azerbaijan is the same object of the Kremlin's policy in the post-Soviet space, like Armenia. In these conditions, Baku continues to participate in the implementation of energy and transport projects aimed at isolating Russia. Does this create future preconditions for Moscow's pressure on Baku, including with the use of the Karabakh conflict?

 Both Armenia and Azerbaijan in issues related to the property interests of the political elite retain Moscow's relative autonomy. The Azerbaijani authorities pursue a policy of not isolating Russia, but a policy of protecting their own business interests from encroachments of greedy Russian oligarchs." Ilham Aliyev does not need Sechin  in Azerbaijan. In this case, the West is his ally. As for the Russian pressure with the use of the Karabakh map, this has been happening all the years since the collapse of the USSR. However, the Azerbaijani authorities maneuver, yielding to the Karabakh issue, while not yielding to the protection of their personal economic interests.

 

According to estimates from the United States and France, the "Madrid principles" lying on the table of negotiations today are practically non-alternative. Does the surrender of any Artsakh territories to Azerbaijan, as envisaged by the above-mentioned principles, come from the interests of Russia and will this not become a catalyst for a new war capable of enveloping the underbelly of Russia with another chaos?

 No progress in the architecture of the conflict is possible,  if those do not consider the interests of Kremlin politicians.  Armenia and Azerbaijan are sitting in a cage of conflict with thick bars that cannot be sawed with the simple desire of one side. To this end, according to Alizade, the joint coordinated work of the two sides of the conflict is necessary. What Russia and its local agents will never allow. Russia will allow only such a change that will deepen and strengthen its direct control over Armenia and Azerbaijan. This change can only be the deployment of Russian peacekeepers in Nagorno-Karabakh, after which it will be possible to safely say goodbye to the ghostly remains of our independence.

 

The last "sanctions" generated  increased tension in Russian-American relations cannot be projected onto the post-Soviet space, which Moscow has repeatedly assessed as a zone of its interests. How, in your opinion, will the deepening of the contradictions between Moscow and Washington affect the South Caucasus?

 In the South Caucasus, the struggle between the US and Russia is not to establish peace and security, but for someone to saddle a mare of conflict and drive the people. One of my Armenian colleagues once used to say that as long as Armenia and Azerbaijan have multidirectional vectors of political development, the conflict will not be resolved. As an Arabi expert , I did not even have the desire to discuss with him. The Arab-Israeli conflict was not resolved not because the patrons of the conflicting parties - the US and the USSR - were irreconcilable rivals, but because the conflict was beneficial to many players. The history showed that even after the collapse of the USSR and the transition of the Arabs to US control, the Middle East conflict Not allowed. The region is still under full control of Russia, the US is only developing plans for its ousting from the region. 

 

 The Russian experts in the South Caucasus generally consider the preservation of the "frozen" status quo of 1994 as the best scenario in line with Russia's interests. Does holding such an explosive state in conditions of inflation and the militarized region put the interests of Russia at risk precisely?

No. Russia is absolutely sure that the created instruments of control over the states of the region are sufficient and will not allow any side of the conflict to show independence and take a step without agreeing with it.  And if so, then it's a sin not to do business on short-sightedness and inadequacy of the ruling elites and to give the nearest circle to stuff their pockets with weapons, to be grateful to the father of the nation for providing excellent opportunities for a fantastic “gesheft”.