Thursday, October 29 2015 09:28

 Would you assess the prospects of the military operation Russia’s Aerospace Force launched against “Islamic State” militants on September 30, considering that the efforts of the U.S. and Russian defense ministries towards coordination of actions against IS have not been a success so far?

Russia's involvement in the civil war in Syria is a hazardous step in many aspects.  It is a hazardous game for the Kremlin, because the current propaganda effect can promptly decline due to the Russian losses in the conflict. After that the Russian public will start to perceive Syria as a new Afghanistan.  In addition, Russians act absolutely thoughtlessly, provoking tension in the relations with Turkey and the United States. The EU is also skeptical about positive results of Russia's intervention. The explosions in the Sunni districts of the country will result in bigger flows of refugees from Syria to Europe. The latest agreements between Moscow and Washington on the Syrian issue are not a pact, though the Kremlin would like to start geopolitical discussions with the United States and division of the interest spheres the way it happened during the Yalta conference in 1945. This is the main reason of Russia's involvement in the civil war in Syria. 

What is, in fact, behind the war Ankara has declared to its own citizens-Kurds? 

The Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK) is a terrorist organization, but it is still the most solid political force representing the Turkish Kurds. Therefore, Ankara has recently launched negotiations with the PKK leadership. Now, mainly for domestic policy reasons, Turkey has decided to attack the Kurdish forces. The Justice and Development Party (AKP) is preparing for elections and now voters will support Davutoglu’s Party as a guarantor of a strong nationalist state. I do not anticipate any significant changes in Ankara’s policy towards the South Caucasus after the elections. At the same, if AKP and the far-right Nationalist Movement Party make a coalition, it will enhance Pan-Turkic approaches, toughen the stance on Armenia and boost the cooperation with Azerbaijan. Meantime, strong positions of the Kurdish People’s Democratic Party (HDP) in the Parliament may help to re-launch the negotiations with Yerevan for establishment of diplomatic relations.  HDP is more liberal and open to the ethnic minorities in Turkey. This will probably defuse aggression in the foreign policy. 

 
 Does Moscow have real levers to settle the Karabakh conflict or it is upon the parties to the conflict to do it?

The parties to the Karabakh conflict will be able to settle it with the help of the USA, EU and Russia. However, unless Moscow is interested in its final settlement, there are no chances of lasting peace in the region even if Baku and Yerevan are be able to reach compromise.  However, I do not exclude that recent incidents on the Line of Contact of the troops may lead to large- scale military operations in the zone of the Karabakh conflict. That is why the situation will remain dangerous, unless there are any peacekeepers between the Armenian and Azerbaijani forces. The ice jam in the negotiation process between the two sides deteriorates the situation even more. There is no scenario of quick settlement of the Karabakh conflict and in the existing circumstances any progress is unlikely. At the same time, I think currently Russia is the most influential external power that can have an impact on the Karabakh issue. However, Moscow is not interested in any solution to this issue, taking into account that the conflict is a useful instrument for a political game with Yerevan and Baku.

The current frosting of Baku’s relations with Brussels and Washington make many of our analysts think that Aliyev’s regime will shortly have quite a new format of relations with Moscow with possible joining the Eurasian Economic Union. What do you think of this?

There are a lot of high-profile politicians in Azerbaijani elite who are interested in going back to the Soviet type of state, the establishment of which is most certainly Vladimir Putin's main goal. On the other hand, among Azerbaijan's vital interests is selling gas and oil to Europe and not to Russia, which is not a good consumer. That is why regardless of the fact how much Aliyev criticizes Europe, he will keep on doing business with the European partners as usual. Azerbaijan's joining EEU is possible, however this will become solely an act of further cooling in relations between Baku and the USA, as well as between Baku and EU. Azerbaijan's real integration into EEU along with cooperation with its member countries is unlikely. Moreover, even the issue of integration of the organization's current members is rather problematic.

 

Despite is EEU’s membership Armenia still tries to wage the so-called complementary policy between the North and the West with a goal of signing the Association Agreement with the EU in future. At least, this becomes evident from the regular statements of European diplomats accredited to Armenia. What do you think of Armenia’s complementary policy, in general, and the possibility of an Armenia-EU AA, in particular?

The Association Agreement with Armenia is not on agenda now, but it may happen at a certain moment.  EEU is not operating well, which is very harmful for Armenia’s economy.  It is quite possible that EU will eventually arrive to a conclusion that Armenia’s formal membership of the EEU is not an obstacle to enhanced cooperation and integration. However, this is possible only in case Russia’s leadership ends its propaganda war against the West and aggression against Ukraine. Unfortunately, this is hardly possible in the near future, as the Kremlin has always used the West to create an image of enemy and rally the nation. Armenia will receive a new proposal from the EU and will, probably, try to enhance the cooperation again. Armenia still has normal relations with the West, even as EEU member. On the other hand, after abandoning the negotiations for the EU AA, Yerevan lost the chance to enhance and reform the state and economy. In fact, Armenia has turned into Russia’s satellite with weak economy, high level of corruption, oligarchy and monopoly. So far Yerevan has good but still shallow relationships with the West. 

Who needs a new war in the Caucasus, given the destabilization in the neighbor region (Syri, Iraq)? 

Generally speaking, the authoritarian governments are more interested in a new war in the region.  Georia is the only country in the region to hold free and democratic elections. All the other governments – they are either partly legitimate or illegitimate in case of fair elections and true expression of the public will -  use the image of enemy to rally the nation around them. 

 Iran’s example best of all showed the futility of the attempts to influence the foreign policy of Tehran through economic sanctions.  What do you think of the efficiency of the sanctions against such power country as Russia?

I cannot agree with you. The sanctions against Iran proved efficient, as Tehran eventually decided to cooperate with the world community. The same can be anticipated from Russia. At the same time, the Iranian nuclear deal was generally good news for both Armenia and Georgia. This may boost the economic cooperation of the West and Iran, including in the energy sector, within the coming years.  The South Caucasus states can also benefit from these processes.