Saturday, March 19 2016 08:04

Russian president’s decision to withdraw forces from Syria was unexpected. Was it agreed with the allies within the U.S.-led anti-terrorist coalition, particularly with Washington?

The decision to withdraw troops from Syria could be agreed with some of the allies in the coalition, while the others were just notified about it. For example Vladimir Putin talked to President of the USA after making the decision. But this is not the main point, the most important thing is that the initiative came from Moscow, and I have no doubts in this. By this Russia solves the tasks, which were set when Moscow was making a decision on launching airspace forces' operation in Syria. Since then a crucial breakthrough occurred in the Syrian area of war. With the support of Russian Aerospace Force and with the help of Russian military advisors the Syrian army won back 400 populated areas on the territory of 10000 sq. km. Not mentioning the liquidation of terrorists' main sources of recovery, processing and transportation of oil. This means it were the Russian servicemen who delivered a powerful blow on the financial infrastructure of ISIL. Moreover, after ceasefire regime has been established, around 45 military groups supported it, and it is being more or less observed today. Earlier Bashar al-Assad's power was hang by a thread and he was not even considered as a side to the conflict, now he is a full participant of the peaceful process. His opponents also take part in the process. Thus Russia has created conditions for achievement of the goals and tasks given to the Syrian Defense Ministry. The main reason to withdraw forces was Moscow’s evaluation of the situation. The decision was made taking into account the main benefits of ceasing military operation from all the points of view, including image, politico-military factors and accusations against Russia.

 

But at least one goal has not been achieved – the border between Syria and Turkey has not been blocked…

You are right, and not only that goal. The Islamic State has not been destroyed finally. These are tactical goals, while the major goal  -  not to let overthrow of the legitimate Syrian government that is fighting ISIL – has been achieved. In this light, the military-political leadership of Russia thinks that at the current stage the functions of the Russian troops are completed and it is for the Syrian army to make the further steps. Having carried out their key tasks, the Aerospace Forces of Russia are leaving Syria.  Consequently, the Russian Aerospace Forces' actions against the ISIS will be continued by the Syrian army, which has become much stronger and is able to conduct offensive operations. The Syrian Air Forces have significantly strengthened with the Russian support. This is very important, especially amid the tangible shortening of the line of contact and the growth of the offensive potential of the Syrian army due to participation in the peace process of a number of armed groups.

 Wll the U.S. servicemen also leave Syria after withdrawal of Russian forces?

I don’t think so. In order to answer to this question one should understand who has geopolitical goals in Syria and what kind of goals these are. The geopolitical tasks being settled in Syria by Russia, the US, the EU and the regional powers are absolutely different. Though the West's task to topple Bashar al-Assad's power is not carried out, only the methods will change depending on the situation, while the goal will remain the same. The problem is not Assad's personality, but the foreign political course of his government.   By the way, I think Assad was one of the first persons to be informed of withdrawal of the Russian troops. Russia has not left Syrian completely. Moscow has taken a decision to withdraw only the air force component of the Russian contingent. The bases in Tartus and Hmeimim with their strong infrastructures remain. To understand the decision that may be taken by Moscow in the future, Russia has managed to do a big preparatory job in Syria. This infrastructure is still operating. It will take no more than 6 hours to return the air group, i.e. if the situation fails to develop under Russia's scenario, Moscow will return everything to the initial point within a few hours. 

 

 

The latest week was significant with the Putin-Sargsyan meeting in Moscow, the visit by Russian Deputy Prime Minister Rogozin to Baku, the statements by Dmitry Peskov on the moderation of the Karabakh conflict exclusively by Russia etc. Some experts say this chain speaks of Moscow’s preparations to assume a new role in the Karabakh peace. What do you think about it?

 

I anticipate no changes in the stand of Russia on the Karabakh conflict. It is a cliche that Russia seeks to keep the status quo. In fact, it is Azerbaijan that supports the status quo, not Russia and even not Armenia with Artsakh. Baku just hardens its attitude in response to the readiness of Yerevan and Stepanakert for concessions and the initiatives of the Minsk Group co-chairs. The conflict can be resolved in two ways: negotiations or military actions. Both the changes rest upon the policy of Azerbaijan's leadership, not the one of Russia and the co-chairs.

To achieve its territorial claims, Baku has been urging Moscow to press Yerevan and Stepanakert since 1994. Is it possible now amid Azerbaijan’s growing geopolitical importance for Russia?

Azerbaijan has always played an important geopolitical and economic role, and I don’t think that the situation has changed. However, in the newest history, Russia has not made any concessions to Azerbaijan at the expense of Armenia's interests. It has come out as quite successful initiator of the ceasefire and truce in Nagorny Karabakh, Transnistria, North and South Ossetia, and finally, Syria. That is why I think there can be concessions to Azerbaijan at the expense of Armenia or Artsakh. Only the Armenian sides can announce and make any concessions. Furthermore, this is not in favor of Russia, as the Karabakh conflict is between Russia's ally Armenia and Turkey's ally Azerbaijan. Yet not so long ago, the latter has supported Ankara's decision to shot down Russia's warplane over Syria. 

 

So why does Russia arm the ally of its adversary? Does Moscow try to retain its control over Azerbaijan? 

It is more than evident. The last 200-million loan to Armenia for purchase of weapons sought to keep the balance between the conflicting parties. There is no other reason, though we would prefer that no one sell weapons to Azerbaijan. Not only Russia, all weapon producing countries sell weapons to Azerbaijan.

Very often, the visits of the Armenian president to Moscow coincide with the visits of the military command of Armenia to Brussels. The latest Sargsyan-Putin meeting coincided with the meeting of the NATO Secretary General and the foreign and defense ministers of Armenia. Does the Armenia-NATO cooperation help to counterbalance the military partnership with Russia at least partially?

 

Despite all the visits of Armenia's military leadership to Brussels and all the meetings with the NATO Secretary General, it cannot settle such a task. These are absolutely different axes, given that NATO gives no security guarantees to Armenia and assumes no commitments to that end either in military-technical or military terms. Armenia's cooperation with the influential military-political organization aims to settle various military-political problems, but it fails to settle Yerevan's key problem of ensuring the military security of Armenia. For instance, according to the European Commission Head Jean-Claude Juncker, for the next 25 years no one in NATO or the EU waits for Ukraine or Georgia, which has failed to succeed despite its readiness to take any steps to join NATO. The reason of the difficulties for the former Soviet republics to join NATO is simple. The external borders of these two structures have already caused both military-political and economic problems.  NATO and the EU need no new problems. Only dreamers can dream of NATO and the EU. The problem is not the aspirations of Armenia. The problem is NATO's reluctance to further expand into the east.

 

Is Russia’s military build-up in Armenia, I am speaking about the 102^nd military base in Gyumri, able to ensure Armenia’s security if the Russian-Turkish conflict grows into military actions?

 

The 102^nd military base prevents aggression by Turkey and Azerbaijan, ensuring stability for Armenia.  Russia with its military base in Armenia supports its geopolitical interests in the region. It is incompetent people who make all that statements claiming that the 102nd military base is not able to ensure balance of forces.  In fact, the base operates on the basis of a joint plan of the Russian and Armenian armed forces. This military base is part of the Southern Military Districts, which is part of Russia’s Armed Forces. Consequently, in case of war, the entire Armed Forces of Russia, not just the military base, will involve in it. A similar military unit of Russia in Syria was immediately reinforced with the Caspian Flotilla warships, submarines of the Russian Black Sea Fleet, strategic aircrafts from Volodgda, Engels. Therefore, all these talks pursue one goal – to cast doubt on the expediency of the Armenian-Russian relations and Russia’s ability to defend Armenia against the threats coming from Turkey and Azerbaijan. Can anyone say now, how would Turkey behave, but for the 102^nd Russian military base. It would treat us like Syria. By the way, Syria unlike Armenia even had diplomatic relations with Turkey before the deployment of the Russian troops. Meantime, Armenia is still a serious threat to Turkey and the vice versa. Turkey will not miss the chance, if there is such, to instigate Baku to resume hostilities against Armenia and Artsakh. Quite lately, there were media reports referring to the Russian reconnaissance saying that the Turkish leadership thinks that military actions over Karabakh could distract the attention of the Russian troops from Syria.