Avigdor Eskin: Armenia should seriously consider prospects for a  peace agreement, as well as prospects of life in its absence

ArmInfo. Israeli public figure and political analyst Avigdor Eskin often gives interviews to the Armenian media. Studying his recent statements, ArmInfo highlighted  several questions which, in our opinion, need a more thorough  interpretation, and turned to the analyst with a request for  comments.

- Avigdor, recently in one of your interviews to the Armenian media  you stated that "there is no certainty that Russia will continue to  maintain its peacekeeping mission in Nagorno-Karabakh". What is your  point of view based on? Do you think that Russia, having established  a stronghold in Karabakh, near the border with Iran, for some reason  can refuse such a strategic presence?

- The developments of the last month have not strengthened Russia's  status on the territory of the former Soviet republics. For all  thirty years after the collapse of the USSR, Moscow failed to  establish itself there with the help of "soft power", and now it is  completely criticized in all former Soviet territories. Belarus and,  to a lesser extent, Armenia are exceptions. If the military campaign  against Ukraine had culminated in a quick manifestation of force,  then other scenarios would have been possible. But at this stage,  Russia is losing influence. Moscow's interest in having a presence in  Armenia and Karabakh remains, but its capabilities may be called into  question if it enters a crisis or depression as a result of military  difficulties in Ukraine and a worsening domestic climate due to  economic reasons. A scenario should be considered that in a few  months Russia will not ''get time for Karabakh". This is an attempt  to point to a possible scenario, not to predict something. At the  same time, I do not at all call for neglecting the role of Russia and  its influence, but on the contrary. This is a vital and currently  uncontested strategic asset of Armenia. Your government is behaving  quite reasonably, refusing to participate in the anti-Russian  campaign. This is not about supporting certain actions of Russia, but  about caring for Armenian interests.

- It is clear that the security of the Armenians of Nagorno Karabakh  has been entrusted to the Russian peacekeepers. This is the logical  result of the 44-day war, which was stopped exclusively due to  Russia's position regardless of the various versions of both what  happened and the reasons that prompted Azerbaijan to use force to  resolve the issue. It is an indisputable fact, but nevertheless, the  same Russia agreed to preserve and even "reincarnate" I would call it  that, the OSCE Minsk Group, as an international institute capable and  responsible to find a peaceful solution to the issue within the  framework of the same international principles, including the right  of nations to self-determination. This narrative, for obvious  reasons, is not "liked" by the West today, but "liked" by Russia. But  you think that "not a single international scenario is relevant for  Armenia. Nobody in the world is going to defend Armenia's right to  Karabakh." Why? And what do you think about it?

- Not a single country in the world actively intervened in the course  of your war. If not Moscow, Azerbaijan had every opportunity to  regain Karabakh completely. Let's imagine that tomorrow Russia  abandons the peacekeeping mission. What will happen then? The answer  to this question is clear. And the illusions about this are  groundless. There is no real basis to rely on the USA, France or  Iran. I would like to emphasize that we are talking exclusively about  Karabakh, not an attempt to invade the territory of sovereign  Armenia. As for international principles, there are several decisions  of the UN Security Council on Karabakh, which give preference to the  principle of "inviolability of borders" rather than "national self-  determination". In the past, the special status of Karabakh was also  axiomatic for the Azerbaijani side. If during the negotiations  Armenia can achieve such results even now, then no one in the UN  Security Council will object.

- So, on the one hand, you consider that Armenia needs to strengthen  its Armed Forces and economy, on the other hand, that it is necessary  to hurry with the peace treaty. Do you believe that the peace "on  paper" will open "roads to different worlds" for Armenia? As the  history of international relations after the fall of the Berlin Wall  shows, international agreements are no longer worth anything, and  will not be worth anything until a new balance of power is formed in  the world, or at least in its "western part".  Only in this case any  peripheral peace agreements will have a chance of success. Who, if  not Israeli analysts, should know about this through the prism of  more than half a century of unsuccessful experience in resolving the  Middle East crisis.

- The experience of Israel is in many ways an example of success, not  failure. This is due to the fact that in 73 years Israel has  increased its Jewish population twelvefold, strengthened itself as a  leading scientific and military power, and our GDP today is about  half a trillion dollars. Therefore, we managed to come to peace  agreements with the leading Arab countries, despite the fact that we  have not achieved complete stability, as evidenced by the recent  terrorist attacks of the Palestinian monsters. As for Armenia, two  years ago and twenty years ago it could have come to a much more  favorable agreement with Azerbaijan than under even the best scenario  today. Your experience fully indicates that time will only work for  you if a peaceful solution is reached. For now, time worked for  Azerbaijan. Armenia retains the enormous intellectual and creative  potential of its inhabitants and Diaspora. Economic development and  the realization of one's own talents will become more real in a  peaceful environment. Therefore, you should seriously think about the  prospects for a peace agreement, as well as about the prospects of  life in its absence.