Russia just got up and left South Caucasus: Pashinyan

ArmInfo. Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan commented to the Italian La Repubblica newspaper on the  remarks made in his message on the occasion of the 33rd anniversary  of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence of Armenia "... As  long as we do not have peace, the ghost of the USSR will haunt our  skies, the skies of our region." < Does it mean that what you are  doing now, trying to reach peace is also a way to become more  independent from Moscow?>, the correspondent asked.

Pashinyan, in particular, said:

"What does it mean to be independent? Being independent means that  you are less dependent for example in the security sphere, or it  means security policies should be diversified.  I will illustrate  with a very specific example, which maybe in this context is not  referred to, but we all, also the citizens of Armenia. I assume are  aware of it, everyone knows, but when it is spoken, it assumes  another value.  Armenia's security architecture 99,999% was linked to  Russia, including in the logic of procurement of arms and ammunition,  but today we see that Russia itself is in need of weapons, arms and  ammunition and in this situation it's understandable that even if it  wishes so, the Russian Federation cannot meet Armenia's security  needs. This example should demonstrate to us that dependance of  linkage in security matters from just one partner is just a strategic  mistake. And after tasting the bitter fruits of this error  post-factum, we are taking feeble attempts to diversify our security  policy, including casting a different glance on own region, because  it's one thing when we in our region live under continuous  confrontational logic with our neighbors, but say ok, someone will  care for our security. But when in practice it comes to this someone  to take care of our security, it turns out that this someone either  does not want to or cannot ensure our security. These are realities  which we have to confront with.  Yes, we confront very difficult  realities both psychologically, ideologically, historically and in  terms of worldview. If you do not pass through these realities in the  right way, it will mean losing independence. This is what I had in  mind in the message I you mentioned. I have pondered long about if  this should be spoken about publicly or not. But I have not seen the  positive effect of not speaking about it publicly.  It's just the  opposite, I see that talking about it is very painful, but without  talking about this, we could really lose our independence. Of course,  noy only speaking, because it won't work out only by speaking, but it  is also necessary to speak. Let me tell you one thing: I think  reflection is an important pastime, important instrument and formula,  that we need to continually look inside, into ourselves. If the  questions raised get the same answers we had before those questions  were raised, then it's ok, we did everything right and we are doing  everything right. But if it were to turn out that the old question in  this new situation has a new answer, this is a situation we have to  face."

To the remark of La Repubblica that it is very important to  understand for what political reasons Russia transferred control over  the Lachin corridor to Azerbaijan, why Russian peacekeepers do not  fulfill their duties and give Baku the opportunity to de facto  control this territory without interfering in the situation,  Pashinyan noted:  "Of course, we talk about these issues with our  Russian partners. But irrespective of these discussions, we of course  have our own hypothesis. When we talk about this hypothesis, also  several events that took place in Russia push us to draw historical  parallels.  Our region has already witnessed such a situation. In  fact, for quite a long time the Russian Federation is present in our  region, the South Caucasus. But we have observed situations when  overnight, within a month or within a year the Russian Federation  just got up and left South Caucasus.  Our Russian colleagues talk a  lot about that Armenia's western partners, western countries work  with Armenia or push the government of Armenia in order the Armenian  government takes measures, pursuing the objective to push out Russia  from this region.  But when we talk with our Russian partners,  sometimes we express our opinion and our assessment that it's the  opposite, we see that Russia by virtue of a number of steps it takes  or fails to take, itself leaves the region. As for the reasons, we  are unaware.  We can of course make interpretations, but I cannot  make any statement. I can propose hypothesis, but I will refrain from  that now. It's understandable that the issue you refer to is a matter  of great concern and interest for us and there is nothing new here.  But there are processes which of course lead us to believe that all  this scenarios may repeat, we just can wake up one day and see that  Russia is not here.  I have to agree with your formulation that the  Lachin Corridor that should have been under the control of the  Russian peacekeepers is not under the control of the Russian  peacekeepers. There may be two reasons, either the Russian Federation  cannot maintain control over the Lachin Corridor, or it just doesn't  want to. Both are problematic from our perspective."

To a clarifying question from a correspondent, "What do you think, is  it because they don't want or because they cannot?"Pashinyan said:" I  believe sometimes they cannot, sometimes they do not want." And the  reasons for this, according to Nikol Pashinyan, are very different.  However, he did not talk about them, indicating that "an attentive  analyst will see these connections." "Of course, I have my own  versions, my own perception, my own hypothesis, and I have publicly  expressed part of them. Of course, in those public statements the  causative relationships may not have been very visible, but a careful  observer will see those causative links.  Let's see what makes this  situation dangerous for Armenia. We have not been able to make use of  its toolkit. Armenia is a member of the CSTO, Armenia is a member of  the Eurasian Economic Union, Armenia has a strategic partnership  treaty with the Russian Federation, and all these leads all western  countries or experts to qualify Armenia as a pro-Russian country. On  the other hand, many circles in Russia consider Armenia or its  government, and since the government was formed by the vote of the  majority of the people, pro-Western. And here the biggest problem of  our current position is as follows: if being pro-Russian could have  some potential benefits, or if being pro-Western could have some  advantages, Armenia does not take advantage of the benefits of being  pro-Russian, because in Russia they do not consider Armenia enough  pro-Russian, for example for the reason that Armenia in their opinion  does not provide enough assistance to them in the Ukrainian issue. On  the other hand, Armenia cannot take advantage of the potential  benefits of being pro-Western, because in the West they consider  Armenia not to be sufficiently pro-Western, because for example, from  their perspective, Armenia does not sufficiently oppose Russia in the  Ukrainian issue. This is exactly the hazard of our situation," he  added.