Wednesday, February 26 2014

Why do you think the sabotage attacks on the Armenian-Azeri and
Karabakh-Azeri borders have become so frequent? What prevents Russia, the main
mediator in the Karabakh peace process, from exerting efforts to suppress them?
 

 

Escalations
on the Armenian-Azeri border are a usual thing. Some experts link them with
somebody's attempts to curb progress in the Nagorno-Karabakh peace talks,
others believe that this may be done by some external forces who simply seek to
capitalize on high tensions in the area. Russia keeps urging the conflicting
parties to stop their clashes and does its best to settle the Nagorno-Karabakh
conflict. But since Armenia and Azerbaijan are sovereign countries, they must
do it themselves. It must have been in somebody's interest to break the
"Olympic truce" on the Armenian-Azeri border and to trigger a wave of
mutual blames exactly at the time Russia was holding the Olympics. It was like
an ordinary provocation.

 

Armenia and Azerbaijan think that it is only due to their efforts that
the balance of forces on the Line of Contact of the three parties to the
Karabakh conflict is maintained. Do you agree with this?   

 

Stability
of the situation in the Karabakh conflict zone results from Armenia's CSTO
membership and the 102nd Russian military base in Armenia. Furthermore, the
conflicting parties are not interested in large- scale military actions. Status
quo results also from the balance of power that is kept by Russia through its
military-technical cooperation with Armenia and Azerbaijan. Russia's role in
the status quo is not always obvious. I am sure that Moscow's unprecedented
security measures on occasion of the Sochi Olympics have helped increasing
stability in the region.

 

Would you assess the possibility of new Azeri aggression against Karabakh
with due regard for the analysis of the current situation? 

 

No
large-scale conflict is anticipated in the foreseeable future, at least,
because its potential participants are not interested in it. It is too risky to
start large-scale military actions with unpredictable political, economic and
other consequences when there is general balance of power. The situation may
grow tense when NATO withdraws troops from Afghanistan in 2014 or if the
U.S.  launches military action against
Iran. Besides, the situation may grow tense after the war in Syria, when some
radical 'oppositionists' to the incumbent authorities prove jobless and
'emerge' in the region.

 

There
is little probability of radicalizing the Karabakh conflict, but it is early to
let one's guard down. Many countries, even Uzbekistan and Kyrghyzstan, were
removed from Pentagon's list of dangerous countries, where U.S. officers
receive additional payment for service. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan is still on this
list, which means that Americans consider it a dangerous state as long as there
is threat of military operation in its territory or neighborhood. 

 

Due to Armenia’s forthcoming accession to the Customs Union, military
hardware supplies to Azerbaijan, strengthening of military presence in Armenia
and a number of other steps, Russia has considerably strengthened its positions
in the region. Will this contribute to the Karabakh conflict settlement?  

 

Russia
is only for peaceful settlement of the Karabakh conflict.  Such a stance was reflected in the statements
by the OSCE Minsk Group many times. The Russian party also thinks that
initiating of the machinery for prevention of conflicts is also very much
important. Development of any cooperation between the parties to the conflict,
their cooperation within the frames of joint projects would promote settlement
of the crisis and looking for the mutually acceptable ways out of the created
situation. Enhancing of Russia's positions in the region, which is for peaceful
settlement of the Karabakh conflict, will promote reaching this target.

 

Many countries and superpowers say that they are displeased with the
status quo around Karabakh. What absolutely new situation should arise in the
region to break the status quo? 

 

The
parties to the conflict were offered to make territorial swap, to determine the
status of Nagorno-Karabakh, but all was in vain. The borders of the countries
of the region could radically change in case of the "Arab spring"
development or in case of a war against Iran. I think that fulfillment of any
big international programmes, for instance, the building of transcontinental
highways and railways, or of pipelines, participation in which could bring big
financial and other profits, is one of the possible ways for settlement of the
conflict. If the parties start cooperating within the frames of the above
mentioned projects, it will be easier to them to come to any conclusion.

 

What for is Russia currently strengthening almost all the components of
the 102^nd base in Gyumri? To what extent does this meet Armenia’s
interests?   

 

The
situation in the region is becoming increasingly complicated.  The 'Arab spring' is embracing more and more
countries and is approaching Armenia's borders. The next will most probably be
Iran.  The Geneva talks were just a pause
for the United States as the Americans are just unable to solve the Afghani and
Iranian problems at one and the same time. Iran's nuclear program is simply a
pretext for them to exert pressure on that country. In the meantime, NATO will
be expanding into Georgia and Azerbaijan, with Turkey to be attempting to
create a triangle with those nations. The strong 102nd Russian military base is
a guarantee of Armenia's security against growing external threats.

 

The Kremlin has already announced creation of a joint air defense system
of Russia, Armenia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. How much expedient is creation of
the new system given that Russia and Armenia have already a joint air defense
system?   

 

The
project to create a joint air defense system in Russia, Armenia, Belarus and
Kazakhstan will enhance Armenia's security as the country will become more
efficient in detecting potential threats due to access to all radar stations in
the area and preventing those threats using the means of its allies. This will
also be a guarantee of security against NATO, who already has a joint air
defense system and is secretly integrating it with its anti-missile forces.

 

Turkey and Azerbaijan have a treaty on mutual military support. Can it
be considered legitimate given that Ankara will need NATO’s consent to provide
military aid to Azerbaijan? 

 

The
military treaty of Turkey and Azerbaijan does not restrict Turkey's possible
aid to Azerbaijan, as the NATO member-countries are free to act within the
frames of bilateral agreements. For instance, France renders direct aid to the
Mali Government. The actions of the NATO member-countries must not constitute
any threat to the Alliance. Consequently, Turkey's actions will be assessed in
the given context.

 

Iranian experts have repeatedly stressed the need for security
cooperation with Russia in the South Caucasus. What can such cooperation be
like and what can it imply following the Geneva meeting?  

 

The
window of opportunities opened in Geneva by the United States and Iran will
hardly last for more than six months and may well be followed by a new
conflict. The only way for the United States to remove Iran as a strong player
in the region and to democratize the Greater Middle East is to change its
ruling regime and/or destabilize and disintegrate that country.  This will break the arc of instability
running along Russia's southern border, will complicate the control oil
transportation from the Middle East and Central Asia and will make senseless
the operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The 08.08.08 events proved that any
attempts to use force in order to solve security-related problems in the region
are fraught with serious political and economic consequences. I think that only
economic, diplomatic and humanitarian initiatives based on strong defense and
security systems can ensure stability in the Caucasus. By enlarging their
defense and security cooperation Russia and Armenia are strongly contributing
to the region's security.  So, we must
not limit ourselves with bilateral contacts or ties within the Collective
Security Treaty Organization but must search for new ways to enlarge our
defense and security partnership. Our priority must be to prevent any military
conflicts and to keep balance of forces in the region.