Is the war more probable?

Will the situation after the Kazan meeting be the same, as it is now?

 The Karabakh conflict is not a “frozen”, but a “burning” conflict argued analyst on Caucasus issues of the American “Carnegie” foundation Thomas de Waal in the interview given to “France-Presse”, according to him, “The level of the military rhetoric today makes war more probable. It is not ruled out that at a certain point the speeches will become actions.” Another Western analyst, Caucasus Project Director of International Crisis Group Lawrence Sheets gave an original description of the military actions on the road to the NKR conflict settlement. According to the latter, “the new war” may have disastrous consequences harming also the pipelines running through this region: “The events might develop with a very scenario, when a massive deportation of refugees might take place and Russia and Turkey might be involved in the conflict”, said Sheets to France-Presse. By the way, recently not only the International Crisis Group representatives, but also different international and local analysts have said many times that the acquisition of new weaponry and the clashes on the contact line will eventually lead to the war renewal. By the way, concerning the Kazan meeting Lawrence Sheets, contrary to the positive atmosphere around the meeting, said, “Both sides make hostile statements and there is no sign that a serious turnaround is possible in the negotiation process.” He also added that even if a certain document is signed in the short run, nevertheless “there are serious obstacles on the road to peace.” It is interesting that these authoritative analysts speak of the probable and possible renewal of the military operations on the Karabakh-Azerbaijan contact line on the threshold of the June 25 meeting between the presidents of Armenia and Azerbaijan under the auspices of the Russian president; by the way, for creating a quite positive atmosphere around the meeting they do not spare efforts and means. Moreover, the mediators even expect “a turnaround” in the Karabakh negotiations from the Kazan meeting, to which the statements made at the co-chair country presidents’ level testify.

Are the speculations about the dangers of war not of a preventive manner that aim at forcing the sides to make an agreement in Kazan and stick to that agreement or are they real dreads? Head of the NA committee on foreign relations Hovhannes Hovhannisyan in response to “Aravot’s” question first argued that thus far the international community and the sides had not been so close to solving the issue. He thinks that the positive mood around the Kazan meeting is quite understandable, “Everybody understands one thing – the time has become to settle the conflict. There are no resources or time to stall. The co-chair country presidents have already made their third statement in this regard and another “saying-nothing” statement or “saying-nothing” meeting in Kazan will influence their political image too”. Our interlocutor thinks that the speculations of the serious international analysts on a big possibility of military operations along with the positive atmosphere around the Kazan meeting is quite natural in respect as follows, “We must understand and accept one thing – the alternative of the peace treaty is war. I think that the Kazan meeting will be very decisive whether the future course of settling the Karabakh issue will develop toward the settling process or the positions will be so strict that the only solution will be the war.” Our interlocutor is one of those figures that have always thought that the war renewal is real. “If the conflicting countries stick to that position during and after the Kazan meeting, the possibility of war will increase dramatically. There will be no alternative left for solving the issue.” In the case of such developments, does Armenia have the respective resource to confront? Hovhannes Hovhannisyan said, “I am not one of those people who shout at the top of their lungs that we are going to enter Baku, because it is not realistic. However, I do not want to say that Azerbaijan can make us accept the peace treaty. Actually, I think that Armenia does not have the political resource. The matter is not the military resource. The armies fight, but the countries and the peoples win or lose. Unfortunately, there is not the national consensus in Armenia that will allow us to defeat Azerbaijan.”