Where is actually the “only way out” of the conflict?
Russian presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov, within a short period of time, twice drew the attention on Karabakh peace process. If in his first reference, he actually tried to convince why it is not necessary to introduce international mechanisms for the investigation of the incidents in the conflict zone, moreover, unsuccessful, then in the recent one he went further more.
Baku until then was openly accusing the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs of pro-Armenian position, calling them “provocateurs”, “hypocrites”, “islamaphobists” while the Russians thru the lips of Ms. Zakharova, were arguing in response that these accusations are not addressed to them as Moscow “always and wholeheartedly supports” the settlement of the conflict, and yet it should be figured out whom of the co-chairs Baku’s accusations refer to.
The OSCE Minsk Group American co-chairs James Warlick, recently, made an important statement, saying that all the three Co-chairs agree with the recommendations of Eliot Engel and Ed Royce and several dozens of congressmen who have joined them regarding the necessity to exercise international mechanisms for excluding the ceasefire violations in the conflict zone and the line of contact.
Read also
Baku sees the co-chairs’ “pro-Armenianism” right here and is trying to explain it, for example, by the co-chairs’ “Islamophobia.” And here, the Kremlin spokesman renders support to him on Saturday. He even stated his vision regarding the “only way out” of the conflict, saying, “The situation in Nagorno-Karabakh settlement process is not yet characterized by progress and actually is far to be desired. Russia, along with a group of countries, consistently makes efforts so that the settlement process would move forward. Nothing to brag about so far, but the only way is to have the “five” create favorable conditions both for Yerevan and Baku,” says Mr. Peskov without explaining which of the two along with the three Co-Chairs should be added to get his mentioned “five” and what is unfavorable for Yerevan and Baku, taken separately.
However, given the fact that Yerevan has initially applauded the introduction of the international mechanisms to exclude the ceasefire violations in the conflict zone, while Moscow has not publicly applauded this idea at least once, although it has not also hampered the co-chairs’ consensus while Baku has simply expressed its anger in response to this idea, then it becomes clear what and why Moscow alludes by worrying for the favorable conditions both “for Yerevan and Baku”. Yes, Russia consequently worries about “unfavorable” conditions for Baku and worries aloud.
However, Moscow’s concerns are not limited to this. Peskov said, “As for the Karabakh, then, of course, the statements on the unreserved position of one of the parties, as well as determination to use force for the settlement of the conflict hinder the process greatly.” This “rock”, certainly, is fallen into the American “garden.” And the reason is surficial. The introduction of international mechanisms to prevent violations of the cease-fire implies a substantial increase in the number of observers, expansion of their mandate for the establishment of opportunities to investigate the possible violations of the ceasefire. This is what Moscow is concerned about, as it means one thing: Moscow will no longer be able to blackmail the parties in conflict with the danger of resumption of war, this also deprives the Aliyev regime of the opportunity of blackmailing Armenia and the international community that its next “staged rage”, sooner or later, will result in the resumption of a full-scale war.
Russia has also prepared “promotional awards” to the parties; Dmitry Medvedev will announce in Armenia about the reduction of the gas price and will “take” Azerbaijan to the tripartite meeting of the foreign ministers with Iran, at the same time urging Baku “to no longer be engaged in fruitless mediation to reconcile Russia and Turkey.”
… Propagandistic speculations have led to the fact that the true settlement benefit of the conflict has begun to be called a “pro-Armenian” while the settlement imitation, the exploitation of the image of the external enemy – a “pro-Azerbaijani”. Continuing the logic and judging from the process of the incidents and the content of the statements, it also turns out that if not the settlement then the regional stabilization, the effective exclusion of war and exercising the mechanism for punishing the provocateurs have also become “pro-American” or “pro-Western”, while standing in the same spot for a quarter of a century, the cynical business of weapons and blackmailing by war, the murders on the border and in the contact line, profusely talking about being a “strategic ally” after all of this is called a “pro-Russian”.
To be more clear, then we are just talking about war and peace, irrespective of its “pro-whatever”. This is not important but the fact that it is the peace that generates from everyone’s interests in the region, except…
Ruben MEHRABYAN
