The former NKR NA MP, also former Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, Vahram Atanesyan, about the Armenian issue in the Russian-Turkish-Azerbaijani relations and the recommendations of the mediators to use investigation mechanisms in the line of contact
– On March 10, after the meeting of the presidents of Russia and Armenia, during which they addressed the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, the RF president’s spokesman had announced that the solution to Karabakh conflict can only be found by its sides, and not by international mediators. It is noteworthy that the OSCE Minsk Group co-chairs have recommended introducing investigations mechanisms for the reduction of the risk of violence in the contact line and the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, which Azerbaijan consistently refuses. Also, the US is trying to be active in the settlement of this process in the recent period. On this background, how will you explain Russia’s stance in the face of Russian president’s spokesman’s statement?
– Peskov, perhaps, tries to look original. What does a “party to the conflict” mean? Were Russia, France and Germany are parties to the conflict in eastern Ukraine…? In that case, why are they involved? Why do they offer a solution to Kiev? There are Minsk-1, Minsk-2 and other agreements that were reached not by the format of Kiev-Donbass, Kiev-Moscow but the so-called international quartet. It is another matter that Russia does not have and cannot have the same interest in NKR issue. This problem is not new and is connected with Russia’s regional policy, and its solution, both in favor of Armenia and Azerbaijan, is not beneficial to Moscow. The recommendations by the mediators pertaining to the introduction of the mechanisms in the line of contact, I do not know, why it gives rise to some enthusiasm… If we think that the OSCE is going to install super sensitive devices and the status quo will be internationalized then we are definitely mistaken. Stabilization of the situation in the line of contact, as asserted by the OSCE, will be followed by the intensification of the negotiations. The mediators will try to achieve a breakthrough. Are we ready for it … ? Certainly, it would be perfect that there were no incidents in the line of contact, the situation was stabilized, the parties had restored confidence step by step, Azerbaijan accepted the status quo and legitimized the independence of Nagorno-Karabakh with the current de-facto borders… But this is from the genre of daydreams.
– Quite remarkable was the article with the headline “Outpost with questions” published in the Military-Industrial Courier (Военно-промышленный курьер) newspaper on March 9, which was written by Deputy Director of the Russian Institute of Political and Military Analysis, Alexander Khramchikhin, prior to the meeting of the presidents, in which the author wrote about the possibility of Russian-Turkish war, the prospect of involving Armenia in it and the possible developments of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, as well as about the deployment of Armenia’s 5th army corps and information on armaments thereof. Thus, what message was Russia sending to the Armenian side?
Read also
– What is said in the article of this expert is well known a long time ago because Armenia submits reports to OSCE and the UN. Likewise, in the case of Azerbaijan. The problem is not in the publication of secret, sometimes, it is also “brilliantly” done by the Armenian mass media. Khramchikhin’s article is sickening by an imperialistic glance, by the fact that it does not leave a choice for Armenia in the Russian-Turkish alleged war, our homeland, let my homeland forgives me, is a “polygon” for him. It was disgusting and insulting, on which no one focused attention. Otherwise, he did not disclose any secret … The parties know the opportunity for each other very well. But perhaps, it does not worth to focus on Khramchikhin and others. Putin’s decision to withdraw troops from Syrian clearly showed the kind of quality, level and most importantly, the awareness that the Russian experts and different “color” commentators have.
– Also, Armenia, incidentally, did not unequivocally perceive the publication of the list of weapons by Russia that was to be obtained by the 200 million dollar loan provided by the Russian Federation. In your opinion, who, whom and what was assumed by this?
– This is already serious. Here, indeed, there is an outflow of information. The impression is that it was done for Azerbaijan. There is no need for additional assumptions or qualifications, the fact is so speaking…
– “We constantly act and continue acting in favor of peace settlement of the problems, especially for Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, by the format of the OSCE Minsk Group, based on the three known principles. Military rhetoric, the use of force or the threat of force must be not only unacceptable but also condemned by all of us,” stated the CSTO Chairman Sergey Naryshkin at the Parliament of Armenia on March 11. Before that, however, last year-end, the President of Armenia and later, this year, the RA Defense Minister were displeased with the posture of the CSTO, with the inadequate response of the CSTO by the fact of bombings of the CSTO member country borders. How can the geopolitical and current Russian-Turkish-Azerbaijani relations reflect on the Armenians states in the context of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict settlement?
– You know, when the choice is between bad and worse, the minimum evil is perceived as maximum good. We need to clearly understand that the CSTO will not use military intervention against Azerbaijan. The problem should be considered in the realm of Russia-Armenia allied relations rather than Armenia’s accession to the CSTO. This is my personal opinion. And the fact that the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict should be settled through peaceful negotiation, everybody says this, Naryshkin could not be an exception. The question is who and how promotes or hinders with actual steps.
– To some extent, the unexpected decision on withdrawal of Russian troops from Syria essentially creates a new situation. What are the threat of this situation for Armenian states, especially if we take into account the fact that recently, the presence of the Russian military forces have been considerably increased in Armenia?
– I cannot say unequivocally whether the danger is the presence of Russian troops in Syria or the withdrawal of Russia from there. Similarly, I cannot say whether Armenia’s security benefits from the noticeable increase of Russian armed forces or vice versa, suffer. I know one thing that everything should be done for our country, as Charents used to say, not to become the “whetstone of barbarian swords.” With regard to Russia’s withdrawing its troops from Syria, I would estimate it as the second and the most decisive decision for the sake of Russia by its significance by the Russian President Putin after the establishment of peace in Chechnya. Simply, if it will be followed, I think, it will be followed by the uploading of the Russian-Turkish relations, it is necessary to mobilize all the resources so that the Armenian problems in a completely new geopolitical environment would not become a “small change.”
Interview by Nelly GRIGORYAN,
“Aravot” daily
