Former Foreign Minister of NKR, Arman Melikyan about the new phase of sanctions against Russia and the possible impact of them on the Karabakh conflict
– Yesterday, NATO summit kicked off in Warsaw, where the main topic of discussion was the NATO-Russia relations. It is expected that Russia will be announced a “strategic threat” in the final document of the summit. By your observations, how will the Russian authorities respond to this given the stance of these authorities until now? Is a new phase of “cold war” going to commence? What geopolitical rearrangements should we expect?
– The geopolitical processes truly obtained interesting developments in recent years: Russia was exiled from the G-8 and was isolated from its potential strategic partners in the EU: Germany and France, along with its western land borders. Essentially, as a result of the crisis in Ukraine, the anti-Russian obstacle composed of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Maidan Ukraine became complete, which will ensure the land isolation of Russia from the EU in the coming years. This was the first large-scale preventive action that was aimed against the undesirable development of Russia-EU relations.
The second action serving the same purpose we can consider the result of the referendum held in the UK on the withdrawal from the EU: the prospect of upcoming official divorce of London and Brussels created new cracks in the entire structure of the European unity. And, in this situation, concurrent to weakening and deprived of reputation EU’s political convulsions dictated by the instinct of self-preservation, NATO’s Warsaw summit is underway in these days, which most probably is called to clarify the military-political priorities of the member states of the alliance for the coming years.
Read also
I think we can call this summit the third intermediate milestone of the current policy led towards Russia by the British-American Association, which will clarify the future plans of official Moscow to limit the possibilities to maneuver and significantly limit the sphere of its impact. I cannot exclude that Russia can truly be declared a “strategic threat” in the final resolution of the summit, however, I think that the leaders of this alliance will still prefer to refrain from irritating and sharp formulations of the Kremlin, and instead, they will try to prepare the measures necessary for advancing its own interests in prepare strategic planning level in practice.
– On the threshold of the NATO summit, Azerbaijan has again become active in its military harassments against the territories of Armenia and NKR. Can the outcome of the summit, the responses and the feedbacks be a cause of a local war in the Nagorno Karabakh front, or even more, turn into a full-scale hostilities?
– During the launch of the NATO summit, Azerbaijan demonstrates the seriousness of its intentions to invade Karabakh territories by the use of military force. This way, official Baku is trying to convince everyone that the war would be inevitable if Armenia persists and refuses the mutually agreed plan of handing over the Artsakh territories to Azerbaijan during the St. Petersburg meeting by two rounds, at least by bilateral format. Apparently, the need for it arose because not all the Minsk Group co-chair states agree that the conflict should be resolved by the scenario written in the Kremlin, and there was a need to thus warn that the alternative to St. Petersburg dark deal is the war.
– A few days ago, after the meeting of the CSTO Foreign Ministers held in Yerevan, it was announced that CSTO is going to compile its development plan up to 2028, which will include a provision that the CSTO member states are against NATO’s stretching to the East. What problems does Armenia face as a CSTO member, whereas it quite effectively cooperates with NATO?
– I think that in this way, especially Russia was trying to mitigate the possible formulations containing a threat for itself in the NATO Summit in Warsaw. Nothing prevented CSTO member states to compile these development plans in advance and present them in Yerevan, however, most likely the final decisions on the level to counteract NATO in the framework of this organization will be made only after clarifying the specific plans of the North-Atlantic Alliance member partners. In other words, at this moment, the West possesses the political and military initiative, while Russia with its allied administrations is thinking about counteracting the western initiatives. It is not excluded that in this context, Armenia can face a strong demand of refusing the cooperation with NATO.
– How do you assess the CSTO Foreign Ministers’ resolution in the session in Yerevan, which addressed the Nagorno-Karabakh issue? There were reactions from the government circles that with their posture, pro-Azerbaijani Kazakhstan and Belarus also had to respond that exercising the right of peoples to self-determination is an important and mandatory component. Its use is also irreversible.
– The settlement of the conflict based on receiving a status for ceding territories is absolutely unacceptable in all cases, the use of this formula is destructive for Armenia. As for the issue of self-determination by referendum, it would be better for our native land-givers remember and keep in mind that Azerbaijan views the opportunity of Artsakh Armenians to self-determination exclusively within the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan, and I do not think that Belarus and Kazakhstan would have discrepancies with the aforementioned approach of official Baku.
Interviewer Nelly GRIGORYAN, “Aravot” daily
