“Aravot” interviews Sergey Markedonov, the Head of Foreign Policy department of the Russian State University for Humanities, Associate Professor, and Russian political scientist.
– Mr. Markedonov, on September 21, in your opinion, what military-political influence will “Iskander” missiles, “Smerch”, “Buk” and other systems demonstrated by the RA Armed Forces during the military parade dedicated to the 25th anniversary of Independence of Armenia have in the region, particularly in the connotation of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict?
– Of course, I am not a specialist on military issues and find it difficult to assess and draw conclusions about how effective it will be, what kind of similar weapons the opponent has or does not have. I can assess the situation only as a politician, as a specialist in the civil matter. The demonstration of this new system in the parade was a symbolic move. First of all, it is 25 years and the quarter century jubilee is extremely important for any country, for Armenia, which gained independence by passing quite a tough way, and many tragedies occurred on the way to it.
Here is the 25th anniversary of the independence of the state. Moreover, the country currently does not have fewer problems: the Karabakh conflict, extremely difficult relations with Turkey, regional isolation, there are problems with other partners, even questions sometimes arise with the allies. In this regard, this parade was a symbolic event to show that we are capable of ensuring the country’s independence, which is already 25 years old, that the powerful ally in our rear – Russia – despite all the problems, the federal relations are maintained. This was not only addressed to Azerbaijan and Turkey but to the entire world that the state retains its independence and national interests. Here is how I will estimate as a political scientist.
Read also
– Can you also state that Russia is also trying to restore the Armenian-Russian relations because we often talk spoken about the fact that these relations in recent years are broke to some extent?
– Frankly speaking, I have constantly written that there could be no drastic change in the orientation by Russia in principle: a transition from Armenia in favor of Azerbaijan. Russia has its own interests with Azerbaijan and Armenia. Moscow will not make drastic moves. Russia is not the country that is able to change the active dynamism without reasonable motives. One can say that Moscow tried to change the status quo in 2008 in Georgia, in 2014 – in the Crimea and in 2015 – in Syria but if we view this and similar cases, we will see that the foreign motivation are more mandatory. In the case of Armenian-Azerbaijan, especially Nagorno-Karabakh problem, I do not see such foreign stimulus that would compel Russia to radically change its approaches.
Rumors that Moscow will make friends with Azerbaijan and will abandon Armenia are absolutely groundless because Moscow does not live in an abstract world, there are definite interests, curiosities, as to what benefit it will have in the case of reorientation, I do not see it. I believe that people in the Kremlin are not so stupid not to see benefits in such possible changes. There will be relations with Armenia, Azerbaijan, and different with each one, with a special relationship with each one.
– Mr. Markedonov, what is the phase of Nagorno-Karabakh peace process, in your vision? Recently, the US Secretary of State John Kerry referring to the Karabakh conflict and noted that currently the peace process is not visible and the reason primarily, according to him, is that the leaders are not ready.
– This is the case when we must agree with Mr. Kerry. Yes, indeed, the leaders are not ready. Yes, there are within the phase of escalation before April and after it. The April conflict changed some things tactically but not strategically. There were no radical changes neither in the settlement format nor in the military –political arrangements. Simply, the Azerbaijani army showed its particular potentials, which were more than the 90s, while it causes certain problems in the Armenian army and the political system, and as a result, we saw crisis inside the country in connection with “Sasna Tsrer,” it was a consequence to some extent. But no changes have occurred in the radical settlement process, and I do not think that there will be changes in the near future because, in principle, it is the same for many years: the parties retain maximalist positions and do not visualize any concessions.
Along with Mr. Kerry’s being true, we must understand that he is already leaving politician, as well as the current US administration, actually, the United States is now focused on the expectations of the outcome of the elections, on the process of transfer of power, therefore, I do not think that there will be initiatives from the United States on this, especially when it is obvious that they have other political priorities on Syria.
– Can we expect initiatives from Russia?
– Well, while from Russia … What should Russia do? To be in the place instead of Armenians and Azerbaijanis …? No. Moscow should not push on it, Moscow does not need it. You know, there is a myth that “Lavrov plan” is wandering for almost 2 years, which nobody has seen, there are speculations around it.
– Do you think that “Lavrov plan” does not exist? Are they just speculations?
– I will not say whether it exists or not, I have not seen it, those who cite to this document have not seen it too, there is no such document. We must discuss what is available. There are different updated Madrid principles, which we can discuss. What we have on the negotiation table, they are more or less clear, it is the status of Nagorno-Karabakh and de-occupation of the regions around Nagorno-Karabakh. These are the issues that are under discussion, around which the postures of the parties collide: the question is who should be the first to make the first move and who should be the second. Here is the set of questions that remains unchanged for many years.
EMMA GABRIELYAN
Aravot, 05.10.2016
