Interview with Alexander Karavayev, deputy director general of Moscow State University's Information and Analytical Centre.
Q: Observers say that some progress was made on a Karabakh settlement at the Sochi summit of the Armenian, Azerbaijani and Russian presidents. What is your view of the meeting?
A: It's impossible to comment on it in the strategic sense. It's not clear whether this event can be considered a failure or success. Yes, Medvedev has achieved certain goals. Yes, it's good that there is one more document and at least a formal readiness to talk but it's not clear where this leads.
These meetings do not ease tension on the front line. See what is happening on the contact line - everything is pointing towards a gradual move to war. The Armenian ruling elite does not know what to do. It is difficult, if not impossible, for them to make concessions against the background of a worsening situation in Armenia. I think meetings like the one in Sochi discuss the "cost" of the return of Karabakh. Probably, the total financial, political and investment guarantee cost is so great for Yerevan and the position of the Armenian elite so unwavering that it would be easier for Azerbaijan to get it back through war. The problem is that Armenia’s stubbornness, which in some circumstances is even inexplicable, promotes bellicose sentiments in Azerbaijan, which ultimately affects the negotiating process: part of the Azerbaijani elite are confident that a solution by force would be right. Meetings are also important in terms of national consolidation today. In Armenia, there are also people who want war.
Q: Can the much discussed reset of US-Russian relations have a positive impact on the resolution of the Karabakh conflict, considering that the USA and Russia are the main mediators?
A: There are two questions here on the reset. I think it is happening and will go further if President Medvedev gets a second term and Putin’s influence gradually decreases. In this case, the Russian-West alliance will deepen and may bring interesting results in the CIS.
But it is hard to imagine at present that the geopolitical stakes of a solution to the Karabakh conflict could grow so much that Moscow and Washington would decide to engage deeply in this question.
The attitude may change if war starts, however.
Q: Do you think Russian peacekeeping, which has become more active in recent years, will be successful?
A: Yes, certainly, the success of Medvedev’s mediation raises Russia’s stake. Under Medvedev, Russia has become the only mediator to declare the Karabakh agenda a separate topic of its foreign policy.
In comparison, the Karabakh conflict on the US agenda is probably third or fourth on the overall South Caucasus agenda hierarchy, where relations with Georgia are first and Armenian-Turkish reconciliation second. For this reason, Russia has great responsibility.
Q: Do you think that Russia’s action alone may be more productive for a resolution of the conflict than the involvement of the distant USA and France?
A: Russia’s involvement is a necessary condition of a settlement, but it is not the only one or the main one. What's most important is Armenia’s readiness to give, and Azerbaijan’s readiness to accept, Karabakh in a civilized manner. Moscow’s efforts are not enough. Complex international activity is necessary
Q: Do you agree that Moscow holds the keys to the Karabakh settlement?
A: I have already spoken about this. This could be true in two eventualities: if we lived in the Soviet Union and if Armenia was a Russian colony. Most people in Baku believe that the latter is the case, but it's not.
Leyla Tagiyeva
News.Az
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
