Category: 2023

Russia’s position in the region and relations with Armenia

Russia has been the main actor in Armenian-Azerbaijani relations for many years, but, as Armenian analysts believe, “in no way a guarantor of stability and security in the region”. Until recently, people had a positive attitude towards the presence of Armenia’s strategic ally in the region. But now trust in Russia has fallen to a critical point.

One can often hear the opinion that Russia’s position is determined by its own interests, which coincide with those of Baku, despite its allied obligations to Yerevan. Politicians accuse the Russian Federation that cooperation with Turkey and Azerbaijan is more important for it than the fulfillment of its obligations towards its ally. Armenian-Russian relations in this regard are badly shaken.

Political analyst Gurgen Simonyan comments on Russia’s changing strategy in the region and Moscow’s priorities, what its aggression against Ukraine has led to, and what could happen to Armenia if it does not give up Russian influence.

• Why does Russia need a consulate in the south of Armenia on the border with Azerbaijan? Opinions
• “Armenia’s withdrawal from the CSTO will bring Ukraine’s victory closer” – Armenian political scientist
• Armenia at a crossroads: will the country leave Russia’s sphere of influence

“Russia is unequivocally a hostile country towards Armenia. It has enlisted itself in the list of countries hostile to us since 2010. At that time, a Russian government delegation headed by Dmitry Medvedev traveled to Azerbaijan. During the visit, agreements on Russian-Azerbaijani relations were signed. Moscow and Baku actually became strategic partners in spite of Russia’s strategic alliance with Armenia.

Russia sold offensive weapons worth more than 4 billion dollars to Azerbaijan. And thus became the top arms partner for Azerbaijan. Turkey is in third place, behind Belarus. Israel is in fourth place. Moreover, the gap between the first and second place is huge. The entire army of Azerbaijan was equipped with Russian weapons.

With the introduction of the Madrid principles and then the Kazan document on the settlement of the Karabakh conflict, Armenian positions in the negotiation process were devalued by Russia.

The interests of Azerbaijan and Russia coincide, they have a common strategy. The concept of Dugin’s Russia is developed in the context of Russian-Turkish alliance. Even to the point that the press secretary of the Russian president Dmitry Peskov is a Turkologist. The entire presidential apparatus in the Russian Federation consists of Turkologists”.

“The region was considered a zone of influence of Russia, and it was Russia that decided all issues here. But the situation changed with the military aggression against Ukraine, when the world challenged all former zones of influence of Russia. This applies to the territories south of the Caucasus Range, as well as Central Asia, Europe, etc.

But before the aggression against Ukraine, Russia dictated its will. In particular, in the negotiation process on the Karabakh settlement. And it was Russia that imposed a capitulation withdrawal on Armenia.

If we analyze the chronology of events, we will see that Moscow changed its strategy in the region since 2010 and essentially became an enemy country to Armenia.

In 2016, the so-called April War started. Russia stopped it and started pressuring former Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan for the Armenian side to surrender 7 districts around Nagorno-Karabakh. They came under Armenian control during the first Karabakh war as a security belt. And for that reason alone, they have not been returned. However, Sargsyan traveled to NKR to convince them to give them up – under pressure from Moscow.

In 2020, we have already seen Russia’s failure to fulfill its allied obligations to protect Armenia’s security. Then we saw a violation of the commitments made in 2020 [talking about the trilateral declaration on cessation of hostilities in Karabakh]. And now the Russians are no longer hiding their anti-Armenian stance in the international arena”.

• Will France appeal to UN Security Council on NK issue? Comment from Yerevan
• Recording suggests Aliyev offered Sargsyan $5 billion for regions around Karabakh
• Scandal continues in Armenia over Aliyev’s proposed $5 bln ‘Karabakh buyout’

“Russia intends to stay in the region, but it will not succeed. It does not have such resources. It is being defeated in the Ukrainian war. The war in Ukraine is not just a Ukrainian war. In this war, the world will break Russia, thanks to the opposition of Ukrainians who took the fight and did not surrender. In the end, Russia will lose its influence everywhere.

It has lost our region twice. As they say, once was an accident, the second time was a pattern. Russia has left the region twice and will leave it again, even though it does not want to. Russia does not want to leave anywhere at all. And in order not to leave the region, Russia will fight, will go to all kinds of provocations. All we have to do is to stop them and overcome difficulties. We will be able to do it, despite all the consequences of this struggle.

There may be shocks, pressures, including in the information field, on political forces, individual people fighting for Armenia’s independence.

There may be difficulties with the import of energy resources, food products, but they can be replaced. Instead of Russian wheat, we can import Ukrainian wheat. If the only land road through Upper Lars, which connects Armenia with Georgia and Russia, closes, ferry transportation can be intensified. The territory of Turkey and Iran can be used.

Air transportation may become more expensive. But this is a struggle for freedom, and nothing should be spared for its sake. Liberation from Russia’s influence will allow Armenia to preserve itself. With the loss of freedom, the country will cease to exist. It cannot be replaced by anything”.

“From the security point of view, Russia can resort to terrorist acts, political assassinations are possible, attacks on our borders. The mechanisms could be different. Fortunately, we do not have common borders with Russia, so the territories of third countries are supposed to be used for full-scale attacks. The most likely candidate is Azerbaijan.

But the big question is whether Azerbaijan will want to become a springboard for such attacks after Armenians take the path of struggle? Because by becoming such a springboard, Azerbaijan will find itself on the same plane as Russia, and Aliyev will find himself on the same plane as Putin.

I doubt that Azerbaijan will go for that. And the military-strategic and geopolitical situation for Armenia’s liberation from Russia is more favorable now”.

“If hostilities start in Artsakh, Azerbaijan will find a hundred reasons to attack Syunik [Armenia’s southern region] as well. Nothing will prevent Azerbaijan from claiming alleged shelling from the territory of Armenia and moving towards it.

Therefore, any provocation on the territory of NK must be stopped there, including by Armenian forces. Any aggression against Artsakh means aggression against Armenia.

Russia is holding Artsakh hostage in order to capture Armenia. Both Russia and Azerbaijan see NKR and Armenia in the same security system. And they are right to do so. For them the issue of Nagorno-Karabakh has long been resolved.

Russia does not plan to stay in NK, it intends to move its entire contingent to Syunik. This is the Russian plan. And Syunik, as an extraterritorial black hole uncontrolled by Armenians, should serve the interests of Russia and come under the control of the FSB. Then Armenia, which has lost its strategic importance, will become an outpost for Russia.

This process must be stopped in Artsakh so that Armenia does not lose its sovereignty”.

https://jam-news.net/russias-position-in-the-region-and-relations-with-armenia/

Pashinyan’s interview with La Repubblica newspaper

In an interview with the Italian newspaper La Repubblica, the Armenian Prime Minister talked about the crisis of international law and order, answering a question about the blockade of the Lachin corridor and the humanitarian crisis in the unrecognized NKR. Nikol Pashinyan believes that the corridor should have been unblocked by now, as the UN International Court of Justice has decided. In February, the court obliged Azerbaijan to ensure unimpeded traffic on the road linking the territory of Nagorno-Karabakh with Armenia; in June it confirmed its decision, but it is still has not been done.

According to the Armenian Prime Minister, the humanitarian catastrophe there indicates a crisis of international law and order, as “a legally binding court ruling is not implemented and such consequences may arise”.

Pashinyan talked in the interview about the stage of negotiations with Azerbaijan on a peace agreement, about the West’s position on the situation in the region, about the crisis in Russia’s CSTO military bloc, which does not fulfill its obligations to protect Armenia’s territories. He considers it a strategic mistake that Armenia’s security architecture “was 99.999% linked to Russia, including acquiring weapons and ammunition.”

• “Russia was a guarantor of Armenia’s security, it has become a threat.” Opinion
• “Harutyunyan is a deserter.” Opinions on the resignation of the President of the unrecognized NKR
• Ten more aid trucks near Lachin corridor: Paris puts pressure on Baku

“Because of the closure of the Lachin Corridor, about 5 thousand of the population of Nagorno Karabakh cannot return there and about 30 thousand inhabitants also cannot return since December. This group includes individuals who during the war of 2020 left their settlements because they ended up under Azerbaijani control. But the problem of those people should have been resolved. De jure it is resolved, de facto it isn’t, because clause 7 of the November 9, 2020 tripartite statement stipulates that internally displaced and refugees shall return to the territory of Nagorno Karabakh and adjacent regions. This category includes almost several thousand Armenians who are de facto deprived of this opportunity.

By our assessment the purpose of Azerbaijan is to rid Nagorno Karabakh of Armenians. This is the reason why they have created an artificial humanitarian crisis by unlawfully blocking the Lachin Corridor. Essentially, the Lachin Corridor issue should have been resolved — you may know that the International Court of Justice has made a binding legal ruling imposing it upon Azerbaijan to ensure bilateral traffic from Nagorno Karabakh to Armenia and from Armenia to Nagorno Karabakh for citizens, vehicles and freight.”

“Initially, we had good progress for the reason that we focused predominantly on items that controversies about which may not have been so large, but the more we agreed articles, the list of those not agreed upon includes the most difficult. But on the other hand, the position and approach of our government is that the peace agenda should be pushed forward, and we are trying to do everything to attain real progress towards signing a peace treaty with Azerbaijan. Here not only the process that takes place around the negotiating table, but also the process that takes place publicly.

Particularly, we reached an agreement with Azerbaijan recently in Brussels, and before that we had an agreement in Prague, which stated that Armenia and Azerbaijan by mutually recognizing each other’s territorial integrity should sign a peace treaty. We reached an agreement in Brussels that Armenia recognizes the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan with a territory of 86 thousand 600 square kilometers, and Azerbaijan recognizes the territorial integrity of Armenia with a territory of 29 thousand 800 square kilometers.

In this respect, it is significant that this agreement has not been publicly reaffirmed by the Azerbaijani leadership so far.

What I mean is that the public accompaniment of the peace treaty is also very important for the process in general.”

“The fact that the Armenian public is deeply disappointed and continues to be disappointed by the Collective Security Treaty Organization’s actions is obvious.

And this is also the reason why Armenia did not ratify a number of agreements during the CSTO fall summit held in Yerevan in 2022, and since decisions are made by consensus in the CSTO, no decision was adopted.”

“We do not link and do not want to link Armenian-Turkish relations with Armenia-Azerbaijan relations, although it should be said that Azerbaijan and Turkey do want to, and essentially push forward continually. But generally, if we are talking about security, any country can talk about security if they have regulated relations with their immediate neighbors.

There have been many such examples in history. It seems that if any country is stronger militarily, they may no longer think about regulating their relations either with neighbors or in general. But there are also examples in history, including current history, that demonstrate that seeming military might does not mean impregnability․

Therefore, I think this is something that everyone should be interested in, all countries in the region. It’s another thing that understandably there are interests that make it difficult to attain that objective. That is exactly the difficulty in political leadership to make things possible that sometimes seem impossible.

As for Armenia-Turkey relations, we consider it important for us to regulate relations with Turkey. It’s a very important issue for Armenia and I have the impression based on the results of my recent visit to Ankara and my contacts with the president of Turkey that it is also very important for Turkey to regulate its relations with Armenia. I believe that there are opportunities here as well. There are also of course complexities, and these complexities include the current state and quality of relations between Armenia and Azerbaijan.”

“Armenia is a member of the CSTO, Armenia is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, Armenia has a strategic partnership treaty with the Russian Federation, and all these leads all western countries or experts to qualify Armenia as a pro-Russian country.

On the other hand, many circles in Russia consider Armenia or its government, and since the government was formed by the vote of the majority of the people, pro-Western.

And here the biggest problem of our current position is as follows: if being pro-Russian could have some potential benefits, or if being pro-Western could have some advantages, Armenia does not take advantage of the benefits of being pro-Russian, because in Russia they do not consider Armenia enough pro-Russian, for example for the reason that Armenia in their opinion does not provide enough assistance to them in the Ukrainian issue.

On the other hand, Armenia cannot take advantage of the potential benefits of being pro-Western, because in the West they consider Armenia not to be sufficiently pro-Western, because for example, from their perspective, Armenia does not sufficiently oppose Russia in the Ukrainian issue. This is exactly the hazard of our situation.”

“Let’s start with the following, they have no right to expect a corridor. If we are talking about the November 9, 2020 tripartite statement, the word “corridor” is used there with respect to one case, and that’s the Lachin Corridor, which is not a road…

When I say Lachin Corridor, I have a paper to back it signed by the Azerbaijani president and myself. There is no other document in the world or history that assumes that there should be a corridor in the territory of Armenia in the logic which Azrbaijan is attempting to bring forward. The opposite it backed by a document. The lawfulness and appropriateness of this term has been affirmed and recorded by the International Court of Justice.

Azerbaijan claims there is no Nagorno Karabakh, it does not exist, but I can show a document signed by the Azerbaijani president which states that Nagorno Karabakh exists, it has its territory and there is a line of contact, that is a border. Nagorno Karabakh also has the Lachin Corridor, 5 km wide, which takes care of the communication of Nagorno Karabakh with Armenia. This is a very serious discourse, and it is very important not to use non-serious terms and vocabulary in this very important discourse.”