Radar Armenia‘s interlocutor is Shahan Gantaharyan, an international scholar.
– The Russian Federation, referring to the decision to deploy the EU observation mission, noted that in Yerevan, they chose to favor the EU, not bringing the work towards the CSTO mission to a logical end. How would you interpret Russia’s reaction, and what consequences could it have for Armenia?
– It is not the first time official Moscow has made such attributions. There is also an answer to the resolutions of the European Parliament and the EU to send civilian missions to the Armenian side of the border. Yerevan agreed to the arrival of that mission, but Baku did not. The whole problem is mediation conflict. Moscow proposes to deploy CSTO forces on the Armenian-Azerbaijani border, but the EU prevents it and sends a civilian mission. This statement should be considered in the context of the mediating competition that is heating up in the region.
– The Russian side has also announced that its peacekeeping troops will respond to the behavior of EU observers in Armenia, taking into account the development of the situation “on the ground.” How do you think I could understand this?
– By saying “on the ground,” Moscow makes it clear that only Russian peacekeeping forces operate on the ground, which has a legitimate basis. We are talking about the November 9 ceasefire agreement or tripartite agreement. Not only for a ceasefire but also the unblocking of the region. Russia was involved in the agreement on implementing those regional solutions, which is what he reminds us of by saying “on the ground.”
– In your opinion, how will Azerbaijan react in the current situation, what steps will it take, and is it possible to use the case to face new escalations?
-Azerbaijan does not agree to deploy the EU mission on its part of the border. He vetoed the Paris petition and thereby suspended the restart of the Brussels quadrilateral. He is working on implementing the optional items of November 9. now, the priority is the launch of the Nakhichevan-Azerbaijan connection through the Armenian sector, as they say, the “Zangezuri Corridor.” They are in a hurry to implement what they agreed upon with Russian mediation before the involvement of other forces deepens.
– How appropriate is this resentment of Russia if we consider that there are issues related to their peacekeeping mission, and the Armenian side has spoken about it?
– At first glance, it is a paradoxical situation. According to the tripartite agreement, Moscow is a guarantor to control the connection through the Berdzor corridor. The long-term closure of the gallery is outside the interests of Moscow because it will contribute to the depopulation of Artsakh. And Moscow needs the people to stay there to extend the peacekeeping forces’ time. Lavrov’s statement that he believes that the issue of the corridor will be resolved soon does not come true, which also raises questions. On the other hand, if we understand that the primary goal of the “environmentalists” is “corridor for corridor” or “road status for road status,” even by appointing checkpoints, then Russia’s effort to maintain neutrality is to hold the mediating steering wheel in its hands so that it will be politically understandable. Let’s remember that the Russian troops will carry out the security control of both roads.
– Russia claims that the EU’s attempts to strengthen itself in Armenia at any cost can harm the fundamental interests of Armenians and Azerbaijanis. Do you think it is so?
– It is clearly stated that Brussels cannot carry out a mediation mission. According to Moscow, the efforts of Brussels are impractical because “on the ground,” Russia is the referee of the conflict.
Hayk Magoyan
