Radar Armenia‘s interlocutor is Shahan Gantaharyan, an international scholar.
– Maria Zakharova stated that her country’s obligations are recorded in the statement of November 9, and the Russian peacekeepers are doing everything in their power to prevent escalation. How would you interpret that statement? Is Russia fulfilling its responsibilities?
– We are talking about point 6 of the statement of November 9. In terms of control and responsibility, the following section specifies: “According to the agreement between the parties, within the next three years, the plan for the construction of a new route through the Lachin Corridor providing the connection between Nagorno-Karabakh and Armenia will be defined, with the further redeployment of Russian peacekeeping troops to protect that route. “Azerbaijan guarantees the safety of the movement of citizens, vehicles, and cargo in both directions through the Lachin Corridor.” It is said here that a Russian peacekeeping force is being deployed to protect the route, and the security of movement in both directions is Azerbaijan’s guarantee. There is a problem with shared responsibility. Azerbaijan closed the corridor. Moscow wants to say on various occasions that it is working to open the gallery and prevent further escalation.
– The presidents of Turkey and Azerbaijan met in Ankara. The parties also discussed issues related to Armenian-Azerbaijani relations. What was the significance of this meeting?
– In this case, the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflicts are not the only agenda. The official newsfeed covered a wide range of topics of discussion: energy, defense, military industry, and economic sectors were included in the agenda of the meeting. It is an election period in Turkey. Erdogan’s rating is still being determined, especially after the election results became unpredictable after the earthquake. Erdogan needs an energy economy. The pressure of the USA on Turkey is getting stronger, and it is not excluded that Turkey-Russia relations will experience new extremes. Its indicator is the softening of Ankara’s position regarding Finland’s NATO membership and the unique prerequisites for the resumption of negotiations.
– EU Neighborhood and Enlargement Commissioner Oliver Varhei stated that the leaders of Armenia and Azerbaijan should use the historic opportunity to resolve this conflict and finally return to a meaningful dialogue. Are there grounds for discussion, and what role does the EU play in this process?
– It is clear that the EU is working to restart the Brussels process. This is going poorly because Baku is dissatisfied with the reports and resolutions of the Council of Europe, especially with the EU missions in the Armenian sector. And assuming the status of mediation presupposes the agreement of the conflicting parties. The quadrilateral was rejected when Baku announced that Paris could not participate in the negotiations because it took a position on the sensitive Armenian side. Now they are talking about a three-way format, but it still needs to be clarified when the meeting will occur.
– Aliyev insists that Armenia has not wholly withdrawn its troops from Nagorno Karabakh. But, at the same time, he does not agree to send an international fact-finding group to Karabakh. Why does the international community need to give an adequate response to the way of working with Aliyev?
– Yes, there is no equivalent answer. Especially since the international court has decided to open the corridor directly. Mere unequivocal legality does not work. The legal policy works. When the global family considers the moment suitable to put pressure on Azerbaijan, sanctions will be adopted, referring to the relevant decisions of the international court.
– What do you say about introducing the guarantor institution in the peace agreement? Which countries should be able to assume that role and fulfill the obligations?
– Agreement on the composition of the guarantor institution is a complicated issue. There is a conflict between guarantors and mediators in the region. Candidates: Russia, Turkey, Iran, EU, and USA. The tasks of being present in the area and forming a zone of influence have turned into a geopolitical hub. The war can influence this process in Ukraine, the deterioration of Russia-Moscow relations, the results of the presidential elections in Turkey, and, of course, the policy adopted by Washington in the South Caucasus. All these can create a new type of forest in the region.
