Radar Armenia‘s interlocutor is Shahan Gantaharyan, an international scholar.
– The Turkish Foreign Ministry, referring to the tripartite meeting in Brussels, stated that it contradicts the principle of neutrality, which should be the basis for resolving regional disputes. Ankara calls on the 3rd countries to consider the region’s peculiarities and maintain an equal position with the parties. In your opinion, why are Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Russia worried about the Pashinyan-Blinken-Laye meeting, especially since the purpose of this meeting was the economic component?
– Ankara’s neutrality advice will not be understandable with elementary logic. Turkey is not the one to talk about neutrality. Turkey supported, instigated, and incited the war. Without the involvement of Turkey, Azerbaijan could hardly achieve these military results. Turkey-Russia-Azerbaijan anxiety is expected, even with the Brussels trilateral explained by the economic component. Diversification of the economy is equivalent to getting out of Russia’s dependence. The development of the economy naturally also includes the military budget, which is a disturbing impulse for all three countries. When observing the current geopolitical provisions, the tripartite outfits, while being economic, are essentially strategic and geopolitical axes.
– Mevlut Cavusoglu, head of the Turkish National Assembly delegation to NATO, stated that according to Shushi’s declaration, “On alliance relations between Azerbaijan and Turkey,” Turkey will provide any support to Azerbaijan. According to him, providing military support to Armenia today will not benefit either Armenia or the region. To what extent are the statements made by the Turkish side understandable to the international community, and are such statements not threats to Armenia?
– Yes, they are serious security threats. Shushi’s declaration is already a concept of threats, an agreed document of Turkish-Azerbaijani tandem aggression. However, simultaneously, there are restraining factors and counterbalancing aspects. That is why, for example, the hole in Syunik does not open. Alternatively, when both Baku, Ankara, and Moscow agree that the Syunik tunnel should work, but it is not working at the moment, it implies that other parties do not allow it. There are deterrents to the threats. A geopolitical competition characterized by counterbalancing steps is happening in the region and our country.
– On the Russian side, they announced that the relations between Russia and NATO had reached a confrontation. What do you think? Is this confrontation possible to escalate into new military operations or a war shortly?
– NATO-Russia or West-Russia proxy war operations are not excluded. It is a hybrid general war with economic, diplomatic, information, and military components. A new large-scale war will not break out. However, the process of military conflict will continue in Ukraine. In that direction, if there is a ceasefire, it will lead to a certain time-out and allow recounts. However, the process has not yet reached that point.
– Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Israel can defend itself in response to Tehran’s threats to attack the Iranian consulate in Damascus. What developments will there be in this regard? Will Netanyahu listen to Biden’s appeal and stop the fire in Gaza?
The circle is tightening in the direction of the Israeli regime. The USA is changing its tone when talking to Israel. This, in general, speaks of a review of Israel’s role in the region. Until now, Tel-Aviv has not won the war and has not solved its security problems. This is not due only to the Israel-Hamas ratio. Other international powers have drawn borders and red lines, and the Netanyahu government cannot cross those lines.
