Thorny path to peace

As a matter of fact, it was a military part of international operation aimed at coercing Armenia to peace. It ought to be noted that such an outcome of the conflict was inevitable, especially as Armenia as winner of the war-1994 winner sought to secure Karabakh’s independence de facto with a eye on de jure status. In so doing, Armenia expected Azerbaijan to reconcile the loss of this enclave artificially created by Russia as far back as in 1921.

However, Armenia failed to take into account the following fact: Are international mediators interested in such an end Is such an end? It is useful to highlight in this regard that each and all mediators, with due regard for their own interests and purposes in the region, are interested in maintaining an intermediate state, i.e. self-determination within the framework of territorial integrity, for this approach makes it possible to retain control over the most important actor in South Caucasus – Azerbaijan owing to its energy resources, strategic location, borders with Iran, Russia, Caspian, Georgia. Put differently, Azerbaijan is a geographical transport hub framed with pipelines, roads, terminals and ports built in the last twenty years.       

It is understood that all member-countries of the OSCE Minsk Group pursue their own interests in this country and compete with each other for influence in the region, to say nothing of interests of transnational companies of countries-non-members of the Minsk Group, for instance, Iran and Israel.

It ought to be noted that over many years Armenia has given no credence to the fact that the continued status – self-determination within the framework of territorial integrity of Azerbaijan is the most effective and acceptable form of participation of the countries concerned into region’s affairs.   

A closer look at trade turnovers of these countries and participation of their capitals in Azerbaijan in comparison with Armenia reveals that those impeding expansion and securing their interests today – on the threshold of the new world economic boom to follow COVID-19 removal where demand and supply are expected to multiply after pandemic-caused market devastation. As a matter of fact, it is not just the pandemic but circularity of bull and bear factors in the world economy.    

Peoples’ build-up to peace - diagnosis

It should be remembered that April 2016 developments when a 3-day war between Armenia and Azerbaijan over Nagorno Karabakh horrified the Armenian establishment, took a heavy toll on Yerevan. A subsequent program of «peoples’ preparation for peace» suggested by the European Union and backed by the Minsk Group co-chairmen was meant to sound out public sentiments in Azerbaijan and Armenia.

«The Karabakh conflict has no military option but solely political decision based on norms and principles of the international law. The European Union is fully supportive of efforts of the Minsk group co-chairmen directed to the just and long-term decision of the conflict on the basis of fundamental principles of the Helsinki declaration», said chairman of the EU Donald Tusk in Baku on July 10, 2019. In so doing, he emphasized that «the European Union is supportive of sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Azerbaijan».

It was further said that Brussels is going to do its best to prepare the Armenian and Azerbaijani societies for peace resolution of the Karabakh conflict.

In fact, a number of Armenian-Azerbaijani meetings were held within the framework of public diplomacy at varied levels and formats with the participation of European and American experts. The same steps were made by Russia. Of interest is the fact that all these meetings and consultations were at one in thinking that the Armenian society had been sick in expansionism and unpreparedness to compromises.

Also, the programs initiated by Brussels clearly demonstrated diametrically opposite views of Azerbaijanis and Armenians. The former were ready for unthinkable compromises and integration models with Karabakh as a part of Azerbaijan de jure, the latter – independence a development outside Azerbaijan.

At present, Armenian public persons (Russian film-maker Karen Shahnazarov) avow that Armenia maintains strained and hostile relations with all its border neighbors in the persons of Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran and Turkey. Zurich, Kazan, Madrid, etc. initiatives of the OSCE and Russia failed to untie a conflict knot formed by Armenians’ claims and ungrounded, inflated self-concepts.

It must be acknowledged that the large-scale surgical intervention has become inevitable. It is not a matter of Pashinyan. He has not come to power due to coup d’état but elected by majority of the Armenian people that presented him a management mandate to rule Armenia, including the Karabakh conflict, and the accumulated public attitude to the conflict. The catastrophe in Karabakh is a result of uncompromising public vision and intense longing for Karabakh independence and preservation of claims to all regional and non-regional neighbors. Faced with catastrophes of this type, the people do usually overthrow their rulers. However, nothing of the kind took place in Armenia because Pashinyan followed Armenian people’s will, nothing in excess. The point is about a collective responsibility and, hence, a collective idea of Armenia’s search for its place in future.

Tandem Russia-Turkey

It should be realized that not coincidentally Russia and Turkey as actors enduring world hardships in Western Asia and other regions proved to be moderators in peace coercion. Also, both states are regional powers and centuries-long rivals in Caucasus and other areas. For some time past, after Putin and Erdogan’s advent to power earlier 21 century, the two states have rapidly been developing economic, trade and cultural relations. Engaged in direct contact the two states are struggling against terrorism, working hand in glove in Syria and Libya. Also, they are engaged in mapping up trade projects, supporting stability in Greater Middle East and maintaining close relations with Azerbaijan within the framework of concepts - «one nation, two states (Turkey) and «post-Soviet Eurasian integration» (Russia).

It should be borne in mind that Russia and Turkey are pursuing their own interests in Armenia in an attempt to take this country out of isolation and create a stability belt in South Caucasus. Note that in both cases the Karabakh conflict remains to be a key chilling factor of implementation of interests of the two countries in the region.

One must allow that the two countries are members of the OSCE Minsk Group – Russia as one of three co-chairmen, Turkey as one of 9 members of the Minsk Group.

There is a further point to be made is that mutual relations between Russia and Turkey began straight after the start on war operations on September 27. The fact that negotiations and consultations at the level of Presidents, Foreign and Defense Ministers were held more frequent than negotiations with Azerbaijan is an eloquent testimony that the parties interested mutually coordinated their activities at political and military levels. Suffice it to say that press-secretary of the Russian President openly declared at the initial stage of the conflict that the parties had actively been engaged in overall process, and that consultations with Aliyev might be held when deemed necessary.

Allowing for facts mentioned above, one may note that the Russian-Turkish and Russian-Azerbaijani dialogue, as well as the Russian-Armenian dialogue over the Karabakh conflict are held at the highest level and on the regular level, he added on October 6. 

It may be added that there are two lines of parallel contacts: Moscow-Yerevan and Ankara-Baku. Granting this, Moscow started contacting with Baku at the level of Presidents in terms of successful advance of the Azerbaijani army. Note that for the first time Putin spoke to Aliyev on October 9, i.e. in two weeks’ time after the start of the war. From now onwards, the parties maintained constant contacts.

It has to be kept in mind that the interaction between Russian and Turkish parties is akin to interactions in case of Syria and Libya situations. The same is true of the interaction in case of the Armenian-Azerbaijani conflict.

Adieu, winner syndrome!

Just like in the case of Arab East, there is an interweaving of interests of two other co-chairmen of the OSCE Minsk Group  – he United Stats and France (think - EU). An impression is that these centers of power have stepped back from the issue. True, from time to time they make their presence felt in separate peacekeeping or confrontation statements. However, outwardly their statements run contrary to their interests in the region and particularly in Azerbaijan where they come out as main investors in power engineering and communication areas; as key partners in other projects.

Trade turnover with the EU, USA and Russia in General for 2018, billion$

It should be added all mentioned above suggest that these centers of power are nterested not only in the completion of war phase of the conflict but its resolution in terms of new status quo where Armenia lost 7 previously occupied regions of Azerbaijan. Now that a syndrome of livelong winner has been broken and the situation in the conflict zone has arisen as draw game - defeat of Azerbaijan in 1994 and the present defeat of Armenia, there is nothing left to do but to come to terms and finalize the conflict resolution. In this respect, the Armenia party is much-needed in the conflict resolution to get out of regional isolation.

The big takeaway of 40-day war is to normalize relations between Armenia and its neighbors, unblocking of borders and refusal from expansionism policy as dominant of the Armenian national idea –«Armenia, from sea to sea».

It should be realized that the peace coercion with participation of Turkey as ancestral enemy is a big cause for rethinking of the Armenian national idea primarily based on man-hateful view on Turks.

We’re preparing for peace conference

It should be realized that the peace coercion with the participation of Russia and Turkey has to be regarded as a temporary step to be followed by the next stage – return of peoples to peace.

A logical conclusion of the process is to resume peace talks within the framework of the Minsk group and then the Minsk Conference. Note that the resumption of negotiations is expected to start in February next year. This is explained as being due to the stabilization of the situation in the conflict zone and in Armenia, later January activity of a new US government and a start of new work year.

One of the most important issues which is widely debated is the status of Russian troops in Karabakh, their transfer to the OSCE aegis as set forth in Budapest OSCE Summit-1994.It is worth reminding that the said Summit decided that a peacekeeping contingent in Karabakh would act under the OSCE aegis and that a peacekeeping contingent member-country has no right to have above 30% presence. For this reason, the Russian grouping is expected to be complemented with peacekeepers from other countries, for example, Scandinavian. In particular, Robert O’Brian, Assistant to the US President for National Security Affairs, told representatives of the Armenian diasphora in Los Angeles on October 31.                       

«It is our belief that the two countries (Armenia and Azerbaijan) must receive Scandinavian peacekeepers, so we are currently working with Scandinavian governments over the creation of peacekeeping forces to be deployed in the region for ceasefire regime maintenance».

He stressed inadmissibility of deployment of OSCE Minsk Group countries’ peacekeepers (Russian Federation, United States and France) or those from neighboring countries, including Turkey.

Everything indicates that debates on the subject will be continued. It is highly unlikely that Russia will oppose blurring of peacekeeping forces, for it sent its troops to the region t protect its own interests. It is believed that interests of Minsk group participants in region coincide: stability, security, predictability and business. On the other hand, neither Armenia nor Azerbaijan are interested in exclusive presence of the Russian troops in the conflict zone as follows from stormy reaction of political elites of the two countries. At present, this is the only thing that knits them together.