The Russian policy of "braking"

The Karabakh issue is still being discussed on various platforms, and although a lot of time has passed since the end of the 44-day war, there are no real results. Naturally, in this situation, many experts compare the course of negotiations with the negotiations of the 90s. The negotiations that were held in Lisbon and Madrid at one time, and now  are being held in Brussels, Washington, and Moscow. However, after the 44-day war, Azerbaijan, having gained an advantage, unlike the 90s, can promote its interests on every site. But, as before, third parties participating in the negotiations – primarily Russia, and even the European Union, the United States put forward some conditions.

How should Azerbaijan act in this case?

Political commentator Ilham Ismail comments on the situation in an interview with ASTNA.

* * *

Question: How do you assess the negotiations on the settlement of the Karabakh issue? Have there been intensive and encouraging negotiations in this form so far?

Answer: After the 44-day war, only the Brussels format of negotiations in 2022 promised hope, but unfortunately, it was only hope. Since Armenia was satisfied with Russia's diplomatic provocation, there was a six-month pause in the negotiations. The negotiations in Washington, which began on May 1 of this year, acquired a substantive character in Brussels and finally the parties declared recognition of territorial integrity, voicing specific figures. However, it is felt that a number of consecutive meetings held in Moscow have again played a retarding role. In fact, an attempt was made in Chisinau to influence Azerbaijan by applying an international guarantee regarding the rights and security of Karabakh Armenians. The intensity of the negotiations this year and the upcoming meetings are different from previous years, and it is felt that the West insists on signing a peace agreement as soon as possible.

Question: Is it normal when the third parties involved in the negotiations - Russia, the EU, the USA - put forward any conditions? Should Azerbaijan allow this?

Answer: The fact is that third parties have always put forward conditions, and these conditions  have prevented and are preventing the conclusion of peace. Russia stands out the most in this case. Since the Russian Federation has real influence on the ground, it also tries to promote its own conditions at the table. Its main condition is not to allow other intermediaries to take the initiative. Although it does not put forward any proposals superior to Western ones in the name of peace, it is only trying to artificially stall for time. The European Union, speaking from the position of the Armenians, raises issues of status and in the abstract form of guarantees of rights and security. In fact, Washington's proposal to negotiate between the two countries directly, without intermediaries, is more constructive. However, in the South Caucasus, the struggle of global powers for influence here is more in the foreground, rather than the signing of a peace treaty between the two countries. The West wants to sign a peace treaty as soon as possible in order to oust Russia from the South Caucasus, which is busy with the war in Ukraine and pays little attention to the Karabakh conflict. Russia is also stalling for time so that after Ukraine it can focus on the Karabakh conflict in a more comfortable environment.

Question: Can we expect positive results from the negotiations in Washington, Brussels, Granada, and the conclusion of a peace agreement by the end of this year?

Answer: The upcoming meetings in Washington, Brussels, and Granada look promising. At the May meeting in Washington, the parties and the mediators made statements about the lack of agreement on fundamental issues, it is possible that this time an agreement will be reached on some part of these issues and at the meeting in Brussels on July 21, the leaders of Azerbaijan and Armenia will sign some kind of contractual document, for example, a framework agreement. However, in this case, this process is still nothing more than hope, since after each meeting the parties were summoned to Moscow, which led to the breakdown of the agreement reached in the West. In any case, the United States and the European Union could not, considering this nuance, not provide for the manifestation of flexibility in their policies.

Question: What should Azerbaijan do to change the situation for the better?

Answer: In order not to waste time in the maelstrom of the negotiation process,  Azerbaijan should, in parallel with the signing a peace agreement, delimitation, demarcation works, removing barriers in the transport infrastructure, take tough diplomatic steps towards establishing state control directly in Karabakh. A specific deadline should be set for the withdrawal of the Armenian armed forces from the territory of Azerbaijan, and other parties should be warned that military force will be used if it is not fulfilled. The fact that the Armenian armed forces of Armenia have not yet withdrawn from the territory of Azerbaijan is the biggest obstacle that undermines mutual trust between the parties and hinders the establishment of peace. This factor should be eliminated as soon as possible.

Question: What steps should Azerbaijan, Armenia, as well as third parties take to fundamentally resolve the problem and conflict?

Answer: Most of the work on this issue falls on Azerbaijan. The current semi-frozen state of the issue is beneficial to Russia and Armenia, but does not seriously bother the West. The possibility of a repeat of the 26-year-old negotiations is real. A series of inconclusive negotiations may continue, as it has been for two years and seven months. 3.2 thousand km2 of Azerbaijan's territory is under occupation, the separatist regime makes claims, Russia retains its influence in the South Caucasus using the Karabakh conflict. Therefore, Azerbaijan has a lot of work to do in solving the problem. Our number one task is to realize our political, military, and economic advantage as soon as possible.

Azerbaijan should announce humanitarian state programs in connection with the Karabakh Armenians, it should be stated once again that their rights and security will be protected as well as the rights and security of Azerbaijani citizens are protected, there will be no differences. At the same time, the political roadmap for establishing state control of Azerbaijan in the rest of Karabakh should be revealed and specific deadlines should be specified. If the opposing sides - Russia and Armenia, including the separatist regime, show aggression, as they do now, and demand as a condition some status and other concessions that do not correspond to the state interests of Azerbaijan, then a military solution to the problem should be announced for the last time.