Ilham Aliyev’s speech in Khankandi and international reaction to the processes in Karabakh - talk with Caucasus expert Vadim Dubnov

In a recent appearance on the "Difficult Question" program, Vadim Dubnov, a Radio Liberty columnist and a noted expert on Central Asia, offered his perspective on the unfolding situation in and around Karabakh. Dubnov's analysis delves into the intricacies of the conflict and the strategies employed by key stakeholders.

Dubnov commenced his analysis by examining the speech delivered by President Ilham Aliyev, asserting that it portends additional pressure on the Armenian side. He, however, emphasized that the scale of this pressure differs from the portrayal by U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. Dubnov suggested that Aliyev's rhetoric adopts an unconventional, non-peaceful style, bridging the gap between antiquity and the Middle Ages. According to Dubnov, this approach aims to underscore the notion that victory will endure for centuries, serving as a reminder for Armenians.

Furthermore, Dubnov contended that this choice of style also reflects an awareness that, post-Karabakh conflict resolution, a new era of "big politics" is set to begin. This era will witness significant political realignments, negotiations, and power plays, involving not only Azerbaijan and Armenia but also regional powers such as Turkey, Iran, and Russia.

Dubnov pointed to the recent resurgence of the "3+3" format, a proposal put forth by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan involving Azerbaijan, Georgia, Armenia, Turkey, Iran, and Russia. He observed that Armenian Prime Minister Nikol Pashinyan was among the first to advocate for this format. Pashinyan's preference for "3+3," according to Dubnov, stems from a desire to avoid the predictability of formats like "1+1" or "1+2," which he believes constrain his agenda. In the "3+3" framework, the decision-making process becomes less deterministic, aligning more closely with Pashinyan's current interests.

Despite recent tensions and apparent overtures to the West, Dubnov expressed skepticism regarding Armenia's complete pivot toward Western nations. He argued that a Western orientation would require substantial systemic and institutional reforms, which are currently lacking in Armenia. Instead, Dubnov suggested that Armenia's Western gestures may be driven by domestic political dynamics, serving as a response to public resentment. This is most likely Pashinyan's reaction to domestic political processes and an attempt to bet on this offense. At the same time, this is the response of the part of the Armenian street that opposes him.

Dubnov also contended that, in the context of the Zangezur corridor, Russia might emerge as the primary beneficiary, rather than Azerbaijan. The Zangezur corridor has far-reaching implications for regional connectivity and geopolitical influence.

Lastly, Dubnov cautioned that Azerbaijan's protracted discord with Western nations and its growing proximity to Russia could potentially lead to undesirable consequences, including potential punitive measures from the international community.

In conclusion, Vadim Dubnov's analysis offers a nuanced perspective on the complex geopolitics surrounding the Karabakh conflict. It underscores the strategic considerations and motivations of key players as they navigate a rapidly evolving and challenging world.