EU criticizes “astanization”, but offers nothing

***

- The head of EU diplomacy, Joseph Burrell, believes that Russia and Turkey are “atanilize” in the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, Syria and Libya that is, pushing the EU out of the settlement process. How right is Burrell?

-It is obvious. I believe that if we take the relations of Turkey and Russia with the West as a basis, we will see tensions in them for various reasons. Cooperation between Russia and Turkey in our region naturally leads to positive results. We see that in any case, for Azerbaijan most of the problems have been resolved. The occupied territories were liberated. Some of these territories were liberated without loss, or rather, with the participation of peacekeepers; the Armenians were withdrawn from there. That is, the processes continue, and we see it.

Strange forces have united against cooperation between Russia and Turkey. Naturally, the Armenians oppose it. Their activity is shown on Russian TV channels. The second active part is the countries of the West, as well as related organizations and structures. I do not exclude the structures operating in Azerbaijan. From this point of view, it is clear what it is about. My opinion is that one of the main factors in the results achieved as a result of the war was that Azerbaijan achieved the establishment of a number of ties between Turkey and Russia at a new level. In this regard, Russian-Turkish cooperation is beneficial to us. We must not exaggerate the problems that sometimes arise between them. On the contrary, we must strive to ensure that this cooperation continues.

- What does "astanization" mean? If the Astana format is applied to the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict, what are the pros or cons? Does not this process distant us from the West?

- There is such a moment. The interests of Azerbaijan should be criteria for distance and rapprochement with the West. If Azerbaijan distances from the West, Turkey's activation in this region will create a geopolitical balance with the participation of Russia and Turkey. I think that with such a balance, we have more opportunities. As for the Astana process, everyone remembers its application in Syria. Various methods have been applied there. Creation of monitoring centers and carrying out a patrol service. For us, the Russian-Turkish decision was that the post-patrol service should be carried out by the Russian side, but monitoring should be joint. Here we see the difference between this process and the Syrian one.

I believe that at this stage the post-patrol service is probably not so important. In the future, it might be advisable to conduct a joint post-patrol service by Azerbaijani and Russian soldiers. Because it does not give the impression of creating a new line of contact. Our main goal should be to prevent the creation of new lines of contact in this region. As for the Azerbaijani-Turkish military cooperation, I believe that it is wrong to link it only with the post-patrol service. Because there are Turkish specialists in the Azerbaijani army, and everyone knows about it. I believe that it was thanks to this cooperation that our army was able to show its high level during the war. Secondly, it should be noted that military aircraft of the Turkish Air Force were based in Azerbaijan for a long time. From a security point of view, this is a more important factor than the post-patrol service.

- What role did the European Union play in the settlement process? Was thereany role? And how can forcing out the EU in the settlement process, as Borel said, affect the resolution of the conflict?

- We have to see what is behind their proposal. What is the role of their activation - proposals and views formed within the framework of the same old Minsk Group? As the president said, now we have a new situation. There is no status quo. Therefore, we must wait for the European Union, the West or the United States to come up with a new position and a new proposal that needs attention. At the present stage, there are no grounds for this.

- The process also shows that the OSCE Minsk Group remained on the sidelines in resolving this conflict. What positive and negative impact can the Minsk format have in this case? Because there are still calls from OSCE officials to continue working in this format.

- I looked at the statement of the co-chairs at the last meeting of the OSCE Ministerial Committee and saw that there are no new ideas. They seem to have remained in their old positions. But the situation has changed greatly. There are two countries that are active in the region. There is competition in this statement. But we do not see any proposals that can benefit us and stabilize the situation. Let's wait for them to think a little too, if they have any suggestions, they can be considered. But so far, at this stage, there are no grounds for them to play any important role.

 -Is comes out that if we compare the Astana format with the Minsk format, then in this process Azerbaijan is preferable to the Astana format?

- Speaking about the format, we must take the main technical stages as a basis. That is, in this case, some actions are taken in the region, steps are taken, certain regions are liberated, the Armenian army is leaving and continues to leave the territory of Azerbaijan. The process of disarming illegal armed formations should begin there. These technical steps refer to the preliminary agreement. That is, these are issues involving the stabilization of martial law. This refers to the Astana format. As for other issues, I do not rule out the normalization of Armenian-Azerbaijani relations and the signing of an agreement in the future. Because the Azerbaijani-Armenian border has already been restored. And, naturally, an agreement must be concluded to resolve some issues in the future. The second question may be related to the activities of the transit corridor between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan. But I must say unequivocally that I do not see any role for Armenia in the further fate of the Armenians living in Azerbaijan. Because historical experience shows that there was no constructive role in it, and we will be against it at this stage. That is, future problems concern the territory of Azerbaijan, and they will be resolved on the territory of Azerbaijan. And the formed Azerbaijan-Russia-Turkey format allows solving the remaining issues in this direction.

-  What format should be preferable for Azerbaijan in accelerating and resolving the settlement process and is there any need for a new format, what format should be proposed?

- There is a format, and  I think it  would be wrong to make a new proposal. This format does its job effectively. Formation of another format, taking into account someone's political ambitions, is not yet relevant. If they want to play a more effective role, let them come up with some proposals that we will consider. For example, the European Union can offer some kind of humanitarian program for the rehabilitation of the IDPs of Azerbaijan. To this we answer - yes. This is a topical issue. Azerbaijan will need help in these matters. But it took 30 years to discuss political issues, but there is no result. That is, thereare tasks that they can solve,  and thereare atsks they cannot sove now.