Pashinyan's victory creates a completely new situation

- Shahin Bey, what do you think, what is happening in Armenia: is it only the will of the people or did the second side play a role here?

- I think that internal factors played a catalytic role in the national movement that is taking place in Armenia, and first of all, this issue should be paid attention. In 2001, during Robert Kocharyan's presidency, while on a visit to Armenia as part of a group of journalists, I felt dissatisfaction with the new elite, the so-called "Karabakh clan", which came to power in 90 years of the last century. In particular, the presence of this discontent in the capital, in a highly educated stratum of the people, among the intelligentsia, was not a secret. Then Serzh Sargsyan, as defense minister and secretary of the Security Council, was actually the second strongest figure after the president, later he was appointed prime minister and after the term of Kocharian's presidency succeeded him. But S.Sargsyan's occupation of the presidential seat was not easy and was met with resistance from the people.

The events on March 1, 2008 are still fresh in memory, then, saying that the results of the elections were rigged, the people gathered in the square supporting the first president Levon Ter-Petrossian, rival Serge Sargsyan in the elections, and the authorities used force to disperse them resulting in the death of about 10 people. Therefore, I remind all this that we must not forget how hard it was to transform S. Sargsyan into the first face of Armenia. With each year, discontent grew and accumulated. Serzh Sargsyan always had a problem with legitimacy, and the passionary stratum of the population of Yerevan periodically protested against his regime. During the two terms of S. Sargsyan's presidency, socio-economic problems were not resolved. The Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Azerbaijan and Armenia continues, and this is one of the factors hampering the development of Armenia.

I do not have exact statistics, but it is known that about one million people left Armenia after the independence. My attention was drawn to one phrase in the address to the people of President Armen Sargsyan after the resignation of Serzh Sargsyan. The new president noted that the Armenian youth did not see their future in the country. Was in despair. In my opinion, this is the key phrase. Young people and teenagers were desperate, and they were the main participants in the mass protests. On the other hand, S.Sargsyan, proposing to introduce amendments to the Constitution providing for the country's transition to the parliamentary system of government, gave the floor that he will not run for the post of prime minister after the end of the presidential term. But he did not fulfill his promise and as a result faced the reaction of the population, who felt deceived.

- Some experts say that in this process there is the hand of the West. Do you think the West is interested in shaping pro-Western power in Armenia or does it not matter to him?

- Of course, the West would like to have pro-Western political forces in Armenia and other countries either, or that they should take the dominant positions in their societies. The Armenian diaspora in the West is a very important bridge between Armenia and Western countries. And from the point of view of influence on Armenia, this bridge can be considered a "soft power" of the West. However, we do not have any information about the fact that the last events were organized by the West. Personally, I believe that the probability of this is small. Maybe I am wrong, but I think that at the current stage it would be wrong to regard Armenia as one of the "fronts" of geopolitical rivalry between the West and Russia. Armenia is under the influence of Russia, and there are Russian military bases there. Russia controls the strategic sectors of the Armenian economy. It is not easy to get such a country out of Russia's sphere of influence. In addition, there is a conflict in the region that can erupt at any moment. I do not believe that the West can decide to upset the balance in such a sensitive region at this stage. But in the future this cannot be ruled out.

- Russia is silently observing what is happening. What is the reason for this? Or, perhaps, the policy of Serzh Sargsyan did not suit Russia?

- Indeed, Russia has calmly accepted the resignation of Serzh Sargsyan, Moscow did not show any special concern. I explain this for two reasons. First, Russia saw that S.Sargsyan lost the support of the people. After the start of the mass actions and especially after the growth of the scale of the protests in connection with the arrest of Nikol Pashinyan and the two opposition deputies, it became clear that the power of Serzh Sargsyan can be defended only by using force, as it was in 2008. And if Russia was not behind S.Sargsyan's back, maybe he would use force to disperse the demonstrations and proceed to mass repressions. But Moscow did not give Sargsyan the "carte blanche", because by that she would finally lose her influence in Armenia. I think that Russia did not want to repeat the mistake, remembering, with the example of Viktor Yanukovych in Ukraine, how the protection of a leader separated from a people who lost support in society ended for her long-term interests.

Secondly, apparently, the Kremlin was sure that after Serzh Sargsyan the first deputy prime minister of Armenia Karen Karapetyan will take the situation under control. It's not a secret that Karapetyan held high positions in Gazprom and is very close to Russia. He was an alternative option of Russia in Armenia and, in fact, the replacement of the lost authority of Sargsyan Karapetyan would be a very beneficial option for Moscow. However, the events went in a different direction. The protesting mass and its leader N.Pashinyan, rightly not confining himself to the resignation of Serzh Sargsyan, began to demand the resignation of all representatives of the ruling party, including Karapetyan, and holding of early elections. That is, the replacement of one person by another, the preservation of the old elite and the old rules of the game did not satisfy Pashinyan and his supporters. Because otherwise, the revolution could not be considered accomplished. Therefore, in recent days, Russia is worried. Putin's call to President Armen Sargsyan, the visit of Nalbandian's Foreign Minister to Moscow, the invitation of N.Pashinyan to the Russian Embassy in Yerevan testify to this concern.

- "If pro-western supporters come to power in Armenia, and Armenia will reorient to the West, it will follow the path of integration with Europe, only Azerbaijan will remain in the South Caucasus, not adhering to this policy. What consequences can it have for Azerbaijan? And what steps should official Baku take in this case?

- In Armenia, proponents of a pro-Western course can come to power, but that does not mean that Armenia will withdraw from the sphere of influence of Russia and turn to the West. Armenia is a member of the Eurasian Economic Union, the Collective Security Treaty Organization and the Customs Union created under the patronage of Russia. Armenia and Russia created the United Group of Forces. That is, Armenia is deeply integrated with Russia in political, economic and military spheres. In such a situation it is impossible to break away from Russia, this can lead to serious consequences for Armenia.

On the other hand, allied relations with Russia are a guarantee of security for Armenia. Yerevan is experiencing an existential threat from its western and eastern neighbors - Turkey and Azerbaijan. For this reason, the alliance with Russia is of great importance to him and is a vital issue. Of course, Armenia can develop relations with the European Union, an agreement was even signed between the parties. But since Armenia is represented in another economic and customs space, the potential for developing relations with the EU is small: they can only expand to a certain limit. And Azerbaijan, I think, will try to continue the balanced policy pursued so far and refrain from sharp geopolitical curtsey. For now, this policy justifies itself and gives results.

- Journalist-researcher Thomas de Waal once said that the way to the solution of the Karabakh problem lies through the democratization of the two conflicting countries. And there are two versions on which experts hold different opinions. According to the first, if Armenia is reoriented to the West and democratized, then Russia, in retaliation, again updates the Karabakh problem, and this time Moscow, using Karabakh as a trump card against Armenia, will defend the interests of Azerbaijan. Even if Azerbaijan wants to liberate its land by military means, Moscow will not prevent it as before. The second version is that if pro-Western forces come to power in Armenia, then the West will protect the interests of official Yerevan in all issues, including in Karabakh. This time, the West as a "trump card" against Azerbaijan will use the Karabakh issue, which for Azerbaijan can end with the loss of Karabakh. And you say that Armenia will not leave the patronage of Russia, and official Baku will not change its foreign policy. And how and in what form can the ongoing processes in Armenia affect the settlement of the Karabakh conflict?

- Answering the previous question, I tried to explain for what reasons at this stage the integration of Armenia with the West is impossible. Undoubtedly, Armenia can develop bilateral relations with Western states, but the moment you noted, that is, deepening these ties and acquiring the character of integration with the subsequent threat of losing Nagorno Karabakh, seems impossible for a number of reasons. Armenian politicians also understand well the consequences of this. This is evidenced by the fact that Pashinyan emphasizes that the people's movement occurs outside the geopolitical context, that it shows a positive attitude toward Russian military bases on the territory of the country, and is generally very correct in statements related to Russia.

It should not be forgotten that pro-Western forces were in power in Armenia at the time. For example, Levon Ter-Petrosyan was a pro-Western democrat, and with him relations with Russia were good. Most of the occupied territories of Azerbaijan were captured during the reign of Ter-Petrosyan. That is, the coming to power of pro-Western forces in Armenia does not mean that Yerevan will reconsider its strategic choice and will be reoriented to the West. But, of course, this is an undesirable option for Moscow. Secondly, the process of forming a new government of Armenia will be a little delayed. Any serious contacts and agreements on the settlement of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between the early elections and the formation of a new government are excluded. There will be a break in the negotiations. But after the formation of a new government, intensification of negotiations is possible.

Until recently, Russia was not interested in the resolution of the Karabakh conflict and treated it as an important instrument for preserving and continuing its influence in the region. But the conflict can not continue indefinitely, and since Moscow can not achieve a solution to this problem, the possibility of intervention by other forces, that is, Western mediators, is growing. However, Russia wants the conflict to find its solution precisely at the time when it dominates the peacekeeping process, that is, in accordance with its interests. In other words, the Kremlin is trying to impose on the parties such a solution that would guarantee its long-term interests in the South Caucasus.

Serzh Sargsyan was a participant in the Karabakh war and he, along with other reasons, was also difficult to make concessions from the psychological point of view. Pashinyan's victory in the elections creates a completely new situation. Moscow does not rely on Pashinyan. Now the Armenian Foreign Ministry, even Serzh Sargsyan personally, should inform him in detail about the conflict settlement process. Based on this information, Pashinyan must finally determine his position, strategy and then sit down at the negotiating table with the Azerbaijani side. I think that with the advent of Pashinyan to power, the process of settling the conflict may take even longer. The opinion that in the settlement of the conflict he will make compromises corresponding to Azerbaijan's expectations are inconclusive.